Post by: stoneaxe on March 23, 2016, 09:10:10 PM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRUSSELS_ATTACKS_CELLS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-03-23-15-15-46
Even Trudeau our progressive friend to the north agrees.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/europe-refugees-migrant-crisis-men-213500
Post by: digger71 on March 23, 2016, 09:33:11 PM
Post by: PonoBill on March 24, 2016, 11:46:15 AM
If Trump was a solution for anything his views might matter, but he's an ego-driven whacko who should be laughed out of public life.
It's easy to see in History how big migrations change the nature of the countries that receive the immigrants. It's going to be a different world, certainly a different Europe. Historically immigrants never leave, and they create their own culture--an amalgam of what the left behind and what the new place is. Turning back a large portion of the young males would be a partial solution and might reduce the inevitable violence (wouldn't help much with terrorist infiltration), but liberal governments are incapable of that kind of action. It would be as damaging to the countries affected as accepting the influx, and the influx is probably unstoppable even for totalitarian states. Even the brutal government of Saddam Hussein couldn't eliminate the Kurds from Northern Iraq, though he killed a lot of them.
The notion that you would take Trump to any degree seriously because he trumpets (tee hee) a vicious rhetoric on race and immigration that corresponds to one of your viewpoints makes me want to puke. That's how we toss away the last of what is good in this country.
Post by: stoneaxe on March 24, 2016, 12:55:54 PM
Post by: PonoBill on March 24, 2016, 01:00:27 PM
Post by: Weasels wake on March 24, 2016, 04:19:12 PM
Post by: lucabrasi on March 24, 2016, 05:36:24 PM
......... Historically immigrants never leave, and they create their own culture--an amalgam of what the left behind and what the new place is. Turning back a large portion of the young males would be a partial solution and might reduce the inevitable violence (wouldn't help much with terrorist infiltration), but liberal governments are incapable of that kind of action. It would be as damaging to the countries affected as accepting the influx, and the influx is probably unstoppable even for totalitarian states. Even the brutal government of Saddam Hussein couldn't eliminate the Kurds from Northern Iraq, though he killed a lot of them.What a dilemna. Who can't see both sides of this migration thing right now with all to consider because of all that is going on? I had to look up amalgam and tho I am sure I know far less history I don't see anything close to that from the shit holes of Montana, Oklahoma, the Dakotas or other places even on to suburbia, rural living, or big city life 500?, 400?, 300?, 200? years later anywhere here in the U.S./North America. I guess that's what progress does for you. I don't know.
So.......turn the men away. End up with a few men, lots of women and even kids. Who is the Joseph Smith of the Muslims? Is he alive now? I guess they already "allow" multiple wives but......is this setting up for Muslim Mormons?
Post by: PonoBill on March 24, 2016, 07:19:08 PM
The US IS immigration. Nothing but. Even the "native americans" have only been here less than 12,000 years. The rest of us are recent immigrants. In 1610 there were fewer than 500 white people. 400 years--the blink of an eye. In 1848 before the treaty of Hildago the population of the west was primarily hispanic and indian. The Gold Rush brought about 100,000 white people to California.
Post by: Tom on March 25, 2016, 10:16:49 AM
This is the way they now do business . When the majority of Americans want health care, want sensible gun laws , and want actions to stop global climate change , the party says "no way , we know better what you need so shut up , we'll do what we feel is best" . They want to legislate by doctrine , not by and for the people
Post by: spookini on March 25, 2016, 10:23:31 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on March 25, 2016, 11:30:35 AM
I'm not going to rant about what a bozo Trump is , but I think is the whole attitude of the Republican party is off. It is so typical of them to totally disregard the will and the opinion of the majority of the people they pretend to represent . The fact is the majority of the Republicans feel that Trump is their choice , BUT the party think that they are wrong and the party knows best. They are doing what ever they can to stop Trump and support someone their voters don't want . I agree with the Republicans that Trump is the wrong guy, but they should support what their voters want .
This is the way they now do business . When the majority of Americans want health care, want sensible gun laws , and want actions to stop global climate change , the party says "no way , we know better what you need so shut up , we'll do what we feel is best" . They want to legislate by doctrine , not by and for the people
A democrat superdelegate says what?
Both parties are corrupt, making this just about republicans says more about your bias than anything.
Post by: headmount on March 25, 2016, 11:39:30 AM
Ideology aside, I think Trump may have finally jumped the shark w/ his tweet-pic about Cruz's wife...
Jumped the shark? Obvious from the content what it means but never have heard that expression before. Some kind of New England one? I think you're right. His, 'is he really a Mormon' remark in Utah didn't work well either but this will be a much larger reaction.
I'm a smart guy. Went to the Wharton school of hard warts. I know downwinding. You learn some things, OK? I can find glides and recognize the peak of a swell and I tell you this, he's peaked. It's been tremendous so far but the man has peaked. Honestly, peaked. It's all downhill from now folks. He's a poser. He's gliding down. Will he pitch his nose in and get thrown over the front? I don't know, but I've heard. It can be a hard fall.
But god bless him (I won't). He's provided some hilarious grist thanks to you and some others on this forum.
Post by: headmount on March 25, 2016, 11:59:13 AM
Actually I wasn't writing about US history, more Asia and Europe. US history is short and odd.
The US IS immigration. Nothing but. Even the "native americans" have only been here less than 12,000 years. The rest of us are recent immigrants. In 1610 there were fewer than 500 white people. 400 years--the blink of an eye. In 1848 before the treaty of Hildago the population of the west was primarily hispanic and indian. The Gold Rush brought about 100,000 white people to California.
This is so on the money and a fact that many keep burying their heads in the sand about. My father's side of the family were illegal immigrants from Norway in the 1850. In those days undesirable Norse farmers were shuttled out to the most dangerous Indian country and miserable cold... Minnesota. My grandfather was born there and became an 'anchor baby' when Minnesota became a state in 1858. My other grandfather brought over a French bride from WWI. So our Mom was also an anchor baby when she was born in Annapolis.
It's so strange to see how the two parties have morphed. In the old days the GOP were progressives and the democrats were the hardened party of the elite.
Post by: starman on March 25, 2016, 12:08:28 PM
I'll take Trump over Cruz any day. Trump has almost no chance at a win in the general election. However Cruz gives me the creeps. I get the same vibe from him as I would from a pedofile. That and I am starting to believe he's "The Havana Candidate". Born and groomed to be Fidel's revenge on the USA.
Post by: spookini on March 25, 2016, 01:58:23 PM
As for calls that this is the "death" of the Republican party, how so? There will always be a core constituency that opposes liberalism/progressivism; those folks will always side w/ the Republicans in future elections, no matter if 2016 ends in a trainwreck.
Agreed, Cruz's response ("Donald, you sniveling coward") seemed rehearsed and phony. Or as Jimmy Kimmel put it, "how many hours did he practice that in the mirror at home?"
Post by: Weasels wake on March 25, 2016, 05:31:06 PM
I gotta side w/ Stoneaxe on this one. The Dems would do the same thing (hijack the convention) if a rogue flowerchild was dominating their primaries.That still might happen, don't discount the possibility. All you hear about in the media is the chances of the GOP convention being a cluster fu(k, but there is just as good of a chance with the dem's convention IMO. The Bern hasn't gone away, I expect him to do fairly well out west, and all of Hillary's super delegates could still turn on a dime. Cue the Jaws theme.
Post by: Tom on March 25, 2016, 07:51:05 PM
I'm not going to rant about what a bozo Trump is , but I think is the whole attitude of the Republican party is off. It is so typical of them to totally disregard the will and the opinion of the majority of the people they pretend to represent . The fact is the majority of the Republicans feel that Trump is their choice , BUT the party think that they are wrong and the party knows best. They are doing what ever they can to stop Trump and support someone their voters don't want . I agree with the Republicans that Trump is the wrong guy, but they should support what their voters want .
This is the way they now do business . When the majority of Americans want health care, want sensible gun laws , and want actions to stop global climate change , the party says "no way , we know better what you need so shut up , we'll do what we feel is best" . They want to legislate by doctrine , not by and for the people
A democrat superdelegate says what?
Both parties are corrupt, making this just about republicans says more about your bias than anything.
I'm not making this just about Republicans, BUT as a Republican outsider, I find humor looking at how the Republicans are dealing with their Trump child. It's kind of like seeing the neighbor who raised a pit-bull puppy by being mean to it. There comes a certain satisfaction when the tormented pit-bull grows up and bites its tormentor. That is what I see with the Republicans, they created an environment for Trump to prosper and now they have a hard time living with it.
As for your belief that I have Democratic delegate bias, I have probably voted for more Republicans than Democrats (but I will probably never vote Republican again unless they change their ways).
Post by: SeldomScene on March 25, 2016, 10:01:22 PM
When people who are witnesses in federal investigations get immunity, it means that they have come in with their lawyer and met with the FBI and prosecutors, and have given what is called a proffer. The witness tells everything he knows, and if it substantially helps the governments investigation, he is offered immunity. If what he knows isn't much help, no offer is made and his statements cannot be used. So in this criminal grand jury investigation (there is no such thing in the FBI as a "security review") they are going to indict people, or maybe a person. The Clintons have a history of structuring illegal acts with legal precision, so that they could be indicted but probably not convicted. Will that be the case here? Or did Obama tell his new Attorney General the job would be hers if she keeps Hilary from being indicted. Mishandling of classified info is a felony, even if you don't set up a home brew server to house it, with no protection from prying keyboards, like Russia, China and Iran. It will be interesting. "Me and Chelsea was under constant sniper fire." "I was named after Sir Edmund Hilary". (Even though Sir Edmund Was unknown until he climbed Everest several years after Hilary was born. Maybe she wasn't named until she was 8?
Post by: magentawave on March 25, 2016, 10:39:13 PM
Agreed, Cruz's response ("Donald, you sniveling coward") seemed rehearsed and phony. Or as Jimmy Kimmel put it, "how many hours did he practice that in the mirror at home?"
Does Cruz say anything that isn't rehearsed and phony? Everything he says seems like it is rehearsed talking points with long pauses in between and in a preacher like cadence. I wonder if he talks to his wife and kids like that (and his 5 mistresses!). It is nauseatingly phony. I can't believe people still fall for this crap. He might be the creepiest politician I've seen since Wiener. I was driving in my car today and heard him say: "I HAVE NO DESIRE TO COPULATE WITH DONALD TRUMP." Swear to gawd he said that! I was drinking from a bottle of water at that moment and almost choked to death from laughing so hard.
This election has been entertaining. Bread and circuses for everyone!
Post by: magentawave on March 25, 2016, 10:45:20 PM
If you think the Republican race is freaky, wait until Hilary gets indicted.
These creeps protect their own kind. Both Bush's are still free and since her rapist "husband" Bill hasn't been put in a cage then I doubt they will do anything to Hitlery. Hope springs eternal, though.
Post by: stoneaxe on March 25, 2016, 11:43:48 PM
Post by: lucabrasi on March 26, 2016, 06:13:19 AM
I saw the "you sniveling coward" last night. Oh my word. Really?Agreed, Cruz's response ("Donald, you sniveling coward") seemed rehearsed and phony. Or as Jimmy Kimmel put it, "how many hours did he practice that in the mirror at home?"Does Cruz say anything that isn't rehearsed and phony
I have heard Grandpa Munster, Ed Grimley and others but I would have to say something out of Stephen King really fits. Been way, way long since I read Dead Zone but yeah.....oh geez.
I don't like him. He reeks sleazy and seems about as genuine as the guy setting you up for three card monte but........I do think I would want him on my side in a courtroom.
(hmmmm, I guess that's kind of scary what that really says)
Post by: Admin on March 26, 2016, 06:23:01 AM
Ideology aside, I think Trump may have finally jumped the shark w/ his tweet-pic about Cruz's wife...
Trump knows his base and if you trust polls at all (I would not blame if you don't) this is not their issue. https://us.yahoo.com/news/who-s-really-voting-for-trump---portraits-beyond-the-polls-061622809.html
Polling demographics from the above shows Trump supporter indication as:
voters over 45
voters who earn less than $50,000 a year
voters (especially white voters) who didn’t graduate from college
voters from rural areas
voters who are “angry” at the government
voters who are “very worried” about the economy
voters who think trade “takes away” U.S. jobs
voters who fear that they are “falling behind”
voters who think that illegal immigrants ought to be deported
voters who believe that Muslims should be temporarily banned from entering the country
voters who are convinced that the GOP nominee should come from “outside the establishment”
voters who, above all else, want a president who “tells it like it is” or can “bring about needed change”
voters who settled on their candidate of choice more than a month ago
This sentence rings true:
Yet the strongest indicator of support for Trump — stronger than gender, age, race/ethnicity, employment status, educational attainment, household income, attitudes toward Muslims, attitudes toward illegal immigrants or attitudes toward Hispanics — was a feeling of voicelessness; according to RAND, Republicans were 86.5 percent more likely to prefer the Manhattan mogul if they “somewhat” or “strongly” agreed that “people like me don't have any say about what the government does.”
Anger at the system is the story of this election.
Clinton could not be a more perfect representation of what is hated by this group about the system.
Post by: Tom on March 26, 2016, 07:31:24 AM
Post by: Ichabod Spoonbill on March 26, 2016, 09:29:27 AM
Post by: Tom on March 26, 2016, 10:18:56 AM
Post by: supsurf-tw on March 26, 2016, 10:40:13 AM
One of the biggest arguments against him are that he is is anti immigration when actually it's ILLEGAL immigration he's against. Most of the haters tend to leave out the ILLEGAL part of the sentence. The Muslim refugees being accepted? I don't think you need to look past what's happening in Europe to see the outcome.
Also realize that the prez can't just do whatever he wants. We have a congress that sees to that. Is Trump the answer to everything? No. Can he help move things in a better direction? Possibly. I just can't stand Hillary and will vote for anyone that's running against her.
Post by: surf4food on March 26, 2016, 01:22:25 PM
http://www.theinertia.com/surf/4-disastrous-consequences-for-surfers-if-donald-trump-is-elected-president/
Post by: Zooport on March 26, 2016, 02:08:56 PM
give assault rifles to all the teachers.
Being a teacher, I have only one thing to say about giving assault rifles to teachers; "Cool!"
Post by: Area 10 on March 26, 2016, 05:20:20 PM
One of the biggest arguments against him are that he is is anti immigration when actually it's ILLEGAL immigration he's against. Most of the haters tend to leave out the ILLEGAL part of the sentence. The Muslim refugees being accepted? I don't think you need to look past what's happening in Europe to see the outcome.Can you please explain this last sentence? I'm a European, and I don't know what you mean.
Post by: robon on March 26, 2016, 07:04:31 PM
One of the biggest arguments against him are that he is is anti immigration when actually it's ILLEGAL immigration he's against. Most of the haters tend to leave out the ILLEGAL part of the sentence. The Muslim refugees being accepted? I don't think you need to look past what's happening in Europe to see the outcome.Can you please explain this last sentence? I'm a European, and I don't know what you mean.
Two of the deadliest terrorist attacks happened on American soil, so I'm really curious has to what the phock that is supposed to mean myself.
Post by: SeldomScene on March 26, 2016, 07:11:01 PM
give assault rifles to all the teachers.
Being a teacher, I have only one thing to say about giving assault rifles to teachers; "Cool!"
Arming teachers would not be necessary if you simply posted a "no guns allowed" or "gun free zone" sign at the door. Anyone thinking of shooting up the place would not pass such a sign with a firearm, thus breaking the rules.
Post by: eastbound on March 26, 2016, 07:58:55 PM
please cite a business success of trump's--just one, so we can see how he will run this country like a business.
Post by: PonoBill on March 27, 2016, 02:25:17 AM
One of the biggest arguments against him are that he is is anti immigration when actually it's ILLEGAL immigration he's against. Most of the haters tend to leave out the ILLEGAL part of the sentence. The Muslim refugees being accepted? I don't think you need to look past what's happening in Europe to see the outcome.Can you please explain this last sentence? I'm a European, and I don't know what you mean.
Two of the deadliest terrorist attacks happened on American soil, so I'm really curious has to what the phock that is supposed to mean myself.
What it means is that Americans are jumping to the conclusion that the recent flood of refugees into europe carries with it the source of recent attacks. It's a ridiculous conclusion, but that doesn't stop media or political types from fanning that flame.
Post by: lucabrasi on March 27, 2016, 05:16:20 AM
We are and the fans are being flamed. Not really sure what to say about that. How can you not consider events of the last 15 years or so and with the rise of attacks, cells, ISIS, immigrants........owch. I do know it has always struck me as odd that.....we have planes and boats coming into our country every day from all parts of the world and people visiting but so many people can not just cross the border to visit......they gots to sneak in. I know there are Mexicans driving across every day, (I think. Those lines at the borders aren't all Americans trying to get back across, are they?) and planes with Mexicans on them from Mexico City every day arriving. How come so many have to sneak in? I find that rather odd.What it means is that Americans are jumping to the conclusion that the recent flood of refugees into europe carries with it the source of recent attacks. It's a ridiculous conclusion, but that doesn't stop media or political types from fanning that flame.Two of the deadliest terrorist attacks happened on American soil, so I'm really curious has to what the phock that is supposed to mean myself.One of the biggest arguments against him are that he is is anti immigration when actually it's ILLEGAL immigration he's against. Most of the haters tend to leave out the ILLEGAL part of the sentence. The Muslim refugees being accepted? I don't think you need to look past what's happening in Europe to see the outcome.Can you please explain this last sentence? I'm a European, and I don't know what you mean.
Area 10.....I get an idea of your own personal thoughts regarding at least one of the candidates.....and have seen some of how your mind ticks in the past but I am curious how the media over there abroad portrays the candidates. Not just Donald but all of them. Even Carson, Christie, Bush, Rubio, etc. Hillary and Bernie for sure. Do you guys even know about Kasich? More interested in media portrayal rather than your thought process or ideology tho not sure how one can separate the two. Does the "average" person over there have any clue about all this over here? Is it......in your face news? Is the casual observer clued in? Who is painted as the good guy or the bad guy? I would imagine some interest in world events or politics would be needed to know about events over here but not sure. I know, in this day and age I can look up anything from anywhere and read up or even watch tho I don't think that would provide .........a general portrayal.
Post by: Area 10 on March 27, 2016, 07:33:51 AM
I've just seen a middle-aged European male mourner with tears in his eyes because of the acts of the Fascists. They had to be dispersed by the police with water cannons. It is clear that there are political forces at work that are using every terrorist event, and the humanitarian disaster in Syria and the Middle East, to try to stoke fear and racism in order to further their own attempts at power.
Most of Europe sees Trump and Cruz as part of this rise of right-wing extremism. ISIS are getting exactly what they want. They want to polarise people and create an apocalypse. We are playing straight into their hands.
Coverage of the US election is wall-to-wall in Europe. I'm watching a very detailed exposition on it on the BBC right now. The current topic is Bernie Sanders' latest wins.
It is fair to say that Europe likes Obama. We feel that he is basically a decent honourable man who has been hobbled by political forces within the US that prevent change from occurring. Mostly the coverage of the US election is a mixture of dismay, disbelief, and sadness. We wonder if this is how civil war or maybe a Third World War starts. And we wonder how a great country like the US could possibly be holding up Trump and Cruz as examples of the best you've got. This is politics as reality TV, with the candidates acting like participants on the Jerry Springer show. We are comfortable with more measured tones, and considered statements such as you get from Angela Merkel. Maybe it's a cultural thing.
Post by: Tom on March 27, 2016, 07:44:50 AM
AP TOP
AP WORLD
AP NATIONAL
AP WASHINGTON
AP BUSINESS
AP ENTERTAINMENT
AP HEADLINE WALL
AP RAW
AP RADIO
BLOOMBERG
BUSINESS WIRE
DEUTSCHE PRESSE-AGENTUR
DOW JONES
EFE
INDO-ASIAN NEWS SERVICE
INTERFAX
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC WIRE
ITAR-TASS
KYODO
MCCLATCHY [DC]
PRAVDA
PRESS ASSOCIATION
PRESS TRUST INDIA
PR NEWSWIRE
[SHOWBIZ] PR WIRE
SCRIPPS HOWARD
US INFO WIRE
WENN SHOWBIZ
XINHUA
YONHAP
Post by: magentawave on March 27, 2016, 02:26:02 PM
Cruz completely creeps me out. I picture him as the candidate in the Stephen King book the Dead Zone. He'd be pushing the button while screaming Praise Jesus.
Yeah, no kidding. He looks like a freaking undertaker! Normally I don't care about someone's physical appearance but this thing about Cruz not being a DC insider is bullsh*t. That parasite has been sucking off the taxpayer trough for a very long time and his wife was with the CFR for 5 years and is a vp at Goldman and Sachs.
The Truth About Ted Cruz with tons of sources listed in the description:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtL41Pr2d5s
Post by: magentawave on March 27, 2016, 03:16:03 PM
so, where does all the anger come from ? Are things that bad or does watching all the 24 hour news promote it ?
24 hour corporate news, i.e. state propaganda, doesn't help but people are pissed off and feel helpless. The politicians won't change the status quo and they have a standing military in every city to make sure we continue to be obedient tax cattle. I don't think there are political solutions so let's go surfing instead!
The parties are scared shitless that Don will upset their ability to continue their personal agendas that serve nobody but themselves.
BINGO! And THAT's why this is the most entertaining election cycle of my life!
One of the biggest arguments against him are that he is is anti immigration when actually it's ILLEGAL immigration he's against. Most of the haters tend to leave out the ILLEGAL part of the sentence. The Muslim refugees being accepted? I don't think you need to look past what's happening in Europe to see the outcome.Can you please explain this last sentence? I'm a European, and I don't know what you mean.
The southern border of the US is porous and people that cross legally and illegally can get lots of free government handouts. The US gov has $200+ TRILLION DOLLARS in unfunded liabilities. Unfunded liabilities means this is money that the US has promised to pay out in the future for social programs. In other words, the US gov is broke.
Trump wants a wall and I'm against a wall because history has proven that governments have used walls to keep people in. However, it's common sense that you can't have open borders with the welfare state and when you're creating new "terrorists" by the day because you've been bombing the crap out of the middle east for decades.
trump is a guy born rich, who failed as a businessman, but created a cheesy wealth brand that has earned him a bit of money. is is amazing to me that those who feel disenfranchised think that trump will be the guy who includes their concerns in the political process. icky's right--us nyers have seen trumps self-serving bogus act for years--he is no man of the people!
please cite a business success of trump's--just one, so we can see how he will run this country like a business.
I agree that his face on the water bottles is cheesy, but if you're going to criticize Trump then I wouldn't use "failed businessman" as a reason because the guy has been incredibly successful. True, he was born into money, but unlike some rich kids that sit on their arse all their lives, Trump has created a huge business empire that far eclipses anything his dad did. And as far as "running a country like a business" - that's impossible because every penny governments rake in is stolen from others at gunpoint, whereas businesses must offer goods and services that people want and VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to pay for.
It is fair to say that Europe likes Obama. We feel that he is basically a decent honourable man who has been hobbled by political forces within the US that prevent change from occurring. Mostly the coverage of the US election is a mixture of dismay, disbelief, and sadness. We wonder if this is how civil war or maybe a Third World War starts. And we wonder how a great country like the US could possibly be holding up Trump and Cruz as examples of the best you've got.
They aren't just "holding up Trump and Cruz" here because Hitlery Rotten Clitnon is running too you know and she has lots of blood on her hands from her time as secretary of state and was one of the ones instrumental for creating ISIS.
If Europe "likes" Obama then they are as misinformed as most of the people in the US are because Obama has gotten away with continuing and expanding EVERYTHING Bush started. The only reason he's gotten away with it is because most main stream media has been silent since the day he was inaugurated. Yup, if you're on the "D" team then they keep their mouths shut.
There is a very long list of reasons why Obama is NOT a "decent honorable man" and here's a few for starters... He has continued the US's destabilization and war of terror in the middle east. He tripled US soldiers in Afghanistan shortly after the idiots gave him a Nobel "Peace" Prize. He authorized Fast and Furious. He re-signed the Patriot Act. He signed NDAA. He has prosecuted more government whistleblowers than ALL presidents before him combined. He decides over his morning coffee who to murder in the middle east that day with drones and latest stats show that 90% of the deaths are innocent with many being children. He is creating a police state here from militarizing the police across the US with equipment from Iraq to smash future insurrection. He has authorized countless DEA thug style raids on LEGAL pot shops across the US. Get informed and you will see that by any sane standard of decency, the guy is a mass murderer as were both Bush's before him as well as Bill Clinton. Please turn OFF all the media sources you are using because they are lying to you.
Post by: eastbound on March 27, 2016, 05:15:44 PM
and, again, i challenge you to provide me details on any one unmitigated business home run hit by the donald--there aint none, and there are plenty of hilarious strikeouts.
Post by: Area 10 on March 27, 2016, 05:25:40 PM
Post by: magentawave on March 27, 2016, 05:38:51 PM
Magentawave: Wow - one man made all that happen? What incredible authority you must invest in your president. Even more reason to be careful about who you pick next, surely? I don't think I - or the rest of Europe - has any dog in this fight. We just want stability, peace, and prosperity in the US and don't see the current presidential race as contributing to it.
No, not one man. It takes a village of psychopaths to commit these crimes, but since Obama is supposedly at the helm then the buck stops with him just like it did with Bush.
All sane caring humans want peace and prosperity. I just don't see how the same "village" that brings us war and poverty has any desire to fix it.
i am on board with much that you say magenta, but trump aint no savvy businessman--in fact there is compelling research that indicates his net worth to be no more than a few hundred million dollars--now if daddy gives a kid a couple hundred million in the early 80's and now 35 years later that kid has, well, a few hundred million, that is more a business failure than anything else.
and, again, i challenge you to provide me details on any one unmitigated business home run hit by the donald--there aint none, and there are plenty of hilarious strikeouts.
You might be right and only time will tell.
Post by: Area 10 on March 27, 2016, 06:00:53 PM
Post by: lucabrasi on March 27, 2016, 06:38:30 PM
i am on board with much that you say magenta, but trump aint no savvy businessman--in fact there is compelling research that indicates his net worth to be no more than a few hundred million dollars--now if daddy gives a kid a couple hundred million in the early 80's and now 35 years later that kid has, well, a few hundred million, that is more a business failure than anything else.Would that be Donald Trump "...net worth no more than a few hundred millon..." or would that be everything encompassing Trump and all he has his fingers in? I got no clue. Has to be massive debt involved.....massive land values...
and, again, i challenge you to provide me details on any one unmitigated business home run hit by the donald--there aint none, and there are plenty of hilarious strikeouts.
The Apprentice? New Jersey Generals? Miss America? Maralago? I don't know and I don't know the insides nor outsides but I just don't see how anyone could deny that he has been successful. Ruthless and many stepped on and left in the trail along the way I am sure, as is common in such high stakes I would think, whether good or bad, right or wrong. Keep hearing about steaks, university, and bankruptcies but.....he's always come back from the bankruptcies??? Seems like it, still ticking. Steaks? What a crappy idea. Ego for sure. University? Does sound shady for sure, lot's like it out there whcih doesn't make it good or right..... Tony Robbinsish crossed with Don Lapre? I wonder if that was one of his kids ideas? His kids do seem pretty well rounded for the most part and don't sound at all like spoiled brats, at least from what I have heard come out of their mouth. Yes, some of their activities are more....things only wealth would allow but still pretty rounded individuals it seems.
Just a random thought popped up. Was this supposed to be the year for Mr. Spitzer?
Oh yeah......I found it funny as all get out when Ted kept pointing out Donald's contributions to the Clintons, etc. It seemed such a last grasp effort on his part when he was doing that. Who couldn't have thought "well, duh" when he was doing that.
A bit more than 7 months still........wow.
Post by: spookini on March 27, 2016, 08:49:11 PM
"Donald Trump's shocking ignorance, laid bare"
"The most baffling moments from Donald Trump's interview"
"We met with Donald Trump. Electing him will be a radical risk."
At one point, they ask Trump whether he'd use tactical nukes on ISIS? He responds by telling them how badly he dominated Jeb Bush.
They ask him why he talked about his d*ck size during a nationally televised debate? Trump: "He (Rubio) started it."
Literally: "he started it". This guy would be an embarassment if he was running for junior high class president.
He also went on to describe his hands as "big, strong, powerful", and for good measure, told one of the female reporters she was 'beautiful' as he left the interview. Good stuff!
Post by: Area 10 on March 27, 2016, 09:47:24 PM
Post by: Weasels wake on March 27, 2016, 10:22:14 PM
Or do you think we are just screwed? Don't hold back.
Post by: Admin on March 28, 2016, 05:48:19 AM
which of our other candidates would you prefer, the socialist or the suspected criminal?
Bernie's brand of socialism starts to look a lot more attractive in comparison to the status quo. What we have now is not capitalism. It is scorched earth opportunism. Short sighted on every level. Many people (myself included) believe that fair competition drives innovation and inspires greatness...but fair is not an optional component. Human nature being what it is, that means regulation. Currently, we not only have a lack of regulation, we have a government which has and continues to support one side (banks, big business) to the detriment of the other. This has reached a near breaking point. Our current system is an odd form of socialism where the middle class is subsidizing the rich. Small business subsidizing big business.
Post by: eastbound on March 28, 2016, 05:51:42 AM
Post by: mrbig on March 28, 2016, 10:06:43 AM
Post by: PonoBill on March 28, 2016, 11:57:20 AM
I'm a little freaked out that Bernie is the only guy I could vote for on any ticket that wouldn't make me puke on my ballot. How a guy whose politics are slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan could wind up only able to vote for a socialist is tough to comprehend.
Post by: eastbound on March 28, 2016, 12:25:29 PM
Post by: mrbig on March 28, 2016, 01:57:55 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on March 28, 2016, 04:36:44 PM
Post by: spookini on March 28, 2016, 04:51:51 PM
(And my dreams of a free bachelor's degree in Interpretive Dance will remain unfulfilled.) :'(
Post by: surf4food on March 28, 2016, 06:36:29 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjPmzw1SbBk
Post by: pdxmike on March 28, 2016, 07:17:42 PM
Look at this way: if Bernie were elected, there wouldn't be the budget to do even 1/20th of what he'd "like" to do...That's not a bad argument in his favor. There are a lot of people who prefer him as a person to the other choices, but are less "socialistic" than he is. For people who like his policies, he'll come closer to achieving them than other candidates, even though he'll fall short of doing all he and they want. For others who'd prefer more moderate policies, what he actually will be able to do may align closely with those more moderate preferences.
(And my dreams of a free bachelor's degree in Interpretive Dance will remain unfulfilled.) :'(
Post by: magentawave on March 28, 2016, 08:52:08 PM
In other news, Trump met with the editorial board of the Washington Post last week. Their assessment (actual headlines):
"Donald Trump's shocking ignorance, laid bare"
"The most baffling moments from Donald Trump's interview"
"We met with Donald Trump. Electing him will be a radical risk."
And why should we listen to what a bunch of idiot pundits say? FYI: it takes a minimum IQ of 160 to get into Wharton. Trumps not stupid.
People as extreme and narcissistic as Trump and Cruz will surely be easy to manipulate? They must have a host of skeletons in their cupboards, or will be manipulated into having by much smarter people within 5 mins of presidency, which will then allow them to be controlled.
I'm sure they do have skeletons in the closet but for you to not include Hitlery is evidence of your partisanship. (Hitlery is a psychopath and her husband is a narcissist. Both types lack a conscience so are equally as dangerous to the rest of us.)
which of our other candidates would you prefer, the socialist or the suspected criminal?
Bernie's brand of socialism starts to look a lot more attractive in comparison to the status quo. What we have now is not capitalism. It is scorched earth opportunism. Short sighted on every level. Many people (myself included) believe that fair competition drives innovation and inspires greatness...but fair is not an optional component. Human nature being what it is, that means regulation. Currently, we not only have a lack of regulation, we have a government which has and continues to support one side (banks, big business) to the detriment of the other. This has reached a near breaking point. Our current system is an odd form of socialism where the middle class is subsidizing the rich. Small business subsidizing big business.
Right, it's a mixture of state/crony capitalism, fascism, socialism and enough free market to keep the tax cattle producing and consuming. I like Bernie cuz he's real and I agree with a lot of what he says but then he goes down that dark road of state socialism which will require more of that evil thing called "government." I wish someone would introduce Bernie to the philosophy of Voluntaryism because all that free stuff he promises (and regulations) requires enforcement backed by violence or the threat of violence.
You mentioned something about "human nature" but human nature is like a liquid in that it takes the shape of whatever vessel it is poured in. My point is that we aren't all the same based on how we were raised, etc.
Look at this way: if Bernie were elected, there wouldn't be the budget to do even 1/20th of what he'd "like" to do...
(And my dreams of a free bachelor's degree in Interpretive Dance will remain unfulfilled.) :'(
They'll just "print" more money to pay for it and to hell with inflation!
Post by: jumpfrom13k on March 28, 2016, 08:56:36 PM
Post by: magentawave on March 28, 2016, 09:01:10 PM
What's even more fucked? California is going 15 dollar minimum.
Yup, and that'll be a HUGE job killer.
Post by: mrbig on March 28, 2016, 09:23:08 PM
Post by: surf4food on March 29, 2016, 12:40:39 AM
Post by: Admin on March 29, 2016, 05:37:08 AM
Right, it's a mixture of state/crony capitalism, fascism, socialism and enough free market to keep the tax cattle producing and consuming. I like Bernie cuz he's real and I agree with a lot of what he says but then he goes down that dark road of state socialism which will require more of that evil thing called "government." I wish someone would introduce Bernie to the philosophy of Voluntaryism because all that free stuff he promises (and regulations) requires enforcement backed by violence or the threat of violence.
You mentioned something about "human nature" but human nature is like a liquid in that it takes the shape of whatever vessel it is poured in. My point is that we aren't all the same based on how we were raised, etc.
Human nature, not a human's nature. In a society, there will always be some, that without law and regulation, will seek unfair personal advantage to the detriment of the whole.
It doesn't require violence to manage common sense regulation, but enforcement, certainly. In terms of Wall Street and the banks these regulations were put in place with the New Deal and remained there until the Clinton era.
Post by: supsurf-tw on March 29, 2016, 07:29:17 AM
What's even more fucked? California is going 15 dollar minimum.Right. Same amount of money spread over fewer people and those people having to work harder to make up for fewer employees. Not sure what was accomplished here.
Post by: Weasels wake on March 29, 2016, 09:17:10 AM
It will be very interesting, $15 minimum for a state that has two of the largest sanctuary cities in the country (LA & SF), combined with the nations breadbasket of the central valley. It's not going to be a pretty picture.What's even more fucked? California is going 15 dollar minimum.Right. Same amount of money spread over fewer people and those people having to work harder to make up for fewer employees. Not sure what was accomplished here.
Post by: pdxmike on March 29, 2016, 11:03:26 AM
I've always viewed minimum wage laws from the standpoint of the employee, ever since I started out by being able to be hired because I was willing to work at a low wage, in order to get some great experience in a position where my lack of experience meant I was almost totally unproductive at the outset.It will be very interesting, $15 minimum for a state that has two of the largest sanctuary cities in the country (LA & SF), combined with the nations breadbasket of the central valley. It's not going to be a pretty picture.What's even more fucked? California is going 15 dollar minimum.Right. Same amount of money spread over fewer people and those people having to work harder to make up for fewer employees. Not sure what was accomplished here.
So to me, the question is, "Should a person willing to work at $14/hr. (or whatever is under the min. proposed wage) be prohibited by law from doing so?" Minimum wages restrict employees as much as employers.
Post by: Bean on March 29, 2016, 11:15:04 AM
Post by: SuppaTime on March 29, 2016, 11:52:11 AM
So to me, the question is, "Should a person willing to work at $14/hr. (or whatever is under the min. proposed wage) be prohibited by law from doing so?" Minimum wages restrict employees as much as employers.
In a labor market with a large unskilled pool of workers all competing for work, allowing them to bargain down the wage will start a bidding war for lowest wage and the bottom will fall out of the wages being paid. That will effectively obviate the $15 minimum law.
In a labor market with a small pool of workers, employers will be competing with each other to hire from the pool. In that case wages are being driven up since the workers are a scarce resource, and there is no need for a minimum wage law.
So the minimum wage law is only needed in situation #1, but as discussed above the law would be rendered useless if employees had the choice to work for less.
Post by: tautologies on March 29, 2016, 12:00:16 PM
If you think the Republican race is freaky, wait until Hilary gets indicted.
These creeps protect their own kind. Both Bush's are still free and since her rapist "husband" Bill hasn't been put in a cage then I doubt they will do anything to Hitlery. Hope springs eternal, though.
LOL what are you on?
Post by: pdxmike on March 29, 2016, 12:46:15 PM
Yes, I agree that that's all true, and the fact that it's true is part of my point--the minimum wage prohibits job seekers from offering to work for less, no matter what their circumstances.So to me, the question is, "Should a person willing to work at $14/hr. (or whatever is under the min. proposed wage) be prohibited by law from doing so?" Minimum wages restrict employees as much as employers.
In a labor market with a large unskilled pool of workers all competing for work, allowing them to bargain down the wage will start a bidding war for lowest wage and the bottom will fall out of the wages being paid. That will effectively obviate the $15 minimum law.
In a labor market with a small pool of workers, employers will be competing with each other to hire from the pool. In that case wages are being driven up since the workers are a scarce resource, and there is no need for a minimum wage law.
So the minimum wage law is only needed in situation #1, but as discussed above the law would be rendered useless if employees had the choice to work for less.
The part that is a wild card is unpaid internships. Well-off kids can bypass minimum wage rules altogether to get experience, by working for nothing. And if the min. wage is set so high that experienced people are happy to earn it, it's going to get tough for inexperienced people to get experience. You'll get clear winners, but also clear losers. And the losers are the entry-level people who don't get hired, but might for less money.
Post by: spookini on March 29, 2016, 02:58:23 PM
I don't have the empirical answer.., but I know the Repubs argue the former, Dems the latter.
The whole "let suppy and demand set the wage" assumes a perfect market, which of course there isn't.
Walk into Burger King looking for a job, they'd gladly pay you $2/hr if they could.
"Nobody would work for that wage" is similar to Trump's "I use seasonal workers at my Florida resort, b/c no Americans want to work in the heat" -- pure BS!!
Post by: spookini on March 29, 2016, 03:01:35 PM
Post by: TN_SUP on March 29, 2016, 03:06:07 PM
Post by: Bean on March 29, 2016, 03:49:35 PM
"Nobody would work for that wage" is similar to Trump's "I use seasonal workers at my Florida resort, b/c no Americans want to work in the heat" -- pure BS!!
Yes, that is total BS, heat has nothing to do with it. The fact is, the foreign workers are much better received by the Mar a Lago members...
Post by: Weasels wake on March 29, 2016, 06:31:55 PM
Sorry, that will never pencil out as fitting into a healthy economy, never.
People have lost themselves over the notion of a "living wage".
If you're older and still working for M.W. well then you'll need to reassess where the hell you are going. It's like the rest of us are supposed to be responsible for other people's stupid choices?
I'm sorry but reality has to have some consequensis (sp, I know) attached to it, otherwise what's the point? Nobody learns anything.
The wheel goes round and round, nothing improves, for anybody, due to the inflation that it will bring.
Post by: SuppaTime on March 29, 2016, 06:35:31 PM
Part of the complaint here is that it looks unfair for some people to get stuck in the low end of the distribution. I agree it is unfair. There shouldn't be dumb people either. But there are.
But part of the complaint also is that the distribution is skewed, that there are in fact too many people on the low end and not enough in the middle of the distribution. That is also very true and one big reason for that is that jobs are more mobile than people are, so jobs leave the US for other countries but our workers don't go with them. They are left behind to compete for a slew of lower paying, lower quality jobs.
By paying workers a higher wage than the market would, we are in effect paying a guilt tax to the affected workers. We benefit by globalization which has allowed products to be produced cheaper in countries with cheaper labor pools and we pay less for those things. It benefits the consumer. But because workers are not mobile, our workers suffer from quality jobs being exported. So we pay them off with a higher minimum wage.
I am not against doing that but we should realize what is going on. This is not so much about McDonalds ripping off their employees, it is about US consumers enjoying the fruits of globalization. And not just consumers - Apple is the biggest US company at this point. Most of its products are made in China. Apple also has fueled my 401k for the last few years. It likely would not have had the success it has had if it were forced to only use American factories.
Personally, I would prefer that we figure out how to get more high-quality, high paying jobs back in the USA than paying people off to be happy in crappy low end jobs.
Post by: Subber on March 29, 2016, 06:47:04 PM
Post by: Weasels wake on March 29, 2016, 06:54:20 PM
Post by: pdxmike on March 29, 2016, 08:00:50 PM
Good question Mike. Recent attempts to provide exemptions for seasonal employees and employees of non-profit organizations have been largely shot down. This of course leaves few options for those willing to work for less, including adding to the underground economy. Oh the unintended consequences of stupidity...The non-profit example is interesting in itself. It's legal to work for free (i.e. volunteer) at a non-profit, but not legal to accept compensation short of a "living wage"?
Regulator to non-profit: "You're paying Ms. A $10/hr. You can't do that."
Non-profit: "OK, you caught us. We can raise her up to $12/hr."
Regulator: "Sorry, still illegal."
Non-profit: "We can cut her down to zero and keep her on as a full-time volunteer."
Regulator: "That'll be fine".
Post by: magentawave on March 29, 2016, 08:09:39 PM
If you think the Republican race is freaky, wait until Hilary gets indicted.
These creeps protect their own kind. Both Bush's are still free and since her rapist "husband" Bill hasn't been put in a cage then I doubt they will do anything to Hitlery. Hope springs eternal, though.
LOL what are you on?
Can you deny that the politicians that serve the status quo protect their own kind?
Human nature, not a human's nature. In a society, there will always be some, that without law and regulation, will seek unfair personal advantage to the detriment of the whole.
It doesn't require violence to manage common sense regulation, but enforcement, certainly. In terms of Wall Street and the banks these regulations were put in place with the New Deal and remained there until the Clinton era.
Those who "seek unfair personal advantage" are doing quite well now in a society with tons of laws and regulations.
But at the root of enforcement for all the regulations you want is the threat of violence by men in blue costumes and shiny badges. A more peaceful alternative would be to live by the Non-Aggression Principle and NO VICTIM = NO CRIME.
Thanks, Google.
Like someone else said, if you are in your 30's, 40's or 50's and flipping burgers then you need to make a serious assessment of your life. With the internet now anyone that really wants to make a better income and life for themselves can.
Post by: lucabrasi on March 29, 2016, 08:26:36 PM
Oh the unintended consequences of stupidity...Oh yes but problem is quite often it just doesn't involve stupidity. Always too much gray to try and make such things black and white.
Quite interesting........hustling work, trying to be low bid on an entry level job and you can't get it even if you are a far better candidate than numb skull over there who they will pay more than your offer.
Post by: Califoilia on March 30, 2016, 09:59:46 AM
1.) Free "higher education" as proposed by Bernie (and others I suppose) is "bad", but....
2.) Folks who now can't afford to pay for this higher education to secure the better than "minimum wage" jobs made "stupid choices".
There has to be some middle ground if we truly want to solve the problem(s), and just not bury our heads in the sand thinking the same old status quo is supposedly going to magically change things.
Somehow we're able to provide a free education up until high school, but for some reason, that's the tipping point where we can no longer do so.
Why not take it just one step further as a start, and offer community college educations for free, and allow those interested in bettering themselves in the much needed "vocational" workforce (plumbers, electricians, HVAC, automotive repair, etc) to "earn" a degree/certificate in those fields....rather than think that all "higher education" means training doctors, lawyers, scientists, mathematicians, and so forth?
Or maybe in CA for instance....keep the minimum wage where it's at ($10/hr.), and "bank" the additional proposed $5/hour increase in an employee's "educational fund", that when they work at a place long enough, they'll eventually build up their own "scholarship fund" to use to prepare themselves for a much "better" job than the "minimum wage" one they're currently employed in? If they choose to not to use it, then the employer is out nothing, and can use the employee's "educational fund" reserves for whatever they wish, when the employee parts ways with the company.
This could even start a whole new loan industry, as companies can eventually "borrow" against their surplus "educational funds" once they become larger enough, and a lender believes that by the company's employee turnover, and/or its employees' past use or non-use of the funds is safe enough to use as collateral to free up these non-discretionary funds of the employer, but discretionary funds of the employee.
Just a thought.... YMMV.
Post by: magentawave on March 30, 2016, 11:28:45 AM
So you are suggesting that a $5.00 per hour job killing TAX should be imposed to create another useless government make-work program is a solution? Gawd help us. :-\
Interesting dichotomy of positions here at the ol' Standup Zone:
1.) Free "higher education" as proposed by Bernie (and others I suppose) is "bad", but....
2.) Folks who now can't afford to pay for this higher education to secure the better than "minimum wage" jobs made "stupid choices".
There has to be some middle ground if we truly want to solve the problem(s), and just not bury our heads in the sand thinking the same old status quo is supposedly going to magically change things.
Somehow we're able to provide a free education up until high school, but for some reason, that's the tipping point where we can no longer do so.
Why not take it just one step further as a start, and offer community college educations for free, and allow those interested in bettering themselves in the much needed "vocational" workforce (plumbers, electricians, HVAC, automotive repair, etc) to "earn" a degree/certificate in those fields....rather than think that all "higher education" means training doctors, lawyers, scientists, mathematicians, and so forth?
Or maybe in CA for instance....keep the minimum wage where it's at ($10/hr.), and "bank" the additional proposed $5/hour increase in an employee's "educational fund", that when they work at a place long enough, they'll eventually build up their own "scholarship fund" to use to prepare themselves for a much "better" job than the "minimum wage" one they're currently employed in? If they choose to not to use it, then the employer is out nothing, and can use the employee's "educational fund" reserves for whatever they wish, when the employee parts ways with the company.
This could even start a whole new loan industry, as companies can eventually "borrow" against their surplus "educational funds" once they become larger enough, and a lender believes that by the company's employee turnover, and/or its employees' past use or non-use of the funds is safe enough to use as collateral to free up these non-discretionary funds of the employer, but discretionary funds of the employee.
Just a thought.... YMMV.
Post by: Subber on March 30, 2016, 11:44:37 AM
So you are suggesting that a $5.00 per hour job killing TAX should be imposed to create another useless government make-work program is a solution? Gawd help us. :-\
Hmmm...it would be good for the accountants and software companies, especially payroll processing companies,
but all the extra government red tape - its time and expense - buries aspiring entrepreneurs and small businesses.
Post by: Bean on March 30, 2016, 11:48:55 AM
Hmmm...it would be good for the accountants...
Easy there Subber, bean-counters have feelings too... ;D
Post by: stoneaxe on March 30, 2016, 12:20:47 PM
Post by: mrbig on March 30, 2016, 12:29:23 PM
Post by: pdxmike on March 30, 2016, 12:30:36 PM
It's always interesting to me to see how a thread morph's. I used Trump in the heading simply to get eyeballs. Bad idea if I wanted to get people thinking about the question I posed since it quickly turned into a Trump is an idiot thread.Well, it does say, "Laugh at Trump all you want" so people are just trying to do that for you.
Plus, isn't this the minimum wage thread? Why are you interjecting Trump into it anyway? Maybe you should start your own thread if you want to talk about Trump.
;D
Post by: PonoBill on March 30, 2016, 02:58:19 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on March 30, 2016, 05:22:23 PM
and I think PDX just broke my brain!
Post by: spookini on March 30, 2016, 05:51:23 PM
On the other hand, how 'bout: two wages.. a "young adult" minimum wage (under age 18, and/or student), and "adult minimum wage" (over age 18, non-student, 24hrs/week or more).
The burger joints and pizza places get their cheap, pimply-faced, transient low-cost labor force. The folks who actually need a living wage get something a bit better.
Seems like a reasonable solution. Which will never happen.
(An aside: magenta', how would you describe your political worldview? "Total anarchist"? Just curious...)
Post by: Subber on March 30, 2016, 05:59:52 PM
I'm onboard with eastbound... These new "education reserves" lending instruments could be further divided into "tranches", so that new derivatives could be created, offering large institutional investors the opportunity to access a diversified basket of tranches across all employment sectors. What could possibly go wrong??
Government Subsidized and Government Guaranteed, I'm sure.
;D
Post by: Ichabod Spoonbill on March 30, 2016, 06:14:13 PM
Teaching can be a beautiful thing, and it can be torture. I do my best to make it good.
I gotta say I could have used a little educational help growing up. My divorced parents were dead poor when I was in high school, and my father was slipping into the depths of alcoholism. One morning I had to pick that drunk bastard out of puddle of his own blood and convince him he was wounded enough to go the the hospital. I was also going to one of the best public high schools in the country. Crazy situation!
It took me fifteen years to get a college degree. I dropped out three times because of poverty. I was running a very high GPA too. Everyone always told me, “Go to school, Ian! The money will work itself out!” And it never f---ing did. I had to have a first career (IT) in order to get a college degree. Talk about picking yourself up by bootstraps.
So that educational reserve could have helped my ass a lot. I wouldn't have given a crap where it came from — the government, charity, relatives, or the Jolly Green Giant. A little help would have made a huge difference for me growing up.
Post by: pdxmike on March 30, 2016, 06:24:27 PM
On the other hand, how 'bout: two wages.. a "young adult" minimum wage (under age 18, and/or student), and "adult minimum wage" (over age 18, non-student, 24hrs/week or more).That does make some sense in concept. There is the part, though, where the adult, non-students who really need the work get shut out of jobs that employers fill with students and kids, even if the adult would be happy to work at the same wages as the kids. And the better-off young adults who can afford to stay in school have their job applications moved in front of everyone else's, because the students can be paid less. Although I'm not trying to pick on this idea--there are no ideal solutions.
The burger joints and pizza places get their cheap, pimply-faced, transient low-cost labor force. The folks who actually need a living wage get something a bit better.
Seems like a reasonable solution. Which will never happen.
Post by: Califoilia on March 30, 2016, 07:08:52 PM
If you pay property taxes then there's no such thing as "free" education. And frankly, the use of the term "education" in regards to the boring soul-crushing, creativity smashing indoctrination that goes on in public schools is one helluva stretch. How about the public schools actually teach kids usable life skills like entrepreneurship instead of the current paradigm where most leave high school totally clueless about their future?So teaching "kids usable life skills like entrepreneurship" is the answer to all of our governmental and unemployment, or low pay employment woes? Maybe the next time I need need someone to work on my car, add an addition to my house, or just repipe it, I can call one of your "entrepreneurs" to take care of that for me. I think someone watches too much Shark Tank, if he thinks entrepreneurship is the answer to everyone's employment/low employment woes.
So you are suggesting that a $5.00 per hour job killing TAX should be imposed to create another useless government make-work program is a solution? Gawd help us. :-\No, I was more or less just thinking out loud, rather than simply just whine, bitch, moan, and complain about something without ever offering a supposedly better solution to whatever "government" problem(s) you continue to blubber about.
So you got any ideas for improving things other than just creating more unemployed "entrepreneurs" working for minimum wage while waiting for their "dream" to take off (which we already plenty of), or do you need another shipment of "government" tissues to wipe your spiteful tears with? ::)
Post by: Califoilia on March 30, 2016, 07:26:03 PM
I'm onboard with eastbound... These new "education reserves" lending instruments could be further divided into "tranches", so that new derivatives could be created, offering large institutional investors the opportunity to access a diversified basket of tranches across all employment sectors. What could possibly go wrong??Yep, or something like a "starting wage", for the burger flippers, pizza tossers, part-time student workers, and then a "minimum/living" wage for those in the workforce at a more "permanent" or long term status, which might have a more detailed, technical, or vocational job description attached to it.
On the other hand, how 'bout: two wages.. a "young adult" minimum wage (under age 18, and/or student), and "adult minimum wage" (over age 18, non-student, 24hrs/week or more).
The burger joints and pizza places get their cheap, pimply-faced, transient low-cost labor force. The folks who actually need a living wage get something a bit better.
Seems like a reasonable solution. Which will never happen.
(An aside: magenta', how would you describe your political worldview? "Total anarchist"? Just curious...)
Again, just thinking out loud...and I'm sure there's a bunch of potential negatives to it, but if many/most are in agreement that something needs to be done differently than just the status quo, or paying the "guilt tax" as Suppa so correctly called the in the near future, CA $15 minimum wage increase that I too have a problem with, being a CA resident, tax payer, and more importantly consumer who will be effected by it first hand.
Post by: PonoBill on March 30, 2016, 07:46:08 PM
My wife is working with a young lady, went to a supposedly very good private high school, has a bachelors degree from Johnson and Wales......planning on going for her masters soon. She saw the video combining a kiwi with a banana that is circulating on FB and is all excited to try it. If that much education can't fix stupid......... :P. Of course stupid can't be fixed but don't tell those selling higher education that.
My least favorite job in our agency was interviewing prospective employees, their expectations simply floored me. I'd sit there asking questions and listen to the answers and sink lower into my seat. People applying for positions as copywriters submitted resumes that sucked--not just poor writing, but simple proofreading. People with degrees. Work history even. One such miscreant told me she wanted to be copy chief in two years. I said "we don't have that position here". Her reply was--"you should." Okay, I'll get right on that. She also kept telling me her experience was "very unique", which felt like someone sticking a needle in my ear.
Post by: spookini on March 30, 2016, 07:56:18 PM
That does make some sense in concept. There is the part, though, where the adult, non-students who really need the work get shut out of jobs that employers fill with students and kids, even if the adult would be happy to work at the same wages as the kids. And the better-off young adults who can afford to stay in school have their job applications moved in front of everyone else's, because the students can be paid less. Although I'm not trying to pick on this idea--there are no ideal solutions.
Well, I'm saying throw the business owners a bone by saying, "Anyone under age 18, and anyone under (say) 20hrs/wk, gets the lower min wage." In that scenario, yep most biz owners would obviously choose to staff 95% w/ folks working under the threshold. But they'd still choose a few ppl (5%) who are reliable, hard-working, dependable.. who can be counted on. Those folks would get the govt'-mandated 'big-boy real adult age'.
As a recent small-biz owner, I can somewhat attest to this... we have one employee who says she "spells phonetically". Aka, just makes words up.
Here's a note I found on my desk recently. "Mr. O'Brine called. He needs a recipe for all of 2015. For taxes."
(We have no 'Mr. O'Brine'. And.. we are not in the food service business.).
This same employee asked for extra hours, doing clerical tasks. Which is fine except she can't spell or even file alphabetically.
I also call her the 4'oclock ghost. (When she decides to leave, she just vaporizes.)
Under the above scenario, she'd definitely be on the "no big-boy wage for you" list..
Conversely, if we had one person that could truly be depended upon, more hours @ higher-mandated wage would be easily justified.
Post by: magentawave on March 30, 2016, 08:25:17 PM
Entrepreneurship doesn't have to mean finding investors with deep pockets so you can start the next business empire like you've seen on Shark Tank. One example could be a kid starting a simple service business like washing and detailing cars for the neighbors, or a service to get their neighbors Windows computers working properly, or a million other businesses that can be started with little to no startup capital. Why is learning usable life skills in school such an unbelievable concept to you?
If you pay property taxes then there's no such thing as "free" education. And frankly, the use of the term "education" in regards to the boring soul-crushing, creativity smashing indoctrination that goes on in public schools is one helluva stretch. How about the public schools actually teach kids usable life skills like entrepreneurship instead of the current paradigm where most leave high school totally clueless about their future?So teaching "kids usable life skills like entrepreneurship" is the answer to all of our governmental and unemployment, or low pay employment woes? Maybe the next time I need need someone to work on my car, add an addition to my house, or just repipe it, I can call one of your "entrepreneurs" to take care of that for me. I think someone watches too much Shark Tank, if he thinks entrepreneurship is the answer to everyone's employment/low employment woes.So you are suggesting that a $5.00 per hour job killing TAX should be imposed to create another useless government make-work program is a solution? Gawd help us. :-\No, I was more or less just thinking out loud, rather than simply just whine, bitch, moan, and complain about something without ever offering a supposedly better solution to whatever "government" problem(s) you continue to blubber about.
So you got any ideas for improving things other than just creating more unemployed "entrepreneurs" working for minimum wage while waiting for their "dream" to take off (which we already plenty of), or do you need another shipment of "government" tissues to wipe your spiteful tears with? ::)
Wow, what a great story. You've been through some stuff, stuck with it, and came out okay on the other side. I'm glad you do your best to make it good because I only had two teachers that actually cared about teaching and they were great teachers. The crazy thing is that the private school I went to for 8 years was just as bad as the public school I attended later.
Magenta, I'm truly sorry you had a bonecrushingly awful education. I know that happens. I had some pretty awful teachers too. I can only say that public education can also be pretty good. I teach at a terrific school. My home district is one of those districts people think is awful, but those kids gave a beautiful concert last night. I was proud to have my kids a part of that.
Teaching can be a beautiful thing, and it can be torture. I do my best to make it good.
I gotta say I could have used a little educational help growing up. My divorced parents were dead poor when I was in high school, and my father was slipping into the depths of alcoholism. One morning I had to pick that drunk bastard out of puddle of his own blood and convince him he was wounded enough to go the the hospital. I was also going to one of the best public high schools in the country. Crazy situation!
It took me fifteen years to get a college degree. I dropped out three times because of poverty. I was running a very high GPA too. Everyone always told me, “Go to school, Ian! The money will work itself out!” And it never f---ing did. I had to have a first career (IT) in order to get a college degree. Talk about picking yourself up by bootstraps.
So that educational reserve could have helped my ass a lot. I wouldn't have given a crap where it came from — the government, charity, relatives, or the Jolly Green Giant. A little help would have made a huge difference for me growing up.
Actually, if there must be a minimum wage, your idea for a two-tiered minimum wage is a pretty dang good one.
Yes, anarchist, or to be more specific, voluntaryist.
On the other hand, how 'bout: two wages.. a "young adult" minimum wage (under age 18, and/or student), and "adult minimum wage" (over age 18, non-student, 24hrs/week or more).
The burger joints and pizza places get their cheap, pimply-faced, transient low-cost labor force. The folks who actually need a living wage get something a bit better.
Seems like a reasonable solution. Which will never happen.
(An aside: magenta', how would you describe your political worldview? "Total anarchist"? Just curious...)
Post by: Califoilia on March 30, 2016, 10:09:19 PM
Entrepreneurship doesn't have to mean finding investors with deep pockets so you can start the next business empire like you've seen on Shark Tank. One example could be a kid starting a simple service business like washing and detailing cars for the neighbors, or a service to get their neighbors Windows computers working properly, or a million other businesses that can be started with little to no startup capital. Why is learning usable life skills in school such an unbelievable concept to you?Not an unbelievable concept to me at all, and why I simply suggested expanding it one level up from simply teaching "life skills" to a bunch of high school teenagers, many of whom have not reached a maturity level, or experienced enough "life lessons" to make a true cognizant correlation to what is attempted to being taught to them, and thus having the "in one ear, and out the other" syndrome that many (most?) have at that age, and phase of their life.
And sadly, pretty much at any level of "education", the most important of "life skills", that of money management, personal finance, and investing is never taught...beyond that of handing over your hard-earned money to some "financial analyst" who's only advise is to "buy, hold, and hope" with the mutual funds/stock(s) of the day...or more likely, the ones that pay him/her the most for plopping your money into them.
Teaching folks how to make the most of whatever money it is they're capable of earning, would go a whole lot future than thinking that simply throwing more money at them will do more....then simply giving them more money to spend ineffectively much of the time.
I was fortunate enough to have a grandfather who did it for me, and I was able to purchase my first house in SoCal at 22, just five months after entering my "career" job (without a college degree), when interest rates were 17%, and not the measly 3-4% we see today....with a down payment saved, and invested from all of the various "minimum wage" jobs I had held since a teenager.
I share that not to be braggadocious, but rather to say that "minimum wage" is not the problem or increasing it the solution, nor is teaching "entrepreneurship" or whatever else you consider "life skills", unless one of those "life skills" is teaching kids, and adults what to do with their money...regardless of how much or how little they're able to earn of it.
So as to keep this in the spirit of the thread, and not have "stoneaxe" blow another gasket ;)....it will be interesting when we finally get to hear if the self-proclaimed, world's best, Wharton educated, "entrepreneur"....actually turned his daddy's $100M inheritance into billions as he claims....or simply into 100's of thousands as other have said he's done with his "fortune".
JMO mind you....again, YMMV. :)
Post by: Area 10 on March 30, 2016, 11:55:33 PM
It sounds like your employee may be dyslexic. This is a registered disability in the UK, and employers are required by law to make reasonable adjustments for it. There are usually simple workarounds for people with dyslexia, and showing understanding and flexibility in dealing with the problem is often rewarded with greater loyalty and commitment from the employee. Many people are embarrassed by their dyslexia and find it hard to discuss with an employer, especially one who is ignorant about brain-related disabilities.That does make some sense in concept. There is the part, though, where the adult, non-students who really need the work get shut out of jobs that employers fill with students and kids, even if the adult would be happy to work at the same wages as the kids. And the better-off young adults who can afford to stay in school have their job applications moved in front of everyone else's, because the students can be paid less. Although I'm not trying to pick on this idea--there are no ideal solutions.
Well, I'm saying throw the business owners a bone by saying, "Anyone under age 18, and anyone under (say) 20hrs/wk, gets the lower min wage." In that scenario, yep most biz owners would obviously choose to staff 95% w/ folks working under the threshold. But they'd still choose a few ppl (5%) who are reliable, hard-working, dependable.. who can be counted on. Those folks would get the govt'-mandated 'big-boy real adult age'.
As a recent small-biz owner, I can somewhat attest to this... we have one employee who says she "spells phonetically". Aka, just makes words up.
Here's a note I found on my desk recently. "Mr. O'Brine called. He needs a recipe for all of 2015. For taxes."
(We have no 'Mr. O'Brine'. And.. we are not in the food service business.).
This same employee asked for extra hours, doing clerical tasks. Which is fine except she can't spell or even file alphabetically.
I also call her the 4'oclock ghost. (When she decides to leave, she just vaporizes.)
Under the above scenario, she'd definitely be on the "no big-boy wage for you" list..
Conversely, if we had one person that could truly be depended upon, more hours @ higher-mandated wage would be easily justified.
The Wikipedia page on dyslexia is pretty good, and may help you understand the problems that your employee may be trying to cope with. It is a very common problem, and a person is no more able to do something about it than if they were eg. hard of hearing, or had a visual impairment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia
Post by: PonoBill on March 31, 2016, 02:40:24 AM
Of course spending the winter in Hawaii makes me even more cynical. Public education in Hawaii is unbelievably bad.
My experience in dealing with Gen Y employees mirrors some of the issues raised here: http://waitbutwhy.com/2013/09/why-generation-y-yuppies-are-unhappy.html
Post by: spookini on March 31, 2016, 12:32:23 PM
It sounds like your employee may be dyslexic.
Area, that was my 1st thought... until she casually told us that she was home-schooled until age 14... And, her own mother? Married at age 17, no higher education. So probably mom taught her to spell by watching television. (Seriously, how does someone think "receipt" is spelled r-e-c-i-p-e? :-\ )
Our very 1st hire was someone who could not calculate 10% of round numbers.. even after we explained it, and left a calculator and working copy of Excel on her desktop. We would tell her "pls apply a 10% courtesy to this person's $150 bill." We'd come back to see she had given them a $3 discount.
After that, we realized potential hires need to be given a math test. Next interviewee? Couldn't do it. "Ok relax, you're at a restaurant and your bill is $50. You wanna tip 20%, how much would that be? No?, How' bout 10%?" Total blank stares. Made me feel really bad for local restaurant workers.
Next interviewee had no problems with basic math. We hired her. She's the one who can't spell.
Post by: PonoBill on March 31, 2016, 05:20:46 PM
Post by: Ichabod Spoonbill on March 31, 2016, 06:10:57 PM
That doesn't excuse kids who are terribly incurious though. I get them too. They really don't care about much besides their friends or whatever the thing of the moment is. The world doesn't interest them. Kids like that sadden me. Their world is so small, and they don't even know how small it is.
Post by: spookini on March 31, 2016, 09:06:28 PM
(wants to abolish Dept of Education; failed to pay minimum wage to his construction workers).
So, at least Stoneaxe will be happy. :D
Magenta, here's a challenge to your "education is worthless" argument...We have an employee who belongs to a non-mainstream religion.
Curious, I googled to learn a bit more. Among other things, these folks believe the end is near..
Time remaining should be spent 'getting ready' -- not on trivial things, like education.
They liken higher education to vices such as smoking, alcohol, or drugs..
Interesting to see of ALL the religions in the US, these folks have the lowest per capita income. BY FAR. Way down there..
So don't write off Ichabod and education just yet -- or your could end up more familiar with min. wage than you'd like.
Post by: stoneaxe on April 01, 2016, 05:07:58 AM
Progressive PC policies have caused more damage to schools than anything, generational welfare, single moms by the 1,000's...shit millions, inner city public housing ghettoes. Millions of ESL kids with little to no resources. Inner city schools aren't doing poorly because of lack of funding....it's lack of family and parenting. Finland gets held up as an example and it should but they aren't dealing with the same problems.
Post by: surf4food on April 01, 2016, 06:31:31 AM
Finland gets held up as an example and it should but they aren't dealing with the same problems.
As a liberal (but not really a "progressive"), that's one thing I can't disagree with. People who use Finland or any other European country as a talking point for their argument overlook the fact that circumstances very and what works over there doesn't mean it will work hear, at least not to the same degree. Not just because of what problems we or they deal with or don't deal with, there are so many factors also.
Post by: robon on April 01, 2016, 07:35:40 AM
I also draw a parallel with single moms at the poverty level trying to cope and put their kids through school, and there is a lot of them. A lot more Dads struggling than many people realize as well. A lot of people are born into poverty and it's not easy to break out of when there is a family involved, and there is also a new working poor, dual income family in the mix now, which wasn't nearly as prevalent even just 20 years ago. The system is completely fucked. Inflation has far outpaced the means for many people to cope financially now. Even middle class families with dual incomes struggle much more now than they once did. Much more. When house prices triple or even quadruple in many areas in less than 30 years, and everything else rises in price, something is going to give. Student loan debt has gone up close to 300% in many places in Canada since the 90s early 2000s. People are being set up to struggle and fail big time these days.
Post by: magentawave on April 01, 2016, 09:36:02 AM
Trump says some horrific shit, but that's because he has no filter like all the other psychopathic pussy's that are running who's every word is a memorized and rehearsed series of talking points run through focus groups. If you listen closely between the bluster and horrific bullshit, he says a few good things, like, abolish the Department of Education, dump NATO, stop being world cop and have a less interventionist foreign policy.
Hmm, the minimum wage / education thread? -- not completely unrelated to Trump..
(wants to abolish Dept of Education; failed to pay minimum wage to his construction workers).
So, at least Stoneaxe will be happy. :D
Magenta, here's a challenge to your "education is worthless" argument...We have an employee who belongs to a non-mainstream religion.
Curious, I googled to learn a bit more. Among other things, these folks believe the end is near..
Time remaining should be spent 'getting ready' -- not on trivial things, like education.
They liken higher education to vices such as smoking, alcohol, or drugs..
Interesting to see of ALL the religions in the US, these folks have the lowest per capita income. BY FAR. Way down there..
So don't write off Ichabod and education just yet -- or your could end up more familiar with min. wage than you'd like.
Post by: spookini on April 01, 2016, 10:23:39 AM
I'm not saying I support $15/hr anyhoo. Seems excessive for lo-skill underage, temporary labor, IMO.
BTW, the kiwi-banana bread loaf I just baked is delicious!
Hilarious video :)
Post by: pdxmike on April 01, 2016, 12:55:46 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA4F-JRZ5j4&feature=player_embedded
Post by: eastbound on April 01, 2016, 01:08:06 PM
that said subber--i do in fact think the government should administer our student loan program. and no subsidy necessary.
our treasury borrows money today at %1.23
our banks lend money to students at 8%, and the loans are guaranteed by our gov't, and students cant declare bankruptcy--seems the banks are being subsidized and handed a license to steal from our young people--a fucking disgrace
our government could easily borrow at 1.25 and lend at 2 to our young people who have no money for college, and cover admin costs, and defaults.
but that would be socialism, god forbid!
Post by: eastbound on April 01, 2016, 01:11:18 PM
"progressive" as applies to politics predates PC by decades, and has little to do with PC.
Post by: surf4food on April 01, 2016, 05:19:05 PM
what does progressive have to do with PC?
"progressive" as applies to politics predates PC by decades, and has little to do with PC.
People overuse the term PC/political correctness and often use it just to trumpet how un PC they fancy themselves.
Post by: stoneaxe on April 01, 2016, 08:30:11 PM
Post by: PonoBill on April 02, 2016, 12:56:22 AM
Post by: Ichabod Spoonbill on April 02, 2016, 03:48:42 AM
The objection to political correctness, which I share somewhat, is that it becomes a form of progressive censorship. There are two sides to this. One is the idea that you don't want people spewing hate speech or speech that hurts others. On the other hand, the level of sensitivity on this issue can get pretty out of hand. I remember laughing until I ached at Richard Pryor's racial humor. Dear God, that man was funny! But that kind of humor usually doesn't fit political correct thinking anymore, or any racial humor.
Racial/ethnic humor can be bad when it's underlying message is “Hey, look at all those stupid black/white/gay/Jewish/women/men. Aren't we better than them.” But when that humor points out what's ridiculous about people in general — and every group has its share — then it's awesome.
Bill, which movement are you referring to in the 1920s? Is it the US suffrage movement or the socialist parties or something else? (Or all these together?)
Post by: lucabrasi on April 02, 2016, 06:35:26 AM
Visited my daughter yesterday. Kindergarten classroom. I asked to see a stack of papers. A picture they drew at the top of them and their pet. Typical 5 year old art. Underneath a couple sentences. My name, pet name, kind of pet and one other. Sentences. Yes. Kindergarten. Ran together words, misspelled, all sorts but damn if they weren't writing. Grade 1-3 with 3 being top/proficient. All 2s and 3s. 2.5 many. Who else here could do that in kindergarten? Who remembers learning anything in kindergarten? I don't. Where the hell we losing our kids?
PC? Can start another thread and go for ages and all sorts of examples or definitions so to say but one may be....Isn't there a difference between mean spirited or hate and funny? There something out there for all of us that somehow may offend me but maybe not you. Oh well.
Liberal vs conservative? Would that be one that thinks more governing can solve things (sprinkle liberally) vs. one that thinks less intrusion from governing is better? Would progressive be a term made so as to make liberal seem more modern? (see ichabod above)
Laugh at Trump? How can you not but you really gots to look at the context of what is put out there, just like anyone else.
Post by: spookini on April 02, 2016, 07:26:57 AM
'Progressive'? Being open to new ideas to fix problems. I could be wrong, but I think the majority of Dem voters would identify as progressive, not liberal. Maybe most Republican voters, too?.
What drives me nuts is when conservative leaders deny there's any problems needing solutions.
Remember when gas spiked to $5/gal? The GOP leadership's solution to that one was to give everyone $100.. ???
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html?PHPSESSID=83492f5ad25fcfef4746cf4d985ce6ad
Post by: surf4food on April 02, 2016, 07:50:05 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on April 02, 2016, 08:02:45 AM
Like I've said before, our biggest problem are the idealogues at both ends of the spectrum and the fact that anyone that rises to power (or wants to) has to play their game. The reasonable solutions lay in the middle.
I've spoken before of the hour long show on NPR on the high rate of unemployment of young blacks (particularly men) that I listened to awhile ago because its such a great example of the current state of progressive thought. The panel of "progressives" spoke for the whole hour about the need for additional social programs and more money for inner city schools. Never once were illegal immigration or the destruction of the black family by welfare discussed. Two major causes of the issue don't even get mentioned? Very progressive thinking.
Post by: PonoBill on April 02, 2016, 10:09:24 AM
I understand why people adopt it to describe their views. My point is that it's as meaningless as PC when it's used that way. Stick a different label on a fuzzy notion and you don't clarify the position. That's not a criticism of people's beliefs, it's just being precise about how people use labels.
Post by: Weasels wake on April 02, 2016, 12:28:12 PM
He understood the punitive nature of over taxation as well as his famous statement "Ask not what your country can do for you.........."
One big reason why I consider today's dems more progressive than liberal.
Why else is Bernie doing so well, it can't be nothing but hatred for Hillary?
Post by: Ichabod Spoonbill on April 02, 2016, 02:01:30 PM
Post by: spookini on April 02, 2016, 03:25:58 PM
So any new idea of conservatives you'll be open to..... ::)
Tighter borders -- southern wall
Not a whole lot to choose from, actually.
Post by: pdxmike on April 02, 2016, 04:35:53 PM
Gotta admit that the dems of today are nothing like the dems of the 60's, if alive today JFK would have been a solid centrist.Very true, and there are lots of examples besides JFK. Same is true about Republicans. Democrats today are quoting Ronald Reagan to show how some of his beliefs are more aligned with today's Democrats than Republicans. I read Independents are now as big a group as Republicans and Democrats combined, probably because so many people don't want to be associated with either party.
Post by: Weasels wake on April 02, 2016, 04:38:31 PM
Not really sure why you needed to answer so many of you items yourself, using only your own assumptions.So any new idea of conservatives you'll be open to..... ::)
Tighter borders -- southern wall Of course -- improvements are needed, but it doesn't have to look like the Vatican's wallReal healthcare reformHealth insurance reforms were all that were needed, still areSensible gun policiesWe already have themImmigration policy other than deporting 11Menforce the laws that are already in place, for a change, and w/o BHO's demandsSustainable energy policyof course, but no reason to put 1000's out of work to demand changes
Not a whole lot to choose from, actually. Wrong
Kind of insulting actually, so my answers to everything in red.
I'm a social libertarian and a conservative elsewhere, FYI.
Post by: pdxmike on April 02, 2016, 05:23:45 PM
Speaking as a progressive, I think the term became a popular descriptor in the early 2000s because the word "liberal" had been turned into a pejorative during the 1980s. It became a smear term, “That person is a liberal!” so the term progressive was adopted by liberals. The term PC "politically correct" refers to a kind of mish-mash of ways people alter their speech and behavior according to liberal ideas.Good summary.
The objection to political correctness, which I share somewhat, is that it becomes a form of progressive censorship. There are two sides to this. One is the idea that you don't want people spewing hate speech or speech that hurts others. On the other hand, the level of sensitivity on this issue can get pretty out of hand. I remember laughing until I ached at Richard Pryor's racial humor. Dear God, that man was funny! But that kind of humor usually doesn't fit political correct thinking anymore, or any racial humor.
Racial/ethnic humor can be bad when it's underlying message is “Hey, look at all those stupid black/white/gay/Jewish/women/men. Aren't we better than them.” But when that humor points out what's ridiculous about people in general — and every group has its share — then it's awesome.
PC thought is setting discussion of serious issues back decades. In many ways, the 70s were further ahead of now in terms of being able to discuss race, whether in humor or otherwise.
You can make a good argument that PC thinking led to Trump's ascendency. A lot of people supporting him don't necessarily agree with his ideas (hence the fact that so many are saying they're not worried that he'll actually do the things he talks about doing if he's elected). But they feel like (thanks to the PC police) they haven't even been able to bring up issues that concern them without being labelled racist or ignorant just for bringing them up, until Trump came along.
Post by: Ichabod Spoonbill on April 02, 2016, 06:19:57 PM
When I hear Trump talk, I hear two things. The first is an odd kind of social change which combines some good ideas, such as recalling NAFTA and a lot of trade deals which have raise havoc with American jobs. (I guess you have to combine this with the immigration issue, which feels more like a symptom of the loss of good jobs. If the jobs were there, we wouldn't be caring about it so much.) The second aspect of Trump is this strange performance art, which is an ability for Trump to let out whatever comes out of his mouth spew forth. Are people feeling so constrained socially that this performance is compelling?
Post by: lucabrasi on April 02, 2016, 07:00:22 PM
Merry Christmas??
;)
It is compelling I think because he doesn't seem to give a rats ass what anyone else thinks. Stuck his foot in his mouth the other night when trying to dance around questions with politician babble, which is the first time it seemed he was dancing instead of spewing tho not the first time he has stuck his foot in his mouth.
It is rather odd that there is some sort of social liberation with him so to say, "can you believe what he is saying?" while after the next commercial a story of Miley twerking or Britney breaking down may be on.
Post by: pdxmike on April 02, 2016, 07:14:05 PM
Can somebody fill me in as about something. I see PC thinking as annoying, a thing I have to pay attention to, especially when I'm on the job with kids. I was aware of it on my college campus a while ago, but how did it get to be this huge social force? What is it that people aren't allowed to say?There are lots. But also remember, for someone to feel attacked by PC thinking, that thinking doesn't need to be mainstream--it just takes some exposure to a few extremists. I'm also not saying whether people are justified in feeling attacked, just that many do feel that way.
A few examples of things you WILL be attacked for sooner or later in Portland:
--saying Merry Christmas
--saying all kinds of remarks, positive or negative about race, gender or sexual orientation
--saying anything critical of bicycles or bike lanes
--saying anything about immigration short of letting everyone in and letting everyone stay and have full rights of citizenship...
--driving a SUV
--eating meat
--using the wrong term to describe a race or group of people (i.e. "disabled", "handicapped", "black", "African-American", "Asian", etc. can all generate criticism)
--calling a collision between a vehicle and a bike or pedestrian an "accident"
--driving a car
--not acknowledging your cultural advantage
--"cultural appropriation" (i.e. a white person with dreadlocks)
--eating, wearing or buying non-organic food, non fair-trade chocolate, anything made by Nike
--anything critical of the homeless
--using the word "homeless"
--etc.
The above are all things I've personally seen people criticized for here recently.
I think most people expect to get in trouble doing or saying, say, anything overtly racist or sexist. It seems the frustration comes from being attacked for saying or doing things that the person had no idea was wrong, especially when they feel they can't win (i.e. trying to say something they think is positive, but getting attacked).
--
Post by: stoneaxe on April 02, 2016, 07:44:12 PM
So any new idea of conservatives you'll be open to..... ::)
Tighter borders -- southern wallReal healthcare reformSensible gun policiesImmigration policy other than deporting 11MSustainable energy policy
Not a whole lot to choose from, actually.
And you just made my point.
Post by: covesurfer on April 02, 2016, 07:54:15 PM
A few examples of things you WILL be attacked for sooner or later in Portland:
--saying Merry Christmas
--saying all kinds of remarks, positive or negative about race, gender or sexual orientation
--saying anything critical of bicycles or bike lanes
--saying anything about immigration short of letting everyone in and letting everyone stay and have full rights of citizenship...
--driving a SUV
--eating meat
--using the wrong term to describe a race or group of people (i.e. "disabled", "handicapped", "black", "African-American", "Asian", etc. can all generate criticism)
--calling a collision between a vehicle and a bike or pedestrian an "accident"
--driving a car
--not acknowledging your cultural advantage
--"cultural appropriation" (i.e. a white person with dreadlocks)
--eating, wearing or buying non-organic food, non fair-trade chocolate, anything made by Nike
--anything critical of the homeless
--using the word "homeless"
--etc.
The above are all things I've personally seen people criticized for here recently.
I think most people expect to get in trouble doing or saying, say, anything overtly racist or sexist. It seems the frustration comes from being attacked for saying or doing things that the person had no idea was wrong, especially when they feel they can't win (i.e. trying to say something they think is positive, but getting attacked).
--
PDX, having lived and worked in Portland for almost 30 years, your list is spot-on. And hilarious, if it wasn't so true. That's why I love Portlandia, it parodies all of that. Amazing how they nailed it so well.
Post by: PonoBill on April 03, 2016, 12:32:31 AM
I think we all understand why Trump has gained support. People are frustrated with politicians. Unfortunately its a lot like being frustrated with the actions of police and supporting criminals. It's hard to believe that the presidential election process is so broken that these are our only viable choices. I've never heard anyone defend Hillary on her merits--only on issues such as electability as a defensive strategy against getting someone worse. No one wants her, they just don't like the alternatives.
Post by: Ichabod Spoonbill on April 03, 2016, 04:10:45 AM
Post by: surf4food on April 03, 2016, 06:56:59 AM
Can somebody fill me in as about something. I see PC thinking as annoying, a thing I have to pay attention to, especially when I'm on the job with kids. I was aware of it on my college campus a while ago, but how did it get to be this huge social force? What is it that people aren't allowed to say?There are lots. But also remember, for someone to feel attacked by PC thinking, that thinking doesn't need to be mainstream--it just takes some exposure to a few extremists. I'm also not saying whether people are justified in feeling attacked, just that many do feel that way.
A few examples of things you WILL be attacked for sooner or later in Portland:
--saying Merry Christmas
--saying all kinds of remarks, positive or negative about race, gender or sexual orientation
--saying anything critical of bicycles or bike lanes
--saying anything about immigration short of letting everyone in and letting everyone stay and have full rights of citizenship...
--driving a SUV
--eating meat
--using the wrong term to describe a race or group of people (i.e. "disabled", "handicapped", "black", "African-American", "Asian", etc. can all generate criticism)
--calling a collision between a vehicle and a bike or pedestrian an "accident"
--driving a car
--not acknowledging your cultural advantage
--"cultural appropriation" (i.e. a white person with dreadlocks)
--eating, wearing or buying non-organic food, non fair-trade chocolate, anything made by Nike
--anything critical of the homeless
--using the word "homeless"
--etc.
The above are all things I've personally seen people criticized for here recently.
I think most people expect to get in trouble doing or saying, say, anything overtly racist or sexist. It seems the frustration comes from being attacked for saying or doing things that the person had no idea was wrong, especially when they feel they can't win (i.e. trying to say something they think is positive, but getting attacked).
--
Actually we get that even here in San Diego, at least in my neighborhood.
Post by: surf4food on April 03, 2016, 07:02:37 AM
I think we all understand why Trump has gained support. People are frustrated with politicians. Unfortunately its a lot like being frustrated with the actions of police and supporting criminals. It's hard to believe that the presidential election process is so broken that these are our only viable choices. I've never heard anyone defend Hillary on her merits--only on issues such as electability as a defensive strategy against getting someone worse. No one wants her, they just don't like the alternatives.
Scary times but I guess all we can do is brace ourselves. I know I will be voting for the lesser of two evils but that won't be the first time.
