Category: News and Views
Who are you voting for if anyone. Why? Who would you never vote for? Why? What party, if any, are you a part of? Why?
And everything else about 2016.
Jake
Well! You stole my thunder because I was going to post something similar a little bit ago.
But anyway, your questions. Probably gunna be Hilary this year. Not so much because I’m in love with her as a candidate; I do, however, believe she stands the best shot at upholding the beliefs I espouse. She’s pro-gay rights, pro-choice, and I believe she’ll appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will help to reverse some of the Court’s most recent odious decisions, such as the Citizens United decision and the one that gutted the Voting Rights Act. I won’t vote for virtually any of the Republican candidates because frankly, that party is a joke at this point in our history. It is not a viable alternative to the Democrats, and I believe it is a party that will suffer disastrously next year. In fact, I’m starting to see the big picture for the next several years.
See, when Biden didn’t get into the race, he seemed to warn the people that if we continue along our present trajectory of toxic partisanship, we would begin to break apart as a nation. I believe that this is only so if the Republicans can mmanage to hold enough of the congress to block a Democratic president’s initiatives in 2017 and beyond. But if you look on Youtube, you mmight find a video of the commentator Lawrence O’Donnell, who in 2014, referenced a conservative Republican commentator’s view that in 2016, the GOP would sustain serious losses. Taking the senate, he believes that there are about 24 seats currently held by the GOP that are in danger as we speak. The current senate is made up of 54 GOP seats. Assuming all of them are lost, which is not unlikely, then the make-up of the Senate should be 70-30 in favor of the Dems. That’s a super-majority. In essence, it’s a filibuster-proof majority. For at least two years, there’d be nothing the GOP can do, at least in the Senate, to block initiatives from the White House. So, Biden’s implicit warning may be overstated.
Of course, all of this assumes the Dems do win the white House in 2016. In 2014, both O’Donnell and this conservative commentator named Chris Ladd, believed that there is a virtually impenetrable blue wall that cannot be bridged by the current GOP. By both their calculations, any Democratic candidate, with a minimum of effort, would win about 257 electoral votes, and that if you threw New Hampshire and Virginia into the mix, that same Democrat, whoever he or she is,, would be able to win 270 electoral votes – enough to win the white House. IN short, as it stands now, the GOP has virtually no shot at the White House next year. And if Trump is the nominee, I think this is especially plausible. Aside from being against immigrants and for insulting virtually anyone and everyone running right now, I can’t think of any real policy initiatives that he’s for. Carson is a flat-out joke and can only appeal to the extreme right,, evangelical base in the GOP. Cruz is little more than a pit viper. Bush seems likely to self-destruct very shortly. Given how horrendously his brother’s presidency ended, I’m not sure the voters will take a chance at yet another Bush.
Speaking of Bush, I think he did something rather telling in the last few days. I actually admire him for what he said recently. Basically, he voiced something I’ve been wondering about when he said that he has better things to do than become president and have to deal with toxic gridlock, sitting around getting nothing done while the country declines and the parties beat up on each other. Kinda makes me wonder who would actually want the job of president these days. But I think that if the scenario I and others envision happening actually comes to pass, this toxicity should begin to lessen in a while. With the Republicans being increasingly marginalized, the noise level should decrease for a time, and we should begin to settle down. That said, success can lead to excess, and excess can lead to its own undoing. The merry-go-round continues to turn, therefore, until it stops one way or another.
I think the problem with US politics is that there are only two major parties. If there were four, two on the left and two on the right, politics would be more moderate.
In presidential elections, it is inevitable that it will become a personality contest. The media likes sensation, so inevitably, Republicans who say the most outrageous things will get more publicity than moderate Republicans. If each party had a leader, it would be assumed that the leader would contest the presidency. The result would be more focus on what is happening in Congress instead of the very long electoral process. The media would obviously not like this as the stories would be less attractive than the stories that come up during a presidential election.
When ever there are major news stories in the US, the sort that seem to attract the attention of every relevant authority in the land, it is apparent just how many layers of politician there are. This seems to be accepted. There never seems to be a ccampaign to move away from personality politics, so much power being concentrated in the hands of individuals.
Regarding current issues, foreign policy will prove to be the most important for the next presidency. Will the Islamic State still hold any ground at the end of the presidency?
People are quick to criticise George W. Bush, but it is under the Obama presidency, that the retreat of the US has enabled the establishment of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syyria.
I agree that it would be better if we had two liberal and two conservative parties. I might do the unthinkable this election and not vote for the presidential candidate, just vote on senate / house and local ballot measures, etc.
In the U.S., your local elections are where you actually have a dog in the fight, as it were. And those are the ones most people know the least about and skip over the back page of the ballot.
if I wrote the ballot, your local issues would be on the front page, graduating to more and more national as you move towards the back, as that's more representative of how your representation re: governments in the U.S. works.
I’ll continue to criticize George W. Bush because it was under his watch that the whole Iraq debacle began in the first instance. Say what youwill of Saddam Hussein; he was a butcher, a bastard, he starved his people, built palaces at their expenses, probably did use chemical warfare against ethnic minorities. But Bush’s venture against him had nothing whatever to do with 9/11. Hussein had nothing to do with those attacks. No nukes were found, and there was, as far as we now realize, any plans for Hussein to attack the U.S. He took his eye off the ball in Afghanistan and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in the doing. Thousands of American soldiers had to die in a useless debacle that ended up solving nothing and making everything worse. In all that time from 9/11 of 2001 until January 20, 2009, when Obama was inaugurated as president, he failed to secure the death of Bin-Laden. That was done under Obama’s watch. And because we broke Iraq under Bush’s watch, that made it possible for Al-Qaeda to gain a foothold in Iraq when it was never there to begin with. True, Hussein or his Baathist heirs might still be in power had we not invaded Iraq, but I’ll conclude that he would probably have been the lesser of two evils if a choice had to be made between him and this Islamic State with which we now have to deal. I’d venture to say that now that we have nothing but a series of bad choices where Iraq and Syria are concerned, maybe we should stop trying to dictate matters over there and get out entirely. And now that Bin-Laden is dead, I’d just get out of Afghanistan as well. Frankly, I’m tired of trying to protect people from their own desire to slaughter each other. Sounds cruel, perhaps, but we have more than enough problems of our own at this point in time.
Hi.
As an avid reader of Chris Hedges, both his reports on Truthdig and his books as well as other thinkers such as Noam Chomsky, I no longer, nor have I for many years participated in any meaningful way in the political system as it is and has been for many years.
We live in an age of “Neoliberalism where corporations and big business get rich at the expense of others, most of whom are impoverished or within the middle class. It’s these groups who are sent off to fight wars, most if not all of which we have no business waging in the first place. The wars in Afghanistan, and especially in Iraq are ones that have worsened the problem of the existence of Alkaida and have brought about the existence of Isis in Iraq.
We believed that we could bring about a utopia in The Middle East by way of “The War on Terror”. We believed that victory was just one gunshot, missile or bomb away and that if we unleashed these deadly and evil forces just one more time, that all terrorists, or at least Islamic people we believed to be terrorists would be removed from the globe and with them, evil itself. When our lies about weapons of mass destruction were shown to be such, we changed the story and said that the women and children needed to be liberated from an evil dictator. As Chris Hedges correctly pointed out, this idea isn’t rational. Us equating Iraqis with Ben Laden is no different than how Israelis equate Palestinians with Nazis as the excuse for why they’re destroying the home of The Palestinians.
In the end, “The War on Terror” isn’t about saving or helping anyone except for the oil and military companies. This is the real danger of “Neoliberalism”, because it tricks even well-intentioned “Liberals” in to supporting policies that were they called for what they were, no one left-or-right winged would support them. More disgustingly, when some on the left disagreed with the war in Iraq such as the author Sam Harris, it was for strictly utilitarian reasons in that they couldn’t be sure as to whether or not we could free Iraq from its evil dictator. Never-mind the fact that since we attacked Iraq with no real reason, that it makes our government a collective of war criminals under international law. Had we given patients and allowed time to destroy Iraq’s evil government, it would have without our help, destroyed itself. Now, we have Isis, other splinter groups and millions of Iraqi men, women and children who are maimed, physically and psychologically disabled or even dead, and it is all our fault.
People who wonder how we got Isis over there and who are concerned as to whether or not the group will be a threat to us eventually, I say that this is what happens when one believes that evil is something external and not within each and every single one of us and that we all have to struggle against it, for when we believe that evil is within Isis, Alkaida or The Nazis and not within us, then we risk doing to those what they’ve done to us. We in the end, become the people we claim to oppose. Evil will never be over-come, evil is a mystery and it is something we all will have to cope with and fight against, first within ourselves, then within others, but it won’t be done because we believe that ridding ourselves of the most evil will work, and it will only create either the problems we sought to prevent if not worsen already existing problems. Why is Isis here? It’s because we created a power vacuum in Iraq and had no regard for how our actions would affect others. The rage of the people making up Isis came from us destroying their home and so we have no right to be shocked, scared or to bitch about them existing now, for this is what happens when we destroy those we claim to be evil. It causes problems for the people around them and with no safe or ethical means by which to articulate their feelings, they’ve done what anyone who’s impoverished in that situation might easily do and our government only has itself to blame for why we now have Isis. This is not me agreeing with or condoning their acts, what they’re doing is sick. That’s just the point though, to explain and to understand is not to blame or excuse. We must understand how an “Isis” is created in order so that we don’t repeat these actions again.
