DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => Political and Religious Forum (aka the echo chamber) => Topic started by: XJDenton on August 09, 2016, 08:29:25 AM

Title: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: XJDenton on August 09, 2016, 08:29:25 AM
Old thread here:

https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=43462.0
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on August 09, 2016, 08:33:17 AM
Following. November can't come soon enough.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on August 09, 2016, 08:37:24 AM
Trump disagrees with every position held by Trump (https://boingboing.net/2016/08/08/trump-disagrees-with-every-pos.html)

NSFW audio
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 09, 2016, 09:31:16 AM
Do I waste the time to link and detail every instance where Hillary has contradicted herself over her political career or can we just agree that Politicians say literally anything depending on what group of people they are talking to.

It's utterly fascinating the 'free pass' Clinton is getting on all of this. Trump rally's and speeches are 'fact checked' in real time yet...when Clinton does happen to show up for one of her scripted appearances.....whatever she says is apparently FACT and Gospel?

Hate Trump all you want...I get it....but the amount of media bias he is facing at this point is staggering....to the point where it's unabashed and there is no attempt to hide how lopsided it is.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on August 09, 2016, 09:56:27 AM
Yes, I think anybody who DOESN"T agree that you can tell a politician (or Donald Trump) is lying because their lips are moving, is not paying attention.  No matter what their party affiliation.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 09, 2016, 10:55:52 AM
Yes, I think anybody who DOESN"T agree that you can tell a politician (or Donald Trump) is lying because their lips are moving, is not paying attention.  No matter what their party affiliation.

You'd assume they know 99% of what they say is recorded and available to reference at any moment? It just goes to show how dumb the American public is. Hillary at one time wanted a big wall also AND thought marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

I'm perfectly fine with evolving emotional and personality wise. I've done it...we've all done it. But to act as if you've 'never' thought or subscribed to a certain ideology when there is evidence upon evidence that you have....that's whats bothering. and every politician has held conflicting stances at one point or another.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 09, 2016, 12:31:39 PM
Putting Curt Schilling in there would be nearly as bad as putting John Rocker in.

I think Rocker is far worse, especially with his blatantly subversive commentary.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on August 09, 2016, 12:35:14 PM
Rocker is possible one of the most obnoxious human beings to have a social media account.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: chknptpie on August 09, 2016, 12:50:29 PM
Following. November can't come soon enough.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 09, 2016, 01:09:00 PM
Rocker is possible one of the most obnoxious human beings to have a social media account.

I concur. He's certainly an entertaining individual.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 09, 2016, 01:10:12 PM
Following. November The end of Hillary's term can't come soon enough.

:neverusethis:
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on August 09, 2016, 01:37:39 PM
Sad, but also true.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: XJDenton on August 09, 2016, 04:05:58 PM
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton

I have no words.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 09, 2016, 04:39:20 PM
Not that it matters but Trump lost my vote today. I'll vote 3rd party. I despise Hillary more than words can describe but would NEVER subscribe to or advocate someone seeking her out to shoot her. Which Trump did, his team can try to spin it however they'd like.

I could tolerate most of his antics in order for Hillary not to win....didn't mind the 'wall' or Muslim talk at all because the only thing wrong with those ideas are the way HE delivers and communicates them. But implying Second Ammemdment owners could 'do' something about Hillarys SCOTUS appointees is where I personally draw the line. I like the spin his team tried to put on it....sounds good and all....but we all know what he meant.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 09, 2016, 04:44:17 PM
Between the both of them, they're both disgusting. However, I don't want to Hillary supporters bitch and moan about Trumps comments when people seem to mysteriously die around the Clintons all of the time.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 09, 2016, 04:49:20 PM
Between the both of them, they're both disgusting. However, I don't want to Hillary supporters bitch and moan about Trumps comments when people seem to mysteriously die around the Clintons all of the time.

Yeah. We could dedicate a whole thread to that. A whole lot of 'coincidence' surrounding the....what is it (5) now after the recent two dudes.....untimely deaths of people who have opposed and investigate them.

She's despicable. Period. So is Bill. But for Trump to suggest someone could shoot her, which is what he meant.....it's not as bad as what I believe her and Bill have conspired to but it's bad.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on August 09, 2016, 04:49:49 PM
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton

I have no words.

This is making Chino's theory of him trying to lose the election pretty plausible.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 09, 2016, 04:51:51 PM
Between the both of them, they're both disgusting. However, I don't want to Hillary supporters bitch and moan about Trumps comments when people seem to mysteriously die around the Clintons all of the time.

Yeah. We could dedicate a whole thread to that. A whole lot of 'coincidence' surrounding the....what is it (5) now after the recent two dudes.....untimely deaths of people who have opposed and investigate them.

She's despicable. Period. So is Bill. But for Trump to suggest someone could shoot her, which is what he meant.....it's not as bad as what I believe her and Bill have conspired to but it's bad.

Besides the recent 5, or whatever it is, this has happened going back to the 90s with Vincent Foster.

As far as Trump, I could excuse his earlier comments and some of the other things he's said, but it's hard to keep making excuses for someone when the things they say become more and more unconscionable.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Mister Gold on August 09, 2016, 05:11:06 PM
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton

I have no words.

This happened at the college I attend. Some of my friends were there when he said it, I think.

Crazy stuff to think about...

I sincerely hope the media brings up the important nuance that Trump's statement implied '2nd Amendment people' may do something AFTER Hillary becomes President, not before.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on August 09, 2016, 05:15:33 PM
Trump continues to show that he is a plant for the Clintons. Everything he has done the last two weeks has been clear attempts to lose the election. It's plain as day.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 09, 2016, 05:20:45 PM
Serious question here. Have there ever been any donations or support going from one to the other in the past? What side of the fence was he on when King Cumalot was running for president?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 09, 2016, 05:22:34 PM
Trump continues to show that he is a plant for the Clintons. Everything he has done the last two weeks has been clear attempts to lose the election. It's plain as day.

He's certainly not trying very hard to win. My Dad WAY back when shared this sentiment. Hat Trump was a Clinton operative. It's hard not to start to believe it. No one, not even an egocentric narcissist can be THIS self destructive. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on August 09, 2016, 05:38:04 PM
Trump continues to show that he is a plant for the Clintons. Everything he has done the last two weeks has been clear attempts to lose the election. It's plain as day.

He's certainly not trying very hard to win. My Dad WAY back when shared this sentiment. Hat Trump was a Clinton operative. It's hard not to start to believe it. No one, not even an egocentric narcissist can be THIS self destructive.

When you're being praised and hailed for saying non-PC things and insulting everyone, you're eventually going to go too far.

It's pretty conceivable.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: DragonAttack on August 09, 2016, 06:54:15 PM
I've lost track of the amount of facepalm comments the GOP candidate has made.  Today's was scary.  Encouraging a riled up audience in that fashion.  It only takes one.....

Oh, and I read where Bryan Clausen, ex NASCAR racer died in a freakish dirt track race over the weekend.  I blame Hillary Clinton for this as well.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 09, 2016, 07:44:24 PM
Oh, and I read where Bryan Clausen, ex NASCAR racer died in a freakish dirt track race over the weekend.  I blame Hillary Clinton for this as well.

Oh please. If you want to pretend that those deaths were coincedence then that's your deal. It doesn't take a PhD to connect the dots.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 09, 2016, 07:45:20 PM
Oh, and I read where Bryan Clausen, ex NASCAR racer died in a freakish dirt track race over the weekend.  I blame Hillary Clinton for this as well.

Oh please. If you want to pretend that those deaths were coincedence then that's your deal. It doesn't take a PhD to connect the dots.

Some people are so blinded by the new savior, she can do no wrong.  :lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on August 09, 2016, 07:52:46 PM
I heard she also caused 9/11.

And I'm pretty sure she gets a brief mention in the bible as the person that starts calling to kill Jesus.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 09, 2016, 08:01:21 PM
(https://www.azquotes.com/public/picture_quotes/89/31/8931501ba311ca9987ef5f9b120d430d/anton-szandor-lavey-343892.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 09, 2016, 08:01:39 PM
I heard she also caused 9/11.

No, that was actually Bill.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 09, 2016, 08:02:46 PM
I heard she also caused 9/11.

No, that was actually Bill.

Technically, yes. He was too busy getting blow jobs from disgusting interns to pay attention to his real job and wound up letting Bin Laden go.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on August 09, 2016, 08:05:04 PM
I also read somewhere, and you might have to fact check this, that she is the one who gave George Lucas the idea for Jar Jar.

My point is, hate Hillary all you want (which for some of you is a huge amount) but to say she has actually ordered people's execution is a bit much. To then say that it's painfully obvious that she did it and imply that anyone who doesn't see it isn't terribly intelligent is taking things a bit far.

I mean, can't we disagree with someone's politics and ideas and not also make them out to be the devil?

I will admit that Trump suffers from that too much as well (people taking criticism of him too far) but how about, at least in this thread, we try to keep somewhat of a level head and not play into the "I don't agree with them, therefore I must hate them with the power of 1000 suns)?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 09, 2016, 08:22:05 PM
I don't like either of them, but it eventually gets to the point where you look at the shit that happens around her and stop thinking it's a coincidence. I'm certainly not going to give him a reach around but he isn't as corrupt as she is.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on August 09, 2016, 08:26:59 PM
I don't like either of them, but it eventually gets to the point where you look at the shit that happens around her and stop thinking it's a coincidence. I'm certainly not going to give him a reach around but he isn't as corrupt as she is.

I'm not talking about that, or comparing them. I guess it's because in Israel, the politicians are just sooo much worse that when, in America, people have to "stop thinking it's a coincidence" to find such major fault in a person, then I can't take it too seriously. I dunno.

I just wish we could say "I really dislike Hillary's politics and think she would be a terrible president" as opposed to making her out to be the devil and part of major conspiracies etc.

Same with Trump. Call them out on what they actually say and do, not what "should be obvious" to people who already hate them.

Or not. If you guys prefer having a bunch of back and forths about how much you hate Hillary, I guess have at it. Just seems silly to me. (And yes, I would say the same thing about Trump)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 09, 2016, 08:40:26 PM
I also read somewhere, and you might have to fact check this, that she is the one who gave George Lucas the idea for Jar Jar.

My point is, hate Hillary all you want (which for some of you is a huge amount) but to say she has actually ordered people's execution is a bit much. To then say that it's painfully obvious that she did it and imply that anyone who doesn't see it isn't terribly intelligent is taking things a bit far.

I mean, can't we disagree with someone's politics and ideas and not also make them out to be the devil?

I will admit that Trump suffers from that too much as well (people taking criticism of him too far) but how about, at least in this thread, we try to keep somewhat of a level head and not play into the "I don't agree with them, therefore I must hate them with the power of 1000 suns)?

It's a little too much coincidence for me with the deaths\suicides that have surrounded her and Bill, all of which benefited them greatly.

If this were a 'normal' politician I'd agree to just not like her politics. But no one will ever convince me that she is a horrid person....who I do believe has had involvement in multiple shady dealings. From deaths to money laundering to the recent racket that is the 'Clinton Foundation'

The next four years are going to utterly suck to have to look at her face and listen to her cackling, corrupt voice.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on August 09, 2016, 08:45:47 PM
Fair enough dude. I just think such vitriol and hatred does nothing good and only pushes us further down a dark path.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 09, 2016, 08:56:25 PM
Fair enough dude. I just think such vitriol and hatred does nothing good and only pushes us further down a dark path.

If she had just one redeeming quality i think I could get past some things with her. But in my eyes she doesn't.

When Obama gave his acceptance speech when he won the first time i called my friend who loved him and said that I was on board, he's my President now and Ill hope he leads our country well. It didn't take long to realize that he wasn't an actual leader and 8 years later i think there's strong evidence he's one of the worst Presidents in history.

When Hillary is inaugurate I'll hope for the same....but have a sneaking suspicion she'll live up to the standard obama has set and maintained.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on August 10, 2016, 03:53:28 AM
We're starting to see Trump go full retard. I think the polls have him spooked. That 2nd amendment comment was a really, really stupid and fucked up thing to say. Sure, you can make the argument that he was telling those who support the second amendment that they need to go out and vote, but c'mon, we all know that's 100% bullshit. As far as voter turnout goes, I'd be willing to bet that republicans who support the second amendment are at the top of the list as far as showing up to the polls. Shouldn't he have called on all republicans and everyone on the fence? Why single out the second amendment?

This was a strategically laid out comment giving him just enough wiggle room for some plausible deniability, and to take the focus off his tax returns for a few days.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 10, 2016, 05:07:40 AM
Fair enough dude. I just think such vitriol and hatred does nothing good and only pushes us further down a dark path.

It's not hatred. It's the frustration from her supporters acting like she can do no wrong and casting a blind eye to everything she does while hanging on to Trump's every last word. If you want to see people stretching someone's actions, just look at the anti-Trump crowd. You're a smart guy. I'm sure you can't just call these mysterious deaths a coincidence, especially if you start to look into the past of the Clintons.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 10, 2016, 06:57:32 AM
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton

I have no words.


AND

Not that it matters but Trump lost my vote today. I'll vote 3rd party. I despise Hillary more than words can describe but would NEVER subscribe to or advocate someone seeking her out to shoot her. Which Trump did, his team can try to spin it however they'd like.

I could tolerate most of his antics in order for Hillary not to win....didn't mind the 'wall' or Muslim talk at all because the only thing wrong with those ideas are the way HE delivers and communicates them. But implying Second Ammemdment owners could 'do' something about Hillarys SCOTUS appointees is where I personally draw the line. I like the spin his team tried to put on it....sounds good and all....but we all know what he meant.


Not a Trump supporter, and not voting for him, but can we be at least a LITTLE fair?   Nowhere in there did he call for her assassination.  That someone interprets it that way is on them.  Sloppy language?   Inelegant?  SURE THING!  But I read the quote multiple times.  He was talking specifically about her nomination of Supreme Court Justices that would presumably be against a more broad reading of the Second Amendment.   And it could JUST as easily (in fact, it is far more likely given the NRA's almost obsessive need to lobby, and the general recognition that the gun lobby is one of if not THE most powerful lobby in the US today) be that he meant that the "Second Amendment people" could "do something" like organize and lobby Congress to stonewall any nominee she might put forth.   The "horrible day" is simply his reference to the day that her nominees get to the bench.  His speech is chock full of non sequitors and abrupt shifts.  It's part of his vernacular at this point.

The only reference to "assassination" was in the three Tweets from Twitter Twats that were quoted by Ben Kamisar.

C'mon, guys, you are better than that.    It's like we're watching the latest dating escapade from the Kardashians unfold.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 10, 2016, 07:01:35 AM
I'm not making excuses for him anymore. He's sloppy enough to imply something like that and play it off as a joke. However, like I said above, the Clintons are no strangers to death. Supporters in each corner are hypocritical to turn this into a ploy for trashing Trump further.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 10, 2016, 07:48:37 AM
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton

I have no words.


AND

Not that it matters but Trump lost my vote today. I'll vote 3rd party. I despise Hillary more than words can describe but would NEVER subscribe to or advocate someone seeking her out to shoot her. Which Trump did, his team can try to spin it however they'd like.

I could tolerate most of his antics in order for Hillary not to win....didn't mind the 'wall' or Muslim talk at all because the only thing wrong with those ideas are the way HE delivers and communicates them. But implying Second Ammemdment owners could 'do' something about Hillarys SCOTUS appointees is where I personally draw the line. I like the spin his team tried to put on it....sounds good and all....but we all know what he meant.


Not a Trump supporter, and not voting for him, but can we be at least a LITTLE fair?   Nowhere in there did he call for her assassination.  That someone interprets it that way is on them.  Sloppy language?   Inelegant?  SURE THING!  But I read the quote multiple times.  He was talking specifically about her nomination of Supreme Court Justices that would presumably be against a more broad reading of the Second Amendment.   And it could JUST as easily (in fact, it is far more likely given the NRA's almost obsessive need to lobby, and the general recognition that the gun lobby is one of if not THE most powerful lobby in the US today) be that he meant that the "Second Amendment people" could "do something" like organize and lobby Congress to stonewall any nominee she might put forth.   The "horrible day" is simply his reference to the day that her nominees get to the bench.  His speech is chock full of non sequitors and abrupt shifts.  It's part of his vernacular at this point.

The only reference to "assassination" was in the three Tweets from Twitter Twats that were quoted by Ben Kamisar.

C'mon, guys, you are better than that.    It's like we're watching the latest dating escapade from the Kardashians unfold.   

I totally get what you're saying but he absolutely meant for that to have the double interpretation behind it. It's exactly what Chino mentioned...plausible deniability. He can play the card he's playing now. If he were a serious Presidential candidate he'd have stated it with the clarity that he has while defending it....with the meaning that the 2nd amendment people are strongly united and blah blah blah....he could have said it like that the first time but he chose the contested path again.

As I've said repeatedly...I can't stand Hillary and would love nothing more than for her to be defeated in November....and Trump unfortunately is the only chance of that happening. I could tolerate some of the things he's said because I think the media and Clintons supporters are making them out worse than what they actually are...but he's demonstrating that he actually has no intention of wanting to win. He can't...or he wouldn't be saying and doing the things he's doing. Even an idiot knows better....
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on August 10, 2016, 07:56:26 AM
“By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day."

Joking, misinterpreted, poor word choice... however you want to try and defend that statement, it doesn't make up for the fact that that is about as unpresidential as you can possibly get.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 10, 2016, 08:04:00 AM
that is about as unpresidential as you can possibly get.

I do love the allure of having a "non politician" in office but there is a point to where that person must still be able to act like a professional adult. I had hoped that the majority of what I was witnessing with Trump was just a 'show' and an effort to rattle the system....but with every line that he crosses without any real push back from his supporters he just takes it up a notch.

I don't know....maybe he's figured out that his only real shot.....just like obama figured out....is a certain demographic and he's just pandering to them and them only? obama won twice with that style of campaign.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: XJDenton on August 10, 2016, 08:23:24 AM
Not a Trump supporter, and not voting for him, but can we be at least a LITTLE fair?   Nowhere in there did he call for her assassination.  That someone interprets it that way is on them.  Sloppy language?   Inelegant?  SURE THING!  But I read the quote multiple times.  He was talking specifically about her nomination of Supreme Court Justices that would presumably be against a more broad reading of the Second Amendment.   And it could JUST as easily (in fact, it is far more likely given the NRA's almost obsessive need to lobby, and the general recognition that the gun lobby is one of if not THE most powerful lobby in the US today) be that he meant that the "Second Amendment people" could "do something" like organize and lobby Congress to stonewall any nominee she might put forth.   The "horrible day" is simply his reference to the day that her nominees get to the bench.  His speech is chock full of non sequitors and abrupt shifts.  It's part of his vernacular at this point.

The only reference to "assassination" was in the three Tweets from Twitter Twats that were quoted by Ben Kamisar.

C'mon, guys, you are better than that.    It's like we're watching the latest dating escapade from the Kardashians unfold.   

The only reason Trump didn't say assassination is because the word has more than 2 syllables. In any case, the man has made far too many dodgy comments for me to give him the benefit of the doubt anymore. He consistently uses the rhetoric of fascists.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 10, 2016, 08:36:39 AM
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton

I have no words.

This happened at the college I attend.
You go to UNC Beach?  Cool!

My point is, hate Hillary all you want (which for some of you is a huge amount) but to say she has actually ordered people's execution is a bit much. To then say that it's painfully obvious that she did it and imply that anyone who doesn't see it isn't terribly intelligent is taking things a bit far.
This for sure.  People often connect dots that aren't really there.  And it is pretty tiresome.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 10, 2016, 08:37:22 AM
“By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day."

Joking, misinterpreted, poor word choice... however you want to try and defend that statement, it doesn't make up for the fact that that is about as unpresidential as you can possibly get.

Don't disagree.  But the media handling of this is not at all fair.   Listen to the tape again; his sentence DOESN'T end at "that will be a horrible day".    He continues to say "if, if Hillary gets to put her judges...". 

it's one thing to reject a guy for being unpresidential, for being off on policy.  It's another thing entirely to insinuate - dishonestly - that he would be advocating the killing of his opponent.   I think that reflects more on the interpreters than Trump, to be honest.   

Ironically, him referring to the strength of the gun lobby is probably one of the few statements he's made in the last two weeks that shows he might actually know what the fuck is going on at the Congressional level.   

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on August 10, 2016, 09:02:02 AM
Going in, I had the impression that Trump felt the media was his ace in the hole.  All of his previous experience, celebrity, brand, etc made me feel like he thought he could use the media to his advantage moe than any other candidate.  I find it pretty funny that the media has turned on him, and think this might be one of the most frustrating aspects to him,  Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on August 10, 2016, 10:14:53 AM
I saw someone mention this today and I think it is a good point:

Quote
I find it interesting when Trump supporters say they like him because he says what he means.  And then every time he gets called out on what he says, you are told that is not what he really meant. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Podaar on August 10, 2016, 10:27:39 AM
Following
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 10, 2016, 10:49:00 AM
I saw someone mention this today and I think it is a good point:

Quote
I find it interesting when Trump supporters say they like him because he says what he means.  And then every time he gets called out on what he says, you are told that is not what he really meant. 

That doesn't mean that 'we' like what he says....I think the point is it's refreshing to have a non PC Politician calling it like he/she sees it. Whether you like what he/she says...that's a different story but it's different from the scripted...cardboard political personalities that parade in front of the media and news day in and day out year after year.

I think Trump should re-name his call sign for hillary from 'crooked hillary' to 'free pass hillary'. not a word about her questionable economic claims from her stump the other day....nothing. Trump gets fact checked in real time....her words are treated like she heard them from God.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 10, 2016, 10:49:09 AM
I saw someone mention this today and I think it is a good point:

Quote
I find it interesting when Trump supporters say they like him because he says what he means.  And then every time he gets called out on what he says, you are told that is not what he really meant. 


It's a good point, but it's a lazy point.    HE says what he means, but the problem is the way OTHERS interpret it.   I think he actually DID mean to say it will be a horrible day if Hillary's justices get confirmed.  I think he actually DID mean to say that the Second Amendment advocates should be gearing up for a fight.   I think he actually DID mean to say that "there's nothing you can do"; the nomination of justices is one of those things that doesn't go to referendum, and the people can only be heard by their choice of President.     SOMEONE ELSE thought he meant "kill Hillary" and I don't think that is what he meant.  He didn't SAY "kill Hillary" and now he's backing away from that.   

I don't like Trump; I think it's a case of "why are we even at this point?" but still, fair is fair.   The media has to do a better job of sorting out the pure fact from the Twitter-friendly innuendo.   In my view, it's journalistic negligence for Ben Kamisar to have quoted anonymous Twitter posts as some sort of justification for the idea that he, Trump, advocated for the assassination of a Presidential candidate.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on August 10, 2016, 10:53:11 AM
That's why he purposely leaves these types of things expressly open to interpretation.  So everyone can interpret it in the most negative light, then when someone says "You're an idiot", he can say "No no no, I meant it this way."
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on August 10, 2016, 10:56:56 AM
I saw someone mention this today and I think it is a good point:

Quote
I find it interesting when Trump supporters say they like him because he says what he means.  And then every time he gets called out on what he says, you are told that is not what he really meant. 


It's a good point, but it's a lazy point.    HE says what he means, but the problem is the way OTHERS interpret it.   I think he actually DID mean to say it will be a horrible day if Hillary's justices get confirmed.  I think he actually DID mean to say that the Second Amendment advocates should be gearing up for a fight.   I think he actually DID mean to say that "there's nothing you can do"; the nomination of justices is one of those things that doesn't go to referendum, and the people can only be heard by their choice of President.     SOMEONE ELSE thought he meant "kill Hillary" and I don't think that is what he meant.  He didn't SAY "kill Hillary" and now he's backing away from that.   

I don't like Trump; I think it's a case of "why are we even at this point?" but still, fair is fair.   The media has to do a better job of sorting out the pure fact from the Twitter-friendly innuendo.   In my view, it's journalistic negligence for Ben Kamisar to have quoted anonymous Twitter posts as some sort of justification for the idea that he, Trump, advocated for the assassination of a Presidential candidate.

I don't think he meant to get any kind of point across at all. He worded it in such a way that he knew exactly how the press was going to respond. He wants to be the victim. That was his only objective.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 10, 2016, 11:06:30 AM
I saw someone mention this today and I think it is a good point:

Quote
I find it interesting when Trump supporters say they like him because he says what he means.  And then every time he gets called out on what he says, you are told that is not what he really meant. 


It's a good point, but it's a lazy point.    HE says what he means, but the problem is the way OTHERS interpret it.   I think he actually DID mean to say it will be a horrible day if Hillary's justices get confirmed.  I think he actually DID mean to say that the Second Amendment advocates should be gearing up for a fight.   I think he actually DID mean to say that "there's nothing you can do"; the nomination of justices is one of those things that doesn't go to referendum, and the people can only be heard by their choice of President.     SOMEONE ELSE thought he meant "kill Hillary" and I don't think that is what he meant.  He didn't SAY "kill Hillary" and now he's backing away from that.   

I don't like Trump; I think it's a case of "why are we even at this point?" but still, fair is fair.   The media has to do a better job of sorting out the pure fact from the Twitter-friendly innuendo.   In my view, it's journalistic negligence for Ben Kamisar to have quoted anonymous Twitter posts as some sort of justification for the idea that he, Trump, advocated for the assassination of a Presidential candidate.
Respectfully, I think you are being overly generous toward Mr. Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 10, 2016, 12:30:02 PM
Respectfully, I think you are being overly generous toward Mr. Trump.

I can understand that comment.   You may be right, but it's not out of any love for Trump, its to make the point that all opinions should be welcome, and statements calling out the hypocrisy of Trump SupportersTM based on the opinion of a few sloppy journalists is being overly generous the other way.  That's all.   I'm sort of tired of being looked at like some irrational boob or, worse, blind Trump acolyte simply because I didn't infer the same dark meaning as some - not all - others. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on August 10, 2016, 12:47:19 PM
Respectfully, I think you are being overly generous toward Mr. Trump.

I can understand that comment.   You may be right, but it's not out of any love for Trump, its to make the point that all opinions should be welcome, and statements calling out the hypocrisy of Trump SupportersTM based on the opinion of a few sloppy journalists is being overly generous the other way.  That's all.   I'm sort of tired of being looked at like some irrational boob or, worse, blind Trump acolyte simply because I didn't infer the same dark meaning as some - not all - others.

I think you could have silenced every reporter/journalist in the world and those in the general public not planning to vote for Trump would have come to the exact same interpretation of that quote.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 11, 2016, 07:18:41 AM
Respectfully, I think you are being overly generous toward Mr. Trump.

I can understand that comment.   You may be right, but it's not out of any love for Trump, its to make the point that all opinions should be welcome, and statements calling out the hypocrisy of Trump SupportersTM based on the opinion of a few sloppy journalists is being overly generous the other way.  That's all.   I'm sort of tired of being looked at like some irrational boob or, worse, blind Trump acolyte simply because I didn't infer the same dark meaning as some - not all - others.

I think you could have silenced every reporter/journalist in the world and those in the general public not planning to vote for Trump would have come to the exact same interpretation of that quote.

Perhaps, but that doesn't say anything about Trump and everything about the people "not planning to vote for Trump". 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on August 11, 2016, 08:14:22 AM
I don't think so. Trump's words don't exist inside a vacuum. It also has just as much to do with colloquialisms and the culture. It's not just anti-Trump people. If anyone said that, a vast majority of people would believe it was implying that someone go out and shoot someone whether it was a joke or not. That's just how people speak and interpret speech.

Whether Trump intended that reaction can be debated, but I personally don't think he's that stupid.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on August 11, 2016, 08:14:56 AM
Respectfully, I think you are being overly generous toward Mr. Trump.

I can understand that comment.   You may be right, but it's not out of any love for Trump, its to make the point that all opinions should be welcome, and statements calling out the hypocrisy of Trump SupportersTM based on the opinion of a few sloppy journalists is being overly generous the other way.  That's all.   I'm sort of tired of being looked at like some irrational boob or, worse, blind Trump acolyte simply because I didn't infer the same dark meaning as some - not all - others.

I think you could have silenced every reporter/journalist in the world and those in the general public not planning to vote for Trump would have come to the exact same interpretation of that quote.

Perhaps, but that doesn't say anything about Trump and everything about the people "not planning to vote for Trump".

No, it says a lot about both
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on August 11, 2016, 08:56:27 AM
Gabby Giffords says:

Quote
"Donald Trump might astound Americans on a routine basis, but we must draw a bright red line between political speech and suggestions of violence. Responsible, stable individuals won’t take Trump’s rhetoric to its literal end, but his words may provide a magnet for those seeking infamy. They may provide inspiration or permission for those bent on bloodshed." “What political leaders say matters to their followers. When candidates descend into coarseness and insult, our politics follow suit. When they affirm violence, we should fear that violence will follow." “It must be the responsibility of all Americans – from Donald Trump himself, to his supporters, to those who remain silent or oppose him – to unambiguously condemn these remarks and the violence they insinuate. The integrity of our democracy and the decency of our nation is at stake."
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on August 11, 2016, 09:27:56 AM
Also:

(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13932696_1080408778705999_1388812023012848949_n.jpg?oh=8c3d132ad2c2ec514f17ba5db26be53a&oe=581E0C6C)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Mister Gold on August 11, 2016, 09:53:56 AM
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/290892-trump-says-second-amendment-folks-could-stop-clinton

I have no words.

This happened at the college I attend.
You go to UNC Beach?  Cool!

My point is, hate Hillary all you want (which for some of you is a huge amount) but to say she has actually ordered people's execution is a bit much. To then say that it's painfully obvious that she did it and imply that anyone who doesn't see it isn't terribly intelligent is taking things a bit far.
This for sure.  People often connect dots that aren't really there.  And it is pretty tiresome.

Yeah, I'm a Film Studies major over at UNC Wilmington. Trump's rally was at Trask Coliseum.

I don't think so. Trump's words don't exist inside a vacuum. It also has just as much to do with colloquialisms and the culture. It's not just anti-Trump people. If anyone said that, a vast majority of people would believe it was implying that someone go out and shoot someone whether it was a joke or not. That's just how people speak and interpret speech.

Whether Trump intended that reaction can be debated, but I personally don't think he's that stupid.

Yep. The best thing Trump could do here is just own up that he made a mistake saying that line and condemn any violence towards Hillary or any person she might pick for the Supreme Court if/when she beats him in the election.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 11, 2016, 10:14:04 AM
You go to UNC Beach?  Cool!

Yeah, I'm a Film Studies major over at UNC Wilmington.
Sweet!  We have visited Wilmington/Carolina Beach several times. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 11, 2016, 10:22:15 AM

Yep. The best thing Trump could do here is just own up that he made a mistake saying that line and condemn any violence towards Hillary or any person she might pick for the Supreme Court if/when she beats him in the election.

It might sound like a quibble, but I think Trump needs to take a little different tack; he can, if he's careful, have his cake and eat it too.   He's in the same quandary as Bernie; he has to rouse the troops but has to do it in a way that is not alienating.   This would be true for any candidate of any party.  He doesn't even have to disavow the "violence" side of things (though I would, but that's me).  He just needs to take away the context under which the media and those on the witch hunt are twisting his words.    Start giving speeches where he calls for aggressive political lobbying.  Start giving speeches where he calls for peaceful boycotts.  Start giving speeches where the "action" is clearly peaceful and in keeping with the use of intellectual tools, not mechanical ones.  You can still incite the masses.  Politicians since Roman times have done it, and he can too (he himself did it early in the campaign when he had 16 other candidates to keep him in check).   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on August 11, 2016, 11:16:26 AM
I'm not voting for Trump but the way the onesided media has acted post convention has been sickening. CNN has turned into MSNBC and are now third in the ratings behind Fox and MSNBC.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 11, 2016, 12:53:38 PM
Gary Johnson is interesting.  I hope he continues what momentum he has and gets included in the debates.  If he can actually get an audience to hear him, things may get interesting.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on August 11, 2016, 01:03:57 PM
Gary Johnson is interesting.  I hope he continues what momentum he has and gets included in the debates.  If he can actually get an audience to hear him, things may get interesting.

I want him in there for no other reason than to break up the childish verbal diarrhea fight we're in for. A debate with only Trump and Clinton is going to be nothing but hate and shame speech being thrown back and forth. Johnson has no need to participate in any of that crap and will likely talk more policy than the other two candidates combined. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 11, 2016, 01:35:32 PM
If Hillary debates Trump more than once (and even that is just to say she did) then she's a fucking idiot.  And if there is anything that Hillary is NOT, it's a fucking idiot.    The debates are a way of keeping Trump in line, and that's the last thing Hillary wants.  Let him run off full cocked and say stupid shit.   Don't actually get on stage and try to reign him in.   That's dumb. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 11, 2016, 01:41:57 PM
I kind of don't want Johnson in just to see those two go at it, it'll be great TV.  But in reality, yea, I'd like to have him in as well because I want to hear what he has to say and say compared to the other two.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on August 11, 2016, 01:45:58 PM
How is it determined whether or not Johnson will get to participate in the debate(s)?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 11, 2016, 01:47:02 PM
How is it determined whether or not Johnson will get to participate in the debate(s)?

I'm going to guess he needs to hit a certain % in polling that is determined by the network airing the debate.  Just a guess though, I believe that's how it was done for the primaries.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on August 11, 2016, 01:51:54 PM
How is it determined whether or not Johnson will get to participate in the debate(s)?

I'm going to guess he needs to hit a certain % in polling that is determined by the network airing the debate.  Just a guess though, I believe that's how it was done for the primaries.

He needs 15%
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on August 11, 2016, 01:53:27 PM
How is it determined whether or not Johnson will get to participate in the debate(s)?

I'm going to guess he needs to hit a certain % in polling that is determined by the network airing the debate.  Just a guess though, I believe that's how it was done for the primaries.

That's what my guess was as well, but I thought I'd ask because I honestly don't know how all that works. If it's just a poll percentage threshold or if something else factors into.

He needs 15%

Gotcha, thanks Chino.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on August 11, 2016, 01:53:28 PM
If Hillary debates Trump more than once (and even that is just to say she did) then she's a fucking idiot.  And if there is anything that Hillary is NOT, it's a fucking idiot.    The debates are a way of keeping Trump in line, and that's the last thing Hillary wants.  Let him run off full cocked and say stupid shit.   Don't actually get on stage and try to reign him in.   That's dumb.

I believe they are scheduled for three debates. There's one the last week of September, and then there are two in October. The VP debate is in October as well. I'm guessing that Trump is going to be made a fool of following the first debate, and then he'll blow off the two in October.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 11, 2016, 02:09:01 PM
If Hillary debates Trump more than once (and even that is just to say she did) then she's a fucking idiot.  And if there is anything that Hillary is NOT, it's a fucking idiot.    The debates are a way of keeping Trump in line, and that's the last thing Hillary wants.  Let him run off full cocked and say stupid shit.   Don't actually get on stage and try to reign him in.   That's dumb.

I believe they are scheduled for three debates. There's one the last week of September, and then there are two in October. The VP debate is in October as well. I'm guessing that Trump is going to be made a fool of following the first debate, and then he'll blow off the two in October.

I'm already losing steam on the Trump train.  If he blows off a debate, unless some extraordinary reason (a grudge against Megyn Kelly would not qualify) I won't vote for him.  It's too important now.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 11, 2016, 02:19:49 PM
If Hillary debates Trump more than once (and even that is just to say she did) then she's a fucking idiot.  And if there is anything that Hillary is NOT, it's a fucking idiot.    The debates are a way of keeping Trump in line, and that's the last thing Hillary wants.  Let him run off full cocked and say stupid shit.   Don't actually get on stage and try to reign him in.   That's dumb.

I believe they are scheduled for three debates. There's one the last week of September, and then there are two in October. The VP debate is in October as well. I'm guessing that Trump is going to be made a fool of following the first debate, and then he'll blow off the two in October.

I'm already losing steam on the Trump train.  If he blows off a debate, unless some extraordinary reason (a grudge against Megyn Kelly would not qualify) I won't vote for him.  It's too important now.

The debates are Trumps only chance to win. Only he is going to call Hillary out on her repeated failures in every position she's held....and he should just rail on those from now until November every chance he gets. There are plenty to choose from. From Benghazi, to the e mails to her poor Senate showing, just keep reminding people that she really isn't that good at anything she's done.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 11, 2016, 03:47:21 PM
He's too busy calling her the co-founder of ISIS and saying that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment to say anything substantive about her.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 11, 2016, 04:00:06 PM
He's too busy calling her the co-founder of ISIS and saying that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment to say anything substantive about her.

Amendments are real easy to abolish.  :lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Elite on August 11, 2016, 05:12:13 PM
How is it determined whether or not Johnson will get to participate in the debate(s)?

Exactly what I was wondering. This is a man running to probably become president in the country (even though his chances are slim compared to Trump's or Clinton's). Why should he NOT be included?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 11, 2016, 05:15:39 PM
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 11, 2016, 05:16:39 PM
How is it determined whether or not Johnson will get to participate in the debate(s)?

Exactly what I was wondering. This is a man running to probably become president in the country (even though his chances are slim compared to Trump's or Clinton's). Why should he NOT be included?

Because if they just let any member of any party on the debate stage, without having some sort of requirement, there would be something akin to the Republican primaries.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on August 11, 2016, 05:20:53 PM
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

His success (and failures) prior to this are in a completely private field. None of it involved being huge in the public, except for things like The Apprentice, and then he was more successful, the bigger douche he was.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 11, 2016, 05:31:45 PM
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

What's off is the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for not adjusting and evolving with the political pulse of the country and not having a single appealing candidate that could have quashed this whole Trump thing.

I'm not talking selling out conservative values....just talking having a candidate that can appeal to people and inspire them. Instead, they stuck with the old mold politician and essentially handed the White House to the Dems this year when it was RIPE for the taking. This was set up and should have been a Republican slam dunk Presidential victory after the past 8 years but they F'd themselves.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Genowyn on August 11, 2016, 10:14:07 PM
Rather than the Clinton plant theory I think the theory that Trump never really expected to get this far and certainly does not actually want to be president is most likely. After all how much time will he have to build the best buildings if he has to be president? Better try to derail this train now.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: pogoowner on August 11, 2016, 10:35:52 PM
The Clinton Foundation is under investigation.

Quote
The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bharara’s prosecutorial aggressiveness has resulted in a large number of convictions of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street insiders.
 
The official said involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York “would be seen by agents as a positive development as prosecutors there are generally thought to be more aggressive than the career lawyers within the DOJ.”

https://dailycaller.com/2016/08/11/exclusive-joint-fbi-us-attorney-probe-of-clinton-foundation-is-underway/
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on August 12, 2016, 04:35:46 AM
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

I think Trump is as successful as he is because 1) he knows how to read people and knows how to command a conversation, and 2) he's mastered the buying and selling of real estate and businesses. To be successful (have ton of money), all he had to do was master that one topic/trade/business. he could be the best real estate negotiator in history, but that doesn't mean he knows a damn thing about foreign policy, current educational standing in the country, etc.. The only real difference between Trump and Carson (another brilliant guy but only in one specific area) is that Trump can command the room. He can get you to listen and he can sway you by controlling his tone.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 12, 2016, 05:13:39 AM
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

I think Trump is as successful as he is because 1) he knows how to read people and knows how to command a conversation, and 2) he's mastered the buying and selling of real estate and businesses. To be successful (have ton of money), all he had to do was master that one topic/trade/business. he could be the best real estate negotiator in history, but that doesn't mean he knows a damn thing about foreign policy, current educational standing in the country, etc.. The only real difference between Trump and Carson (another brilliant guy but only in one specific area) is that Trump can command the room. He can get you to listen and he can sway you by controlling his tone.

I'm not talking about his political knowledge. I'm pretty sure most of us have a better idea of foreign policy than he does. What I'm saying is that his actions and his words are completely belying of a successful man. He's almost acting like a spoiled child in some instances. It just doesn't seem like his character.

Rather than the Clinton plant theory I think the theory that Trump never really expected to get this far and certainly does not actually want to be president is most likely. After all how much time will he have to build the best buildings if he has to be president? Better try to derail this train now.

That's another thought I had.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on August 12, 2016, 06:45:45 AM
If Trump truly wants to make america great again then he should drop out because more than likely if they can get even a mediocre replacement Clinton probably loses. Maybe that was his intent. Take all of the media heat to deflect from the real nominee.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 12, 2016, 07:15:24 AM
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

His success (and failures) prior to this are in a completely private field. None of it involved being huge in the public, except for things like The Apprentice, and then he was more successful, the bigger douche he was.


This.  I say this half tongue in cheek, but not totally, but the people saying "oh, Trump was successful [here], therefore he'll be successful [there]", where "here" is the boardroom and "there" is national politics, have never been in a boardroom.   It's a totally different environment, in the same way that football in the NFL Pro Bowl is different than football in the preseason.  Yeah, it has some base similarities, but the essence of the game is totally different.   

Honestly, I think the last two months are very informative, and not in a good way for Trump.  He is out of his element.  He is in uncharted territory.  Yet, he is smart, smart enough to know he has to rely on his skill set and yet do something different.  So he's reaching into his bag of tricks, going with what he knows, and it's the thing that got him the most broad appeal:   acting like "The Boss", and being controversial.  The last two months have basically been the last three episodes of any season of "The Apprentice" and his last three appearances on the Howard Stern Show all wrapped up in one.    The problem is, he isn't playing to the people that were watching The Apprentice or those that were listening to The Howard Stern Show.    He's playing to real-life Waldorfs and Statlers that aren't on the bandwagon yet, and it's not resonating.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 12, 2016, 07:19:25 AM
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

I think Trump is as successful as he is because 1) he knows how to read people and knows how to command a conversation, and 2) he's mastered the buying and selling of real estate and businesses. To be successful (have ton of money), all he had to do was master that one topic/trade/business. he could be the best real estate negotiator in history, but that doesn't mean he knows a damn thing about foreign policy, current educational standing in the country, etc.. The only real difference between Trump and Carson (another brilliant guy but only in one specific area) is that Trump can command the room. He can get you to listen and he can sway you by controlling his tone.

And real estate at his level is not really a "people skill" business.  It's not like "Flip This House!" on TV, or the quintessential idea of a cute sexy real estate agent selling a young couple who look like a deer in headlights a home they can't afford.  It's a lot of tactics, it's a lot of jockeying of sub-experts ("That's MOLD!"; "No it's not, it's a stain from when the boiler blew up!") and it's educated risk-taking ("I can clean this property for half of what my competitors say, because I own part of the Environmental Remediation firm, and the site supervisor used to work for my competitor until he was fired").   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on August 12, 2016, 07:35:24 AM
In regards to the Clinton body count that has been discussed here...

Any one hear about Seth Rich?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/

I'll throw in a more "mainstream" news source as well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/wikileaks-offers-reward-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-washington/2016/08/09/f84fcbf4-5e5b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 12, 2016, 07:43:54 AM
In regards to the Clinton body count that has been discussed here...

Any one hear about Seth Rich?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/

I'll throw in a more "mainstream" news source as well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/wikileaks-offers-reward-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-washington/2016/08/09/f84fcbf4-5e5b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html

Chalk it up....
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2016, 08:15:44 AM
It amazes me that people really buy into the Clinton Body Count nonsense. Sane, rational people who don't go in for the conspiracy theory nonsense, even. Seriously, people.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Podaar on August 12, 2016, 08:18:53 AM
Too many Breaking Bad episodes, me thinks.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2016, 08:26:25 AM
More like too much confirmation bias.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on August 12, 2016, 08:32:43 AM
Oh, I'm not saying that Clinton definitely ordered this dude to be killed or anything. I just remember the conversation occurring around here so I thought I'd link the article.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on August 12, 2016, 09:45:06 AM
Trump refers to his "Obama founded ISIS" remark as sarcasm.  I saw this on FB today:

Quote
God, I wish two giant Olympic weightlifters from Muslim countries would hold Donald Trump down and take turns violating him in the mouth.

LOLOLOL JUST KIDDING! IT WAS "SARCASM" SO IT'S OK!

Someone commented that they're not allowed to touch pigs.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 12, 2016, 11:31:23 AM
It amazes me that people really buy into the Clinton Body Count nonsense. Sane, rational people who don't go in for the conspiracy theory nonsense, even. Seriously, people.

Right, because people in the world who have power, and try to portray a clean public image, just don't do that sort of thing. What is your rational reason for her or her husband not having it in them to do something like that? Because they're all smiles when they see balloons? I bet if you heard Bush did something like that you would eat it up with a spoon. The media is clearly steering the bus on this one for most people.

Do you think the Vatican hasn't committed sexual crimes against children just because of who they are? Do you think the Vatican has never ordered the death of people as part of some power play? Or are only people like the mafia and drug kingpins capable of ordering the death of those who choose to betray them? I feel like you're being exceedingly hypocritical about this, and slightly naive to think it's just not possible. Coincidences can only go so far before you realize something is truly fucked up. This trail of death with the Clintons isn't something that just started recently.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2016, 11:59:06 AM
It amazes me that people really buy into the Clinton Body Count nonsense. Sane, rational people who don't go in for the conspiracy theory nonsense, even. Seriously, people.

Right, because people in the world who have power, and try to portray a clean public image, just don't do that sort of thing. What is your rational reason for her or her husband not having it in them to do something like that? Because they're all smiles when they see balloons? I bet if you heard Bush did something like that you would eat it up with a spoon. The media is clearly steering the bus on this one for most people.

Do you think the Vatican hasn't committed sexual crimes against children just because of who they are? Do you think the Vatican has never ordered the death of people as part of some power play? Or are only people like the mafia and drug kingpins capable of ordering the death of those who choose to betray them? I feel like you're being exceedingly hypocritical about this, and slightly naive to think it's just not possible. Coincidences can only go so far before you realize something is truly fucked up. This trail of death with the Clintons isn't something that just started recently.
First off, there is a Bush Body Count list, and I find it equally stupid. Interestingly, there's at least one name that features prominently on both. Presumably one side would have never whacked William Colby while the other side are just depraved enough to do it. Second, I do think they probably have it within them to whack somebody. Personally, I'd find a former CIA head more inclined, but I don't buy those claims, either. Finally, those lists are full of very loose affiliations, facts that fall somewhere between misinterpretation and outright lying, and more weasel words than a human could count. All airplane crashes are "suspicious." Very few of them are murders.

I'm actually very interested in finding out if there's somebody that was murdered on behalf of the Clinton's, Bushes, or even Van Burens. I'm just of the opinion that if you go around accusing somebody of committing 93 murders, you should damn well have something better to offer than "So And So, who might have been called to testify against Clinton, died in a mysterious plane crash." Particularly when "mysterious" actually translates as "flew into fucking mountain!"

The problem is, people who look for these sorts of things are taking the back-assward approach. They look for things that might support their beliefs. Moreover, they're a house of cards. The only way you think death number 91 is possible is if you think the Clintons are capable of the 90 that preceded it. Stunningly bad logic.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 12, 2016, 12:15:10 PM
It amazes me that people really buy into the Clinton Body Count nonsense. Sane, rational people who don't go in for the conspiracy theory nonsense, even. Seriously, people.

Right, because people in the world who have power, and try to portray a clean public image, just don't do that sort of thing. What is your rational reason for her or her husband not having it in them to do something like that? Because they're all smiles when they see balloons? I bet if you heard Bush did something like that you would eat it up with a spoon. The media is clearly steering the bus on this one for most people.

Do you think the Vatican hasn't committed sexual crimes against children just because of who they are? Do you think the Vatican has never ordered the death of people as part of some power play? Or are only people like the mafia and drug kingpins capable of ordering the death of those who choose to betray them? I feel like you're being exceedingly hypocritical about this, and slightly naive to think it's just not possible. Coincidences can only go so far before you realize something is truly fucked up. This trail of death with the Clintons isn't something that just started recently.
First off, there is a Bush Body Count list, and I find it equally stupid. Interestingly, there's at least one name that features prominently on both. Presumably one side would have never whacked William Colby while the other side are just depraved enough to do it. Second, I do think they probably have it within them to whack somebody. Personally, I'd find a former CIA head more inclined, but I don't buy those claims, either. Finally, those lists are full of very loose affiliations, facts that fall somewhere between misinterpretation and outright lying, and more weasel words than a human could count. All airplane crashes are "suspicious." Very few of them are murders.

I'm actually very interested in finding out if there's somebody that was murdered on behalf of the Clinton's, Bushes, or even Van Burens. I'm just of the opinion that if you go around accusing somebody of committing 93 murders, you should damn well have something better to offer than "So And So, who might have been called to testify against Clinton, died in a mysterious plane crash." Particularly when "mysterious" actually translates as "flew into fucking mountain!"

The problem is, people who look for these sorts of things are taking the back-assward approach. They look for things that might support their beliefs. Moreover, they're a house of cards. The only way you think death number 91 is possible is if you think the Clintons are capable of the 90 that preceded it. Stunningly bad logic.

I'm not saying I think the list is that high. I'm sure some can be explained away quite logically, but to rule them all out completely, for whatever reasons you have, is just as illogical as automatically assuming all 91 are possible beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm just keeping an extremely open mind towards the fact that they are people with a lot of power, which means they have a lot to lose, more than the average person. The more you have to lose, the more you will do to fight for it. Nobody can sit there with a straight face and say the Clintons aren't corrupt and expect people to look upon them with any degree of sanity. I'm not saying Trump is incapable of that and I'm not saying Bush is incapable of that, but sometimes too many coincidences add up to something bigger.

The fact that you said you would "find a former CIA head more inclined" to do something like that is getting to the heart of the matter here. There are different degrees of people, so rationalizing complete innocence on the part of the Clintons because you can't see them having someone killed is not rationalizing it on the part of the Clintons. You're rationalizing it based on your own convictions and how you view Bill and Hillary, not how they really are.

Again, I'm not saying that they had 91 people killed. I'm saying I lean more towards the side of the fence where it's possible they've had people rubbed out to save their own asses.

I'd kill someone who did something to my daughter, or at least come very close to. Now picture how much the Clintons have to lose, including what they provide for in regards to Chelsea. If you push a man against a fence and exploit his mortality and innocence, you will see what a man will sometimes do to fight for his survival.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 12, 2016, 12:17:40 PM
el Barto is right about one thing:  you can't use the existence of the event as proof of the event itself.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2016, 12:37:06 PM
I'm not saying I think the list is that high. I'm sure some can be explained away quite logically, but to rule them all out completely, for whatever reasons you have, is just as illogical as automatically assuming all 91 are possible beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm just keeping an extremely open mind towards the fact that they are people with a lot of power, which means they have a lot to lose, more than the average person. The more you have to lose, the more you will do to fight for it. Nobody can sit there with a straight face and say the Clintons aren't corrupt and expect people to look upon them with any degree of sanity. I'm not saying Trump is incapable of that and I'm not saying Bush is incapable of that, but sometimes too many coincidences add up to something bigger.
I haven't ruled them all out completely. I'm saying that the list itself is fucking stupid. By all means, please, point out a reasonable example that can stand on its own with out the presumption of them being murders.

And by the way, as somebody who's convinced that Hillary just got away with treason, despite the evidence being presented for all to see, why do feel they need to have people killed to cover up their wrong-doings?

Quote
The fact that you said you would "find a former CIA head more inclined" to do something like that is getting to the heart of the matter here. There are different degrees of people, so rationalizing complete innocence on the part of the Clintons because you can't see them having someone killed is not rationalizing it on the part of the Clintons. You're rationalizing it based on your own convictions and how you view Bill and Hillary, not how they really are.
Nope. Never said anything of the sort. I said I didn't suspect Bush of any murders. I haven't cleared the Clintons of anything. I said that they probably are capable of it. I think they're bad people. I'm just not accusing them of numerous murders on the basis of their lack of ethics and some poorly written conservative jackoff fodder.

Quote
Again, I'm not saying that they had 91 people killed. I'm saying I lean more towards the side of the fence where it's possible they've had people rubbed out to save their own asses.
I agree. But I'm not making claims about any murders, though. I'm also suggesting that assuming some must have happened because others must have happened is Gomer Pyle level logic.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 12, 2016, 12:50:29 PM
It amazes me that people really buy into the Clinton Body Count nonsense. Sane, rational people who don't go in for the conspiracy theory nonsense, even. Seriously, people.
I agree.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 12, 2016, 01:14:15 PM
The one death that I do find interesting is the one shown here earlier:

In regards to the Clinton body count that has been discussed here...

Any one hear about Seth Rich?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/

I'll throw in a more "mainstream" news source as well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/wikileaks-offers-reward-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-washington/2016/08/09/f84fcbf4-5e5b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html

Not so much as in "clintons are behind it" but because of the whole whistleblower aspect of it and the danger these people put themselves in. 

Personally, I feel like the Clintons themselves likely have nothing to do with any of the deaths.  They are too high up the chain to be involved in things like that, however, I do believe it's conceivable that others within the realm of the Clintons (or Bushes from the past) were involved in some way, but there is no reason for me to think the Clintons have any real associations with any of the deaths that have been talked about.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 12, 2016, 01:20:02 PM
I'm not saying I think the list is that high. I'm sure some can be explained away quite logically, but to rule them all out completely, for whatever reasons you have, is just as illogical as automatically assuming all 91 are possible beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm just keeping an extremely open mind towards the fact that they are people with a lot of power, which means they have a lot to lose, more than the average person. The more you have to lose, the more you will do to fight for it. Nobody can sit there with a straight face and say the Clintons aren't corrupt and expect people to look upon them with any degree of sanity. I'm not saying Trump is incapable of that and I'm not saying Bush is incapable of that, but sometimes too many coincidences add up to something bigger.
I haven't ruled them all out completely. I'm saying that the list itself is fucking stupid. By all means, please, point out a reasonable example that can stand on its own with out the presumption of them being murders.

And by the way, as somebody who's convinced that Hillary just got away with treason, despite the evidence being presented for all to see, why do feel they need to have people killed to cover up their wrong-doings?

I will give a good example when I get home. I don't have the time at the moment to go through my bookmarks and pull them out.

People keep saying there is no evidence against Hillary yet that has never been said. How many times has it been repeated in the other thread that evidence was actually found?
Quote
Quote
The fact that you said you would "find a former CIA head more inclined" to do something like that is getting to the heart of the matter here. There are different degrees of people, so rationalizing complete innocence on the part of the Clintons because you can't see them having someone killed is not rationalizing it on the part of the Clintons. You're rationalizing it based on your own convictions and how you view Bill and Hillary, not how they really are.
Quote
Nope. Never said anything of the sort. I said I didn't suspect Bush of any murders. I haven't cleared the Clintons of anything. I said that they probably are capable of it. I think they're bad people. I'm just not accusing them of numerous murders on the basis of their lack of ethics and some poorly written conservative jackoff fodder.

I quoted you word for word and inferred the rest of the first sentence based on what you said. The sentences after that, which you have bolded, are what your words are showing me, and you have implied a couple of times already.

Quote
Quote
Again, I'm not saying that they had 91 people killed. I'm saying I lean more towards the side of the fence where it's possible they've had people rubbed out to save their own asses.
I agree. But I'm not making claims about any murders, though. I'm also suggesting that assuming some must have happened because others must have happened is Gomer Pyle level logic.

Why is it "Gomer Pyle level logic" to assume a criminal will repeat a crime? Again, not saying they repeated it 90 times, but it's not foreign to assume that someone who would have someone killed once would shy away from doing it a couple of more times. I think there's a big difference in having it done a few times as opposed to a hundred.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2016, 01:24:07 PM
The one death that I do find interesting is the one shown here earlier:

In regards to the Clinton body count that has been discussed here...

Any one hear about Seth Rich?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/

I'll throw in a more "mainstream" news source as well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/wikileaks-offers-reward-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-washington/2016/08/09/f84fcbf4-5e5b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html

Not so much as in "clintons are behind it" but because of the whole whistleblower aspect of it and the danger these people put themselves in. 