Post by: PonoBill on April 03, 2016, 02:29:26 PM
It seems to me that the political divisions created by two parties out of control have created our current situation. I say we all move to the middle--or at least independance, stop letting these morons permit us two bad choices, and elect none of the above--meaning someone who is neither a democrat or a republican but a true centrist, or better yet someone whose political views are not defined by label.
Post by: magentawave on April 03, 2016, 02:55:20 PM
Gotta admit that the dems of today are nothing like the dems of the 60's, if alive today JFK would have been a solid centrist.
He understood the punitive nature of over taxation as well as his famous statement "Ask not what your country can do for you.........."
One big reason why I consider today's dems more progressive than liberal.
Why else is Bernie doing so well, it can't be nothing but hatred for Hillary?
I think JFK would be considered to be a fiscal conservative if he was alive today.
Post by: pdxmike on April 03, 2016, 03:51:37 PM
I've been looking at a lot of TED talks lately, this is an interesting one. https://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_brooks_a_conservative_s_plea_let_s_work_together (https://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_brooks_a_conservative_s_plea_let_s_work_together)That makes a lot of sense. Most people are already in the middle, they just haven't dropped their party affiliation yet--although huge numbers already have, with Independents already becoming as large as both parties combined.
It seems to me that the political divisions created by two parties out of control have created our current situation. I say we all move to the middle--or at least independance, stop letting these morons permit us two bad choices, and elect none of the above--meaning someone who is neither a democrat or a republican but a true centrist, or better yet someone whose political views are not defined by label.
I miss the open primary in Washington state, where at least anyone could vote for any candidate in the primary. Even if you still have only two parties, that system gives a party at least some incentive to appeal to the center, where the vast majority of voters are. Instead, the more common primary system encourages candidates to pander to their party's extreme base, so you get an election with two candidates at the extremes, and a disgruntled mass of voters in the middle. Then you have a candidate at each extreme end, trying to convince people to leave the middle and come on over to them, instead of the candidate just walking towards the middle and collecting the masses without any convincing needed.
Post by: spookini on April 03, 2016, 05:50:48 PM
Let me ask this one: Cuba? What is the major GOP hard-on over Cuba?
The cold war has been over for decades. Our biggest trading partner is a Communist country.
We love us the dictators over in Saudia Arabia, Jordan, et al.
So what is it about Cuba? Their universal healthcare and near 100% literacy rate??
"Obama went to a baseball game and did the wave!!". Yeah...and so??
Post by: PonoBill on April 03, 2016, 07:26:38 PM
Post by: lucabrasi on April 03, 2016, 08:57:14 PM
Ah, the GOP as the party of change. I'm all ears.No. When that punk Johnny Ola set up that dumb shit Fredo for Hyman Roth double crossing Michael that set the wheels in motion.......... or maybe it's just the old cars. Better cigars elsewhere? .
So what is it about Cuba? Their universal healthcare and near 100% literacy rate??
"Obama went to a baseball game and did the wave!!". Yeah...and so??
Did he stand when he was supposed to? Were his arms waving high?
Post by: Off-Shore on April 04, 2016, 06:09:14 AM
https://youtu.be/n6PcQ1Be5ak
Post by: eastbound on April 04, 2016, 06:43:39 AM
no, wall as proposed by trump is pathetic comedy--and 99% of illegals come in legally and overstay--wall wont do shit with illegal immigration. wall would be hideously expensive fail.
Real healthcare reform Health insurance reforms were all that were needed, still are
no, corporate driven health care is a failure--single payer in developed countries blows ours away but for only the wealthiest of americans--the stats are beyond clear on this
Sensible gun policies We already have them
no, our gun "policies" are also a dismal failure when compared to other developed countries, where guns are intelligently regulated, and where gun manufacturers have no power in the politics of weapons regulation.
Immigration policy other than deporting 11M enforce the laws that are already in place, for a change, and w/o BHO's demands
The right likes the double entendre of immigration policy and non-enforcement. provides cheap labor which can be abused, taken advantage of and then deported if troublesome.
Sustainable energy policy of course, but no reason to put 1000's out of work to demand changes
Oil and gas layoffs are based on the market's assessment that crude oil is overvalued and of limited ongoing utility, for whatever the market's reasons may be. The price has fallen the a quarter or less of what it was 5 years ago. The pittance of actual job losses that have resulted from developing alternative energy sources is more than offset by the new jobs in that industry coming online. Tesla is a big, new employer!
Not a whole lot to choose from, actually. Wrong
Right--what innovative compelling new approaches to the US's many problems have been put forth by conservatives of recent--you know, guys like cruz rubio and trump? or our highly productive functional and effective repub-controlled congress? among all the legislation they've produced since taking control!
Post by: lucabrasi on April 04, 2016, 07:23:17 AM
Post by: PonoBill on April 04, 2016, 11:41:38 AM
Here's part of the problem:
(http://www.ponostyle.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/term.png)
Worse yet, the power is concentrated in the longest serving members, who have a lot of baggage. Lobbyists and the party owns them.
One of the things the Supreme Court does surprisingly well is to follow social attitudes. Strange considering that they are appointed without term limits by a president according to their personal politics but rarely vote in that manner (Thomas and Scalia the exceptions). The key might be that they require a majority from nine to rule so swing votes are critical. You'd think that social awareness would extend to congress, but the structure keeps the party members in line since all the gravy and all the support for reelection comes from the party. The easiest way to break that is term limits--short ones. I'd like to see it be one and done, but two is feasible.
Post by: mrbig on April 04, 2016, 11:53:13 AM
Post by: eastbound on April 04, 2016, 11:54:17 AM
(sorry, same damned source as ever!)
longer tenure equals more better kleptocracy!
not so sure about mo ibrahim--he seems a great guy, but to tough to imagine anyone who's amassed a fortune in african cellular being clean as a hound's tooth...................
Post by: tautologies on April 05, 2016, 11:40:15 AM
There are lots. But also remember, for someone to feel attacked by PC thinking, that thinking doesn't need to be mainstream--it just takes some exposure to a few extremists. I'm also not saying whether people are justified in feeling attacked, just that many do feel that way.
A few examples of things you WILL be attacked for sooner or later in Portland:
--saying Merry Christmas
--saying all kinds of remarks, positive or negative about race, gender or sexual orientation
--saying anything critical of bicycles or bike lanes
--saying anything about immigration short of letting everyone in and letting everyone stay and have full rights of citizenship...
--driving a SUV
--eating meat
--using the wrong term to describe a race or group of people (i.e. "disabled", "handicapped", "black", "African-American", "Asian", etc. can all generate criticism)
--calling a collision between a vehicle and a bike or pedestrian an "accident"
--driving a car
--not acknowledging your cultural advantage
--"cultural appropriation" (i.e. a white person with dreadlocks)
--eating, wearing or buying non-organic food, non fair-trade chocolate, anything made by Nike
--anything critical of the homeless
--using the word "homeless"
--etc.
The above are all things I've personally seen people criticized for here recently.
I think most people expect to get in trouble doing or saying, say, anything overtly racist or sexist. It seems the frustration comes from being attacked for saying or doing things that the person had no idea was wrong, especially when they feel they can't win (i.e. trying to say something they think is positive, but getting attacked).
--
Oh stop being so sensitive. I've never heard of anyone getting corrected for saying merry christmas..that shit was invented by heritage foundation.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/heres-how-conservatives-turned-a-jew-hating-conspiracy-theory-into-the-bogus-war-on-christmas/
and if someone starts saying something answer the call. just don't get all bent if someone wants to debate something. If its dumb, then say so and say why.
Post by: PonoBill on April 05, 2016, 12:20:53 PM
But then, how could personal experience ever trump the authoritative and completely unbiased reporting of an internet jewel like RawStory.
Post by: SlatchJim on April 05, 2016, 12:51:59 PM
Post by: eastbound on April 05, 2016, 02:13:01 PM
Post by: pdxmike on April 05, 2016, 02:27:34 PM
I'm not saying any of this bothers me (it doesn't) or (as I wrote) whether people are justified in feeling attacked, I was just responding to someone's question with some examples--every one of which I personally have seen people criticized for here recently, including "Merry Christmas". That battle may have been invented by the Heritage Foundation, but it spread, and yes it is real and not uncommon here, as is every other one of my examples.There are lots. But also remember, for someone to feel attacked by PC thinking, that thinking doesn't need to be mainstream--it just takes some exposure to a few extremists. I'm also not saying whether people are justified in feeling attacked, just that many do feel that way.
A few examples of things you WILL be attacked for sooner or later in Portland:
--saying Merry Christmas
--saying all kinds of remarks, positive or negative about race, gender or sexual orientation
--saying anything critical of bicycles or bike lanes
--saying anything about immigration short of letting everyone in and letting everyone stay and have full rights of citizenship...
--driving a SUV
--eating meat
--using the wrong term to describe a race or group of people (i.e. "disabled", "handicapped", "black", "African-American", "Asian", etc. can all generate criticism)
--calling a collision between a vehicle and a bike or pedestrian an "accident"
--driving a car
--not acknowledging your cultural advantage
--"cultural appropriation" (i.e. a white person with dreadlocks)
--eating, wearing or buying non-organic food, non fair-trade chocolate, anything made by Nike
--anything critical of the homeless
--using the word "homeless"
--etc.
The above are all things I've personally seen people criticized for here recently.
I think most people expect to get in trouble doing or saying, say, anything overtly racist or sexist. It seems the frustration comes from being attacked for saying or doing things that the person had no idea was wrong, especially when they feel they can't win (i.e. trying to say something they think is positive, but getting attacked).
--
Oh stop being so sensitive. I've never heard of anyone getting corrected for saying merry christmas..that shit was invented by heritage foundation.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/heres-how-conservatives-turned-a-jew-hating-conspiracy-theory-into-the-bogus-war-on-christmas/ (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/heres-how-conservatives-turned-a-jew-hating-conspiracy-theory-into-the-bogus-war-on-christmas/)
and if someone starts saying something answer the call. just don't get all bent if someone wants to debate something. If its dumb, then say so and say why.
I could have gone on and on...
--building a new house (anti-environment)
--fixing up a house (gentrification)
--planting geraniums (non-native species, proves environmental insensitivity)
--using the words "illegal immigrant", "immigrant", or "alien"
--watering your lawn
--having a lawn
--owning a dog
--saying you "own" a dog, or that it is your "pet"
--using an iPhone...
Again, all things I've personally heard criticized recently here. And again, just examples, given without comment as to what people's reactions should be.
I don't watch Portlandia because it hits too close to home. It's like watching a documentary, but the things that really happen here are even weirder than the show. The show has to water things down to maintain some plausibility.
Post by: SeldomScene on April 05, 2016, 03:05:57 PM
Ah, the GOP as the party of change. I'm all ears.
Let me ask this one: Cuba? What is the major GOP hard-on over Cuba?
The cold war has been over for decades. Our biggest trading partner is a Communist country.
We love us the dictators over in Saudia Arabia, Jordan, et al.
So what is it about Cuba? Their universal healthcare and near 100% literacy rate??
"Obama went to a baseball game and did the wave!!". Yeah...and
One of my issues with Cuba is their unwillingness to return cop killer and FBI 10 most wanted fugitive Joanne Chessimard. Might seem like a small issue to some, unless you're the dead cops' son or daughters...
Post by: tautologies on April 05, 2016, 03:44:38 PM
Well, I can tell you don't live in Portland, Tautologies. If you'd like to get a taste of smug PC, watch a few episodes of Portlandia. People who don't live in Portland think it's overblown, those who do or have think it's understated. Basically an entire TV show with multiple seasons that deals with exactly what PDX expounds. I can't stand to watch it, but I don't need to, I lived it.Sure, but my point was really instead of being butthurt about someone saying oh you shouldn't say this or that, answer back. The whole playing the victim because the evil hippy said so isn't really condusive of the message of lets be straight forward. In the same sense that you (or whom ever) wan to be taken for the intention of the message you also have a threshold that you would not go beyond, answering back can help clarify and maybe adjust the message sending need to correct whatever dumb shit feel they want to correct.
But then, how could personal experience ever trump the authoritative and completely unbiased reporting of an internet jewel like RawStory.
Well generalizing anecdotal data is extremely prone to being flawed. Obviously I am not arguing that RawStory to be the pinnacle of journalism, but it could give some insights into where the whole dumb xmas this or that debate that Fox bring up EVERY year comes from. And regardless of your feels around saying xmas or holidays you have to admit it is a false debate.
Post by: tautologies on April 05, 2016, 03:47:50 PM
Again, all things I've personally heard criticized recently here. And again, just examples, given without comment as to what people's reactions should be.
Yeah and I was just trying to say tell them to shove it....probably good to do it in a slightly sarcastic way instead of actually shove it...because most fully know what the intention was and if they can't handle it, they need to be told what to do with it. :-)
Post by: magentawave on April 05, 2016, 03:53:06 PM
Well, I can tell you don't live in Portland, Tautologies. If you'd like to get a taste of smug PC, watch a few episodes of Portlandia. People who don't live in Portland think it's overblown, those who do or have think it's understated. Basically an entire TV show with multiple seasons that deals with exactly what PDX expounds. I can't stand to watch it, but I don't need to, I lived it.
But then, how could personal experience ever trump the authoritative and completely unbiased reporting of an internet jewel like RawStory.
Post by: pdxmike on April 05, 2016, 04:09:55 PM
The wild thing is how far the PC stuff gets beyond talk here. One example I gave was getting criticized for building a new house. The mayor bought into the idea that all demolitions of houses to build new ones are bad, and tried to pass a $25,000 tax on all of them--to increase affordability (?). Luckily that just got defeated.
Again, all things I've personally heard criticized recently here. And again, just examples, given without comment as to what people's reactions should be.
Yeah and I was just trying to say tell them to shove it....probably good to do it in a slightly sarcastic way instead of actually shove it...because most fully know what the intention was and if they can't handle it, they need to be told what to do with it. :-)
Another example was being attacked for being a gentrifier if you fix up an old house. That attitude also got all the way to where the City has been considering paying "reparations" to people whose parents sold their homes in the past in neighborhoods that have since seen further housing price increases. So, say if your parents sold a house in 1993 to cash in on the increased value of the home back then, and used to money to move to the suburbs or put you through college, and now you want to move back but can't because they sold the house, and you can't afford to buy or rent another place in that neighborhood, the City would give you a subsidy offset those higher housing costs, so you could move back into the old neighborhood that you were "displaced" from (i.e. that your parents decided to leave by selling for a profit).
Post by: tautologies on April 05, 2016, 05:33:47 PM
PDX I dunno if poorly designed policies has much to do with PC, but it sounds like the policymakers lacks the same sense of reality as you see lacking many other places.
Post by: PonoBill on April 05, 2016, 06:02:28 PM
Oh, and BTW, they still think californians are sillier and more self-absorbed than they are.
Post by: surf4food on April 05, 2016, 06:32:41 PM
There are lots. But also remember, for someone to feel attacked by PC thinking, that thinking doesn't need to be mainstream--it just takes some exposure to a few extremists. I'm also not saying whether people are justified in feeling attacked, just that many do feel that way.
A few examples of things you WILL be attacked for sooner or later in Portland:
--saying Merry Christmas
--saying all kinds of remarks, positive or negative about race, gender or sexual orientation
--saying anything critical of bicycles or bike lanes
--saying anything about immigration short of letting everyone in and letting everyone stay and have full rights of citizenship...
--driving a SUV
--eating meat
--using the wrong term to describe a race or group of people (i.e. "disabled", "handicapped", "black", "African-American", "Asian", etc. can all generate criticism)
--calling a collision between a vehicle and a bike or pedestrian an "accident"
--driving a car
--not acknowledging your cultural advantage
--"cultural appropriation" (i.e. a white person with dreadlocks)
--eating, wearing or buying non-organic food, non fair-trade chocolate, anything made by Nike
--anything critical of the homeless
--using the word "homeless"
--etc.
The above are all things I've personally seen people criticized for here recently.
I think most people expect to get in trouble doing or saying, say, anything overtly racist or sexist. It seems the frustration comes from being attacked for saying or doing things that the person had no idea was wrong, especially when they feel they can't win (i.e. trying to say something they think is positive, but getting attacked).
--
Oh stop being so sensitive. I've never heard of anyone getting corrected for saying merry christmas..that shit was invented by heritage foundation.
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/12/heres-how-conservatives-turned-a-jew-hating-conspiracy-theory-into-the-bogus-war-on-christmas/
and if someone starts saying something answer the call. just don't get all bent if someone wants to debate something. If its dumb, then say so and say why.
As I stated before, a lot of the same things happen in my town also or at least in my neighborhood. One time I was asked if I ever killed any children (I'm a retired Navy vet) despite the fact that I was 900 miles away from actual fighting on my last deployment (Operation Enduring Freedom) and my job was clerical. You just have to take something like that with a grain of salt and get a chuckle along with all the other things listed. I don't live in Portland but have visited a few times. I can't remember the name of the place but one of the best steak dinners I ever had was up there and don't remember getting any grief from anyone about it.
Post by: surf4food on April 05, 2016, 06:38:31 PM
Post by: spookini on April 05, 2016, 06:56:33 PM
"I'm an outsider.., but I'm gonna assemble a team of all-stars."
Headline: Trump campaign in disarray
Since March, the campaign has been laying off field staff en masse around the country, including key general-election battleground states.
Last month, the campaign laid off the leader of its data team, and shifted some of the team’s duties to a 2015 college graduate whose last job was an internship with Colgate-Palmolive.
Post by: magentawave on April 05, 2016, 07:11:59 PM
Let's get back on-topic: laughing at Trump.
"I'm an outsider.., but I'm gonna assemble a team of all-stars."
Headline: Trump campaign in disarray
Since March, the campaign has been laying off field staff en masse around the country, including key general-election battleground states.
Last month, the campaign laid off the leader of its data team, and shifted some of the team’s duties to a 2015 college graduate whose last job was an internship with Colgate-Palmolive.
I just heard a podcast today from the Tom Woods show and the guy he was interviewing (McCafferty, I think??) said Trump won't listen to or pay the massive salaries of political consultants because they are usually wrong about everything and he doesn't like to waste money. The guy also said those consultants are pissed off at Trump because they know the days of getting $20,000 per month consultation fees are over because of the way Trump is handling his campaign.
Post by: stoneaxe on April 05, 2016, 07:12:03 PM
Post by: surf4food on April 05, 2016, 07:13:35 PM
Post by: magentawave on April 05, 2016, 09:21:56 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr9Vr5p-8Fs
Post by: starman on April 06, 2016, 09:23:32 AM
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2016/04/trump-research.html
Post by: spookini on April 06, 2016, 02:33:34 PM
“If Donald Trump was a scientist”
Starman, it's important to note that all of Trump Scientist's research is peer-reviewed.
Primary by himself. There are other peers who've reviewed -- and they'll be named soon. (But not right now.)
When asked about double-blind trials, Trump Scientist replied:
"Trials? You oughta try looking at Ted Cruz's wife. Yikes! You'd have to be double-blind to find her attractive.."
Post by: Subber on April 06, 2016, 03:04:16 PM
I'd say that if you must vote for a presidential candidate then this is the only sane choice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr9Vr5p-8Fs
Pretty good - all three candidates.
No name calling though.
Post by: magentawave on April 06, 2016, 10:42:24 PM
I'd say that if you must vote for a presidential candidate then this is the only sane choice:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr9Vr5p-8Fs
Pretty good - all three candidates.
No name calling though.
Nah, none of that scorched earth crap. Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico admitted to smoking pot during the debate so the three of them probably burned one and had a few beers after the debate.
Post by: Califoilia on April 07, 2016, 12:05:59 AM
I'd say that if you must vote for a presidential candidate then this is the only sane choice:OK, I don't know if this was a joke or not, or who two of guys are from Adam....but John McAfee (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-mcafees-bizarre-video-includes-drugs-guns-and-women/) is ape shit crazy, so how the fark he got up there is beyond me, and pretty much invalidates the whole show, and the party for that matter (pretty much as ol' Donald is to the poor GOP)....at least IMO anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr9Vr5p-8Fs
Hell, if "whacko with money" is the necessary job description to put on your petition papers for our "non-establishment" candidates....will someone please go get Larry Flynt to round out the competition, and we'll have the perfect trifecta, of insane loony tones with wild hair color from a bottle to vote for. Geezus cripes.... ::) >:(
Post by: PonoBill on April 07, 2016, 01:44:52 AM
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/150807130845-john-mcafee-mug-shot-780x439.jpg)
Post by: spookini on April 07, 2016, 05:50:07 AM
He'd probably have to tone the message way down, and sell-out to special interests.. But what the hell.
McAfee is running for President, until Dos Equis calls.
Post by: magentawave on April 09, 2016, 11:23:11 PM
The young guy could have a future in elected office. He already has the mannerisms and speech cadence down, and speaks a hell of a lot more clearly than most other pols.
I agree. The young one has all the fake mannerisms (raising his voice and stomping on the podium, etc.) that most politicians have. Put a gun to my head and the only one I'd vote for would be Gary Johnson.
Hell, if "whacko with money" is the necessary job description to put on your petition papers for our "non-establishment" candidates....
Apparently "whacko with money" is the MO for most politicians. ;)
Yeah, I was trying to figure out how he was sounding so sane. Last time I check he was under indictment for numerous crimes, including statutory rape as I recall. And he was born in Scotland.
Since Cruz was born in Canada maybe he'll pick McAfee to be his VP. I haven't heard about statutory rape but McAfee claims the government of Belize was trying to extort money from him cuz he was a rich gringo.
Post by: spookini on April 10, 2016, 02:01:34 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on April 10, 2016, 04:41:24 PM
Post by: magentawave on April 10, 2016, 09:24:04 PM
Post by: tautologies on April 13, 2016, 01:13:27 AM
Deportation begins and Trump isn't even the nominee let alone the president. ??? I saw that this morning and thought I was looking at the Onion. Anything for a buck, eh? The sad thing is that so many people still allow themselves to be manipulated by crap like that. And worse, they vote.
Deportation is clearly Trumps message. The man has said it outright so if you don't trust his word, then what do you have?
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-deportation-plan-2015-11
Now obviously he'll have some problems simply because he absolutely clueless to the legal and political system, not to mention that he has no political plan. I am absolutely floored that someone like him can be a front runner in what amounts to half the electorate. Give or take a bit.
Post by: yugi on April 13, 2016, 03:55:33 AM
Let's get back on-topic: laughing at Trump.
"I'm an outsider.., but I'm gonna assemble a team of all-stars."
Headline: Trump campaign in disarray
Since March, the campaign has been laying off field staff en masse around the country, including key general-election battleground states.
Last month, the campaign laid off the leader of its data team, and shifted some of the team’s duties to a 2015 college graduate whose last job was an internship with Colgate-Palmolive.
I just heard a podcast today from the Tom Woods show and the guy he was interviewing (McCafferty, I think??) said Trump won't listen to or pay the massive salaries of political consultants because they are usually wrong about everything and he doesn't like to waste money. The guy also said those consultants are pissed off at Trump because they know the days of getting $20,000 per month consultation fees are over because of the way Trump is handling his campaign.
I would have thought hiring someone to check he didn’t overdo it with the self tanning lotion wouldn’t cost him too much. Looks like people on his staff are too scared to tell him. Looks like everyone is too scared to tell him. Or he doesn’t listen. Not a good sign for a person seeking to be leader.
Genghis Khan was brutal but rewarded those who brought him bad news. Smart.
Post by: eastbound on April 13, 2016, 05:50:51 AM
What little can be garnered from his "policy" statements is horrifying
Then there's his complete lack of knowledge of matters even a typist in the white house should have good familiarity with
Post by: stoneaxe on April 13, 2016, 12:21:53 PM
I think the system needs to be rebuilt. I posted on FB a few days ago about giving the collective middle finger to the establishment. This time around vote for whoever you can get behind whether its Trump or Bernie. Then we need to work on tearing down this divisive two party system that puts the control in the hands of party bosses and lobbyists. It's never been more obvious that "We the People" just don't matter anymore.
I find it telling that most Dems are supporting Hillary......despite knowing what a lying POS she is. You want more of the same establishment BS she's a great candidate.
Post by: PonoBill on April 13, 2016, 12:31:13 PM
Telling is that half or more of repubs support this POS
Hilarious, given that democrats seem determined to nominate Billary.
Trump makes my stomach ache, but Hillary Clinton, really?
Post by: yugi on April 13, 2016, 12:50:03 PM
My take is that it's the establishment that is the problem. Can't stand Trump but I won't be voting for any establishment candidate. Truth is my vote won't matter anyway. It's not like the Donald is going to win MA over Hillary. If Bernie was the Dem candidate I might actually vote, at least then my middle finger would be counted anyway.
I think the system needs to be rebuilt. I posted on FB a few days ago about giving the collective middle finger to the establishment. This time around vote for whoever you can get behind whether its Trump or Bernie. Then we need to work on tearing down this divisive two party system that puts the control in the hands of party bosses and lobbyists. It's never been more obvious that "We the People" just don't matter anymore.
I find it telling that most Dems are supporting Hillary......despite knowing what a lying POS she is. You want more of the same establishment BS she's a great candidate.
Take a look at how Swiss "direct democracy" works. Surprising simplicity. Everyone gets a say on everything. Result: peeps stay informed and interested. no one even knows what the president's name is! [true fact: less than 50% of population. But they do know all the issues and do vote on them]. The president is there to host cocktail parties, end of story (and takes the tram to work).
[disclaimer: I’m not swiss btw, so this is an outsider opinion]
Post by: pdxmike on April 13, 2016, 01:15:07 PM
There's some delusion going on in both parties. Trump and Clinton both have lots of support within their own parties. The problem is, voters are stampeding away from both parties. One way for a candidate to have high-percentage support within their party is to capture voters within it. Another is to drive voters out of the party entirely, so while your percentage of support is increasing, the number of supporters within it is plummeting.Telling is that half or more of repubs support this POS
Hilarious, given that democrats seem determined to nominate Billary.
Trump makes my stomach ache, but Hillary Clinton, really?
Look at examples such as Reverend Jim Jones or Mr. Heaven's Gate. Both had even higher support within their follower groups than Trump or Clinton will ever have.
Post by: Weasels wake on April 13, 2016, 01:56:17 PM
They also have basically no military (just an Army that helps out NATO missions), BUT, just about every citizen in Switzerland owns a gun, they are encouraged to own one, that is one of the main reasons that they have never been invaded. And if you are in the Swiss Army, you keep your weapons with you and at home complete with the ammo.My take is that it's the establishment that is the problem. Can't stand Trump but I won't be voting for any establishment candidate. Truth is my vote won't matter anyway. It's not like the Donald is going to win MA over Hillary. If Bernie was the Dem candidate I might actually vote, at least then my middle finger would be counted anyway.
I think the system needs to be rebuilt. I posted on FB a few days ago about giving the collective middle finger to the establishment. This time around vote for whoever you can get behind whether its Trump or Bernie. Then we need to work on tearing down this divisive two party system that puts the control in the hands of party bosses and lobbyists. It's never been more obvious that "We the People" just don't matter anymore.
I find it telling that most Dems are supporting Hillary......despite knowing what a lying POS she is. You want more of the same establishment BS she's a great candidate.
Take a look at how Swiss "direct democracy" works. Surprising simplicity. Everyone gets a say on everything. Result: peeps stay informed and interested. no one even knows what the president's name is! [true fact: less than 50% of population. But they do know all the issues and do vote on them]. The president is there to host cocktail parties, end of story (and takes the tram to work).
[disclaimer: I’m not swiss btw, so this is an outsider opinion]
Still like the Swiss? I sure do, and I'm part Swiss, I should go visit sometime, never been there.
Post by: PonoBill on April 13, 2016, 02:05:36 PM
Post by: yugi on April 13, 2016, 02:34:58 PM
Post by: lucabrasi on April 13, 2016, 05:04:15 PM
What is the media like in Switzerland? Maybe just not the media but.........their pop culture. Their culture in general as well.....is it as diverse as ours? Do they have a congress of sorts to keep a president from theoretically running amok? I am convinced "we" have helped breed this circus going on right now....no doubt in my mind. "Reality" tv, tmz, in your face this and that, all that horse shit.....and way more. Hell, I know I wouldn't have watched the debates with as much interest if it wasn't for the entertainment factor. I'm part of it. The system in itself is most definitely part of the breeding as well. Lifetime politicians, special interests, etc, etc, etc. The wheels have fallen off our system and has crashed into television and the internet. Won't even go into the language and thought police......but my gosh, is there any common sense out there with this whole thing going on and how it set itself up?
Do we dare even listen to an independent at this time? What would his motives be? Who would want to jump into this right now and why? Well, besides the fact they would think they may have a shot of pulling it off. I wonder how things would be if Bernie or Trump would have come in as an independent to start with. blah, blah, blah, blah........
Post by: surf4food on April 13, 2016, 05:58:26 PM
I find it telling that most Dems are supporting Hillary......despite knowing what a lying POS she is. You want more of the same establishment BS she's a great candidate.
To be fair, there are a lot of people, liberals , conservatives, moderate and any variation of all the above who have resigned themselves to the idea that all politicians lie. Count me as one of them. Some are worse than others but nada are truly honest. I know plenty of Trump supporters who are honestly of the opinion that he lies but will vote for him anyway. I've voted for many people in all the years I've been old enough to vote that I thought were not being fully truthful. I think in the case Hillary, her supporters like Sanders as a person but aren't quite down with his more socialistic goals. Yet they are not about to vote for Trump or Cruz so who does that leave? As I stated in the other thread, if it really does come down to Hillary or Trump (or Cruz for that matter) for POTUS, it will be Hillary. And that's despite her lying, Benghazi, etc. Likewise if Sanders gets the nomination, I will vote for him. As far as voting for the Dem nomination between Sanders and Hillary, I don't want to think about it.
Post by: stoneaxe on April 13, 2016, 07:18:26 PM
Post by: magentawave on April 13, 2016, 10:54:47 PM
Actually, if you go to Trumps site you will see he does have "plans" for lots of stuff.
Deportation begins and Trump isn't even the nominee let alone the president. ??? I saw that this morning and thought I was looking at the Onion. Anything for a buck, eh? The sad thing is that so many people still allow themselves to be manipulated by crap like that. And worse, they vote.
Deportation is clearly Trumps message. The man has said it outright so if you don't trust his word, then what do you have?
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-deportation-plan-2015-11
Now obviously he'll have some problems simply because he absolutely clueless to the legal and political system, not to mention that he has no political plan. I am absolutely floored that someone like him can be a front runner in what amounts to half the electorate. Give or take a bit.
Post by: eastbound on April 14, 2016, 06:29:30 AM
i always ask that they produce a few whoppers that can be attributed to her--and the reciters cant come up with anything
i can, but nothing that concerns me to the extent that Trump and his blithering idiocy does
betcha trump couldnt id 1/4 of the key countries in the mideast on a blank map! probably couldnt get much of europe for that matter.
like i say, the guy's knowledge of anything relevant to the presidency doeasnt qualify him to mop floors in the white house.
"plans" on his website? unimpressive and crafted by minions--when questioned off-the-cyuff, trumps vacuum of what should be important knowledge is frightening.
Post by: SUPflorida on April 14, 2016, 07:14:14 AM
Not my first pick...but radical problems call for radical solutions. We know what the others will do...as bad or worse as we have now.... I would rather give the reins to Trump than any of the remaining bunch.
The US voted in an inexperienced "community organizer" for two terms with zero business knowledge....and we are worried about giveing it over to a life long business man who built a personal fortune of over 4 billion dollars? You don't see the irony in that?
Post by: stoneaxe on April 14, 2016, 07:46:34 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0H1AosZdv0
I'm not saying she isn't smart, well educated and knows the system. She is on all counts....a big part of the reason I find her so dangerous. Hillary can and will do far more damage than the Donald will ever do, that's why I will not vote for her....lesser of two evils....pretty sad that I think it's the Donald.
Seriously? take Obama's teleprompter away and see how well versed he is.
Post by: PonoBill on April 14, 2016, 09:52:31 AM
i am no blind fan of hillary's but i have fun with folks who recite the "hillary is a liar" soundbite
i always ask that they produce a few whoppers that can be attributed to her--and the reciters cant come up with anything
i can, but nothing that concerns me to the extent that Trump and his blithering idiocy does
As the old saw goes--you can tell she's lying because her lips are moving. People use the term "Lying" as shorthand for her obviously disingenuous nature. I don't get as sideways over the lying part, I expect it from politicians. What I see is someone who is completely for sale to business interests and foreign government interests. Same problem I had with Obama, though at least it seemed he was more a tool of domestic interests (union, big business) than the previous Clinton administration was. I held my nose and voted for Obama. I won't do that for Hillary. She's potentially much more harmful. We'd be better off with an incompetent oaf like Trump than a competent weasel. But I can't vote for trump either.
Someone else rational--please. Is that too much to ask.
Post by: eastbound on April 14, 2016, 12:21:30 PM
and get your lies straight. the whole story re hillary and lying while working on the house watergate investigation has proven to be a.....LIE
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp
and gowdy and the benghazi BS? what an embarrassment for the repubs and the rest of us. I watched his "hearings"--a completely disgraceful waste of resources and time--from a guy who has done shit for legislation--and then we hear from withdrawn repub house speaker kevin mccarthy that the entire benghazi investigation was trumped up to prevent hillary from a successful presidential run--maybe he's a liar in bed with the clintons?
the desperate attempts to tie hillary up in non-scandals is pathetic, frankly
irony? like that dennis hastert, boy rapist wrestling coach, was one of the key repubs pushing for clinton to be impeached! a real family values guy!
people need to read past the sound bites--therein lies one of our biggest problems--rove was such a genius at identifying issues that let people believe and shut down their intellectual capabilities, curiosity and openness--it's become standard operating procedure in campaigns--the truth has become a ridiculous joke--liar? trump trumps all on the lying front
and anyone who thinks trump's a great businessman should take classes at Trump U! or partner up in any number of his artful deals--
Post by: pdxmike on April 14, 2016, 01:21:10 PM
Post by: Weasels wake on April 14, 2016, 01:40:15 PM
got it--no one will offer specific whoppers--but yeah, she's a POS liar
and gowdy and the benghazi BS? what an embarrassment for the repubs and the rest of us. I watched his "hearings"--a completely disgraceful waste of resources and time--from a guy who has done shit for legislation--and then we hear from withdrawn repub house speaker kevin mccarthy that the entire benghazi investigation was trumped up to prevent hillary from a successful presidential run--maybe he's a liar in bed with the clintons?
Post by: stoneaxe on April 14, 2016, 03:16:16 PM
FWIW I read the snopes article and other sources on it long before this. My take is that he's (Ziefman ) an opportunist that spun a story, but that the story has more than a small kernel of truth. Benghazi?....she fucking LIED....along with the rest of the admin. Repubs may have used it to skewer her but that doesn't change the fact that she LIED. And you're going to tell me she hasn't lied about her position on issues....usually depending on the crowd she's talking to.....there's multiple videos of her lying on youtube.
Get beyond the soundbites, really....you think all anyone else is doing is reacting to soundbites? That to me is the typical far left or far right response to anything they disagree with....make believe anyone with a difference of opinion is too stupid to read or research their opinion. Belief in others ignorance allows them to feel superior and therein lies our biggest danger. When I hear assholes using rethuglicans or libtards in conversation I usually assume I can ignore anything else they have to say because they are too blind to their own bias.
I thought it was rather fitting that Colbert was making jokes about her lying since you've said he's a news source for you.
Post by: lucabrasi on April 14, 2016, 03:39:17 PM
people need to read past the sound bites--therein lies one of our biggest problems--Exactly. But for everything and everyone.....but by golly, just looking at sound bites can be fun, can't it.
So you are saying Trump hasn't made a shitload of money in business? What would define business? I just kind of see real estate all over. Massive amounts of all types. Leveraged or not, with that much going on some sort of success has had to be part of the equation and maybe end result whether a head start years ago or not. Oh yeah.....luck, dirty deeds, I am sure and all that but.....heck what do I know. I not defending him per se but like him or not, I don't know how one can deny that. Plenty of flops too and not certain really need more examples. Probably examples of why not successful would be more.....to the point if defining success in business in this point is making shit loads of money.
I still don't see how anyone can defend Hilary all these years later and all the smoke that is out there around her.
I feel the two least genuine people in this race are Ted and Hilary.
With all of that babble, we all seem to take whatever we wish from what we see.
I'm usually less bothered by lying or corruption by a candidate than I am by the stupidity it often reveals.Trying to wrap my head around that and figure out where ignorance fits in. Got to be in there somewhere. Perhaps the ignorance is the lying and corruption revealing the stupidity?
When I hear assholes using rethuglicans or libtards in conversation I usually assume I can ignore anything else they have to say because they are too blind to their own bias.You just posted while I was pounding away on the keys and lots of good stuff you said there for sure, tuning out to close mindedness perhaps I like the best but damn if I ever remember hearing those two terms before.
Post by: stoneaxe on April 14, 2016, 04:23:54 PM
https://vimeo.com/160276209
You don't read enough of the comments section on political articles Luca.....ugliest of the ugly on the interwebs. It will make you realize exactly how bad it is...of course I think 1/2 of them are funded by either Soros or the Koch"s so I guess I shouldn't expect much.
Post by: othpaddler on April 14, 2016, 04:25:26 PM
Yes, Hilary is a politician and yes she has changed positions on a number of issues. And yes she has accepted donations and speaking fees from Wall street interests.
But Hilary is also extremely knowledgeable about both domestic and world affairs, and if president will do her best to at least create and preserve her legacy as president. A basic goal that will likely prevent her from committing extreme malpractice on the domestic or the world stage.
Donald Trump on the other hand has promised to completely violate the Constitution and innumerable international treaties. Banning all Muslims? Building a wall? Pursuing torture worse than water boarding?
His foreign policy clearly would be a complete disaster: Encouraging South Korea and Japan (and in turn North Korea, etc) to engage in a nuclear arms race? Explicitly stating that a nuclear bomb on Iran or even in western Europe would be readily considered.
And is there any doubt that he is a complete misogynist and is least making a specific appeal to the racist underbelly in American society? I am sorry, Donald Trump does not even pass the smell test as a legitimate presidential candidate.
Post by: stoneaxe on April 14, 2016, 04:35:13 PM
Post by: SeldomScene on April 14, 2016, 04:51:14 PM
I concur with Eastbound that the trope about Hilary constantly lying is based largely on a decades old effort by the far right wing to disparage and attack Hilary at every turn. Again, what are the specific, countless, serious lies that so many presume to have been committed?
Yes, Hilary is a politician and yes she has changed positions on a number of issues. And yes she has accepted donations and speaking fees from Wall street.
But Hilary is also extremely knowledgeable about both domestic and world affairs, and if president will do her best to at least create and preserve her legacy as president. A basic goal that will likely prevent her from committing extreme malpractice on the domestic or the world stage.
Donald Trump on the other hand has promised to completely violate the Constitution and innumerable international treaties. Banning all Muslims? Building a wall? Pursuing torture worse than water boarding?
His foreign policy clearly would be a complete disaster: Encouraging South Korea and Japan (and in turn North Korea, etc) to engage in a nuclear arms race? Explicitly stating that a nuclear bomb on Iran or even in western Europe would be readily considered.
And is there any doubt that he is a complete misogynist and is least making a specific appeal to the racist underbelly in American society? I am sorry, Donald Trump does not even pass the smell test as a legitimate presidential candidate.
I am no fan of Trump, but how were you able to type this with a straight face? "me and Chelsea were under constant sniper fire." "I was named after Sir Edmund Hillary". (even though he did not become famous by climbing Everest until several years after she was born and named). "Oh, that's just a security review." (Even though the FBI does not do "security reviews", and witnesses are only granted immunity in criminal investigations). " I never sent or received classified information on my private server." She is beyond a liar, this is into Brian Williams territory, a pathological need to constantly self-aggrandize by telling obvious and easily refutable lies.
Post by: SeldomScene on April 14, 2016, 04:54:48 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on April 14, 2016, 05:41:14 PM
Post by: SeldomScene on April 14, 2016, 06:07:03 PM
Post by: pdxmike on April 14, 2016, 06:17:58 PM
Spot on, Stoney. Bill Clinton, the man who made it ok to lie in America. A friend of mine was a Secret Service Agent, and a mighty cute one, too. The morning that Bill got inaugurated, he went to McDonalds to get an egg mcmuffin and show he was a regular guy. He was in line, scanning, scanning, whoa boob alert. He walked up to my cute friend, thrust out his hand and said, "Hi I'm Bill Clinton, your new President" in his best drawl, as he looked her up and down. To which she replied, "I know, I'm your Secret Serice Agent." On he went to the next one ...That reminds me of later when he was president, and he wasn't home yet one night, so Chelsea asked her mom if she could tell her a bedtime story. Hilary told her, "Well, your father should be walking in any minute, then he can tell us both one".
Post by: Weasels wake on April 14, 2016, 06:31:17 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on April 14, 2016, 06:42:25 PM
https://vimeo.com/161505724?from=outro-embed
Post by: stoneaxe on April 14, 2016, 07:23:36 PM
http://magicseaweed.com/news/donald-trump-wants-to-ruin-this-picturesque-beach-in-ireland/8908/ (http://magicseaweed.com/news/donald-trump-wants-to-ruin-this-picturesque-beach-in-ireland/8908/)
Post by: magentawave on April 14, 2016, 08:15:13 PM
got it--no one will offer specific whoppers--but yeah, she's a POS liar
and get your lies straight. the whole story re hillary and lying while working on the house watergate investigation has proven to be a.....LIE
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp
and gowdy and the benghazi BS? what an embarrassment for the repubs and the rest of us. I watched his "hearings"--a completely disgraceful waste of resources and time--from a guy who has done shit for legislation--and then we hear from withdrawn repub house speaker kevin mccarthy that the entire benghazi investigation was trumped up to prevent hillary from a successful presidential run--maybe he's a liar in bed with the clintons?
the desperate attempts to tie hillary up in non-scandals is pathetic, frankly
irony? like that dennis hastert, boy rapist wrestling coach, was one of the key repubs pushing for clinton to be impeached! a real family values guy!
people need to read past the sound bites--therein lies one of our biggest problems--rove was such a genius at identifying issues that let people believe and shut down their intellectual capabilities, curiosity and openness--it's become standard operating procedure in campaigns--the truth has become a ridiculous joke--liar? trump trumps all on the lying front
and anyone who thinks trump's a great businessman should take classes at Trump U! or partner up in any number of his artful deals--
Post by: Bean on April 14, 2016, 09:06:37 PM
OK....this just got serious....screw Trump.
http://magicseaweed.com/news/donald-trump-wants-to-ruin-this-picturesque-beach-in-ireland/8908/ (http://magicseaweed.com/news/donald-trump-wants-to-ruin-this-picturesque-beach-in-ireland/8908/)
What's worse is that he wants the surfers to build/pay for it...
Post by: PonoBill on April 14, 2016, 09:31:21 PM
Post by: magentawave on April 14, 2016, 10:02:49 PM
OK....this just got serious....screw Trump.
http://magicseaweed.com/news/donald-trump-wants-to-ruin-this-picturesque-beach-in-ireland/8908/ (http://magicseaweed.com/news/donald-trump-wants-to-ruin-this-picturesque-beach-in-ireland/8908/)
What's worse is that he wants the surfers to build/pay for it...
Post by: SeldomScene on April 15, 2016, 05:08:06 PM
Post by: Weasels wake on April 15, 2016, 07:03:02 PM
However I do believe that the chances of the dems convention being a, shall we say a clusterfu(k, are as about the same chances as the GOP convention, at this point. Let see who wins NY, Bernie or the Hill, or the FBI. But I believe it will be down to the Trumpster vs. the Hillary in the end, with a possibility of a Kasich as VP under Trump.
Kasich won't admit it at this time, but the current rules for the convention, which I keep hearing/reading are not going to be changed, puts Kasich in a position to where he has no other option, and Trump could use an insider. We'll see, it could be a strong ticket with Kasich's help.
Post by: SeldomScene on April 15, 2016, 07:45:17 PM
Post by: tautologies on April 16, 2016, 01:26:52 AM
We'll see, it could be a strong ticket with Kasich's help.
That is ludicrous. Anything with Trump on should be kept as far away from government as possible. He has no clue about even the most basic functions of government or policy making.
Post by: Bean on April 16, 2016, 04:22:17 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on April 16, 2016, 09:29:55 AM
Post by: tautologies on April 16, 2016, 10:45:23 AM
Sure not being part of the political elite is appealing, but a fundamental lack of understanding for how governing works and even something as basic as how the political system works is a critical flaw. When it is combined with his lack of actually listening, it becomes dangerous. The man has no plan and no political philosophy. It is literally insane that he is a frontrunner.
When people moan about governments lack of getting things done they are kind of meeting themselves in the doorway. These are elected officials. The tea party movement went on election promising to not compromise...and that is exactly what they are doing...thus no policies are made.
Post by: SeldomScene on April 16, 2016, 04:16:32 PM
Post by: lucabrasi on April 16, 2016, 04:54:26 PM
Bernie was with the Pope. I find that rather interesting...
So, I google bernie pope and.......funny Donald already said something about it.
What a funny place we are in.
Post by: stoneaxe on April 16, 2016, 06:11:20 PM
Post by: SeldomScene on April 16, 2016, 06:51:18 PM
Post by: tautologies on April 16, 2016, 06:53:09 PM
If the system is broken....why is it so critical that he have deep knowledge?
Oh come on, don't try with semantic acrobatics. Are you seriously suggesting that because he is clueless he should design a new system? I mean you are of course fully aware that a country without a governing system is no longer a country right?
I am not even talking about deep knowledge..I am talking about the basics. If you know a system, you know how and what to change to improve on it, and perhaps actually make something work. It is not a joke, leaders who does not take that shit seriously ends up with revolts.
Trump is clueless, and this country will be in constant turmoil until he is forced out or neutered..and you certainly cannot govern a trillion dollar economy without a plan or political philosophy. I'm kind of hoping you have seen the debates and how he answers direct and simple questions.
Worst thing is that personally I am not sure Cruz is much better.At least he understands the system he is working within. Kansich at least seems like he is listening to his advisors..well I guess outside his inane talks about not going to parties with alcohol if you want to avoid rape.
Post by: pdxmike on April 16, 2016, 07:25:59 PM
Think of napster and music piracy, which in the same way was totally a product of the record companies. If they hadn't been forcing people who wanted to buy one song to pay $15 or $20 for a CD that cost $1 to make and had 14 songs they didn't want, people wouldn't have been desperate for a new approach.
Post by: magentawave on April 16, 2016, 07:42:52 PM
Whatever anyone's opinion of Trump, he's totally a product of the two political parties.
Post by: lucabrasi on April 16, 2016, 08:02:22 PM
We'll see, it could be a strong ticket with Kasich's help.That is ludicrous. Anything with Trump on should be kept as far away from government as possible. He has no clue about even the most basic functions of government or policy making.
I am not even talking about deep knowledge..I am talking about the basics. If you know a system, you know how and what to change to improve on it, and perhaps actually make something work. It is not a joke, leaders who does not take that shit seriously ends up with revolts.Do you need to know a system to know how to manipulate it? For all the reasons you point out is why Trump and Kasich would be a strong ticket.
Trump is clueless, and this country will be in constant turmoil until he is forced out or neutered..and you certainly cannot govern a trillion dollar economy without a plan or political philosophy. I'm kind of hoping you have seen the debates and how he answers direct and simple questions.
Worst thing is that personally I am not sure Cruz is much better.At least he understands the system he is working within. Kansich at least seems like he is listening to his advisors..well I guess outside his inane talks about not going to parties with alcohol if you want to avoid rape.
Post by: tautologies on April 17, 2016, 11:59:53 AM
Do you need to know a system to know how to manipulate it?Absolutely. If you want to be any kind of effective. If not you'll just look like Trump is looking like now. Changing his mind mid sentence when people are pointing out certain facts, and considering getting rid of departments that does not exist. It means he has no idea what they do or how they function. How do you suggest he manipulate that system? It is truly sad to see people thinking that is okay for a president.
Quote
For all the reasons you point out is why Trump and Kasich would be a strong ticket.You must not have read what I wrote at all.
Post by: PonoBill on April 17, 2016, 12:36:13 PM
Do you need to know a system to know how to manipulate it?Absolutely. If you want to be any kind of effective. If not you'll just look like Trump is looking like now. Changing his mind mid sentence when people are pointing out certain facts, and considering getting rid of departments that does not exist. It means he has no idea what they do or how they function. How do you suggest he manipulate that system? It is truly sad to see people thinking that is okay for a president.QuoteFor all the reasons you point out is why Trump and Kasich would be a strong ticket.You must not have read what I wrote at all.
Well, technically that's not true at all. We don't understand how many things really work, but we can still manipulate them successfully by applying simple rules that yield an approximate result. That's not an endorsement for Trump. It's simply that I think the argument for political expertise is a wrong one. The only reason people are interested in Trump and paying uncritical attention to him is that the system as it is--implying those people expert at managing it--seems to have failed them. It probably hasn't to the degree that many people express, people have a strong tendency to consider that the time they are living in is much worse than it actually is.
Post by: tautologies on April 17, 2016, 01:31:54 PM
Well, technically that's not true at all. We don't understand how many things really work, but we can still manipulate them successfully by applying simple rules that yield an approximate result. That's not an endorsement for Trump. It's simply that I think the argument for political expertise is a wrong one. The only reason people are interested in Trump and paying uncritical attention to him is that the system as it is--implying those people expert at managing it--seems to have failed them. It probably hasn't to the degree that many people express, people have a strong tendency to consider that the time they are living in is much worse than it actually is.
I don't disagree that the disenfranchisement stems from people in the system not performing, but let me ask you this. While hiring for one of your top jobs, a job that is strategically critical to the success of your company, do you hire someone who has no experience in the industry and lacks a fundamental understanding of the workings of your company?
I do not think it is by definition wrong to have someone who lacks some experience, but they need other qualities that Trump seems to be lacking. I also do not think they can be as effective in their daily workings because of the energy they need to spend understanding the system.
Post by: lucabrasi on April 17, 2016, 02:23:25 PM
I did read what you said which is why I posted that. I was basically responding to your comment that it being a strong ticket is ludicrous. I take it as, for all the reasons you give, how Trump doesn't know the system, etc. Kasich makes up for it, knowing it pretty darn well and for quite a while it sounds like. The experienced politician whose been there and done that for years ("well, when I helped.....") paired with Trump makes it a pretty strong ticket for someone to pair with Trump. Someone to offset his weaknesses, Mister nice guy, Mr. Politician. Can't go Carson, Christie doesn't offer enough....Ohio being one but enough difference either. Not sure who else he would think about.Do you need to know a system to know how to manipulate it?Absolutely. If you want to be any kind of effective. If not you'll just look like Trump is looking like now. Changing his mind mid sentence when people are pointing out certain facts, and considering getting rid of departments that does not exist. It means he has no idea what they do or how they function. How do you suggest he manipulate that system? It is truly sad to see people thinking that is okay for a president.QuoteFor all the reasons you point out is why Trump and Kasich would be a strong ticket.You must not have read what I wrote at all.
As for the manipulation......that was a bit of thinking out loud as much as anything but yeah, I as well don't think you need to particularly know something to be able to manipulate it so to say.
Also there, you mention more again why Kasich makes sense with Trump.
........... It probably hasn't to the degree that many people express, people have a strong tendency to consider that the time they are living in is much worse than it actually is.This, I have given more thought to of late..... I agree with the second part for sure but wonder about the first part.........damn if it don't bring it around in a twisted circle of sorts.
Post by: tautologies on April 17, 2016, 05:13:17 PM
Quote
Kasich makes up for it, knowing it pretty darn well and for quite a while it sounds like.
I think that would be all good and well if Trump was a listening type..he is not. I think he has a narcissistic personality disorder (obviously arm chairing that). :-)
Out of the last GOP candidates, I think Kasich is the better. Cruz is too much of a religious nut.
Post by: spookini on April 17, 2016, 05:25:37 PM
...people have a strong tendency to consider that the time they are living in is much worse than it actually is.
Hey now..
I only have 2 flat screens (neither are HD4K), and my phone doesn't run the latest OS.
Worse, I don't even own a goPro.
Please don't make light of my misery! 8)
Post by: lucabrasi on April 17, 2016, 05:50:17 PM
...yes, he is narcissistic. I also think of "ticket" at this point as electabilty.QuoteKasich makes up for it, knowing it pretty darn well and for quite a while it sounds like.
I think that would be all good and well if Trump was a listening type..he is not. I think he has a narcissistic personality disorder (obviously arm chairing that). :-)
Out of the last GOP candidates, I think Kasich is the better. Cruz is too much of a religious nut.
Post by: PonoBill on April 17, 2016, 09:16:13 PM
I don't disagree that the disenfranchisement stems from people in the system not performing, but let me ask you this. While hiring for one of your top jobs, a job that is strategically critical to the success of your company, do you hire someone who has no experience in the industry and lacks a fundamental understanding of the workings of your company?
I do not think it is by definition wrong to have someone who lacks some experience, but they need other qualities that Trump seems to be lacking. I also do not think they can be as effective in their daily workings because of the energy they need to spend understanding the system.
Bad choice. One of the most valuable people I ever hired was a 19 year old kid with no college degree, no work experience, and no understanding of how a business worked. we had to teach him how to dress and that he actually had to show up for work on time--and couldn't smell funny or wear his favorite weird porkpie hat all the time. So yes, I would and did. Led our technology development from day one, and became a VP. And actually all of our most valuable people had very little experience in the jobs they eventually filled. I learned a long time ago to hire for talent first. I've hired talented people when I didn't have a job for them. Every important position I filled with "experienced" people I eventually had to fill again.
Post by: Quickbeam on April 17, 2016, 10:32:44 PM
I don't disagree that the disenfranchisement stems from people in the system not performing, but let me ask you this. While hiring for one of your top jobs, a job that is strategically critical to the success of your company, do you hire someone who has no experience in the industry and lacks a fundamental understanding of the workings of your company?
I do not think it is by definition wrong to have someone who lacks some experience, but they need other qualities that Trump seems to be lacking. I also do not think they can be as effective in their daily workings because of the energy they need to spend understanding the system.
Bad choice. One of the most valuable people I ever hired was a 19 year old kid with no college degree, no work experience, and no understanding of how a business worked. we had to teach him how to dress and that he actually had to show up for work on time--and couldn't smell funny or wear his favorite weird porkpie hat all the time. So yes, I would and did. Led our technology development from day one, and became a VP. And actually all of our most valuable people had very little experience in the jobs they eventually filled. I learned a long time ago to hire for talent first. I've hired talented people when I didn't have a job for them. Every important position I filled with "experienced" people I eventually had to fill again.
I don’t think PonoBill, that you are suggesting Trump has talents that would make a good President???
Because while I don’t disagree that it is not a bad thing to hire for talent first, I just can’t see what talent Trump would bring to the position of President. Not any talent I would want and in fact seems to exhibit most of the talents I would not want.
Full disclosure - I have followed this thread with fascination and haven’t commented previously, mostly because I’m Canadian. Hope you don’t mind a Canuck friend voicing an opinion.
Post by: tautologies on April 17, 2016, 11:29:26 PM
Bad choice. One of the most valuable people I ever hired was a 19 year old kid with no college degree, no work experience, and no understanding of how a business worked. we had to teach him how to dress and that he actually had to show up for work on time--and couldn't smell funny or wear his favorite weird porkpie hat all the time. So yes, I would and did. Led our technology development from day one, and became a VP. And actually all of our most valuable people had very little experience in the jobs they eventually filled. I learned a long time ago to hire for talent first. I've hired talented people when I didn't have a job for them. Every important position I filled with "experienced" people I eventually had to fill again.
So you hired a technology person out of school to run tech for a company that doesn't do tech? That eventually learned enough to become VP. I am not sure how that qualifies as not hiring within his skills.
Same thing goes for little experience in the jobs they eventually filled I am assuming they are learning on the job, and then moving forward in the company? I am 100% sure you aren't just saying that people you hired were mostly with no knowledge or experience, and then by some weird osmosis you had a successful company? Right?
Post by: PonoBill on April 18, 2016, 01:19:40 AM
My business experience is entrepreneurial, I don't think it applies well to politics, but every politician I've ever met has been a strange flavor of human being. Egomaniacal, self-dealing narcissists. I can't help but wonder how experience as a politician and bureaucrat delivers a superior leader.
Post by: tautologies on April 18, 2016, 01:28:20 AM
Look, I think Trump is psychotic. I wouldn't vote for him for any position, wouldn't want to do business with him, wouldn't want to have a beer with him. I'm responding to a question you asked. So yes, I hired a kid out of high school based on talent I saw in him. My company was an advertising agency, but we very early into the web, built our own internet technologies, had patents on fundamental marketing technologies. Were one of the fastest growing companies in Oregon for numerous years, and this kid was one of the people who made that possible. My point was simply that experience, and even success in a position is not the sole indicator of capability. In my experience it's not even a particularly good indicator--too many other factors involved. I hired an experienced executive to replace me as CEO. Six months later I had to come back and fire him, and was barely able to save a remnant of a company that had a $60 million valuation when he came on board. So yeah, I'm not big on experience as a qualification.
My business experience is entrepreneurial, I don't think it applies well to politics, but every politician I've ever met has been a strange flavor of human being. Egomaniacal, self-dealing narcissists. I can't help but wonder how experience as a politician and bureaucrat delivers a superior leader.
Not to belabor this, as I think we fundamentally are in agreement. I was not talking about experience in a specific position, but the kids had some skills in technology that you recognized...Trumps forte is not in politics, and he lacks fundamental skills...also it'll be hard to hire an experienced president since they aren't really re-hirable more than once. :-)
Post by: Area 10 on April 18, 2016, 03:47:22 AM
Look, I think Trump is psychotic. I wouldn't vote for him for any position, wouldn't want to do business with him, wouldn't want to have a beer with him. I'm responding to a question you asked. So yes, I hired a kid out of high school based on talent I saw in him. My company was an advertising agency, but we very early into the web, built our own internet technologies, had patents on fundamental marketing technologies. Were one of the fastest growing companies in Oregon for numerous years, and this kid was one of the people who made that possible. My point was simply that experience, and even success in a position is not the sole indicator of capability. In my experience it's not even a particularly good indicator--too many other factors involved. I hired an experienced executive to replace me as CEO. Six months later I had to come back and fire him, and was barely able to save a remnant of a company that had a $60 million valuation when he came on board. So yeah, I'm not big on experience as a qualification.Please don't misuse clinical diagnostic terms like "psychotic". The term has a very specific meaning and is not synonymous with being a psychopath, which is possibly what you are trying to say. Psychosis is a very disabling and unfortunate mental health condition with which many people struggle, and frankly it's a bit of an insult to them to be using this term in this context. Thanks.
My business experience is entrepreneurial, I don't think it applies well to politics, but every politician I've ever met has been a strange flavor of human being. Egomaniacal, self-dealing narcissists. I can't help but wonder how experience as a politician and bureaucrat delivers a superior leader.
Post by: Bean on April 18, 2016, 03:53:35 AM
Post by: eastbound on April 18, 2016, 05:30:15 AM
i dont see qualifications to run our country on this list--
and just because half the republican party feels disaffected and abandoned by republican trickle-up policies which have continually benefited the most wealthy and eviscerated the working/middle class, that's a poor reason to elect a fool like Trump. and if you know anything about Trump and his history, you know well that he could give a shit for anyone but himself.
it is laughable to say that, because the system is broken and needs to be changed radically, a POS like Trump can be the guy to do it---whatever people think of the system, let's hope they can elect a reasonable, intelligent human--Trump is not remotely that human.
Post by: mrbig on April 18, 2016, 05:34:24 AM
Post by: supthecreek on April 18, 2016, 05:39:33 AM
Every decent post about Standup Paddling is swept aside by the total bullshit.
STFup. Please.
Let the SUP folks have their forum back.
I hardly want to look here anymore. :'(
Post by: eastbound on April 18, 2016, 05:57:39 AM
and i'll go off topic--waves were good early sat and sun in W LI and rockaway--caught chest/head sat and waited too long sun--wind switched to light on shore, but it wrecked clean OH situation I'd seen on the cams earlier--i paddled out in a mess, exhausted my legs quickly, but caught 5 or 6 big sloppy OH waves--things were disorganized to the extent that paddle outs were awful--after one painful series of beatings, resigned to walk back to the jetty after each of my few waves--nice to get sun and be in my 4/3 with only a lil beanie cap--
lovin my new finset courtesy of Jim K--i had asked for a similar set to the stock AW set (which I had trashed after 75+ sessions on the board)--set was quite the same but that the center fin was a bit smaller than the stock center fin---and and much smaller than the new sidebites
board seems a bit faster and seems to hold higher on steep faces--of the kind we often get for only a few seconds before closeout--seems to accelerate better when pumping for add'l speed, too--go figure--I am clueless--Jim K told me--he was right--aint steered clueless me wrong yet
Post by: stoneaxe on April 18, 2016, 06:25:22 AM
So for my next post I think it will concentrate on religion..... :o
I know the thread is avoidable but if you were a newbie to the forum and looking at the "Most recent posts" you would think this was a political forum not SUP. I need to get back on the water so I have something worthwhile to post other than this crap.
Post by: supthecreek on April 18, 2016, 06:32:14 AM
Some users don't suffer these problems cuz they use this place differently..... but many people I talk to, go directly to the "Recent Posts" that is the ONLY spotlighted, active access to whats current on the Zone. It's active on the bottom of EVERY page.
I think a SUP forum should have SUP stuff as the "Active" discussion.... not random stuff.
If SUP topics, bumped down by this crap are not easily found without advanced searching through lots of different hiding places, then they are missed.... gone to a dusty archive.
If the forum was set up differently.... and the Chat room politics could have it's self a hate fest in some dark corner..... not as the main highlight on the bottom of every page, then I wouldn't give a hoot what you talk about in the BACK room.
But to this date.... you are doing it in the FRONT room.
Post by: Weasels wake on April 18, 2016, 09:21:22 AM
But with all that being said~
Post by: PonoBill on April 18, 2016, 09:43:26 AM
Please don't misuse clinical diagnostic terms like "psychotic". The term has a very specific meaning and is not synonymous with being a psychopath, which is possibly what you are trying to say. Psychosis is a very disabling and unfortunate mental health condition with which many people struggle, and frankly it's a bit of an insult to them to be using this term in this context. Thanks.
I meant exactly what I said.
Creek, your response to a set of design choices and your particular way of using the forum is to tell people to shut the fuck up. Hey, shut the fuck up.
I draw your attention to the Show Unread Posts button, which will show the bullshit only once. I know you know where it is.
Post by: Bean on April 18, 2016, 10:00:34 AM
Post by: mrbig on April 18, 2016, 10:10:25 AM
Post by: Bean on April 18, 2016, 10:19:41 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saQJ8z4714w
Post by: SUPcheat on April 18, 2016, 10:29:41 AM
Post by: Bean on April 18, 2016, 10:58:37 AM
Post by: lucabrasi on April 18, 2016, 12:12:07 PM
trump is a loudmouth moron, an ahole, a misogynistic bigot, a peerless liar, and a failure as a businessman--despite being handed 200 mil$ to play with by his daddy.I will say I have a tendency to agree that he is a loudmouth asshole who can sound like a moron all too often (i know, that's not what you said) but this is the third time you have mentioned he is a failure as a businessman (or unsuccessful). The other two times I wondered aloud about it. I wonder why you think he is unsuccessful and what would define success here for you? More examples of failed businesses or crappy ideas don't cut it in my mind because it appears, he is still going. I just don't see how you can paint that picture of Trump as a failure at business or unsuccessful at it. I don't see it but that doesn't mean I am right either. All I see when you say that, at this point especially is that it appears you have some sort of axe to grind which doesn't add anything to what you are trying to say.
No, I am really not trying to endorse him or be rah, rah, rah Trump but to say he has been unsuccessful in business? I just don't see it. What am I missing?
This may be more appropriate:I always liked this one too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKw9aoA-LNM
Post by: pdxmike on April 18, 2016, 12:17:21 PM
Due to the varied nature of the sport, even within SUP-specific discussions there's a lot that's of almost no relevance to many people here. If you don't race, you'd have to be a masochist to read 50 pages about board length limits, drafting or no drafting, etc. Same thing about fin setups if you don't surf, hot chicks if that's not your thing, etc. Paleo diet, pfd rules, pfd rules in certain harbors, carbon paddles after the first 50 pages of talk, inflatable boards, one leash attachment or two...all hugely interesting to some people, total waste of time to others.
I love the political stuff. I don't see hate, just disagreement. What's great is everyone already has a lot in common by virtue of standup, so however different their views are from yours, you know they're people you already like, or at least know are respectful, competent people. There's great value in knowing that people who disagree with you about politics (or most anything else) aren't nuts in other areas.
In regard to politics on a SUP forum, it's just natural that people who've gathered to talk about one thing (standup) will veer off into other topics, and politics in an election year is an obvious one.
Post by: lucabrasi on April 18, 2016, 12:23:30 PM
.... In regard to politics on a SUP forum, it's just natural that people who've gathered to talk about one thing (standup) will veer off into other topics, and politics in an election year is an obvious one.or the year before.
;)
Post by: PonoBill on April 18, 2016, 12:29:40 PM
Doesn't matter. He still sucks toads.
Post by: spookini on April 18, 2016, 03:45:40 PM
I wonder why you think he is unsuccessful and what would define success here for you?Agreed, it's inaccurate to say he's a biz failure. More accurate to say he's a very successful real estate developer, and had the tremendous fortune the past 8years regarding resurrecting his brand through reality television. (Not sure if he's smart-like-a-fox in that regards, or just right place / right time.) Of course the Donald wants us to believe much more... he values his personal "brand" at $3B. Which is ridiculous. (Should be much higher. My own personal brand is worth $10B, said me.)
I like this place, the way it is. Random means random. If it's only about the latest fin configuration, I'd lose interest.
Reading/posting seems easy enough. Do, or don't. Things seem pretty civil around here, IMO. Getting mad is a choice..
Gotta say, this thread does have legs. Which doesn't surprise me -- Trump always has the best threads.
Phenomenal threads.
Quickbeam, I'm sure alot of your people are good people, but we're gonna have to put up a firewall soon.
We're getting KILLED by all these posts from Canada..
Post by: Quickbeam on April 18, 2016, 04:34:19 PM
I wonder why you think he is unsuccessful and what would define success here for you?Agreed, it's inaccurate to say he's a biz failure. More accurate to say he's a very successful real estate developer, and had the tremendous fortune the past 8years regarding resurrecting his brand through reality television. (Not sure if he's smart-like-a-fox in that regards, or just right place / right time.) Of course the Donald wants us to believe much more... he values his personal "brand" at $3B. Which is ridiculous. (Should be much higher. My own personal brand is worth $10B, said me.)
I like this place, the way it is. Random means random. If it's only about the latest fin configuration, I'd lose interest.
Reading/posting seems easy enough. Do, or don't. Things seem pretty civil around here, IMO. Getting mad is a choice..
Gotta say, this thread does have legs. Which doesn't surprise me -- Trump always has the best threads.
Phenomenal threads.
Quickbeam, I'm sure alot of your people are good people, but we're gonna have to put up a firewall soon.
We're getting KILLED by all these posts from Canada..
Maybe if Trump gets elected you won't need to put up a firewall. Maybe Trump will build a real wall. One to cut off Mexico and another to cut off Canada. Be damned if we'll be stuck paying for it though!
Post by: PonoBill on April 18, 2016, 07:56:41 PM
Post by: tautologies on April 19, 2016, 12:04:03 AM
I think people who have never tried to start and run businesses on their own believe real success comes from some kind of immediate brilliance that yields success after success. In my experience success comes from failing and getting back up. And then failing again, and trying again, and failing and trying, and succeeding. that's how it worked for me though I think I left out a couple of failures--maybe more. One more reason I discount experience. All too often the real success belongs to someone else, and the "experienced" person has no notion of failing as fast as they can, but persevering.
haha right on. Everytime I hear someone talk about overnight success I think about the years of blood sweat and tears the lies behind it.
That said, when you fail you should be learning something, which means you have experience. Investors tend also to like that people have experience with startups as well regardless of it being a failure or not. Though it is easier if you have big successes. You see this is my exact point. Even if you fail you can learn. It doesn't mean that the only thing you learnt is how to fail. It means your learn from the process.
Post by: SeldomScene on April 19, 2016, 07:58:27 AM
Post by: robon on April 19, 2016, 08:21:18 AM
Those darn Canadians again. They live in the greatest nation on Earth. Just ask them. That's why they all come down to the states (my city) to shop and fill their gas tanks and 5 gallon cans in the trunk, because they can't afford to live in their great country. Not to mention that when they buy stuff in the states, they frequently abandon the wrappers and boxes in the store parking lots and don't declare their purchases to Canada Customs when they cross back into the greatest country on Earth. Buy 5 Shirts and wear them all at once to cross the border. The underground pay-no-taxes economy is thriving up there because of the super high taxes. Did I mention that Canada is the greatest country on earth? But then they feel American enough that they have to weigh in on our politics.
Spare me the sermon. When the dollar was GOOD, I definitely used to go to the States to fill up, and I buy a lot of my paddling gear down south, but it doesn't mean I can't afford to live in Canada. Gas has actually come down considerably since the price of oil came down, and provinces such as BC are doing alright these days economically overall. You take of advantage of deals when the opportunity presents. Speaking of affordability, I used to live beside the border and know for a fact that shitloads of Americans come to Canada, or import their prescription meds because many can't afford to buy them in their own country. It goes both ways, and Canada does over 80% of it's trade with the USA, so you better believe many people here have a vested interest in who is running your country. We have many of the same problems politically, and the grass isn't always greener in some respects, but we are intrinsically linked whether you like it or not.
Post by: stoneaxe on April 19, 2016, 08:27:01 AM
Post by: surf4food on April 19, 2016, 09:18:18 AM
Post by: OUTSIDEWAVE on April 19, 2016, 09:43:12 AM
Thank goodness this thread is about politics. I thought somebody saw Trump on a SUP.holly ____ that made me laugh! All kidding aside Trump has some good ideas, like getting wealthy nations such as Saudi to pay for us policing the middle east. but the package it comes from is frightening. I don't think he can win even if he does though he'll have a tough fight in congress. Hillary clinton president oh just shoot me now ditto for trump. The thing is the situation just shows how angry Americans are with the political system. anyone see the cover of time this week we all need to pay some $42,000 ish to balance the budget.
so if clinton wins and she steps down would billy be president? Unthinkable!
Nope I am hoping someone will step up because it is unlikely that Cruz can win and would you want him?
Nope lik most of you. This race is the the worst. and for the first time in my life I am considering not voting. it is f--- disgusting.
thank god trump doesn't sup. if he did I might try to get abducted by aliens.
Post by: SeldomScene on April 19, 2016, 02:48:37 PM
Post by: robon on April 19, 2016, 03:03:04 PM
Weak try to counterpoint. The few times I have been to BC I see few US plates. Down in the states, it's majority BC plates at the big stores. It's not occasional bargain hunters, it's regular stock up trips to Costco and other big stores. And yes, they drive right by Costco up north to get here. And yes, they do fill up multiple 5 gallon gas cans and put them inside, sometimes in the trunk, cause the kids are in the back seat. I can't think of a single thing I would go to Canada to buy, and know no one who shops in Canada. So the average price of a single family home in greater Vancouver is now $1 million, sales tax is 15 per cent, and income taxes are astronomical, and you tell me people can't afford to live there? And by the way, anyone in the US legally is entitled to buy health insurance, sometimes government subsidized, so the business of not having your meds covered is hogwash. Besides, you can't qualify for the Canadian health insurance benefits unless you're a Canadian citizen or legal resident. Know a guy that was there illegally for years, and finally came back to US because his teeth were falling out and he couldn't go to a dentist. He was a fugitive from Justice by the way, he didn't go there because it's the greatest country in the world. I know it hurts to be sort of a junior American.
You cite the most expensive city to live in the entire country and try to say no one can afford to live here? Move along. You are living in an alternate dimension if you think people from the States aren't getting prescription meds here too bud. It's been going on for a long time, and for a reason. This game can be played both ways and I'm not biting. Like I stated, the grass isn't always greener, but you are just bashing and baiting and I'm not going to play it. Both countries have their good points and bad.
Post by: surf4food on April 19, 2016, 03:41:33 PM
I know it hurts to be sort of a junior American.
That's tellin them ::)
Post by: Quickbeam on April 20, 2016, 01:28:13 AM
What’s got your nuts in such a knot? Because I happened to say something in an open forum about your politics?
First off, I don’t go to the States for gas. I have previously bought gas in the States, but have never gone to the States to just buy gas. I do shop through amazon.com and the one reason I go across the border is to pick up packages I get delivered. I’ve only purchased gas on those trips maybe two or three times, so don’t try to lump everyone in that basket. I also never leave packaging behind and always declare what I have purchased.
And yes, as far as house prices go, Vancouver is high. But as Robon has already pointed out, Vancouver has the highest house prices in the country. I’m betting that say New York would be just as expensive.
And as far as commenting on your political situation, I will continue to do so. Quite frankly, in my opinion, Trump is an embarrassment to Americans. To see someone like that getting serious consideration as the Commander in Chief to the most powerful nation on earth is almost too much to put into words.
Now, having said all that, we have certainly had our embarrassments in Canada. We had our infamous Rob Ford who was mayor of our most populous city. And there were lots of Americans, including celebrities and talk show hosts, making all kinds of comments. And guess what? Didn’t bother me in the least, because they were right. Rob Ford was an embarrassment, our embarrassment. The Donald is yours.
So Seldom Scene, I live in Canada and wouldn’t have it any other way. “Junior American” - not even close. Canadian through and through. I do however, also happen to like the U.S. Think you are a great country. Think you are also a pretty good neighbor, at least most of the time. Wouldn’t want to live there though. I’m quite happy where I am.
And sorry Seldom Scene, but if you’re going to poke a stick, I’ll poke back. I’m not going to comment on Canadians buying gas in the U.S. or Americans getting prescriptions filled in Canada. But I will remind you that it at least used to be the case that a lot of Americans who traveled would sew Canadian flags on their back packs or luggage. Never, ever heard of a Canadian sewing an American flag on theirs.
Post by: eastbound on April 20, 2016, 05:22:05 AM
wanna talk Yankee vs Canuckland?
we were taught a lesson (that we apparently are trying to forget, if you listen to the jamie dimon's of the world) about proper, effective bank regulation in the financial crisis of 2007/08/09.
canadian banks didnt experience one significant failure, while our FDIC had to take over innumerable SD and L's, and our entire money center bank industry was technically insolvent, ready to fail without significant government intervention and provision of taxpayer bailout money.
somehow the canadians resisted pressures from big banks to deregulate and allow massive increases in leverage. seems their system is less bought and sold than ours, at least in this case.
xenophobic hatred of our neighbors, esp an unarguably good neighbor like Canada is pathetic. A comment like "Junior American" emabarasses this proud American.
Post by: spookini on April 20, 2016, 06:37:57 AM
Seldom, 2016: "We've got the cheapest retail prices!"
:'( :'( :'(
Post by: stoneaxe on April 20, 2016, 07:06:18 AM
Post by: robon on April 20, 2016, 07:10:22 AM
Oh, and I always leave my packaging in the recycling dumpster at the gas station ;D
Post by: Quickbeam on April 20, 2016, 07:30:06 AM
Thanks so much for the kind words directed to Canadians. It’s many years ago now, but I happened to be in Texas on a firefighting course when the news broke that the Canadians had been hiding the American hostages in their embassy in Iran. I couldn’t buy a beer anywhere. The minute an American found out I was Canadian, they just wouldn’t let me buy my own drinks. I had Americans shaking my hand, giving me hugs and showing real and heart felt emotion. It forever in my mind at least, showed me just how close our two countries are. That time is a very fond memory for me.
Post by: Eagle on April 20, 2016, 09:25:17 AM
xenophobic hatred of our neighbors, esp an unarguably good neighbor like Canada is pathetic. A comment like "Junior American" emabarasses this proud American.
http://youtu.be/c2DgwPG7mAA
http://youtu.be/ONRQZshyrPI
Post by: stoneaxe on April 20, 2016, 09:44:29 AM
Post by: pdxmike on April 20, 2016, 10:09:44 AM
Post by: Weasels wake on April 20, 2016, 10:34:36 AM
BTW, a pet peeve, it's Ti-Juana, 3 syllables only, not Tia-Juana 4 syllables, been driving me nuts my whole life, and I'm not even Mexican.
Back to Trump, the border has to be secured, I don't care how it's done, but it has to be done.
Post by: PonoBill on April 20, 2016, 10:43:32 AM
Not to mention you guys have a leader that can give an intelligent answer to a question about quantum physics.... 8)
Actually that answer was not that great, and it was about quantum computing, not physics. It's significant that quantum computing is multistate, but that isn't why it's important.
With all the crap going on in the world, that last place I'd have any complaint about is Canada. A great place, fine people, and might get a lot more population real soon now.
Post by: eastbound on April 20, 2016, 11:01:43 AM
trump or hillary elected, pono house sells===> off to canada--it'd certainly be an interesting next chapter
Post by: stoneaxe on April 20, 2016, 10:31:27 PM
Post by: SeldomScene on April 21, 2016, 04:43:04 PM
Post by: Quickbeam on April 21, 2016, 05:18:20 PM
But now, for everyone else, I thought I might inject a little humour into this. I belong to a group that sends jokes back and forth, and this is the one I just received:
Just Think - If Trump wins the election it'll be the first time in American history that a white billionaire moved into public housing vacated by a black family...
Post by: pdxmike on April 21, 2016, 05:56:12 PM
Sorry not to reply I had to drive to the next city south to get some tires, the local Costco was booked within 10 minutes of opening by Canadian buyers. They cut off sales for the day.This must be a reply to my question about what's wrong with Canadians crossing the border to shop. I can totally relate--crowds of them flooding into town from the north, half of them wearing their weird blue-and-green numbered jerseys, jamming up the parking lot and checkout lines, buying out the groceries, then heading back to Vancouver or further north--all to save a buck and avoid taxes. We don't call them Canadians here, though. We call them Washingtonians. They're like Junior Oregonians. ;D
Post by: SeldomScene on April 21, 2016, 07:40:52 PM
Post by: eastbound on April 22, 2016, 07:50:01 AM
In fact it has been said that Trudeau is taking more risk than many coalition countries engaged in bombing--his troops are on the ground, at risk, not up in an airplane pushing buttons and risking collateral damage to civilians. So, yeah, seems the Canadians are showing all they are less afriad, and are willing to commit ground troops to serious risk, as they seek to do the right thing. Call his approach what you will, but Trudeau never "pulled out" of any anti ISIS coalition.
And funny you whine about the significant injection from Canada into your local economy. Betcha the local business owners and their employees arent so upset as you. Maybe you don't work, so youre out of touch with things like drawing people into your local economy to spend money?
Post by: Eagle on April 22, 2016, 08:40:12 AM
Seems like junior Canadian seems more appropriate. And tons of Americans flocking and spending greenbacks in Vancouver on their way up to Whistler as well. They clog up traffic all the time - but we Canadians up here understand. We like visiting Americans as they help support our local economy. Not to mention we have many American friends and relatives. SS - you must not be a business person.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/cross-border-shopping-reversed-this-black-friday-canadian-outlet-malls-set-to-be-packed-with-americans
Post by: Eagle on April 22, 2016, 01:50:28 PM
http://youtu.be/ipeD3Tket48
Post by: headmount on April 28, 2016, 08:42:33 PM
But it isn't the big deal. It's a knee jerk. The big deal is corruption in government and elections.
Post by: eastbound on April 29, 2016, 05:55:03 AM
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/paul_manafort_isn_t_a_gop_retread_he_s_made_a_career_of_reinventing_tyrants.html
Post by: stoneaxe on April 29, 2016, 07:18:23 AM
here are the goods on manafort, who trump brought in to run campaign, as he deemphasized lewandowski--the guy is a complete pos, regardless of which side of the aisle you live on:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/paul_manafort_isn_t_a_gop_retread_he_s_made_a_career_of_reinventing_tyrants.html
Hillary doesn't outsource that kind of shit....she takes care of it herself.
On another note....I find Ted Cruz and his batshit crazy christian fundamentalist dad far more scary than anyone else. If he got the GOP nod I'd actually vote for Hillary.
Post by: eastbound on April 29, 2016, 07:24:26 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on April 29, 2016, 11:05:36 AM
Post by: Weasels wake on April 29, 2016, 11:21:38 AM
Post by: Tom on April 29, 2016, 11:35:59 AM
https://youtu.be/nPATU4Bz9fw
Post by: PonoBill on April 29, 2016, 01:26:05 PM
Post by: eastbound on April 29, 2016, 03:20:49 PM
and did you read the manafort piece?--this guy and partners in his DC lobbying firm have collected millions of dollars from torturous kleptocratic dictators (guys our state dept/military want out) to show them how to dress up, clean up image, rig elections, so they may continue their brutality and theft. did you digest that this guy and partners in his lobbying firm are known throughout the DC scene: "name a torturing dictator, and youve named a client of manafort and partners". how this is legal, i do not know?. and you can seek to dismiss with an anti-hillary comment (a poor analogy frankly), but the behavior of manafort and his partners is a fucking disgrace.
but let's stay with manafort, trump's new campaign manager, the subject of the article: he is a POS
Post by: stoneaxe on April 29, 2016, 04:02:05 PM
I read enough of it to understand that you're right. He is a POS.
Post by: Weasels wake on April 29, 2016, 06:53:30 PM
Got it.
Post by: stoneaxe on April 29, 2016, 07:02:08 PM
The system is broken and needs to be reshaped.......none of the establishment candidates are going to do it.....not sure Trump really will either but at least he's not in bed with them as much as the rest. The very fact that they are trying so hard to stop him is the biggest reason he has so much support.