James
I think the previous poster is confusing neo liberalism with neo conservatism. It is the neocons who seem to believe that just one more war will make the world better and kill off evil.
I agree with post six in so far as saying that I have not voted in any presidential elections since 2004, because well, there is quite simply no point in doing so. That being said, even if I did vote, look at the morons we have running this year. We have Hilary, who fucked up in at least two notorious ways during her term as Secretary of state. Now people all of a sudden trust her to be the president. Then we have Trump. While I actually would love to see a president who does speak his mind about the obvious and gaping flaws in our country's government, and while I even agree with several of the things he says such as situations regarding illegal migration into the United States, from Mexico especially, the vision he has in mind is completely illogical and almost downright impossible.
So, yes. I am going to be a good citizen and exercise my right to vote, but I will only vote on the things that actually do matter. The country's next figurehead, to me, since neither are viable candidates as things presently stand, are things that I'll take no part in choosing. I'll let other people fuck us over where that's concerned. Hopefully Hilary if she wins doesn't store the nuclear codes on her unsecure email server, and if Trump wins, hopefully he doesn't use them when someone makes him mad.
Well said, post 8. Voting for either Hillary or Trump is like voting for the lesser of 2 evils although they're both completely incompetent to be POTUS.
Honestly, I think America as we've known her is done for. I really hate to say that because I was once very patriotic. The values that made this nation so great have been stripped away. Our education system has been dumbed down. Our youth are completely either entitled or so pussified that they can't intelligently discuss, or even hear an opposing viewpoint without claiming psychological dammage. Sorry to those youth who aren't that way because of course this statement is a complete generalization and there are exceptions to every rule.
We seem to be working with mob mentality lately. If someone doesn't like something, just start a riot. We have unsustainable debt too.
Anyway, all that to say, like others have said, I'm going to focus much more on my local elections and let the powers that be sort out the rest.
Myself,, I have to choose which ones of the two major candidates we have presented to us will be the lesser of two evils, and frankly,, that’s not saying a whole lot about this country at this present time. Is the US done for? I dunno. There’s that old saw that you should never make predictions,, especially about the future. The truth is that the United States has not fallen yet, so we can’t honestly say we’re done for. But I will say we’re at a critical crossroad. On the one hand, we’re still, at least on paper, the richest, most powerful country on the globe. Our military strength is second to none. Our constitution is still intact, and while we have a little bit of unrest in this land, we’re not in shambles like Iraq and Syria,, and let’s not even talk about the most of Africa right now. Most Americans can read and write, and most of us have plenty of food to eat. We can criticize our government and its officials without having to worry about that knock on the door at 3:00 in the morning. Say what you will about presidential elections; the fact still remains is that we have them and we don’t have to worry overmuch about a constitutional crisis when one president gets defeated by some other from the opposite party. We can travel in relative safety throughout the country, and in general our public discourse is still relatively courteous.
And yet, as good as we still have things, there are some dismaying signs of insidious decline. Remember back before 9/11, when we didn’t have to have passports to go to Canada and Mexico? Remember how much easier it was to fly from New York City,, say,, to Minneapolis,, the way I used to do every two or three weeks? We didn’t need a Department of Homeland Security back then, and we wouldn’t need it this day had George W. Bush and his cronies paid attention to the warnings others made before 9/11 that something was very, very wrong, and that we might be in store for some trouble. We had a surplus when Clinton left office in 2001. Now we’re billions of dollars in the whole. Admittedly this deficit has gone down over the past several years, but there is still too little money to repair our crumbling infrastructure. We have,, altogether, 535 congresspeople and senators who don’t really seem to be able to do anything,, assuming there is a will to do anything at all, to fix things. When a president’s proposed nominee to the Supreme Court is not respected simply because this is now an election year,, even though in other election years presidents have nominated justices to the Court and they were accepted or not on their own merits, it’s telling just how toxic our politics are these days. People on the right bitch about some of President Obama’s executive decisions, and maybe it’s a valid gripe. But if congress isn’t willing to act on anything,, if congress won’t get together and debate honestly the issues before us, if one senator can block initiatives or nominees and deny the opportunity to debate issues before the entire body, there is something very,, very wrong going on here. What else is a president supposed to do when congress won’t act? I believe this is presently one of the greatest dangers to our republic because if left unchecked, it could create enough instability such that the country might ultimately pray for a single strongman (or woman) to take the reigns of power in an attempt to lead us out of the mess we’ve created for ourselves. I believe there’s still time to fix a lot of these problems, but we have to start somewhere, and we have to keep cool heads about us in the doing. Maybe somebody has to be willing to give up some degree of power. People have to be willing to engage in honest deliberation about the things that are wrong with this country. So, too, I think we should be honest with ourselves and perhaps ask ourselves whether some of the things that may have worked 200, 100 or even 50 years ago can still work. Maybe this country is too big. Maybe we have too many legislators. Maybe it’s time to re-examine whether jjustices should be appointed to the Supreme Court for life. Maybe we should also re-examine whether or not the 22nd Amendment should be repealed,, thus allowing a president to serve as many terms as he or she can be elected to. Or, alternatively,, maybe we should consider term limits differently such that representatives and senators can only serve a set amount of consecutive terms, and not be allowed to run again. We’ve already done so for the president, and I’m not altogether sure this was such a fabulous idea. I think it created an imbalance such that the checks and balance system we were taught to celebrate when we were in grammar school is currently unsound. But then, these are my own thoughts.. Fortunately, I can voice them, and fortunately people can disagree. We still have that, after all.
Though I understand and agree with the concern over are political gridlock, I do not agree that abstaining from voting is a rational or helpful response. Almost every Presidential election in my lifetime, which is long, has been tainted by the lesser of two evils argument. This is nonsense. No human being is free from mistakes. Our leaders are only human. To say the two candidates this time around are equal shows either a complete lack of information, or a willful desire to stupe to our baser natures and not think things through. Democratic government takes effort, not only by our leaders, but by we citizens. We are too often intelectually lazy so it is easier to bitch and not vote than to spend time understanding the issues and the candidates and picking the one we hope will do the best job. Our nation is only doomed if we as citizens allow it. Buck up and take responsibility for your actions. If you won't, then why complain if our leaders act just as cynical and lazy as our citizens.
Hey everyone.
Both Neoliberalism and Neo-conservatism are causing a reconfiguration of our political system such to the point that it is no longer effective in any meaningful way. As long as we continue to allow corporations to be our shadow government and as long as we allow lobbyists in to the government along with like-minded politicians who are all willing to do the bidding of corporations in that they’ll pass laws that allow unfettered capitalism to be the way of the world and of our country, then the two-party system is just going to continue on as the fake and dying establishment that it is.
It’s not our job to save, or obey a dying system nor a system that puts profits over the health, safety and well-being of its citizens.
James
Frying the Evil Out of Them???
I’ve been looking through the other boards, one of which has a topic or I should say a few different topics under one heading. One of them was the death penalty. Unfortunately, the board on which that topic is posted is locked due to the lack of postings on it. So I’ll give my thoughts here. This may come off more theological than political, but what-ev.
The death penalty while described by some as a deterrent to murder and criminality in general, and by others as making someone pay for what they’ve done, the reality is that it’s not about any of that and has far more to do with getting revenge without the avenger having to go to prison themselves. It also gives rise to more utopian schemes to externalize evil as well as gives the false impression that with the gassing, lethal injection or electrocution of the murderer’s body, that evil in any quantifiable sense or in any tangible sense has been removed from The Earth and that now everything will be fine.
When we decide that a murderer will die for their crime, then we become no different than the people we oppose. In Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment, Raskolnikov, an impoverished college student plans and carries out the murder of a pawn-broker and her sister in the belief that the murder of the pawn-broker will benefit the whole of humanity and that if he gives all her riches and money to humanity, then the crime would be justified. He ends up killing her sister, as she walked in when he was beating to death the woman, thus she was a witness.
He goes through the rest of the story spending more energy trying to hide and live with the crime than doing what he set out to do. His crime in the end, benefitted no one and only caused him isolation from society and from God.
Dostoyevsky understood the power and the danger of easy answers, easy solutions and utopian ideas as well as the horrors resulting from said ideas. He understood the lies we tell ourselves about how we can make the world better and that reality is not and never has to be an impediment to our desires. Unless we remember the lessons of Dostoyevsky and the lessons of other great moral thinkers and apply those understandings and teachings to our lives, then not only will we come face to face with evil, but the evil that we claim to want to fight will in the end come face to face with us.
James
I totally agree with post twelve.
I am, and will always be a democrat, because of the simple truth that republicans are for the rich, and democrats are not.