Personally, I feel like the Clintons themselves likely have nothing to do with any of the deaths.  They are too high up the chain to be involved in things like that, however, I do believe it's conceivable that others within the realm of the Clintons (or Bushes from the past) were involved in some way, but there is no reason for me to think the Clintons have any real associations with any of the deaths that have been talked about.
And yet you have to weigh the likelihood of a botched robbery vs a retaliatory assassination. It's not like he was whacked before the leak. This is the sort of thing that bugs me. "They said it was a "robbery" but no money was taken." Yeah, we call those botched robberies. Anybody remember Sean Taylor?

Hmmm. Sean Taylor played in Washington DC.  :o
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2016, 01:38:32 PM

People keep saying there is no evidence against Hillary yet that has never been said. How many times has it been repeated in the other thread that evidence was actually found?
I phrased my remark poorly. If there was a ton of evidence which slipped right off of her, and I'm not denying that here, BTW, why do you think she needed to kill people to protect herself?


 
Quote
Why is it "Gomer Pyle level logic" to assume a criminal will repeat a crime? Again, not saying they repeated it 90 times, but it's not foreign to assume that someone who would have someone killed once would shy away from doing it a couple of more times. I think there's a big difference in having it done a few times as opposed to a hundred.
Because it's circular reasoning. There's no evidence that they're murderers, yet most of the allegations rely on the fact that the Clintons are already notorious killers. Without that presumption it's even more foolish. And while you can actually make a claim that they're criminals, that doesn't suggest a propensity for crimes other than the sorts they've already been found guilty of. You can't accuse a lifelong writer of bad checks of raping children just because "well, criminals will be criminals."
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 12, 2016, 01:50:47 PM
As one of the people that consistently calls HIllary a "criminal", I'm surprisingly far into El Barto's camp on this.  I don't think they're killers - primarily because I don't think they're stupid - and I am not of the "well he kited a check so therefore he HAD to have killed that person" camp.   I'm more along the lines of the "white collar" crime, where it's probably more sleazy than outright "criminal", and more "treasonous" than "mafia".   

I think Hillary has problems with the truth.   I think she - like, incidentally not a few lawyers I know - act first and explain later.  Everything can be explained away with proper weaving and highlighting of certain facts while downplaying others.   My beef with Hillary is as you get to the edges of that.   Where the "truth" becomes not a blight on her record, but rather a real impact on people's lives.  Benghazi comes to mind; whether she did or didn't isn't the point here, but people died.   So if she DID there has to be an accounting, not a slippery post facto explanation meant to pin it on a fall guy and preserve the legacy.   The buck is supposed to stop with the President, and I can't name a single event - that isn't a "horn blowing event" - that Hillary as said "Wait, that's on ME.".  No accountability. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 12, 2016, 02:13:23 PM
I don't think they're killers - primarily because I don't think they're stupid
This is the deathblow to so many conspiracies. Actually doing what you're accused of is usually amazingly stupid compared to ignoring it and letting whatever happens happen. Why blow up the WTC when there are so many people itching to do it themselves? Why burn up the Branch Davidians when you already know they're batshit insane and suicidal? Why kill a whistle-blower after he's blown the whistle? Why stage a school shooting when they're already happening with some regularity? All you wind up doing is creating massive pitfalls in the cover ups.

I think Hillary has problems with the truth.   I think she - like, incidentally not a few lawyers I know - act first and explain later.  Everything can be explained away with proper weaving and highlighting of certain facts while downplaying others.   My beef with Hillary is as you get to the edges of that.   Where the "truth" becomes not a blight on her record, but rather a real impact on people's lives.  Benghazi comes to mind; whether she did or didn't isn't the point here, but people died.   So if she DID there has to be an accounting, not a slippery post facto explanation meant to pin it on a fall guy and preserve the legacy.   The buck is supposed to stop with the President, and I can't name a single event - that isn't a "horn blowing event" - that Hillary as said "Wait, that's on ME.".  No accountability. 
Yeah, I'm largely there with ya. Sadly, the buck stops here is a product of a bygone era. I didn't blame Hillary or Obama for Benghazi. Shit happens, after all. I did blame them both for not caring enough to find out exactly why it happened, though. Ironically, I think Bill Clinton actually was one to accept ultimate responsibility for failure. Before him you go back to Carter who was remarkably forthcoming.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 12, 2016, 02:20:13 PM
I think Hillary has problems with the truth.   I think she - like, incidentally not a few lawyers I know - act first and explain later.  Everything can be explained away with proper weaving and highlighting of certain facts while downplaying others.   My beef with Hillary is as you get to the edges of that.   Where the "truth" becomes not a blight on her record, but rather a real impact on people's lives.  Benghazi comes to mind; whether she did or didn't isn't the point here, but people died.   So if she DID there has to be an accounting, not a slippery post facto explanation meant to pin it on a fall guy and preserve the legacy.   The buck is supposed to stop with the President, and I can't name a single event - that isn't a "horn blowing event" - that Hillary as said "Wait, that's on ME.".  No accountability. 
Yeah, I'm largely there with ya. Sadly, the buck stops here is a product of a bygone era. I didn't blame Hillary or Obama for Benghazi. Shit happens, after all. I did blame them both for not caring enough to find out exactly why it happened, though. Ironically, I think Bill Clinton actually was one to accept ultimate responsibility for failure. Before him you go back to Carter who was remarkably forthcoming.

It's actually amazing to think of how much respect you earn when you just admit a failure.  We all have failures in life, that's part of it.  Acknowledging it is the first step to learning from it. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: 73109 on August 12, 2016, 03:28:09 PM
Here's what makes no sense to me about the whole "Trump is a plant" conspiracy:

Do you know how much would have to be known/guessed/assumed before he decided to agree to run? When he initially announced and in the subsequent weeks, no one gave him a chance. He was just some shit-for-brains who was saying dumb and provocative shit because "lolTrumpsaysitlikeitis." No one predicted that he would rise to the top. His chances just kept increasing...2%...5%...25%...50%, etc. If he were a plant, he and the Clintons would have to have known that he would be able to spew enough shit, get the media focused on him, have a large contingent of the American populace attach to him like the Orange Jesus they think he is.

If that is true—which it almost certainly isn't—it says a lot about the people who would vote for him. The tens of millions who are going to cast their ballot for him in November, including the few here who will or those who just decided to stop because a particular stop on the crazy-train is just too crazy. If you can fall for a plant, that says more about you and the manipulability of a large swath of Americans than it does about those colluding to get you to vote for someone.

And before anyone asks, I am not a "Clinton supporter" who thinks she can do no wrong. I absolutely despise her and will end up voting for a third party candidate if she is polling high enough in Illinois. I've just become sort of a one-issue voter: making sure the species that live here keep on living here for as long as humanly possible. And I'm going to vote for the person who might inch us closer to keeping our asses here rather than someone who wants us to go out screaming like Major Kong riding his nuclear fucking bomb.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on August 15, 2016, 07:41:24 AM
Just thinking aloud, the "Trump is a Clinton plant" conspiracy....

If Trump was just intended to be a candidate to absorb all the bad press, in turn Hillary's issues would not be addressed by the media nearly as much...

Do you know how much would have to be known/guessed/assumed before he decided to agree to run? When he initially announced and in the subsequent weeks, no one gave him a chance. He was just some shit-for-brains who was saying dumb and provocative shit because "lolTrumpsaysitlikeitis." No one predicted that he would rise to the top. His chances just kept increasing...2%...5%...25%...50%, etc. If he were a plant, he and the Clintons would have to have known that he would be able to spew enough shit, get the media focused on him, have a large contingent of the American populace attach to him like the Orange Jesus they think he is.

It still could make sense though. Even if those percentage numbers didn't go up in the primaries I could easily see Trump running independent and still making all these crazy media headlines as a third party candidate and achieving the same result for Clinton (taking attention and criticism).

I honestly never thought this conspiracy could be remotely true, but the last couple weeks have been really bad, even to Trump standards.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 15, 2016, 07:52:00 AM
After reading a couple articles over the weekend on polling, I'm not so sure that Clinton is 'blowing' Trump out of the water like a couple of these polls suggest. This could turn out to look like what obama did to Romney when Romney had a full head of steam heading into the election and was polling well....then got trounced. With (4) months to go...at least three debates and plenty of time for more revelations about just how corrupt hillary is to get splashed around, I'm not so sure Trump is dead in the water.


Could you imagine if it were revealed that Trump donated $18 million dollars to himself in 'charitable donations'....what the media would do to him? Yet, when it's revealed that's exactly what hillary did last year not a freakin' peep. The media bias has officially entered the 'comical' stage.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on August 15, 2016, 08:09:04 AM
I am in no way defending or endorsing her by saying this (given the DNC business was pretty rotten): I think stories of Clinton corruption are greatly exaggerated. Like on the level of "Wikileaks got our emails from the Russians" ridiculousness.

This is why conspiracy theories are silly.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 16, 2016, 01:20:09 PM
I am in no way defending or endorsing her by saying this (given the DNC business was pretty rotten): I think stories of Clinton corruption are greatly exaggerated.
I agree.

Certainly not squeaky clean by any stretch of the imagination, but also certainly not the antichrist figure perpetuated by so many on the right.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 16, 2016, 01:57:37 PM
I am in no way defending or endorsing her by saying this (given the DNC business was pretty rotten): I think stories of Clinton corruption are greatly exaggerated.
I agree.

Certainly not squeaky clean by any stretch of the imagination, but also certainly not the antichrist figure perpetuated by so many on the right.

I personally don't think she's the antichrist. The Antichrist will be a globally well liked figure, someone who brings a false sense of unity and peace to all. She has nowhere near the charisma, temperment, desire or capability to pull off such a feat.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 16, 2016, 07:40:44 PM
I am in no way defending or endorsing her by saying this (given the DNC business was pretty rotten): I think stories of Clinton corruption are greatly exaggerated.
I agree.

Certainly not squeaky clean by any stretch of the imagination, but also certainly not the antichrist figure perpetuated by so many on the right.

I personally don't think she's the antichrist. The Antichrist will be a globally well liked figure, someone who brings a false sense of unity and peace to all. She has nowhere near the charisma, temperment, desire or capability to pull off such a feat.

Seriously. I think the Antichrist would be a classy guy, a master manipulator, and wouldn't have their scandalous business saturating the news. They'd get away with it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on August 16, 2016, 07:54:10 PM
So the most likely candidate for Antichrist is......Dick Van Dyke?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 16, 2016, 08:34:59 PM
So the most likely candidate for Antichrist is......Dick Van Dyke?

I'm thinking 'The Rock' or maybe Ellen.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on August 16, 2016, 08:44:21 PM
So the most likely candidate for Antichrist is......Dick Van Dyke?

I'm thinking 'The Rock' or maybe Ellen.

I can see (and disagree with) some people not liking Dwayne and Ellen. But no one.....NO ONE dislikes Dick Van Dyke. That dude alone could probably end all wars just by asking people to get along. Yet he chooses not to....

....because he's the antichrist.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 16, 2016, 08:59:34 PM
I seem to recall that Dick Van Dyke had a some pretty big character flaw. I don't think he was a raging asshole (that would be Andy Griffith), but I think he was a pretty mean drunk.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on August 17, 2016, 05:53:10 AM
With Trump's new manager switch, I can't help but think that the job of president isn't what Trump is after. I'll bet a dollar that after his loss in November he puts together a Trump News Network that will deliver 'unbiased news'.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on August 17, 2016, 05:55:30 AM
Call him crazy, but I think Michael Moore was right on the money. I think he's been sabotaging his campaign on purpose.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on August 17, 2016, 05:59:28 AM
I don't agree with every word out of his mouth, but Moore is a really smart guy who actually cares about this country and its people, and I think he gets way more hate than he deserves.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 17, 2016, 06:43:06 AM
I don't agree with every word out of his mouth, but Moore is a really smart guy who actually cares about this country and its people, and I think he gets way more hate than he deserves.

IMO he's a lot like Trump. I can agree with a lot that he 'believes' but his presentation and personality ruin it for me. He comes off too smug and condescending for my taste.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 17, 2016, 07:14:09 AM
I don't agree with every word out of his mouth, but Moore is a really smart guy who actually cares about this country and its people, and I think he gets way more hate than he deserves.

IMO he's a lot like Trump. I can agree with a lot that he 'believes' but his presentation and personality ruin it for me. He comes off too smug and condescending for my taste.

That's because he's part of the liberal Hollywood elite. Personally, I think he made an ass of himself when he made that Bush video after 9/11.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 17, 2016, 07:20:56 AM
I don't agree with every word out of his mouth, but Moore is a really smart guy who actually cares about this country and its people, and I think he gets way more hate than he deserves.

IMO he's a lot like Trump. I can agree with a lot that he 'believes' but his presentation and personality ruin it for me. He comes off too smug and condescending for my taste.

That's because he's part of the liberal Hollywood elite. Personally, I think he made an ass of himself when he made that Bush video after 9/11.

Michael Moore's video on Columbine was pretty good I thought, everything else after that has made me dislike him. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Elite on August 17, 2016, 07:24:30 AM
I just read the post on his website and it looks quie convincing indeed.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 17, 2016, 07:29:07 AM
I don't agree with every word out of his mouth, but Moore is a really smart guy who actually cares about this country and its people, and I think he gets way more hate than he deserves.

IMO he's a lot like Trump. I can agree with a lot that he 'believes' but his presentation and personality ruin it for me. He comes off too smug and condescending for my taste.

That's because he's part of the liberal Hollywood elite. Personally, I think he made an ass of himself when he made that Bush video after 9/11.

Michael Moore's video on Columbine was pretty good I thought, everything else after that has made me dislike him.

I don't think I saw that one. As Alex Jones calls him in a rant of his, he's a blubber butt.  :lol  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js1D1hMTC0g
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on August 17, 2016, 07:40:17 AM
Alex Jones is no shining star of humility and decency himself.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on August 17, 2016, 07:43:49 AM
I don't agree with every word out of his mouth, but Moore is a really smart guy who actually cares about this country and its people, and I think he gets way more hate than he deserves.

IMO he's a lot like Trump. I can agree with a lot that he 'believes' but his presentation and personality ruin it for me. He comes off too smug and condescending for my taste.

That's because he's part of the liberal Hollywood elite. Personally, I think he made an ass of himself when he made that Bush video after 9/11.

Michael Moore's video on Columbine was pretty good I thought, everything else after that has made me dislike him.

I thought "Capitalism: A Love Story" was good as well. That and BFC are the only ones I've watched in their entirety. I think he's better at doing interviews and participating on panels than he is at making films. He's been great every time he's been on Real Time.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 17, 2016, 08:09:12 AM
I seem to recall that Dick Van Dyke had a some pretty big character flaw. I don't think he was a raging asshole (that would be Andy Griffith), but I think he was a pretty mean drunk.

Zac Efron.  Who doesn't love Zac Efron?   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 17, 2016, 08:15:33 AM
I don't agree with every word out of his mouth, but Moore is a really smart guy who actually cares about this country and its people, and I think he gets way more hate than he deserves.

IMO he's a lot like Trump. I can agree with a lot that he 'believes' but his presentation and personality ruin it for me. He comes off too smug and condescending for my taste.

That's because he's part of the liberal Hollywood elite. Personally, I think he made an ass of himself when he made that Bush video after 9/11.

Michael Moore's video on Columbine was pretty good I thought, everything else after that has made me dislike him.

I thought "Capitalism: A Love Story" was good as well. That and BFC are the only ones I've watched in their entirety. I think he's better at doing interviews and participating on panels than he is at making films. He's been great every time he's been on Real Time.

He's got a modicum of talent, but I have to put him in the "too-smug-for-their-own-and-our-good, liberal Hollywood elite".  He's just flat out WRONG on his facts too often to be taken seriously.  It's my big beef with the Stewart's of the world as well; they have a master, and it's the audience that wants to hear what it WANTS to hear, not what it NEEDS to hear, and so truth and factual accuracy is sacrificed for the message.   I'll bet if you tied down Michael Moore and threatened him with flushing his donuts down the crapper, he'd confess that he feels he and his cronies in Hollywood - blowing smoke up his ass about how "right" he is - have 20 to 25 IQ points on even the smartest person living between the Rocky Mountains and the Blue Ridge Mountains.  His open and unabashed contempt for anyone that doesn't automatically see things HIS WAY is a huge red flag for me, and makes it hard to take him seriously.

I don't doubt his integrity from the standpoint of him believing it, but I do doubt his integrity to present contrasting views and multiple sides to each issue.    it's all just "CORPORATIONS!  BAD!  BUSH!  BAD!"
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Lucien on August 18, 2016, 02:03:01 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/18/justice-department-says-it-will-end-use-of-private-prisons/?utm_term=.53444f6ffc89
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 18, 2016, 02:07:28 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/08/18/justice-department-says-it-will-end-use-of-private-prisons/?utm_term=.53444f6ffc89

Not sure how this relates to the presidential race, but  :tup and honestly hope this is the start of drug law reform as well
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Lucien on August 18, 2016, 02:08:42 PM
Not sure how this relates to the presidential race

well, it was one of bernie sanders' big policies
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 18, 2016, 02:11:53 PM
Not sure how this relates to the presidential race

well, it was one of bernie sanders' big policies

Then a good one for Bernie, I didn't see much talk about this during the primary cycle myself.  I've never been a fan of private prisons.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 18, 2016, 02:44:27 PM
As I've said in the past, imprisoning people should be painful. It should cost you money. Trying to get around that only creates problems. Unfortunately, nobody gives a shit about prisoners, and in some cases the cheaper and more miserable you can make a prison, the more the citizens will clamor for you to do it. While the federal government stops renewing CCA's contracts, the State of Texas will gladly pick them up.

Perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, there are plenty of references to the recent undercover expose on privatized prisons that Mother Jones did. I'm reading that now. Sounds about like what you'd expect when you're trying to house bad people en masse as inexpensively as possible.

Quote
He asks us what we should do if we see two inmates stabbing each other.

"I'd probably call somebody," a cadet offers.

"I'd sit there and holler 'stop,'" says a veteran guard.

Mr. Tucker points at her. "Damn right. That's it. If they don't pay attention to you, hey, there ain't nothing else you can do."

He cups his hands around his mouth. "Stop fighting," he says to some invisible prisoners. "I said, 'Stop fighting.'" His voice is nonchalant. "Y'all ain't go' to stop, huh?" He makes like he's backing out of a door and slams it shut. "Leave your ass in there!"

"Somebody's go' win. Somebody's go' lose. They both might lose, but hey, did you do your job? Hell yeah!" The classroom erupts in laughter.

We could try to break up a fight if we wanted, he says, but since we won't have pepper spray or a nightstick, he wouldn't recommend it. "We are not going to pay you that much," he says emphatically. "The next raise you get is not going to be much more than the one you got last time. The only thing that's important to us is that we go home at the end of the day. Period. So if them fools want to cut each other, well, happy cutting."

Sounds a helluva lot like the experience a certain highly unpopular record producer had with Wackenhut in Texas a few years back. I don't have time to look for the original sources, but here's my post on it some time ago. https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=42406.msg1884786#msg1884786
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 18, 2016, 10:11:19 PM
I've watched about a dozen youtube videos of Trump rallies over the last year, not as much since he won the nomination but today I read an article on Reuters about how Trump made a speech in Charlotte earlier today where he said all the right things the Republican party has been wanting him to say all along, including admitting to "saying the wrong things" occasionally, so I thought to check it out.
So all Trump rallies I've watched before had opening speakers that were somewhat prestigious right wing figures, relatively of course, but this one was very different, ridiculous to the point that made Trump sound like the most civilized restrained person to be on that stage today.
Without further ado I present to you Diamond and Silk (https://youtu.be/IAjWtnGihYA?t=267), projecting the most hysterical stereotypical caricatures of black women I've ever seen in a non-comedy context.
That is just my pick for a highlight, if you got time I'd recommend watching all the opening speakers, especially the one the follows Diamond and Silk, a guy who at one point says "all lives matter, black lives matter, white lives matter, Asian lives matter, Indian lives matter, yellow lives matter".
I tell you folks you can't make this shit up, you can try, but you'll fail. In the words of Mr. Kenny Bania "This is gold Jerry, Gold!"
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on August 19, 2016, 05:57:50 AM
Michael Moore was on The Kelly File a while back, and he and Megyn Kelly had a very nice interview and conversation.  Both come off very well. :tup :tup
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 19, 2016, 05:59:05 AM
Michael Moore was on The Kelly File a while back, and he and Megyn Kelly had a very nice interview and conversation.  Both come off very well. :tup :tup

There are so many ways to respond to that.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on August 19, 2016, 08:42:04 AM
Trump's campaign has gone completely off the rails.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37134440

US election: Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort quits

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Elite on August 19, 2016, 02:19:54 PM
In the news here as well.

The revolving door in Trump's campaign team.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 19, 2016, 02:29:07 PM
You can say all the bad things you want about his campaign, it's true, the revolving doors don't make things look good.  But for him, I think the last 24 hours have been some of his best actually.

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-takes-role-president-hard-hit-louisiana/ (https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-takes-role-president-hard-hit-louisiana/)

Pretty favorable article towards Trump, but this is one of those areas where I always thought Trump was weak.  Like would he be able to give a heartfelt speech after a school shooting?  Would he be able to make a grieving wife of a soldier feel comfort after her husband died protecting the country?  I always thought he might not be able to do those things.  He proved me wrong today.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 19, 2016, 02:55:03 PM
You can say all the bad things you want about his campaign, it's true, the revolving doors don't make things look good.  But for him, I think the last 24 hours have been some of his best actually.

https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-takes-role-president-hard-hit-louisiana/ (https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trump-takes-role-president-hard-hit-louisiana/)

Pretty favorable biased article towards Trump, but this is one of those areas where I always thought Trump was weak.  Like would he be able to give a heartfelt speech after a school shooting?  Would he be able to make a grieving wife of a soldier feel comfort after her husband died protecting the country?  I always thought he might not be able to do those things.  He proved me wrong today.
The very first picture tells you all you need to know about the credibility of the article.

In any case, this thing is pretty rotten when you get right down to it for the double-standards going on. When Sean Penn was down there actually rescuing people the republicans ridiculed him for being an opportunist and media hog. When Trump goes down there to glad-hand and sign autographs he's a wonderful human being. I fully appreciate the benefit of moral support, and I have no doubt that he's lifting the spirits of some people who've been dumped on far too often. I just don't think this is worthy of heaping praise on him. As for Obama, he's right to stay away. If it takes 50 local LEO to assist with protection duty, that's fifty guys who aren't out helping others. It's a tragic waste of resources.

By way of comparison, when Obama was in Dallas after all those cops got shot, three neighboring communities sent volunteer officers over to handle that aspect as the DPD wasn't really able or inclined to dick with it. Had they not done that, I suspect Obama would have been asked to stay way then, just as he was in LA.

As for Hillary, verdicts still out on that. This might be a real slight on her part. It really depends on how much of a distraction political photo-ops are. If she didn't require added local security, then yeah, she should have made an appearance. Like I said, moral support matters.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 20, 2016, 07:04:33 AM
Sean Penn is an opportunist and a media hog.  Just wanted to put that out there.  :)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on August 20, 2016, 07:46:06 AM
Sean Penn is an opportunist and a media hog.  Just wanted to put that out there.  :)

Well, yeah.  I roll my eyes big time at any actor who gets too mouthy with politics and whatnot. It's like, make your movies and shut up.  Penn is at the top of the list with Clooney and Affleck (who has turned into a raging d-bag over the years) as far as actors who take themselves way too seriously in regards to this kind of thing.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 20, 2016, 12:23:41 PM
Sean Penn is an opportunist and a media hog.  Just wanted to put that out there.  :)

A perfectly brilliant actor ruining it by opening his whiny liberal mouth.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 20, 2016, 02:30:27 PM
I've noticed that repeatedly all over the internet, celebrities suck if they voice their opinions, unless they happen to be the right opinions then they're all right. DiCaprio, Affleck and Damon should shut up and make their movies but Ted Nugent, he's got the right idea, you tell 'em Nug! it's okay for him to voice his opinions.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on August 20, 2016, 02:35:57 PM
I can't recall ever seeing anyone say something positive about Ted Nugent.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 20, 2016, 03:01:56 PM
Not here, I'm just mentioning something I've noticed all over social media. For a small example that's easy to look through, check out the replies on any Blabbermouth or Loud wire article on Nugent's political quotes and check out replies on any comments by a liberal musician.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on August 20, 2016, 03:05:00 PM
Ugh, reading replies to a Blabbermouth articles has to be as bad as reading comments on YT videos. :facepalm: :lol

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 20, 2016, 04:11:01 PM
Agreed of course, I could have brought that up as an example as well but as bad as they are; they do exist and they are many so they are significant, IMO.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 20, 2016, 06:44:08 PM
I've noticed that repeatedly all over the internet, celebrities suck if they voice their opinions, unless they happen to be the right opinions then they're all right. DiCaprio, Affleck and Damon should shut up and make their movies but Ted Nugent, he's got the right idea, you tell 'em Nug! it's okay for him to voice his opinions.

Ted Nugent is entertaining. Ironically, Ben Affleck is supposed to be an actor but I don't find him entertaining at all. The difference is that Ted rebuts people who attack him and come at him for what he belives, and he has his own radio show. Those other three will start proselytizing on an Academy Award stage during an acceptance speech.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 20, 2016, 07:53:28 PM
That is their stage, if he could run his mouth at the Academy Award stage do you think he'll hold back? But that's not what this is about, it's about the loser perspective of denying people opinions just cause there careers are not "serious" enough or because they are not politicians so they don't know enough to form an opinion or for whatever reason they tell themselves and others, it's not any of this, it's butt hurt people that celebrities who project their opinion don't have as much exposure as those who project opposing opinions. They're saying "just do your thing and don't talk about this" but that is bull shit, the very statement is bull shit and you know if the shoe was on the other foot they would have totally hailed these celebrities.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 20, 2016, 08:12:49 PM
That is their stage, if he could run his mouth at the Academy Award stage do you think he'll hold back? But that's not what this is about, it's about the loser perspective of denying people opinions just cause there careers are not "serious" enough or because they are not politicians so they don't know enough to form an opinion or for whatever reason they tell themselves and others, it's not any of this, it's butt hurt people that celebrities who project their opinion don't have as much exposure as those who project opposing opinions. They're saying "just do your thing and don't talk about this" but that is bull shit, the very statement is bull shit and you know if the shoe was on the other foot they would have totally hailed these celebrities.

It's hypocritical. People who are more right wing in Hollywood are definitely more ostracized, with very few exceptions. There is such political bias in Hollywood, it's ridiculous, so I don't think people should be complaining about someone like Ted Nugent being vociferous with his opinions. The problem is that these Hollywood libtards are so self-righteous that they think their shit don't stink. I could care less if Matt Damon thinks guns are bad (oh the irony there) or Leonardo DiCaprio wants to go on political rants on the awards stage, but don't get all pissy when someone wants to have an opposing opinion. They're hypocrites.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 20, 2016, 08:20:45 PM
but don't get all pissy when someone wants to have an opposing opinion. They're hypocrites.

Thus we agree, if I understand your post correctly.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 20, 2016, 08:39:17 PM
Well, I think we both agree that discounting someone's opinion because it opposes your own is hypocritical. However, I don't think we agree in that the liberals in Hollywood are far more hypocritical when it comes to accepting opposing opinions.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 20, 2016, 11:19:11 PM
I've noticed that repeatedly all over the internet, celebrities suck if they voice their opinions, unless they happen to be the right opinions then they're all right. DiCaprio, Affleck and Damon should shut up and make their movies but Ted Nugent, he's got the right idea, you tell 'em Nug! it's okay for him to voice his opinions.

Ted Nugent is entertaining. Ironically, Ben Affleck is supposed to be an actor but I don't find him entertaining at all. The difference is that Ted rebuts people who attack him and come at him for what he belives, and he has his own radio show. Those other three will start proselytizing on an Academy Award stage during an acceptance speech.
I suppose if Ted's artistic talent ever earns him a national audience at an awards show we'll see how he uses his time. He's probably got an NRA lifetime achievement award coming up pretty soon. The truth is that the Afflecks and Penns of the world are talented actors who use their free time to preach to lefties. Nugent is a conservative talk show host who co-wrote some great songs back when I was 8. They both try to use their recognition as a means to tell people what they think. I honestly got no problem with either of them.

How that relates to Penn going to disaster areas and trying to help out is beyond me. People are real quick to dismiss his actions because of what they think of his politics. I'm not out to canonize the guy or anything, but ridiculing him while praising Trump for a couple of hours of glad-handing is damned petty.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 20, 2016, 11:45:32 PM
Well, I think we both agree that discounting someone's opinion because it opposes your own is hypocritical.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about originally in my post.

However, I don't think we agree in that the liberals in Hollywood are far more hypocritical when it comes to accepting opposing opinions.

That's a different topic IMO, I'm on the fence on whether or not that's true. I think most liberal celebrities fight back against opposing opinions through irony and sarcasm and the more tolerant ones fight back by trying to implement logic and discussion that's based on facts and then some are just douchebags who'd belittle the opposing opinion and verge on intellectual bulling of some sort, these are awful I agree. But the first two types are the majority, I feel. And they're often met with frustration from most conservatives instead of countering their methods with similar ones, "Oh why can't you just accept that I have my opinion", well this has nothing to do with acceptance, we're in the same boat and your opinion clashes with mine so I wanna hash it out, why would it be case closed that we disagree? Well okay case closed from your end then but I'm still gonna say shit!
I've noticed that also on normal people level here in the U.S., I was excited about discussing politics and history with people and when I finally got an office job -I used to travel a lot in my job- I got to get closer to a bunch of people on daily basis. I've noticed liberals and leftists could be dismissive of your opinions but would still get into it with you while Republicans and conservatives are more dismissive of the discussion itself. I was more anxious to talk to Republicans here in the U.S. cause the American T.V. I've watched from back home had painted them in a light that I felt was unrealistic for people who live in a first world country, I remember one of the first discussions I've had with a Republican at my work here ,was bout gun control I think, and it ended with him saying "Well opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one! haha", I wanted to say but you really haven't countered the case I was making even though I countered yours but I felt he wanted to end at that note with the joke he made so laughed with him and that was that. Nice guy in all aspects though, he's an ex-vet that carries a gun under his truck seat because he's "got it on good authority that ISIL is already here and going for ex-vets first" yet he'd be the one warning me if the refried beans were made with pork fat when we went for group lunches at work.
I think conservatives like you and Stadler are uncommon and things would be nicer if you weren't, you have more buffer space for a give and take process and that's always refreshing even if there's no immediate resolutions to the discussions, at least people get to understand each other better and have empathy, but I digress.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 21, 2016, 08:35:14 AM
praising Trump for a couple of hours of glad-handing is damned petty.

That's the second time you've said he was just there 'glad handing'. I guess the 18 wheeler of supplies that he arranged to head down there doesn't count for anything, or the $$ he donated to the relief cause? Besides....WHEN obama decides to end his vacation of golfing and surfing and shows up for a 15 minuted press conference....all he'll be doing is a photo op? Speaking of Hillary...that was a really sweet tweet she sent out....I'm sure that'll warm the hearts of everyone. I'm not naive enough to think that Trump didn't use this occasion for a bit of publicity as well, but he certainly looked more Presidential in this crisis than either the vacationer in chief and the sociopath he's running against.

 Friggin' Bush was lambasted for Katria despite warning the region DAYS in advance that the storm was of historic levels.....yet, obama is getting to use a bit of hillary's free pass on his 'response'...err....non-existent response to this disaster. I get he's a lame duck and doesn't give a holy heck about anything right now unless a black kid gets shot by a white cop....then he'll do what he did when mike brown got shot and cut his vacation short and skip a round of golf to lecture America.....but this is just another example of just how horrid a "leader" he is. The whole defense of him 'wasting' local manpower and resources is a croc-o-crap defense as well. He absolutely could have shown up had he given a   :censored ....but he doesn't and I know that by way of simple observation. True leaders show up in instances like this...obama has never been a true leader, he's always been a counterfeit.



And as far as the celebrities go....they are in a whole different world than "normal" people. Speaking of elite and social classes....they operate on an entirely different level. It's comical to me to get lectured to about guns from guys like Penn and Damon and Affleck who have made shit tons of money off of exploiting them, or getting corrected and tutored on the environment by guys like DeCaprio who's Carbon Footprint would take me six lifetimes to match. STFU and make your movies....sing your songs....and live in your "special" reality where everyone else is beneath you.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 21, 2016, 09:16:21 AM
Well there you go  :)
So I'm not clear on whether or not Gary Johnson will be allowed to debate, is it still possible?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Lucien on August 21, 2016, 10:56:06 AM
libtards

(https://sentinelorder.com/emotes/no.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 21, 2016, 11:36:09 AM
praising Trump for a couple of hours of glad-handing is damned petty.

That's the second time you've said he was just there 'glad handing'. I guess the 18 wheeler of supplies that he arranged to head down there doesn't count for anything, or the $$ he donated to the relief cause? Besides....WHEN obama decides to end his vacation of golfing and surfing and shows up for a 15 minuted press conference....all he'll be doing is a photo op? Speaking of Hillary...that was a really sweet tweet she sent out....I'm sure that'll warm the hearts of everyone. I'm not naive enough to think that Trump didn't use this occasion for a bit of publicity as well, but he certainly looked more Presidential in this crisis than either the vacationer in chief and the sociopath he's running against.

 Friggin' Bush was lambasted for Katria despite warning the region DAYS in advance that the storm was of historic levels.....yet, obama is getting to use a bit of hillary's free pass on his 'response'...err....non-existent response to this disaster. I get he's a lame duck and doesn't give a holy heck about anything right now unless a black kid gets shot by a white cop....then he'll do what he did when mike brown got shot and cut his vacation short and skip a round of golf to lecture America.....but this is just another example of just how horrid a "leader" he is. The whole defense of him 'wasting' local manpower and resources is a croc-o-crap defense as well. He absolutely could have shown up had he given a   :censored ....but he doesn't and I know that by way of simple observation. True leaders show up in instances like this...obama has never been a true leader, he's always been a counterfeit.



And as far as the celebrities go....they are in a whole different world than "normal" people. Speaking of elite and social classes....they operate on an entirely different level. It's comical to me to get lectured to about guns from guys like Penn and Damon and Affleck who have made shit tons of money off of exploiting them, or getting corrected and tutored on the environment by guys like DeCaprio who's Carbon Footprint would take me six lifetimes to match. STFU and make your movies....sing your songs....and live in your "special" reality where everyone else is beneath you.
I've asked for examples of Trump doing something helpful, and you've finally given one. I don't honestly give him many points for the cash, as writing a check is a freebee for him, but a truck full of supplies would certainly be helpful. But my problem really isn't with him glad-handing, but the double-standard people are making between him and Penn. They both contribute in their own way, yet one's a publicity whore and the other "looks presidential." And quite frankly, if it had been Hillary signing autographs and writing checks, and not Trump, you'd be blasting her for the self-promotion.

As for Obama and Bush, they were both right to stay away. Bush was also on vacation, if you recall, but their arrivals would have been a tragic diversion of resources. The reason Bush got blasted all to hell, and nowhere near enough, in my opinion, was for failing to act when everybody knew it was coming days in advance. I had a discussion 4 days before landfall about how NO was absolutely fucking doomed. Appropriate federal aid didn't get put into motion until after it was too late. Hell, the freaking Cubans offered up help that would have beaten US disaster relief by several days.

I never called Bush a racist for letting black folk die in Katrina. I don't fault him for flying over on the way home from Crawford. I do consider Katrina a textbook example of typical Bush incompetence.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 21, 2016, 12:16:13 PM
It's exceedingly hypocritical to criticize Trump for the way he does things but ignore people on the opposing side for doing the same thing, and sometimes even worse. It's as if only right wing politicians and supporters are capable of doing bad or have alterior motives for their altruistic inclinations. I laugh every time I see someone say Trump did this but he can write it off, so it means nothing, yet everyone gives Oprah a fingerbang for all of her good deeds that she gets to write off as well. It shows just how brainwashed some people are and how biased political discussions reveal themselves to be. For every wrong thing Trump has done, which aren't many since he has spent limited time in the political crosshairs, much like our current President before he was nominated, I'll show you worse from the other side. When I see people spend the same time attacking the questionable motives of the left wing politicians, and don't even try and tell me Trump is worse than them, then I can unequivocally say that the discussion is bipartisan. Trump has said a lot of ridiculous things, but how about speaking of the actual actions of your left wing nominee, along with the others. I've seen every excuse in the book for her and it's risible. My favorite is that because the government didn't find sufficient evidence she is probably innocent. Right, because the government would never lie to us. All I have seen are one-sided arguments from people who claim to call it how they see it or claim they don't fully like either candidate. However, it's as believable as an honest politician with a blank check.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 21, 2016, 01:03:20 PM
It's exceedingly hypocritical to criticize Trump for the way he does things but ignore people on the opposing side for doing the same thing, and sometimes even worse. It's as if only right wing politicians and supporters are capable of doing bad or have alterior motives for their altruistic inclinations. I laugh every time I see someone say Trump did this but he can write it off, so it means nothing, yet everyone gives Oprah a fingerbang for all of her good deeds that she gets to write off as well. It shows just how brainwashed some people are and how biased political discussions reveal themselves to be. For every wrong thing Trump has done, which aren't many since he has spent limited time in the political crosshairs, much like our current President before he was nominated, I'll show you worse from the other side. When I see people spend the same time attacking the questionable motives of the left wing politicians, and don't even try and tell me Trump is worse than them, then I can unequivocally say that the discussion is bipartisan. Trump has said a lot of ridiculous things, but how about speaking of the actual actions of your left wing nominee, along with the others. I've seen every excuse in the book for her and it's risible. My favorite is that because the government didn't find sufficient evidence she is probably innocent. Right, because the government would never lie to us. All I have seen are one-sided arguments from people who claim to call it how they see it or claim they don't fully like either candidate. However, it's as believable as an honest politician with a blank check.
I agree. But then I haven't been criticizing Trump. As I said earlier, even if all he did was glad-hand and sign autographs, I'm a firm believer in the benefit of moral support. As long as he didn't create a diversion of personnel I commend him for going down there. I don't think it's Trump and his fans who are the victims of hypocrisy, though. I do suspect they're the ones that ridiculed Penn for his efforts, though, while holding up St. Donald as an icon of presidential demeanor.

You tell me, were Penn's actions any less commendable than Trump's?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 21, 2016, 01:08:36 PM
I do consider Katrina a textbook example of typical Bush incompetence.

Wasn't it more a failure of FEMA and our Federal Governments inability to be prepared for that massive of a natural disaster? Bush was the Pres. and the glaring incompetency's of our ability to respond Federally were exposed on his shift so by default he has to take some of the hit.....but I think that the issues we saw with the response to Katrina Federally had been there all along but given we'd never faced that magnitude of disaster and the circumstances surrounding it, those issues remained unknown until it was too late.

And quite frankly, if it had been Hillary signing autographs and writing checks, and not Trump, you'd be blasting her for the self-promotion. 


It's tough to say for me. If the same info. were presented for Hillary and she had arranged a semi truck of supplies, met it down there and handed them out and cut a check out of her own $$....I hope I'd at least give her credit for that. I tell you what, it'd have done nothing but help her image and maybe shifted some opinions of her.

 But alas she didn't....and my opinion as to why is because she's doing what she's done all along thus far and that is answering as little questions as possible, doing as little interviews and public meetings as possible.....all aided by the clearly biased media in an effort to keep as little as possible about anything she says or does off of the airwaves in the hopes that Trump will hang himself with the rope he's being given. Up to this point it's worked...it's smart. We shall see if Trump catches on to that, and can fight his impulse to hang himself.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 21, 2016, 01:12:51 PM
You tell me, were Penn's actions any less commendable than Trump's?

I don't think so. It be great if what he did ended with his kind actions...but they don't. Those actions are near always followed by a pious lecture from a quaint interview.....

 My personal problem with Penn are his countless political statements about America and how horrible we are.....all the while he's built quite a nice life for himself thanks to this 'horrible' country. He and the rest of Hollywood live in a completely different world than the rest of humanity and think that when they decide to champion a cause or come down from their palace and walk with the commoners that what they have to say should be treated as a great gift to mankind.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 21, 2016, 01:16:05 PM
It's exceedingly hypocritical to criticize Trump for the way he does things but ignore people on the opposing side for doing the same thing, and sometimes even worse. It's as if only right wing politicians and supporters are capable of doing bad or have alterior motives for their altruistic inclinations. I laugh every time I see someone say Trump did this but he can write it off, so it means nothing, yet everyone gives Oprah a fingerbang for all of her good deeds that she gets to write off as well. It shows just how brainwashed some people are and how biased political discussions reveal themselves to be. For every wrong thing Trump has done, which aren't many since he has spent limited time in the political crosshairs, much like our current President before he was nominated, I'll show you worse from the other side. When I see people spend the same time attacking the questionable motives of the left wing politicians, and don't even try and tell me Trump is worse than them, then I can unequivocally say that the discussion is bipartisan. Trump has said a lot of ridiculous things, but how about speaking of the actual actions of your left wing nominee, along with the others. I've seen every excuse in the book for her and it's risible. My favorite is that because the government didn't find sufficient evidence she is probably innocent. Right, because the government would never lie to us. All I have seen are one-sided arguments from people who claim to call it how they see it or claim they don't fully like either candidate. However, it's as believable as an honest politician with a blank check.
I agree. But then I haven't been criticizing Trump. As I said earlier, even if all he did was glad-hand and sign autographs, I'm a firm believer in the benefit of moral support. As long as he didn't create a diversion of personnel I commend him for going down there. I don't think it's Trump and his fans who are the victims of hypocrisy, though. I do suspect they're the ones that ridiculed Penn for his efforts, though, while holding up St. Donald as an icon of presidential demeanor.

You tell me, were Penn's actions any less commendable than Trump's?

Not at all. Personally, I think Trump has more to gain by going down there with his hand extended, but that doesn't mean it was completely selfish either.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on August 21, 2016, 01:20:07 PM


 My personal problem with Penn are his countless political statements about America and how horrible we are.....all the while he's built quite a nice life for himself thanks to this 'horrible' country. He and the rest of Hollywood live in a completely different world than the rest of humanity and think that when they decide to champion a cause or come down from their palace and walk with the commoners that what they have to say should be treated as a great gift to mankind.

That's a problem I have with a lot of liberals these days. They act like we still live in a society that is largely racist, homophobic, etc., yet there they were at the DNC talking like America is so great and perfect the way it is.  I get that it was a counterpoint to Trump's over the top "make America great again" mantra, but it comes off as more political BS.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 21, 2016, 02:30:31 PM
I do consider Katrina a textbook example of typical Bush incompetence.

Wasn't it more a failure of FEMA and our Federal Governments inability to be prepared for that massive of a natural disaster? Bush was the Pres. and the glaring incompetency's of our ability to respond Federally were exposed on his shift so by default he has to take some of the hit.....but I think that the issues we saw with the response to Katrina Federally had been there all along but given we'd never faced that magnitude of disaster and the circumstances surrounding it, those issues remained unknown until it was too late.
The impending disaster was clear enough and severe enough that it required guidance from the highest level very early on. This isn't something that you blame on the night-shift assistant supervisor in the Des Moines field office of the FEMA. Katrina was tantamount to China declaring war on the state of Louisiana. If the governor says he can handle it you don't believe him, and you don't just count on the LNG to fight them off. The time to mobilize is when you get the ultimatum. Not once they've landed on the beachhead.




 My personal problem with Penn are his countless political statements about America and how horrible we are.....all the while he's built quite a nice life for himself thanks to this 'horrible' country. He and the rest of Hollywood live in a completely different world than the rest of humanity and think that when they decide to champion a cause or come down from their palace and walk with the commoners that what they have to say should be treated as a great gift to mankind.

That's a problem I have with a lot of liberals these days. They act like we still live in a society that is largely racist, homophobic, etc., yet there they were at the DNC talking like America is so great and perfect the way it is.  I get that it was a counterpoint to Trump's over the top "make America great again" mantra, but it comes off as more political BS.
As long as we're generalizing, my problem with conservatives is a complete inability or unwillingness to differentiate between criticism and contempt. If you and I were to discuss over a beer the quality of education and healthcare in this country, we'd both agree that they're pretty fucking awful. Yet if liberal says as much publicly it's because he hates America; the lousy ingrate.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on August 21, 2016, 07:15:10 PM


 My personal problem with Penn are his countless political statements about America and how horrible we are.....all the while he's built quite a nice life for himself thanks to this 'horrible' country. He and the rest of Hollywood live in a completely different world than the rest of humanity and think that when they decide to champion a cause or come down from their palace and walk with the commoners that what they have to say should be treated as a great gift to mankind.

That's a problem I have with a lot of liberals these days. They act like we still live in a society that is largely racist, homophobic, etc., yet there they were at the DNC talking like America is so great and perfect the way it is.  I get that it was a counterpoint to Trump's over the top "make America great again" mantra, but it comes off as more political BS.
As long as we're generalizing, my problem with conservatives is a complete inability or unwillingness to differentiate between criticism and contempt. If you and I were to discuss over a beer the quality of education and healthcare in this country, we'd both agree that they're pretty fucking awful. Yet if liberal says as much publicly it's because he hates America; the lousy ingrate.

Agreed.  Liberals seem to dislike a lot of what America is and want to change it, and conservatives seem to love what America used to be (and still is on some levels) and are fighting like hell to not let it slip away, generally speaking.  And both go overboard in their own direction trying to get their way. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 21, 2016, 07:15:23 PM
As long as we're generalizing, my problem with conservatives is a complete inability or unwillingness to differentiate between criticism and contempt.

That's what my above posts would have said if I was better at English writing instead of all the rambling  :lol, I agree.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 22, 2016, 08:30:55 AM
Not here, I'm just mentioning something I've noticed all over social media. For a small example that's easy to look through, check out the replies on any Blabbermouth or Loud wire article on Nugent's political quotes and check out replies on any comments by a liberal musician.

Are you joking?  Do you ever read Rolling Confirmation Bias Magazine?  (You might know it as "Rolling Stone").   DiCaprio, Affleck, et al. are considered rational, common-sense truth tellers, and Nugent is openly mocked as a fucking lunatic.   RS actually bankrolled Penn's recent reckless, borderline illegal trip to Mexico to "interview" El Chapo.  Springsteen - who openly campaigns for liberal candidates - is considered, now, the "voice of America" by many.   John Mellencamp is considered a legend and an icon, and he's as far left as you can go and still call yourself "Democrat".   Stipe.  Petty.  Young (Neil).  And I'm not even including the Europeans (Martin, Bono, Sting, Gabriel...)  All revered at least in part due to their political bent. 

To voice legitimate Conservative opinions as a major artist (music or theater) is to make yourself a pariah.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 22, 2016, 08:43:02 AM
Well, I think we both agree that discounting someone's opinion because it opposes your own is hypocritical. However, I don't think we agree in that the liberals in Hollywood are far more hypocritical when it comes to accepting opposing opinions.

I'm usually the first to discount cries of "hypocrisy"; I think that label is over-used and it's importance overblown, but I think it is appropriately applied to Hollywood.  These people are, by and large, ridiculous in their politics and their policies.   Perhaps "hypocrisy" isn't the exact right word, but there is an element of self-indulgence in their politics that really makes me scratch my head.   The pandering of sex and violence on screen while decrying it's presence in real life.   The neo-socialist economic viewpoint (it's not really "socialist"; but it's a good word to create perspective) while their entire existence is based on the most cruel version of free market capitalism.    The judgmental viewpoint that somehow the bubble they live in is indicative of the world at large (the underlying ideology that spawned the "Limousine Liberal" moniker).    The almost Olympian-level ability to turn a blind eye to levels of abuse and recklessness with regards to the children of Hollywood (it's no coincidence that the epicenter of the multibillion dollar porn industry is right outside Hollywood, and while I'm all about libertarian values, you cannot tell me that those glassy-eyed, overly-made up young girls are ALL their as a matter of choice and free will)...   

It's easy (and FUN!) to make fun of the zealous conservative - listen to Ted go!  He's a NUT! - but your liberal next door neighbor and Richard Gere or Meryl Streep are WORLDS apart, just like I'm WORLDS apart from Ted. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 22, 2016, 08:46:48 AM
To voice legitimate Conservative opinions as a major artist (music or theater) is to make yourself a pariah.

I dont even think you need to be a major artist to have your conservative opinion turn into you being labelled a racists and whatnot. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 22, 2016, 08:49:31 AM
It's exceedingly hypocritical to criticize Trump for the way he does things but ignore people on the opposing side for doing the same thing, and sometimes even worse. It's as if only right wing politicians and supporters are capable of doing bad or have alterior motives for their altruistic inclinations. I laugh every time I see someone say Trump did this but he can write it off, so it means nothing, yet everyone gives Oprah a fingerbang for all of her good deeds that she gets to write off as well. It shows just how brainwashed some people are and how biased political discussions reveal themselves to be. For every wrong thing Trump has done, which aren't many since he has spent limited time in the political crosshairs, much like our current President before he was nominated, I'll show you worse from the other side. When I see people spend the same time attacking the questionable motives of the left wing politicians, and don't even try and tell me Trump is worse than them, then I can unequivocally say that the discussion is bipartisan. Trump has said a lot of ridiculous things, but how about speaking of the actual actions of your left wing nominee, along with the others. I've seen every excuse in the book for her and it's risible. My favorite is that because the government didn't find sufficient evidence she is probably innocent. Right, because the government would never lie to us. All I have seen are one-sided arguments from people who claim to call it how they see it or claim they don't fully like either candidate. However, it's as believable as an honest politician with a blank check.
I agree. But then I haven't been criticizing Trump. As I said earlier, even if all he did was glad-hand and sign autographs, I'm a firm believer in the benefit of moral support. As long as he didn't create a diversion of personnel I commend him for going down there. I don't think it's Trump and his fans who are the victims of hypocrisy, though. I do suspect they're the ones that ridiculed Penn for his efforts, though, while holding up St. Donald as an icon of presidential demeanor.

You tell me, were Penn's actions any less commendable than Trump's?

Two observations:

Sean Penn and Donald Trump actions can't be compared, because where the stand in society, and their objectives aren't the same.   We mock Trump for not knowing how to be a President, but isn't actually BEING there, whether he does anything or not, help him see how these things unfold?   I had no idea how impactful a disaster could be until I actually SAW the water hip deep in New Jersey after Sandy.   Or seeing the clean-up efforts in NO (my company helped rebuild the valves who's initial failure helped exacerbate the problem down there).   Or seeing the cleanup of the Shuttle disaster (my company did environmental cleanup on the wreckage of the Columbia).   

Obama didn't hesitate to "divert resources" in New Jersey a week before the election, in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: DragonAttack on August 22, 2016, 12:14:31 PM
'Obama says the sky is partly cloudy....opponents vehemently object, stating it is partly sunny.'

'Obama follows up, says the sky is partly sunny.....opponents ridicule him for flip flopping, stating that the sky is partly cloudy.'

The Louisiana governor requested on Thursday that the president and the candidates stay away, then changes his tune on Sunday.  Had the president visited last week, his opponents who are jumping on him for not visiting, would have jumped him for going against the governor's stated wishes.

Partly sunny.  Partly cloudy.  Please make up your minds.

btw......eight years ago.....per the Huffington Post
"President Bush, a longtime sports fan, immersed himself into the Olympic spirit with abandon, acting like a kid — even when his body was reminding him that he’s 62.

Yet there were reminders that the world’s troubles follow wherever Bush goes.

He received regular updates after Russia sent columns of tanks and reportedly bombed Georgian air bases Friday. That came after Georgia launched a military offensive to retake the breakaway province of South Ossetia. The fast-changing hostilities threaten to ignite a broader conflict in the region."
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 22, 2016, 12:47:54 PM
Are you really trying to show bias?  Because even if your example is true (and it is, largely) the opposite is also true:

"Trump says the sky is partly cloudy... opponents vehemently object, stating that he must've meant the sky is "dark", which of course is racist."

Trump follows up, says he was misunderstood and that it is partly sunny... opponents ridicule him for yellow hair, and claim he's not qualified to determine what state the sky is in."

Please.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: DragonAttack on August 23, 2016, 01:03:27 PM
I never once mentioned the GOP candidate.   I listed comparatives, nothing more. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 23, 2016, 01:56:17 PM
Are you really trying to show bias?  Because even if your example is true (and it is, largely) the opposite is also true:

"Trump says the sky is partly cloudy... opponents vehemently object, stating that he must've meant the sky is "dark", which of course is racist."

Trump follows up, says he was misunderstood and that it is partly sunny... opponents ridicule him for yellow hair, and claim he's not qualified to determine what state the sky is in."

Please.
Except Trump is very rarely ambiguous.  There is very rarely a "good" way to take the nonsense and rancor that spills from his mouth.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 23, 2016, 03:22:36 PM
Are you really trying to show bias?  Because even if your example is true (and it is, largely) the opposite is also true:

"Trump says the sky is partly cloudy... opponents vehemently object, stating that he must've meant the sky is "dark", which of course is racist."

Trump follows up, says he was misunderstood and that it is partly sunny... opponents ridicule him for yellow hair, and claim he's not qualified to determine what state the sky is in."

Please.
Except Trump is very rarely ambiguous.  There is very rarely a "good" way to take the nonsense and rancor that spills from his mouth.

But doesn't that prove my point?  You say he's rarely ambiguous, but the general knock is, he's too ambiguous and therefore subject to misinterpretation (his policies; that whole "2nd Amendment People" thing).     Can't be both. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 23, 2016, 03:59:39 PM
It isn't both.

He is rarely ambiguous.

The knock isn't that he is ambiguous.  It's that he's a racist misogynist faschist demagogue with a limited grasp on reality as we know it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 23, 2016, 04:13:46 PM
he's a racist misogynist faschist demagogue with a limited grasp on reality as we know it.

Opposed to Hilary who is a proven habitual,  liar who knowingly and smugly lies through her teeth to further her agenda and cover the last lie she told and whose greed and lust for power is only rivaled by her massive elitist ego.....all the while willingly ignoring the reality that we live in....in favor of the fairy tale reality she's created for her self through her and her husbands bountiful careers as thieves and politicians.

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 23, 2016, 04:19:54 PM
^ I was just gonna post something about how it's increasingly difficult to talk about Trump without Trump supporter rebuttal being about Hillary, I agree Hillary is awful and we can talk about that but you gotta have a different comeback to Trump shitiness other than Hillary's.
I think Pepsi is really awful!
Well Coke is really bad too!
I didn't bring up Coke, I was TALKING ABOUT PEPSI! :lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 23, 2016, 04:31:04 PM
^ I was just gonna post something about how it's increasingly difficult to talk about Trump without Trump supporter rebuttal being about Hillary, I agree Hillary is awful and we can talk about that but you gotta have a different comeback to Trump shitiness other than Hillary's.
I think Pepsi is really awful!
Well Coke is really bad too!
I didn't bring up Coke, I was TALKING ABOUT PEPSI! :lol

It doesn't matter the comeback in this thread about "free pass" Hillary. Could you imagine if Trump had been Sec. Of State and it came to light that over half the people he met with during that duration were donors to his Company, or that he appointed donors with no experience to National Security posts....and every other revelation we are learning about free pass Hillary? There aren't enough hours in the day for the news media to blast him or paper to print the gazillion attacks he would get.

But nay a word about Hillary even as each revelation about her continues to prove that she's taken corruption to a whole new level....with no signs of stopping.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 23, 2016, 04:40:37 PM
I was just gonna post something about how it's increasingly difficult to talk about Trump without Trump supporter rebuttal being about Hillary, I agree Hillary is awful and we can talk about that but you gotta have a different comeback to Trump shitiness other than Hillary's.


It's also really difficult to talk about Trump when this is what gets spewed:

It's that he's a racist misogynist faschist demagogue with a limited grasp on reality as we know it.

It goes both ways.  It's sad.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 23, 2016, 04:47:42 PM
Could you imagine if Trump had been Sec. Of State and it came to light that over half the people he met with during that duration were donors to his Company, or that he appointed donors with no experience to National Security posts....and every other revelation we are learning about free pass Hillary? There aren't enough hours in the day for the news media to blast him or paper to print the gazillion attacks he would get.