Post by: headmount on April 29, 2016, 08:42:59 PM
You just can't make this sh!t up
https://youtu.be/nPATU4Bz9fw
Exactly
Post by: lucabrasi on April 29, 2016, 08:54:38 PM
I saw his "announcement" there and wanted to puke. Nope, you can't make that shit up. I could go on for days about him but will spare it. I don't even know that much about him. He reeks.You just can't make this sh!t up
https://youtu.be/nPATU4Bz9fw
Exactly
Post by: stoneaxe on April 29, 2016, 10:02:37 PM
Post by: surf4food on April 30, 2016, 05:02:19 AM
Post by: surf4food on April 30, 2016, 05:08:33 AM
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-gays-for-trump-crowd-gathers-at-costa-mesa-rally-20160428-story.html
Post by: PonoBill on April 30, 2016, 08:13:26 PM
Post by: Eagle on May 02, 2016, 11:16:50 AM
http://youtu.be/mgytBG3l01I
Post by: stoneaxe on May 03, 2016, 06:17:28 PM
Post by: PonoBill on May 03, 2016, 07:02:09 PM
Americans in general have a huge problem with political self esteem--cultural self esteem as well. The insecurity leads in all the directions it generally does--rigid positions taken, lots of bluster, certainty masking ignorance. As I used to say of my first wife--frequently uninformed but never in doubt.
Not much reason for the attitude--the rest of the world hasn't done a lot better, despite claims to the contrary. But on we go. This chapter of our short history will make fascinating reading in twenty years.
Post by: surf4food on May 03, 2016, 07:33:07 PM
This chapter of our short history will make fascinating reading in twenty years.
Can't argue with that but I'd go so far as to say it will make some pretty fascinating reading as early as next week. ;D
Post by: eastbound on May 04, 2016, 08:41:55 AM
I am a prog dem, so i will tend to differ with many repubs, often vociferously, but i dont consider many to be POS's such as I do Trump and Manafort.
And here's a bone for you: Shelley Silver is a POS. 12 years seems a long time, but he's no doubt a total POS.
And I have said repeatedly I have big issues with Hillary and Bill, and have little problem with most Bernie stands for--but I can't remotely equate Hillary with POS's like Trump and Manafort.
Like many repubs, I am coming around to Hillary as a reasonable least bad candidate.
OK let it rip with the predictable "hillary is a liar" soundbite chorus.
Post by: Admin on May 04, 2016, 09:28:37 AM
Post by: Weasels wake on May 04, 2016, 10:19:34 AM
Not sure where you came up with that, weasel. I have cited two repubs as POS's here: Trump and his new campaign manager Manafort. And yeah, they are POS's.It definitely wasn't personal, I just have a problem with anyone who find it so easy to throw out terms like "POS" when describing a person or political candidate whom you've never met. It weakens anything else you have to say about the matter.
I am a prog dem, so i will tend to differ with many repubs, often vociferously, but i dont consider many to be POS's such as I do Trump and Manafort.
And here's a bone for you: Shelley Silver is a POS. 12 years seems a long time, but he's no doubt a total POS.
And I have said repeatedly I have big issues with Hillary and Bill, and have little problem with most Bernie stands for--but I can't remotely equate Hillary with POS's like Trump and Manafort.
Like many repubs, I am coming around to Hillary as a reasonable least bad candidate.
OK let it rip with the predictable "hillary is a liar" soundbite chorus.
And just because you asked about soundbites from Hillary, her latest was one of her worst. I'm sure you've already heard it.
Hillary is now apologizing for letting the truth out, so she is now attempting to win back the coal miners thru mindless pandering which none of them will fall for. How dumb does she think the coal miners and their families are?
At a March CNN forum, Clinton boasted about her clean energy ideas.
“We're going to put coal miners and coal companies out of business,” she said at the time.
“What I said was totally out of context from what I meant,” Clinton told Copley, according to West Virginia Metro News. “It was a misstatement.”
“What I was saying was that the way things are going now we will continue to lose jobs. That’s what I meant to say,” she said.
“I didn’t mean that we were going to do it. What I said was that (coal miners out of work) was going to happen unless we take action to try to help and prevent it.”
You buying that? I'm not.
She has had, and will continue to have, a huge turnout problem, which I believe will be the final determining factor during the general election, assuming she is the final candidate, something that has yet to be decided. Bernie is going for a contested convention which I find ironic, the media will be focusing on the Dem convention now, the GOP convention? Not so much anymore.
Post by: goodfornothin on May 04, 2016, 10:24:11 AM
Hillary is directly part of this vulture capitalistic empire. She just about lost her law lic for shredding papers for empire to start her career off,,,she and her husband have been envolved with MENSA (drug running from.the enception), have you read the list of people that are dead associated with them, have you looked into their non profits? Have you scene what they did in haiti, kosovo, syria, benghazi,,,on and on. She is a tool of empire,,,she is no choice but status quo.
Bernie is the obvious choice,,yeah yeah kill the economy,,fuck your economy..(speaking to all the white geazers who promote this bastardization we call society,,,not you eb:) ) Get rid of the mic,,,there's your free health care,,,get rid of the tax havens,,there's your free education. Get rid of this crazy ponzi scheme they call infinite growth coupled with a monetary system backed by hot air,,,get rid of the Rothchild's bastard son, known as the federal reserve and it's stepchild,, illegal taxing of the people, get a community based on reasonable resource allocation. Then the Bern will work,,,yeah like that's going to happen.
So you have donald,,,is he another manchurian candidate? ,,Obama is, Do they need another one to keep the shit show going?,,,probably not. He's no business man,,,is he truly doing business channeling responsible capatilasim,,,nooooooo. He's a fucking bafoon. He is panhandling the lowest common demoniator? Yes,,,,,,,,,,,the illegal problem is a vulture capitalism problem,,,,it's to deep to even talk about, so people dont,,,it's the system, not individual people. Trump is not addressing the system. Muslims? Wtf? The deep state has been fomenting the so called Muslim problem for ages,,,it's all a contrived circus to push agendas,,far to deep to talk about,,,so it wont,,kill the muzzies,,that's not a solution. But it is to the lowest common demoniator. His answer to the climate,,,it's all a boondoggle right? Well the fact that we are going into a summer with no ice in the arctic,,,the earth has its own ideas on that. Trump hasn't a clue what he is doing not does he want a clue. Is he an option?,,fuck no. But for pure entertainment has we slip into chaos? It's a good show,,maybe Niro comes to mind?
Every single one of you would say far more to abstain from this circus and go surf. If you believe in energy and light,,then you may believe in the hologram. We as a collective generate a lot of these outcomes,,,if we collectively don't participate then change will occur. The system is corrupted,,,better to stay out of it,,,,you can do great things if you want to change things,,,keep.it local. There is no answer in all these false prophets,,,it's in us and our immediate community to make the change occur.
Yeah yeah. I'm a loon,,,but think about this,,,,how's it worked out so far? Our biosphere is done,,,every positive feed back loop you could imagine is in play right now. Nation building has proven a disaster, capitalism has proven to be a disater,,resource stripping has proven to be a disaster,,on and on..it's time to change. Go surf
Post by: PonoBill on May 04, 2016, 11:06:02 AM
Post by: goodfornothin on May 04, 2016, 11:29:20 AM
Sorry to stretch the infinite collectivism of your superior knowledge,,,siri can be a bitch that way. MENA, one letter can me so many things.
https://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/crimes_of_mena.html
I wonder of administration ever wonders why participation on a good forum has so few actual people communicating. I know I know,,we must stick to patterns of empire,,,don't let the kooks in, right? Hahaha hahaha
Post by: eastbound on May 04, 2016, 01:49:39 PM
and yeah, trump has brought out first time voters and hillary has turnout issues, so i may have to digest trump (can you f'ing believe it?) as our next president.
and nuttin, we need loons like you--i may not agree with some (agree with much) of your shit, but it gets me thinking--a good thing
hope youre ok with your various ailments and all
and weasel, no personal with you, and re any of the current state of US politics
Post by: spookini on May 06, 2016, 12:38:15 PM
She has had, and will continue to have, a huge turnout problem..
I don't see it. Why would Dems stay home? They'll likely have HIGH turnout. It'll be ridiculously easy to motivate the base -- ie, a Trump presidency would be end-of-days...
On the other side, even if the GOP base rallies, I'd guess at sizeable non-turnout, ie "I'm lifelong Repub, but.. just can't bring myself to vote for Trump".
That leaves uncommitted women, hispanics, muslims, and african-americans. Wonder which way they'll break??
The math is against Trump.
Benghazi, Whitewater, Filegate, server-gate, ad nauseum-gate... don't think it will make much of a difference.
Post by: PDLSFR on May 06, 2016, 12:55:12 PM
Then what? End of Days? We'll have to wait and see unfortunately!
Post by: stoneaxe on May 06, 2016, 01:09:40 PM
So sad that we've come to this regardless of how it turns out....is it too much to ask for once to get a person that has impeccable character, great intelligence, charisma, leadership, courage, compassion, and no other agenda than to serve the country?
If it wasn't for the impeccable character thing I'd say Pono for President......make him stay there until he fixes it.
Post by: spookini on May 06, 2016, 04:43:43 PM
Both sides will say, "This is the most IMPORTANT election of your lifetime!!"
There's no privacy or media-courtesy toward public officials anymore.
Clinton proved it... you can't even get a nice, friendly, consensual blowjob anymore.
Why would anyone want to leave the private sector to take a low-paying job like that??
Post by: surf4food on May 06, 2016, 05:24:52 PM
.is it too much to ask for once to get a person that has impeccable character, great intelligence, charisma, leadership, courage, compassion, and no other agenda than to serve the country?
Hmm. Maybe I'm just very very pessimistic but I think what you're describing pretty much rules out anyone who would ever choose this line of work, at at least at that high of a level.
Post by: surf4food on May 06, 2016, 05:31:37 PM
She has had, and will continue to have, a huge turnout problem, which I believe will be the final determining factor during the general election, assuming she is the final candidate, something that has yet to be decided. Bernie is going for a contested convention which I find ironic, the media will be focusing on the Dem convention now, the GOP convention? Not so much anymore.
Oh I think once it's down to her and Trump for the general, she will have a massive turnout. They both will. This is going to be the most heated, divisive and polarizing election in my lifetime.
Post by: lucabrasi on May 06, 2016, 07:16:40 PM
Oh I think once it's down to her and Trump for the general, she will have a massive turnout. They both will. This is going to be the most heated, divisive and polarizing election in my lifetime.I don't know what the effects of social media will be in October but actually I think the opposite will happen but with social media perhaps not making that true for the 30 and under crowd. I think it's turning off many not to vote and I not so sure about it being polarizing is true as so many hate them both and don't want either so in some absurd twist even tho it isn't really bringing people together....everyone is fed up.
Post by: stoneaxe on May 06, 2016, 08:17:35 PM
.is it too much to ask for once to get a person that has impeccable character, great intelligence, charisma, leadership, courage, compassion, and no other agenda than to serve the country?
Hmm. Maybe I'm just very very pessimistic but I think what you're describing pretty much rules out anyone who would ever choose this line of work, at at least at that high of a level.
I know.....but it really sucks that all we get is power hungry egotists that are in the pocket of everybody but the citizens that supposedly elect them.
Post by: pdxmike on May 06, 2016, 08:34:36 PM
I'm not sure what younger Democrats will do as far as voting goes. But that group is overwhelmingly pro-Sanders, and if they feel the system was rigged for Clinton from the beginning (e.g. the super-delegates already made up their minds to nominate her no matter what the primary vote was) they may mutiny. It could mean big changes--that is, problems--for the Democratic party. After all, that's not just the next generation of Democrats, it's almost the next entire generation of voters, since they're almost all Democrats. It might make sense to nominate Sanders just for the sake of the future of the party.Oh I think once it's down to her and Trump for the general, she will have a massive turnout. They both will. This is going to be the most heated, divisive and polarizing election in my lifetime.I don't know what the effects of social media will be in October but actually I think the opposite will happen but with social media perhaps not making that true for the 30 and under crowd. I think it's turning off many not to vote and I not so sure about it being polarizing is true as so many hate them both and don't want either so in some absurd twist even tho it isn't really bringing people together....everyone is fed up.
No matter what the election outcome, I think both parties come out as losers. So many people want nothing to do with either.
Post by: tautologies on May 09, 2016, 02:47:27 PM
I'm not sure what younger Democrats will do as far as voting goes. But that group is overwhelmingly pro-Sanders, and if they feel the system was rigged for Clinton from the beginning (e.g. the super-delegates already made up their minds to nominate her no matter what the primary vote was) they may mutiny. It could mean big changes--that is, problems--for the Democratic party. After all, that's not just the next generation of Democrats, it's almost the next entire generation of voters, since they're almost all Democrats. It might make sense to nominate Sanders just for the sake of the future of the party.
Anyone who say the system is rigged just expose they do not understand how it works. I'm not saying the system is the best, but it is definitely not "rigged". It makes little sense to nominate Sanders if the primary ends up favoring Clinton. If they do that, then you can talk about a rigged system.
The democrats in way shape of form has the same problems the GOP seems to have earned themselves. It'll be interesting to see how they will spin it. My guess is that Trump will come out now and more moderate to attract the people who actually cares about policies and well you know actual politics and not only clowning.
Post by: TEX_SUP on May 09, 2016, 04:55:53 PM
No matter what the election outcome, I think both parties come out as losers. So many people want nothing to do with either.
Agree 100%......dark days ahead
Post by: pdxmike on May 09, 2016, 05:47:42 PM
When I said "if they feel the system was rigged" I was thinking in particular of the superdelegate system. I understand that system has been around for a long time, so if it came down to Clinton beating Sanders due to having more superdelegate votes, you can correctly say that she beat Sanders squarely, since he knew the rules and should have done more to get superdelegates on his side over the previous years. So in that sense you can't say anything was rigged.I'm not sure what younger Democrats will do as far as voting goes. But that group is overwhelmingly pro-Sanders, and if they feel the system was rigged for Clinton from the beginning (e.g. the super-delegates already made up their minds to nominate her no matter what the primary vote was) they may mutiny. It could mean big changes--that is, problems--for the Democratic party. After all, that's not just the next generation of Democrats, it's almost the next entire generation of voters, since they're almost all Democrats. It might make sense to nominate Sanders just for the sake of the future of the party.
Anyone who say the system is rigged just expose they do not understand how it works. I'm not saying the system is the best, but it is definitely not "rigged". It makes little sense to nominate Sanders if the primary ends up favoring Clinton. If they do that, then you can talk about a rigged system.
The democrats in way shape of form has the same problems the GOP seems to have earned themselves. It'll be interesting to see how they will spin it. My guess is that Trump will come out now and more moderate to attract the people who actually cares about policies and well you know actual politics and not only clowning.
But there've been a lot of widespread videos and quotes by Democratic superdelegates and party officials that have disenchanted a lot of Sanders supporters--superdelegates saying long ago that they'll cast their superdelegate vote for Clinton no matter what the primary's popular vote is, and party officials saying basically that the party needs the superdelegate system because Democratic primary voters can't be trusted to choose the right candidate. [size=78%] [/size]
That may not be "rigged" but those views have already alienated a lot of young voters. Certainly if Clinton wins the popular primary vote, not many people are going to argue Sanders should be elected (although some polls show he might do better in the general election). But if Sanders won the popular primary vote (maybe not even possible by now) and Clinton won the nomination, there'll be a lot of unhappy Democrats, especially the young ones. They may feel, with some justification, like their own party has betrayed them, and they're too young to feel any loyalty to it, so may abandon it.
It is always amazing how one party will do something stupid (in this case Republicans driving off young voters over the last several years) so all the other party has to do is not screw up, but they do anyway (in this case the Democratic party's remarks that young Democrats aren't choosing the right candidate, and their primary vote isn't relevant).
Post by: tautologies on May 10, 2016, 12:51:39 AM
It is somewhat ironic to me that the democracy in the US only gives twice the choice you have in a dictatorship. Its a bit tongue in cheek, but still the system really does need an update since it was first conceived...as does the constitution.
Post by: Quickbeam on May 10, 2016, 11:40:55 PM
http://videosift.com/video/Bricking-It-For-Canada
and
http://brickingitforcanada.com/
Post by: stoneaxe on May 11, 2016, 11:20:10 AM
I'm not sure what younger Democrats will do as far as voting goes. But that group is overwhelmingly pro-Sanders, and if they feel the system was rigged for Clinton from the beginning (e.g. the super-delegates already made up their minds to nominate her no matter what the primary vote was) they may mutiny. It could mean big changes--that is, problems--for the Democratic party. After all, that's not just the next generation of Democrats, it's almost the next entire generation of voters, since they're almost all Democrats. It might make sense to nominate Sanders just for the sake of the future of the party.
Anyone who say the system is rigged just expose they do not understand how it works. I'm not saying the system is the best, but it is definitely not "rigged". It makes little sense to nominate Sanders if the primary ends up favoring Clinton. If they do that, then you can talk about a rigged system.
The democrats in way shape of form has the same problems the GOP seems to have earned themselves. It'll be interesting to see how they will spin it. My guess is that Trump will come out now and more moderate to attract the people who actually cares about policies and well you know actual politics and not only clowning.
As to folks believing the system is rigged exposing their ignorance....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-and-the-dnc-are-not-just-colluding----theyre-changing-the-rules-for-superdelegates_b_9876274.html
Post by: Weasels wake on May 11, 2016, 05:00:45 PM
This, for some reason, reminded me that today is national Twilight Zone day, yes there is one. So with that in mind, I will offer this~
No matter what the election outcome, I think both parties come out as losers. So many people want nothing to do with either.
Agree 100%......dark days ahead
"There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is in the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone."
Post by: pdxmike on May 11, 2016, 05:21:13 PM
Did you think of the Twilight Zone because of the "dark days ahead" with politics, or because Tex and I agreed on something? ;DThis, for some reason, reminded me that today is national Twilight Zone day, yes there is one. So with that in mind, I will offer this~
No matter what the election outcome, I think both parties come out as losers. So many people want nothing to do with either.
Agree 100%......dark days ahead
"There is a fifth dimension, beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is in the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone."
Post by: Weasels wake on May 11, 2016, 06:46:32 PM
― Rod Serling
;D
Post by: PonoBill on May 11, 2016, 09:13:55 PM
Only the current Republicans could manage to screw up this slam dunk.
I did like Obama joke at the Correspondent's dinner about the Republican primaries. Paraphrased, he said "We asked whether correspondents wanted fish or chicken, and 60 percent of the conservative press wrote in "Paul Ryan".
Post by: eastbound on May 12, 2016, 07:40:25 AM
Post by: goodfornothin on May 12, 2016, 07:49:23 AM
Post by: eastbound on May 12, 2016, 07:56:32 AM
Post by: goodfornothin on May 12, 2016, 08:10:25 AM
Post by: Eagle on May 12, 2016, 10:46:49 AM
http://youtu.be/SciVGbFXDRk
http://youtu.be/1o7YZ3Az9WI
Post by: PonoBill on May 12, 2016, 11:02:50 PM
electoral college and super delegate systems are definitely problematic--if the mission is democracy
The mission has never been democracy--the US is a republic. Democracy was a dirty word when the constitution was written. The French Revolution was fresh in everyone's mind, along with the resultant rise of Napoleon in the power vacuum. I can't think of a real, functioning democracy anywhere in the world. They generally don't last long. The majority vote themselves the treasury and that's that.
The electoral college is a rational tool for attempting to equalize political power geographically, as is the skewed representation in the house and senate. Without a balancing mechanism all the political power would be concentrated in three states.
Superdelegates and the two party system is a different story. Time for a change there, and it doesn't require a rework of the constitution.
Post by: eastbound on May 13, 2016, 03:19:41 AM
like so many bullies, you get in his face, and he's got nothing!
trump's serious insecurity will be his downfall--if it plays as i hope he will have meltdowns which illuminate for many fence-sitters that he is just a loser spoiled rich guy, and not worthy of the presidency
warren as vp is brewing again---with warren on board i can say i actually like the ticket a lot---warren would keep hillary's tendency to play to power interests well in check
oh, and the pig roast they'd put on trump would be the most entertaining shit weve seen yet, this election
ok, launch it, Hillary's a liar!
Post by: stoneaxe on May 13, 2016, 05:47:18 AM
Globalist trade policies HAVE caused that giant sucking sound that Ross Perot spoke of. TPP is more of the same. I also can't understand why any American, particularly hard working minorities, would want open borders. Combined they are THE reason why it's become so hard for people starting out to find and make a living wage. I guess I shouldn't have said any American because it's obvious why the US Chamber of Commerce and Democrat politicians want them ......PROFIT$$$ and votes.
There is no way Warren becomes Hillary's pick unless she feels she can control her so pretty doubtful.
What do you think of the new book coming out...Congressman X.....purportedly from a sitting Democratic congressman? Paints a pretty bleak picture of Washington but you want more of the same...in fact you seem to want advancement of it. We'll definitely get it with Hillary.
https://www.google.com/webhp?gws_rd=ssl#q=congressman+x&tbm=nws
I also find it kind of telling that you don't see much about this book on the "news" sites you seem to trust.
Post by: lucabrasi on May 13, 2016, 06:18:28 AM
warren as vp is brewing again---with warren on board i can say i actually like the ticket a lot---warren would keep hillary's tendency to play to power interests well in checkHow is that even remotely possible, "power interests well in check"??
Post by: eastbound on May 13, 2016, 07:23:10 AM
now might be warren as vp never happens, but hillary would be a better pres if she had to answer to warren, and they might even make a good productive team.
stoney, the book is suspect from the getgo, given it claims to be written by an "anonymous congressmen". the book is not yet released. and, yes, it seems that most mention of the book comes from far-right media, incl some real garbage websites--so i expect the book will have an overt right agenda.
whatever the case, here's mention in a credible (slightly right leaning) news source---seems no bombshell revelations, for folk from either side of the aisle.......
http://theweek.com/speedreads/623969/anonymous-congressman-just-published-shocking-book-confirming-worst-fears-about-congress
Post by: eastbound on May 13, 2016, 07:44:44 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html
whatever it is, it is funny
Post by: stoneaxe on May 13, 2016, 09:44:45 AM
Suspect yes, but it would already be on the NYT best sellers list if it had a left wing agenda. The real problem is that you and progressives in general don't realize/acknowledge that.
Point in fact. You link a WaPo story. Why does the Washington Post have 20 "journalists" digging into Trumps past dealings as a private businessman and every phase of his life but not 20 digging into Hillary? This despite their claim that the only reason they are doing it is to "cover all the candidates thoroughly". Such bullshit....I wonder if the progressive brown tinted glasses prevent you all from seeing it. I'm certainly not saying there isn't dirt on Trump....I expect there is a mud field....but ignoring the Clinton mud stadium at the same time..... ::) And no doubt while you think it's funny that Trump may have been his own publicist...I think it's pretty smart to be making sure what gets out there is what you want...and how better to do it. I'm sure you have no problem though with pro-Clinton PAC hiring online trolls to "correct the record" on online forums while posing as regular citizens. Wait a second....just how much are they paying you...... ;)
Post by: eastbound on May 13, 2016, 11:14:12 AM
You are very defensive of Trump, yet you don't defend him or respond to the information offered about Trump--you respond with negative characterization of Hillary. It's clear you don't like Hillary. Got that.
What do you think of the tape of Trump making a complete imbecile of himself?
Do you find it an odd coincidence that Trump attacked Bezos last night? 8 hours before the release of the tape?
WAPO is drilling down on trump, now that he is the repub nominee, with greater focus than previously, when he was just a mildly amusing blowhard rich kid failure with an absurd ego. Any reasonable journalistic entity is doing so.
WAPO and all credible journalistic entities have spent plenty of time for the last 20 years digging deep into the clinton's, and there is an army of right wingers constantly on the lookout for any scandal (or trumped up non-scandal) about hillary that can be dredged up. This has gone on since Bill ran for pres--there is no shortage of people looking for dirt on the clinton's.
So, now that he is the Repub nominee, Trump is under the microscope. To say that there is unbalanced attention on Trump vs Hillary is simply wrong.
The digging into Trump has only recently begun in earnest. Be patient. We will be continually entertained with more and more like the tape i linked--all of which will continually illuminate what a complete POS the guy is. Stay tuned. Prepare to laugh heartily.
And yes, Hillary is seriously flawed, too. But she's not on the tape--Trump is, in all his glory!
Bezos is a privatization and low-tax obsessed libertarian--he is no fan of Hillary.
I doubt he's a fan of Trump, as of last night, when Trump threatened to go after Amazon for tax cheating and anti-trust (issues i happen to agree with Trump about, to be fair).
What's funny is how little i have seen on whom Hillary will choose as VP. Hope it's Warren, because she is the real thing, not owned by power interests, extremely smart and well-spoken, and engaged in a fundamental mission which is tough to speak ill of.
Post by: stoneaxe on May 13, 2016, 01:08:16 PM
I'm not defending Trump...I can't stand the guy. What's to defend? There's no question he is a blowhard. Of course Trumps attack on Bezos is simply a pro-active strike. The difference is I see it for what it is when either side does stuff like that but the idealogues on both sides only whine when its the other guy. But Woodward is only going to focus on the "essence" of Clinton and has already said he doesn't think she meant to do anything illegal with the email server....this despite an ongoing FBI investigation. Seems a bit premature for a supposed journalist to be taking such a stand.
But I despise Clinton...despite having voted for Bill the 1st time (primarily because I thought he had some decent ideas on education). I just think Hillary is a globalist with thoughts of grandeur that will do serious damage to the future that is my granddaughters world. I really wish we had a rational choice. If the democrats didn't have the stance they do on illegal immigration I'd likely be voting D. I'd have taken Bernie over either of them. I'm not even sure it matters anymore...they are all serving the same masters. I just think that Trump is the lesser of two very bad choices. What is America with open borders and trade pacts that cede sovereignty? That's on the horizon if Hillary wins.
I'm a conservative leaning libertarian....I hate the far right and far left with equal vehemence. I always try to understand both sides of an argument before making a decision and when I do I try to wear my own biases on my chest. I don't discount news offhand that comes from right wing or left wing sources, I try to educate myself on the totality and make up my own mind. I've changed my mind many times on all sorts of issues depending on my knowledge of them. Can you say the same? When I see you calling Fox, faux news I know you aren't because research shows they are just as truthful, or not...as sources that you trust just because they do stories you agree with. I hope for outcomes that will be to the benefit of all Americans. The failure to do so by most of the population is THE reason for the polarizing bullshit we see today.
Time for a 3rd party.....somebody please start the Rational Party....enough of these self serving idiots from both sides of the aisle.
Post by: SlatchJim on May 13, 2016, 03:29:31 PM
I'm a conservative leaning libertarian...Ditto, sitting here in the bipolar state of California where ...somehow...against all odds...Jerry Brown has become the most reasonable politician of all of them (goofy useless zillion-dollar high speed train and all). I say this without a hint of irony or sarcasm. He really is better than the rest of the lot. Thank God Boxer's reign of terror is over.
Post by: stoneaxe on May 13, 2016, 03:58:43 PM
Post by: PonoBill on May 13, 2016, 07:16:38 PM
warren as vp is brewing again---with warren on board i can say i actually like the ticket a lot---warren would keep hillary's tendency to play to power interests well in check
You're delusional. VP is a zero influence position unless the president wants otherwise.
Post by: spookini on May 13, 2016, 08:08:31 PM
I even like Spookini.... ;D ;D ;DWait, what??
"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in." - M. Corleone
Post by: Bean on May 14, 2016, 03:34:36 AM
Post by: eastbound on May 14, 2016, 05:23:56 AM
so ill leave it that your clueless about eliz warren--she's outspoken and not squelched by anyone--that may be why hillary wont appoint her--but if she does, aint no churchmouse in lizzie.
Post by: PonoBill on May 14, 2016, 07:45:56 AM
B. When did you last see a VP openly disagree with a president.
C. When did you last see a VP exhibit anything remotely recognizable as power.
Besides, Hillary will just lie to her.
Post by: spookini on May 15, 2016, 06:14:51 AM
Trump would get endless mileage out of Warren's claim of Pocahontas-lineage. Very bad idea...
Post by: eastbound on May 16, 2016, 07:15:53 AM
actually i could go on endlessly about things i dont like about the clinton's--shit like "welfare reform"--the highly profitable commodity futures "trades" done on Hillary's behalf by the broker for Tyson chicken--Bill's law and order platform which criminalized and jailed thousands of non-violent poor people of color--that she wont release the goldman speeches.
so, like most politicians, there is plenty of legit dirt on Hillary----but there is so much trumped up garbage non-scandal crap that has been manufactured by haters---benghazi is a perfect example of this--and the gowdy mess has been nothing but an embarrassment, and an expensive embarrassment---all obsessed with by legislators who couldnt effect decent policy if their lives depended on it.
not sure if youre joking, spookini, but the tom tom pocahontas act will only hurt trump--didnt do much for scott brown, thk God.
I have little respect for most politicians. The type that can thrive in that world is not one i find respectable. I understand and buy into much represented by conservatism, but differ with most of it. So I am not typically a fan of conservative politicians. And I find the current strain to be conservatism by convenience, when there is no NIMBY effect. I respected William F Buckley.--but he was an intellectual conservative, not an anti "book-learned" religious rightnut, who "dont like no fuzzy math". And I differed with Buckley on most everything, but I could respect his POV and his thoughtfulness--and he believed fundamentally in truth, democracy and a functional system. The right wing of today is cut of a completely differnt cloth than that of the Buckley conservatives.
Post by: Weasels wake on May 16, 2016, 11:23:56 AM
Stoney,It's just too damn bad that WAPO didn't have the same desire or forethought to do the same kind of "drilling down" on Obama back when he was first running for POTUS. But now they do for Trump. It's Obama terms in office that has given rise to the popularity of Trump.
You are very defensive of Trump, yet you don't defend him or respond to the information offered about Trump--you respond with negative characterization of Hillary. It's clear you don't like Hillary. Got that.
What do you think of the tape of Trump making a complete imbecile of himself?
Do you find it an odd coincidence that Trump attacked Bezos last night? 8 hours before the release of the tape?
WAPO is drilling down on trump, now that he is the repub nominee, with greater focus than previously, when he was just a mildly amusing blowhard rich kid failure with an absurd ego. Any reasonable journalistic entity is doing so.
WAPO and all credible journalistic entities have spent plenty of time for the last 20 years digging deep into the clinton's, and there is an army of right wingers constantly on the lookout for any scandal (or trumped up non-scandal) about hillary that can be dredged up. This has gone on since Bill ran for pres--there is no shortage of people looking for dirt on the clinton's.
So, now that he is the Repub nominee, Trump is under the microscope. To say that there is unbalanced attention on Trump vs Hillary is simply wrong.
The digging into Trump has only recently begun in earnest. Be patient. We will be continually entertained with more and more like the tape i linked--all of which will continually illuminate what a complete POS the guy is. Stay tuned. Prepare to laugh heartily.
And yes, Hillary is seriously flawed, too. But she's not on the tape--Trump is, in all his glory!
Bezos is a privatization and low-tax obsessed libertarian--he is no fan of Hillary.
I doubt he's a fan of Trump, as of last night, when Trump threatened to go after Amazon for tax cheating and anti-trust (issues i happen to agree with Trump about, to be fair).
What's funny is how little i have seen on whom Hillary will choose as VP. Hope it's Warren, because she is the real thing, not owned by power interests, extremely smart and well-spoken, and engaged in a fundamental mission which is tough to speak ill of.
Maybe they should do some "drilling down" on themselves.
Post by: Tom on May 16, 2016, 12:40:16 PM
Post by: eastbound on May 16, 2016, 12:41:34 PM
trust me, roger ailes never said to give obama a pass--he directed his people to dig deeeep. as did wapo nytimes and wsj. and for any reporter who could scoop something awful on obama, that would be a career-maker--then or now.
or do you think there are secrets about obama, undiscovered by media? which, had they been publicized, would have prevented his election?
not sure where you're going with this. you think wapo is picking on trump? and handing out passes to the others?
Post by: eastbound on May 16, 2016, 12:52:59 PM
trump is a product of the republican party--his fan base in distinctly republican, so far, at least--majority of republicans have spoken---he is the republican nominee
Post by: eastbound on May 16, 2016, 12:55:08 PM
Post by: pdxmike on May 16, 2016, 01:01:59 PM
Post by: tautologies on May 16, 2016, 01:11:12 PM
And it's clear you don't like Trump or any conservative idea.
Yeah maybe separate those two, since the only idea Trump has is Trump. He is not conservative as such, he just finds it easier to gain traction with the "plain speaking" conservative base that the GOP has been fostering since Reagan...and perfected since Bush jr.
So how do you respond when you see articles like this about Clinton being more honest than any other candidate?
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-checkers-confirm-hillary-clinton-is-more-honest-than-any-of-her-2016-opponents/24196/
Post by: stoneaxe on May 16, 2016, 03:07:56 PM
"Plain speaking"....so everyone that supports Trump is stupid? I guess that means everyone that supports Hillary is on welfare?.... ::)
and seriously?...the daily news bin? How many articles have they have published that are against Hillary? Started in 2015 and nothing but Hillary suck up stories....great source to cite.
Post by: lucabrasi on May 16, 2016, 04:47:37 PM
trump is a product of the republican party--his fan base in distinctly republican, so far, at least--majority of republicans have spoken---he is the republican nomineeHe is a product of many things and not just the republicans. His fan base appears republican, no doubt but to say his rise is all about just one side is about as absurd as saying he is a business failure. No matter the reasons, do you really think that if there wasn't such partisanship in our congress, that if our factories and other things hadn't have packed up and left, that if our health insurance premiums hadn't have skyrocketed out of sight, that if there weren't third and fourth generation welfare scammers, that if the crap and bureaucracy all through every government agency was somewhat coherently in check, that if lobbyists and special interests didn't seem to run everything, that if the kids in our schools were succeeding at better rates, lifelong politicians........Where should I end,,,,,,,,or start? Do you think if any of those and others were somewhat sane and coherent he would have gotten this far? That's the whole shit show for years, not just one side.
Good points on Cheney I guess but to think someone would keep Hilary in check........How? Does she open her mouth on something that Hilary isn't a fan of or disagrees which makes her half to deal with it like Joe and Barack?
Is all the dirt they got on him going to be him pretending to be someone else? I have no clue but.......that is pretty...I don't know, lame? to bring that out as dirt. Embarrassing for him, no doubt......but he is also so full of himself I don't think it surprised anyone. It will be interesting to see what dirt does come out over the summer and how it gets spun. If that's all they got so far I just don't think there will be much there. Interesting times ahead.
This delegate, super delegate nonsense and how Bernie appears to be what the majority of people really want but Hilary is "the chosen one" is pretty interesting and a sad state of where we are. That would also tie into how Donald has gotten this far.......tired of seeing our money wasted, our wishes not brought up or even acknowledged, tired of someone always trying to be our mommy, tired of the guy somewhere else telling me what's good for me. Perhaps the republicans are the only ones who know how to pick the candidate their voters want??
Post by: spookini on May 16, 2016, 05:09:24 PM
not sure if youre joking, spookini, but the tom tom pocahontas act will only hurt trump...
You MUST be joking. Trump has already gone there, here in MA at least.
This is a guy who's repetoire is 'lyin' Ted, lil' Marco, and crook'd Hillary'.
His verbal jousts are as sophisticated as a 5th-grade wedgie.
Weasels, somebody already HAS the dirt on 'Bama. TRUMP. He's had it since Aug 2011.
We're just waiting for his "team of investigators in Hawaii" to release their 'unbelievable' findings.
Any day now...
The rise of Drumpf might have less to do with "voter disaffection", than plain old reality television.
Let's face it -- this country is doubling-down on dumbing-down.
Flav Flav for VP?
Post by: stoneaxe on May 16, 2016, 05:16:01 PM
I think this has to be how the French felt just before they pulled out the guillotines.
Post by: spookini on May 17, 2016, 08:26:03 AM
(POTUS doesn't even get to chose a Supreme Court Justice anymore... Did I miss the memo??)
There were plenty of reasonable GOP candidates. But, one was too chubby for TV (Christie).
One had family baggage (Jeb). One looked like Eddie Haskell (Rubio).
And another, just too damn boring, I guess (Kasich).
So the huckster gained traction, cause it was good fun and made things interesting.
But if you put Kong on display, he might just break free and pillage the city...
PT Barnum would be proud!!
Post by: stoneaxe on May 17, 2016, 10:00:26 AM
Post by: spookini on May 17, 2016, 10:32:01 AM
'
don't understand how progressives think we are going to make things better for all Americans
I'd argue progressives don't think that. Liberals think that.
But the GOP says 'if we could just turn the clock back to 1950, life would be good again'.
There was no awareness of global warming in the 50s. Hispanics knew their place. Women knew their place.
The US dominated the world's industrial economy. Single-earner households were good enough.
The nostalgic appeal is obvious, but we can't turn back time.
Trump taps in to some sort of scapegoat ethos. "Blame the other guy for our problems!!"
IMO, at least.
Post by: stoneaxe on May 17, 2016, 12:54:33 PM
No question there are serious issues in the GOP but I hardly think they have a monopoly on blaming others. I've always thought that was a Dem mantra. Where is personal responsibility in progressivism?
This thread has run it's course....honestly wish I had never posted it despite having spent a lot of time here. Nobody is changing any minds and in some spots we've delved into the dark area of comments on political blogs....and I hate the discourse there more than anything. The circle jerk echo chambers of right-wing and left-wing idealogues.
Post by: PDLSFR on May 17, 2016, 01:45:53 PM
This thread has run it's course....honestly wish I had never posted it despite having spent a lot of time here. Nobody is changing any minds and in some spots we've delved into the dark area of comments on political blogs....and I hate the discourse there more than anything. The circle jerk echo chambers of right-wing and left-wing idealogues.
Well I have changed my mind.....
Post by: tautologies on May 17, 2016, 02:28:31 PM
I did separate the two....thus the or
"Plain speaking"....so everyone that supports Trump is stupid? I guess that means everyone that supports Hillary is on welfare?.... ::)
and seriously?...the daily news bin? How many articles have they have published that are against Hillary? Started in 2015 and nothing but Hillary suck up stories....great source to cite.
whoaaa defensive much?
If you looked at the article it cites something else. Also I do not think people who support Trump are idiots. I think in general they are racist, bigoted and narrow minded with little understanding for how societies work. I am of course assuming they are supporting what Trump actually are saying and how he is behaving. I know one doesn't have to support everything, but in general one should feel comfortable with the candidate on multiple levels.
You really did not respond to any claims from the source in the article.
Post by: stoneaxe on May 17, 2016, 03:14:00 PM
Also I do not think people who support Trump are idiots. I think in general they are racist, bigoted and narrow minded with little understanding for how societies work.
Racist, bigoted, narrow minded and with little understanding....I think you're pretty close to the Webster's definition of idiot.
I know a dozen or so folks that support Trump....only one fits your description. My across the street neighbor who I happen to despise. Being narrow minded is believing that what you are seeing in the media concerning Trump supporters is the whole story. Gee...I wonder why they would pick the crazy redneck that was ranting over the thoughtful comments of the guy in a suit? I don't consider myself a Trump supporter but almost anything is better than Hillary. Like me most are just tired of the bullshit the establishment has been dishing out.
Despite trying to get my news from a broad array of sources. I'm not about to bother responding to the claims of a supposed news site that seems to have been created with the sole purpose to pump up Hillary. Pretty easy to skew statistics to your liking and cherry pick what you report to support the candidate you like. Hillary's deceptions are significant and well documented, the fact that she has chosen her words carefully while on the campaign trail means little. Do you read that site often? I have the same reaction to folks on the right citing Infowars....if you read it and believe it all.... ::). I'm far more concerned by what she will do than her lying. I know Trumps lying...he opened his mouth. Still better than Hillary.
Post by: PonoBill on May 17, 2016, 03:56:39 PM
I find lucabrasi's recent post to be a thoughtful summary of the strange support for Trump. I don't think it has much to do with being republican except in the sense of the parody of conservatism that the party has come to represent.
The unsettling and sad part of what I see is that people who seem to be reasonable are so ossified in their beliefs, so certain that the conclusions they have come to are correct. It's very much like religious belief--something that can't be successfully challenged by even reasonable proof to the contrary.
I recently watched a panel discussion with Michael Schrage, MIT Sloan School of Management; theoretical physicist Dr. Michio Kaku; Peter Diamandis, founder and chairman of the X-Prize Foundation; and Isabel Aguilera, former CEO of Google’s Spain & Portugal operations speaking about H1B visas and the failure of american education to produce people capable of succeeding in complex technical positions. Watching the video (edited) and then reading the full transcript I was struck with how even these very bright people seem unable to concede a point, or adopt or even acknowledge the legitimacy of a contrary position.
I wonder how many republicans detest Trump but simply despise Hillary Clinton more.
I wonder how many democrats detest Hillary but simply despise Trump more.
Oh, and regarding the panel discussion above, despite my distaste for the woefully inadequate american education system, I think the H1B systems is a much simpler issue--do you want the best of the best from 320 million, or from 7.2 Billion? Easy choice if you're picking a brain surgeon for yourself, equally easy if you want a company building challenging technology to thrive.
Post by: spookini on May 17, 2016, 06:16:40 PM
This thread has run it's course....honestly wish I had never posted it
On the contrary...
This thread got me to watch the "Libertarian Presidential Debate", which I assumed would be crackpot central.
Yet I watched the whole thing, and strangely found myself agreeing with much of what those folks were saying.
(Ok, the dude from McAfee was pretty darn crackpot-ish. ;D )
Post by: PonoBill on May 17, 2016, 07:51:11 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on May 17, 2016, 08:39:36 PM
trump is a product of the republican party--his fan base in distinctly republican, so far, at least--majority of republicans have spoken---he is the republican nomineeHe is a product of many things and not just the republicans. His fan base appears republican, no doubt but to say his rise is all about just one side is about as absurd as saying he is a business failure. No matter the reasons, do you really think that if there wasn't such partisanship in our congress, that if our factories and other things hadn't have packed up and left, that if our health insurance premiums hadn't have skyrocketed out of sight, that if there weren't third and fourth generation welfare scammers, that if the crap and bureaucracy all through every government agency was somewhat coherently in check, that if lobbyists and special interests didn't seem to run everything, that if the kids in our schools were succeeding at better rates, lifelong politicians........Where should I end,,,,,,,,or start? Do you think if any of those and others were somewhat sane and coherent he would have gotten this far? That's the whole shit show for years, not just one side.
Bingo!!! we have a winner.....Luca out...(drops the mike)
I say we end this fucker and go back to our happy place...... :) Seriously post some videos....or even better, talk some story on recent sessions, be happy for a bit and let this shitshow play out as it will.
Post by: tautologies on May 18, 2016, 02:03:57 AM
trump is a product of the republican party--his fan base in distinctly republican, so far, at least--majority of republicans have spoken---he is the republican nomineeHe is a product of many things and not just the republicans. His fan base appears republican, no doubt but to say his rise is all about just one side is about as absurd as saying he is a business failure. No matter the reasons, do you really think that if there wasn't such partisanship in our congress, that if our factories and other things hadn't have packed up and left, that if our health insurance premiums hadn't have skyrocketed out of sight, that if there weren't third and fourth generation welfare scammers, that if the crap and bureaucracy all through every government agency was somewhat coherently in check, that if lobbyists and special interests didn't seem to run everything, that if the kids in our schools were succeeding at better rates, lifelong politicians........Where should I end,,,,,,,,or start? Do you think if any of those and others were somewhat sane and coherent he would have gotten this far? That's the whole shit show for years, not just one side.
Bingo!!! we have a winner.....Luca out...(drops the mike)
I say we end this fucker and go back to our happy place...... :) Seriously post some videos....or even better, talk some story on recent sessions, be happy for a bit and let this shitshow play out as it will.
I dunno. You are still just pointing at symptoms and deflecting. I doubt anyone claims the system is perfect, but to prefer a bigoted sexist racist that have a severe narcissistic personality disorder is weird.
The reason why I do not call people who support Trump idiots, is because I assume they hear his hate speech and agree with it. I hold them to their choice. They are racists and bigots because they support one.
This country needs more parties.
Post by: Admin on May 18, 2016, 05:59:45 AM
...even the jargon from this cycle is hideous.
Post by: SUP Leave on May 18, 2016, 09:23:18 AM
My partner in my engineering business is a crotchety old racist/bigot and he hates Trump. Far too close to the middle for him. Of course he hates Hillary too so Trump will get his vote.
Lucabrasi nailed it Trump is a product of the system. IMO the R's had an opportunity to clean house this election cycle, but have swung so far to the right with party politics that they will probably lose. They have pandered too hard to the whack jobs, and hyper-religious and lost the middle, again. They have not been able to trot out any really talented nominees for a long time. No one wants to put up with their whack-job b.s. Hillary more closely resembles what the R-party politicians want anyway, a bureau-lifer who will not disrupt their gravy train.
Most politicians despise Trump because he is not one of them. This is why I have to vote for him. I am a small business owner, and most of my friends are as well. All of us want basically the same thing from our government: infrastructure, protection, education, and social services for those who need it. None of us care or have time to care which bathroom you shit in, who you marry, what you do with your fetuses, who you pray to, or any of the other social conservative causes. All of us care about taxes and regulations. What we want is corporate money back in the US and right now it is all hanging out other places (like over $1 trillion).
Currently liberal and conservative politicians alike want the money back here to fund government, which will keep it offshore. Trump and Sanders both have plans to get the money back, while Hillary is bought and paid for and her plan could be called "cautious and pragmatic" or in "plain speak" more of the same. Trumps plan is simplistic and probably could get a lot of the money back here, but it does not take the "fund government" angle into account. He wants the corporate money here to create jobs and wealth.
Despite all of his bloviating and idiotic remarks. I would trust someone who has some business acumen, has watched businesses succeed and fail, and experienced regulations over a lifelong politician every day. That is just where I come from. I would really like a more polished version of that than Trump but the choice overall is very easy. My state will go Hill anyway.
Post by: SlatchJim on May 18, 2016, 10:15:45 AM
I do laugh at both Trump and Clinton, but it's a nervous, pre-execution laugh that I imagine is heard quite a bit along the "Green Mile."
Post by: PonoBill on May 18, 2016, 10:33:24 AM
Post by: pdxmike on May 18, 2016, 11:31:44 AM
I don't like the optics on this. Let me walk that back. No, I'll pivot. Who's going to curate the furnishings in the White house?The main reason I like standupzone is that after all these years, it's remained a 100% "curate"-free zone.
...even the jargon from this cycle is hideous.
Post by: stoneaxe on May 18, 2016, 12:33:12 PM
trump is a product of the republican party--his fan base in distinctly republican, so far, at least--majority of republicans have spoken---he is the republican nomineeHe is a product of many things and not just the republicans. His fan base appears republican, no doubt but to say his rise is all about just one side is about as absurd as saying he is a business failure. No matter the reasons, do you really think that if there wasn't such partisanship in our congress, that if our factories and other things hadn't have packed up and left, that if our health insurance premiums hadn't have skyrocketed out of sight, that if there weren't third and fourth generation welfare scammers, that if the crap and bureaucracy all through every government agency was somewhat coherently in check, that if lobbyists and special interests didn't seem to run everything, that if the kids in our schools were succeeding at better rates, lifelong politicians........Where should I end,,,,,,,,or start? Do you think if any of those and others were somewhat sane and coherent he would have gotten this far? That's the whole shit show for years, not just one side.
Bingo!!! we have a winner.....Luca out...(drops the mike)
I say we end this fucker and go back to our happy place...... :) Seriously post some videos....or even better, talk some story on recent sessions, be happy for a bit and let this shitshow play out as it will.
I dunno. You are still just pointing at symptoms and deflecting. I doubt anyone claims the system is perfect, but to prefer a bigoted sexist racist that have a severe narcissistic personality disorder is weird.
The reason why I do not call people who support Trump idiots, is because I assume they hear his hate speech and agree with it. I hold them to their choice. They are racists and bigots because they support one.
This country needs more parties.
I agree that the country needs more parties.
Let me get this straight though....anyone here that pulls the lever for Trump is a racist and biggot?
Hillary isn't narcissist? Doesn't have her own major flaws? She also most importantly supports policies I can't. Pardon the pun but that trumps any of your concerns about Trumps racism and bigotry.
People want better controls on runaway everything. When was the last time "We the People" have felt much control?
Post by: Weasels wake on May 18, 2016, 12:56:21 PM
Can't wait for the dem's convention, it will be very entertaining, as Diane Feinstein said just today, "it could be 1968 all over again".
Post by: yugi on May 18, 2016, 01:18:43 PM
In Switzerland this guy felt strongly about how Powerpoint presentations suck so he created the Anti PowerPoint political party.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/aug/28/powerpoint-party-switzerland-ban
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hLO44rI2o8
Feel strongly about something? Just do it.
OK, back to the regular scheduled program. Hope you enjoyed the break.
Post by: SUP Leave on May 18, 2016, 04:32:40 PM
The Republicans playing to religious whackjobs are sucking up to a majority. 21 percent of Americans believe the Bible is literally true, 74 percent believe it is either literally true or is the word of God. 77 percent of Americans believe angels literally exist. Makes my head hurt. The earth is 10,000 years old. God (god) help us.
Amazing, I never knew the numbers were that staggering, but it hit me in my face this morning when one of my friends on Facebook pointed out the Mt. St Helens eruption (today in 1980) as proof that the world doesn't have to be millions of years old . . . because the volcano took out an entire hillside in one day.
I would never check an idiot from doing idiot things, especially when they are an old friend, but man.
I guess I have let my reality cloud actual reality.
Post by: SUP Sports ® on May 18, 2016, 04:46:03 PM
Maybe Bernie will start another party, there is a buzz out there about that, I think it would be great, but for different reasons.
Can't wait for the dem's convention, it will be very entertaining, as Diane Feinstein said just today, "it could be 1968 all over again".
Zackly Greg...let the chips fall where they will...but, Bernie should break out of the pack...regardless, this great country of ours deserves at least three viable political parties...more flavors than just milquetoast vanilla and chocolate...;-)
Post by: Area 10 on May 18, 2016, 04:54:08 PM
The Republicans playing to religious whackjobs are sucking up to a majority. 21 percent of Americans believe the Bible is literally true, 74 percent believe it is either literally true or is the word of God. 77 percent of Americans believe angels literally exist. Makes my head hurt. The earth is 10,000 years old. God (god) help us.Is that 74 percent of people who identify themselves as Christians, or 74% of US citizens? I'd be interested to know where I could find these data. Thanks.
Post by: PonoBill on May 18, 2016, 05:16:06 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that a supreme being isn't possible. I don't have a clue. But you need to be a special flavor of blind to not understand that there are billions and billions of bits of evidence that the universe is about 13. 7 billion years old, and billions of bits of evidence--many of which you can dig up in your own yard, that the solar system is 4.6 billion years old, and pretty much only one place that says it is 10,000 years old, and that book was written by people who had no idea what a bacteria was, what stars are, what the solar system looks like, that there are other galaxies, what the earth is, what the sun is, or just about fuck all anything.
I like some religious people, and what keeps me liking them is that I refuse to talk about their religion with them. Because I can't repress the simple thought that they are dumber than a bag of hammers.
Post by: stoneaxe on May 18, 2016, 06:35:10 PM
Post by: tautologies on May 18, 2016, 06:57:04 PM
I agree that the country needs more parties.
Let me get this straight though....anyone here that pulls the lever for Trump is a racist and biggot?
Hillary isn't narcissist? Doesn't have her own major flaws? She also most importantly supports policies I can't. Pardon the pun but that trumps any of your concerns about Trumps racism and bigotry.
People want better controls on runaway everything. When was the last time "We the People" have felt much control?
So your dislike for Clinton middle of the road politics will let you support at guy that is a racist, bigot, misogynist and quite probably narcissistic personality disorder?
That is mind boggling to me.
Do you agree that Trump is a racist? A bigot? Misogynist? If you do not how do you interpret his many statements indicating that he is?
My personal opinion is that we have to take everything at face value.
If Trump says something that is racist, then he is a racist. If you support that it definitely says something about you. Maybe you aren't really racist, but you are not worried about have a racist as a leader, which is still pretty bad. There just is no excuse. When he makes up departments in the government, he really has no idea how the government is put together. When he has no answer to what policies he will enact, then he really has no plan for the presidency. And when he changes his opinion mid sentence, it is literally because he did not think through even the most basic parts of governing, and he has no values guiding his decision. And yes if you feel that is something you can put your name on, then it does say something about you.
Post by: tautologies on May 18, 2016, 06:58:30 PM
I've actually become somewhat anti-religious of late. Not about to start discussing it but I think it served its purpose, time to move on. The human race needs to advance beyond it.
Agree 100%.
Post by: spookini on May 18, 2016, 08:19:22 PM
Tauto, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'm mid-40's white male. I grew up thinking a black quarterback was a "gimmick". I still believe female cleavage exists for me to stare at.
Does that make me racist or sexist? I dunno. But it's a hop-skip-and-jump from understanding the appeal behind Trump's message.
I don't believe Trump is racist or sexist. He's simply Trumpist.
Post by: PonoBill on May 18, 2016, 09:01:04 PM
I agree that the country needs more parties.
Let me get this straight though....anyone here that pulls the lever for Trump is a racist and biggot?
Hillary isn't narcissist? Doesn't have her own major flaws? She also most importantly supports policies I can't. Pardon the pun but that trumps any of your concerns about Trumps racism and bigotry.
People want better controls on runaway everything. When was the last time "We the People" have felt much control?
So your dislike for Clinton middle of the road politics will let you support at guy that is a racist, bigot, misogynist and quite probably narcissistic personality disorder?
That is mind boggling to me.
Do you agree that Trump is a racist? A bigot? Misogynist? If you do not how do you interpret his many statements indicating that he is?
My personal opinion is that we have to take everything at face value.
If Trump says something that is racist, then he is a racist. If you support that it definitely says something about you. Maybe you aren't really racist, but you are not worried about have a racist as a leader, which is still pretty bad. There just is no excuse. When he makes up departments in the government, he really has no idea how the government is put together. When he has no answer to what policies he will enact, then he really has no plan for the presidency. And when he changes his opinion mid sentence, it is literally because he did not think through even the most basic parts of governing, and he has no values guiding his decision. And yes if you feel that is something you can put your name on, then it does say something about you.
Maybe it says you just really hate Hillary.
I can't vote for Trump, but I understand people who will vote for him even if they detest him, because they believe Hillary would be disastrous for the US. Its easy to make the case that voting for Bugs Bunny is the same as voting for whoever actually wins. If you think Hillary is the bigger disaster (I more or less do), and you don't want to throw your vote away, what would you suggest?
I think this is the issue of the day. I believe a decent third party candidate could easily win the presidential election. It almost seems that Bernie could skip away from the mainstream democrats and run. but that seems like it could be a gimme for Trump.
Post by: tautologies on May 19, 2016, 01:18:44 AM
I think there's nothing wrong w/ believing in a superior being, who most likely looks down on us and thinks, "what a bunch of clowns down there!!".
Tauto, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I'm mid-40's white male. I grew up thinking a black quarterback was a "gimmick". I still believe female cleavage exists for me to stare at.
Does that make me racist or sexist? I dunno. But it's a hop-skip-and-jump from understanding the appeal behind Trump's message.
I don't believe Trump is racist or sexist. He's simply Trumpist.
LOL.
I like boobs as much as the next person. Obviously enjoying a fine set doesn't make you sexist.
It Trumps actions that are racist and sexist. That makes him racist and sexist, but I absolutely agree he is only in it for him.
Post by: tautologies on May 19, 2016, 01:35:31 AM
I can't vote for Trump, but I understand people who will vote for him even if they detest him, because they believe Hillary would be disastrous for the US. Its easy to make the case that voting for Bugs Bunny is the same as voting for whoever actually wins. If you think Hillary is the bigger disaster (I more or less do), and you don't want to throw your vote away, what would you suggest?
I think this is the issue of the day. I believe a decent third party candidate could easily win the presidential election. It almost seems that Bernie could skip away from the mainstream democrats and run. but that seems like it could be a gimme for Trump.
I get what you are saying, but I think if you accept and vote for a presidential candidate that is racist, sexist, has no political experience, nor any history of following advice you should take step back and rethink your values.
I'm no Clinton fan, but there is absolutely nothing indicating she is anywhere near as bad as Trump.
Post by: stoneaxe on May 19, 2016, 07:09:55 AM
I think far more damage has been done to low income minorities in the US by illegal immigration, and our welfare system over the last 40 years than has ever been done by any conservative efforts in the same time period. Add the loss of jobs overseas which both sides of the aisle have made more possible and you have today. The civil rights movement was one of the greatest things to ever happen in this country. Unfortunately the unintended consequences of liberal/progressive policies since have created the mess our inner cities have become. If someone believes that Trump can help break the cycle, or at least put some cracks in it I don't think their values are in question at all. There are certainly plenty of folks that are racist, bigots or what have you that are supporting him but I think there are far, far more that will vote against Hillary.
Your opinion on whether Hillary would be as bad, better, or worse than Trump is your opinion, nothing more than that.
My ideal result from all this.......a strong libertarian candidate asks Bernie to be his running mate and they clean the clocks of both parties and pull the rug out from under the feet of all the lobbyists and special interests. THAT I could support without question.
Post by: eastbound on May 19, 2016, 07:31:34 AM
i think the fallacy of trickle up supply side economics, where we've cut taxes on the wealthy time and again over the last 30 years, is the major problem for our destroyed middle/working class--add to that the incentive our policies have effected to engage global labor arbitrage labor as though workers are a raw material like wood, for christ's sakes. and trade agreements are certainly a part of this. but the trade agreements stem from our vision that the planet can be a free market capitialist system--they are part and parcel of our peddling of global democracy/capitalism---if we want to peddle open capitalist markets, we have to take the pain. not so sure it's worth the pain, and whether what we're peddling is what we are told is being peddled.
so, yeah, we all have a lot of opinions, which seem unarguable to each of us, but, really are.
my opinion: hillary is not all that bad, and brings much good, and donald trump is dangerous dumb scary and a bigot---i am surprised that any intelligent voter can suspend concern over key issues like this---and i think that many of trumps supporters are in fact racist bigots themselves--if not, how can then say OK to the innumerable unarguably bigoted racists comments that have come out of Trump.
whatever the case more than half of republicans support him---says mucho about the republican state of mind.
there are and will be few to no democrats getting behind POS Trump.
Post by: stoneaxe on May 19, 2016, 08:41:15 AM
Post by: Ichabod Spoonbill on May 19, 2016, 09:25:34 AM
That said, I understand why people vote for him. The man scares me, but I get his perverse appeal. Like Stoney said, he is responding to the concerns of people who feel very left out of the political process, who have been left behind by our economic policies. In this way, Trump is right! There are whole swaths of America that are doing worse and worse, and nobody seems to give a crap. (Okay, Bernie talked about it, but he's running on fumes.) People need real hope that things are going to get better, and Hilary isn't offering that. She isn't offering much of anything except a slightly liberal version of the economic policies that have been causing all this damage. She's for LGBT rights, which is great, and for racial equality, which is also great, but these almost feel like window dressing. Economic policy is what's doing the most damage, and she's not going to make much of a difference.
That's not a vote for Trump. He's worse for many reasons, but I get why Hilary is a bad alternative. It's because for so many millions of people, she's the same song, different singer.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: eastbound on May 19, 2016, 10:12:29 AM
yeah with social programs like food stamps and welfare, there is a small amount of fraud--but the necessary help provided by these programs is basic to a society that cares about all, even the less fortunate--and clinton did welfare reform like no other politician in 50 years--you should be pleased by that--doesnt please me
and icky, the trump approach smacks of race-baiting and scapegoating, a crowd-motivator we've seen used throughout history--i wont subscribe to that, or give a pass to people who will--i would think you would agree with this
lastly--for the fools who feel left out, who think trump will look out for them, well, they are fools
Post by: eastbound on May 19, 2016, 10:12:35 AM
yeah with social programs like food stamps and welfare, there is a small amount of fraud--but the necessary help provided by these programs is basic to a society that cares about all, even the less fortunate--and clinton did welfare reform like no other politician in 50 years--you should be pleased by that--doesnt please me
and icky, the trump approach smacks of race-baiting and scapegoating, a crowd-motivator we've seen used throughout history--i wont subscribe to that, or give a pass to people who will--i would think you would agree with this
lastly--for the fools who feel left out, who think trump will look out for them, well, they are fools
Post by: Tom on May 19, 2016, 10:26:57 AM
Quote
the economic policies that have been causing all this damage.
I'm not sure what you call 'all this damage'. The past eight years has been the best eight year economic period in recent US history.
Welfare.
I enjoy the fact that I have a great life and it has been exceedinly great the past 8 years.I would have a very hard time enjoying my great life if those around me had to live in poverty and could not get medical attention when needed. I have no problem paying taxes to help others that have not been as fortunate as I. Yes, there are many flaws in the welfare system, money is wasted and there are some people who take advantage of the system, but destroying a system that helps many peole in need is wrong.
Post by: Ichabod Spoonbill on May 19, 2016, 10:28:53 AM
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post by: goodfornothin on May 19, 2016, 11:12:47 AM
Hanging out in an old white guys forum with a bunch of rich dudes aint going to give you a good picture of whats going on. We are at a peak resource problem. We have to many people, very little potable water, phosphourous, oil, gold silver, all of it has peaked. A true economy is based on resources,,,not fake money backed by promises and realestate. This is a world wide scramble to decouple from the petrodollar. Have you noticed the rhetoric around saudi arabia,,,have you noticed their oil is full of brine,,we are being set up. All economic factors are pointing at a world wide depression. And things are being set up,,,why do the chinese and russians have a new swift? Why are we in every bric country throwing cia replacemnts in every office? Why is venezuela crumbling? Socialism? Ha. No. Its the elite raping resources, setting up fall guys and wrangling a country under debt through the imf and world bank. We do it everywhere,,,for a reason.
And the clintons have had their hand up this pinata's ass for a very long time. Bernie sees the systme for what it is, at times,,,but he doesnt have the support of cheap oil any longer. Trump is a joke,,,more blame the victim bullshit. Blame your stupid supreme court backed by the oligarch. The corporations are pulling over cheap labor to meet demand. The world bank pressed nafta, same as the tpp, with the help of bill and hillary, and the ball keeps rolling. The wall is for the stupid mouth breathers that think the beaners are the problem. The problem is us,,,believing in the fantasy of infinte growth in a finite planet. None of your candidates will ever address the real problems. All.of them will continue to convince the public that magic fairy dust will keep the ball rolling.
One last thing,,,,the arctic is melting quickly,,,and so is antartica. We may have a blue ocean event this summer. Thats the real story. Climate chaos is happening now. We are at points never scene by a human, ever. Models are irrelevant, and stupid carbon taxes are irrelevant. We have over a hundred positive feed back loops in play now,,they just discovered another one. Phosphourous is running off the grreenland glaciers,,,,but the water has very little support,,so the algae will utilize it. That is what happened back in the permian,,,cane oceans due to algae and h2s. Look it up. We are on our way. Not one of those buffons in this clown show will address any of that. I suggest go surf,,,let the delgates decide whats up,,oh and diebold will help steer the narrative as well,,or read huff post and watch the main stream news,,,just be aware that the donors of these clowns also own all the media. Have a nice day:)
Post by: stoneaxe on May 19, 2016, 11:48:34 AM
I have to admit I sometimes think you're a little crazy GFN but mostly in a good way. And you're obviously far more intelligent than I am. No real difference in the Dems or GOP these days....same puppet masters pulling the strings. I'm not the fool that EB seems to think anyone voting for Trump is but a vote for Hillary doesn't dent that system in the least.....Trump might at least be a pimple on its ass, though even that is doubtful.
For what its worth my welfare comment had nothing to do with fraud (even though its far from minor) but everything to do with the destruction of the family, specifically the black family, and particularly the black inner city family where progressive/liberal policies have warehoused the poor. Lack of supportive parents is the number one problem with education.
Post by: PonoBill on May 19, 2016, 12:19:28 PM
Dick is a racist bigot.
Mary thinks Dick might play baseball better than spot.
Therefore Mary is a racist bigot.
Run spot, run.
I'm not all that entranced with the doom notion that GFN posits either. There a sort of Moore's Law scenario underway with power generation. All kinds really, but PV especially. Project the development curve for solar cells and smartgrids forward a bit and solar generation becomes cheaper than the grid. It's not far off. My PV array in Maui paid for itself in seven years. At that point all thermal generation of electricity becomes pointless and hydro is basically important for making aluminum. It will take a little while to deploy, but not more than 20 years.
Water isn't much of a problem when power is cheap. The only kind of water that isn't ridiculously abundant is potable water. Really there's lots of that too, but it's mostly groundwater. You can drill and frack for it, but why bother. If you have power desalination is easy.
There are lots of technical solutions to global climate change. Most of them probably won't be undertaken, for the simple reason that they probably aren't really necessary. Change the transportation sector, eliminate thermal electrical generation, and still have lots of power and the CO2 in the atmosphere becomes very valuable. The earth is already a lot greener as a result of increasing CO2 levels. The question is who benefits and who is harmed.
I'm a lot more interested in solutions than problems.
Post by: eastbound on May 19, 2016, 12:22:15 PM
walmart employees, 50% of whom are on food stamps, would go hungry! despite that they work full time at our nation's largest employer
how's that for leachiong off welfare? problem is the leach is walmart and wee taxpayers are subsidizing walmart!
and nuttin is a bit of a loon (self-described), but he hits the ball straight on much he speaks of---and who cares? He's one of us zoners! cuts deeper than any political garbagio--
off to FL, where it'll be flat for the weekend!
Post by: stoneaxe on May 19, 2016, 01:18:03 PM
i dont agree that welfare and progressive liberal policies have destroyed the black family and caused warehousing of poor in inner cities--i think without welfare the plight of poor families of coolor would be far worse---thank god the progressives consider social safety nets important---we'd have p[eople starving in the streets without them---
walmart employees, 50% of whom are on food stamps, would go hungry! despite that they work full time at our nation's largest employer
how's that for leachiong off welfare? problem is the leach is walmart and wee taxpayers are subsidizing walmart!
and nuttin is a bit of a loon (self-described), but he hits the ball straight on much he speaks of---and who cares? He's one of us zoners! cuts deeper than any political garbagio--
off to FL, where it'll be flat for the weekend!
You might want to do a little reading....particularly the paragraph "Post-1960s expansion of the U.S. welfare state" and beyond" to get a better perspective. I grew up amongst friends of all colors, some on welfare, the damage being done back then was obvious even to a kid and it's gotten far worse now. If we didn't have welfare AND illegal immigration there would be a place/work for people to get a start in life. We wouldn't have people starving in the streets...that's a progressive boogeyman at best.
I agree....Walmart should be drawn and quartered....next argument.
Hey...at least we agree that flat sucks..... ;)
Post by: stoneaxe on May 19, 2016, 07:18:02 PM
I'm not necessarily against GMO's in principal but I am if it means Roundup resistance and Monsanto. Rather long video but some rather shocking numbers and info.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYhNryOPSJ0
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/6/1480931/-Hillary-Clinton-and-Monsanto
Post by: PonoBill on May 19, 2016, 08:09:14 PM
Hillary is just wonderful, lets blend these two together a bit, then give it some thought. She is so in bed with the money dealers she can't turn over without stealing their covers.....or them hers.
Good line, is that yours. If so, kudos.
Our good friend Ed Lane was with his wife and Diane at a vegan cooking class (no, i don't know why, maybe she didn't think I was farting enough) and one of the "instructors" was going on and on about some spice she used. Ed looked at the labels and said "Monsanto??" quizzically, which caused the neo hippie to hyperventilate. Not a lot of appreciation for irony in those drawstring duds.
Post by: yugi on May 20, 2016, 12:53:21 AM
Post by: Admin on May 20, 2016, 07:38:35 AM
Quotethe economic policies that have been causing all this damage.
I'm not sure what you call 'all this damage'. The past eight years has been the best eight year economic period in recent US history.
Most are not feeling it.
Two-thirds of US would struggle to cover $1,000 crisis
https://us.yahoo.com/finance/news/two-thirds-us-struggle-cover-110221321.html#
Post by: stoneaxe on May 20, 2016, 07:48:40 AM
Yeah...my line...just flowed.
I must have plenty of fuckinephren in my system already..... ;)
Guys...I get it. Donald Trump is a blowhard dickhead that if things were different I would be very, very, against ever getting near the white house. But Hillary solidifies the corruption we see in the system like few other candidates have. You guys would be the 1st to deride a republican with the same kind of corruption going on and deservedly so...George Bush/Halliburton, etc... Now you're willing to look the other way. You yell about Trump being a sexist/mysogynist while Bill...the hero of the liberals has been groping women, getting blowjobs from interns in the oval office, and very likely screwing underage girls while hanging with his buds...all while both have gotten massive speaking fees from entities that want to effect legislation. These are your standard bearers.
You attack by calling into question the values of anyone that could support Trump. If I thought my vote was going to matter I'd hold my nose and vote for him. To me the alternative is far worse. To you that makes me a racist, sexist, bigot. To that I can only reply...Fuck You! I've spent pretty much my whole life hating racism, as long as I can remember understanding what it is I've hated it. How could I not? My 1st best friend was Chinese, my 1st girlfriend Puerto Rican, I grew up playing ball, going to school and hanging out with black kids....kids of all colors and creeds. I ate supper at their tables and they at mine. I'm very proud of the fact that during the forced school bussing in Boston in the 70's that my high school had almost none of the racial problems that caused so much strife elsewhere. There simply wasn't an issue, we were a diverse group of mutts already.
When my 13 year old daughter asked me if I would be mad at her if she liked a black kid I told her I was mad that she felt she needed to ask and paraphrased MLK..content of character is all that matters. I also raised my daughters to be independent women.....I NEVER want them to have to depend on a man and have fought for their equal rights all along the way. Any time I saw sexism in action I punched it in the face. We're talking about my daughters future and now my granddaughters....NOTHING matters more to me than that future. I think Hillary is far more of a threat to it than Trump. It's that simple. Placing derisive hateful labels on others because they don't think like you do.....sounds like you have your own isms you need to confront. I'm not disagreeing that Trump has used language designed to pump folks like that up and get the news to talk about him...very successfully obviously.... but to label everyone that doesn't want Hillary that way....intellectually lazy at best.
Post by: Zooport on May 20, 2016, 08:27:14 AM
...But Hillary solidifies the corruption we see in the system like few other candidates have...
I'm not a fan of Trump, but I hate Clinton and would vote for Trump just to keep that greasy, corrupt, Clinton politician out of office.
Post by: Tom on May 20, 2016, 08:54:03 AM
Quotethe economic policies that have been causing all this damage.
I'm not sure what you call 'all this damage'. The past eight years has been the best eight year economic period in recent US history.
Most are not feeling it.
Two-thirds of US would struggle to cover $1,000 crisis
https://us.yahoo.com/finance/news/two-thirds-us-struggle-cover-110221321.html#
Admin, that's an interesting article, but it has no relevance to my comment. The article states
Seventy-five percent of people in households making less than $50,000 a year would have difficulty coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill. But when income rose to between $50,000 and $100,000, the difficulty decreased only modestly to 67 percent.
Even for the country's wealthiest 20 percent — households making more than $100,000 a year — 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000.
The gist of which says that the US households regardless of how much money they make can not manage their money. How does the fact that people making over $100,000/year relate to "the economic policies that have been causing all this damage".
Post by: headmount on May 20, 2016, 09:09:16 AM
I thought the same thing with Tom's comment....I'm doing just fine too but that is not the reality for most.
Yeah...my line...just flowed.
I must have plenty of fuckinephren in my system already..... ;)
Guys...I get it. Donald Trump is a blowhard dickhead that if things were different I would be very, very, against ever getting near the white house. But Hillary solidifies the corruption we see in the system like few other candidates have. You guys would be the 1st to deride a republican with the same kind of corruption going on and deservedly so...George Bush/Halliburton, etc... Now you're willing to look the other way. You yell about Trump being a sexist/mysogynist while Bill...the hero of the liberals has been groping women, getting blowjobs from interns in the oval office, and very likely screwing underage girls while hanging with his buds...all while both have gotten massive speaking fees from entities that want to effect legislation. These are your standard bearers.
You attack by calling into question the values of anyone that could support Trump. If I thought my vote was going to matter I'd hold my nose and vote for him. To me the alternative is far worse. To you that makes me a racist, sexist, bigot. To that I can only reply...Fuck You! I've spent pretty much my whole life hating racism, as long as I can remember understanding what it is I've hated it. How could I not? My 1st best friend was Chinese, my 1st girlfriend Puerto Rican, I grew up playing ball, going to school and hanging out with black kids....kids of all colors and creeds. I ate supper at their tables and they at mine. I'm very proud of the fact that during the forced school bussing in Boston in the 70's that my high school had almost none of the racial problems that caused so much strife elsewhere. There simply wasn't an issue, we were a diverse group of mutts already.
When my 13 year old daughter asked me if I would be mad at her if she liked a black kid I told her I was mad that she felt she needed to ask and paraphrased MLK..content of character is all that matters. I also raised my daughters to be independent women.....I NEVER want them to have to depend on a man and have fought for their equal rights all along the way. Any time I saw sexism in action I punched it in the face. We're talking about my daughters future and now my granddaughters....NOTHING matters more to me than that future. I think Hillary is far more of a threat to it than Trump. It's that simple. Placing derisive hateful labels on others because they don't think like you do.....sounds like you have your own isms you need to confront. I'm not disagreeing that Trump has used language designed to pump folks like that up and get the news to talk about him...very successfully obviously.... but to label everyone that doesn't want Hillary that way....intellectually lazy at best.
Intellectual laziness is the order of the day these days. Not many are willing to hash it out. I hear people echoing the sound bites produced by campaigns. We have two candidates where we must pick the lesser of two evils. Their positions and how they will affect you are thickly veiled in reality show drama. Your brother and I have had some great conversations and it's always a pleasure dealing with a logical person. It's obvious your parents taught both of you how to think. Great post Stoney.
Post by: tautologies on May 20, 2016, 09:28:23 PM
I thought the same thing with Tom's comment....I'm doing just fine too but that is not the reality for most.
Yeah...my line...just flowed.
I must have plenty of fuckinephren in my system already..... ;)
Guys...I get it. Donald Trump is a blowhard dickhead that if things were different I would be very, very, against ever getting near the white house. But Hillary solidifies the corruption we see in the system like few other candidates have. You guys would be the 1st to deride a republican with the same kind of corruption going on and deservedly so...George Bush/Halliburton, etc... Now you're willing to look the other way. You yell about Trump being a sexist/mysogynist while Bill...the hero of the liberals has been groping women, getting blowjobs from interns in the oval office, and very likely screwing underage girls while hanging with his buds...all while both have gotten massive speaking fees from entities that want to effect legislation. These are your standard bearers.
You attack by calling into question the values of anyone that could support Trump. If I thought my vote was going to matter I'd hold my nose and vote for him. To me the alternative is far worse. To you that makes me a racist, sexist, bigot. To that I can only reply...Fuck You! I've spent pretty much my whole life hating racism, as long as I can remember understanding what it is I've hated it. How could I not? My 1st best friend was Chinese, my 1st girlfriend Puerto Rican, I grew up playing ball, going to school and hanging out with black kids....kids of all colors and creeds. I ate supper at their tables and they at mine. I'm very proud of the fact that during the forced school bussing in Boston in the 70's that my high school had almost none of the racial problems that caused so much strife elsewhere. There simply wasn't an issue, we were a diverse group of mutts already.
When my 13 year old daughter asked me if I would be mad at her if she liked a black kid I told her I was mad that she felt she needed to ask and paraphrased MLK..content of character is all that matters. I also raised my daughters to be independent women.....I NEVER want them to have to depend on a man and have fought for their equal rights all along the way. Any time I saw sexism in action I punched it in the face. We're talking about my daughters future and now my granddaughters....NOTHING matters more to me than that future. I think Hillary is far more of a threat to it than Trump. It's that simple. Placing derisive hateful labels on others because they don't think like you do.....sounds like you have your own isms you need to confront. I'm not disagreeing that Trump has used language designed to pump folks like that up and get the news to talk about him...very successfully obviously.... but to label everyone that doesn't want Hillary that way....intellectually lazy at best.
That is such a load of bullshit. It so laughable you bring up Bill Clintons unfaithfulness to somehow discredit his wife...forgetting how many times Trump has been married. So if you want start comparing womanizing of Bill Clinton with Trump, I am not quite sure if Trump comes out looks quite clean since he is talking about the boobs of his kids when they are not even 1 year old. The guy is literally nuts.
You can play all sore about being called out on being willing to vote for a racist, but you still admit that you are going to. So then just accept it. Racism means less to you than voting for the wife of a guy who cheated on her. You moan about Clinton, but you don't really put factual information except that she is taking money to speak..which is a perfectly normal business. If you complain that she get contributions from donors, then you'll be in for a surprise hen Trump starts his real campaign....even if he has been saying he will fund it..he will not, so he has been lying to you there too. You know in addition to being clueless about government he lies. He'll take that same contributions.
Oh btw his biggest debtee is Deutsche Bank so then I guess you can choose you poison.
If you have ANY proof that Clinton is corrupt by all means post it here, but of course if it doesn't exist, then be prepared to be called out on it.
You can talk about your black friend as much as you want, but it pales in comparison to your actual choices on what matters to you.
The point here is that if you are talking about the lesser of evils, then voting for Trump is still nuts. Also, it seems like you feel you have to bring in Clinton everytime anyone says anything about Trump.
Post by: lucabrasi on May 20, 2016, 11:49:21 PM
It so laughable you bring up Bill Clintons unfaithfulness to somehow discredit his wife...forgetting how many times Trump has been married. So if you want start comparing womanizing of Bill Clinton with Trump, I am not quite sure if Trump comes out looks quite clean since he is talking about the boobs of his kids when they are not even 1 year old. The guy is literally nuts.You are nuts but.......you are saying you can't see through the Hillary and Bill deal. She ain't no dummy. Neither is he. They are good for each other.....they know it....Donald being married so many times and the Clinton relationship really is apples and oranges......especially in the context you lay out.....
You can play all sore about being called out on being willing to vote for a racist, but you still admit that you are going to. So then just accept it. Racism means less to you than voting for the wife of a guy who cheated on her.Sooooooooo, you're saying........ you think your idea of evil is "better" than someone elses??
Oh btw his biggest debtee is Deutsche Bank so then I guess you can choose you poison.He may have the bank as leveraged as the bank wants us to think they have him????? I don't know how all that works.
If you have ANY proof that Clinton is corrupt by all means post it here, but of course if it doesn't exist, then be prepared to be called out on it.If you have any proof that Donald gets off on babies...please post it here. (i really am not trying to endorse donald....)
You can talk about your black friend as much as you want, but it pales in comparison to your actual choices on what matters to you.Can't figure out what that is supposed to mean.
The point here is that if you are talking about the lesser of evils, then voting for Trump is still nuts. Also, it seems like you feel you have to bring in Clinton everytime anyone says anything about Trump.ok...........but you bring up Trump every time someone brings up clinton?
Oh my......
Oh yeah..... Did Uncle Sam recently bail anyone out? Banks? Autos? Donald? Have we really turned a corner? I don't know......not knowing many things.....Why didn't Pono House sell?
Post by: tautologies on May 21, 2016, 02:42:41 AM
Sooooooooo, you're saying........ you think your idea of evil is "better" than someone elses??So racism and misogyny isn't something that should disqualify anyone? You can defint your choices, but a the end of the day when you go and put your vote in, you are saying you want a racist mycologist as the president.
I do not think it is justification to vote for someone else. If Trump had been anywhere normal I could see it, but he is clearly not.
Quote
He may have the bank as leveraged as the bank wants us to think they have him????? I don't know how all that works.I don't disagree..I think it is a bullshit reason, but anyone arguing that Clinton gets money for speaking engagements, have the same if not more of a need to explain themselves. And when Trump is accepting big money...and he will...then what? more excuses?
Quote
If you have any proof that Donald gets off on babies...please post it here. (i really am not trying to endorse donald....)I guess there aren't any evidence of Clinton being corrupt...since every time all we get are innuendos.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/926616
There is some interesting footage in there.
Quote
ok...........but you bring up Trump every time someone brings up clinton?This is a thread about Trump. I am asking a guy questions and all he can say is Clinton this or that...
Oh my......
Oh yeah..... Did Uncle Sam recently bail anyone out? Banks? Autos? Donald? Have we really turned a corner? I don't know......not knowing many things.....Why didn't Pono House sell?
Also how in the hell did you turn a corner to the financial crisis now?
Post by: Admin on May 21, 2016, 05:28:42 AM
Quote
Admin, that's an interesting article, but it has no relevance to my comment. The article states
Seventy-five percent of people in households making less than $50,000 a year would have difficulty coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill. But when income rose to between $50,000 and $100,000, the difficulty decreased only modestly to 67 percent.
Even for the country's wealthiest 20 percent — households making more than $100,000 a year — 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000.
The gist of which says that the US households regardless of how much money they make can not manage their money. How does the fact that people making over $100,000/year relate to "the economic policies that have been causing all this damage".
Tom,
Half of the households in the US make under 52 K a year. Households. It is stunning that they can make ends meet. Even at 100 K for a household with kids after taxes that is very tight. Those two groups make up 80% of the country. With wages stagnant, each line item that has gone up takes these groups backwards. A generalization that this is an individual money management problem is not correct.
Post by: PonoBill on May 21, 2016, 06:38:28 AM
Post by: lucabrasi on May 21, 2016, 06:52:01 AM
Also how in the hell did you turn a corner to the financial crisis now?I did not agree with the comment made earlier by Tom about the last eight years being some of the best of times.
I wonder about Pono House being on the market still because.....what I do thrives on confidence and people spending that kind of money on that kind of thing. Too many variables to draw a conclusion with it being unsold but still wondering the thoughts about why it remains on the market.
Post by: stoneaxe on May 21, 2016, 07:21:00 AM
IMO a vote for Trump is giving the finger to the system. I agree with pretty much everything you say about him, what is there to refute....he sucks....still better than Clinton.
Post by: Admin on May 21, 2016, 07:27:48 AM
May not be the biggest problem of people making less than 60K, but money management IS the reason that a sudden expense that represents one fiftieth of pretax income is un=managable.
What you are hearing is that many households are struggling to budget for necessities in a decreasing income/expense scenario. The fact is, many are responsibly cutting out line items, group living, foregoing/delaying education, cutting pills in half and still are unable to cut fast enough to have any buffer. Criticize them for that or deny it but that is the reality for many.
Post by: stoneaxe on May 21, 2016, 08:03:49 AM
Post by: Tom on May 21, 2016, 08:26:01 AM
May not be the biggest problem of people making less than 60K, but money management IS the reason that a sudden expense that represents one fiftieth of pretax income is un=managable.
