2016 US Presidential election thread

[VipertheSniper]

^
Lame appeal for emotion that overshoots.
Basically, she said "you're responsible for other people's actions because words do hurt!"


Actually that isn't what I've gotten out of that at all.
More like: someone might follow through with a plan to assassinate Clinton, because Trump more or less implied that it's an acceptable course of action.
Sure, people are responsible for their actions, but the word of a presidential candidate carries so much weight, that someone might feel encouraged to take that action.

[Hottentot]

A road sign says Trump is a reptilian. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hacked-road-sign-reveals-donald-trumps-startling-secret_us_574dbbb5e4b03ede44156e86)

Note that it says "hacked" road sign, which is not to be taken as a Truth and I am by no means implying there is a reptilian conspiracy here. So learn to read, I'm just casually posting a random link and not implying anything, so why are you attacking me, are you a Trump fanboy?!

[Betonov]

No no, wrong.
Clinton is a shapeshifting reptilian, Trump is an obvious reptillian.

[AVGWarhawk]

Who's campaign was the leaker helping?

Certainly did not help Seth Rich.

[AndyJWest]

Certainly did not help Seth Rich.

So far there is no evidence whatsoever that he had anything to do with the leaks.

[AVGWarhawk]

So far there is no evidence whatsoever that he had anything to do with the leaks.

Not yet....

[AndyJWest]

Not yet....

Well there's no evidence that Donald Trump was responsible for the murder of Jimmy Hoffa yet. :03:

[AVGWarhawk]

Well there's no evidence that Donald Trump was responsible for the murder of Jimmy Hoffa yet. :03:

Jimmy Hoffa is dead? How do we know? There is no body.

[Oberon]

http://uproxx.com/tv/billy-west-donald-trump-zapp-brannigan/

[vienna]

A road sign says Trump is a reptilian. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hacked-road-sign-reveals-donald-trumps-startling-secret_us_574dbbb5e4b03ede44156e86)

Note that it says "hacked" road sign, which is not to be taken as a Truth and I am by no means implying there is a reptilian conspiracy here. So learn to read, I'm just casually posting a random link and not implying anything, so why are you attacking me, are you a Trump fanboy?!

Good Lord! A leftist August!... :haha:

Well there's no evidence that Donald Trump was responsible for the murder of Jimmy Hoffa yet. :03:

The way Trump has been going lately, a confession by him could be forthcoming... :haha:

...followed by a swift denial and an accusation of biased media coverage... :haha:



<O>

[August]

Good Lord! A leftist August!... :haha:

So? I don't care what some Bernie Bro hacked onto a highway sign a couple thousand miles away from me. Maybe he's right for all I know. I've met enough New Yorkers to believe it's possible.

I do however see you're still taking every shot you can at Trump but desperately avoiding any criticism of the democrat candidate who you claim you do not support.

[vienna]

So? I don't care what some Bernie Bro hacked onto a highway sign a couple thousand miles away from me. Maybe he's right for all I know. I've met enough New Yorkers to believe it's possible.

I do however see you're still taking every shot you can at Trump but desperately avoiding any criticism of the democrat candidate who you claim you do not support.

There is no desperation here; and I'm not avoiding legitimate criticism backed by fact; what I do, apparently much to our annoyance, is refute speculative, factually unsubstantiated, blatantly partisan innuendo, and, frankly, whacked out gibberish. If someone was to post a blatantly untrue speculation about Trump or any of the candidates, and I had the facts to do so, I would equally refute whatever gibberish might be dished up; however, in Trumps case, the truth about Trump is indeed stranger than fiction and, in a vast majority of the cases, nowhere near defensible. As far as Clinton, is concerned, there are a great many bashers here, including yourself, most of whom at least make an effort to find reputable, factual references for their arguments; for those who do not, a simple exposure of the actual facts is made in order to balance the data. I understand it may be an effort to actually read some of the links I, and others, post in explanation of an issue, but the facts are there; if they are to be refuted, refute them with facts, not just petulant personal attacks and bluster. I don't know about any one else, but I've outgrown the schoolyard...

As for the whole road sign thing, it is a joke, not a polemic or manifesto; have a laugh and move on...



<O>

[August]

but I've outgrown the schoolyard...

Says the person who tried to bust my chops by pointing out potential leftists.

I'm not your friend. Save your jokes for somebody else.

[Cybermat47]

The sanest explanation I've heard for this mess is that Trump is deliberately being as crazy as possible so that Clinton looks like a sane choice, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised :nope:

http://i.imgur.com/LE9hlIY.jpg

[Oberon]

There's nothing sane about that image size! :doh: :haha:

[Hottentot]

Good Lord! A leftist August!... :haha:

You missed the point. I have no horse in this race and I'm entirely neutral. I never implied anything by posting a conspiracy theory that didn't imply anything and I never stated an opinion on a discussion forum meant for opinions. I didn't participate in this discussion to participate in discussion, OK, it was just a link that didn't say anything. The fact that you red my post is only your interpretation of things I didn't say. I have unmasked you now as a Trump fanboy. I win.

And if you find this offensive or think about replying, in fact I didn't make this post either, it's all figment of your imagination.

[Jimbuna]

There's nothing sane about that image size! :doh: :haha:

I've resized the image but whilst doing so I thought 'When the eventual POTUS is decided, someone should ask the loser for their comments on what was being discussed at the time the picture was taken'.

[AVGWarhawk]

The sanest explanation I've heard for this mess is that Trump is deliberately being as crazy as possible so that Clinton looks like a sane choice, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised :nope:



I said this long ago. He says more and more crazy bunk everyday.

[vienna]

You missed the point. I have no horse in this race and I'm entirely neutral. I never implied anything by posting a conspiracy theory that didn't imply anything and I never stated an opinion on a discussion forum meant for opinions. I didn't participate in this discussion to participate in discussion, OK, it was just a link that didn't say anything. The fact that you red my post is only your interpretation of things I didn't say. I have unmasked you now as a Trump fanboy. I win.

And if you find this offensive or think about replying, in fact I didn't make this post either, it's all figment of your imagination.

:haha::haha::up:




<O>

[August]

The sanest explanation I've heard for this mess is that Trump is deliberately being as crazy as possible so that Clinton looks like a sane choice, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised :nope:


Said it way back in November. :)

I've said it once and i'll say it again. Trump just has to be a Stalking Horse for the Clintonistas. He is like a real life version of the Colbert Report.

[Oberon]

And yet he's become the Republican candidate for the 2016 election, what does that say about the state of the GOP? :doh: That he can say the most ridiculous things, make the most crazy claims and yet still be popular enough to gain the most votes for candidacy.

[Platapus]

Over the past decade or so the GOP has made it hard to be a Republican. :nope:

I think I can honestly say that the party changed, I didn't. :yep:

[Oberon]

I can't help but think that if Reagan saw the current GOP he'd probably go back to the Democrats. :hmmm:

[Buddahaid]

The Mule...... :yep:

[u crank]

I can't help but think that if Reagan saw the current GOP he'd probably go back to the Democrats. :hmmm:

I can't help but think that Reagan's courting of the religious right is part of the current problem. How many young Republicans couldn't handle the bat crazy Bachmanns, Santorums and Palins and just went elsewhere. I would have. :O:

[Torplexed]

Trump doubles, triples, and quadruples down. "NO, NO I MEAN HE LITERALLY CREATED ISIS." Then he says he's being sarcastic. He shoots himself in the foot and then sticks said foot firmly in his mouth.Trump is almost impossible to parody. I'm starting to seriously consider Trump as the Andy Kaufman of politics.

http://pyxis.homestead.com/YkEftSQ.gif


And yet he's become the Republican candidate for the 2016 election, what does that say about the state of the GOP? That he can say the most ridiculous things, make the most crazy claims and yet still be popular enough to gain the most votes for candidacy.

The price we are paying in this country for years of treating politics as some sort of blood sport entertainment. The same people who probably thought pro wrestling was real bought into it, and the chickens have come home to roost.

[NathanBrittles]

'' There is actually no more public spirit among them then there is among burglers or street-walkers''.

HL Mencken.

On Politicians.

which could be either Hillary or Trump.

God help this nation then........

[Mr Quatro]

And yet he's become the Republican candidate for the 2016 election, what does that say about the state of the GOP? :doh: That he can say the most ridiculous things, make the most crazy claims and yet still be popular enough to gain the most votes for candidacy.

Look at the people (men and women) that Donald Trump ran against to get the GOP nomination ... not one of them could beat Hillary Clinton especially Ted Cruz who has embarrassed the GOP.

Bernie could run a better race than the people that Trump beat out. Sure he used bully like tactic's that comes from his New York upbringing. Have you ever met someone from New York they are different?

If Trump wins and I think he will he will owe it to the NRA :yep:

[Reece]

They should not even consider Hillary or Trump, both are unsuitable to be the leaders of a country!!:nope:

[Cybermat47]

Do American states have the right to secede from the Union? :hmmm:

[Platapus]

Do American states have the right to secede from the Union? :hmmm:

Not Legally. Texas v. White, 1869 was a US Supreme court decision that stated, that a state can not unilaterally secede from the Union.

[Platapus]

They should not even consider Hillary or Trump, both are unsuitable to be the leaders of a country!!:nope:

I think that Trump and Clinton represent the worst that our country can offer. It really is a sad situation and not a little bit embarrassing.

If either party simply selected a random citizen, I think they would win against the other candidate.

[Sailor Steve]

They should not even consider Hillary or Trump, both are unsuitable to be the leaders of a country!!:nope:

I think that Trump and Clinton represent the worst that our country can offer. It really is a sad situation and not a little bit embarrassing.

If either party simply selected a random citizen, I think they would win against the other candidate.
I think it's an unfortunate truism that anyone who wants that job shouldn't be allowed anywhere near it, but that we can't draft a President. This means that all we'll ever get are people who shouldn't be there. Sadly, it can't be any other way as long as people are people.

[em2nought]

Trump is in this because a good portion of the country view the current crop of regular politicians as traitors who have sold the best thing that's ever existed out to global concerns.

[Buddahaid]

Table manners disappear when food is short.

[u crank]

Trump is in this because a good portion of the country view the current crop of regular politicians as traitors who have sold the best thing that's ever existed out to global concerns.

I'm really surprised that those same people would view Trump as being any different than the regular politicians. Even the slightest investigation would have shown that Trump is exactly like them. He's just not a politician. Yet.

[Platapus]

In the United States, anyone can grow up to be President.

That is just one of the risks we have to accept.

[u crank]

In the United States, any rich person can grow up to be President.

Fixed that for you. :O:

[Torplexed]

This whole freak show of an election feels like an indictment on our society. That we, as a people are either indolent or reckless enough to allow either of the two major cartoon characters running to represent America to the rest of the world. :down:

[Platapus]

The Founding Dudes warned us about political parties. Seems like they knew what they were writing about.

I don't think there is a way for the US to get away from all political parties. After all, while there is nothing mandating political parties, they are also legal so we can't just say stop.

Perhaps the solution is to have more political parties? Well, depending on the election we have as many as 15 political parties, most of which the citizens never hear about. More is not the solution, size is.

Can we expect the other 13 political parties to come together and form one large third party that can stand a chance against the big two? Probably not.

Another barrier is the way the electoral college votes are handled. A candidate needs a majority of the electoral votes to be elected president. With two political parties, this becomes pretty straightforward -- Take the total number of electoral votes (538) and divide by 2 (269) and add 1 for a majority of 270. Since in a two party race, it is impossible for both candidates to get a majority, the winner is pretty clear. It does not matter if you get 270 or 538, it is the same result.

If we add in other parties of significant size, this can complicate matters. It has not complicated them so far as it was in 1972 that the Libertarian party candidate got 1 electoral vote. Since then no other political party has gotten any electoral votes. Why?

Because in 48 states, the electoral college is an all or nothing. That means that if a third party gets 49% of the popular vote in one of these 48 states, that political party gets nothing! That's fair and representative. :doh:

Two states (Nebraska and Maine) have proportional voting when it comes to the electoral college. This is why Nebraska and Maine get two electoral ballots. There is much to be said about proportional voting in the Electoral College. But, there are drawbacks too.

What happens if, either due to proportional voting (if it becomes the norm) or a significant competing third party results in no single candidate garnering a simple majority of the electoral vote?

Well, the House of Representatives votes for President among the top five candidates. Now does anyone think that the members of the House would not cast their votes according to their political party? It is most likely that which ever party holds a majority in the House would be the party to select the President. What do you think the chances of a third party being selected are? I think I can round that up to zero.

Until Article 2 is amended to change the way we elect presidents, I am afraid that the system is heavily weighted in favour of two political parties.

Who can change the constitution? Well congress can. The same congress that is overwhelmingly populated with members of one of two political parties. The same political parties that really don't want a change from the practically two party state we are living in. What are the chances that either the Democrats and the Republicans will ever vote to make it easier for a third party to unseat them? I think that may be the only thing that Republicans and Democrats agree on -- the two party system.

Of course there is the fantasy that 2/3rds of the individual state legislators would call a constitutional convention but in the history of our nation this has never been done.

The sad news is that we seem to be stuck with the two party system. Congress is not going to help us as it is in their best interest to maintain the two party system. It is doubtful that the state legislators could ever agree to hold a convention, especially when it takes 3/4 of the states (38) to agree.

Yes it is depressing.

[Betonov]

Perhaps the solution is to have more political parties? Well, depending on the election we have as many as 15 political parties, most of which the citizens never hear about. More is not the solution, size is.



Nope. We have a multi-party system and at the end we just recycle vultures that change color. Not to mention even more time is wasted in inside party dealings on how MP's will vote.

[Platapus]

Not to mention that culturally, the US might have a problem with coalition governments. All that compromise and cooperation. BAH.

We like our "us vs them" system far too much. :)

[Betonov]

We like our "us vs them" system far too much. :)

Not any different here.
It's all the left parties vs the ''right'' parties. Neverending game of which opposition can cause the most damamge to the coalition, before the coalition parties manago to plunder anything that might be plundered after the elections.

[August]

Trump is in this because a good portion of the country view the current crop of regular politicians as traitors who have sold the best thing that's ever existed out to global concerns.

This ^

[u crank]

This ^

I understand that part of Trumps appeal is a protest against the current political system and its corruption. What I don't understand is what his supporters think he can do about it as President. So I'll ask that question. What can he do about it?

[mapuc]

I said the same some days or some weeks ago, what can Trump do, if he has a majority against him in the Congress and in the Senate

I don't think people are thinking about these things

Markus

[Buddahaid]

Piss the whole world off by being uncouth and the poster boy for the ugly American.

Hold his breath until he turns blue.

Not eat his vegetables.

Learn how to lay bricks. I mean somebody has to build the wall.

And just maybe, get the GOP to reset.



"Weakness on both sides is, as we know, the motto of all quarrels."
Voltaire

[em2nought]

I said the same some days or some weeks ago, what can Trump do
Markus

Just the fact that he was able to get to where he is can give conservatives this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K30e9O3Nng

[u crank]

And just maybe, get the GOP to reset.


Bingo. Give that man a cigar. :O:

[August]

I understand that part of Trumps appeal is a protest against the current political system and its corruption. What I don't understand is what his supporters think he can do about it as President. So I'll ask that question. What can he do about it?

Well maybe not much as the system is well entrenched and it controls the media but certainly more than a candidate who is the ultimate insider. Personally I prefer an outsider a bit less, well Trump, but if he disrupts the system I could live with his personal failings.

[Reece]

I prefer an outsider a bit less, well Trump, but if he disrupts the system I could live with his personal failings.
Although I'm not a US citizen I agree, I think Hilary would be a total disaster, Trump, well you have to admit, it would be interesting!!:yep:

[Oberon]

There's interesting...and then there's 'interesting'.

Remember that old curse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_times).

[Commander Wallace]

The election between Clinton and Trump rolls around in a few months. If there were a third candidate on the ballot named " None of the Above ", Clinton and Trump would lose by a landslide. :yep:

[STEED]

The election between Clinton and Trump rolls around in a few months. If there were a third candidate on the ballot named " None of the Above ", Clinton and Trump would lose by a landslide. :yep:

We could do with that option here. :ping:

[vienna]

The Founding Dudes warned us about political parties. Seems like they knew what they were writing about.

...



Founding Dudes? You mean these cool and crazy cats?:


http://ih0.redbubble.net/image.37696540.3071/flat,800x800,070,f.u2.jpg



What is interesting is how the same people who are supposedly so upset with duplicity, ethical deficiencies, lying, incompetence, and all the other flaws and faults they see in government have chosen to support Trump as a panacea for those woes when he is the poster child for what is wrong in the US. On top of all his legion of faults, he is the epitome of the much reviled One-Percenters they say they oppose and want to see brought to account. If you were to list out all the cons of the One-Percenters, Trump would score a solid 100% all down the list. It would seem their solution to the excesses on the 1% is to place one of the very worst into the highest office of the land and the most powerful in the world. Basically, what the situation seems to be is this: let's have the asylum run by the biggest Bull Goose Looney of the bunch...

I'm all for the "None Of The Above" option, particularly, if the NOTA vote is the majority, another election would be held forbidding any of the candidates in the first go-round to run. Come November, I'm still either going to write-in a name or just skip voting for President on the ballot...




<O>

[Platapus]

Unfortunately, in the US, our elections are decided on a plurality not a majority. The exception is the Electoral College.

With only about 60% of voters caring about who is and ain't president, it is probably a good thing that our elections are based on a plurality of votes and not a majority. No one would get elected if they needed a majority.

Perhaps if we made voting mandatory and made election day a holiday we might get a majority. But even mandatory voting does not ensure a majority as a lot of people might cast a null vote.