Trump specifically? No I can't imagine that, but let's say a respectable decent Republican figure, Paul Ryan or Rand Paul maybe, then yes I could imagine how much he'll be blasted for doing such a thing, I don't disagree on Hillary's corruption or DNC influence over the media and it's not an ignorant conspiracy theory at all but proven from Wikileaks documents that they are in the business of telling CNN what to say. I bring that shit up and shove it in Hillary's supporters faces when they try to sway me over.
But none of that is a reason why Trump is "racist misogynist fascist demagogue with a limited grasp on reality as we know it". We're talking about two different subjects here.

I was just gonna post something about how it's increasingly difficult to talk about Trump without Trump supporter rebuttal being about Hillary, I agree Hillary is awful and we can talk about that but you gotta have a different comeback to Trump shitiness other than Hillary's.


It's also really difficult to talk about Trump when this is what gets spewed:

It's that he's a racist misogynist faschist demagogue with a limited grasp on reality as we know it.

It goes both ways.  It's sad.

No dude, that Hef line about Trump, is not opinion, it's fact, it's good old "since" and "therefore", it's any logical man's conclusion of everything Trump has given us to work with over the last year.
So it's not sad, it's as much a fact statement as "Hillary is corrupt, in bed with media, incompetent leader that's been tried and a failure", these are not shit that's being spewed around, these are facts based on evidence.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 23, 2016, 04:53:54 PM
without Trump supporter rebuttal being about Hillary

I'll lambast Hillary every chance I get...even if it's uncalled for because I think she's a despicable human being......but I'm not a trump supporter because I do so.

I think the media bias pro hillary and con trump is shameful....there is no real reporting that happens in this day and age. Every story on every channel is biased or slanted to drive a certain agenda....there is no unbiased reporting going on.

and I'm assuming trump gets the racist card thrown at him for his immigration stance? The same stance that St. Bill had back in 96? everything I've read about trump and his career as a builder/businessman he's treated minority groups with respect and regard....but that is rarely if ever mentioned given 98% of the media is eating out of hilary's hand.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 23, 2016, 06:26:56 PM
^ I was just gonna post something about how it's increasingly difficult to talk about Trump without Trump supporter rebuttal being about Hillary, I agree Hillary is awful and we can talk about that but you gotta have a different comeback to Trump shitiness other than Hillary's.
I think Pepsi is really awful!
Well Coke is really bad too!
I didn't bring up Coke, I was TALKING ABOUT PEPSI! :lol

That's the most ridiculous I've ever heard. This is a competition where the two main candidates are Trump and Hillary. It seems like you're just making excuses to slight someone for verbally trashing Hillary. However, if you want to talk about an exercise in futility, try getting a Hillary supporter to admit that she's everything wrong with politics today. They won't. They'll hurl insults at Trump, some of which he probably deserves, but what they're doing is ignoring her behavior in spite of their better judgment. At least in Trump's case, he hasn't been given the chance to fuck up the system yet. Denying Hillary's guilt in any of the scandals she has been involved in just because she wasn't indicted is a clear sign of a misunderstanding of just how the system works. She is perfect to play the politics game. The problem is that the game needs to change. She's just going to take us further down the road we've been traveling down for the last couple of decades. I don't know anyone in their right mind who thinks the status quo is desirable. Most people are voting for her just to keep Trump out of office.

Oh, and comparing them to different beverages doesn't say too much about your priorities.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on August 23, 2016, 07:36:32 PM
No dude, that Hef line about Trump, is not opinion, it's fact, it's good old "since" and "therefore", it's any logical man's conclusion of everything Trump has given us to work with over the last year.
So it's not sad, it's as much a fact statement as "Hillary is corrupt, in bed with media, incompetent leader that's been tried and a failure", these are not shit that's being spewed around, these are facts based on evidence.

With all due respect, I don't think you understand what facts are.  I think Trump is most or all of those things that hef said, but they are NOT facts; they are opinions.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 23, 2016, 10:23:09 PM
That's the most ridiculous I've ever heard. This is a competition where the two main candidates are Trump and Hillary. It seems like you're just making excuses to slight someone for verbally trashing Hillary.

No, it's not ridiculous. Every single previous U.S. presidential elections in living memory had two candidates who were individually defendable without bringing up how bad the other guy is, no matter how bad they were. I could make an argument for any of the Republican nominees for the last 30 years without bringing up how shitty the Democratic nominee is, even W.
I'm not making excuses to slight someone for verbally trashing Hillary, I'm not a Hillary supporter, I've already swayed at least a dozen people in my circles so far to not vote for her, if I wasn't broke I'd probably be actively campaigning for Johnson.
But it really suck that I have to tell you all that so you'd see that I'm not just bull shitting.

However, if you want to talk about an exercise in futility, try getting a Hillary supporter to admit that she's everything wrong with politics today. They won't. They'll hurl insults at Trump, some of which he probably deserves, but what they're doing is ignoring her behavior in spite of their better judgment.

Yes they do that, but I have met many many more Hillary supporters who tried to talk me into Hillary by discussing her experience and political track record, some with conviction and some circle back to "At least she's not Trump", it's much easier to pinpoint a stereotypical Trump supporter talking points than to do so for a Hillary supporter.

At least in Trump's case, he hasn't been given the chance to fuck up the system yet. Denying Hillary's guilt in any of the scandals she has been involved in just because she wasn't indicted is a clear sign of a misunderstanding of just how the system works. She is perfect to play the politics game. The problem is that the game needs to change. She's just going to take us further down the road we've been traveling down for the last couple of decades. I don't know anyone in their right mind who thinks the status quo is desirable. Most people are voting for her just to keep Trump out of office.

That's something that I personally have a problem with and bothers me a lot, mainly because of my background and experience in Egypt. One of the things I love most about America is the rule of law and how everyone seems to find it a life-or-death essential to abide by it, so if people start questioning the decency of the people handling the laws; all bets are off, "if Hillary was not indicted then system is definitely rigged", you go by that and what stops you from applying the "rigged" thing to everything else? The election results for example! It will be chaotic and possibly disastrous, from experience. I've read numerous instances in American history where loopholes and legal trickery has been used to make unjust decisions through the law, but everyone still accepts the results, because most people seem to understand that it's what holds a country together. That's my opinion that I formed reading American history.

Oh, and comparing them to different beverages doesn't say too much about your priorities.

A lot of times I'm tempted to pull a Trump and throw a sexist remark on some of your passive aggressive comments but then I don't because of DTF rule of law heh
But also cause you're pretty cool outside of P&R  ;D
The reason I made that comparison -and laughed at it- is that I'm not 100% confident that I can convey what I'm thinking to you guys because of the language barrier, I've said that many times over the 10 years I've been here.

With all due respect, I don't think you understand what facts are.  I think Trump is most or all of those things that hef said, but they are NOT facts; they are opinions.

I respectfully disagree, conclusions can be facts if you have givens. Hillary was caught lying therefore she's a lair, Trump has said and done things that are degrading to women and therefore he's a misogynist. Unless you think some of the things Hef said about Trump are relative, which is possible but I don't believe so.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on August 24, 2016, 06:54:34 AM
^ I was just gonna post something about how it's increasingly difficult to talk about Trump without Trump supporter rebuttal being about Hillary, I agree Hillary is awful and we can talk about that but you gotta have a different comeback to Trump shitiness other than Hillary's.
I think Pepsi is really awful!
Well Coke is really bad too!
I didn't bring up Coke, I was TALKING ABOUT PEPSI! :lol

The issue I see is that people are tired of ONLY Trump being bashed when Hillary is just as bad, if not worse. This is a story from last year. I'll say for the millionth time that I'm not a Trump supporter, but there are hard facts that Hillary has used her political position for personal gain. She is despicable person who has no business being president.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on August 24, 2016, 07:39:46 AM
And the current story from the AP.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state-183315225--election.html
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 24, 2016, 07:47:44 AM
No dude, that Hef line about Trump, is not opinion, it's fact, it's good old "since" and "therefore", it's any logical man's conclusion of everything Trump has given us to work with over the last year.
So it's not sad, it's as much a fact statement as "Hillary is corrupt, in bed with media, incompetent leader that's been tried and a failure", these are not shit that's being spewed around, these are facts based on evidence.

With all due respect, I don't think you understand what facts are.  I think Trump is most or all of those things that hef said, but they are NOT facts; they are opinions.

Agreed.  Unless this was sarcasm which was how I initially read it as.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 24, 2016, 07:53:16 AM
It isn't both.

He is rarely ambiguous.

The knock isn't that he is ambiguous.  It's that he's a racist misogynist faschist demagogue with a limited grasp on reality as we know it.

No, those are just big words from people that can't articulate anything more substantive (I'm not talking about you, personally).   I would argue that in her own way, Hillary is a facist demagogue with a limited grasp on reality as we know it (meaning, how an ordinary person conducts their day).   You don't think Hillary - a multimillionaire who is in the pocket of Wall Street - campaigning on the premise that "she's going to make Wall Street, the 1%, the rich, the wealthy, and those with extensive means pay" isn't demagoguery?   That is the DEFINITION of demagoguery. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 24, 2016, 07:59:28 AM
^ I was just gonna post something about how it's increasingly difficult to talk about Trump without Trump supporter rebuttal being about Hillary, I agree Hillary is awful and we can talk about that but you gotta have a different comeback to Trump shitiness other than Hillary's.
I think Pepsi is really awful!
Well Coke is really bad too!
I didn't bring up Coke, I was TALKING ABOUT PEPSI! :lol

I agree with you 1000%, except for one thing:   it's not like we're talking two different policies and comparing and contrasting.  Then of course, since it's not a zero sum game, whether Trump's healthcare plan works or not is irrelevant and immaterial to whether Hillary's will work or not.  There is no connection, causal, correlationary, or coincidental.    But when you attack Trump the MAN - which is what calling him a "racist", a "misogynist" and a "demagogue" is, it's scant criticism when the corollary is that you're supporting an equally flawed PERSON.   

Because then it devolves into the basest and crudest of political analysis:  "My liar is better than your liar, because they are MY lies and for MY cause."   That's meaningless.   And while I do not support Trump, I will not vote for him (I agree he is appealing to the baser, racist and misogynist instincts of people that aren't informed on the facts of how to govern 315 million people and a $19 trillion dollar economy) I will call out anyone and everyone that thinks their own little opinions are sacred, and somehow more meaningful than anyone else's.   Don't like Trump?  Fine, don't vote for him.  But don't pretend that somehow because YOU agree with her (even in a relative sense) that she is any better, and any different than the other side of the same, twisted, evil coin.

They are two peas in a pod. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 24, 2016, 08:05:09 AM

No dude, that Hef line about Trump, is not opinion, it's fact, it's good old "since" and "therefore", it's any logical man's conclusion of everything Trump has given us to work with over the last year.
So it's not sad, it's as much a fact statement as "Hillary is corrupt, in bed with media, incompetent leader that's been tried and a failure", these are not shit that's being spewed around, these are facts based on evidence.

Please don't play that logical tautology game - "that any logical man would conclude".    No, YOU concluded that.  That doesn't make you logical, smarter, better, more informed, it just makes you YOU.    I am just as smart, logical and informed as you and while I feel Trump APPEALS to some of those things, I don't necessarily agree with Hef's conclusion.   And even if I did, I fully and completely and without reservation feel that - except for the "racist" part of it - the same line could apply to Hillary, rendering it useless as a distinction.   As such, it's not really helpful to the discussion, because if you don't vote for Trump for non-ideological reasons, by definition - unless you are a party hack, hypocrite or "illogical" - you won't be voting for Hillary either.   So why not state that? 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 24, 2016, 08:19:24 AM
The issue I see is that people are tired of ONLY Trump being bashed when Hillary is just as bad, if not worse. This is a story from last year. I'll say for the millionth time that I'm not a Trump supporter, but there are hard facts that Hillary has used her political position for personal gain. She is despicable person who has no business being president.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228

Pretty much nails the root of my disdain for her. She gets a free pass for everything. Break Federal law with the whole e-mail situation....no problem, forget about it. Violate your ethics clause as Sec. of State with the conflict of interest with your foundation....no big deal, forget about it. If this were any other candidate....especially a Republican one....the media would have buried them long ago but they utterly refuse to give anything but drive by reporting on these issues so they don't become an issue for her.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 24, 2016, 08:47:45 AM
This election has completely fucked people's ability to be impartial. Hillary has not gotten a free pass from the media. There's a reason the only thing we've been discussing for the last four months is how she's a crooked and deceitful woman. Nobody likes her and nobody trusts her. She gets support for the same reason Trump does, which is only because the other lizard is worse. While she did get a pass from the DOJ, anybody who thinks that Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz wouldn't have received the same deference is getting better drugs than I am.

I swear, this election has lowered the collective IQ of this country by 10 points.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 24, 2016, 08:54:16 AM
This election has completely fucked people's ability to be impartial.

If I thought that 'the other side' had any intention of trying to meet in the middle somewhere on any of the issues out there....I'd be less hostile. But, the current climate of the political environment simply does not and will not allow anyone to budge from the 'my way or the highway' stance. We can debate all day long on whose 'fault' that is....there's plenty of convincing evidence out there to prosecute and convict either side of total guilt.

we have not had a true leader as a President for so long that it's going to take a drastic measure to break the grid lock in Washington. obama was a team player for the dems....hillary will be....Trump would just stir the pot even more for four years....there really isn't a end in sight as far as the US vs THEM mentality.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 24, 2016, 10:07:35 AM
This election has completely fucked people's ability to be impartial. Hillary has not gotten a free pass from the media. There's a reason the only thing we've been discussing for the last four months is how she's a crooked and deceitful woman. Nobody likes her and nobody trusts her. She gets support for the same reason Trump does, which is only because the other lizard is worse. While she did get a pass from the DOJ, anybody who thinks that Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz wouldn't have received the same deference is getting better drugs than I am.

I swear, this election has lowered the collective IQ of this country by 10 points.

Generally I think you're spot on in these matters, but I think you may be a tick off here.  Kevin McCarthy was asked to step away because of an allegation of an affair - no one's business but his and his wife's - and yet... Hillary is not being called to task.   She may or may not have done something convictable, but step away.   I think to me it's a little bit the gumption and arrogance that bothers me, not the act itself (though as I've said elsewhere, I think the lack of truthfulness materially and substantially undermines the integrity of our judicial and law enforcement system).   

Why did Debbie Wasserman-Asshat lose her job, but Hillary gets to continue onward, unabated? 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 24, 2016, 10:30:33 AM
This election has completely fucked people's ability to be impartial. Hillary has not gotten a free pass from the media. There's a reason the only thing we've been discussing for the last four months is how she's a crooked and deceitful woman. Nobody likes her and nobody trusts her. She gets support for the same reason Trump does, which is only because the other lizard is worse. While she did get a pass from the DOJ, anybody who thinks that Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz wouldn't have received the same deference is getting better drugs than I am.

I swear, this election has lowered the collective IQ of this country by 10 points.

Generally I think you're spot on in these matters, but I think you may be a tick off here.  Kevin McCarthy was asked to step away because of an allegation of an affair - no one's business but his and his wife's - and yet... Hillary is not being called to task.   She may or may not have done something convictable, but step away.   I think to me it's a little bit the gumption and arrogance that bothers me, not the act itself (though as I've said elsewhere, I think the lack of truthfulness materially and substantially undermines the integrity of our judicial and law enforcement system).   

Why did Debbie Wasserman-Asshat lose her job, but Hillary gets to continue onward, unabated?
I'm not sure what your point about McCarthy is. Who asked him to step aside? It was the conservative press that created the whole story. In any case, you've got Anthony Weiner, David Wu and Eric massa who have all been called to task for sexual wrong-doings.

And I agree about the arrogance and gumption. She really is a dislikable person. However, I still think my point is spot-on.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 24, 2016, 01:56:07 PM
It isn't both.

He is rarely ambiguous.

The knock isn't that he is ambiguous.  It's that he's a racist misogynist faschist demagogue with a limited grasp on reality as we know it.

No, those are just big words from people that can't articulate anything more substantive (I'm not talking about you, personally).
Good, because I wasn't giving my opinion (necessarily).  I was explaining what the knock against Trump is.

BTW, thanks to everyone for their reading comprehension on that point.

I would argue that in her own way, Hillary is a facist demagogue with a limited grasp on reality as we know it (meaning, how an ordinary person conducts their day).   You don't think Hillary - a multimillionaire who is in the pocket of Wall Street - campaigning on the premise that "she's going to make Wall Street, the 1%, the rich, the wealthy, and those with extensive means pay" isn't demagoguery?   That is the DEFINITION of demagoguery.
God bless America, I don't understand why a disparaging comment about Trump absolutely has to be followed by one about Hillary, as if that negates the one about Trump.  I'm not talking about Hillary.  I'm talking about Trump. 

Some of this stuff is almost school yard-like. 

BTW, Stadler, you certainly seem a lot more accepting of Trump now than when you were arguing against him with Calvin during primary season.  What gives?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 24, 2016, 02:11:36 PM
It isn't both.

He is rarely ambiguous.

The knock isn't that he is ambiguous.  It's that he's a racist misogynist faschist demagogue with a limited grasp on reality as we know it.

No, those are just big words from people that can't articulate anything more substantive (I'm not talking about you, personally).
Good, because I wasn't giving my opinion (necessarily).  I was explaining what the knock against Trump is.

BTW, thanks to everyone for their reading comprehension on that point.

I would argue that in her own way, Hillary is a facist demagogue with a limited grasp on reality as we know it (meaning, how an ordinary person conducts their day).   You don't think Hillary - a multimillionaire who is in the pocket of Wall Street - campaigning on the premise that "she's going to make Wall Street, the 1%, the rich, the wealthy, and those with extensive means pay" isn't demagoguery?   That is the DEFINITION of demagoguery.
God bless America, I don't understand why a disparaging comment about Trump absolutely has to be followed by one about Hillary, as if that negates the one about Trump.  I'm not talking about Hillary.  I'm talking about Trump. 

Some of this stuff is almost school yard-like. 

BTW, Stadler, you certainly seem a lot more accepting of Trump now than when you were arguing against him with Calvin during primary season.  What gives?

You're not the first to ask that, by the way.  And I generally get your point about the "a comment about Trump doesn't need a comment about Hillary".  I'm with you.  I'd be the first to argue that point with you.

EXCEPT (and this partly answers your question):

I'm a process guy.  Meaning, to me, the process is more important than the outcome.  We didn't last 240 years because "DEMOCRATS ALWAYS WON!" (or vice versa).  We made it this far because all (most) candidates respected the process and fought like adults.  I believe (for the most part) that laws are blind.  They don't have relative value or merit.  The PUNISHMENT might be different (and we as individuals may accept the penalty for our transgressions) but ANY transgressions ought to be treated as such.

And I feel with this campaign we've moved full force into the "ends justify the means" territory.  I don't think highly of Trump at all (like I didn't think highly of Bernie).  But early on, he was treated relatively fairly, and in some quarters, almost TOO fairly.   But now?  I see too many Democrats taking the "WHATEVER IT TAKES" approach, justifying immoral and possibly illegal behavior on the grounds that "Look what we're up against!". 

I'm not more accepting of Trump himself, I'm more trying to comment that regardless of whether you like him or not, your weapon is your vote.   Not attacks on his orange hair, not made-up accusations about things he didn't actually say, etc.  I don't bring up Hillary in order to "negate" the comment about Trump, but rather to highlight that 95% of the alleged criticisms of Trump - I don't mean POLICY discussions, I mean the ad hominem, below-the-belt attacks that seem to be de rigueur here - can and should be levied against Hillary.  In other words, it's not a comment on Trump or Hillary, but on the commenter. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 24, 2016, 02:23:08 PM
That doesn't really answer my question, TBH.

When I make comments about Trump, they are drawn from things he actually said or did, not generalizations or misinterpretations or his silly perma-tan or tiny hands. 

When I make comments about how dangerous I think Trump would be as a President, that isn't to say that I think Clinton is beyond reproach (although I do think she gets more shit than is actually warranted).

I do not love Clinton except that, insofar as she is not Trump, I think she is the best choice for me in this election.  That is as warm of an endorsement as I can give her.

A critique of Trump doesn't need a critique of Clinton in return.

But hey, whatever.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on August 24, 2016, 02:38:57 PM
Well, hey. Let's take hef's words and see how they stack up between the candidates.

racist misogynist faschist demagogue

Racist: Trump's words and policies support this claim without much question. I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary also has some racist tendencies, but even so, it'd be nowhere near the level of Trump.

Misogynist: Trump has shown this clearly as well. Hillary in the past has shown in the past that she did have some elements of internalized misogyny, but again, nowhere near Trump. Also, she's a woman.

Fascist: Trump's propositions like the wall and Muslim registry are pretty fascist in nature. The same can't really be said to the same degree for Hillary. Sure, you can say she's strong and a bit authoritarian maybe, but I wouldn't go so far as to say fascist.

Demagogue: This pretty much fits Trump to a T. Regardless of the logistics or feasibility of his ideas, he's more just pandering to many angry and prejudice viewpoints, stirring up anger and discontent, and creating scapegoats. Yes, all politicians including Hillary pander, but Trump is the only one right now doing it in such a disparaging way to minorities.

There are plenty of bad things to say about Hillary, but everything Hef said fits much more with Trump. I don't really think every criticism can easily be applied to both candidates.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on August 24, 2016, 02:43:52 PM
I think the best thing for me to do personally is to check out of this thread for a while. I'm not going to change any opinions and mine isn't going to be swayed, so...rather than say something ignorant to members I like and respect....I think I'm going lurk mode in this thread and will just keep my thoughts to myself.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 24, 2016, 03:14:20 PM
I think the best thing for me to do personally is to check out of this thread for a while. I'm not going to change any opinions and mine isn't going to be swayed, so...rather than say something ignorant to members I like and respect....I think I'm going lurk mode in this thread and will just keep my thoughts to myself.
Yeah, I've dropped out of this thread a couple of times. A week or two away does some good. It's nice to be a spectator from time to time. It honestly seems to me that this election is turning reasonable people into real assholes, and I'd just as soon not be one of them (to the extent that I'm no one already, at least).
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 24, 2016, 03:17:53 PM
It's certainly a winner of a choice that we have.

Again, not that I would necessarily vote for him, but I hope Gary Johnson gets the 15% approval necessary to get into the debates.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 24, 2016, 03:39:51 PM
Racist: Trump's words and policies support this claim without much question. I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary also has some racist tendencies, but even so, it'd be nowhere near the level of Trump.
I don't think so. I'd call his policies misguided and accuse him of pandering, but I never thought "racism" regarding him.

Quote
Misogynist: Trump has shown this clearly as well. Hillary in the past has shown in the past that she did have some elements of internalized misogyny, but again, nowhere near Trump. Also, she's a woman.
I don't think he's a misogynist, but he's damn sure a chauvinistic bastard. I seem to be among the holdouts that still recognizes a distinction between the two and regard them differently. In my opinion if he wants to celebrate banging married women, hire only pretty ones and just generally objectify them, that's not really any of my business. However I don't think it's something that can or should fly with a prospective US president.

Quote
Fascist: Trump's propositions like the wall and Muslim registry are pretty fascist in nature. The same can't really be said to the same degree for Hillary. Sure, you can say she's strong and a bit authoritarian maybe, but I wouldn't go so far as to say fascist.
That's a dicier one. I've got no problem with labeling him a fascist, but I'd prefer a more nuanced interpretation. In his case I think it's more about being a blowhard with a profound inability to understand, or perhaps just give a damn about, the rule of law.

Yes, we all agree that Hillary doesn't give a damn about the law, but there's an important distinction. She doesn't give a damn about specific laws that apply to her. Trump's problem is with the process. Ethnicity and/or religion should be component in how the law is exercised or adjudicated. That sort of thing.

Quote
Demagogue: This pretty much fits Trump to a T. Regardless of the logistics or feasibility of his ideas, he's more just pandering to many angry and prejudice viewpoints, stirring up anger and discontent, and creating scapegoats. Yes, all politicians including Hillary pander, but Trump is the only one right now doing it in such a disparaging way to minorities.
Eh, welcome to the wonderful world of populism.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on August 24, 2016, 04:49:29 PM
EB, I think we actually agree on all that. I guess it's just a difference in semantics where we draw the lines of concepts of racism and misogyny.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 25, 2016, 07:25:03 AM
That doesn't really answer my question, TBH.

When I make comments about Trump, they are drawn from things he actually said or did, not generalizations or misinterpretations or his silly perma-tan or tiny hands. 

When I make comments about how dangerous I think Trump would be as a President, that isn't to say that I think Clinton is beyond reproach (although I do think she gets more shit than is actually warranted).

I do not love Clinton except that, insofar as she is not Trump, I think she is the best choice for me in this election.  That is as warm of an endorsement as I can give her.

A critique of Trump doesn't need a critique of Clinton in return.

But hey, whatever.

I can't say it any clearer:   it does when it creates ambiguity or unfairness in the analysis.   Look, I hate it when someone says "I think [this song] is the best fucking song ever!" and then they say, "well, it's implicit that I mean it's my FAVORITE!" but I get it.  It's sloppy language, but most people are sloppy (some are horrific!) in their language, so it is what it is. 

But here, to say "I don't like Trump because he's dishonest and he's flipflopping!" well, it's very fair to want to understand why TRUMP'S flipflopping is bad and Clinton's flipflopping is ok.   It's very fair to ask why Trump is BAD for FOLLOWING the laws (bankruptcy) and Clinton is GOOD for BREAKING the law (regardless of whether it's a punishable offense, she DID - she admitted this not 10 minutes ago on CNN - not follow the rules regarding the emails and the investigation).    It's very fair to ask why "smoke equals fire" with respect to TRUMP and yet "smoke doesn't even equal smoke" for Clinton.   

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 25, 2016, 07:39:42 AM
Well, hey. Let's take hef's words and see how they stack up between the candidates.

racist misogynist faschist demagogue

Racist: Trump's words and policies support this claim without much question. I wouldn't be surprised if Hillary also has some racist tendencies, but even so, it'd be nowhere near the level of Trump.

Misogynist: Trump has shown this clearly as well. Hillary in the past has shown in the past that she did have some elements of internalized misogyny, but again, nowhere near Trump. Also, she's a woman.

Fascist: Trump's propositions like the wall and Muslim registry are pretty fascist in nature. The same can't really be said to the same degree for Hillary. Sure, you can say she's strong and a bit authoritarian maybe, but I wouldn't go so far as to say fascist.

Demagogue: This pretty much fits Trump to a T. Regardless of the logistics or feasibility of his ideas, he's more just pandering to many angry and prejudice viewpoints, stirring up anger and discontent, and creating scapegoats. Yes, all politicians including Hillary pander, but Trump is the only one right now doing it in such a disparaging way to minorities.

There are plenty of bad things to say about Hillary, but everything Hef said fits much more with Trump. I don't really think every criticism can easily be applied to both candidates.

Not one fact in that post.  "His statements back this up" doesn't equal a fact.   What, exactly, is de facto fascist about "a wall"?  Compare that to Hillary's economic policy: a mix of socialist policies in a free market model, downplaying (if not outright quelling) free trade, but propping up through government intervention quasi-free market programs (like the ACA).  Fascism rejected the sort of Darwinist capitalism ("Wall Street!") and embraced the sort of nationalist capitalism (Unions, set wages, tariffs).  All part of Hillary's program.    Not that I have that much problem with Hillary's economics - I think at the end of the day she's going to kowtow to Wall Street as most politicians - including Obama - realize is necessary for the economy to function in even a half-assed way - but you can't really distinguish Hillary from Donald here in any meaningful way.

What is "racist" about referring to an entire group?  We can't now say "Muslim" as a class without being a racist or bigot?  His targeting "Muslims" is stupid, not racist.   Just like terrorists can now likely blow up a plane with 3.1 ounces of liquid, I have no doubt that "stopping Muslims from entering the country" will simply prompt a new breed of terrorist, lighter skinned, shorter hair, no facial hair, and with names like "Fred" and "Barney" and "George" and "Elroy". 

"Demagoguery" isn't exclusive to "minorities".  First, I notice you've not given any evidence here, but him pursuing the black and latino vote is not "demagoguery".    Constantly and consistently referring to "Wall Street!" and "the 1% who are taking your money!" IS.  That's the DEFINITION of demagoguery.   

Again, I don't have a problem with this stuff necessarily, but at least be fair.   Or if you refuse to be fair, give some solid examples, not "well, his words".  Because we all know that Trump has excellent words.  The best words.  When you hear them, you'll love them.  Amazing words. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 25, 2016, 08:07:23 AM
Since there was some discussion about celebrities and their politics...

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/clinton-email-dump-shows-bono-180010817.html (https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/clinton-email-dump-shows-bono-180010817.html)

There may be some link to Bono and his Clinton Foundation donations and him being able to get NASA to have live feeds of the ISS into U2 concerts.  Evidence is weak here, but there are emails about the discussion and then the end result of it happening.

"pay for play"
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on August 25, 2016, 08:20:52 AM
Since there was some discussion about celebrities and their politics...

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/clinton-email-dump-shows-bono-180010817.html (https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/clinton-email-dump-shows-bono-180010817.html)

There may be some link to Bono and his Clinton Foundation donations and him being able to get NASA to have live feeds of the ISS into U2 concerts.  Evidence is weak here, but there are emails about the discussion and then the end result of it happening.

"pay for play"
Wow, seriously? "Who should we get in touch with?" Only way anybody would ask a question like that is if they were toting bags of money with dollar signs on them. "Put $100,000 in Krugerrands in an American Tourister briefcase, model LJ2309, and leave it in seat 24, section 17 of tonight's Yankee's game. I'll then send you the email to NASA's head of licensing and he'll forward you the paperwork." "Note to self: Bono knows too much. Have him whacked."
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 25, 2016, 09:27:18 AM
Dude, rock stars die young.  If he pulls a Bon Scott, you'll be eating your words.  ;)   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 25, 2016, 10:36:20 AM
"His statements back this up" doesn't equal a fact.   

What does then? So if I tell you I'd get really sick if I eat tuna, would that make you wrong if you conclude that I don't like tuna? Just trying to understand how you're seeing this.

Please don't play that logical tautology game - "that any logical man would conclude".    No, YOU concluded that.  That doesn't make you logical, smarter, better, more informed, it just makes you YOU.    I am just as smart, logical and informed as you and while I feel Trump APPEALS to some of those things, I don't necessarily agree with Hef's conclusion. 

True, but I really believe there's my logic, there's your logic and then there's standard issue logic, the one that tells us where up is and where down is.
I didn't claim I was smarter or more logical than anybody, most certainly not more informed than you guys since you've dealt with politics here your entire lives, as oppose to me who's only been learning about it the last 6 or 7 years. However you're clearly much more passionate about this than I am, maybe that counts for something.
BUT it's all subjective and I could be wrong about everything, just please don't get riled up again  :angel:

EB, I think we actually agree on all that. I guess it's just a difference in semantics where we draw the lines of concepts of racism and misogyny.

Same here.


The issue I see is that people are tired of ONLY Trump being bashed when Hillary is just as bad, if not worse. This is a story from last year. I'll say for the millionth time that I'm not a Trump supporter, but there are hard facts that Hillary has used her political position for personal gain. She is despicable person who has no business being president.

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundation-donors-include-dozens-of-media-organizations-individuals-207228

I cannot argue with that.
Could it be that Hillary is the usual corrupt politician kind of awful while Trump is a brand new kind of awful and thus makes for a more interesting bashing? I figure most of the attention he got over his fellow Republican nominees in the primaries was partially due to that.

Since there was some discussion about celebrities and their politics...

https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/clinton-email-dump-shows-bono-180010817.html (https://www.yahoo.com/celebrity/clinton-email-dump-shows-bono-180010817.html)

There may be some link to Bono and his Clinton Foundation donations and him being able to get NASA to have live feeds of the ISS into U2 concerts.  Evidence is weak here, but there are emails about the discussion and then the end result of it happening.

"pay for play"

Did that live feed request come to fruition though?
I'm surprised about Bono, you'd think the e-mail would come from that guy

(https://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2697918.1467583953!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/544305806.jpg)

But it makes more sense for U2 to need Hillary than Metallica  :lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on August 25, 2016, 07:49:58 PM


With all due respect, I don't think you understand what facts are.  I think Trump is most or all of those things that hef said, but they are NOT facts; they are opinions.

I respectfully disagree, conclusions can be facts if you have givens. Hillary was caught lying therefore she's a lair, Trump has said and done things that are degrading to women and therefore he's a misogynist. Unless you think some of the things Hef said about Trump are relative, which is possible but I don't believe so.

It is your opinion that they were degrading to women.  You, again, are confusing an opinion with a fact.

Note: It is also my opinion that he has said degrading things about certain women, but I don't think my opinion is a fact.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on August 25, 2016, 09:21:45 PM
I am still kind of shocked that the degrading things Trump has said are considered acceptable public speech by so many. I never thought there was much controversy over what kind of speech is considered appropriate in public, but this election has continually surprised me.

And as unpopular as this will be, I do believe there is a time and place for "political correctness", and that place is when you're a representative speaking publicly on behalf of the country. That's why it's called political correctness after all.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 25, 2016, 09:43:10 PM
It is your opinion that they were degrading to women.  You, again, are confusing an opinion with a fact.

Note: It is also my opinion that he has said degrading things about certain women, but I don't think my opinion is a fact.

I understand what you're saying but it's not how I see it, we can leave it there though cause this could easily slide into a Sisyphean argument on both sides :lol

Nigel Farage spoke at a Trump rally today, the chap likes Trump a lot!
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 26, 2016, 08:04:11 AM
I am still kind of shocked that the degrading things Trump has said are considered acceptable public speech by so many. I never thought there was much controversy over what kind of speech is considered appropriate in public, but this election has continually surprised me.

And as unpopular as this will be, I do believe there is a time and place for "political correctness", and that place is when you're a representative speaking publicly on behalf of the country. That's why it's called political correctness after all.

Trump is polarizing in this way.    He's both the good and bad of that 'political correctness' argument.

My beef with the Pro-PC people is when it chills rational, intellectual discourse.  We CAN and SHOULD be able to have a meaningful conversation about, say, whether gender dysphoria is a mental disorder or a physical condition without being labeled "insensitive" or "HAYTAHS".     We can and should be able to discuss all aspects of immigration without being labeled a xenophobe.   

My beef with Trump is that he personifies the misconception of "PC".  It doesn't give you license to say whatever you want.  I honestly do not think that 90% of the speech that is being categorized as "racist" is that at all.  it is POLARIZING speech.  PC has been morphed from a standard of "decorum" to a standard of "personification".  You DO NOT have a right to "not be offended".    If you don't like that an immigration proposal involves extra screening for anyone with a "Muslim name" or who practices the "Muslim faith", argue the plan, don't attack the speaker with charged terms like "Racist".   Prove him wrong that such a plan is wasteful, overreaching, or non-productive.   This is good for society.    Because if you argue "racist", the next guy is going to shelve his great idea on the grounds that it might be misconstrued.  If you argue the merits, the next guy won't shelve his great idea.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on August 26, 2016, 08:06:31 AM
It is your opinion that they were degrading to women.  You, again, are confusing an opinion with a fact.

Note: It is also my opinion that he has said degrading things about certain women, but I don't think my opinion is a fact.

I understand what you're saying but it's not how I see it, we can leave it there though cause this could easily slide into a Sisyphean argument on both sides :lol

Nigel Farage spoke at a Trump rally today, the chap likes Trump a lot!

I had a long response to your previous post and lost it somewhere.

Suffice to say it centered on the idea that there is no "your" logic, or "my" logic.  That's part of today's "partisan" problem.   The "logic" is supposed to be the neutral standard to bring your ideas and my ideas to common ground.  We don't get to play with the rules of logic to make our point.   That's the problem with many of the extremists on both sides.  Confirmation bias.   It violates the rules and yet the people making the point rationalize that using your idea of "my logic".  It breaks down the system.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on August 26, 2016, 01:51:48 PM
Saw this on FB today:

Quote
Trump wants to ban Muslims, but if we learned anything from Prohibition, it’s that people will just make Muslims in their bathtubs.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on August 26, 2016, 04:49:10 PM
Saw this on FB today:

Quote
Trump wants to ban Muslims, but if we learned anything from Prohibition, it’s that people will just make Muslims in their bathtubs.

Gold Jerry,  gold.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 26, 2016, 07:57:24 PM
Since when do Muslims take baths?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Lucien on August 26, 2016, 08:03:02 PM
Since when do Muslims take baths?

 :justjen
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on August 27, 2016, 06:40:42 AM
Since when do Muslims take baths?
I know this was meant in a joking manner, but this is potentially offensive.  Let's not do this.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 27, 2016, 12:06:29 PM
(https://25.media.tumblr.com/87b5b674e1d8f66202fb04d34b0d4993/tumblr_mwfpc2Fgyd1qan42po4_250.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 27, 2016, 02:06:26 PM
Yep, exclusively showers, mysophobia is an epidemic of ours.

Can an American president who spent one term in office get re-elected for a second term after another president has taken over?
Like for example could Jimmy Carter have come back in 88 or 92 and get elected president?
I just saw that Nicolas Sarkozy was gonna run again for the French presidency and I had thought that in most places you can't be re-elected for a post that you have previously occupied and lost.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Ben_Jamin on August 27, 2016, 03:11:29 PM
Yep, exclusively showers, mysophobia is an epidemic of ours.

Can an American president who spent one term in office get re-elected for a second term after another president has taken over?
Like for example could Jimmy Carter have come back in 88 or 92 and get elected president?
I just saw that Nicolas Sarkozy was gonna run again for the French presidency and I had thought that in most places you can't be re-elected for a post that you have previously occupied and lost.


Grover Cleveland.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 27, 2016, 04:20:35 PM
Oh so it's possible and there's a precedent!
Thanks Ben_Jamin.
Interesting, in my mind in order for that to happen, the nominee convinces the public the incumbent president is wrong on a lot of issues, wins the election, ex-president proves the new incumbent president was dead wrong AND that he was spot on, runs again and wins..
It seems like for that sequence of events to happen, there must be very few to no hard divisive issues. Seems impossible to happen in modern times.
The media would be a big factor in it's impossibility I'd assume.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Dave_Manchester on August 27, 2016, 04:30:17 PM
Since when do Muslims take baths?
I know this was meant in a joking manner, but this is potentially offensive.  Let's not do this.

What was the intended 'joke' here? I honestly don't get it. If he had written that exact same thing but used the word 'Jews' or 'blacks' instead of 'Muslims', would that have been so easily passed off as a harmless attempt at humour? Would that have seen it promoted from "potentially offensive" to "actually offensive"?

I ask only for information, I really don't get what happened there. Was he making some Forum in-joke reference I'm unaware of?   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 27, 2016, 04:58:39 PM
It was offensive, but free passes get handed out when it's about Muslims the last couple of years, it's still crappy for me but if there's no repercussions from the administration then you gotta make the best out of a shit and run with it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 27, 2016, 05:39:09 PM
Most jokes carry some kind of offense. Would it make you feel better if I told an Italian joke? Would it be acceptable because I am Italian? I find a lot of hypocrisy in regards to what people are offended by. People support and defend candidates that have prejudices, they defend religions that persecute gays and support apostasy, yet my joke is offensive? You should wish that my biases were the worst thing about which to be concerned.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on August 27, 2016, 06:06:55 PM
It was offensive, but free passes get handed out when it's about Muslims the last couple of years, it's still crappy for me but if there's no repercussions from the administration then you gotta make the best out of a shit and run with it.

I'm with you.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on August 27, 2016, 06:46:06 PM
yet my joke is offensive? You should wish that my biases were the worst thing about which to be concerned.

I don't know if you're talking to me or Dave_Manchester but for myself I don't care about your bias.


Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on August 27, 2016, 06:50:26 PM
Most jokes carry some kind of offense. Would it make you feel better if I told an Italian joke? Would it be acceptable because I am Italian?

Italian Americans aren't the subject of hatred, racism, discrimination and policy. You don't have a potential president who is running with a platform of restricting access to the country based on whether or not they're Italian American. And yes, part of it IS who says the joke. If someone I don't know makes a holocaust joke, I'll probably be quite a bit more offended by it than if a fellow Jew makes it out of a sense of ownership.

Of course I also come from a country where a mayor (I think) is trying to actually make policy based on the belief that Muslims have worse hygiene than others. So it's a bit more than a silly joke.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Dave_Manchester on August 27, 2016, 06:59:32 PM
You should wish that my biases were the worst thing about which to be concerned.

No I shouldn't, because you're not that personally relevant. What I should do is question why it's apparently permissible on here to make 'jokes' about Muslims being filthy and unwashed and that gets nothing more than a "come on guys, try to reign in the comedy, some people may find that offensive", whereas the reason I tend to steer clear of this part of the Forum is because I've received condescending PMs from a certain theatrically-pious mod of this forum advising me that (here I quote) "maybe you'd be better off posting somewhere else" when I dared to question his delicate Christian sensibilities.

Again I'm just making sure I understand the situation correctly. Laughing at those dirty Muslim cunts is "potentially offensive" whereas mocking the credulous Christians earns a stern PM from the mods.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 27, 2016, 07:48:06 PM
Most jokes carry some kind of offense. Would it make you feel better if I told an Italian joke? Would it be acceptable because I am Italian?

Italian Americans aren't the subject of hatred, racism, discrimination and policy. You don't have a potential president who is running with a platform of restricting access to the country based on whether or not they're Italian American. And yes, part of it IS who says the joke. If someone I don't know makes a holocaust joke, I'll probably be quite a bit more offended by it than if a fellow Jew makes it out of a sense of ownership.

There's really no logic to that. Just because there is some discrimination against Muslims doesn't mean there isn't some Italian, or any nationality, out there who takes strong offense to any kind of joke about where he comes from. You're doing more generalizing than I am.

You should wish that my biases were the worst thing about which to be concerned.

No I shouldn't, because you're not that personally relevant.

You're completely missing the point.

What I should do is question why it's apparently permissible on here to make 'jokes' about Muslims being filthy and unwashed and that gets nothing more than a "come on guys, try to reign in the comedy, some people may find that offensive", whereas the reason I tend to steer clear of this part of the Forum is because I've received condescending PMs from a certain theatrically-pious mod of this forum advising me that (here I quote) "maybe you'd be better off posting somewhere else" when I dared to question his delicate Christian sensibilities.

Again I'm just making sure I understand the situation correctly. Laughing at those dirty Muslim cunts is "potentially offensive" whereas mocking the credulous Christians earns a stern PM from the mods.

Again, like I told Adami up there, you're generalizing. Everybody has jokes made about them. You, me, blacks, whites, Muslims, Xtians, etc. So why are you just concerned about Muslims? You obviously have a bias against people defending Christianity while you sit here and question my joke about Muslims. It's a bit hypocritical.



Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on August 27, 2016, 08:19:38 PM
I think this is going to be one of those, defend your ground until the end type of arguments, which I have no interest in.

Needless to say, I don't agree with you, and think that even if you have the right to make a joke about Muslims (still not sure how what you said was a joke), you might consider some tact as well. Just me. You guys have fun though
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 27, 2016, 08:51:19 PM
I think this is going to be one of those, defend your ground until the end type of arguments, which I have no interest in.

Needless to say, I don't agree with you, and think that even if you have the right to make a joke about Muslims (still not sure how what you said was a joke), you might consider some tact as well. Just me. You guys have fun though

I don't really care either. I was just pointing out the hypocrisy.

(https://25.media.tumblr.com/1d1ab9adbd78474b567f2dbda65ec327/tumblr_mgyg0ktMTL1ra6i9ao1_500.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Lucien on August 28, 2016, 11:10:09 AM
calling any group of people dirty isn't very nice at all, and i guarantee you it isn't true no matter the group
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Ben_Jamin on August 28, 2016, 11:42:36 AM
Exactly....you can insert any race, group, etc.. it'll still have the same meaning...
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 28, 2016, 12:48:49 PM
(https://proxy.mind-media.com/proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.remnantofgod.org%2Fimages%2Falexjones.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: XJDenton on August 28, 2016, 01:58:33 PM
(https://proxy.mind-media.com/proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.remnantofgod.org%2Fimages%2Falexjones.gif)

Knock it off.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on August 28, 2016, 02:12:04 PM
Exactly....you can insert any race, group, etc.. it'll still have the same meaning...

No. Context is everything. Not all insults are equal.

Saying Muslims don't bathe is not the same as saying Christians don't. Calling Mexicans dirt poor is not that same as saying the same for Canadians. Saying black people like watermelon and fried chicken is not the same as saying the same for a white American. Racist jokes and insults are far more hurtful because of the history behind them. It'd be great if we lived in a perfect reality where the past didn't matter and everyone could love each other and hold hands and be on equal ground. That's not the reality we live in. Racism, slavery, genocide, all existed. We should work to treat everyone equally, but we can't just drop history and context to everything we say in the process.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on August 28, 2016, 04:50:31 PM
I honestly didn't get the joke.

On a serious note, this thread was pretty peaceful, knowledgeable, appropriate, and civil.  Lately it's been none of those. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on August 28, 2016, 05:38:04 PM
It tends to happen when people are blinded by their convictions and have an incapacity to think outside the box.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: yeshaberto on August 28, 2016, 11:23:00 PM
I agree with everyone.

Now move on.


Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on August 29, 2016, 08:23:52 AM
I've gotta say, these days the least convincing thing someone can do to try and persuade me to vote Trump is play the "PC out of control!!!!" card. I suppose it's because I come from a fairly diverse background where I've been a part of many different kinds of communities, but if you want to be part of a diverse community you have to be able to make some concessions about how you should treat and talk about other people.

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 01, 2016, 02:18:51 PM
Another great example of the bias portrayed by the Clinton News Network.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/01/bias-alert-hln-blurs-out-retired-officers-trump-2016-shirt.html
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 01, 2016, 03:28:24 PM
Another great example of the bias portrayed by the Clinton News Network.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/01/bias-alert-hln-blurs-out-retired-officers-trump-2016-shirt.html
That's funny. Both because of CNN in being silly, and because when I read the story on FOX the other day I thought it was bias on their part. Nothing about the story rose to the level of pushing it out as a leading headline, except that he's a former cop and he was wearing a Trump shirt. FOX never passes up an opportunity to show a cop in a good light.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 01, 2016, 08:43:00 PM
Well, i would say that most cops do things that are worthy of being shown in a good light, so what is the problem there?  Is there a problem with showing good deeds done by people who put their lives on the line every single day they go to work?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 01, 2016, 09:04:36 PM
Is there a problem with showing good deeds done by people who put their lives on the line every single day they go to work?

As much as I totally agree with you, I have to sarcastically ask....since when was the news ever about doing that?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 01, 2016, 10:03:47 PM
Well, i would say that most cops do things that are worthy of being shown in a good light, so what is the problem there?  Is there a problem with showing good deeds done by people who put their lives on the line every single day they go to work?
If you saw a baby fixing to drop dead in a sweltering car would you break the window out? I'm the guy that doesn't want to get involved in anything, and I wouldn't think twice about breaking out the window, as I suspect just about every person that reads this would. This just didn't strike me as particularly newsworthy. Certainly not so much to push the thing on the top headlines RSS.

And that is what usually makes me think FOX and bias. When you read the articles they're actually pretty fair and even-handed. Rarely an issue. What's not is which articles they promote, which invariably fall into specific categories. Likewise, there are categories that will never pop up on their RSS. In their top headlines there will always be a story about Crooked Hilary. There will always be a story about liberal PCism. There will always be a story about how bad off the country, or about how scary Moslems are going to murder us all. And then there are often stories singing the praises of cops and veterans, or articles that paint BLM in a bad light. It's remarkably predictable, and the story about the ex-cop breaking the window was just a very typical example. I chuckled about FOX being FOX, grumbled something about wasting 2 minutes of my life and then moved on.

Articles you'll not see promoted on the RSS are things that paint republicans, conservatives, cops or veterans in a bad light, or things that make Hillary, democrats or any liberal social movement seem like anything above the level of pond-scum.

At the moment we have:
Quote
RETURN TO SENDER Romania wants Clinton hacker Guccifer back
EX-ASTRONAUT INDICTED Former shuttle commander accused in 2 girls' deaths
FOX NEWS POLL Most US voters expect major terrorist attack soon
'LIFE-THREATENING SITUATION' Gulf Coast braces for impact as Hurricane Hermine strengthens
TODD STARNES Valedictorians so scary that school may not honor them
Black Lives Matter accuses Dems of 'placating' group, after memo leaked - VIDEO: Clarke — Democrats don't want to talk about American ghettos
Gunman to plead guilty in TSA officer killing at LAX
Kaepernick, teammate kneel during national anthem - Kaepernick caught wearing socks showing 'pig' cops

Scary Moslems, Crooked Hillary, liberal PCism, BLM vs CLinton, and Kaep's socks. It never varies from the theme. I find it amusing, honestly.

And interestingly, they're quite neutral to Trump. They don't sing his praises, but they don't push bad stories about him, either.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 01, 2016, 10:24:24 PM
So then, I take it, your answer is yes to the question I posed, which was: Is there a problem with showing good deeds done by people who put their lives on the line every single day they go to work?  Sounds to me like you do have a problem with it.

And if Fox shows stories singing the praises of cops and veterans and other stations do not, I would say that says a lot more about those other stations than it does about Fox. There is plenty to hate about Fox, but if they do run as many good stories about cops and veterans as you say they do, kudos to them. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 02, 2016, 05:35:18 AM
I think it comes down to what one things is worth showing. Maybe some people don't agree with the news stories Fox stories pushes but that doesn't mean they're wrong for it. I'm sure if I felt like getting roped in and waste my time rebutting this further I could go to the MSNBC website and pick out all of the biases there.

If people have problem showing uplifting stories about veterans and cops, people who put their lives on the line so you actually have the ability to sit here and bitch about them, then it's quite obvious who is in the wrong.

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 02, 2016, 06:21:44 AM
So then, I take it, your answer is yes to the question I posed, which was: Is there a problem with showing good deeds done by people who put their lives on the line every single day they go to work?  Sounds to me like you do have a problem with it.


It's not that he isn't appreciative of the guy's service. The point is, out of everything going on in both the United States and the world at large, Fox News chose this story to be the one front and center on their website. I'm not discrediting this cop's actions, but lets be real here, this kind of thing probably happens multiple times a day around the country, both from emergency personnel and good samaritans. With all the black lives matter stuff and the clashing of civilians and police (it's safe to say most fox viewers side with the police), pushing police biased stories rather than significantly more important news isn't much different than anything CNN does.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 02, 2016, 06:47:17 AM
I knew someone would discount the story because it was from Fox News. Typical lefty response when something from their side is attacked to deflect the negativity to the other side. Fox has had a Bias Alert section on their site for the last month or so to point out how ridiculous the media coverage for Clinton and against Trump has been.

Honest question, if this story was on CNN and they had a story about how Fox blurred out someone wearing a Clinton shirt would your reaction be the same? I'd bet my left nut that Wolf Blitzer would be on that story like flies on shit.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 02, 2016, 07:09:50 AM
Honest Response: Yup. I think this was a retarded decision on CNN's part. Get off your fucking high horse. My reaction would have been exactly the same. Another bullshit "news" article meant to do nothing but spark outrage, generate comments, and keep that internet ad revenue cuh-chinging. All the networks should be ashamed of what they've become and if you want my honest opinion, CNN, Huff Post, MSNBC, and Fox can all be lumped into the same, equally shitty, sorry excuse for a news network pile. None of them set out to inform the citizens of this country. None of them are interested in spreading any kind of worthwhile news. None of them actually seem to have the good of the country in mind. They all share the same business model. Step 1) Identify what your audience hates. Step 2) Run stories not only revolving those things, but word the headlines to instantly trigger an emotional and angry response. Step 3) Stoke the flames. Step 4) Say something was done by accident when you're called out on your bullshit. They all suck. The network heads should be ashamed. They all act like a bunch of children, pointing fingers with no objective other than to get you to hate the other side. It's disgusting.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 02, 2016, 07:36:32 AM
Bad news sells
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 02, 2016, 08:10:20 AM
Honest Response: Yup. I think this was a retarded decision on CNN's part. Get off your fucking high horse. My reaction would have been exactly the same. Another bullshit "news" article meant to do nothing but spark outrage, generate comments, and keep that internet ad revenue cuh-chinging. All the networks should be ashamed of what they've become and if you want my honest opinion, CNN, Huff Post, MSNBC, and Fox can all be lumped into the same, equally shitty, sorry excuse for a news network pile. None of them set out to inform the citizens of this country. None of them are interested in spreading any kind of worthwhile news. None of them actually seem to have the good of the country in mind. They all share the same business model. Step 1) Identify what your audience hates. Step 2) Run stories not only revolving those things, but word the headlines to instantly trigger an emotional and angry response. Step 3) Stoke the flames. Step 4) Say something was done by accident when you're called out on your bullshit. They all suck. The network heads should be ashamed. They all act like a bunch of children, pointing fingers with no objective other than to get you to hate the other side. It's disgusting.

True dat. Journalism is dead. There is no true unbiased station or journalist out there IMO. As you said, every station has an angle they are selling and every journalist is just writing pieces to support Thier opinions.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: AngelBack on September 02, 2016, 08:17:56 AM
Well...Fox had Mike Portnoy on this morning.  But I'm not sure which side of the good news/bad news that proves.....JK
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 02, 2016, 08:26:01 AM
So then, I take it, your answer is yes to the question I posed, which was: Is there a problem with showing good deeds done by people who put their lives on the line every single day they go to work?  Sounds to me like you do have a problem with it.
Wrong. Though I don't think it was newsworthy I don't really have a problem with showing that an ex-cop did something helpful. My criticism isn't about the story, but FOX only pushing one side of the discussion. Isn't that where the balanced part of fair and balanced comes into play?


I think it comes down to what one things is worth showing. Maybe some people don't agree with the news stories Fox stories pushes but that doesn't mean they're wrong for it. I'm sure if I felt like getting roped in and waste my time rebutting this further I could go to the MSNBC website and pick out all of the biases there.

If people have problem showing uplifting stories about veterans and cops, people who put their lives on the line so you actually have the ability to sit here and bitch about them, then it's quite obvious who is in the wrong.
See above. Telling us all how wonderful Johnny is isn't the problem. Only showing us Johnny's good side is. That's called pushing an agenda. And suggesting it's no different than MSNBC doesn't really do you any good because you think MSNBC is terrible for doing what they do.

And for the record, when they actually do push a variety of stories they do push one side, it's the same as FOX. Their gadget really sucks, though. More often than not it's 7 stories about the same damn thing.

I knew someone would discount the story because it was from Fox News. Typical lefty response when something from their side is attacked to deflect the negativity to the other side.
Way to contribute. You sure put me in my place.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 02, 2016, 03:17:04 PM

See above. Telling us all how wonderful Johnny is isn't the problem. Only showing us Johnny's good side is. That's called pushing an agenda. And suggesting it's no different than MSNBC doesn't really do you any good because you think MSNBC is terrible for doing what they do.

I think you're making a broad generalization about Johnny. How do you know Johnny has a bad side that is newsworthy? Did he reprimand his child or kill a neighbor? Did he let his dog shit on the neighbors lawn or run numbers for the mob? Bad news is an infestation that people eat up and swallow with gusto. The problem is the rampant bad news that gets pushed, not some of the few positive stories that get reported. It doesn't take much to look at the news to see what the agenda clearly is. It's certainly not reporting the good deeds of law enforcement and soldiers, most of which probably get unreported anyway, because like I already said, bad news sells. Your gripe with whatever you claim the "agenda" is seems more like your own personal issue with it and not rooted in anything that actually happens.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Lucien on September 02, 2016, 04:22:13 PM
not rooted in anything that actually happens.

So cops have never, and certainly not more than once, killed a person that was 1. complying to them or 2. unarmed and therefore infinitely less dangerous than the cop?  ::)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 02, 2016, 04:30:21 PM
not rooted in anything that actually happens.