What you are hearing is that many households are struggling to budget for necessities in a decreasing income/expense scenario. The fact is, many are responsibly cutting out line items, group living, foregoing/delaying education, cutting pills in half and still are unable to cut fast enough to have any buffer. Criticize them for that or deny it but that is the reality for many.
I've cherry picked a few statements from the yahoo article:
Despite an absence of savings, two-thirds of Americans said they feel positive about their finances , according to survey data released Wednesday by AP-NORC, a sign that they're managing day-to-day expenses fine
Americans' struggle to save isn't new. Three CBS News and The New York Times polls going back to the mid-1990s — the most recent one done in 2007 before the downturn — show a majority of Americans would have some difficulty covering a $1,000 emergency.
The reasons why Americans don't save are complex.
It may not be entirely bad that some Americans do not have much cash savings, Emmons said. In the poll, 21 percent of Americans say they would strongly consider the option of putting the unexpected $1,000 bill on a credit card to be paid in full when their statement came due.
But nowhere does it blame the economic policies of the past administration. Also, if Hillary expands the Afordable Care Act, maybe no one would have to cut their pills in half.
Post by: Admin on May 21, 2016, 09:22:47 AM
Post by: pdxmike on May 21, 2016, 12:25:09 PM
Certainly many people can't manage money well. But there's a lot more going on, and lots of people hit hard economically over the last several years weren't poor managers of money. Even ones who made decision that in retrospect were poor weren't any worse at managing money than their contemporaries who did fine, or their parents who also did fine.
Post by: tautologies on May 21, 2016, 05:39:32 PM
I did not agree with the comment made earlier by Tom about the last eight years being some of the best of times.
You actually do not get to agree or disagree on that. All the variables used to calculate that points to it. If you have better numbers, then by all means present them, but using anecdotal evidence to represent something instead of actually looking at the data makes little sense.
Stone: I am not trying to spin liberal games, I am arguing rationally, and you guys just do not seem to have an answer..well I guess the last one was fairly straight forward...you dislike Clinton so much you are willing to welcome a racist, misogynist guy with a narcissistic personality disorder and and absolutely no political knowledge or experience into the white house. You still have not really showed why you think Clinton is so bad, but I realize that how you think.
Post by: stoneaxe on May 21, 2016, 07:06:10 PM
Post by: Admin on May 21, 2016, 08:22:34 PM
Quote
You actually do not get to agree or disagree on that. All the variables used to calculate that points to it.
Are you including the near doubling of the national debt in 8 years...or an increased deficit? Extraordinary debt to achieve an increase that has not helped the vast majority who are reporting flat or decreasing wages through the same period. This is the rigged economy that has had a starring role in this election.
Post by: PonoBill on May 21, 2016, 10:37:07 PM
Post by: PonoBill on May 22, 2016, 08:39:25 AM
Post by: Admin on May 22, 2016, 08:49:09 AM
Quote
Admin--2 times five equals seven??
I'm not sure what mean there.
Post by: Califoilia on May 22, 2016, 09:53:25 AM
What are you basing the bold statement off of? Here's what the CBO (https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50724) put out just about a year ago.....QuoteYou actually do not get to agree or disagree on that. All the variables used to calculate that points to it.
Are you including the near doubling of the national debt in 8 years...or an increased deficit? Extraordinary debt to achieve an increase that has not helped the vast majority who are reporting flat or decreasing wages through the same period. This is the rigged economy that has had a starring role in this election.
(https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/49xxx/49973-home-fig1.png)
....not seeing this "increased deficit" in the past 8 years you speak of. If anything, it looks like a miraculous recovery back towards the average, from the ill effects/results of when we elected a
Post by: Admin on May 22, 2016, 11:16:49 AM
You can use the top right to go back in time. National Deficit is 506 B now, 353 B in 2008. Debt has gone from 10,177 T to 19,266 T in the same period. Also note the rise in actual unemployment.
Post by: Califoilia on May 22, 2016, 12:36:12 PM
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.htmlHmm, so referencing an organization that doesn't identify who or what they are (http://www.usdebtclock.org/about.html), that uses "complex formulas" to spin their charts, is better than the the actual numbers from an organization that....
You can use the top right to go back in time. National Deficit is 506 B now, 353 B in 2008. Debt has gone from 10,177 T to 19,266 T in the same period. Also note the rise in actual unemployment.
Quote
Since 1975, CBO has produced independent analyses of budgetary and economic issues to support the Congressional budget process. Each year, the agency’s economists and budget analysts produce dozens of reports and hundreds of cost estimates for proposed legislation. CBO is strictly nonpartisan; conducts objective, impartial analysis; and hires its employees solely on the basis of professional competence without regard to political affiliation. CBO does not make policy recommendations, and each report and cost estimate summarizes the methodology underlying the analysis......that explains exactly who they, why they are in existence, and for whom and how they function (https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/2015-IntroToCBO-v2.pdf).
OK, so I guess we're at an impasse as to where we're getting/quoting our info from which we're basing our opinions/replies off of....and maybe that's the real, more pressing problem, who do we actually believe when it comes to the monetary health, and direction of this country?
Will we ever see a surplus again as we did in the first Clinton presidency, or was that simply another shell game to produce numbers/beliefs that didn't actually happen if we are to believe them (both Clintons) to be as "crooked" as one recent bloviator running for office hopes us to believe at present?
Post by: Admin on May 22, 2016, 03:59:18 PM
You can view the source for each stat by hovering over the stat itself. The deficit for instance is pulled from the congressional budget office. The numbers are correct. The debt clock shows the actual dollar amount of the deficit. Your chart does not show dollar amounts. It shows a percentage of the GDP....and Government spending is a huge component of the GDP...and national debt is not factored in anywhere. So...trillions on wars help the GDP. etc, etc.
Post by: PonoBill on May 22, 2016, 04:21:46 PM
Spoilsport.
I do find it difficult to understand why people keep saying the economy is a sham. The economy is ALWAYS a sham. Every country's economy is a sham, at the very best it's a fiction we all agree to believe in. There isn't even any reason to say that today's sham is shammier than it was twenty or fifty or a hundred years ago. That's just the persistent tendancy to claim that te problems we face are the worst ever.
I'm old enough to not buy that. Things can and will be very ugly, some people will get screwed, some will profit. Faced with the challenges of recovering from climate change, supervolcanoes, all out nuclear war, credit crunch, runaway inflation, deflation, the great recession, the great depression, domino theory, encroahing muslims, immigration, crusaders, mongol hordes, and chrono-synclastic infidibula I say have a nice life and go surfing.
Post by: Tom on May 22, 2016, 06:37:03 PM
Post by: PonoBill on May 22, 2016, 08:26:22 PM
Post by: Califoilia on May 22, 2016, 09:52:27 PM
Hi Sano,Hey Admin,
You can view the source for each stat by hovering over the stat itself. The deficit for instance is pulled from the congressional budget office. The numbers are correct. The debt clock shows the actual dollar amount of the deficit. Your chart does not show dollar amounts. It shows a percentage of the GDP....and Government spending is a huge component of the GDP...and national debt is not factored in anywhere. So...trillions on wars help the GDP. etc, etc.
Fair enough....yes, in the vacuum of a single number with no context around it, I certainly can't disagree with you....yep, we've got a bigger national debt than we've had any year prior.
But I have to ask, does your clock ever show a year that had less of a debt than the year(s) prior to it? I'm not about to take the time to go spin it backwards that far, but my gut feeling says that it has not...nor did I see it in the 8 few times frames from the upper right button you pointed out. If you can show me otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing that, and when that was if ever.
That said, do you or anyone else believe the ever increasing debt number, in and of itself is true indicator a worse personal financial situation over a period of time than one might say he has had in the past eight years as Tom did, or should be the only thing to refute a "lack of financial crisis" that tuato made...as your only evidence, or might we want to put something else into the equation?
Using just the national debt clock as reference, and it's ever increasing number(s), I could say that we've never had a period time in more than likely ever....that we've been better at any given place in time, than we were any time previously in history without some context (the CBO's GDP percentage comparisons) around some of the numbers.
Now if I'm going to use the National Debt clock as my one, and only reference, I guess I might say that your statement....
Two-thirds of US would struggle to cover $1,000 crisis....must be in error. Because according to your clock the "Savings Per Family" has increased period over period since 2008 when it had crashed from $8410 in 2004 to $3791 in just four years....and is now back up to a much better, back on track $8990 in 2016. So maybe Tom was simply noticing that in his own personal savings acct. from 2008 to 2016 for his statement of being better off these past eight years...no?
Post by: Admin on May 23, 2016, 04:31:40 AM
Quote
yes, in the vacuum of a single number with no context around it, I certainly can't disagree with you....yep, we've got a bigger national debt than we've had any year prior. But I have to ask, does your clock ever show a year that had less of a debt than the year(s) prior to it?
Hi Sano,
I had mentioned debt, deficit, GDP, Govt spending, etc. Debt has risen under all presidents since Nixon and has not seen any down years in recent history. Deficit bounces around more and yes, this does show up on the debt clock and other sources.
I originally sounded in to point out that the majority are still struggling. "Two-thirds of US would struggle to cover $1,000 crisis" was a quote fro the article I had posted. It went on to say, "46 percent of workers said their wages have remained stagnant in the last five years, and another 16 percent said they've actually seen salary cuts. Meanwhile, costs for basic needs, such as food, housing and health care, have risen." The savings per family metric that you mentioned is the crux of the wealth distribution issue. That is country's total savings in dollars divided evenly by total number of families. The issue is that most have no or little savings while a very few have billions.
It was not my point that Tom has not had a great 8 years. I disagreed with the comments "The past eight years has been the best eight year economic period in recent US history." and the comment that "you don't get to disagree with that".
Post by: Tom on May 23, 2016, 07:36:47 AM
(http://cdn.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2016/01/ObamasNumbers-2015-Q4.png)
Since President Barack Obama first took office:
Homicides have dropped 13 percent, but gun sales have surged.
The economy has added more than 9 million jobs, and the jobless rate has dropped to below the historical median.
The number of long-term unemployed Americans has dropped by 614,000 under Obama, but it is still 761,000 higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
Corporate profits are up 166 percent; real weekly wages are up 3.4 percent.
There are 15 million fewer people who lack health insurance.
Wind and solar power have nearly tripled, and now account for more than 5 percent of U.S. electricity.
The federal debt has more than doubled — rising 116 percent — and big annual deficits have continued.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update/
Post by: PonoBill on May 23, 2016, 09:28:28 AM
Post by: Califoilia on May 23, 2016, 09:52:14 AM
Hi Sano,Good morning Admin,
I had mentioned debt, deficit, GDP, Govt spending, etc. Debt has risen under all presidents since Nixon and has not seen any down years in recent history. Deficit bounces around more and yes, this does show up on the debt clock and other sources.
I originally sounded in to point out that the majority are still struggling. "Two-thirds of US would struggle to cover $1,000 crisis" was a quote fro the article I had posted. It went on to say, "46 percent of workers said their wages have remained stagnant in the last five years, and another 16 percent said they've actually seen salary cuts. Meanwhile, costs for basic needs, such as food, housing and health care, have risen." The savings per family metric that you mentioned is the crux of the wealth distribution issue. That is country's total savings in dollars divided evenly by total number of families. The issue is that most have no or little savings while a very few have billions.
It was not my point that Tom has not had a great 8 years. I disagreed with the comments "The past eight years has been the best eight year economic period in recent US history." and the comment that "you don't get to disagree with that".
I understand what you're saying, and all I'm basically saying that there are stats available to support just about any POV that one wants to take wrt the state of the economy and/or that of the country as a whole.
What I wholeheartedly agree with is your objection to the statement, "you don't get to disagree with that", because it's never a one-sided argument with one person being more right than the other....simply a matter of the "facts" that one wants to use to support their own personal position/opinion.
For instance, when you state, "Meanwhile, costs for basic needs, such as food, housing and health care, have risen", I can quote the Social Security Administration's 2016 COLA information (https://www.ssa.gov/news/cola/) that said....
Quote
With consumer prices down over the past year, monthly Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits for nearly 65 million Americans will not automatically increase in 2016.....and show that the COLA has been basically flat (https://www.ssa.gov/news/cola/automatic-cola.htm) for the past eight years....
Quote
January 2009 -- 5.8%...following the 5.8% left behind by President You-Know-Who (OK, with the exception of 2012 if we want to split hairs), but certainly not "runaway inflation" as some would like us to believe...and certainly not what we saw in the mid 70's thru mid 90's comparatively.
January 2010 -- 0.0%
January 2011 -- 0.0%
January 2012 -- 3.6%
January 2013 -- 1.7%
January 2014 -- 1.5%
January 2015 -- 1.7%
January 2016 -- 0.0%
Post by: Admin on May 23, 2016, 10:24:56 AM
Tom's info-graphic above has Consumer prices up 12.4% with earnings up only 3.4% in the same period. It also shows food stamp recipients up 42%. This is not a good scenario more the majority and supports what I had quoted from the earlier article. A strong stock market and corporate profits are great for one group. This is the wealth divide issue. Also that graph has public debt more than doubling.
I agree with you about selective number usage. Unemployment is a great example. U6 seems the most balanced to me and that is still high. I voted for Obama twice and don't regret it. He did come into an extraordinarily tough situation and it is not my goal to bash him. I think it is reasonable to critique him on issues. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, ACA, Debt, etc.
Post by: Califoilia on May 23, 2016, 10:56:26 AM
Hi Sano,You'll notice that I've only commented on one president here (and plan on keeping it that way), my only point to be made is "numbers are numbers", and only good in the context, and attempted reasoning(s) behind them...but they're certainly not going to be the end all as an identifier of problem or solution to anything either. Nor are they understood to have the same exact meaning or usages for all.....just a single piece to the much larger puzzle. JMHO naturally.... :)
Tom's info-graphic above has Consumer prices up 12.4% with earnings up only 3.4% in the same period. It also shows food stamp recipients up 42%. This is not a good scenario more the majority and supports what I had quoted from the earlier article. A strong stock market and corporate profits are great for one group. This is the wealth divide issue. Also that graph has public debt more than doubling.
I agree with you about selective number usage. Unemployment is a great example. U6 seems the most balanced to me and that is still high. I voted for Obama twice and don't regret it. He did come into an extraordinarily tough situation and it is not my goal to bash him. I think it is reasonable to critique him on issues. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, ACA, Debt, etc.
Post by: Weasels wake on July 15, 2016, 06:33:08 PM
Trump is heading on up in the polls, the middle east and France is exploding.
That's all I have to say about that, at this point.
Post by: Admin on July 18, 2016, 04:43:36 PM
Post by: pdxmike on July 18, 2016, 05:10:24 PM
So, it looks like I'm a Libertarian. What do we believe in again?You're going to have to answer that one yourself.
Post by: lucabrasi on July 18, 2016, 05:24:34 PM
There is this as well.
https://www.lp.org/platform
They all make sense.
Far too complicated to be that simple I guess......
:)So, it looks like I'm a Libertarian. What do we believe in again?You're going to have to answer that one yourself.
Post by: PonoBill on July 18, 2016, 05:39:56 PM
Post by: Admin on July 19, 2016, 09:19:04 AM
Quote
I don't know, these things?
There is this as well.
https://www.lp.org/platform
That all sounds pretty good, but unless Baio supports it, I don't think I can get behind it.
Post by: SlatchJim on July 19, 2016, 09:43:14 AM
I fear that if we took this election as serious as the situation warrants, ...actually it's probably best that I don't make any predictions. Sometimes the wisest thing I can do is muzzle my own attempts at humor.
Post by: surf4food on July 21, 2016, 02:50:00 PM
Post by: lucabrasi on September 24, 2016, 09:33:56 PM
Oh my.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/24/bill-clinton-accuser-gennifer-flowers-accepts-donald-trumps-invitation-to-attend-debate/
I can't be the only one curious about Monday night.
It's been years since there was something to look forward to on Monday night......
Heeeee haaaawwwwwwwwwww............
Post by: yugi on September 25, 2016, 05:34:17 AM
...
It's extremely difficult to have an election that has a result that reflects the "people's choice".
...
Yikes!
Maybe we should invade the USA to install democracy.
Post by: Weasels wake on September 25, 2016, 09:43:09 AM
:)But wait! There's more!
Oh my.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/24/bill-clinton-accuser-gennifer-flowers-accepts-donald-trumps-invitation-to-attend-debate/
I can't be the only one curious about Monday night.
It's been years since there was something to look forward to on Monday night......
Heeeee haaaawwwwwwwwwww............
Broaddrick wants to come too!
http://www.theamericanmirror.com/juanita-broaddrick-confront-hillary-trump-invited-debate/
This could be better than the Thrilla in Manila.
Post by: Subber on September 25, 2016, 11:26:59 AM
(BN) Trump Camp Pivots to Say Flowers Not Invited to Debate (1)
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
2016-09-25 17:22:49.740 GMT
By Kevin Cirilli and Ben Brody
(Bloomberg) -- Members of Donald Trump’s team said that the
Republican presidential nominee’s suggestion he might invite
Gennifer Flowers, who claimed to have had an affair with Bill
Clinton in the 1990s, to the first presidential debate was a
provocation that wouldn’t become reality.
“We have not invited her formally and we don’t expect her
to be there as a guest of the Trump campaign,” Kellyanne Conway,
Trump’s campaign manager, said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
Post by: SUPcheat on September 25, 2016, 02:30:44 PM
Post by: SeldomScene on September 25, 2016, 02:40:52 PM
Post by: freetobeme on September 25, 2016, 03:19:12 PM
This is one Presidential debate that I will watch from beginning to end.
You couldn't pay me to watch. They don't deserve my time, energy or vote.
Post by: Weasels wake on September 25, 2016, 03:20:55 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/paula-jones-want-attend-presidential-debate/
And then there is Ms. Willey
EXCLUSIVE – Kathleen Willey: Bill Clinton Alleged Sex Victims ‘Could Fill The Entire Audience’ At Presidential Debate
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/25/exclusive-kathleen-willey-clinton-sex-victims-fill-entire-audience-presidential-debate/
Good grief!
P.S. No voting = no complaining.
Post by: pdxmike on September 25, 2016, 03:56:52 PM
Post by: Subber on September 25, 2016, 04:33:29 PM
I'm not sure Trump really wants to win, otherwise he would stack the audience like that.
Maybe just the 3rd debate.
Post by: Off-Shore on September 25, 2016, 05:59:31 PM
Post by: Badger on September 25, 2016, 11:25:52 PM
You couldn't pay me to watch. They don't deserve my time, energy or vote.
+1
Same here.
I'm not going to waste my time watching a pair of nitwits make asses of themselves competing over who is the most unfit for office. It will obviously end a tie.
Post by: Bean on September 26, 2016, 08:09:18 PM
Post by: OUTSIDEWAVE on September 26, 2016, 08:30:55 PM
Then there is trump. and his BS
yeah this country has some political issues
Post by: Area 10 on September 26, 2016, 09:54:01 PM
Post by: PonoBill on September 26, 2016, 10:21:36 PM
It's getting weird.
Post by: Quickbeam on September 26, 2016, 10:41:14 PM
It's ironic that most commentators say that Trump narrowly lost this debate,
I could only watch the start of the debate. So I saw probably the first 15 minutes. But what I’m seeing now seems to be indicating that Trump lost by a wide margin??? I know there is going to be spin all over this thing, but it looked to me like even Republican strategists were saying Trump did not do well. I certainly didn’t do any in depth study, but from the little bit of searching I did it looked like the feeling was that Trump did very poorly. I guess we will only know once people start getting polled and we get the reaction from the American public. I would be particularly interested in knowing the feeling of those who have not yet made their mind up as to who they are going to support. It is after all those undecided voters who will likely be the difference makers.
Post by: cantSUPenough on September 26, 2016, 10:57:21 PM
yeah it s a h--- of choice on one had you have the wife of a sexual predator with links to unsolved or mysterious murders ( look up clinton murders) body count etc. even if only 5% is true it is shocking ( my sister who is an attorney ) worked with another attorney who was very involved in the clintons governorship in Arkansas and says the highway patrol used to procure women for ol Bill.
(Where angels fear to tread...)
Is this what people don't like about Hilary? I am from Australia (but lived in the US for 6 years and visit 4-5 times a year) and have always wondered why people dislike her so much (other than the fact that she is not Republican for those who lean right).
Post by: Area 10 on September 26, 2016, 11:12:52 PM
Well I live in the UK, so I had to stay up half the night to watch it. My own view is that Trump came across like...Trump. And Clinton seemed more sympathetic that she sometimes does. So in my mind, Clinton won by a large margin. However, the media over here is falling over itself to try to be even-handed and unbiased, so might be underestimating the judgements of the public. But we've got a lot of weirdness going on in our own politics right now, so I think the media are not feeling very confident about making claims about public opinion right now, let alone that in other countries. So it might be that as well. It seems to me that half the world has gone a bit nuts right now, not just the US (and UK).It's ironic that most commentators say that Trump narrowly lost this debate,
I could only watch the start of the debate. So I saw probably the first 15 minutes. But what I’m seeing now seems to be indicating that Trump lost by a wide margin??? I know there is going to be spin all over this thing, but it looked to me like even Republican strategists were saying Trump did not do well. I certainly didn’t do any in depth study, but from the little bit of searching I did it looked like the feeling was that Trump did very poorly. I guess we will only know once people start getting polled and we get the reaction from the American public. I would be particularly interested in knowing the feeling of those who have not yet made their mind up as to who they are going to support. It is after all those undecided voters who will likely be the difference makers.
Post by: Chilly on September 27, 2016, 04:07:46 AM
The country has gone insane. There's a level of intellectual laziness that feels overwhelming. The media--including social media--is mostly a tool for propaganda. Facebook is flooded with obvious manipulation, funded by whom? All kinds of memes that at first seem like ordinary distractions that turn out to be more about political polarization. flag burning, not standing for the anthem. all this bullshit that serves to fracture any unity of belief and divide people into narrow and vicious ideological camps.
It's getting weird.
I agree, this fanatical following of Trump is so weird. I’m puzzled that people are playing into this divide and conquer strategy.
Post by: Quickbeam on September 27, 2016, 07:08:42 AM
Well I live in the UK, so I had to stay up half the night to watch it. My own view is that Trump came across like...Trump. And Clinton seemed more sympathetic that she sometimes does. So in my mind, Clinton won by a large margin. However, the media over here is falling over itself to try to be even-handed and unbiased, so might be underestimating the judgements of the public. But we've got a lot of weirdness going on in our own politics right now, so I think the media are not feeling very confident about making claims about public opinion right now, let alone that in other countries. So it might be that as well. It seems to me that half the world has gone a bit nuts right now, not just the US (and UK).It's ironic that most commentators say that Trump narrowly lost this debate,
I could only watch the start of the debate. So I saw probably the first 15 minutes. But what I’m seeing now seems to be indicating that Trump lost by a wide margin??? I know there is going to be spin all over this thing, but it looked to me like even Republican strategists were saying Trump did not do well. I certainly didn’t do any in depth study, but from the little bit of searching I did it looked like the feeling was that Trump did very poorly. I guess we will only know once people start getting polled and we get the reaction from the American public. I would be particularly interested in knowing the feeling of those who have not yet made their mind up as to who they are going to support. It is after all those undecided voters who will likely be the difference makers.
Agreed, Area 10. There are a lot of crazy things happening in our world. And although we also have our fair share of problems, I do feel pretty fortunate to live in Canada right now.
As for the debate, as I said I could only watch about the first 15 minutes. I thought Trump was actually doing O.K. except for one major instance. I don’t remember all the details, but Hillary was making a point about how in 2008 the economy went into the tank, thousands of people were facing layoff, the tremendous stress it was putting on families, etc., and Trump chimed in and said “That’s called business”. I just couldn’t believe he would come out and say something like that. I was also surprised that Hillary didn’t come back at him for his comment, but I suppose she was trying to look “Presidential”.
When I looked at the reporting after the debate was over, they seemed to be saying that Trump did in fact do O.K. for the first part of the debate, but fell apart after that and Hillary was the clear winner. But again, it won’t be the commentators who determine who the winner is, it will be the American public. And so far at least, most of the commentators have failed miserably in most of their predictions concerning Donald Trump.
Post by: SUPflorida on September 27, 2016, 08:29:16 AM
The country has gone insane. There's a level of intellectual laziness that feels overwhelming. The media--including social media--is mostly a tool for propaganda. Facebook is flooded with obvious manipulation, funded by whom? All kinds of memes that at first seem like ordinary distractions that turn out to be more about political polarization. flag burning, not standing for the anthem. all this bullshit that serves to fracture any unity of belief and divide people into narrow and vicious ideological camps.
It's getting weird.
I agree, this fanatical following of Trump is so weird. I’m puzzled that people are playing into this divide and conquer strategy.
.
Funny how we read the same post or hear the same speech and come away with opposite impressions.
A very high percentage (if not all at this point) of what Trump says is misrepresented, taken out of context, and tortured into something not even close to what was communicated. Anything Hillary says or does, no matter how undeniably egregious gets a pass.
So strange to sit an listen intently to Trump's closing speech at the RNC and then have someone with the opposite agenda recap it. I find myself asking "I wonder what he/she watched/heard because it difinetly wasn't what saw/heard."
It is unfortunate so many won't hear the man out. The number of people proudly proclaiming what amounts to "don't confuse me with the facts I'v already had my mind made up for me by the media" is alarming.
Do you realize that 90% of the media is is controlled by 6 corporations? In 1983 it was owned by 50 corporations...now it's down to 6. To the tune of nearly 276 billion dollars a year. Those that control the media control the message.
It is estimated 232 Media executives control the information of 277 million Americans. One media executive for every 850,000 Tv Subscribers. If big media is against Trump and for Hillary, what does that tell you?
Just think....the tipping point of this presidential election may be determined by a generation of pseudo-adults who's pearls of wisdom are gleamed from reality tv shows, adult targeted cartoons and video games.
Like crabs in a pot of room temperature water with the burner turned on slow boil....our freedom are being relinquished a piece at a time without so much as a whimper.
Wouldn't it be great to have a president that was actually proud of our country again? a problem solver not a problem maker?
Post by: Tom on September 27, 2016, 09:42:23 AM
Quote
Wouldn't it be great to have a president that was actually proud of our country again? a problem solver not a problem maker?
When a candidate's slogan is "Make America great AGAIN' it implies that America is currently not great. I don't see much pride in America with slogan like that. I also have never heard one rational solution to any of the hundreds of problems Trump talks about. Saying, trust me, I can fix it is not explaining how he will fix a problem.
Post by: Area 10 on September 27, 2016, 09:54:19 AM
Interesting. Would you mind adding some specifics to this?The country has gone insane. There's a level of intellectual laziness that feels overwhelming. The media--including social media--is mostly a tool for propaganda. Facebook is flooded with obvious manipulation, funded by whom? All kinds of memes that at first seem like ordinary distractions that turn out to be more about political polarization. flag burning, not standing for the anthem. all this bullshit that serves to fracture any unity of belief and divide people into narrow and vicious ideological camps.
It's getting weird.
I agree, this fanatical following of Trump is so weird. I’m puzzled that people are playing into this divide and conquer strategy.
.
Funny how we read the same post or hear the same speech and come away with opposite impressions.
A very high percentage (if not all at this point) of what Trump says is misrepresented, taken out of context, and tortured into something not even close to what was communicated. Anything Hillary says or does, no matter how undeniably egregious gets a pass.
So strange to sit an listen intently to Trump's closing speech at the RNC and then have someone with the opposite agenda recap it. I find myself asking "I wonder what he/she watched/heard because it difinetly wasn't what saw/heard."
It is unfortunate so many won't hear the man out. The number of people proudly proclaiming what amounts to "don't confuse me with the facts I'v already had my mind made up for me by the media" is alarming.
Do you realize that 90% of the media is is controlled by 6 corporations? In 1983 it was owned by 50 corporations...now it's down to 6. To the tune of nearly 276 billion dollars a year. Those that control the media control the message.
It is estimated 232 Media executives control the information of 277 million Americans. One media executive for every 850,000 Tv Subscribers. If big media is against Trump and for Hillary, what does that tell you?
Just think....the tipping point of this presidential election may be determined by a generation of pseudo-adults who's pearls of wisdom are gleamed from reality tv shows, adult targeted cartoons and video games.
Like crabs in a pot of room temperature water with the burner turned on slow boil....our freedom are being relinquished a piece at a time without so much as a whimper.
Wouldn't it be great to have a president that was actually proud of our country again? a problem solver not a problem maker?
"A very high percentage (if not all at this point) of what Trump says is misrepresented, taken out of context, and tortured into something not even close to what was communicated. Anything Hillary says or does, no matter how undeniably egregious gets a pass."
Such as?
"It is unfortunate so many won't hear the man out. The number of people proudly proclaiming what amounts to "don't confuse me with the facts I'v already had my mind made up for me by the media" is alarming."
Where are you getting your data for this? How many people are proclaiming this, and how do you know?
"Do you realize that 90% of the media is is controlled by 6 corporations? In 1983 it was owned by 50 corporations...now it's down to 6. To the tune of nearly 276 billion dollars a year. Those that control the media control the message.
It is estimated 232 Media executives control the information of 277 million Americans. One media executive for every 850,000 Tv Subscribers. If big media is against Trump and for Hillary, what does that tell you?"
In what way is Trump the solution to a monopolistic media?
"Just think....the tipping point of this presidential election may be determined by a generation of pseudo-adults who's pearls of wisdom are gleamed from reality tv shows, adult targeted cartoons and video games."
Are you referring in general to young people, in a stereotypical and disparaging way? Are you sure you aren't being ageist?
"Like crabs in a pot of room temperature water with the burner turned on slow boil....our freedom are being relinquished a piece at a time without so much as a whimper."
In what way is your freedom being relinquished? Which freedoms, exactly? And in what way is Trump the solution?
Are you sure you aren't just falling for the "outsider" narrative that Trump is selling? After all, he's a much slicker user of media than HC.
Post by: stoneaxe on September 27, 2016, 10:18:56 AM
Post by: Subber on September 27, 2016, 10:40:01 AM
Luckily we had a power failure at around the 30 minute mark -
so left to go to the ocean front to cool off (big heatwave yesterday in Santa Cruz).
I seemed to me Hillary was much better prepared.
Still, well, I think the 30 minutes I saw was a tortuous draw.
But, in a way, I felt Trump kind of lost (or squandered opportunity) as he fell considerably short of
how he could have done - he had so much more to work with than she did but he failed
to expose much in a coherent sound bite manner.
Post by: SUPflorida on September 27, 2016, 10:40:44 AM
Trumps in the most basic sense is a builder... on a grand scale...but a builder . He envisions an end product, plans out the project start to finish, determines the cost, attracts investors, executes the plan, keeps a close eye on progress and cost, holds Sucontractors to perform their agreed scope of work at the agreed price at the agreed level of finish to "flesh out his vision" He has built some magnificent building.
Wouldn't you like to see what a person with real vision and business sense (and common sense) could do to rebuild this country to the hights it is capable of? We have witnessed what a downward spiral the country takes by putting someone in office that lacks the skill set to do anything beyond get elected.
It's really as simple as an abundance mentality VS a scarcity mentality.
Trump, is of the abundance camp...he know how to build, grow business to prosper. He knows if he brings out the best in people everyone benefits, not just the individual themselves.
All boats rise with the high tide.
Obama & Hillary are of the scarcity mentality. If I want more you have to get less...if I help you up, then you get more than me... redistribute the wealth to buy votes to remain in power. Pit one group against the other...keep everyone busy fight among themselves over nothing so they can steal us blind, tie us in knots with regulations and keep giving themselves the fruits of other people's labor? Race VS Race, Women VS Men, City VS Rural....Proners VS SUP.VS Goat Boarders VS Windsurfers VS Kite boarders...it's all a distraction.
Post by: tautologies on September 27, 2016, 10:55:39 AM
yeah it s a h--- of choice on one had you have the wife of a sexual predator with links to unsolved or mysterious murders ( look up clinton murders) body count etc. even if only 5% is true it is shocking ( my sister who is an attorney ) worked with another attorney who was very involved in the clintons governorship in Arkansas and says the highway patrol used to procure women for ol Bill.
Then there is trump. and his BS
yeah this country has some political issues
If you are not able to distinguish between crazy tinfoil hat crap and realities, it might be good to not post it.
Unsolved murders? You should be ashamed to be posting that crap. I guess in many ways it shows one of the major problems the country is facing..people cannot discern between good information and ludicrous because if they could, this debate would not be a contest at all.
Setting up an argument and then concluding with a hypothetical (if 5% is true) is a shameful way or arguing.
What we do know though is that Trump has been accused of rape on multiple occasions.
Here is one: https://www.scribd.com/doc/316341058/Donald-Trump-Jeffrey-Epstein-Rape-Lawsuit-and-Affidavits#fullscreen?platform=hootsuite
Now this doesn't say anything about to what extent it happened, but at least it hit the court system.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
Post by: SUPflorida on September 27, 2016, 11:01:37 AM
To answer you multitude of questions the most expediant thing would to find Trumps acceptance speech in its entirety and watch it yourself from start to finish with an open mind.
You would quickly see he is not the loose cannon/bigoted/racist/women objectifier that the media paints him as being.
If your a big proponent of "political correct" speech you might take some offence at his straight "tell it like it is" delivery. But at least you get straight answers to straight questions of substance. You won't see him going down a rabbit hole though...so if you think he's going to be pulled off point by some tabloid journalism you will be again disappointed.
You never get any idea what the man is about if you don't hear it from his own lips in context.
Post by: tautologies on September 27, 2016, 11:07:56 AM
Step back and look at it from another angle.
Trumps in the most basic sense is a builder... on a grand scale...but a builder . He envisions an end product, plans out the project start to finish, determines the cost, attracts investors, executes the plan, keeps a close eye on progress and cost, holds Sucontractors to perform their agreed scope of work at the agreed price at the agreed level of finish to "flesh out his vision" He has built some magnificent building.
Wouldn't you like to see what a person with real vision and business sense (and common sense) could do to rebuild this country to the hights it is capable of? We have witnessed what a downward spiral the country takes by putting someone in office that lacks the skill set to do anything beyond get elected.
It's really as simple as an abundance mentality VS a scarcity mentality.
Trump, is of the abundance camp...he know how to build, grow business to prosper. He knows if he brings out the best in people everyone benefits, not just the individual themselves.
All boats rise with the high tide.
Obama & Hillary are of the scarcity mentality. If I want more you have to get less...if I help you up, then you get more than me... redistribute the wealth to buy votes to remain in power. Pit one group against the other...keep everyone busy fight among themselves over nothing so they can steal us blind, tie us in knots with regulations and keep giving themselves the fruits of other people's labor? Race VS Race, Women VS Men, City VS Rural....Proners VS SUP.VS Goat Boarders VS Windsurfers VS Kite boarders...it's all a distraction.
WTF are you talking about? You would not put a snake oil salesman to construct your house, because he has competencies no and no skills related to house building. He might be full of bullshit and aren't really good his already existing job of repairing people but would be a disaster at building a nation.
That man has had so many patently and provably false claims just to lie about it in the next sentence that to disregard them at this point is something I will never understand. It's an easy estimation that has nothing to do with one vs. whatever. It is that the man is absolutely unfit to run a country.
Post by: Tom on September 27, 2016, 11:49:38 AM
Quote
You would quickly see he is not the loose cannon/bigoted/racist/women objectifier that the media paints him as being.
He paints himself that way without the media's help
Post by: PDLSFR on September 27, 2016, 12:06:19 PM
Post by: SUPflorida on September 27, 2016, 12:07:20 PM
Step back and look at it from another angle.
Trumps in the most basic sense is a builder... on a grand scale...but a builder . He envisions an end product, plans out the project start to finish, determines the cost, attracts investors, executes the plan, keeps a close eye on progress and cost, holds Sucontractors to perform their agreed scope of work at the agreed price at the agreed level of finish to "flesh out his vision" He has built some magnificent building.
Wouldn't you like to see what a person with real vision and business sense (and common sense) could do to rebuild this country to the hights it is capable of? We have witnessed what a downward spiral the country takes by putting someone in office that lacks the skill set to do anything beyond get elected.
It's really as simple as an abundance mentality VS a scarcity mentality.
Trump, is of the abundance camp...he know how to build, grow business to prosper. He knows if he brings out the best in people everyone benefits, not just the individual themselves.
All boats rise with the high tide.
Obama & Hillary are of the scarcity mentality. If I want more you have to get less...if I help you up, then you get more than me... redistribute the wealth to buy votes to remain in power. Pit one group against the other...keep everyone busy fight among themselves over nothing so they can steal us blind, tie us in knots with regulations and keep giving themselves the fruits of other people's labor? Race VS Race, Women VS Men, City VS Rural....Proners VS SUP.VS Goat Boarders VS Windsurfers VS Kite boarders...it's all a distraction.
WTF are you talking about? You would not put a snake oil salesman to construct your house, because he has competencies no and no skills related to house building. He might be full of bullshit and aren't really good his already existing job of repairing people but would be a disaster at building a nation.
That man has had so many patently and provably false claims just to lie about it in the next sentence that to disregard them at this point is something I will never understand. It's an easy estimation that has nothing to do with one vs. whatever. It is that the man is absolutely unfit to run a country.
I believe you missed the point...I been a building contractor for 25 years. There is a level of project management reality that is undeniable when your building a tangable object. It's where the rubber meets the road. It's the person who takes the 90% design complete pipe dream and turns it into a viable structure. No hidding it, it there for all to see, the good the bad, and the ugly.
This man knows how to run a business. This country whether you admit it or not is in essence...a business. In a time when the US has such a sore need for new infastructure who do you think would get the job done? On time, under budget?
We have had far too many professional politicians running "our business" into the ground. There needs to be someone in the whitehouse that has lived in the real world, run real businesses and wants be an advocate for the American people, instead of their own agenda.
Post by: Kevin on September 27, 2016, 12:32:39 PM
OK, I will, thanks.
Post by: Area 10 on September 27, 2016, 12:36:16 PM
Area 10.I see. So you make a lot of sweeping statements without any support whatsoever, and when I ask for your sources, or further detail, you avoid all the questions.
To answer you multitude of questions the most expediant thing would to find Trumps acceptance speech in its entirety and watch it yourself from start to finish with an open mind.
You would quickly see he is not the loose cannon/bigoted/racist/women objectifier that the media paints him as being.
If your a big proponent of "political correct" speech you might take some offence at his straight "tell it like it is" delivery. But at least you get straight answers to straight questions of substance. You won't see him going down a rabbit hole though...so if you think he's going to be pulled off point by some tabloid journalism you will be again disappointed.
You never get any idea what the man is about if you don't hear it from his own lips in context.
I can see why you like Trump. Peas in a pod. Hang on, you aren't actually one of Trump's media guys, are you? Or even the Big Combover himself? He's got a history of pretending to be his own spokesperson, I'm told.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3588907/Audio-1991-surfaces-Donald-Trump-pretending-publicist-bragging-women-success-candidate-INSISTS-isn-t-slams-Today-bringing-up.html
Post by: paddlinglass on September 27, 2016, 01:05:34 PM
Post by: Eagle on September 27, 2016, 01:08:42 PM
Trump adds: “It was an amazing phenomena. She weighed 118 when she won... she was as beautiful a woman as I’ve ever seen. She gained about 55 pounds in a period of nine months. She was like an eating machine.”
“I sure would’ve talked about what she did to Monica Lewinsky, what that woman standing there did to Monica Lewinsky, trying to paint her as an insane young woman when in fact Monica Lewinsky was an intern,” Giuliani said.
In last night’s debate, Clinton pushed Donald Trump on why he wasn’t releasing his tax returns, suggesting that perhaps he hadn’t paid any federal income taxes.
“That makes me smart,” replied Trump.
“If not paying taxes makes us smart, what does that make all the rest of us?” asks Clinton in Raleigh on Tuesday.
“I think there’s a strong possibility he hasn’t paid federal taxes for a lot of years. And this is a man who goes around calling our military a disaster... he probably hasn’t paid a penny to support our troops, or our vets, or our schools, or our healthcare systems,” says Clinton .
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/sep/27/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-debate-reaction-live
Post by: Quickbeam on September 27, 2016, 02:00:45 PM
"Laugh at Trump all you want"
OK, I will, thanks.
Agreed, except this really isn't a laughing matter. Kind of a scary thing to contemplate if this guy ends up as Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation on earth.
Post by: SUPflorida on September 27, 2016, 02:58:48 PM
lol...I knew I shouldn't post here ...like going pass a car wreck...just had to poke my head in and witness the carnage. Have fun with your zomby fest. Keep the kool aid flowing ....I hear it has a real kick and the hangover last 4 years....sometimes 8 lol.
Now going back to our regularly scheduled SUP topics.... In the news today at Washington's version of the battle of the paddle, Hillary lodged a formal protest against Donald Trump for not giving room as they rounded the last podium for a sprint to the finish...having been in this race before Hillary was ready for him... salting the field with blockers to trip him up and "expert" witnesses ready to decry any alleged miss deed.
Never to be out done The Donnald had a swarm of drones with gopro's covering all angles to confirm the legitimacy of his win. Unfortunately Donald missed the private party ⚰ she had planned for him in the parking lot when he was wisked away in his private helicopter. 🚡
Gota have a sense of humor guys 😜...
Post by: tautologies on September 27, 2016, 03:29:29 PM
Whats this all about ??? Now it makes sense how she was answering everything so easily !!
I am so hoping you are joking about this. Really. Please, say you are joking.
Post by: tautologies on September 27, 2016, 03:41:44 PM
I believe you missed the point...I been a building contractor for 25 years. There is a level of project management reality that is undeniable when your building a tangable object. It's where the rubber meets the road. It's the person who takes the 90% design complete pipe dream and turns it into a viable structure. No hidding it, it there for all to see, the good the bad, and the ugly.
This man knows how to run a business. This country whether you admit it or not is in essence...a business. In a time when the US has such a sore need for new infastructure who do you think would get the job done? On time, under budget?
We have had far too many professional politicians running "our business" into the ground. There needs to be someone in the whitehouse that has lived in the real world, run real businesses and wants be an advocate for the American people, instead of their own agenda.
Nope, your stmt still reaches the nonsensical. Would you think anyone without any experience and knowledge about building and project management in your area could come in and do a better job than you?
If you are honest you'd be answering no. So why the hell do you think that would be different for any other job? The fact is the Trump has no idea about how the political system works. Infact he has time and time again shown he is absolutely incapable of understanding even the most trivial macro-economic questions.
A country isn't a business. There are significant differences and this is lost on Trump....and aparently you. His idea of renegotiating debt. My god there is just so incredibly much wrong with it.
Why on earth would being a builder be the one skill that makes you better fit for government than say someone who actually understand how things work?
Did you watch the debate yesterday? On the question about why Trump paid no tax, he said the money would have been squandered. On the question about how he liked the housing crisis where millions of people lost their life savings, their homes and their jobs he said because he was a businesss man. You must be absolutely joking if you think someone with an attitude like that woud advocate for the American people. I am trying to keep it nice here, but realities and what you are saying aren't exactly in congruence here.
Post by: Eagle on September 27, 2016, 04:46:13 PM
"During Monday night's debate, Trump promised to release his tax returns "when she releases her 33,000 emails that have been deleted," adding that he would "go against" the advice of his lawyers "if she releases her emails."
Moderator Lester Holt then asked Trump if that meant releasing his tax returns was negotiable.
Trump responded: "It's not negotiable. No, let her release her emails. Why did she delete 33,000 emails?"
http://qz.com/792408/presidential-debate-donald-trump-bragged-about-not-paying-taxes-and-taking-advantage-of-bankruptcy-laws/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-presidential-debate-fact-check/2016/09/clinton-right-about-trumps-bankruptcies-228727
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/how-is-donald-trump-able-to-file-for-bankruptcy-so-many-times/
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-emails-secretary-state/story?id=42389308
Post by: tautologies on September 27, 2016, 04:56:49 PM
We have had far too many professional politicians running "our business" into the ground. There needs to be someone in the whitehouse that has lived in the real world, run real businesses and wants be an advocate for the American people, instead of their own agenda.
I'm answering you twice because I think what you are saying is such an insane thing.
Just to rehash that guy you are defending as a great business man that will advocate for the American people:
- Trump said many times that the country was broke and bemoaned the state of our national debt
- Trump claimed his company made $650 million profit last year
- Trump bragged that he pays no personal income taxes
- Trump defended his proposal to cut his own taxes (personal, business, and estate) even further
- Trump said nothing about reducing taxes on the middle class (because his plan will barely do so)
This should be called what it is; a giant fuck-you to all the Americans who themselves already pay 20-25% in federal taxes (including payroll taxes). I'm not sure how you can at all rationalize Trump as an alternative.
Post by: Eagle on September 27, 2016, 05:07:49 PM
As well - you are completely out there - if you think Trump does not have his own agenda and interests in mind. And just wants to be an advocate for the American people. A politician is a politician.
https://youtu.be/iTACH1eVIaA
Post by: Area 10 on September 27, 2016, 05:34:04 PM
I'm not even sure he knows where the boundaries between reality and fantasy are any more. He's never had to graft to earn enough to put food on the table, and he has probably never broken bread with anyone who has for the last 20 years.
He is the most extraordinary media creation. To turn the matter of the presidency into the X Factor, with similar rules of engagement, and to still be so popular after spouting untruth after untruth, and with such a dodgy back history that you wouldn't trust him to valet park your car is certainly a genius of sorts. He understands that people will believe whatever they want to believe, so all you have to do is say what they want to hear, with enough confidence, and you can pretty much get away with whatever you like. Or speak lots of words without actually saying anything, and let them hear in your words what they want to hear. The more entertaining the better.
I suspect that political analysts and media students students will be studying the DT phenomenon for many years to come. "DT" - what an apt set of initials. Delirium Tremens indeed.
Post by: Eagle on September 27, 2016, 05:41:34 PM
Post by: ericmichaels on September 27, 2016, 05:49:50 PM
Whats this all about ??? Now it makes sense how she was answering everything so easily !!Shocking. She was wearing a lapel microphone like he was and everyone else on TV. Battery pack.
It was torture.
Luckily we had a power failure at around the 30 minute mark -
so left to go to the ocean front to cool off (big heatwave yesterday in Santa Cruz).
I seemed to me Hillary was much better prepared.
Still, well, I think the 30 minutes I saw was a tortuous draw.
But, in a way, I felt Trump kind of lost (or squandered opportunity) as he fell considerably short of
how he could have done - he had so much more to work with than she did but he failed
to expose much in a coherent sound bite manner.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Post by: Eagle on September 27, 2016, 05:54:06 PM
"So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is — it is a huge problem. I have a son. He's 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it's unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it's hardly doable." :o
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/27/the-answer-that-best-exemplifies-how-badly-donald-trump-was-out-of-his-depth-in-the-debate/
Post by: SeldomScene on September 27, 2016, 06:28:16 PM
Post by: tautologies on September 27, 2016, 06:46:00 PM
Regarding Trimp's tax situation. If anyone on here pays more taxes than they are legally obligated to, speak up. The whole goal of tax attorneys and tax accountants is to minimize their clients taxes. Not evade taxes, but only pay what you have to.
Oh piss off with that will you. How on earth do you find it in you to defend this??
At the same time, everyone who makes a few billion dollars speak up if you spend your non-profit foundation money on personal items and paintings of yourself? I mean just speak up if your moral compass allows you to screw over thousands of contractors and small business owners. I mean just speak up. ::) ::)
Post by: Eagle on September 27, 2016, 07:04:05 PM
At least with Hillary zealots - they know and accept what she has done. They do not defend her actions. Trump zealots are an interesting faction. He can do no wrong. And has done no wrong.
The choices are not good - but one is worse than the other.
Post by: starman on September 27, 2016, 07:05:05 PM
Post by: Quickbeam on September 27, 2016, 07:35:56 PM
Regarding Trimp's tax situation. If anyone on here pays more taxes than they are legally obligated to, speak up. The whole goal of tax attorneys and tax accountants is to minimize their clients taxes. Not evade taxes, but only pay what you have to.
O.K., I’ll bite and I’ll take your comment at face value.
The real issue then, is does Trump see people like himself not paying taxes as a problem? If you listen to Bill Gates or Warren Buffet they support the rich paying more tax. Trump however proposes to cut taxes to the rich. Don’t know how you can pay less than zero but I’m sure he’ll try and find a way.
Post by: OUTSIDEWAVE on September 27, 2016, 08:13:42 PM
The country has gone insane. There's a level of intellectual laziness that feels overwhelming. The media--including social media--is mostly a tool for propaganda. Facebook is flooded with obvious manipulation, funded by whom? All kinds of memes that at first seem like ordinary distractions that turn out to be more about political polarization. flag burning, not standing for the anthem. all this bullshit that serves to fracture any unity of belief and divide people into narrow and vicious ideological camps.
It's getting weird.
Its them pesky Ruskies
Post by: southwesterly on September 27, 2016, 08:26:17 PM
Post by: starman on September 27, 2016, 08:35:09 PM
Post by: Ichabod Spoonbill on September 28, 2016, 02:42:57 AM
Now this is fine if that's the kind of life you want, except that being president, or any other elected official mean you're a public servant. I want to emphasize “servant”. You're there to help everybody, not just those who agree with you or love you but your entire constituency. I find it very difficult that someone as self-centered as he is will be able to do that. A tiger doesn't change its stripes.
This is not a pro-Hilary comment in the sense that I think she'll be awesome. She's highly flawed, no doubt about it. What I'm saying is that I don't think Trump has the ability to stop being himself. I don't care what party the person is coming from — we shouldn't be electing a narcissist. (If you want a Democratic example, look no further than Anthony Weiner.) Our leaders, and especially our president, need to be people who consider others first.
Post by: SUPflorida on September 28, 2016, 08:47:24 AM
thread are actually dead on descriptions of the attributes Hillary has displayed. That's gota be page one material in the handbook.
The tax code..who created this monster? Professional politicians. So your mad at Trump for using their laws to minimize the tax impact to his business. He would be an idiot to not play the game to win...government created the rules. As they say "don't hate the player, hate the game" ... put the responsibility on those created the game.
As to him being a self serving individual...that pretty much describes everyone on the planet. If he brings back common sense to government regulation, his business's will thrive..and so will every other business in America, small and large. A good leader brings out the best in his people, the more you help people attain their highest potential the more everyone benefits, including the individual....that called a win/win.
So we have the scarcity mentality raise its ugly head again...if someone wins, someone else has to lose Win/Lose. If Trump can bring sensible laws and regulating into play again (the attributes that helped of country thrive for most of its existence) and it benefits pretty much all Americans why do you care how much he makes?
Toutologies have you ever owned a business in the US? Just curious...
It's not that I think Trump is the end all to US problems...it just when I look at what he has accomplished compared to Hillary's feeding off the state ...he looks like Americas last chance before he slide off the cliff.
I'm not so sure he can win...when his supporters vote their one time and your opponents supporter are voting "early and often" bringing their dead relatives with them it's hard to bridge the gap.
The whole you can't require ID to vote nonsense screams dishonest election.
Post by: starman on September 28, 2016, 09:21:50 AM
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/
Post by: Weasels wake on September 28, 2016, 09:36:44 AM
In typical fashion "The lion share" of the negatives said about Trump on thisThe one thing that drives me nuts about the tax debate, is the claim that many of the rich would be more than happy to be paying more taxes.
thread are actually dead on descriptions of the attributes Hillary has displayed. That's gota be page one material in the handbook.
The tax code..who created this monster? Professional politicians. So your mad at Trump for using their laws to minimize the tax impact to his business. He would be an idiot to not play the game to win...government created the rules. As they say "don't hate the player, hate the game" ... put the responsibility on those created the game.
As far as I know, there are no laws that prevent those benevolent rich from paying more than required. There are many ways it could be done, and it doesn't have to be done thru the tax code. The argument seems to be based on the rich have to be forced to pay more, when in reality they don't. Those benevolent rich, who feel they need to be paying more, should just put their money where their political mouths are and spread their wealth voluntarily. They don't need to be forced, assuming they're serious about their position on this issue, which I doubt.
Post by: SUPflorida on September 28, 2016, 10:25:07 AM
In typical fashion "The lion share" of the negatives said about Trump on thisThe one thing that drives me nuts about the tax debate, is the claim that many of the rich would be more than happy to be paying more taxes.
thread are actually dead on descriptions of the attributes Hillary has displayed. That's gota be page one material in the handbook.
The tax code..who created this monster? Professional politicians. So your mad at Trump for using their laws to minimize the tax impact to his business. He would be an idiot to not play the game to win...government created the rules. As they say "don't hate the player, hate the game" ... put the responsibility on those created the game.
As far as I know, there are no laws that prevent those benevolent rich from paying more than required. There are many ways it could be done, and it doesn't have to be done thru the tax code. The argument seems to be based on the rich have to be forced to pay more, when in reality they don't. Those benevolent rich, who feel they need to be paying more, should just put their money where their political mouths are and spread their wealth voluntarily. They don't need to be forced, assuming they're serious about their position on this issue, which I doubt.
Good point...who is to say who give what and how much? There are people that like to give without fan fair...is Trump one of those? I don't know. If I had money to give at that level the last person I would give it to would be to the Government.
I would give it to people that want a hand up....not a hand out. I heard Kid Rock is that kind of giver...who would have thought? I would not be surprised if Trump has helped a lot of people that had the work ethic to be worth the investment of his time.
People that are shrewd business men/women don't throw good money after bad. They value their effort and treasure their hard earned success. They are not about to give it away to an irresponsible bureaucrat who acts like a spoiled 16 year old child running around with his parents platinum credit card. Buying votes with the promise of free handouts.
I give my money were I feel it has the greatest impact on things I value. Very different values from what the heavy handed social steering government is taking part in now.
Post by: digger71 on September 28, 2016, 10:33:00 AM
I'm not so sure he can win...when his supporters vote their one time and your opponents supporter are voting "early and often" bringing their dead relatives with them it's hard to bridge the gap.
What???
Post by: pdxmike on September 28, 2016, 10:42:44 AM
That's true, anyone who wants to pay more can pay more voluntarily. But at the same time, if someone wealthy is arguing that the wealthy should have to pay more, telling that person that he can pay more voluntarily isn't a direct response to that argument. They already know they can pay more themselves. Their argument is that others similar to them should be required to. And the fact that they're NOT voluntarily paying more isn't hypocritical (and I'm not saying you said that).In typical fashion "The lion share" of the negatives said about Trump on thisThe one thing that drives me nuts about the tax debate, is the claim that many of the rich would be more than happy to be paying more taxes.
thread are actually dead on descriptions of the attributes Hillary has displayed. That's gota be page one material in the handbook.
The tax code..who created this monster? Professional politicians. So your mad at Trump for using their laws to minimize the tax impact to his business. He would be an idiot to not play the game to win...government created the rules. As they say "don't hate the player, hate the game" ... put the responsibility on those created the game.
As far as I know, there are no laws that prevent those benevolent rich from paying more than required. There are many ways it could be done, and it doesn't have to be done thru the tax code. The argument seems to be based on the rich have to be forced to pay more, when in reality they don't. Those benevolent rich, who feel they need to be paying more, should just put their money where their political mouths are and spread their wealth voluntarily. They don't need to be forced, assuming they're serious about their position on this issue, which I doubt.
Lots of people argue for laws requiring people to do certain things, and say they'd willingly do it if others had to, while in the meantime not doing it voluntarily themselves. I'd say an accurate statement is, "Not many rich people will voluntarily pay more taxes when other rich people are not, but many would accept paying more taxes if the others were also required to".
Post by: Bean on September 28, 2016, 10:58:47 AM
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone
does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
public duty to pay more than the law demands"
Judge Learned Hand
(1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals
Source:
in the case of Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935)
Post by: TN_SUP on September 28, 2016, 11:19:15 AM
Post by: Eagle on September 28, 2016, 12:18:00 PM
When Hillary Clinton said that her Republican rival Donald Trump had paid no federal income tax in some years, Trump didn't deny it.
In fact, he said: "That makes me smart."
After the debate, he told CNN's Jim Acosta: "Of course I've paid federal taxes."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/26/politics/donald-trump-federal-income-taxes-smart-debate/
https://youtu.be/-yhaujX2hy4
https://youtu.be/o8syBrqA1r8
https://youtu.be/wqMQDiIiHbk
Post by: Eagle on September 28, 2016, 12:31:54 PM
“I think there’s a strong possibility he hasn’t paid federal taxes for a lot of years. And this is a man who goes around calling our military a disaster... he probably hasn’t paid a penny to support our troops, or our vets, or our schools, or our healthcare systems,” says Clinton .
Not that it is not smart to minimize taxes and pay only what you should. As well disclosure about how much was given to charitable organizations. We found the debate actually quite facinating and entertaining at times. Unlike any other politcal debate we have here in Canada.
Post by: Subber on September 28, 2016, 12:41:13 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on September 28, 2016, 01:23:01 PM
The hypocrisy displayed by both sides is nothing short of astounding. Pot meet Kettle.
It boils down to this....want the status quo and more...vote Hillary....want this crap to have any remote chance of changing (and even that is doubtful...vote Trump. I can't stand either of them but I can't take any more of the liberal agenda.
I don't think we need to look any further than Hillary for an example of a democrat narcissist.......do you really believe that she does what she does because of her sense of duty to her fellow man? That she doesn't think she is one of the elite?....seriously?
Post by: tautologies on September 28, 2016, 01:45:43 PM
Avoiding taxes is the issue?......what is the Clinton foundation but a giant tax dodge?
Are you insane? They have helped millions of people. The fact you do not know that is insane. It is a highly rated charity.
https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478
When we are on the subject, where people are talking about Trumps lack of paying tax...and how he would be stupid to pay tax...well he'd could just donate some to charity...even to his own charity...but he doesn't he instead spend the charity's money on his own fines and buy paintings of himself paid for by the charity.
Post by: robon on September 28, 2016, 02:27:06 PM
Post by: PonoBill on September 28, 2016, 03:30:30 PM
Avoiding taxes is the issue?......what is the Clinton foundation but a giant tax dodge?
Actually, not true. The propaganda says that, but all the charity rating agencies say otherwise, and the fact checkers concur. I"m no Hillary fan, but you need to look behind ANY meme you've been seeing on the web. It's all propaganda.
I have a hard time believing that anyone can vote for Trump, and I have a hard time believing that anyone WANTS to vote for Hillary. But no, not Trump.
Post by: Sup-position on September 28, 2016, 03:47:05 PM
Hillary and Donald are on a Plane
It Crashes...
Who Survives ?
WE DO....
Post by: cantSUPenough on September 28, 2016, 04:28:45 PM
What has Trump done? Sure, he has employed people (and they probably pay tax), and that is something of course, but his list of lies, insults, bankruptcies, lawsuits, tax audits, etc. etc. is amazing. I simply can't believe the lack of scrutiny over a man would could be president.
And apart from anything else - how will he get anything done when nobody in Congress supports him? Every other president has struggled, but they at least had the support of one side. I guess he will just use endless executive orders - just like in his own business.
As a business person, as many of you are, can you imagine what lengths he must go to to avoid paying tax? Earn millions and zero tax?!? Sure, we are not obliged to pay tax we are not due to pay, but that is wrong on every level.
But Sup-position's post is a cracker :D
Post by: surfshaver on September 28, 2016, 05:37:20 PM
The primary criticism against her appears to stem from the fact that she lacks her husband's charisma, and therefore has become the repository of all negative feelings and associations with THEM as a couple/brand/institution. Perhaps this is because people aren't completely comfortable with them but they can't bring themselves to hate Bill, so they create this psychic disconnect/uncoupling and project all the negativity on her.
As other people here have said, she's conniving, egocentric and driven, but they all are at that level.
I may catch some hell for this, but the other thing is that Republicans for years have consistently demonized Hillary in public while admitting privately among their peers that they like her and found her very professional and easy to work with.
In the end, I view Hillary's problem as being at the root of how are our political system works. People who would govern have to be good at POLITICS to gain positions where they can guide POLICY.
Hillary is actually not very good at Politics, while she is good at Policy. Without wanting to sound sexist, this dichotomy has been noted about women in business in general. Studies have shown that women are not as good as men at "playing the game" necessary to climb the corporate ladder, but they often make for better leaders once they do get to the top.
No doubt that those people who voted for Obama and supported Bernie looking for grand sweeping change are not going to get what they want from Hillary, but the record shows she's actually more progressive than her husband.
While there's nothing about her personally that excites me (which is unfortunately the level of how most of us make this decision), the more I learn about Hillary's actual work history and performance the more I am comfortable with her as President. Just my $0.02
Post by: Eagle on September 28, 2016, 05:46:51 PM
"Presidential elections should be about who’s the best candidate, not who’s the least flawed. Unfortunately, that’s not the case this year.
Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, the most unpopular pair of presidential candidates in American history, both have troubled relationships with truth and transparency. Trump, despite all of his bluster about wanting to “make America great again,” has exploited and expanded our internal divisions. Clinton’s arrogance and unwillingness to admit wrongdoing have made her a divisive and distrusted figure as well.
The Enquirer has supported Republicans for president for almost a century – a tradition this editorial board doesn’t take lightly. But this is not a traditional race, and these are not traditional times. Our country needs calm, thoughtful leadership to deal with the challenges we face at home and abroad. We need a leader who will bring out the best in all Americans, not the worst.
That’s why there is only one choice when we elect a president in November: Hillary Clinton."
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/opinion/editorials/2016/09/23/enquirer-endorses-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/90728344/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=
https://youtu.be/Gla6SsN5zKw
https://youtu.be/430GlvXLoQY
Post by: lucabrasi on September 28, 2016, 07:08:59 PM
The hypocrisy displayed by both sides is nothing short of astounding. Pot meet Kettle.Who do you want to pick as a replacement for Ruth? How about Scalia? (funny how that seems sort of swept under right now........)
It boils down to this....want the status quo and more...vote Hillary....want this crap to have any remote chance of changing (and even that is doubtful...vote Trump. I can't stand either of them but I can't take any more of the liberal agenda.
I don't think we need to look any further than Hillary for an example of a democrat narcissist.......do you really believe that she does what she does because of her sense of duty to her fellow man? That she doesn't think she is one of the elite?....seriously?
I know who I don't want picking.
I was curious about House and Senate and wondered how many more of those were up besides the signs I see around here. LOTS...if I read it right. Wonder how that is going to play out. Doesn't that seem a bit quiet......even if prez going this year too?
If Hilary wins.......is it finally time that......enough asses in congress aren't always such asses? Is the dnc all that powerful to keep it "along party lines" for next time ?
If Donald wins........is that enough to.......make asses out of some of the elephants? Is the gop all so powerful everything stays the same?
Maybe it changes a tad whoever wins?
A king or the "it's my turn, I deserve this" "chosen one".
Executive orders..........
I hope we're good.
edit: (aren't those two smiles in "debate fallout" posted by Eagle above just about enough to say it all or what?)
Post by: SeldomScene on September 28, 2016, 07:30:02 PM
I have to say I'm similarly astonished with the amount of hatred people seem to have against Hillary.
The primary criticism against her appears to stem from the fact that she lacks her husband's charisma, and therefore has become the repository of all negative feelings and associations with THEM as a couple/brand/institution. Perhaps this is because people aren't completely comfortable with them but they can't bring themselves to hate Bill, so they create this psychic disconnect/uncoupling and project all the negativity on her.
As other people here have said, she's conniving, egocentric and driven, but they all are at that level.
I may catch some hell for this, but the other thing is that Republicans for years have consistently demonized Hillary in public while admitting privately among their peers that they like her and found her very professional and easy to work with.
In the end, I view Hillary's problem as being at the root of how are our political system works. People who would govern have to be good at POLITICS to gain positions where they can guide POLICY.
Hillary is actually not very good at Politics, while she is good at Policy. Without wanting to sound sexist, this dichotomy has been noted about women in business in general. Studies have shown that women are not as good as men at "playing the game" necessary to climb the corporate ladder, but they often make for better leaders once they do get to the top.
No doubt that those people who voted for Obama and supported Bernie looking for grand sweeping change are not going to get what they want from Hillary, but the record shows she's actually more progressive than her husband.
While there's nothing about her personally that excites me (which is unfortunately the level of how most of us make this decision), the more I learn about Hillary's actual work history and performance the more I am comfortable with her as President. Just my $0.02
Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Trump, but with Hillary it's the lies. Her absolute inability to tell the truth. Ranging from, "Me and Chelsea were under constant sniper fire" to "I was named after Sir Edmund Hillary" ( Who gained fame by summiting Everest a few year after Hillary was born and named.). Her taking a bribe in the whitewater affair (she " invested" $1000, and quickly made a profit of $99,000.) She absolutely told inconceivable lies during her FBI interview, "refusing to recall" basic facts, like whether she got a briefing on how to handle clasified info. she signed form verifying the briefing, by the way.. How she claimed not to know what the letter "c" meant, when it preceded a paragraph in a classified document. Implausibly, she asserted that she thought it meant that it was the third paragraph, like a,b, c. However, in that world ,there are never any a or b's, and in the document in question, the first two paragraphs were not a and b. Or Bengazi, and the "protesters" with mortars. It just never stop with her. In the home brewed server scandal, she used her chief of staff, who was a witness in the matter, as her counsel. Completely unethical yet possible under the rules. She is just steeped in slime.
Post by: SeldomScene on September 28, 2016, 07:38:32 PM
I have to say I'm similarly astonished with the amount of hatred people seem to have against Hillary.
The primary criticism against her appears to stem from the fact that she lacks her husband's charisma, and therefore has become the repository of all negative feelings and associations with THEM as a couple/brand/institution. Perhaps this is because people aren't completely comfortable with them but they can't bring themselves to hate Bill, so they create this psychic disconnect/uncoupling and project all the negativity on her.
As other people here have said, she's conniving, egocentric and driven, but they all are at that level.
I may catch some hell for this, but the other thing is that Republicans for years have consistently demonized Hillary in public while admitting privately among their peers that they like her and found her very professional and easy to work with.
In the end, I view Hillary's problem as being at the root of how are our political system works. People who would govern have to be good at POLITICS to gain positions where they can guide POLICY.
Hillary is actually not very good at Politics, while she is good at Policy. Without wanting to sound sexist, this dichotomy has been noted about women in business in general. Studies have shown that women are not as good as men at "playing the game" necessary to climb the corporate ladder, but they often make for better leaders once they do get to the top.
No doubt that those people who voted for Obama and supported Bernie looking for grand sweeping change are not going to get what they want from Hillary, but the record shows she's actually more progressive than her husband.
While there's nothing about her personally that excites me (which is unfortunately the level of how most of us make this decision), the more I learn about Hillary's actual work history and performance the more I am comfortable with her as President. Just my $0.02
What policy was she good at, exactly? Was it her plan on ridding Libya of Kadhafi with no policy in place to deal with what would happen next? When she was Secy of State, the world was on fire and she did next to nothing, and that's being generous. What did she accomplish in the Senate. Name one thing.
Post by: stoneaxe on September 28, 2016, 08:21:24 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on September 28, 2016, 08:37:10 PM
Truthfully....I wish Ralph's post wasn't a joke.....and while were at it take both houses with you on the flight.
Post by: Beasho on September 28, 2016, 08:47:25 PM
-----------------------------------
Hillary Clinton’s support for her husband was crucial, and she sat by his side during a crucial “60 Minutes” interview, saying she was not like the victim in Tammy Wynette’s “Stand By Your Man.” Campaign pollster Stan Greenberg said at the time that the public would disregard the allegations if they believed he had been truthful to his wife.
"Hillary Clinton looks on as presidential candidate Bill Clinton responds to a question during a “60 Minutes” interview on Jan. 26, 1992. (CBS-TV via AP)
Six years later, Bill Clinton acknowledged a sexual encounter with Flowers."
"As other women emerged, Hillary Clinton helped forge aggressive defenses. Former White House press secretary George Stephanopoulos recalled in his memoir discussing a woman’s allegation published in Penthouse Magazine. He said that after her husband dismissed it as untrue during a meeting, Hillary Clinton said, “We have to destroy her story.”"
In 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones alleged in a lawsuit that Bill Clinton groped her in a hotel room three years earlier. Hillary Clinton wrote in her autobiography, “Living History,” that she erred in opposing an early settlement. . . . Eventually, Bill Clinton settled for $850,000.
Then Monica, then . . . . .
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/enabler-or-family-defender-how-hillary-clinton-responded-to-husbands-accusers/2016/09/28/58dad5d4-6fb1-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html
Post by: lucabrasi on September 28, 2016, 09:23:39 PM
Would you rather have your son grow up like Trump or your daughter like Hillary?Didn't click.........but....
ohhhhhhhm Bill,
accusing enabler? she wants that behind her.....
family defender.
all she got now.
Post by: yugi on September 29, 2016, 02:34:03 AM
Seriously?
bwahahahahaha... The more I watch it the worse it gets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYJ_H2c5IWc
Post by: Bean on September 29, 2016, 03:47:11 AM
Post by: yugi on September 29, 2016, 04:00:02 AM
Yugi, it's true, cyber was once an adjective, but now it's a noun...
^^ Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster can't keep up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cyber
At least Urban Dictionary has a handle on it. And they may have got it right!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cyber
We have entered a time warp.
Unless it's the comics supervillain he's speaking about.
Post by: Bean on September 29, 2016, 04:07:44 AM
Post by: Chilly on September 29, 2016, 05:05:34 AM
"the cyber"
Seriously?
bwahahahahaha... The more I watch it the worse it gets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYJ_H2c5IWc
What strikes me in that response is how his brain short-circuits and gets off the subject than back on. He does this a lot. He hides it by repeating his words. His campaign attacks Hillary’s physical health, but as President mental health is what I’m concerned with. I hope I’m wrong and it’s just stress, but either way it’s not good if you become President.
Post by: Bean on September 29, 2016, 07:50:00 AM
The short circuit trait, which is really just one example of his unpolished approach, could actually have a very humanizing effect and may be endearing for some.
Post by: all~wet on September 29, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
****This comment is addressing the subject of Trump and not to be taken as an endorsement of Clinton.
Post by: SUPflorida on September 29, 2016, 11:38:11 AM
Trump is far from perfect but when he talks I get the impression that I'm hearing what he believes...where as when listening to the vast majority of politician I feel I'm being told what the morning polls said I wanted to hear. They have no thoughts of there own...Trump doesn't come accross that way to me.
Post by: Chilly on September 29, 2016, 12:12:05 PM
Trump is far from perfect but when he talks I get the impression that I'm hearing what he believes....
I get the same impression, that’s what scares me.
Post by: SeldomScene on September 29, 2016, 12:22:43 PM
Post by: Subber on September 29, 2016, 12:30:25 PM
There is a reason she is so scripted. Her entire adult life, since Bill was sworn in, has been dedicated to becoming the first female president. That's why she didn't leave Bill when he was having all that extramarital sex, and lying about it to her and the American public. He was her ticket to her own political advancement so she had to defend and preserve him, (and herself). Every move she has made has been a carefully scripted, carefully lawyered, progression towards being president. When the new guy Barry Obama kicked her ass, she again adapted and morphed. No press conferences means no off the cuff mistakes. Home brew server, not applicable to federal freedom of information requirements, unless you get caught. Even then, it's all got to be pieced together and recovered from other email accounts and destroyed devices. Its all designed to shield her from the scrutiny that destroyed her in 2008. An army of lawyers, to help her slink along the edge of legality. Indictable, but not convict-able for any number of misdeeds. Every word calculated. Trump? Says what he feels, be it good or bad.
Oh no no no....no, she is doing this just for Our good and for the good of the country.
That is why she did All those things.
;D
Post by: surf4food on September 29, 2016, 05:46:25 PM
Trump is far from perfect but when he talks I get the impression that I'm hearing what he believes....
I get the same impression, that’s what scares me.
I dunno. I don't think Trump even knows what he believes.
Post by: yugi on September 30, 2016, 02:48:57 AM
Trump is far from perfect but when he talks I get the impression that I'm hearing what he believes....
I get the same impression, that’s what scares me.
I dunno. I don't think Trump even knows what he believes.
He might know, but he certainly doesn't care.
But scarier is the proportion of the US population that clearly doesn't have any regard at all for facts or truth. Very very worrying.
Post by: lucabrasi on September 30, 2016, 03:45:46 AM
But scarier is the proportion of the US population that clearly doesn't have any regard at all for facts or truth. Very very worrying.I get what you are saying I think and it is. You would think in this day and age it would be easier to......separate truth from myth and facts from.....whatever but I think it is murkier than ever at least on the surface. I could go on and on and would take far too long and be useless to spew out what I am thinking but.....Editorials and opinions presented as news......doesn't matter what the headline or news is, you really have to dig to find out what is really going on. I am not so certain that we have little regard for facts or truth rather than......ingrained tendencies depending on where you are and been that way for as long as......we started spreading out 200 years ago. So many different pockets of different attitudes and cultures and each has their own.....way of life and what they believe to a point. Way different and in the end really pretty similar at the same time.........it's the best.
Post by: Admin on September 30, 2016, 05:29:27 AM
Head of the Girl Hater's club, beaner maligner, ragheadophobic prodder...prosecute precisely and polls will plummet.
The BOD (basket o' deplorables) seems to be larger than our team of statisticians initially estimated. Hire more statisticians.
But she intellectually dominated him, backed him up against his own magnificent wall, exposed - no - pantsed him in front of the world, the Clarence Darrow moment. Forcing him to, seemingly without resistance, admit his atrocities. The death blow. And yet...
Post by: PonoBill on September 30, 2016, 06:11:56 AM
The propaganda war continues. It's amazing how social media has bloomed into such a machine. Repeat lies fast and furiously and some people will believe some. Lather, rinse repeat and you have all the brainwashed zombies you need. It's terrible for anything remotely like democratic rule, and both sides have become addicted to it and use it without restraint.
Post by: LaPerouseBay on September 30, 2016, 06:22:42 AM
http://www.pbs.org/video/2365840591/
Post by: comeu on September 30, 2016, 06:23:26 AM
The problem is global.
You should elect a surfer president.
Post by: Eagle on September 30, 2016, 06:26:26 AM
Trump is basically even at this point. And it looks like it will again come down to the wire in a few electoral college swing states. Many of these voters may not really care about truth policy facts debates and fit to be President. They just see -
1 The same old lying slimy gravy train woman politician vs;
2 A change and say it like it is - smart tough rich businessman
Trump really has momentum and a viable chance to win - but not the way he is going at the moment. If he continues down rabbit holes in the next debate and to the finish -> he will simply hand the Presidency which is his for the taking - right over to Clinton.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016-election/2016/06/what-are-the-swing-states-in-2016-list-224327
https://youtu.be/imTzpI8_nqk
Post by: Admin on September 30, 2016, 06:46:53 AM
And back at team Shimmy HQ, "inconceivable" in a perfect Wallace Shawn chorus.
Post by: freetobeme on September 30, 2016, 08:24:09 AM
http://www.pbs.org/video/2365840591/
Speaking of PBS. They also just aired Frontline - "The Choice".
http://www.pbs.org/video/2365848966/
It frames that Trump is running for revenge and just because he can and that Clinton has held her line and made her life/work choices based solely on this opportunity. Some bias involved but quality show none the less.
To be honest, if I choose to buy into this system and vote for the lesser of two jerk faces I may just vote for Clinton. While the two party system and candidates are still lacking many ideals I do support the "idea" of a woman president and definitely liberal butts in the chairs of the Supreme Court.
The single thought that I agree with Trump on is that our infrastructure needs serious rehaualing. He calls it "3rd World" for effect but its definitely lacking in current day standards.
Post by: starman on September 30, 2016, 10:09:05 AM
Quote
The single thought that I agree with Trump on is that our infrastructure needs serious rehaualing. He calls it "3rd World" for effect but its definitely lacking in current day standards.
That's an interesting statement but it's a problem that's been talked about for years by our current president;
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2013/07/25/strategic-investments-in-infrastructure-a-reaction-to-president-obamas-jacksonville-speech/
So why the lack of action? Look no further then the current majority in the house and senate. I guess they are waiting for interest rates to rise and a republican president to do anything about the problem.
Post by: Eagle on September 30, 2016, 01:42:20 PM
The final few weeks will be like no other reality Apprentice TV show with Trump himself lobbing up so much new material as he tweets from his phone. But yes desensitize the millions - with WWE and UFC brawl mentality on the national stage - and foreign. Fat shame. Slut shame. The Presidency and US policy governance reduced to his tweets. Will he win just enough votes to finally say -> You're Fired!!!
https://youtu.be/k7U68ojMw8o
https://youtu.be/hdRkTw3nClY
https://youtu.be/_916BBsxUPc
Post by: headmount on September 30, 2016, 08:20:36 PM
Post by: cantSUPenough on October 01, 2016, 09:45:57 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldfF6chin5s
Post by: Area 10 on October 02, 2016, 12:03:49 AM
http://nypost.com/2016/10/02/trump-could-have-escaped-paying-taxes-for-decades-report/
Post by: yugi on October 02, 2016, 02:47:32 AM
...
Speaking of PBS. They also just aired Frontline - "The Choice".
http://www.pbs.org/video/2365848966/
It frames that Trump is running for revenge and just because he can and that Clinton has held her line and made her life/work choices based solely on this opportunity. Some bias involved but quality show none the less.
...
We're not allowed to watch that outside the US.
If it's educated logical content not that is even scarier!
I hate that content and local settings. Internet wasn't meant to be that.
Post by: LaPerouseBay on October 02, 2016, 11:21:40 AM
The Frontline was 2 hours of personal background on both candidates.
I wish the world could see that show. I found it tough to watch.
My link was 30 minutes of Bill Adair, inventor of politifact. He is teaming up with heavy hitters in artificial intelligence (including google) to fact check politicians in real time, as they speak. Something similar to the truth o meters in the link below will pop up on TV's and social media.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/26/live-fact-checking-first-trump-clinton-presidentia/
Post by: headmount on October 02, 2016, 11:42:11 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaLQMs_VDLw
Post by: stoneaxe on October 03, 2016, 06:31:00 AM
Post by: WhatsSUP on October 03, 2016, 09:48:05 AM
https://youtu.be/-nQGBZQrtT0
Post by: freetobeme on October 04, 2016, 10:08:54 AM
Relying on PBS and saying there is just a "slight" bias is silly Free. I watch and listen to a lot of PBS/NPR programming. I haven't yet watched this one but my take on most of what PBS produces is that they basically lie by omission. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard them discuss major issues while leaving out conservative talking points as to the root causes, while promulgating progressive solutions.
Nor am I relying on PBS to tell me how to vote or expecting them to give me the full story of the two candidates running to control our oligarchy. I wrote "some" bias not slight which allows the reader to discern and quantify the amount for themselves.
Really its just a post that I figured many would not have seen. Im a huuuuuge Frontline fan and figured Id just pass this one along for others to enjoy not necessarily educate.
Post by: headmount on October 05, 2016, 10:35:19 AM
Post by: SlatchJim on October 05, 2016, 10:38:59 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on October 05, 2016, 12:14:36 PM
Post by: tautologies on October 05, 2016, 02:30:17 PM
Relying on PBS and saying there is just a "slight" bias is silly Free. I watch and listen to a lot of PBS/NPR programming. I haven't yet watched this one but my take on most of what PBS produces is that they basically lie by omission. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard them discuss major issues while leaving out conservative talking points as to the root causes, while promulgating progressive solutions.
Oh come on. Way to use innuendo as an argument.
Just remember that all arguments are not equal. To use a different example of false equivalency that happens in he said she said journalism. You cannot argue that vaccine debate of late have two equal sides to it. A doctor's scientifically based opinion is worth infinitely more than an actor's uninformed opinion about why people should not vaccine their kids.
If the opinion has a basis in realities instead of "trust me I have a plan" then sure, but you just saying this doesn't make it so. Point in case: An example would do well here.
Post by: starman on October 05, 2016, 03:04:56 PM
Quote
They're an insult to anyone who subscribes to logic.
Only if you assume the target audience, for these debates, is for those who have some semblance of logic. I'm pretty sure the Dunning–Kruger effect is in play.
Post by: headmount on October 05, 2016, 03:23:35 PM
QuoteThey're an insult to anyone who subscribes to logic.
Only if you assume the target audience, for these debates, is for those who have some semblance of logic. I'm pretty sure the Dunning–Kruger effect is in play.
Had to look up the Dunning-Krugar effect. I guess you're right but this all points to how valuable education is. In the early 1800's there were fist fights in the halls of congress because many of our ancestral representatives didn't have the education needed to express themselves adequately. So they resorted to the only thing they could relate to for conflict resolution. The whole country went down this path in 1860 with an extreme loss of life. Without education and an ability to arrive at compromise without violence, we aren't any better than the countries and religions in the middle east who resolve their differences by killing each other.
Post by: Bean on October 05, 2016, 06:07:06 PM
These aren't debates...They're an insult to anyone who subscribes to logic.
True, but on the other hand, what's the sense in subscribing to logic when you can get it free on the internet...
Post by: mrbig on October 05, 2016, 06:18:14 PM
Telling the truth, riiight
Justice, not so much.
American Way, whazzat..
Definitely NOT debates in any sense..
Post by: lucabrasi on October 05, 2016, 08:38:30 PM
Target audience? Us?QuoteThey're an insult to anyone who subscribes to logic.
Only if you assume the target audience, for these debates, is for those who have some semblance of logic. I'm pretty sure the Dunning–Kruger effect is in play.
Dunning-Kruger. Interesting. I looked it up as well.
Not me.........
American way? Easy. Almost hate to say it but......Just do it.
Kaine vs. Pence. I saw enough to not pay attention. Rather odd.
Gigantes!
Post by: Eagle on October 05, 2016, 09:55:31 PM
https://youtu.be/sa76Akcwv04
https://youtu.be/sBbtCvUGweo
Post by: Admin on October 06, 2016, 05:54:47 AM
"So you've got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It's the craziest thing in the world,".
Post by: stoneaxe on October 06, 2016, 06:51:14 AM
Relying on PBS and saying there is just a "slight" bias is silly Free. I watch and listen to a lot of PBS/NPR programming. I haven't yet watched this one but my take on most of what PBS produces is that they basically lie by omission. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard them discuss major issues while leaving out conservative talking points as to the root causes, while promulgating progressive solutions.