[vienna]

The Presidential/Vice-Presidential debates are still to come; has anyone else noticed that Trump may be laying the groundwork for a bailout on the debates? He has quite recently made noises about the scheduling of the debates, saying they are scheduled opposite some NFL games and arguing the schedules would cut into the viewership of the debates; he even went so far as to claim he had received a letter from the NFL expressing the same concerns; however, in true Trump fashion, the existence of any such letter or concern from the NFL was denied by the NFL, catching Trump in yet another baldfaced lie. Failing on this tack, he shifted to making complaints about the organizing of the debates, claiming the organizers were unfairly conspiring against his campaign; the main problem with this claim is the governing body for the debates, the Commission On Presidential Debates, is a non-profit, non-partisan commission whose leadership and membership is made up of equal numbers from both the GOP and the DEMs (in fact, the chairmanship of the Commission is dual-held simultaneously by one GOP and one DEM Chairman) and the Commission itself is a joint effort by the parties; the possibility of one party or the other to exert undue influence or control is rather farfetched...

What seems to be occurring with Trump's complaints is he may be using a well-worn tactic to either avoid the debates entirely or exculpate any possible shortcomings he may experience if he actually does go through with the debates. It is akin to an athlete or team going into a game or match, fearing they may suffer a loss or embarrassment, and preempting possible repercussions by trying to blame the field or the organizers before the match even starts. Watching and listening to Trump over the past couple of weeks or so, in regard to the upcoming debates, gives a sense he is not very keen on the idea. It may be interesting to see what his next moves may be as the debate time near and, if he does show up at the first debates and does less than well, if he will find some way to discontinue...



<O>

[vienna]

Unfortunately, in the US, our elections are decided on a plurality not a majority. The exception is the Electoral College.

With only about 60% of voters caring about who is and ain't president, it is probably a good thing that our elections are based on a plurality of votes and not a majority. No one would get elected if they needed a majority.

Perhaps if we made voting mandatory and made election day a holiday we might get a majority. But even mandatory voting does not ensure a majority as a lot of people might cast a null vote.

What you say is, sadly, true. When the seasonal debate about abandoning the Electoral College comes up, situations such as we are facing now tend to favor the retention of the EC. The old saying goes: "People get the government they deserve". I don't think we have done anything to really deserve the mess this election will spit out as a government for the next four years...



<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Looking forward to these debates more than any others ... :yep:
should be quite a show especially the last one in Las Vegas on a non-football night.


Monday September 26, 2016
First presidential debate
Location: Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY

Sunday, October 9, 2016
Second presidential debate
Location: Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO

Wednesday, October 19, 2016
Third presidential debate
Location: University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV

Time – The debates will air from 9pm to 10:30pm ET
(8pm – 9:30pm CT, 7pm – 8:30pm MT, 6pm – 7:30pm PT

[Mr Quatro]

Note for the first debate to include:

Superdome Anniversary (Sept. 26) – Falcons vs. Saints on MNF reopened the Louisiana Superdome in 2006 following Hurricane Katrina. The same teams meet again at the Dome for the event’s 10-year anniversary.

[AVGWarhawk]

My gut is screaming, "Trump is not interested in be POTUS."

[vienna]

My gut is screaming, "Trump is not interested in be POTUS."

He certainly is acting as if he doesn't really want the office; he has given very, very little to no attention to the 'battleground' states, instead going to DEM states the GOP has very little to no chance of ever winning and, in the process, solidified the DEM vote against him; he has not spent any money on TV ads in the battleground states or, apparently, in any other states, letting the DEMs get a big leg up on their efforts; add to this his many, many public statements seemingly flying in the face of what would be expected of a serious Presidential candidate and his failure to seriously address the issues, and his campaign come across as almost a parody of an actual campaign; sometimes I wonder if the GOP and the whole US is being punked on a massive scale; right now I'm leaning towards writing in Pat Paulson's name; yeah, I know he's dead, but he's a much more viable candidate than the stiffs the GOP and DEMs have put up...




<O>

[Commander Wallace]

He certainly is acting as if he doesn't really want the office; he has given very, very little to no attention to the 'battleground' states, instead going to DEM states the GOP has very little to no chance of ever winning and, in the process, solidified the DEM vote against him; he has no spent any money on TV ads in the battleground states or, apparently, in any other states, letting the DEMs get a big leg up on their efforts; add to this his many, many public statements seemingly flying in the face of what would be expected of a serious Presidential candidate and his failure to seriously address the issues, and his campaign come across as almost a parody of an actual campaign; sometimes I wonder if the GOP and the whole US is being punked on a massive scale; right now I'm leaning towards writing in Pat Paulson's name; yeah, I know he's dead, but he's a much more viable candidate than the stiffs the GOP and DEMs have put up...




<O>


With everything you, AVGWarhawk and others have said, I'm wondering if Trump was never intended to be anything more than a plant to wreak havoc in the Republican party and cause a divide and rifts and thus hand the presidency to Clinton.

I'm sure " Wild Bill " is singing happy days are here again, thinking he may be back in the White House. I'm sure he's going crazy looking for monica's phone number too. At least, Cuban cigars are much cheaper these days. :-?

[Mr Quatro]

With everything you, AVGWarhawk and others have said, I'm wondering if Trump was never intended to be anything more than a plant to wreak havoc in the Republican party and cause a divide and rifts and thus hand the presidency to Clinton.

I'm sure " Wild Bill " is singing happy days are here again, thinking he may be back in the White House. I'm sure he's going crazy looking for monica's phone number too. At least, Cuban cigars are much cheaper these days. :-?

Nope! It's not a rigged deal ... the GOP downfall started with John McCain, choosing a women for VP didn't help, and then four more years for Mr rich man Romney to try and fail and now it's Trumps turn which would be a real hoot if he wins and snubs the GOP for being against him.

Time will tell ... he still has a chance don't turn out the lights till the fat lady (Hillary Clinton) sings :woot:

[mapuc]

@ Commander Wallace

this sentence in you last post

"I'm wondering if Trump was never intended to be anything more than a plant to wreak havoc in the Republican party"

Made me remember what some Danish expert on American politics and a former Minister of Foreign affairs said in a program which are about politics abroad

The GOP has them self to blame it is their 4-8 years of anti-democrat poltics, where they have almost voted against everything Obama put up in Senat and in Congress, they have so to say by doing this created Trump and now they are where they are and they should look into them self instead of pointing finger at their own creation
(I can't remember every word what had been said among the debaters in that program, I have tried to remember as much as I could)

Markus

[Buddahaid]

I don't think he's a plant. I just think he's a big mouth egotist that like hearing his own voice too much for his own good and skirts criminal recklessness in the process. Webster's will have to add his name to the definition for loose cannon.

[August]

Everyone is talking about when the GoP began their fall and who is to blame but the fact is if just about anyone else had been their nominee they'd be beating the pants off the Clinton and the Democrats right now like they have in the Congress and governors mansions around the country for the past three election cycles.

[Commander Wallace]

I think Mr Quatro, Markus and Buddahaid all make valid points. I do think you left out the term narcissist though Buddahaid when describing Trump. :yep:

I think the next few months will be interesting with regards to the debates .

[u crank]

Everyone is talking about when the GoP began their fall and who is to blame but the fact is if just about anyone else had been their nominee they'd be beating the pants off the Clinton and the Democrats right now like they have in the Congress and governors mansions around the country for the past three election cycles.

I have to ask the question... why is Trump the Republican candidate?

[Wolferz]

I have to ask the question... why is Trump the Republican candidate?

Because he :wah: about it so much that they had no choice.

It was the only way to shut him up and stop him from turning blue.
Orange is the new black in the GOP.

[Commander Wallace]

I have to ask the question... why is Trump the Republican candidate?

Because Mickey Mouse had contractual obligations through 2020 ?

[August]

I have to ask the question... why is Trump the Republican candidate?


As opposed to being the Democrat candidate? Well for one thing the Republicans don't have super delegates that decide who wins and who looses. No way was Bernie Sanders going to be allowed to win. A power i'd bet the GoP establishment wishes they had.

If you're asking how he could have beat his competition for the nomination it points to the republicans greatest weakness; failed expectations.

As one conservative columnist put it:
For years, rank-and-file Republicans asked their leaders do their job: promote the GOP agenda. From tackling illegal immigration to passing a balanced budget to coming up with a viable alternative to Obamacare, the base had a reasonable expectation, especially with Republican majorities in Congress, that these issues would be addressed.

But they weren’t. Instead, lip service and impotence ruled the day.

Boehner and McConnell, as consummate Beltway insiders, were conflict-averse, entirely too comfortable to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work.

Instead, they endlessly complained about their conservative members, criticized without acting, and made “deals with the devil,” giving in to the President and Harry Reid without a fight, despite holding the cards.

The result? After years of saying “do something — or else,” the shoe finally dropped. The “or else” manifested itself as the establishment’s worst nightmare: Donald Trump as presidential nominee.

[vienna]

As opposed to being the Democrat candidate? Well for one thing the Republicans don't have super delegates that decide who wins and who looses. No way was Bernie Sanders going to be allowed to win. A power i'd bet the GoP establishment wishes they had.

If you're asking how he could have beat his competition for the nomination it points to the republicans greatest weakness; failed expectations.

As one conservative columnist put it:


It would be nice to at least put in a source or link to a quote; however, I easily found it:

http://www.newsmax.com/Freind/gop-odonnell-presidential-trump/2016/05/11/id/728298/

Some other interesting quotes from the same opinion piece:

But accolades and party nominations don’t win general elections, especially when the baggage Trump carries is the highest of any candidate in history.

While Trump successfully tapped into a massive vein of discontent, labeling him a brilliant political strategist, as some have, is going overboard.

He won because he told a disgruntled conservative base, in blunt, politically-incorrect language, what it wanted to hear; he was the only candidate, past or present, to do so; and the competition was weak.

Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of Trump’s ascension is the unapologetic about-face executed by many conservatives, who jettisoned their normal “purity” litmus test to support someone who had no history of walking the walk.

For decades, the conservative wing held candidates to such stringent standards that a bipartisan vote cast twenty years prior was more than enough to disqualify the “offender,” earning him condemnation as a moderate.

Yet Trump earned a free pass, with many conservatives looking the other way on Trump’s personal life, insults, prior liberal positions, and his past support of Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.

In reality, Trump had virtually no “conservative credentials,” so the $64,000 question is whether he has “evolved” into a true conservative, or is simply an opportunist who utilized his TV skills to whip an angry GOP base into a frenzy.

...

If that continues, will those who gave him the nomination feel betrayed and abandon him? “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” may become the mantra of disaffected conservatives who took a chance on The Donald and got burned.

Trump also got lucky by competing in a very weak field (a GOP problem for decades). Granted, it wasn’t easy, but if not Trump, then who? Who was the bona fide standout contender? There was none.

The lower tier ran to make a point. The next level had name recognition, but no base.

...





EDIT: It should be noted the quoted piece was first published May 11, 2016, three months ago and before many of the more egregious utterances and actions of Trump in his campaign...




<O>

[August]

So I forgot to post the link, big deal. Who made you the forum link police?

I must be deep into your head.

Got anything to say about your girl Hillary?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Everyone is talking about when the GoP began their fall and who is to blame but the fact is if just about anyone else had been their nominee they'd be beating the pants off the Clinton and the Democrats right now like they have in the Congress and governors mansions around the country for the past three election cycles.

RE: Congress

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/01/13/this-is-actually-what-america-would-look-like-without-gerrymandering/

[Torvald Von Mansee]

If Hillary loses, it will only be due to the collusion of an enemy government, i.e., Russia.

[Onkel Neal]

I have to ask the question... why is Trump the Republican candidate?

Because a lot of republicans will fall for these kind of shenanigans. A buffoon jumps up and says "Build a wall" and they are sold, not taking a second to analyze the odds this guy can win a general election, even against the weakest Democratic candidate since 1854. He claims to be a business expert, yet he's afraid to release his tax returns, like Presidential candidates generally do. He touts Washington needs a non-politician to demonstrate our displeasure with established politicians, and we do, we need a strong, intelligent, principled, non-politician as President, but it sure ain't Donald Trump. I would rather have Jon Stewart in the Oval Office than Trump, and Stewart is a mid-level bozo.

Republicans, about 35% of them, are easy to fool.

[Mr Quatro]

EDIT[/U]: It should be noted the quoted piece was first published May 11, 2016, three months ago and before many of the more egregious utterances and actions of Trump in his campaign...
<O>

Good note ... it is harder to be on someones side that keeps saying one thing and then he backs off and says that what he said is not true.

From seeing people throw themselves out of buildings during the 9/11 disaster to the muslim populations in New Jersey cheering the buildings falling down to the secret video of the USA handing over money to Iran to release prisoners.

I think Trump is more of a compulsive liar than a pathological lair, but here are two of the definitions from Bing.


What is the definition of a pathological liar?
Pathological lying can be described as a habituation of lying. It is when an individual consistently lies for no personal gain. The lies are commonly transparent and often seem rather pointless.



Is compulsive lying a sign of mental illness?
Although not officially designated as a mental disorder, pathological lying is

often seen as the tip of the iceberg for deeper psychological problems

including narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

But love does not see the blemishes and he still has a chance to entertain us for the next four years.

[AVGWarhawk]

Because a lot of republicans will fall for these kind of shenanigans. A buffoon jumps up and says "Build a wall" and they are sold, not taking a second to analyze the odds this guy can win a general election, even against the weakest Democratic candidate since 1854. He claims to be a business expert, yet he's afraid to release his tax returns, like Presidential candidates generally do. He touts Washington needs a non-politician to demonstrate our displeasure with established politicians, and we do, we need a strong, intelligent, principled, non-politician as President, but it sure ain't Donald Trump. I would rather have Jon Stewart in the Oval Office than Trump, and Stewart is a mid-level bozo.

Republicans, about 35% of them, are easy to fool.

Excellent assessment of the Trump campaign. Personally, I'm not sold on any of the two offerings nor Gary Johnson.

[August]

If Hillary loses, it will only be due to the collusion of an enemy government, i.e., Russia.

Not for her long standing pattern of lies and misrepresentations? Not for risking national security or letting Americans in her charge to be killed? Not for her demonstrated incompetence?

It's all because a foreign government might have had a hand in releasing damaging party emails?

Ok. Whatever makes you feel better when she looses I guess.

[vienna]

So I forgot to post the link, big deal. Who made you the forum link police?

I must be deep into your head.

Got anything to say about your girl Hillary?

Nope, not a cop, but if a person is going to use a quote as an example to the rest of the readers, it is usually a stronger argument when the actual source of the quote is given as something more than "As one conservative columnist put it"; all of us might just as well post our cites and just say "Well, as I heard around the cracker barrel..."...

... and how really deep must I be in your head to have compelled you to make your comment when you could have just as easily just ignored my post? I'm not saying, I'm just saying...

Hillary? Not my dog in this fight. I'll leave the Hillary bashing to you and "some conservative guy you heard from"...


Not for her long standing pattern of lies and misrepresentations? Not for risking national security or letting Americans in her charge to be killed? Not for her demonstrated incompetence?

It's all because a foreign government might have had a hand in releasing damaging party emails?

Ok. Whatever makes you feel better when she looses I guess.

Got anything to say about your girl Trump?...




<O>

[August]

Nope, not a cop, but if a person is going to use a quote as an example to the rest of the readers, it is usually a stronger argument when the actual source of the quote is given as something more than "As one conservative columnist put it"; all of us might just as well post our cites and just say "Well, as I heard around the cracker barrel..."...

On the other hand you had little to say about it other than to complain about that and to post the rest of the article in violation of forum rules. That tells me you just wanted to take another dig at me.

... and how really deep must I be in your head to have compelled you to make your comment when you could have just as easily just ignored my post? I'm not saying, I'm just saying...I usually try to answer those who reply to my posts but I can easily make an exception for you since all you seem to want to do is play self appointed forum critic.

Got anything to say about your girl Trump?...Yeah he is a sucky choice for a candidate and would make only a slightly less odious president than Hillary Clinton would. Vote Libertarian.

Hillary? Not my dog in this fight. I'll leave the Hillary bashing to you and "some conservative guy you heard from"...Right. And i'll expect an apology from you for making a false quote because I didn't say that. Until then buh bye..

[vienna]

You are so amusing... :haha:



<O>

[Platapus]

Both parties nominated a candidate worse then the other. :D

[Mr Quatro]

This whole election is just an illusion: :yep:

Full Definition of illusion

1 a obsolete : the action of deceiving
b : the state or fact of being intellectually deceived or misled : misapprehension (2) : an instance of such deception

a (1) : a misleading image presented to the vision (2) : something that deceives or misleads intellectually
b (1) : perception of something objectively existing in such a way as to cause misinterpretation of its actual nature

[vienna]

Both parties nominated a candidate worse then the other. :D

Makes for an interesting logic puzzle or philosophical 'physics' problem, doesn't it?...

Trump has taken his campaign to a new level of strange: he has 'demoted' campaign chairman, Paul Manafort and he has replaced him as his current campaign manager with a person who has never managed a major political campaign, much less a Presidential campaign and appointed a new CEO, the editor of Breitbart, who is known for an abrasive style, one which often makes Trump's seem reasonable in comparison:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/08/17/trump-reshuffles-staff-in-his-own-image/

The appointment of an inexperienced campaign manager, who happens to be female, might be an attempt to make himself seem more sensitive to women's issues; either that or, when he loses, he can just blame it all on the "broad". It appears Trump is going for broke and renewing his so far faltering campaign style...

Part of this move may be because the Putin-Manafort-Trump connections are coming more into light and some very serious questions are arising about the legality of Manafort's and his associates' possible violation of lobbying laws as they pertain to actions by US citizens acting as agents for foreign powers and interests:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/17/manafort-helped-funnel-money-to-us-lobbyists-from-pro-putin-ukrainian-party-report-claims.html

It is interesting to note, if the persons involved in these activities were either DEM candidates or their associates, there would be a hue and cry by the GOP congress for hearings and investigations; I will not hold my breath for those calls any time soon; the standards of ethics and morality for the GOP congressional leadership are well known to be fungible...