This year I am supporting Bernie Sanders--though he stands no chance--because his philosophy is closest to mine.
In the fall I shall hold my nose and vote for Hillary in the hope she doesn't screw up to badly.
Never in my life would I vote for Donald duck.
Bob
Neoliberal Whore on the Street Corner
I definitely agree with Bobby on Donald Duck. That being said though, I choose not to participate in the system as it is. Democrats, in so far as they are the politicians who make decisions and do what they do since the presidency of Bill Clinton have betrayed the working class by merging with big business because of cynically believing that no one would vote republican, especially people who were within the working class. It was under Clinton that The Glass-Steagall Act was destroyed, which was a law that was meant to prevent the very banking problems we had in 2008 and that we’re still having in terms of the after-effects. It was under Clinton that people who had barely a supportive job at Walmart were disappeared from the working class as well as people who were unable to find jobs or people who stopped looking for work and the result, it looked like the working class was doing better than it was. Clinton also did more to remove the functioning areas of welfare and healthcare as well as passing NAFTA which has done more to damage and gut the working class worse than any republican.
Richard Nixon was a Bastard and a creep, but he was afraid enough of the counter culture that he at least past through acts which were helpful to protecting the environment, so in a sense, he was the best “Liberal” president we ever had. Bill Clinton was the best “Republican” president we ever had. He showed himself to be a whore who soled us out, especially the working class who he sold out for the needs of big business. He was a whore for big business and Neoliberalism, that is when he wasn’t busy getting sucked off by Monica Baby anyway.
Hillary Clinton was the Cunt who rather than try to work on programs that would get to the root cause of the crimes committed by kids in the country, she labeled them as “Super Predators” who have no empathy for anyone, thus continuing the trend to demonize children in our society. She also supported the illegal criminal war of aggression in Iraq that we did in 2003 then switched her position a couple of years later for reasons that I’d have to guess are utilitarian as I mentioned of the liberals who were in favor of the war that I talked about a few nights ago.
To support the democrats in today’s age is to support Neoliberalism which favors big business and empowers corporations, so whenever you hear Hillary support Gay Marriage or abortion rights for woman, just know that most likely, a Democrat super-PAC is being enriched and yet one more time, the middle class and the working class are being fucked over with the rich benefiting. The Republicans are aligned deeply with big business, this has been understood for decades, but with Neoliberalism, it’s only allowed the democrats to do the same, become whores for corporations, mainly the defense industry, the prison industrial complex as well as the for-profit health care system and allowed them to sell-out the very people they were supposed to stand up for in the first place. Should the democrats lose any further support from anyone, don’t feel sorry for them, for that’s what happens when one becomes a whore of their own choice.
I agree with Barranca Grande.
Bill Clinton has become the darling of the dems, but he did it on the backs of the working person and the poor.
I can't help but wonder what things would be like if president Johnson's great society could have come to fruition.
Bob
Yeah. Let's love those like Clinton, who'd rather outsource, than hire Americans. I don't want to vote for Hillery, but I think Trump's riding on his own money, and past fame.
Either way, we who have something to overcome, will suffer. I wish I could make my own country. Things would be much different.
I can't stand Trum[p, and really don't feel like having another Clinton in Office. Since the people don't count, and the Electoral college does, it makes more sense to me, just to vote for local, state, and Congress. At least, we have some say, in those offices.
God Bless!
Sarah
Hell, I'd vote for Donald Duck. At least he'd be better than Donald Trump or Hilary Clinton. But I'm seriously tempted to write in Zaphod Beeblebrox.
Well, he'd definitely be more fun, am I right?
Zaphod certainly would and probably Donald Duck as well.
Well, Clinton has 2 heads, so Zaphod and he could be pres, and Vice. LOL
I'm voting for sara the guide dog. her campaign slogan is free dog cookies for all. seriously, I will vote, but I sure can't figure out for wwhich candidate I will cast my ballot. both of them make me nauseated. we have the buffoon who has the big mouth and can't listen problem. on the other hand we have the bi*** who thinks the truth is a where's waldo game.
oh yes, and I'm sick of hearing that America Is doomed. if we name it we claim it. yes we have problems. the solutions are hard. don't count us out yet. enjoy your day.
I am a liberal democrat though I tend to lean towards the center at times.
Flip a coin. LOL
God Bless,
Sarah
Flip a coin really? Have you heard how Trump talks about people with disabilities? Come on!
Fuck Trump.
I call him trump the chump.
Trump the elmo/liar/racist/can't be trusted business man, which the business man will make people vote for them, and if the electoral college goes their way, we will be fucked. How those idiots think he is for the people is beyond me. Fuck Hillary's emails. Giving secrets to Russia is a major no no.
I saw the first political add from Killery Cunton a few days ago about Donald Tramp.
What a fucking waste of shit both of those pieces of white trash are, him especially.
Sunday Night on SeSpan, I saw Jill Stein's acceptance speech for The Green Party. I had been thinking about voting for her, and after seeing her speech, I'll definitely put my vote towards her when election day comes. She grasps fully, the take-over of our country and government by corporations as well as the fact that we're finished as a country if this doesn't change. She also sees the fake two-party system of democrat V. republican for the sham, lie and farce that it is. She also made it a point to talk at length about how aside from difference in dogma, there really is no difference between Clinton and Trump.
As Stein correctly pointed out, Trump advertises with naked fear, where as, Clinton though doing the same thing, attempts to dress her fear-based dogma in a dusting of hope. Stein also pointed out that the biggest problem with voting that deals with voting for the lesser of two evils is that with voting in the less evil, we often get the problems in the end, that we were attempting to solve or avoid in the first place.
That being said, Jill Stein: 2016!!!
James
Actually, the globalists and big multinational banks fund both sides of the wars. Obama kills Christians, and, because many people in the U.S have no idea what's going on beside what the mainstream establishment media says, and I've been listening to CNN lately to keep tabs on the enemy, it is quite easy for these criminals to get away with damned near anything. Hilary is a walking corpse, she is a Chinese/Saudi opperative and she's got some pretty bad health conditions, probably suffering from Parkinsons as well. They had to spend $250,000 equipping 3 SUV's with handicap steps because she can barely walk. She's a complete lier, and every metric shows it. Trump may not be the golden child for all his faults but they are nothing compared to Hilary. God, if she gets in this country is ruined. The reason why Isis is such a problem is because the plan is destabilization across the world. Divide and conquer. It's not a new tactic, only increasingly more strategic. Right here at home you've got black lives matter, the radical terrorist organization run by the white house to start violence here at home to divert attention from what is going on with Isis but also to divert the attention away from the election. I am voting for Trump 100% because voting for Hilary is throwing your vote away and saying fuck the country. Trump doesn't want to destroy the country and I believe that. Hilary does. She covers up for all of Bill's rapes and they make all this money giving speeches and most of it goes right into their Clinton foundation slush fund. Oh, don't forget the countless times that even the mainstream media pointed out how many times she lied, remember Benghazi? Landing under sniper fire? Oh and her private email server that the FBI director just gave her a pass. The entire government is fucked and unfortunately the clintons have their hand in a lot of it. Don't, for the love of God and this country, vote for Hitlery.
Ah yes, words from a typical republican windbag. Chinese operative? That's just crazy talk brought to you by Fox and friends. Start pointing us to facts rather than straight propaganda.
Dude, you sound like a right wing conspiracy theorist. Maybe you should not post here again until you have facts, and you clearly don't have a clue about any type of terrorism or anything about politics period, so just hush.
Also, little Dump supporter, please explain how he will make America great again? Because he talks out of his ass to me.
And, when did America stop being great?
who supports trump? I hate trump with a passion! He's gonna make America a living hell in my opinion.
I took a dump and named it Trump.
Well I do understand a lot of folks on here are dems, and that's you're own choice but don't tell me that Hilary isn't deathly sick. Fox and friends? I don't watch fox, nor do I even have a tv. Try going to drudge for once. How about you get with the program my friend and quit living in a fantasy liberal world where everyone is part of a team and individuality goes right out the window. Conspiracy theory huh, I don't know what conspiracy you're talking about, but sounds like classic cnn talking points to me. How about you check your facts before you squawk what they have to say, do you really want me to post links. Too bad your blind, because you'd be able to see Hilary being helped up steps with a member of secret service with a syringe. Not to mention the countless times she's frozen up on stage, she hasn't given press conferences in over 7 8 months, and she has no temper for anyone she's incredibly Hippocratic and a lier. Trump isn't a politician, and that's precisely what we need. Hilary wants to bring in thousands more of these refugees which is a pretty word for Isis to encourage more attacks on our country then she'll squawk about taking guns. Of course that's what Trump is saying because it's so god damn obvious any person with half a brain blind or not can see that. Why don't you listen to economists or trends experts. Yeah you disagree with me alright.
lol I don't watch CNN, and you still don't have anything credible to prove your point, so boo.
And I do want links. Also if you can show me an article or two that would be great. Anything to back up what you say. Oh you can't because you're full of shit.
I'm curious about your actual facts. I'm trying not to completely write you off as crazy, but without proof, it sounds like you've been listening to way too much alex jones and friends.