Oh come on. Way to use innuendo as an argument.
Just remember that all arguments are not equal. To use a different example of false equivalency that happens in he said she said journalism. You cannot argue that vaccine debate of late have two equal sides to it. A doctor's scientifically based opinion is worth infinitely more than an actor's uninformed opinion about why people should not vaccine their kids.
If the opinion has a basis in realities instead of "trust me I have a plan" then sure, but you just saying this doesn't make it so. Point in case: An example would do well here.
Please Taut, if you think that NPR and PBS aren't biased you're simply fooling yourself. One example of it is one I've mentioned a few times because it made me so angry. A panel with the usual hard core progressives and some token centrists to represent the right discussing the high unemployment rate amongst inner city black's, particularly young men. They discuss all the progressive reasons for it, income inequality, institutional racism, etc, etc...but somehow in the hour long discussion illegal immigration and the effect it has on opportunity at the lowest levels never comes up. All the starter jobs that I had in my teens and early 20's aren't available, construction laborer, dishwasher, landscaper, cleaning offices, any one of thousands of jobs that Americans supposedly won't do are being taken at low wages by illegal immigrants but that doesn't even get mentioned. Of course all the solutions involve throwing money at progressive causes and that's very typical of their programming. Oftentimes it isn't even subtle....the anchor saying "I can't comment on this because it would be improper....but here's Candy Crowley" then she piles on with whatever stupid thing Trump has done, while either hardly mentioning or making excuses for Clinton's negative issues..
I was glad to see that Free mentioned that they had some bias and realize I was a bit harsh in my response but he touched a sore spot for me. I feel one of the biggest problems we have is the propaganda that is being thrown around from both sides and presented as gospel. It's very simple...people that think the likes of NBC is giving them the truth and that Fox is faux news and vice versa are ill informed and are a major factor in the divide we face as a nation. The only way of getting nearer the truth is to try and get your info from as many sources (with disparate views) as you can. You don't have to explain that not all arguments are equal, that's pretty obvious, especially your example, but you should at least know all the arguments before you solidify your position. Far too many people simply aren't doing that.
This makes it a little easier to do that...not perfect by any means but at least you can get different viewpoints in one place.
http://www.allsides.com/
Post by: PonoBill on October 06, 2016, 07:30:32 AM
Then I scrolled up and saw who wrote it. "Oh, no. Not that goofball."
Seriously though, my views on immigration have more to do with general geopolitics and the future of the country rather than current lack of starter jobs. And the jobs remain, they just aren't being taken by white kids. They don't have to take them, and so they don't. People in this country do what they want. Yesterday I was sitting in motionless traffic surrounded by cars with one person in them watching the Amtrak coastal train fly by, basically empty. I fail to see how creating a shortage of available labor is going to make kids take menial jobs. I can't think of a way to get them to look up from their smartphones, never mind do a hard days work.
But yeah, anyone that thinks NPR isn't a propaganda source is listening to their own echo chamber.
Post by: Eagle on October 06, 2016, 11:06:13 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on October 06, 2016, 11:32:21 AM
We've created a welfare system that discourages work and an education system that doesn't prepare kids for much of anything (certainly not in the inner cities) all while allowing 10's of millions of folks to come here illegally and work for less but somehow those jobs going to others don't effect the opportunities for these kids.....really? It's all connected brother and we can't fix any of it until we get a handle on immigration.
I'm torn by all this....immigration is what made America great and for much of our history it was hardly regulated....I'm not even sure our grandfather was legal or even what it meant back then. Massive immigration without concern was possible for most of our history because of massive growth....something we don't have anymore. Arguing that the immigration of today isn't hurting a large swath of people, people that are American citizens, is simply wrong. I'm having a hard time seeing past the immediate issue of how it hurts my fellow citizens to be too concerned for geopolitics even though it's something I've considered quite a bit...and worried over...i.e.: What the fuck happens to all these folks when robotics and AI wipe out all the low level jobs (and not a few of the mid and upper ones as well). Is global socialism where this is all headed? Government guaranteed incomes for all? Utopia or Hell?
Post by: Bean on October 06, 2016, 12:30:48 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on October 06, 2016, 12:57:26 PM
Post by: Weasels wake on October 06, 2016, 02:07:29 PM
That's the paradox.
Post by: tautologies on October 06, 2016, 02:28:46 PM
Please Taut, if you think that NPR and PBS aren't biased you're simply fooling yourself. One example of it is one I've mentioned a few times because it made me so angry. A panel with the usual hard core progressives and some token centrists to represent the right discussing the high unemployment rate amongst inner city black's, particularly young men. They discuss all the progressive reasons for it, income inequality, institutional racism, etc, etc...but somehow in the hour long discussion illegal immigration and the effect it has on opportunity at the lowest levels never comes up. All the starter jobs that I had in my teens and early 20's aren't available, construction laborer, dishwasher, landscaper, cleaning offices, any one of thousands of jobs that Americans supposedly won't do are being taken at low wages by illegal immigrants but that doesn't even get mentioned. Of course all the solutions involve throwing money at progressive causes and that's very typical of their programming. Oftentimes it isn't even subtle....the anchor saying "I can't comment on this because it would be improper....but here's Candy Crowley" then she piles on with whatever stupid thing Trump has done, while either hardly mentioning or making excuses for Clinton's negative issues..
I was glad to see that Free mentioned that they had some bias and realize I was a bit harsh in my response but he touched a sore spot for me. I feel one of the biggest problems we have is the propaganda that is being thrown around from both sides and presented as gospel. It's very simple...people that think the likes of NBC is giving them the truth and that Fox is faux news and vice versa are ill informed and are a major factor in the divide we face as a nation. The only way of getting nearer the truth is to try and get your info from as many sources (with disparate views) as you can. You don't have to explain that not all arguments are equal, that's pretty obvious, especially your example, but you should at least know all the arguments before you solidify your position. Far too many people simply aren't doing that.
This makes it a little easier to do that...not perfect by any means but at least you can get different viewpoints in one place.
http://www.allsides.com/
Ok, so my opinion is not they should be unbiased. I do not think it is possible, and therefore it should be transparent what the bias is. It is a misunderstanding the media should be unbiased. What they should be is critical, fair, and they should absolutely weight in to help value the opinions. They should, of course, be open about their bias. Now let me quickly also discriminate between a fox news type bias and other philosophical biases like for instance the economist has. Fox news puts forward lies and innuendos with little realtion to facts in a very damaging. The economist ha an opinion on how the world is better run, and it colors their analysis...but they do not lie.
If one person has an opinion that is based on science and general values and one person has an opinion that is based on this weeks religious superstition and a few single constituents POV, then they are simply not equal opinions.
I'll check out the all sides site. I do tend to like to learn about multiple POV, but it annoys me when there is a false equivalency between arguments. I think it is lazy journalism and it is a huge problem.
Post by: Weasels wake on October 06, 2016, 02:58:38 PM
Fox news puts forward lies and innuendos with little realtion to facts in a very damaging. The economist ha an opinion on how the world is better run, and it colors their analysis...but they do not lie.Economists, hmm?
I've heard just as many economists say that increasing taxes will bring in more money to the fed, because each has to pay more, as I've heard that lowering taxes will bring more money to the fed because it will have more people contributing.
Which one is lying? Neither? Both?
In my book economists can easily be just as biased as any other profession,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, like climatology or science for instance.
But we don't need to go there also, it's the never ending merry-go-round.
Post by: tautologies on October 06, 2016, 04:00:17 PM
Fox news puts forward lies and innuendos with little realtion to facts in a very damaging. The economist ha an opinion on how the world is better run, and it colors their analysis...but they do not lie.Economists, hmm?
I've heard just as many economists say that increasing taxes will bring in more money to the fed, because each has to pay more, as I've heard that lowering taxes will bring more money to the fed because it will have more people contributing.
Which one is lying? Neither? Both?
In my book economists can easily be just as biased as any other profession,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, like climatology or science for instance.
But we don't need to go there also, it's the never ending merry-go-round.
The Economist is a news outlet.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 06, 2016, 04:56:31 PM
You also need to understand that what you see as false equivalency is colored by your own bias. I try to question my own biases often. The easiest way to do that is to try and imagine yourself in someone else's shoes (admittedly difficult sometimes). My opinion on lots of issues has morphed or completely changed as a result.
Post by: SeldomScene on October 06, 2016, 06:04:33 PM
Fox news puts forward lies and innuendos with little realtion to facts in a very damaging. The economist ha an opinion on how the world is better run, and it colors their analysis...but they do not lie.Economists, hmm?
I've heard just as many economists say that increasing taxes will bring in more money to the fed, because each has to pay more, as I've heard that lowering taxes will bring more money to the fed because it will have more people contributing.
Which one is lying? Neither? Both?
In my book economists can easily be just as biased as any other profession,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, like climatology or science for instance.
But we don't need to go there also, it's the never ending merry-go-round.
This is a very simplified explanation, mostly because a longer one would require me to keyboard more. I am pretty sure the theories that promote lowering taxes are based on the notion that the money kept in the private sector boosts the economy and creates jobs. A more robust economy not smothered by high taxation generates more revenue, more jobs, and in the end more money for the gov'ment. As an aside, higher corporate taxes (US taxes are among the highest) drives companies out if the US.
Post by: surf4food on October 06, 2016, 06:43:34 PM
Post by: Bean on October 06, 2016, 09:00:09 PM
Paradox?By paradox I mean the two should not coexist in a healthy economy.
In a healthy economy, the unemployed would go out and do whatever jobs they could, leaving much less for illegals to do and less incentive to come here. But, the unemployed inner city youth don't seek out those jobs because their perception, based in part on some of things you cited, is that they are better off staying put and working the system.
Post by: pdxmike on October 06, 2016, 09:58:10 PM
That brings up an interesting question--if it's legal to not work, and "work the system" to get benefits, why is that different than a person using tax law provisions to minimize the taxes they pay? In both cases, the individual is working within the law for their own self-interest. The poor are just using a different set of laws (public assistance rules) than the wealthy are (tax code). I'm not saying whether they're equivalent or not, just that it's an interesting question, especially when you get into cases where people are using tax laws in ways that they weren't likely intended to be used.Paradox?By paradox I mean the two should not coexist in a healthy economy.
In a healthy economy, the unemployed would go out and do whatever jobs they could, leaving much less for illegals to do and less incentive to come here. But, the unemployed inner city youth don't seek out those jobs because their perception, based in part on some of things you cited, is that they are better off staying put and working the system.
Post by: Area 10 on October 06, 2016, 11:57:18 PM
We need The Who to come out with a 2016 version called "Will get fooled again".
Maybe the polls are now beginning to show a growing realisation that Trump is just out for Trump.
But I fear a protest vote, like the one that is now taking the UK out of Europe. Most of the UK really doesn't want this to happen (now, if not before). And the people who voted for it had no real idea what they were voting for, or whether it made any sense. They just wanted to break the present situation. The polls underestimated the "vote leave" popularity, because the people with those views were less likely to take part in polls, and were less likely to be honest about their intentions if they did. I fear the same might happen in the US with Trump.
But you guys know this already...
Post by: Bean on October 07, 2016, 07:00:41 AM
That brings up an interesting question--if it's legal to not work, and "work the system" to get benefits, why is that different than a person using tax law provisions to minimize the taxes they pay? In both cases, the individual is working within the law for their own self-interest. The poor are just using a different set of laws (public assistance rules) than the wealthy are (tax code). I'm not saying whether they're equivalent or not, just that it's an interesting question, especially when you get into cases where people are using tax laws in ways that they weren't likely intended to be used.Paradox?By paradox I mean the two should not coexist in a healthy economy.
In a healthy economy, the unemployed would go out and do whatever jobs they could, leaving much less for illegals to do and less incentive to come here. But, the unemployed inner city youth don't seek out those jobs because their perception, based in part on some of things you cited, is that they are better off staying put and working the system.
In the case of Trump, he had almost $1b in losses in the 1990's. But it's important to understand that those losses represent real business expenditures and the application of the net operating losses to future periods is merely a timing difference. He did not get any tax benefit for those expenditures at the time that he incurred them, so he has carried them forward into years that are profitable. To get a true picture of a taxpayers contribution to the Treasury, you would need to look at the tax paid through the lifetime. By the time Trump leaves this earth he will likely have paid more in taxes than most if not all of his political-detractors in their lifetime.
Here is an extreme instance to think about, is it fair for multi-millionaire parents to essentially disinherit a special needs child to take advantage of special government assistance? This type of estate planning happens all the time. And in many cases, the parents would only be getting a fraction of their tax dollars back, in the form of benefits, that they will pay in a lifetime.
PDX, whether "taxpayer" or "on the dole" it's fair to use the laws to ones advantage but clearly there is a lot of fraud to go around.
Post by: Area 10 on October 07, 2016, 07:08:16 AM
Post by: Bean on October 07, 2016, 07:16:49 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on October 07, 2016, 07:28:11 AM
Post by: Admin on October 07, 2016, 07:29:27 AM
Nearly 20% of large U.S. corporations that reported a profit on their financial statements in 2012 ended up paying exactly nothing in U.S. corporate income taxes.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/13/pf/taxes/gao-corporate-taxes/
But frankly we already passed on the only candidate who would have taken on the underlying inequity. The Clinton's hardly are speaking from high ground.
Trump and Clinton share Delaware tax 'loophole' address with 285,000 firms
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton
Post by: Area 10 on October 07, 2016, 07:33:12 AM
How many people did Trump leave owing money when his businesses went belly-up?
They could have been paying tax on that income...?
Post by: stoneaxe on October 07, 2016, 07:53:27 AM
Post by: Bean on October 07, 2016, 08:21:51 AM
Ah, ok, so you don't expect your president to lead the way? Interesting.
How many people did Trump leave owing money when his businesses went belly-up?
They could have been paying tax on that income...?
A10, in the US, taxes are paid on income, net of allowable expenses. If the allowable expenses exceed the income in one year. they are carried forward or sometimes back to years where they can be applied against income. This sometimes results in timing differences that could go on for years. But at some point you do pay the piper.
Now, let's talk about funding NATO...
Post by: Admin on October 07, 2016, 08:58:42 AM
Ah, ok, so you don't expect your president to lead the way? Interesting.
How many people did Trump leave owing money when his businesses went belly-up?
They could have been paying tax on that income...?
Keep in mind that Trump donated to Clinton. Keep up the good work. Wheels greased, status quo maintained. The systems that you are railing against were put in place by and protected by the people that you expect to change them and who are also their beneficiaries. However much you may like her, Hillary is not going to change any of this. Not in regard to taxes, bankruptcy, squeezing others through post negotiation, none of it. They both are deregulaters.
Post by: Area 10 on October 07, 2016, 10:40:10 AM
But at least you guys have a figurehead you voted for. We have two (the Queen, and the Prime Minister), neither of whom we voted for.
Post by: Bean on October 07, 2016, 10:52:56 AM
Post by: Quickbeam on October 07, 2016, 11:18:43 AM
Donald and Hillary could both learn quite a bit from the Queen.
+1
Post by: robon on October 07, 2016, 11:27:11 AM
Post by: Weasels wake on October 07, 2016, 12:08:43 PM
Donald and Hillary could both learn quite a bit from the Queen.They have, living on other people's money.
Post by: lucabrasi on October 07, 2016, 06:37:30 PM
Ivy is way cool.........as is a big green monster.
Gigantes!
edit wow, italics........
continue on............
Post by: stoneaxe on October 07, 2016, 07:04:09 PM
Post by: Bean on October 07, 2016, 08:22:37 PM
Post by: Area 10 on October 08, 2016, 01:57:20 AM
No wonder he's been advised to leave out criticisms of Bill Clinton in the next debate.
Maybe we've discovered the real reason he wants to be President - he's envious of the intern action that Bill got...?
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/08/politics/donald-trump-woman-incident/index.html
Post by: tautologies on October 08, 2016, 02:15:35 AM
Please, if you think Hillary is a better choice to lead the way with all the skeletons in her closet it simply shows your a liberal. As a typical liberal you choose to overlook anything she has done but Donald is bad because he used the laws to pay less taxes. The Donald sucks, I've never liked him, he's obviously for himself and little else but if you think she is any different your delusional.
That is a nonsensical argument.
Can you really not see the difference? It does not have anything to do with political philosophy. This has to do with common decency.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 08, 2016, 06:12:49 AM
Post by: Bean on October 08, 2016, 09:01:28 AM
Maybe we've discovered the real reason he wants to be President - he's envious of the intern action that Bill got...?
That appears to be true A10. It makes me wonder, who vetted this guy, the Three Stooges? The entire GOP should walk away form him and he should resign from the campaign immediately...
Post by: Area 10 on October 08, 2016, 09:35:03 AM
I agree. And you have to wonder about the competence of US journalists, since someone who has this problem should really have been exposed (excuse the pun) well before it got to this stage. Democracy only works if you have a free, and competent, press.Maybe we've discovered the real reason he wants to be President - he's envious of the intern action that Bill got...?
That appears to be true A10. It makes me wonder, who vetted this guy, the Three Stooges? The entire GOP should walk away form him and he should resign from the campaign immediately...
Maybe they've just been waiting for the right moment. And just before the second debate is admittedly a great moment. But, really, the GOP should have been all over this long ago.
Trump couldn't feel more of sleaze if he had "not safe in lifts" tattooed on his forehead. I hope US women vote accordingly.
You might not like Clinton. Nobody much seems to (and I'm no fan either). But it would be great to have the first black and the first woman US president back to back, wouldn't it?
Post by: PonoBill on October 08, 2016, 10:19:01 AM
Maybe I won't have to vote for Hillary. Please choose a human being. Pence is a Dick too. Trump picked him. Reshuffle the deck and go with anything but the current Joker.
Post by: WingSuit on October 08, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Maybe we've discovered the real reason he wants to be President - he's envious of the intern action that Bill got...?
That appears to be true A10. It makes me wonder, who vetted this guy, the Three Stooges? The entire GOP should walk away form him and he should resign from the campaign immediately...
You might not like Clinton. Nobody much seems to (and I'm no fan either). But it would be great to have the first black and the first woman US president back to back, wouldn't it?
This comment is astonishing. But unfortunately, if Hillary does get elected, it will be because enough people who want a woman, any woman, will overlook her absolutely inarguable dishonesty and vote for her. Just as they voted for a guy who had absolutely accomplished nothing in his adult life, in order to have a (half) black president. He has accomplished nothing whole in office either, since we can now scratch the Unaffordable Care Act as an accomplishment. Unless you count the reconstitution of the Soviet Empire, entering office with 2 wars and leaving with 4 (not counting the new Cold Wars with China and the R(econstituted)USSR, the rise of ISIS (which makes attacks on US soil the norm). While I would have preferred say, Colin Powell, they would happily take Oprah Winfrey if she were in the race.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 08, 2016, 11:11:51 AM
Post by: WingSuit on October 08, 2016, 11:44:53 AM
Post by: Eagle on October 08, 2016, 12:07:56 PM
https://youtu.be/ina4wwW_CXc
Post by: Tom on October 08, 2016, 03:39:44 PM
Post by: SUPcheat on October 08, 2016, 03:53:17 PM
Post by: Bean on October 08, 2016, 04:06:39 PM
Post by: SeldomScene on October 08, 2016, 05:44:39 PM
So , how did Trump become the Republican nominee ? Did he fool the party, hijack, or did they see something others cannot see ?
Easy answer. Too many candidates diluted the normal vote, allowing the disaffected white males that get off on a crude Trump to carry him across the goal line. If any one of the mainstream candidates, such as Kasich, Rubio, Cruz, and a few others had gone head to head with the guy with the squirrel on his head, we would not be here today. Sort of like Ross Perot handing the election to Bill Clinton with 40 something percent of the vote. Had Perot not been there, Bush easily wins.
Post by: southwesterly on October 08, 2016, 06:25:20 PM
Post by: pdxmike on October 08, 2016, 06:27:39 PM
How bizarre....i had a twin of that goat attack me yesterday..... :)(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuNb8I4WEAAe2f2.jpg:large)
Post by: Area 10 on October 08, 2016, 06:40:52 PM
Something similar happened with the Democrats as well? Isn't it the case that there's just been a lack of quality candidates all round? I shouldn't think many democrats would want Clinton #2 as their candidate, would they? Just about anyone else would poll better against Trump.
But as I say, I'm a foreigner so I no doubt don't understand the situation. Cruz seemed to me to be even more unpalatable than Trump to most people.
Post by: SeldomScene on October 08, 2016, 07:10:55 PM
Post by: Area 10 on October 08, 2016, 07:24:03 PM
Yes, of course I know both Cruz and Rubio's background. It's hard to argue that there isn't suspicion of foreigners or ethnic minorities within the Republican electorate right now since Trump is doing so well with them! What more evidence do you need?
And I can't see anything that you've written that doesn't reinforce this impression rather than challenge it either. That was waaay over the top, SeldomScene.
Post by: SeldomScene on October 08, 2016, 07:38:08 PM
Post by: Area 10 on October 08, 2016, 07:50:03 PM
There is an important difference between implicit and explicit racism. There are some interesting psychometric tests you can take to measure your own levels of implicit racism. It's usually quite a sobering experience taking them, even for those who consider themselves very liberal. Maybe you should try one?
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
Post by: PonoBill on October 08, 2016, 07:54:30 PM
People made a distinction between southern democrats (harshly racist) and northern democrats, but the line was slim, and in the 60's the democratic party was on the wrong side of civil rights consistently. It's a relatively new phenomenon that democrats are viewed as the party with sympathy for minorities.
Oh, and I think that everyone has racist thoughts, but the first thing that pops into your head is not what you really believe, it's just how you have been programmed. It's the second thing--the sober reflection--that determines whether or not you are racist.
Post by: SeldomScene on October 08, 2016, 08:36:00 PM
We are ALL racists, SeldomScene. It's an almost inevitable consequence of the way the human perceptual system works. So it's just a matter of degree, how you express it, and how willing you are to challenge your own assumptions.
There is an important difference between implicit and explicit racism. There are some interesting psychometric tests you can take to measure your own levels of implicit racism. It's usually quite a sobering experience taking them, even for those who consider themselves very liberal. Maybe you should try one?
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/
Your weal attempt to backtrack and deflect attention from your original statement that the a Republican Party is inherently racist isn't working.
Post by: pdxmike on October 08, 2016, 08:43:13 PM
But he didn't say the party was inherently racist. He said "Cruz and Rubio might have been unpopular due to inherent racism within the GOP". "Inherent racism within the GOP" to me means it applies to a portion of the party, which as you said, "is likely true".We are ALL racists, SeldomScene. It's an almost inevitable consequence of the way the human perceptual system works. So it's just a matter of degree, how you express it, and how willing you are to challenge your own assumptions.
There is an important difference between implicit and explicit racism. There are some interesting psychometric tests you can take to measure your own levels of implicit racism. It's usually quite a sobering experience taking them, even for those who consider themselves very liberal. Maybe you should try one?
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/)
Your weal attempt to backtrack and deflect attention from your original statement that the a Republican Party is inherently racist isn't working.
Post by: Area 10 on October 08, 2016, 08:52:45 PM
Yes, thank you pdxmike. That's exactly it.But he didn't say the party was inherently racist. He said there was "inherent racism within the GOP". I view that as applying to a portion of the party, which as you said, "is likely true".We are ALL racists, SeldomScene. It's an almost inevitable consequence of the way the human perceptual system works. So it's just a matter of degree, how you express it, and how willing you are to challenge your own assumptions.
There is an important difference between implicit and explicit racism. There are some interesting psychometric tests you can take to measure your own levels of implicit racism. It's usually quite a sobering experience taking them, even for those who consider themselves very liberal. Maybe you should try one?
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/)
Your weal attempt to backtrack and deflect attention from your original statement that the a Republican Party is inherently racist isn't working.
I'm sure there are both explicit and implicit racists in the Democratic Party too. But by virtue of them choosing the first black president, they have rather managed to position themselves as more the party for minorities. So the GOP may have dropped the ball, historically, on that one. And one might imagine that if one was a racist, Obama would have perhaps driven you further away from the Democrats, with one obvious place to go.
Post by: pdxmike on October 08, 2016, 09:12:10 PM
Actually, I modified my comment soon after I wrote it, so it's slightly different than what your quote above shows. I modified it to say what you actually said ("Cruz and Rubio might have been unpopular due to inherent racism within the GOP") which was even more benign.Yes, thank you pdxmike. That's exactly it.But he didn't say the party was inherently racist. He said there was "inherent racism within the GOP". I view that as applying to a portion of the party, which as you said, "is likely true".We are ALL racists, SeldomScene. It's an almost inevitable consequence of the way the human perceptual system works. So it's just a matter of degree, how you express it, and how willing you are to challenge your own assumptions.
There is an important difference between implicit and explicit racism. There are some interesting psychometric tests you can take to measure your own levels of implicit racism. It's usually quite a sobering experience taking them, even for those who consider themselves very liberal. Maybe you should try one?
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/)
Your weal attempt to backtrack and deflect attention from your original statement that the a Republican Party is inherently racist isn't working.
I'm sure there are both explicit and implicit racists in the Democratic Party too. But by virtue of them choosing the first black president, they have rather managed to position themselves as more the party for minorities. So the GOP may have dropped the ball, historically, on that one. And one might imagine that if one was a racist, Obama would have perhaps driven you further away from the Democrats, with one obvious place to go.
Post by: Bean on October 08, 2016, 09:13:07 PM
...by virtue of them choosing the first black president, they have rather managed to position themselves as more the party for minorities. So the GOP may have dropped the ball, historically, on that one...
Isn't stating that the GOP dropped the ball by not deliberatly selecting a black candidate before the Dems a little racist?
Post by: pdxmike on October 08, 2016, 09:35:42 PM
I'd say no, since it was only in regard to positioning the party as being "more the party for minorities", not in regard to anything else. The Democratic party had already positioned itself as the party more aligned with interests of minority voters, but nominating Obama certainly cemented that further....by virtue of them choosing the first black president, they have rather managed to position themselves as more the party for minorities. So the GOP may have dropped the ball, historically, on that one...
Isn't stating that the GOP dropped the ball by not deliberatly selecting a black candidate before the Dems a little racist?
But then you could say there's racism in the idea that a party is "more the party for minorities" simply by having a minority candidate. But Democrats nominated a black candidate whose platform also was popular with black voters. If they'd nominated a black candidate whose policies weren't aligned with interests of many black voters, and expected to get the black vote simply because the candidate was black, it seems that would be much more classifiable as racist.
Post by: Admin on October 09, 2016, 04:17:18 AM
But is this really the final straw? Has it gone too far? Sure he moved heavily on a few gals but do supporters now have that kernel of info that has proved to them that he's not the man to be leading the free world? As of this morning it was still a 3 point race. 41% have heard all of the previous info and Trump is still their man. The last debate which the press reported as a landslide Clinton victory barely moved the needle. What does this last unveiling illuminate that was not evident before?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html
Post by: Bean on October 09, 2016, 05:19:35 AM
Post by: Admin on October 09, 2016, 05:44:36 AM
Post by: SUPflorida on October 09, 2016, 09:22:56 AM
Two things worthy of note: Trump admitted he was wrong instead of trying to debate what "is" is. Hillary never takes responsibility for her action. Bill had quite a following with women voters and was of worse moral character Second thing is this happened 11years ago...People change, are you the same person you were 11 years ago? More than a few here that would have a heart attack if what they said in private was spread over every internet site and gossip rag.
Here is the larger issue..,,Many won't bail because the President may be gone in 4 years but an activist SC judge Hillary would put in would be there for life.
At this point it's pick the one who will inflict the least long term damage.
That still gives it to Trump over Clinton. What a pathetic pair.
Post by: Quickbeam on October 09, 2016, 10:40:55 AM
Very disheartening to hear what he said. Indefensible.
Two things worthy of note: Trump admitted he was wrong instead of trying to debate what "is" is. Hillary never takes responsibility for her action. Bill had quite a following with women voters and was of worse moral character Second thing is this happened 11years ago...People change, are you the same person you were 11 years ago? More than a few here that would have a heart attack if what they said in private was spread over every internet site and gossip rag.
Here is the larger issue..,,Many won't bail because the President may be gone in 4 years but an activist SC judge Hillary would put in would be there for life.
At this point it's pick the one who will inflict the least long term damage.
That still gives it to Trump over Clinton. What a pathetic pair.
Trump is a guy who thinks it’s O.K. to characterize his own daughter as “a piece of ass”. And yet you would still take him over Hillary???
After everything Trump has said and done, even before this latest revelation, it just astounds me how someone could still say they would take him over Hillary. You would rather have Donald Trump as your spokesperson on the world stage??? Really??? This guy is a pig. Sorry to be so blunt, but I just don't think there is any better way to describe him.
Post by: Tom on October 09, 2016, 10:57:38 AM
Quote
Hillary never takes responsibility for her action.
Selective hearing
Post by: PonoBill on October 09, 2016, 11:44:27 AM
Likewise Hillary--a new revelation of self-dealing, corruption and lying isn't an opportunity for analysis, it's just more of the same.
Post by: Eagle on October 09, 2016, 01:06:28 PM
Post by: SUPflorida on October 09, 2016, 05:54:24 PM
They are both pigs...we lose either way. Incredible how easily Bill Clintons moral bankruptcy was ignored, but the same women who swooned all over him are outraged at Trump. What Trump said is disgusting...no it's, ands, or buts...remarkable that the same people who are up in arms at Trumps vulgarity pay good money to listen to the same filth in a movies written and directed by the liberal elite with absolutely no offence taken by either men or women...the hypocrisy is unbelievable.Very disheartening to hear what he said. Indefensible.
Two things worthy of note: Trump admitted he was wrong instead of trying to debate what "is" is. Hillary never takes responsibility for her action. Bill had quite a following with women voters and was of worse moral character Second thing is this happened 11years ago...People change, are you the same person you were 11 years ago? More than a few here that would have a heart attack if what they said in private was spread over every internet site and gossip rag.
Here is the larger issue..,,Many won't bail because the President may be gone in 4 years but an activist SC judge Hillary would put in would be there for life.
At this point it's pick the one who will inflict the least long term damage.
That still gives it to Trump over Clinton. What a pathetic pair.
Trump is a guy who thinks it’s O.K. to characterize his own daughter as “a piece of ass”. And yet you would still take him over Hillary???
After everything Trump has said and done, even before this latest revelation, it just astounds me how someone could still say they would take him over Hillary. You would rather have Donald Trump as your spokesperson on the world stage??? Really??? This guy is a pig. Sorry to be so blunt, but I just don't think there is any better way to describe him.
Post by: Quickbeam on October 09, 2016, 06:31:54 PM
They are both pigs...we lose either way. Incredible how easily Bill Clintons moral bankruptcy was ignored, but the same women who swooned all over him are outraged at Trump. What Trump said is disgusting...no it's, ands, or buts...remarkable that the same people who are up in arms at Trumps vulgarity pay good money to listen to the same filth in a movies written and directed by the liberal elite with absolutely no offence taken by either men or women...the hypocrisy is unbelievable.Very disheartening to hear what he said. Indefensible.
Two things worthy of note: Trump admitted he was wrong instead of trying to debate what "is" is. Hillary never takes responsibility for her action. Bill had quite a following with women voters and was of worse moral character Second thing is this happened 11years ago...People change, are you the same person you were 11 years ago? More than a few here that would have a heart attack if what they said in private was spread over every internet site and gossip rag.
Here is the larger issue..,,Many won't bail because the President may be gone in 4 years but an activist SC judge Hillary would put in would be there for life.
At this point it's pick the one who will inflict the least long term damage.
That still gives it to Trump over Clinton. What a pathetic pair.
Trump is a guy who thinks it’s O.K. to characterize his own daughter as “a piece of ass”. And yet you would still take him over Hillary???
After everything Trump has said and done, even before this latest revelation, it just astounds me how someone could still say they would take him over Hillary. You would rather have Donald Trump as your spokesperson on the world stage??? Really??? This guy is a pig. Sorry to be so blunt, but I just don't think there is any better way to describe him.
Maybe I’ve lived a sheltered life, but I don’t think so. And before Trump, I’ve never heard a father imply that it’s O.K. that his daughter be referred to as "a piece of ass”. Maybe you think some of the things others have done is equal or worse. But come on, he’s talking about his own daughter! That is disgusting.
Post by: tautologies on October 10, 2016, 01:08:57 AM
What Trump said is disgusting...no it's, ands, or buts...remarkable that the same people who are up in arms at Trumps vulgarity pay good money to listen to the same filth in a movies written and directed by the liberal elite with absolutely no offence taken by either men or women...the hypocrisy is unbelievable.
Wait!!! Do you not know the difference between someone describing how he has committed a real sexual assault and a movie? Do you really not understand what they are offended by?
Post by: addapost on October 10, 2016, 09:06:02 AM
It is getting harder and harder for most people to tell the difference between "reality" and "Reality TV"What Trump said is disgusting...no it's, ands, or buts...remarkable that the same people who are up in arms at Trumps vulgarity pay good money to listen to the same filth in a movies written and directed by the liberal elite with absolutely no offence taken by either men or women...the hypocrisy is unbelievable.
Wait!!! Do you not know the difference between someone describing how he has committed a real sexual assault and a movie? Do you really not understand what they are offended by?
Post by: SlatchJim on October 10, 2016, 09:41:43 AM
Post by: southwesterly on October 10, 2016, 07:29:28 PM
Post by: DavidJohn on October 10, 2016, 09:26:48 PM
Post by: Eagle on October 11, 2016, 09:29:27 AM
Post by: surf4food on October 11, 2016, 05:29:19 PM
What Trump said is disgusting...no it's, ands, or buts...remarkable that the same people who are up in arms at Trumps vulgarity pay good money to listen to the same filth in a movies written and directed by the liberal elite with absolutely no offence taken by either men or women...the hypocrisy is unbelievable.
Wait!!! Do you not know the difference between someone describing how he has committed a real sexual assault and a movie? Do you really not understand what they are offended by?
I have a feeling he's not really giving a heartfelt opinion so much as just fishing for a response.
Post by: tautologies on October 11, 2016, 07:11:26 PM
I have a feeling he's not really giving a heartfelt opinion so much as just fishing for a response.
Yeah probably, but at this point, I think one has to be missing something to vote for Trump.
Post by: surf4food on October 11, 2016, 07:40:21 PM
I have a feeling he's not really giving a heartfelt opinion so much as just fishing for a response.
Yeah probably, but at this point, I think one has to be missing something to vote for Trump.
True, but they say the same thing about us who will vote for Hillary. Just needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
Post by: surf4food on October 11, 2016, 07:43:14 PM
Post by: tautologies on October 11, 2016, 07:59:11 PM
True, but they say the same thing about us who will vote for Hillary. Just needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
That is the thing, though. I did not even mention Clinton. Every time anyone mentions an argument against Trump...and there are so incredibly many, the counter argument is but look at Clinton. At some point one have to ba able to look at a candidate and say oh holy shit this guy is unhinged. I mean he literally threatened a political opponent with jail. In a party that seems to be celebrating freedom so much, accepting that their candidate threatens with imprisonment is absolutely insane.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 12, 2016, 06:48:01 AM
I think people have to be missing something to vote for either. You can keep on deluding yourself and believe there is a difference in their morality. Which is worse, a guy that brags about his sexual exploits or a woman that defends/deflects her husbands exploits and attacks the women coming forward in order to further her career? I don't think there is a bit of moral difference between them...both so power hungry to the point that they shouldn't be trusted with power. I'm pretty sure you voted for Clinton (I did too the 1st time by the way)...were you as upset with his actions as you are with Trumps talk? Are you angry with Hillary for demeaning and attacking the women that came forth? If not you're a hypocrite.
I don't want Trump in the oval office but I believe he would ultimately be pretty ineffective given the toxic atmosphere he would face. I don't want Hillary for the opposite reason....I think she would be damned effective.....and I don't want what she's selling. Why would I ever vote for a candidate who I believe will make life for most average Americans (who Hillary hates according to the email leaks) worse.
Post by: Admin on October 12, 2016, 07:24:38 AM
Which is worse, a guy that brags about his sexual exploits or a woman that defends/deflects her husbands exploits and attacks the women coming forward in order to further her career?
This is where this gets bizarre.
Trump is bragging about groping women without their consent. Have any of us men ever heard another man boast about that? What might be most disturbing about this is that he expects the listener to accept that behavior as admirable, as though if they had his status they too would obviously want to grope women. He is bragging about assault. This is both a deviant behavior and mindset.
But Trump has a base (about 40%) that will seemingly not be torn from their man. It is not likely that he will grow his base substantially, but we are talking about Democrats on the other side. We are a lazy bunch of voters even with a strong candidate. So Trump's best play now is to make Hillary worth staying home for. She has very weak support among Dems and I would expect even more tenuous support from independents. It can't be boring Wikileaks stuff either. Not just facty, emaily BS. We need rape and we need to convincingly attach it to Hllary. Is it compelling enough?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHh73fkDUIs
Post by: stoneaxe on October 12, 2016, 08:08:22 AM
Trump is bragging about groping women without their consent. Have any of us men ever heard another man boast about that? What might be most disturbing about this is that he expects the listener to accept that behavior as admirable, as though if they had his status they too would obviously want to grope women. He is bragging about assault. This is both a deviant behavior and mindset.
Yes....listen to some rap music. And deviant behavior has unfortunately become more the norm....how did Clinton remain in the oval office after diddling an intern. Wasn't that long ago that public knowledge of that (especially after lying about it for so long and vilifying the intern) would have seen his removal in shame. Trump and those like him should never see the inside of the oval office....but neither should Clinton. As for sinking to new lows...it's kind of ironic that she was defending him while he was taking the pedophile plane to pedophile island. Where are all the investigative journalists when you need them....oh that's right, they're all digging in Trumps old dirt.....of course he thinks Epstein is a good guy too...so much dirt so little time.
Post by: Admin on October 12, 2016, 08:43:54 AM
I don't condone Bill's actions and did think he should have been evicted along with his impeachment. Not for the consensual relationship but for the lie and the vilification by both Bill and Hillary. I voted for Bill twice but could not defend that. She is a poor candidate for this and other reasons.
This leaves us judging for lighter shades of gray. It is clear to me, but America does poorly with gray.
Post by: Area 10 on October 12, 2016, 09:46:48 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f61Q2lDpykQ
Post by: stoneaxe on October 12, 2016, 09:50:54 AM
I can't vote for the guy, I despised him before he ran for President and this hasn't done anything to enhance my opinion of him but I think Hillary is worse in many ways.....certainly in what she will do to this country. I think we can survive Trump.....Hillary cements the progressive agenda which will continue the downward spiral of the US.
Post by: starman on October 12, 2016, 10:01:23 AM
Quote
As for sinking to new lows...it's kind of ironic that she was defending him while he was taking the pedophile plane to pedophile island.
Hum, if you are talking about the Lewinski affair she was 22 at the time and it was a consensual sex. Bill's problem was later lying about it. Naturally there were quite a few congressmen and senators calling the kettle black at the time as they were having affairs of there own.
Hate is an interesting emotion, it has a way of making one imagine all kinds of falsehoods to justify ones opinion of people or things.
As far as the progressive agenda causing the downward spiral of the US, that has been something conservatives have been whining about since the FDR days.
Attached is an example of how little the bickering between conservatives and progressives has changed.
Post by: Weasels wake on October 12, 2016, 10:09:39 AM
Take sex, or the talk of sex out of the equation, sadly impossible, and this is what you'd come up with.
Survey reveals what Americans fear the most
USA Today Network Mary Bowerman , USA TODAY Network 9:30 a.m. EDT October 12, 2016
Here are the top 10 fears of 2016:
•Corruption of government officials (same top fear as 2015) — 60.6%
•Terrorist attacks — 41%
•Not having enough money for the future — 39.9%
•Being a victim of terror — 38.5%
•Government restrictions on firearms and ammunition — 38.5%
•People I love dying — 38.1%
•Economic or financial collapse — 37.5%
•Identity theft — 37.1%
•People I love becoming seriously ill — 35.9%
•The Affordable Health Care Act/”Obamacare” — 35.5%
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/10/12/survey-top-10-things-americans-fear-most/91934874/
I'd think that if sex wasn't the distraction it has become, and a bit more attention was paid to the new email disclosures about Hillary's speeches and campaign tactics, Trump would probably easily win.
With a questionable heads of the FBI, the DOJ, the State Dept., the IRS, and Bill Clinton's clandestine meeting with the head of the DOJ on her private jet, corruption should be at the top of the list, it's our biggest problem.
Post by: ericmichaels on October 12, 2016, 10:49:35 AM
Bill may have had his issues. Monica consented and may have even initiated but as his intern he was in a position of extreme power over her which makes consent less "consensual".
Hillary's response to Bill's transgressions had nothing to do with sex. It was pure damage control from a very practical standpoint. That is one of the good things about Hillary that a President needs. They ability to forget about the personal pain and just take care of business and move on.
The stuff about her attacking these women is very largely overstated. There is almost no evidence that she threatened them. Sure she might have said she didn't believe them, but they weren't all very believable and she is the wife.
Broderick said under oath nothing happened. She said this for decades. Then changed. Ivana also claimed Donald raped her, then recanted. How do we know what the truth really is with either.
Trump is currently being sued in court under claims he raped a 12 year old. Should we be calling him a criminal when there are no charges and no conviction?
Please give a specific example of Hillary attacking one of these women in a way that is other than a wife saying she believes her husband.
Just funny how Trump admittedly attacks every person he even perceives to have slighted him in any way big or small, but Hillary is evil for possibly attacking people she believes have lied about her husband. Seems to me her "reason" for attacking if she did was pretty good....defend the Presidency, her husband, her marriage. Trump attacks just to humiliate even when it is not really important.
There is no comparison.
Post by: Area 10 on October 12, 2016, 10:50:38 AM
Someone over there has been doing a lot of fearmongering. McDonalds probably presents a far bigger threat to US health than all terror groups put together. And as for gun ownership...
Post by: Admin on October 12, 2016, 11:45:18 AM
Please give a specific example of Hillary attacking one of these women in a way that is other than a wife saying she believes her husband.
That's a lot of believing.
Juanita Broaddrick | Kathleen Willey | Paula Jones | Sandra Allen James | Eileen Wellstone | Christy Zercher | Carolyn Moffet | Helen Dowdy | Becky Brown | Regina Blakely Hopper | Monica Lewinsky | Elizabeth Ward Gracen | Gennifer Flowers | Connie Hamzy | Dolly Kyle Browning | Sally Miller (Sally Perdue) | Lencola Sullivan
Post by: pdxmike on October 12, 2016, 12:17:39 PM
People are more afraid of being a victim of terror than someone close to them dying? That is nuts. You've probably got more chance of being struck by lightning than being a victim of terror, especially in the US.Obsessing about gun rights, terrorists, transgender people lurking in toilet stalls, etc. has become a hobby for a lot of people. It's like a high school clique. You learn what helps you fit in, and get reinforcement from the group when you say the right things. People who've never held a gun in their lives have facebook pages filled with memes about why this or that firearm (you don't call them "guns") is not technically an "assault rifle". I do believe those poll results--that many people really do fear those things more than deaths in the family, etc.
Someone over there has been doing a lot of fearmongering. McDonalds probably presents a far bigger threat to US health than all terror groups put together. And as for gun ownership...
Post by: stoneaxe on October 12, 2016, 01:01:56 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
FWIW...I first heard about this guy Epstein long before hearing of Bill's visits to his island. I actually did some 3D renderings of proposed work on the island back around 2003. While we were doing the work there were some rumors flying around about what/who he was.
Post by: SlatchJim on October 12, 2016, 04:32:21 PM
so, Gary Johnson, enjoy my vote.
Post by: surf4food on October 12, 2016, 04:58:35 PM
For those of you unaware Bill Clinton has taken 26 rides on Jeffery Epstein's plane, know as "The Lolita Express", more than a couple of them to his private island where orgies with underage girls present are purported to be regular activity. It's interesting that none of you seem to know about it.....I wonder why? Probably because it's hardly been mentioned on much of the media you get your news from. Tell me...how much do you think the mainstream media would be reporting about Trumps connection to Epstein if Bill didn't have an even bigger connection? They would be screaming it from the rooftops and all of Hillary's paid trolls would be blasting the web with it.....as it is....crickets. But you still believe that most of the media isn't in the tank for Clinton?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
FWIW...I first heard about this guy Epstein long before hearing of Bill's visits to his island. I actually did some 3D renderings of proposed work on the island back around 2003. While we were doing the work there were some rumors flying around about what/who he was.
The mainstream media is one thing, but alternate media sources (both liberal and conservative) like to spin things as well. Some more than others but they all do it enough to where I never take them seriously. I just don't do conspiracies. Whether or not said conspiracies are true I suppose I'll never know. Even as a liberal, I scoffed at my fellow liberals when many thought the election that got GW in his first term was rigged.
Post by: PonoBill on October 12, 2016, 07:34:40 PM
Bill may have had his issues. Monica consented and may have even initiated but as his intern he was in a position of extreme power over her which makes consent less "consensual".
The stuff about her attacking these women is very largely overstated. There is almost no evidence that she threatened them. Sure she might have said she didn't believe them, but they weren't all very believable and she is the wife.
There is no comparison.
Wow, you either haven't paid much attention or you are simply bugfuck crazy.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 12, 2016, 08:02:12 PM
QuoteAs for sinking to new lows...it's kind of ironic that she was defending him while he was taking the pedophile plane to pedophile island.
Hum, if you are talking about the Lewinski affair she was 22 at the time and it was a consensual sex. Bill's problem was later lying about it. Naturally there were quite a few congressmen and senators calling the kettle black at the time as they were having affairs of there own.
Hate is an interesting emotion, it has a way of making one imagine all kinds of falsehoods to justify ones opinion of people or things.
As far as the progressive agenda causing the downward spiral of the US, that has been something conservatives have been whining about since the FDR days.
Attached is an example of how little the bickering between conservatives and progressives has changed.
Hum, No...try again. and its real nice to know you think its OK for a guy in his position to take advantage of an intern but label Trump a mysoginist. I'm sure you would have been OK with Clinton showing his respect for women by playing hide the cigar with your 22 year old intern daughter. Flaming hypocrisy once again.
Keep imagining this is about hate. It's about where I would like to see the future of this country and it's not Hillary's vision. Do you really think you need to educate me on the history of politics in this country? The problem with liberals is they don't know where to stop. I voted democrat into my 30's until I realized liberals were going nuts. It's truly laughable that you label conservatives as whining about liberals....what else do liberals do but whine? Seriously, try looking in the figurative mirror sometime. You have a big chunk of progressive broccoli stuck in your teeth.
Post by: ericmichaels on October 12, 2016, 08:10:37 PM
As I said show your evidence. Politifact rates the statement that she viciously attacked the accuser's as mostly false.
Bill may have had his issues. Monica consented and may have even initiated but as his intern he was in a position of extreme power over her which makes consent less "consensual".
The stuff about her attacking these women is very largely overstated. There is almost no evidence that she threatened them. Sure she might have said she didn't believe them, but they weren't all very believable and she is the wife.
There is no comparison.
Wow, you either haven't paid much attention or you are simply bugfuck crazy.
It is not matter of whether you pay attention but rather what sources of information you pay attention to.
You can think you are paying attention but if it is to Breitbart or something you will be misled.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Post by: ericmichaels on October 12, 2016, 08:14:14 PM
Your mixing affairs with claims of assault. I don't think she cared about the affairs.Please give a specific example of Hillary attacking one of these women in a way that is other than a wife saying she believes her husband.
That's a lot of believing.
Juanita Broaddrick | Kathleen Willey | Paula Jones | Sandra Allen James | Eileen Wellstone | Christy Zercher | Carolyn Moffet | Helen Dowdy | Becky Brown | Regina Blakely Hopper | Monica Lewinsky | Elizabeth Ward Gracen | Gennifer Flowers | Connie Hamzy | Dolly Kyle Browning | Sally Miller (Sally Perdue) | Lencola Sullivan
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Post by: ericmichaels on October 12, 2016, 08:26:40 PM
For those of you unaware Bill Clinton has taken 26 rides on Jeffery Epstein's plane, know as "The Lolita Express", more than a couple of them to his private island where orgies with underage girls present are purported to be regular activity. It's interesting that none of you seem to know about it.....I wonder why? Probably because it's hardly been mentioned on much of the media you get your news from. Tell me...how much do you think the mainstream media would be reporting about Trumps connection to Epstein if Bill didn't have an even bigger connection? They would be screaming it from the rooftops and all of Hillary's paid trolls would be blasting the web with it.....as it is....crickets. But you still believe that most of the media isn't in the tank for Clinton?Yes it is common knowledge that both bill and Donald are tight with Epstein. That information alone means nothing and if it is a big deal to you, only one of them is running for president.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
FWIW...I first heard about this guy Epstein long before hearing of Bill's visits to his island. I actually did some 3D renderings of proposed work on the island back around 2003. While we were doing the work there were some rumors flying around about what/who he was.
Trump is currently accused of raping a 12 year old on one of those trips. Bill isn't.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Post by: southwesterly on October 12, 2016, 08:28:59 PM
Post by: Weasels wake on October 12, 2016, 09:08:54 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on October 12, 2016, 09:19:46 PM
Come on SW.......it doesn't reflect on her character that she defended and deflected any and all accusations against her husband to protect her own career? Glad you feel that way....I don't. But truthfully I wish all the discussion of this crap would go away so maybe the important issues of the day could be discussed......not that it's going to change any of the conversation here much. You guys obviously feel that Hillary will be better for this country....I don't. My greatest wish is that we somehow get a do-over for both parties. Shameful that this is all we have to choose from. I probably would have voted for Bernie over Trump...I didn't necessarily agree with some of his positions, particularly immigration but I did on TPP.....and even his immigration stance isn't as far left as Hillary. I don't trust Trump...who the hell knows what he'll really do? At least I felt I could trust in Bernie's character and that he was doing what he believed to be in the best interest of the American people unlike these two self serving pieces of shit.
Post by: surf4food on October 12, 2016, 09:41:50 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on October 12, 2016, 09:50:14 PM
Truthfully, both liberals AND conservatives whine about each other. As the Geico commercials sau, it's what you do. This has gone on since the beginning of time. Both make generalizations about the other. Both like to go on and on about how the other side lies. And the biggest irony? Both sides actually need each other but will never admit it.
Yup
Post by: tautologies on October 13, 2016, 01:05:50 AM
There's only two people in this race Taut....who else are folks supposed to point too....it's a zero sum game.
I think people have to be missing something to vote for either. You can keep on deluding yourself and believe there is a difference in their morality. Which is worse, a guy that brags about his sexual exploits or a woman that defends/deflects her husbands exploits and attacks the women coming forward in order to further her career?
Woah there. Sexual exploits??? You must be kidding. Even if you are right and I don't think you are...one guy brags about him sexually assaulting a woman and another defends and deflect...yeah there is a big fucking difference. It is not even comparable.
Post by: DavidJohn on October 13, 2016, 01:53:00 AM
Post by: Admin on October 13, 2016, 02:02:01 AM
Your mixing affairs with claims of assault. I don't think she cared about the affairs.Please give a specific example of Hillary attacking one of these women in a way that is other than a wife saying she believes her husband.
That's a lot of believing.
Juanita Broaddrick | Kathleen Willey | Paula Jones | Sandra Allen James | Eileen Wellstone | Christy Zercher | Carolyn Moffet | Helen Dowdy | Becky Brown | Regina Blakely Hopper | Monica Lewinsky | Elizabeth Ward Gracen | Gennifer Flowers | Connie Hamzy | Dolly Kyle Browning | Sally Miller (Sally Perdue) | Lencola Sullivan
We are talking about attacking the female (and other) accusers of her husband. She certainly has done that. Justify that as you might, but it will certainly be a factor for some in this election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/enabler-or-family-defender-how-hillary-clinton-responded-to-husbands-accusers/2016/09/28/58dad5d4-6fb1-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html
Post by: lucabrasi on October 13, 2016, 04:03:15 AM
For me anyways.........I get the defending and enabling Bill by Hilary but I am real tired of the attention to Bill. He isn't running. I didn't think Trump could come off as anything but ridiculous Sunday night after all that just blew up. He pulled it off I thought tho when his......analogies? were to compare himself to what Bill has done.....so what. I kept hearing Ted Cruz saying "you gave money to the Clintons". Well, duh. Pretty weak for Donald to endlessly bring up what Bill did to defend himself or make himself look better.
The one thing I took from the bus thing.....why the hell does Donald Trump think he has to impress this little twerp? no, please don't answer that......I think the question of it is enough for me.
No, not an endorsement or defense of either.
Is it just something the way the little headlines are on different pages for you to click on and then when you click.....what the content of the "article" is? Just bizarre. Both sides.
Post by: yugi on October 13, 2016, 10:32:49 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwLbDGX4qbk
Post by: ericmichaels on October 13, 2016, 05:42:57 PM
Did you actually read the article. It gives no examples of vicious attacks on alleged victim of bill.Your mixing affairs with claims of assault. I don't think she cared about the affairs.Please give a specific example of Hillary attacking one of these women in a way that is other than a wife saying she believes her husband.
That's a lot of believing.
Juanita Broaddrick | Kathleen Willey | Paula Jones | Sandra Allen James | Eileen Wellstone | Christy Zercher | Carolyn Moffet | Helen Dowdy | Becky Brown | Regina Blakely Hopper | Monica Lewinsky | Elizabeth Ward Gracen | Gennifer Flowers | Connie Hamzy | Dolly Kyle Browning | Sally Miller (Sally Perdue) | Lencola Sullivan
We are talking about attacking the female (and other) accusers of her husband. She certainly has done that. Justify that as you might, but it will certainly be a factor for some in this election.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/enabler-or-family-defender-how-hillary-clinton-responded-to-husbands-accusers/2016/09/28/58dad5d4-6fb1-11e6-8533-6b0b0ded0253_story.html
She said gennifer flowers was a failed cabaret singer. Hardly vicious and she was an affair not an accuser.
She nothing about Paula Jones. She said she didn't believe Monica but again not an attack nor was this an allegation of a crime. It was an affair.
The worst thing was she supposedly said about 1 person that we have to destroy her story. It is unclear who this was about but hardly evidence of a vicious attack.
Still waiting for evidence of a vicious attack. All the fact check sites say they didn't happen.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Post by: Admin on October 14, 2016, 05:15:38 AM
Did you actually read the article. It gives no examples of vicious attacks on alleged victim of bill.
Eric,
You would have to look at this (already left leaning) article wearing emerald partisan glasses while squinting through your fingers to come up with that conclusion. The article establishes a 40 year, well substantiated, credibly sourced history of intentional defamation of females that pose a threat to her. Parse that out as you may but it reads as partisan and defies logic and common sense.
Quotes:
“These people are not going to run over us.”
She discredited claims later revealed to be true and worked behind the scenes to help manage the allegations, according to former aides.
When Bill Clinton launched a presidential run in 1991, his wife and senior staff considered how to deal with what came to be known as “bimbo eruptions.”
Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton dismissed an accusation made by Gennifer Flowers, the singer who sold her story to a supermarket tabloid after having previously denied an affair. In an ABC News interview, she called Flowers “some failed cabaret singer who doesn’t even have much of a résumé to fall back on.” She told Esquire magazine in 1992 that if she had the chance to cross-examine Flowers, “I mean, I would crucify her.”
As other women emerged, Hillary Clinton helped forge aggressive defenses.
Former White House press secretary George Stephanopoulos recalled in his memoir discussing a woman’s allegation published in Penthouse Magazine. He said that after her husband dismissed it as untrue during a meeting, Hillary Clinton said, “We have to destroy her story.”
In 1994, former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones alleged in a lawsuit that Bill Clinton groped her in a hotel room three years earlier. Hillary Clinton wrote in her autobiography, “Living History,” that she erred in opposing an early settlement.
Eventually, Bill Clinton settled for $850,000. During discovery, Jones’s attorneys found out about White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
Hillary Clinton opened up to Blair’s wife, Diane, a few weeks later, according to a diary kept by the now-deceased friend. “She thinks she was not smart enough, not sensitive enough, not free enough of her own concerns and struggles,” Diane Blair wrote. “It was a lapse, but she says to his credit he tried to break it off, tried to pull away, tried to manage someone who was clearly a ‘narcissistic loony toon;’ but it was beyond control.”
Her husband denied the relationship, and Hillary Clinton blamed the allegations on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
Asked on “Good Morning America” if her husband had been truthful, she said, “I know he has.”
A former White House aide who spoke on the conditions of anonymity to talk about private discussions said Hillary Clinton blamed the scandal on political enemies and insisted that privacy was sacred.
Bill Clinton admitted his untruthfulness in August 1998.
Hillary Clinton wrote in her autobiography that her husband claimed Lewinsky had misinterpreted his attention. “It was such a familiar scenario that I had little trouble believing the accusations were groundless,” she wrote.
A chill fell over the White House as the truth about Lewinsky emerged, former staffers and friends said.
“She had to do what she had always done before: swallow her doubts, stand by her man and savage his enemies,” Stephanopoulos wrote, describing Hillary Clinton’s reaction.
Post by: pdxmike on October 14, 2016, 10:26:17 AM
Post by: DavidJohn on October 14, 2016, 12:52:29 PM
Post by: Area 10 on October 14, 2016, 01:33:24 PM
He's admitted to multiple sexual assaults, lost a billion dollars in business, made racist and sexist comments, including to underage girls, and is widely ridiculed around the world. Even his own supporters seem happy to describe him as a narcissist. From an outsider's perspective there seems to be nothing he can do that would shake your belief in him. Is this true?
Post by: stoneaxe on October 14, 2016, 02:24:17 PM
Not sure I can say it's fortunate but I won't have to hold my nose and vote for Trump. I'm writing in my brother. My vote won't matter, Hillary will win Massachusetts by a wide margin.
Post by: Eagle on October 14, 2016, 02:50:44 PM
Blaming the media - Hillary - the Democrat agenda - his own party political elite etc etc - has allowed him the freedom to do and say anything without much loss of support. But yes - would be very interesting to get a perspective firsthand from a true Trump supporter on what would cause him or her - to not vote for Trump. Many people are having to now explain what has been shown in the media to their young kids. And many cannot believe what incredibly low levels American politics has dropped to.
As noted - Hillary and Bill are quite despised for good reason. And if Trump had no issues sidetracking this election - he would have won by a landslide long ago. Most up here in Canada think Trump would be a scary President.
Edit - oddly my wife and I walked past a new highrise building bearing his name on it just last night. Is very much nearing completion - and has the word TRUMP prominently covered up in very nice blue fabric. They say the reason is because it would get dirty apparently. Commented to my wife it looked like a very nice building design. And I did find his Apprentice reality show amusing at times. So not a Trump hater. But what has come out in this election cycle has been extremely eye-opening. ::)
Post by: Eagle on October 14, 2016, 04:47:22 PM
But if he loses -> He needs to consider how all this negative publicity will affect his companies and his brand moving forward. In the end - that probably really matters most to him. Money power and greed. Donald and his kids are now in it until the end to win his Presidency at any cost. A ton of future money is at stake.
So it seems his current "scorched earth" approach is all that he has left at his disposal. He must win -> or he and his family will lose. His GOP electorate base is just along for the ride really - and has been from day one. He gave them exactly what they wanted to see - and wanted to hear. Hillary and the Dems are the vile enemy. Another 4 years of Hillary -> no way they say. And from that perspective is valid to many voters. But is not looking good for him right this second -> but "it ain't over till the fat lady sings."
https://youtu.be/k5TmPSmEgZI
Edit - this vid spells out his dilemma quite clearly. From a female GOP supporter perspective -
https://youtu.be/zqKhQJMUF9I
Post by: stoneaxe on October 14, 2016, 08:30:52 PM
I also love how many liberals that loved Julian Assange previously while he was leaking information that probably got some people killed and seriously damaged our intelligence gathering capabilities against our enemies now are vilifying him for this info that simply exposes the lies of a corrupt politician.
It's real funny how Obama felt she was corrupt when he was running against her...... ::)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVS8-1KwS2c
Post by: Area 10 on October 14, 2016, 11:10:12 PM
You've got the situation where possibly the two most unpopular presidential candidates of all time are running against each other. If either candidate were someone else it would be a landslide for that party. But there is only one candidate about which a certain section of the population seems to be fanatical against all reason. It looks to an outsider like the same kind of fervour usually reserved for (disgraced?) TV evangelists. He seems, like them, also to be claiming some privileged access to "the truth".
Our questions don't stem from support for Clinton. They stem from trying to understand the cultural phenomenon that is Donald Trump. The US has it's own particular cultural peculiarities (as does any other country), and it is the educated and reasonable thing to do to try to understand it if you aren't from that culture. I doubt that any culture outside the US finds the unconditional love that is being channelled Trump's way anything but deeply baffling. Whereas we understand those who don't like Clinton (either of them).
Post by: stoneaxe on October 15, 2016, 06:40:51 AM
Post by: PonoBill on October 15, 2016, 06:43:41 AM
Every culture I've encountered has a copious supply of dunderheads. It's not a purely American phenomenon. It's a human condition.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 15, 2016, 07:34:55 AM
Wish I had a subsrciption.....I've seen some of what this says elsewhere......but the headline and 1st paragraph say exactly what you guys have been denying.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press-buries-hillary-clintons-sins-1476401308
Post by: Area 10 on October 15, 2016, 07:47:16 AM
People see their jobs disappearing either to illegals or shipped overseas. They are tired of politicians lies. How can you vote for someone that thinks its OK to have a private policy and a public policy.....basically that its OK to lie to voters they are supposed to be representing? They see Europe coming apart at the seems due to the refugee crisis and years of liberal immigration policy. Are they really supposed to vote for someone they feel will continue to damage their future? I don't understand why you folks don't understand?I don't think there's any argument about the problems you face (or is in Europe). What we are trying to understand is why in all that is holy do some of you think that Trump is the solution?
From an outsider's perspective, you'd actually all be better off if you just went into some hospital or school somewhere and chose at random some doctor or teacher or whatever to be your president. Anyone, really, as long as they haven't got a criminal record, have always paid their taxes, and don't have a string of sexual or financial misdemeanours behind them.
Of course, this also applies to HC. But no- one is enthusiastic about here. It's the enthusiasm for Trump that we don't understand.
The answer clearly is:
PonoBill for president! ;)
Every school could be obliged to teach SUP, and a statue of the Duke even bigger than the Statue of Liberty could become your symbol of hope, tolerance, and freedom.
PS: Don't you guys find Trump repulsive to watch? What on earth is that horrid snuffling noise he makes when he talks, and those weird effeminate hand movements?
PPS: if you want a total b***ard media whore in charge, why not elect Piers Morgan or Simon Cowell? We'd be glad to get rid of them, and both of them have a less worrying back story than Delirium Tremens ;)
Post by: stoneaxe on October 15, 2016, 07:58:58 AM
Yeah.....I don't get enthusiasm for Trump either.....voting for him because you don't want what Hillary represents yes....enthusiasm no.
Post by: PonoBill on October 15, 2016, 08:03:31 AM
But yes, we could elect the guy that drives the campaign bus for either of these two poor excuses for humanity and be much better off. the notion that political savvy is necessary to be president is so wrongheaded. Someone with a basic notion of right and wrong, a shred of humanity and dash of humility would be infinitely better than these corrupt psychos.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 15, 2016, 08:08:31 AM
Post by: Area 10 on October 15, 2016, 08:21:52 AM
https://youtu.be/ySInEvXoek0
Post by: Quickbeam on October 15, 2016, 08:54:35 AM
That’s one part of it. The other part I’m afraid, is that he appeals to a real base mentality. The “good old boy” mentality. Mocking the disabled, mistreating women, etc., etc. So while he offers change and this appeals to some, he also appeals to the lowest common denominator in society, and my guess is that the majority of those who are truly supportive are not well educated.
Hope I’m not offending anyone, but those are my observations.
Post by: starman on October 15, 2016, 10:00:53 AM
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hate-groups-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-racism
I'm convinced Trumps motivation for running gets a big boost at the 2011 corespondents dinner. First Seth Meyers and then President Obama;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Km4R377s4M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4
Being mocked by America's first black president had to set off a fire storm in Trumps racist brain.
Post by: robon on October 15, 2016, 10:21:49 AM
Trump has been extremely purposeful with his over the top, racist remarks, along with comments regarding the disabled, women etc; which I firmly believe taps into the "good ol boy" voter base/turnout. It's a very obvious strategy imo, that has proven effective initially, but his approach will likely be his exit in the end from the presidential race.
Post by: Weasels wake on October 15, 2016, 10:59:15 AM
If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.Very true, but most all people who have those quality traits know better than to run for president, or even get into politics for that matter. It a flaw in our system that goes back over 100 years. The smart ones stay away.
But yes, we could elect the guy that drives the campaign bus for either of these two poor excuses for humanity and be much better off. the notion that political savvy is necessary to be president is so wrongheaded. Someone with a basic notion of right and wrong, a shred of humanity and dash of humility would be infinitely better than these corrupt psychos.
Shock: A man has come forward to claim that Hillary forcibly tried to kiss him, while he was serenading the first class passengers with his rendition of "Sexual Healing" on a flight back in 1973! After all this time he still has the monkey bite on his neck to prove it.
Post by: Eagle on October 15, 2016, 11:39:03 AM
1.Create an enemy
2.Play on fear
3.Emphasize humiliation
4.Talk about strength
5.Describe catastrophes
6.Take everything personally
7.Don't offer details, just generalities
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/anxiety-files/201508/why-trump-appeals-people
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-fragasso/abraham-maslow-on-trump_b_11455342.html
https://youtu.be/3Sc3_V7Qyq4
https://youtu.be/0ZKDmYfhMhQ
Post by: Area 10 on October 15, 2016, 11:45:36 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/15/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-drug-test/index.html
You couldn't make this stuff up. I guess we have found out what happens when you put a reality TV star into politics: You get a kinda weird hybrid entertainment called "Reality Politics" which is ironically named since the whole entertainment value is based on it being divorced from reality.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 15, 2016, 12:02:55 PM
BTW.....still waiting for you guys to respond to earlier questions. Particularly interesting since an earlier comment made was that all I was doing when asked questions was responding "but look at Clinton". Even though I've given direct responses often....kind of thought that was how debates are supposed to go. But here you guys are simply posting negative shit...mostly from ultra-left sources about Trump. How about some intelligent responses....prove me wrong. Show me how Hillary's corruption isn't worse than the dirty deeds of Trump.......the kind of dirty deeds that your beloved sources would never (never, ever, ever) bring to bear against the beloved Bill. You say you can't understand how people can support Trump...........I having just as difficult a time understanding how you can support Clinton.
A10....what if he's right? She's certainly been struggling with some kind of health issues....I wouldn't be surprised if she's on a friggin cocktail of drugs at this point. I don't really give a shit though, it's not like drugs are going to give her an advantage in a debate (well some might, I did have a friend throw a no-hitter in babe ruth baseball while tripping his brains out... :o). It is a stupid thing to call for. But it's just a minor spit of mud compared to what the Dems are doing.
Post by: Quickbeam on October 15, 2016, 12:09:21 PM
Here's an interesting article on Trumps "base" for you Quickbeam. Helps explain his comments and ability to win the primary. Just when you think civilization has advanced some :( :( :(
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/donald-trump-hate-groups-neo-nazi-white-supremacist-racism
I'm convinced Trumps motivation for running gets a big boost at the 2011 corespondents dinner. First Seth Meyers and then President Obama;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Km4R377s4M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4
Being mocked by America's first black president had to set off a fire storm in Trumps racist brain.
Hey Starman,
I just read the article from MotherJones you linked into your post. Truly scary stuff.
Post by: Eagle on October 15, 2016, 12:17:02 PM
Canada's first female prime minister, Kim Campbell, described Trump as a self-celebrating sexual predator whose rhetoric threatens the democratic process
“So as a French political leader, I obviously hope Hillary Clinton will be elected president,” he said.
He chuckled again. “But it is the Americans who vote.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-he-and-trump-share-different-views-on-women/article32348028/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-trump-sexist-comments-republican-1.3803222
Post by: pdxmike on October 15, 2016, 01:03:02 PM
My favorite mayor of Portland was Bud Clark, who owned a tavern and hadn't been a politician. He never pretended to know anything. PonoBill's description describes him well. The mayors since him have been generally poor.If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.Very true, but most all people who have those quality traits know better than to run for president, or even get into politics for that matter. It a flaw in our system that goes back over 100 years. The smart ones stay away.
But yes, we could elect the guy that drives the campaign bus for either of these two poor excuses for humanity and be much better off. the notion that political savvy is necessary to be president is so wrongheaded. Someone with a basic notion of right and wrong, a shred of humanity and dash of humility would be infinitely better than these corrupt psychos.
I spend a lot of time helping people and groups defend themselves against bullies in professional positions. The best project managers to deal with are often inexperienced, but also fit PonoBill's description. If there's a problem, they listen and use common sense. They don't pretend that they know things they don't. The worst are the "experts" who are concerned only with their careers and being right. Unfortunately those ones tend to move up the career ladder, because they have skills like taking credit from other people, hiding their mistakes, etc.
Post by: PonoBill on October 15, 2016, 04:19:20 PM
I'll give one more cut at the the immigration issue and then just consider that it's a religious preference. There is no immigration issue. Most of the new technology wrapped around manufacturing, energy production, communication--in other words, wealth production--favors developing countries by a factor of ten, in the same way cell phones and wireless internet favored countries with no copper communication infrastructure. For a community with copper-based grid connection, photovoltaics and smart grids represent a refinement of what they already have--a better way, with a big helping of altruism. For a village with one generator that runs for four hours a day, it's instant access to infrastructure and the potential for rapidly increasing personal wealth. Same for electric vehicles, especially self-driving, shared vehicles. Drone delivery, etc, etc..
Global wealth is increasing with step functions. While the first world slightly stagnates, real population declines and wealth polarizes, the third world population is stabilizing, and economic growth is rapidly accelerating. Not just BRIC, but everywhere. As China and India have amply demonstrated, large populations yield large pools of talent, and being hungry for success rather than simply expecting it, creates a highly educated, highly motivated pool of talent in quantity. In a world where information and technical expertise is king, those places and others like them will flourish.
I could be very wrong, and I certainly am at the detail level, but the great threat to the US is not immigrants taking starter jobs, it's a lack of talent to fill the jobs that need to be done. Won't happen right away, but I expect that in my lifetime we'll be paying people to come here. Not just greencard talent, but talent at every level. 319 million people in a rapidly aging population and a huge land mass and monster resources/infrastructure? In what universe does that indicate immigration is a problem?
Starter jobs. really? Give it up. Without immigration by 2030 41 percent of the US population will be 65 or older. Good luck with that. Does anyone think there can be a health care system of any sort with half the population old and sick?? Economic progress with half the population unable to set up a smartphone?
Immigration is a stalking horse to whip up fears. I can't believe some of the nonsense I read on Facebook about the issue. It's mindless.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 15, 2016, 05:29:46 PM
It almost feels like we're headed for some weird dystopian totalitarian global oligarchy. Guaranteed incomes for the masses (bread and circus) while the elite play in the stratosphere.
Post by: surf4food on October 15, 2016, 05:55:28 PM
From my perspective, the Trump true believers seem to be dumber than a box of hammers, just like the folks that stand by a disgraced evangelist with rock-solid belief devoid of basis and impervious to examination. I think that's about all the cultural understanding that's necessary.
Every culture I've encountered has a copious supply of dunderheads. It's not a purely American phenomenon. It's a human condition.
This is the perfect example. While I do to some degree I feel sorry for this women (winning a sexual harassment lawsuit only for a judge to later reverse the original decision) it's hard to really have much compassion. People like her are so uneducated, stupid, racist, ignorant and lack any cognitive reasoning ability I almost (and I know this is mean) have to laugh at their misfortune.
Post by: surf4food on October 15, 2016, 06:03:43 PM
BTW.....still waiting for you guys to respond to earlier questions.
I can only speculate but I think on one end, a lot of people have no idea about Jeffery Epstein and of those who do, many of them highly doubt the validity of the existing reports of any relationship Bill has with Jeffery and simply gaff it off. Also, people by and large will still vote for their respective candidate regardless. Not saying everyone does this, but it's human nature to allow excuses. I'll be honest enough to admit I've been guilty of this.
Post by: Weasels wake on October 15, 2016, 07:48:09 PM
I'm not against immigration.....i'm for it....simply legally.Thank you, at times I think your brother (whom I respect) gets himself caught up in the liberal language sometimes, something that is everywhere these days and gets harder to avoid.
It almost feels like we're headed for some weird dystopian totalitarian global oligarchy. Guaranteed incomes for the masses (bread and circus) while the elite play in the stratosphere.
Examples~
Immigration does not equal illegal immigration, but we only hear "immigration" or "undocumented workers" in the MSM.
"Comprehensive immigration reform", aka amnesty, nothing else, we already have great laws that are currently ignored.
"The great recession", a newer term that refers to the recession that we are still in, not caused by Bush's tax plan, but the housing market crash, "we have to make it easier for the first time buyer", Carter and Clinton, leading the chickens coming home to roost.
"Affordable Health Care Act", really, seriously?
"For the children", don't get me started on that.
"We must invest", we must raise your taxes.
"Multiculturalism", racial quotas more than anything else, also involves "affirmative action".
"Urban sprawl", progress, growth, prosperity, suburbs, commuters,,,,, not land raping.
"Income inequality", must grow the government to put an end to this!
"Assault weapons", anything that can fire more than one bullet in less than 2 seconds.
That's just some of them that I can think of off the top of my head, I hear them all the time, and this is how I see it.
The liberals have been very good at changing the language to make minds go off in a different direction.
Subtle, but very effective.
Beings that I have no problem laying myself out there, feel free to trash my opinion, that's what we are here for, right?
Post by: PonoBill on October 15, 2016, 07:55:09 PM
It almost feels like we're headed for some weird dystopian totalitarian global oligarchy. Guaranteed incomes for the masses (bread and circus) while the elite play in the stratosphere.
Not really, at least I don't think so. The infrastructure revision necessary in the next 50 years is massive. But yes, there are no bullshit jobs anymore, and the kind of low skill work that gets labeled "starter jobs" won't represent any kind of future. Never has, never will.
Arguments against immigration haven't changed in the last 200 years. But the world is going to change tremendously. If nothing else it's going to get one hell of a lot richer by any real measure. Everywhere. Take a look at the rate of change of global wealth, or more importantly, the rate of growth of productive capacity, If it's just stable growth then the world will be five times richer in 2050 than it is today while population will grow by 30 percent. But in fact the most likely scenario, absent catastrophe, is that the world economy will soon double every five to ten years.
We'll see, I guess, and yes, the rich get richer, but so do the poor, just as they do now (globally). It's a good thing.
And yes, Americans need to step it up to remain the economic powerhouse it currently is, and people without skills won't share proportionally in that growth.
Post by: surf4food on October 15, 2016, 08:44:48 PM
From my perspective, the Trump true believers seem to be dumber than a box of hammers, just like the folks that stand by a disgraced evangelist with rock-solid belief devoid of basis and impervious to examination. I think that's about all the cultural understanding that's necessary.
Every culture I've encountered has a copious supply of dunderheads. It's not a purely American phenomenon. It's a human condition.
This is the perfect example. While I do to some degree I feel sorry for this women (winning a sexual harassment lawsuit only for a judge to later reverse the original decision) it's hard to really have much compassion. People like her are so uneducated, stupid, racist, ignorant and lack any cognitive reasoning ability I almost (and I know this is mean) have to laugh at their misfortune.
Oops. I meant to include this link in regards to the women I was talking abaout. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/finally-someone-who-thinks-like-me/2016/10/01/c9b6f334-7f68-11e6-9070-5c4905bf40dc_story.html
Post by: comeu on October 16, 2016, 06:17:58 AM
They see Europe coming apart at the seems due to the refugee crisis and years of liberal immigration policy.
Please, turn off your tv, your computer and go to Europe, meet people, listen to what they say. You'll hear various voices, you might realize that reality isn't as simple as you pretend and hopefully your posts will be less caricatural.
Post by: Weasels wake on October 16, 2016, 03:44:20 PM
Post by: Area 10 on October 16, 2016, 05:22:53 PM
"Brexit!"Brexit came about chiefly because our politicians lied to the public, and some sections of the public were too poorly informed to know the difference. If the vote was repeated now in the UK most people think that the outcome would be different. Don't make the same mistakes we did: fact check what your politicians tell you.
There are many useful fact-checking websites. I like e.g. http://www.snopes.com
We desperately need immigration all over Europe. As PonoBill says, we just haven't been having enough babies for the last few decades, so there won't be enough younger people paying taxes to support all the old folk as they age. In terms of illegal immigration, well the situation hasn't changed -we can still deport. And as for refugees, well, these are just people who've been caught up in a desperate situation and are trying to stay alive. These are the people being demonised by far right politicians in order to stir up hate and make themselves rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and gullible. So, I see remarkable parallels between what is happening in the UK and the rest of Europe, and the US. Most of the scaremongering is just NOT TRUE. So relax, live and let live, and try not to let politicians tell you you should be afraid.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 16, 2016, 07:47:05 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3rNkkCAJY
Post by: comeu on October 17, 2016, 12:01:57 AM
Should I upload pix of US slums to answer your video?
Yes having thousands of people living in the streets isn't normal, as A10 said they're refugees flying the war, as my grandparents did 70 years ago.
Maybe if google and co were paying taxes in Europe, Syrian , Afghan refugees won't sleep in streets .
Im out, have a nice day
Post by: Area 10 on October 17, 2016, 12:12:37 AM
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/nearly-100000-protest-at-donald-trumps-clare-seawall-plan-424924.html
Post by: Area 10 on October 17, 2016, 12:46:29 AM
As simple as I pretend? Just how am I pretending any of this is simple. And yeah....this is just caricature.... ::). The violence, riots, women being groped, none of that is happening. Exactly what is causing all of that if not the immigration policies and refugee crisis?I don't know what message you are taking from that video but it is probably wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3rNkkCAJY
Watch the video of Muslims talking about the Nice attack:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36818719
There are unfortunately a lot of nutters and criminals out there who will latch onto a religion to legitimise what they already want to do.
Terrorism works by instilling terror. You submit to it by being afraid. US citizens have next to nothing to fear from IS. They are not going to take over your country, or even get remotely close. The US army is about the same size as something like the next 27 countries' military forces put together! The idea that IS or any other terrorist organisation has any real power to materially affect the US is laughable. But what they can do is provide material for fascistic politicians to spread fear-mongering, and set American against American. They don't need to fight you. You will fight yourselves. A they need to do is light the blue touchpaper and you will implode in a storm of hate and fear.
When you spread this kind of fear-mongering you are making yourself an agent for IS and other fascist organisations that want to take away your freedom and have you subjugated. You are giving in to them. And, frankly, you are being a pussy.
When the 7/7 London bombings happened (in which a friend of mine lost his brother, and it happened only a few yards from where I work), the US media marvelled at how within a few hours the city was back to normal as if nothing had happened. They were missing the point: we saw it as our DUTY to carry on our lives in exactly the same way, despite the terrorist attacks. We refused to be intimidated, and we refused to change our way of life and our values just because a few religious fascists decided to try to make a name for themselves.
THAT is how you fight these people as a citizen. You don't fight them by spreading nonsense about how they are "coming to get you" and will destroy your way of life. No they won't. You will do that to yourselves. Now, stop doing IS's work for them, please. Be smarter than that. And kinder than that. Thank you.
Post by: Bean on October 17, 2016, 01:02:34 AM
Post by: Quickbeam on October 17, 2016, 06:51:02 AM
As simple as I pretend? Just how am I pretending any of this is simple. And yeah....this is just caricature.... ::). The violence, riots, women being groped, none of that is happening. Exactly what is causing all of that if not the immigration policies and refugee crisis?I don't know what message you are taking from that video but it is probably wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3rNkkCAJY
Watch the video of Muslims talking about the Nice attack:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36818719
There are unfortunately a lot of nutters and criminals out there who will latch onto a religion to legitimise what they already want to do.
Terrorism works by instilling terror. You submit to it by being afraid. US citizens have next to nothing to fear from IS. They are not going to take over your country, or even get remotely close. The US army is about the same size as something like the next 27 countries' military forces put together! The idea that IS or any other terrorist organisation has any real power to materially affect the US is laughable. But what they can do is provide material for fascistic politicians to spread fear-mongering, and set American against American. They don't need to fight you. You will fight yourselves. A they need to do is light the blue touchpaper and you will implode in a storm of hate and fear.
When you spread this kind of fear-mongering you are making yourself an agent for IS and other fascist organisations that want to take away your freedom and have you subjugated. You are giving in to them. And, frankly, you are being a pussy.
When the 7/7 London bombings happened (in which a friend of mine lost his brother, and it happened only a few yards from where I work), the US media marvelled at how within a few hours the city was back to normal as if nothing had happened. They were missing the point: we saw it as our DUTY to carry on our lives in exactly the same way, despite the terrorist attacks. We refused to be intimidated, and we refused to change our way of life and our values just because a few religious fascists decided to try to make a name for themselves.
THAT is how you fight these people as a citizen. You don't fight them by spreading nonsense about how they are "coming to get you" and will destroy your way of life. No they won't. You will do that to yourselves. Now, stop doing IS's work for them, please. Be smarter than that. And kinder than that. Thank you.
Excellent post. Well said Area 10.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 17, 2016, 07:16:22 AM
Really...we have nothing to fear. Just how much freedom have we given up since 9/11? This isn't about fear of being personally blown up...and it is changing our way of life. I have to laugh about you getting back to normal so quickly. Only because you already have a society under 24/7 camera and other surveillance as a result of terror. You haven't given up freedoms.....really? that's absolutely laughable. Oh....and a pussy is someone that doesn't fight back. You seem to be a bit confused.
Post by: robon on October 17, 2016, 08:26:57 AM
Post by: starman on October 17, 2016, 08:37:27 AM
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/2016/10/16/publisher-response-to-threats-after-republic-endorsement-clinton-trump/92058964/
Post by: Tom on October 17, 2016, 09:02:42 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on October 17, 2016, 09:23:52 AM
Have you ever spent some time with fellow Americans struggling because finding a job is so tough? We have millions of our own people having a hard time here because the entry level jobs are largely taken by illegals willing to work for less. How about American workers forced to hire their replacements so that the income gap can grow even larger. We have American corporation reaping record profits while replacing Americans with cheaper labor...where is your outrage over that?