Another possible reason for the Trump campaign shakeup may have been seen in yesterday's foreign policy speech by Trump: he was was reading his remarks from scripted notes and teleprompters and seemed very uncomfortable not being able to give the audience the "Full Trump". The lukewarm reception of his speech by his followers may also have played into today's decisions. The Trump campaign has been somewhat like those WWE or other pro-wrestler shows, were the wrestler comes in all puffed up, bellowing and snarling about what he's going to do to his opponent; this has been his style and this is what his audience, much like the WWE audiences, craves. Trump also thrives on the fevered adulation he receives his followers when he is in "Full Trump" and I think he was missing it when he had to resort to being 'civilized' Trump.

Curiouser and curiouser...




<O>

[Betonov]

Trump is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump....

[McBeck]

They are both bad in my opinion, however Trump is very dangerous and has the mental stability of a 5 year old.

Clinton is not clean, thats for sure, however in a global world (that the USA also depends on) she is the safer choice for foreign trade and diplomacy.

My concern is that the Clinton voters are not as eager to turn up on election day as the Trump voters are. Thats the real danger...

[Bilge_Rat]

Trump is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump which is worse than Clinton which is worse than Trump....

I think you have that backwards...

[August]

[QUOTE]Clinton is not clean, thats for sure, however in a global world (that the USA also depends on) she is the safer choice for foreign trade and diplomacy.Safer for who? Not us that's for sure given their history of shady dealings and her history of incompetence.

[eddie]

Statues of Trump starting to show up in American cities,lol The Emperor Has no clothes!:haha:

http://time.com/4458022/donald-trump-nude-statues/?xid=time_socialflow_facebook

[Buddahaid]

“Is politics nothing other than the art of deliberately lying?”
― Voltaire

[Platapus]

I feel like I am being given a choice. Would I rather be hit in the face with a wet or dry frying pan. Technically, there is probably a difference, but for all practical purposes, it is the same. :hmmm:

[mapuc]

After I read someone said Clinton was the better choice

I started to think about some scenarios that could happen in near future and what each of these two candidate would do if they were elected.

Markus

[Platapus]

After I read someone said Clinton was the better choice



I don't think that too many people think that Clinton is the better choice. More that Clinton is the less horrible choice. Just like there are many people who feel that Trump is the less horrible choice.

We used to have an actual Pro-Trump person at work. Strangely he has been real quiet lately. :D

Mostly what I run across are the anti people.

Anti Clinton
Anti Trump

But not a lot of pro people. I guess this is not a pro type election. :nope:

[vienna]

Statues of Trump starting to show up in American cities,lol The Emperor Has no clothes!:haha:
...

I wonder if the sculptor accurately rendered his small...hands?...




<O>

[vienna]

Just heard on the radio of a Naked Emperor Trump statute showing up here in East Hollywood; The Los Angeles Police Department was called out to investigate and ordered the statue removed; the statue was removed to a nearby area, on private property and still visible, so the LAPD came out again; however, the owners of the property and the person(s) who initially placed the statue had, by that time, already contacted the City Attorney's office and got all the clearances they needed to continue to display the statue, so the LAPD could do nothing and the Naked Emperor Trump will, according to the owner of the private property, remain on display until Election Day...



<O>

[Torplexed]

I wonder if the sculptor accurately rendered his small...hands?...



The NYC Parks Department had the naked statue of Trump put up in Union Square park taken down, with the following official comment:

"NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small." :O:

[August]

Lord please let's not see naked Hillarys start popping up!

[vienna]

Never gonna happen: if you stripped off her pantsuit, you'd find another pantsuit and so on...




<O>

[Onkel Neal]

The NYC Parks Department had the naked statue of Trump put up in Union Square park taken down, with the following official comment:

"NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small." :O:

That's depressing. The statue is pathetic. The man the statue represents (Trump) is pathetic. The people who are flocking around it shooting pictures are pathetic. They are cut from the same cloth as Trump. Sad, pathetic people.

Just replying to your post depresses me. I was really hoping our forum would be spared any mention of that news item. :-?

Ok, to cheer myself up, I read through this beautifully accurate portrayal of the major types of American political supporters (http://taskandpurpose.com/6-keyboard-warriors-taking-news-feed-election-season/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share&utm_content=tp-share).

the Trump Supporter specializes in poorly written diatribes aimed at anyone who isn’t hell bent on “Making America Great Again.” His mortal enemies include, but are not limited to, pussies, pansies, losers, refugees, illegal aliens, and, of course, Crooked Hillary. If anything offends you, or if you don’t have a green card, you’re the problem, and the solution is to either deport your ass back to the Islamic State or give you a healthy dose of THE TRUTH. :haha::haha::haha:

and

..... diehard Bernie Bro. And if there’s one thing Bernie Bros love more than smoking weed, it’s talking about revolution. That’s because, according to science, when the human brain is infused with just the right combination of barley, hops, THC, and Nag Champa, a person begins to envision an America where nobody is rich, and nobody is poor, and everyone gets to enjoy small batch IPAs and wear artisanal flip-flops. But such a society doesn’t just get handed to us on a silver platter. No. It must be fought for with protests, and weed, and internet memes, and more protests, and more weed :har:

[McBeck]

Safer for who? Not us that's for sure given their history of shady dealings and her history of incompetence.Safer for all! My view is that at least the European community can deal with Clinton as she is political, but not with Trump.
Have you seen what happened with Brexit? They way the people advocating for the exit behaved, pushed them away from the European mainland, in a time when they needed them for continued trade.
How do you think the asian culture will match with Trumps behavior?

[Oberon]

How do you think the asian culture will match with Trumps behavior?

I don't think most Americans will particularly care how the US under Trump is seen by the rest of the world, while the rest of the world is dreading what a US under Trump might do...well...except Putin perhaps.


Meanwhile on the Trump bus, another one bites the dust:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37134440

[STEED]

Never gonna happen: if you stripped off her pantsuit, you'd find another pantsuit and so on...
<O>

https://memecrunch.com/meme/BIJG6/hi-i-m-hillary-clinton/image.jpg?w=400&c=1

[Mr Quatro]

Safer for all! My view is that at least the European community can deal with Clinton as she is political, but not with Trump.
Have you seen what happened with Brexit? They way the people advocating for the exit behaved, pushed them away from the European mainland, in a time when they needed them for continued trade.
How do you think the asian culture will match with Trumps behavior?

Clinton is no friend of China:http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-china-idUSKCN0ZR2MN

"Clinton will be a difficult partner," one senior Chinese diplomatic source told Reuters, having just admitted to not knowing much about Trump or what he stands for.

Chinese diplomats take some comfort that Clinton’s views are known to them from years of high-level contacts, from her days as first lady to her Senate tenure to her time as secretary of state. But they are also mindful that even while seeking diplomatic accommodations, she has been a staunch critic of Beijing on a range of issues, including the South China Sea, trade and human rights.

[Bilge_Rat]

Manafort resigns, well that was expected and one less thing for Trump to worry about.

Trump is on a reset, says he's sorry (humble factor), reads from a teleprompter (on message).

Can he turn it around?

This week's poll have Clinton 2-4 points ahead which is in the margin of error.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

In August 1988, Dukakis was beating Bush by 7 points.

yes, we are back to a horse race. :arrgh!:

[Oberon]

It's pantsuits all the way down!


Anyway, I was listening to a podcast about the pre-two horse race in US politics, and in particular about the Whigs and the 'Know Nothing' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing)s.
Struck me as having a few similarities to the current situation. :hmmm:

[vienna]

The next really big measure of the viability of either major party candidate will be the Presidential debates. But one thing not much mentioned is the fact neither Trump, personally, nor his campaign have agreed formally to any of the debate schedules, locales, or formats. As of now, the only group who has agreed is the Clinton campaign. (So far, no third party candidate has met the threshold of a 15% share of the polling to qualify to participate.) The date of the first of three debates is September 26, 2016, just a bit over a month away. However, I offer some possible scenarios/predictions:

1. Trump will try to find some way to not have to debate Clinton at all; he has already tried to cite a scheduling conflict with NFL football game going on at the same time; he even claimed he received a letter from NFL leadership expressing the same concerns; however, the NFL leadership has denied any letter was ever sent or drafted and stated they have no concerns over schedule conflicts, catching Trump in a very big lie; it is very possible Trump will try to find some other excuse to try and scuttle the debates, most likely by challenging the makeup and intent of the organizers...

2. Trump will try to find some perceived flaw or defect in the staging, rules, or some other aspect of the debates to claim bias against his campaign, if not himself, personally, and use the claim to either scuttle the debates or change their format to something more advantageous to his shortcomings as a debater; Trump's actions and claims during the course of the GOP Primary debates points strongly to such tactics...

3. If there is a first debate, there is a very high probability it will be the only one; if Trump stumbles in any way during the first debate, it can be expected we will hear the usual Trump litany of perceived slights against him, of bias either from the organizers, the media, or some claim of collusion by the Clinton campaign with those running the debate; this will be his excuse to bow out of any following debates with him seeing himself, and trying to convince the voters, he is taking the "moral high ground"...

It should be noted and stressed the Commission on Presidential Debates, who organize and run the debates, is a bilateral effort of both parties, GOP and DEM, with equal membership and co-leadership and the possibility of any one party or candidate gaining an upper hand in the organizing or presentation of the debates is unlikely to the point of impossibility; for either party to attempt to gain an advantage in so public an event is a kiss of death to any ambitions they might have to win the White House...



<O>

[GT182]

Did you know that Hilary stole all the White House silverware when she and Bill left. I've heard they took other things too, tho I've no idea what. But the silverware, and other stuff belong to us... the people of the United States, it's not theirs for the taking. That alone should put her in jail. They stole from us.

[Buddahaid]

Yeah and they took all the toilet seats and the TV remote too.

[Reece]

OMG!!! That's terrible!!:o

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Manafort resigns, well that was expected and one less thing for Trump to worry about.

Trump is on a reset, says he's sorry (humble factor), reads from a teleprompter (on message).

Can he turn it around?

This week's poll have Clinton 2-4 points ahead which is in the margin of error.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

In August 1988, Dukakis was beating Bush by 7 points.

yes, we are back to a horse race. :arrgh!:
Not really:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Did you know that Hilary stole all the White House silverware when she and Bill left. I've heard they took other things too, tho I've no idea what. But the silverware, and other stuff belong to us... the people of the United States, it's not theirs for the taking. That alone should put her in jail. They stole from us.

You got a nonwingnut source on that?

[McBeck]

I don't think most Americans will particularly care how the US under Trump is seen by the rest of the world, while the rest of the world is dreading what a US under Trump might do...well...except Putin perhaps.


Meanwhile on the Trump bus, another one bites the dust:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37134440
Well, I would these people to have a look around and check where their goods are produced. Chances are that a great deal are. If Trump manages to piss of Europe and Asia, those goods may not so accessible anymore. Now this may mean they will have to be produced in the US at a higher price for the consumers.

So I think it does matter how Trump is viewed.

[Oberon]

Well, I would these people to have a look around and check where their goods are produced. Chances are that a great deal are. If Trump manages to piss of Europe and Asia, those goods may not so accessible anymore. Now this may mean they will have to be produced in the US at a higher price for the consumers.

So I think it does matter how Trump is viewed.

Don't underestimate the growing isolationist movement in the US, I think for many Americans, particularly those who are not on the bread-line, the rise in costs for products would be an acceptable price to pay for the increased security versus potential foreign trade adversaries.
The US does this from time to time, it goes inward, spends a decade or so trying very hard to ignore the rest of the world and then something happens which drags it back into the globe kicking and screaming, usually a major war.

[Platapus]

Did you know that Hilary stole all the White House silverware when she and Bill left. I've heard they took other things too, tho I've no idea what. But the silverware, and other stuff belong to us... the people of the United States, it's not theirs for the taking. That alone should put her in jail. They stole from us.


http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/the-clinton-furniture-flap/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-stole-white-house-furniture/

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/06/us/clintons-will-return-any-gifts-found-to-belong-to-white-house.html?_r=0



All you had to do is enter "Clintons stole from white house" into The Googles, and you would have gotten pages and pages of returns debunking this old claim.

[Oberon]

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/the-clinton-furniture-flap/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-stole-white-house-furniture/

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/06/us/clintons-will-return-any-gifts-found-to-belong-to-white-house.html?_r=0



All you had to do is enter "Clintons stole from white house" into The Googles, and you would have gotten pages and pages of returns debunking this old claim.

But where would be the fun in that?

Don't go and start bringing troublesome things like facts and reasoning into this election now. :nope:

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/01/viral-image/viral-image-wrongly-accuses-clinton-stealing/

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/the-clinton-furniture-flap/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-stole-white-house-furniture/

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/06/us/clintons-will-return-any-gifts-found-to-belong-to-white-house.html?_r=0


All you had to do is enter "Clintons stole from white house" into The Googles, and you would have gotten pages and pages of returns debunking this old claim.

I think it's cute he ignores things like Trump's bankruptcies and focuses on this. Priorities.

Of course, everyone is partisan.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Don't underestimate the growing isolationist movement in the US, I think for many Americans, particularly those who are not on the bread-line, the rise in costs for products would be an acceptable price to pay for the increased security versus potential foreign trade adversaries.
The US does this from time to time, it goes inward, spends a decade or so trying very hard to ignore the rest of the world and then something happens which drags it back into the globe kicking and screaming, usually a major war.

The U.S. has remained pretty involved in world affairs since the forties.

[Oberon]

The U.S. has remained pretty involved in world affairs since the forties.

Indeed, but the isolationist movement has grown stronger over the years, I would not be surprised to see it come to fruitition within the next fifty years. Especially if the country runs into any particular major financial problems.

[August]

All you had to do is enter "Clintons stole from white house" into The Googles, and you would have gotten pages and pages of returns debunking this old claim.

Yet even the left leaning snopes had to admit there was a grain of truth to it.

The rules governing the acceptance of gifts by the president and other federal employees divide such items into two categories: those received from foreign officials or governments (foreign official gifts), and those received from the American public (domestic gifts). The president is allowed to keep foreign official gifts if their worth is under a certain threshold; gifts whose worth is over the threshold belong to the people of the United States and must be purchased at fair market price from the General Services Administration. No such limitation applies to domestic gifts, although the law requires disclosure of each individual gift valued at more than a minimal amount ($260 as of the end of Clinton's term of office). The law also states that federal employees, including the president and first lady, may not solicit gifts.
As was pointed out at the time, the rules for U.S. senators are different. Senators may not accept gifts valued at more than $50, and may not accept multiple gifts from individual donors totaling more than $100. Hillary Clinton took office as New York senator on 3 January 2001, but because the gifts in question were reported as received while she was still first lady, the rule wasn't applied. At least one critic, Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity, said that even so, the timing gave the appearance Sen. Clinton was "enriching herself from public service."
There was nothing illegal about the Clintons keeping personal gifts that had been given to them in the White House, but the $190,027 total price tag of their final year's haul elicited criticism, which the former first couple sought to stem by announcing they would voluntarily pay for a portion of those gifts, an amount totaling $86,000.
Days later, the New York Times reported that the Clintons would return an additional $28,000 or more worth of gifts that donors complained had been earmarked for the White House permanent collection, not the Clintons' personal use. Ultimately, the total worth of gifts returned by the Clintons to the U.S. government amounted to nearly $50,000, the Times later reported.
So GT wasn't wrong, they did try to steal some stuff but notice how the entire subject is automatically defined by the most outlandish fringe claim possible so it can be "debunked". What a great way to defect and marginalize criticism if one has the support of the media.

The truth is that they accepted almost 200 grand of gifts in just one of the 8 years they were in office which is a pretty damn big tip by any public servant. After they received public criticism about it they reluctantly said they would return less than half of it. Then later even after donors confirm that at least a portion was indeed stolen (erhm I mean "mistakenly taken") they only really returned a quarter of it.

I swear if Hillary bapped somebody over the head with a baseball bat in some weed filled vacant lot out on the DC city line the claim that would be "debunked" on snopes and in the rest of the dem media would be that she used the Washington Monument to cleave the skulls of 100 people on the steps of the Lincoln memorial. Instead of what may or may not have actually happened we'd just get "Snopes checked the Park Service cleaning and maintenance records of the National Mall and found that there was no blood or brains cleaned off either the Lincoln memorial steps or the Washington Monument therefore we rate this claim as mostly false".

So no they didn't "steal" almost 200 thousand dollars. That was just the huge amount of bribes in material goods that they took which they we're eventually shamed into returning a small portion in order to take the heat off them for being the criminals they are. That's the bottom line here.

Maybe next time if she gets elected when they leave office they'll make sure their loot is "donated" to the Clinton Foundation and avoid the mess and irritating public records disclosures. After all we don't want to put any extra obstacles in the way of an eventual Chelsea Presidential Trifecta now would we?

[Mr Quatro]

August has uncovered more than just some plates with the Presidential seal on them being taken, but where did the rumor come from in the first place?

Did the plates get stolen by someone other than the Clintons and then returned by someone other than the Clintons?

Speaking of the Clintons did anyone see him leave on Airforce One after Bush took over that day? I did and it was one sorry scene of crying and sobbing and made me wonder why I ever did defend him for the Monica thing.

Trump still has an ace up his sleeve with old Bill selling the rights to American uranium assets:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

Uranium One has the mining rights to Mr. Christensen's property. ... Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians ... donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left. ... in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary ...

If the voters can't see the truth in the Clintons non-profit foundation being used for profit what can they see?