Trump has only been bankrupt 6 times. And he's seriously bigoted.
I don't like clinton, but he's clearly not the answer.
Nothing he says is remotely logical. But its doing what its designed to do perfectly. Appeal to a particular demographic.
I would have prefered to see sanders or warren get the dem side. Stine is ok, aside from the fact she seems to believe that vaccines cause autism, as well as a few other scientifically disproven things. lel
I think the third parties are going about this the wrong way though. Step 1 is to pick up as many local and state seats as one can. Create a brand that way, before making a serious push on the presidential level.
I'd believe that them running one was for marketing but for the fact they're doing such a bad job on the local and state level.
The problem is we don't have a stable third party. It's sad.
Again I know nothing about alex jones only hearing mainstream media mention him as a conspiracy theorist, so don't know what to tell you there. refer to other thread for links. As you're basically saying the same thing as the mainstream media, you're just parotting the same talking points. And yeah, actually those vaccines do cause autism. I was offered the gardasyl shot, I refused it. Is this alex jones guy your only ammunition? Seriously? I've already told you where I get my info.
Look him up for yourself so you can see what we are saying.
Reading this board has made me sincerely wish that we lived in a geniocracy.
That way people too stupid to make decisions could be prevented from doing so.
Democracy is far to lenient on such idiocy as displayed here.
the Most logical people with the movement have retracted their statements, because the methodology wasn't sound. The results can't be reproduced. Not only that, but the man who ran the innitial study had a serious conflict of interest he never, ever, ever disclosed. He was being payed by a law firm to prove that vaccines are dangerous.
the journal that published the study retracted it.
You know what has been proven though.
Cases of illness like meezles and polio coming back to the US, after we'd eradicated them thanks to... wait for it... vaccines. lol
Idiots like you are making the country less safe for everyone by propagating unfounded and unproven bullshit stories.
I don't cling to either the left or the right, I evaluate claims, and do my own research. that's the only way one can actually inform themselves.
Though you fall in to trumps primary demographic so I suppose I shouldn't expect much. When even trump is bullshitting you.
the guy doesn't even have a full campaign staff. that's easily proven with public records.
Both sides of the isle are laughing their way to the bank. Trump isn't a savior.
But he's marketed a message that really appeals to a particular kind of person.
now for some links
Here, you can see on the journals websight that published the story that they retracted it. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/abstract
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/health/research/03lancet.html
http://www.publichealth.org/public-awareness/understanding-vaccines/vaccine-myths-debunked/
even autism speaks says its bullshit. they're one of the leading advocacy groups for that population. and while I don't agree with everything they do, I do find it reassuring they're calling bullshit.
https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/no-mmr-autism-link-large-study-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-kids
Careful, we're parrating the mainstream media.
Oh James, don't argue with the idiots about vaccines. They don't understand
big words like is and the and of, let alone her immunity and statistical
significance. Why beat your head against that brick wall of stupid?
Because people need to be educated. That's why.
I thought of another aspect to the vaccine debate a lot of people don't talk about.
there are some people who have seriously unstable Immune systems, so vaccinating them isn't advisable. Others are allergic to some of the ingredients used in the vaccines.
Even these people are aided when the rest of the majority of the population gets vaccinated.
Why? Because of a simple concept called heard immunity.
By not vaccinating children, you're potentially putting those people in the same kind of risk someone takes when they choose to drive drunk, or when a car manufacturer puts out cars that are inaudible to the blind. That being said, the population size of people who shouldn't vaccinate is a little higher than blind people. So, from a logical point of view, its hard to make any argument that we should do things to improve the blindness quality of life while not doing something so easy, that would prevent other deaths.
oh, and before anyone can bust my balls about eradicated illnesses coming back, I'll provide some links.
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-anti-vaccination-movement-leads-to-disease-outbreaks-120312#2
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/01/25/265750719/how-vaccine-fears-fueled-the-resurgence-of-preventable-diseases
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/report/2013/11/14/76471/the-effect-of-childhood-vaccine-exemptions-on-disease-outbreaks/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150206-measles-vaccine-disney-outbreak-polio-health-science-infocus/
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/the-new-measles/384738/
https://news.vice.com/article/a-measles-outbreak-at-disneyland-is-reigniting-the-debate-on-vaccinations
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/09/28/true-cost-not-vaccinating-the-return-measles/4PBenymtmf0CE9WOT1FUWI/story.html
Look at all those dead children. That's what profoundly ignorant views on science cause. Pulled from several sources, with a wide ranging subset of political/ business views.
Hey Just Chillin, if Drudge is your source, then you need to widen your sources. They are a well known right wing mouth piece that yes, does engage in conspiracy theories. Clinton is not ill though Shawn Hanedy spent a full week showing carefully edited video to push that conspiracy. And how about Trump's stand on disability? His unreleased tax returns? His health statement provided by a doctor who is no longer permitted to practice? It is also interesting just how hate filled people like you speak. Can you not present your views without accusing everyone else of conspiracy, and lieing? I have noticed that the extreme right always accuses the left of the exact things they themselves are doing. Could it be because people who do not deal honestly assume everyone else is just as dishonest as they are?
I'm unlikely to vote for any presidential candidate because my doing so has zero impact on the outcome. I'd rather focus my energy locally, where it at least has the potential to make a small difference.
And how anyone still believes that vaccines cause autism is beyond me.
I don't care about Ronald Dump's tax returns because it doesn't matter! They tried that same shit with Obama and it's stupid. Now Just Chilin, if you claim to be fare and balance, do you think Dump is perfect?
Rudy Giuliani: I think Hillary is tired. I do. When I saw Hillary at the press conference sitting down with a Hillary supporting police chief pretending she is pro-police. It is one of the most pathetic press conferences I’ve ever seen. Well first of all she looks sick. Number two she looks completely uncomfortable saying anything pro-police.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/rudy-giuliani-think-hillary-looks-tired-looks-sick-video/
Top doctor and Rutgers University Professor of Medicine Bob Lahita says that concerns over Hillary Clinton’s health are not a conspiracy theory and that Clinton should be assessed by an impartial panel of physicians.
Should Clinton’s health concern voters?
Lahita told Fox Business that he agreed with Dr. Drew on several points about Hillary’s health. Last week, Drew told KABC that he is “gravely concerned” about Hillary Clinton’s health, noting that the treatment she has received is “bizarre”.
“This is a very unusual story with Hillary,” said Lahita, making reference to her suffering two blood clots, a stroke and post-concussive syndrome, which caused Hillary to have to wear special prism glasses to counter her double vision.
“The very fact that she’s having these clots and she’s had two bouts of thrombosis is disconcerting to say the least,” said Lahita.
Asked whether the concerns over Hillary’s health were objectively authentic regardless of politics or whether the leftist media were right to label the issue a conspiracy theory, Lahita responded, “I don’t think it’s a conspiracy.”
“You go back to the history of our presidents and we’ve had many presidents up until Lyndon Johnson who’ve concealed their health during their campaigns and it had dire effects for our country, going from Kennedy to Roosevelt, to Woodrow Wilson whose wife ran the White House for some time – so we have issues here and I think both candidates should be very forthcoming and perhaps have an impartial panel of physicians review the data and make that kind of decision before Americans go to the polls,” remarked Lahita.
Dr. Lahita also dismissed claims by the media that a summary released last year by Hillary’s personal physician Dr. Lisa R. Bardack saying she was in good health was enough to satisfy questions over Clinton’s fitness to serve as president.
Calling for a more recent assessment, Lahita said, “We should be able to see the laboratory results ourselves, the letter is kind of a summary (it) doesn’t go into much detail,” adding that more information on Hillary’s hypothyroidism would also be “quite interesting”.
“We owe it to the country, we owe it to the voters, not only for the presidential candidates, but also for the vice-presidential candidates – particularly in this election,” concluded Lahita.
According to his bio, “Doctor Lahita is Professor of Medicine at Rutgers University, the medical school of New Jersey, and an adjunct Professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine and the Chairman of Medicine and Vice President of the Newark Beth Israel Medical Center. He is a fellow of the American College of Physicians, a master of the American College of Rheumatology, and fellow of the Royal College of Physicians.”
Lahita has also authored more than 16 books and 150 scientific publications in the field of autoimmunity. He doesn’t really fit the picture of an ‘Internet conspiracy theorist’, which is how the Clinton campaign is attempting to characterize anyone who questions her health.
Judicial Watch
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/
Crown Prince of Bahrain Forced to Go Through Foundation to See Clinton, after Pledging $32 Million to Clinton Global Initiative
Hollywood Executive Casey Wasserman, Slimfast Mogul Daniel Abraham, Controversial Appointee Rajiv Fernando also among Clinton Foundation Donors Granted Special Favors from Clinton State Department
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 725 pages of new State Department documents, including previously unreleased email exchanges in which former Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state. In many instances, the preferential treatment provided to donors was at the specific request of Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.
The new documents included 20 Hillary Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to 191 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department). These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.
The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin. In Abedin’s June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of her job at the State Department was taking care of “Clinton family matters.”