So cops have never, and certainly not more than once, killed a person that was 1. complying to them or 2. unarmed and therefore infinitely less dangerous than the cop?  ::)

I really do think it's a small minority.   I think it's escalating because more people are aggressive to the police.  I understand being upset but at that moment when the police has a gun you need to be calm.

That being said, I the police now need better training when it comes to these situations.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Lucien on September 02, 2016, 05:39:58 PM
not rooted in anything that actually happens.

So cops have never, and certainly not more than once, killed a person that was 1. complying to them or 2. unarmed and therefore infinitely less dangerous than the cop?  ::)

I really do think it's a small minority.

Of course it's a minority. But there is something incredibly wrong with the fact that completely innocent people (yes, this has happened) have been shot just because the cop was nervous/trigger happy. Yes, the police need better training. They also need to do yoga, and maybe meditate once a week or something.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 02, 2016, 05:41:47 PM
Also add people that get pulled over with your green statement.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 02, 2016, 06:20:16 PM
I believe malicious cops should be jailed.  I also believe good cops have become trigger happy with the amount of people being aggressive to policemen. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 03, 2016, 06:58:59 AM


If people have problem showing uplifting stories about veterans and cops, people who put their lives on the line so you actually have the ability to sit here and bitch about them, then it's quite obvious who is in the wrong.

Could not agree more.

So then, I take it, your answer is yes to the question I posed, which was: Is there a problem with showing good deeds done by people who put their lives on the line every single day they go to work?  Sounds to me like you do have a problem with it.


It's not that he isn't appreciative of the guy's service. The point is, out of everything going on in both the United States and the world at large, Fox News chose this story to be the one front and center on their website. I'm not discrediting this cop's actions, but lets be real here, this kind of thing probably happens multiple times a day around the country, both from emergency personnel and good samaritans. With all the black lives matter stuff and the clashing of civilians and police (it's safe to say most fox viewers side with the police), pushing police biased stories rather than significantly more important news isn't much different than anything CNN does.

Front and center on their website for how long?  Remember that as a 24/7 new channel, there isn't going to be some major ground-breaking news story every day, all day, so sometimes stories that might not seem to be lead stories will be one for at least a little while. 

Also, why are you calling them police biased stories?

So then, I take it, your answer is yes to the question I posed, which was: Is there a problem with showing good deeds done by people who put their lives on the line every single day they go to work?  Sounds to me like you do have a problem with it.
Wrong. Though I don't think it was newsworthy I don't really have a problem with showing that an ex-cop did something helpful. My criticism isn't about the story, but FOX only pushing one side of the discussion. Isn't that where the balanced part of fair and balanced comes into play?

I think some of you all take the "fair and balanced" moniker way too seriously.  I interpret it as their way of saying, "By giving the right a station that leans heavily conservative, it makes TV news now fair and balanced, since all of their others lean left/liberal."  Of course, they aren't going to come out and say that, since the "we are fair and balanced" narrative sounds better even if we all know it is BS, but I think that is the not-so subtle meaning behind it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 03, 2016, 07:23:40 AM
not rooted in anything that actually happens.

So cops have never, and certainly not more than once, killed a person that was 1. complying to them or 2. unarmed and therefore infinitely less dangerous than the cop?  ::)

I really do think it's a small minority.

Of course it's a minority. But there is something incredibly wrong with the fact that completely innocent people (yes, this has happened) have been shot just because the cop was nervous/trigger happy. Yes, the police need better training. They also need to do yoga, and maybe meditate once a week or something.

When I said, "not rooted in anything that actually happens", I was referring to this supposed "agenda" he claims there is in reporting good news. Maybe you should have read, and quoted, the whole sentence. Instead you did exactly what many insidious news channels do and take something out of context and make their own story of it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 06, 2016, 07:02:16 AM
not rooted in anything that actually happens.

So cops have never, and certainly not more than once, killed a person that was 1. complying to them or 2. unarmed and therefore infinitely less dangerous than the cop?  ::)

What's your point?  That argument is a loser.  We just had a long discussion about "humor".  Are you telling me that there hasn't been ONE MUSLIM in the history of the world that was lax in their bathing habits?   I'm not suggesting the joke was relevant or in good taste - it was neither - but rather suggesting that the point of highlighting the clear and obvious exception doesn't really give any insight into the rule. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 06, 2016, 07:06:36 AM
Isn't that where the balanced part of fair and balanced comes into play?

Not really responding to el Barto in particular, just citing the first mention of "fair and balanced".    "Fair and balanced" doesn't necessarily mean "perfect".   They aren't perfectly neutral by any stretch of the imagination, but they are a lot closer to neutral than many of their more left-leaning compatriots.   You are FAR more likely to see a bleeding heart liberal on a Fox debate than you are to see a Neo-con on, say, MSNBC or CNN (and if they are there, they certainly aren't going to be treated with any modicum of respect). 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 06, 2016, 08:15:13 AM
Not really responding to el Barto in particular, just citing the first mention of "fair and balanced".    "Fair and balanced" doesn't necessarily mean "perfect".   They aren't perfectly neutral by any stretch of the imagination, but they are a lot closer to neutral than many of their more left-leaning compatriots.   You are FAR more likely to see a bleeding heart liberal on a Fox debate than you are to see a Neo-con on, say, MSNBC or CNN (and if they are there, they certainly aren't going to be treated with any modicum of respect).
Sounds to me, based on the descriptions of you and Kev, the motto should be counterbalanced.

And while I don't watch enough (any) of this stuff to speak of what you say, the last liberal I recall on FOX was Alan Colmes, and he was essentially Hannity's lackey.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 06, 2016, 08:39:14 AM
What Fox do isn't "counterbalance" at all, though. Someone like Hannity can rail about Obama being a "socialist" for hours, and then bring someone like Cornell West on to defend something that Obama is driving. The end result is, Fox viewers will now associate Obama with the more radical liberal Hannity brought on air, rather than the reality. It's actually a really clever way of creating a strawman that reinforces the ideas promoted by Fox.

There's also the question of credibility with Fox's liberal guests. If they're not strawman who are coming on air to voice ideas that are far to the left of those held by typical liberals, they're caricatures who don't represent their ideas well and currently have very little sway - if any - in liberal communities. This is where your Colmes comes in.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 06, 2016, 11:30:49 AM
Step 1) Identify what your audience hates. Step 2) Run stories not only revolving those things, but word the headlines to instantly trigger an emotional and angry response. Step 3) Stoke the flames. Step 4) Say something was done by accident when you're called out on your bullshit.

Change a few of the words here to fit and you've got the job description for members of congress.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 08, 2016, 06:46:10 AM
That Town Hall last night was one of the scariest things I've seen this campaign.

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e4/51/a7/e451a7c1ffa093eb63d4b29b09581518.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 08, 2016, 07:14:35 AM
Yeah, it definitely could have been better.  Too bad, I would have thought Lauer would do a better job.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on September 08, 2016, 07:22:24 AM
I was a bit disappointed with the questions Matt asked both Donald and Hilary. I get that Hilary's emails could be a concern if she becomes commander and chief. I get that Donald's seeming temper could be a concern if he becomes commander and chief. He just seemed to ask a lot of questions centered around those two things last night. I wish there would have been more time given to the Vets in attendance to ask questions and Matt could have just kinda been there.

That being said - as a registered Republican who isn't sure who to vote for yet, I liked nothing about what Hilary said last night. There's nothing there to attract me to cross the aisle, even if I don't like Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 08, 2016, 09:00:14 AM
Gary Noooooooo

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 08, 2016, 09:24:04 AM
Exactly....you can insert any race, group, etc.. it'll still have the same meaning...

No. Context is everything. Not all insults are equal.

Saying Muslims don't bathe is not the same as saying Christians don't. Calling Mexicans dirt poor is not that same as saying the same for Canadians. Saying black people like watermelon and fried chicken is not the same as saying the same for a white American. Racist jokes and insults are far more hurtful because of the history behind them. It'd be great if we lived in a perfect reality where the past didn't matter and everyone could love each other and hold hands and be on equal ground. That's not the reality we live in. Racism, slavery, genocide, all existed. We should work to treat everyone equally, but we can't just drop history and context to everything we say in the process.

Kind of not relevant.  That something is a trope for one group doesn't mean that another group doesn't have their own.   To your example above, it's not like there aren't thing to say to Christians, Canadians, or white Americans don't have their insults that sting.  That's not to say that calling a Christian an uptight hypocrite child molester won't bite.   Or Canadians.  Well, there's not much to say about Canadians.  They're pretty insult proof.   :)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Genowyn on September 08, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
How dare you insult us by suggesting there are no insults for us?

And I mean, what about socialist? We're a lot more to the left than you guys and the s-word is a terrible insult in American English.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: DragonAttack on September 08, 2016, 11:25:30 AM
Gary Noooooooo

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0

This wasn't like Herman Cain's 'becky becky stan' type of response to a semi left field question.  For Aleppo, all he had to have done was watch five minutes of news over the past few weeks.

Wonder if he thought it was a question about dog food?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 08, 2016, 12:20:13 PM
The funny thing is that once they told him that Aleppo was a city in Syria he immediately gave the right answer, and one that none of the other asshats get. The way to settle the Syria situation is to work with Russia. Seems to me that Russia is trying to stabilize the situation, and we're obstructing, presumably because fuck Russia!
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Ben_Jamin on September 08, 2016, 03:35:57 PM
Gary Noooooooo

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0

What's funny is after doing an article about a slip-up...are the updates at the bottom.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 08, 2016, 03:53:32 PM
Gary Noooooooo

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0

What's funny is after doing an article about a slip-up...are the updates at the bottom.
:lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on September 08, 2016, 04:37:32 PM
Exactly....you can insert any race, group, etc.. it'll still have the same meaning...

No. Context is everything. Not all insults are equal.

Saying Muslims don't bathe is not the same as saying Christians don't. Calling Mexicans dirt poor is not that same as saying the same for Canadians. Saying black people like watermelon and fried chicken is not the same as saying the same for a white American. Racist jokes and insults are far more hurtful because of the history behind them. It'd be great if we lived in a perfect reality where the past didn't matter and everyone could love each other and hold hands and be on equal ground. That's not the reality we live in. Racism, slavery, genocide, all existed. We should work to treat everyone equally, but we can't just drop history and context to everything we say in the process.

Kind of not relevant.  That something is a trope for one group doesn't mean that another group doesn't have their own.   To your example above, it's not like there aren't thing to say to Christians, Canadians, or white Americans don't have their insults that sting.  That's not to say that calling a Christian an uptight hypocrite child molester won't bite.   Or Canadians.  Well, there's not much to say about Canadians.  They're pretty insult proof.   :)

...that doesn't invalidate my point. I was directly refuting Ben's statement. That's entirely relevant.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 08, 2016, 04:48:45 PM
Gary Noooooooo

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0

That's alright. Our current President, at one point, thought we had 57 states.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 08, 2016, 04:49:23 PM
Gary Noooooooo

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0

That's alright. Our current President, at one point, thought we had 57 states.

Well...maybe we should!
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: 73109 on September 08, 2016, 05:03:14 PM
Gary Noooooooo

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0

That's alright. Our current President, at one point, thought we had 57 states.

60 :P

And yeah, this was my comment on facebook:

"So I would rather Trump win the presidency than Johnson. I think a libertarian dictator (a contradiction in terms, I get that, but you know what i mean) would be the absolute worst possible situation America or any other country could face. So I don't support Johnson.

But!

I think this flub is being taken way out of proportion. Sure he probably should have known one of the epicenters of the Syrian civil war, but what almost no one is talking about is that after he found out, he gave a reasonable response. He understood what we might want to call the "Syria problem" and responded with a proposition consistent with his beliefs. Can most people name the cities that act as other centers of human rights abuses or war hotspots? What were the particularly bad spots during Darfur or Rwanda? Can anyone name a North Korean city outside of Pyongyang?

He obviously knows what he is talking about on the issue. If we want to criticize him, criticize him for his belief system, which in my opinion, is the really egregious part of his candidacy.

 If we can forgive Obama for pausing, thinking, and still implying that there are 60 states, this shouldn't be a problem."
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 08, 2016, 05:06:25 PM
Fine responses 73109 and El Barto.  Sometimes I think people forget that these are humans like the rest of us and I always find it amazing that they can normally answer random questions so well, but sometimes people make mistakes too.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 08, 2016, 05:08:17 PM
Fine responses 73109 and El Barto.  Sometimes I think people forget that these are humans like the rest of us and I always find it amazing that they can normally answer random questions so well, but sometimes people make mistakes too.

No one holds all politicians to the standard that they have to be perfect. They just hold the politician they don't like to that standard.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 08, 2016, 05:20:04 PM
Gary Noooooooo

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo.html?_r=0

That's alright. Our current President, at one point, thought we had 57 states.

60 :P

And yeah, this was my comment on facebook:

"So I would rather Trump win the presidency than Johnson. I think a libertarian dictator (a contradiction in terms, I get that, but you know what i mean) would be the absolute worst possible situation America or any other country could face. So I don't support Johnson.

But!

I think this flub is being taken way out of proportion. Sure he probably should have known one of the epicenters of the Syrian civil war, but what almost no one is talking about is that after he found out, he gave a reasonable response. He understood what we might want to call the "Syria problem" and responded with a proposition consistent with his beliefs. Can most people name the cities that act as other centers of human rights abuses or war hotspots? What were the particularly bad spots during Darfur or Rwanda? Can anyone name a North Korean city outside of Pyongyang?

He obviously knows what he is talking about on the issue. If we want to criticize him, criticize him for his belief system, which in my opinion, is the really egregious part of his candidacy.

 If we can forgive Obama for pausing, thinking, and still implying that there are 60 states, this shouldn't be a problem."

Right. He said he had one more to go and then added that he wasn't going to Alaska and Hawaii.

Hey, is that avatar from In Bruges?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: 73109 on September 08, 2016, 05:40:38 PM
It is indeed. The director is my favorite director. He's also a killer playwright. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 08, 2016, 07:53:19 PM
It is indeed. The director is my favorite director. He's also a killer playwright.

I've never seen anything else of his, but Seven Psychopaths looks like it would be really good.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Cool Chris on September 08, 2016, 08:28:05 PM
I can't find Johnson's official stance on Syria. I hope it's along the lines of "As president I'd focus more on issues here in America."
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 09, 2016, 05:10:26 AM
"So I would rather Trump win the presidency than Johnson. I think a libertarian dictator (a contradiction in terms, I get that, but you know what i mean) would be the absolute worst possible situation America or any other country could face. So I don't support Johnson.

I don't think Johnson would be a "libertarian dictator", whatever that means. He was a two term governor, and he did a pretty good job as one by most accounts. He may be a libertarian, but I don't think he's as impractical about it as some.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 09, 2016, 05:20:57 AM
If people actually paid more attention to his stance on things, especially Dems, they'd realize he's far more liberal than they realize. Unfortunately, people hear Libertarian and they think right wing extremist. Not all Libertarians are as extreme as Ron Paul. Just like not all Dems or Repubs are the same.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 09, 2016, 07:33:58 AM
Fine responses 73109 and El Barto.  Sometimes I think people forget that these are humans like the rest of us and I always find it amazing that they can normally answer random questions so well, but sometimes people make mistakes too.

No one holds all politicians to the standard that they have to be perfect. They just hold the politician they don't like to that standard.

BOOM. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 09, 2016, 07:35:52 AM
"So I would rather Trump win the presidency than Johnson. I think a libertarian dictator (a contradiction in terms, I get that, but you know what i mean) would be the absolute worst possible situation America or any other country could face. So I don't support Johnson.

I don't think Johnson would be a "libertarian dictator", whatever that means. He was a two term governor, and he did a pretty good job as one by most accounts. He may be a libertarian, but I don't think he's as impractical about it as some.

He is as far from "Libertarian" as either of the other candidates are from the core of their true base.  I'M a Libertarian and there isn't a lot from him I really like, and on several issues he is far from "libertarian".   If it was my world, and I was the king, I would use "Independent" for Johnson.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 09, 2016, 07:36:33 AM
In Bruges?

Great movie.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 09, 2016, 08:14:16 AM
I can't find Johnson's official stance on Syria. I hope it's along the lines of "As president I'd focus more on issues here in America."
That's certainly his stance in a general sense. With regards to Syria his position was that we should be working with Russia on a diplomatic solution. Syria is really more Russia's game, and from what I can tell we're mainly in it to obstruct.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 09, 2016, 08:49:59 AM
If people actually paid more attention to his stance on things, especially Dems, they'd realize he's far more liberal than they realize. Unfortunately, people hear Libertarian and they think right wing extremist. Not all Libertarians are as extreme as Ron Paul. Just like not all Dems or Repubs are the same.

So I don't oppose Gary for any reason of right wing/left wing nonsense. Actually, the main thing I disagree with is the libertarianism. I'm all for greater personal liberty as a general concept, but I think at this moment in history we are faced with certain problems that a contract-based social fabric, like the one contemplated by libertarianism, unfortunately does not respond adequately to.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 09, 2016, 09:58:06 AM
I tend to agree with Super Dude. However, I think Gary Johnson's version of Libertarianism isn't much different than, say, what Cory Booker has done in Newark. So, more preference to privatization and public-private partnerships than the "get the gov't out and leave a vacuum in its place" option that most hardcore libertarians seem to prefer.

Whether privatization, charter schools, public private partnerships, etc., are any good for the country - I don't know. Unfortunately it'll be awhile before we know. Newark seems to be turning the corner, but will it stay that way for the long term?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 09, 2016, 10:05:35 AM
I think at this moment in history we are faced with certain problems that a contract-based social fabric, like the one contemplated by libertarianism, unfortunately does not respond adequately to.

If people are willing, I'd love to pursue this line of inquiry further, since as a self-diagnosed Libertarian, I don't actually disagree with you.   I think, though, that the SOLUTION is probably where we might diverge, and I would, based on previous postings and some of the programs listed (albeit with a caveat), probably disagree - with respect, this is not a dig or an attack - with many of the proposed alternatives that Skeever might propose (and I only single him out because he said he agreed with Super Dude as well). 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 09, 2016, 11:41:05 AM
I've always felt that libertarianism isn't any more the problem than liberalism, socialism, capitalism, conservatism or any other ism. The problem is treating any one of them as the solution or the problem. Societal structure is not an all or nothing proposition. That's my problem with Johnson or either of the Pauls. For some reason, libertarians tend to be particularly susceptible to this extreme. I tend to prefer their basic tenets a great deal, but when followed to the very end of the [now privatized] road you run into problems. I don't want my fire department privatized. I don't want to sit through a ten year gap where the new outsourced FDA services settle into the pricey/expensive and cheap/corrupt options and the market hopefully corrects them. Dumping more and more governmental regulation all over the healthcare market isn't the solution, but neither is the strictly profit-driven system. The examples go on and on. Unfortunately, few people are willing to admit their platform is only partially right. It's always perfect were it not for everybody else and their sordid ways.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: chknptpie on September 09, 2016, 12:50:28 PM
I've always felt that libertarianism isn't any more the problem than liberalism, socialism, capitalism, conservatism or any other ism. The problem is treating any one of them as the solution or the problem. Societal structure is not an all or nothing proposition. That's my problem with Johnson or either of the Pauls. For some reason, libertarians tend to be particularly susceptible to this extreme. I tend to prefer their basic tenets a great deal, but when followed to the very end of the [now privatized] road you run into problems. I don't want my fire department privatized. I don't want to sit through a ten year gap where the new outsourced FDA services settle into the pricey/expensive and cheap/corrupt options and the market hopefully corrects them. Dumping more and more governmental regulation all over the healthcare market isn't the solution, but neither is the strictly profit-driven system. The examples go on and on. Unfortunately, few people are willing to admit their platform is only partially right. It's always perfect were it not for everybody else and their sordid ways.

But isn't that the point of a democracy? So not one methodology is the path taken? A mixed congress of republican, democrat and libertarian would be very interesting. Even instituting a third party into state legislatures would mix things up nicely.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 09, 2016, 01:11:29 PM
I've always felt that libertarianism isn't any more the problem than liberalism, socialism, capitalism, conservatism or any other ism. The problem is treating any one of them as the solution or the problem. Societal structure is not an all or nothing proposition. That's my problem with Johnson or either of the Pauls. For some reason, libertarians tend to be particularly susceptible to this extreme. I tend to prefer their basic tenets a great deal, but when followed to the very end of the [now privatized] road you run into problems. I don't want my fire department privatized. I don't want to sit through a ten year gap where the new outsourced FDA services settle into the pricey/expensive and cheap/corrupt options and the market hopefully corrects them. Dumping more and more governmental regulation all over the healthcare market isn't the solution, but neither is the strictly profit-driven system. The examples go on and on. Unfortunately, few people are willing to admit their platform is only partially right. It's always perfect were it not for everybody else and their sordid ways.

But isn't that the point of a democracy? So not one methodology is the path taken? A mixed congress of republican, democrat and libertarian would be very interesting. Even instituting a third party into state legislatures would mix things up nicely.
On a philosophical level I'm not sure if that's the point or not. On a practical level it is regrettably not the reality. We elect one side to rule for a while, and if the other side is lucky they've got enough juice to prevent it from mucking things up too badly. The result is never a combination plan with components of different schools of thought. It's one side's plan neutered by the other to hopefully fail. I'm relating "democracy" with American politics here, which is not really fair to your question, but I view our political structure as a long-term outcome of such a democracy. Certainly a multi-party system would offer better ideas, but I feel we've reached a point where the oddball contributions would be non-existent in favor of fealty to the position closer to their own.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 10, 2016, 06:58:05 AM
Looks like Bill Clinton is a racist, too (using his own words!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPYtJ-7VmnI

 :lol :lol :lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 10, 2016, 07:26:58 AM
Looks like Bill Clinton is a racist, too (using his own words!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPYtJ-7VmnI

 :lol :lol :lol

That's it, that's the last straw.  I cant turn a blind eye to this anymore.  I will not be voting for Bill Clinton for POTUS.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 10, 2016, 07:29:46 AM
Me neither!  :lol :lol

But hey, if Bill is going to campaign for his wife and say this hypocritical crap, it is fair game to call him out for it, no?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 10, 2016, 08:13:25 AM
I think at this moment in history we are faced with certain problems that a contract-based social fabric, like the one contemplated by libertarianism, unfortunately does not respond adequately to.

If people are willing, I'd love to pursue this line of inquiry further, since as a self-diagnosed Libertarian, I don't actually disagree with you.   I think, though, that the SOLUTION is probably where we might diverge, and I would, based on previous postings and some of the programs listed (albeit with a caveat), probably disagree - with respect, this is not a dig or an attack - with many of the proposed alternatives that Skeever might propose (and I only single him out because he said he agreed with Super Dude as well).

Sure, if you wanna break this off into a separate thread.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 12, 2016, 04:55:58 AM
I'm at a loss for words in regards to what we saw come out of the Hillary camp yesterday. Trump couldn't have asked for a better day for that to happen on.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 12, 2016, 05:08:26 AM
Waiting for the excuses...  :biggrin:
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 12, 2016, 05:25:58 AM
I'd vote for Hillary on her deathbed over Trump, but yeah, this is really terrible for her and her campaign. As if this election couldn't get any more bizarre.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 12, 2016, 06:05:21 AM
Our electorate is basically nuts anyway.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 12, 2016, 06:42:59 AM
I'm at a loss for words in regards to what we saw come out of the Hillary camp yesterday. Trump couldn't have asked for a better day for that to happen on.

Certainly didn't help the questions about her health. I don't see how one can deny something is going on, and in fact....the symptoms that we know about and can see are among the symptoms of congestive heart failure.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 12, 2016, 06:49:26 AM
Our electorate is basically nuts anyway.

So, it's OK for Clinton to call a good portion of Americans deplorable.......but deplorable when a Republican refers to a percentage of Americans who are dependent on the government, which was a pretty true statement in itself?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on September 12, 2016, 06:52:33 AM
Supposedly Trump will be on Doctor Oz this week and will reveal his medical records. I'm assuming in response to what happened to Clinton yesterday...
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 12, 2016, 06:59:48 AM
Supposedly Trump will be on Doctor Oz this week and will reveal his medical records. I'm assuming in response to what happened to Clinton yesterday...

 :facepalm:


All he needs to do is nothing. He gained a ton of ground on her doing nothing and not being in the headlines for a dumb statement or action. It allows the American public to actually see what a horrid candidate she is. Him doing this will only take away from the real health issue Hillary has
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on September 12, 2016, 07:07:35 AM
All he needs to do is nothing. He gained a ton of ground on her doing nothing and not being in the headlines for a dumb statement or action. It allows the American public to actually see what a horrid candidate she is. Him doing this will only take away from the real health issue Hillary has

Oh, I agree. Doctor Oz was just on TV in the kitchen at work while I was getting coffee and boasted about how Trump will reveal his medical records on his show this week.

I'm with you though, the best move here is for Trump to do something he isn't good at... Nothing... Don't open your mouth about it, don't say something stupid, just don't.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 12, 2016, 07:30:57 AM
Seen on Facebook yesterday:

Quote
Trump people: "I love a straight shooter who tells it like it is an ain't afraid of pissin' people off!"

Clinton: "Half of you are assholes with fascist tendencies"

Trump people: "Waaaaah the mean lady hurt my fee fees!"
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 12, 2016, 07:34:52 AM
Supposedly Trump will be on Doctor Oz this week and will reveal his medical records. I'm assuming in response to what happened to Clinton yesterday...

 :facepalm:


All he needs to do is nothing. He gained a ton of ground on her doing nothing and not being in the headlines for a dumb statement or action. It allows the American public to actually see what a horrid candidate she is. Him doing this will only take away from the real health issue Hillary has

It also allowed him at the same time to make it seem like respecting 9/11 is more important to him. It was perfect timing. Any other day of the year, he would have been lighting up social media all day with this.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on September 12, 2016, 07:54:14 AM
This is all so stupid. God, when will it end?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: AngelBack on September 12, 2016, 08:06:07 AM
Biggest Loser:  Biden, probably would have sailed through.

Biggest Winner:  Tim Kaine.   Couple potential paths for him to step up to the big house from the VP slot.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 12, 2016, 08:12:31 AM
If Hillary were fixing to croak (and why would she even bother running if she were suffering from congestive heart failure), it actually works better for her. Nobody is going to jump ship for Trump over this, it's mostly his minions that are riled up about it anyway, and for some of us it'll make us feel much more comfortable voting for the old bag. I'd feel really awful voting for her, even with it being strictly a matter of necessity. I'd love to be voting for Tim Kain right now, and I don't even know anything about him. Her dying would be a blessing, AFAIC, as long as it happened in early November of within a few months post election.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 12, 2016, 08:15:02 AM
I'd vote Biden in a heartbeat. Even over the other Repub. folks that were in the primary. For whatever  reason I just believe he'd actually have America's best interest in heart than his own personal goals. Which I think both Hillary and Trump are in it for personal gain.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on September 12, 2016, 08:22:48 AM
If Hillary were fixing to croak (and why would she even bother running if she were suffering from congestive heart failure), it actually works better for her. Nobody is going to jump ship for Trump over this, it's mostly his minions that are riled up about it anyway, and for some of us it'll make us feel much more comfortable voting for the old bag. I'd feel really awful voting for her, even with it being strictly a matter of necessity. I'd love to be voting for Tim Kain right now, and I don't even know anything about him. Her dying would be a blessing, AFAIC, as long as it happened in early November of within a few months post election.

I don't disagree, but Clinton's apparent lack of trust with voters has been dragging her poll numbers down thus far. Doesn't this health situation, in the mind of some voters, further play into the lack of transparency from Clinton? I'm assuming we don't know the whole story of her health, waaay to convenient for Hilary to happen to go visit the doc and get diagnosed two days before this video hit the internet. I know you'll probably write me off as throwing conspiracies around, but that's really not my intent, belief, or point. My point is that in the mind of voters, this is another mark on the list of things they don't trust about Clinton.

As to your point about Kain, I agree, based on the little research I did on the guy when he was announced as the running mate, I'd probably be more inclined to cast a vote in his direction rather than Clinton or Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 12, 2016, 08:26:56 AM
I don't know, leaving the ceremony seems like a big nothing to me.  She was apparently diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday.  The only reason she was even at the ceremony yesterday was to try to "tough it out".  But she got overheated and dehydrated, per her doctor.

The problem isn't her health.  The problem is that she wasn't open enough to just share her pneumonia diagnosis on Friday.  She tends to keep too many things to herself that ought to be publicized.  That doesn't help her in the minds of people who already don't trust her, especially when it finally comes out.

*shakes head*
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 12, 2016, 08:27:53 AM
per her doctor

That's just, like, what they want you to think, man.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 12, 2016, 08:29:03 AM
per her doctor

That's just, like, what they want you to think, man.
Oh yeah, I forgot, she's dying.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 12, 2016, 08:35:40 AM
I don't disagree, but Clinton's apparent lack of trust with voters has been dragging her poll numbers down thus far. Doesn't this health situation, in the mind of some voters, further play into the lack of transparency from Clinton?
No, because it's probably how I would have handled it. I hate missing work because I'm sick. If there's something actually needs my attention I'll be up here trying to tough my way through it. Moreover, in this case there was a tactical reason not to share the information, assuming it's even something she should share which is a whole nother question for debate.

Quote
I'm assuming we don't know the whole story of her health, waaay to convenient for Hilary to happen to go visit the doc and get diagnosed two days before this video hit the internet. I know you'll probably write me off as throwing conspiracies around, but that's really not my intent, belief, or point.
Yeah, the problem with conspiracies is that they more often than not look just like what they're denying. Hillary going to the doctor Friday sounds perfectly plausible to me. Hillary going to the doctor Friday sounds "waayyyyy too convenient" to people predisposed to thinking she's fixing to drop dead or lying about her health because of a pathological tendency to do so.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on September 12, 2016, 08:39:39 AM
Hillary going to the doctor Friday sounds "waayyyyy too convenient" to people predisposed to thinking she's fixing to drop dead or lying about her health because of a pathological tendency to do so.

 :lol

It sounds way to convenient to me, but not because I think she's fixing to drop dead.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 12, 2016, 08:47:36 AM
She's probably in better health than Trump.  That note from his doctor is laughable and after all he is orange as hell.  That can't be good.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 12, 2016, 11:36:20 AM
I've always felt that libertarianism isn't any more the problem than liberalism, socialism, capitalism, conservatism or any other ism. The problem is treating any one of them as the solution or the problem. Societal structure is not an all or nothing proposition. That's my problem with Johnson or either of the Pauls. For some reason, libertarians tend to be particularly susceptible to this extreme. I tend to prefer their basic tenets a great deal, but when followed to the very end of the [now privatized] road you run into problems. I don't want my fire department privatized. I don't want to sit through a ten year gap where the new outsourced FDA services settle into the pricey/expensive and cheap/corrupt options and the market hopefully corrects them. Dumping more and more governmental regulation all over the healthcare market isn't the solution, but neither is the strictly profit-driven system. The examples go on and on. Unfortunately, few people are willing to admit their platform is only partially right. It's always perfect were it not for everybody else and their sordid ways.

But isn't that the point of a democracy? So not one methodology is the path taken? A mixed congress of republican, democrat and libertarian would be very interesting. Even instituting a third party into state legislatures would mix things up nicely.
On a philosophical level I'm not sure if that's the point or not. On a practical level it is regrettably not the reality. We elect one side to rule for a while, and if the other side is lucky they've got enough juice to prevent it from mucking things up too badly. The result is never a combination plan with components of different schools of thought. It's one side's plan neutered by the other to hopefully fail. I'm relating "democracy" with American politics here, which is not really fair to your question, but I view our political structure as a long-term outcome of such a democracy. Certainly a multi-party system would offer better ideas, but I feel we've reached a point where the oddball contributions would be non-existent in favor of fealty to the position closer to their own.

This is more to Chknptpie than el Barto, but anyway...   you have to be careful to separate the system from the ideology.   No ideology will work to it's full potential if it is done halfway and neutered by alternative views.  Think of any sports team or band.  Having said that, you DO need a system of opposing voices to keep all sides honest. That's a very big difference that most people either don't understand or care about. 

I think the debate is essential to our well-being, which is why both the PC mentality (chilling certain ideas simply because one small group doesn't want to talk about them) and the partisan "us versus them" nature of the political process is hurting us.  We made some of the greatest advances in our country's history when you had Dems and Reps argue in front of the cameras, but go back to the local tavern and over a bottle of Jameson's craft out a plan that worked for everyone.  I don't want a purely Libertarian government - I think we need to help those that CAN'T help themselves - but I think we need to have a conversation in any approach we look at that says "how do we encourage people to take responsibility for themselves first and foremost"? 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 12, 2016, 12:25:05 PM
Our electorate is basically nuts anyway.

So, it's OK for Clinton to call a good portion of Americans deplorable.......but deplorable when a Republican refers to a percentage of Americans who are dependent on the government, which was a pretty true statement in itself?

I think this is the thing I hate most about the Trump candidacy, and the one place I think he is most culpable.    For whatever reason, his nomination has seemed to be implicit authorization for liberals (i.e., those not voting for Trump) to say whatever the f--- they want, regardless of things like "fact" or "taste" or "respect".  I read Rolling Confirmation Bias Magazine regularly (for those that aren't familiar, it also appears on the news stands as "Rolling Stone Magazine") and Matt Taibbi and Tim Dickenson (the two primary political opinoinators) are SOOO  over the top in their santimony and condescension, it's not even informative anymore.   And EVERY interview with EVERY celebrity has a moment where they ask the obligatory "so how are you coping with the Trump fiasco"?

Look, you don't at all have to like Trump himself, but at the end of the day two things are inescapable:   ONE, the republicans FOLLOWED THE PROCESS.   We didn't game the system and we didn't spend thousands of emails trying to doctor the outcome to the "preferred" outcome.  It is pure democracy in action, better or worse.    And TWO, not every person that disagrees with you personally is a "f---ing idiot".  I personally (and seriously) think that Bernie's "free college paid for by a Wall Street tax" is at least if not more insane in the colloquial sense as Trump's wall, and I think the systematic hate towards the successful and the lawabiding among us is equally as disturbing as anything that Trump could say about Muslims, but that doesn't allow me to call Bernie anything other than what I do, an older idealist that doesn't have a firm grasp on how the economics of a global economy work.  I can't call him a "Jew" or "dumb" or any of the things (or equivalencies) that Republicans and/or Trump are being called.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 12, 2016, 10:32:38 PM
She's probably in better health than Trump.

Very doubtful.

McCain took a lot of shit for being old, I think it's fair game to question hillary when she has cough attacks, passes out, and falls in public. The job is demanding and takes a toll on you. I think it's valid to question if the candidate can perform the job from a health perspective.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 13, 2016, 05:35:12 AM
She's probably in better health than Trump.  That note from his doctor is laughable and after all he is orange as hell.  That can't be good.

What would lead you to believe she is in better health than he is? And I'm not just asking this because of her incident a couple of days ago. Is it just because you really don't like him?  ;)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 13, 2016, 06:50:27 AM
Guys, I thought that comment about Trump's health was pretty obviously a joke.  I have no reason to suspect he is in poor health (physically).
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 13, 2016, 07:00:49 AM
Guys, I thought that comment about Trump's health was pretty obviously a joke.  I have no reason to suspect he is in poor health (physically).

(https://media.giphy.com/media/u2ihpEzIXZJSM/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 13, 2016, 07:01:57 AM
 :tup
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 13, 2016, 07:38:52 AM
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/12/493634408/clinton-to-release-more-details-about-her-health

"Former President Bill Clinton will take his wife's place at several campaign events in the next couple of days. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has been recovering from pneumonia at home after abruptly leaving a Sept. 11 commemoration ceremony in New York on Sunday, where her campaign said she became overheated and dehydrated."

Why isn't Tim Kaine doing this?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 13, 2016, 08:07:55 AM
Why isn't Tim Kaine doing this?
Kaine is almost certainly participating in his own events.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 13, 2016, 08:35:31 AM
Exactly.

"You wanted a Clinton?  You got a Clinton!"
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 13, 2016, 12:33:52 PM
(https://i.imgflip.com/15n0hm.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 13, 2016, 12:36:42 PM
That stuff belongs in the political humor thread.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 13, 2016, 12:45:59 PM
Can someone who can at least pretend to be neutral tell me what happened with the Hillary being sick thing that was such a big deal? I don't keep up a ton with this stuff.

The best I've gathered is that she got Pneumonia, tried to keep up her schedule and had to leave a 9/11 event a bit early because she was sick. I feel like I'm missing something because of how people in this thread responded to it, so can someone fill me in?

If anyone wants to be filled in on Israeli politics, let me know so i can return the favor haha.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 13, 2016, 12:48:46 PM
Can someone who can at least pretend to be neutral tell me what happened with the Hillary being sick thing that was such a big deal? I don't keep up a ton with this stuff.

The best I've gathered is that she got Pneumonia, tried to keep up her schedule and had to leave a 9/11 event a bit early because she was sick. I feel like I'm missing something because of how people in this thread responded to it, so can someone fill me in?

If anyone wants to be filled in on Israeli politics, let me know so i can return the favor haha.

All I know is that she said she had a pneumonia and thought she'd be able to fight through it. Beyond that, I don't really care, and ignore news reports that make it anything more than that.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 13, 2016, 12:52:31 PM
Israeli politics

Man, don't even joke about that shit.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 13, 2016, 01:02:48 PM
Can someone who can at least pretend to be neutral tell me what happened with the Hillary being sick thing that was such a big deal? I don't keep up a ton with this stuff.

Because it smells to high heaven. Here's the series of events of how they unfolded.

1) 9/11 memorial service begins in NYC. Hillary attends wearing ridiculous sunglasses that supposedly are listed on sites online to reduce your risk of seizures if you're prone to them.
2) Fox News reports that Hillary had a medical issue occur and left the event early. She needed help getting into a van.
3) Clinton camp remains silent.
4) Many other media outlets started screaming conspiracy nonsense at Fox's report.
5) Clinton camp then releases a statement saying she was overheated and therefore had to leave, despite the fact it was like 74 degrees on Sunday.
5) Pedestrian video emerges showing Hillary leaning on a concrete car stopper waiting for the van to arrive. The van pulls up, and as soon as Clinton moves, her knees buckle and someone on each side of her grabs her. As her team surrounds her, you can see her continue to fall and she's literally lifted into the van like dead weight.
6) Mysterious metal object falls from what appears to be the inside of Hillary's right pant leg and makes a distinct high-pitched cling when it hits the ground (some people are speculating she may have parkinson's and is wearing leg braces).
7) Clinton does not go to a hospital, presumably because whatever just happened would leak to the press for sure. She went from the memorial to her daughter's apartment in Chapaqua.
8) Clinton camp stages Hillary walking out of a building and hugging a child and disappears again.
9) Internet continues to speculate
10) Clinton camp releases statement saying that she was diagnosed with pneumonia last Friday, more than 48 hours prior.
11) Internet can't figure out why if she knew since Friday that she had pneumonia, why they waited 8 hours after her collapse to inform everyone.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-1pOAzFSqVs/hqdefault.jpg)
(https://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/hillary-collapsing-again.jpg)
(https://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-drops-575x433.jpg)
(https://i2.wp.com/media.globalnews.ca/videostatic/241/847/Clinton_911_stumble_qtp_848x480_762609219896.jpg?w=670&quality=70&strip=all)
(https://8482-presscdn-0-13.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/hillary-collapses.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 13, 2016, 01:09:07 PM
Can someone who can at least pretend to be neutral tell me what happened with the Hillary being sick thing that was such a big deal? I don't keep up a ton with this stuff.

Because it smells to high heaven. Here's the series of events of how they unfolded.

1) 9/11 memorial service begins in NYC. Hillary attends wearing ridiculous sunglasses that supposedly are listed on sites online to reduce your risk of seizures if you're prone to them.
2) Fox News reports that Hillary had a medical issue occur and left the event early. She needed help getting into a van.
3) Clinton camp remains silent.
4) Many other media outlets started screaming conspiracy nonsense at Fox's report.
5) Clinton camp then releases a statement saying she was overheated and therefore had to leave, despite the fact it was like 74 degrees yesterday.
5) Pedestrian video emerges showing Hillary leaning on a concrete car stopper waiting for the van to arrive. The van pulls up, and as soon as Clinton moves, her knees buckle and someone on each side of her grabs her. As her team surrounds her, you can see her continue to fall and she's literally lifted into the van like dead weight.
6) Mysterious metal object falls from what appears to be the inside of Hillary's right pant leg and makes a distinct high-pitched cling when it hits the ground.
7) Clinton does not go to a hospital, presumably because whatever just happened would leak to the press for sure. I forget where she went, but it was somewhere in Chapaqua.
8) Clinton camp stages Hillary walking out of a building and hugging a child and disappears again.
9) Internet continues to speculate
10) Clinton camp releases statement saying that she was diagnosed with pneumonia last Friday, more than 48 hours prior.
11) Internet can't figure out why if she knew since Friday that she had pneumonia, why they waited 8 hours after her collapse to inform everyone.

There is also a lot of history at this point of her having "cough attacks", falls, memory lapses and a lot of theorist who think she has some serious health issues.  Just think about how little she is even seen in public anymore and how unopen she is about her health.  I was wondering how legit the health concerns really were because most people just placed it in the "republican BS" talk areas and maybe that was correct, but the evidence is really mounting that there is something seriously wrong with her health.   These were also used as excuses for not remembering things when questioned by the FBI regarding the emails.

On another note, I was driving in Georgia and actually saw a Trump billboard along I-75 approaching Tennessee.  I don't think I've ever seen a presidential ad billboard before, but maybe that's because I don't live in a battleground state.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 13, 2016, 01:16:44 PM
Can you imagine how 'transparent' her Presidency will be?   :lol      Us little lemmings need not know what the masters are doing.....
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 13, 2016, 01:18:40 PM
Can you imagine how 'transparent' her Presidency will be?   :lol      Us little lemmings need not know what the masters are doing.....

I'm not saying she doesn't have pneumonia, but had a civilian not gotten that video footage, we never would have heard anything other than "Hillary overheated and left early"..

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 13, 2016, 01:25:41 PM
Her interview with Cooper last night infuriated me.



Cooper asked, “Why not just say on Friday, as you said apparently to Senator [Chuck] Schumer on Sunday, ‘I have pneumonia, folks, I’m gonna power through it.’ Why keep it a secret?”

“Well, I just didn’t think it was going to be that big of a deal,” she replied. “It’s the kind of thing that, if it happens to you, and you’re a busy, active person, you just keep moving forward.”

“But doesn’t you handling of this, and your campaign’s, their refusal to acknowledge what happened until really after that video was circulated confirm the suspicion of some voters that you’re not transparent or trustworthy?” Cooper asked.

“Oh my goodness, Anderson. You know, compare everything you know about me with my opponent,” Clinton replied. “I think it’s time he met the same level of disclosure that I have, for years.”



I can't stand that line of thinking and answering... I know everyone hates me, but can't we all just hate the other guy a little more? She completely dodge the question. I know, I get it. It's politics. But here we are, 6 weeks from election day, and I, someone who's never voted non-democrat with only one exception, can't find any good reason to vote democrat this election other than how equally shitty of a choice the other side has presented. I don't want Clinton anywhere near that seat.

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 13, 2016, 01:35:45 PM
Can you imagine how 'transparent' her Presidency will be?   :lol      Us little lemmings need not know what the masters are doing.....

I'm not saying she doesn't have pneumonia, but had a civilian not gotten that video footage, we never would have heard anything other than "Hillary overheated and left early"..

Which doesn't do anything but make me wonder 'what else' is she and her camp hiding? If this were an isolated event and she didn't have the history she has of being a habitual liar then it's no big deal....she overheated and nothing to see here. But her history is as shady as the floor of a Rain Forest and she/they undoubtedly are keeping a tight lid on everything clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 13, 2016, 01:37:21 PM
Can you imagine how 'transparent' her Presidency will be?   :lol      Us little lemmings need not know what the masters are doing.....

I'm not saying she doesn't have pneumonia, but had a civilian not gotten that video footage, we never would have heard anything other than "Hillary overheated and left early"..

Which doesn't do anything but make me wonder 'what else' is she and her camp hiding? If this were an isolated event and she didn't have the history she has of being a habitual liar then it's no big deal....she overheated and nothing to see here. But her history is as shady as the floor of a Rain Forest and she/they undoubtedly are keeping a tight lid on everything clinton.

Also, apparently her daughter's "apartment" is a $10,000,000, 5000sqft living space, and when I typed in its address and looked around, I found my way here; https://www.healthcare.com/profile/metrocare-home-services-inc/

The Whitman, 21 East 26th Street, Floor 4 - Flatiron District, New York

Private hospital?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 13, 2016, 01:40:19 PM
This is so symptomatic of her behavior. I still can't figure out how people look at her like she's the better candidate. I'm not saying either candidate is deserving of the presidency but she's just everything wrong with politics today. Keeping Trump out of office to deal with 4 years of that is...scary.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 13, 2016, 01:50:18 PM
Can you imagine how 'transparent' her Presidency will be?   :lol      Us little lemmings need not know what the masters are doing.....

I'm not saying she doesn't have pneumonia, but had a civilian not gotten that video footage, we never would have heard anything other than "Hillary overheated and left early"..

Which doesn't do anything but make me wonder 'what else' is she and her camp hiding? If this were an isolated event and she didn't have the history she has of being a habitual liar then it's no big deal....she overheated and nothing to see here. But her history is as shady as the floor of a Rain Forest and she/they undoubtedly are keeping a tight lid on everything clinton.

Also, apparently her daughter's "apartment" is a $10,000,000, 5000sqft living space, and when I typed in its address and looked around, I found my way here; https://www.healthcare.com/profile/metrocare-home-services-inc/

The Whitman, 21 East 26th Street, Floor 4 - Flatiron District, New York

Private hospital?

man....if you kept pulling that thread who knows how far it'd unravel??  The clinton's and half of Congress are living in such a different world that the average person....we really have no effing clue, and apparently great measure will be and are taken to keep it that way.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 13, 2016, 01:53:18 PM
This is so symptomatic of her behavior. I still can't figure out how people look at her like she's the better candidate. I'm not saying either candidate is deserving of the presidency but she's just everything wrong with politics today. Keeping Trump out of office to deal with 4 years of that is...scary.

Because the next 2 or 3 supreme court pics will hang around for much longer than 4 years.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 13, 2016, 02:01:06 PM
Seriously, some of you are making mountains out of mole hills.

There are a couple of things at work here.

1) Trump's campaign (and other conservatives) have been speculating about her health and potential problems and lack of stamina for months now.  So, when she finally really does get sick, I completely understand her first instinct NOT being to announce to the world that she is sick.

2) She is an adult woman, working in a Presidential campaign.  People work sick all the time, especially women, especially women in high stress environments.  I believe her when she says she thought that it was "no big deal," because I've known plenty of other women who worked while suffering similar ailments.

But the big problem, even though I find # 1 and # 2 completely understandable, is

3) The public doesn't trust her.  For better or worse, deservedly or not, a large percentage of the public doesn't trust her, doesn't find her to be honest, doesn't think she is trustworthy, etc.  So in this instance, even though I find 1 and 2 to be completely understandable all other things being equal, she should have announced the diagnosis on Friday as soon as it was given, because right now all other things aren't equal.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 13, 2016, 02:11:53 PM
1) Trump's campaign (and other conservatives) have been speculating about her health and potential problems and lack of stamina for months now.  So, when she finally really does get sick, I completely understand her first instinct NOT being to announce to the world that she is sick.

That's the thing though Hef....it's not a "when she finally really does get sick". The speculation has been there dating back to the odd glasses she's been wearing for years, the concussions.....her health IS a potential problem because there is the very real chance that she is not in good health. You add to that the handful of situations where we've seen her having to be held up, helped up and down stairs and the fact that her public appearances are well staged and minimal (how many days was it with no press conference??...over 200) I don't think it's conspiratorial to question her health at all. It's legitimate.


2) She is an adult woman, working in a Presidential campaign.  People work sick all the time, especially women, especially women in high stress environments.  I believe her when she says she thought that it was "no big deal," because I've known plenty of other women who worked while suffering similar ailments.

this is where she was in a 'no win' situation. It was freaking 9/11. She'd have been torn apart for not attending any 9/11 services or memorials so I do think for better or worse she was 'forced' to show up to something. But, to your third point

3) The public doesn't trust her.  For better or worse, deservedly or not, a large percentage of the public doesn't trust her, doesn't find her to be honest, doesn't think she is trustworthy, etc.  So in this instance, even though I find 1 and 2 to be completely understandable all other things being equal, she should have announced the diagnosis on Friday as soon as it was given, because right now all other things aren't equal.

The public does not trust her and I'd eliminate the "or not" from the "deservedly or not" statement. She's given zero reasons to the public for them to trust her. She is a habitual liar. Not flip flop on this or that....she flat out lies, period. If I thought it'd make a difference I could sit here and give over 10 instances of where she flat out lied just pertaining to the e-mail debacle alone. And that's just one topic.

If she had a better image she could have easily came out and explained why she couldn't attend any memorials....but she doesn't because she is not liked by the majority of Americans for very good reasons.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 13, 2016, 02:17:57 PM
Can you imagine how 'transparent' her Presidency will be?   :lol      Us little lemmings need not know what the masters are doing.....

I'm not saying she doesn't have pneumonia, but had a civilian not gotten that video footage, we never would have heard anything other than "Hillary overheated and left early"..

Which doesn't do anything but make me wonder 'what else' is she and her camp hiding? If this were an isolated event and she didn't have the history she has of being a habitual liar then it's no big deal....she overheated and nothing to see here. But her history is as shady as the floor of a Rain Forest and she/they undoubtedly are keeping a tight lid on everything clinton.

Also, apparently her daughter's "apartment" is a $10,000,000, 5000sqft living space, and when I typed in its address and looked around, I found my way here; https://www.healthcare.com/profile/metrocare-home-services-inc/

The Whitman, 21 East 26th Street, Floor 4 - Flatiron District, New York

Private hospital?
Formerly private hospital. It was renovated and Metrohealthcare moved on. Current residents are Jeff Gordon, Chelsea Clinton and Jennifer Lopez, with each owning one or two floors.

Oh yeah, "At least that's what they want us to think!"

Conspiracies have a nifty tendency to snowball among the people who want to believe in them. A friend of mine showed me a video about how the Sandy Hook massacre was a government operation a while back. Logical fellow I like to think that I am, I asked "why stage the thing when if you just wait a couple of months some loser will do it for you?" His answer was along the lines of "if you live among criminals, when somebody burglarizes your car you don't immediately assume it was people from across town." Therein lies the problem. People become so acclimated to a premise that they see supporting examples everywhere. The government has staged false flag operations in the past, so new events are more likely to be stage than organic.  Hillary is a crook and a liar, therefore when she gets pneumonia, every single peculiarity or misstep is proffered as further evidence of her being a crook and a liar.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 13, 2016, 02:20:25 PM
And once again I have to ask, am I the only one that thinks her kipping over dead would a blessing on this whole cursed election?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 13, 2016, 02:24:19 PM
And once again I have to ask, am I the only one that thinks her kipping over dead would a blessing on this whole cursed election?

If it got us Joe Biden as the next President.....I  hate to wish people dead, I'm sure she's loved by her family...but......
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 13, 2016, 02:30:38 PM
And once again I have to ask, am I the only one that thinks her kipping over dead would a blessing on this whole cursed election?

If it got us Joe Biden as the next President.....I  hate to wish people dead, I'm sure she's loved by her family...but......
Since Trump's support largely lies not in his abilities but in contempt for Hillary, it seems that any respectable person would do. Biden, Bernie or Tim Kaine all seem to be improvements over Hillary or Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 13, 2016, 02:53:01 PM
1) Trump's campaign (and other conservatives) have been speculating about her health and potential problems and lack of stamina for months now.  So, when she finally really does get sick, I completely understand her first instinct NOT being to announce to the world that she is sick.

That's the thing though Hef....it's not a "when she finally really does get sick". The speculation has been there dating back to the odd glasses she's been wearing for years, the concussions.....her health IS a potential problem because there is the very real chance that she is not in good health. You add to that the handful of situations where we've seen her having to be held up, helped up and down stairs and the fact that her public appearances are well staged and minimal (how many days was it with no press conference??...over 200) I don't think it's conspiratorial to question her health at all. It's legitimate.
Guess which word is most important?

It's all speculation, with no real evidence and no real proof. 

Besides, the woman is 68 years old.  She occasionally wears glasses?  I'm shocked.

A letter from her doctor (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/31/us/politics/hillary-clinton-doctor-letter.html?_r=0) was released July 28, 2015 at the start of the campaign, which is much more detailed than the rubber stamp released by Trump's doctor.  Nothing significant has happened since then that I remember, other than pneumonia.  Her campaign has also announced that an even more detailed report will be issued in the next week or so, if I'm not mistaken.

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 13, 2016, 03:00:24 PM
1) Trump's campaign (and other conservatives) have been speculating about her health and potential problems and lack of stamina for months now.  So, when she finally really does get sick, I completely understand her first instinct NOT being to announce to the world that she is sick.

That's the thing though Hef....it's not a "when she finally really does get sick". The speculation has been there dating back to the odd glasses she's been wearing for years, the concussions.....her health IS a potential problem because there is the very real chance that she is not in good health. You add to that the handful of situations where we've seen her having to be held up, helped up and down stairs and the fact that her public appearances are well staged and minimal (how many days was it with no press conference??...over 200) I don't think it's conspiratorial to question her health at all. It's legitimate.
Guess which word is most important?

It's all speculation, with no real evidence and no real proof. 


Well....I'm referring to the double vision glasses she's had to wear....from the concussion she suffered from when she FAINTED in her own home.


December 2012: Clinton suffers a concussion after fainting in her home

Back when Clinton was secretary of state, she fainted while at home causing a concussion. The state department said in a press release that the cause was a stomach virus.

As a result of the concussion, Clinton wore glasses for a period of time to help her with a double vision issue. Former President Bill Clinton would later say it took Clinton six months to fully recover form the concussion.

January 2013: Clinton suffers from a blood clot

In a follow-up doctor appointment to monitor the progress of her concussion recovery, doctors discovered the secretary of state had a blood clot. Clinton was treated with blood thinners, according to her doctors, and remained at the hospital for several days



Yeah...she's old and given that she's already showing this much 'wear and tear'....the hopes that she will age well are really just that...a hope. It's far more likely that her health will continue to decline...it hasn't improved at all. Where there's smoke, there is fire.....and there is absolutely no denying that her health is questionable. She and her team have tried to protect that she's frail and sick but you can't hide that forever.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 13, 2016, 03:19:04 PM
And once again I have to ask, am I the only one that thinks her kipping over dead would a blessing on this whole cursed election?

That's the first I heard you ask that.  I would put that out there for EITHER candidate.  Anything to break this Gordian knot of shitty choices.   I'd vote for Biden right now.  Today.  At least - except for that plagiarism thing a couple decades ago - you can trust him to be reasonably forthright.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 13, 2016, 03:23:15 PM
And once again I have to ask, am I the only one that thinks her kipping over dead would a blessing on this whole cursed election?

That's the first I heard you ask that.  I would put that out there for EITHER candidate.  Anything to break this Gordian knot of shitty choices.   I'd vote for Biden right now.  Today.  At least - except for that plagiarism thing a couple decades ago - you can trust him to be reasonably forthright.
Well, what I asked was actually if her health being in potential crisis was actually a bad thing. And I had you in mind, as somebody who had to abandon their vote for Hillary but still can't support Trump. Would you vote for Kaine? Bernie? Are they worse than what you thought of Hillary a year ago?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 13, 2016, 07:26:21 PM
Seriously, some of you are making mountains out of mole hills.

There are a couple of things at work here.

1) Trump's campaign (and other conservatives) have been speculating about her health and potential problems and lack of stamina for months now.  So, when she finally really does get sick, I completely understand her first instinct NOT being to announce to the world that she is sick.

2) She is an adult woman, working in a Presidential campaign.  People work sick all the time, especially women, especially women in high stress environments.  I believe her when she says she thought that it was "no big deal," because I've known plenty of other women who worked while suffering similar ailments.