Post by: stoneaxe on October 17, 2016, 09:31:45 AM
I'm pretty sure it's not refugee's we need to worry about. It's not exactly healthy for a democracy when one cannot have different opinions and discuss them in a civilized way. Seems like Trump has managed to make hate acceptable behavior to many of his supporters. A result of progressive policies you say?
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/2016/10/16/publisher-response-to-threats-after-republic-endorsement-clinton-trump/92058964/
Are you actually reading what is written or just making shit up? Where did I ever say acceptance of hate is a result of progressive policies? It's also laughable that you think liberals want open discourse......they do only so long as the opinions mirror their own. You post a story about threats as an example. I suppose you think it was right wing conservatives that fire bombed the GOP office in NC.
Post by: starman on October 17, 2016, 11:18:40 AM
Quote
Have you ever spent some time with fellow Americans struggling because finding a job is so tough? We have millions of our own people having a hard time here because the entry level jobs are largely taken by illegals willing to work for less. How about American workers forced to hire their replacements so that the income gap can grow even larger. We have American corporation reaping record profits while replacing Americans with cheaper labor...where is your outrage over that?
Well if you believe in capitalism then that's how the system works. And I'm pretty sure capitalism is a bedrock of conservative thinking. Now if you want America to move towards socialism that's another can of worms. But you would have to decide what economic model you prefer.
cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
noun: capitalism
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
synonyms: free enterprise, private enterprise, the free market; enterprise culture
Post by: Tom on October 17, 2016, 12:21:18 PM
Post by: digger71 on October 17, 2016, 12:47:51 PM
Have you ever spent some time with fellow Americans struggling because finding a job is so tough? We have millions of our own people having a hard time here because the entry level jobs are largely taken by illegals willing to work for less. How about American workers forced to hire their replacements so that the income gap can grow even larger. We have American corporation reaping record profits while replacing Americans with cheaper labor...where is your outrage over that?
I hear you Stoney but you have to know it's a vicious cycle. Cut back on illegals and that will increase wages domestically. Higher costs will cause more American corporations to either raise prices or move production, support, sourcing, etc offshore - reducing profit margins will be their last option. Impose higher tariffs and their choice will be to raise prices to offset higher costs. Those increases are going to disproportionately impact the low income earners. You could argue that the increased wages would offset this, but not immediately and not equally across the nation.
Post by: pdxmike on October 17, 2016, 02:46:46 PM
No, capitalism isn't a free-for-all that requires accepting illegal immigration or any other illegal activity. In fact, it requires laws to function. Deporting all illegal immigrants would be 100% consistent with capitalism.QuoteHave you ever spent some time with fellow Americans struggling because finding a job is so tough? We have millions of our own people having a hard time here because the entry level jobs are largely taken by illegals willing to work for less. How about American workers forced to hire their replacements so that the income gap can grow even larger. We have American corporation reaping record profits while replacing Americans with cheaper labor...where is your outrage over that?
Well if you believe in capitalism then that's how the system works. And I'm pretty sure capitalism is a bedrock of conservative thinking. Now if you want America to move towards socialism that's another can of worms. But you would have to decide what economic model you prefer.
cap·i·tal·ism
ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
noun: capitalism
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
synonyms: free enterprise, private enterprise, the free market; enterprise culture
Saying that workers should accept corporations saving money by hiring illegal workers because that's part of capitalism isn't any different than saying they should accept corporations paying workers off the books so they can skip paying taxes or benefits, or saying corporations should accept consumers buying counterfeit products because that's all also part of capitalism.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 17, 2016, 04:55:26 PM
I was listening to a very timely interview tonight on public radio....funny too in that it pulled down the liberal pants of the interviewer a bit. She wasn't quite ready for the Harvard Economic Professor she was interviewing to be rational. He basically agreed with what I've been saying here about immigration. The rich (corporations) get richer while the native poor get screwed. Sure in the macro sense it's beneficial to the GDP of the country (read corporate profits) but in the here and now it's screws the poor, and in particular the black and latino poor.
http://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2016/10/17/immigration-winners-losers
Digger....so the only answer is to allow illegal immigration.....I don't think so...lots of measures could be taken that would mitigate it. Of course the political likelihood of making corporations take the hit is unlikely with both the Dems and GOP in their pockets. Maybe we should all get behind taking big money out of politics....I think we can all agree that needs reform. Without that change all the other discussion is somewhat pointless.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 17, 2016, 05:09:22 PM
Yes, I know the difference between legal and illegal immigration and I know that the current laws don't work and don't address today's situation . When ever anyone suggests that they should be looked at , they get accused of being a bleeding heart liberal who is trying to distroy American .
Then maybe you should show that you understand the difference. Seriously Tom....do you remember when this was supposed to solve the issue? Only problem is that liberals didn't keep their part of the bargain. Now you want more......pretty sure the only thing you would be happy with is complete amnesty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
FWIW...I support the idea of the dreamers being allowed to stay. Every one I know is as American as my own kids. Not sure how we handle the parents but it can't be a free pass.....they should be thankful their kids can stay.
Post by: digger71 on October 17, 2016, 06:09:03 PM
Digger....so the only answer is to allow illegal immigration.....I don't think so...lots of measures could be taken that would mitigate it. Of course the political likelihood of making corporations take the hit is unlikely with both the Dems and GOP in their pockets. Maybe we should all get behind taking big money out of politics....I think we can all agree that needs reform. Without that change all the other discussion is somewhat pointless.
Of course not, but the answer is too complicated for most Americans to understand, let alone accept. Borjas doesn't even have a solution that anyone would seriously consider. It's even more complicated here in CA where the agriculture industry relies heavily on immigrant labor and guest workers. Trump's wall and proposed immigration restrictions would decimate the farm industry in CA. Americans aren't going to do migrant worker jobs for $13/hr, and at $20/hr it's not worth growing the cabbage in the first place.
We need a reasonable immigration policy and Donald and "reasonable" aren't often seen in the same room.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 17, 2016, 06:48:25 PM
Post by: digger71 on October 17, 2016, 07:10:53 PM
Agriculture everywhere relies heavily on guest workers. I agree that a reasonable immigration policy is what's needed.....now define reasonable. It certainly doesn't mean opening the gates wide which is where Hillary is going. Reasonable to me means absolutely no illegal workers. Guest workers absolutely but only where it won't negatively affect American citizens.....how is that unreasonable? Real enforcement of the 86 law would seem reasonable to me, but it's never really been enforced.
I can't argue with how you define reasonable...in theory ;) The problem becomes that Americans will need to accept that the food prices they pay have been artificially low for decades and that a higher percentage of their income needs to go toward food - food spending as a percentage of income has declined for 50 years and the only reason it has been flat for some time is that people spend more eating out. Telling the family of 4 making $50k that they can't have 4 tvs, 3 iphones, 2 ipads, and 2 leased vehicles parked in front of their 2k square foot home because they need to spend more on food and clothing is going to be a tough sell.
Legal or illegal the number of immigrants needs to increase well beyond numbers that Trump in particular and GOP in general are comfortable with. If the legal process is reasonable to meet labor needs prices will increase some (benefits, taxes, etc) but not nearly as much as they will if we cut off immigration and raise tariffs.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 17, 2016, 07:34:41 PM
Post by: Tom on October 17, 2016, 08:43:37 PM
Yes, I know the difference between legal and illegal immigration and I know that the current laws don't work and don't address today's situation . When ever anyone suggests that they should be looked at , they get accused of being a bleeding heart liberal who is trying to distroy American .
Then maybe you should show that you understand the difference. Seriously Tom....do you remember when this was supposed to solve the issue? Only problem is that liberals didn't keep their part of the bargain. Now you want more......pretty sure the only thing you would be happy with is complete amnesty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
FWIW...I support the idea of the dreamers being allowed to stay. Every one I know is as American as my own kids. Not sure how we handle the parents but it can't be a free pass.....they should be thankful their kids can stay.
you have no idea what I believe , I'm out of here
Post by: SUPflorida on October 18, 2016, 06:00:47 AM
http://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY
Post by: stoneaxe on October 18, 2016, 08:02:04 AM
Yes, I know the difference between legal and illegal immigration and I know that the current laws don't work and don't address today's situation . When ever anyone suggests that they should be looked at , they get accused of being a bleeding heart liberal who is trying to distroy American .
Then maybe you should show that you understand the difference. Seriously Tom....do you remember when this was supposed to solve the issue? Only problem is that liberals didn't keep their part of the bargain. Now you want more......pretty sure the only thing you would be happy with is complete amnesty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
FWIW...I support the idea of the dreamers being allowed to stay. Every one I know is as American as my own kids. Not sure how we handle the parents but it can't be a free pass.....they should be thankful their kids can stay.
you have no idea what I believe , I'm out of here
Sorry to offend you Tom, all I have to work from is what you've said here and in previous threads. Maybe you should state your stance and defend it. You pose a question with the obvious assumption that I'm the ugly American that has never interacted with folks from elsewhere but now you take offense at my comment?
Post by: Subber on October 18, 2016, 09:08:03 AM
Interesting little related video.
Wow....sad for our country.
Post by: starman on October 18, 2016, 10:42:41 AM
Quote
You beat me to it PDX. Very silly point Starman...absolutely meaningless. Pure capitalism would be fine with slavery....was in fact.....shit, still is...doesn't mean it should be allowed. But thanks for the definition....I had no idea what the meaning of capitalism was before..... ::)
Sorry but slavery was/is when human beings are treated as personal property. Slavery is also considered the means for capitalism to evolve but it certainly was never pure capitalism. Capitalism is based on free labor and slavery is based on forced labor. Two entirely different concepts.
Quote
Saying that workers should accept corporations saving money by hiring illegal workers because that's part of capitalism isn't any different than saying they should accept corporations paying workers off the books so they can skip paying taxes or benefits, or saying corporations should accept consumers buying counterfeit products because that's all also part of capitalism.
I'm not saying workers have to accept any of the negative byproducts of capitalism but that doesn't mean it's not part of the system. If profit is the primary motive then then will always be an incentive to cut expenses with labor being the top line item. You don't have undocumented workers unless there are jobs being offered to them.
Of course to counter act the negative side of capitalism you need government regulation and often lots of it. The trouble begins when business starts to oppose regulation because it cuts into their profit. Ironically it's conservatives that oppose regulation that would help eliminate the jobs offered to undocumented workers.
Thus we left with the corner the republican party has painted themselves into. They are champions of capitalism and oppose regulation. Both which supports the immigration problem they so oppose. You are not going to create more regulations because that close off the spigot of cash from corporations. You can't tell the base that they need to compete for jobs because that's the system we live in so you find someone else to scapegoat. Old stuff actually, if you won't or can't fix the problem blame it on someone else which is pretty much Trumps entire platform.
Post by: surf4food on October 18, 2016, 12:42:23 PM
Too bad Trump (too bad for him anyway) won't laugh at Trump.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/opinions/trump-tweets-snl-obeidallah/
Post by: Area 10 on October 18, 2016, 12:49:12 PM
http://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-happiness-index-2016-just-ranked-the-happiest-countries-on-earth
Of course, you don't perform as well as the countries that have less income inequality. But no doubt Trump supporters will blame income inequality on illegal immigrants ;)
It's interesting to note that the countries that consistently top these polls also often have very high taxation. So if in the back of your mind is the idea that high taxation causes misery, then this might give pause for thought.
Post by: pdxmike on October 18, 2016, 01:01:14 PM
That's a bit mixed up there. Don't blame capitalism for illegal immigration, and don't play the slippery-slope game with people who ask for reasonable limits to business regulation ("Today they'll oppose mandatory long-term paid paternity leave for small business employees, tomorrow they'll want to ban immigration").QuoteYou beat me to it PDX. Very silly point Starman...absolutely meaningless. Pure capitalism would be fine with slavery....was in fact.....shit, still is...doesn't mean it should be allowed. But thanks for the definition....I had no idea what the meaning of capitalism was before..... ::)
Sorry but slavery was/is when human beings are treated as personal property. Slavery is also considered the means for capitalism to evolve but it certainly was never pure capitalism. Capitalism is based on free labor and slavery is based on forced labor. Two entirely different concepts.QuoteSaying that workers should accept corporations saving money by hiring illegal workers because that's part of capitalism isn't any different than saying they should accept corporations paying workers off the books so they can skip paying taxes or benefits, or saying corporations should accept consumers buying counterfeit products because that's all also part of capitalism.
I'm not saying workers have to accept any of the negative byproducts of capitalism but that doesn't mean it's not part of the system. If profit is the primary motive then then will always be an incentive to cut expenses with labor being the top line item. You don't have undocumented workers unless there are jobs being offered to them.
Of course to counter act the negative side of capitalism you need government regulation and often lots of it. The trouble begins when business starts to oppose regulation because it cuts into their profit. Ironically it's conservatives that oppose regulation that would help eliminate the jobs offered to undocumented workers.
Thus we left with the corner the republican party has painted themselves into. They are champions of capitalism and oppose regulation. Both which supports the immigration problem they so oppose. You are not going to create more regulations because that close off the spigot of cash from corporations. You can't tell the base that they need to compete for jobs because that's the system we live in so you find someone else to scapegoat. Old stuff actually, if you won't or can't fix the problem blame it on someone else which is pretty much Trumps entire platform.
Your "Ironically it's conservatives that oppose regulation that would help eliminate the jobs offered to undocumented workers" is unique.
Post by: surf4food on October 18, 2016, 01:08:31 PM
I dunno why so many US citizens apparently think that America is "not great anymore". In life satisfaction ratings it actually performs pretty well.
I think the answer to that is that many see their own standard of living decreasing and that opportunities for their kids are not the same as when they were growing up. Not saying it's like this for everyone, but for many (and by that, many more than it was in the past) that's the case.
On another note, the harsh truth is America was never great for everyone, so this stupid slogan of Trump's is laughable.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 18, 2016, 01:11:40 PM
I dunno why so many US citizens apparently think that America is "not great anymore". In life satisfaction ratings it actually performs pretty well.
http://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-happiness-index-2016-just-ranked-the-happiest-countries-on-earth
Of course, you don't perform as well as the countries that have less income inequality. But no doubt Trump supporters will blame income inequality on illegal immigrants ;)
It's interesting to note that the countries that consistently top these polls also often have very high taxation. So if in the back of your mind is the idea that high taxation causes misery, then this might give pause for thought.
Maybe it's because we see that slipping away....and I'm not worried about me...my quality of life is just fine. I am worried about my fellow citizens though and in particular for my granddaughter.
Maybe you should see what Borjas has to say on the causes of income inequality....illegal immigration is a significant factor despite what you may believe. Exactly who do you think is pocketing the difference in wages paid? Pretty sure it goes straight to the bottom line. Of course Hillary supporters will say it's caused by Trump being a racist mysoginist.... ;)
Globalization and the ability to offshore profits has driven corporate taxes down dramatically. I'm all in favor of hammering the corps that do it. While we're at it. Simplify the damn tax code into a sliding scale and get rid of all the crap that requires legions of lawyers (for those that can afford them like Trump) to reduce their tax bill.
Post by: surf4food on October 18, 2016, 01:12:02 PM
Your "Ironically it's conservatives that oppose regulation that would help eliminate the jobs offered to undocumented workers" is unique.
It may or may not be fully accurate but that point of view is hardly uncommon.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 18, 2016, 01:34:49 PM
Post by: pdxmike on October 18, 2016, 04:22:15 PM
I was thinking unique in regard to irony vs. how many people hold it.Your "Ironically it's conservatives that oppose regulation that would help eliminate the jobs offered to undocumented workers" is unique.
It may or may not be fully accurate but that point of view is hardly uncommon.
Post by: digger71 on October 18, 2016, 05:08:16 PM
Interesting little related video.
http://youtu.be/5IuJGHuIkzY
Oh man this guy again?? O'Keefe is the same one who produced the misleading videos on ACORN and Planned Parenthood. Pretty clear there is some shadiness going on but WAY too much editing going on to really understand what was truly being discussed.
Man I gotta stop reading this thread...and watching the news or looking at the internet
Post by: DavidJohn on October 18, 2016, 08:09:24 PM
Post by: SUPflorida on October 19, 2016, 05:31:27 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs&sns=em
Post by: Admin on October 19, 2016, 06:05:55 AM
I dunno why so many US citizens apparently think that America is "not great anymore".
There is an underlying sentiment that our most admired institutions have degraded and can no longer be trusted. This has been exacerbated by the immediacy of information and has been unsettling and disorienting.
Banks
Military
Politicians & Parties
Police
Press
Church
Sports (Athletes, Teams, Organizations)
Health Organizations, Drug Companies
So, we are sidetracked talking about lowest common denominator issues which will likely determine which of the two candidates (who will do nothing to meaningfully change the list above) will be elected.
Our Mid East wars will cost us 4.8 Trillion, a quarter our our national debt, have taken us in the wrong direction, and yet we see no future without our manifest role in that region. Think of what good could have been done with that 4.8 Trillion in terms of hunger, health, education. That is one of many discussions that we should be having, but instead we are listening to Melania defend Gropey McFeely.
Post by: DavidJohn on October 19, 2016, 06:34:15 AM
I dunno why so many US citizens apparently think that America is "not great anymore".
There is an underlying sentiment that our most admired institutions have degraded and can no longer be trusted. This has been exacerbated by the immediacy of information and has been unsettling and disorienting.
Banks
Military
Politicians & Parties
Police
Press
Church
Sports (Athletes, Teams, Organizations)
Health Organizations, Drug Companies
So, we are sidetracked talking about lowest common denominator issues which will likely determine which of the two candidates (who will do nothing to meaningfully change the list above) will be elected.
Our Mid East wars will cost us 4.8 Trillion, a quarter our our national debt, have taken us in the wrong direction, and yet we see no future without our manifest role in that region. Think of what good could have been done with that 4.8 Trillion in terms of hunger, health, education. That is one of many discussions that we should be having, but instead we are listening to Melania defend Gropey McFeely.
Well said.. and spot on.. IMO
Post by: stoneaxe on October 19, 2016, 07:38:09 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on October 19, 2016, 08:16:14 AM
I disagree with Admin that they will do nothing meaningful on those issues. Do you really think they will all be the same 5 years from now regardless of who wins?
Post by: freetobeme on October 19, 2016, 08:43:04 AM
I dunno why so many US citizens apparently think that America is "not great anymore".
There is an underlying sentiment that our most admired institutions have degraded and can no longer be trusted. This has been exacerbated by the immediacy of information and has been unsettling and disorienting.
Banks
Military
Politicians & Parties
Police
Press
Church
Sports (Athletes, Teams, Organizations)
Health Organizations, Drug Companies
So, we are sidetracked talking about lowest common denominator issues which will likely determine which of the two candidates (who will do nothing to meaningfully change the list above) will be elected.
Our Mid East wars will cost us 4.8 Trillion, a quarter our our national debt, have taken us in the wrong direction, and yet we see no future without our manifest role in that region. Think of what good could have been done with that 4.8 Trillion in terms of hunger, health, education. That is one of many discussions that we should be having, but instead we are listening to Melania defend Gropey McFeely.
Well said.. and spot on.. IMO
Absolute truth Area 10. The veil has been lifted. We are a far ways from greatness. But not in the sense of Trump's narrative.
Post by: mrbig on October 19, 2016, 08:51:43 AM
;) ;) ;)
Post by: Admin on October 19, 2016, 09:23:11 AM
I disagree with Admin that they will do nothing meaningful on those issues. Do you really think they will all be the same 5 years from now regardless of who wins?
Yes I do. Because the interest is in power, not solving the difficult underlying problems. An example.
Looking at the debt and the big 6 components of our spending, it will take some innovative thinking that challenges every fundamental of the status quo to get motion. Our Fed Tax Revenue is at 3.2 Trillion. Just the 6 lines below have us at 3.43 T and already in the hole by 151 Billion. That is with no other spending :). These are very difficult items to get any movement on, if there was even a will to do so. Take defense for example. Donald wants to increase spending there. Hillary has a track record of doing so. Individually, we should all be thinking about the basic math of this list, but are we?
Medicair/Medicaid 1,120 B
Social Security 911 B
Defense 579 B
Income Security 303 B
Interest on Debt 249 B
Federal Pensions 272 B
Watching this election process it is clear to me that we no longer regard our democracy as something fragile that requires work, sacrifice and vigilance to protect. We are spoiled, bloated and gross. This is a reflection of the corruption, arrogance and greed of our leadership in every major segment of our culture.
Post by: Weasels wake on October 19, 2016, 09:30:48 AM
So good luck with hoping that our international expenditures will change that much with her in there.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 19, 2016, 09:35:25 AM
Watching this election process it is clear to me that we no longer regard our democracy as something fragile that requires work, sacrifice and vigilance to protect. We are spoiled, bloated and gross. This is a reflection of the corruption, arrogance and greed of our leadership in every major segment of our culture.
And Trump just came out for term limits and limits on lobbying after leaving congress. Since we no longer have journalists even pretending to do their job exposing corruption...(unless it's in the GOP) we need something else to help control the influence peddling.
Post by: Admin on October 19, 2016, 09:43:53 AM
Many people believe, me being one of them, that Hillary is more hawkish than the noble peace prize winning Obama.
So good luck with hoping that our international expenditures will change that much with her in there.
We have history to support your theory. Hillary was the push (proudly) behind our advancement in both Libya and Syria. Two more mistakes to add to Iraq and Afghanistan. And...no fly zone equals war. Think who we are telling not fly. How is that going go? But these are barely sideline issues in this election. Monica Lewinski has a bigger role.
Post by: Admin on October 19, 2016, 10:04:56 AM
I'm not saying they'll be solved, just that there will be a big difference in direction on most of the issues. Of course none of this gets solved easily and with the way we are going as a country I don't see it getting any better any time soon but it has to start somewhere. You say it's going to require fundamental changes in the status quo...who do you think upsets the status quo more? Trump or Hillary? The path continues with Hillary, at least with the Donald there is a fork in the road....of course there may be a cliff at the end... :P
Watching Donald these past few months, i think it is fair to say that he consistently monitors public opinion and unabashedly changes his position to match whatever he feels to be the winning opinion and sometimes just based on whim. I don't feel comfortable gauging what his actual opinions might be or if they are even truly formed. I trust history a bit more and his behaviors in business might be the best indicator of his future actions in that realm.
Also, Donald is well aware that he is courting (in part) the blow it up vote and that incendiary statements help his cause with that group.
I agree with you about Hillary. We know what we will get and it will not be change.
Most importantly, it is not possible that either of these candidates can help in restoring trust in our our institutions as they are both terrible role models, are individually dishonest, and offer no moral or ethical example to lead by.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 19, 2016, 10:21:16 AM
If the press was actually doing it's job instead of trying to get Hillary elected things would be far different (for starters she wouldn't have won the primary). Take a look at the front page on CNN. Do you see anything negative about Hillary there...any mention of the corruption clearly shown in the wikileaks other than the lowlife Rubio angling for 2020....I'll answer my own question....no, all you see is attack after attack on Trump.
I just had a lunchtime conversation with a young engineer in my company. Very bright young guy, a Hillary supporter, he says she the best for the job. Why?...he's up to speed on what a dirtbag Trump is but hasn't heard shit about the wikilieaks or other dirt exposing her corruption. He gets his news mostly from the Boston Globe and CNN. As I said, he's a smart guy but somehow doesn't understand just how ignorant he is. Just like so many others that spend more time worrying about what the Kardashians are doing or whatever than they do educating themselves on the issues. Hillary is banking on biased media and the ignorance of the average American that she has come to hate to get elected.
Most importantly, it is not possible that either of these candidates can help in restoring trust in our our institutions as they are both terrible role models, are individually dishonest, and offer no moral or ethical example to lead by.Truth
Post by: Area 10 on October 19, 2016, 10:48:23 AM
Post by: tautologies on October 19, 2016, 10:59:13 AM
Watching Donald these past few months, i think it is fair to say that he consistently monitors public opinion and unabashedly changes his position to match whatever he feels to be the winning opinion and sometimes just based on whim. I don't feel comfortable gauging what his actual opinions might be or if they are even truly formed. I trust history a bit more and his behaviors in business might be the best indicator of his future actions in that realm.
Also, Donald is well aware that he is courting (in part) the blow it up vote and that incendiary statements help his cause with that group.
I agree with you about Hillary. We know what we will get and it will not be change.
Well if his business practices are the indicator we'll all be in for a wild ride if he is elected. I would say we should go with what he is saying and doing so that includes jailing journalists and political opponents, it includes bombing the hell out of countries and the families of the people he does not like. It means truth and realities hava absolutely no place in public discourse.
You are normalizing a person that has no experience or knowledge about the political system and process and no boundaries in terms of how he deals with people. He suggested to renegotiate the US debt....I mean how dumb can you be. He suggested that the US should not follow through with NATO. I mean there are literally hundres of statements like this.
He creates uncertainty at every turn, which in turn makes the world a less safe environment....which again hinders progress.
Personally, I do not think he would sit for very long if he was elected because of his past, which means that Pence...and ultra religious right wing bigot would take over...
The fact that all these things did not come up during the primaries shows what a poor vetting job the GOP has done.
Post by: surf4food on October 19, 2016, 11:03:07 AM
I wonder if you'll get the same voting phenomenon as we do here in the UK. People here are reluctant to say they are voting right-wing, but still do. So the pollsters consistently underestimate the size of the true right-wing vote. I can imagine a similar thing happening with Trump, and although the polls seem to firmly favour Clinton right now, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a shock result come the actual voting.
People here who normally vote right-wing here (the U.S.) are very up front and boastful about it. Ofcourse so do people who normally vote left-wing. The interesting thing with Trump is, some of the people who will be voting for him (reluctantly) are people who normally vote Democrat. Even Hillary has some people who normally vote Republican who will be voting for her (also reluctantly). Crazy world.
Post by: headmount on October 19, 2016, 11:09:49 AM
This last sentence is the crux of the matter. After McCain somehow torpedoed himself by taking Palin onboard and then Romney speaking off mic, you'd think the GOP would be extra careful with the 2016 nominee. Now those guys seem like great picks compared to the current one. The GOP seems intent on shooting themselves in the foot. Anyone but DT could beat HC. Even Christie but especially Kasich.
Watching Donald these past few months, i think it is fair to say that he consistently monitors public opinion and unabashedly changes his position to match whatever he feels to be the winning opinion and sometimes just based on whim. I don't feel comfortable gauging what his actual opinions might be or if they are even truly formed. I trust history a bit more and his behaviors in business might be the best indicator of his future actions in that realm.
Also, Donald is well aware that he is courting (in part) the blow it up vote and that incendiary statements help his cause with that group.
I agree with you about Hillary. We know what we will get and it will not be change.
Well if his business practices are the indicator we'll all be in for a wild ride if he is elected. I would say we should go with what he is saying and doing so that includes jailing journalists and political opponents, it includes bombing the hell out of countries and the families of the people he does not like. It means truth and realities hava absolutely no place in public discourse.
You are normalizing a person that has no experience or knowledge about the political system and process and no boundaries in terms of how he deals with people. He suggested to renegotiate the US debt....I mean how dumb can you be. He suggested that the US should not follow through with NATO. I mean there are literally hundres of statements like this.
He creates uncertainty at every turn, which in turn makes the world a less safe environment....which again hinders progress.
Personally, I do not think he would sit for very long if he was elected because of his past, which means that Pence...and ultra religious right wing bigot would take over...
The fact that all these things did not come up during the primaries shows what a poor vetting job the GOP has done.
Post by: Admin on October 19, 2016, 11:15:56 AM
Taut, I am in no way normalizing Trump. Please don't mistake disliking two candidates to be the same as liking one. Possibly we differ in that I like Hillary less than you do, not that I like Trump more.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 19, 2016, 12:11:25 PM
I wonder if you'll get the same voting phenomenon as we do here in the UK. People here are reluctant to say they are voting right-wing, but still do. So the pollsters consistently underestimate the size of the true right-wing vote. I can imagine a similar thing happening with Trump, and although the polls seem to firmly favour Clinton right now, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a shock result come the actual voting.
The odds makers over there are saying it looks very similar to the Brexit vote. More money on Clinton, more bets on Donald. Didn't the last poll for Brexit show an 11% differential in favor of staying in the EU? Current polls vary from tied to 9% in Hillary's favor. What is different from brexit is that it's not a national referendum....she still has an easier path to 270 electoral college votes. She may very well lose the popular vote and still win the election.
It's not the hard core right wing that is hiding it's Donald vote...it's the independents with a lot of liberal friends. I also won't be surprised to see far more blacks voting for Trump than most might think. I think the fact that illegal immigration hurts them most is sinking in for many.
Trumps comments on debt are kind of whacko but at least he is trying to think of ways to reduce it and not just let it continue to balloon. As for NATO....he simply wants other nations to pay a reasonable share, that things have changed dramatically since it was setup, the US is not as rich compared to when it was established....there are 28 nations in NATO yet the US provides over 22% of it's funding....exactly what is so crazy about wanting to change that a bit? Admin points out correctly that it's the debt and it won't be easy to change but given the bloat that exists in our government I'd bet there are lots of places to cut small percentages.
Let's play change the sentence...what the hell one is just as good as the other.
"Personally, I do not think he would sit for very long if he was elected because of his past, which means that Pence...and ultra religious right wing bigot would take over... "
to
"Personally, I do not think she would sit for very long if she was elected because of her past, which means that Kaine...and ultra religious left wing socialist would take over...
The only problem with that change is that the press will hound Trump on every comment and decision in his Presidency but they will give Hillary a pass on almost anything.
One thing is for sure, I'll be happy when this is done and over with. Getting tired of arguing with friends over politicians that in truth couldn't really give a shit about our concerns.
Post by: tautologies on October 19, 2016, 02:01:27 PM
This last sentence is the crux of the matter. After McCain somehow torpedoed himself by taking Palin onboard and then Romney speaking off mic, you'd think the GOP would be extra careful with the 2016 nominee. Now those guys seem like great picks compared to the current one. The GOP seems intent on shooting themselves in the foot. Anyone but DT could beat HC. Even Christie but especially Kasich.
Personaly I think Christie is too dumb to survive..and his temper would eventually have done him in. Bush was killed by his brother (seemed much more pragmatic than GW). Kasich surfed on a "don't stick your head up" wave, but he seemed normal because of the lack of scrutiny. Of the last few he did seem to be the normal one.
I think GOP suffers because of the way they have engaged their electorate. They found two (rather large) segments of disenfranchised potential voters...that didn't use to vote. The religious right wing, and a segment where scientific authority...any authority for that matter is bad. Having a political party that on the surface looks to be rooting for its own demise is truly weird.
I mean with the last congress being obstructionist, and GOP / McCain now going out and promising more of that I am really worried. Since politics, to me, is about balancing ideology / dogma and pragmatism.
I guess most large and successful powers through history in some ways has done themselves in by having the populous be disenfranchised. But that no one took the time to dig in and ask people that Trump has worked with before: "Hey...this guy Trump. What is he like?".
Anyway...yikes...rant over.
Post by: tautologies on October 19, 2016, 03:25:13 PM
Wait. this is not an issue of vetting. It is not as though the GOP courted Trump but failed to look into him. They didn't choose him or want him and they still don't (that fact is part of why they got him).
Taut, I am in no way normalizing Trump. Please don't mistake disliking two candidates to be the same as liking one. Possibly we differ in that I like Hillary less than you do, not that I like Trump more.
Well Clinton is probably the most vetted candidate to ever go up for election. I am not a huge Clinton fan, but Clinton and Trump are categorically different, and cannot even be compared.
I think you are wrong. If they had early on done a deep dive into his background then he would not have been elected. Imagine if one of the many man tapes of him being a sexual predator had come out in the primaries? They were there, and surely more than enough signs of it was out there.
I think that would have changed the media's curiosity on him and the tone of what he was saying would have changed.
I do think the GOP did not know how to deal with Trump.
Personally, I think Trump has a mental issue (narcissistic personality disorder) which makes him incredibly unsuited to be in office. Obviously, this is not a diagnosis...and Clinton / Obama...pretty much anyone in office are narcissists, but not to the level the Trump is.
Post by: Admin on October 20, 2016, 02:59:28 AM
I think you are wrong. If they had early on done a deep dive into his background then he would not have been elected.
Who is they? The Republican establishment? They were strongly anti-Trump right up until the point where they had no choice. Remember them trying to conjure ways to replace him even if meant disregarding the vote? Vetting occurs when you are deciding if your prospective choice has what it takes, not the guy you are already working against. The RNC? Look at the hot water the DNC got in for covertly picking favorites (Wikileaks/Wasserman Shultz firing, etc).
If your point is that some Republican entity should have found this leaked tape or similar and used it earlier...there certainly were groups that would have if they had it. They didn't.
The DNC on the other hand force fed us Hillary and took great efforts to block the only solid candidate brave enough to oppose her. Vetting? What other candidate would have been run with her baggage/unfovorables? If we win with Hillary we will have truly dodged the bullet, but only by the extraordinary weakness of the other guy, not by our strength....and, the day after we will have won...Hillary.
Post by: Admin on October 20, 2016, 03:21:07 AM
The two biggest issues I have are immigration and TPP.
My biggest is that we use our prosperity to do good in the world rather than squander our wealth on fruitless destruction and projected misery.
Follow that with a balanced budget and debt reduction.
Post by: lucabrasi on October 20, 2016, 06:05:05 AM
....she still has an easier path to 270 electoral college votes. She may very well lose the popular vote and still win the election.Gee, you think this has a chance to make things interesting? I was starting to wonder what would happen if this were to happen.....either side.
Post by: PonoBill on October 20, 2016, 06:19:08 AM
The two biggest issues I have are immigration and TPP.
My biggest is that we use our prosperity to do good in the world rather than squander our wealth on fruitless destruction and projected misery.
Follow that with a balanced budget and debt reduction.
Hmmm.
Post by: starman on October 20, 2016, 11:09:53 AM
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/20/498691090/did-trump-tv-launch-last-night
Post by: tautologies on October 20, 2016, 11:10:51 AM
Who is they? The Republican establishment? They were strongly anti-Trump right up until the point where they had no choice. Remember them trying to conjure ways to replace him even if meant disregarding the vote? Vetting occurs when you are deciding if your prospective choice has what it takes, not the guy you are already working against. The RNC? Look at the hot water the DNC got in for covertly picking favorites (Wikileaks/Wasserman Shultz firing, etc).
If your point is that some Republican entity should have found this leaked tape or similar and used it earlier...there certainly were groups that would have if they had it. They didn't.
The DNC on the other hand force fed us Hillary and took great efforts to block the only solid candidate brave enough to oppose her. Vetting? What other candidate would have been run with her baggage/unfovorables? If we win with Hillary we will have truly dodged the bullet, but only by the extraordinary weakness of the other guy, not by our strength....and, the day after we will have won...Hillary.
But GOP clearly had no idea how to handle him. All the stories surfacing now should have been easy to discover, and it has to be the duty of the party to vet and publish information about candidates...the alternative candidates did not know how to deal with Trumps bullying and they did not take him seriously.
I get that the tapes are catalysts for making all these women come forward, but I am willing to bet that of the 9 women that so far has surfaced to tell their story, is just the top of the iceberg. I do think it is a party's duty to vet a candidate that they put forward. Remember this open process of nomination is a fairly recent development and that the parties themselves used to nominate. That is btw, the reason why the DNC has super delegates...to avoid crazies.
Before you admonish the DNC...I think it is better to put that criticism on the low level of information that the voters has. DNC did not change a thing before the election, and complaints comes as a result of an uninformed electorate, and their juvenile disagreement with the results. I do not disagree that they should update the super delegate process, but you cannot do that after a vote simply because you do not like the results. It has to be part of a bigger restructuring. Remember that Sanders lost on all accounts, with a larger margin than Clinton lost to Obama.
The biggest issue I have with the super delegate systems isn't even that the party could heavily influence the results, it is that someone else could....from outside of the party they could effectively steal a nomination.
When you look at it now, I bet the GOP regret not having a superdelegate system, though I gotta say I like their mandating system of delegates better.
Now it might seem that I am a big Clinton fan. I am not. As much as I would love to have a woman president, and as much as I think her performance yesterday was stellar, I have never been a huge fan, but I hate that GOP has given the party away to religious zealots and obstructionist and rigid teaparty people. Imagine the GOP having a candidate with the temperament and courage of Merkel with a strong ideological and scientifically based foundation yet pragmatic approach to politics? That would be a good balance of the scales to the DNC. I mean it could be making the political system work. The potential is there.
/rant over
Post by: tautologies on October 20, 2016, 11:24:09 AM
Did America just get punked by Donald?
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/20/498691090/did-trump-tv-launch-last-night
No that would assume he makes long term plans. Trump is not that elaborate. He is spontaneous and unplanned...otherwise he would have you know actual policy plans.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 20, 2016, 03:48:35 PM
I'm angry that people don't get better informed as well but it's Oh so progressive of you to suggest that it's better to have the party elite select the candidate than to work on getting the people informed. How strange you complain about the uninformed electorate and juvenile behavior but you're fine with the media not informing people and favoring a candidate because it agrees with your dogma.
Post by: Quickbeam on October 20, 2016, 04:17:32 PM
Post by: tautologies on October 20, 2016, 05:06:04 PM
DNC and the press weren't colluding to get Hillary elected....You're so blinded by your own bias it's really getting silly to even argue with you.
Woaa there. You tinfoil didn't protect you today?
Also tea-pot-kettle-whatever-color.
Quote
I'm angry that people don't get better informed as well but it's Oh so progressive of you to suggest that it's better to have the party elite select the candidate than to work on getting the people informed. How strange you complain about the uninformed electorate and juvenile behavior but you're fine with the media not informing people and favoring a candidate because it agrees with your dogma.
I think you assume way too much here. I am highly critical of the 4th estate. I have been for years. I think it is one of the greater failures in modern society mostly because they are so very needed to keep the politicians in line and they do not provide that service.
I do not think it is okay for party elite to select, but it is a hell of a lot better than having a madman get elected...however I did write out in that stmt above I think GOP's system is better...but that I bet THEY regret not having more power. Not sure how you missed that part.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 20, 2016, 05:50:45 PM
Tinfoil really...at least be creative with your silly insults. The fact that you think I show bias that compares even slightly to yours says more than anything else.
Post by: tautologies on October 21, 2016, 12:52:47 AM
No sorry...didn't miss that part.
Tinfoil really...at least be creative with your silly insults. The fact that you think I show bias that compares even slightly to yours says more than anything else.
Well you know when you see a conspiracy between the DNC and "the press" (whatever that is), then the tin foil label is well earned.
So since you did not miss that I prefer the GOP model then why state:
Quote from: stoneaxe
Oh so progressive of you to suggest that it's better to have the party elite select the candidateI mean either the willful ignoramus label fits you or you simply do not understand what the words you are writing means. At this point, I would believe either.
Post by: Admin on October 21, 2016, 04:10:01 AM
Before you admonish the DNC...I think it is better to put that criticism on the low level of information that the voters has. DNC did not change a thing before the election, and complaints comes as a result of an uninformed electorate, and their juvenile disagreement with the results. I do not disagree that they should update the super delegate process, but you cannot do that after a vote simply because you do not like the results. It has to be part of a bigger restructuring. Remember that Sanders lost on all accounts, with a larger margin than Clinton lost to Obama.
The DNC purports a commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. That is why we participate in the process. That is why Wasserman Shultz after Wikileaks exposure was oustered. Suggesting that voter ignorance is to blame is disingenuous.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 21, 2016, 06:41:05 AM
No sorry...didn't miss that part.
Tinfoil really...at least be creative with your silly insults. The fact that you think I show bias that compares even slightly to yours says more than anything else.
Well you know when you see a conspiracy between the DNC and "the press" (whatever that is), then the tin foil label is well earned.
So since you did not miss that I prefer the GOP model then why state:Quote from: stoneaxeOh so progressive of you to suggest that it's better to have the party elite select the candidateI mean either the willful ignoramus label fits you or you simply do not understand what the words you are writing means. At this point, I would believe either.
No I just recognize bias when I see it. The fact that you think there isn't collusion between "the press" (do you really not understand what that means) is mind boggling since there is plenty of evidence.
What does the mechanism matter when the fix is in? Of course you deny that's the case, again despite all evidence to the contrary. If you want to see an ignoramus just look up as you brush your teeth in the morning. Your hypocrisy is astounding.
Post by: SUPflorida on October 21, 2016, 08:06:22 AM
No sorry...didn't miss that part.
Tinfoil really...at least be creative with your silly insults. The fact that you think I show bias that compares even slightly to yours says more than anything else.
Well you know when you see a conspiracy between the DNC and "the press" (whatever that is), then the tin foil label is well earned.
So since you did not miss that I prefer the GOP model then why state:Quote from: stoneaxeOh so progressive of you to suggest that it's better to have the party elite select the candidateI mean either the willful ignoramus label fits you or you simply do not understand what the words you are writing means. At this point, I would believe either.
No I just recognize bias when I see it. The fact that you think there isn't collusion between "the press" (do you really not understand what that means) is mind boggling since there is plenty of evidence.
What does the mechanism matter when the fix is in? Of course you deny that's the case, again despite all evidence to the contrary. If you want to see an ignoramus just look up as you brush your teeth in the morning. Your hypocrisy is astounding.
Spot on Bob!!!!!
Post by: stoneaxe on October 21, 2016, 08:33:49 AM
Post by: pdxmike on October 21, 2016, 11:16:18 AM
http://www.inquisitr.com/3621255/donald-trump-melania-might-be-mad-after-joke-about-michelle-obama-speech-video/
Post by: tautologies on October 21, 2016, 02:26:21 PM
I simply can't understand how a mind can work that way. Claiming to be critical of the 4th estate but ignoring the evidence of all the collaboration between reporters and the DNC and Hillary's campaign. It's obvious Taut isn't stupid, at least at 1st glance, then he questions what "the press" means while using the term the 4th estate...which was coined to describe..."the press"...but I'm an ignoramus that doesn't understand the words he writes....you just can't make this shit up.... ::)
How do you imagine this collusion happens?
The press isn't an entity. There are hundreds of different outlets, and if one member of the press had discovered that a major party colluded I think that in itself would be a huge story for them. Obviously you have seen that by a mile most newspapers...even newspapers that has never before endorsed a candidate, and newspapers that through a 100 years has endorsed the GOP candidate think Trump is so unqualified that they support Clinton, but that doesn't mean there is a gigant ploy to get her elected. But hey if you have some evidence showing this big conspiracy between Clinton and all of the press, I am more than willing to read..
Admin: I do think the smackdown Wasserman got was good, and obviously what she did was not acceptable behavior. I take issue with Clinton campaign hiring her after as it shows a culture that I deeply dislike. It is problematic when parties does that, but what I was trying to say above, is that it is moving in the right direction. The uninformed electorate is about people complaingin about super delegates since they have been there before the process even started. In addition when pressed many of the Sanders supporters really though he won, which of course he didn't. Even if you took out the super delegates he wasn't even close. Another interesting fact is that if the DNC primary had been done under GOP rules, Clintons win would have been insanely big...with over 1000 of the electoral votes, but at the end of the day Clinton won the primaries with a larger margin than Obama and Trump.
Post by: starman on October 21, 2016, 02:45:09 PM
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/11/mccain200411
Don't forget the swift boat smear against Kerry.
But it's all a grand conspiracy to take down ________. (Just fill in the blank with your candidate)
This shit has been part of politics since voting was invented. Why pretend this election cycle is any different.
Post by: Eagle on October 21, 2016, 04:42:33 PM
"Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump may have been the guests of honor at the Al E. Smith foundation dinner, but it was a Fox News anchor who stole the show."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3861172/Maria-Bartiromo-s-dress-steals-Al-Smith-dinner.html#ixzz4NlY55qve
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
https://youtu.be/eKcn249-6Xk
https://youtu.be/2NSpSXHuy8I
Post by: lucabrasi on October 21, 2016, 06:44:42 PM
https://youtu.be/8qIQbydyHwc
Post by: stoneaxe on October 21, 2016, 08:26:55 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on October 21, 2016, 08:42:16 PM
Was this posted?LOL....I have seen that. It does seem too bizarre to be true that he is the candidate. I always wondered (in a National Enquirer kind of way) if it was an elaborate scheme between the Clinton's and Donald that went awry. Cause disarray amongst the Republicans so they would come out with a weak candidate and campaign....then the Donald started winning and the Donald being Donald....reneged on the deal.... :o
https://youtu.be/8qIQbydyHwc
The second video that eagle posted says it all. Unless the polling is the same as Brexit Hillary is our next president.
Post by: PonoBill on October 22, 2016, 07:58:43 AM
Post by: tautologies on October 22, 2016, 10:11:28 AM
Of course the press isn't an entity. But really? CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS.....on and on...You have basically Fox and Talk radio on the other side then it goes 5th estate which is a free for all. The socials are even being manipulated...maybe the most dangerous part of it all. You say you want the news outlets to cover things ...I still don't get how that squares with Andrew Cuomo trying to make it sound to viewers like it's illegal to look at wikileaks unless you are media, or CNN or any of the others having almost no mention of the damning contents on the front page of their site. How about Mook feeding softball questions to Andrea Mitchell and other reporters. How about Politico...isn't that part of your favorite unbiased sources....allowing editorial rights to Podesta? Have you even read what is in the wikileaks? It seems doubtful or you wouldn't need to ask the question. I get that the papers and such even typical GOP supporters are withdrawing from Trump, deservedly so....the guy is a dirtbag. Boston Herald ...always GOP...just announced today it isn't supporting anyone. But please don't tell me that the media in general is doing it's job in an impartial manner.
So you are saying that all the media except Fox and some talk radio has meetings with DNC and Clinton where they strategize how they can manipulate the election? I mean you were claiming collusion (without showing any kind of documentation). Note that for a collusion to be there you have to show patterns, and not single dishonest journalists.
Just note that it is not a media organization's duty to just repeat information / disinformation without adding value judgment on it. It is their duty to be honest, transparent, to add value and help people interpret. In addition to just repeating social media channel and wildly speculating (read Nancy Grace et al.), he said / she said journalism is the worst transgression and perversion of the journalist role in modern time.
I do think that Clinton gets away with some stuff, but mostly because Trump is so outrageous. If he had been prepared and on point in the debate she would have gotten reamed on the wikileaks issues, but his attention span is horrible so she easily deflected that. Look at it this way. You have two kids, one fell down and got a scratch the other poured gasoline on the neighbours dog and lit it on fire and now both your kid and your neighbours dog is on fire. What do you prioritize? In many ways, this is of Trumps own making since his strategy from day one to get free press was to be outrageous.
When you socials being manipulated what do you mean? I am not sure if you understand how the social media algorthms work so yes it is being manipulated in the sense that you will get feeds based on your preferences, history, and your friends posts, but there is not a conspiracy when it comes to specific content.
To be honest, for a long time I liked Clinton when she ran against Obama. In this election I think she has been the queen of unforced mistakes and her level of knowledge when it comes to innovation and technology is poor. I would prefer someone with her policy knowledge, but with a more innovation focused mindset. I do think it is high time the US gets a female president. I mean there is already been a retarded one in Bush (I stole that joke).
Btw I have of course read wikileaks, and I read many different sources. I personally think Trump has gotten away with absolutely atrocious behavior, because of the sheer volume of insanities. I hope this is the end of Trump and his empire. He is bad man.
Post by: Admin on October 22, 2016, 10:40:50 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCs1bRRraoc
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Post by: tautologies on October 22, 2016, 10:54:27 AM
Yeah I saw this, but they explain how it works in the interview tho. They factor in passion...which of course when you go to the poll you still only have one vote.
Post by: Admin on October 22, 2016, 11:00:29 AM
Yeah I saw this, but they explain how it works in the interview tho. They factor in passion...which of course when you go to the poll you still only have one vote.
That is the concern. Passion for Trump among his core seems unwavering. Passion for Hillary? I think we need to hope that the block Trump sentiment wins out over Democrapathy.
Post by: Area 10 on October 22, 2016, 11:29:09 AM
Maybe the polls should not give us that much comfort, keeping in mind that Rasmussen, IBD and LA Times (closest poll to actual results in last election) all have Trump tied or ahead as of this morning.Yes. If your voters act like ours then there will be more people who claim that they will vote for Hillary but who actually vote for a Trump than people who claim they will vote for Trump but actually vote for Hillary. This is why the margin of error for polls is larger than statistically believed: people lie about who they are going to vote for. If one of the candidates is appealing to voters' baser instincts (eg. racism, hate, greed, fear, xenophobia, misogyny etc) then people will be more reluctant to say they will vote for them than for a candidate where the views are more moderate or charitable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCs1bRRraoc
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
So in other words, I believe more people will actually vote for Trump than the polls will say, even on the day - even in fact, at the exit polls. People lie.
Post by: Weasels wake on October 22, 2016, 12:51:42 PM
BTW, turnout and enthusiasm seem to go hand in hand.
And agreed, exit polls are often misleading, both Kerry and Gore got suckered into thinking they won by the early exit polling.
Post by: Eagle on October 22, 2016, 01:04:29 PM
https://youtu.be/bEdf3BGLJTg
Post by: PonoBill on October 22, 2016, 01:35:10 PM
So you are saying that all the media except Fox and some talk radio has meetings with DNC and Clinton where they strategize how they can manipulate the election? I mean you were claiming collusion (without showing any kind of documentation). Note that for a collusion to be there you have to show patterns, and not single dishonest journalists.
Wow, really. Now I get where your avatar name comes from--twisted logic that yields no information. Restate for you own purposes and then argue based on your own definitions, created on the fly. Do you really think that is convincing or is you aim just to irritate?
You'd have to be delusional to think traditional media retains any element of journalistic integrity and impartiality. I don't think they've been as manipulated, mostly because the access is different, but honest? Transparent? Add value? That's insane.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 22, 2016, 04:56:38 PM
Post by: tautologies on October 22, 2016, 09:49:20 PM
Wow, really. Now I get where your avatar name comes from--twisted logic that yields no information. Restate for you own purposes and then argue based on your own definitions, created on the fly. Do you really think that is convincing or is you aim just to irritate?
You'd have to be delusional to think traditional media retains any element of journalistic integrity and impartiality. I don't think they've been as manipulated, mostly because the access is different, but honest? Transparent? Add value? That's insane.
What now? I asked the guy a question. He said DNC collude with the media. I asked why the media were. I Mean collusion is a pretty big charge. I can't really control what you get yourself irritated over. I've never said they are good journalists, but most have integrity.
Post by: tautologies on October 22, 2016, 11:53:20 PM
https://www.facebook.com/skynews/videos/1495197637161495/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
Post by: Area 10 on October 23, 2016, 01:41:04 AM
It all comes down to voter turnout and voter apathy vs passion. So many despise Hillary while Trump can do no wrong. So if Hillary voters do not vote - she will lose. Trump rallies apparently have a lot more voters attending and enthusiatic. And both media and government are both controlled huge propaganda machines. Often not to your benefit. Money power and greed. But applies to businesses as well. Soon enough we will all see what happens just like Brexit. And life will carry on.I wonder if Trump has been so extreme that Hillary will attract a "anti-Trump" vote as much as (or even more than) a "pro-Hillary" one.
This election certainly portrays a deeply divided America, and that is reflected in the comments on this forum.
Post by: Admin on October 23, 2016, 05:23:25 AM
That all-in acceptance has been the status quo for some time now, but the further the candidates get from our true values the more damaging this becomes. We signal to our parties that this candidate type is acceptable to us, even desired. It becomes less possible to see candidates that match what we actually might want.
So you have a lot of voters that are dismayed with their own positions. Knowing that they will vote to block someone that they truly detest but almost equally disgusted that they will be telegraphing approval of the system that has brought their candidate to the top of the ticket.
Post by: lucabrasi on October 23, 2016, 05:40:20 AM
Manipulated? Of course. Not collusion in that sense of the word tho, or at least how I think of the word. On an individual basis, most journalists have integrity I am sure. I think after talking to them we would all think that but wrap them up in the media machine, poof. Slants and manipulation are everywhere and always have been. How can they not? I probably give too much credit there tho. This "see the headline and click on it" is not journalism tho but it is our media now in many ways. I probably need to look up the definition of journalism tho. Where does traditional end and social start as far as media goes?
I not sure I would call social media manipulated and I wouldn't consider it journalism. It is designed to get the message out and not to report isn't it? A whole different game. Being subtle isn't needed or required.
(admin has posted, I will keep this the same tho)
Post by: Eagle on October 23, 2016, 08:43:38 AM
It all comes down to voter turnout and voter apathy vs passion. So many despise Hillary while Trump can do no wrong. So if Hillary voters do not vote - she will lose. Trump rallies apparently have a lot more voters attending and enthusiatic. And both media and government are both controlled huge propaganda machines. Often not to your benefit. Money power and greed. But applies to businesses as well. Soon enough we will all see what happens just like Brexit. And life will carry on.I wonder if Trump has been so extreme that Hillary will attract a "anti-Trump" vote as much as (or even more than) a "pro-Hillary" one.
This election certainly portrays a deeply divided America, and that is reflected in the comments on this forum.
Back in July this was the position already based on registered voters -
“Negative voting” is also widespread on the Democratic side. Among those planning to support Clinton in the general election, half (50%) say they think of their choice as more of a vote against Trump than for Clinton. About as many (48%) say their vote is more for Clinton than against Trump.
http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2-voter-general-election-preferences/
Post by: PonoBill on October 23, 2016, 09:16:22 AM
Post by: Admin on October 23, 2016, 09:57:48 AM
Post by: pdxmike on October 23, 2016, 11:56:26 AM
Voting for one candidate because you hate them less than another looks the same to the party as if you're voting for them because you love them. Even if they know it's not true, they'll claim it is. And whichever candidate wins will claim their victory proves they have a nationwide mandate for their platform.
If the election looks like it will be close, I don't see many people voting third party, because they'll feel too much is at stake. But if people feel one candidate is going to win anyway, third party voting could get pretty high, although it would have to be extraordinarily high (more than it likely will be) to have much impact on the next election.
Post by: PonoBill on October 23, 2016, 12:35:23 PM
Post by: lucabrasi on October 23, 2016, 01:27:56 PM
I can't stand to listen to him, how could I vote for him.This was shown to me yesterday. A little long but it definitely has it's moments, especially starting at 4:25 with that famous scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU_Jdts5rL0
Post by: WingSuit on October 23, 2016, 02:20:14 PM
Post by: Weasels wake on October 23, 2016, 03:04:01 PM
Hea, the Cubbies made it to the World Series, weirder things have happened.
Post by: yugi on October 24, 2016, 07:57:45 AM
I don't think traditional media is as manipulated as social media, close, but not totally. there's still some semblance of fact checking and reporting that goes on. Or maybe it's just that traditional media isn't important anymore. But the constant manipulation of social media with obvious propaganda is troubling. It's reinforcing a polarization that was always present by now is becoming stark and dangerous.
That's not what she said...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIUMxyEgxCo
Post by: yugi on October 24, 2016, 08:40:38 AM
Post by: Admin on October 24, 2016, 10:18:49 AM
(http://www.pgpf.org/sites/default/files/0053_defense-comparison-full.gif)
Post by: Bean on October 24, 2016, 10:41:07 AM
Post by: Eagle on October 24, 2016, 03:31:03 PM
Post by: mrbig on October 24, 2016, 03:40:48 PM
Post by: PonoBill on October 24, 2016, 06:12:23 PM
Post by: Admin on October 24, 2016, 06:24:03 PM
(https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_spending_pie%2C_2015_enacted_large.png)
(http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/55dc8020bd86ef1c008b5aff-1200-654/bi_graphics_us-military-budget-2.png)
(https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/dis%2C_mand%2C_int_pie_2015_enacted.png)
Post by: Eagle on October 24, 2016, 07:06:47 PM
The election cycle is just fluff and puff bs as it always is. Focus on what you already have - but are spending way beyond your means. Focus your elected officials on that. That would make sense to most of the outside world. But the politicians and military want you to focus on the bs topics that generate division and hatred and scandals at the grassroots level. So not to avoid detection and scrutiny and accountability. Create an enemy. That is the key - real or imaginary or otherwise. Any enemy. So billions can be spent lining the pockets of "contractors". Hmm? ::)
Post by: Beasho on October 24, 2016, 07:57:27 PM
What is the breakdown of that $2.45 Trillion?
If we're going to throw stones there's no reason to make anything off limits.
Post by: digger71 on October 24, 2016, 10:00:44 PM
In my line of business we have a saying "Given enough time it is all controllable (Discretionary) expense."
What is the breakdown of that $2.45 Trillion?
If we're going to throw stones there's no reason to make anything off limits.
"Mandatory" until Congress says it's not
Social Security - $967 billion
Medicare - $598 billion
Medicaid - $386 billion
Allowance for Immigration Reform - $5 billion
All other mandatory programs - $651 billion.
(Source: OMB, FY 2017 Budget, Summary Tables, Table S-5.)
Post by: Admin on October 25, 2016, 03:21:30 AM
What is the breakdown of that $2.45 Trillion?
These are the top 6 Budget line items. All but Defense and Income security are considered "Mandatory". Basically, Entitlements and Debt. The numbers vary a bit depending on the source and timing.
Medicair/Medicaid 1,120 B
Social Security 911 B
Defense 579 B
Income Security 303 B
Interest on Debt 249 B
Federal Pensions 272 B
We are currently spending (wasting) 4 million dollars a day in Syria alone. Sharpen your pencil.
Post by: Beasho on October 25, 2016, 06:45:08 AM
Why are we spending 50% on Healthcare and Social Security?
That amounts to $5 Billion per day. Pencil broken.
Governments have been good at keeping us safe, building infrastructure and (maybe, losing ground) education. The rest of us have been better at . . . the rest.
The singularity will come when robots do all of our bidding. College will be free, food will be free and SUP's will be free.
Post by: Admin on October 25, 2016, 07:43:26 AM
The singularity will come when robots do all of our bidding. College will be free, food will be free and SUP's will be free.
The more I watch this election process, wars, cruelty, etc, the more I am convinced that the first order of business for the superintelligent will be ridding themselves of us.
There is room for big reforms to entitlements but that would/will require addressing end of life care, reducing benefits that people have paid into, addressing age and death issues in general. It is a rare politician that will tread there and speak honestly.
Post by: ericmichaels on October 25, 2016, 07:52:46 AM
[/quote]
There is room for big reforms to entitlements but that would/will require addressing end of life care, reducing benefits that people have paid into, addressing age and death issues in general. It is a rare politician that will tread there and speak honestly.
[/quote]
Agreed. Neither side is willing to look reasonably at these kinds of subjects. People freak out at the mention of reducing benefits so politicians are scared to talk about it.
Even the most ardent small government tea party folks scream Hands off my medicare/SS/etc.
(https://afeatheradrift.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/tea-party-medicare-sign.jpg)
Post by: starman on October 25, 2016, 08:57:36 AM
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/08/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20130310
Post by: PonoBill on October 25, 2016, 10:55:27 AM
Always a pleasure to listen to Richard Feynman, under any circumstance.
As part of writing my book on retirement, I studied social security fairly carefully. What I came up with is that it's a fine idea that can't work. The core problem is that people insist on living a lot longer than they were supposed to. It's fairly easy to fund a substantial part of retirement expenses with social security when the contribution to the pool is consistent with the number of people drawing from it over the expected timeframe, and the majority of retirement expenses come from pensions provided by large manufacturing firms. The manufacturing firms needed to get older people out of the jobs they could no longer do well, either because of physical limitations or dated skills. Pension savings plus social security was adequate when the retirement age is 65 and the average lifespan is 61.7 years (1935). Roughly 60 percent of the potential retirees died before retirement. Tweak the survivorship benefits and it's easy to make that work. Current average lifespan is 78.4 years in the US. Slightly more than 70 percent of people live past 65. Survivorship benefits exited mathmatics and entered politics long ago.
Currently the average pay-in to social security is about 300K and the average payout is about $270K--so that sounds OK, but the population is aging rapidly and lifespan is increasing. Social security benefits might look pitiful to anyone trying to live on them, but they're headed upside-down, which is why economists say SS will run out of money.
Medicaide is MUCH worse. The ratio of pay in to expense is three to one. $60K in 180K out. Expect medicare charges to increase dramatically soon--Obamacare or not. And of course these entitlements will become more of a third rail as the population ages. People have a notion that they deserve these benefits because they paid into them, but in reality they didn't pay nearly enough, and eventually the entitlements need to become rational.
Obamacare is a stupid mess, reminiscent of the California utility decision to regulate electricity transmission while they deregulated generation. Blackouts and stunning electricity prices to the transmission companies were inevitable and pushed them to the edge of bankruptcy. We're seeing the same thing in healthcare. You can't regulate the requirement for health insurance without regulating the cost of providing it.
Post by: SeldomScene on October 25, 2016, 07:18:52 PM
Post by: PonoBill on October 26, 2016, 08:35:15 AM
https://retirement.pressbooks.com/
Post by: Bean on October 26, 2016, 10:11:06 AM
"the best way for me to embed information in my unwilling brain is to write the information as instruction for other people"
This is so true ...
I remember struggling with "intermediate accounting" at the same time one of my younger fraternity brothers, an engineering major, was struggling with "accounting 101". After sitting with him for a few hours explaining basic accounting, I walked away with the tools I needed to blaze through "intermediate". To this day, I believe he knew exactly what he was doing all along. A great friend indeed...
Post by: freetobeme on October 26, 2016, 02:36:59 PM
The simple reality is that retirement is a dated concept, or at least it is in the manner people think about it. It's pretty hard to pay for thirty years of retirement with thirty years of working. Especially if some fund manager is taking a big cut for doing nothing of value. Not an easy thing to do. I'm still working on my book, but people might find some value in the rough state. The price is right, it's free.
https://retirement.pressbooks.com/
Thanks Pono.
Post by: SeldomScene on October 26, 2016, 04:31:12 PM
The simple reality is that retirement is a dated concept, or at least it is in the manner people think about it. It's pretty hard to pay for thirty years of retirement with thirty years of working. Especially if some fund manager is taking a big cut for doing nothing of value. Not an easy thing to do. I'm still working on my book, but people might find some value in the rough state. The price is right, it's free.
https://retirement.pressbooks.com/
I'll take a read of the book the next rainy day. However, at at first blush, the retirement age is being set by the guv'ment at 67, that is for full benefits under social security. So you'd need to work for 49 years (45 if you spent 4 years in college) and you'd be retired for about 13 or years, more or less, if the average life span is 80 or so. The accountant and statistician in me wants to delve further into the math, but after all, I am retired. Not to mention it's been done already, and it's a google search away. You'd have to retire at 48 to 52 to get the work 30 and retire 30 ratio.
Post by: PonoBill on October 26, 2016, 09:12:30 PM
Whenever people talk about social security and retirement I listen in awe. Opinions unhampered by facts. I've looked at the numbers a lot of different ways, and I conclude that if it's a Ponzi scheme, it's a poor one. This is a pretty interesting article: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/ but there are a lot more like it. Some start off with a lot of hand waving, and you can pretty much stop reading when you see that. It's just math, though the numbers are very slippery--if nothing else, inflation and time make it all hard to follow.
For example (from the article) "According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between "paid-in" and "paid-out" works out to $21.6 trillion."
So there's that.
Post by: DavidJohn on October 27, 2016, 09:02:28 AM
What is the breakdown of that $2.45 Trillion?
We are currently spending (wasting) 4 million dollars a day in Syria alone. Sharpen your pencil.
http://youtu.be/c8JppJyVxYU
Post by: Eagle on October 27, 2016, 01:00:23 PM
https://youtu.be/7sUfCLD354o
Post by: Eagle on October 27, 2016, 02:45:05 PM
Elections and stress and money and ego and anger can bring out the worst in people. And oddly sometimes that can be a good thing. At least you know a lot better who you are dealing with. But Hillary is certainly not a good candidate choice either. Really she is terrible - and her pivots are terrible.
Many say Trump will never actually sue his accusers. The burden of proof is on him. He has much too much to lose - and very little to gain at this point. The Access Hollywood tape cannot be undone - and he will be deposed. So his recent flip flop was very expected. If only Miss Universe and the AC tape did not appear. He would have crushed Hillary. Dems and media - Hmmm?
https://youtu.be/eklXxUS7oxQ
Post by: Weasels wake on October 28, 2016, 03:20:00 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on October 28, 2016, 04:39:13 PM
Post by: SeldomScene on October 28, 2016, 05:56:32 PM
Post by: SeldomScene on October 28, 2016, 06:10:03 PM
now that they have Weiner/Huma's devices, and tens of thousands of emails that were not turned over, and they know that from the Wiki-leaked emails that there is some disloyalty on her staff, the FBI will be going for the weaklings that might jump ship and anyone that lied to them.
Post by: surf4food on October 29, 2016, 05:01:53 AM
Post by: Admin on October 29, 2016, 07:00:17 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on October 29, 2016, 08:23:40 AM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cold-clinton-reality-1477608696
Post by: Weasels wake on October 29, 2016, 09:29:18 AM
Post by: SeldomScene on October 29, 2016, 09:49:13 AM
Ughhhh. If Comey is not aware of some conclusively damning additional evidence this is one hell of a power play.
Perhaps a better understanding of the details as well as the law: Comey promised Congress when he was called to testify he would notify them of any new developments, which is what he has done. Someone from Congress leaked the info, you don't see Comey discussing it with the media. Clinton is calling for him to release all the details, but to do so would be in violation of the federal Privacy Act. Details of ongoing investigations are not public information, and can only be released in a limited fashion to serve a law enforcement purpose. Comey hasn't told Congress anything more than the investigation has been reopened. Loretta Lynch wanted Comey to conceal the reopening of the case. Wouldn't that also be a power play as well as a coverup? I just read that he decided to hold his original press conference without Lynch after it was learned that Bill Clinton was allowed to board her plane and have a private discussion with her, dates before the original investigation was concluded.
Looks like what it is, is that tens of thousands of emails from Hillary's home brew private basement server were found on a device that Huma Abedin shared with Anthony "The Weiner" Weiner. It remains to be seen if any of them were (or should have been) classified. That is why the investigation has been reopened.
Hillary and the Dems are upset, but it was she that used an unauthorized private email system, sent classified documents on it, had an aide who shared a device with her internet pervert husband, and used the private server to prevent her emails as US Secy of State from being archived by the Federal govt, which is also a violation of the Federal Records Act. Had she just used A government device, none of this would be an issue. By the way, I used a government device and also maintained a personal device for my non work stuff. Not to prevent the government for documenting government business like Clinton, but to keep my personal stuff personal.
Unlike Clinton, Comey has integrity. The FBI Director serves a 10 year term, which was established to prevent the politicization of the office. Although a Republican, he was appointed by Obama. Betcha anything if she gets elected, she will try to force him out for crossing her politically. If that happens, he won't be the loser. He would make 10 times his $200K salary as a partner in a law firm.
Post by: Admin on October 29, 2016, 12:37:38 PM
Ughhhh. If Comey is not aware of some conclusively damning additional evidence this is one hell of a power play.
Perhaps a better understanding of the details as well as the law: Comey promised Congress when he was called to testify he would notify them of any new developments, which is what he has done. Someone from Congress leaked the info, you don't see Comey discussing it with the media.
Leaked? I pasted Comey's letter to his staff below. He was well aware that he was making this public, when, and of the implications.
To all:
This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.
Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.
Jim Comey
Post by: SeldomScene on October 29, 2016, 01:06:16 PM
Post by: Admin on October 29, 2016, 01:20:30 PM
Comey sent Congress letter on Clinton emails despite DOJ warning it would breach policy.
“that we don’t comment on an ongoing investigation. And we don’t take steps that will be viewed as influencing an election.”
https://us.yahoo.com/news/comey-sent-congress-letter-on-clinton-emails-despite-doj-warning-it-would-breach-policy-180013535.html
Post by: SeldomScene on October 29, 2016, 01:33:26 PM
Post by: Admin on October 29, 2016, 01:48:27 PM
I appreciate your certainty but no one knows who will win this muckfest.
Quote
Given that I have about three decades plus in the field
You're a farmer?
Do I understand that your credentials eliminate other opinions? Remarkable.
This was a well timed choice. I say that with no admiration for either side that will be effected.
Post by: SeldomScene on October 29, 2016, 01:56:57 PM
Post by: Admin on October 29, 2016, 02:06:30 PM
Post by: tautologies on October 29, 2016, 02:43:28 PM
Given that I have about three decades plus in the field (I am not sure what you do for work or a profession) I can also tell you with certainly that these DOJ policies are guidelines, and dont always fit every situation. So does Comey tell Congress as he said he would and cross Lynch and Clinton, or not tell Congress and participate in a coverup.
I am a strong believer in competencies and experience...it is one of the main arguments for not electing Trump...you know in addition to him being a narcissistic scumbag. For instance I like authors to thoroughly know what hell they are writing about. Otherwise I just categorize it as a severe case of Dunning–Kruger effect. Obviously friendly banter on a SUP site doesn't need to meet those requirements...until one start calling competencies in to help evaluate statements.
To that end, if you do not mind...30 years in the field isn't very specific. What field? And in what part of all this does that provide you competencies? I am asking because I am truly interested.
Post by: SeldomScene on October 29, 2016, 03:16:34 PM
Post by: tautologies on October 29, 2016, 03:28:00 PM
I agree with you about Trump. But the real issue, the reason for all these posts, was the assertion that Comey leaked the info regarding the reopening if the email case. It's obvious that he did not, that telling his own employees and Congress in writing is in no way a leak. We're not going to make this about me, it's only about the facts. That's the problem on both sides of the aisle. Spinning the facts into lies is not only accepted, it has become the norm. It's common knowledge that members of Congress are highly likely to give info to the press to suit their political agendas.
So no disagreement about the extremely low level of the political discourse in this country. I am a policy nerd so I wish that was the conversation we were having.
Post by: Admin on October 29, 2016, 03:41:08 PM
But the real issue, the reason for all these posts, was the assertion that Comey leaked the info regarding the reopening if the email case. It's obvious that he did not, that telling his own employees and Congress in writing is in no way a leak. We're not going to make this about me, it's only about the facts. That's the problem on both sides of the aisle. Spinning the facts into lies is not only accepted, it has become the norm. It's common knowledge that members of Congress are highly likely to give info to the press to suit their political agendas.
If it is common knowledge that Congress passes info to the press...and Comey gives info to Congress...
Post by: Weasels wake on October 29, 2016, 03:44:17 PM
From what I understand, for what that's worth, he told her to back away from the FBI investigation, just let Comey handle it, which is why she went public with her statement saying just that. She will not get involved and completely abide by Comey's requests and recommendations, or something close to that effect.
So now Comey is just doing what she had entitled him to do, and she won't interfere, but wait, she tried, and I'll bet he reminded her what she said a couple of months ago.
If a grand jury is called for, I wouldn't be surprised if Loretta Lynch resigns.
Post by: lucabrasi on October 29, 2016, 04:08:25 PM
Looking through Johnny Dangerously's stuff.....what timing. you can't make this stuff up.
why wasn't all that turned over before? Who missed it? Who said it wasn't there? One of those, or both I guess.
I think that's the bigger story over the next few weeks if there is one. Is it just more "hillary email stuff"? Short memories we have. Ancient history by Wednesday?
Can you imagine the guys face when he is looking for sexting stuff or whatever and he runs across who knows how many hillary@aol emails?
Far worse to have it open and then "leaked" than to issue a statement......you gotta say something. You can't leave that lay. Especially at election time. Good for him.
maybe we aren't as bad off as we seem?
If that would have "leaked" out.........who knows how that gets spun.....would not have been good especially with rigged election comments the last few weeks.
trick or treat
Post by: PonoBill on October 29, 2016, 04:23:17 PM
Donning my editor robe and ceremonial blue pencil, I note that even trying to stay with news sources that might retain a shred of integrity, I can't count how many times I read something that parses like" It can hardly be a coincidence that..." when actually the issue being dissected is the fucking definition of coincidence.
Post by: Weasels wake on October 29, 2016, 04:44:21 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the first casualty is Huma, she'd get tossed under the bus in a heartbeat, loyalty? Pfffft.
I kinda feel sorry for Huma, her only real crime was that in having really bad taste in both men and women. :-\
Post by: PonoBill on October 29, 2016, 05:46:13 PM
Post by: southwesterly on October 29, 2016, 09:37:15 PM
Post by: Weasels wake on October 29, 2016, 11:13:49 PM
Really. Huma is an innocent victim? My Dad always said "you're judged by the company you keep." Weiner?? Wow. I'd point out that she probably lied under oath, to the FBI. I think she tossed herself under the bus. The only saving grace is that it might roll harmlessly over her--too many other targets.I never said "innocent victim", I meant that being her first bad choice, not knowing the good men and women from the bad ones, I could have worded it better, but the bottom line is that her mother probably never told her that there would be days like this.
So in that, I kinda feel sorry for her, but yea, guilty, she got blinded by her assisting in pseudo-power, being held by the people she chose to be with. It's amazing the power that Anthony thought he had in just a cell phone, but it might bring down a candidate, by accident.
Post by: Admin on October 30, 2016, 01:36:59 AM
When I first read about this latest shitstorm I assumed Comey was torpedoing Hillary. It certainly seemed so, but having read all I could find on the issue (except for any piece that starts off spraying saliva) I think he had no choice.
One way or another, it was a torpedo to the hull. Whether or not it sinks the USS Uninspiring remains to be seen.
Comey is under fire from many former prosecutors, etc. I would venture that the only way that he would run against the DOJ manual's written rules like this is if he new that this was substantive.
PS: What happened on the Tarmac between Bill and Loretta was just a friendly, "How's your Mum" between old chums. "Nice jet Loretta, Say..." :)
Post by: ericmichaels on October 30, 2016, 12:09:40 PM
This gives an interesting perspective on the whole email issue: https://medium.com/the-curious-civilian/admit-it-the-clinton-email-controversy-bothers-you-yet-you-dont-actually-know-what-the-clinton-511dc1659eda#.aniz5xnlmHow dare you post unbiased, fact based information.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Post by: ericmichaels on October 30, 2016, 12:14:47 PM
now that they have Weiner/Huma's devices, and tens of thousands of emails that were not turned over,
Do you have a source for the claim that the emails comey is referring to number tens of thousands rather than 6, or 55?
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Post by: Bean on October 30, 2016, 05:45:29 PM
Post by: PDLSFR on October 30, 2016, 05:49:51 PM
now that they have Weiner/Huma's devices, and tens of thousands of emails that were not turned over,
Do you have a source for the claim that the emails comey is referring to number tens of thousands rather than 6, or 55?
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Does it really matter if it is 1 or 10 or 100 ???
Post by: tautologies on October 31, 2016, 12:53:23 AM
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=M2Y2G9syTiU
Post by: Area 10 on October 31, 2016, 01:03:20 AM
I think the point is that this is yet another example of people "spinning" the facts to fit whatever agenda they have. A dispassionate voice would say "we know nothing about this yet; perhaps it's something, perhaps it is nothing", but instead many people are foaming at the mouth. All over something that may be nothing.
now that they have Weiner/Huma's devices, and tens of thousands of emails that were not turned over,
Do you have a source for the claim that the emails comey is referring to number tens of thousands rather than 6, or 55?
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Does it really matter if it is 1 or 10 or 100 ???
I've always wondered what a failure of democracy would look like. Well this is it, isn't it? The choice between candidates that no-one wants. Is that a choice at all? In the UK we've just had one massive failure of the democratic process: a minority of the population have managed to carry a vote against the wishes of the majority, and which will make everyone poorer, less secure, and will take away many of their rights. This in turn was prompted partly by another failure of democracy: the inability of Europe to adapt to changing circumstances and fairly represent the views of it's people because of the ridiculously cumbersome agreement requirements before a decision can be made. And now the US is showing another way in which democracy can fail to deliver what its population wants.
I suspect political theorists will be talking about 2016 for a long time. In the meantime though, I'm pretty sure that the solution to a fever-pitch situation is not to throw more fuel on the fire through wild speculation and story-telling. It was wild speculation and story-telling that got the world's two largest economic blocks (US and Europe) into this unholy mess in the first place.
I suspect that in years to come those political theorists will start to investigate the role of social media in these democratic blips. Before the internet existed it is doubtful that Trump or Farage (the architect of Brexit) would have ever achieved prominence; no- one would have known about them. The "system" would have weeded them out long before they got close to a TV screen or newspaper. These blips in democracy might require us to engage with social media differently (including this form right here). In the absence of a "filter system" that acts for us at the pre-media stage, we now have to operate that filter for ourselves. We need to continually ask ourselves why we are being told what we are being told, and by whom, and whether it is true. These days it seems that it is almost as likely that something we hear through the internet is false as it is that is true. And that, of course, is the beginning of the end for democracy.
So, if we value democracy, we need IMO to start being more careful about passing on erroneous information, and get a little bit more used to saying things like "let's wait and see", which are not phrases that sit well with the immediacy of social media and our new "click bait" world. Because that's what we have at the moment: "Clickbait democracy". And it isn't working.
Post by: Admin on October 31, 2016, 05:02:01 AM
Quote
A dispassionate voice would say "we know nothing about this yet; perhaps it's something, perhaps it is nothing"
The news is the release of this info itself. We know about that. You are correct that spin was going to happen. This has been the hot button topic of the election. There is no question that the conversation has turned almost entirely to a defensive issue for Clinton. The why of the release is actually very newsworthy.
Post by: Area 10 on October 31, 2016, 05:27:23 AM
Not necessarily. You don't know that for sure. Which is my point.QuoteA dispassionate voice would say "we know nothing about this yet; perhaps it's something, perhaps it is nothing"
The news is the release of this info itself. We know about that. You are correct that spin was going to happen. This has been the hot button topic of the election. There is no question that the conversation has turned almost entirely to a defensive issue for Clinton. The why of the release is actually very newsworthy.
Post by: Admin on October 31, 2016, 06:06:53 AM
Disregarding even foreknowledge or intent. The information is out there. It is almost the entirety of the news. Those are facts.
Post by: stoneaxe on October 31, 2016, 06:23:57 AM
This gives an interesting perspective on the whole email issue: https://medium.com/the-curious-civilian/admit-it-the-clinton-email-controversy-bothers-you-yet-you-dont-actually-know-what-the-clinton-511dc1659eda#.aniz5xnlmHow dare you post unbiased, fact based information.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Un-biased...seriously? It's no wonder you believe as you do.... ::)
Post by: Area 10 on October 31, 2016, 06:30:48 AM
Post by: Admin on October 31, 2016, 06:39:07 AM
Post by: SUPflorida on October 31, 2016, 07:29:20 AM
The more things exposed during this election the more proported "conspiracy theories " look tame in comparison...the corruption is so blatant, the arrogance so in your face, the double standards so pervasive...you couldn't make this stuff up. The light switch has been turned on and the cockroaches are everywhere.
Post by: PonoBill on October 31, 2016, 08:35:16 AM
Democracy has never worked, that's why no one has one.
Post by: yugi on October 31, 2016, 08:39:10 AM
...
Democracy has never worked, that's why no one has one.
Check Switzerlands direct democracy out on your travels. Here's the thing, when people feel involved they will inform themselves.
Post by: Weasels wake on October 31, 2016, 09:19:01 AM
Admin - The point is that there isn't enough information to know what is going in either with the emails themselves, the investigation, or the timing of the events surrounding this. So to let yourself be influenced by it would be premature. In the pre-internet days, cooler heads would likely have prevailed.I know you live on the other side of the pond, but for us over here, it's a bit different.
President Nixon had to resign during those "pre-internet days", cooler heads? There weren't any back then.
One of those people lacking a cooler head was Hillary herself, as she was helping Sam Nunn during the Watergate episodes dig up dirt on Nixon.
Did she learn any lessons during that time? Apparently not.
Post by: Admin on October 31, 2016, 09:49:11 AM
The case was never "closed."
He called it "completed" happy to sub that word into my previous post if it changes anything.
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161028221834-james-comey-letter-exlarge-169.jpg)
Post by: PonoBill on October 31, 2016, 10:01:34 AM
...
Democracy has never worked, that's why no one has one.
Check Switzerlands direct democracy out on your travels. Here's the thing, when people feel involved they will inform themselves.
I'm reasonably well informed about various Europen models of government. Switzerland is a republic. I understand the distinctions and greater involvement of Switzerland's citizenry in major decisions but calling it a direct democracy is misleading. A fine model, one I wish we could move further toward, but unlikely.
Post by: DavidJohn on November 01, 2016, 01:07:59 PM
http://youtu.be/SXG_h765ZBA
Post by: Chilly on November 01, 2016, 05:31:52 PM
Interesting....
http://youtu.be/SXG_h765ZBA
Okay, so why didn’t Huma or Hillary warn Al Qaeda that Osama bin Laden was going to get his brains blown to pieces. The same people that believe this shit believe we never landed on the moon.
How soon we forget
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogUDnIuvZdQ
Post by: Subber on November 01, 2016, 09:51:05 PM
Interesting....
http://youtu.be/SXG_h765ZBA
Whoa!
Post by: southwesterly on November 01, 2016, 10:27:12 PM
Post by: Bean on November 02, 2016, 05:06:37 AM
Interesting....Unfortunately, the only thing that's interesting DJ is the correlation of the addresses. It's a fairly large building...
Post by: Bean on November 02, 2016, 05:12:30 AM
Better.
SW, if that's Alex Knost and I believe it is, this might be interpreted as saying, make America surf in the style of the 60's and 70' again. ;D
Post by: Area 10 on November 02, 2016, 07:40:19 AM
Yep, I work just near this building. It is also home to the Italiano Coffee Shop. So it is clear that Hillary Clinton is therefore in league with the Italian mafia as well, and that Huma is the go-between. Since we know that the mafia killed JFK, it is clear that HC is planning to have Trump executed if he becomes president.Interesting....Unfortunately, the only thing that's interesting DJ is the correlation of the addresses. It's a fairly large building...
Of course "you won't hear this on CNN"...
Or maybe 46 Goodge Street is a large office block that houses many different companies, and that not everyone in Saudi Arabia is a terrorist waiting to cause the next 911. But if you try hard enough you can rely on the "6 degrees of separation" effect to weave a story of connection between anyone and something sinister.
We might even be able to weave an unlikley connection between DJ and a leash manufacturer ;)
Post by: yugi on November 02, 2016, 08:18:09 AM
hUUUUUUUUge problem! Tremendous.