[vienna]

http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/08_22_16-400.jpg



Cover of the most current New Yorker Magazine...

...and look!, they even got the size of the hands right!...




<O>

[McBeck]

Don't underestimate the growing isolationist movement in the US, I think for many Americans, particularly those who are not on the bread-line, the rise in costs for products would be an acceptable price to pay for the increased security versus potential foreign trade adversaries.
The US does this from time to time, it goes inward, spends a decade or so trying very hard to ignore the rest of the world and then something happens which drags it back into the globe kicking and screaming, usually a major war.
If these people think they will get more security out of isolation they will be mistaken. It will cut down on some, but it's like what I was told when looking for a lock for my new bike ... "If they really want it, they will find a way to get it..."

[Torplexed]

If these people think they will get more security out of isolation they will be mistaken. It will cut down on some, but it's like what I was told when looking for a lock for my new bike ... "If they really want it, they will find a way to get it..."

I'm fairly certain this same logic applies to a 1,989 mile international border wall that no other nation will ever pay for. At least the bike lock is cheaper. :-?

But as Churchill said, you can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've indulged in every other fantasy.

[Bilge_Rat]

Not really:
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

that poll is already obsolete.

The Clinton campaign is pushing the narrative that the election is already over, but latest polls have Clinton only up by 2-4 points. If Trump was really the trainwreck everyone assumes he is, she would be much farther ahead at this point.

In August 1964, LBJ was 36 points ahead of Goldwater.

[Mr Quatro]

I tried to bring up the Carter/Reagan polls from 1980, but after a little research I see trump has already done that and messed up another chance to be right.

However it is to be noted that the August/September poll numbers have been important in the past.

Look for yourselves: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections

It's still to close to call, anything can happen between now and then, plus remember the Bush/Kerry debates were all Kerry till the last one when Bush came off his stool and blasted Kerry winning the last debate and the election. :yep:

That could happen this time too ... people that vote are still out there to be convinced.

[Platapus]

There is only one poll that counts and that is on a Tuesday in November. :yep:

The unfortunate fact is that some people simply lie on polls.... and exit polls.

[mapuc]

There is only one poll that counts and that is on a Tuesday in November. :yep:

The unfortunate fact is that some people simply lie on polls.... and exit polls.

True-just ask our English member-their polls before the last political election showed something totally different than the final result.

Markus

[Oberon]

Don't remind me...bloody polls, coming over here and screwing up our election. :O:

[Platapus]

When polls are used to influence public opinion instead of reporting public opinion, there is reason for concern and suspicion. :yep:

[McBeck]

I'm fairly certain this same logic applies to a 1,989 mile international border wall that no other nation will ever pay for. At least the bike lock is cheaper. :-?

But as Churchill said, you can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've indulged in every other fantasy.
I guess they will be OK :)

[AndyJWest]

Make of it what you will (I know the Guardian is hardly an impartial source on the subject), but how about this for a new take on Trump: As a king troll, and "the undisputed master of the art".

By being the world’s most effective button-pusher, Donald Trump has brought the tactics of trolling out into the real world, where they are much more difficult to combat. And that is the single biggest problem with him running a presidential campaign like an online flame war.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/21/donald-trump-troll

[Torplexed]

Make of it what you will (I know the Guardian is hardly an impartial source on the subject), but how about this for a new take on Trump: As a king troll, and "the undisputed master of the art".



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/21/donald-trump-troll

King Troll is, I suppose, the online world's term for what used to simply be called a demagogue. But they've been around since ancient Greece. And they're nothing new in US politics, if one is familiar with Huey Long or George Wallace.

Trump's mastery of driving controversy in the media also has parallels with the bewitching talents of Father Charles Coughlin, a charismatic radio priest who used radio to harness opposition to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and rail against the Jews.

However, I do still wonder if Trump really wants the tedious day-to-day job of being the President. Sometimes, it seems he wants to be like the Queen of England or a Czar, having all the pomp and circumstance of the office to feed his ego while deferring all the responsibility of the job to those who bow and curtsy to him.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

that poll is already obsolete.

The Clinton campaign is pushing the narrative that the election is already over, but latest polls have Clinton only up by 2-4 points. If Trump was really the trainwreck everyone assumes he is, she would be much farther ahead at this point.

In August 1964, LBJ was 36 points ahead of Goldwater.

You desperately hoping for different reality won't change reality.

Also, it isn't a single poll. It's a composite. And it's updated every time you click on it.

[McBeck]

However, I do still wonder if Trump really wants the tedious day-to-day job of being the President. Sometimes, it seems he wants to be like the Queen of England or a Czar, having all the pomp and circumstance of the office to feed his ego while deferring all the responsibility of the job to those who bow and curtsy to him.
He seems to be of that nature...

[Bilge_Rat]

You desperately hoping for different reality won't change reality.

Also, it isn't a single poll. It's a composite. And it's updated every time you click on it.

hey, the latest poll that came out yesterday by the LA Times has Trump ahead of Clinton by 2 points: Trump 45, Clinton 43.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

be careful "reality" does not hit you in the head. :arrgh!:

[AVGWarhawk]

hey, the latest poll that came out yesterday by the LA Times has Trump ahead of Clinton by 2 points: Trump 45, Clinton 43.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

be careful "reality" does not hit you in the head. :arrgh!:

No worries. Trump will say something completely off the cuff and drop 10 points by Tuesday afternoon.

[vienna]

There's a local TV newscast that ran an interesting piece on a recent poll; registered voters with the stated intent to vote come November were asked for their preference in the election; the result was 38% Clinton, 34% Trump; when the same pool of voters were asked whom they expected would win the election, the result was 67% Clinton. The key difference is the distinction between preference and expectation: if you go to a McDonald's, you might prefer to have a steak but you would expect to get a hamburger. Polls are often only as good as the wording of the questions presented to the respondents. If you see a poll where the questions are just straight up and down, yes or no, then the result is a bit more 'real'; if the questions are colored by qualifiers, descriptives, or exhibit a bias by the pollsters, fishing for the answer(s) they really want, not an actual, unvarnished opinion, then the results may be taken with a grain, or several, of salt. Whenever I see a poll result on any issue, and they just give the final numbers, I always try to find out what was the actual nature of the posed questions; often, the result was more tailored than one would expect...

Another aspect of the numerous polls floating around: adding up the Trump, Clinton, and whomever numbers often leaves roughly up to 20% of the respondents expressing no preference. As has been pointed out before, the election will not be won by getting the votes of the already committed to a candidate, it will be won by whomever is capable of swaying that up to 20% of the electorate, mostly independents, to their side; as the election nears, watching those numbers and seeing if they dwindle, and to which side they seem to be joining, will be a better indicator of who might be the winner in November...




<O>

[Mr Quatro]

What if the Bernie supporters don't vote this time around? :o

[McBeck]

What if the Bernie supporters don't vote this time around? :o
That's a real problem....it will come down to who and how many go and vote...

[vienna]

What if the Bernie supporters don't vote this time around? :o

A definite problem for Clinton. An equal problem for Trump is how many of the disgusted GOP voters will abstain from voting or, worse for the GOP, vote for Clinton. There are an awful lot of GOP voters who are in a quandary as to how to proceed on Election Day; there is no real way to gauge how they will act. This is one reason why the GOP leadership is being urged by some of the most senior and wealthy contributors to cut the GOP losses and cut off Trump, concentrating, instead, on the 'down-ballot' House and Senate races; regardless of who wins the Oval Office, there is going to have to be some sort of means of keeping a rein of either one who wins the Presidency; the GOP is seeing the Trump campaign put some previously "safe" GOP seats in Congress at risk. Trump is a ticking time bomb: you never know what he will say, do, or what past or current failings or flaws of his will be made public. Right now, it is still far enough out to be able to put some spin on any possible problems or for the voter's short-term memory to forget before Election Day; however as the election gets nearer, those opportunities will lessen; all the GOP needs is for Trump to stumble and he has shown an unnatural ability to do so. No matter who wins, the country is screwed for the next four years; the only saving grace lies in who will control either or both houses of Congress...



<O>

[Platapus]

Don't care the reasons why, but as an election official, I want the people to get out and vote.

It would be nice if we got more than 60% of the voters to care about this election.

The worst thing either side can do is become complacent.

I suspect there will be a lot of "get the vote out" activities and that's a good thing.

There is always absentee voting and early voting if your state allows that. I encourage everyone to take full advantage of early voting. Avoid the lines. :yeah:

[Reece]

Voting for the better of the evils, it really is a coin toss at this stage!!:doh:

No worries. Trump will say something completely off the cuff and drop 10 points by Tuesday afternoon.:har:

[August]

I have never thought much of get out the vote campaigns. I feel that if a person has to be pushed and cajoled into doing their civic duty how much thought will they put into their choice?

[vienna]

This has just come across in the past couple of hours:

Trump staff posts racist comments on social media, AP review finds:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-staff-online-20160822-snap-story.html

This is going to be hard to brush off; after Trump tried to 'reach out' to the African-American electorate, notably by giving speeches asking for their support in front of almost totally white audiences, in two cities with 86% and 92% white populations, and with some very troubling reports regarding Trump's treatment and regard of minorities in the past, this only further paints him and his campaign as hostile to minorities. It will be interesting to see how many, if any, heads will roll; maybe Trump can excuse it all as a "mass sarcasm" episode...

tick, tick, tick, tick, tick....




<O>

[Mr Quatro]

There is always absentee voting and early voting if your state allows that. I encourage everyone to take full advantage of early voting. Avoid the lines. :yeah:

I have heard that absentee voting has never made a difference in the National election, but of course that's not true in the Bush/Gore year of November 2000 with the Florida chads hanging in the balance.

Another rumor that I have heard over the years that not even one national election has been decided by the 18-21 young voters, in other words if you put all of their votes on the losing side the losing side would've still lost.

Here's your chance to vote absentee (at least register to vote absentee) all on one web page ... shocked?

me too :o

https://www.usvotefoundation.org/

[McBeck]

I have heard that absentee voting has never made a difference in the National election, but of course that's not true in the Bush/Gore year of November 2000 with the Florida chads hanging in the balance.

Another rumor that I have heard over the years that not even one national election has been decided by the 18-21 young voters, in other words if you put all of their votes on the losing side the losing side would've still lost.

Here's your chance to vote absentee (at least register to vote absentee) all on one web page ... shocked?

me too :o

https://www.usvotefoundation.org/
I think the big problem this year is the Bernie voters...how motivated are they to cast their vote on Clinton...my fear is that they would rather not cast a vote at all....

[Betonov]

Mike Rowe posted another good opinion piece on the media bias agaisnt Trump, focusing not so much on Trump, but media generalisation of voters
It was on Facebook so I'll copy-paste since some of you don't ahve an account

Long text
Pardon Me, But Your Slip Is Showing…
Albert Samos writes…The media has recently been stating that Donald Trump's key supporters didn’t graduate from college. They constantly refer to these people as "uneducated white men.” As an electrical contractor who happens to be a white guy with six employees but no college, I find this vaguely offensive and somewhat confusing. What do you think of the media characterizing people this way?


Hi Albert


If the media is referring to Trump supporters who happen to be male caucasians suffering from a lack of knowledge brought about by an absence of formal or practical instruction, than I guess “uneducated white men” is a fair description. However, if the Trump supporters in question are being dubbed “uneducated,” simply because they didn’t earn a four-year degree, I’d say the media’s slip is showing.



Let’s assume that Donald Trump is indeed popular among white men who didn’t graduate from college. The first question is, so what? Is this information newsworthy? Obviously, thousands of journalists think it is. To your point, the words “uneducated white men” now appear in hundreds of articles about Trump. But if this is truly important information, where were these reporters four years ago? In the last election, an even greater majority of African-American males who voted for President Obama had no college on their resume. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t recall any headlines or articles that delved into Obama’s popularity among “uneducated black men.”



If the media didn’t care about the lack of college among black men supporting Obama, why do they care so much about the lack of college among white men supporting Trump? Moreover, when exactly did a lack of college become synonymous with a lack of education?
There are many ways to become educated that don’t involve the purchase of a diploma. Why would the media ignore thousands of apprenticeship programs, on-the-job-training opportunities, and all the other alternative educational options that have led so many people into so many successful careers? The answer is obvious - many in the press are looking for ways to impact the election. If a biased reporter can get away with labeling Trump supporters who didn’t graduate from college as “uneducated,” he can simultaneously imply that any ballot cast for Trump is the hallmark of an “uneducated” voter.


If you’re only “vaguely offended” by this Albert, maybe it’s because you’ve seen it all before. Never mind the fact that you run a successful business. Never mind your years of training, your skill, your knowledge, your diligence, your commonsense, and every other quality that allowed you to succeed. In this political climate, none of that matters. These days, you’re just another white guy who never made it to college, voting for the “wrong candidate.”


It’s impossible for me to have this conversation and not think of my grandfather. Pop never made it to college. In fact, he never made it out of the 7th grade. But he never stopped learning or studying. He started as an electrician’s helper, became an apprentice, a journeyman, a master electrician, a contractor, and then a small business owner. Later, as an electrical inspector for the state, he was responsible for guaranteeing the safety of hundreds of buildings in Maryland, as well as all the rides on the carnival midway at the State Fair. He was a modest man of real intelligence, admired and respected by everyone who knew him. But today, he’d be right there with you, Albert - swelling out the ranks of “uneducated white men.”
Forget the election for a moment, and the medias role in it. The issue of what it means to be “educated” in 2016 has far greater implications. Right now, 5.8 million jobs currently exist that employers can’t seem to fill. Meanwhile, outstanding student loans will eclipse 1.3 trillion dollars this year, college tuition continues to rise, and once again, a new crop of deeply indebted college graduates will enter the workforce with none of the necessary skills to fill those open positions.



Closing the skills gap and making college more affordable is beyond my pay grade, but it seems like we could start by reminding the media that a college degree is not the only path to success. It’s well and good to promote higher education, but it’s crazy to suggest the most expensive road to enlightenment is the best path for the most people. And it’s equally nuts to pressure our kids to keep borrowing vast sums of money to become “educated” in careers that no longer exist.



On Dirty Jobs, I met hundreds of highly trained, highly intelligent, highly knowledgeable citizens who went on to prosper without the benefit of a university experience. These people should be congratulated, not used a pawns by reporters with a political agenda. I don’t care who you’re voting for - your college diploma - or your lack thereof - has nothing to do with the wisdom of your choice.


Anyway Albert, that’s a long way of saying you have every reason to be “vaguely offended and somewhat confused.” The media has minimized your work, insulted your intelligence, and ignored your contribution to civilized life. Try not to take it personally. Just keep doing what you do. Run your business. Vote your conscience. Keep the lights on for the rest of us. And the next time some hack writer impersonating a journalist attacks a candidate by calling their supporters “uneducated” - simply because their base of knowledge isn’t memorialized on a sheepskin - send them this picture and tell ‘em their slip is showing, and one lousy hatchet job deserves another...
Mike

[Platapus]

I have never thought much of get out the vote campaigns. I feel that if a person has to be pushed and cajoled into doing their civic duty how much thought will they put into their choice?

Probably no more or less thought then the people who come to the polls.

Election officials have to keep an eye on the voters. We can't see their ballot but we observe what they do with it. For far too many voters, it is evident that they are looking at the items on the ballot for the very first time.

Filling out a ballot should take less than 30 seconds. But we have people standing there for several minutes. Sometimes they ask me about how they should vote.

Yikes!

[Platapus]

I have heard that absentee voting has never made a difference in the National election, but of course that's not true in the Bush/Gore year of November 2000 with the Florida chads hanging in the balance.

That is a misleading statement. No single vote has ever made a difference in a national election, but collectively, our votes do.

Another rumor that I have heard over the years that not even one national election has been decided by the 18-21 young voters, in other words if you put all of their votes on the losing side the losing side would've still lost. Well that rumor would be impossible to prove or disprove as votes are not separated by age group. There is no way I can tell what the age breakdown of the votes cast in my precinct was.

Here's your chance to vote absentee (at least register to vote absentee) all on one web page ... shocked?

Not shocked but pleased. I still think it is better to deal with your individual state registrar, but if this website makes the process easier for potential voters, I think it is a good thing. Thanks for posting the link.


https://www.usvotefoundation.org/ (https://www.usvotefoundation.org/)

[vienna]

Regarding election polls and the reporting of the results, here is an interesting Washington Post article on the way TV news handles the reportage:

Here's Another Reason Not To Trust TV News Reports About Election Polls

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/23/heres-another-reason-not-to-trust-tv-news-reports-about-election-polls/


If you think the news is bad for Trump about his abysmal ratings among African-American voters, this article indicates it could get much, much worse for Trump and, by extension, the GOP:

Trump's History Undermines New Outreach to Black Voters

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-s-history-undermines-new-outreach-black-voters-n635821

I have been doing a bit of digging over the past few months into what just may be out there that might really come back on Trump and bite him; there is a awful lot of material out there and a lot lot of it is really, really awful stuff; Trump, over the decades, has given countless interviews and has been quoted in countless articles and the picture they paint, for some one who is seeking the Oval Office is not very pretty. His rants and diatribes are very well documented and make for considerable fodder for those seeking his defeat and there is very little he or the GOP can do about the situation: he did make those statements and, it may be presumed, the tapes of the interviews or, at least, contemporaneous transcripts still exist. Take this example I found that looks like it will play real well when trying to attract women voters (some language may be offensive):

Donald Trump Used Model Parties to Seal Deals, Industry Sources Say

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/19/donald-trump-used-model-parties-to-seal-deals-industry-sources-say.html

Want to bet the author still has either tapes or transcripts of those interviews he did with Trump and, if push come to shove, they might just wind up in a DEM attack ad? Trump's past is littered with such potentially unexploded political mines...