But the big problem, even though I find # 1 and # 2 completely understandable, is

3) The public doesn't trust her.  For better or worse, deservedly or not, a large percentage of the public doesn't trust her, doesn't find her to be honest, doesn't think she is trustworthy, etc.  So in this instance, even though I find 1 and 2 to be completely understandable all other things being equal, she should have announced the diagnosis on Friday as soon as it was given, because right now all other things aren't equal.

Hef is on the money.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 13, 2016, 08:01:10 PM
(https://i791.photobucket.com/albums/yy197/gmillerdrake/A9D7F136-9417-4F20-9AD8-F5149051ABAC.jpg) (https://s791.photobucket.com/user/gmillerdrake/media/A9D7F136-9417-4F20-9AD8-F5149051ABAC.jpg.html)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 13, 2016, 08:23:19 PM
 :rollin :rollin :rollin :rollin
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 14, 2016, 05:37:07 AM
 :lol

How Clinton-like...
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on September 14, 2016, 07:15:31 AM
 :lol :lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 14, 2016, 09:13:32 AM
And once again I have to ask, am I the only one that thinks her kipping over dead would a blessing on this whole cursed election?

That's the first I heard you ask that.  I would put that out there for EITHER candidate.  Anything to break this Gordian knot of shitty choices.   I'd vote for Biden right now.  Today.  At least - except for that plagiarism thing a couple decades ago - you can trust him to be reasonably forthright.
Well, what I asked was actually if her health being in potential crisis was actually a bad thing. And I had you in mind, as somebody who had to abandon their vote for Hillary but still can't support Trump. Would you vote for Kaine? Bernie? Are they worse than what you thought of Hillary a year ago?

I want Hillary to be honest and forthright so badly I can taste it.  We've talked about that.   I don't agree with even half of her policies, but then again, I don't usually agree with all REPUBLICANS policies, so I can sleep at night with that.  But I really don't like the blatant disregard and disrespect for the law and the rules of society that Hillary represents.  I would vote for either Kaine OR Pence over Hillary/Trump right now.    I don't know about Bernie.  My initial response to you said "Kaine OR Pence OR Bernie" and I deleted it; part of me says he is harmless and will advocate but not actually be able to do anything substantial (we are NOT going to be able to fund our country on a "tax on Wall Street speculation").    But I do worry he will use the Court nominations to make an extreme statement and we can't afford that. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 14, 2016, 07:19:03 PM
Yep, that was my beef with Bernie as well; way too extreme for my tastes.  As much as I dislike Hillary, she tends to somewhat of a centrist at times (although she ran to the left to try to appease some of the Bernie fans, but we know that won't stick), so she is more appealing in that regard than he would have been. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Lucien on September 14, 2016, 08:05:18 PM
we are NOT going to be able to fund our country on a "tax on Wall Street speculation"

i know you're just digging at bernie's policies with this, but the only thing he planned to fund with that policy was the tuition-free state college plan
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 15, 2016, 09:36:13 AM
we are NOT going to be able to fund our country on a "tax on Wall Street speculation"

i know you're just digging at bernie's policies with this, but the only thing he planned to fund with that policy was the tuition-free state college plan

"True but misleading" as the Fact Check sites would say, though I was misleading as well.  Yes, he did say that.   But he and others have gone well beyond that in terms of programmatic goals.  There was a fundamental infrastructure program proposed that was based almost entirely on taxation of the top 0.1%.   The Wall Street tax wasn't enough in and of itself to fund the tuition program, so the point here is to say, it's not a bottomless well, and it is based on a faulty assumption (that those people won't take their money elsewhere. AND THEY WILL.) 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 15, 2016, 03:59:32 PM
I am really terrified about November. I haven't seen a nail biter like this since '08.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 15, 2016, 04:05:31 PM
I am really terrified about November. I haven't seen a nail biter like this since '08.

And two people I do not want in office.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 15, 2016, 04:19:42 PM
Well, I'd rather have one than the other.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 15, 2016, 04:53:51 PM
I'm a believer in voting with who you really align with.  If it isn't a Democrat or a Republican I'm OK with that.  It's my vote. I don't play "Survivor" with my vote.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 15, 2016, 04:55:23 PM
I'm a believer in voting with who you really align with.  If it isn't a Democrat or a Republican I'm OK with that.  It's my vote. I don't play "Survivor" with my vote.

This is definitely my philosophy this time around.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 15, 2016, 04:56:54 PM
I'm just not a gambling man, is all. The devil I know over the devil I don't.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 15, 2016, 05:03:55 PM
I'm a believer in voting with who you really align with.  If it isn't a Democrat or a Republican I'm OK with that.  It's my vote. I don't play "Survivor" with my vote.

This is definitely my philosophy this time around.

I think if more people had that mentality it might eventually shake things up enough for it to mean something.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: chknptpie on September 15, 2016, 08:20:04 PM
I'm a believer in voting with who you really align with.  If it isn't a Democrat or a Republican I'm OK with that.  It's my vote. I don't play "Survivor" with my vote.

This is definitely my philosophy this time around.
x3
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 15, 2016, 09:18:13 PM
This is my first time voting in America and I'm voting for who I want, without consideration for how it affects the two main parties.

Then again, I'm an entropy fan.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 16, 2016, 07:39:28 AM
I'm a believer in voting with who you really align with.  If it isn't a Democrat or a Republican I'm OK with that.  It's my vote. I don't play "Survivor" with my vote.

This is definitely my philosophy this time around.

So I'm voting for Brett Michaels or Dee Snider?     I feel like a total loser, because I can't even identify with the LIBERTARIAN candidate, and I'm probably one of the more pure libertarians here.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 16, 2016, 09:37:05 AM
What do you dislike about Johnson?  Just curious.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 16, 2016, 09:55:19 AM
What do you dislike about Johnson?  Just curious.

I know he's identified as a Republican in the past, but I feel like he's really more of a moderate liberal than a real libertarian.  He's a spender.   He's still on board with some of the Republican's more onerous restrictions on abortion.  On certain issues I'm probably closer to him policy-wise than either Hillary or Donald, but I don't have a good feeling about the more fundamental aspects of my beliefs.   Me, I'm far right in terms of economics, and medium left in terms of social issues, but the problem is I'm far right in how to HANDLE those social issues.  I believe you should be able to fuck and marry anyone you want, any way you want, but I don't agree at all with the measures a Liberal government would take to get there.  I don't believe in affirmative action, I don't believe in giving minorities constructively MORE rights than the average citizen by bending over backward to force a patina of "equality". 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 16, 2016, 10:05:48 AM
I'd hardly call someone who wants to cut the federal budget by nearly two billion dollars in a single year a big spender.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 16, 2016, 10:41:03 AM
I don't disagree, he says he WANTS to, but his record in New Mexico shows otherwise. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 16, 2016, 12:37:42 PM
What do you dislike about Johnson?  Just curious.

I know this was aimed at Stad, but I figured I'd put my three cents in. I think Johnson has quite a few more liberal tendencies than your typical Libertarian. I have been contemplating this so much because I don't want to vote for him just because he's a Libertarian. Then I'd be like almost every other voter who just votes their party, regardless of knowing anything about the candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 16, 2016, 12:54:16 PM
Johnson always seemed to me to be all hell over the place. I actually find that to be the right way to be, assuming you've chosen the right positions. In his case, my recollection is that whatever flavor of flat tax he supports wouldn't work for me at all.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 16, 2016, 01:39:03 PM
I'm with you, el Barto, since I am not strictly "one party" on all issues, but there's a logic for my scatter.  I don't quite get the logic to Johnson's scatter. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: DragonAttack on September 16, 2016, 05:02:58 PM
What do you dislike about Johnson?  Just curious.

 I don't believe in affirmative action, I don't believe in giving minorities constructively MORE rights than the average citizen by bending over backward to force a patina of "equality".

I am with you most of the way where this line came from, but will disagree with this line.

Sure it isn't 'fair' now.  I missed out on a promotion years ago due to this.  Same with losing out to someone who was a relative to the person in charge.  Others have missed out in varying degrees because of both situations.

What really bothered me was years ago when the Grutter v. Bollinger case started in 2003, regarding affirmative action as to college admissions, and all the resulting litigation since.  So many are OK with lowering the bar if it means your school gets the top athlete, but don't want someone whose GPA might be 0.10 lower than the cutoff.  This was also at the same time that our president was a Yale graduate.  He gained admittance not by GPA, but by legacy.  A different form of 'affirmative' action.  That certainly doesn't seem fair, but I don't hear, and don't expect to hear, any protesting as to this type of admittance standard.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: TL on September 17, 2016, 10:06:29 PM
I'm not crazy about Hillary, but I think she'll be a competent, effective leader.

Trump is a narcissistic asshole with several undiagnosed mental disorders.

It's a shame Obama can't just stick around (in Canada, we don't have term limits. One of our Prime Minsters served for 24 non-consecutive years).

I'm confident that Clinton is going to win this. Predictions for election night; Clinton will beat Trump 52 to 43. Gary Johnson will shatter Libertarian records with 4 percent of the vote. Jill Stein will be part of the remaining 1 percent with the other also rans.
If McCain or Romney were running this time, my attitude would be, "I disagree with them, but whatever". With Trump, the cornerstones of his campaign are bigotry and hatred, which I simply can't abide.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 17, 2016, 10:22:17 PM
 ::)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: TL on September 17, 2016, 10:29:30 PM
Trump has repeatedly referred to a political opponent of his as "Pocahontas", intended in a derogatory way. How is this not incredibly offensive to indigenous people?
(In addition, the actual person commonly referred to as Pocahontas in pop culture was Powhatan. The person Trump was slagging off was, if anything, Delaware.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: pogoowner on September 17, 2016, 10:37:17 PM
It's a shame Obama can't just stick around (in Canada, we don't have term limits. One of our Prime Minsters served for 24 non-consecutive years).
I would vote for Obama over either of these two.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 17, 2016, 10:54:23 PM
Trump has repeatedly referred to a political opponent of his as "Pocahontas", intended in a derogatory way. How is this not incredibly offensive to indigenous people?
(In addition, the actual person commonly referred to as Pocahontas in pop culture was Powhatan. The person Trump was slagging off was, if anything, Delaware.

Would you say that's deplorable of him? How do you know he intended it to be derogatory? Are you inside his head, or did the media tell you that? People making jokes about others doesn't make them bigots. I tell racist jokes. Do you want to call me a bigot? Go ahead. Prove my point.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: TL on September 17, 2016, 11:00:22 PM
Trump has repeatedly referred to a political opponent of his as "Pocahontas", intended in a derogatory way. How is this not incredibly offensive to indigenous people?
(In addition, the actual person commonly referred to as Pocahontas in pop culture was Powhatan. The person Trump was slagging off was, if anything, Delaware.

Would you say that's deplorable of him? How do you know he intended it to be derogatory? Are you inside his head, or did the media tell you that? People making jokes about others doesn't make them bigots. I tell racist jokes. Do you want to call me a bigot? Go ahead. Prove my point.

Memes sure are fun, aren't they! Are you saying that wasn't super racist against native persons?
(I'm Canadian, I don't listen to your dumb media).
Calling a person 'Pocahontas who isn't remotely a member of that figure's tribe isn't "joking around". Also, saying racist things and "being a racist" aren't always one in the same. They're separate conversations, and I don't know why you would want to oversimplify.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 17, 2016, 11:02:32 PM
Trump has repeatedly referred to a political opponent of his as "Pocahontas", intended in a derogatory way. How is this not incredibly offensive to indigenous people?
(In addition, the actual person commonly referred to as Pocahontas in pop culture was Powhatan. The person Trump was slagging off was, if anything, Delaware.

Would you say that's deplorable of him? How do you know he intended it to be derogatory? Are you inside his head, or did the media tell you that? People making jokes about others doesn't make them bigots. I tell racist jokes. Do you want to call me a bigot? Go ahead. Prove my point.

Memes sure are fun, aren't they! Are you saying that wasn't super racist against native persons?
(I'm Canadian, I don't listen to your dumb media).
Calling a person 'Pocahontas who isn't remotely a member of that figure's tribe isn't "joking around". Also, saying racist things and "being a racist" aren't always one in the same. They're separate conversations, and I don't know why you would want to oversimplify.

Exactly!

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: TL on September 17, 2016, 11:03:47 PM
Trump has repeatedly referred to a political opponent of his as "Pocahontas", intended in a derogatory way. How is this not incredibly offensive to indigenous people?
(In addition, the actual person commonly referred to as Pocahontas in pop culture was Powhatan. The person Trump was slagging off was, if anything, Delaware.

Would you say that's deplorable of him? How do you know he intended it to be derogatory? Are you inside his head, or did the media tell you that? People making jokes about others doesn't make them bigots. I tell racist jokes. Do you want to call me a bigot? Go ahead. Prove my point.

Memes sure are fun, aren't they! Are you saying that wasn't super racist against native persons?
(I'm Canadian, I don't listen to your dumb media).
Calling a person 'Pocahontas who isn't remotely a member of that figure's tribe isn't "joking around". Also, saying racist things and "being a racist" aren't always one in the same. They're separate conversations, and I don't know why you would want to oversimplify.

Exactly!
I don't think you're making the point that you think you are. I'm saying that a small segment of Muslims don't represent all Muslims, just as a small segment of Catholics don't represent all Catholics.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 17, 2016, 11:08:35 PM
Trump has repeatedly referred to a political opponent of his as "Pocahontas", intended in a derogatory way. How is this not incredibly offensive to indigenous people?
(In addition, the actual person commonly referred to as Pocahontas in pop culture was Powhatan. The person Trump was slagging off was, if anything, Delaware.

Would you say that's deplorable of him? How do you know he intended it to be derogatory? Are you inside his head, or did the media tell you that? People making jokes about others doesn't make them bigots. I tell racist jokes. Do you want to call me a bigot? Go ahead. Prove my point.

Memes sure are fun, aren't they! Are you saying that wasn't super racist against native persons?
(I'm Canadian, I don't listen to your dumb media).
Calling a person 'Pocahontas who isn't remotely a member of that figure's tribe isn't "joking around". Also, saying racist things and "being a racist" aren't always one in the same. They're separate conversations, and I don't know why you would want to oversimplify.

Exactly!
I don't think you're making the point that you think you are. I'm saying that a small segment of Muslims don't represent all Muslims, just as a small segment of Catholics don't represent all Catholics.

I think you meant to post that in the meme thread. I'm talking about you referring to Trump as a bigot because of a few things he said. Keep track of the conversations.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: TL on September 17, 2016, 11:12:24 PM
Trump has repeatedly referred to a political opponent of his as "Pocahontas", intended in a derogatory way. How is this not incredibly offensive to indigenous people?
(In addition, the actual person commonly referred to as Pocahontas in pop culture was Powhatan. The person Trump was slagging off was, if anything, Delaware.

Would you say that's deplorable of him? How do you know he intended it to be derogatory? Are you inside his head, or did the media tell you that? People making jokes about others doesn't make them bigots. I tell racist jokes. Do you want to call me a bigot? Go ahead. Prove my point.

Memes sure are fun, aren't they! Are you saying that wasn't super racist against native persons?
(I'm Canadian, I don't listen to your dumb media).
Calling a person 'Pocahontas who isn't remotely a member of that figure's tribe isn't "joking around". Also, saying racist things and "being a racist" aren't always one in the same. They're separate conversations, and I don't know why you would want to oversimplify.

Exactly!
I don't think you're making the point that you think you are. I'm saying that a small segment of Muslims don't represent all Muslims, just as a small segment of Catholics don't represent all Catholics.

I think you meant to post that in the meme thread. I'm talking about you referring to Trump as a bigot because of a few things he said. Keep track of the conversations.

Re: Mexico, "They're bring drugs, they're bring crime, they're rapists". He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. Minorities have been attacked at his rallies without reprimand many times. He's been super racist against First Nations. You don't have a problem with any of that?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 17, 2016, 11:16:28 PM
Trump has repeatedly referred to a political opponent of his as "Pocahontas", intended in a derogatory way. How is this not incredibly offensive to indigenous people?
(In addition, the actual person commonly referred to as Pocahontas in pop culture was Powhatan. The person Trump was slagging off was, if anything, Delaware.

Would you say that's deplorable of him? How do you know he intended it to be derogatory? Are you inside his head, or did the media tell you that? People making jokes about others doesn't make them bigots. I tell racist jokes. Do you want to call me a bigot? Go ahead. Prove my point.

Memes sure are fun, aren't they! Are you saying that wasn't super racist against native persons?
(I'm Canadian, I don't listen to your dumb media).
Calling a person 'Pocahontas who isn't remotely a member of that figure's tribe isn't "joking around". Also, saying racist things and "being a racist" aren't always one in the same. They're separate conversations, and I don't know why you would want to oversimplify.

Exactly!
I don't think you're making the point that you think you are. I'm saying that a small segment of Muslims don't represent all Muslims, just as a small segment of Catholics don't represent all Catholics.

I think you meant to post that in the meme thread. I'm talking about you referring to Trump as a bigot because of a few things he said. Keep track of the conversations.

Re: Mexico, "They're bring drugs, they're bring crime, they're rapists". He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. Minorities have been attacked at his rallies without reprimand many times. He's been super racist against First Nations. You don't have a problem with any of that?

I don't have a problem with him keeping illegal immigrants out. I don't have a problem with him keeping criminals out. Do you have any idea how much money this country spends on putting illegal immigrants through the criminal justice system? So no, I don't have a problem with him wanting to put a cork in that.

Personally, I think everybody needs to go through a check before becoming a citizen of this country - white, black, red, yellow, whatever.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: TL on September 17, 2016, 11:20:58 PM
Trump has repeatedly referred to a political opponent of his as "Pocahontas", intended in a derogatory way. How is this not incredibly offensive to indigenous people?
(In addition, the actual person commonly referred to as Pocahontas in pop culture was Powhatan. The person Trump was slagging off was, if anything, Delaware.

Would you say that's deplorable of him? How do you know he intended it to be derogatory? Are you inside his head, or did the media tell you that? People making jokes about others doesn't make them bigots. I tell racist jokes. Do you want to call me a bigot? Go ahead. Prove my point.

Memes sure are fun, aren't they! Are you saying that wasn't super racist against native persons?
(I'm Canadian, I don't listen to your dumb media).
Calling a person 'Pocahontas who isn't remotely a member of that figure's tribe isn't "joking around". Also, saying racist things and "being a racist" aren't always one in the same. They're separate conversations, and I don't know why you would want to oversimplify.

Exactly!
I don't think you're making the point that you think you are. I'm saying that a small segment of Muslims don't represent all Muslims, just as a small segment of Catholics don't represent all Catholics.

I think you meant to post that in the meme thread. I'm talking about you referring to Trump as a bigot because of a few things he said. Keep track of the conversations.

Re: Mexico, "They're bring drugs, they're bring crime, they're rapists". He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. Minorities have been attacked at his rallies without reprimand many times. He's been super racist against First Nations. You don't have a problem with any of that?

I don't have a problem with him keeping illegal immigrants out. I don't have a problem with him keeping criminals out. Do you have any idea how much money this country spends on putting illegal immigrants through the criminal justice system? So no, I don't have a problem with him wanting to put a cork in that.

Personally, I think everybody needs to go through a check before becoming a citizen of this country - white, black, red, yellow, whatever.
Sure. I'm not telling you to let any illegals in. Once those checks happen though, if you still don't want outsiders, Canada welcomes these folks. You're just missing out by being weirdly frightened, America.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 17, 2016, 11:24:35 PM
Trump has repeatedly referred to a political opponent of his as "Pocahontas", intended in a derogatory way. How is this not incredibly offensive to indigenous people?
(In addition, the actual person commonly referred to as Pocahontas in pop culture was Powhatan. The person Trump was slagging off was, if anything, Delaware.

Would you say that's deplorable of him? How do you know he intended it to be derogatory? Are you inside his head, or did the media tell you that? People making jokes about others doesn't make them bigots. I tell racist jokes. Do you want to call me a bigot? Go ahead. Prove my point.

Memes sure are fun, aren't they! Are you saying that wasn't super racist against native persons?
(I'm Canadian, I don't listen to your dumb media).
Calling a person 'Pocahontas who isn't remotely a member of that figure's tribe isn't "joking around". Also, saying racist things and "being a racist" aren't always one in the same. They're separate conversations, and I don't know why you would want to oversimplify.

Exactly!
I don't think you're making the point that you think you are. I'm saying that a small segment of Muslims don't represent all Muslims, just as a small segment of Catholics don't represent all Catholics.

I think you meant to post that in the meme thread. I'm talking about you referring to Trump as a bigot because of a few things he said. Keep track of the conversations.

Re: Mexico, "They're bring drugs, they're bring crime, they're rapists". He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. Minorities have been attacked at his rallies without reprimand many times. He's been super racist against First Nations. You don't have a problem with any of that?

I don't have a problem with him keeping illegal immigrants out. I don't have a problem with him keeping criminals out. Do you have any idea how much money this country spends on putting illegal immigrants through the criminal justice system? So no, I don't have a problem with him wanting to put a cork in that.

Personally, I think everybody needs to go through a check before becoming a citizen of this country - white, black, red, yellow, whatever.
Sure. I'm not telling you to let any illegals in. Once those checks happen though, if you still don't want outsiders, Canada welcomes these folks. You're just missing out by being weirdly frightened, America.

:lol Where do you get this shit from?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: TL on September 17, 2016, 11:29:01 PM
Trump has repeatedly referred to a political opponent of his as "Pocahontas", intended in a derogatory way. How is this not incredibly offensive to indigenous people?
(In addition, the actual person commonly referred to as Pocahontas in pop culture was Powhatan. The person Trump was slagging off was, if anything, Delaware.

Would you say that's deplorable of him? How do you know he intended it to be derogatory? Are you inside his head, or did the media tell you that? People making jokes about others doesn't make them bigots. I tell racist jokes. Do you want to call me a bigot? Go ahead. Prove my point.

Memes sure are fun, aren't they! Are you saying that wasn't super racist against native persons?
(I'm Canadian, I don't listen to your dumb media).
Calling a person 'Pocahontas who isn't remotely a member of that figure's tribe isn't "joking around". Also, saying racist things and "being a racist" aren't always one in the same. They're separate conversations, and I don't know why you would want to oversimplify.

Exactly!
I don't think you're making the point that you think you are. I'm saying that a small segment of Muslims don't represent all Muslims, just as a small segment of Catholics don't represent all Catholics.

I think you meant to post that in the meme thread. I'm talking about you referring to Trump as a bigot because of a few things he said. Keep track of the conversations.

Re: Mexico, "They're bring drugs, they're bring crime, they're rapists". He wants to ban all Muslims from entering the US. Minorities have been attacked at his rallies without reprimand many times. He's been super racist against First Nations. You don't have a problem with any of that?

I don't have a problem with him keeping illegal immigrants out. I don't have a problem with him keeping criminals out. Do you have any idea how much money this country spends on putting illegal immigrants through the criminal justice system? So no, I don't have a problem with him wanting to put a cork in that.

Personally, I think everybody needs to go through a check before becoming a citizen of this country - white, black, red, yellow, whatever.
Sure. I'm not telling you to let any illegals in. Once those checks happen though, if you still don't want outsiders, Canada welcomes these folks. You're just missing out by being weirdly frightened, America.

:lol Where do you get this shit from?
From not living in a fearful shithole of a country.  :biggrin:
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 17, 2016, 11:31:26 PM
Clueless and lost. It's okay. It'll get better, my friend.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: TL on September 17, 2016, 11:33:03 PM
Clueless and lost. It's okay. It'll get better, my friend.
I wish you all the best. I hope things go well for you and your country.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 17, 2016, 11:35:04 PM
They always do.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: TL on September 17, 2016, 11:39:01 PM
They always do.
I legitimately hope that trend continues. I hope the United States does well through and following this election. The American people are basically siblings to the Canadian people, and we want you folks to be okay. Any criticism we have comes from concern for your well being.
Edit: Though an argument could be made that American history has been super shitty for indigenous peoples.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 18, 2016, 12:30:17 PM
So Mike Pence expressed today that he sees Dick Cheney as a role model for being VP. If that's not a red flag I don't know what is.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 18, 2016, 01:43:20 PM
I don't see how that is a red flag. I mean he isn't as "brilliant" as crazy Uncle Joe, but calling that a red flag is just your personal taste.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 18, 2016, 01:46:36 PM
I don't see how that is a red flag. I mean he isn't as "brilliant" as crazy Uncle Joe, but calling that a red flag is just your personal taste.

I'd say it's a huge red flag if the dude asks you to go hunting with him.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 18, 2016, 01:46:46 PM
I'm not crazy about Hillary, but I think she'll be a competent, effective leader.

Trump is a narcissistic asshole with several undiagnosed mental disorders.

It's a shame Obama can't just stick around (in Canada, we don't have term limits. One of our Prime Minsters served for 24 non-consecutive years).

I'm confident that Clinton is going to win this. Predictions for election night; Clinton will beat Trump 52 to 43. Gary Johnson will shatter Libertarian records with 4 percent of the vote. Jill Stein will be part of the remaining 1 percent with the other also rans.
If McCain or Romney were running this time, my attitude would be, "I disagree with them, but whatever". With Trump, the cornerstones of his campaign are bigotry and hatred, which I simply can't abide.

This is getting tired.  I think more than half of the "Trump's a BIGOT!" is bullying to get votes for Hillary.  I really do.   He's careless.  He's improvisational.  He's emotional.  NONE of these things are "RACIST" in and of themselves, and certainly none of them are "an undiagnosed mental disorder" (just curious, are you qualified to say that?  Have you treated him?)  That a person who is racist identifies with someone who is self-described "anti-Establishment" is coincidental at best, correlational at worst.   It doesn't make the message or the man "RACIST". 

The "wall" is stupid, inefficient, and doesn't address the problem. It is not, in and of itself, RACIST.   We're more than happy categorizing people - Christians, conservatives (or "neo-cons), "deplorables" - when it's convenient for our agenda, but when we have to argue against it, it seems the default these days is "BIGOT!" and "HATE!"   It is an issue, though, and no different than any liberal position, be it minimum wage, free college, or global warming, where you have people with both good intentions and bad arguing for those points.   

Trump's a bigot?  Well, then Hillary's a lying criminal.  Tit for tat.  For me, I don't give the "bigot" badge special credence.  Bigotry is wrong, narrow-minded and limiting, but so is being a lying criminal.  To me, this is not a "lesser of two evils" case; it is a battle of two "equal evils". 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 18, 2016, 01:54:13 PM
I don't see how that is a red flag. I mean he isn't as "brilliant" as crazy Uncle Joe, but calling that a red flag is just your personal taste.

I'd say it's a huge red flag if the dude asks you to go hunting with him.

(https://proxy.mind-media.com/proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.remnantofgod.org%2Fimages%2Falexjones.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 18, 2016, 01:57:13 PM
Kind of rude, but fair enough.

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 18, 2016, 02:12:52 PM
I agree with the hunting thing, actually. I was just being a goofball.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 18, 2016, 02:24:44 PM
I agree with the hunting thing, actually. I was just being a goofball.

I'm not sure I can forgive you. You're like the Colin Kaepernick of my heart.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 18, 2016, 03:08:19 PM
(https://m.popkey.co/0f1cdf/6m6z1_s-200x150.gif?c=popkey-web&p=starbucks&i=frappuccino-brands&l=search&f=.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 18, 2016, 03:42:17 PM
I don't see how that is a red flag. I mean he isn't as "brilliant" as crazy Uncle Joe, but calling that a red flag is just your personal taste.

I'm guessing we're just going to forget the part where Dubya was just Dick's puppet? And the reason we went to Iraq in the first place, aka the reason we're in this mess?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 18, 2016, 04:10:56 PM
I don't see how that is a red flag. I mean he isn't as "brilliant" as crazy Uncle Joe, but calling that a red flag is just your personal taste.

I'm guessing we're just going to forget the part where Dubya was just Dick's puppet? And the reason we went to Iraq in the first place, aka the reason we're in this mess?

I'm holding back the obnoxious laughter. We're in this mess because of radical Muslims, so it predates either Bush. As a matter of fact, we've been fighting radical Muslims going back to the founding of this country. If you want to blame Bush Jr for the current Middle East mess, Barry O had plenty of time to fix it but instead he added to it. I feel that anyone who wants to still blame Bush 8 years later is totally naive and will say anything to not criticize Barry O.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on September 18, 2016, 06:41:04 PM
Guys, things are getting calvin levels bad again in here.

Edit: after catching up in the other threads, this comment goes for them too. This place is getting really hostile.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 18, 2016, 07:26:14 PM
Guys, things are getting calvin levels bad again in here.

Edit: after catching up in the other threads, this comment goes them too. This place is getting really hostile.

Yes, you are right.  Unfortunately.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 19, 2016, 06:42:08 AM
Sounds like liberal Hollywood did their part at the Emmy's last night. I wonder if these clowns realize that by bashing a very popular candidate that they alienating a huge fan base.
Obama is going to personally insulted if any black people don't vote for Clinton. Wow.
Also, I'm going to take the nod from South Park and refer to Clinton as Turd Sandwich and Trump Giant Douche until the election is over.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 19, 2016, 07:51:42 AM
I don't see how that is a red flag. I mean he isn't as "brilliant" as crazy Uncle Joe, but calling that a red flag is just your personal taste.

I'm guessing we're just going to forget the part where Dubya was just Dick's puppet? And the reason we went to Iraq in the first place, aka the reason we're in this mess?

When did we agree on that?   Most accounts of the Bush White House are in agreement that Cheney had influence like few VP's before him, but that that's generally compared to VPs like LBJ who had ZERO influence on the Administration.   Most accounts agree that Bush listened, and gave Cheney some decision-making authority on certain issues, but was NOT his "puppet".
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 19, 2016, 07:53:08 AM

Obama is going to personally insulted if any black people don't vote for Clinton. Wow.

And yet Trump is the racist, and HIS supporters are "deplorable".  Makes me want to gag. 

Or vote for Kanye. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 19, 2016, 09:53:46 AM
Also, it appears the bombings in NY/NJ and the stabbings in MN are terror related.  I wonder how these and any future attacks will affect the election.

Found this too:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-800-immigrants-mistakenly-granted-citizenship-130452164--politics.html

The amount of stupidity around our government and immigration is mind blowing. The way we handle the Mexican border and our willingness to let anyone in so as not hurt anyone's feelings is appalling. I'm pretty sure since Johnson has talked his way out of the election my vote is going to Giant Douche.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 19, 2016, 09:57:36 AM
Christ, you guys need a drink and a good rogering.  The amount of condescension in here is getting toxic.  I think bosk's advice in the KC thread would be well placed in this one as well.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 19, 2016, 10:08:05 AM
Christ, you guys need a drink and a good rogering.  The amount of condescension in here is getting toxic.  I think bosk's advice in the KC thread would be well placed in this one as well.

Word.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 19, 2016, 10:08:40 AM
Also, it appears the bombings in NY/NJ and the stabbings in MN are terror related.  I wonder how these and any future attacks will affect the election.

Found this too:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/more-800-immigrants-mistakenly-granted-citizenship-130452164--politics.html

The amount of stupidity around our government and immigration is mind blowing. The way we handle the Mexican border and our willingness to let anyone in so as not hurt anyone's feelings is appalling. I'm pretty sure since Johnson has talked his way out of the election my vote is going to Giant Douche.

The different responses between Trump and Clinton over the weekend just kind of shows how I feel about both of them.  It was VERY obvious it was terror related Saturday night as I watched.  Yet Clinton didn't want to admit it and wanted to wait it out.  Which is fine if it wasn't so obvious what it was.  I like Trump's hard stance so much more than the slow approach.  It's a big deal.  Seaside is close to where I live.  The bomb in midtown is right next to my company's office where I was Friday (23rd and between 5th and 6th).  My train home Saturday stopped at the Elizabeth station (where a bomb went off this morning).  This is hitting home for me so it's a bit more personal and I don't like the wait and see approach.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 19, 2016, 10:22:29 AM
Christ, you guys need a drink and a good rogering.  The amount of condescension in here is getting toxic.  I think bosk's advice in the KC thread would be well placed in this one as well.
:tup
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 19, 2016, 10:30:35 AM
Christ, you guys need a drink and a good rogering.  The amount of condescension in here is getting toxic.  I think bosk's advice in the KC thread would be well placed in this one as well.
Agreed.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 19, 2016, 10:40:47 AM
King: Hunny I got a prescription from Dr. Coz today is says to drink many beers and screw to relieve stress.

Queen:  Is it once a day because you are shit out of luck buddy.

King : As needed *Giggity*
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 19, 2016, 10:43:34 AM
The Men's Health FB page shared an article from Prevention magazine, where they challenged 5 couples to get down once a day, for 30 days.  Surprise, surprise, the ones that actually went through with it and did it all 30 days ended up feeling closer to one another and better off for it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 19, 2016, 11:29:29 AM
The Men's Health FB page shared an article from Prevention magazine, where they challenged 5 couples to get down once a day, for 30 days.  Surprise, surprise, the ones that actually went through with it and did it all 30 days ended up feeling closer to one another and better off for it.

My friend made it 7 days and he was the one that "tapped out".
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 19, 2016, 11:51:51 AM
My brain is not capable of even comprehending such an idea. 30 days? Gimme 60 and I'll ace it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 19, 2016, 12:24:40 PM
Christ, you guys need a drink and a good rogering.  The amount of condescension in here is getting toxic.  I think bosk's advice in the KC thread would be well placed in this one as well.

I'm in for the drink, but before I commit, can I just get a clarification on "rogering"?  Am I in control of my own destiny at that point, or am I sort of at someone else's mercy?   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Podaar on September 19, 2016, 12:33:50 PM
Christ, you guys need a drink and a good rogering.  The amount of condescension in here is getting toxic.  I think bosk's advice in the KC thread would be well placed in this one as well.

I'm in for the drink, but before I commit, can I just get a clarification on "rogering"?  Am I in control of my own destiny at that point, or am I sort of at someone else's mercy?

I was kinda wondering about that myself, Stadler. "A good rogering" sorta has a "being on the receiving end" connotation.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 19, 2016, 12:43:10 PM
Christ, you guys need a drink and a good rogering.  The amount of condescension in here is getting toxic.  I think bosk's advice in the KC thread would be well placed in this one as well.

I'm in for the drink, but before I commit, can I just get a clarification on "rogering"?  Am I in control of my own destiny at that point, or am I sort of at someone else's mercy?


I was kinda wondering about that myself, Stadler. "A good rogering" sorta has a "being on the receiving end" connotation.

Right?  Who is Roger???
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 19, 2016, 12:43:53 PM
Well, "a good fucking" sounded a little crass.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 19, 2016, 12:45:26 PM
Well, "a good fucking" sounded a little crass.

This is a respectable thread that has no place for crass statements......


















 :biggrin:      :lol   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 19, 2016, 12:46:30 PM
It was bad enough in here already.  :lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Dave_Manchester on September 19, 2016, 01:05:36 PM
In British slang being 'rogered' means getting briskly shafted up the arse, so I was confused for a minute there as to how that would mellow anyone out, no matter how much alcohol preceded it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 19, 2016, 01:18:29 PM
Okay, I assumed it would be understood what I was getting at, so let me be obvious, then:

You guys need to shut the fuck up, have a drink, and go fucking get laid.  The condescending tone in here has been over the top and unnecessary.  You're grown adults.  Act like it.

Clear enough?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: yeshaberto on September 19, 2016, 02:18:38 PM
As the election gets closer emotions will naturally rise.  In order to keep this thread and other PR threads open those emotions need to be in check. 
Now is the time to start
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 20, 2016, 02:48:40 AM
(https://www.somethingreallyfunny.com/images/steven-seagal-emotion-chart.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 20, 2016, 03:57:41 AM
The Men's Health FB page shared an article from Prevention magazine, where they challenged 5 couples to get down once a day, for 30 days.  Surprise, surprise, the ones that actually went through with it and did it all 30 days ended up feeling closer to one another and better off for it.

I've read the exact opposite in that couple that have sex 1-2 times a week typically rank the happiest and have the lowest divorce rate.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 20, 2016, 04:23:46 AM
The Men's Health FB page shared an article from Prevention magazine, where they challenged 5 couples to get down once a day, for 30 days.  Surprise, surprise, the ones that actually went through with it and did it all 30 days ended up feeling closer to one another and better off for it.

I've read the exact opposite in that couple that have sex 1-2 times a week typically rank the happiest and have the lowest divorce rate.

Apples and oranges.  Coz was discussing a specific 30 day study.  Not long term behavior like your study likely refers to.   :tup
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 20, 2016, 05:12:55 AM
The Men's Health FB page shared an article from Prevention magazine, where they challenged 5 couples to get down once a day, for 30 days.  Surprise, surprise, the ones that actually went through with it and did it all 30 days ended up feeling closer to one another and better off for it.

I've read the exact opposite in that couple that have sex 1-2 times a week typically rank the happiest and have the lowest divorce rate.

Each circumstance is different, though if a couple needs less sex to be happy then they're clearly doing something wrong.  ;)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 20, 2016, 07:39:36 AM
Nice one, CNN.

(https://www.subjectpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Screen-Shot-2016-09-20-at-1.00.45-AM.png)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 20, 2016, 07:51:30 AM
That's Par for course with that station. That station is essentially the TMZ of 'real' news. Every now and then they may accidentally say something unbiased or 'true'....but all in all they adage of them being the 'Clinton News Network' is basically correct....certainly (as the exposed e-mails prove) a subservient network willingly used by the Dems as a weapon.






FOX news attacks in 3....2....
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 20, 2016, 07:56:29 AM
What's funny about profiling is that everyone wants it but doesn't. Take the recent bombings. People are criticizing his friends and family for not saying something yet if people say something they're going to be slammed for being racist. This is exactly what happened in San Bernadino. In a perfect world profiling wouldn't be needed but in today's world I agree with Trump on this.

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 20, 2016, 07:59:29 AM
I'm digging in harder on my comments about "race".  None of this is about "race", per se.  CNN wouldn't need to edit the headline if it was.   

It's all about the lawlessness and desperation of Hillary and the DNC to "not blow this". It's all about creating an ad hominem argument without seeming to actually do so.   This approach appeals to "The ends justify the means."
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 20, 2016, 08:08:47 AM
What's funny about profiling is that everyone wants it but doesn't. Take the recent bombings. People are criticizing his friends and family for not saying something yet if people say something they're going to be slammed for being racist. This is exactly what happened in San Bernadino. In a perfect world profiling wouldn't be needed but in today's world I agree with Trump on this.

What the Communist News Network and the mass of Trump haters don't know (it's not that they know and don't care, it's that THEY DON'T KNOW) is that the "profiling" that El Al does has NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE.  It's CHARACTER profiling.  It's the individual.  They amass data in about 15 or 20 areas - including but not limited to country of origin - and build a profile.   THAT profile is what is acted on.    No one characteristic is determinative, and therefore no one characteristic is automatically acted on.  They don't stop all Arabs.  Or all Muslims.  But they will stop someone who has "yeses" in a requisite number of categories; that category may or may not include the check box "Muslim" or include a country of origin within a specific list.   There's no hate or discrimination involved.   It's actually the same type of analysis (well, it's a lot more complex, but still...) the Dems will gladly do when it shows "bias" and allows them to call for increased funding or more social programs to battle "inequity". 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 20, 2016, 08:21:18 AM
I don't understand how our current vetting process for immigrants isn't considered profiling. "Profiling" doesn't need to be an inherently negative thing. We're humans. We literally profile everything.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 20, 2016, 08:55:06 AM
I was under the impression there already is a large amount of profiling in use in various law enforcement agencies whether or not they admit to it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 20, 2016, 09:11:38 AM
I was under the impression there already is a large amount of profiling in use in various law enforcement agencies whether or not they admit to it.

(This is to Chino too) the problem is that "profiling" has taken on a meaning.  It is inherently negative in it's connotation today.  John Douglas made an entire career out of "profiling" in the sense you mean.  When we see five murders that are connected, everything that follows is "profiling" in the sense that you are saying it.   The problem is, Trump can't use that word in our society because it will be taken in the "negative" sense of the word.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 20, 2016, 09:15:04 AM
I was under the impression there already is a large amount of profiling in use in various law enforcement agencies whether or not they admit to it.

Why wouldn't you? I mean, honestly....there's a reason the groups of people that are profiled are profiled. Middle Eastern men ages 18-40 are profiled for terrorism because they are the ones who are committing 98% of the terrorism acts. Young black men hanging out on the street corner in the city at 3:00 am are being profiled as drug dealers and criminals because that's the motif. White trash hoosiers with Mullets, three black teeth and a truck full of sudafed and Draino are being profiled as Meth dealers because that's what they are.

Cliche's are cliche's because they ring true near all the time. same with profiling. You can get your panties worked up into a bunch and whine about how it's not fair to profile....and certainly there will be an instance here and there where  a young black man is wrongly profiled or some middle eastern guy is wrongly profiled....but I'll take the chances over missing another bombing or a criminal killing someone.

The backing off of profiling and public outrage over using it as a tactic is just another example IMO of the 'weak' stance our culture has shifted to overall against threats and crime. The smack on the wrist approach and hoping that the bad guys find a conscience is pie in the sky thinking. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 20, 2016, 09:17:20 AM
I was under the impression there already is a large amount of profiling in use in various law enforcement agencies whether or not they admit to it.

(This is to Chino too) the problem is that "profiling" has taken on a meaning.  It is inherently negative in it's connotation today.  John Douglas made an entire career out of "profiling" in the sense you mean.  When we see five murders that are connected, everything that follows is "profiling" in the sense that you are saying it.   The problem is, Trump can't use that word in our society because it will be taken in the "negative" sense of the word.

So ridiculous.

I wonder how many Hillary supporters live in a neighborhood with signs like these posted and think nothing of it.

(https://chandlerpd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Neighborhood-Watch-1.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 20, 2016, 09:20:14 AM
What the Israelis do and what is commonly referred to here as racial profiling are two entirely different things.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 20, 2016, 09:22:34 AM
What the Israelis do and what is commonly referred to here as racial profiling are two entirely different things.

That still doesn't change the fact that CNN blatantly altered (in this case made up) a quote for the sole purpose of hitting the feels and triggering a knee jerk outrage. I'm sure many people aren't even reading his quote. They just see the word "racial",  see it's associated with Trump, and then immediately fly off the handle.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Podaar on September 20, 2016, 09:24:16 AM
...and even if Trump, in his statement, means exactly what the Israelis do when he says profiling, he has the problem of his previous statements to get past. Such as "Mexicans are rapists" which is the type of profiling that makes liberals flinch.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 20, 2016, 09:54:25 AM
But with full respect to GMD, I just explained it, and in his post he (seems to, anyway) fall into the exact trap I'm talking about.   "Criminal profiling" DOES NOT TARGET GROUPS, except, of course, the "group" of "criminal".   "Criminal profiling" doesn't start with "ALL MUSLIMS" and winnow down.  It starts with a character profile and builds up, and oh-by-the-way, one variable in that character profile might be race, or gender, or religion.   There are some criminal groups where "gender" is an important statistic but race doesn't really factor in (serial killers).  Others, gender doesn't play as big a role, but race is a large factor.  Others, it seems, religion is a big factor, as is gender, but perhaps race isn't as important (terrorism). 

That is a CRUCIAL difference, and one that most people DO NOT understand.     
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 20, 2016, 10:24:05 AM
What the Israelis do and what is commonly referred to here as racial profiling are two entirely different things.

That still doesn't change the fact that CNN blatantly altered (in this case made up) a quote for the sole purpose of hitting the feels and triggering a knee jerk outrage. I'm sure many people aren't even reading his quote. They just see the word "racial",  see it's associated with Trump, and then immediately fly off the handle.
I am in no way defending CNN.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Podaar on September 20, 2016, 11:22:40 AM
But with full respect to GMD, I just explained it, and in his post he (seems to, anyway) fall into the exact trap I'm talking about.   "Criminal profiling" DOES NOT TARGET GROUPS, except, of course, the "group" of "criminal".   "Criminal profiling" doesn't start with "ALL MUSLIMS" and winnow down.  It starts with a character profile and builds up, and oh-by-the-way, one variable in that character profile might be race, or gender, or religion.   There are some criminal groups where "gender" is an important statistic but race doesn't really factor in (serial killers).  Others, gender doesn't play as big a role, but race is a large factor.  Others, it seems, religion is a big factor, as is gender, but perhaps race isn't as important (terrorism). 

That is a CRUCIAL difference, and one that most people DO NOT understand.   

I think this is well said.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 20, 2016, 11:28:08 AM
What the Israelis do and what is commonly referred to here as racial profiling are two entirely different things.

That's debatable. What we (Israelis) do is actually extremely damn racist. It's effective, but mostly because there's not a ton of skill involved and it just treats almost everyone (who isn't a white Jew or white tourist*) as a potential terrorist.





* Unless those white tourists also visited an Arab country for whatever reason.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 20, 2016, 11:39:03 AM
I was under the impression there already is a large amount of profiling in use in various law enforcement agencies whether or not they admit to it.

(This is to Chino too) the problem is that "profiling" has taken on a meaning.  It is inherently negative in it's connotation today.  John Douglas made an entire career out of "profiling" in the sense you mean.  When we see five murders that are connected, everything that follows is "profiling" in the sense that you are saying it.   The problem is, Trump can't use that word in our society because it will be taken in the "negative" sense of the word.

I agree with this. The liberal media has done another bang up job of trumping (sorry) up these ridiculous ideas that profiling = racism. They're more concerned with hurting the feelings of someone we know nothing about instead of worrying about national security.

When I started working for New York City Transit, I had to take as terrorism and safety class, for obvious reasons. I didn't realize just how many terrorists were captured before they were ever able to set their plans in motion. In one example, there was a hot dog vendor set up right outside one of the main transit buildings in downtown Manhattan. It wound up that he was using that money, and money from other activities, to put together some terrorist activist group. This is in my face almost every day. Maybe people who live and work in some small town with one traffic light don't feel the effects of it as much, but it's very real. The need for investigating people before allowing them into the country is something that is needed. That won't even guarantee catching them all, but doing nothing is undeniably worse.

I don't agree with Trumps idea of banning all Muslims from entering the country, nor do I agree with what was done to the Japanese in this country during World War II. However, something needs to be done to improve our security measures.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 20, 2016, 11:56:39 AM
I was under the impression there already is a large amount of profiling in use in various law enforcement agencies whether or not they admit to it.

(This is to Chino too) the problem is that "profiling" has taken on a meaning.  It is inherently negative in it's connotation today.  John Douglas made an entire career out of "profiling" in the sense you mean.  When we see five murders that are connected, everything that follows is "profiling" in the sense that you are saying it.   The problem is, Trump can't use that word in our society because it will be taken in the "negative" sense of the word.

I agree with this. The liberal media has done another bang up job of trumping (sorry) up these ridiculous ideas that profiling = racism. They're more concerned with hurting the feelings of someone we know nothing about instead of worrying about national security.

When I started working for New York City Transit, I had to take as terrorism and safety class, for obvious reasons. I didn't realize just how many terrorists were captured before they were ever able to set their plans in motion. In one example, there was a hot dog vendor set up right outside one of the main transit buildings in downtown Manhattan. It wound up that he was using that money, and money from other activities, to put together some terrorist activist group. This is in my face almost every day. Maybe people who live and work in some small town with one traffic light don't feel the effects of it as much, but it's very real. The need for investigating people before allowing them into the country is something that is needed. That won't even guarantee catching them all, but doing nothing is undeniably worse.

I don't agree with Trumps idea of banning all Muslims from entering the country, nor do I agree with what was done to the Japanese in this country during World War II. However, something needs to be done to improve our security measures.

I'm honestly far more concerned with people born here to remain under the radar their whole lives, and then have terrorist-like ambitions shaped by the internet and social media. Those people are significantly harder to identify.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 20, 2016, 12:04:25 PM
I was under the impression there already is a large amount of profiling in use in various law enforcement agencies whether or not they admit to it.

(This is to Chino too) the problem is that "profiling" has taken on a meaning.  It is inherently negative in it's connotation today.  John Douglas made an entire career out of "profiling" in the sense you mean.  When we see five murders that are connected, everything that follows is "profiling" in the sense that you are saying it.   The problem is, Trump can't use that word in our society because it will be taken in the "negative" sense of the word.

I agree with this. The liberal media has done another bang up job of trumping (sorry) up these ridiculous ideas that profiling = racism. They're more concerned with hurting the feelings of someone we know nothing about instead of worrying about national security.

When I started working for New York City Transit, I had to take as terrorism and safety class, for obvious reasons. I didn't realize just how many terrorists were captured before they were ever able to set their plans in motion. In one example, there was a hot dog vendor set up right outside one of the main transit buildings in downtown Manhattan. It wound up that he was using that money, and money from other activities, to put together some terrorist activist group. This is in my face almost every day. Maybe people who live and work in some small town with one traffic light don't feel the effects of it as much, but it's very real. The need for investigating people before allowing them into the country is something that is needed. That won't even guarantee catching them all, but doing nothing is undeniably worse.

I don't agree with Trumps idea of banning all Muslims from entering the country, nor do I agree with what was done to the Japanese in this country during World War II. However, something needs to be done to improve our security measures.

I'm honestly far more concerned with people born here to remain under the radar their whole lives, and then have terrorist-like ambitions shaped by the internet and social media. Those people are significantly harder to identify.

You make a good point. It's just impossible to be able to catch everyone. I get pulled in two different directions. There's part of me that hates the invasion of privacy by the government to watch for alleged terrorist activities, but then there's the part of me that knows terrorism is far more ubiquitous now as opposed to when the Bill of Rights, and the foundation for limited government intervention, was written so many years ago.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: yeshaberto on September 20, 2016, 03:44:10 PM
Guys, things are getting calvin levels bad again in here.

Edit: after catching up in the other threads, this comment goes for them too. This place is getting really hostile.


If by this you are referring to one of the members here then consider this your final warning
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on September 20, 2016, 04:03:24 PM
To clarify, I meant bad as in around the last time calvin posted commonly in here and people got so riled up that a bunch of people got temp bans. Not that calvin is literally the measure of how bad the thread is specifically.

That said, the warning is still fair as it's a dick thing to say.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 20, 2016, 05:18:13 PM
That's Par for course with that station. That station is essentially the TMZ of 'real' news. Every now and then they may accidentally say something unbiased or 'true'....but all in all they adage of them being the 'Clinton News Network' is basically correct....certainly (as the exposed e-mails prove) a subservient network willingly used by the Dems as a weapon.

It's shocking how far CNN has fallen.  Anderson Cooper is aces, but the network as a whole is so in the tank for Clinton, they might as well change their name to the Clinton News Network.  And they used to be the least biased of the three major cable news channels.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 21, 2016, 06:35:54 AM
The fact that CNN is the lowest in the ratings of the big three says it all.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 21, 2016, 07:57:33 AM
The fact that CNN is the lowest in the ratings of the big three says it all.
I agree.  While FOX is and always has been to the right, and MSNBC is and always has been to the left, CNN just seems desperate.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 21, 2016, 08:18:26 AM
Clinton has cancelled every appearance (other than the debate right now) for the next month and event the two fundraisers that remain scheduled she isn't going to attend. This on the heels of yet another instance where she needed assistance climbing two stairs and had that crazy eye thing happen to her while speaking.

Her supporters can claim her health is no big issue all they want.....but it's increasingly difficult to deny it.....she's going to continue to try and hide from it but there IS something wrong with her health. It's not the flu or a cold or something trivial. She's sick and has been sick for some time and the fact she's still trying to hide it from the public is just another example of her arrogance and selfishness.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 21, 2016, 08:23:13 AM
Clinton has cancelled every appearance (other than the debate right now) for the next month and event the two fundraisers that remain scheduled she isn't going to attend. This on the heels of yet another instance where she needed assistance climbing two stairs and had that crazy eye thing happen to her while speaking.

Her supporters can claim her health is no big issue all they want.....but it's increasingly difficult to deny it.....she's going to continue to try and hide from it but there IS something wrong with her health. It's not the flu or a cold or something trivial. She's sick and has been sick for some time and the fact she's still trying to hide it from the public is just another example of her arrogance and selfishness.

I agree.  She doesn't pass the eye test from a health standpoint in my non doctor review (which means nothing so I get it).  She has just looked sickly for awhile (maybe she needs a spray tan to help with her ridiculously pale skin).  But that's probably why she is staying out of the public eye.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 21, 2016, 08:30:53 AM
Clinton has cancelled every appearance (other than the debate right now) for the next month and event the two fundraisers that remain scheduled she isn't going to attend. This on the heels of yet another instance where she needed assistance climbing two stairs and had that crazy eye thing happen to her while speaking.

Her supporters can claim her health is no big issue all they want.....but it's increasingly difficult to deny it.....she's going to continue to try and hide from it but there IS something wrong with her health. It's not the flu or a cold or something trivial. She's sick and has been sick for some time and the fact she's still trying to hide it from the public is just another example of her arrogance and selfishness.

I agree.  She doesn't pass the eye test from a health standpoint in my non doctor review (which means nothing so I get it).  She has just looked sickly for a while (maybe she needs a spray tan to help with her ridiculously pale skin).  But that's probably why she is staying out of the public eye.

Can you imagine what would happen if she collapsed on the debate stage..
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 21, 2016, 08:33:46 AM
Clinton on the Tulsa shooting.

https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/politics/terence-crutcher-tulsa-shooting-hillary-clinton/index.html

This shooting is still under investigation and the fact that she has jumped to conclusions that this shooting was simply a result of racism is ridiculous. Someone in her position and stature should wait for the investigation to be completed before coming to a conclusion. I see her comments are nothing more than a ploy to gain black voters while on the Steve Harvey Show. And I really don't see why she needed to call out white people. Seriously, screw her arrogance and white shamming. I wonder what her comment would be if she heard the guy shot in Charlotte yesterday was shot by a black man. Damn racist white people.  There are two sides to every story, glad she chose to only hear one side. Great leadership Hillary!  :tup

https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/21/us/terence-crutcher-police-shooting-point-counterpoint/index.html

It sounds like the two biggest things in this case are the PCP found in the car and if he reached into the window. Police officers are trained to recognize drug use and the potential affects. If he wasn't complying and reached into the car the I think the use of force is acceptable. My question is why one officer used a taser and one used a gun?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 21, 2016, 08:34:29 AM
Clinton has cancelled every appearance (other than the debate right now) for the next month and event the two fundraisers that remain scheduled she isn't going to attend. This on the heels of yet another instance where she needed assistance climbing two stairs and had that crazy eye thing happen to her while speaking.

Her supporters can claim her health is no big issue all they want.....but it's increasingly difficult to deny it.....she's going to continue to try and hide from it but there IS something wrong with her health. It's not the flu or a cold or something trivial. She's sick and has been sick for some time and the fact she's still trying to hide it from the public is just another example of her arrogance and selfishness.

I agree.  She doesn't pass the eye test from a health standpoint in my non doctor review (which means nothing so I get it).  She has just looked sickly for a while (maybe she needs a spray tan to help with her ridiculously pale skin).  But that's probably why she is staying out of the public eye.

Can you imagine what would happen if she collapsed on the debate stage..

I'm sure the media would say Trump drugged her or something.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 21, 2016, 08:46:22 AM
Clinton has cancelled every appearance (other than the debate right now) for the next month and event the two fundraisers that remain scheduled she isn't going to attend. This on the heels of yet another instance where she needed assistance climbing two stairs and had that crazy eye thing happen to her while speaking.

Her supporters can claim her health is no big issue all they want.....but it's increasingly difficult to deny it.....she's going to continue to try and hide from it but there IS something wrong with her health. It's not the flu or a cold or something trivial. She's sick and has been sick for some time and the fact she's still trying to hide it from the public is just another example of her arrogance and selfishness.

I agree.  She doesn't pass the eye test from a health standpoint in my non doctor review (which means nothing so I get it).  She has just looked sickly for a while (maybe she needs a spray tan to help with her ridiculously pale skin).  But that's probably why she is staying out of the public eye.