Included among the Abedin-Band emails is an exchange revealing that when Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, he was forced to go through the Clinton Foundation for an appointment. Abedin advised Band that when she went through “normal channels” at State, Clinton declined to meet. After Band intervened, however, the meeting was set up within forty-eight hours. According to the Clinton Foundation website, in 2005, Salman committed to establishing the Crown Prince’s International Scholarship Program (CPISP) for the Clinton Global Initiative. And by 2010, it had contributed $32 million to CGI. The Kingdom of Bahrain reportedly gave between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. And Bahrain Petroleum also gave an additional $25,000 to $50,000.
From: Doug Band
To: Huma Abedin
Sent: Tue Jun 23 1:29:42 2009
Subject:
Cp of Bahrain in tomorrow to Friday
Asking to see her
Good friend of ours
From: Huma Abedin
To: Doug Band
Sent: Tue Jun 23 4:12:46 2009
Subject: Re:
He asked to see hrc thurs and fri thru normal channels. I asked and she said she doesn’t want to commit to anything for thurs or fri until she knows how she will feel. Also she says that she may want to go to ny and doesn’t want to be committed to stuff in ny…
From: Huma Abedin [Huma@clintonemail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:35:15 AM
To: Doug Band
Subject:
Offering Bahrain cp 10 tomorrow for meeting woith [sic] hrc
If u see him, let him know
We have reached out thru official channels
Also included among the Abedin-Band emails is an exchange in which Band urged Abedin to get the Clinton State Department to intervene in order to obtain a visa for members of the Wolverhampton (UK) Football Club, one of whose members was apparently having difficulty because of a “criminal charge.” Band was acting at the behest of Casey Wasserman, a millionaire Hollywood sports entertainment executive and President of the Wasserman Foundation. Wasserman has donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation through the Wasserman Foundation.
From: Tim Hoy [VP Wasserman Media Group]
Date: Tue. 5 May 2009 10:45:55 – 0700
To: Casey Wasserman
Subject: [Redacted] Wolverhampton FC/visa matter
Casey: Paul Martin’s [popular English footballer] client [Redacted] needs to get an expedited appointment at the US Embassy in London this week and we have hit some road blocks. I am writing to ask for your help.
The Wolverhampton FC is coming to Las Vegas this Thursday for a “celebration break.” [Redacted] so he cannot get a visa to the US without first being “interviewed” in the visa section of the US Embassy in London …
I contacted Senator Boxer’s office in SF for help … They balked at the criminal charge and said they “couldn’t help.”
I’m now trying to get help from Sherrod Brown’s office but that’s not going well either. So do you have any ideas/contacts that could contact the US Embassy in London and ask that they see [Redacted] tomorrow?
From: Casey Wasserman
To: Doug Band; Trista Schroeder [Wasserman Media Group executive]
Sent: Tue May 05 2:23:50 2009 [PT]
Subject: FW [Redacted] Wolverhampton FC/visa matter
Can you help with the below [Hoy email], or maybe Huma??? I am copying trista as I am on the plane in case I lose connection … thx.
From: Doug Band
Sent: Tue May 05 7:08:21 2009 [ET]
To: Casey Wasserman; Trista Schroeder
Subject: Re: [Redacted] Wolverhampton FC/visa matter
Will email her.
From: Doug Band
To: Huma Abedin
Sent: Tue May 5 7:26:49 2009
Subject: Fw: [Redacted] Wolverhampton FC/visa matter
[As per subject line, Band apparently forwarded Abedin material sent to him by Casey.]
From: Huma Abedin [Huma@clintonemail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:39:38 PM
To: Doug Band
Subject: Re: [Redacted] Wolverhampton FC/visa matter
I doubt we can do anything but maybe we can help with an interview. I’ll ask.
From: Huma Abedin
To: Doug Band
Sent: Tue May 05 5:50:09 2009
Subject: Re: [Redacted] Wolverhampton FC/visa matter
I got this now, makes me nervous to get involved but I’ll ask.
From: Doug Band
To: Huma Abedin
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:43:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Redacted] Wolverhampton FC/visa matter
Then don’t
The Abedin emails also reveal that Slimfast tycoon S. Daniel Abraham was granted almost immediate access to then-Secretary of State Clinton, with Abedin serving as the facilitator. According to the Clinton Foundation website, Abraham, like the Wasserman Foundation, has given between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. The emails indicate that Abraham was granted almost immediate access to Clinton upon request:
From: Huma Abedin
To: H
Sent: Mon May 04 4:40:34 2009
Subject: Danny
Danny abraham called this morning. He is in dc today and tomorrow and asked for 15 min with you. Do u want me to try and fit him in tomorrow?
From: H
To Huma Abedin
Sent: Mon May 04 5:14:00 2009
Subject: Re: Danny
Will the plane wait if I can’t get there before 7-8?
From: Huma Abedin
Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 5:15:30 PM
Subject: Re: Danny
Yes of course
Additional Abedin emails in which the top Clinton aide intervenes with the State Department on behalf of Clinton Foundation donors include the following:
• On Friday, June 26, 2009, Clinton confidant Kevin O’Keefe wrote to Clinton saying that “Kevin Conlon is trying to set up a meeting with you and a major client.” Clinton wrote to Abedin, “Can you help deliver these for Kevin?” Abedin responded, “I’ll look into it asap” Kevin O’Keefe donated between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Kevin Conlon is a Clinton presidential campaign “Hillblazer” who has raised more than $100,000 for the candidate.
• On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, Ben Ringel wrote to Abedin, “I’m on shuttle w Avigdor Liberman. I called u back yesterday. I want to stop by to see hrc tonite for 10 mins.” Ringel donated between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
• On Monday, July 6, 2009, Maureen White wrote to Abedin, “I am going to be in DC on Thursday. Would she have any time to spare?” Abedin responded, “Yes I’ll make it work.” White donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
• In June 2009, prominent St. Louis political power broker Joyce Aboussie exchanged a series of insistent emails with Abedin concerning Aboussie’s efforts to set up a meeting between Clinton and Peabody Energy VP Cartan Sumner. Aboussie wrote, “Huma, I need your help now to intervene please. We need this meeting with Secretary Clinton, who has been there now for nearly six months. This is, by the way, my first request. I really would appreciate your help on this. It should go without saying that the Peabody folks came to Dick [Gephardt] and I because of our relationship with the Clinton’s.” After further notes from Aboussie, Abedin responded, “We are working on it and I hope we can make something work… we have to work through the beauracracy [sic] here.” Aboussie donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
• On Saturday, May 16, 2009, mobile communications executive and political activist Jill Iscol wrote to Clinton, “Please advise to whom I should forward Jacqueline Novogratz’s request [for a meeting with the secretary of state]. I know you know her, but honestly, she is so far ahead of the curve and brilliant I believe she could be enormously helpful to your work.” Clinton subsequently sent an email to Abedin saying, “Pls print.” Jill and husband Ken Iscol donated between $500,000 and $1 million to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton subsequently appointed Novogratz to the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Policy Board.
The newly obtained Abedin emails also contain a memorandum sent to Cheryl Mills from State Department White House liaison Laura Pena revealing that Rajiv Fernando was proposed for his controversial appointment to the sensitive International Security Advisory Board as early as June 2009. Fernando was not actually appointed until 2011, and his appointment raised a firestorm because, according to an ABC News report, “he had no obvious experience in the field.” Fernando donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.
The Abedin emails reveal that even U2’s Bono got into the act when former Bill Clinton aide Ben Schwerin, who helped set up the Clinton Foundation, urged Abedin to help the aging rock star broadcast from the international space station. In a May 27, 2009, email with the subject line “Bono/NASA,” Schwerin wrote, “Bono wants to do linkup with the international space station on every show during the tour this year.… Any ideas? Thks.” Bono has been a donor to the Clinton Global Initiative. And in 2011, he gathered top entertainers for “A Decade of Difference: A Concert Celebrating 10 Years of the William J. Clinton Foundation.” According to USA Today, “Some tickets were sold to the public for $50 to $550, and premium seats went for $1,000 to $5,000 on the Foundation website.”
“These new emails confirm that Hillary Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “There needs to be a serious, independent investigation to determine whether Clinton and others broke the law.”
This is the tenth set of records produced for Judicial Watch by the State Department from the non-state.gov email accounts of Huma Abedin. The documents were produced under a court order in a May 5, 2015, Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) requiring the agency to produce “all emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013, using a ‘non-state’.gov email address.”
In June, Judicial Watch uncovered two batches (here and here) of new Clinton email records through court-ordered discovery. Twice in May, Judicial Watch uncovered new Clinton emails, including emails that show Clinton knew about the security risk of her BlackBerry (see here and here).
Recently, Judicial Watch released other State Department emails (one batch of 103 pages, the second of 138 pages), with newly discovered Clinton emails also going back as far as January 2009.
In March, Judicial Watch released Clinton State Department emails dating from February 2009 that also call into question her statements about her emails. Those emails contained more evidence of the battle between security officials in the State Department, National Security Agency, Clinton and her staff over attempts to obtain secure BlackBerrys.