Trump also seems to have mastered the political tenet of feeding at the trough: now that someone else is picking up the tab for his campaign, he has promptly levied an 500% rent increase on his campaign headquarters to the benefit of the landlord, Donald Trump. He also seems to be enriching himself personally at every turn; let's just say if this were Clinton doing the same, the cry of "Crooked Hillary" would be heard long and loud from the Trump camp:

Donald Trump Jacked Up His Campaign’s Trump Tower Rent Once Somebody Else Was Paying It

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-rent_us_57bba424e4b03d51368a82b9

All this just points up to what I've been saying: Neither candidate is worthy of a vote and neither has cleaner hands than the other...



<O>

[vienna]

It just keeps getting better: now it looks like Trump is trying to stiff the GOP and other down-ballot candidates out of contribution money. It would appear the suspicions of Trump not really wanting the Presidency and, therefore, deliberately trying to tank is Presidential run, may now be able to include Trump deliberately trying to drag down other GOP candidates with him:

Trump's Boast Of Aid To GOP Not Backed Up By Finance Report

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fellow-republicans-still-waiting-trumps-072801314.html

Well, at least now that the subject is public, maybe Trump will cough up the money. Remember, it took the "evil mainstream media" reporting on how Trump was holding on to funds originally raised for Veteran's charities to finally pry the bucks out of the Donald's tiny little hands...



<O>

[August]

Probably no more or less thought then the people who come to the polls.

Election officials have to keep an eye on the voters. We can't see their ballot but we observe what they do with it. For far too many voters, it is evident that they are looking at the items on the ballot for the very first time.

Filling out a ballot should take less than 30 seconds. But we have people standing there for several minutes. Sometimes they ask me about how they should vote.

Yikes!

Right and why were they looking at it for the first time? Because somebody cajoled or shamed them into going to vote. Stop the voter drives and i'd bet the confused faces would thin out a lot. :)

But what really scares me is absentee ballots. When they were limited overseas servicemen and the old folks at the rest home that was fine as they were a small part of the overall population but expanding it to everyone and making it so easy seems a situation ripe for abuse. As you and others have pointed out it's a lot of work and expense to bribe enough people to make a difference in an election into taking a bus trip all the way out to a polling station and then to stand in a long line and even then who they actually pull the lever can't be controlled or verified by their handlers.

It's a whole different story when a vote is just a mailed in piece of paper, or worse an online transaction. Nobody can look over a voters shoulder or direct a vote in a polling booth because good folks like you are there to keep and eye on them but how do you stop that from happening with an absentee ballot?

[vienna]

An interesting article from Politifact about the extent of voter fraud:

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/




<O>

[Jimbuna]

No mention of the two fraudsters running for office then :)

[Platapus]

Right and why were they looking at it for the first time? Because somebody cajoled or shamed them into going to vote. Stop the voter drives and i'd bet the confused faces would thin out a lot. :)

Or the voters did not bother to look at the issues on the ballot before going to the polls.

But what really scares me is absentee ballots. When they were limited overseas servicemen and the old folks at the rest home that was fine as they were a small part of the overall population but expanding it to everyone and making it so easy seems a situation ripe for abuse. As you and others have pointed out it's a lot of work and expense to bribe enough people to make a difference in an election into taking a bus trip all the way out to a polling station and then to stand in a long line and even then who they actually pull the lever can't be controlled or verified by their handlers.

It's a whole different story when a vote is just a mailed in piece of paper, or worse an online transaction. Nobody can look over a voters shoulder or direct a vote in a polling booth because good folks like you are there to keep and eye on them but how do you stop that from happening with an absentee ballot?

Those are all good points. We don't know what pressure anyone is under when filling out an absentee ballot. But all I can do is make sure that my precinct is secure from intimidation.

Which is why I actually recommend people to vote early. That way their privacy is still protected in the poll location, but they can vote when their schedule. It is an imperfect system. But probably the best we can do.

I hope we never move to online voting. That, in my opinion, is a recipe for failure.

[vienna]

The issue of voter fraud is another one of those scare issues raised by certain segments in order to disguise a real reason for the issue. Although the opportunities for voter fraud are significantly increased in the area of absentee ballots, vote by mail, online voting, and any other means not requiring a voter to physically appear to cast a vote, the election process of a voter going to a polling place and actually, physically, casting a vote is so free of any fraud significant enough to 'throw' an election as to be negligible. So, why the feverish push to enact voter ID laws and other such action? The only reason is for one political group to make an effort to exclude or nullify the votes of an opposing party as a means of advancing their own candidates or agendas. While the extent of in-person voter fraud has been shown to be a very small fraction of less than 1% and has no statistical bearing on the outcome of any election, the sort of polling place "gerrymandering" of the voter pool actually may have and has had an effect on elections. The Brennan Center For Justice has posted analyses of the issue and has produced very strong arguments and proofs of the use of voter ID laws as a means of obstructing legitimate voters from exercising their right to vote:

http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/truth-about-fraud

This is a PDF of a Brennan Center 2007 report on the issue of voter fraud (even though the report is 9 years old, the issues, causes, and perpetrators are, interestingly, the same):

http://www.brennancenter.org/publication/truth-about-voter-fraud

Here is a quote from the report:

Moreover, as with all restrictions on voters, photo identification requirements have a predictable detrimental impact on eligible citizens. Such laws are only potentially worthwhile if they clearly prevent more problems than they create. If policymakers distinguished real voter fraud from the more common election irregularities erroneously labeled as voter fraud, it would become apparent that the limited benefits of laws like photo ID requirements are simply not worth the cost.

Royal Masset, the former political director for the Republican Party of Texas, concisely tied all of these strands together in a 2007 Houston Chronicle article concerning a highly controversial battle over photo identification legislation in Texas. Masset connected the inflated furor over voter fraud to photo identification laws and their expected impact on legitimate voters:

Among Republicans it is an “article of religious faith that voter fraud is causing us to lose elections,” Masset said. He doesn’t agree with that, but does believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote.This remarkably candid observation underscores why it is so critical to get the facts straight on voter fraud. The voter fraud phantom drives policy that disenfranchises actual legitimate voters, without a corresponding actual benefit. Virtuous public policy should stand on more reliable supports.
There is a vast difference between physical voter fraud totaling vastly less than 1% and a law passed for a nonexistent "problem" that has the effect of increasing one party's candidate or issue possibility of being elected or enacted. NO process, much less an election process, is going to be absolutely, 100% perfect, but the solution is not further damaging the process, particularly if the only apparent reason for a change is to give one party primacy over another. Perhaps, those pushing for voter ID laws and the such should heed the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", particularly if the "fix" just creates bigger problems...

There is also this point: if you cannot get your candidates elected or your issues enacted by any other means than passing useless laws, maybe the problem is not the process, but, rather, the quality, relevancy, and appeal to the voter of your candidates and issues or the lack thereof...



<O>

[mapuc]

Here is how it works in Denmark

Denmark-Here the election law say that every fourth years, there shall be an elections to the Danish parliament

The Prime Minister also has the power to call for an elections when so wishes

When the law or the Prime Minister give the order-Every citizens over 18 and citizen of the country will receive some sort for identifications paper-Where the person name, address social security numbers and where his "voting station" is.

On the day of voting he or she has to take this paper with them and have to show this together with his or her driving licens or other documents that can prove that they are in fact the this person.

Markus

[Rockin Robbins]

An interesting article from Politifact about the extent of voter fraud:

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/




<O>
Politifact is not a neutral organization dispassionately determining political fact from fiction. It is an advocacy group allied with the progressive elements of the Democratic party. Therefore, this is not evidence but simple propoganda.

[August]

On the day of voting he or she has to take this paper with them and have to show this together with his or her driving licens or other documents that can prove that they are in fact the this person.

Markus

Makes sense but that would never be allowed here.

The way it would be viewed is requiring an ID discriminates against poor people who have no money to get some form of it. I'd imagine that having to bring a specific piece of paper would also be considered as discriminating against poor people who have no mailing address. Since over here the (incorrect) perception is that poor people = mostly black then any politician, especially a Republican, who suggests such a system would be pilloried as a racist.

[vienna]

Politifact is not a neutral organization dispassionately determining political fact from fiction. It is an advocacy group allied with the progressive elements of the Democratic party. Therefore, this is not evidence but simple propoganda.

True, Politifact is not neutral; very few media sources are neutral, no matter many who make claims of neutrality. However, if an article, posting, or other form of media article includes verifiable cites and sources, the strength of their arguments is increased, not only in facts, but, also, in veracity. If this had been a general Op-Ed sort of piece, with just general statements unsupported by cites, references, or any other means of actually going back and verifying not only the existence of the presented facts or statements, but, also, their context, which can be very important, particularly when the article might 'cherry-pick' quotes, etc., I would never have posted the link. It was interesting because it presented, in a clear fashion, a case for its opinion and gave verifiable cites. Only someone who either has an agenda they don't want examined or who really hasn't taken the time to really look at the view they are espousing would just use plain opinion as an argument. If it can't be backed up, it probably doesn't have any real substance. I never just take any article presented on a subjective matter as fact at face value; if there are no cites, references, or other means of establishing the truth behind the claims, I treat it as just what it is: opinion. Of, course, if an unverifiable article cites another unverifiable opinion piece, then the cites is, for all intents and purposes, useless as a source of either fact or truth. The viewpoint is not really that important; the truth behind the viewpoint is...

Discarding something just because it comes from a source one might not agree with is dangerous; the history of modern politics is rife with examples of those, from all ends of the political and social spectrum, who presented real concerns or warned of problems and dangers, and were marginalized, shouted down, labelled as unpatriotic, libelous, slanderous or worse, who were later proved to be right in their concerns, concerns which, once the truth was brought to light turned out to be real concerns for the population , in general. If you were to go back and look at my posts, you would find the cites and links come from all manner of sources representing all manner of ideologies. When someone comes to the point of having to make up their mind about something, the decision or opinion should be made from a pool of all available facts and considerations and they really should make up their own mind and no just absently parrot the ravings of whatever pundit, candidate, or party screams at them. Bottom line, if Chicken little tells me the sky is falling, you can bet I'm going to go outside and check it out before I believe it as fact...

Independent, and proud to be so...




<O>

[Jimbuna]

Here is how it works in Denmark

Denmark-Here the election law say that every fourth years, there shall be an elections to the Danish parliament

The Prime Minister also has the power to call for an elections when so wishes

When the law or the Prime Minister give the order-Every citizens over 18 and citizen of the country will receive some sort for identifications paper-Where the person name, address social security numbers and where his "voting station" is.

On the day of voting he or she has to take this paper with them and have to show this together with his or her driving licens or other documents that can prove that they are in fact the this person.

Markus

Makes sense but that would never be allowed here.

The way it would be viewed is requiring an ID discriminates against poor people who have no money to get some form of it. I'd imagine that having to bring a specific piece of paper would also be considered as discriminating against poor people who have no mailing address. Since over here the (incorrect) perception is that poor people = mostly black then any politician, especially a Republican, who suggests such a system would be pilloried as a racist.

In the UK you only have to present yourself at the polling station and give your name and address verbally. There is no requirement to show documentation.

The details are checked to see if you are on the voting register and if so, are handed your voting paper.

[Mr Quatro]

back in the old days in Texas it didn't matter who voted it mattered who counted the votes :woot:

[Betonov]

Here you get a printed invitation by mail with the poll station adress and your voter number.
YOu get to the polls, show an ID and the invitation. You don't need the invitation but registration goes faster because your number tells the poll staff where you are in the big book of voters. Or you can memorise your voter number. ID is obligatory and can't vote without it.
The big book of voters is nothing more than a book, printed just for this election/referendum and is a spreadsheet of voters in that area, once you show your ID, they look you up, you sign yourself next to your name and after that you get the voting slip to tick off the desired issue/candidate.

[vienna]

In the UK you only have to present yourself at the polling station and give your name and address verbally. There is no requirement to show documentation.

The details are checked to see if you are on the voting register and if so, are handed your voting paper.

The election processes in the US vary from state to state and, very often within each state at the local level; the method of voting (paper ballot, machine, etc.) or the verification of eligibility can be widely different. When I was growing up in San Francisco, the method of voting was a machine in a curtained 'booth' with levers a voter would pull down to indicate their choices; once done voting, the voter pulled back the curtain, automatically and mechanically recording the vote and resetting the machine for the next person. Here in Los Angeles, same state, some 400-odd miles away, they use paper ballots marked by an ink pen and read by OMR scanners. I would suppose there may be other means of and/or variations to the voting process in other areas of our very large state. Nothing about the voting process in the US is homogeneous...

As far as identifying eligible voters, here in Los Angeles voters are sent a sample ballot well in advance of the actual election. It is essentially a mock-up of the actual ballot and allow the voter to make there choices, if they wish, and mark them down on the sample; on election day, they then can transfer their choices to the actual ballot. Many voters here do mark the sample in advance, expediting the actual voting, but, prbably, just as many do not and make their choice in the voting booth. Each sample ballot also has printed upon it the voters name, voter registration number, and location of polling place. When you go to vote, the data on the sample ballot is compared to a master list, provided to the poll by the Registrar of Voters, and, if confirmed as matching, the voter is required to sign on the master list, next to their name. There is also a secondary list from the Registrar, rather akin to a school attendance sheet listing the names and addresses of all the eligible voter in the precinct area and, if confirmed, the voter's name is crossed of the list as having voted. If a person has not received a sample ballot, lost the sample, or has just forgotten to bring it with them, some form of ID is required to verify identity; if the person has no idea, they are given a provisional ballot that will not be counted until the identity and eligibility of the voter is confirmed by the Registrar; if not confirmed, the entire ballot is nullified...

The question of restrictive voter laws is nothing new. Back before the Voting Rights Act of 1965, many jurisdictions, mainly in the racially segregated Southern US enacted laws requiring all sorts of hoops and hurdles to be met in order to vote. Some of the laws were simple poll taxes, requiring the paying of a fee in order to vote, a fee very often high enough so as to exclude Black voters from participating; other laws required 'citizenship tests', supposedly to verify the voters understood US history, etc.; the tests were composed in such a manner so as to exclude Blacks who did not have access to the same educational resources as Whites; there were also onerous voter ID laws requiring a level of documentation well outside the accessibility of Black voters. It should also be noted that even within the voter laws there were levels of discrimination: a White poll tax fee was often much less than the fee assessed on Blacks, the citizenship test given to a White voter was often much less rigorous than one given to Blacks, etc. Even with the US Supreme Court striking down the voter laws as unconstitutional, those areas enacting such laws and it took the Voting Rights Act and subsequent stringent monitoring, enforcement, and prosecution on a Federal level to finally erase voter discrimination. The most recent efforts to return to onerous voter ID restrictions, mainly by the GOP, to address an actually non-existent 'problem' is a step back in the ability of all Americans to exercise their right, given under the Constitution, to vote, if otherwise qualified as delineated in the Constitution. The whole effort by the GOP is a serious misstep on several levels: they are wasting time, money, and resources on efforts that will be, ultimately be found unconstitutional and over turned; they are much further alienating a demographic they desperately need to have any chance of advancing their party's interests; they are alienating a growing portion of the voting public at large who sympathize with those voters being persecuted and who find the efforts of the GOP distasteful and, perhaps, criminal; they are painting otherwise reputable and viable GOP candidates with the same perceived failings as those party members who are working to curtail rights; and the list goes on and on of the effects such action can and will have on the GOP. Remember, the GOP is now only the third largest group of declared registered voter in the US, behind the DEMs and Independents, in that order, and the GOP has been hemorrhaging voters to the Independent ranks at a rate twice that of the DEMs: now is not the time for them to further antagonize the remaining moderate voters they still have...

Before anyone tries to accuse me of GOP basing or taking sides, a little history lesson is in order. All the discriminatory laws and procedures I gave above regarding conditions prior to the Voting Rights Act were transgressions committed by Democratic states and regimes; the South and other racially discriminatory areas were solidly DEM areas and the DEM party was reviled by Blacks and other minorities afflicted by racism. The South was so firmly DEM, it was referred to as "The Solid South"; when Eisenhower, a bone fide national war hero ran for President for the GOP in 1952, he won every state except for the Southern States as a bloc; not even a revered national hero could dent the DEM hold on the South. However, when the DEM party moved to address and redress the issue of segregation, Southern DEMs bolted and heavily joined the GOP ranks. The GOP welcomed the defectors with open arms, seeing an opportunity to bolster their sagging party and to make inroads in the South. By doing so, the GOP aligned themselves with some of the most odious and pernicious political elements and started their perception by the voting public of being discriminatory and narrow. It has been a high price paid by the GOP for a bit of political gain. By pushing for such issues as discriminatory voter ID laws and other such actions, the GOP is now doing what the DEMs did prior to the Civil Rights movement. There is an old maxim: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it; by their actions, the GOP may soon get a taste of what happened to the DEMs in the South...



<O>

[Platapus]

As a precinct chief, I welcome photo ID laws.

While every registered voter has the right to vote in some federal elections, not every registered voter has a right to vote in my precinct. Election of federal representatives is based on political district. Only those registered voters that reside in a specific political district can vote for that district's representative.

This is something that some don't understand. I am not just verifying that the person voting is a registered voter, but also verifying that they are voting in the correct election.

In Virginia, especially North Virginia where my precinct is, I really find it hard to believe that someone has no photo ID on them. These days you need a photo ID for pretty much anything.

Virginia also makes it easy to get photo IDs. A state ID is not expensive and there is a special voter ID that is free. One can even get a free voter ID card after the election. I don't think a state can be more accommodating than that.

When the voter ID law came in to effect, in this state, we were expecting issues. There were none in my entire county. Pretty much everyone used their VA Driver's license and the few, very few, that did not have one, had one of the multitude of other acceptable photo IDs.