Can you imagine what would happen if she collapsed on the debate stage..

Wasn't there a primary debate where she left the stage for a half hour anyway? I remember seeing clips of the moderators jokingly asking if Sec. Clinton was returning tonight?

Bring on Biden and lets be done with this carnival please.....
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 21, 2016, 10:47:08 AM
Clinton has cancelled every appearance (other than the debate right now) for the next month and event the two fundraisers that remain scheduled she isn't going to attend. This on the heels of yet another instance where she needed assistance climbing two stairs and had that crazy eye thing happen to her while speaking.

Her supporters can claim her health is no big issue all they want.....but it's increasingly difficult to deny it.....she's going to continue to try and hide from it but there IS something wrong with her health. It's not the flu or a cold or something trivial. She's sick and has been sick for some time and the fact she's still trying to hide it from the public is just another example of her arrogance and selfishness.

I agree.  She doesn't pass the eye test from a health standpoint in my non doctor review (which means nothing so I get it).  She has just looked sickly for a while (maybe she needs a spray tan to help with her ridiculously pale skin).  But that's probably why she is staying out of the public eye.

Can you imagine what would happen if she collapsed on the debate stage..

Wasn't there a primary debate where she left the stage for a half hour anyway? I remember seeing clips of the moderators jokingly asking if Sec. Clinton was returning tonight?

Bring on Biden and lets be done with this carnival please.....

Yes and she blamed it on 'women having to pee'. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: portnoy311 on September 21, 2016, 11:13:42 AM
No. She was literally a few seconds late coming back from a commercial break, not a half hour.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-momentarily-missing-debate-stage/story?id=35867345
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 21, 2016, 11:23:25 AM
No. She was literally a few seconds late coming back from a commercial break, not a half hour.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-momentarily-missing-debate-stage/story?id=35867345

She was also late at another debate, the first debate.  That's the one where she made the comment about women needing more time for the bathroom.  She also might have only been slightly late too, not sure if I remember, but I think same scenario where she strolled out after the debate came back on air from commercial break.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: portnoy311 on September 21, 2016, 11:32:04 AM
https://time.com/4156185/democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-late/

It was the same scenario. She made a joke to Anderson that it takes her a bit longer.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 21, 2016, 11:44:41 AM
So she's the Axl Rose of political debaters
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 21, 2016, 05:26:01 PM
Those debates are going to be a joke.  As full of shit as Trump always is, it is the job of his opponent to fact check and call him on it, not the moderator's, but you can bet the mods will be fact checking him left and right.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 21, 2016, 06:41:54 PM
Those debates are going to be a joke.  As full of shit as Trump always is, it is the job of his opponent to fact check and call him on it, not the moderator's, but you can bet the mods will be fact checking him left and right.

She's as full of sh%t as he is. It'd be nice to see her fact checked on the BS she spouts as well, but she won't.

She can't tout her record because it's rife with failures so she'll just attack Trump when she can.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 21, 2016, 06:55:16 PM
Interesting article about Trump using money from his charity (that he doesn't donate to) to pay his personal legal bills.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 21, 2016, 07:23:44 PM
Interesting article about Trump using money from his charity (that he doesn't donate to) to pay his personal legal bills.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html)

It'd be silly for Clinton to attack him on that as the Clinton Foundation and all the subtrifuge and shady dealings that have gone on in it far outweigh what this article speaks to. If Trumps team is smart they have Trump fueled with factual, damning info and ready to pounce if she tries to bring this up. There's plenty of it out there concerning her and Bills "foundation"

Like I said, she can't tout any type of record because her record isnt something she can brag about or be proud of.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 21, 2016, 07:28:28 PM
Interesting article about Trump using money from his charity (that he doesn't donate to) to pay his personal legal bills.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html)

It'd be silly for Clinton to attack him on that as the Clinton Foundation and all the subtrifuge and shady dealings that have gone on in it far outweigh what this article speaks to. If Trumps team is smart they have Trump fueled with factual, damning info and ready to pounce if she tries to bring this up. There's plenty of it out there concerning her and Bills "foundation"

Like I said, she can't tout any type of record because her record isnt something she can brag about or be proud of.

Yes we know how you feel about Clinton.  What is your reaction about the article and what trump did?  The article was about Trump yet your entire response was a Clinton rant.  Your thoughts on the actual artucle?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 21, 2016, 07:34:38 PM
There is nothing wrong with Gary's response.  Everything either candidate does can be compared to the other.  It is the election season, after all.  And he was dead accurate when he all but said that Clinton cannot take the moral high ground when it comes to this kind of stuff.  And neither can Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 21, 2016, 07:38:20 PM
There is nothing wrong with Gary's response.  Everything either candidate does can be compared to the other.  It is the election season, after all.  And he was dead accurate when he all but said that Clinton cannot take the moral high ground when it comes to this kind of stuff.  And neither can Trump.

I didn't say anything was wrong with his response.  I asked what his thoughts were on the article i posted and he quoted in his response.  That is not an unreasonable request.  Talk about Clinton, but at least talk about the content of my post if you are going to directly quote respond to it.

And I agree with you about it creating a cancel out effect.  Looks like the issues each side has with the foundations of their opponents can't really be used.  Glass houses and all.  I guess that was my point as I am not a raving fan of either candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 21, 2016, 08:03:50 PM
I doubt we'll get this, but I'd like the debates to focus on how each candidate will....you know....run the country. I don't care about all of the crappy details from their past or how one has bigger hands or how one loves terrorists or how one is racist or blah blah blah.

I have no idea how Trump will be as president other than something about building a wall and being pretty unfair to Muslims.

I have no idea how Clinton will be as president other than being a bit too hawkish.

I'd like to know how these people will be as president. I'm not voting for messiah here.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 21, 2016, 08:57:32 PM
I'd like to know how these people will be as president. I'm not voting for messiah here.

Some on here apparently are though. Man, no wonder everyone was disappointed by Obama.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 22, 2016, 04:30:26 AM
I'd like to know how these people will be as president. I'm not voting for messiah here.

Some on here apparently are though. Man, no wonder everyone was disappointed by Obama.

That is the usual and typical response/ behavior to every President by at least half the population.  I guess you would call that the MOTUS OPERANDI.  ;)

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 22, 2016, 05:15:53 AM
I doubt we'll get this, but I'd like the debates to focus on how each candidate will....you know....run the country. I don't care about all of the crappy details from their past or how one has bigger hands or how one loves terrorists or how one is racist or blah blah blah.

I have no idea how Trump will be as president other than something about building a wall and being pretty unfair to Muslims.

I have no idea how Clinton will be as president other than being a bit too hawkish.

I'd like to know how these people will be as president. I'm not voting for messiah here.

I'm voting for Clinton because she's the best bet we have for retaining the status quo. Trump has a lot of ideas, and I don't like any of them. Clinton won't do enough to stop another financial recession or decade of unsustainable foreign involvement, and she probably won't do much at all to help domestic problems we have here, but she'll at least do enough to keep a lid on those fires.

It's 4th and 2 for America and we have a small but considerable lead, even though we aren't playing well. I trust Coach Clinton is smart enough to send the punter in. I trust Donald Trump to send Tim Tebow in for a trick play that runs for a loss.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 22, 2016, 05:21:55 AM
There is nothing wrong with Gary's response.  Everything either candidate does can be compared to the other.  It is the election season, after all.  And he was dead accurate when he all but said that Clinton cannot take the moral high ground when it comes to this kind of stuff.  And neither can Trump.

I didn't say anything was wrong with his response.  I asked what his thoughts were on the article i posted and he quoted in his response.  That is not an unreasonable request.  Talk about Clinton, but at least talk about the content of my post if you are going to directly quote respond to it.

And I agree with you about it creating a cancel out effect.  Looks like the issues each side has with the foundations of their opponents can't really be used.  Glass houses and all. I guess that was my point as I am not a raving fan of either candidate.

So then you've already posted an article about the shady dealings of The Clinton Foundation? Don't claim to be a fan of neither candidate when most of your postings are exceedingly left-wing biased.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 22, 2016, 05:35:11 AM
There is nothing wrong with Gary's response.  Everything either candidate does can be compared to the other.  It is the election season, after all.  And he was dead accurate when he all but said that Clinton cannot take the moral high ground when it comes to this kind of stuff.  And neither can Trump.

I didn't say anything was wrong with his response.  I asked what his thoughts were on the article i posted and he quoted in his response.  That is not an unreasonable request.  Talk about Clinton, but at least talk about the content of my post if you are going to directly quote respond to it.

And I agree with you about it creating a cancel out effect.  Looks like the issues each side has with the foundations of their opponents can't really be used.  Glass houses and all. I guess that was my point as I am not a raving fan of either candidate.

So then you've already posted an article about the shady dealings of The Clinton Foundation? Don't claim to be a fan of neither candidate when most of your postings are exceedingly left-wing biased.

I would appreciate it if you would simply take what I say at face value, and not make accusations and assumptions about me.  Do not tell me not to clam anything.  I am not some institution that is required to give equal post time to both parties or candidates.  This is exactly the kind of behavior that many here have posted about, and Bosk warned about.  Behavior that does not add to the discussion in a civil manner, and tends to cause negative personal reactions.

And to be clear, I may be left-leaning.  But that doesn't mean I have to be a fan of Clinton.  That is logic.  So back off.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 22, 2016, 05:47:58 AM
There is nothing wrong with Gary's response.  Everything either candidate does can be compared to the other.  It is the election season, after all.  And he was dead accurate when he all but said that Clinton cannot take the moral high ground when it comes to this kind of stuff.  And neither can Trump.

I didn't say anything was wrong with his response.  I asked what his thoughts were on the article i posted and he quoted in his response.  That is not an unreasonable request.  Talk about Clinton, but at least talk about the content of my post if you are going to directly quote respond to it.

And I agree with you about it creating a cancel out effect.  Looks like the issues each side has with the foundations of their opponents can't really be used.  Glass houses and all. I guess that was my point as I am not a raving fan of either candidate.

So then you've already posted an article about the shady dealings of The Clinton Foundation? Don't claim to be a fan of neither candidate when most of your postings are exceedingly left-wing biased.

I would appreciate it if you would simply take what I say at face value, and not make accusations and assumptions about me.  Do not tell me not to clam anything.  I am not some institution that is required to give equal post time to both parties or candidates.  This is exactly the kind of behavior that many here have posted about, and Bosk warned about.  Behavior that does not add to the discussion in a civil manner, and tends to cause negative personal reactions.

And to be clear, I may be left-leaning.  But that doesn't mean I have to be a fan of Clinton.  That is logic.  So back off.

That wasn't a negative comment. It was a question. Hence the ? at the end of the sentence. There's irony in there somewhere. Dig deep and the treasure awaits.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 22, 2016, 05:52:33 AM
There is nothing wrong with Gary's response.  Everything either candidate does can be compared to the other.  It is the election season, after all.  And he was dead accurate when he all but said that Clinton cannot take the moral high ground when it comes to this kind of stuff.  And neither can Trump.

I didn't say anything was wrong with his response.  I asked what his thoughts were on the article i posted and he quoted in his response.  That is not an unreasonable request.  Talk about Clinton, but at least talk about the content of my post if you are going to directly quote respond to it.

And I agree with you about it creating a cancel out effect.  Looks like the issues each side has with the foundations of their opponents can't really be used.  Glass houses and all. I guess that was my point as I am not a raving fan of either candidate.

So then you've already posted an article about the shady dealings of The Clinton Foundation? Don't claim to be a fan of neither candidate when most of your postings are exceedingly left-wing biased.

I would appreciate it if you would simply take what I say at face value, and not make accusations and assumptions about me.  Do not tell me not to clam anything.  I am not some institution that is required to give equal post time to both parties or candidates.  This is exactly the kind of behavior that many here have posted about, and Bosk warned about.  Behavior that does not add to the discussion in a civil manner, and tends to cause negative personal reactions.

And to be clear, I may be left-leaning.  But that doesn't mean I have to be a fan of Clinton.  That is logic.  So back off.

That wasn't a negative comment. It was a question. Hence the ? at the end of the sentence. There's irony in there somewhere. Dig deep and the treasure awaits.

The second sentence was not a question.  You are making this personal and insulting, and need to back off.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 22, 2016, 05:56:11 AM
I'm not insulting you. I just find it interesting that people who claim to be a fan of neither candidate have more negative things to say about Trump. It's especially ironic considering Clinton's political dealings for the last couple of decades. You posting something about Trump's shady finances is like pining for Al Sharpton as a civil rights leader.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 22, 2016, 06:02:11 AM
I'm not insulting you. I just find it interesting that people who claim to be a fan of neither candidate have more negative things to say about Trump. It's especially ironic considering Clinton's political dealings for the last couple of decades. You posting something about Trump's shady finances is like pining for Al Sharpton as a civil rights leader.

Seriously?  Are you saying I should be EQUAL in my postings about each candidate?  And if I am not I am not able to say I am a fan of neither without somehow disclosing some type of ratio of dislike?  What are you even saying, and the why are you making it an issue with me?
I can be a fan of neither but dislike one a lot more.  That is perfectly reasonable.

 Just let it go.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 22, 2016, 06:07:15 AM
I'm not insulting you. I just find it interesting that people who claim to be a fan of neither candidate have more negative things to say about Trump. It's especially ironic considering Clinton's political dealings for the last couple of decades. You posting something about Trump's shady finances is like pining for Al Sharpton as a civil rights leader.

Seriously?  Are you saying I should be EQUAL in my postings about each candidate?  And if I am not I am not able to say I am a fan of neither without somehow disclosing some type of ratio of dislike?  What are you even saying, and the why are you making it an issue with me?
I can be a fan of neither but dislike one a lot more.  That is perfectly reasonable.

 Just let it go.

That's not what I'm saying. *sigh* This is an exercise in futility. Moving on...


Interesting article about Trump using money from his charity (that he doesn't donate to) to pay his personal legal bills.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html)

It'd be silly for Clinton to attack him on that as the Clinton Foundation and all the subtrifuge and shady dealings that have gone on in it far outweigh what this article speaks to. If Trumps team is smart they have Trump fueled with factual, damning info and ready to pounce if she tries to bring this up. There's plenty of it out there concerning her and Bills "foundation"

Like I said, she can't tout any type of record because her record isnt something she can brag about or be proud of.

Agreed. I think people are running out of things to criticize him for. It's like playing feed the trolls. Criticizing Trump for his shady financial dealings while voting for Hillary is laughable.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 22, 2016, 06:19:11 AM
I doubt we'll get this, but I'd like the debates to focus on how each candidate will....you know....run the country. I don't care about all of the crappy details from their past or how one has bigger hands or how one loves terrorists or how one is racist or blah blah blah.

I have no idea how Trump will be as president other than something about building a wall and being pretty unfair to Muslims.

I have no idea how Clinton will be as president other than being a bit too hawkish.

I'd like to know how these people will be as president. I'm not voting for messiah here.

I'm voting for Clinton because she's the best bet we have for retaining the status quo. Trump has a lot of ideas, and I don't like any of them. Clinton won't do enough to stop another financial recession or decade of unsustainable foreign involvement, and she probably won't do much at all to help domestic problems we have here, but she'll at least do enough to keep a lid on those fires.

It's 4th and 2 for America and we have a small but considerable lead, even though we aren't playing well. I trust Coach Clinton is smart enough to send the punter in. I trust Donald Trump to send Tim Tebow in for a trick play that runs for a loss.

Not being critical of you, personally, but that post is a sad commentary on where we've come: "the best bet to keep the status quo".  Honestly, I want a lot of things, most things I can't have, but the "status quo" is ABSOLUTELY not one of them.  I'm STILL trying to crawl out of the hole of the recession that Obama ushered in.  Why do I want to stay here?    I'm under no illusions that Trump has any answers to that - I don't like his ideas either - but while I love your analogy, I can see Clinton letting the clock run down and taking a delay of game penalty, then yelling at the ref and trying to shuffle in a deflated ball. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 22, 2016, 06:31:39 AM
I'm not a Clinton supporter, but if you do want to keep the status quo, I do agree Clinton is the way to go. 

After another crazy night of riots in the US, I don't want to keep the status quo.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 22, 2016, 06:33:31 AM
I'm not sure this is the best place for this, but I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode.

- Hillary tried to say that the low turnout at her rallies is ON PURPOSE.
- The brother of the guy shot in Charlotte is on tape this morning saying that "white cops are the devil, and yeah, the white man is the devil", even though his brother went after a BLACK cop with a gun, the BLACK cop is the one that shot him, and the Chief of Police is BLACK.   
- The Patriots will be started a guy named "Jacoby Brissett" at quarterback in this evenings NFL regular season game.
- George H.W. Bush - patriarch of the (republican) Bush Dynasty declared this week that he is voting for Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 22, 2016, 06:43:05 AM
I don't know anyone who wants to keep the status quo but their votes bely that fact.

As far as Stadler's list, WTF.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 22, 2016, 06:44:14 AM
I doubt we'll get this, but I'd like the debates to focus on how each candidate will....you know....run the country. I don't care about all of the crappy details from their past or how one has bigger hands or how one loves terrorists or how one is racist or blah blah blah.

I have no idea how Trump will be as president other than something about building a wall and being pretty unfair to Muslims.

I have no idea how Clinton will be as president other than being a bit too hawkish.

I'd like to know how these people will be as president. I'm not voting for messiah here.

I'm voting for Clinton because she's the best bet we have for retaining the status quo. Trump has a lot of ideas, and I don't like any of them. Clinton won't do enough to stop another financial recession or decade of unsustainable foreign involvement, and she probably won't do much at all to help domestic problems we have here, but she'll at least do enough to keep a lid on those fires.

It's 4th and 2 for America and we have a small but considerable lead, even though we aren't playing well. I trust Coach Clinton is smart enough to send the punter in. I trust Donald Trump to send Tim Tebow in for a trick play that runs for a loss.

Not being critical of you, personally, but that post is a sad commentary on where we've come: "the best bet to keep the status quo".  Honestly, I want a lot of things, most things I can't have, but the "status quo" is ABSOLUTELY not one of them.  I'm STILL trying to crawl out of the hole of the recession that Obama ushered in.  Why do I want to stay here?    I'm under no illusions that Trump has any answers to that - I don't like his ideas either - but while I love your analogy, I can see Clinton letting the clock run down and taking a delay of game penalty, then yelling at the ref and trying to shuffle in a deflated ball.

This is why I want the punter in the game, though. I happen to be being alright for myself at the current moment, but most of America has not recovered from the recession, even if the banks have made back their losses and then some. Another recession before recovery is complete would be catastrophic, not just for everyone who hasn't recovered but for me as well. And unfortunately, another recession is certain to happen since the banks know they'll be bailed out next time they fail.

I don't trust Clinton or Trump to stop the next recession from happening unfortunately, and you're right - it is sad. I simply have to vote for the one who I think provides the greatest chance of helping delay the next recession longer, giving more time for people to recover. And when it comes down to it, I believe that person is (marginally) more likely to be the devil we know, Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 22, 2016, 07:01:30 AM
I'd vote for anyone that would take what ever actions necessary to prevent further violent and UNWARRANTED looting and "protests" by any means necessary. I'm really starting to believe that this "racial oppression" that so many athletes and others are protesting doesn't exist. People of color are not in bad situations because of the white man. This isn't the 1960's anymore. This country is the most liberal and progressive it's ever been yet race is somehow such a big issue. I don't give a fuck what color you are, if you have a gun or act like you're reaching for one AND you're not complying with the cops instructions you're going to get shot. Nothing to do with race but with stupidity.

I'm so frustrated with the state of our country and government that I really just don't care who gets elected anymore. We are literally being torn apart a turn sandwich and a giant douche. NOTHING will change or get better regardless who wins and I honestly have very little hope for the future of this country.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 22, 2016, 07:16:28 AM
I'd vote for anyone that would take what ever actions necessary to prevent further violent and UNWARRANTED looting and "protests" by any means necessary. I'm really starting to believe that this "racial oppression" that so many athletes and others are protesting doesn't exist. People of color are not in bad situations because of the white man. This isn't the 1960's anymore. This country is the most liberal and progressive it's ever been yet race is somehow such a big issue. I don't give a fuck what color you are, if you have a gun or act like you're reaching for one AND you're not complying with the cops instructions you're going to get shot. Nothing to do with race but with stupidity.

I'm so frustrated with the state of our country and government that I really just don't care who gets elected anymore. We are literally being torn apart a turn sandwich and a giant douche. NOTHING will change or get better regardless who wins and I honestly have very little hope for the future of this country.

No offense, but if you think things are so terrible right now, you should brush up on your history.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 22, 2016, 07:29:49 AM
I'd vote for anyone that would take what ever actions necessary to prevent further violent and UNWARRANTED looting and "protests" by any means necessary. I'm really starting to believe that this "racial oppression" that so many athletes and others are protesting doesn't exist. People of color are not in bad situations because of the white man. This isn't the 1960's anymore. This country is the most liberal and progressive it's ever been yet race is somehow such a big issue.

I think that is a really easy thing to say as a white guy who didn't grow up/still lives in the hood.



Quote
I don't give a fuck what color you are, if you have a gun or act like you're reaching for one AND you're not complying with the cops instructions you're going to get shot. Nothing to do with race but with stupidity.

Yeah. Awesome plan.  ::)

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article102991952.html
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 22, 2016, 07:32:20 AM
I went to school to be a history teacher so I'm well aware of this country's history. I'm not sure what you are comparing present times to, but in my 32 years of living we are in the worst position we have been in both nationally and globally. And it's not just us. Europe is in a state of disarray. The middle east is still a mess (though this has always been the case). Is it the great depression? No, but I wasn't alive then so it doesn't affect me or my kids. I don't see how anyone can think that our country is in a good place or is heading in the right direction. I don't know what the solution is, but if our country continues on this divisive path we don't need to worry about foreign terrorists because we'll end up destroying ourselves. I don't even really care about me at this point. But I'm terrified of what our country and the world will look like when my two young kids become adults.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: chknptpie on September 22, 2016, 07:44:34 AM
Holy shit this thread is frightening.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 22, 2016, 07:44:42 AM
I don't see how anyone can think that our country is in a good place or is heading in the right direction.

- I don't know a single person who I graduated college with who didn't find a job paying over $60K a year
- I don't know a single person without a college degree who can't find a job
- Our space program is doing amazing things despite a shit congress
- My retirement accounts have made money hand over fist the last 5 years
- Gays can get married
- The drug war is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves
- We've provided safe refuge for hundred of thousands of people who truly desperately need it.
- The pharmaceutical industry is finally beginning to be held accountable
- We have politicians that are finally starting grill the CEOs of the banks that caused a lot of the stuff people bitch about
- We have an entire generation emerging that doesn't support corporate greed, cares about the environment, and would rather attempt to unite the human race worldwide rather than just try to be the 'greatest' at the expense of other countries and people around the globe.
- We've brought tons of technology and innovation into underprivileged areas, giving at least some children in poverty a chance
- We have private sector technology companies creating tens of thousands of jobs and propelling this country into the future

There's plenty of shit wrong with the United States, but to pretend that we are in any way losing (whatever the fuck that even means) or becoming a nation beyond repair is ridiculous.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 22, 2016, 07:49:03 AM
I'd vote for anyone that would take what ever actions necessary to prevent further violent and UNWARRANTED looting and "protests" by any means necessary. I'm really starting to believe that this "racial oppression" that so many athletes and others are protesting doesn't exist. People of color are not in bad situations because of the white man. This isn't the 1960's anymore. This country is the most liberal and progressive it's ever been yet race is somehow such a big issue.

I think that is a really easy thing to say as a white guy who didn't grow up/still lives in the hood.



Quote
I don't give a fuck what color you are, if you have a gun or act like you're reaching for one AND you're not complying with the cops instructions you're going to get shot. Nothing to do with race but with stupidity.

Yeah. Awesome plan.  ::)

https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article102991952.html

Are there racist people in this country? Yes. Are the root of these social injustices based on race in the majority of cases? I'd like to think not. Maybe I am a naive middle class white male, but I have several close friends who are black who are in good situations and it's not because they were given handouts but because they earned it and worked for it just like the majority of people who are successful. I think Obama's biggest failure as president is that had an opportunity to make real positive change in the African American community and somehow he made things worse.

Cam Netwon hit on the head when he said "“I’m an African-American. I am not happy how the justice has been kind of dealt with over the years. The state of oppression in our community. But we also, as black people, have to do right by ourselves. We can’t be hypocrites." What I don't understand about the BLM movement as a white male is that these protesters are so concerned about rare police shootings (the majority of which are justified) and don't seem to give two shits about the 1000's of black people killed in the streets due to gang violence. Just look at what's been happening in Chicago. They're going to hire 1000 new police officers. Who the hell would want that job?

I'll admit the second statement was a generalization. I believe my statement is true in the majority of cases but I'll admit there will be cases and situations where there is a dumb or racist cop with an itchy trigger finger and I'll be happy to condemn those on a case by case basis.

Look, I like to think that the majority of people are good and have good intentions. In today's society it's become so easy for everyone to be a Monday morning quarter back and jump to conclusions with out knowing the facts and unfortunately thanks to social media this has become the norm. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if the Charlotte Riots were started/planned via misinformation on social media. In regards to the Tulsa shooting even Clinton and tons of athletes fall into this trap. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but they should base that opinion on facts not #'s.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 22, 2016, 08:27:44 AM
I don't see how anyone can think that our country is in a good place or is heading in the right direction.

- I don't know a single person who I graduated college with who didn't find a job paying over $60K a year
- I don't know a single person without a college degree who can't find a job
- Our space program is doing amazing things despite a shit congress
- My retirement accounts have made money hand over fist the last 5 years
- Gays can get married
- The drug war is finally getting the scrutiny it deserves
- We've provided safe refuge for hundred of thousands of people who truly desperately need it.
- The pharmaceutical industry is finally beginning to be held accountable
- We have politicians that are finally starting grill the CEOs of the banks that caused a lot of the stuff people bitch about
- We have an entire generation emerging that doesn't support corporate greed, cares about the environment, and would rather attempt to unite the human race worldwide rather than just try to be the 'greatest' at the expense of other countries and people around the globe.
- We've brought tons of technology and innovation into underprivileged areas, giving at least some children in poverty a chance
- We have private sector technology companies creating tens of thousands of jobs and propelling this country into the future

There's plenty of shit wrong with the United States, but to pretend that we are in any way losing (whatever the fuck that even means) or becoming a nation beyond repair is ridiculous.

First, let me say that I am not one of those that think "MY SIDE GREAT!, YOUR SIDE BLOWS!".  I don't at all think that Obama "destroyed our country" or that things are all bad.  BUT (there's always a but...)... I'm a harsh grader.  I can remember being in a meeting and one of the leaders went in front of Jack Welch (former CEO of GE) and bragged about making "6% profit" and throwing my boss's boss under the bus for being negative 3% on his numbers.   Welch ripped him a new ass sideways, frontwards and upside down.  I seriously was prepared for him to be fired (he wasn't).  Welch's point?  He made 6% when the industry was averaging between 12 and 15%, and my boss's boss lost 3% in an industry that was consistently (for about three years) averaging between 5 and 10% losses.    You don't get measured JUST on what you accomplished, but what you SHOULD have or COULD have accomplished.

Some of those are wins, no doubt, and they can't or shouldn't be struck from the ledger.  But how do you celebrate "slightly" holding pharmaceuticals accountable when you cut a side deal with them to GUARANTEE them profits, just so they won't shit on your legacy law? 

As for the "entire generation", I get your point but I disagree.  We're not "global".  Both candidates are yapping about tariffs, both candidates are promising to pay US workers $30 or $40/hour for doing the SAME job, in the SAME company, in the SAME town, with the SAME skillset, and for ever higher wages.    If we were truly global, we'd know that letting the lower-cost jobs go to Mexico or Europe is NOT a bad thing, and that it frees us up to improve our skillset and do higher paying, higher income-producing jobs.  We should NOT be building TVs in the US.  Let China do that, and let us do what China - hell, no other country in the world - can do, like advanced medicine, teaching, etc.   

Finally, our current candidates would be more than happy (based on their policies and goals) to see those private sector jobs go right out the door.  GE has already put a flag in the sand with their "localization" focus; if Hillary and Donald keep pursuing their "tax corporations" and "tariffs on jobs going overseas" nonsense, they WILL move to Europe, I promise you.   So, yeah, there's been a lot of "good" but we should have more "great" than we do, and for my way of thinking, that is leaving money on the table that could be helping a LOT of people in this country. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 22, 2016, 08:33:05 AM
CONTROVERSIAL OPINION ALERT: 

I find it almost impossible to accept the concept that "there's no opportunity!" or "opportunities are not equal!" as long as there is a volunteer military in this country.  Yeah, there's sacrifice involved, and yeah, our government (on BOTH sides of the aisle) could be better at treating our military with respect, but the benefits they give now are unbelievable.    My daughter is lucky enough to be in one of the country's premier private boarding high schools, and will likely have a very generous selection of top tier colleges to go to (and trust me, this is ALL because of her intellect and not "my money") and yet she is seriously considering putting in two years with the Air Force.   I refuse to accept that a kid - black or white - has "no choice" but to sell drugs or commit crime or fall out of the work force.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 22, 2016, 09:00:23 AM
CONTROVERSIAL OPINOIN ALERT: 

I find it almost impossible to accept the concept that "there's no opportunity!" or "opportunities are not equal!" as long as there is a volunteer military in this country.  Yeah, there's sacrifice involved, and yeah, our government (on BOTH sides of the aisle) could be better at treating our military with respect, but the benefits they give now are unbelievable.    My daughter is lucky enough to be in one of the country's premier private boarding high schools, and will likely have a very generous selection of top tier colleges to go to (and trust me, this is ALL because of her intellect and not "my money") and yet she is seriously considering putting in two years with the Air Force.   I refuse to accept that a kid - black or white - has "no choice" but to sell drugs or commit crime or fall out of the work force.

 I think this is relevant.

https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/2014/05/14/80-of-military-recruitments-turned-down.html
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 22, 2016, 09:42:44 AM
CONTROVERSIAL OPINOIN ALERT: 

I find it almost impossible to accept the concept that "there's no opportunity!" or "opportunities are not equal!" as long as there is a volunteer military in this country.  Yeah, there's sacrifice involved, and yeah, our government (on BOTH sides of the aisle) could be better at treating our military with respect, but the benefits they give now are unbelievable.    My daughter is lucky enough to be in one of the country's premier private boarding high schools, and will likely have a very generous selection of top tier colleges to go to (and trust me, this is ALL because of her intellect and not "my money") and yet she is seriously considering putting in two years with the Air Force.   I refuse to accept that a kid - black or white - has "no choice" but to sell drugs or commit crime or fall out of the work force.

I think you're right in the sense that more people should consider military services as an avenue for them. My brother joined the army after dropping out of college, and it seems to have turned his life (and the opportunities he has) around from being eternally stuck in minimum wage jobs to making a humble, but still respectable, income. 

That said, I think you're bright enough to see that military service isn't a magic bullet. For every frustrated middle class kid mad at the system because their dream job isn't immediately available to them, there are several kids born and raised in poverty who are poorly positioned to make the right choices for themselves at a very basic level. It's not about passing personal responsibility off as much as it's about recognized that urban poverty issues reside at a toxic intersection of historic poverty, racial issues, internal community problems, and a plethora of other factors that allow the poverty cycle to continue.

The military can't stop urban poverty, and neither can any government program. However, both can be effective at helping stop the cycle, or at least pull some people out of it. Thankfully, I've seen the latter happen with my own eyes. I understand that there are some middle class people who are upset that they can't benefit from the same things that some deeply impoverished minorities do. Coming from a family of a special ed teacher and a truck driver, I understand those concerns from blue collar America. You need help too, and you don't know why there's nothing out there for you. It's easy to feel like an underdog when you're only around people who seem to be doing better than yourself. Until you've gone and walked in those streets for awhile, you really don't know just how bad some people have it.

EDIT: Not sure why I've gone into this whole shpeel. Maybe just kinda shocked at the resentment towards poverty I see in this thread.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 22, 2016, 10:46:58 AM
Interesting article about Trump using money from his charity (that he doesn't donate to) to pay his personal legal bills.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html)

It'd be silly for Clinton to attack him on that as the Clinton Foundation and all the subtrifuge and shady dealings that have gone on in it far outweigh what this article speaks to. If Trumps team is smart they have Trump fueled with factual, damning info and ready to pounce if she tries to bring this up. There's plenty of it out there concerning her and Bills "foundation"

Like I said, she can't tout any type of record because her record isnt something she can brag about or be proud of.

Yes we know how you feel about Clinton.  What is your reaction about the article and what trump did?  The article was about Trump yet your entire response was a Clinton rant.  Your thoughts on the actual artucle?
I'm curious about this as well.

And no, equal time doesn't have to be given by everyone.  When someone posts something negative about Clinton, it is a comment about Clinton; it doesn't require anything about Trump.  Same is true in the other direction.  Let's just address the actual points brought up.  The improprieties alleged about Trump and his foundation have exactly 0% to do with Clinton.  And vice versa.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 22, 2016, 11:01:11 AM
CONTROVERSIAL OPINOIN ALERT: 

I find it almost impossible to accept the concept that "there's no opportunity!" or "opportunities are not equal!" as long as there is a volunteer military in this country.  Yeah, there's sacrifice involved, and yeah, our government (on BOTH sides of the aisle) could be better at treating our military with respect, but the benefits they give now are unbelievable.    My daughter is lucky enough to be in one of the country's premier private boarding high schools, and will likely have a very generous selection of top tier colleges to go to (and trust me, this is ALL because of her intellect and not "my money") and yet she is seriously considering putting in two years with the Air Force.   I refuse to accept that a kid - black or white - has "no choice" but to sell drugs or commit crime or fall out of the work force.

I think you're right in the sense that more people should consider military services as an avenue for them. My brother joined the army after dropping out of college, and it seems to have turned his life (and the opportunities he has) around from being eternally stuck in minimum wage jobs to making a humble, but still respectable, income. 

That said, I think you're bright enough to see that military service isn't a magic bullet. For every frustrated middle class kid mad at the system because their dream job isn't immediately available to them, there are several kids born and raised in poverty who are poorly positioned to make the right choices for themselves at a very basic level. It's not about passing personal responsibility off as much as it's about recognized that urban poverty issues reside at a toxic intersection of historic poverty, racial issues, internal community problems, and a plethora of other factors that allow the poverty cycle to continue.

The military can't stop urban poverty, and neither can any government program. However, both can be effective at helping stop the cycle, or at least pull some people out of it. Thankfully, I've seen the latter happen with my own eyes. I understand that there are some middle class people who are upset that they can't benefit from the same things that some deeply impoverished minorities do. Coming from a family of a special ed teacher and a truck driver, I understand those concerns from blue collar America. You need help too, and you don't know why there's nothing out there for you. It's easy to feel like an underdog when you're only around people who seem to be doing better than yourself. Until you've gone and walked in those streets for awhile, you really don't know just how bad some people have it.

EDIT: Not sure why I've gone into this whole shpeel. Maybe just kinda shocked at the resentment towards poverty I see in this thread.

It's not resentment to poverty.  Not at all.   I think it's a sort of demand that instead of just saying "Oh, poverty, BAD!" that we understand a little more about the whys, hows, and attitudes that got us there.  Just like not every "rich", "black", "white", "gay" person can be lumped together as if they are all the same, neither can the poor.  All in, 1000% percent in making sure that opportunities are there.  Not interested at all in helping those that aren't interested in taking advantage of those opportunities.   A friend is dealing with that in microcosm in his own home.  A son that is a smart kid, but unable to go to college for whatever reason.  He had every reason to give up and say fuck it.  But, he's got two jobs, and when that wasn't enough, he enlisted.  Graduated with honors and is starting to see the fruits of his hard work.  He'll never be Trump, but he will be happy, and he will be able to take care of his fam, god willing.  His younger sister?  She barely graduated high school, and still, parents paid for her school, and now she's like "well, class starts early, and I'm not good in the morning.  Do I have to go?".   She has no job, and her car (given to her by mom) died and what's her "solution"?  Sending her mom links for BMWs.   Not happening.  Dad told her, get a job, any job to contribute SOMETHING and he'll cover the rest.  "I don't want to work.  I need a social life".  So they got her a $500 car with 197K on it, but that her brother (son, a mechanic) blessed and she walked out the door in a huff because it "wasn't cool". 

Allegories, I know, but the point is made.  I'll gladly help people get to son's position, but at a certain point, why waste resources on daughter? 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 22, 2016, 11:03:24 AM


And no, equal time doesn't have to be given by everyone.  When someone posts something negative about Clinton, it is a comment about Clinton; it doesn't require anything about Trump.  Same is true in the other direction.  Let's just address the actual points brought up.  The improprieties alleged about Trump and his foundation have exactly 0% to do with Clinton.  And vice versa.

EXCEPT when the criticisms of one are direct and legitimate criticism of the other.  It's a fair comment to implicitly ask why one is willing to overlook traits in one candidate and not overlook those exact same traits in the other.   ESPECIALLY in an election that, if it was a major rock and roll tour, would be called "The Lesser of Two Evils Tour, 2016".
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 22, 2016, 11:21:11 AM
He specifically asked a question about one and not the other and was looking for an answer about one and not the other.  What he got was an answer that had little to do with the question he asked.  Should he have put a quantifier in his post saying "Yes, I know Hillary is bad also, but can you answer this question about Trump?"
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 22, 2016, 11:44:49 AM
What is your reaction about the article and what trump did? ............ Your thoughts on the actual artucle?

I'm curious about this as well.


What really is there to say? It's one of two things.....Trump either received some really bad advice from his lawyers/accountants on what he can and can't do with his Charity's money or was not directly involved in the decision to make these payments....either way you could replace the name 'Trump' with any uber rich person's name with a charity in this article and most likely find that all these type of folks have done similar things.


And no, equal time doesn't have to be given by everyone.  When someone posts something negative about Clinton, it is a comment about Clinton; it doesn't require anything about Trump.  Same is true in the other direction.  Let's just address the actual points brought up.  The improprieties alleged about Trump and his foundation have exactly 0% to do with Clinton.  And vice versa.

Except that this entire thread is rife with examples of if one person makes a point/has an article etc about one of them there is an immediate counterpoint/argument made for/against the other. I'm not the only one that does it....it's all over this thread. And, that most likely be the last time I do it.

The fact of the matter is when Trump made these bad choices he didn't have visions of being the President....he just wanted to get something settled and move on. Worse case scenario when these were discovered he pays a fine and that is that.

Clinton has desired to be President for at least 8 years....most likely 12 or more so the indiscretions and tomfoolery in her foundation alone is suspect because the level of arrogance it takes to think it's ok to accept large sums of cash from people then appoint them to government positions (with no experience in them) gain audience with sitting Sec. of State and  so on ....is just that, arrogance. The more layers of the onion that is the Clinton Foundation that are peeled back reveal more and more corruption and abuse of power far outweighing a couple hundred thousand dollars that Trump misappropriated (take a peek at how much they made off of the Haiti relief vs services rendered) and the fact that these countless blatantly arrogant, self entitled actions from her and Bill are 12 second stories in the news or two paragraph footnotes in the paper does nothing but illustrate the media bias and favoritism she and her husband receive.

So my answer that what Trump did pales in comparison to what Clinton has been doing for decades IS my answer to what I think about the article....what he did is small beans compared to the racket clinton and co. have been running.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 22, 2016, 11:57:52 AM
It's a fair comment to implicitly ask why one is willing to overlook traits in one candidate and not overlook those exact same traits in the other. 
It might be fair to ask the question IN ADDITION TO addressing the point, but that isn't happening.  No points are being addressed, because the only thing anyone says is "Yeah, but..."

And it might be fair to ask such a question of someone who is an uber supporter of one candidate or the other, but most people aren't.  A question/concern about one of the candidates is just that.  Leave the other candidate out of it.

Just like in this exact case.

Even the observation that both candidates have foundations and that both are caught up in accusations is a little irrelevant, because the problems aren't the same problems.  The accusation against Clinton is that she used her position to favor people who donated to her foundation.  That is an issue outside of the foundation itself; nothing illegal or improper was done with the foundation itself, which is the accusation against the Trump foundation.

You may think the difference is small, but the difference is real.  And so, when a question about the Trump foundation is asked, I would hope that we could get Trump's fans to actually defend/answer the concern, and not bring in Hillary's foundation, which didn't do that.  It doesn't get us anywhere or promote any actual thought or discussion.

If that's all that will happen, I don't even know why we have the discussion forum open.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 22, 2016, 12:24:36 PM
I think one problem has become the binary way almost everyone is approaching this election.

People seem to be under the impression that the two main groups are "Hillary Lovers" and "Trump Lovers", while I'm pretty sure the two groups are actually "Hillary haters" and "Trump haters".

It doesn't seem like the Trump Haters have much love for Hillary, nor the Hillary haters much love for Trump.

But each group sees a criticism against their less hated person as a defense of their more hated person. Ie, criticizing Trump is seen as a defense of Hillary, and critizing Hillary is seen as defending Trump, when it's neither of those things.

People then feel the need to attack the other imagined group. So if someone criticizes Trump, the anti-Hillary people will focus more on attacking Hillary and defending Trump because of how extreme and binary these groups have become.

It's sad we can't just discuss Hillary without attacking Trump, or discuss Trump without attacking Hillary, but people, at least in this thread as well as the rest of the world, seem so overly emotional in their stances against a certain candidate that any possibility for a calm logical discussion is lost in a sea of passive aggressive attack, plain aggressive attacks and defensiveness to the point of ignorance. 

Except Hef, he cool.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 22, 2016, 12:29:56 PM
I hate both equally.

Clinton = Everything wrong with politics
Trump = Everything wrong with people
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 22, 2016, 12:33:41 PM
I think one problem has become the binary way almost everyone is approaching this election.

People seem to be under the impression that the two main groups are "Hillary Lovers" and "Trump Lovers", while I'm pretty sure the two groups are actually "Hillary haters" and "Trump haters".

It doesn't seem like the Trump Haters have much love for Hillary, nor the Hillary haters much love for Trump.

But each group sees a criticism against their less hated person as a defense of their more hated person. Ie, criticizing Trump is seen as a defense of Hillary, and critizing Hillary is seen as defending Trump, when it's neither of those things.

People then feel the need to attack the other imagined group. So if someone criticizes Trump, the anti-Hillary people will focus more on attacking Hillary and defending Trump because of how extreme and binary these groups have become.

It's sad we can't just discuss Hillary without attacking Trump, or discuss Trump without attacking Hillary, but people, at least in this thread as well as the rest of the world, seem so overly emotional in their stances against a certain candidate that any possibility for a calm logical discussion is lost in a sea of passive aggressive attack, plain aggressive attacks and defensiveness to the point of ignorance. 

Except Hef, he cool.

I agree with every word written here. Couldn't have been stated any better IMO
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 22, 2016, 12:38:52 PM
Yup.  Exactly what I mean when I say I'm not a raving fan of either candidate.  But I guess in the heat off the emotional election cycle, even that is something to argue.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 22, 2016, 12:41:50 PM
the thing I despise more than either of them is the fact that 'they' are who we are essentially stuck voting for. I know that's not a new sentiment and we've talked about it a lot....but it's still infuriating that one of those two people WILL BE the next President. That's so depressing....
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 22, 2016, 12:42:39 PM
the thing I despise more than either of them is the fact that 'they' are who we are essentially stuck voting for. I know that's not a new sentiment and we've talked about it a lot....but it's still infuriating that one of those two people WILL BE the next President. That's so depressing....

Truth
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 22, 2016, 12:50:27 PM
the thing I despise more than either of them is the fact that 'they' are who we are essentially stuck voting for. I know that's not a new sentiment and we've talked about it a lot....but it's still infuriating that one of those two people WILL BE the next President. That's so depressing....

I know. I'm going to be stuck voting for Trump. Maybe it won't be so bad.  :\
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 22, 2016, 12:51:17 PM
That's what makes this election so lame. People are fighting over who they hate least not like the most.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 22, 2016, 12:53:07 PM
Well, I can't say I hate Trump. Hillary, yes. She's abysmal and I hate that smug cunty smile of hers.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 22, 2016, 12:54:39 PM
That's what makes this election so lame. People are fighting over who they hate least not like the most.

I'm going to trademark the slogan "There's Nowhere to Go but Up" as I'm sure that'll be some candidate's slogan in 2020.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 22, 2016, 12:55:08 PM
That's what makes this election so lame. People are fighting over who they hate least not like the most.

It's not lame when that's the best both parties are offering. I can think of a better description.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 22, 2016, 12:55:36 PM
That's what makes this election so lame. People are fighting over who they hate least not like the most.

I'm going to trademark the slogan "There's Nowhere to Go but Up" as I'm sure that'll be some candidate's slogan in 2020.

 Wasn't that the Viagra sales pitch as well?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 22, 2016, 01:17:49 PM
Even the observation that both candidates have foundations and that both are caught up in accusations is a little irrelevant, because the problems aren't the same problems.  The accusation against Clinton is that she used her position to favor people who donated to her foundation.  That is an issue outside of the foundation itself; nothing illegal or improper was done with the foundation itself, which is the accusation against the Trump foundation.

Sidebar: not entirely true, though facts are sketchy.  The Clinton Foundation was involved in a transaction that basically got nuclear-grade uranium into the hands of the Russians; while the transaction itself was by all accounts legal, the involvement of the Foundation, and the subsequent involvement of the State Department, is not at all clearly legal.

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 22, 2016, 01:19:04 PM
I hate both equally.

Clinton = Everything wrong with politics
Trump = Everything wrong with people

HAHA!  I like this.  I might steal this.  :)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 22, 2016, 01:26:48 PM
Even the observation that both candidates have foundations and that both are caught up in accusations is a little irrelevant, because the problems aren't the same problems.  The accusation against Clinton is that she used her position to favor people who donated to her foundation.  That is an issue outside of the foundation itself; nothing illegal or improper was done with the foundation itself, which is the accusation against the Trump foundation.

Sidebar: not entirely true, though facts are sketchy.  The Clinton Foundation was involved in a transaction that basically got nuclear-grade uranium into the hands of the Russians; while the transaction itself was by all accounts legal, the involvement of the Foundation, and the subsequent involvement of the State Department, is not at all clearly legal.

facts are sketchy
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 22, 2016, 07:20:35 PM
I'm not insulting you. I just find it interesting that people who claim to be a fan of neither candidate have more negative things to say about Trump. It's especially ironic considering Clinton's political dealings for the last couple of decades. You posting something about Trump's shady finances is like pining for Al Sharpton as a civil rights leader.

Seriously?  Are you saying I should be EQUAL in my postings about each candidate?  And if I am not I am not able to say I am a fan of neither without somehow disclosing some type of ratio of dislike?  What are you even saying, and the why are you making it an issue with me?
I can be a fan of neither but dislike one a lot more.  That is perfectly reasonable.

 Just let it go.

That's not what I'm saying. *sigh* This is an exercise in futility. Moving on...


Well then perhaps you can work on properly conveying what your thoughts are.  I can continue to discuss if you think you can express clearly what you are saying, but if you want to move on that is cool too.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 22, 2016, 07:25:57 PM
Eric, I'm not a believer in the lesser of 2 evils.  I see other candidates that align with my core values. So no matter the percentage,  I am not playing "Survivor" with my vote and vote the lesser of 2 evils.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 22, 2016, 08:05:47 PM
Eric, I'm not a believer in the lesser of 2 evils.  I see other candidates that align with my core values. So no matter the percentage,  I am not playing "Survivor" with my vote and vote the lesser of 2 evils.

That isnt what I said.  I never said I would vote the lesser of two evils.  I, like you, will vote with the candidate that best aligns with my views and beliefs.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 22, 2016, 08:07:05 PM
No. I agree. I didn't mean to come off like you didn't mean that.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 22, 2016, 08:09:31 PM
No. I agree. I didn't mean to come off like you didn't mean that.
:tup
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 23, 2016, 05:39:24 AM
I'm not insulting you. I just find it interesting that people who claim to be a fan of neither candidate have more negative things to say about Trump. It's especially ironic considering Clinton's political dealings for the last couple of decades. You posting something about Trump's shady finances is like pining for Al Sharpton as a civil rights leader.

Seriously?  Are you saying I should be EQUAL in my postings about each candidate?  And if I am not I am not able to say I am a fan of neither without somehow disclosing some type of ratio of dislike?  What are you even saying, and the why are you making it an issue with me?
I can be a fan of neither but dislike one a lot more.  That is perfectly reasonable.

 Just let it go.

That's not what I'm saying. *sigh* This is an exercise in futility. Moving on...


Well then perhaps you can work on properly conveying what your thoughts are.  I can continue to discuss if you think you can express clearly what you are saying, but if you want to move on that is cool too.

I can express clearly what I'm saying. The problem is you not understanding what is being said. But I get it, I've dealt with children my whole life, so it's familiar.

Anyway... moving on.

Eric, I'm not a believer in the lesser of 2 evils.  I see other candidates that align with my core values. So no matter the percentage,  I am not playing "Survivor" with my vote and vote the lesser of 2 evils.

That isnt what I said.  I never said I would vote the lesser of two evils.  I, like you, will vote with the candidate that best aligns with my views and beliefs.

Once again, your inability to understand English shines. I'm glad it's not just me.  :lol


Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 23, 2016, 05:45:03 AM
So instead of attempting to re-state your point, you resort to personal insults.
Again.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Prog Snob on September 23, 2016, 05:57:36 AM
I don't have to restate my point. If you didn't understand it, I'll give you a link to a great English comprehension tutorial.

Now moving on...again...
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: yeshaberto on September 23, 2016, 06:06:15 AM
Over the top Prog Snob.  Enjoy a paid week vacation from PR
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 23, 2016, 07:31:03 AM
Got a debate date for Monday.  It's weird because I should be excited to see an actual debate about policies and who will be the best president, yet I am excited to watch for entertainment value.  This debate is going to break ratings records.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: AngelBack on September 23, 2016, 08:45:19 AM
I'm so sick of both of them at this point I wont watch.  Besides the news will replay anything noteworthy for the following week, over and over....
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 23, 2016, 08:56:07 AM
I'm so sick of both of them at this point I wont watch.  Besides the news will replay anything noteworthy for the following week, over and over....

The news will cherry pick and manipulate, that's why I'd rather watch it myself.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Lucien on September 23, 2016, 09:04:28 AM
I'm so sick of both of them at this point I wont watch.  Besides the news will replay anything noteworthy for the following week, over and over....
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 23, 2016, 09:07:45 AM
The debate might be useful if the moderator actually moderates instead of letting Trump steamroll everything, and the support staff fact checks both candidates.

But I kind of don't expect either of those things to happen, so it will probably be a shitshow.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 23, 2016, 09:16:37 AM
They really need to bring these debates into this century and grill the shit out of the candidates using technology and real time fact checking. There needs to be a team of a dozen (maybe more) truly knowledgeable people ready to go with hundreds of GBs worth of video clips and sound clips that can be found and played within seconds. Hold the candidates accountable. Play clips of them saying something and ask them to expand on what they meant. Stuff like that.

If a sports announcer out of nowhere can pull out a stat like "the last time a runner had two hits, two walks, and reached two bases by error in a Tuesday afternoon game in the month of September was "_____ __________" in 1972, then they can certainly manage for a political debate.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 23, 2016, 10:47:28 AM
No point in watching the debates for me either. I know where both of them stand on policy issues already, and anything else that comes out of the debate will just be a distraction.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 23, 2016, 11:06:28 AM
Poll for Trump to figure out how to pander most effectively.

https://www.gop.com/debate-prep-survey/
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: skydivingninja on September 23, 2016, 12:42:19 PM
They really need to bring these debates into this century and grill the shit out of the candidates using technology and real time fact checking. There needs to be a team of a dozen (maybe more) truly knowledgeable people ready to go with hundreds of GBs worth of video clips and sound clips that can be found and played within seconds. Hold the candidates accountable. Play clips of them saying something and ask them to expand on what they meant. Stuff like that.

If a sports announcer out of nowhere can pull out a stat like "the last time a runner had two hits, two walks, and reached two bases by error in a Tuesday afternoon game in the month of September was "_____ __________" in 1972, then they can certainly manage for a political debate.

Totally agree. Real-time fact checking would be awesome. Considering how often and how blatantly Trump lies about such basic stuff, I would just love to see a moderator call him out in front of the whole country. Hillary too, but she doesn't bring throw out blatant falsehoods, so it would be less entertaining.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 23, 2016, 12:52:30 PM
They really need to bring these debates into this century and grill the shit out of the candidates using technology and real time fact checking. There needs to be a team of a dozen (maybe more) truly knowledgeable people ready to go with hundreds of GBs worth of video clips and sound clips that can be found and played within seconds. Hold the candidates accountable. Play clips of them saying something and ask them to expand on what they meant. Stuff like that.

If a sports announcer out of nowhere can pull out a stat like "the last time a runner had two hits, two walks, and reached two bases by error in a Tuesday afternoon game in the month of September was "_____ __________" in 1972, then they can certainly manage for a political debate.

Totally agree. Real-time fact checking would be awesome. Considering how often and how blatantly Trump lies about such basic stuff, I would just love to see a moderator call him out in front of the whole country. Hillary too, but she doesn't bring throw out blatant falsehoods, so it would be less entertaining.

I think every politician in the history of debates has thrown out false information.  I'm not against on the spot fact checking, but I am against ruining a debate to include too much fact checking.  I'd rather see the two go at it uninterupted because of a small mistake on numbers than to stop the conversation to point out the mistake.  Sort of like the use of instant replay in sports. It's great, but there is a fine line of when it starts to ruin the flow of a game. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 23, 2016, 12:59:50 PM
I'm torn on this. Whether or not the catch is immediate or after the fact doesn't much matter in today's world. As much as I loath Trump and Clinton they are both humans (I think) and are going to make mistakes. Expecting any politician at any level to answer every question accurately and correctly is an unfair expectation. The amount of interviews that most politicians so chance are they're going to fuck up at some point. What's more important is how they react when called out on something.

What I'd be down for is the start of the following debate to be about any discrepancies from the previous debate. I think you learn more about a person by how they respond to mistakes/failures than they're successes.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 23, 2016, 01:02:19 PM
I'm torn on this. Whether or not the catch is immediate or after the fact doesn't much matter in today's world. As much as I loath Trump and Clinton they are both humans (I think) and are going to make mistakes. Expecting any politician at any level to answer every question accurately and correctly is an unfair expectation.

True, but when a candidate makes a statement like "Stop and Frisk worked great in NYC", I feel like a moderator should be able to chime in and say "NYC police chief Such & Such has been quoted saying "*paraphrase why stop and frisk is not working*", how do you respond to that?".
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 23, 2016, 01:05:03 PM
I'm torn on this. Whether or not the catch is immediate or after the fact doesn't much matter in today's world. As much as I loath Trump and Clinton they are both humans (I think) and are going to make mistakes. Expecting any politician at any level to answer every question accurately and correctly is an unfair expectation.

True, but when a candidate makes a statement like "Stop and Frisk worked great in NYC", I feel like a moderator should be able to chime in and say "NYC police chief Such & Such has been quoted saying "*paraphrase why stop and frisk is not working*", how do you respond to that?".

But that example isn't even clearly fact checking.  I can see a good example of using it in scenario like "we have millions of mexicans crossing the border... se we need to build a wall" and the fact checking to come back and say "actually there are only 100k mexicans crossing the border, do you still think that justifies a wall?"  (I just made up numbers)  where as the candidate uses a "fact" to base a proposal and that "fact" is incorrect.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 23, 2016, 01:44:36 PM
As far as the debates go I don't plan on watching but I think Hillary has a lot more to lose than Trump. If she does poor in 2/3 of them I think Trump will have a great shot at office. It's her election to lose at this point.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 23, 2016, 02:07:04 PM
I understand there will be no commercials so no "cough breaks" as one article pointed out

https://www.infowars.com/debate-rules-no-coughing-breaks-allowed/ (https://www.infowars.com/debate-rules-no-coughing-breaks-allowed/)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 23, 2016, 02:30:59 PM
The facts come out very quickly by the media so I don't think this is an issue.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 23, 2016, 04:46:32 PM
I'd like to know how these people will be as president. I'm not voting for messiah here.