Post by: tautologies on November 02, 2016, 01:29:56 PM
It looks like the markets are starting to price in an increased risk of Trump becoming president. Why this doesn't get people who thinks Trump to be good for the economy to rethink I do not know.
http://www.investors.com/news/fbi-reveals-more-evidence-that-stocks-will-fall-if-trump-wins/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/business/dealbook/what-happens-to-the-markets-if-donald-trump-wins.html
Ofcourse there is a question about the clout a president actually has. I think it is pretty simple. If the guy at the top is clueless risk does increase regardless of clout: https://www.ft.com/content/54e5295c-a021-11e6-891e-abe238dee8e2
Also a letter from economists talking about the increased risk because of all the fabulous conspiracy theories Trump pushes...and of course his lack of understanding markets:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/EconomistLetter11012016.pdf
Post by: Weasels wake on November 02, 2016, 04:39:40 PM
I can answer that for myself, I'm expecting the market to take a dip, it usually does before an incumbent or the incumbent party is about to be voted out.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-01/one-poll-that-isn-t-going-clinton-s-way-is-the-u-s-stock-market
But my holdings should be fine in the long run, and that's really what counts, so I'm fine,,,,,,,,,,,, Brexit style, you could say.
Post by: Area 10 on November 02, 2016, 05:23:48 PM
So Brexit is very far from fine. The process hasn't even started yet, but it's already looking like it could lead to a cultural and economic crisis across Europe, and no-one has the faintest idea where it is all going to lead. A financial meltdown in Europe (which is by some measures an economy even bigger than the US) will have catastrophic implications for the US. So if I were a US citizen right now I wouldn't see Brexit as anything but a considerable potential threat to my financial security. It's an unholy mess, and it's getting worse every day. In time the consequences of the Brexit vote by a plumber in Wales will have a direct impact on the ability of a taxi driver in New York to buy his kids toys at Christmas. That is how the world's economy works these days. We are all interconnected.
Post by: Weasels wake on November 02, 2016, 05:51:43 PM
Post by: Area 10 on November 02, 2016, 09:30:30 PM
I already know you're a "remainer", thanks anyway, aloha.
I already know you're a "remainer", thanks anyway, aloha.You don't have to have voted remain to not like the way things are turning out. Name me ONE good thing that has so far come out of the Brexit vote. You've got nothing, nada, zip. So far it's all bad. The best thing anyone can say is that "it's not as bad as we were told would happen". But what people who are saying that seem to be missing is that we haven't actually left the EU yet! In fact we are probably nowhere close to leaving yet.
But if you can point to anything good that has come of it, then please do share. Because we could all do with cheering up right now.
And when you have Trump as president, I suspect you'll be feeling the same way.
It's funny how few people will admit to voting "leave" these days. There were 17.4 million of them. The population of the UK is 65 million. So although on the day more people voted to leave than remain, it is worth remembering that the vote was carried by only 27% of the entire population. If there had been just a 2% swing towards remain, we could have had a different result. That 2% could easily come from more young people exercising their right to vote (since overwhelmingly older people voted leave and young people voted stay). But young people had a poor turnout, partly because no-one expected the result to go the way it did - the polls were very wrong.
Most people - even Brexiteers - think that if we repeated the referendum today, knowing what we know now, that we would not be leaving the EU. We were lied to by our politicians.
There's been a lot to learn from this. But, go ahead, cheer me up: what good has come of it so far?
Post by: lucabrasi on November 02, 2016, 10:01:05 PM
But, go ahead, cheer me up: what good has come of it so far?well...........if the outcome would have been different we probably wouldn't have known about all the similarities of the unhappiness in the political systems between us and the place we decided to exit all those years ago.
I guess it's good to know we aren't all that different.
;)
Post by: Area 10 on November 03, 2016, 12:41:54 AM
I know you are joking, but the fact that our populations are full of people who are so full of hate and fear that they will vote against their own interests, and we are both led by politicians who will happily lie in the pursuit of power is not something I find comforting. So, please be my guest and try again :)
Post by: stoneaxe on November 03, 2016, 06:56:22 AM
You can shove polling numbers and percentages around all you want and act like they mean something....simpler math...you lost. One good thing....the people are at least trying to take back control. I love how progressives always paint with such a broad brush...everyone voting for Brexit or Trump are full of hate, fear, racism, pick your ism....and everyone voting as they do are for peace, love, and the children. It's just not that simple even though you folks like to act as though it is.
Back on this side of the pond. The FBI probe into the Clinton Foundation according to some sources, purportedly within the FBI, is likely headed for indictment for pay-to-play. They supposedly already had secret recordings and lots of evidence even before Wikileaks.
If it proves to be true that Hillary Clinton gave access to the State department based on donations to the foundation and payments to Bill...does that disqualify her to be president in the eyes of her supporters here? Is that enough corruption for you?
Post by: Area 10 on November 03, 2016, 07:53:57 AM
You can shove polling numbers and percentages around all you want and act like they mean something....simpler math...you lost. One good thing....the people are at least trying to take back control. I love how progressives always paint with such a broad brush...everyone voting for Brexit or Trump are full of hate, fear, racism, pick your ism....and everyone voting as they do are for peace, love, and the children. It's just not that simple even though you folks like to act as though it is....Both sides paint with a broad brush. You just did it to me. And yes, as my father used to say "those who generalise generally lie". But we all do it to simplify arguments.
...If it proves to be true that Hillary Clinton gave access to the State department based on donations to the foundation and payments to Bill...does that disqualify her to be president in the eyes of her supporters here? Is that enough corruption for you?
Brexit is easier to understand than Trump though, because there were fewer reasons for it. The people who voted for Brexit were overwhelmingly older white males, especially poorer older white males. A substantial proportion just wanted to "wreck the system" out of a general anarchist type sentiment borne of boredom and frustration. Many just want to stop any new people coming into the country: they feel that the country is "full up" already, and are annoyed and frightened at the pace that multiculturalism is progressing in some communities. And most were told, and naively believed, that if we came out of Europe we would have and extra £350M a week to spend on our National Health Service (which was completely untrue). These three reasons cover a lot of the sentiment of the Brexit voters. Not really that hard to understand.
Trump though is something else. Whereas the Brexit voters came overwhelmingly from one particular strata of UK society, Trump has (somewhat) broader support, and the reasons for that support are more numerous and complex. No doubt there is some overlap with those who would have voted Brexit if they had been UK citizens. But it goes beyond that into particularly US phenomena such as the cult of celebrity, mistrust of intellectuals, worship of the very rich, (unrealistic) fear of terrorism, the extraordinarily powerful military industrial complex, the love of guns and the fear of your own government that that betrays, and so forth. Those kind of issues are fairly specific to US culture rather than being a UK/EU thing.
What Brexit and the Trump phenomena certainly both share is however a sense of frustration and protest. But more importantly they share a belief in a solution that pretty much every expert will tell you is more likely to make the situation worse for you rather than better. So they rely on a rejection of expert opinion. And that is the most worrying thing about this new transatlantic trend IMO. I am reminded of G.K. Chesterton's adage that "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing they believe in anything." Only in this case it's "when people stop believing in experts, they don't believe nothing, they believe in anything".
And yet again Stoneaxe you are, I think, mistaking those who are anti-Trump as being pro-Hillary. You don't have to be pro-Hillary to be anti-Trump. You just have to believe that the status quo is better than the roll of the dice - with slim odds of success - that Trump offers. Most people do not see the US going into terminal meltdown if Hillary ends up president. They just see more of the same boring messed-up crap. But many people actually see it as perfectly likely that the US will go into terminal meltdown (or total stasis) with Trump. You guys have IMO got a no-win situation with this presidency, unfortunately. It's just a matter of how much you are willing to gamble on losing.
Post by: Weasels wake on November 03, 2016, 10:51:53 AM
Post by: headmount on November 03, 2016, 11:19:57 AM
This contrasts remarkably with FB with many people who resort to the use of memes put out by boiler rooms of unknown source. Most don't put their name on their manipulating propaganda posters, which is always a red flag for me, aside from severely oversimplifying issues with quickie slogans. I put in my two cents about this tendency to use memes but no one listens to me.
As a citizenry we all need to develop our skills to express ourselves so we don't end up with the choices we have in the future. We get these simpletons because they think we're the same. If social media is to be of any use on the political front, it needs to follow the lead of what we see here in the Zone.
Post by: pdxmike on November 03, 2016, 11:21:20 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oILLjyQV-0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oILLjyQV-0)
Headmount, just saw your comment. I agree 100%.
Post by: headmount on November 03, 2016, 11:22:17 AM
Post by: Area 10 on November 03, 2016, 12:42:19 PM
A 10, you sound like King George III. And I'm sorry that the English empire has continued to shrink since the Revolutionary War, but that's not really our problem. I know you probably despise him, but Farage gets it.Farage sold a big lie in the pursuit of power. If you think that constitutes "getting it" then I guess the logical conclusion for you is two candidates for presidency who both are proven liars. Funny that...
Farage also believes that the evidence that smoking causes cancer is a made-up conspiracy. Here he is in his own words:
"“I’ve found some people on the Internet who say my lungs might even grow in size once I start smoking again. Sure, the medical experts claim that won’t happen, but what do they know, really.
“If I listened to experts I’d never do half the things I enjoy doing, like drinking, smoking, and berating immigrants for all the world’s problems – which is why we’re all better off outside the influence of experts.
“I would tell all hard-working British voters, don’t listen to the experts, listen to your lungs, and if they tell you they can handle it then go right ahead and fill them up with cigarette smoke as often as you like".
No wonder him and Trump get along so well
Post by: pdxmike on November 03, 2016, 01:59:48 PM
At least he has some potential in comedyIt may be a more serious comment that how it looks on the surface. It could be his point is that, "OK, let's not even argue about whether pot really does cause heart attacks. Assume it does, and I just died from it. So what? People do all kinds of things that are unhealthy--eating sugar, smoking, drinking, sitting too long...That doesn't mean we need to make them all illegal, especially when doing that doesn't stop people from using it, and probably makes it even more dangerous. If I'd just keeled over from a bad diet or too little or too much exercise, should we make those illegal too?"
Plus he may just have hit his limit of hearing all the doomsday arguments against pot use and legalization, and snapped. Ironically, if he'd been using pot, he probably wouldn't have.
Post by: lucabrasi on November 03, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
That's a good thing?Mostly a joke yes, some seriousness tho. I don't know enough about your deal over there to really comment on it tho. In the end, I don't think we really are that different.
I know you are joking, but the fact that our populations are full of people who are so full of hate and fear that they will vote against their own interests, and we are both led by politicians who will happily lie in the pursuit of power is not something I find comforting. So, please be my guest and try again :)
We aren't so full of hate and fear we are voting against our interests. Plenty of people live full of hate and fear for sure but they will vote however they see fit their interests are mostly with, just like you and me. I don't think there are enough "cancel" votes going to happen here as some would want you to believe. Not enough to make a difference. They will just stay home. You alluded to that somewhere here over your last few posts that that is what happened with Brexit. I got no clue tho. I am interested to see what the turnout this Tuesday will be. I think it will be biggest ever or lowest ever..........not average so to say.
What stoneaxe said here......
People can vote against their short term interests in hope for a better long term outcome. Brexit, Trump, Bernie Sanders...shit...the Arab spring are all streams from the same source. People are angry that governments aren't representing them.i don't see how that is painting with a broad brush or could be seen that way. We hate what we have become. I think we can thank the media, (whom we feed and are responsible for making the way they are) for much of that. I don't know how that will ever change. Throw in the internet and social media and we are really on a wild ride. We are fearful of what we are turning into. Does everyone have to be so damn special? Does everyone need a mommy to stand up for them? Apparently so.......at least that's what is being screamed out. There's some of my hate and fear if nothing else. I don't think anyone else is that much different.........hate for how things are and have become.........fear of where things are going and what may happen.......
You can shove polling numbers and percentages around all you want and act like they mean something....simpler math...you lost. One good thing....the people are at least trying to take back control. I love how progressives always paint with such a broad brush...everyone voting for Brexit or Trump are full of hate, fear, racism, pick your ism....and everyone voting as they do are for peace, love, and the children. It's just not that simple even though you folks like to act as though it is.
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..............throw your stinking polls out.....blah, blah, blah, blah......expert this.....blah, blah, blah......
Last couple of nights saw some Trump ads and some Hillary ads. I thought they were brillant. Both of them. After watching either ad..........who would want to vote for the other?
There are enough people full of hate and fear to fill both sides......that is just how we are.....everywhere and for happily ever after I would imagine......but for the election.....The hate comes from hating what we have become, the fear is from being afraid of where we are going.....but I don't think it is anything new.......just amplified.......but to think we will vote outside of our interests......you, me, Joe, Sally..........nope. Don't think so.
Post by: tautologies on November 03, 2016, 05:03:54 PM
"It looks like the markets are starting to price in an increased risk of Trump becoming president. Why this doesn't get people who thinks Trump to be good for the economy to rethink I do not know."
I can answer that for myself, I'm expecting the market to take a dip, it usually does before an incumbent or the incumbent party is about to be voted out.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-01/one-poll-that-isn-t-going-clinton-s-way-is-the-u-s-stock-market
Not sure if that is true. I think the article pretty much supports my argument. You might be agreeing with me.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-03/another-norm-breaks-in-political-season-as-stocks-drop-into-vote
Quote
But my holdings should be fine in the long run, and that's really what counts, so I'm fine,,,,,,,,,,,, Brexit style, you could say.
So you mean screw the world and everyone in it, as long as you aren't impacted? ;-)
Also Not sure if Brexit style is hat proves your asset being fine..unless you short.
Post by: surf4food on November 03, 2016, 06:31:26 PM
So if I were a US citizen right now I wouldn't see Brexit as anything but a considerable potential threat to my financial security. It's an unholy mess, and it's getting worse every day. In time the consequences of the Brexit vote by a plumber in Wales will have a direct impact on the ability of a taxi driver in New York to buy his kids toys at Christmas. That is how the world's economy works these days. We are all interconnected.
I certainly don't think there's anything fine about it (Brexit), but what ever trickle down impact it has from your side of Atlantic to ours, there's really not a damn thing we can do about it over here other than accept the hand that's been laid out. Combine that with our own shit I can honestly say I'm glad I never had kids. My closest friend from high school jokes he should have worn condoms;) Not really a joking matter but what can you do?
Post by: surf4food on November 03, 2016, 06:38:34 PM
Brexit is easier to understand than Trump though, because there were fewer reasons for it. The people who voted for Brexit were overwhelmingly older white males, especially poorer older white males. A substantial proportion just wanted to "wreck the system" out of a general anarchist type sentiment borne of boredom and frustration.
of expert opinion. And that is the most worrying thing about this new transatlantic trend IMO. I am reminded of G.K. Chesterton's adage that "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing they believe in anything." Only in this case it's "when people stop believing in experts, they don't believe nothing, they believe in anything".
As you stated, the reasons for Trump's appeal is a bit more complex, but your very words about Brexit bare a striking similarity to a good chunk of Trump supporters. Not all but still quite a few. Some truly believe he is a gift from Heaven that will make everything better and others simply are voting from him to keep Hillary out.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 03, 2016, 07:12:40 PM
I'm torn by the biggest issue behind all the issues. Globalism...at a macro level I think it is absolutely essential to the future of the human race. In the here and now and for the foreseeable future it means significant pain for large numbers of my fellow Americans. I don't like Hillary Clinton's vision for it.
Post by: surf4food on November 03, 2016, 07:42:18 PM
Post by: Quickbeam on November 04, 2016, 12:02:29 AM
Some of the more extreme Trump supporters honestly terrify me. I actually come across some who plan on buying an arsenal of weapons and ammo in the event that Clinton wins. I've had to unfriend many on FB not because they are voting for him in and of itself but because they actually PMed me (somehow assuming I won't be voting for Hillary even though I never post anything political or respond to people who do on either side) wanting to know if I am interested in jointing their "coalition" to start a revolt if Clinton wins. I've never in my 55 years ever came across anything like this in any election year. I know for a fact they don't represent the majority of people who will vote for Trump but I'm still astonished on how many have just lost it. Angry, full of fear, full of hate and a genuine desire to cause suffering to any who are objects of their hate. On one end I just want to laugh in their face but that can have consequences. Many say they will be glad when this election is over, but I worry to some degree abut the immediate aftermath. If Trump wins, I'm quite sure there will be hostile and violent backlash as well.
Wow. This is so scary. You hear rumours of it, and you hear of it in the news, but to have someone who has actually experienced this first hand is unbelieveable. No wonder you say these people terrify you.
Your story brings to mind a similar incident my wife and I had happen to us many years ago when we were first married. We were on our first vacation together at a Club Med in Mexico. It was group seating for meals so at dinner one night we had a gentleman from one of the southern U.S. states at our table. We had not met him before, and when we went to sit down he stood up and pulled out a chair for my wife. Our initial thought was, what a nice guy. A real southern gentleman. During the course of our meal he was very polite and again, a real southern gentleman. Only problem was that he started telling us about how he and a number of his friends were ready for the black uprising. He told us about the munitions he had stored away and said his friends had done the same. He was ex military and I’m no gun expert but he was talking about serious fire power. And he wasn’t kidding. He was quite serious and just seemed to think this was normal conversation. Needless to say my wife and I stayed away from him for the rest of our vacation time, but it really shook us.
I know my story isn’t political, and I don’t mean to distract from your story. I suppose I’m just trying to empathize a bit because I know how frightening that kind of talk can be, especially when you have every reason to believe it’s real.
Best of luck to yourself, and all of you in the U.S. as you go through this very difficult election.
Post by: Area 10 on November 04, 2016, 12:40:50 AM
Worryingly, I was talking to one of my US students yesterday, and he was saying that he thought that lots of people have been so disgusted by both candidates that they just won't vote - and that this will be particularly the case amongst younger voters. This is how we ended up with Brexit - the youngsters (who were overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the EU) didn't vote. Of course, democracy needs the normal checks and balances of all parts of the population participating in the vote.
He also said that he gets a different view of the US election and the issues through the media here in Europe than he did in the US. His view was that there is very much more editing and censorship in the US coverage, so he and his friends just weren't hearing a lot of the stuff we in Europe are while he was in the US. This might account for some of the differences in opinions expressed here, perhaps.
Post by: yugi on November 04, 2016, 04:23:53 AM
...
He also said that he gets a different view of the US election and the issues through the media here in Europe than he did in the US. His view was that there is very much more editing and censorship in the US coverage, so he and his friends just weren't hearing a lot of the stuff we in Europe are while he was in the US. This might account for some of the differences in opinions expressed here, perhaps.
This, my dear US based friends, is unfortunately more true than you care to realize or even imagine.
Not so much that other content is unavailable (or actually censored) but rather the very effective flooding of just one angle.
The hope was that internet would make all sources of information available. All this information is available and isn't censored in the US. It's the constant inundation of one angle of news and opinion which is so pervasive and effective that even people with access to other sources don't go and and consult them and, worse, that they are lead to believe that other opinion/versions aren't valid.
I grew up on the corner of 4 countries so classic broadcast TV and radio from those 4 countries was available plus some US and UK channels. So I was also attuned to the very different spin, selection and angle each nation would portray. Depending on the powers behind the TV channels.
Those with less exposure to these realities just aren't aware of the spin within which they form their opinions.
Post by: lucabrasi on November 04, 2016, 04:37:27 AM
Some of the more extreme Trump supporters honestly terrify me. I actually come across some who plan on buying an arsenal of weapons and ammo in the event that Clinton wins. ..........of course. Who wouldn't they? From what I see tho........far more so when Obama was running, especially the first time. Maybe I got blinders on, I don't know.
Yes, I too now think that since Trump has legitimised certain behaviours from certain sections of the population (on both sides, probably), it is going to be difficult to put the genie back in the bottle no matter what the outcome.I don't think he has legitimized anything really other than we need a different party that is really taken seriously or is relevant or whatever you want to call it. A different way to get the candidates we have this Tuesday. The behavior and/or bozos you refer to there, as well as the extreme supporters have always been there..........and always will. The "success" he has to have gotten to this point........was always............attractive? always there? He is just the one that has brought out the disgust we have with how our government has evolved.......
blah, blah, blah, blah,
We got twitter now tho..........and all that other stuff.
I still hoping that whoever wins it does something for the partisan ways of congress. It might do that if nothing else.
This I find interesting and trying to wrap my head around it.........oh boy.......shouldn't do that....This, my dear US based friends, is unfortunately more true than you care to realize or even imagine.
He also said that he gets a different view of the US election and the issues through the media here in Europe than he did in the US. His view was that there is very much more editing and censorship in the US coverage, so he and his friends just weren't hearing a lot of the stuff we in Europe are while he was in the US. This might account for some of the differences in opinions expressed here, perhaps.
Post by: Admin on November 04, 2016, 04:49:17 AM
You are missing the defining factor of this election. It is not that the other side does not understand your message, its that they do. They hear what you are saying about Trump and they like it. They want it. Explaining your points with increasing fervor will not educate them out of their opinion. It reinforces it.
That does not refer to all of the Trump support, it is more complex than that and there are a few key groups that are backing Trump that have very different interests. On the whole, however, they either like what you detest or have decided that they will overlook it for other interests (perceived financial benefit, blocking Hillary, Guns, Right to life, Obamacare, perceived military strength, etc).
Post by: Area 10 on November 04, 2016, 05:21:53 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on November 04, 2016, 05:39:47 AM
A recent quote from Julian Assange...of course now that he is a left wing pariah it's all meaningless to them.
“My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment,” said Assange. “Banks, intelligence, arms companies, foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and the journalists themselves.”
Post by: lucabrasi on November 04, 2016, 05:55:39 AM
It is not that the other side does not understand your message, its that they do. They hear what you are saying about Trump and they like it. They want it. Explaining your points with increasing fervor will not educate them out of their opinion. It reinforces it.winner, winner, chicken dinner.
Donald Trump is simply the American version of the giant middle finger that the people are giving the political elite all over the world.As simple as it gets and obvious from the get go. What else needs to be said? How many different ways does it need said? What is there not to get?
Post by: Admin on November 04, 2016, 06:27:39 AM
The Blow It Up vote that you have been reading about is real. It is not the entirety of Trump support but it is very real. Republicans have been more subtly courting an angry corner of America for a long while and Trump has enlivened, expanded, and will deliver that group. These people love the belligerence and audacity that you are speaking of. Everything he gets away with thrills them. His rudeness, meanness, indifference are vicarious joy for many. A promise that he will indeed disrupt the structures of power as they stand. Disliking that does not change it. It took us too long to accept what this was and it made us ineffective at dealing with it.
What may be more interesting is the other groups that make up the Republican Party that for reasons other than the above have been (or have become) willing to overlook the factors that you have described. Here are some key ingredients:
Clinton hate - Many would rather chew off a limb than vote for a Clinton
Financial - The perceived financial benefit of having a Republican (if not particularly Trump) at the helm.
Babies - All but unswayable.
Guns - as above.
Military Strength - Perception that a Republican in power equals strong military, big military budget, strength, world power, safety.
Obamacare detractors - Vitriol goes here.
Immigration - Hot button issue. Often espoused by the blow it up group but the primary concern for many who fall outside of that group as well.
Post by: Area 10 on November 04, 2016, 07:04:35 AM
You say support for Clinton is understandable....because that's your bias. You like what she is selling.You are quite wrong: you are mistaking my use of the word "understandable" as meaning "more sympathetic to" or "aligns with my views more easily". I have no dog in this fight. I agree entirely with what seems to be the opinion of many US citizens (or at least, the ones who speak with me), which is that in any other election neither of these candidates would stand a chance of being elected. It's just a freak occurrence that two of the most unpopular people ever to stand for POTUS have come together at the same time. I suppose that on statistical grounds it had to happen sometime.
Instead, the reason I say that support for Clinton is "understandable" is principally because Hillary represents the status quo. It's the same old same old. And it is easy for me to understand that some people might be afraid of change, especially if they are doing OK themselves.
By contrast, it is more interesting to try to understand what those people who want change want, and why they want it. That is why my focus of attention is principally on Trump not Clinton. I don't find anything much interesting about Clinton standing for POTUS. It has a boring inevitability about it, from an outsider's perspective. I don't know who I'd vote for if I was a US citizen since I am not one, so don't really understand the nuances of what is happening. That is what I am trying to find out in this thread, and I have to thank you all a lot for educating me. I do think I understand what is going on in the most powerful country in the world *a little* better through having interacted with you all through this thread, and I really appreciate that. You've got a tough choice: between a self-confessed sexual predator, or the enabler (possibly) of a self-confessed sexual predator. That's a pretty grim choice frankly, and I don't envy you whichever way you vote.
Post by: surf4food on November 04, 2016, 07:31:13 AM
Post by: yugi on November 04, 2016, 08:11:58 AM
...
Support for Clinton is fairly understandable (even if lukewarm or by default), but it is fervent Trump support that those of us outside the US find so fascinating. The guy is
...
You're using logic! It's not that simple.
Stoney is on it.
…
Donald Trump is simply the American version of the giant middle finger that the people are giving the political elite all over the world.
…”
and the reason Trump supporters know the world is going to hell is: Trump told them.
Here's a short summary...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgk4358L3Nw&feature=youtu.be&t=1m12s
Post by: Off-Shore on November 04, 2016, 08:18:17 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on November 04, 2016, 08:32:02 AM
Post by: Quickbeam on November 04, 2016, 09:31:15 AM
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html
Post by: lucabrasi on November 04, 2016, 03:44:47 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfuF3uJKsQU
this is the first one I saw a few years ago. I showed my kids this and they showed me one with Michael Jackson. There's a few out there. I still like this one the best but.....it's probably not too universal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h7Hlr9Ztag
this popped up in the menu just now when that ended......looks like there are lots.
Have fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEKUIOURVRw
Post by: stoneaxe on November 04, 2016, 08:22:33 PM
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/04/elon-musk-robots-will-take-your-jobs-government-will-have-to-pay-your-wage.html
Post by: Area 10 on November 04, 2016, 11:56:24 PM
Sky news: "Mr Trump traces his roots back to the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides. [Scotland, UK.]
His mother, Mary Anne Trump, nee MacLeod, lived in the small Gaelic-speaking village of Tong before leaving for the United States in 1930, aged 18.
There, she married Fred Trump, the son of German immigrants, and Donald is one of their five children."
Post by: Area 10 on November 05, 2016, 03:58:07 AM
Sky news: "...it has been reported that Mr Trump's wife Melania may have worked in the US as a model without the correct visa.
According to accounting ledgers, contracts and related documents from 20 years ago provided to the Associated Press, Mrs Trump was paid for 10 modelling jobs worth more than $20,000 that occurred in the seven weeks before she had legal permission to work in the US."
All-American beauty queens everywhere should be up in arms ;)
Make America beautiful again! (By importing illegal labour...)
Post by: Weasels wake on November 05, 2016, 08:54:31 AM
Post by: Area 10 on November 05, 2016, 10:43:12 AM
Just say it A10, "I'm glad I don't live in your country".Haha! Well, I'm not proud of what is going in politically in my own right now. We have a similar kind of thing going on in many ways - but you are doing it bigger and brasher that's all ;)
Post by: Admin on November 06, 2016, 03:12:11 AM
It really may not matter.....
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/04/elon-musk-robots-will-take-your-jobs-government-will-have-to-pay-your-wage.html
This will be the issue of the next 50 years. How, exactly it will play out no one knows. It is an issue, however, that government should be discussing and planning for right now. The impact that robotics and machine intelligence has already had on our workforce and economy is profound and yet in terms of action and discussion it is a ghost. Neither Trump nor Clinton are nearly well versed enough in technology.
A quote from the Mathemician IJ Good from the 1960's (worked with the Turing team, etc):
Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an “intelligence explosion,” and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control.
Post by: Area 10 on November 06, 2016, 04:23:23 AM
So, certainly many simple repetitive jobs will be replaced by robots. But this will mean more jobs designing, maintaining, purchasing, installing, selling, assessing etc them, and there is never any likely prospect of an AI being put in a position of authority over humans. So for sure there will be a change in the nature of jobs on offer, but this is no different from how it has been for us for the last 100 years in particular.
There actually isn't such a thing as "intelligence". It's just an idea. And not a very clever one at that, ironically. Clever is as clever does, and all we have are a massive set of disparate abilities in which we all differ. You can create AIs that can mimic aspects of these abilities and be better at humans at certain very well-circumscribed activities. But we are a very long way away from creating anything that is even halfway as competent as a human in anything more than a few of the human's thousands (probably) of different abilities. That isn't going to change since we don't understand human abilities well enough to be able to do so, and that is going to take hundreds of years to change at anything like our current rate of scientific advance, especially since the evidence seems to be that humans are now getting less creative not more. As ever, humans will be the limiting factor in robot advances.
So let's not get too carried away by all this robot marketing. As ever, if you are adaptable, open to new learning, and are able to get on well with your fellow humans, there will always be job opportunities for you, no matter how many robots there are. The introduction of electric kettles didn't make chefs redundant, and nor will robots that help with traffic control, driving etc. The nature of the jobs will change, that's all: as they always have been doing. And the idea of creating some super-AI that will create other super-AIs that will be "smarter" than humans is just science fiction. We aren't smart enough to know what smart is so can't make it happen. Chess computers aren't clever for instance. They are far far FAR dumber than the people who invented them, or the salesman who persuades you to buy one.
Post by: Admin on November 06, 2016, 05:16:37 AM
What you are describing is all based on Artificial Narrow Intelligence. Here is a digestible intro, but if you care to dig in Nick Bostrom's book, for one, is terrific. http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html . Even in an ANI only environment we would see massive impacts to the workplace. Your comments on the rate of advancement are far out of line with the scientific community.
Quote
The introduction of electric kettles didn't make chefs redundant, and nor will robots that help with traffic control, driving etc.
Autonomous driving will indeed replace/eliminate human driving jobs. Transportation as a whole will be transformed and likely will be hit first and hardest. This is an enormous industry and the concept that the group that is currently filling these jobs will find the alternate work has no merit. This is simply work that no longer requires human action, and the replacement work that you suggest is a minute fraction of the original set.
In terms of politics, two major factors in this election (hacks, ISIS) are entirely or largely technology based. New to this cycle we have an election that may well be determined by international hacks and we are fighting a threat which organizes, recruits, and could be neutered by technologies that neither of our candidates have even a basic understanding of. That should be immensely concerning, but it is a non-topic.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 06, 2016, 05:23:44 AM
We aren't talking about the invention of electric kettles, we're talking about the invention of electric chefs.
Post by: Area 10 on November 06, 2016, 06:15:41 AM
So don't worry. It won't turn out to be anything like as much as a revolution as you think.
Post by: Area 10 on November 06, 2016, 06:42:07 AM
Hi Area,This is a topic about which I know a little because of the nature of my work. Everyone always overestimates the rate of scientific advance. Humans will always find a way to occupy themselves, and once jobs in driving have decreased new occupations doing other things will be created.
What you are describing is all based on Artificial Narrow Intelligence. Here is a digestible intro, but if you care to dig in Nick Bostrom's book, for one, is terrific. http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html . Even in an ANI only environment we would see massive impacts to the workplace. Your comments on the rate of advancement are far out of line with the scientific community.QuoteThe introduction of electric kettles didn't make chefs redundant, and nor will robots that help with traffic control, driving etc.
Autonomous driving will indeed replace/eliminate human driving jobs. Transportation as a whole will be transformed and likely will be hit first and hardest. This is an enormous industry and the concept that the group that is currently filling these jobs will find the alternate work has no merit. This is simply work that no longer requires human action, and the replacement work that you suggest is a minute fraction of the original set.
If you doubt this, consider that these days in the developed worłd we work longer hours than we did before eg. the invention of the computer and labour-saving devices. The view way back then was that by now we would all have huge amounts of leisure time and most people would only have to work a couple of hours a day. Well, it didn't work out that way, did it? And it won't in the future, either. As one door closes another opens.
So don't be afraid of the future. And don't be afraid of ISIS. Global warming however...hmm...
Post by: Admin on November 06, 2016, 06:50:47 AM
So don't be afraid of the future. And don't be afraid of ISIS. Global warming however...hmm...
Global Warming: Believe experts
Robotics/AI: Don't believe experts
Got it.
Post by: LaPerouseBay on November 06, 2016, 07:11:42 AM
Hi Area,
What you are describing is all based on Artificial Narrow Intelligence. Here is a digestible intro, but if you care to dig in Nick Bostrom's book, for one, is terrific. http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html . Even in an ANI only environment we would see massive impacts to the workplace. Your comments on the rate of advancement are far out of line with the scientific community.
/
I'm a firm believer in the AI revolution. The exponential growth is on track. Has been for decades. No stopping it.
Found an interview with Elon Musk a few months ago. He was on for about an hour, with some smart people that let him talk without interruption. So refreshing.
They had a marvelous discussion about the tech revolution leading up to the jump, and the steps that should be taken to build in safety, now. Without those safeguards, the first group to get AGI/ASI will have unstoppable power.
Elon said we should be concerned with who gets it first, because of the immense power that group will have.
The discussion was mainly about industry, but they skirted around politics a bit. It's all the same today anyhow, but it was brutal to see Elon squirm.
The interviewer pushed pretty hard to get Elon to say whom he was concerned with, but he wouldn't say.
Who the hell was Elon worried about? Any informed guesses?
Post by: stoneaxe on November 06, 2016, 07:13:47 AM
Post by: Area 10 on November 06, 2016, 12:00:51 PM
Anyway, the things you are talking about will only happen in any case if you let it happen. Elon Musk isn't going to make all cabbies unemployed unless you let him. Use your vote.
So relax guys, you are right to be mindful of these things, but the world isn't going to turn into The Terminator just yet.
But the thing implicit in what you have said that I agree with is that it is the country who has the best boffins that is the safest. It always was the case, really: your best defence are your scientists. But it is even more true these days. This means that the countries with the best universities will always come out on top. So if you want to feel secure, put your tax dollars into education more than guns.
Post by: Quickbeam on November 06, 2016, 02:04:12 PM
So if you want to feel secure, put your tax dollars into education more than guns.
I'm sure we could start an entirely new topic on this one, but I absolutely agree with you!
Post by: PonoBill on November 06, 2016, 02:28:25 PM
Who the hell was Elon worried about? Any informed guesses?
Google in general, Eric Schmidt in particular.
Actually the problem is both scientific and technological. On the technology side, we're not far off. There's enough processing power in even relatively small parallel arrays to do the job. Given the current immense storage capabilities and really cheap supercomputing there will be a lot of machines that outperform humans at a lot of tasks. Driving is just one of them. Most of the useful AI research is focused on Deep Learning, which doesn't really yield artificial intelligence and/or likely result in something self aware. It yields intelligent machines that can learn designated tasks with superhuman skill.
The scenario I see as most likely is that bullshit jobs go away first. That might be a threat to you if that's all you can do, but for most people it frees up resources. If you really love staring out the window during your one hour commute, being rammed from behind by someone texting, then you're going to be unhappy. Most people will see that as an improvement to their lives. There will also be a lot better diagnosis--of everything from the problem with your computer, your car, or your town traffic, to what's going on with your gall bladder. More data, better processing, superhuman skill. A lot of money, time, and lives saved right there. Even with good professionals, the performance boost will be enormous. With the modest talent level that the world really has, the boost will be enormous.
Want to fix global warming, go to mars, end a drought? There's your best bet. Superhuman analysis.
Yup, this can all go very wrong. We've had the ability to end life on the planet for about 70 years now. We've struggled like mad to control access to that ability, with some success--though having them in the hands of North Korea and Pakistan is not exactly what anyone wanted. But everyone understands the existential danger--even those who don't have nukes and want them. AI, or more to the point--deep learning machines--won't be so easy to recognize as a threat.
This is all coming whether we like it or not. Develop it here or watch it get developed there. In my estimation, we're headed for unparalleled prosperity. Huge amounts of work to do, and huge benefits from doing it well. It's not really a matter of "unknown unknowns", the problems facing human life on earth are fairly clear, or at least seem definable. I think elon Musk has done a pretty good job of that. But certainly we can screw that up. Look at the title of this thread. Who would have thought we'd be here, faced with two candidates that the overwhelming number of voters do not want. If there were a choice to effectively vote for neither and have that stick, I think we'd all breathe a sigh of relief and push the START OVER WITH TWO NEW CANDIDATES button, even if we had to listen to another six months of bullshit.
Post by: SaMoSUP on November 06, 2016, 02:48:25 PM
As Area10 has expressed very eloquently, we don't know what we don't know yet when it comes to human intelligence. So how can a bunch of dumb ass 10% brain using humans (even though they are geniuses relatively speaking) program something smarter than itself. Kind of ironic...or moronic.
The real robots I think are Trump and Clinton.
Post by: Admin on November 06, 2016, 03:13:01 PM
All this robots and AI talk and yet we're still using keyboards to type information. Speech to text recognition has very slowly progressed. And you think AI could progress quicker?
Except that you can now translate your speech to text in 80 languages, with machine learning enhancements, through a cheap microphone, wirelessly, over the internet, for free, from anywhere on the planet, in near realtime. https://cloud.google.com/speech/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=2015-q2-cloud-na-solutions-bkws-freetrial-en&gclid=CIr1z-yfldACFc5hfgodhrcN-Q
What was the state of speech to text conversion when you were born?
Post by: PonoBill on November 06, 2016, 03:48:08 PM
Look at the voicemail transcription beta that I can't figure out how to turn off on my iPhone. the feedback is binary (useful/not) but the input data is all the voicemail from all the iphone users in the beta.
Remember when you look at all this stuff that Deep Learning as currently being developed was more or less invented in 2015. Or arguably and in its most primitive form in 2012. Stand by.
Post by: SaMoSUP on November 06, 2016, 05:20:28 PM
Yes only recently has speech recognition been useful enough, thanks to crowdsourcing of data for machine learning. But it took many decades. Sure it's adequate for transcribing voice mail and sure it's good enough for the intelligence agencies to track all our voice calls.
And yes you can now translate your speech to text in 80 languages, with machine learning enhancements, through a cheap microphone, wirelessly, over the internet, for free, from anywhere on the planet, in near realtime but it's still not very accurate. And grammar is still kinda sketchy especially across languages. I find translating Chinese to English requires a lot of grammatical re-interpretation.
I think the slow adoption is not so much because people don't like to change, it's other factors as well.
Let me give a personal example: (I'm actually a fan of speech recognition tech but annoyed with inaccuracies)
I bought an Xbox One + Kinect because of the voice and gesture command features that would be great for controlling my home entertainment system. I wanted to CHANGE how I interact and control my system. So not wanting to change is not the issue here.....
Here's the issue...
I say "Xbox On!" and my TV, Receiver, Cable Box, Xbox console all turn on...GREAT!! Except it works about 70% of the time. I must sound like an idiot to my neighbors when I'm yelling "Xbox On" over and over and over again. Sometimes it's just easier to pick up the remote and press the buttons.
Same scenario above when I say "Xbox turn OFF". Sometimes it's just easier to pick up the remote and press the buttons.
I say "Xbox Watch CNBC" and half the time it gets it right, other times it ends up on CNN or NBC or TNT. Sometimes it's just easier to pick up the remote and press the buttons.
I say "Xbox Order Domino's Pizza" and the damn pizza always shows up cold and stale!
Post by: Admin on November 07, 2016, 01:14:46 AM
I am a scientist. So I know exactly how fast we go. And it's pretty slow. Technology moves fast, but the scientific principles we need to be effecting the kinds of change you guys are envisaging proceed surprisingly slowly. They are tough problems and require a huge amount of creativity and experimentation to solve. You are conflating technological advance with scientific advance. They are not the same thing. Building a truly smart AI is a scientific problem not a technological one. I work alongside some of the most sophisticated theoretical (ie. computational) neuroscientists in the world. They are still a very long way away from building a "machine brain", and they are the best in the business. The kinds of things you are seeing robots that have been made to look like humans doing are just parlour games, really. They are marketing tools for technology. And then there are those people who want to scare you about the future for their own political purposes. Project fear. The easiest way to extract money out of people, and get their support. So now instead of "immigrants are coming to take your jobs" it's "robots are coming to take your jobs".
Anyway, the things you are talking about will only happen in any case if you let it happen. Elon Musk isn't going to make all cabbies unemployed unless you let him. Use your vote.
So relax guys, you are right to be mindful of these things, but the world isn't going to turn into The Terminator just yet.
But the thing implicit in what you have said that I agree with is that it is the country who has the best boffins that is the safest. It always was the case, really: your best defence are your scientists. But it is even more true these days. This means that the countries with the best universities will always come out on top. So if you want to feel secure, put your tax dollars into education more than guns.
Technological advancement and scientific advancement are inextricably linked. Technology by definition is the application of science for practical purposes. The rate of scientific advancement is equally linked to technological capability. The computational neuroscientists that you work alongside didn't have a field prior to the 1980's. Where was the broader neuroscience prior to the invention of the microscope? Crickets for a couple thousand years. It is an enviable graph. Don't fight it.
In regards to robots and software replacing human jobs, this is one of those issues where outside opinion is not required. We see it in own workflows, workplaces and industries. It is not a future issue. We also see the replacement work that many of the replaced are finding. Largely working more hours at lesser jobs for stagnant or decreasing wages. As technology is advancing, new sectors and micro-sectors of are replaced. This has been the case for some time now but the comments above reflect the state of the tech that is now either recently online or very soon to be online. I don't detect an alarmist tone in this message from most who are actually considering it. Rather they recognize the need to plan for what is happening and for the accelerated rate at which it will continue...and they see that our current leadership is functionally avoiding the subject. The comment that technological job replacement is being used as a political fear tactic is incorrect. In reality the subject has zero volume.
I say "Xbox Watch CNBC" and half the time it gets it right, other times it ends up on CNN or NBC or TNT. Sometimes it's just easier to pick up the remote and press the buttons.
I know. Tech is freaking crawling. The little beauty below was state of the art just 80 years ago. Snapchat was so sluggish on that thing. Where's my emoji bar?
(http://images.computerhistory.org/timeline/timeline_computers_1937.modelk.jpg)
Post by: Area 10 on November 07, 2016, 04:01:03 AM
Technological advancement and scientific advancement are inextricably linked. Technology by definition is the application of science for practical purposes. The rate of scientific advancement is equally linked to technological capability. The computational neuroscientists that you work alongside didn't have a field prior to the 1980's. Where was the broader neuroscience prior to the invention of the microscope? Crickets for a couple thousand years. It is an enviable graph. Don't fight it.I'm certainly not fighting it - I am a part of it. But what I mean is that people expect science to move ridiculously quickly, whereas advance is a steady but necessarily incremental process with many checks and balances. For instance, have carried out two experiments in my career that have taken 10 years just to collect the data, never mind publish and then be replicated by other groups. Of course not all experiments take that long. But some of the most critical ones do - and longer - if you are tackling the hard problems.
You are right that technology and scientific advance are inextricably bound up with each other. But it is the science that is the limiting factor time-wise, which was my point. The timelines that you are talking about from e.g. Phineas Gage (a famous patient from the 1850s who suffered frontal lobe damage and became a window onto what the functions of the frontal lobes were for humans) to modern computational neuroscience "neural networks" that attempt to mimic frontal lobe functions is super-quick in terms of the overall development of the human race. But I doubt many non-scientists would consider 150 years as fast.
The other thing is the resources involved. If you gave me the money I could assemble a team of colleagues who could make voice recognition software that would be pretty much faultless. We could make those niggly problems history. But that would cost a LOT of money, and it would still take at least 5 years, and at the end the product might be good for e.g. military applications where money is no object, but it probably wouldn't be cost effective for the everyday Joe wanting to speak into their iphone.
In this way (and thousands of others), both technology and science exist in a social context, and that context is what sets the limits of what can occur. That social context is created by you and me and everyone else. The scientists who are doing the work are also just ordinary people like us, who also want a society that works for them and their families. There aren't hoards of evil boffins sitting in secret laboratories creating things every week that might endanger the world. Indeed, usually it is the scientists who are more cautious than the rest of the population.
So there will be time to adjust to any changes that come along. You can relax. Elon Musk is not going to create Skynet next week that is going to make everyone redundant, and allow ISIS to kill your children. When he makes these warnings:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/11/07/elon-musk-pay-a-universal-income-because-robots-will-take-all-ou/
he is right to open an agenda to ask how society will respond to increases in robots. But he is thinking aloud, and many who have gone before him have also made similar predictions and yet here we still are - the world did not come to and end. Robots haven't taken over. And amazingly, just because he's a successful businessman this does not mean that he is an all-seeing god who can predict the future. He will be continually pushed by the media to come up with something so that they can all scare you just like the media did when cars were invented, or plastic, or transistors etc etc. He needs to keep his "brand" alive (because he is becoming a brand just like Richard Branson is) and so he responds with some futuristic speculations to keep people talking about him. In particular, he is looking for support (probably financial) for his OpenAI project (and the best way to do that is to scare people a little). Inevitably, some people see the new possibilities and directions he is talking about as a positive thing, to be looked forward to. And then there are others who just see messages of change, and get frightened by it.
Internet-enabled mobile phones were just a science fiction fantasy when I was a kid. Now everyone has one, and it is changing the way we interact with each other, and many other aspects of our lives. The combination of the interweb (and especially in combination with the technology that has made it mobile) is arguably the largest technological advance the human race has ever seen. It has removed whole rafts of jobs in many sectors. But there are not hoards of unemployed people as a consequence. It has created new markets and jobs and possibilities. And so will robots. They will be seamlessly integrated into our crappy lives just like everything else. And next decade there will be another Musk-type character warning that Skynet is going to kill your pets and throw you on the scrapheap. By then you will be having long existential arguments with your fridge, which has just sent data about your cheese habit to your medical insurers. But before long you and everyone else will pull the plug on the fridge, move insurers, and the problem will be solved. No more existential arguments with your AI fridge. End of the robot fridge revolution. The fridge manufacturers will then sell the technology to a prosthetic limb manufacturer, which will then go on to benefit many people with profound disabilities. Everyone likes that, so that use of the technology survives. Society has made its choice. This is your future, embrace it :)
Post by: lucabrasi on November 07, 2016, 04:33:03 AM
......... By then you will be having long existential arguments with your fridge, which has just sent data about your cheese habit to your medical insurers. But before long you and everyone else will pull the plug on the fridge, move insurers, and the problem will be solved. No more existential arguments with your AI fridge. End of the robot fridge revolution. The fridge manufacturers will then sell the technology to a prosthetic limb manufacturer, which will then go on to benefit many people with profound disabilities. Everyone likes that, so that use of the technology survives. Society has made its choice. This is your future, embrace it :)hahahahahaha.
(pulling the plug on the fridge is a whole other topic tho and kind of fits in this thread)
From Pono.
"It yields intelligent machines that can learn designated tasks with superhuman skill."
These are the parlor games.
and again.....not even close to parlor games.
"Yup, this can all go very wrong. We've had the ability to end life on the planet for about 70 years now. We've struggled like mad to control access to that ability, with some success--though having them in the hands of North Korea and Pakistan is not exactly what anyone wanted. But everyone understands the existential danger--even those who don't have nukes and want them. AI, or more to the point--deep learning machines--won't be so easy to recognize as a threat."
Too much to us.......
Just simply amazing what we can do and downright scary to think where we are going.
Both of those go off in many different veins with the later branching out for more so I think.
Is the bean counter or whoever in the cubicle........thousands of miles away from where his decision is being implemented a comparison to AI?
Alexa......what is the forecast for today?
Post by: Admin on November 07, 2016, 05:43:53 AM
You are right that technology and scientific advance are inextricably bound up with each other. But it is the science that is the limiting factor time-wise, which was my point. The timelines that you are talking about from e.g. Phineas Gage (a famous patient from the 1850s who suffered frontal lobe damage and became a window onto what the functions of the frontal lobes were for humans) to modern computational neuroscience "neural networks" that attempt to mimic frontal lobe functions is super-quick in terms of the overall development of the human race. But I doubt many non-scientists would consider 150 years as fast.
And yet even non-scientists can recognize that the chart which plots the rate of scientific advancement through Mr Gage's era (when life expectancy was 38 YO here in the USA) to the advent of the computer in the early 1940's was nearly flat by today's standard but began arcing slowly upwards to the late 1970's when the MRI first said, Tah dah, to the internet's introduction circa 1990, etc, etc.
Quote
The other thing is the resources involved. If you gave me the money I could assemble a team of colleagues who could make voice recognition software that would be pretty much faultless.
That won't be required. We have given our money to Google and they have done it for you (in the last 4 years of the 18 years they have been around)...speeding up now...but I need to remind myself, that is not science :)
Quote
The combination of the interweb (and especially in combination with the technology that has made it mobile) is arguably the largest technological advance the human race has ever seen. It has removed whole rafts of jobs in many sectors. But there are not hoards of unemployed people as a consequence."Unemployment" here requires you to be looking for a job. Many have simply given up on that.
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iTRhHHKvgkec/v0/-1x-1.png)
Post by: tautologies on November 07, 2016, 06:43:01 AM
You are right that technology and scientific advance are inextricably bound up with each other. But it is the science that is the limiting factor time-wise, which was my point.
I think it depends on many factors. In terms of NLP and ML, the algorithms today aren't that much more developed than what I was working on 15 years ago...those algorithms only became viable with the advent of big data and cheap computational resources. In this case I think technology was the limiting factor.
I can run simulations who's algorithms were invented a long time ago in seconds that used to be in a lot less complex state and would need exponentially more time. Another example of technology limited spread and development of new sciences.
Post by: Area 10 on November 07, 2016, 07:31:34 AM
Anyway, we are probably starting to stray a bit far from the original topic. There is going to be wall-to-wall media coverage of the US election results, and I'm going to binge on it, even though it means staying up all night, essentially.
Post by: SaMoSUP on November 07, 2016, 07:47:05 AM
Post by: PonoBill on November 07, 2016, 08:32:09 AM
More to the point of the current discussion, most of the machine learning stuff, including deep learning, which really is an important breakthrough, functions because the infrastructure is present to support them. The chips that most deep learning stuff runs on is from companies that built graphics cards, because high resolution graphics requires speed and parallel processing that general processing doesn't need. No scientist sat down and set the spec for that capability--the opportunity arose. Science proceeds linearly to a large degree, technology, and more importantly, technological implementation, grows geometrically. Two billion interconnected, sensor-packed, extraordinarily powerful computers in the pockets of people around the world should make that pretty clear.
As far as worrying about robots taking jobs, the concern is pointless. Not because it won't happen, but because it's inevitable. It's been going on for more than a hundred years. Any look back with rose-colored glasses at the good old days, when there were blue collar jobs that paid a living wage need a substantial dose of reality interjected. Being one of thousands of switchboard operators routing calls, or sewing bags in a factory, or even working in heavy manufacturing was dangerous, toxic, low paying work. There's plenty of that kind of work around, and people don't want to do it. I don't blame them. People forget what life was like 50 years ago--because many of you weren't alive then--or were very young. People didn't buy new cars. If they had one television they were lucky, if it was color they were rich. They lived in apartments, or if they were wealthier they lived in a duplex. Single family homes meant two well-paid earners with no more than two kids--or one doctor.
We talk about the american dream of a house and two cars as if it were an entitlement. What technology can bring is a level of prosperity for the world, not just 350 million people in the USA. Hinging the choices on whether or not bullshit jobs still exist is bullshit. Building what the world needs--cleaner tansportation, sustainable food production, sustainable power generation, greater efficiency, All worth a lot more than pick and place jobs.
Yes, people will have to adapt. That's actually the only thing we do better than robots, and I don't think that's going to change.
Oh, and Alexa has a very large number of earnest and generally useless responses for that. Like "I wish I could tell you, but unfortunately I can't see into the future."
Post by: Weasels wake on November 07, 2016, 08:33:22 AM
Dark days ahead for the candle makers! :-[
Post by: pdxmike on November 07, 2016, 09:39:26 AM
Dark days ahead for the candle makers! :-["Dark days.."? That's ironic. Their industry may have died off, but at least they've still got wikipedia.
Post by: Weasels wake on November 07, 2016, 09:43:27 AM
Post by: PonoBill on November 07, 2016, 10:20:38 AM
This is like all the terrifying hand wringing that was going on by the candle makers union back when that evil Thomas Edison invented the light bulb.
Dark days ahead for the candle makers! :-[
Actually, I stayed a couple of nights at a very cool house a few steps from the break at Rincon. First time I surfed it on a SUP (the surf was small but the experience was great). The owner is a candle-maker.
Post by: all~wet on November 07, 2016, 11:21:04 AM
9-5/m-f fast becoming hard to justify/sustain. Our mindset perhaps needs to change- rather than the priority being unlimited, perpetual growth for the sake of growth (which is what cancer is...) how about prioritizing improvement? Quality of life.
Post by: PonoBill on November 07, 2016, 02:46:04 PM
Post by: Quickbeam on November 07, 2016, 04:15:02 PM
So again, good luck to you all. May you choose wisely. And I think I can pretty safely say that the decision you make is being watched with interest, and some trepidation, by the rest of the world! :)
Post by: Dusk Patrol on November 07, 2016, 04:25:35 PM
...for what it's worth:
"World stock markets surge amid confidence Clinton will win US election" (The Guardian)
Post by: ericmichaels on November 07, 2016, 06:24:26 PM
"Unemployment" here requires you to be looking for a job. Many have simply given up on that.
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iTRhHHKvgkec/v0/-1x-1.png)
This is a common misleading talking point by the blame Obama people.
It is well established that this 3 point drop in the participation rate is largely due to demographics and other structural issues like large numbers of baby boomers retiring and more young people going to college and not entering the workforce. The rate was actually below 60% in the 1950's. It started a long term decline in 2000 and the BLS predicted it would decline for 40 years.
Of course during the depths of the recent recession some people were discouraged from looking for work but that was short lived and hasn't been the case for a few years. And even then was only a fraction of the cause of the decline.
Post by: PonoBill on November 07, 2016, 07:46:17 PM
Doesn't it seem kind of odd to be talking such gloom and doom with an unemployment rate of 4.9 percent and most states less than 4 percent? We're headed into the winter months in Hood River, which means seasonal employment is down, and there are help wanted signs everywhere. Pick a location and google "<your choice of place> labor shortage". I just did it for Portland, Oregon, and it's a big topic, a growing concern.
Here's an excerpt:» A lack of qualified candidates and lack of applicants were the top two reasons employers had trouble filling positions.
» Positions employers had the most difficulties filling included drivers (tractors and trucks), farmworkers and laborers, personal care and home health aides, and customer service representatives.
» Jobs that required post-secondary training, but not a college degree, were more difficult to fill.
» Employers in the Portland metro area had the least difficulty, while those in Northwest Oregon, the Willamette Valley and Eastern Oregon had the most difficulty.
But this issue isn’t limited to Oregon: Employers around the nation are struggling to find qualified employees, especially skilled trade workers for manufacturing and construction. And workforce trends indicate the shortage of skilled workers is likely to increase. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 50.6 million jobs will open between 2012 and 2022. More than 2/3 of these openings are to replace workers who permanently leave an occupation (such as baby boomers who will be retiring), and will likely be challenging to fill.
So seriously--what the fuck? Immigrants and robots are stealing the starter jobs?
I googled Boston Labor shortage--big issue in Massachusetts. Here's an article in line with what I've been saying--we're going to be paying people to come here.
http://www.businessinsider.com/labor-shortages-will-cost-10-trillion-2014-7
It's not just tech jobs, or nurses, or skilled laborers, it's all kinds of jobs. You can't get anyone to pick crops--even paying a living wage and providing free lunch and dinner. I don't want to do it, you don't want to do it. Who's gonna do it?
We have 350 million people trying to maintain the largest and most complex infrastructure in the world--and our population is going to start declining. Yeah, we need to worry about jobs, but not for the reasons you're talking about.
Post by: digger71 on November 07, 2016, 07:57:04 PM
This is a common misleading talking point by the blame Obama people.
It is well established that this 3 point drop in the participation rate is largely due to demographics and other structural issues like large numbers of baby boomers retiring and more young people going to college and not entering the workforce. The rate was actually below 60% in the 1950's. It started a long term decline in 2000 and the BLS predicted it would decline for 40 years.
Of course during the depths of the recent recession some people were discouraged from looking for work but that was short lived and hasn't been the case for a few years. And even then was only a fraction of the cause of the decline.
The more complete labor participation chart
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
Change the start dates to support your already established political leaning ;)
(http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS11300000_1948_2016_all_period_M10_data.gif)
Post by: PonoBill on November 07, 2016, 08:07:35 PM
50.6 million jobs opening over the next ten years.
Thirty million from people with lifelong skills retiring. Where the hell do you suppose we're going to get people to fill those jobs.
Post by: Area 10 on November 07, 2016, 09:12:44 PM
Just like us Brits need them. So what do we do? We cut ourselves off from our biggest labour market to try to reduce immigration... Because we are afraid that immigrants will take all the jobs that we are unwilling to do or are incapable of doing. So we end up working until we drop because there won't be enough younger people to support the ageing population. The demographics of the ageing developed world is startling - as is the difference with other countries where the population is overwhelmingly young. It really is quite a crisis - Japan for instance has it real bad.
Of course your politicians won't mention this because anyone saying that net immigration actually needs to increase because we haven't been having enough babies to compensate for the baby boomers is going to find themselves on the end of death threats and out of office. The politics of fear mean that some constructive debates about our future that need to happen, cannot.
Ok, so all that is left is to build robots. But robots don't pay taxes :)
Post by: Area 10 on November 08, 2016, 12:39:35 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/nov/06/troll-armies-social-media-trump-russian
Post by: Admin on November 08, 2016, 03:49:20 AM
Immigrants!
Just like us Brits need them. So what do we do? We cut ourselves off from our biggest labour market to try to reduce immigration... Because we are afraid that immigrants will take all the jobs that we are unwilling to do or are incapable of doing.
This may be the most embarrassing part of an election cycle that we (both sides - and it should be said) are very embarrassed of. It likely doesn't represent that way abroad but there is a large group of us in the US who value our immigrants, like their participation in our communities, and who recognize how positive their role in our country is.
Post by: Admin on November 08, 2016, 06:54:04 AM
Obama:
I tend to be on the optimistic side—historically we’ve absorbed new technologies, and people find that new jobs are created, they migrate, and our standards of living generally go up. I do think that we may be in a slightly different period now, simply because of the pervasive applicability of AI and other technologies. High-skill folks do very well in these systems. They can leverage their talents, they can interface with machines to extend their reach, their sales, their products and services.
Low-wage, low-skill individuals become more and more redundant, and their jobs may not be replaced, but wages are suppressed. And if we are going to successfully manage this transition, we are going to have to have a societal conversation about how we manage this. How are we training and ensuring the economy is inclusive if, in fact, we are producing more than ever, but more and more of it is going to a small group at the top? How do we make sure that folks have a living income? And what does this mean in terms of us supporting things like the arts or culture or making sure our veterans are getting cared for? The social compact has to accommodate these new technologies, and our economic models have to accommodate them.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 08, 2016, 07:51:08 AM
I voted early this morning. I had originally planned to write in Pono. Can't stand Trump, and despise Hillary's corruption and vision but since it's very likely not going to matter here in Massachusetts (Hillary will win here) I voted Trump in memory of my nephew who was a Trump supporter and didn't get a chance to vote. Silly but what's not this cycle?
Immigrants...great....all for them...just come here legally. I'm only against illegal immigration and the effect it has on native workers. The business insider article is a testament to the need for better immigration policies and that's it. Rampant illegal immigration is good for the bottom line....not so good for the workers. Illegal immigration is one of the forces behind the rich getting richer and the poor poorer. Did the Boston Consulting group report cited in that article take into account the rise of AI and robotics....doesn't look like it from what's reported.
Post by: SaMoSUP on November 08, 2016, 08:17:13 AM
"When a mysterious fog surrounds the boundaries of California, there is a communication breakdown and all the Mexicans disappear, affecting the economy and the state stops working missing the Mexican workers and dwellers.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377744/
Post by: PonoBill on November 08, 2016, 01:10:23 PM
I'll have to read that...sounds like an interesting interview.
I voted early this morning. I had originally planned to write in Pono. Can't stand Trump, and despise Hillary's corruption and vision but since it's very likely not going to matter here in Massachusetts (Hillary will win here) I voted Trump in memory of my nephew who was a Trump supporter and didn't get a chance to vote. Silly but what's not this cycle?
That funny, I almost did the same thing, same reason. I considered tossing my vote away in all possible ways. Writing in Putin, since he seems to have the most effective campaign. But I voted for Hillary, which will feel like a stain on my soul for the next four years.
Post by: Bean on November 08, 2016, 05:11:14 PM
Post by: freetobeme on November 08, 2016, 06:20:04 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on November 08, 2016, 08:30:21 PM
I'm watching it on CBS...the feeling of mourning/shock is palpable in the panel. President Trump with a GOP house and senate is their worse nightmare. One big loser here is the press....CBS keeps saying "it's amazing he never lead in any of the CBS polls" they don't even understand yet how clueless and partisan people see them. They've become insignificant, destroyed by their own hand.
I don't think it was possible to "win" the presidential election based on the choices we had, but hey, at least we'll be able to smoke weed legally here in Mass.
Post by: lucabrasi on November 08, 2016, 08:46:16 PM
"........older latino's........"
".......all the polling data......."
"........middle aged white men..."
".....the big urban areas are still not in......"
"..... a flaw in the constitution......"
".....we're unhappy......"
"......we're angry......."
"which is what we are watching tonight......"
".....these are the experts, the political scientists, here watching this right now........"
nbc reporters appear to be seriously panicking, cbs a bit more refined in it. Seems a lot of wavering voices.
fox and abc got scared off, they been local for half hour or so it seems with angry Richard Stallings in the studio.......boy he don't like Trump.
rather entertaining.
Can anyone really be that surprised?
Why the need to try and explain this shocking development.............it's close, he might win.
bunch of deplorables........
Post by: Zooport on November 08, 2016, 08:47:17 PM
Post by: TallDude on November 08, 2016, 10:20:50 PM
Post by: PDLSFR on November 08, 2016, 10:29:31 PM
Californian's can now "smoke two joints then smoke-two-joints and then smoke two more".
And so can we in Massachusetts!!!!!!!!!!
Post by: Area 10 on November 08, 2016, 11:36:46 PM
I think this is following Brexit pretty closely...the hidden Trump vote speaks.Yes, the whole thing (including the media reactions. polling inaccuracy etc) is extraordinarily similar, and it is the same demographic who have voted for Trump as voted for Brexit, and for similar reasons.
And the reaction of the stock market has been similar. So thanks for making us here in Europe more wealthy - our currency has been in decline since the Brexit vote but now it is strengthening because of the "Trump-it" vote so far. "It's an ill wind..." As the saying goes, I guess.
Basically, Brexit and Trump both look like the revolt of the "common man" against the political elite (and received wisdom), and have torn up the political rule books. This Anglo-US movement is going to be studied for a long time by historians, and the world's two largest economies are being forced by populist vote into the unknown.
We in Britain (and Europe) are still trying to come to terms with the huge divisions in society that the Brexit vote revealed, and then increased, exaggerated and encouraged. I hope you in the US can find a better way of dealing with your own version of this phenomenon that you are showing so far. The Brexit vote has exacerbated divisions in society rather than resolved them, and those divisions are increasing, with a shockingly high increase in reported hate crimes against minorities, attacks on public servants etc. So this seems to be the start of a social process of change and adjustment in attitudes rather than the resolution of them. It's difficult to know where this is going to end, or how. I hope you fare better, and that both sides can find a way to show tolerance and understanding towards the other, whatever side you are on. We are a long way from that unfortunately, at this particular point in history. So I wish you the best of luck.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 09, 2016, 12:01:19 AM
Post by: Ichabod Spoonbill on November 09, 2016, 01:09:01 AM
I posted this on Facebook in lieu of sleeping. I'm trying to be evenhanded, even though I'm obviously a flaming lib:
What's on mind are a few things — getting away from the obvious “How on earth did this happen?” to some deeper issues.
The Democratic Party has been drawing further and further away from people disadvantaged by today's economy. Their traditional blue-collar allies, trade unions, are at their lowest ebb in decades. Has the Democratic Party been working hard to help people in unions? (I know my own profession has been under siege since the days of George W. Bush, and Obama's policies have just worsened things.) Has the Democratic Party done serious help to assist communities deeply affected by changing economic fortunes? They have not.
Instead of looking at the real problem — capitalism running our society more and more, they allied themselves with capitalist forces. And that alliance worked pretty well for a while. It may have even saved the Dems during the Clinton years. The problem is that it also created a cancer. There are huge swaths of America who feel out of control of their fortunes — capitalist forces are very difficult to fight on the individual level. They're gasping for something, anything. They see every bit of progress by minorities as a threat to their own. They feel like their government doesn't respond to them — and it doesn't. Like us in 2008, they want hope. They want change. They want something new.
The mistake the Democrats party made was assuming Hilary's impressive resume was enough. I remember during the Democratic primary how the conflict was between Hilary's credentials and her proven ability to get things done and the populist message of Bernie Sanders. She would be the one to defeat whoever came her way. And that argument won the day, but behind it I always felt there was a fear of Bernie. There was a fear of letting that message of economic discontent to ring too loudly. It was dangerous and gauche. It wasn't one the Democrats wanted to face. Sure their younger voters (the very ones they needed so badly) were struggling under the weight of student loans, the cost of living, and poor job prospects, but what of it?
The problem when you don't offer people something positive and substantial to look forwards to, is that they tend to look elsewhere. Sure, I too was looking forwards to the first female president. That would have been pretty cool, but that wasn't driving me to the polls, and it sure the hell wasn't driving much of the rest of America. Sure, I saw (and fear for) damage to civil rights legislation.) That did drive me to the polls.) But so many felt like their democracy was not a government of the people any more. They weren't being helped. Their communities were stagnant. The new and the progressive was a threats because it didn't offer anything to them.
So this is where the Democratic Party is now. They've lost badly and now we will enter a “winter of discontent.” These will be strange times, being run by a man who cares little beyond himself. He told people what they wanted to hear. He gave them something to hold on to besides a resume. He promised to rebuild communities. He promised to bring back jobs. He also indulged oh-so-well the meanness of America, bringing it just to the point where things started getting out of hand, and then he'd bring things back. I wonder how much our new president will hold things back now? How many world leaders will he insult? How much international damage will he inflict out of ignorance? How many women will he grope? How many of his fellow Americans will he demean?
Because the Democrats have disregarded so many, they have unleashed the vast American id. Ignored for so long, it was bound to come out one way or another. I do hope our national tantrum ends sooner rather than later.
Post by: tautologies on November 09, 2016, 05:04:28 AM
I don't like Trump, but I hate Clinton. Our choice was between a windbag and a scumbag. I voted for the windbag just to vote against Clinton.
I suspect many did the same, and although (I am assuming) you are a white male (as I am), I think you'll regret your decision.
I doubt Trump will survive for very long in the Whitehouse, I do not think Pence is any better (but at least he will be able to shake hands without insulting people.
Also kiss your 401K goodbye if you have it. S&P futures is down 5% already.
Moving forward we'll see the same useless media pundit try to spin this into something normal but it isn't.
Post by: SaMoSUP on November 09, 2016, 05:44:13 AM
It's outdated to think in terms of Democrat and Republican anymore. Democrats aren't Democrats and Republicans aren't Republicans anymore. Heck Trump was a Democrat but ran as a Republican.
The Republican party fragmented due to the campaign and now the Democrats are going to fall apart with this loss. This election seems to indicate an evolution of old ideals or at least people wanting to break out of the box. It's time to redefine ideals. It's not just red or blue anymore. There's a whole big purple area.
Post by: yugi on November 09, 2016, 05:45:21 AM
Russia seems pleased.
'nuff sed
Post by: Bean on November 09, 2016, 06:04:31 AM
I don't like Trump, but I hate Clinton. Our choice was between a windbag and a scumbag. I voted for the windbag just to vote against Clinton.
I suspect many did the same, and although (I am assuming) you are a white male (as I am), I think you'll regret your decision.
I doubt Trump will survive for very long in the Whitehouse, I do not think Pence is any better (but at least he will be able to shake hands without insulting people.
Also kiss your 401K goodbye if you have it. S&P futures is down 5% already.
Moving forward we'll see the same useless media pundit try to spin this into something normal but it isn't.
The Dow which was also down 5% overnight has rebounded nicely for the opening, I suspect the S&P will be on track as well.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 09, 2016, 06:28:00 AM
I don't let the stock market influence how I vote, nor would I have much respect for anyone that has that as their prime motivator.
Most fun of the night was watching the media squirm....what a bunch of @#$%ing weasels.
Post by: Bean on November 09, 2016, 06:39:54 AM
The view from the outside can be resumed as follows:
Russia seems pleased.
'nuff sed
As well they should, the US needs to have a solid relationship with Russia. I would anticipate that new regime will improve the recently deteriorated relationship that had taken previous administrations on both sides of the aisle decades to build.
On a slightly smaller scale, it will be interesting to see how the election results affect our relationship with the Philippines this may be a good place for Trump to practice his foreign relations skills. Duterte has already sent his very warm regards.
Post by: SlatchJim on November 09, 2016, 08:06:55 AM
All those unpronounceable last names ...
Oh? Polls? Nevermind.
Post by: supdiscobay on November 09, 2016, 08:31:37 AM
Under the Bush/Obama administrations, the cost of my two sons college educations grew ridiculous. Thank god, my industry did well in the mid 2000's and then recovered from the recession well. With Obamacare, I saw my healthcare costs skyrocket and my coverage diminish. And what does it say about a president when under his watch, race relations have hit a level not seen in 40 years. The Black Lives Matter movement has done more to divide this country, than any other issue (IMHO).
I am angry at the status quo, and was not going to vote for HC, because the bottom line is that nothing would change if Hillary was elected. The democrats threw away a great chance in promoting change when Bernie Sanders lost the nomination. At least he spouted for change. Some I agreed with and most I did not, but he talked change. So did Hillary, but nobody believed her. She is the Status Quo in Washington. I don't know if if I would have voted for Bernie if he was nominated, but I would have strongly considered it. As opposed to Hillary, who I would have never voted for.
I am shocked and surprised by the outcome and I am worried about what comes next, but I am not fearful. We are and will continue to be a great country. I would not want to live anywhere else. (Except maybe Costa Rica) :)
Post by: SUPcheat on November 09, 2016, 08:55:29 AM
"Nassim Taleb on the Ruling Elites
(TL;DR, relevant quote: "When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences.")
The Intellectual Yet Idiot
What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.
But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligentsia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities — but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3 of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.
Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats who feel entitled to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They cant tell science from scientism — in fact in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types — those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior — much of what they would classify as “rational” or “irrational” (or some such categories indicating deviation from a desired or prescribed protocol) comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.) They are also prone to mistake the ensemble for the linear aggregation of its components as we saw in the chapter extending the minority rule.
The Intellectual Yet Idiot is a production of modernity hence has been accelerating since the mid twentieth century, to reach its local supremum today, along with the broad category of people without skin-in-the-game who have been invading many walks of life. Why? Simply, in most countries, the government’s role is between five and ten times what it was a century ago (expressed in percentage of GDP). The IYI seems ubiquitous in our lives but is still a small minority and is rarely seen outside specialized outlets, think tanks, the media, and universities — most people have proper jobs and there are not many openings for the IYI.
Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry.
The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit. When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences. While rich people believe in one tax dollar one vote, more humanistic ones in one man one vote, Monsanto in one lobbyist one vote, the IYI believes in one Ivy League degree one-vote, with some equivalence for foreign elite schools and PhDs as these are needed in the club.
More socially, the IYI subscribes to The New Yorker. He never curses on twitter. He speaks of “equality of races” and “economic equality” but never went out drinking with a minority cab driver (again, no real skin in the game as the concept is foreign to the IYI). Those in the U.K. have been taken for a ride by Tony Blair. The modern IYI has attended more than one TEDx talks in person or watched more than two TED talks on Youtube. Not only will he vote for Hillary Monsanto-Malmaison because she seems electable and some such circular reasoning, but holds that anyone who doesn’t do so is mentally ill.
The IYI has a copy of the first hardback edition of The Black Swan on his shelves, but mistakes absence of evidence for evidence of absence. He believes that GMOs are “science”, that the “technology” is not different from conventional breeding as a result of his readiness to confuse science with scientism.
Typically, the IYI get the first order logic right, but not second-order (or higher) effects making him totally incompetent in complex domains. In the comfort of his suburban home with 2-car garage, he advocated the “removal” of Gadhafi because he was “a dictator”, not realizing that removals have consequences (recall that he has no skin in the game and doesn’t pay for results).
The IYI has been wrong, historically, on Stalinism, Maoism, GMOs, Iraq, Libya, Syria, lobotomies, urban planning, low carbohydrate diets, gym machines, behaviorism, transfats, freudianism, portfolio theory, linear regression, Gaussianism, Salafism, dynamic stochastic equilibrium modeling, housing projects, selfish gene, Bernie Madoff (pre-blowup) and p-values. But he is convinced that his current position is right.
The IYI is member of a club to get traveling privileges; if social scientist he uses statistics without knowing how they are derived (like Steven Pinker and psycholophasters in general); when in the UK, he goes to literary festivals; he drinks red wine with steak (never white); he used to believe that fat was harmful and has now completely reversed; he takes statins because his doctor told him to do so; he fails to understand ergodicity and when explained to him, he forgets about it soon later; he doesn’t use Yiddish words even when talking business; he studies grammar before speaking a language; he has a cousin who worked with someone who knows the Queen; he has never read Frederic Dard, Libanius Antiochus, Michael Oakeshot, John Gray, Amianus Marcellinus, Ibn Battuta, Saadiah Gaon, or Joseph De Maistre; he has never gotten drunk with Russians; he never drank to the point when one starts breaking glasses (or, preferably, chairs); he doesn’t even know the difference between Hecate and Hecuba (which in Brooklynese is “can’t tell sh**t from shinola”); he doesn’t know that there is no difference between “pseudointellectual” and “intellectual” in the absence of skin in the game; has mentioned quantum mechanics at least twice in the past five years in conversations that had nothing to do with physics.
He knows at any point in time what his words or actions are doing to his reputation.
But a much easier marker: he doesn’t even deadlift."

Post by: Weasels wake on November 09, 2016, 09:35:12 AM
Looks like the silent majority just whooped the noisy minority. And they're sick of politicians.Thanks, you just answered a question I had.
It's outdated to think in terms of Democrat and Republican anymore. Democrats aren't Democrats and Republicans aren't Republicans anymore. Heck Trump was a Democrat but ran as a Republican.
The Republican party fragmented due to the campaign and now the Democrats are going to fall apart with this loss. This election seems to indicate an evolution of old ideals or at least people wanting to break out of the box. It's time to redefine ideals. It's not just red or blue anymore. There's a whole big purple area.
I watched Hillary's concession speech this morning, over one of the best cups of coffee that I've ever had, and I was noting that she was wearing a black outfit (good choice) but it had a purple collar, and Bill, standing by her side, was wearing a purple tie, and I was thinking, what's with the purple? Now I know.
But when I look and the election results map, it looks like Trump has better coverage than Verizon.
Post by: pdxmike on November 09, 2016, 10:19:16 AM
Yes, if our country doesn't focus on mixing red and blue into a united purple, we could end up being marooned.Looks like the silent majority just whooped the noisy minority. And they're sick of politicians.Thanks, you just answered a question I had.
It's outdated to think in terms of Democrat and Republican anymore. Democrats aren't Democrats and Republicans aren't Republicans anymore. Heck Trump was a Democrat but ran as a Republican.
The Republican party fragmented due to the campaign and now the Democrats are going to fall apart with this loss. This election seems to indicate an evolution of old ideals or at least people wanting to break out of the box. It's time to redefine ideals. It's not just red or blue anymore. There's a whole big purple area.
I watched Hillary's concession speech this morning, over one of the best cups of coffee that I've ever had, and I was noting that she was wearing a black outfit (good choice) but it had a purple collar, and Bill, standing by her side, was wearing a purple tie, and I was thinking, what's with the purple? Now I know.
But when I look and the election results map, it looks like Trump has better coverage than Verizon.
Post by: pdxmike on November 09, 2016, 10:24:05 AM
Poles. Never trusted them.But without them, we wouldn't have the surfski.
All those unpronounceable last names ...
Post by: Bean on November 09, 2016, 10:25:37 AM
Post by: SeldomScene on November 09, 2016, 11:00:29 AM
Yes, if our country doesn't focus on mixing red and blue into a united purple, we could end up being marooned.Looks like the silent majority just whooped the noisy minority. And they're sick of politicians.Thanks, you just answered a question I had.
It's outdated to think in terms of Democrat and Republican anymore. Democrats aren't Democrats and Republicans aren't Republicans anymore. Heck Trump was a Democrat but ran as a Republican.
The Republican party fragmented due to the campaign and now the Democrats are going to fall apart with this loss. This election seems to indicate an evolution of old ideals or at least people wanting to break out of the box. It's time to redefine ideals. It's not just red or blue anymore. There's a whole big purple area.
I watched Hillary's concession speech this morning, over one of the best cups of coffee that I've ever had, and I was noting that she was wearing a black outfit (good choice) but it had a purple collar, and Bill, standing by her side, was wearing a purple tie, and I was thinking, what's with the purple? Now I know.
But when I look and the election results map, it looks like Trump has better coverage than Verizon.
The new political party will heretofore be called the Barney (the dinosaur) party. You know, purple ....
Post by: DavidJohn on November 09, 2016, 02:05:03 PM
Looks like the silent majority just whooped the noisy minority. And they're sick of politicians.
Yes... Very sick.
Post by: tautologies on November 09, 2016, 03:46:01 PM
How many here believes Trump will:
a) Do a good job?
b) Survive being president through the 4 years? Ousted?
c) Be a popular president?
d) Do any of what he promised? (lower taxes, lower debt, build a wall (mexico pays), fill in your favorite promise here
e) Start or almost start large scale war?
f) Significantly change democracy to something better (or worse)..since its broken?
g) Fill in your forecast here...
Post by: Chan on November 09, 2016, 03:52:32 PM
How many here believes Trump will:
a) Do a good job?
b) Survive being president through the 4 years? Ousted?
c) Be a popular president?
d) Do any of what he promised? (lower taxes, lower debt, build a wall (mexico pays), fill in your favorite promise here
e) Start or almost start large scale war?
f) Significantly change democracy to something better (or worse)..since its broken?
g) Fill in your forecast here...
Sadly,
I think he will build a wall. Which will not help our economy or decrease crime.
Last time Republicans gained control of Congress and the White House, 2007 the start of the great recession, before that 1929 the beginning of the great depression. Lets hope that's not what he meant by make America great again.
Post by: SlatchJim on November 09, 2016, 04:11:14 PM
I'd probably want to talk Samuel L. Jackson out of it, but I'd hold the door for the rest.
Post by: pdxmike on November 09, 2016, 04:34:26 PM
Ironically: November 9, 1989 Berlin Wall came down.
How many here believes Trump will:
a) Do a good job?
b) Survive being president through the 4 years? Ousted?
c) Be a popular president?
d) Do any of what he promised? (lower taxes, lower debt, build a wall (mexico pays), fill in your favorite promise here
e) Start or almost start large scale war?
f) Significantly change democracy to something better (or worse)..since its broken?
g) Fill in your forecast here...
Sadly,
I think he will build a wall.
Post by: Subber on November 09, 2016, 04:50:53 PM
...Last time Republicans gained control of Congress and the White House, 2007 the start of the great recession, before that 1929 the beginning of the great depression. Lets hope that's not what he meant by make America great again.
It may just be that that is where we are in economic and psychological cycles -
high stock and asset prices But with record debt, slowing economy, average wages falling, trying to find someone or process to blame, fear, etc.
-- Likely one of the reasons why he was popular enough to get the nomination and win the Presidency.
Post by: SeldomScene on November 09, 2016, 05:31:21 PM
Post by: Bean on November 09, 2016, 05:52:38 PM
How many here believes Trump will:
a) Do a good job?
b) Survive being president through the 4 years? Ousted?
c) Be a popular president?
d) Do any of what he promised? (lower taxes, lower debt, build a wall (mexico pays), fill in your favorite promise here
e) Start or almost start large scale war?
f) Significantly change democracy to something better (or worse)..since its broken?
g) Fill in your forecast here...
Time to stop the election rethoric and get to work fixing this place. The sky is not falling, the rethoric is just a distraction/excuse for people to sit on their ass and do nothing.
Post by: SeldomScene on November 09, 2016, 06:06:18 PM
Post by: all~wet on November 09, 2016, 06:16:32 PM
Well..... technically, look like H. Clinton won the popular vote so although by a hair it was the minority that won out.
We'll never get rid of politicians but maaaannnnn do we ever need some accountability / a third party.... take a HARD look at campaign finance/Super PACs... end perpetual campaigning.... and to modernize our election system/nix the nonsense "Electoral College" once and for all. If this debacle of an election cycle doesn't prompt rethinking a few things than........ ?????????!
Post by: supdiscobay on November 09, 2016, 06:41:07 PM
...Last time Republicans gained control of Congress and the White House, 2007 the start of the great recession, before that 1929 the beginning of the great depression. Lets hope that's not what he meant by make America great again.
It may just be that that is where we are in economic and psychological cycles -
high stock and asset prices But with record debt, slowing economy, average wages falling, trying to find someone or process to blame, fear, etc
-- Likely one of the reasons why he was popular enough to get the nomination and win the Presidency.
Chan, that's a pretty ignorant statement. What you are saying is that the republicans gained control and caused the great depression and the recent recession. If you have studied any history, or understand what happened in the market prior to 2007, you know that is not what happened. So why would you make such an inference.
Subber said it correctly, we flow in cycles, economically and psychologically. It is as simple as that.
Post by: Chan on November 09, 2016, 07:05:34 PM
Post by: lucabrasi on November 09, 2016, 07:40:32 PM
".....an election night no one could have predicted......"
and more polls.....exit polls from yesterday.....still.
"whose most qualified......"
and still splitting us up.....
"white educated suburban women, white uneducated suburban women," white educated rural women,..........
asian men in latino neighborhoods
inner city blacks in rural areas
on and on and on it went tonight again.......still.
Guilty here of feeding it as well I guess.
Aren't we all?
Really, really was something else last night watching the coverage. When I sat down again everyone was panicking. Change the station and they were too.