I like the voter ID laws, and I especially like how Virginia implemented them. I don't know how other states implemented them though.

[vienna]

That's where the problem came in: the standards for voter ID differ widely and, in some states, appear to be blatant attempts to disenfranchise a segment of voters unfairly for the benefit of one party over another or one candidate or issue over another. I have no problem with voter ID, just the means by which it is established. It sound like your state has done a pretty decent job of ensuring no one who wants to vote is denied; other states, regrettably, have not been so evenhanded, hence the clamor over the issue of IDs. A good number of those laws have actually been nullified by the courts. It is still galling when, after having been told specifically what the failings of the overturned laws were, the usual suspects will still try to finagle or game the legislative processes to the same end, wasting time, taxpayer money and creating unnecessary tumult...



<O>

[August]

Interesting article on the election:


Clinton hides, Trump slides, the republic subsides: Kevin O'Brien

This may go down in history as the presidential election that made everyone angry. That, at least, would offer some hope that Americans' taste in presidential candidates might be redeemable. For now, though, all is bleak. The crook keeps proving more unabashedly crooked and the flake just keeps getting flakier.


http://www.cleveland.com/obrien/index.ssf/2016/08/clinton_hides_trump_slides_the.html#incart_river_i ndex

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

In Finland person must prove their identity in voting station. There are three option:
1. Passport, personal ID card or driving license, all with photo
2. Temporary photo ID card issued by police for voting (photo must be provided, no other cost involved)
3. If 1. or 2. are not possible then final option is to take witnesses with you who will testify your identity.

First option is preferable as it involves least hassle for everyone involved, but not being able to afford such documents should not be obstacle for excercising voting rights.

Before election all eligible voters will receive letter which contains information such as their voting area or station in election day (in early voting you can vote in any station), but that letter is strictly advisory and is not required for voting. However if you don't have photo ID, possession of that letter may make things a little bit easier.

[August]

I got a wry laugh out of this:

Hillary isn’t worried about Trump, per se. All things being equal, she’d beats him like a rented mule. But all things aren’t equal. She’s a corrupt bureaucrat, an insignificant senator and the worst cabinet official this side of Ramsey Clarke. She has nothing to run on, aside from how she uses the toilet.

http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/08/28/the-race-card-cometh-n2211100

[Platapus]

I think it is pretty clear that the ONLY reason Clinton is a viable candidate is because of who the RNC put up against her.

I think that if the RNC picked a random person, they would win against Clinton.

Of course the same can be said about the DNC.

How about both parties dump their trash and just pick a random person. Chances are good it will be an improvement. :D

[mapuc]

Here's another thing I have been wondering about the last few weeks

A person wrote on a FB news page why some people want to put their vote on Trump.

Why is many American voters against those who are going to vote for Trump, when Clinton isn't a perfect candidate herself ?


Markus

[nikimcbee]

I've got my "Dr. Strangelove" going, or ""Why I quit worrying about Trump winning."

If Trump wins, and does something stupid, he'll get impeached before you can say "you're fired." Everybody hates him, on both sides, they will magically rediscover the Constitution.

....but if HRC wins....god help us all. She'll be stuck in there like an engorged tick. There's no prying her from the office.

[Ashikaga]

We in Euripe are watching this with growing discontent.

It would be wise for the American public to boycott this entire election and just refuse to vote on both of them. Demand proper candidates.

But I guess in the US there is no Voter threshold like we have here.
Some of my US friends get at times a bit cranky with my lashing out at them and this election on Facebook. Well as long as the USA meddles in World Affairs which have direct consequences to our area here and our way of life,
I will not budge.

As a historian and WWII buff I see dark clouds growing. Brownshirts rearing their ugly heads all over Europe as well as the USA. As if they have not learned one thing.

No. These are not happy times for me.

It feels like an interbellum.


Ashikaga,

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

We in Euripe are watching this with growing discontent.

It would be wise for the American public to boycott this entire election and just refuse to vote on both of them. Demand proper candidates.I disagree here. No vote, no voice and you can be just ignored. Much better to write in some good candidate who is not even standing for election (or is dead already) or vote for Mickey Mouse.

EDIT: Previous is written with assumption that, as in Finland, media also reports how much votes those not standing and fictional candidates get votes. If that isn't true for United States, then not voting at all is better option.

But I guess in the US there is no Voter threshold like we have here.
Some of my US friends get at times a bit cranky with my lashing out at them and this election on Facebook. Well as long as the USA meddles in World Affairs which have direct consequences to our area here and our way of life,
I will not budge.Would this circus be almost anywhere else (Russia would also cause concern) I would have no interest whatsoever in it.

As a historian and WWII buff I see dark clouds growing. Brownshirts rearing their ugly heads all over Europe as well as the USA. As if they have not learned one thing.

No. These are not happy times for me.

It feels like an interbellum.


Ashikaga,Yeah. They and little dictators reaching for power where ever they can.

[Ashikaga]

Yep Krazny Oktjaber ! ;) Which is actually the name of one of my re-enactment friends Russian WWII group hahahaha.

But we see a lot of hatred growing here. Now we even have the creeps of Soldiers of Odin starting a chapter in the Netherlands. As well as the rise of other Neo Nazi ad Fascist groups. And with the panic reaction by governments to the pin pricks (if you compare the terrorist attacks with the onslaught going on in Syria) like for instance the Burkini riot in France, the world seems to be spinning out of control. And then I for one do not want Hilliary or Trump as president of the USA in command of their armed forces and nukes since I think both are unfit to rule.

Not that I would prefer Bernie Sanders but he makes a hell of a lot more sense from my European standpoint than the two others combined.

Guess I will root for Vermin Supreme.

I want a free pony.



.

[Onkel Neal]

Donald Trump is going to be elected president.

The American people voted for him a long time ago.

They voted for him when The History Channel went from showing documentaries about the Second World War to “Pawn Stars” and “Swamp People.”

They voted for him when The Discovery Channel went from showing “Lost Treasures of the Yangtze Valley” to “Naked and Afraid.”

They voted for him when The Learning Channel moved from something you could learn from to “My 600-lb Life.”

They voted for him when CBS went from airing “Harvest of Shame” to airing “Big Brother.”

These networks didn’t make these programming changes by accident. They were responding to what the American people actually wanted. And what they wanted was “Naked and Afraid” and “Duck Dynasty.”

Man, that is so true. Trump is riding the wave of deteriorating American culture. Yee ha!

[AVGWarhawk]

Man, that is so true. Trump is riding the wave of deteriorating American culture. Yee ha!

Trump is speaking the narrative that is never spoken because it is given a label of some sort. Everyone who appears not to like or care for something is a "phobic" of some sort or another. We are constantly bombarded to "like and accept everything" it gets tiresome at best. Personally I'm exhausted with being told how to think and the constant push to make "change" in my world to accommodate others in their world and if I don't I'm once again labeled a "phobic", racist, uncaring, clueless, redneck, idiot and just plan stupid. The US is going into the crapper.....

[Platapus]

Why is many American voters against those who are going to vote for Trump, when Clinton isn't a perfect candidate herself ?


Markus

Politics is a very personal issue with many Americans. I actually don't think we are any more or less passionate about our politics as some other countries.


There is a reason why we advise people to avoid conversations about politics and religion -- it can easily become a personal issue.

in this election, it is truly, in my opinion, the choice of the lessor of two evils and in this election both evils are similar in magnitude if a little bit different in form.

By no means should anyone consider that Americans are happy in this election. I don't think too many are.

Because to many people, politics is a personal issue, it is hard for them to separate opinions about the candidates and opinions about the candidate's supporters.

As I have posted before, I believe that the voters can be characterized in to four groups with a small population of out-layers.

1. The anyone but Clinton group
2. The anyone but a democrat group
3. The anyone but Trump group
4. The anyone but a republican group

I really doubt there are any pro candidate groups out there. At least I have not seen any and I hang around some hard core party voters.

Both Trump and Clinton are perceived as being undesirable as PoTUS by the opposing faction. Unfortunately, in this election both factions are probably right. :nope:

So if I am in the Clinton is the lessor of two evils camp, your voting for Trump is making the problem worse. And, of course, the Trump is the lessor of two evils camp feels the same way.

And it becomes personal. But this is nothing new to American politics. We have had dirty campaigns and worthless candidates throughout our history.

Some of us have gone many elections being unable to vote for a candidate but instead are forced to vote against a candidate. And that makes some of us very frustrated. One way of dealing with frustration is to vent on the Internets Tubes.

It is when people start dealing with frustration with violence that I abhor.

[Onkel Neal]

Trump is speaking the narrative that is never spoken because it is given a label of some sort. Everyone who appears not to like or care for something is a "phobic" of some sort or another. We are constantly bombarded to "like and accept everything" it gets tiresome at best. Personally I'm exhausted with being told how to think and the constant push to make "change" in my world to accommodate others in their world and if I don't I'm once again labeled a "phobic", racist, uncaring, clueless, redneck, idiot and just plan stupid. The US is going into the crapper.....


I agree with that 100%

But I wish someone besides Trump was waving that flag:dead:

[AVGWarhawk]

I agree with that 100%

But I wish someone besides Trump was waving that flag:dead:

He is for lack of a better word, unstable, IMO.

[Mr Quatro]

Politics is a very personal issue with many Americans. I actually don't think we are any more or less passionate about our politics as some other countries.
There is a reason why we advise people to avoid conversations about politics and religion -- it can easily become a personal issue.
......
Some of us have gone many elections being unable to vote for a candidate but instead are forced to vote against a candidate. And that makes some of us very frustrated. One way of dealing with frustration is to vent on the Internets Tubes.


Is the we you put in the conversation us here at subsim or your known personal group of peoples?

If both then it is very true to avoid them in the same conversation, but almost impossible (perhaps on here to think before you type).

In person like at work or even in church it is almost like the other person is trying to size you up, trying to read you, trying to decide if you are on his side so to speak and then they know how to proceed to address you with what they think.

Tricky in the business world where you are forced to be two faced in order to keep your job.

Passion is in politics always has been and always will be ... just look at some of those other countries where they go to fista cuffs with each other and throwing things at each other.

I agree with this statement of yours:
It is when people start dealing with frustration with violence that I abhor.


So far it has been the Bernie group and the Trump protesters making their voice heard through violence.

Plus you forgot one group of people in your profiling above. The ones that don't agree that women should be in charge of anything that high.

That's me :smug:

[August]

So far it has been the Bernie group and the Trump protesters making their voice heard through violence.

Isn't trying profiling as well? The great majority of BernieBros and Trumpists aren't at all violent. Don't be fooled by a biased media into thinking that is the norm among the millions in each group.

[Mr Quatro]

Isn't trying profiling as well? The great majority of BernieBros and Trumpists aren't at all violent. Don't be fooled by a biased media into thinking that is the norm among the millions in each group.

Probably just Chicago, uh? :yep:

[Reece]

He is for lack of a better word, unstable, IMO.
Sounds like you're talking about Hillary!!:yep:

[August]

Probably just Chicago, uh? :yep:

Like I said don't be fooled by a biased media. They deliberately cherry pick and amplify the negatives to make you think that the rare is commonplace.

You're talking of millions of Americans in each political camp. Violent protestors from both sides totaled together are only a tiny insignificant fraction of that.

[vienna]

I've got my "Dr. Strangelove" going, or ""Why I quit worrying about Trump winning."

If Trump wins, and does something stupid, he'll get impeached before you can say "you're fired." Everybody hates him, on both sides, they will magically rediscover the Constitution.

....but if HRC wins....god help us all. She'll be stuck in there like an engorged tick. There's no prying her from the office.

The "Well, they can always impeach Trump if he wins and get out of line in the Oval Office" scenario has come up often in regard to a possible Trump win, but, in that scenario, there is a potential huge problem for the GOP. In order to impeach any President successfully, there has to be a very strong case for a ""Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.". Nixon came the closest and that was mainly because there were recordings, in Nixon's own voice, of the criminal conspiracies and malfeasance; it was a slam dunk case and a conviction was virtually a certainty. Nixon resigned in 1974 and there was no formal impeachment trial. But look at what just having Nixon resign, in full disgrace, did to the GOP. The party took a huge blow to its credibility and stature owing to how it held out so long in its support of Nixon; imagine the result if the full dirty laundry of all Nixon's actions had been revealed in open court and the connections between Nixon, his staffers and cronies, and the various GOP officials who supported him to the very end had been aired to the US public at large. The damage done to the GOP would, to borrow a term from Amnesty Don, be "Huuuuge!!". The GOP still hasn't fully recovered from Nixon and had been in further decline in recent years. Now, say Amnesty Don wins, and he goes on to make as big an ass of himself in the Oval Office as he has in the campaign thus far, and say some bit of malfeasance rears its ugly head, like, say, Putin calls in his marker on Amnesty Don or his minions, or Amnesty Don tries to use his position to sweeten his own pot. The Congress moves to impeach him and the GOP faces the prospect of being the party that for the second time in less than fifty years, to have one of its elected Presidential candidates impeached and, possibly convicted. Even if Amnesty Don pulls a Tricky Dick and books out of D.C., the damage will have been done and who knows if the GOP could ever recover from a second body blow. The only upside from such a situation is the possibility of the formation of a new second major party, a party more inclined to dealing with real issues and to abandon the bombast and stilted "business as usual" attitudes exhibited currently by the two majors. It could even attract a large mass of the current independent voters and, to the detriment of the DEMs trying to profit from such a scenario, a sizeable chunk of their disenchanted party members might also join up with a new major party. So, is it really to the GOP's best interest to have their candidate ousted from the Oval Office?...




<O>

[Gray Lensman]

<snip>

...Nixon resigned in 1974 and there was no formal impeachment trial. But look at what just having Nixon resign, in full disgrace, did to the GOP. The party took a huge blow to its credibility and stature owing to how it held out so long in its support of Nixon; ...

<snip>
<O>

Yeah. Let's see, the disgrace lasted ONE full election cycle and the dems foisted the dumbest foreign policy idiot it could find on us (who I admittedly voted for because I bought the disgrace garbage back then) and lost the next two elections in major landslides to "disgraced" republicans. edit.> actually there were three consecutive election wins following the "Jimmy" years, but by then the Repubs were beginning to forget what got them elected in the preceeding two cycles so the negative "dem" effect began to wear off. The electorate has such a short term memory

I also have to point outt that the current occupant of the white house makes Jimmy look like a genius, to say nothing of H's total disruption of the mid-east during her state department run.

edit1> It appears as if the dems are apparently trying to do it again re:foreign policy with the added caveat that whoever pays the foundation the big bucks gets to guide the foreign policy decisions instead of American citizens.

edit2> actually there were three consecutive election wins following the "Jimmy" years, but by then the Repubs were beginning to forget what got them elected in the preceeding two cycles so the negative "dem" effect began to wear off. The electorate has such a short term memory

[eddie]

Then there was Bush Jr's great work in the ME, can't forget that!:haha:

[August]

Then there was Bush Jr's great work in the ME, can't forget that!:haha:

But why skip past Bubbas bumbling in Mogadishu, the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere?

[Oberon]

Has there been a success since Korea? :hmmm:

[Gray Lensman]

Then there was Bush Jr's great work in the ME, can't forget that!:haha:

I'm no fan of Bush Jr, especially his second term, but at least when he left, Iraq was somewhat stable, then the current idiot jerked the rug out from the stability by telegraphing all the moves about reducing and removing the stability enforcing security forces.

[Gray Lensman]

Has there been a success since Korea? :hmmm:

Was Korea a success? Could have fooled me... 3 years of bloody warfare followed by decades of indecisive armistice.

Nah, closest thing to a success since World War II was the first Gulf War and even that was mishandled in the final days allowing Saddam to remain in power, but it might have turned out just the same anyway if Saddam was removed then as after the second Iraq war because another Dem (Billy Boy) probably would have done the same thing as "O" and prematurely jerked the security forces. That's just what modern Dems do. They can't help it... They manage to pluck defeat from victory every time.

[Oberon]

I strongly doubt that it would have gone any other way though, I don't think that there was any victory to be found in Iraq, or indeed Afghanistan. Just a long occupation with a lot of dead soldiers coming back, and the second that the US left, those who were waiting would step in. Even if the US departure hadn't have been telegraphed, it was obvious that the US would have to leave at some point because the war weariness level within the US had reached a level too high for continued operations. So all the radicals had to do was watch US media, realise that the American people were losing favour with the idea of US troops in Iraq and just wait until the US forces leave and then begin operations. At that point the US would be faced with two options, either return the forces and prop up the government or let the government fall and write it off as a failed mission. Much like the Soviet Union had to do with Afghanistan and indeed, the US had to do with Vietnam.

[Gray Lensman]

I strongly doubt that it would have gone any other way though, I don't think that there was any victory to be found in Iraq, or indeed Afghanistan. Just a long occupation with a lot of dead soldiers coming back, and the second that the US left, those who were waiting would step in. Even if the US departure hadn't have been telegraphed, it was obvious that the US would have to leave at some point because the war weariness level within the US had reached a level too high for continued operations. So all the radicals had to do was watch US media, realise that the American people were losing favour with the idea of US troops in Iraq and just wait until the US forces leave and then begin operations. At that point the US would be faced with two options, either return the forces and prop up the government or let the government fall and write it off as a failed mission. Much like the Soviet Union had to do with Afghanistan and indeed, the US had to do with Vietnam.

So how do you explain Korea and the troops remaining there and the results thereof? Even though I don't think it was a military success, it has managed to remain somewhat "stable" because of those troops remaining put, though I believe they are more and more in serious jeopardy because of the lack of resolve by recent Dem administrations and the media bias towards American involvement anywhere in the world.