Some on here apparently are though. Man, no wonder everyone was disappointed by Obama.

That is the usual and typical response/ behavior to every President by at least half the population.  I guess you would call that the MOTUS OPERANDI.  ;)

I know, this ain't my first rodeo. But boy, you'd think some people would learn from history.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: antigoon on September 23, 2016, 07:11:23 PM
I hope Clinton wins, I don't really view her as the "lesser of two evils", and I think she'll be a fine president. *runs for cover*
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 24, 2016, 04:03:30 AM
Cruz endorsed Trump. What a spineless little shit.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on September 24, 2016, 10:28:19 AM
Why bother? What does he gain from endorsing him? I don't get it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 24, 2016, 11:24:01 AM
Why bother? What does he gain from endorsing him? I don't get it.

Well, he could just want Hillary to lose.  He already made his personal statement at the convention, now he realizes he needs to support him if he doesn't want Hillary to win.  Just my guess.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: antigoon on September 24, 2016, 11:27:37 AM
Why bother? What does he gain from endorsing him? I don't get it.

Pressure from the RNC is my guess. Reince was on Face the Nation last Sunday morning and was pretty adamant about how Republicans who do not endorse may not have the support of the Party next time around. Empty threat? Maybe. Something worked.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Implode on September 24, 2016, 11:58:22 AM
Oh. I thought the RNC still hated Trump. That would explain it then.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 24, 2016, 12:47:44 PM
He's got his mind set on his 2020 run
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Lucien on September 24, 2016, 03:05:34 PM
He's got his mind set on his 2020 run

 :lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 24, 2016, 08:57:16 PM
I think that is true, though.  I am sure Cruz is already setting up for a run in 2020, which has to make just about anyone sick to their stomach. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 24, 2016, 10:10:30 PM
He's got his mind set on his 2020 run

 :lol

Do you think he's not going to run in 2020?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: jammindude on September 24, 2016, 11:50:35 PM
I have never been registered to vote....and I've never even been tempted til now.

https://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/09/limberbutt-mccubbins-is-a-cat-running-for-president.html?mid=facebook_nymag
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Lucien on September 25, 2016, 12:35:10 AM
He's got his mind set on his 2020 run

 :lol

Do you think he's not going to run in 2020?

No, I just think it's funny he thinks it's worth trying
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 25, 2016, 05:55:05 AM
Oh. I thought the RNC still hated Trump. That would explain it then.

Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line. It doesn't matter if they actually hate him or not.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 25, 2016, 06:50:36 AM
I think the Democrats fell in line much quicker for this election then the Republicans. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 25, 2016, 07:11:59 AM
I wouldn't be so sure. So many of the progressive wing are still planning on writing in Bernie and a lot of them, in their anger, are voting Trump to try to "teach the party a lesson." If I'm being frank, that's one of the stupidest plans I've heard of (mainly because 2000 proved it doesn't work).
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 25, 2016, 07:21:14 AM
I don't buy it. I think most Bernie fans will hold their nose and pull the lever for Clinton, just like a lot of Republicans will hold their nose and vote for Trump.  Recent polls have shown that the majority of voters are voting against the other candidate more than they are voting for either candidate.  How sad.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 25, 2016, 07:24:05 AM
I think you'll only see that in Vermont and that is because of Trump.  All Democrats do not want him in.  I see most of my friends that are Democrats asking to vote for Hillary from their other friends to not let Trump win.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: pogoowner on September 25, 2016, 10:09:50 AM
Millennials were Bernie's strongest group, and I believe they're Hillary's strongest as well. So I don't think there's going to be some mass defection toward third parties or Trump from the Bernie crowd.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 25, 2016, 11:38:56 AM
Millennials were Bernie's strongest group, and I believe they're Hillary's strongest as well. So I don't think there's going to be some mass defection toward third parties or Trump from the Bernie crowd.

A lot of Millennials aged 18-24 (i.e. the part of my generation that's younger than me) seems to be practicing some form of accelerationism, where they think voting Trump will make the Democrats "feel really bad." They don't remember the Bush years for the most part, and some were only just coming of political age during the brinksmanship years of the Obama presidency. The older Millennials, aged 25-34, remember Bush vs. Gore, and they seem to be more overwhelmingly voting Clinton even if they formerly supported Bernie, because they do remember Bush (and also because a lot of them share values with Gen X, who may be older siblings for some of them).
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 25, 2016, 11:50:25 AM
I have not heard that at all.  All the 18 to 24's that I know own would die before they vote for Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 26, 2016, 04:51:05 AM
Millennials were Bernie's strongest group, and I believe they're Hillary's strongest as well. So I don't think there's going to be some mass defection toward third parties or Trump from the Bernie crowd.

A lot of Millennials aged 18-24 (i.e. the part of my generation that's younger than me) seems to be practicing some form of accelerationism, where they think voting Trump will make the Democrats "feel really bad." They don't remember the Bush years for the most part, and some were only just coming of political age during the brinksmanship years of the Obama presidency. The older Millennials, aged 25-34, remember Bush vs. Gore, and they seem to be more overwhelmingly voting Clinton even if they formerly supported Bernie, because they do remember Bush (and also because a lot of them share values with Gen X, who may be older siblings for some of them).

Yeah I think this is correct to some extent. However I wonder if anything more than a small group of millennials will actually turn out.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 26, 2016, 07:09:04 AM
I have never been registered to vote....and I've never even been tempted til now.

https://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/09/limberbutt-mccubbins-is-a-cat-running-for-president.html?mid=facebook_nymag

He's got my vote!
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 26, 2016, 07:39:04 AM
They really need to bring these debates into this century and grill the shit out of the candidates using technology and real time fact checking. There needs to be a team of a dozen (maybe more) truly knowledgeable people ready to go with hundreds of GBs worth of video clips and sound clips that can be found and played within seconds. Hold the candidates accountable. Play clips of them saying something and ask them to expand on what they meant. Stuff like that.

If a sports announcer out of nowhere can pull out a stat like "the last time a runner had two hits, two walks, and reached two bases by error in a Tuesday afternoon game in the month of September was "_____ __________" in 1972, then they can certainly manage for a political debate.

Totally agree. Real-time fact checking would be awesome. Considering how often and how blatantly Trump lies about such basic stuff, I would just love to see a moderator call him out in front of the whole country. Hillary too, but she doesn't bring throw out blatant falsehoods, so it would be less entertaining.

Actually, for me, Hillary WOULD be more entertaining.  Most of the "liar liar pants on fire" kind of falsehoods you can tell the moment they come out of the candidates mouth.  I'm far more interested in the twisting and parsing of facts to (misleadingly) make a point.  You know, the kind of thing that Hillary has a facking patent on. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 26, 2016, 07:41:34 AM
Why bother? What does he gain from endorsing him? I don't get it.

Pressure from the RNC is my guess. Reince was on Face the Nation last Sunday morning and was pretty adamant about how Republicans who do not endorse may not have the support of the Party next time around. Empty threat? Maybe. Something worked.

Cruz has nothing to lose on this.   He made his stand, and in four years, you're going to be hearing more about that than anything since Orlando Bloom's cock size.  This is just a formality so he can remain on the Republican card next time he needs to run for something (I don't know when his Senatorial term ends). 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 26, 2016, 07:44:01 AM
Millennials were Bernie's strongest group, and I believe they're Hillary's strongest as well. So I don't think there's going to be some mass defection toward third parties or Trump from the Bernie crowd.

A lot of Millennials aged 18-24 (i.e. the part of my generation that's younger than me) seems to be practicing some form of accelerationism, where they think voting Trump will make the Democrats "feel really bad." They don't remember the Bush years for the most part, and some were only just coming of political age during the brinksmanship years of the Obama presidency. The older Millennials, aged 25-34, remember Bush vs. Gore, and they seem to be more overwhelmingly voting Clinton even if they formerly supported Bernie, because they do remember Bush (and also because a lot of them share values with Gen X, who may be older siblings for some of them).

Yeah I think this is correct to some extent. However I wonder if anything more than a small group of millennials will actually turn out.

That is the real question right there.  I think Millennials are FAR more likely to "stay home" than to turn out and vote for a candidate they don't feel passionate about. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 26, 2016, 08:28:08 AM
Why bother? What does he gain from endorsing him? I don't get it.

Pressure from the RNC is my guess. Reince was on Face the Nation last Sunday morning and was pretty adamant about how Republicans who do not endorse may not have the support of the Party next time around. Empty threat? Maybe. Something worked.

Cruz has nothing to lose on this.   He made his stand, and in four years, you're going to be hearing more about that than anything since Orlando Bloom's cock size.  This is just a formality so he can remain on the Republican card next time he needs to run for something (I don't know when his Senatorial term ends).

Good lord I hope the Republicans can find a better candidate than Cruz in four years.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 26, 2016, 08:42:37 AM
Millennials were Bernie's strongest group, and I believe they're Hillary's strongest as well. So I don't think there's going to be some mass defection toward third parties or Trump from the Bernie crowd.

A lot of Millennials aged 18-24 (i.e. the part of my generation that's younger than me) seems to be practicing some form of accelerationism, where they think voting Trump will make the Democrats "feel really bad." They don't remember the Bush years for the most part, and some were only just coming of political age during the brinksmanship years of the Obama presidency. The older Millennials, aged 25-34, remember Bush vs. Gore, and they seem to be more overwhelmingly voting Clinton even if they formerly supported Bernie, because they do remember Bush (and also because a lot of them share values with Gen X, who may be older siblings for some of them).

Yeah I think this is correct to some extent. However I wonder if anything more than a small group of millennials will actually turn out.

That is the real question right there.  I think Millennials are FAR more likely to "stay home" than to turn out and vote for a candidate they don't feel passionate about.
There will be some of that. There will also be plenty of republicans, particularly the bible-thumping variety that will stay home out of principle. From what I've seen, there actually are a few social conservatives that aren't self-serving hypocrites.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 26, 2016, 09:12:10 AM
Most of the "liar liar pants on fire" kind of falsehoods you can tell the moment they come out of the candidates mouth.
YOU can tell them and I can tell them.  But many of Trump's followers can't tell them, because they just accept them and let him go on his merry way.

And frankly, that's the kind that are disingenuous for moderators to let slide by.  The candidates need to be called out on misinformation, especially the really blatant lies, told by either side.

Frankly, the kind of thing you call "twisting and parsing of facts" is not really a lie, and just depends on observing a fact from a different point of view.  That can be kind of tricky to "fact-check", depending on the actual statement.

But if it can be fact-checked, it should be, and the candidate should be called out on it, right there at the debate.  The moderator should have a "Full of Shit" button they can hit, and have a buzzer go off and "Full of Shit" appear on the screen, and the offending candidate should have to explain themselves.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 26, 2016, 09:17:15 AM
But if it can be fact-checked, it should be, and the candidate should be called out on it, right there at the debate.  The moderator should have a "Full of Shit" button they can hit, and have a buzzer go off and "Full of Shit" appear on the screen, and the offending candidate should have to explain themselves.

 :lol Might as well add this feature since it's already got the reality TV aspect of it going.  Maybe next election cycle they just rename the primaries "Survivor" and have people not vote for who they want, but who they least want and therefore every month someone gets eliminated.  Maybe the prize shouldn't just be the presidency either, maybe 1 million dollars and a trip to cancun. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 26, 2016, 09:22:08 AM
Most of the "liar liar pants on fire" kind of falsehoods you can tell the moment they come out of the candidates mouth.
YOU can tell them and I can tell them.  But many of Trump's followers can't tell them, because they just accept them and let him go on his merry way.

And frankly, that's the kind that are disingenuous for moderators to let slide by.  The candidates need to be called out on misinformation, especially the really blatant lies, told by either side.

Frankly, the kind of thing you call "twisting and parsing of facts" is not really a lie, and just depends on observing a fact from a different point of view.  That can be kind of tricky to "fact-check", depending on the actual statement.

But if it can be fact-checked, it should be, and the candidate should be called out on it, right there at the debate.  The moderator should have a "Full of Shit" button they can hit, and have a buzzer go off and "Full of Shit" appear on the screen, and the offending candidate should have to explain themselves.

Look, I've been accused of it enough in the last few weeks (WRONGLY!) where one more accusation isn't going to kill me, but let's be clear:   Hillary's followers are no more immune to the blatant lie than Trump's followers.  ANYONE who thinks that Bernie is "on to something!" with his free tuition plan paid for by Wall Street is just as guilty.   

At least for politicians (I would say different in, for example, a marriage, or with kids) I'll give you the point on the "parsing" not being a lie.   But still, the idea of accountability means that the base presumption has to have at least some grounding in reality, in my opinion.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 26, 2016, 10:06:27 AM
Didn't accuse you of anything.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 26, 2016, 10:21:13 AM
Bloomberg TV is going to run a fact checker onscreen during their televising of the debate.  That's a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 26, 2016, 10:37:00 AM
Bloomberg TV is going to run a fact checker onscreen during their televising of the debate.  That's a step in the right direction.

As long as they are fact checking both candidates equally that's cool. It'll be interesting to see for sure.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 26, 2016, 10:39:32 AM
I am fine with that, but I am adamant that mods, for the most part, should not be fact checking on the spot in debates; that is on the other candidate to do.  Fact checking by the mods leads to too much dialogue between a candidate and a moderator, when the moderator's input should be fairly limited (people are not there to hear them yap), and given the moderator's bias/political leaning (which they've all got), it inevitably leads to them fact checking one candidate more than another.  I simply do not trust anyone picked as a moderator to be fair and impartial.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 26, 2016, 10:41:24 AM
What time are the debates and in which time zone? I might have to wait till they're on youtube to watch.

I'd be interested, after they're done, what the percentage is for actual topics discussed, vs pandering/childish bickering/grandstanding/"thank you for that question, that's an important question and I'm glad you asked that important question and I'm glad we live in a country where you're free to ask such important questions.......next?"
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 26, 2016, 11:01:15 AM
What time are the debates and in which time zone? I might have to wait till they're on youtube to watch.

9PM EST
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 26, 2016, 11:07:51 AM
Three things that need to change:

A. Fact-checking by 3rd party during the commercial breaks. Each time they return they're called out for the most blatant falsehoods with a minute to reply/clarify/apologize/seppuku.
B. Hire a moderator with the balls to cut the mic off if one of them starts babbling off topic. Answer the question or loose your turn. Seems pretty simple to me.
C. Ditch the audience. I think the crowd is the biggest reason why debates are a joke. They're pandering for applause rather than addressing issues.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 26, 2016, 11:11:11 AM
Three things that need to change:

A. Fact-checking by 3rd party during the commercial breaks. Each time they return they're called out for the most blatant falsehoods with a minute to reply/clarify/apologize/seppuku.
B. Hire a moderator with the balls to cut the mic off if one of them starts babbling off topic. Answer the question or loose your turn. Seems pretty simple to me.
C. Ditch the audience. I think the crowd is the biggest reason why debates are a joke. They're pandering for applause rather than addressing issues.

For tonight, the audience is not allowed to applause and there will be no commercial breaks.  I am totally with you on B, the mod needs to have things under control.  I think that was a big problem during the primaries on some debates.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 26, 2016, 11:17:34 AM
They instruct the audience to STFU at all of the presidential debates, but it rarely happens. I read that people who make noise will be escorted out. If that happens it'll e a huge improvement. And then tomorrow we'll see tweets from Trump about how his supporters were unfairly targeted.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Genowyn on September 26, 2016, 12:05:19 PM
I am fine with that, but I am adamant that mods, for the most part, should not be fact checking on the spot in debates; that is on the other candidate to do.  Fact checking by the mods leads to too much dialogue between a candidate and a moderator, when the moderator's input should be fairly limited (people are not there to hear them yap), and given the moderator's bias/political leaning (which they've all got), it inevitably leads to them fact checking one candidate more than another.  I simply do not trust anyone picked as a moderator to be fair and impartial.

The problem is that if one candidate calls out another on a lie, the supporters of the candidate caught lying will simply not believe that it was a lie. At least with a moderator they are ostensibly unbiased (though again, noone will really listen when they're told their candidate is lying).
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 26, 2016, 12:08:44 PM
I am fine with that, but I am adamant that mods, for the most part, should not be fact checking on the spot in debates; that is on the other candidate to do.  Fact checking by the mods leads to too much dialogue between a candidate and a moderator, when the moderator's input should be fairly limited (people are not there to hear them yap), and given the moderator's bias/political leaning (which they've all got), it inevitably leads to them fact checking one candidate more than another.  I simply do not trust anyone picked as a moderator to be fair and impartial.

The problem is that if one candidate calls out another on a lie, the supporters of the candidate caught lying will simply not believe that it was a lie. At least with a moderator they are ostensibly unbiased (though again, noone will really listen when they're told their candidate is lying).

This is true. Plus it turns into a "nuh huh" "uh huh" situation. All Trump supporters have already decided that everything Clinton says is a bold faced lie, so her calling him out is meaningless. All Clinton supporters have already decided that everything Trump says is BS, so vice versa.

Plus, it devolves into even more bickering back and forth. They can't really argue with a 3rd party, but they can argue with each other all day long. I'd rather not spend 30 minutes back and forth about some fact checking.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 26, 2016, 12:16:03 PM
Plus, it devolves into even more bickering back and forth. They can't really argue with a 3rd party, but they can argue with each other all day long. I'd rather not spend 30 minutes back and forth about some fact checking.

This is why I said earlier that too much fact checking would be bad as it would lead to too much talk between mod and candidate.  I kind of like the idea Bloomberg TV fact checking on screen.  Something that doesn't interrupt the debate, but let's the viewer know that something said was wrong.  I'm not even sure I have that channel, but it intrigues me to see how they pull it off.  Something like a scroll bar on the bottom showing the quote from the candidate and then the correct fact.  And it would have to be non-bias of course for any true interest from me.

And let's be honest, if the mod interrupts to tell the candidate the correct fact, the candidate will most likely not even answer that and just give a typical politician response walking around the subject.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 26, 2016, 12:26:49 PM
I don't think you can factcheck fairly in realtime. To do what Bloomberg is suggesting would work great on a 5 minute delay, though. Hell, they should superimpose devil horns or angel wings on the candidates as they speak in realtion to their truthiness. That I'd watch.

(https://i.redditmedia.com/ksaPd9EPTnsFUFPZTOIkHuOd29T1UgiSMkW29aK5h1o.jpg?w=320&s=e63547898c90a1feb7d945450360d4ad)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 26, 2016, 12:27:26 PM
 :lol :lol

Three things that need to change:

A. Fact-checking by 3rd party during the commercial breaks. Each time they return they're called out for the most blatant falsehoods with a minute to reply/clarify/apologize/seppuku.
B. Hire a moderator with the balls to cut the mic off if one of them starts babbling off topic. Answer the question or loose your turn. Seems pretty simple to me.
C. Ditch the audience. I think the crowd is the biggest reason why debates are a joke. They're pandering for applause rather than addressing issues.

I like all three of those ideas.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 26, 2016, 12:31:37 PM
I can think of literally 1000 other things I'd rather do than watch those two argue.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 26, 2016, 12:40:42 PM
And do we have another 3rd party fact checking the fact checkers?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 26, 2016, 01:27:39 PM
I don't think you can factcheck fairly in realtime.
Well, you can go ahead and pre-factcheck things they have already lied about recently, so if they pitch any of those again, you can go ahead and slap it on the screen.

Such as...

The New York Times: A Week of Whoppers from Donald Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/24/us/elections/donald-trump-statements.html?_r=0)

Politico: Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/2016-donald-trump-fact-check-week-214287)

The Washington Post: Trump’s week reveals bleak view, dubious statements in ‘alternative universe’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-week-reveals-bleak-view-dubious-statements-in-alternative-universe/2016/09/24/4f8a6ff6-80cf-11e6-b002-307601806392_story.html)

Los Angeles Times:  Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate (https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-false-statements-20160925-snap-story.html)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 26, 2016, 01:41:08 PM
I'd be interested, after they're done, what the percentage is for actual topics discussed, vs pandering/childish bickering/grandstanding/"thank you for that question, that's an important question and I'm glad you asked that important question and I'm glad we live in a country where you're free to ask such important questions.......next?"

I coded up a quick algorithm, based on input averaged from all the debates this year - both Democrat and Republican, plus a factored (weighted) look at 15 pre-selected key words from the speeches of each of the candidates since Trump's fateful trip down the golden staircase at Trump Tower (since Hillary has been campaigning for this job since 1994), so while not exact, it's a pretty good approximation:

0% actual topics discussed
100% pandering/childish/bickering/grandstanding. 

These numbers are subject to fluctuation in real time, so don't take them as gospel yet. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 26, 2016, 01:42:32 PM
I don't think you can factcheck fairly in realtime.
Well, you can go ahead and pre-factcheck things they have already lied about recently, so if they pitch any of those again, you can go ahead and slap it on the screen.

Such as...

The New York Times: A Week of Whoppers from Donald Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/24/us/elections/donald-trump-statements.html?_r=0)

Politico: Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/2016-donald-trump-fact-check-week-214287)

The Washington Post: Trump’s week reveals bleak view, dubious statements in ‘alternative universe’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-week-reveals-bleak-view-dubious-statements-in-alternative-universe/2016/09/24/4f8a6ff6-80cf-11e6-b002-307601806392_story.html)

Los Angeles Times:  Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate (https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-false-statements-20160925-snap-story.html)

<SIGH>
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 26, 2016, 01:49:18 PM
I thought about it earlier, and decided that even I, just some guy, could predict the most likely lies from the candidates and be prepared going in. And then, after the debate the republicans would be blasting me for "gotcha journalism."
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 26, 2016, 02:14:40 PM
I don't think you can factcheck fairly in realtime.
Well, you can go ahead and pre-factcheck things they have already lied about recently, so if they pitch any of those again, you can go ahead and slap it on the screen.

Such as...

The New York Times: A Week of Whoppers from Donald Trump (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/24/us/elections/donald-trump-statements.html?_r=0)

Politico: Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/2016-donald-trump-fact-check-week-214287)

The Washington Post: Trump’s week reveals bleak view, dubious statements in ‘alternative universe’ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-week-reveals-bleak-view-dubious-statements-in-alternative-universe/2016/09/24/4f8a6ff6-80cf-11e6-b002-307601806392_story.html)

Los Angeles Times:  Scope of Trump's falsehoods unprecedented for a modern presidential candidate (https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-false-statements-20160925-snap-story.html)


****resists the urge to very easily link (4) examples of Hilary's robust incompetence and blatant lies****
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 26, 2016, 02:25:41 PM
The problem is with the media these days is they all spin their believes into the news.  It's slanted on both sides.  There was a day when the new was just the news.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 26, 2016, 02:44:48 PM
I drove my boss's car to run an errand and the radio was on conservative talk radio; 610am, The Answer answer answer answer. Christ. After that I have a hard time taking any bitching about the liberal media seriously at all. Even if it were a lefty saying all the things I wanted to hear I'd be offended as hell at the insulting of my intelligence. And there are like five of those stations down here. Rush Limbaugh is an obnoxious twit, but I don't recall him being so overtly deceitful.

People like to bring up MSNBC, but compared to the huge number of radio stations out there, they're insignificant and irreverent. Even the local hard rock station airs talk during afternoon drive-time, and he's leaning rather hard to the right.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 26, 2016, 03:08:45 PM
I drove my boss's car to run an errand and the radio was on conservative talk radio; 610am, The Answer answer answer answer. Christ. After that I have a hard time taking any bitching about the liberal media seriously at all. Even if it were a lefty saying all the things I wanted to hear I'd be offended as hell at the insulting of my intelligence. And there are like five of those stations down here. Rush Limbaugh is an obnoxious twit, but I don't recall him being so overtly deceitful.

People like to bring up MSNBC, but compared to the huge number of radio stations out there, they're insignificant and irreverent. Even the local hard rock station airs talk during afternoon drive-time, and he's leaning rather hard to the right.

I don't know who exactly my father listens to on his conservative radio shows he likes, but I am totally with you on that.  It's so over the top and ridiculous.  It's really hard to listen to.  Radio jockey's have to have a certain attitude and that mixed with politics is just a recipe for some pretty crazy radio shows.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 26, 2016, 03:29:25 PM
Oh hell yeah it's both sides El Barto.   It's hard to listen to either.  I'm over saturated.   I need 3 years off.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 26, 2016, 03:36:15 PM
Oh hell yeah it's both sides El Barto.   It's hard to listen to either.  I'm over saturated.   I need 3 years off.
See, from my experience there is no liberal talk radio. I know some conservatives like to lump NPR into that category, but it tends to remain pretty apolitical from what I can tell. Maybe up there in Bean-town you give the lefties some airtime, but it damn sure doesn't happen down here.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 26, 2016, 03:41:59 PM
There is but I'm lumping TV as well.  For me I'm a sports talk guy for the radio. That's my TMZ.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 26, 2016, 03:43:53 PM
Well, I don't think it's as cut and dry as x number of liberal radio stations versus y number of conservative radio stations.

I think radio skews right, I think print skews moderate (with some extreme exceptions) and tv skews left.   Add it all up, and...

I don't know why radio is the sort of exception to liberal media bias, I can only imagine it's because a) no one listens, and b) it's cheap to produce.  So basically anyone can get on air.   I'm not sure I believe this, and so I'm not putting it out there as "definitive reason why", but part of me has to ask, why would a liberal talk show host care about some FM station in Loozeanna when you can get prime real estate on a cable news network?   Hannity is perhaps the one exception on the right (and his radio show is very different than his tv show).  Limbaugh never really made the transition to tv. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 26, 2016, 05:14:32 PM
Well, I don't think it's as cut and dry as x number of liberal radio stations versus y number of conservative radio stations.

I think radio skews right, I think print skews moderate (with some extreme exceptions) and tv skews left.   Add it all up, and...

I don't know why radio is the sort of exception to liberal media bias, I can only imagine it's because a) no one listens, and b) it's cheap to produce.  So basically anyone can get on air.   I'm not sure I believe this, and so I'm not putting it out there as "definitive reason why", but part of me has to ask, why would a liberal talk show host care about some FM station in Loozeanna when you can get prime real estate on a cable news network?   Hannity is perhaps the one exception on the right (and his radio show is very different than his tv show).  Limbaugh never really made the transition to tv.
A whole lot of people listen. During drive time. In the office at work (I got three of those in a company of 5--1 sports, 2 right wing talk). Think of how many people make their living driving about town. According to the latest ratings, Rush Limbaugh's local outlet pulls in a 3.3 share. If I understand that correctly , it means that upwards of 200k people tune into the station during the day. That's 2/3 of MSNBC's nationwide viewership in a single market.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 26, 2016, 05:26:02 PM
Oh hell yeah it's both sides El Barto.   It's hard to listen to either.  I'm over saturated.   I need 3 years off.
See, from my experience there is no liberal talk radio. I know some conservatives like to lump NPR into that category, but it tends to remain pretty apolitical from what I can tell. Maybe up there in Bean-town you give the lefties some airtime, but it damn sure doesn't happen down here.

This is true, there is no liberal talk radio really. However I would say liberals tend to be younger, don't know what AM radio is, and tend to look to podcasts for the same type of content. Check out The Young Turks podcast and you've probably got the liberal equivalent of conservative AM radio.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: DragonAttack on September 26, 2016, 06:37:59 PM
Well, the first debate begins shortly.

Tim Russert, we could really use you tonight.  Expecting Lester Holt to be a limp noodle.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 26, 2016, 08:31:38 PM
I feel like I'm getting dumber watching this.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 26, 2016, 08:46:22 PM
I feel like I'm getting dumber watching this.

All this is doing is making me hate Clinton even more. And i hate hating someone but it's safe for me to say at this point i think I dislike that lady more than any other thing on this planet.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: eric42434224 on September 26, 2016, 08:49:59 PM
Well this debate made one thing clear.  While I have not decided who I will vote for yet, I will definitely not be voting for Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 26, 2016, 08:52:41 PM
I feel like I'm getting dumber watching this.

All this is doing is making me hate Clinton even more. And i hate hating someone but it's safe for me to say at this point i think I dislike that lady more than any other thing on this planet.

I completely predicted you would say that, though I have absolutely no idea why. I think you might just....be....biased? Honestly, she didn't come off as great at all times, but hating her? I dunno dude, I would really look into that if I were you. It's really no different than all those people who unabashedly hate Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Lucien on September 26, 2016, 08:53:12 PM
donald trump denied calling climate change a hoax created by the chinese:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en&lang=en
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: gmillerdrake on September 26, 2016, 09:01:06 PM
I feel like I'm getting dumber watching this.

All this is doing is making me hate Clinton even more. And i hate hating someone but it's safe for me to say at this point i think I dislike that lady more than any other thing on this planet.

I completely predicted you would say that, though I have absolutely no idea why. I think you might just....be....biased? Honestly, she didn't come off as great at all times, but hating her? I dunno dude, I would really look into that if I were you. It's really no different than all those people who unabashedly hate Trump.

It's all about what she represents. She embodies everything i personally see wrong with America and the direction we are going.....she embraces it and wants to continue the course. Not much to look into. I'm dreading four years of her.....and it'll only be four......but the thought of having to see her, listen to her AND be stuck with the three Judges she'll appoint the remainder of my life really bums me out not just for me but also for my kids.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: pogoowner on September 26, 2016, 09:06:45 PM
Definitely caught Trump with some things that he just had no way of defending. His climate change statements, the "birther" movement, and the Iraq War (now there's some unverifiable conversation with Sean Hannity we're supposed to rely on?).

Trump had one good several-minute stretch in the first half where he sounded reasonable and measured, and he didn't throw out any wild attacks, but by the second half there were just too many outlandish statements, either during the debate, or from his past, that made him look bad.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 26, 2016, 09:08:09 PM
I missed the first 20 minutes, what topics were covered? (Or supposed to be covered)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: pogoowner on September 26, 2016, 09:12:26 PM
I missed the first 20 minutes, what topics were covered? (Or supposed to be covered)
Jobs/Economy was supposed to be first, I think.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 26, 2016, 09:15:56 PM
Gotcha, guess I didn't miss much.

I really wasn't impressed with Trump. His economy stuff seemed largely to bank on "I'll negotiate it better".

Neither of them had any answer to the racism/cop issue.

The war on terror thing was just a bunch of nonsense on both sides.

Forgot what else they talked about. But man that was a lot of stupid childish jabs, mostly on Trump's part too.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 26, 2016, 09:16:17 PM
Wow, Trump got totally skewered. He was cool in the beginning, but man he just fell apart.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 26, 2016, 09:21:23 PM
Wow, Trump got totally skewered. He was cool in the beginning, but man he just fell apart.

The tax return thing was pretty bad on his part.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 26, 2016, 09:31:19 PM
I get a feeling the IRS and New York AG are going to be working overtime the next couple of weeks.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 26, 2016, 09:36:31 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/f2wFISF.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: antigoon on September 26, 2016, 09:38:06 PM
That went pretty much exactly as I expected it would.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 26, 2016, 09:39:44 PM
(now there's some unverifiable conversation with Sean Hannity we're supposed to rely on?)

"Nobody calls Hannity."

BECAUSE HE'S A FECKING HACK.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 26, 2016, 10:03:27 PM
I'll tell you the thing that really astounded me about this debate was how much of it was Trump tearing himself down. Like I've seen a couple soundbites of his from rallies and his RNC debates and sorta thought like, "Yeah he sounds incoherent, but they're just soundbites after all." Then I hear him tonight, and tonight's performance makes his previous ramblings sound coherent and collected.

2008 was Tina Fey's year to shine. Can't wait to see what we get from this election.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 26, 2016, 10:19:06 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/f2wFISF.jpg)
Not accurate, but God damn I love that gag.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on September 26, 2016, 10:25:09 PM
Thanks to Trump for teaching me a new word tonight, "Braggadocious", not kidding, it's a real word, I looked it up!
Braggadocious  ;D
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Mister Gold on September 26, 2016, 10:45:30 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/f2wFISF.jpg)
Not accurate, but God damn I love that gag.

Nah, it was extremely accurate. Trump was sniffing up a storm the whole time and he became more and more incoherent as it went along. :lol :hat

Also, there's one line from Clinton that really stood out to me from the debate that sums the whole matter up: “I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate. And, yes, I did. You know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that’s a good thing.”

Trump did not prepare for this debate and it shows painfully.

Her bit later with Alicia Machado was also very memorable to me.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on September 26, 2016, 10:57:15 PM
I guess I'm kinda goofy but I was really hoping Trump would do that thing he does in debates where he suddenly leans on to the microphone and goes "WRONG!" during the other candidate's statement. He did it at least once on ALL the primaries debates and sure enough he did it tonight to my delight :lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 27, 2016, 04:44:49 AM
Whelp, that's what I thought it would be. Person I don't like but who would be an acceptable president goes up against Professional Wrestler-tier orator Donald Trump.

Nothing changing my mind to push me to Trump at this point, I just hope people in swing states on the fence were just as disappointed by what they saw from him as I was.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 27, 2016, 05:48:08 AM
I don't know how effective Trump's 20% tax cut for businesses is going to be. I doubt it would generated the growth and expansion he's claiming. Without some sort of measure for capping the salaries of members of a company's c-suite, all that says to me is that the higher ups are going to be splitting an additional 20% of the profits between themselves.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kaos2900 on September 27, 2016, 07:04:21 AM
Watched about 2 minutes of this and caught the part where Hillary was yelling about racist white men and turned it off. I don't the think the debates will matter ultimately, though if Trump doesn't do better in the next one I think I'm just going to vote for that cat from NY.

Remember, Obama got his ass handed to him in the first presidential debate with Romney. He was able to learn and better prepared for the second. We'll see if Trump does the same thing or if his arrogance will get him trouble again.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 27, 2016, 07:13:34 AM
I don't think Trump was anywhere near as bad as people are claiming.  He wasn't great, but he hit most of his points and didn't really do anything crazy.  Clinton looked fine too though.  People in the aftershow were ripping on Trump and loving Clinton because she looked so poised and Trump had all his facial expressions.... I'm not sure how that is negative, one's career has been based on doing debates and being trained and the other winged it for the most part which is kind of amazing when you think about it.  I thought overall it was fairly even and nothing last night would have changed anyone's opinions.

Trump hit a lot home about how his businesses were successful bending the rules and those are the rules he wants to fix.  Clinton tried to draw this out of him and he didn't even fight it at all. 

Has there been a confirmation that Trump actually is being audited by the IRS?  While everyone says that shouldn't stop him from releasing his tax return, I certainly wouldn't be doing that if I were being audited.  I'm just wondering if he actually is or if that is a lie.  Personally I think the reason he doesn't want to show it is because he just isn't worth that much.

Having 650 million in debt to wall street is also better than making millions for speaking to wall st IMO.  If the numbers are true, 650 million in debt and earned 690 million for the year, then I'm not sure what the issue is there that Clinton tried to make.

Clinton bringing up solar power and trump being against that was probably my biggest negative towards him.  I feel like renewable energy is big with younger people and many (including myself) see that as the future.

Lester Holt had no control.  It seemed everyone got to speak when they wanted to and it also seemed majority of the questions were aimed at Trump to defend which seemed unfair overall but the questions themselves were fine, just uneven.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 27, 2016, 07:21:32 AM
I actually thought both candidates did a good job for the most part. I think a lot of the media was counting on/was disappointed by the fact that there was no shock and awe moments. Now they're trying to create some.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 27, 2016, 07:29:04 AM
I cannot imagine how anyone who watched the entire debate thought that Trump came anywhere close to winning or looking like a President. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 27, 2016, 07:40:03 AM
I cannot imagine how anyone who watched the entire debate thought that Trump came anywhere close to winning or looking like a President.

Trump could literally come out and say "I'm not going to do anything of substance, I'm going to assign every decision I make to someone else, and I'm going to sit on my ass in the Oval Office and laugh at what an unbelievable prank I've pulled on everyone" and his supporters will still say "Well, at least he's not Hillary, I like that he speaks his mind!  BENGHAZI!  EMAILS!"  Each side has their blinders on and nothing is going to make them undig their heels.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 27, 2016, 07:43:48 AM
I'm not sure that the anti-Trump crowd is actually wearing blinders.  We don't have to come to any conclusions or have bad feelings or bad opinions on things he does or says.  He come right and flat out says outrageous things and bald-faced lies, ALL THE TIME.

If you are against Hillary, that's cool.  But I cannot understand supporting Trump. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 27, 2016, 07:47:33 AM
The vitriolic hatred for Hillary (as displayed even in this thread), in the face of the outrageous things Trump says on a regular basis continues to baffle me and continues to confirm that there's nothing he can say that will be so outrageous that his supporters will finally say "Okay, that's enough already".  I'm not a Hillary supporter, by any stretch.  But I'm even less of a Trump supporter.  And that's what this election has come to.  Who any voter thinks is least worst for the country as opposed to who's best for it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 27, 2016, 07:50:04 AM
So it is hard to understand...

Law and Order
Tax breaks for everyone
Closing the loopholes that allowed Donald to not pay federal taxes
Taxing imports

(four points Donald made over and over again last night)

You don't have to agree on those, but to sit here and say none of that matters or means anything to anyone, to me, does mean you (not anyone specifically) do have blinders on.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 27, 2016, 08:01:19 AM
The only problem with Law & Order is that Law & Order keeps killing black people.  Otherwise, pretty much all crime is on the decline, especially violent crime.  Even illegal immigration is on the decline.  So I don't see a need for any more Law & Order than we already have.  That is something to make some people feel better, it isn't based on anything factual.  But neither is much else tied to Mr. Trump.

Tax breaks for everyone isn't all that necessary.  Tax breaks for the most rich are decidedly un-necessary.

Closing loopholes isn't a bad idea.

Taxing imports isn't necessarily a bad idea, either.

But only about 20 % of his time is even spent on these ideas, and even that is only spent on vague ideas, not specific plans.  The rest of his time is spent on being a buffoon, a clown, and a habitual liar, and making shit up on the spot, and then denying half the things that he actually said, and continuing not to release his tax returns and giving bullshit reasons for not doing so.

I just don't see how people can decry Clinton for various "moral" reasons, or thinking she is crooked or less than honest, and then support Trump in spite of all his lies and cheating people and the government.  Especially given his temperament.

But whatever.  It's a free country, God help us.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 27, 2016, 08:08:14 AM
As predictable as the debate was - and it was EXACTLY what I expected, with the possible exception that Hillary looked more tired and less energetic than I expected, and Trump was more calm than I expected (yes, even at the "end") - so is this thread.   

And I think that is telling.   Chuck Todd (D - NY) stepped all over his dick trying to build up Hillary, with his "surreal" comment (maybe you should look up that word).   The girl (not Savannah Guthrie, but the "on the floor" girl) trying to say how Hillary won, but actually having the best line of the night when she said "but if this election cycle has shown us anything, it's that what us pundits say doesn't really mean much".   

Look; Trump was Trump.  You either like it or you don't.   There's plusses and minuses to Trump; yeah the devil's in the details (and he's not a detail guy) but there is substance in his plan.  Yes, the 20% tax cut can go to the executives, but it can also be applied in such a way that it doesn't (meaning, the "tax relief" isn't on income per se, but is in the form of a credit for certain reinvestments).   

One thing that bugged me was that NEITHER candidate ever made the real connection between immigration, race, terrorism, and criminal justice, and that is ECONOMICS.   JOBS.    Create JOBS, and some of this will go away.   When people are prosperous, crime goes down.  When crime goes down, it's easier to NOT profile, and criminal justice becomes less life and death, and "in the moment".  When criminal justice becomes more patient and less "in the moment", it becomes less about snap judgment, and less about "race".   Etc. etc. etc.   

I'm sorry, but Hillary said all the right things, but didn't say anything that moved the needle.   Trump put a little more substance to his rhetoric, but there are still big gaps.  And his meandering and repetition wears thin pretty quickly, if you ask me.  Having said that, her smugness is very off-putting to me.  Her smirks and gestures are really rude, and while they will play well to the base, I think she ought to be careful.  Certainly her smirks are more of an issue than Trump's sniffs (which I noticed too, and were NOT about "health", but where more about measuring his pace and taking a pause.  Any public speaker will tell you they have a trick or a technique to keep their pace when speaking, and that was clearly his.). 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 27, 2016, 08:20:18 AM
I also thought the smirks and smugness were off-putting. However, I recognize that was her plan for dealing with Trump being Trump and thought it was effective. The strategy hasn't changed. Give him rope and he will hang himself. The trick is not getting mired up in it yourself, and she was very effective at letting him look rash and impulsive while keeping her distance. Sometimes it's better to just let a disaster speak for itself rather than trying to sell it.

As for the debate itself, I actually found it somewhat refreshing. There actually were no applause/hoots/hollers and I thought that was huge. Moreover, I prefer candidates talking to, or even yelling at each other rather than interacting with the moderator. While it will do nothing whatsoever to change the minds of those that have already made them, I thought it had more substance than I was actually expecting.

At least the 10 minutes I watched.  :lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 27, 2016, 08:24:44 AM
Yes, I totally thought that her "smugness" et. al. was in response to Trump being Trump.  She let him be himself, and he just couldn't help himself but to show much of his worst - constantly interrupting, citing a private conversation as "the record", continuing to bluster and bullshit about his tax returns, throwing out lie after lie.

Again, I'm much less pro-Hillary than anti-Trump.  She wasn't quite as specific about her plans as I would have liked to see.  But she absolutely handled him, and he was terrible.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 27, 2016, 08:26:22 AM
Trump said Hillary has been fighting ISIS her entire adult life.  If you take Wiki's date of inception of 1999 for ISIS, Hillary was already 52 years old.  Solid BS throwing.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 27, 2016, 08:35:40 AM
I just don't see how people can decry Clinton for various "moral" reasons, or thinking she is crooked or less than honest, and then support Trump in spite of all his lies and cheating people and the government.  Especially given his temperament.

Well, as is usual, there is more than "black" and "white".   The grey area consists of those like me, who absolutely decry Clinton for "moral" reasons, and I absolutely think she is crooked and less than less than honest, but I do not SUPPORT Trump.   I support treating them as equals, and ditching this "lesser of two evils" nonsense for the disingenuous partisanship that it is.  It's just an excuse, in my opinion (and yes, I understand that that may be controversial).   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on September 27, 2016, 08:39:49 AM
Like others have said, the debate was pretty much what I expected - Trump seemed under-prepared and Clinton seemed over-prepared, as if everything she said was canned language.

Neither candidate did anything impressive to win my vote, neither candidate did anything horrible to lose my vote. I don't think either one provided great detail about their platforms, but that's expected. I think Trump missed some opportunities by defending stupid stuff way to much. He spent a lot of time defending whether or not he was for the war in Iraq, the birther thing, etc... Maybe I'm waaaay off here, but that's not a big concern for me. He wasn't in government at the time the war decision was made, so I don't care if he was for it or against it at the time. I don't care whether or not he thinks Obama was born on the moon. I care about the details of his policy ideas. I felt like at times, he would make a statement I agreed with, for instance using corporate tax rates and regulations as an incentive to attract new businesses, grow current businesses, and kept current businesses operating here. This could work, but then it seemed like he just did a poor job communicating that idea...

As far as Clinton, everything seemed so scripted and rehearsed, and I get it, that's her approach but it loses me quickly. I, a little more surprisingly, found her to be a pretty poor communicator as well. Also, her campaign will probably address her body language and facial expressions with her. She definitely made a couple head scratching statements as well.

Well, as is usual, there is more than "black" and "white".   The grey area consists of those like me, who absolutely decry Clinton for "moral" reasons, and I absolutely think she is crooked and less than less than honest, but I do not SUPPORT Trump.   I support treating them as equals, and ditching this "lesser of two evils" nonsense for the disingenuous partisanship that it is.  It's just an excuse, in my opinion (and yes, I understand that that may be controversial).   

This is pretty much where I am at.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 27, 2016, 08:40:36 AM
I'm surprised there's no discussion about "that's called business" in relation to the housing crash. It is, of course, absolutely true. Somebody such as Trump should be able to make money off of it. It is also not something a presidential candidate should be celebrating. A whole lot of people suffered terribly through that, and hearing about how Trump cleaned up because of it isn't exactly making me want to support the guy. Punch him in the dick maybe, but certainly not want him as president. I see this as indicative of his biggest failing. It's another area where he just doesn't understand the bigger picture. I don't think he's stupid by any means. I think he's amazingly shallow, though. He's blinded to anything beyond the superficial.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 27, 2016, 08:45:28 AM
Yes, I totally thought that her "smugness" et. al. was in response to Trump being Trump.  She let him be himself, and he just couldn't help himself but to show much of his worst - constantly interrupting, citing a private conversation as "the record", continuing to bluster and bullshit about his tax returns, throwing out lie after lie.

Again, I'm much less pro-Hillary than anti-Trump.  She wasn't quite as specific about her plans as I would have liked to see.  But she absolutely handled him, and he was terrible.

Not really responding to you Hef, but also to el Barto; I do think that was her strategy, but I think we have to look at this two ways. One, through our lenses, but also through the lenses of those that disagree with us.  If you think Trump is a blowhard - already supporting Clinton, likely - you see the "smirks" as her "letting Trump be Trump".   But she wasn't (or shouldn't have been) there to keep her base, but to expand her appeal.  If you're a person considering Trump - for whatever reason - and you at all uncomfortable with the Trump intangibles (like the race issues, like the constant prevarication) the smirks and eyerolls are not going to come off as "letting Trump be Trump". 

I think that's Hillary subconsciously exposing her naked ambition and her raw zeal to be President above any need to actually serve or do good things.   And that to me is probably the one reason (well, in combination with her utter and total blatant disregard for the laws of this country) I haven't accepted her as the "lesser of two evils". 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 27, 2016, 08:47:51 AM
I'm surprised there's no discussion about "that's called business" in relation to the housing crash. It is, of course, absolutely true. Somebody such as Trump should be able to make money off of it. It is also not something a presidential candidate should be celebrating. A whole lot of people suffered terribly through that, and hearing about how Trump cleaned up because of it isn't exactly making me want to support the guy. Punch him in the dick maybe, but certainly not want him as president. I see this as indicative of his biggest failing. It's another area where he just doesn't understand the bigger picture. I don't think he's stupid by any means. I think he's amazingly shallow, though. He's blinded to anything beyond the superficial.

I have this mental picture of el Barto running up on stage like that "Soy Bomb" guy from a couple years ago, running up to Trump, and punching him right in the dick.   Now THAT'S "Must See TV". 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 27, 2016, 08:55:28 AM
I would pay for that on PPV.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on September 27, 2016, 08:55:54 AM
I'm surprised there's no discussion about "that's called business" in relation to the housing crash. It is, of course, absolutely true. Somebody such as Trump should be able to make money off of it. It is also not something a presidential candidate should be celebrating. A whole lot of people suffered terribly through that, and hearing about how Trump cleaned up because of it isn't exactly making me want to support the guy. Punch him in the dick maybe, but certainly not want him as president. I see this as indicative of his biggest failing. It's another area where he just doesn't understand the bigger picture. I don't think he's stupid by any means. I think he's amazingly shallow, though. He's blinded to anything beyond the superficial.

I think there's a way to approach that though (coming from Trump's perspective). His response basically is "I won!!". Which isn't cutting it, but, at the heart of that is someone making the most out of a bad situation and looking out for those he was responsible for at the time, meaning the employees of his company, his family, his business interests etc... He could easily spin that to say (in an intelligent way) he would take the same approach to being responsible for the American people. I don't have a problem with a business man being successful in the face of bad times, I do have a problem with how Trump dealt with that question last night, which was bad.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 27, 2016, 08:59:27 AM
I'm surprised there's no discussion about "that's called business" in relation to the housing crash. It is, of course, absolutely true. Somebody such as Trump should be able to make money off of it. It is also not something a presidential candidate should be celebrating. A whole lot of people suffered terribly through that, and hearing about how Trump cleaned up because of it isn't exactly making me want to support the guy. Punch him in the dick maybe, but certainly not want him as president. I see this as indicative of his biggest failing. It's another area where he just doesn't understand the bigger picture. I don't think he's stupid by any means. I think he's amazingly shallow, though. He's blinded to anything beyond the superficial.

I agree. He fell back on "that's business" and "that's smart" a few times in regards to how he gained his wealth. Hillary pretty much got him to admit paying nothing in taxes despite not seeing his returns. One of the biggest issues I have is who's going to be taking over his businesses and assets? I assume it will be his kids, but how is that not a conflict of interest? This dude has emphasized his business acumen time and time again, why does anyone think for a second that as president he'd make a decision that could potentially negatively impact his businesses?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: RuRoRul on September 27, 2016, 09:11:13 AM
Strangely I think the debate was a moderate success for both candidates. While I would say it is fair to give Clinton the "win", the reality is both kind of met expectations. That's not to mean "Trump won because he wasn't even expected to be able to string two sentences together" - I think Clinton definitely performed better and the overall reaction to the debate will show that. But trying to imagine it from the perspective of someone who still considers Trump a viable option (but is not a Trump diehard who would support him no matter what), I don't think there was enough there to rule him out. To be honest, I have to imagine that someone who genuinely still considers both candidates to be an option at this point (rather than having an entrenched position one way or the other) is probably someone who isn't very informed about either candidate, as I think it'd be quite hard not to have a clear picture of who you prefer if you had followed the election closely so far. If you are one of those semi-mythical people, I can imagine thinking Clinton came off better, but not that Trump proved himself a completely unviable candidate. Clinton would have been hoping for this debate to expose the worst of Donald Trump to as wide an audience as possible, and while he certainly had his bad moments, I don't think there was anything that lived up to the hype and would be a knockout blow to Trump for people who are still open to him.

Having said that I don't think there was much that would be too negative for Clinton's perception by anyone not firmly on Trump's side already. In these things you always walk a fine line trying not too appear too condescending or smug even if your opponent is saying something ridiculous (since apparently that's the greater sin), but I think it was reigned in enough that it won't come across as too damning to anyone not yet decided. Especially as it was quite obvious even isolated to the debate that things like Trump's claims about his "superior temperament" weren't ringing true, and since the moderator had to insist on "the record" contradicting Trump a couple of times. And all it requires is one or two major lies to get enough exposure after the debate (the "I never said global warming is a Chinese hoax" and perhaps "I can't release tax returns because I'm under audit" should get enough play) for most people to get a general sense that Clinton's occasional "smug" reactions might be to genuine blatant lies.

So while I would say it was definitely a better night for Clinton, I don't think it will have done enough to completely dissuade anyone who sees some appeal in Trump,.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 27, 2016, 09:12:51 AM
I'm surprised there's no discussion about "that's called business" in relation to the housing crash. It is, of course, absolutely true. Somebody such as Trump should be able to make money off of it. It is also not something a presidential candidate should be celebrating. A whole lot of people suffered terribly through that, and hearing about how Trump cleaned up because of it isn't exactly making me want to support the guy. Punch him in the dick maybe, but certainly not want him as president. I see this as indicative of his biggest failing. It's another area where he just doesn't understand the bigger picture. I don't think he's stupid by any means. I think he's amazingly shallow, though. He's blinded to anything beyond the superficial.

I agree. He fell back on "that's business" and "that's smart" a few times in regards to how he gained his wealth. Hillary pretty much got him to admit paying nothing in taxes despite not seeing his returns. One of the biggest issues I have is who's going to be taking over his businesses and assets? I assume it will be his kids, but how is that not a conflict of interest? This dude has emphasized his business acumen time and time again, why does anyone think for a second that as president he'd make a decision that could potentially negatively impact his businesses?

True, he has been questioned in the past about this and he said he would let his kids run the business, but did not answer about a conflict of interest.  Would he be the first president to have his own large worldwide business? 

Also, I see a lot of people using the "that's smart" comment against him, but I disagree.  I thought he was extremely truthful in admitting that (I almost have to throw in compared to the other candidates truthfulness) and being a business man, it is very much smart and he is using his knowledge and experience in this area to push his political agenda for fixing the loopholes.  You can be assured he is not the only business man using the laws to his advantage.  Does this hurt the middle class?  Sure does, but he is the one offering to fix it.  I think that's huge, he admits what he did wrong and how it's wrong and proposes to fix it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 27, 2016, 09:17:39 AM
I'm surprised there's no discussion about "that's called business" in relation to the housing crash. It is, of course, absolutely true. Somebody such as Trump should be able to make money off of it. It is also not something a presidential candidate should be celebrating. A whole lot of people suffered terribly through that, and hearing about how Trump cleaned up because of it isn't exactly making me want to support the guy. Punch him in the dick maybe, but certainly not want him as president. I see this as indicative of his biggest failing. It's another area where he just doesn't understand the bigger picture. I don't think he's stupid by any means. I think he's amazingly shallow, though. He's blinded to anything beyond the superficial.

I agree. He fell back on "that's business" and "that's smart" a few times in regards to how he gained his wealth. Hillary pretty much got him to admit paying nothing in taxes despite not seeing his returns. One of the biggest issues I have is who's going to be taking over his businesses and assets? I assume it will be his kids, but how is that not a conflict of interest? This dude has emphasized his business acumen time and time again, why does anyone think for a second that as president he'd make a decision that could potentially negatively impact his businesses?

True, he has been questioned in the past about this and he said he would let his kids run the business, but did not answer about a conflict of interest.  Would he be the first president to have his own large worldwide business? 

Also, I see a lot of people using the "that's smart" comment against him, but I disagree.  I thought he was extremely truthful in admitting that (I almost have to throw in compared to the other candidates truthfulness) and being a business man, it is very much smart and he is using his knowledge and experience in this area to push his political agenda for fixing the loopholes.  You can be assured he is not the only business man using the laws to his advantage.  Does this hurt the middle class?  Sure does, but he is the one offering to fix it.  I think that's huge, he admits what he did wrong and how it's wrong and proposes to fix it.

My problem with him isn't that he exploited the situation. It's that he doesn't have the complexity of mind to not look like an ass in discussing it. "That was smart business, though I was in a different place then," about would have covered it. Like I said, he can't see beyond the surface, as he's demonstrated plenty of times. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 27, 2016, 09:20:46 AM
I'm surprised there's no discussion about "that's called business" in relation to the housing crash. It is, of course, absolutely true. Somebody such as Trump should be able to make money off of it. It is also not something a presidential candidate should be celebrating. A whole lot of people suffered terribly through that, and hearing about how Trump cleaned up because of it isn't exactly making me want to support the guy. Punch him in the dick maybe, but certainly not want him as president. I see this as indicative of his biggest failing. It's another area where he just doesn't understand the bigger picture. I don't think he's stupid by any means. I think he's amazingly shallow, though. He's blinded to anything beyond the superficial.

I agree. He fell back on "that's business" and "that's smart" a few times in regards to how he gained his wealth. Hillary pretty much got him to admit paying nothing in taxes despite not seeing his returns. One of the biggest issues I have is who's going to be taking over his businesses and assets? I assume it will be his kids, but how is that not a conflict of interest? This dude has emphasized his business acumen time and time again, why does anyone think for a second that as president he'd make a decision that could potentially negatively impact his businesses?

True, he has been questioned in the past about this and he said he would let his kids run the business, but did not answer about a conflict of interest.  Would he be the first president to have his own large worldwide business? 

Also, I see a lot of people using the "that's smart" comment against him, but I disagree.  I thought he was extremely truthful in admitting that (I almost have to throw in compared to the other candidates truthfulness) and being a business man, it is very much smart and he is using his knowledge and experience in this area to push his political agenda for fixing the loopholes.  You can be assured he is not the only business man using the laws to his advantage.  Does this hurt the middle class?  Sure does, but he is the one offering to fix it.  I think that's huge, he admits what he did wrong and how it's wrong and proposes to fix it.

My problem with him isn't that he exploited the situation. It's that he doesn't have the complexity of mind to not look like an ass in discussing it. "That was smart business, though I was in a different place then," about would have covered it. Like I said, he can't see beyond the surface, as he's demonstrated plenty of times.