On August 9, Judicial Watch produced a 2009 email in which Band directed Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department’s “substance person” on Lebanon. Band noted that Chagoury is “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us.” Chagoury has donated between $1 million to $5 million to the Foundation, according to foundation documents. He also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative.
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated that she believes that the 55,000 pages of documents she turned over to the State Department in December 2014 included all of her work-related emails. In response to a court order in other Judicial Watch litigation, she declared under penalty of perjury that she had “directed that all my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or are potentially federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done.” This new email find is also at odds with her official campaign statement suggesting all “work or potentially work-related emails” were provided to the State Department.
Oh and by the way, just so you know, the IRS is auditing Trump simply because they want to find anything at all to derail him though they'll find nothing. They tried the same with Ben Carson.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-won-t-release-tax-returns-while-1471814695-htmlstory.html
Ben Carson on being audited
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlZG-Ruwp0w
Just another establishment scheme to keep liberals in power, much deeper than that, but it's the basis of liberal democratic new age entitlement thinking which is the problem.
So besides trump being smeared once again and besides the media going hog wild with it, last time I checked he still had billions in the bank.
And by that I mean he's worked for it, Hilary hasn't.
6% of people trust the media, 4% trust congress
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trust-in-media_us_57148543e4b06f35cb6fec58
So what reliable sources were you talking about again?
Hillary Clinton’s top campaign aide, and the woman who might be the future White House chief of staff to the first female US president, Huma Abedin, for a decade edited a radical Muslim publication that opposed women’s rights and blamed the US for 9/11.
One of Clinton’s biggest accomplishments listed on her campaign Web site is her support for the UN women’s conference in Bejing in 1995, when she famously declared, “Women’s rights are human rights.” Her speech has emerged as a focal point of her campaign, featured prominently in last month’s Morgan Freeman-narrated convention video introducing her as the Democratic nominee.
However, soon after that “historic and transformational” 1995 event, as Clinton recently described it, her top aide Huma Abedin published articles in a Saudi journal taking Clinton’s feminist platform apart, piece by piece. At the time, Abedin was assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother, who remains editor-in-chief. She was also working in the White House as an intern for then-First Lady Clinton.
Headlined “Women’s Rights are Islamic Rights,” a 1996 article argues that single moms, working moms and gay couples with children should not be recognized as families. It also states that more revealing dress ushered in by women’s liberation “directly translates into unwanted results of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility and indirectly promote violence against women.” In other words, sexually liberated women are just asking to be raped.
Paragraphs are your friend you know. You don't have to make six posts in a
row. There's this key on the right side of your keyboard, right above the shift
key. its called the enter key. When you're typing, it puts in a line break. That
way you don't have to spam everyone with your half a dozen posts so often.
Yes indeed, it's annoying. Just one more thing to hurt your credibility I'd say.
The huffington post is great, but it's based off of opinions that people submit. *yawns*
I'd vote for either Johndy or Pasco perhaps.
Well, I know you don't read silver panties, but right above the edit box it says clear as day, 8000 characters max. So, to avoid running out of space, I create a new post. And, rather than letting everyone have the advantage of picking apart who I use, I purposefully did not post some URL's, rather, I just pasted the article. Still, no one has commented on the content of my posts, only the gripy bitchy nit picky shit like always. Who cares who it's from, is the content on target? I suggest it most certainly is. I'm glad you reminded yourself of the location of the enter key. It's useful but you don't need to preach to the choir.
I'll comment when your posts have content. I don't consider the dregs of right
wing cowards playacting the role of journalists, long bereft of integrity and
intellect to be content. Nor do I labor under the impression you have the mental
capacity to come up with something truly worth my consideration. You are a
child, and children should be seen, not heard. When you have some intelligence
and the ability to actually think for yourself, then perhaps I'll consider your
positions more closely. For now, in terms you can understand, you're a pathetic
worthless loser who isn't worth my time.
I feel the same way minus the bit about how kids should be seen and not heard. I hate that mentality. Other than that, show us some worth while content please.
admittedly, trumps medical report isn't exactly without doubt/question. Who knew dead doctors were able to diagnose current patients. lol
Clinton is far, far from perfect. But I see nothing of substance in anything that trump has ever said. And the fact that his vice pick is one of the most abominable pieces of shit in politics means that there is no way I could elect either of them.
Silver Panties? What ... does that even mean? So, his Username is Silver lightning. SO, silver in the title. But Panties? So, girls generally wear panties, and usually when panties are used in conjunction with an insult, it is usually derogatorily comparing them to a girl, as if girls are some lesser, weaker species. So basically you, chill are calling Cody a girl, insulting his man hood and putting women on a lower level of society than women. Or maybe, maybe I’m just reaching and jumping to conclusions without personally researching your past posts to determine if you are, in fact “that kind” of person.
As for the topic at hand, I believe South Park put it best when they said it’s a toss up between voting for a douche and a terd sandwich. A bit crude, but in this case, rather accurate. I’m glad I don’t live in the US right now, or I would really be at a loss for who I dislike more. From what I’ve picked up from popular opinion, my own observations and a bit of news here and there, I feel like they’re both poised to make a mess of things.
the main difference. One party actually cares about the disabled. The other party would like to turn back the clock on any progress we've made for the disabled in this country, because that money could be better spent by giving tax breaks to the 0.1 percent. lol
Even though all research shows trickle down economics doesn't work.
TBH, if you need/rely on government aid at all, not sure why you'd vote republican.
I never understood that either James, but they do it.
Look no farther than chilling's posts. Clinton isn't fit to be president because
she appears to be disabled in some manner. There's nothing in in those articles
about her being mentally unstable, or anything like that. She's physically
disabled. Our greatest president, or one of them at least, was also physically
disabled, and he served for 13 years. So what is chilling trying to say, disabled
people can't be president? How self-hating of him.
It saddens me. That's all I can really say.
No that's not at all what I said. But as usual, you're an all or nothing kind of person so that doesn't surprise me. Now it's common sense that Hilarious Clinton isn't fit to be president with her health conditions, I said nothing about disabled people being president, you did. So don't put words in my mouth. She's a criminal and criminals belong in jail, not the white house. Don't understand why that's so difficult for you to understand.
Now you're jumping around. You said that clinton is not fit to be present with
her health conditions. The health conditions remarked upon revolved around her
physical ability and mobility. That's a physical disability. So you are saying that
clinton is not fit to be president because she is disabled in your view. Thus,
disabled people, in your view, are not fit to be president. If you felt otherwise,
you would have pointed out a different detail. If you feel disabled people are fit
to be president, then it doesn't matter if she is mobile or not. If you feel they
aren't, you're self-hating and more stupid than I thought. Or, and this is where
I'd put my money, you don't actually know what the fuck you're talking about at
all, couldn't form a coherent argument if I tattooed instructions on your forearm
in braille, and are too dumb to know any better.
A criminal is someone who has committed a crime. Though the far right is fond of calling Clinton a criminal, they are second guessing criminal authorities because they do not like the judgements. Clinton does seem to have a penchant for doing things which show a hyper defensive nature. But criminal? No. Even republican committees cannot manage to find criminality, and they have certainly tried to. As far as her defensiveness, I find myself wondering if that is more a matter of her essentially being under attack from the right wing echo chamber ever since she pissed them off by trying to get universal health care back when she was First Lady. It has been relentless since that time, and though it hurts her politically, I can understand why she might be excessively defensive.
But I find it funny how conservatives calls Hillary a criminal because Americans were killed... Boo fucking hoo. She voted for the Iraq war. I thought that's what conservatives liked? War? Also, all of the people in the Middle East, Africa, even here on American soil under Bush and Clinton back in 1995 or whenever... So much for her being a big, bad criminal.
The hypocrisy man.
Guys, Trump is really trying to lose the election. A guy doing as he is can't possibly imagine he's going to win.
Now: What will happen when he does lose?
He'll probably go back to his mansion and on some reality show tell everyone he knew that was going to happen. After telling us all we're fired, in his concession speech.
I've never been a fan of Clinton, Inc. Not since the early 90s. I still do think she's the smarter of the two, all early 90s jokes of who was actually president notwithstanding. But I've no quarter with Clinton, Inc.
Fuck Clinton.
I'm not a big fan of her either. But she at least knows what she's talking
about. I'd choose someone I don't particularly care for over someone with the
intellect of a third grader, and not a particularly smart third grader at that.
Clinton can at least present a plan. Trump has yet to present a plan for
anything. He just panders to idiot rednecks and white trash who are too dumb
to realize that what he's saying is absolutely meaningless.
Oh Dump will get on and make his dumb jokes and the red necks laugh it up because they're so drunk off of bathtub whiskey.
Wow, create your own reality. I don't have time for you. Do whatever you want. I can't stand people like that just twist my words and make up something in your head. Go to hell, you're close enough to get there independently.
Gee James and Chillin, those were sure articulate and well presented posts. If you cannot actually make an argument based on your own thinking, and not just parrotting Drudge or saying fuck Clinton, then why disparage those of us who can?