[Oberon]

So how do you explain Korea and the troops remaining there and the results thereof? Even though I don't think it was a military success, it has managed to remain somewhat "stable" because of those troops remaining put, though I believe they are more and more in serious jeopardy because of the lack of resolve by recent Dem administrations and the media bias towards American involvement anywhere in the world.

If the troops in Korea were getting picked off on a near daily basis then I think you'd see US public opinion swiftly turn towards "Bring our boys home".

EDIT: And let's also not forget the cost of 'boots on the ground', particularly in an environment such as Iraq, it's not something that the US, or indeed its allies, can actually afford anymore. The Congressional Research Service said in January of last year that the cost of keeping one US soldier in Afghanistan is $3.9m per year. The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are estimated between $1.6-5t depending on what your evaluation of what the cost is (the former is primarily focused on military gear procurement I believe, while the latter throws in the human cost, including as it does medical care for wounded soldiers and long term disability compensation for service members, veterans and families). Let's not forget what happened when Lawrence Lindsey requested an 'insurance policy' against economic turndown and estimated that the Iraq war would cost $200b...bet the poor sod feels a bit more vindicated today, eh?

[Gray Lensman]

If the troops in Korea were getting picked off on a near daily basis then I think you'd see US public opinion swiftly turn towards "Bring our boys home".

There is absolutely no arguing with that statement, but why is that?

I tend to believe it's because of the modern internal liberal bias against American forces being maintained anywhere in the world. This in turn encourages foreign powers/entities to take advantage of American wishy washy policy doctrines to start conflicts testing our resolve. Then you have the public perceiving that their sons/daughters are dying for nothing and this in turn increases their "war weariness". That's why we should not allow ourselves to be drawn into a conflict unless we are prepared to and actually DO win conflicts to a final complete conclusion. Only then will citizens become far more confident that their sons/daughters/grandsons/granddaughters are NOT dying uselessly. It also gets the message across to the rest of the world that we are not wishy washy and makes foreign powers think much more wisely about whether or not they wish to start something.

In regards to the 2016 election, I actually believe we have reached a tipping point where the above reasoning is no longer achievable (at least not in my remaining lifetime), because even if the next administration has a stronger foreign policy position the one following it will probably NOT. It's the nature of our national electorate amnesia to either forget the lessons of history or deliberately suppress them with PC crap.

[Gray Lensman]

<snip>

EDIT: And let's also not forget the cost of 'boots on the ground', particularly in an environment such as Iraq, it's not something that the US, or indeed its allies, can actually afford anymore. The Congressional Research Service said in January of last year that the cost of keeping one US soldier in Afghanistan is $3.9m per year. The cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are estimated between $1.6-5t depending on what your evaluation of what the cost is (the former is primarily focused on military gear procurement I believe, while the latter throws in the human cost, including as it does medical care for wounded soldiers and long term disability compensation for service members, veterans and families). Let's not forget what happened when Lawrence Lindsey requested an 'insurance policy' against economic turndown and estimated that the Iraq war would cost $200b...bet the poor sod feels a bit more vindicated today, eh?

Another reason NOT to enter conflicts without the resolve to push them to a final conclusion instead of the "indeterminate" armistice like Korea OR even worse the tendency on our side to unilaterally declare that the conflict is over and leave troops behind without the enemy forces actually agreeing that the conflict is over.

edit> sorry about the broken 2 post response, I didn't see this EDIT until after the above post.

[Gray Lensman]

He is for lack of a better word, unstable, IMO.

re: Trump

They said the same thing about Reagan in 1980... Unstable, just an actor, cowboy, blah, blah... Turns out he was one of our best presidents. IMO

helped the Brits re:Falklands... Would that have happened today? I think we all know the answer to that given "O's" disdain for Churchillian nationalism

[Eichhörnchen]

Plus you forgot one group of people in your profiling above. The ones that don't agree that women should be in charge of anything that high.

That's me :smug:

Huuuh?! You were being ironic here in some way I completely missed, yes?

[em2nought]

Was Korea a success? Could have fooled me... 3 years of bloody warfare followed by decades of indecisive armistice.

Nah, closest thing to a success since World War II was the first Gulf War and even that was mishandled in the final days allowing Saddam to remain in power

Leaving Saddam in power was the perfect move. Next move should have been striking Iran so they still balanced each other out. Meanwhile continually playing them against each other, and insuring that Israel is armed enough to take care of any two of them put together. Islam continually killing Islam would be the world's best possible outcome. :D

[Gray Lensman]

Leaving Saddam in power was the perfect move. Next move should have been striking Iran so they still balanced each other out. Meanwhile continually playing them against each other, and insuring that Israel is armed enough to take care of any two of them put together. Islam continually killing Islam would be the world's best possible outcome. :D

That's a 20/20 hindsight observation. At the time we still thought the Iranian people were internally friendly to us and it was just the jihadist nutcase leaders that were causing the friction between us and the Iranian people. I was in Iran in 1973 (Shah's time) while in the U.S. Navy and the Iranian people were indeed very friendly. The real armpit of the world was centered at Karachi. LOL, I took a camel taxi tour of Karachi and all I can remember of the tour was the dumb camel would go about 40 feet or so and then turn around and try to bite the driver, go another 40 feet or so and rinse/repeat. Disgusting, slobbering beast... Tickled me silly when I saw Schwarzenegger cold cock one between the eyes in one of the Conan movies.

[McBeck]

Islam continually killing Islam would be the world's best possible outcome. :D
Lets remember that the behavior of those states are based on culture and extreme interpretation of the religion. So its not a matter of Islam killing Islam. :03:

[Mr Quatro]

Huuuh?! You were being ironic here in some way I completely missed, yes?

No, I was not being ironic ... I love women, but I just don't feel right for a woman to be in charge of our country. It's proven they don't think the same, they don't act the same, they have a purpose in life of child bearing and that's where they belong.

Redneck sounding, uh? I don't like women in charge and I am not alone. If other men feel the same it could make a difference in the national elction this November.

By the way in a national poll just taken before Trump heads for a meeting with the President of Mexico and then on to a big GOP meeting in Arizona ...

the polls show Clinton 59% to Trumps 61%

all that can change in one day though :yep:

[Eichhörnchen]

Margaret Thatcher would have served your backside up to you on a plate, buddy :haha:

[Oberon]

There is absolutely no arguing with that statement, but why is that?

I tend to believe it's because of the modern internal liberal bias against American forces being maintained anywhere in the world. This in turn encourages foreign powers/entities to take advantage of American wishy washy policy doctrines to start conflicts testing our resolve. Then you have the public perceiving that their sons/daughters are dying for nothing and this in turn increases their "war weariness". That's why we should not allow ourselves to be drawn into a conflict unless we are prepared to and actually DO win conflicts to a final complete conclusion. Only then will citizens become far more confident that their sons/daughters/grandsons/granddaughters are NOT dying uselessly. It also gets the message across to the rest of the world that we are not wishy washy and makes foreign powers think much more wisely about whether or not they wish to start something.

In regards to the 2016 election, I actually believe we have reached a tipping point where the above reasoning is no longer achievable (at least not in my remaining lifetime), because even if the next administration has a stronger foreign policy position the one following it will probably NOT. It's the nature of our national electorate amnesia to either forget the lessons of history or deliberately suppress them with PC crap.

Another reason NOT to enter conflicts without the resolve to push them to a final conclusion instead of the "indeterminate" armistice like Korea OR even worse the tendency on our side to unilaterally declare that the conflict is over and leave troops behind without the enemy forces actually agreeing that the conflict is over.

edit> sorry about the broken 2 post response, I didn't see this EDIT until after the above post.

No probs, I edited it a bit later because I suddenly thought of the second point and didn't want to double post.
You make a valid point, I don't think I can agree with the whole liberal thing, partly because I consider myself to be liberal, but equally I believe that if you have to fight a war (and war should always be the last feasible option) then you have to commit to that war.
There is perhaps an argument that can be made about media bias towards wars, certainly since Vietnam there has been a strong anti-war sentiment in certain media particularly when it comes to long wars. Western nations, America in particular it seems, prefer to fight a short decisive war.
There was a good quote in Max Brooks's World War Z, let me see if I can find it again, ah here we are:

In totalitarian regimes—communism, fascism, religious fundamentalism—popular support is a given. You can start wars, you can prolong them, you can put anyone in uniform for any length of time without ever having to worry about the slightest political backlash. In a democracy, the polar opposite is true. Public support must be husbanded as a finite national resource. It must be spent wisely, sparingly, and with the greatest return on your investment. America is especially sensitive to war weariness, and nothing brings on a backlash like the perception of defeat. I say “perception” because America is a very all-or-nothing society. We like the big win, the touchdown, the knockout in the first round. We like to know, and for everyone else to know, that our victory wasn’t only uncontested, it was positively devastating. If not…well…look at where we were before the Panic. We didn’t lose the last brushfire conflict, far from it. We actually accomplished a very difficult task with very few resources and under extremely unfavorable circumstances. We won, but the public didn’t see it that way because it wasn’t the blitzkrieg smackdown that our national spirit demanded. Too much time had gone by, too much money had been spent, too many lives had been lost or irrevocably damaged. We’d not only squandered all our public support, we were deeply in the red.

I don't think all the chest thumping in the media can change that, especially not now the internet means that a lot of people take their news sources from places outside of the mainstream media, particularly if that source already agrees with their predefined viewpoint.


No, I was not being ironic ... I love women, but I just don't feel right for a woman to be in charge of our country. It's proven they don't think the same, they don't act the same, they have a purpose in life of child bearing and that's where they belong.

http://donlynturnbull.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/icant.jpg

[Oberon]

Margaret Thatcher would have served your backside up to you on a plate, buddy :haha:

I think even Teresa would. :O:
They'll catch up with the 21st century some day. :yep:

[vienna]

Yeah. Let's see, the disgrace lasted ONE full election cycle and the dems foisted the dumbest foreign policy idiot it could find on us (who I admittedly voted for because I bought the disgrace garbage back then) and lost the next two elections in major landslides to "disgraced" republicans. edit.> actually there were three consecutive election wins following the "Jimmy" years, but by then the Repubs were beginning to forget what got them elected in the preceeding two cycles so the negative "dem" effect began to wear off. The electorate has such a short term memory

I also have to point outt that the current occupant of the white house makes Jimmy look like a genius, to say nothing of H's total disruption of the mid-east during her state department run.

edit1> It appears as if the dems are apparently trying to do it again re:foreign policy with the added caveat that whoever pays the foundation the big bucks gets to guide the foreign policy decisions instead of American citizens.

edit2> actually there were three consecutive election wins following the "Jimmy" years, but by then the Repubs were beginning to forget what got them elected in the preceeding two cycles so the negative "dem" effect began to wear off. The electorate has such a short term memory

The disgrace was solely Nixon's; the fallout was on the GOP for holding out so long in their support of Tricky Dicky; if they had cut their losses early they could have been seen as taking the ethical and moral high road. They didn't and they got screwed, along with the rest of the nation...

Regarding the 'big' GOP wins, it's easy to win when the other side has candidates who were so weak. Carter should never have been President, but no really qualified possible candidate in the GOP wanted to run and have to deal with the mess Nixon left in his wake; and the US voters went over to the idea of electing an honest person to the White House, but the big problem is that a really honest, ethical, moral, and principled person just gets eaten alive by the sharks in DC. I have a great deal of respect for Jimmy Carter as a person, but he should never have gotten into the Oval Office; I did vote for Carter, but, at the time, the only alternative was Ford and his pack of Nixon holdovers, so it was a choice of the lesser of two...

As far as a Reagan landslide, he won the Presidency in 1980 with only 50.7% of the vote; there was an independent candidate who got 6.6% of the vote, John Anderson, a GOP Congressman. So, in 1980, Regan really just squeaked by in the popular vote and he lost 6.6% of the vote to another GOP candidate running against him, hardly a rousing endorsement. He did better in 1984, 58.8%, but he was running against Mondale who was tainted with his position as VP under Carter; also, 1984 saw the inclusion of the first woman candidate on a major party Presidential ticket, Geraldine Ferraro, who ran as Mondale's VP candidate. There was still a good bit of skepticism among the general electorate about having a woman anywhere near the top of power in DC. Reagan really won big against a ticket who really couldn't, hardly a masterful victory...

Regarding the Clinton Foundation, check out another foundation, America's Promise; check out who founded it, the foundation's connections to Enron, among others, and maybe the fact no one is ever going to be indicted, much less prosecuted, over any of the Clinton matters will finally sink in; it's a dirty business, but the dirt is not contained to just one source; it is very widely spread...

Something the GOP really doesn't seem to want the voters to take notice of is the fact the past three GOP Presidential administrations, Nixon/Ford, Regan/GHWBush, and GWBush, have all resulted in the three biggest recessions and economic collapse since the Great Depression, which, honestly, was brought about by GOP economic policies in the 1920s an '30s; and each has been progressively worse than the previous, culminating in the GWBush Great Recession. If electing a GOP candidate means more of the same economic bumbling, I'll pass, unless the GOP comes to its senses and put someone like Paul Ryan up for office; he seems to be the only major GOP person who knows what he's talking about when it comes to the economy; I'd vote for him in a NY minute...

I'm no fan of Bush Jr, especially his second term, but at least when he left, Iraq was somewhat stable, then the current idiot jerked the rug out from the stability by telegraphing all the moves about reducing and removing the stability enforcing security forces.

The only big problem with that statement is the rug was jerked out by the Jerk-In-Chief, GW Bush. The withdrawal of troops, the setting and publication of the timetable, and all the attending details were set out in The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, negotiated by the Bush administration and signed into effect by Bush on December 14, 2008:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

The agreement is what led to the withdrawal of troops, the expected collapse of the Iraqi governing system, the destabilization of the ME, and the accelerated rise of radical Islamist groups, most notably ISIL. After having taken the US into a totally unnecessary and costly war, in monetary terms and much, much worse in human loss, Bush then set the table for the feast of carnage the US-Iraq agreement facilitated. But Bush didn't need to worry: as with most of his screw-ups in life, someone else would have to deal with the mess. No matter who succeeded him in the Oval Office, the successor would be in a no win situation; if they carried through with the agreement, they would be facing the same sort of unearned criticism Obama has faced over the issue; if they sought to nullify or change the agreement, they would be accused of warmongering, attempting to arrogate power and authority not specified, reneging on negotiated promises, and so on. Damned if you do, damned if you don't; and the damned guy who started the whole thing just strolls away, as if none of it was his doing. Just like he did with the economy, he touched it and it turned to crap...



<O>

[Gray Lensman]

The disgrace was solely Nixon's; the fallout was on the GOP for holding out so long in their support of Tricky Dicky; if they had cut their losses early they could have been seen as taking the ethical and moral high road. They didn't and they got screwed, along with the rest of the nation...

Regarding the 'big' GOP wins, it's easy to win when the other side has candidates who were so weak. Carter should never have been President, but no really qualified possible candidate in the GOP wanted to run and have to deal with the mess Nixon left in his wake; and the US voters went over to the idea of electing an honest person to the White House, but the big problem is that a really honest, ethical, moral, and principled person just gets eaten alive by the sharks in DC. I have a great deal of respect for Jimmy Carter as a person, but he should never have gotten into the Oval Office; I did vote for Carter, but, at the time, the only alternative was Ford and his pack of Nixon holdovers, so it was a choice of the lesser of two...


For the most part I can agree with the above statement.


As far as a Reagan landslide, he won the Presidency in 1980 with only 50.7% of the vote; there was an independent candidate who got 6.6% of the vote, John Anderson, a GOP Congressman. So, in 1980, Regan really just squeaked by in the popular vote and he lost 6.6% of the vote to another GOP candidate running against him, hardly a rousing endorsement. He did better in 1984, 58.8%, but he was running against Mondale who was tainted with his position as VP under Carter; also, 1984 saw the inclusion of the first woman candidate on a major party Presidential ticket, Geraldine Ferraro, who ran as Mondale's VP candidate. There was still a good bit of skepticism among the general electorate about having a woman anywhere near the top of power in DC. Reagan really won big against a ticket who really couldn't, hardly a masterful victory...
I should have been more specific in my statement... Reagan won in electoral landslides, which is really all that matters. Though arguably 58.8% in the second election could be considered a landslide compared to most elections.


Regarding the Clinton Foundation, check out another foundation, America's Promise; check out who founded it, the foundation's connections to Enron, among others, and maybe the fact no one is ever going to be indicted, much less prosecuted, over any of the Clinton matters will finally sink in; it's a dirty business, but the dirt is not contained to just one source; it is very widely spread...
Interesting read, however, I'm not defending RINOs here, especially not Mitt Romney. Most of them are tainted by insider money which is the reason for Trump (and Bernie's) popularity. It also doesn't surprise me that Colin Powell was also involved with Romney on this America's Promise foundation. However, the obvious Quid Pro Quo with foreign entities of Hillary's doings is so "in your face", that finally even the liberal media is beginning to take notice.