Yea, Im not disagreeing with that part.  Maybe it's because it's accepted as who he is, but it seems that's not really what the media is attacking which was my initial point.  Is he an asshole?  Most certainly.  Can he relate to the middle class?  I don't believe so.  Is he compassionate?  I don't believe so either. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 27, 2016, 09:24:05 AM
So it is hard to understand...

Law and Order
Tax breaks for everyone
Closing the loopholes that allowed Donald to not pay federal taxes
Taxing imports

(four points Donald made over and over again last night)

You don't have to agree on those, but to sit here and say none of that matters or means anything to anyone, to me, does mean you (not anyone specifically) do have blinders on.

There is no greater, more immediate, more probable, or more existential threat to the country than another Wall Street crash like in '08. While riots and terrorist attacks are bad, nothing would be more damaging then another '08 when most people haven't even recovered from '08 yet.

So no, not going to vote for the guy who thinks that "banks can't even make money anymore!" because of the flimsy regulations that exist now. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-banks-idUSKCN0Y900J
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: RuRoRul on September 27, 2016, 09:33:09 AM
True, he has been questioned in the past about this and he said he would let his kids run the business, but did not answer about a conflict of interest.  Would he be the first president to have his own large worldwide business? 

Also, I see a lot of people using the "that's smart" comment against him, but I disagree.  I thought he was extremely truthful in admitting that (I almost have to throw in compared to the other candidates truthfulness) and being a business man, it is very much smart and he is using his knowledge and experience in this area to push his political agenda for fixing the loopholes.  You can be assured he is not the only business man using the laws to his advantage.  Does this hurt the middle class?  Sure does, but he is the one offering to fix it.  I think that's huge, he admits what he did wrong and how it's wrong and proposes to fix it.
The problem is that he is not really "admitting what he did wrong and being the one to fix it". There's a very different perception between Trump's position and someone coming in and saying "Look, I ran a huge business and made a lot of money so I saw first hand how easy it was to avoid paying a lot of taxes. Maybe it was wrong to take advantage of this in the past even though I was obeying the law, but I think the bigger problem is that people are able to do that in the first place. So I'm going to make sure to close those loopholes, and I have the knowledge on how to do that because I have first hand experience of what they are." Trump isn't making that case at all - instead he is avoiding having anyone see what taxes he may or may not have paid, complaining about high taxes on the wealthy causing the loss of jobs and advocating tax cuts for them, and, most crucially for this point, pointing to his experience as a businessman as a track record for how to be president. He doesn't say "that's called being smart" and somehow mean "I intend to close tax loopholes and know how to do it". He says "that's called being smart" because he believes his best asset is that he is smart, he is successful, he got things done, and hence you should want him to be president because then he will be applying his "smartness" to winning at being president.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 27, 2016, 09:34:11 AM
So it is hard to understand...

Law and Order
Tax breaks for everyone
Closing the loopholes that allowed Donald to not pay federal taxes
Taxing imports

(four points Donald made over and over again last night)

You don't have to agree on those, but to sit here and say none of that matters or means anything to anyone, to me, does mean you (not anyone specifically) do have blinders on.

There is no greater, more immediate, more probable, or more existential threat to the country than another Wall Street crash like in '08. While riots and terrorist attacks are bad, nothing would be more damaging then another '08 when most people haven't even recovered from '08 yet.

So no, not going to vote for the guy who thinks that "banks can't even make money anymore!" because of the flimsy regulations that exist now. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-banks-idUSKCN0Y900J

I'm not totally familiar with this, but from reading the article, I am not sure where you got the quote from.  The article seemed to be pretty much in the middle though, not condemning the idea nor saying it was a good one.  The only thing I got from it was "wall street reform is wanted by Trump as well as bankers"  but being there were no specifics (suprise!) it's kind of hard for me to form an opinion on it.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 27, 2016, 09:48:09 AM
My quote was a [sic] but it's right there in the article, "Dodd-Frank has made it impossible for banks to function!"  being the actual quote.

Which is complete bonkers. Banks are back to where they were before '08, have made back their losses and then some. The American People have not.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 27, 2016, 09:53:20 AM
FactChecking the First Debate (https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/factchecking-the-first-debate/)

You be the judge.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 27, 2016, 09:58:49 AM
True, he has been questioned in the past about this and he said he would let his kids run the business, but did not answer about a conflict of interest.  Would he be the first president to have his own large worldwide business? 

Also, I see a lot of people using the "that's smart" comment against him, but I disagree.  I thought he was extremely truthful in admitting that (I almost have to throw in compared to the other candidates truthfulness) and being a business man, it is very much smart and he is using his knowledge and experience in this area to push his political agenda for fixing the loopholes.  You can be assured he is not the only business man using the laws to his advantage.  Does this hurt the middle class?  Sure does, but he is the one offering to fix it.  I think that's huge, he admits what he did wrong and how it's wrong and proposes to fix it.
The problem is that he is not really "admitting what he did wrong and being the one to fix it". There's a very different perception between Trump's position and someone coming in and saying "Look, I ran a huge business and made a lot of money so I saw first hand how easy it was to avoid paying a lot of taxes. Maybe it was wrong to take advantage of this in the past even though I was obeying the law, but I think the bigger problem is that people are able to do that in the first place. So I'm going to make sure to close those loopholes, and I have the knowledge on how to do that because I have first hand experience of what they are." Trump isn't making that case at all - instead he is avoiding having anyone see what taxes he may or may not have paid, complaining about high taxes on the wealthy causing the loss of jobs and advocating tax cuts for them, and, most crucially for this point, pointing to his experience as a businessman as a track record for how to be president. He doesn't say "that's called being smart" and somehow mean "I intend to close tax loopholes and know how to do it". He says "that's called being smart" because he believes his best asset is that he is smart, he is successful, he got things done, and hence you should want him to be president because then he will be applying his "smartness" to winning at being president.

Maybe we both interpret what he is saying differently, but he definitely is pushing his "im smart" and it's annoying.  However, he is very smart.  I guess maybe a lot of his personalities I am just used to now and they don't bother me as much as they used to since I've accepted who he is as a person.  Which I do not personally like, but I also don't feel like I'd personally like most of the leaders of our country and big businesses.  From my experience, asshole is a quality found in many successful people including leaders.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 27, 2016, 10:10:10 AM
So it is hard to understand...

Law and Order
Tax breaks for everyone
Closing the loopholes that allowed Donald to not pay federal taxes
Taxing imports

(four points Donald made over and over again last night)

You don't have to agree on those, but to sit here and say none of that matters or means anything to anyone, to me, does mean you (not anyone specifically) do have blinders on.

There is no greater, more immediate, more probable, or more existential threat to the country than another Wall Street crash like in '08. While riots and terrorist attacks are bad, nothing would be more damaging then another '08 when most people haven't even recovered from '08 yet.

So no, not going to vote for the guy who thinks that "banks can't even make money anymore!" because of the flimsy regulations that exist now. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-banks-idUSKCN0Y900J

Except... that's not what CAUSED the crash.  Those regs allowed the crash to happen, but they had been in place for fifteen years at that point, and through that time - when investors knew that the President wasn't going to do go off half- or full-cocked and do something stupid - there were easily eight or ten slight corrections that avoided a complete bubble break.   The regs set the stage, but the investor "panic" (it was more uncertainty than "panic") pre-empted a correction and caused the crash. 

If anything, if you're really that worried about another recession, then you're probably more a Trump guy than the rest of your politics let on.  He's not going to do anything egregious that will cause Wall Street to panic and pull their money back. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 27, 2016, 10:11:09 AM
True, he has been questioned in the past about this and he said he would let his kids run the business, but did not answer about a conflict of interest.  Would he be the first president to have his own large worldwide business? 

Also, I see a lot of people using the "that's smart" comment against him, but I disagree.  I thought he was extremely truthful in admitting that (I almost have to throw in compared to the other candidates truthfulness) and being a business man, it is very much smart and he is using his knowledge and experience in this area to push his political agenda for fixing the loopholes.  You can be assured he is not the only business man using the laws to his advantage.  Does this hurt the middle class?  Sure does, but he is the one offering to fix it.  I think that's huge, he admits what he did wrong and how it's wrong and proposes to fix it.
The problem is that he is not really "admitting what he did wrong and being the one to fix it". There's a very different perception between Trump's position and someone coming in and saying "Look, I ran a huge business and made a lot of money so I saw first hand how easy it was to avoid paying a lot of taxes. Maybe it was wrong to take advantage of this in the past even though I was obeying the law, but I think the bigger problem is that people are able to do that in the first place. So I'm going to make sure to close those loopholes, and I have the knowledge on how to do that because I have first hand experience of what they are." Trump isn't making that case at all - instead he is avoiding having anyone see what taxes he may or may not have paid, complaining about high taxes on the wealthy causing the loss of jobs and advocating tax cuts for them, and, most crucially for this point, pointing to his experience as a businessman as a track record for how to be president. He doesn't say "that's called being smart" and somehow mean "I intend to close tax loopholes and know how to do it". He says "that's called being smart" because he believes his best asset is that he is smart, he is successful, he got things done, and hence you should want him to be president because then he will be applying his "smartness" to winning at being president.

Maybe we both interpret what he is saying differently, but he definitely is pushing his "im smart" and it's annoying.  However, he is very smart.  I guess maybe a lot of his personalities I am just used to now and they don't bother me as much as they used to since I've accepted who he is as a person.  Which I do not personally like, but I also don't feel like I'd personally like most of the leaders of our country and big businesses.  From my experience, asshole is a quality found in many successful people including leaders.
He's not dumb, but I don't know as I'd go so far as to call him very smart. As I said earlier, I think he's shallow as hell. The discussion came up earlier about 3rd grader logic and I think he fits nicely into that realm. He can't see beyond the obvious, and he can't interpret what the obvious means. He might be right that Mexicans, even Mexican judges, have it out for him. Yet he doesn't recognize that they have a job to do and have to set biases aside every single day. He sees that Moslems that cross the border might want to kill us. He doesn't recognize that the constitution of this country exposes us to that risk in favor of the greater good of religious freedom. He sees that the depression was a great way for him to rake it in. He doesn't see that celebrating that fact in front of millions of people who took it terribly hard is selfish and egotistical. And unfortunately, of fortunately if you're him, anything he says that demonstrates his lack of depth is just attributed to him being Trump, or speaking unfiltered. I see both things. I see him speaking his mind without a filter, and I seem him being a very simple man. One is staged and one is a genuine shortcoming.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on September 27, 2016, 10:15:31 AM
https://nyti.ms/2d6Dwde haha it wasn't just me!
Braggadocious  ;D
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 27, 2016, 10:16:03 AM
Not a response to Hef, but a general comment... anyone else sick and flacking tired of the "FACT CHECKER!" nonsense?   Calling out Trump based on "FACT CHECKERS!" is a lot disingenuous.  ALL politicians stretch the truth to make their point, and in two minutes, there is usually not enough time to cover all the nuances that render a "somewhat truthful" into "very truthful".   Plus, saying that "HILLARY WON!" because "she was more truthful in the debate!" is like saying "Well, Bucky Dent is a homerun hitter, because he hit that one homerun in '78 to beat the Red Sox!"   Or, "Eddie van Halen is the best guitar player ever, because I saw him on the one tour where he was sober!".  Yeah, it's important, but I think it loses the forest for the trees in a very big way.

They both play fast and loose with the truth when it suits them.   So happens that a policy debate on jobs probably requires Hillary to lie less than Donald.  But certainly, as we know very well, any discussion about the ethical performance of Hillary in front of a hearing or investigator probably requires her to not play so close to the truth.   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 27, 2016, 10:20:40 AM
He's not dumb, but I don't know as I'd go so far as to call him very smart. As I said earlier, I think he's shallow as hell. The discussion came up earlier about 3rd grader logic and I think he fits nicely into that realm. He can't see beyond the obvious, and he can't interpret what the obvious means. He might be right that Mexicans, even Mexican judges, have it out for him. Yet he doesn't recognize that they have a job to do and have to set biases aside every single day. He sees that Moslems that cross the border might want to kill us. He doesn't recognize that the constitution of this country exposes us to that risk in favor of the greater good of religious freedom. He sees that the depression was a great way for him to rake it in. He doesn't see that celebrating that fact in front of millions of people who took it terribly hard is selfish and egotistical. And unfortunately, of fortunately if you're him, anything he says that demonstrates his lack of depth is just attributed to him being Trump, or speaking unfiltered. I see both things. I see him speaking his mind without a filter, and I seem him being a very simple man. One is staged and one is a genuine shortcoming.

All politics at that level requires third grade logic.   "Raising the minimum wage will boost our economy" is third grade logic.   "Hey, let's pay for tuition by taxing the rich!  They've got it!" is third grade logic.   "If we pay Iran, they'll think we're good guys and won't blow us up with a nuke, plus, we get to look at their chemistry labs!" is third grade logic.   

I also think you're - paradoxically - giving him too much credit.  HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT FACT CHECK or RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, any more than Obama cared about gay rights in the military, or closing Guantanimo.   He (Trump) is doing what he knows how to do:  get people to support him.   And, frankly, so is Hillary.  They are two peas in a pod, albeit they are different strains of pea. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on September 27, 2016, 10:20:48 AM
Sick of fact checking?! It's the one glimpse of positivity that's just barely getting a foot in the door of bull shit politics. It's still not even wide spread nearly as much as it should be!
Sick of fact checking..
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 27, 2016, 10:25:34 AM
It's not disingenuous at all.  Yes, all politicians stretch the truth occasionally, and some more than others; we've all seen it.

But most other politicians aren't flat-out liars like Trump is.  He lies when he doesn't even have to.  He lies all the time.  That's why the L. A. Times said that his lying amount is "unprecedented." 

Frankly, it's disingenuous to deny that.

And frankly, I thought part of his appeal was that he isn't just another politician.  So shouldn't he be held to a HIGHER standard?  Yes, we expect our politicians to occasionally be dishonest.  But here comes the outsider, Trump, and he throws around more lies than any other politician.  Come on, man.

And Hillary didn't win just because she was more truthful.  She won for a host of reasons.  But she was more truthful, and that can't be denied.

The only people that should be "sick and tired of fact checkers" are people who have a disastrous relationship with facts.  Such as Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 27, 2016, 10:25:58 AM
Not a response to Hef, but a general comment... anyone else sick and flacking tired of the "FACT CHECKER!" nonsense?   Calling out Trump based on "FACT CHECKERS!" is a lot disingenuous.  ALL politicians stretch the truth to make their point, and in two minutes, there is usually not enough time to cover all the nuances that render a "somewhat truthful" into "very truthful".   Plus, saying that "HILLARY WON!" because "she was more truthful in the debate!" is like saying "Well, Bucky Dent is a homerun hitter, because he hit that one homerun in '78 to beat the Red Sox!"   Or, "Eddie van Halen is the best guitar player ever, because I saw him on the one tour where he was sober!".  Yeah, it's important, but I think it loses the forest for the trees in a very big way.

They both play fast and loose with the truth when it suits them.   So happens that a policy debate on jobs probably requires Hillary to lie less than Donald.  But certainly, as we know very well, any discussion about the ethical performance of Hillary in front of a hearing or investigator probably requires her to not play so close to the truth.
Candidates often hide behind differing interpretations. Either one of them can point to a poll that shows them trouncing the other, or a study that shows the economy is the greatest or worst ever. Trump seems to have a different level of truthiness, though, where he's allowed to just make shit up at will.

"Nah, I never said that."
"But Mr. Trump, here's the recording of you using those exact words!"
"Wasn't me."

And then the next day it's an attack on the liberal media for trying to trick him into admitting something he never said, or, using his own words against him.

edit: or what hef just said.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 27, 2016, 10:28:28 AM
He's not dumb, but I don't know as I'd go so far as to call him very smart. As I said earlier, I think he's shallow as hell. The discussion came up earlier about 3rd grader logic and I think he fits nicely into that realm. He can't see beyond the obvious, and he can't interpret what the obvious means. He might be right that Mexicans, even Mexican judges, have it out for him. Yet he doesn't recognize that they have a job to do and have to set biases aside every single day. He sees that Moslems that cross the border might want to kill us. He doesn't recognize that the constitution of this country exposes us to that risk in favor of the greater good of religious freedom. He sees that the depression was a great way for him to rake it in. He doesn't see that celebrating that fact in front of millions of people who took it terribly hard is selfish and egotistical. And unfortunately, of fortunately if you're him, anything he says that demonstrates his lack of depth is just attributed to him being Trump, or speaking unfiltered. I see both things. I see him speaking his mind without a filter, and I seem him being a very simple man. One is staged and one is a genuine shortcoming.

All politics at that level requires third grade logic.   "Raising the minimum wage will boost our economy" is third grade logic.   "Hey, let's pay for tuition by taxing the rich!  They've got it!" is third grade logic.   "If we pay Iran, they'll think we're good guys and won't blow us up with a nuke, plus, we get to look at their chemistry labs!" is third grade logic.   

I also think you're - paradoxically - giving him too much credit.  HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT FACT CHECK or RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, any more than Obama cared about gay rights in the military, or closing Guantanimo.   He (Trump) is doing what he knows how to do:  get people to support him.   And, frankly, so is Hillary.  They are two peas in a pod, albeit they are different strains of pea.
Well, you provided a pretty good example with giving money to Iran. Trump's logic is that it was a very simple ransom payment. You and I both know it was infinitely more complicated than that. Even though Hillary had nothing to do with it, I think we can both agree that she understands the nuances of that arrangement. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that Trump sees it as anything more complicated as "here's money for the hostages." Do you?
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Progmetty on September 27, 2016, 10:29:58 AM
"Nah, I never said that."
"But Mr. Trump, here's the recording of you using those exact words!"
"Wasn't me."

 :rollin
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 27, 2016, 10:49:03 AM
make shit up at will

Like a defective microphone?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/27/trump-says-debate-microphone-was-defective/
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 27, 2016, 10:53:26 AM
Sick of fact checking?! It's the one glimpse of positivity that's just barely getting a foot in the door of bull shit politics. It's still not even wide spread nearly as much as it should be!
Sick of fact checking..

While I think fact checking is mostly good, I've seen a few articles this morning of fact checking that cherry picked to show Trump lied constantly and Hillary never told a lie.  I find it hard to believe and therefore start to question the legitimacy of the "fact checking".  The truth is, lots of these tidbits aren't necessarily facts to begin with and then the media can twist it so he "lied".  Obviously Trump made some shit up and I think Hillary was more prepared with her facts last night, but it's hard to agree with fact checking when it's so blatantly biased.  I didn't feel that was the case with Hef's link though, that seemed more fair than some of the others I had read.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 27, 2016, 10:54:25 AM
make shit up at will

Like a defective microphone?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/27/trump-says-debate-microphone-was-defective/

Quote
“They gave me a defective mic. Did you notice that? My mic was defective within the room,” Trump said after the debate Tuesday, during a gaggle with reporters. “I wonder, was that on purpose? Was that on purpose? But I had a mic that didn't work properly.”

Quote
There was no clear problem with his microphone during the debate.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 27, 2016, 10:55:31 AM
I've seen a few articles this morning of fact checking that cherry picked to show Trump lied constantly and Hillary never told a lie.
I haven't seen any that said that.

But Trump DID lie constantly.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on September 27, 2016, 11:02:46 AM
But Trump DID lie constantly.

They both lied, the link you provided on the last page showed that. So assuming both are liars, I was waiting for one to win me over with tangible policies and unfortunately neither did.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: antigoon on September 27, 2016, 11:06:59 AM
"Nah, I never said that."
"But Mr. Trump, here's the recording of you using those exact words!"
"Wasn't me."

 :rollin
"Someday, Trump will deny ever having run for president"
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 27, 2016, 11:11:18 AM
make shit up at will

Like a defective microphone?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/27/trump-says-debate-microphone-was-defective/

Quote
“They gave me a defective mic. Did you notice that? My mic was defective within the room,” Trump said after the debate Tuesday, during a gaggle with reporters. “I wonder, was that on purpose? Was that on purpose? But I had a mic that didn't work properly.”

Quote
There was no clear problem with his microphone during the debate.

Exactly.  Even people with hearing problems could've told you there was nothing wrong with his mic.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 27, 2016, 11:24:58 AM
Sick of fact checking?! It's the one glimpse of positivity that's just barely getting a foot in the door of bull shit politics. It's still not even wide spread nearly as much as it should be!
Sick of fact checking..

Mock the point all you want, it's deflecting the discussion from the real point, and that is "how are the next four years going to be 'different/better' than the last [8, 16, whatever your standard is]."   I'm not, as implied, dismissing FACTS, but I am saying that JUST truthfulness isn't enough.   Hillary wasn't lying when she said she would provide free tuition and make the rich pay for it.   That doesn't make it a good idea, nor an idea that can actually work. 

And yes, I know the difference between massaging a fact to fit the world view, and denying a statement that is in print for the world to see.   I also know the difference between massaging a fact to fit a world view, and lying under oath to an investigative arm of both Congress and the FBI. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 27, 2016, 11:34:33 AM
I've seen a few articles this morning of fact checking that cherry picked to show Trump lied constantly and Hillary never told a lie.
I haven't seen any that said that.

But Trump DID lie constantly.

This was one of them https://www.yahoo.com/gma/debate-fact-check-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-stack-014855559--abc-news-topstories.html (https://www.yahoo.com/gma/debate-fact-check-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-stack-014855559--abc-news-topstories.html)

I'm not saying the fact checking itself was wrong, but the way the article only shows Trump as the liar is what turns me off and makes me feel like "How can I even believe the fact checking if they aren't being fair in what facts they choose to point out?"

"Nah, I never said that."
"But Mr. Trump, here's the recording of you using those exact words!"
"Wasn't me."

 :rollin
"Someday, Trump will deny ever having run for president"

 :lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 27, 2016, 11:45:23 AM
Is it remotely possible to you guys that maybe, just for one night only, Hillary was far more truthful than Trump? There have been several references here to fact-check articles that cover Trump's falsehoods over Hillary's 10/1, but can anybody point out Hillary lies that weren't covered? It seems like people are critiquing fact checking in general based on the precnoception that Hillary has to lie as much as Trump. I might well be wrong, but I haven't seen anybody offer up examples of Hillary's dishonesty which were ignored.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 27, 2016, 11:51:51 AM
Is it remotely possible to you guys that maybe, just for one night only, Hillary was far more truthful than Trump? There have been several references here to fact-check articles that cover Trump's falsehoods over Hillary's 10/1, but can anybody point out Hillary lies that weren't covered? It seems like people are critiquing fact checking in general based on the precnoception that Hillary has to lie as much as Trump. I might well be wrong, but I haven't seen anybody offer up examples of Hillary's dishonesty which were ignored.

I totally think it's possible, but I don't think it's likely she didn't lie at all.  Trump talked (well it seemed from my eyes/ears, maybe stats will prove me wrong) a lot more than Hillary last night which would logically mean he likely lied more.  I think Trump is worse than Hillary with regards to making up facts or denying things he said, so I think ultimately, yes Trump will fail the "fact checker test" more than Hillary.  But I can't think of how it's possible Hillary was spot on with everything.  I'm not even faulting her, or Trump, if they do make mistakes.  They are human, I can't possibly imagine doing such a high pressure debate without fluffing something here or there, or get a fact wrong (honest mistake) or just forgetting something on the spot.  It's when an article says Trump is wrong 10 times and Hillary was wrong maybe once that I think "well that's not totally fair" even if I admit that it is technically possible.  As I said before, I thought Hef's link was pretty fair and it was still more against Trump than Hillary.  But also as I mentioned yesterday jokingly, who is checking the fact checkers?  Some of it is too much IMO because they leave out the humanity of it all.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: mikeyd23 on September 27, 2016, 11:53:14 AM
Mock the point all you want, it's deflecting the discussion from the real point, and that is "how are the next four years going to be 'different/better' than the last [8, 16, whatever your standard is]."  I'm not, as implied, dismissing FACTS, but I am saying that JUST truthfulness isn't enough.   Hillary wasn't lying when she said she would provide free tuition and make the rich pay for it.   That doesn't make it a good idea, nor an idea that can actually work.

Great point, that's important to keep in mind.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 27, 2016, 12:08:25 PM
Trump interrupted Hillary and Lester Holt a combined 55 times last night.

Hillary wasn't perfect on that stat either, but she only interrupted 11 times.

Does that mean that Trump is 5 times ruder and more assholish than Clinton?  Not necessarily, but I wouldn't bet against it lol
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 27, 2016, 12:17:20 PM
Is it remotely possible to you guys that maybe, just for one night only, Hillary was far more truthful than Trump? There have been several references here to fact-check articles that cover Trump's falsehoods over Hillary's 10/1, but can anybody point out Hillary lies that weren't covered? It seems like people are critiquing fact checking in general based on the precnoception that Hillary has to lie as much as Trump. I might well be wrong, but I haven't seen anybody offer up examples of Hillary's dishonesty which were ignored.

I totally think it's possible, but I don't think it's likely she didn't lie at all.  Trump talked (well it seemed from my eyes/ears, maybe stats will prove me wrong) a lot more than Hillary last night which would logically mean he likely lied more.  I think Trump is worse than Hillary with regards to making up facts or denying things he said, so I think ultimately, yes Trump will fail the "fact checker test" more than Hillary.  But I can't think of how it's possible Hillary was spot on with everything.  I'm not even faulting her, or Trump, if they do make mistakes.  They are human, I can't possibly imagine doing such a high pressure debate without fluffing something here or there, or get a fact wrong (honest mistake) or just forgetting something on the spot.  It's when an article says Trump is wrong 10 times and Hillary was wrong maybe once that I think "well that's not totally fair" even if I admit that it is technically possible.  As I said before, I thought Hef's link was pretty fair and it was still more against Trump than Hillary.  But also as I mentioned yesterday jokingly, who is checking the fact checkers?  Some of it is too much IMO because they leave out the humanity of it all.
I'd skimmed the links posted here, but now I went through the entire politifact page on the debate. Clinton said a couple of things that were mostly false, and Trump said a couple of things that were mostly true, but by and large it seems pretty clear that there's a huge difference in the truthiness of the two, and while I can't say for certain since I can't go through every statement, it seems that the fact-checking in this case is pretty fair and even-handed. When people post links decrying the bias of the fact-checkers, I just don't see it in relation to the possibility that Hillary was mostly honest and Trump was not. A possibility that Trump's supporters have a hard time considering.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/27/trump-clinton-first-debate-fact-checks/
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: skydivingninja on September 27, 2016, 12:19:27 PM
For everyone complaining about fact checkers, go to Politifact and Factcheck.org (the latter of which was started by a Republican, so you can feel better about "bias"). Both have been invaluable assets for me not just to see who lied more (always Trump), but to get a more complete picture of what the truth of the matter actually is.

For example, Trump talking about how no one pays us to defend them. Both South Korea and Japan both pay us millions of dollars to defend them, AND we get military bases there to help keep Russia, China, and North Korea in check. The US doesn't pay for 73% of NATO, it's actually 22% and Obama is trying to get other countries to pay more. Hillary talks about Trump not paying income tax based on two years where he did not do so in the 70s (though him basically admitting it doesn't help him).

I wish debates had a team of moderators and fact checkers that could shut down any blatant lies from either end. Just 3 or 4 subject matter experts who could say "that's not true, according to our budget we pay for 22% of NATO" and then let the politicians carry on.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Adami on September 27, 2016, 12:31:51 PM
I wish debates had a team of moderators and fact checkers that could shut down any blatant lies from either end. Just 3 or 4 subject matter experts who could say "that's not true, according to our budget we pay for 22% of NATO" and then let the politicians carry on.

Doubt it would have mattered. The moderator did directly call out Trump on 1-2 big lies and he just blew it off. The people didn't care either.

I thought the most telling thing was when Trump said "I'll release my tax returns when she releases her emails" and people broke into cheer and applause.
That says more to me about the public than much else. We just don't (by and large) care about much else.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: chknptpie on September 27, 2016, 01:04:36 PM
I have an issue with a couple statements made by Trump. First he basically brags about not paying taxes. Then talks about how much infrastructure our country needs (roads, bridges, tunnels). How does he think those things are paid for? To also call the USA a 3rd world country because of the Newark Airport, tells me that he has not seen what a 3rd world country looks like.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 27, 2016, 01:23:43 PM
I have an issue with a couple statements made by Trump. First he basically brags about not paying taxes. Then talks about how much infrastructure our country needs (roads, bridges, tunnels). How does he think those things are paid for? To also call the USA a 3rd world country because of the Newark Airport, tells me that he has not seen what a 3rd world country looks like.

Eh, the airports he mentioned are some of the worst in the world for major travel hubs that I have experienced (I've been to all the ones he named).  Definitely an exaggeration on his part regardless.  EWR has been getting a nice facelift lately though.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 27, 2016, 01:56:09 PM
Is it remotely possible to you guys that maybe, just for one night only, Hillary was far more truthful than Trump? There have been several references here to fact-check articles that cover Trump's falsehoods over Hillary's 10/1, but can anybody point out Hillary lies that weren't covered? It seems like people are critiquing fact checking in general based on the precnoception that Hillary has to lie as much as Trump. I might well be wrong, but I haven't seen anybody offer up examples of Hillary's dishonesty which were ignored.


Of course; it's more than "possible".  It happened.  But you're a football fan.  "Any given Sunday".   It's a little off-putting to be lectured (not by you, mind you) about <Charlton Heston voice> FACTS <normal voice> because of one night, when - and I believe this to be true - she lied UNDER OATH in front of investigators looking into the email thing, and - I believe there is some evidence, though I'm not sure I think it's all true yet - many think she lied in her testimony about Benghazi.   I know, it's national politics, but to steal your phrase, is it even remotely possible to ask for just a shade of consistency, and not "whatever argument fits the moment"?   Isn't that ultimately what the fact checkers are asking for with Trump?   
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 27, 2016, 02:19:04 PM
Fact checkers have called out Clinton on her lies.

You seem saying they should remind people of all her lies every time Trump lies again. That's not how it works. It's not the fact checkers fault that Trump lies way more often than Hillary. In Football, one team doesn't get off the hook for a penalty because they can point out the other time the other team committed a penalty.

In fact, Hillary showed last night she can get by saying nothing at all. Just let Trump talk, refuse to try and beat him at his own game, and he'll attack himself more than she could.

Sorry folks, but if last night didn't prove that Hil can project strength against powerful, unreasonable interests, nothing ever will. I think she showed firmness, toughness, intelligence, and most importantly maybe, strength in the face of adversity. That's why she'll do a good job as president, even if I disagree with many of her ideas.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 27, 2016, 02:37:55 PM
It's a little off-putting to be lectured (not by you, mind you) about <Charlton Heston voice> FACTS <normal voice> because of one night, when - and I believe this to be true - she lied UNDER OATH in front of investigators looking into the email thing, and - I believe there is some evidence, though I'm not sure I think it's all true yet - many think she lied in her testimony about Benghazi.   I know, it's national politics, but to steal your phrase, is it even remotely possible to ask for just a shade of consistency, and not "whatever argument fits the moment"?   Isn't that ultimately what the fact checkers are asking for with Trump?
Because you "believe this to be true" is not the same as a FACT.

"Many think she lied in her testimony about Benghazi" is not the same as a FACT.

FACTS can be checked.  And when they are, Trump fails miserably, because he doesn't give a fuck about facts. 

You not liking what she said in certain situations doesn't mean she was lying.  After all, there have been, like, ten* Benghazi hearings by now.  Surely that's enough fact checking on that count.

* someone fact check that for me
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 27, 2016, 02:52:13 PM
Is it remotely possible to you guys that maybe, just for one night only, Hillary was far more truthful than Trump? There have been several references here to fact-check articles that cover Trump's falsehoods over Hillary's 10/1, but can anybody point out Hillary lies that weren't covered? It seems like people are critiquing fact checking in general based on the precnoception that Hillary has to lie as much as Trump. I might well be wrong, but I haven't seen anybody offer up examples of Hillary's dishonesty which were ignored.


Of course; it's more than "possible".  It happened.  But you're a football fan.  "Any given Sunday".   It's a little off-putting to be lectured (not by you, mind you) about <Charlton Heston voice> FACTS <normal voice> because of one night, when - and I believe this to be true - she lied UNDER OATH in front of investigators looking into the email thing, and - I believe there is some evidence, though I'm not sure I think it's all true yet - many think she lied in her testimony about Benghazi.   I know, it's national politics, but to steal your phrase, is it even remotely possible to ask for just a shade of consistency, and not "whatever argument fits the moment"?   Isn't that ultimately what the fact checkers are asking for with Trump?
I haven't been trying to question your evaluation of fact-checking. You summed it up quite nicely by pointing out that Hillary's truths don't help her if they're bad in consequence or void of significance. MikeyD also commented on it. Olsen Johnson is right about Howard Johnson being right about Melvin Johnson. What I have been taking on is the notion that the crooked media is skewing the fact-checking to Hillary's favor, as demonstrated by some of the links posted here. As well as the general perception of the debate, which is that Trump made up facts to suit his case and Hillary did not.

What I will throw out to you, and this is something I don't think either of us have a real answer for, is the valuation of lies and truths. The pathetic reality is that we're going to be saddled with a liar this go-around, and whether or not that has always been the case is irrelevant to my point. None of us want that, at least insofar as dishonesty to the American public, but we're getting it. If that's the case, then doesn't the quality/motivation/spirit of the lie come into play? When I pointed out the nature of Trump's lying earlier it was with this in mind. Hillary, like her hold man, lies to save her ass. I don't approve but I understand it and recognize it as a fairly common thing within humanity. The person who's capable of manning up and admitting wrong-doing is well regarded in our society for a reason. Trump's lying seems to be a different nature, though my hunch is that he's far, far less willing to "man up" than the average fellow. He lies effortlessly and with little need. He strikes me as the guy who'd make something up even though the truth is better on every level.

You place a great significance on her role as a member of the bar and it's obligation to uphold the law, and I can certainly appreciate that. You probably have a very different valuation of their respective honesties, or lack thereof than I do. I'm more tolerant of the CYA variety than I am of the pathological. We can add that to the growing list of things to discuss over our next beer. I'm just pointing out that there are a variety of ways in which truth and lying matter to different people, and knowing what the lies are is important. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: cramx3 on September 27, 2016, 03:15:05 PM
Good points and I was thinking Stadler's point was also on the weight of the lies.  And it's clear that Stadler puts a lot of weight on lying under oath.  I think that's fair.

I was going through the fact checking again.  From both sides, I'm not sure what lie really holds that much weight to me personally.  Sure it shows that Trump lies (or Hillary, but yes Trump did lie more).  But what is the value of the lies?  Clinton's lies were mostly meaningless to me.  How much of that is actual intent of lying vs. misremembering vs. a mistake?  Maybe Trumps point about Ford's move to Mexico and the loss of jobs is the biggest lie since bringing jobs back to the US is a big part of his political plan, but even that lie isn't that big since Ford is in fact building plants in Mexico because it is cheaper (they just deny that jobs are being lost because of it).  The birther stuff is just stupid at this point.  The climate change tweet while Trump was wrong, is also kind of stupid.  I feel like a lot of the fact checking stuff talked about in the news, on here, and by myself was mostly meaningless.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 27, 2016, 03:30:54 PM
I didn't really approach it from the POV of the content of the lies, but rather the basis of them. While I know people ascribe this to Hillary, it seems like Trump just has it in his mind to be deceitful, whether it's advantageous or not. Like it's his first resort. My personal opinion is that she's a reactive liar. Defensive, if you will. Trump is pretty aggressive with his bullshit. Moreover, and probably more concerning, I'm not sure he realizes he's doing it. Does he repress the various things he says and later denies? Cognitive dissonance? Does he know he's lying and assumes nobody would notice? None are good signs.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 27, 2016, 03:38:15 PM
I agree with your assessment on Clinton El Barto.   I think what upsets people with Hillary is that her family has been investigatedone so many times that there is a lack of trust with her.

Trump is just a blowhard that you can't believe anything.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: KevShmev on September 27, 2016, 07:11:38 PM
I'm not sure how anyone could have watched that last night and thought Trump did well at all; he was awful (with a few funny, albeit absurd, one-liners). 

Clinton wasn't any good, but she didn't have to be.  Just stand there and let Trump hang himself with his own words...which he did.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 27, 2016, 07:33:47 PM
Exactly Kev. I think Trump's lack of professionalism makes it easy to vote for Hillary who we should not trust but hot damn Trump is bat shit crazy.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 27, 2016, 07:41:10 PM
I was a Bernie supporter and even I'm not sure what makes Hillary untrustworthy. And don't even bother bringing up the emails, dead meme is dead.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 27, 2016, 07:47:34 PM
Lol. Her history is what's unworthy but the Republicans have such an unlikable representative that most will gravitate to Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: TAC on September 27, 2016, 07:48:05 PM
Exactly Kev. I think Trump's lack of professionalism makes it easy to vote for Hillary who we should not trust but hot damn Trump is bat shit crazy.

There's nothing that makes it easy to vote for Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 27, 2016, 07:49:51 PM
Oh I'm not but the majority will. She will be the next President.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: TAC on September 27, 2016, 07:54:31 PM
I'm begging Trump to give me a reason to vote for him, but "I'm not Hillary" is not one of them.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 27, 2016, 07:55:44 PM
That will not happen.   Better get our heads straight. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: TAC on September 27, 2016, 07:56:33 PM
That will not happen.   Better get our heads straight.

Let's run, dude!
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: kingshmegland on September 27, 2016, 07:57:19 PM
BTW, this shows you how dysfunctional the Republican party is that a weak representative for the Democratic party will not lose.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Chino on September 28, 2016, 05:54:30 AM

  Maybe Trumps point about Ford's move to Mexico and the loss of jobs is the biggest lie since bringing jobs back to the US is a big part of his political plan, but even that lie isn't that big since Ford is in fact building plants in Mexico because it is cheaper (they just deny that jobs are being lost because of it). 


While we are losing that production to Mexico, it's not an entirely bad thing. The production lines that Ford is moving are for a few of their small cars with a very small profit margin, most of which sell poorly in the United States to begin with. Those lines in the US are being replaced with lines to assemble Ford's larger, more popular, and more profitable SUVs. The jobs are staying in the states from what I've gathered.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 28, 2016, 07:21:04 AM
Fact checkers have called out Clinton on her lies.

You seem saying they should remind people of all her lies every time Trump lies again. That's not how it works. It's not the fact checkers fault that Trump lies way more often than Hillary. In Football, one team doesn't get off the hook for a penalty because they can point out the other time the other team committed a penalty.

In fact, Hillary showed last night she can get by saying nothing at all. Just let Trump talk, refuse to try and beat him at his own game, and he'll attack himself more than she could.

Well, as I type this, I'm listening to a commentator talking about Comey's pending testimony on Capital Hill about, you guessed it, Hillary's questionable testimony.

Look, I don't ask for a quid pro quo every time.  Never have.  What I'm beefing about - and I admit that I'm not doing a good job of explaining it - is what seems to be a double standard.  It just bugs me that the Hillary is basically taking the "I know you are, but what am I?" playground strategy of calling Trump a liar. 

Quote
Sorry folks, but if last night didn't prove that Hil can project strength against powerful, unreasonable interests, nothing ever will. I think she showed firmness, toughness, intelligence, and most importantly maybe, strength in the face of adversity. That's why she'll do a good job as president, even if I disagree with many of her ideas.

Well, I think she showed arrogance, sanctimony, over-confidence and smugness as well, and I'm not sure what "adversity" she's faced.  Situations of your own making can't really be called "adversity".  She would probably make a "good" President.  After eight years of AT BEST "good", I was hoping for more (and won't get it from either candidate, just so we're clear). 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 28, 2016, 08:25:30 AM
What I will throw out to you, and this is something I don't think either of us have a real answer for, is the valuation of lies and truths. The pathetic reality is that we're going to be saddled with a liar this go-around, and whether or not that has always been the case is irrelevant to my point. None of us want that, at least insofar as dishonesty to the American public, but we're getting it. If that's the case, then doesn't the quality/motivation/spirit of the lie come into play? When I pointed out the nature of Trump's lying earlier it was with this in mind. Hillary, like her hold man, lies to save her ass. I don't approve but I understand it and recognize it as a fairly common thing within humanity. The person who's capable of manning up and admitting wrong-doing is well regarded in our society for a reason. Trump's lying seems to be a different nature, though my hunch is that he's far, far less willing to "man up" than the average fellow. He lies effortlessly and with little need. He strikes me as the guy who'd make something up even though the truth is better on every level.

You place a great significance on her role as a member of the bar and it's obligation to uphold the law, and I can certainly appreciate that. You probably have a very different valuation of their respective honesties, or lack thereof than I do. I'm more tolerant of the CYA variety than I am of the pathological. We can add that to the growing list of things to discuss over our next beer. I'm just pointing out that there are a variety of ways in which truth and lying matter to different people, and knowing what the lies are is important.

I like this a lot.  I think you nailed it:  this year is the difference between pathological and CYA.   I too can sort of grudgingly accept the CYA version, as long as it doesn't go too far from credulity.  But I think both of these candidates have gone well beyond that, and for me it's indicative of two different things.  With Trump, it's arrogance, with Clinton, it's the sheer nakedness of her ambition, and I'm sorry, that sort of aggressive desire is worse to me than Trump's brand of populism.   

Here's the thing about Trump:  what has he done that has been TRULY dangerous.  Not "Metallica" dangerous, but TRULY dangerous?   Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning this, and it's not what I want in a President - still not voting for him - but I just don't get the standards we're using to evaluate these candidates. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 28, 2016, 08:34:08 AM
I was a Bernie supporter and even I'm not sure what makes Hillary untrustworthy. And don't even bother bringing up the emails, dead meme is dead.


Hahaha, "I know this girl and I can't for the life of me understand why you all call her a slut.  Oh, and don't mention that she blew the entire football team at the 50-yard line." 

EVERYTHING about her is untrustworthy.  As el Barto has said, she is exceedingly REACTIVE.   I've had this conversation with my wife; EVERYTHING just sounds like an excuse after the fact as opposed to an explanation of purpose.  Plus, she's trying to have it both ways:  she wants credit for all the good things that happened while she was standing there (I'm talking about her husband's Presidency and her time in Obama's cabinet) as if that confers experience ("I watched a guy do my dad's hip replacement surgery; next one, I'm up!") but she's not willing to accept responsibility for any of the downsides.   Her handing of Clinton's affairs are her business (my ex-wife had multiple affairs, and so I know first hand that you cannot - YOU CANNOT - judge that from the outside). but when it came time to handling the ramifications of those affairs, she was right there complicit.   Bill was found to have PERJURED HIMSELF.  That is defined as being caught lying while under oath.  It's basically a felony for lying.   She was part of that.   The Clinton Foundation.   The sale of uranium to the Russians.  Why does Trump's tax return matter MORE (it should matter SOME) than the sale of URANIUM - necessary for the production of nuclear weapons - to the Russians? 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 28, 2016, 08:38:45 AM

  Maybe Trumps point about Ford's move to Mexico and the loss of jobs is the biggest lie since bringing jobs back to the US is a big part of his political plan, but even that lie isn't that big since Ford is in fact building plants in Mexico because it is cheaper (they just deny that jobs are being lost because of it). 


While we are losing that production to Mexico, it's not an entirely bad thing. The production lines that Ford is moving are for a few of their small cars with a very small profit margin, most of which sell poorly in the United States to begin with. Those lines in the US are being replaced with lines to assemble Ford's larger, more popular, and more profitable SUVs. The jobs are staying in the states from what I've gathered.

I have additional reasons, but Chino is essentially right.  It's not JUST whether a company is moving jobs to another country; it matters what product is being made and for whom.   It does go to the whole notion of trade deals though.  Trump isn't wrong on the general aspects of some (NOT all) of our trade deals.  He is not wrong on the repatriation of profits.   Apple/Ireland/EU notwithstanding, it's a real problem, and our government is in the process of showing us that this recent and hipster attack against the "rich" isn't going to work.   Wall Street and/or the 1% are not going to roll over and just let the government take their money, Mark Cuban's partisan statements to the contrary.   They are going to move that money to a safe haven.  GE is already preparing to "localize" (that's the buzzword) and move select headquarter functions to other countries.   GE!  Thomas Edison!   Moving overseas!   What more proof do you need that this strategy is failed before it gets out of the gate??!??! 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: El Barto on September 28, 2016, 08:43:04 AM
What I will throw out to you, and this is something I don't think either of us have a real answer for, is the valuation of lies and truths. The pathetic reality is that we're going to be saddled with a liar this go-around, and whether or not that has always been the case is irrelevant to my point. None of us want that, at least insofar as dishonesty to the American public, but we're getting it. If that's the case, then doesn't the quality/motivation/spirit of the lie come into play? When I pointed out the nature of Trump's lying earlier it was with this in mind. Hillary, like her hold man, lies to save her ass. I don't approve but I understand it and recognize it as a fairly common thing within humanity. The person who's capable of manning up and admitting wrong-doing is well regarded in our society for a reason. Trump's lying seems to be a different nature, though my hunch is that he's far, far less willing to "man up" than the average fellow. He lies effortlessly and with little need. He strikes me as the guy who'd make something up even though the truth is better on every level.

You place a great significance on her role as a member of the bar and it's obligation to uphold the law, and I can certainly appreciate that. You probably have a very different valuation of their respective honesties, or lack thereof than I do. I'm more tolerant of the CYA variety than I am of the pathological. We can add that to the growing list of things to discuss over our next beer. I'm just pointing out that there are a variety of ways in which truth and lying matter to different people, and knowing what the lies are is important.

I like this a lot.  I think you nailed it:  this year is the difference between pathological and CYA.   I too can sort of grudgingly accept the CYA version, as long as it doesn't go too far from credulity.  But I think both of these candidates have gone well beyond that, and for me it's indicative of two different things.  With Trump, it's arrogance, with Clinton, it's the sheer nakedness of her ambition, and I'm sorry, that sort of aggressive desire is worse to me than Trump's brand of populism.   

Here's the thing about Trump:  what has he done that has been TRULY dangerous.  Not "Metallica" dangerous, but TRULY dangerous?   Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning this, and it's not what I want in a President - still not voting for him - but I just don't get the standards we're using to evaluate these candidates.
Well, he doesn't have to have already done something dangerous to be a danger. Conversely, the fact that Hillary might already have doesn't mean that she is necessarily a danger going forward. Again, this is where our interpretations of their respective characters come into play. My problem with HRC has always been her ambition. At the same time I suspect it's power driven. With Trump it's about both his ego and his desire to expand his business opportunities. I suspect that just obtaining the office is sufficient to rein HRC in. In Trump's case I think the office is an annoying consequence of his desires. I suppose it's a question of bad leadership vs selling America by the pound. Hillary might steel the White House China to fund a quasi-military anti-Putin organization. Trump would more likely steel it to sell on his new Trump Shopping Chanel.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Skeever on September 28, 2016, 09:38:39 AM
Well, I think she showed arrogance, sanctimony, over-confidence and smugness as well, and I'm not sure what "adversity" she's faced.  Situations of your own making can't really be called "adversity".  She would probably make a "good" President.  After eight years of AT BEST "good", I was hoping for more (and won't get it from either candidate, just so we're clear).

Trump and his entire style are the adversity, and effectively dealing with him is what each member of the GOP primary failed to do, one by one. Say what you want about her style, but she managed to do what no Republican in the primary could. She refused to engage him at his game, and let him hang himself. Maybe Jeb should have been more like Clinton instead of trying to be more like Trump, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Look, I think you're a smart guy, and I don't have a problem with Republicans, per se. But if you'll allow me to be a bit meta here, I feel like the level of equivocation and apologetics you have to put yourself through to support Trump as a reasonable Republican are far greater than the levels I need to put myself through to support Clinton. Had the GOP actually gone through with their 2012 autopsy and ran a better candidate on a better, more inclusive platform - someone that more resembles the Republicans that existed when you first started to lean more toward that party - I might be feeling a similar dilemma since I don't really particularly like Clinton. Unfortunately, most of what the GOP have done since 2012 (including letting Trump win their primary) just goes to show me that the party is heading in the wrong direction if it wants to attract people like myself.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Sir GuitarCozmo on September 28, 2016, 09:39:56 AM
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-0/s526x395/14484850_10210554154153410_168756222530137821_n.jpg?oh=dfabe93d110f05fd93e6d57b44df1b98&oe=58715CB6)
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 28, 2016, 09:46:57 AM
Well, I think she showed arrogance, sanctimony, over-confidence and smugness as well, and I'm not sure what "adversity" she's faced.  Situations of your own making can't really be called "adversity".  She would probably make a "good" President.  After eight years of AT BEST "good", I was hoping for more (and won't get it from either candidate, just so we're clear).

Trump and his entire style are the adversity, and effectively dealing with him is what each member of the GOP primary failed to do, one by one. Say what you want about her style, but she managed to do what no Republican in the primary could. She refused to engage him at his game, and let him hang himself. Maybe Jeb should have been more like Clinton instead of trying to be more like Trump, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Look, I think you're a smart guy, and I don't have a problem with Republicans, per se. But if you'll allow me to be a bit meta here, I feel like the level of equivocation and apologetics you have to put yourself through to support Trump as a reasonable Republican are far greater than the levels I need to put myself through to support Clinton. Had the GOP actually gone through with their 2012 autopsy and ran a better candidate on a better, more inclusive platform - someone that more resembles the Republicans that existed when you first started to lean more toward that party - I might be feeling a similar dilemma since I don't really particularly like Clinton. Unfortunately, most of what the GOP have done since 2012 (including letting Trump win their primary) just goes to show me that the party is heading in the wrong direction if it wants to attract people like myself.
I agree.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Super Dude on September 28, 2016, 10:39:04 AM
I was a Bernie supporter and even I'm not sure what makes Hillary untrustworthy. And don't even bother bringing up the emails, dead meme is dead.


Hahaha, "I know this girl and I can't for the life of me understand why you all call her a slut.  Oh, and don't mention that she blew the entire football team at the 50-yard line." 

EVERYTHING about her is untrustworthy.  As el Barto has said, she is exceedingly REACTIVE.   I've had this conversation with my wife; EVERYTHING just sounds like an excuse after the fact as opposed to an explanation of purpose.  Plus, she's trying to have it both ways:  she wants credit for all the good things that happened while she was standing there (I'm talking about her husband's Presidency and her time in Obama's cabinet) as if that confers experience ("I watched a guy do my dad's hip replacement surgery; next one, I'm up!") but she's not willing to accept responsibility for any of the downsides.   Her handing of Clinton's affairs are her business (my ex-wife had multiple affairs, and so I know first hand that you cannot - YOU CANNOT - judge that from the outside). but when it came time to handling the ramifications of those affairs, she was right there complicit.   Bill was found to have PERJURED HIMSELF.  That is defined as being caught lying while under oath.  It's basically a felony for lying.   She was part of that.   The Clinton Foundation.   The sale of uranium to the Russians.  Why does Trump's tax return matter MORE (it should matter SOME) than the sale of URANIUM - necessary for the production of nuclear weapons - to the Russians?

Maybe I asked not to mention the email thing because it's a bunch of Bologna to begin with? I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this stream of consciousness.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: antigoon on September 28, 2016, 10:44:37 AM
As far as I'm concerned, the extent of HRC's worst scandals are "eh, this maybe looks kinda bad, but claims of illegality don't really hold up to scrutiny." Putting her up against Orange Hitler or really any other republican in that laugher of a primary makes for an extremely easy personal choice.
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 28, 2016, 11:05:37 AM
Look, I think you're a smart guy, and I don't have a problem with Republicans, per se. But if you'll allow me to be a bit meta here, I feel like the level of equivocation and apologetics you have to put yourself through to support Trump as a reasonable Republican are far greater than the levels I need to put myself through to support Clinton. Had the GOP actually gone through with their 2012 autopsy and ran a better candidate on a better, more inclusive platform - someone that more resembles the Republicans that existed when you first started to lean more toward that party - I might be feeling a similar dilemma since I don't really particularly like Clinton. Unfortunately, most of what the GOP have done since 2012 (including letting Trump win their primary) just goes to show me that the party is heading in the wrong direction if it wants to attract people like myself.

You're more than allowed to go "meta", and I think you'd be surprised - with one exception - with how much I agree with you on all of that.   My dad is a long-time Republican, and used to be a delegate from first Connecticut and then Florida.   He and I have this argument all the time (relatively speaking).  I tell him to call Mitt Romney or call Reese's Pieces or whoever and tell them to get their act in gear!  (I'm joking).   But seriously, I tell him I'm embarrassed to be a Republican.  I think Cruz is a snake, I could give a shit who anyone marries (I'm alluding to gay marriage), I am pro-choice, I am anti-death penalty, I am probably resigned to a single-payer system at some point, and my party doesn't have room for me.   It's too insular, and I don't think the Cruz's of the world get it.

The one point I disagree with - and it's not a minor one at all - is the concept of "letting" Trump get the nomination.  They followed the rules.  Thank you if I don't condone going against the vote of the people and "forcing" in a candidate, as it seems the DNC wanted to do.   That is exactly what I DON'T like about Clinton/some Democrats.   Debbie Wasserman-Skank did what SHE wanted to do, against the rules, against the will of the people, and I can't abide by that.   I don't disagree that I have to go farther to support Trump than you do to support Clinton, but that we both have to "go at all" is, or should be, bothersome.   I don't have to agree with everything a candidate says or believes to get behind them with little effort (McCain, Romney) but we're at the point now where I feel I have to make too many key compromises to get to ANY candidate. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 28, 2016, 11:09:49 AM
I was a Bernie supporter and even I'm not sure what makes Hillary untrustworthy. And don't even bother bringing up the emails, dead meme is dead.


Hahaha, "I know this girl and I can't for the life of me understand why you all call her a slut.  Oh, and don't mention that she blew the entire football team at the 50-yard line." 

EVERYTHING about her is untrustworthy.  As el Barto has said, she is exceedingly REACTIVE.   I've had this conversation with my wife; EVERYTHING just sounds like an excuse after the fact as opposed to an explanation of purpose.  Plus, she's trying to have it both ways:  she wants credit for all the good things that happened while she was standing there (I'm talking about her husband's Presidency and her time in Obama's cabinet) as if that confers experience ("I watched a guy do my dad's hip replacement surgery; next one, I'm up!") but she's not willing to accept responsibility for any of the downsides.   Her handing of Clinton's affairs are her business (my ex-wife had multiple affairs, and so I know first hand that you cannot - YOU CANNOT - judge that from the outside). but when it came time to handling the ramifications of those affairs, she was right there complicit.   Bill was found to have PERJURED HIMSELF.  That is defined as being caught lying while under oath.  It's basically a felony for lying.   She was part of that.   The Clinton Foundation.   The sale of uranium to the Russians.  Why does Trump's tax return matter MORE (it should matter SOME) than the sale of URANIUM - necessary for the production of nuclear weapons - to the Russians?

Maybe I asked not to mention the email thing because it's a bunch of Bologna to begin with? I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this stream of consciousness.

Your loss, but it's not "bologna" except to those that want to ignore reality.   Comey said, even as he opted to recommend no prosecution, that Hillary was not truthful. I don't know how much more clear one has to be.   There's even questions (and no, I haven't looked into it deeply enough yet) as to whether President Obama communicated with the illegal server using a pseudonym even after testifying that he had no knowledge of the server until it broke in the news.    We can debate whether it rises to the level of a prosecutable case (not the same as "innocent") but it is unequivocal that Hillary was NOT truthful in her testimony, and there are at least some around her that were less than truthful.   It's a pattern.   

Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: Stadler on September 28, 2016, 11:12:05 AM
As far as I'm concerned, the extent of HRC's worst scandals are "eh, this maybe looks kinda bad, but claims of illegality don't really hold up to scrutiny." Putting her up against Orange Hitler or really any other republican in that laugher of a primary makes for an extremely easy personal choice.

So lying "looks kinda bad"?   And as for the rest of that, well, it's not easy to tell if you're trolling or serious so I won't comment.  There certainly isn't any credible political analysis in that statement. 
Title: Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
Post by: antigoon on September 28, 2016, 11:21:08 AM