Because if anyone who has half a brain looks at her state of health, along with her extensive line of criminal activity with the clinton foundation, and war crimes, anyone can tell she is not compitent nor does she have the credibility to be president. I shouldn't, and will not, spell it all out for you. That doesn't mean, however, that Trump is a god candidate. What it does mean is that he hasn't one tenth of the criminal activity that hilary has. No matter what you or they, meaning the mainstream media, tries to smear trump with, it is simply nothing, and honestly most of which are false claims. Now, if you spoke out against the establishment like trump or Carson, and you get audited by the IRS because you don't go along with the globalist agenda, then yeah, common sense should tell you they'll do whatever they can to try and discredit you, and no matter how many crimes hilary has committed, they'll try to prop her up. She's a world class lier and anyone with half a brain can see this. I don't know what else you want me to say, just do you own research and you'll see this for yourself. But stay away from msnbc, fox, cnn, and the rest of them as they will always be for her. After all, they are all liberal democratic media opperations fixated on calling everyone who even speaks out mildly against corruption a conspiracy theorist, which is the same garbage being spewed on here, so can you please actually comment on your thoughts regarding hilaries crimes? Or can you only comment on me and trying to explain this stuff claiming that I know nothing. I can't help if you refuse to look at facts taht is your problem. Even if you aren't for Trump, you should at least vote for him because not voting is essentially giving your vote to hilary. By the way, all the illegals they bring over here, Muslem and Mexican alike are to vote democratic. It's how they rig the election. Bring a bunch of illegals in and have them vote democratic, and claim that hilary has a 15 point lead. Total fraud. If you tell me to do my research, why don't you question the establishment based on common sense? Or do you think they always tell the truth and the establishment would never lie, because I've got news for you.
A lot of us actually are very well red media wise. Many of us look at more than just what the left has to say. That being the case, even though I'm skeptical of the media, on all sides, by default... I apply the same standard of proof to the alternative news, and conspiracy drivers. For some reason I've noticed a worrying trend in society. Now that wiki leaks/the intercept have exposed many things the government denied we suspected were actually true... A lot of people seem to just assume by default that the nefarious position is by default the right one. Its no more logical than siding with the government/big 6 media corporations on everything.
That being said. There still isn't any logical reason presented to vote for trump. Trump hasn't presented any substantive plan for anything. Its all rhetoric. The guy's a bigot, attacking/discriminating against minorities, women, the disabled.
No, I honestly don't believe clinton is the most ethical or worthy person we could ever elect. But unlike clinton, we have a lot more public record proving trump is an asshole.
And Trumps marketing/message, while highly offensive is particularly good at targeting an uncomfortable slice of the straight white man demographic, who see the world becoming more diverse around them, and don't like it.
We have clear proof the DNC intended to fuck with/actually did fuck with the sanders race. Am I happy about that. Hell no. Did I actually believe they'd let him win from the start either? Not really. Did he actually get a few solid consessions in the dnc party platform, yes. that being the case. If you actually look at the law, even the California laws that fox and friends loves to complain about on this subject... At no point do we give people who can't prove US citizenship the right to vote. Its been debunked time after time after time. But these rumors keep coming back for a very good reason. From a psychological point of view, there is a huge base of white American uneducated voters that tend to be a little more racist/ethno centrist. Playing on those peoples fears is good money, because they'll be stuck like glue to the TV, and watch the advertising. They're afraid someone's going to come take their jobs. Which is also largely not true. Illegals generally do the jobs Americans won't, and they pay in taxes for services they'll never be able to use.
And I am amused that on one hand, you're telling us "stay away from msnbc, fox, cnn, and the rest of them as they will always be for her..." But, many of these rumors about her health started on Fox news, or Breitbart.
Breitbart news is provably linked with trump, considering where his current campaign manager came from. It also amuses me that you assume that by default, alt news is any more ethical than "normal" news. At least, that's my takeaway from your statements, so feel free to correct. Both kinds of news need to drive traffic via providing interesting, if not over the top stories to people. In my view, every source needs to be evaluated based on its content, not what they claim to be.
People judge you based on what you're saying more than your content, because you say things like "globalist agenda," "Because if anyone who has half a brain..." Both of those statements are the kind of thing you tend to hear on far right talk radio. The former I mentally attribute most to Alex Jones, the latter to people like Limbaugh and glen beck. All three are bat shit crazy. Your posts are full of far right memes. So, when it sounds like you're largely repeating someone else's talking points, with the memes in tact, I am going to judge that. I only picked two of them out, but I could keep picking threw your recent posts and show you all of the meme phrases if you'd like.
That may have just a little to do with why myself and Cody 1 don't take you all that seriously. You are an advocate of not believing what the media has to say, but you're so full of far right talking points that the contradiction is laughable. The fact that the memes have entered your vocab to the extent they have proves you haven't been taking your own advice.
It was actually the Far Far American right that really spun this style of communication up into high gear, ironically enough, because memes that are often repeated are good for memory recall. And considering much of the far right is less than quality sourced material, they need to find a way to make their claims stick. The easiest way to do that is to distill a complicated situation down into a 2 or 3 word meme that's easy to remember.
Do some research on the evolution of memes and communication in media. Then you'll see all the tells, and memes that have basically sucked you in.
And then you'll probably have a bit more understanding for why I personally see you as a little hypocritical.
Oh, and then there's all that bigotry. I'm not exactly sure you understand how xenophobic/racist some of the things you have said in the past appear.
What James of the many numbers said. And, good news, I won my bet. You
don't actually know how logical statements work.
All of that James... the smart one. ahahaha!
That's right big banks don't exist and big mainstream media is not controlled. That's why when I listen to cnn or any of the rest of them they hardly let anyone speak who has any differing views, and that should tell you something. If I'm a right wing conspiracy theorist, then what do you call your white guilt garbage statements supposed to mean to me? Sounds like commy trump protesters. Not sure why you think all of what I've said is made up when nearly everything, if not everything I've said has been caught on video. Even if you don't like trump, then the only reason one should vote for him is to not give hilary the chance. Don't know why you think trump is worse, just don't see it. No one is perfect and he's certainly not, but I never said he was in the first place. She cannot be president, whatsoever. I've already stated why, and by your own choice of words, there's nothing more I have to say on this matter. You seem to think I'm some right wing nutjob but I'll tell you, nearly everyone I talk to, including a cab driver today, my grandmother, and many many others I talk to say the same thing as me. You hammer so confidently on trumps tax returns, I see no one questioning the clinton foundation. I guess all that money goes to charity too, huh. Lol. What a bunch of whacks.
a lot of sanders supporters have been questioning her work with that foundation for months. Same with green party supporters and libs. Its easy enough to find out how the Hatie recovery money was spent.
Educate yourself. Even dems have expressed worry over some of her past actions.
And Its simple really. I can't vote trump, because there is nothing in my view that makes him more ethical than Clinton. I also can't vote trump, because in the event trump dies, we get one of the most fucked up poloticians from a discrimination perspective in the white house.
Not to mention the republican party both hates and wants nothing to do with us. And trumps VP pick makes that very clear based on his record of achievements in his native state.
Sure, clinton isn't a good choice, but she wouldn't attempt to undermine the very services you rely on to the same degree the republican ticket would advocate for.
Considering you don't have a job, and/or a way of supporting yourself, I still can't understand why you'd vote for a party who actively discriminates against the disabled, and those without wealth. Its illogical.
And lol, I said in my last post that most of the major news networks were owned by 6 companies. So, I don't know where you got the idea I didn't think big media exists from.
I just tend to evaluate each story based on what its presenting, who's presenting it, why they would want to tell us what they're telling us, and who would gain from that story being published.
Neither big or small media is devoid of serving its personal interests. I more or less said that last time around, but you didn't read... Or you didn't choose to comprehend that, because it would have taken down the straw man arguments you keep presenting.
Speaking of fallacy. You saying that x amount of people believe something doesn't give it any cred, just because a majority of people believe it. If 100 people told you that drinking water would kill you although you know based on common sense that it won't... Would you actually take them seriously? you're actually assuming that everyone involved in reaching these conclusions is mentally capable of responsibly dealing with the questions before them.
Science has proven time after time that 1 human can be smart... But crowds are usually always stupid.
Though considering the bigotry displayed in your last post, I suppose I shouldn't be shocked...
Fox is for Clinton? Since when? LOL
Clinton has at least released her tax returns for the past 35 years. The Clinton foundation tax returns are already public as with any not-for-profit. Trump has not released even one, and the tax returns of his many companies are protected as private by the IRS. So, whom is hiding what?
Half a brain? Maybe I don't have half a brain, but at least I have one. I'm beginning to think based on your inability to distinguish fact from conspiracy you do not have a brain at all. Probably the mob hive mind of the alt right. LOL
Just Chillin, you are a bullshitter. Congradulations! Please come up to the podium and accept your award. We at Fox would like to offer you a job! Yes, we have an open position as a story manufacturer. Again, congradulations and welcome to the Fox family.
lol Not even sure why we're giving this shit any attention. I and others have demonstrated how the articles, videos, and the other garbage that he's put up is bull, but there's no changing someone who probably has an Obama chip in his brain. heheh.