Something the GOP really doesn't seem to want the voters to take notice of is the fact the past three GOP Presidential administrations, Nixon/Ford, Regan/GHWBush, and GWBush, have all resulted in the three biggest recessions and economic collapse since the Great Depression, which, honestly, was brought about by GOP economic policies in the 1920s an '30s; and each has been progressively worse than the previous, culminating in the GWBush Great Recession. If electing a GOP candidate means more of the same economic bumbling, I'll pass, unless the GOP comes to its senses and put someone like Paul Ryan up for office; he seems to be the only major GOP person who knows what he's talking about when it comes to the economy; I'd vote for him in a NY minute...
Economic Recessions take years to come to fruition. They are generally caused by errant economic policies that take time (again read "years") to develop into destructive bubble bursts. It's how the recession is handled once it occurs that matters. Blaming recession "causes" on the current occupant of the white house is one of the dumb things political parties feed low information voters. Yes, in a way I'm defending "O" here. He was not the cause of the current economic recession, but neither was G.W. Bush, though G.W did allow the economic causes to continue to develop as did Bill Clinton and Bush 1. If any one person can be blamed (and this is a bit of a stretch), it was Allen Greenspan's expansion of loose money policies. See here! (http://wallstreetpit.com/95607-what-caused-the-financial-crisis-of-2008/)

Now arguably, I can almost agree that the 1st term Reagan/Bush 1 recession was directly caused by that white house occupant. It was totally unavoidable. I don't know if you were old enough (quite a number of forumites on this thread are) to have experienced the "Stagflation" that had been going on, but inflation was almost getting out of control and as a result the economy was totally stagnating. The only real proper response to this is to jack up interest rates via the Federal reserve. This is a really painful antidote but it works relatively quickly, so quickly in fact that combined with lowering investment taxes, the economy began to boom out of it even before the end of Reagan's first term. Witness his popularity and the 58.8% win at the beginning of his 2nd term right after this interest rate induced recession.

Unlike the last few "O" years, incidentally, there were months where the increasing jobs numbers for those months was above a million jobs created in those single months. This was back when they counted unemployment figures honestly also. None of this, "these people quit looking for work so they're not really unemployed" crap OR these people are on welfare, so they don't count as unemployed. This Reagan/Bush1 recession and the recovery that followed stands in stark contrast to the current white house occupant's response to the recession he was faced with. Like Roosevelt's recession response, this "Great Recession" just keeps slowly lingering on. The only thing that ended Roosevelt's 1930s lingering recession was the onslaught of WW2 creating massive defense industry employment and the removal of war fighting young men from the civilian employment rolls.

The current white house administration had the advantage of seeing both of these recessions and the proper responses (the first being accidental thru war employment, the second thru deliberate economic stimulation). He instead chose to go along with printing money which though it loosens up the availability of money, it only really inflates the value of the big corporations, and does not create abundant jobs for the poor unemployed workers. Of course the current administration observes this and covers it up with the aforementioned manipulated "employment" numbers.


The only big problem with that statement is the rug was jerked out by the Jerk-In-Chief, GW Bush. The withdrawal of troops, the setting and publication of the timetable, and all the attending details were set out in The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, negotiated by the Bush administration and signed into effect by Bush on December 14, 2008:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

The agreement is what led to the withdrawal of troops, the expected collapse of the Iraqi governing system, the destabilization of the ME, and the accelerated rise of radical Islamist groups, most notably ISIL. After having taken the US into a totally unnecessary and costly war, in monetary terms and much, much worse in human loss, Bush then set the table for the feast of carnage the US-Iraq agreement facilitated. But Bush didn't need to worry: as with most of his screw-ups in life, someone else would have to deal with the mess. No matter who succeeded him in the Oval Office, the successor would be in a no win situation; if they carried through with the agreement, they would be facing the same sort of unearned criticism Obama has faced over the issue; if they sought to nullify or change the agreement, they would be accused of warmongering, attempting to arrogate power and authority not specified, reneging on negotiated promises, and so on. Damned if you do, damned if you don't; and the damned guy who started the whole thing just strolls away, as if none of it was his doing. Just like he did with the economy, he touched it and it turned to crap...
<O> This is hard to argue against except to point out that the circumstances were not so obvious when that agreement was signed. The pressure was on GW Bush to make an "official ending" much like the first Gulf War. He just should not have expanded the 9/11 response into Iraq in the first place, but everyone at the time was all hyped up on Weapons of Mass Destruction and even the main leaders of the Democrats were hyped on this issue, (though they try to pretend that they were not). AND please don't try to tell me there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Chemicals weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction and nutcase Saddam had already used them on his own people in multiple documented cases and the nuke rumors were out there making everyone (Dems too) nervous that he would acquire them also.

[August]

Saddam had already used them on his own people in multiple documented cases and the nuke rumors were out there making everyone (Dems too) nervous that he would acquire them also.

Not to mention the fact that Saddam himself encouraged the perception that he did have WMD.

[Mr Quatro]

Not to mention the fact that Saddam himself encouraged the perception that he did have WMD.

What America didn't know at the time was that Muammar Gaddafi did have nuclear weapons and other chemical weapons and that he was going to use them to destroy America and then blame Saddam :o

Time line: Saddam Hussein the fifth President of Iraq, serving in this capacity from 16 July 1979 until 9 April 2003. Died December 30, 2006


But in 2003 something happened:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_Gaddafi

Influenced by the events of the Iraq War, in December 2003, Libya renounced its possession of weapons of mass destruction, decommissioning its chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Relations with the U.S. improved as a result, while UK Prime Minister Tony Blair met with Gaddafi in the Libyan desert in March 2004.

[mapuc]

We do get around in this thread-now we discuss the USA's foreign politics the last 50 years or so.

Or more correctly Foreign politics under a certain President during the last 50 years or so.

Markus

[Bilge_Rat]

yes, well anyway, back to THIS election, the polls keep tightening.

In the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Clinton's lead is now less than 4% and she no longer has a lock on 270+ electoral votes:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_st ein-5952.html

Even Nate Silver now says the swing states will not necessarily be enough to garantee a Clinton victory:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-as-the-race-tightens-dont-assume-the-electoral-college-will-save-clinton/

[AVGWarhawk]

Hillary's emails are going to haunt her. There will be more emails disclosed.

[Von Due]

Some good, sound thoughts around the proposed wall along the border
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37243269

How far is Trump willing to go to have his idea realised? One thing is what he says, another is what he is actually willing to do. Then there is the issue with saying one thing and doing something else and how that flies with his supporters, not to mention with Mexico should he go more extreme. The previous Mexican president was not following diplomatic protocol when he said what he thought of the idea.

[Oberon]

Definitely have to build a giant wall, I mean it worked for Australi-oh...

http://remotewhiteboard.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SydneyHarbourAttack.jpg

Well...it worked for Trost Distr-

http://www.entravity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/shingeki-2-10-armored-titan-maria.jpg

Well, surely it worked in Jeru-

http://dl9fvu4r30qs1.cloudfront.net/f7/fd/37c186024cb6bf3225b4dcf68415/world-war-z.jpg

http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/jim-carrey-liar-liar-oh-come-on-angry-its-enough.gif

[Von Due]

http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/jim-carrey-liar-liar-oh-come-on-angry-its-enough.gif

:haha: Well, perhaps we will see another Vasa ship.

[August]

Definitely have to build a giant wall, I mean it worked for

So aside from the fantasy world of cartoons and movies do you have any real life objections? :cool:

[Mr Quatro]

So aside from the fantasy world of cartoons and movies do you have any real life objections? :cool:

:o He usually does ... don't break his spirit better than arguing about Clinton or Trump :yep:

wouldn't it be funny if Trump won even with all of his mistakes :yeah:

[Mr Quatro]

Funny and true ...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cq1xXprWAAAhU8L.jpg

[August]

:o He usually does ... don't break his spirit better than arguing about Clinton or Trump :yep:

wouldn't it be funny if Trump won even with all of his mistakes :yeah:

Oh yeah. If she isn't a criminal then she is strikingly incompetent and maybe she's both! I think the fact that Clinton isn't beating the pants off of him shows just how weak a candidate she really is.

[Platapus]

I am willing to concede that Hillary is not technically a criminal based on the fact that, so far, she has not even been indicted of any crimes.

But I will still stand by my position that Hillary is not ethical... really not ethical... I mean outstandingly unethical compared to the already low ethics bar set by other politicians.

Reagan must be looking down/up at Hillary in amazement of what she is getting away with.

Clinton is the BASF of ethics. She did not invent Teflon politics she just made it even more slippery.... or is the slimy? I gets confused.

[Sailor Steve]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Winning_zpssmuddbyv.png (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/Winning_zpssmuddbyv.png.html)

[Betonov]

I am willing to concede that Hillary is not technically a criminal based on the fact that, so far, she has not even been indicted of any crimes.



Any commoner without the money/contacts/power of Clinton and with her ethics would already be trialed and locked away like a criminal.

[Jimbuna]

^
^
Now that was funny Steve :D

[Oberon]

So aside from the fantasy world of cartoons and movies do you have any real life objections? :cool:

Not really

http://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ikuvtCe8cTX8/v1/-1x-1.jpg

[Eichhörnchen]

http://i.imgur.com/PodkZSC.jpg

I'd been thinking rather of Hadrians Wall... also intended to keep people out...

[August]

Not really

Well that worked ok pretty well 50 years or so until the side that built it disbanded. Kind of like the Great Wall of China or Hadrian's Wall, they need to be manned to be effective.

[Betonov]

Kind of like the Great Wall of China or Hadrian's Wall, they need to be manned to be effective.

So will Trumps wall.
Good way to employ people, but a toll on public coffers.

[Oberon]

Well that worked ok pretty well 50 years or so until the side that built it disbanded. Kind of like the Great Wall of China or Hadrian's Wall, they need to be manned to be effective.

Indeed, but the problems were internal, not external and in the end all three of those walls were broken and their builders too.

[August]

So will Trumps wall.
Good way to employ people, but a toll on public coffers.

A nation that can't control it's own borders cannot long exist.

[em2nought]

So will Trumps wall.
Good way to employ people, but a toll on public coffers.

Not if you pull all your troops out of places that they don't really need to be, and put them where they need to be instead. We can build our rifle ranges parallel along the border so target practice can serve a dual purpose. :03:

So in other Presidential news what do people think about Balanced Rebellion? I can't see how it will garner many lefties since the word compromise to them always means that the conservative gives up something and they get something. Not too mention how can we even trust each other anymore?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLAh3pui-CI

https://www.lp.org/files/imagepicker/45/balanced%20rebellion.jpg

[Torvald Von Mansee]

A nation that can't control it's own borders cannot long exist.

I think sealing off the border would be pretty easy if were REALLY wanted to do it and willing to use lethal force.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Oh yeah. If she isn't a criminal then she is strikingly incompetent and maybe she's both! I think the fact that Clinton isn't beating the pants off of him shows just how weak a candidate she really is.

The fact she's only beating him 71 to 29 percent on 538 is really worrying.

[August]

Criminal, senile, incompetent or a mixture of all three?


Vanishing digital devices, memory lapses and withheld emails.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation waited until the Friday afternoon before Labor Day weekend to release its investigation summary and interview notes with Hillary Clinton about her private email server, and no wonder. The new information makes a hash of what’s left of the former Secretary of State’s credibility.
Mrs. Clinton is running for President as an experienced statesman, but her handling of classified material was even more reckless about state secrets and disdainful of public records laws than even we had thought. Start with her convenient memory lapses.
For example, Mrs. Clinton told the FBI that she “did not know” that the “(C)” marks on classified material meant classified and “speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.” Yet in her famous—and last—press conference about the emails in March 2015 she said, “I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.” To the public she claims to be a sharp professional who knows the score; to the FBI she presents herself as a clueless grandee who left the details to her minions.


Read the rest at:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbis-clinton-file-1472856453

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Criminal, senile, incompetent or a mixture of all three?





Read the rest at:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbis-clinton-file-1472856453

Uh-huh. The Wall Street Journal? THERE'S a non-partisan medium for you.

Criminal? She's been convicted of something I didn't hear about?

Senile? Uh, no? You just have to see interviews with her. And 69 is awfully early to have senility show up. I'd be very surprised if you could find a non-wingnut source that would back that up.

Incompetent? It would seem difficult to call someone who graduated with honors from Wellesley then went on to Yale Law School as incompetent. The thing about her tenure as SoS conservatives always bring up are Benghazi and the emails, which both seem to be politicized molehills-into-mountains.

Of course, Trump could always be elected. You really don't think he'd sic the IRS on people who hurt his fweewings, etc.?

[Platapus]

From CNN


"Clinton told the FBI she "could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information," according to the bureau's notes of their interview with Clinton."

Clinton,as SecState was an Original Classification Authority for the State Department. That means that within the purview of the State Department she and only she has been designated as the person who can make decisions on what information the State Department handles is classified. Her OCA does not affect what other department's OCAs classify.

How can she possibly claim that she can't recall any training? She had to undergo specialized training over several days just to get her OCA warrant. OCA is pretty serious responsibility and that is why it can't be delegated.

I would suspect that after Clinton confessed to not recalling any training, that yet another investigation on all of her OCA activities while SecState is in order.

"She also said she didn't "pay attention to the 'level' of classified information and took all classified information seriously.""

My brain is hurted. There is no way she can be this stupid. Every single security briefing covers this. And she is the person who had OCA at the State Department... and she does not pay attention to the security level?

"The documents indicate Clinton told investigators she either does not "recall" or "remember" at least 39 times" Yikes, who does she think she is, Reagan?

GOP/RNC, you only have yourselves to blame for this. If you had put up anyone even remotely capable, the GOP would have walked away with this election.

The DNC-RNC race was a race to the bottom of the barrel and both sides won.

[Mr Quatro]

https://thumbs.mic.com/MTM2MzIwZjUyMiMvUl9lZlRtaGdUVmIzZ1pOZ1ZPcjktM1pBVz M4PS9maXQtaW4vOTAweDkwMC9maWx0ZXJzOm5vX3Vwc2NhbGUo KTpxdWFsaXR5KDgwKS9odHRwOi8vaW1hZ2VzLm1pYy5jb20vaG hyM2h5b3ViYmhnd3Vha3djNXN3Z29xbHgxejZwNnllYWNkcmRw M3hzanN3d3NkYXl3bWFmeGR0dnhpb2hqYS5naWY.gif

I don't want to hear Hillary Clinton's lies and excuses and memory lapse's if she wins ... remember her accounts of being shoot at and having to dodge bullets after landing at an airbase as Madam Secretary and then her excuse that she says a million things all the time and just forgot?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

https://thumbs.mic.com/MTM2MzIwZjUyMiMvUl9lZlRtaGdUVmIzZ1pOZ1ZPcjktM1pBVz M4PS9maXQtaW4vOTAweDkwMC9maWx0ZXJzOm5vX3Vwc2NhbGUo KTpxdWFsaXR5KDgwKS9odHRwOi8vaW1hZ2VzLm1pYy5jb20vaG hyM2h5b3ViYmhnd3Vha3djNXN3Z29xbHgxejZwNnllYWNkcmRw M3hzanN3d3NkYXl3bWFmeGR0dnhpb2hqYS5naWY.gif

I don't want to hear Hillary Clinton's lies and excuses and memory lapse's if she wins ... remember her accounts of being shoot at and having to dodge bullets after landing at an airbase as Madam Secretary and then her excuse that she says a million things all the time and just forgot?

Yeah, but she has the very important asset of not being insane.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I guess the thing I find quite, quite troubling is the possibility of hacking the election:

https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/02/should-we-be-worried-about-election-hacking/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hacking-the-election/2016/08/02/8094afbe-58c3-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html?utm_term=.d0df92e65a7e

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/could-russian-hackers-spoil-election-day-n619321

Of course, I would take anything from anything not a wire service or something like the Christian Science Monitor with a grain of salt.

[Platapus]

Well I can only opine about Virginia where my precinct is. I am very happy that Virginia went back to paper ballots. Nothing in my precinct is connected to the internet and that's how it should be.

Our new scanners not only total the vote, but actually scan an image of the ballot. This means that we not only have the physical ballots, but also a digital copy of the ballots. This makes it possible for two completely separate recounts if needed. Even our ADA machine just prints up a paper ballot for the voter to scan. To me, the way Virginia does elections should be the standard.

There are many areas in life where new technology should be implemented. I feel that voting ain't one of them.

Paper ballots marked with a pen stored in sealed boxes for years is a good way to maintain the integrity of the voting.

[Platapus]

Yeah, but she has the very important asset of not being insane.

Clinton's primary qualification for the job is that she ain't Trump
Trump's primary qualification for the job is that he ain't Clinton.

[Bilge_Rat]

Yeah, but she has the very important asset of not being insane.

yah know, I realise a lot of things are said in the heat of a campaign, but Trump has been a public figure, running a business empire for over 30 years.

no one ever claimed Trump was crazy, a racist or sexist, until he started running for President.

just saying. :ping:

[Platapus]

Actually there were some civil suits about his discriminatory practices.

The main reason few people talked about him before running for president was that he was not that interesting to talk about. He does real estate and tv shows, and not very good ones in my opinion. Not really worth talking about.

But once you start running for president, pretty much everyone becomes interesting to talk about.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

https://s6.postimg.org/a4tcdzubl/BBw3_W8x.jpg
That pretty much sums up how I feel about this election right about now.

[em2nought]

yah know, I realise a lot of things are said in the heat of a campaign, but Trump has been a public figure, running a business empire for over 30 years.

no one ever claimed Trump was crazy, a racist or sexist, until he started running for President.

just saying. :ping: That really needs to be clarified as "Until he started running for President against a democrat". :up:

[Catfish]

https://s6.postimg.org/a4tcdzubl/BBw3_W8x.jpg
That pretty much sums up how I feel about this election right about now.

Hmm, wasn't the FEMA the organisation that builds Obama's death camps for people criticizing him, or trying to prevent his fourth presidential term, or found out about Obama's chemtrails for mind control, or his socialist plans, or his plans to convert the US to a muslim country, or his health care created to kill veterans, or his other evil plans, or whatever ?

[Betonov]

Hmm, wasn't the FEMA the organisation that builds Obama's death camps for people criticizing him, or trying to prevent his fourth presidential term, or found out about Obama's chemtrails for mind control, or his socialist plans, or his plans to convert the US to a muslim country, or his health care created to kill veterans, or his other evil plans, or whatever ?

You see, Uncle Sam didn't went for help there. He seeks eutanasia.

[Onkel Neal]

Are there going be any debates?