Studios loaded with "great" reporters (or whatever they are) downright losing it. I really enjoyed watching that for the simple reason I just don't get how anyone could have been blindsided or cold cocked. Look who was running. My word. Those are the experts? And they hired more experts to be in there with them. And even more experts. Watching that unravel and the reactions in the studios......no wonder we ended up with those two.
We really need to stop listening to these people and these experts.
This guy......
Nassim Taleb on the Ruling Elites
I need to read that again.
Donald, Hillary, and Obama all made really nice speeches or statements or whatever you want to call them. I saw the later two this evening....edited and summarized by........the experts.
I would like to think along those lines. I wonder.....
Interesting times ahead.
Our cycles are like clocks. Doesn't seem to matter who is president. We moved past 6/bottom a couple years ago from what I see and what I do. Somewhere between 9 and 12 right now. I sure wish I knew where it was on that.
The run here is looking like we good through 18 or 19 right now around here with the way everything is lined up. It will hit 12 and the sky will fall. Then at some point it will start going back up. Always scary when that happens tho, isn't it?
I kind of doubt a wall gets built and I think it will be interesting to see how he gets out of that horseshit he said about that.
I sure hope it's not something angry at 3:00 am on twitter.
Post by: Weasels wake on November 09, 2016, 08:00:19 PM
All I know is I wish the wind would come back to Ho'okipa so they could get the contest started back up. This giant Jaws stuff gets boring after awhile, even Kai thinks so, look, you can see it on his face.
Post by: Eagle on November 09, 2016, 11:00:11 PM
1 We would have a wall
2 We may temporarily ban Muslims from entering the country
3 We would deport undocumented immigrants
4 We would repeal Obamacare and undo some of Obama’s executive orders
http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/election-donald-trump-presidency/
This was his platform. And he was able to play to the emotions of his passionate voters to rail against Hillary. And since Hillary failed to get enough disinterested voters she needed in the swing states - she failed miserably. Even with the government and media and pollster propaganda machines. She was and is supremely despised. Now the question is - will Donald fulfill his contract to his peoples? And will he be able to ever tweet uncensored at 3am again? :o
Post by: Area 10 on November 09, 2016, 11:59:38 PM
I think that maybe - as an outsider from Europe (at least for the moment) - I am finally beginning to understand the Trump phenomenon.
Post by: yugi on November 10, 2016, 12:51:25 AM
Reversing the deal to stop Iran developing nuclear capabilities is pretty worrying too.
I just can’t see much more than short term gains with potentially devastating long term effects in doing that. It’s creepy. Creepy and somewhat ignorant.
:o
Post by: Area 10 on November 10, 2016, 02:17:14 AM
In the UK, I suspect many of the people who voted for Brexit can't afford SUPs plus all the other equipment you need for cold climate SUPing, and can't afford the housing costs near water. Many won't be able to swim well, since their parent won't have been able to afford swim lessons. It's part of the reason perhaps why iSUPs outsell hard boards something like 10-1 in the European market. It's predominantly a sport for older affluent people here (and their kids). The number of hard race-type or DW boards sold is tiny, really. The equipment is a LOT more expensive over here though, so maybe it's different in the US?
Post by: tautologies on November 10, 2016, 02:18:39 AM
It is such a shame that those proposals could not have been debated properly. You have got to wonder what went wrong that they were not. There are some there that many people of all persuasions might think were a good idea, and many that most people would not. But regardless, they deserve to be discussed, and as far as I understand it, they weren't - at least properly. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). It would be easy to see that - were you minded to do so - as a liberal media conspiracy. But is something much more insidious happening, that is all about the insulating effect of social media, ratings requirements and suchlike, that is serving to diminish the standard of political discourse? I'd have liked to have heard Hillary explain why Trump's ideas on political term limits, lobbying etc were not a good idea, and I'd have liked to hear Trump explain why he thinks that the US can safely abandon measures aimed at reducing global warming. But instead I sat through all three presidential debates and really I can't remember one single substantive moment of debate about these issues. In fact, looking back it's tough to know how the time passed: both were at their podiums for quite a long time but very little seemed to be communicated except mutual dislike and name-calling. It didn't serve either candidate well, nor the audience, did it? And were these points of Trump's examined sensibly on eg. TV by political reporters, experts etc? Or were they just ridiculed?
I think that maybe - as an outsider from Europe (at least for the moment) - I am finally beginning to understand the Trump phenomenon.
Its the failure of the 4th estate. They do not press anything. No vetting and no demand for answers. And this inane need for he said she said journalism that leads to these false equivalencies.
I think there was one interview where the interviewer kept on asking the same question to trump, and he kept on not answering. Apart from that the interviewers just move on.
Personally I do not think Trump has read a single policy or act in his life. He is unqualified for the job and we will all be impacted :(
Post by: Area 10 on November 10, 2016, 03:05:08 AM
47% of the US electorate did not vote. Hillary actually got more votes than Trump, yet was totally trounced. Turnout was especially low amongst young people - as it was amongst young people in the Brexit vote. With the Brexit vote, most younger people wanted to stay in Europe. So if they had actually gone to the polls we would probably have had a different decision. With half the US population not voting, and young people not bothering, maybe you could also say that Trump's success occurred partly because young people didn't vote. Could this be because the traditional media no longer reached the young, and web-based information exchange is too self-selecting and free of the usual checks and balances imposed upon the traditional media?
It's obviously a dangerous situation to have a ruling party/figurehead who actually received a minority of votes, and even more so if a majority of those who didn't vote would have joined the majority not the minority. No wonder we in Europe are seeing media coverage of angry protests on the streets of the US.
Post by: Admin on November 10, 2016, 04:08:25 AM
47% of the US electorate did not vote. Hillary actually got more votes than Trump, yet was totally trounced. Turnout was especially low amongst young people
What we saw here in posts on the Zone turned out to be true. On the whole, voters did not like their choices in these candidates. Trump got fewer votes than either Romney or MCcain. Clinton Got significantly fewer votes than her predecesors. She edged out Trump in votes but ran up her numbers in areas that could not help her electorally. We elected one of the two most unpopular candidates in history.
2012 Obama: 65.9m
2016 Clinton: 59.1m = -6.8m
2012 Romney: 60.9m
2016 Trump: 59m = -1.9m
Post by: tautologies on November 10, 2016, 04:15:19 AM
Traditionally the fewer people participate the better GOP does, which these numbers show. It is also why they choose voter suppression as a strategic tool to gain advantages in elections.
It is also very customary for the incumbent party to have a lower turnout. That said, I thought DEM would understand the importance of defeating a person like Trump. I guess all the voices in the media talking about how the lead was huge and it was a done deal probably didn't help....and the fact the Clinton seem to not be able to inspire the action required.
Post by: Admin on November 10, 2016, 04:29:21 AM
I guess all the voices in the media talking about how the lead was huge and it was a done deal probably didn't help....and the fact the Clinton seem to not be able to inspire the action required.
That will be a heavy burden for the Clinton's to bare because it is clear that this election was more lost than won.
Post by: PDLSFR on November 10, 2016, 04:45:02 AM
Post by: Area 10 on November 10, 2016, 04:58:32 AM
Post by: Area 10 on November 10, 2016, 05:03:17 AM
Presumably this is effectively the end of the Clintons in public life? It would be a curious end to their dynasty to have the ambitions of a woman rather than the weaknesses of a man bring them down.I guess all the voices in the media talking about how the lead was huge and it was a done deal probably didn't help....and the fact the Clinton seem to not be able to inspire the action required.
That will be a heavy burden for the Clinton's to bare because it is clear that this election was more lost than won.
Post by: Bean on November 10, 2016, 06:12:35 AM
The sister of one of the politicians who created the Brexit vote in the UK explained the different views on Trump roughly as follows: Trump supporters took what he said seriously but not literally, whereas anti-Trump people take him literally but not seriously. It is an interesting explanation of how different people hearing the same thing from Trump can have very different reactions to it. If this is true, then maybe Trump supporters are not necessarily expecting him to eg. actually build a wall. It is more a figure of speech to indicate that he'll e.g. make illegal immigration extremely hard and the penalties harsh. IF this is the case then maybe Trump supporters will be apparently more forgiving if he doesn't do exactly what he said he'd do. They never really expected in the first place.
Interesting insight A10, and the wall is a perfect example. A reasonable person would recognize that there is not a cost(social or economic) benefit to building an actual wall, so it is taken as hyperbole.
Post by: Bean on November 10, 2016, 06:48:19 AM
It would be sad to see all the work done towards encouraging clean energy be reversed. Pretty scary if the US no longer honors international climate change treaties and the message that sends to the rest of the world.
Reversing the deal to stop Iran developing nuclear capabilities is pretty worrying too.
I just can’t see much more than short term gains with potentially devastating long term effects in doing that. It’s creepy. Creepy and somewhat ignorant.
:o
I think the general message from Trump is, we want only to pay our fair share. One good example of this is the perception/or reality that the US funds a disproportionate share of NATO. We need to ask ourselves, whether the US should disproportionately subsidize the defense of Western Europe in light of the fact that we can not even provide universal health care for our own citizens, a benefit that many NATO nations enjoy. Clearly we have economic and political interests and obligations with the alliance. But currently, only 5 of the 28 nations meet the NATO defense spending goal.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 10, 2016, 07:01:16 AM
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-10/u-s-index-futures-signal-more-stock-gains-on-trump-policy-bets
What angers me the most about all this is the raging hypocrisy. If Trump loses there will be violence. If he wins the market will tank, shock about whether he will accept election results. The markets are up, we have violence and protests from the left, and they are chanting "Not my President". And the racism, classism continues in the press....and here. It was only un-educated old white guys that voted for him according to most all the Hillary supporters.... ::)
I was actually shocked to see some thoughtful analysis on CBS.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/
Post by: Quickbeam on November 10, 2016, 08:46:49 AM
We need to do away with the Electoral Vote and move strictly to the popular vote, doing that will result in significantly higher polling numbers as people are sick and tired of their vote NOT counting.
What’s really ironic, is that in the previous presidential election, after Obama had wrapped up the electoral vote, it looked like Mitt Romney would have a bigger popular vote. Trump was apparently furious, and wrote on his twitter account that “we need a revolution in this country”. He erased that tweet sometime later and of course at the end of the day Obama also had the larger popular vote. I wonder if now that Trump has won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote he still thinks that a revolution is needed?
Post by: stoneaxe on November 10, 2016, 09:10:59 AM
Post by: Weasels wake on November 10, 2016, 09:28:50 AM
I think the heavy burden could even be heavier than many people realize.I guess all the voices in the media talking about how the lead was huge and it was a done deal probably didn't help....and the fact the Clinton seem to not be able to inspire the action required.
That will be a heavy burden for the Clinton's to bare because it is clear that this election was more lost than won.
Consider this.
I think the Clinton are in real trouble, they been scooping up vast amounts of money from all over the world, most of it for access (see WikiLeaks/Clinton foundation/pay to play). The Clintons have been using Hillary's inevitable election to the White House as collateral, she has now lost her collateral, but the Clintons still have their money, lots of money. It will be interesting to see what transpires with them in the future.
Post by: Subber on November 10, 2016, 09:30:59 AM
If the Presidency was determined by popular vote, they would have managed towards that outcome.
So, we don't know that Hillary (or Trump) would have won if the popular vote
was the one that counted because they both would have been managing for that outcome instead
of for the highest electoral vote.
Post by: Area 10 on November 10, 2016, 10:24:22 AM
Post by: Weasels wake on November 10, 2016, 10:29:19 AM
Post by: Zooport on November 10, 2016, 11:31:12 AM
Domestic SUP board manufacturing could start to improve. Buy American.
If Trump goes ahead with his stated plan to slap a 45% import duty on Chinese (and presumably other East Asian countries') goods, then SUPs are going to start costing you about the same as they have always done in Europe. If I was a SUP retailer I think I'd be feeling a bit nervous right now.
It would be painful, but I'm not sure I disagree with the idea. American manufacturers can't compete with Chinese operations that pay their workers pennies a day.
Post by: pdxmike on November 10, 2016, 12:12:01 PM
I'm generally anti-regulation, so anti-tariff, but you can turn the tariff argument upside down and make a case for it.Domestic SUP board manufacturing could start to improve. Buy American.If Trump goes ahead with his stated plan to slap a 45% import duty on Chinese (and presumably other East Asian countries') goods, then SUPs are going to start costing you about the same as they have always done in Europe. If I was a SUP retailer I think I'd be feeling a bit nervous right now.
It would be painful, but I'm not sure I disagree with the idea. American manufacturers can't compete with Chinese operations that pay their workers pennies a day.
A big anti-tariff argument is that it's anti-globalist--world trade is the future, and tariffs are regulations that interfere with that.
But instead of viewing tariffs that way, you can view them as pro-globalist. If there's a world economy, then every participating nation should meet minimum standards for how to treat the workforce and environment. If a country is able to undercut others' prices because it saves money by paying workers little, or polluting more than others, then the tariff levels the playing field for other global economy participants. In other words, it's anti-globalist to let countries profit from global trade because they won't participate in global protections for workers and the environment.
If tariffs were tied to a country's protections for those, so tariffs were highest for the most exploitive countries, that would have some logic. There would be no tariffs for countries that met standards for workforce and environmental protections.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 10, 2016, 12:57:34 PM
Post by: SUPflorida on November 10, 2016, 12:58:48 PM
Post by: Bean on November 10, 2016, 01:16:19 PM
Post by: stoneaxe on November 10, 2016, 01:54:02 PM
Post by: Area 10 on November 10, 2016, 02:22:05 PM
Post by: Eagle on November 10, 2016, 03:36:15 PM
1 Grow the economy 4% per year
2 Create 25 million new jobs
3 35% tax cut for middle class with 2 kids
4 Business rate lowered from 35% to 15%
5 Expand military investment
Would suspect that Donald will be under the microscope moving forward. And since Americans that voted wanted change. America will have it.
Donald now has a ton of weight on his shoulders - and he will be given the launch codes soon. His demeanor was very serious and subdued today when he meet with Obama. Not gloating at all - while his wife had tea with the FL. His 15 minute meeting turned into 90 - as his son-in-law walked the grounds. He says he plans to seek counsel from Obama many more times. And all will see if he does in fact protect America - plus make America great again. Even with both House and Senate.
"Republican dominance over Congress in principle enables Mr Trump to turn his policy plans into law."
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37917345
Post by: Quickbeam on November 10, 2016, 04:09:20 PM
If Trump goes ahead with his stated plan to slap a 45% import duty on Chinese (and presumably other East Asian countries') goods, then SUPs are going to start costing you about the same as they have always done in Europe. If I was a SUP retailer I think I'd be feeling a bit nervous right now.
Walmart will never allow it.
And quite seriously, I don’t think the average American consumer would stand for it. Maybe I’m wrong, but I just can’t see the American consumer standing idly by while the cost of so many items (not just SUP's) goes up by 45%.
Post by: Eagle on November 10, 2016, 04:16:27 PM
2 He held massive rallies instead of focusing on door-knocking and get-out-the-vote operations.
3 He had a disjointed, sometimes chaotic national political convention that was capped by an acceptance speech that was more doom-and-gloom than any in modern US political history.
Trump appealing to deep anger voter emotions and with a message of fear - worked to perfection for him. While Hillary with her "deplorables" comment and not coming forward with emails - did her in. If Donald did not have the problems that exposed him - Hillary would have been major severely crushed.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37918303
Am going to check out what happens downtown as there is an anti-Trump rally planned in front of the new building with his name on it. Could be interesting. :o
Post by: SeldomScene on November 10, 2016, 05:22:10 PM
Also, Obama could pardon illegals for the crime of Illegal Entry, which no one ever gets prosecuted for, he can't confer citizenship on anyone with "stroke of a pen". Even if he wanted to. But he did say that if an Illegal voted (which is a crime) that person would be a citizen. He is inverted. He did say that. Saw the video.
Post by: surf4food on November 10, 2016, 06:47:39 PM
But he did say that if an Illegal voted (which is a crime) that person would be a citizen. He is inverted. He did say that. Saw the video.Wrong.
http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/
Post by: Weasels wake on November 10, 2016, 07:36:07 PM
Am going to check out what happens downtown as there is an anti-Trump rally planned in front of the new building with his name on it. Could be interesting. :oWhat's the point?
The only thing those protest are showing is how poor our education system in this country really is.
My guess is that the vast majority of those protesters are high school students and drop-outs, along with college students and drop-outs. Most all of which either didn't take, or got very bad grades in U.S. government, along with U.S. history classes. If anyone of those protesters did take those classes, and got good grades in them, then they must have had liberal teachers who chose to teach their biased view of those two subjects, something that has become very common I'm afraid.
Otherwise they'd know that any demonstrations of this nature, would have no effect on the electoral process, and would only serve to show their ignorance at how our country works. I wonder how many of them even voted.
I think it's sad, too much ignorance on display out there.
Maybe Trump should hire a bunch of trucks filled to the brim with Snickers bars, to hand out to those demonstrators, they are getting kind of hostile.
Besides, they love free stuff.
Post by: SaMoSUP on November 10, 2016, 07:42:34 PM
Post by: all~wet on November 10, 2016, 09:08:29 PM
Who exactly are "they"?
Post by: pdxmike on November 10, 2016, 09:11:24 PM
I don't think it's nearly as grim as you think. A lot of the protest activity is more along the lines of "Love, not hate", versus thinking that the election result can be changed. I think there's also some anger aimed at the 2 parties, with quite a bit aimed at the Democratic party by people who feel the party worked against Sanders, who possibly could have been a stronger candidate against Trump.Am going to check out what happens downtown as there is an anti-Trump rally planned in front of the new building with his name on it. Could be interesting. :oWhat's the point?
The only thing those protest are showing is how poor our education system in this country really is.
My guess is that the vast majority of those protesters are high school students and drop-outs, along with college students and drop-outs. Most all of which either didn't take, or got very bad grades in U.S. government, along with U.S. history classes. If anyone of those protesters did take those classes, and got good grades in them, then they must have had liberal teachers who chose to teach their biased view of those two subjects, something that has become very common I'm afraid.
Otherwise they'd know that any demonstrations of this nature, would have no effect on the electoral process, and would only serve to show their ignorance at how our country works. I wonder how many of them even voted.
I think it's sad, too much ignorance on display out there.
Maybe Trump should hire a bunch of trucks filled to the brim with Snickers bars, to hand out to those demonstrators, they are getting kind of hostile.
Besides, they love free stuff.
Update--apparently protest here is turning into a riot.
Post by: pdxmike on November 10, 2016, 09:23:25 PM
If the cost of SUPs go up by 45% then I'll remind you all that you said it wouldn't be a bad thing when you are complaining that no-one can afford them. In Europe we are used to paying a lot more for our stuff than you are. When we visit the US we are like kids in a candy store. An import tariff on China that big would have an extraordinary effect on your market. People would buy a lot less. That would mean fewer jobs, at least in the short term (eg. in retail) wouldn't it? You'd probably also send the Chinese economy into a tailspin which would affect your own. I dunno guys...I'm not an economist, so I'd like to hear from some people who are. It would be an extraordinary market adjustment. You'd all have to get used to buying and owning much less "stuff". Good for the environment but would the electorate tolerate it? People like buying stuff.Just so it doesn't come back to bite me in the future, when I said you can make a case for tariffs I wasn't endorsing them.
Once I heard a US tomato farmer complaining that he had to meet US health requirements to sell tomatoes, which made his tomatoes more expensive than ones imported from outside the country, because the imported ones didn't have to meet those requirements. He thought if the requirements make sense, they should apply to all tomatoes sold here. But it wasn't fair to apply them only to domestic tomatoes, because it makes it impossible to compete against foreign growers. It was a pretty obvious but valid point.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 10, 2016, 09:45:04 PM
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2016/07/08/illegal-immigrants-trump-says-deport-them-but-obama-should-pardon-them/#5b38027c67f0
Post by: surfshaver on November 10, 2016, 10:28:07 PM
Post by: Eagle on November 10, 2016, 11:09:33 PM
Am going to check out what happens downtown as there is an anti-Trump rally planned in front of the new building with his name on it. Could be interesting. :oWhat's the point?
The only thing those protest are showing is how poor our education system in this country really is.
My guess is that the vast majority of those protesters are high school students and drop-outs, along with college students and drop-outs. Most all of which either didn't take, or got very bad grades in U.S. government, along with U.S. history classes.
Otherwise they'd know that any demonstrations of this nature, would have no effect on the electoral process, and would only serve to show their ignorance at how our country works. I wonder how many of them even voted.
I think it's sad, too much ignorance on display out there.
Maybe Trump should hire a bunch of trucks filled to the brim with Snickers bars, to hand out to those demonstrators, they are getting kind of hostile.
Besides, they love free stuff.
Weasel - we go right past Trump Tower all the time to get a bit of exercise on our 5 mile evening walk - so why not? Making judgements and guesses of who attended here in Vancouver - and if they voted or not in your election is kinda odd. Where bouts are you from anyways?
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/anti-trump-protest-vancouver-1.3846662
Post by: Weasels wake on November 10, 2016, 11:38:59 PM
Post by: Admin on November 11, 2016, 03:05:31 AM
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-picks-top-climate-skeptic-to-lead-epa-transition/
Post by: tautologies on November 11, 2016, 04:38:36 AM
Trumps rhetoric shows no knowledge of how macroeconomics or trade actually works.
His rhetorics shows he knows very little about a lot. If he does only a fraction of the shit he promised we are in for an incredibly bumpy ride, and the goon squad he is assembling will NEVER EVER chsnge the system for anything better.
He is the most dangerous man on earth.
Post by: mrbig on November 11, 2016, 04:55:36 AM
Perhaps the difference between ignorance and stupidity will be demonstrated. Although he, like many, may continue to hold his opinions tightly no matter what is presented to him by, for instance, the professional, non partisan intelligence community..
Post by: surf4food on November 11, 2016, 05:33:37 AM
The only thing those protest are showing is how poor our education system in this country really is.
My guess is that the vast majority of those protesters are high school students and drop-outs, along with college students and drop-outs. Most all of which either didn't take, or got very bad grades in U.S. government, along with U.S. history classes. If anyone of those protesters did take those classes, and got good grades in them, then they must have had liberal teachers who chose to teach their biased view of those two subjects, something that has become very common I'm afraid.
I'm sure the overwhelming majority of these protestors don't expect the results to change. But people do need to express their anger and disappointment in a public way. As to your crack about free stuff, I think it's reasonable for them to expect some things like getting an education without going into crippling debt. As a baby boomer, I salute the millennials who tell the baby boomers to f***k off and I laugh in the face of fellow boomers who get butt hurt by it. It seems to me you don't live in an area where these protests are taking place and it also seems you don't personally know anyone participating in these protests. Yeah they get overzealous that's to be expected. I'm sure if Trump would have won the popular vote and Clinton won by electoral votes there would be some hostile backlash.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 11, 2016, 05:58:09 AM
Protests are fine just don't smash and damage shit. I can't blame anyone for protest. I so wish the dems had put Bernie up.
Post by: surf4food on November 11, 2016, 06:08:41 AM
Protests are fine just don't smash and damage shit. I can't blame anyone for protest. I so wish the dems had put Bernie up.
That I can and do agree with.
Post by: Bean on November 11, 2016, 06:20:47 AM
Post by: SeldomScene on November 11, 2016, 07:28:45 AM
Yeah i guess it doesn't actually confer citizenship. I misread an earlier article...here's more. I should have realized that couldn't be possible.....partially because he probably would have already done it. It's still a move that would cause major turmoil.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2016/07/08/illegal-immigrants-trump-says-deport-them-but-obama-should-pardon-them/#5b38027c67f0
I'm with you. He would if he could. And if he is on here he's probably getting it researched right now. He could confer Democra, oops, I mean citizenship on anyone who could make it across the Rio Grande.
Post by: Sup-position on November 11, 2016, 10:27:10 AM
Allegations and the Outcome...
His new Theme Song...
Goldfinger....
https://youtu.be/6D1nK7q2i8I
Post by: stoneaxe on November 11, 2016, 10:51:37 AM
Post by: freetobeme on November 11, 2016, 11:56:00 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/11/11/trump-campaigned-against-lobbyists-now-theyre-on-his-transition-team?event=event51
“This whole idea that he was an outsider and going to destroy the political establishment and drain the swamp were the lines of a con man, and guess what — he is being exposed as just that,” said Peter Wehner, who served in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush before becoming a speechwriter for George W. Bush. “He is failing the first test, and he should be held accountable for it.”
Post by: Weasels wake on November 11, 2016, 12:21:49 PM
I basically agree with everything you said, as a baby boomer myself. I'm in Ca. but it doesn't really matter where I am, the news is showing what is going on. Yes they do have the right to show their displeasure and disappointment, it's a right that many of our cherished have died for, I have no problem with that. But when it escalates into destruction of property, lighting fires, jumping on top of cars, going out onto the freeways to block them, (Portland, Oakland, S.F., Chicago, etc.) then all I see is nothing but a bunch of pathetic, petulant, sniffling, little shits, that are basically clueless. It makes me sad, very sad, which is a right of mine as well.The only thing those protest are showing is how poor our education system in this country really is.
My guess is that the vast majority of those protesters are high school students and drop-outs, along with college students and drop-outs. Most all of which either didn't take, or got very bad grades in U.S. government, along with U.S. history classes. If anyone of those protesters did take those classes, and got good grades in them, then they must have had liberal teachers who chose to teach their biased view of those two subjects, something that has become very common I'm afraid.
I'm sure the overwhelming majority of these protestors don't expect the results to change. But people do need to express their anger and disappointment in a public way. As to your crack about free stuff, I think it's reasonable for them to expect some things like getting an education without going into crippling debt. As a baby boomer, I salute the millennials who tell the baby boomers to f***k off and I laugh in the face of fellow boomers who get butt hurt by it. It seems to me you don't live in an area where these protests are taking place and it also seems you don't personally know anyone participating in these protests. Yeah they get overzealous that's to be expected. I'm sure if Trump would have won the popular vote and Clinton won by electoral votes there would be some hostile backlash.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 11, 2016, 12:24:50 PM
Post by: Area 10 on November 11, 2016, 01:25:46 PM
Maybe they should have sang "Will get F**ked Again".
Post by: surf4food on November 11, 2016, 01:28:20 PM
I basically agree with everything you said, as a baby boomer myself. I'm in Ca. but it doesn't really matter where I am, the news is showing what is going on. Yes they do have the right to show their displeasure and disappointment, it's a right that many of our cherished have died for, I have no problem with that. But when it escalates into destruction of property, lighting fires, jumping on top of cars, going out onto the freeways to block them, (Portland, Oakland, S.F., Chicago, etc.) then all I see is nothing but a bunch of pathetic, petulant, sniffling, little shits, that are basically clueless. It makes me sad, very sad, which is a right of mine as well.The only thing those protest are showing is how poor our education system in this country really is.
My guess is that the vast majority of those protesters are high school students and drop-outs, along with college students and drop-outs. Most all of which either didn't take, or got very bad grades in U.S. government, along with U.S. history classes. If anyone of those protesters did take those classes, and got good grades in them, then they must have had liberal teachers who chose to teach their biased view of those two subjects, something that has become very common I'm afraid.
I'm sure the overwhelming majority of these protestors don't expect the results to change. But people do need to express their anger and disappointment in a public way. As to your crack about free stuff, I think it's reasonable for them to expect some things like getting an education without going into crippling debt. As a baby boomer, I salute the millennials who tell the baby boomers to f***k off and I laugh in the face of fellow boomers who get butt hurt by it. It seems to me you don't live in an area where these protests are taking place and it also seems you don't personally know anyone participating in these protests. Yeah they get overzealous that's to be expected. I'm sure if Trump would have won the popular vote and Clinton won by electoral votes there would be some hostile backlash.
I agree agree about destruction of property and all that, but as I said there's always the extreme element. With that, do you see an irony? This generation is hardly the first generation to engage in bad behavior whilst protesting. They learned from the best.
Post by: SaMoSUP on November 11, 2016, 02:08:04 PM
"Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud!"
Unfortunately, the extreme few who resort to violence and destruction can almost invalidate the purpose of these protests.
Post by: all~wet on November 11, 2016, 05:16:26 PM
Post by: addapost on November 11, 2016, 06:02:09 PM
Not too happy with the team he's assembling so far. The pendulum had swung to far but careful how much we swing it back. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.Jesus Bob, what did you expect? This is why people are horrified that he won. Are you REALLY expecting to be happy about your choice in 4 years? He hasn't even started yet.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 11, 2016, 06:15:35 PM
Post by: addapost on November 11, 2016, 06:26:41 PM
The sister of one of the politicians who created the Brexit vote in the UK explained the different views on Trump roughly as follows: Trump supporters took what he said seriously but not literally, whereas anti-Trump people take him literally but not seriously. It is an interesting explanation of how different people hearing the same thing from Trump can have very different reactions to it. If this is true, then maybe Trump supporters are not necessarily expecting him to eg. actually build a wall. It is more a figure of speech to indicate that he'll e.g. make illegal immigration extremely hard and the penalties harsh. IF this is the case then maybe Trump supporters will be apparently more forgiving if he doesn't do exactly what he said he'd do. They never really expected in the first place.I wonder if she has ever actually met any Trump supporters. The ones I know sure as hell expect that wall to go up and millions of illegals to be thrown back over it. They also expect gay marriage to be thrown out. They expect Roe v. Wade to be overturned. They expect low skill, manufacturing jobs to come back. Oh yes. If we Trump haters are devastated this week, his supporters are in for a rude awakening in the next 4 years. But by then the shit he WILL be able to accomplish will set science, environmental protection, and social justice all back 50 years.
Post by: Area 10 on November 11, 2016, 07:09:00 PM
Trump is of course the oldest person to be made POTUS. My theory is that this is an individual who only cares about himself. He only expects to live another 10-20 years so he's just going to have a ball for the next few years and, from his perspective, what the hell does it matter if the world goes to hell in a hand-basket when he's gone? In fact his narcissism might actually like the idea that his passing might presage the collapse of the US.The sister of one of the politicians who created the Brexit vote in the UK explained the different views on Trump roughly as follows: Trump supporters took what he said seriously but not literally, whereas anti-Trump people take him literally but not seriously. It is an interesting explanation of how different people hearing the same thing from Trump can have very different reactions to it. If this is true, then maybe Trump supporters are not necessarily expecting him to eg. actually build a wall. It is more a figure of speech to indicate that he'll e.g. make illegal immigration extremely hard and the penalties harsh. IF this is the case then maybe Trump supporters will be apparently more forgiving if he doesn't do exactly what he said he'd do. They never really expected in the first place.I wonder if she has ever actually met any Trump supporters. The ones I know sure as hell expect that wall to go up and millions of illegals to be thrown back over it. They also expect gay marriage to be thrown out. They expect Roe v. Wade to be overturned. They expect low skill, manufacturing jobs to come back. Oh yes. If we Trump haters are devastated this week, his supporters are in for a rude awakening in the next 4 years. But by then the shit he WILL be able to accomplish will set science, environmental protection, and social justice all back 50 years.
Further, now he's POTUS there is zero chance of him going to jail for anything he's done in the past, or will do in the future. He could be impeached etc but, really, it's never gonna happen that a president (or ex-president) actually goes to jail, is it? He's now got a hall pass on every dodgy deal and act he has ever done or ever will. If you had criminal tendencies, being POTUS is the best cover in the world. And as Bill showed, young interns will service you orally for free. To a sexual predator (or maybe sex addict) that must be very enticing as well. It's "let the good times roll" in Trump-land.
Post by: Bean on November 11, 2016, 07:27:40 PM
Post by: SeldomScene on November 11, 2016, 07:38:32 PM
Besides, what happens in the oral office stays in the oral office. Right, Bill? Can you imagine what it was like to be the FBI Agent who got to take oral swab DNA samples from Bill Clinton?
Post by: Area 10 on November 11, 2016, 08:02:50 PM
Give it up A10, go to bed, get some sleep for fucks sake!I'm going downwinding in a few hours and am too excited to sleep :)
The media here in Europe is in meltdown over Trump. You just can't escape it. We've just had a very rare and tragic multiple fatality on a tram in London that at any other time would have been headline news. But instead we've got wall-to-wall speculation about Trump and how it will affect our country and the rest of the world.
I do have some sympathy, actually, for Trump supporters' opinions about the shortcomings of the press. And I have huge sympathy for the plight of those who feel left behind by globalisation and the political elite. Those people voted here for Brexit and that is one of the most serious political events in the history of our country. We seem to be in an era where issues seem never to be debated properly. In fact, the whole art of the debate seems to have disappeared. There is more useful debate on the pages of the forum than we have in our media. Where is the serious and in-depth examination of Trump's proposals? Maybe you get it in the US but in Europe we are just getting hand-wringing and panic. Some things Trump has proposed seem likely to be supported by nearly ALL people - such as restrictions on taking lobbying jobs immediately after holding political office etc. I don't understand why the focus isn't more on those sorts of things - and why he's not put under more pressure to deliver them rather than the media concentrating on the issues that divide observers. Well, actually, I think I probably do understand. And it's sad.
Hopefully the ISA Worlds that are starting tomorrow will start to offset the "tyranny of the Trump thread" on this forum. Is Hawaii competing separately from the US again, and if so, who do you expect to win?
Ok I really must try to get some sleep now ;)
Post by: Bean on November 11, 2016, 08:11:38 PM
Give it up A10, go to bed, get some sleep for fucks sake!I'm going downwinding in a few hours and am too excited to sleep :)
The media here in Europe is in meltdown over Trump. You just can't escape it. We've just had a very rare and tragic multiple fatality on a tram in London that at any other time would have been headline news. But instead we've got wall-to-wall speculation about Trump and how it will affect our country and the rest of the world.
I do have some sympathy, actually, for Trump supporters' opinions about the shortcomings of the press. And I have huge sympathy for the plight of those who feel left behind by globalisation and the political elite. Those people voted here for Brexit and that is one of the most serious political events in the history of our country. We seem to be in an era where issues seem never to be debated properly. In fact, the whole art of the debate seems to have disappeared. There is more useful debate on the pages of the forum than we have in our media. Where is the serious and in-depth examination of Trump's proposals? Maybe you get it in the US but in Europe we are just getting hand-wringing and panic. Some things Trump has proposed seem likely to be supported by nearly ALL people - such as restrictions on taking lobbying jobs immediately after holding political office etc. I don't understand why the focus isn't more on those sorts of things - and why he's not put under more pressure to deliver them rather than the media concentrating on the issues that divide observers. Well, actually, I think I probably do understand. And it's sad.
Hopefully the ISA Worlds that are starting tomorrow will start to offset the "tyranny of the Trump thread" on this forum. Is Hawaii competing separately from the US again, and if so, who do you expect to win?
Ok I really must try to get some sleep now ;)
Good man, and may you have favorable winds on your paddle.
Post by: SaMoSUP on November 11, 2016, 08:14:18 PM
In fact, based on body language around their families, it seems as if Hillary is more of a narcissist than Donald. My perception is that the Clinton family feels a bit cold while I get a warmer sense with the Trump family.
So yes what Bean said.
Post by: Area 10 on November 11, 2016, 08:18:29 PM
Wait, isn't Hillary just one year younger than Trump? So wouldn't this theory also apply to her? Not that she would ever be in it for herself, or anything like that ....Ok, no sleep just yet then :)
Besides, what happens in the oral office stays in the oral office. Right, Bill? Can you imagine what it was like to be the FBI Agent who got to take oral swab DNA samples from Bill Clinton?
It's a speculation about the difference in motivations. I suspect that Hillary knows nothing else but her political life so is locked into it. But Trump has never held political office and given that being POTUS is a pretty tough job, you have to wonder what is driving him to do it. He'll probably be taking a pay cut... He has other options open to him whereas Hillary only really has retirement.
Anyway, it's going to be fascinating to see what actually happens when you put a businessman in charge of a country. We repeatedly hear the suggestion that countries would be better off if they were run by businessmen rather than career politicians. So maybe we'll finally find out if that it true.
Ok, so I really must show some discipline and turn my bloody phone off now. I can hear the cold wind howling outside the window and the board is already on the roofrack, and downwind buddies on alert. Brr...it's cold here now and there is torrential rain forecast too. But downwinding is downwinding!!
Post by: PonoBill on November 11, 2016, 10:38:01 PM
The sister of one of the politicians who created the Brexit vote in the UK explained the different views on Trump roughly as follows: Trump supporters took what he said seriously but not literally, whereas anti-Trump people take him literally but not seriously. It is an interesting explanation of how different people hearing the same thing from Trump can have very different reactions to it. If this is true, then maybe Trump supporters are not necessarily expecting him to eg. actually build a wall. It is more a figure of speech to indicate that he'll e.g. make illegal immigration extremely hard and the penalties harsh. IF this is the case then maybe Trump supporters will be apparently more forgiving if he doesn't do exactly what he said he'd do. They never really expected in the first place.I wonder if she has ever actually met any Trump supporters. The ones I know sure as hell expect that wall to go up and millions of illegals to be thrown back over it. They also expect gay marriage to be thrown out. They expect Roe v. Wade to be overturned. They expect low skill, manufacturing jobs to come back. Oh yes. If we Trump haters are devastated this week, his supporters are in for a rude awakening in the next 4 years. But by then the shit he WILL be able to accomplish will set science, environmental protection, and social justice all back 50 years.
Really--all 50 million of them?
Post by: Admin on November 12, 2016, 02:12:17 AM
Further, now he's POTUS there is zero chance of him going to jail for anything he's done in the past, or will do in the future. He could be impeached etc but, really, it's never gonna happen that a president (or ex-president) actually goes to jail, is it?
A president actually cannot get impeached for anything that they did before they were in office. We bought it, we own it. Bring on Sarah Palin, Secretary of th....
...and a note to the Not My President whippersnappers, it's not like your cell phone. You don't get your own president. Protest is valuable but have a goal. Save your energy. Plenty is coming in the next 4 years.
Post by: surfafrica on November 12, 2016, 12:58:23 PM
Even if we believe his protectionist stance on world trade will bring back high paying manufacturing jobs or that his proposed policies on immigration will lower crime and cultural conflict, as surfers and lovers of the ocean, we have to be deeply concerned with Trump's blatant disregard for science. Denying human caused climate change at this point is equivalent to saying you don't believe in evolution. The guy thinks climate change is a hoax: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." WTF? We're in the middle of a mass extinction (like dinosaur-level stuff) and he's going to pull the US out of the Paris climate change agreement (which will have ripple effect on the efforts of many other countries), withdraw funding from climate change programs, and change focus from clean energy sources to coal and shale. He just appointed Myron Ebell (a climate change skeptic <--- how is this still a thing?) to his Environmental Protection Agency transition team. All of this spells disaster to our oceans and the environment as a whole. I don't know about you, but I kind of like places like San Diego, La Saladita, and Tavarua. I also kind of like seeing dolphins, reefs, fish and stuff out in the lineup (though I do sometimes get annoyed with kelp getting tangled on my leash).
Post by: tautologies on November 12, 2016, 03:37:38 PM
Not sure you are right. There are examples of impeachment of crimes that happened before someone was in office on the Senate level. Obvioulsy 2/3rds in majority vote in the senate will be tough, but definitely doable.Further, now he's POTUS there is zero chance of him going to jail for anything he's done in the past, or will do in the future. He could be impeached etc but, really, it's never gonna happen that a president (or ex-president) actually goes to jail, is it?
A president actually cannot get impeached for anything that they did before they were in office. We bought it, we own it. Bring on Sarah Palin, Secretary of th....
...and a note to the Not My President whippersnappers, it's not like your cell phone. You don't get your own president. Protest is valuable but have a goal. Save your energy. Plenty is coming in the next 4 years.
I'd say with his upcoming racketeering case...it is civil right now..but that can be taken public...in addition with some released videos of him being racist and sexist on the apprentice could do it.
Check page 15 on this.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44260.pdf
Post by: Ichabod Spoonbill on November 12, 2016, 03:40:28 PM
The Dems need to stop treating people in flyover country like they don't matter. These communities used to be the backbone of the American economy, and now it's okay to just see them sink into economic depression. They've made the argument over and over that trade is good. Well, how is it good for communities that have lost their factories? What's the upside?
I'm frightened that Trump in his ignorance will cause a lot of international damage, but I understand the impulse that made people vote for him. Hilary never offered anything for most people. The idea of the first woman president is inspiring, but it's not enough. Both parties need to think about how to serve Americans hard-hit by international trade without resorting to dumb, simplistic solutions.
I keep reading what Stoney's saying, and the guy's making me think. I didn't vote for Trump (obviously), but I learned a lot from Stoney's words. Now excuse me, I'm going to do more of my gallows humor tweets. They're keeping me sane right now.
Post by: ericmichaels on November 12, 2016, 04:27:29 PM
It's a question of damned if we do and double damned if we don't.
Another example of the stupid false equivalence that gets tossed around recklessly. There were risks voting for both candidates (as always) but to pretend the risks were the same and that the difference didn't matter was stupid.
But the die is cast.
The damage will be generational.
Post by: Admin on November 12, 2016, 04:32:06 PM
Not sure you are right. There are examples of impeachment of crimes that happened before someone was in office on the Senate level. Obvioulsy 2/3rds in majority vote in the senate will be tough, but definitely doable.
In regards to the president, I just read this on Dan Abram's site in an article written about Hillary's situation:
So, what about impeachment? Pretty clear here. The House of Representatives determined in 1873 that Presidents cannot be impeached for offenses they committed before they took office. Since the conduct would have taken place prior to her becoming President, she couldn’t be impeached for it.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/heres-what-could-happen-if-hillary-clinton-is-indicted-or-steps-down/
Post by: Chan on November 12, 2016, 04:47:35 PM
Ironically: November 9, 1989 Berlin Wall came down.
How many here believes Trump will:
a) Do a good job?
b) Survive being president through the 4 years? Ousted?
c) Be a popular president?
d) Do any of what he promised? (lower taxes, lower debt, build a wall (mexico pays), fill in your favorite promise here
e) Start or almost start large scale war?
f) Significantly change democracy to something better (or worse)..since its broken?
g) Fill in your forecast here...
Sadly,
I think he will build a wall.
Good point. Now that we know it was just a rhetorical wall it should be much easier to tear down, won't it?
Post by: stoneaxe on November 12, 2016, 05:05:26 PM
It's a question of damned if we do and double damned if we don't.
Another example of the stupid false equivalence that gets tossed around recklessly. There were risks voting for both candidates (as always) but to pretend the risks were the same and that the difference didn't matter was stupid.
But the die is cast.
The damage will be generational.
And you're very welcome to your opinion. Just be sure you realize that's all it is.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 12, 2016, 06:41:40 PM
Post by: Weasels wake on November 12, 2016, 08:20:15 PM
Okay next, a pardon,,,,,,,,,,,,, she's not out of the woods, the FBI is still all over the foundation, pay to play, and foundation ties to the State Dept.
So the question yet to be answered is, will Obama pardon her?
I see arguments for and against.
For ~ so it will all go away quickly without Obama getting sucked up into it (could happen), and for doing minimal harm to Obama's legacy, but a pardon would to some extent.
Against ~ where would he draw the line? He could pardon Hillary, but her main players behind her could still get indicted, Huma, Podesta, those types, which could still lead to a can of worms that he probably wouldn't want to see opened.
How would it look if he pardoned Hillary and her entire staff? Yikes!
I think he's going to just let it ride, and hope for the best with maybe a bit of hush stuff thrown in there, no pardon, no love lost.
But that's just me.
Post by: pdxmike on November 12, 2016, 08:21:57 PM
Who knows?Ironically: November 9, 1989 Berlin Wall came down.
How many here believes Trump will:
a) Do a good job?
b) Survive being president through the 4 years? Ousted?
c) Be a popular president?
d) Do any of what he promised? (lower taxes, lower debt, build a wall (mexico pays), fill in your favorite promise here
e) Start or almost start large scale war?
f) Significantly change democracy to something better (or worse)..since its broken?
g) Fill in your forecast here...
Sadly,
I think he will build a wall.
Good point. Now that we know it was just a rhetorical wall it should be much easier to tear down, won't it?
Post by: freetobeme on November 13, 2016, 08:14:44 AM
So I'm just now getting to review Trumps proposed tax plan. Aaaaand it appears that I will be getting screwed. And he will be getting a 7% discount. Oh wait, how do you subtract 7% off from ZERO!
Post by: headmount on November 13, 2016, 09:05:25 AM
"Will you still love me tomorrow?" will be the operative song.
Post by: Eagle on November 13, 2016, 11:48:54 AM
Post by: stoneaxe on November 13, 2016, 04:28:55 PM
Post by: Subber on November 13, 2016, 05:58:01 PM
Every picture I've seen of Trump in the last couple days he looks nervous. It must be an eye opener getting intelligence briefings.
+1
I noticed that too - especially sitting with Obama - he looked scared.
I wonder what Obama told him.
Post by: SeldomScene on November 13, 2016, 07:06:34 PM
Post by: Eagle on November 13, 2016, 08:13:47 PM
Would suspect that Donald will be under the microscope moving forward. And since Americans that voted wanted change. America will have it.
Donald now has a ton of weight on his shoulders - and he will be given the launch codes soon. His demeanor was very serious and subdued today when he meet with Obama. Not gloating at all - while his wife had tea with the FL. His 15 minute meeting turned into 90 - as his son-in-law walked the grounds. He says he plans to seek counsel from Obama many more times. And all will see if he does in fact protect America - plus make America great again. Even with both House and Senate.
"Republican dominance over Congress in principle enables Mr Trump to turn his policy plans into law."
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37917345
Donald will get it all figured out soon enough. Then get down to business on what is important to him. And if you like it great. If not too bad. You can try to vote him out in 4 years or so. If Bill and others can do it ...
His election success was a master class on how to do anything you want - insult who you want - not bother with fact checking - and easily still get elected against Hillary. Will be interesting to see what he does - watching from the outside. Some of us Canadians do appreciate your history and politics. As we have family and friends down there - and visit back and forth all the time. We need to keep our ear to the ground. ;)
Post by: Eagle on November 13, 2016, 09:14:03 PM
https://youtu.be/olILIkiIrM0
Post by: surfafrica on November 14, 2016, 10:00:20 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auukuYuizq4
Post by: Weasels wake on November 14, 2016, 11:00:36 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqEddipbpkw
Post by: IRideYellow on November 14, 2016, 11:59:26 AM
Normalization of deviance - The gradual process through which unacceptable practice or standards become acceptable. As the deviant behavior is repeated without catastrophic results, it becomes the social norm for the organization.”
"It is in the nature of complex institutions infected by the normalization of deviance that insiders are incentivized to downplay potential problems and to avoid precipitating a reassessment based on previously established standards. Once rules have been breached, decision-makers face a cognitive and ethical conundrum whenever the same issue arises again: they can no longer admit that an action will violate responsible standards without admitting that they have already violated them in the past.
This is not just a matter of avoiding public embarrassment and political or criminal accountability, but a real instance of collective cognitive dissonance among people who have genuinely, although often self-servingly, embraced a deviant culture. Diane Vaughan has compared the normalization of deviance to an elastic waistband that keeps on stretching."
Post by: SeldomScene on November 14, 2016, 01:50:09 PM
Post by: SlatchJim on November 14, 2016, 02:29:15 PM
Loved this one.
Post by: Stefan on November 14, 2016, 07:08:18 PM
Post by: PonoBill on November 14, 2016, 08:26:24 PM
And Yellow--Normalization of deviance--Really? So we started from some place of grace that we then fell from? What horseshit. I'm comfortable with deviation from the mean--I've watched the pendulum swing a dozen times now. People forget how horrified everyone was when Ronald Reagan won. "He's going to launch nukes at the Russians. We're all dead."
I've heard every nonsense characterization from we're all going to become Nazi's to the financial markets will implode. Check back with me in a year and let me know how that all turns out. I'm going surfing. I don't expect the world will be very different by then, but I always assume I could be very wrong.
Here's my prediction--he's going to suck as a president, and the republican majority will view their hold on that delicate bit of power as fleeting. They'll do their best to rein him in, some of it will work, some won't. If they aren't effective at it, they lose their majority in the mid-term and Trump winds up his last two years screaming because he doesn't get to play the way he wants to. As an ineffective incumbent, his chance of getting re-elected are about the same as Gary Johnson's were in this election.
Post by: Stefan on November 14, 2016, 11:52:03 PM
Stefan, if you believe everything the campaigns and the media said, then yeah, sure. I voted for Hillary--though I don't like her much, not Trump, because I like him less. But all these characterizations come from a point of basic ignorance. You don't know these people, any more than I do.
Bill, I don't watch cable news, or local news... I read the NY Times. But your statement is curious... how would I know any candidate.... by what they say and do obviously. It's not like Trump is a mystery, neither is Bannon. But let's a take a different slant on this- I don't think Trump is the problem, it's the people around him like Pence, Bannon, Giuliani etc. He wants a climate science denier to head up the EPA. I'm hoping there are enough reasonable Republicans in congress to control some of the extreme measures these idiots want... but if you go by their own statements... God help us. Btw I will always respect human beings and normal citizens I meet, I get along with most anyone. I just won't accept a misogynist's, xenophobes and racists as my government. I won't listen to anyone who say's I should be OK with this jackass.... but... it's only 4 years so hopefully I'll be a significantly better paddler when he leaves office :) Best regards!
Post by: Admin on November 15, 2016, 06:04:19 AM
PS: With all the talk of the polls having been so wrong, huh? The national polls are going to end up having been within a percentage point of actual results and well within the margin of error. The media simply spun this election so hard that fiction supplanted fact. I for one will miss Gwen Ifel. She was wonderful.
Post by: LaPerouseBay on November 15, 2016, 07:10:13 AM
I for one will miss Gwen Ifel. She was wonderful.
Oh no.
Post by: headmount on November 15, 2016, 07:57:50 AM
Yeah 61. Cancer. My Dad died at 53 of same. But as long as PBill is still going strong just ahead of me I feel good.
I for one will miss Gwen Ifel. She was wonderful.
Oh no.
Funny (as in strange) about how this thread was titled and now the result. If I were to predict, I'd say this admin will resort to cannibalism, figuratively of course.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 15, 2016, 08:06:49 AM
Yeah Gwen was great. She still had some journalistic integrity in a time when it's getting rare.
Post by: PonoBill on November 15, 2016, 08:14:48 AM
Trumps style is to incite battles below him. Might work in business (though I doubt it) but what a mess for a cabinet. I suspect one or the other will have to go. It will be hard to ditch Bannon without infuriating the whackjob racist conspiracy theory-spouting element of his support base.
Post by: Weasels wake on November 15, 2016, 09:51:21 AM
Well that might explain a bit.Stefan, if you believe everything the campaigns and the media said, then yeah, sure. I voted for Hillary--though I don't like her much, not Trump, because I like him less. But all these characterizations come from a point of basic ignorance. You don't know these people, any more than I do.
Bill, I don't watch cable news, or local news... I read the NY Times.
Maybe this got past you during your readings.
A major mea culpa from the New York Times no less.
Now they are reading the writing on the wall, and it isn't theirs, so funny and so deserved, but do you believe it?
I have my doubts, I think it may just be an attempt to stop or slow the bleeding of their own credibility.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New York Times publisher vows to 'rededicate' paper to reporting honestly
Published November 12, 2016
The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising that the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly.
Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., the paper’s embattled publisher, appealed to Times readers for their continued support.
“We cannot deliver the independent, original journalism for which we are known without the loyalty of our subscribers,” the letter states.
New York Post columnist and former Times reporter Michael Goodwin wrote, "because it (The Times) demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president.
Sulzberger's letter was released after the paper’s public editor, Liz Spayd, took the paper to task for its election coverage. She pointed out how its polling feature Upshot gave Hillary Clinton an 84 percent chance as voters went to the polls.
She compared stories that the paper ran about President-elect Donald Trump and Clinton, where the paper made Clinton look functional and organized and the Trump discombobulated.
Spayd wrote, “Readers are sending letters of complaint at a rapid rate. Here’s one that summed up the feelings succinctly, from Kathleen Casey of Houston: “Now, that the world has been upended and you are all, to a person, in a state of surprise and shock, you may want to consider whether you should change your focus from telling the reader what and how to think, and instead devote yourselves to finding out what the reader (and nonreaders) actually think.”
She wrote about another reader who asked that the paper should focus on the electorate instead of “pushing the limited agenda of your editors.”
“Please come down from your New York City skyscraper and join the rest of us.”
Sulzberger—who insisted that the paper covered both candidates fairly-- also sent a note to staffers on Friday reminding the newsroom to “give the news impartially, without fear or favor.”
“But we also approach the incoming Trump administration without bias,” he said.
To read the letter~
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/12/new-york-times-publisher-vows-to-rededicate-itself-to-reporting-honestly.html
Post by: SUPcheat on November 15, 2016, 10:07:43 AM
It was piled so high and deep this election, there was virtually no coverage of actual issues and platforms.
Sulzberger: "Please forgive us. We're only whores on Mondays. The rest of the week we're honest, really really honest, really!"
Post by: Stefan on November 15, 2016, 11:16:14 AM
You mean summoning false demons and engaging in blanket disinformation for vested interests isn't news? Gee, it's been so long, I couldn't tell the difference any more.
It was piled so high and deep this election, there was virtually no coverage of actual issues and platforms.
Sulzberger: "Please forgive us. We're only whores on Mondays. The rest of the week we're honest, really really honest, really!"
Sure, every news source can be questioned.... and my news sources are wide and varied, that statement was really just meant to disavow mainstream cable news which is a joke. Again there is no mystery that Trump is a sham and a used car salesman. Did he tap into something .... yes, unfortunately a big part of it was fear and bigotry. Dems failed to speak to middle America, they just took for granted that people would accept economic charts and kept speaking in the same politi-speak disconnected rhetoric. People respond to direct, plain, speech and Hillary failed at being genuine. That's not in any way an endorsement of Trump, it's a failure of Democrats. 8 million less people voted in this election, only 19% of Millennials. The good thing is this will shake up our system and energize a future base, if we don't change America will be in trouble. Btw, not trying to be dismissive but I won't engage in any discussion that validates Trump as a legitimate representative of the American Presidency.
Post by: SUPcheat on November 15, 2016, 11:32:59 AM
It wasn't an election, it was a race to the bottom of the barrel and Trump won.
Post by: Stefan on November 15, 2016, 12:16:36 PM
It wasn't just the Times. All sides engaged in manipulative press disgraces to make this the most disheartening election that I can ever remember.
It wasn't an election, it was a race to the bottom of the barrel and Trump won.
Word! :)
Post by: pdxmike on November 15, 2016, 12:47:42 PM
Btw, not trying to be dismissive but I won't engage in any discussion that validates Trump as a legitimate representative of the American Presidency.Actually, that sounds pretty dismissive, seeing as he did just get elected under the same system his predecessors did.
Post by: SUPflorida on November 15, 2016, 01:11:35 PM
What then?
The man had for all practical purposes every media outlet against him (yes even a fair amount at Fox new if you are honest), both the democrates and republicans parties against him. Dead people voting against him. He still won.
Democratic operators bragging about how the were illegally affecting the election, paying mentally ill homeless people to provoke violence at Trump rallies...commuting voter fraud... all on camera, in context, clear audio...can't believe those clowns aren't serving serious time for rigging the election.
Trump won because he knows "the system." He didn't create the system, but he knows how to win within the system. He has been using the legal system that others have created to its full advantage all his life...he come from a place where there is one winner at every contest...the whiners in the streets come from the delusional place where "everyone gets a participation prize."
When a young Fox reporter asked members of the protesting crowd in NY to tell why they were there and give their point of view on camera they scattered like cockroaches. No one would speak...they couldn't even articulate their position
How fortunate that in Obama's obsession to reshape America he used executive order. Have to admit I thought we had gone past the "tipping point" where the sovereign constitutional USA was lost. America has been blessed with a "do over. "A few strokes of the pen and many of those illconcieved plans will be history. To bad the financial damage he inflicted can't be undone as easily.
Pray Trump steps up to the plate and puts America back squarely on founding principles. I for one don't want the US to forfeit its sovereignty and become another piece of the new world order. We can be of more benefit to our neighbors as a strong independent country...than some dumb down socialist version of our former greatness. This is a do or die moment for America...
Trumps name is on the line now...no turning back...he will either go down in history as the man who pulled America from the brink of disaster...who helped make her great again, or the man on who's watch America died.
Post by: PonoBill on November 15, 2016, 01:21:17 PM
You mean summoning false demons and engaging in blanket disinformation for vested interests isn't news? Gee, it's been so long, I couldn't tell the difference any more.
It was piled so high and deep this election, there was virtually no coverage of actual issues and platforms.
Sulzberger: "Please forgive us. We're only whores on Mondays. The rest of the week we're honest, really really honest, really!"
Sure, every news source can be questioned.... and my news sources are wide and varied, that statement was really just meant to disavow mainstream cable news which is a joke. Again there is no mystery that Trump is a sham and a used car salesman. Did he tap into something .... yes, unfortunately a big part of it was fear and bigotry. Dems failed to speak to middle America, they just took for granted that people would accept economic charts and kept speaking in the same politi-speak disconnected rhetoric. People respond to direct, plain, speech and Hillary failed at being genuine. That's not in any way an endorsement of Trump, it's a failure of Democrats. 8 million less people voted in this election, only 19% of Millennials. The good thing is this will shake up our system and energize a future base, if we don't change America will be in trouble. Btw, not trying to be dismissive but I won't engage in any discussion that validates Trump as a legitimate representative of the American Presidency.
It seems like you're there--engaging in a discussion that is. My point was simply that media characterizations of Trump were as biased and dishonest--regardless or your news source--as characterizations of Hillary Clinton. Your assumption now is that Trump was elected because of fear and bigotry. If that's true then we have a much bigger problem than Trump. But I don't think that's true, or at least I don't think it accurately represents how he won. I listened to Bernie Sanders comments, and I agree with what he said--that many of the things Trump said he supported were worthy. I read the piece in the Washington Post by a Muslim Woman who voted for Trump, because he takes Muslim fundamentalism much more seriously and with no PC nonsense.
As I said earlier, I expect he'll be a crap president, but we've had those before, and I've been wrong before. I thought Reagan was going to be horrible. I thought Bush I was a terrible choice, I thought Bush II would be better. So, three for three.
Post by: tautologies on November 15, 2016, 02:04:57 PM
He could lose control a lot sooner than that. There's a great deal that a president can do with executive order, as Obama amply demonstrated, but the runway for that closes fast, as Obama amply demonstrated. A President can't break the law, and he can't change it. He needs the support of the republican majority, and that's already getting shaky. For all the sleazy things that have gone on in government, most senators and congressmen have a notion that they serve the public good. Do nutty stuff that harms the country and they won't support him.
Trumps style is to incite battles below him. Might work in business (though I doubt it) but what a mess for a cabinet. I suspect one or the other will have to go. It will be hard to ditch Bannon without infuriating the whackjob racist conspiracy theory-spouting element of his support base.
But the GOP has shown pretty spineless towards Trumps antics so far. I hope they grow some courage, but I am not optimistic as we have to put faith in an ultra conservative religious right wing that so far has abused their power by running anti-democratic campaigns against the current president.
Post by: tautologies on November 15, 2016, 02:06:52 PM
So what are you guys' thoughts around the appointment of Bannon and what are your attitude towards his website?
Post by: Stefan on November 15, 2016, 02:43:58 PM
So what are you guys' thoughts around the appointment of Bannon and what are your attitude towards his website?
Doubling down on peoples fears and just reinforcing what I'm saying, Trump is a hollow can of spam™ (lol) and he is going to be a puppet of the neo cons. He's achieved the only thing he wanted... power, he'll let the professional idiots run the ship. :)
Post by: PonoBill on November 15, 2016, 02:58:12 PM
So what are you guys' thoughts around the appointment of Bannon and what are your attitude towards his website?
He's a twisted little bastard and his website is disgusting, can't believe President-elect Trump appointed him to any position.
Post by: tautologies on November 15, 2016, 03:27:37 PM
So what are you guys' thoughts around the appointment of Bannon and what are your attitude towards his website?
He's a twisted little bastard and his website is disgusting, can't believe President-elect Trump appointed him to any position.
I would agree 100%. It makes me think Trump is doubling down on his campaign promises, which is incredibly worrisome.
Post by: PonoBill on November 15, 2016, 03:55:24 PM
But much more important is that dismantling government bureaucracy run amok isn't easy. For example, the EPA is responsible for a lot of jobs leaving America. The attitude in the agency is something like "our job is to protect the environment, we're not concerned with the impact on business". At least that's what I've heard articulated. To an outsider, that's insane. It's one planet. Closing a relatively clean business down and exporting the jobs and product to China does not improve the environment. It probably is the worst case. Unless you consider the environment to be just your little space, right here. But how do you make that kind of regulation rational, without creating endless loopholes and compromising the intended result.
Equally true for immigration, financial regulation, and any number of easy targets.
How often has the simple solution been the right one?
Post by: headmount on November 15, 2016, 04:49:51 PM
Post by: tautologies on November 15, 2016, 05:24:06 PM
But much more important is that dismantling government bureaucracy run amok isn't easy. For example, the EPA is responsible for a lot of jobs leaving America. The attitude in the agency is something like "our job is to protect the environment, we're not concerned with the impact on business". At least that's what I've heard articulated. To an outsider, that's insane. It's one planet. Closing a relatively clean business down and exporting the jobs and product to China does not improve the environment. It probably is the worst case. Unless you consider the environment to be just your little space, right here. But how do you make that kind of regulation rational, without creating endless loopholes and compromising the intended result.
Equally true for immigration, financial regulation, and any number of easy targets.
How often has the simple solution been the right one?
First of all the US and EPA are laggards when it comes to environmental questions. The US under Bush was horrible when it comes to dealing with global environmental issues. Obama I think tries, but under a house thas doesn't believe in science it is hard. Under Trump with his new EPA appointment we are royally fucked.
On gobal issues I think he current version has been stand and wait. Instead of waiting for China to do good on the enviroment change the conversation. Germany is a great example of this. When the EU (to some extent) and the world waits they said screw it. We will commit to do good and they order so many solar power panels that production cost declined and got Chinese producers interested. They changed the onversation. I do know I am making a pointed arument here, but the idea is that there are certainly scenarios where the US can lead the way. For instance, as little as China wants to admit it, it looks up to the US in many ways. If the US makes it an honor issue about environmental questions, I am sure China will follow suit pretty fast. One thing that is great about a dictatorship is that you can make large changes in a very short amount of time. ;-)
Post by: PonoBill on November 15, 2016, 05:33:34 PM
What happened with the 'rigging' of the election? All the sudden you don't hear about that from the Trump camp
Nope, instead you hear it from the Hillary camp, along with strong dislike for the electoral approach, which is actually a pretty elegant solution to a lot of democratic issues.
One of the things the electoral college does is make it much tougher to rig an election. Pure popular votes can be rigged from anywhere, but it's hard pick the right place to rig in an electoral system. You could fake a million votes in Massachusets and have the election decided in North Dakota. Obviously not perfect, but better than the election being decided in the same five areas and brutalizing the rest of the country. The majority has proven itself throughout history to be brutal to the minority.
Post by: tautologies on November 15, 2016, 06:06:14 PM
Nope, instead you hear it from the Hillary camp, along with strong dislike for the electoral approach, which is actually a pretty elegant solution to a lot of democratic issues.
One of the things the electoral college does is make it much tougher to rig an election. Pure popular votes can be rigged from anywhere, but it's hard pick the right place to rig in an electoral system. You could fake a million votes in Massachusets and have the election decided in North Dakota. Obviously not perfect, but better than the election being decided in the same five areas and brutalizing the rest of the country. The majority has proven itself throughout history to be brutal to the minority.
I am wondering if the same people that are moaning about this are the same that moaned about Sanders not getting the nod to represent the DEMs. It annoys me to not end when people complain about rules the agreed to when the game is afoot or even after the game is played.
I fully accept that Trump won the election under the rules, but it might indicate that a redistribution of the gerrymandering should be done before next election. People should have appx same impact and clearly, if one candidate can win the popular election but still not be close to winning the election, that is out of whack.
Post by: PonoBill on November 15, 2016, 08:30:11 PM
Post by: surfshaver on November 15, 2016, 11:18:40 PM
This relates to a trend that is taking place not just in the US but globally: the continued rise of cities. Increasingly, more and more people in our country are living in cities and this trend is expected to continue. Unless the number of electors each state gets can change relative to that state's population, the states which have large and growing cities will continue to be disadvantaged compared to states with less people. Rural America will have an increasingly disproportionate sway over our choice of President.
It also happens that big cities tend to be blue as greater ethnic and cultural and socioeconomic diversity seems to make people more liberal. So I think its safe to say that while Democrats believe that demographics will continue to move in their favor, the urban concentration of those demographics means that the electoral college as it stands will continue to be a problem for them going forward.
Post by: PonoBill on November 16, 2016, 01:34:31 AM
There are factors in play that the founders of our country didn't consider. for example, the benefit of an electoral college in minimizing fraud is somewhat overcome by deep polling. People aiming to fix an election can know where they need to commit fraud. But by and large it's an effective approach that needs a minor tuneup.
You could make the same case for representation in the senate and congress. The design of the two bodies is one with population-proportional power, and one (the senate) with equal power for each state. Once you study the checks and balances you realize how elegant they are, and how effective they've been in balancing power. It's an incredibly difficult thing to achieve any degree of fair representation, the founders did a remarkable job that should only be changed with great care.
No one who has seriously studied history and government would want a true and simple democracy. As the old saw goes, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Post by: Admin on November 16, 2016, 05:27:11 AM
I am wondering if the same people that are moaning about this are the same that moaned about Sanders not getting the nod to represent the DEMs. It annoys me to not end when people complain about rules the agreed to when the game is afoot or even after the game is played.
All the top DNC brass were forced to resign for breaking those rules (Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Communications Director Luis Miranda, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall and Chief Executive Amy Dacey).
The DNC Charter:
The chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 16, 2016, 07:14:54 AM
What happened with the 'rigging' of the election? All the sudden you don't hear about that from the Trump campThey don't need to talk about it anymore. Doesn't mean it wasn't going on. Trumps "rigging" referred to it all. The press sharing debate questions, twisting the news, tipping the polls, dead people voting.....all those things happened.
Post by: tautologies on November 16, 2016, 09:26:17 AM
I am wondering if the same people that are moaning about this are the same that moaned about Sanders not getting the nod to represent the DEMs. It annoys me to not end when people complain about rules the agreed to when the game is afoot or even after the game is played.
All the top DNC brass were forced to resign for breaking those rules (Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Communications Director Luis Miranda, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall and Chief Executive Amy Dacey).
The DNC Charter:
The chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.
But she did have to resign. No one is saying he was treated well and the DNC absolutely wasn't doing right by Sanders, but there is a long shot between them strategizing about something and actually fudging the votes. Most of the people that I have talked with about this seems to think that he got more votes. I mean it could not be further from the truth. Clinton beat him with more votes than Obama beat her in whatever way you count. I've heard complaints about a lot of different things, but in every instance it was the Sanders campaign who fucked up (missing deadlines, forgetting to register, focusing on the wrong districts).
I do not think Sanders would have done better than Clinton. The fact is this is all on the electorate. Dems did not show up to vote, and now you have this situation. A fascist in the Whitehouse. His choice of Bannon only confirms it. Unless the Senate GOP stands up to Trump, we are in for one hell of a ride.
Post by: headmount on November 16, 2016, 09:28:09 AM
There's no such thing as a fair election. Making the number of electors proportional to population negates the entire purpose --to ensure the interests of the entire country are served to some degree. Larger states have more electors, but not directly proportional to population. Yes, that means more people per elector, but it's equally unfair to completely eliminate the influence of a state with a smaller population.
There are factors in play that the founders of our country didn't consider. for example, the benefit of an electoral college in minimizing fraud is somewhat overcome by deep polling. People aiming to fix an election can know where they need to commit fraud. But by and large it's an effective approach that needs a minor tuneup.
You could make the same case for representation in the senate and congress. The design of the two bodies is one with population-proportional power, and one (the senate) with equal power for each state. Once you study the checks and balances you realize how elegant they are, and how effective they've been in balancing power. It's an incredibly difficult thing to achieve any degree of fair representation, the founders did a remarkable job that should only be changed with great care.
No one who has seriously studied history and government would want a true and simple democracy. As the old saw goes, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
OK I get all that but when was the last time they determined how many electors per state? Population changes have been significant in recent history. In California, way up. And Dakotas down.
Post by: pdxmike on November 16, 2016, 10:26:06 AM
Of course we'll never know, but I think Sanders would have done better. He went from nowhere to close in a short time. He appealed to independents and even conservatives despite being on the surface--based on his platform--the last person they'd vote for. Everyone knows people who just could never vote for Clinton, but Sanders didn't have that problem--he wasn't hated by many. His main supporters would have voted in the general election. His own party apparently worked against him at least to some degree in the nomination process. His policies at least aimed at helping many of the people who voted for Trump. He potentially could have taken some support from Trump, if not from the diehards, at least from those who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Clinton.I am wondering if the same people that are moaning about this are the same that moaned about Sanders not getting the nod to represent the DEMs. It annoys me to not end when people complain about rules the agreed to when the game is afoot or even after the game is played.
All the top DNC brass were forced to resign for breaking those rules (Chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Communications Director Luis Miranda, Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall and Chief Executive Amy Dacey).
The DNC Charter:
The chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.
But she did have to resign. No one is saying he was treated well and the DNC absolutely wasn't doing right by Sanders, but there is a long shot between them strategizing about something and actually fudging the votes. Most of the people that I have talked with about this seems to think that he got more votes. I mean it could not be further from the truth. Clinton beat him with more votes than Obama beat her in whatever way you count. I've heard complaints about a lot of different things, but in every instance it was the Sanders campaign who fucked up (missing deadlines, forgetting to register, focusing on the wrong districts).
I do not think Sanders would have done better than Clinton. The fact is this is all on the electorate. Dems did not show up to vote, and now you have this situation. A fascist in the Whitehouse. His choice of Bannon only confirms it. Unless the Senate GOP stands up to Trump, we are in for one hell of a ride.
Post by: PonoBill on November 16, 2016, 11:38:18 AM
OK I get all that but when was the last time they determined how many electors per state? Population changes have been significant in recent history. In California, way up. And Dakotas down.
Actually, it's semi-automatic, based on the number of Senators plus the number Representatives, which changes about every ten years. The number of representatives per state is negotiated--it's not directly proportional or the house of representative would be pointless--completely unrepresentative of the country as a whole.
Post by: pdxmike on November 16, 2016, 11:48:12 AM
There are pros and cons for sure. Overall, I've been surprised at how much more sense the electoral system makes than I thought it would, despite its flaws. I'd thought it was an anachronism up to now. It raises great philosophical arguments. The "one man, one vote" idea seems pure and obviously best at first glance, but it's not that simple.
Post by: pdxmike on November 16, 2016, 12:47:46 PM
I think most people would be OK with semi-automatic updates, but not fully automatic ones. They would view those as too dangerous to allow without mandatory waiting periods and other restrictions. Of course some would not want to allow even semi-automatic ones. On the other hand, others would argue that we need the right to have fully automatic updates without restrictions, because that's what the Founding Fathers intended. And of course some people can't even agree on the definition of semi-automatic versus automatic.OK I get all that but when was the last time they determined how many electors per state? Population changes have been significant in recent history. In California, way up. And Dakotas down.
Actually, it's semi-automatic, based on the number of Senators plus the number Representatives, which changes about every ten years. The number of representatives per state is negotiated--it's not directly proportional or the house of representative would be pointless--completely unrepresentative of the country as a whole.
Post by: SaMoSUP on November 16, 2016, 01:01:48 PM
Post by: Admin on November 17, 2016, 06:08:28 AM
But she did have to resign. No one is saying he was treated well and the DNC absolutely wasn't doing right by Sanders, but there is a long shot between them strategizing about something and actually fudging the votes. Most of the people that I have talked with about this seems to think that he got more votes. I mean it could not be further from the truth. Clinton beat him with more votes than Obama beat her in whatever way you count. I've heard complaints about a lot of different things, but in every instance it was the Sanders campaign who fucked up (missing deadlines, forgetting to register, focusing on the wrong districts).
I do not think Sanders would have done better than Clinton. The fact is this is all on the electorate. Dems did not show up to vote, and now you have this situation. A fascist in the Whitehouse. His choice of Bannon only confirms it. Unless the Senate GOP stands up to Trump, we are in for one hell of a ride.
Taut, Dems (and swayables) had many reasons for not showing up for Clinton. Simply brushing those aside and blaming the electorate makes no sense. What would you expect from voters who perceived that the party and one candidacy were working against their candidate? Hillary was a horrible candidate. Her likability and trustability was/is incredibly low, and her history is poisonous. All indicators showed these things going in and yet she forced herself on us. Fail to see that and you will never correct it. We have Trump because of Clinton. Print the Blame Hillary T-shirts.
Post by: stoneaxe on November 17, 2016, 07:31:24 AM
Post by: PonoBill on November 17, 2016, 08:54:53 AM
Blame Hillary. I kind of want the shirt, but I don't want to wear anything with her name on it. How about "Blame the DNC".
Post by: yugi on November 17, 2016, 09:06:42 AM
Now surprise us! Puhleeease
Post by: tautologies on November 17, 2016, 04:17:58 PM
Taut, Dems (and swayables) had many reasons for not showing up for Clinton. Simply brushing those aside and blaming the electorate makes no sense. What would you expect from voters who perceived that the party and one candidacy were working against their candidate? Hillary was a horrible candidate. Her likability and trustability was/is incredibly low, and her history is poisonous. All indicators showed these things going in and yet she forced herself on us. Fail to see that and you will never correct it. We have Trump because of Clinton. Print the Blame Hillary T-shirts.
Horrible in what way then? I said early that Clinton was the queen of unforced mistakes..and she was. The email issue was a bad mistake, and she made it a bit worse by not acknowledging it. What you and it seems a lot other people are missing is that this has been the standard practice in Washington for a long time. Bust lost 22million emails in the same way. The fact is that all of them...are inept when it comes to technology and they are not listening to technologists. To say it this way, back about 300 years ago when my boss asked me to do something similar for him I told him "Hell no".
When the FBI says we found no reason to prosecute, that should be it. I realize it could come back up, but Sanders was right...this wasn't as big of a deal as the press made it. The fact that people in her campaign fell for simple and shitty hacking techniques is insane...but again it shows the level of technological skills these people have. She got criticized for smashing equipment...it standard fucking procedure and not a single journalist called GOP out on it.
The fact that Clinton got more scrutiny on her foundation than Trump is, again, insane. He literally broke the law. On the Clinton side nothing has been shown. I know Norway is a big donor to the group, but the Norwegian government investigated independently the Clinton foundation (they cannot donate if it influence the relationship between US and other countries including Norway) and found nothing wrong.
Now it might seem like I am not critical to Clinton at all..I certainly am, but the fact is she was held to a completely different standard than Trump and the outcome showed it.
Yugi: You have no idea what you are asking for.
Her
It is nuts to say we have Trump because of Clinton...she has one vote like everyone else who voted.
Obviously the blame is
Post by: Admin on November 18, 2016, 03:00:49 AM
You have answered your own question. Everything sticks to Hillary. She is Velcro to Trumps Teflon. That is a part of being a politician. You can't govern prior to getting elected. She makes the truth sound like a lie. Her unfavorables and untrustables are putrid. Her polls dipped every time the attention was on her. Her goal was to keep attention on Trump...and it worked. At one point in the campaign she had an honest moment and let loose that she was not a gifted politician (what?!?) like Barack and Bill. Someone must have told her that the line had legs with some focus group, so she was running around repeating it like it was a strength. Note to democrat powers: if you are going to force a candidate, make them likable, inspirational, and trustworthy (especially when they are lying).
Post by: tautologies on November 18, 2016, 01:21:56 PM
Admin,
I get what you are saying, that she is velcro doesn't make her a horrible candidate in of itself. It should rather give people pause and check the pulse on how we judge. She lacks charm..does that make her a bad executive politician? I do not think so.
She has a pretty good voting record, and she seems to me to have a needed pragmatism a good politician needs. Most of all she understands the political system.
All this is neither here nor there since now there is a fascist in charge.
Post by: SeldomScene on November 18, 2016, 04:06:38 PM
Post by: tautologies on November 18, 2016, 05:24:49 PM
In an era where any falsehood, no matter how egregious, is somehow ok, it may surprise some that many voters still value integrity.
Says the guy who voted for a self-admitted sexual offender who just paid his scam-victims $25m.
I never said Clinton was perfect, but holy shit how much better she is than Trump. They are not in the same league when it comes to integrity. Also if you voted for Trump to avoid influence in politics...you are in for a surprise.
Post by: surfshaver on November 18, 2016, 05:36:56 PM
Presidential politics is about emotion, not ideas. This has become especially true since the 1960's when television and mass media is the primary way the electorate experiences the candidates.
The Candidate that wins the Presidency is the one that connects with the people emotionally in an authentic way. This is the way they sway the undecided/swing voters who make the difference.
Hillary failed to connect emotionally with the people. Not just undecideds, but with Democrats. She didn't because she is too calculating a person, has existed in the Washington/Wall St. bubble for most of her adult life, and because she lacks the innate charisma that her husband and Obama possess.
Both Bernie and Trump connected emotionally with the people -- by expressing outrage (in Bernie's case) and by stoking anger and fear (in Trump's case). These are emotions many american people are feeling right now -- not just working class whites in the midwest.
As Pono said, the DNC failed because their institutional inertia behind the Clintons was so strong ("it's her turn") that it blinded them to the truth that Bernie's success in the Primary should have shown them -- that their base was just as upset/outraged/anxious as the Republicans. And that Bernie was connecting with them.
To be clear, Bernie's message -- bringing Wall Street to heel -- was almost as simplistic/lacking "reality"/unachievable as Trump's "build the wall." But like Trump's message, it resonated emotionally.
Hillary had no message.
When Trump became the Republican nominee I was excited that this would energize her campaign as it would give it an emotional message -- stop this dangerous man from hijacking our government.
But Hillary was not the right messenger. I wish she had named Warren as her Vice President. I'm not sure Warren would have agreed, but I bet Hillary didn't do it because Warren would have stolen her thunder, or because the focus groups said it was too risky.
Psychologists who have studied Trump have said that he's an extremely disagreeable, mean spirited person whose most authentic emotions are anger and disdain. This is what I find so troubling. Trump's success with Americans is a result of the fact that people can tell when someone's emotions are genuine. His disdain is genuine. Like any demogogue, he connected with people on the level of our worst emotions: fear, anger, hate.
Obama won because people felt his hope and optimism was genuine. And he made people feel it too.
Trump won because people felt his hate -- hate of immigrants, hate of elites, of media, of "the system" -- was genuine. And feeling that hate made people feel good.
Hillary lost because she didn't make people feel anything.
Post by: tautologies on November 18, 2016, 06:24:48 PM
Nice post Surfshaver...I think I agree.
Two things...one is the ideas part..if you are talking about ideology I do think it is important, but you are right, they probably do connect emotionally. One of the biggest issues I have with the current system of policymaking is that it is mostly value based and not fact based.
Trumps wall will be built if he is in office...it's dumber than Bush's fence..that BOTH Obama and Clinton voted....FOR. The wall tho is going to be insanely expensive and completely ineffective.
Post by: SeldomScene on November 18, 2016, 06:51:43 PM
Post by: PonoBill on November 18, 2016, 10:37:28 PM
Post by: SaMoSUP on November 19, 2016, 12:57:39 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/soloish/wp/2016/11/11/one-psychologists-theory-about-why-so-many-women-voted-for-trump/
Post by: Area 10 on November 19, 2016, 03:07:12 AM
Post by: Weasels wake on November 19, 2016, 10:44:09 AM
I don't think it's true that Hillary made people feel nothing. She made a substantial proportion of the electorate feel strong revulsion. The degree of it is what baffles people outside the US. But I guess it's like when a family member has a small but annoying habit. After years and years of drip-drip-drip incessant annoyance, your reaction to it can be out of all proportion to what seems reasonable to an outsider. My feeling is that Hillary basically just outstayed her welcome, and the house owners shoved her out the front door in a fit of irritation and exasperation. Unfortunately when they opened the door they also welcomed in a con artist who promised to fix the roof but actually aims to steal the family silver.This time I agree with everything you said,,,,,,,,,, with the exception of your last sentence, but I'll let that slide.
Here in the U.S. many people, myself included, never quite fully understood why your country booted Winston "We shall never surrender" Churchill out of office after seemingly doing a great job during WWII, he was even made a honorary citizen of the U.S. So I guess there are parallels, even though I'm not here trying to compare Trump to Churchill, to early for that, but for the time being I can see similarities in the trans-pond attitudes.
Post by: Area 10 on November 19, 2016, 12:06:33 PM
Post by: PonoBill on November 19, 2016, 12:19:22 PM
Winston outstayed his welcome. He made his way back into power but realistically, became a bit inept toward the end of his political career. He certainly pissed off a lot of people that should have been his allies. I think he felt his wartime excellence made him a great peacetime leader and justified staying in public life for as long as he wanted--even after his strokes.
Winston Churchill drunk on Champagne was still the smartest person in any room. My favorite champagne is Pol Roget Winston Churchill, and I know it's not just because of the delightful yeasty balance.
Post by: surfshaver on November 19, 2016, 03:04:04 PM
I've often thought about Churchill's famous quote about Americans during this election. Maybe we have finally disproved him: we were not capable of doing the right thing after exhausting all the alternatives. Or maybe this is merely a prelude to doing the right thing in the next election. Progress doesn't move forward in a linear fashion. I sincerely hope that four years of Trump and Trumpism will represent as the French say, "Reculer pour mieux sauter" or taking a few steps back to get a better jump forward.
PS -- I'm an entrepreneur, currently working on a couple of Tech projects. Also a happy owner of two KeNalu paddles.
Cheers,
Alex
Post by: LaPerouseBay on November 19, 2016, 08:44:36 PM
/
He was a hero of my grandfather, who served in the US Navy and was a 19 year old Chief Petty Office aboard one of the destroyers in Pearl Harbor during the attack and did multiple tours of duty in the Pacific.
/
Cool. My Dad made chief in less than two years. Enlisted Dec. 8th, 1941. Permanent appointment at the Philadelphia Navy Yard. One red hash on his sleeve.
That generation grew up fast. We are so, so lucky.