Also, not really sure how being educated has to do with being liberal, left wing, and whatever else Fox teaches you just chillin, but whatever floats your sinky boat.
Yes. As a matter of fact, the education system is overrun with republicans. Such a shame.
I love how people criticize others for having an education. Do they not get the
irony of that? They're literally celebrating being uneducated. Another word for
uneducated is dumb. So their entire argument is, "How dare you know things
you educated person? I'm an idiot, and I hate that you went to a place to learn
things and I didn't. HOw dare you have knowledge about a subject that I don't
have? wait, what? You mean I could learn those things to and be your equal?
How fucking dare you suggest that I get an education you heartless bastard?
Educations are for smart people like you? I don't want an education? I like being
dumb. Educations are for pussies? What does the word irony mean? Why are
you laughing at me? I didn't say nothin' funny? Fuckin' educated prick."
Aw shucks there Silver lightnin. I don't need no fantcy learnin like dat readin and a-writin. Shoot!
excuse me if I am brusque. after reading these 93 preceding messages I have a headache. I also feel nauseus.
1. people who don't vaccinate their kids are ignorant uninformed and down right dangerous. when I was born my mom was 39. This means that besides growing up poor, she was a child long before vaccines for things like polio, diphtheria and whooping cough were invented. when she was one she almost died of whooping cough. during a blizzard she apparently was at death's doorstep and the doc couldn't get to their house to look at her. she stopped breathing and in desperation my grandfather threw her naked in a snow ddrift. probably a bit harsh but it worked. she recovered. then when she was four she got dyptheria. when one of my dear friends expressed concerns about vaccinating her baby, mommy dearest vividly described in detail the painful and disgusting treatment for that illness. yes, there may be risks in vaccinations. hey, you could walk out of your computer room, trip on the cat, fall down, hit your head and die. will you go get a cup of coffee? probably so. get your child his/her baby shots for heaven's sakes. the illnesses are far worse than are the shots. I do think that some vaccinations are unnecessary. chicken pox vaccines are for parent's convenience. it's easier to give a prick to a child with a normal immune system then to take off work. I could go on and on but I have more to say on other subjects.
2. trump is done. He's finito, all through his goose has been cooked, and please for mercy's sake stick a fork in him. . go buy a black dress/suit and prepare some fried chicken to bring to the repast.
3. Hillary is also a poor choice for me. she and the truth are not kissing cousins. overt lying is a deal breaker for me.
4. Hillary is sick? someone must have been reading you people stuff out of the inquirer. at the grocery store last week there was a long exposee about her illness. take heart. remember the vp candidate is only one breath away from her job. for the record I'm not recommending death as a political solution.
5. you conservatives like just chillin, bring me links like the liberals have. I mean ones from legitimate news sources to back up your claims. facts are what we all need here. no bloviating please. we've had enough of that.
Yup and show me a politician that isn't a criminal.
Blanket judgement. There are criminals who are also politicians. But all, of them at every level? Pah lease!
People lie, steal, cheat, and whatever all the time. Why are people shocked when a politician does something underhanded?
"I welcome this kind of examination, because people have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I am not a crook. I have earned everything I have got."
-Richard Nixon
Great example.
you think our politicians are bad. I'm reading a book right now about tudor England. should they wish, and if we had time travel, the office holders we have today could go back and take manipulation, powerbroking, and prevarication lessons from those folks. absolutely fascinating read but far too close to home.
I am not saying that there isn't a lot of corruption. But to make the blanket statement that ALL are corrupt or criminal is cynical in the extreme. Cynicism is the refuge of cowards who choose to take no responsibility. Like people who won't votfor instance.
Hmm, Pasco, what's wrong with saying: "Fuck Clinton." or "Fuck Trump."? As to your question about articulated posts, you know where I've written them on this board.
You guys can't be waiting for me to hold your hand and spoon-feed my view points to you long after I already explained what I think. It's amazing, the anti-intellectualism on this site.
James
One doesn't even need to go back that far to find truly corrupt politicans. wE
had a president who bordered on dictatorship. When the supreme court said his
motions were unconstitutional and couldn't be done, he did them anyway. he
used the military to enforce his will on the people. Nearly destroyed our young
country in doing it too. The civil war could have started thirty years earlier if not
for a few strokes of luck.
Then you had the politicians in the late 1800s who did things like using their
own companies to build government buildings, and charging hundreds or even
thousands of dollars for a toilet seat, and pocketing the leftovers. Compared to
things like that, our politicians these days are pretty tame in most instances.
I'm sorry but the majority are corrupt. You have to be in order to survive in that world do to the cut throat nature.
I've already given the reason I'm unlikely to vote and cowardice has nothing to do with it.
Trump and Clinton’s Cage Match
I realize I’m writing this a week late. It’s not because I don’t have anything to say about it, because I definitely do. My classes were busy with a couple of tests last week as well as having to get my essay started for English Comp 1. I was able to watch the sham debate between Trump and Clinton and that’s an experience I won’t wish on anyone, LOL.
In our democracy of what the political philosopher Sheldon S. Wolin referred to as Inverted Totalitarianism, the corporations run our country now. Who are these corporations? They’re the groups of companies under the defense industry, banking industry and other entities through which big business is conducted and maintained. These corporations use lobbyists and politicians who know their place and who aren’t concerned with asking questions which could stop what’s happening. The politicians such as Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and George W. Busch profit from this form of government. Busch actively supported big business’s hold on our country along with The Clintons who pushed through laws such as the law that grossly restricted welfare, pushed through the decisions that destroyed The Glass–Steagall Act, disappeared thousands from the employment lines and allowed our for-profit healthcare system to progress to the money-making machine that it is today at the expense of peoples’ health, safety and lives. While Busch J.R. and The Clintons actively helped The Corporate State, Obama has mainly stood by and has done nothing to even begin fighting its hold on our democracy. Thus, the debates of Monday, September 26, 2016 are a sham as I mentioned at the beginning of this writing. Trump and Clinton both argued about which one of them chose not to support the war in Iraq, Clinton brought up Trump’s apparent dislike of women and Trump brought up Clinton’s 33,000 deleted e-mails that had been on her personal computer. This debate did nothing to address the impoverished, it did nothing to address the original breaking of international laws which lead to the war in Iraq in the first place and it did nothing to address the reality of the pseudo-democracy under which we live and have been living for a long time.
I mentioned before the term “Inverted Totalitarianism”. This is clearly different or implies something different than classical totalitarianism. In Inverted Totalitarianism, power revolves around an entity rather than around a single charismatic leader such as Hitler, Stalin or Mao. Inverted Totalitarianism finds its expression by way of The Corporate State where politicians and other figures along with lobbyists beholden to certain corporations such as those belonging to the defense industry and other related bodies speak in the language of democracy and freedom, but behind the scenes, they implement rulings and laws which only help the rich as well as corporations. While all this is going on and with a few exceptions who tried to warn us, such as Sheldon Wolin, Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky, most of The American Public has hardly noticed what’s been happening.
Jill Stein may not get in as president, but she clearly understands the hold corporations have on our democracy. She’s willing to discuss and call out the issues for what they are, not argue semantics or argue about which lie is more believable such as what Clinton and Trump did in last Monday’s debate. Stein is willing to say that the wars we have been waging since 2003 are wrong and that we shouldn’t be arguing over whether or not Trump was for or against the war, but that the war was illegal under international law in the first place. She’s not willing to make a choice between Trump or Clinton, for to do so is to make a choice based on fear.
Voting for Trump would possibly bring us more problems with continuing hate-crimes against Muslims, immigrants and other minorities. If we don’t want that, then we’re told to vote for Clinton with the implication being that with a Clinton Presidency, those things won’t happen. Unfortunately, Clinton hasn’t and probably won’t do anything meaningful to stop the neoliberal policies such as those that allow for the operating of for-profit prisons as well as policies which continue to help discriminate against black people and people of different nationalities. Thus under a Clinton Presidency, we’ll end up with similar if not the same things we feared getting under a Trump Administration. This isn’t the voting and choice of a healthy and well-functioning democracy. This is the false choice of totalitarian dictatorships, and where there are some elements of Orwell’s 1984 Big Brother dictatorship within our government now concerning how we treat people we label as terrorists, given that we have inverted totalitarianism as our model of government now, but for the most part as every-day people living in this country, we’re experiencing something more along the lines of Aldus Huxley’s Brave New World.
In Brave New World, England is set 600 years in to the future A.F., After Ford. In this society, there’s a cast system of Alphas, Betas and so on and so on. To keep the citizens compliant and passive, conditioning is performed by way of certain messages being broadcast through speakers under their pillows at night while they sleep from the time that they’re children. A drug called Soma is given to the masses which keeps them free from anxiety and depression. There are parallels between that part of the story as well as our country’s love-affair with the fake Science of Psychiatry as well as large numbers of people who take antidepressants, antianxiety and psychotropic medications for diseases of the mind and brain, most of which have never been empirically proven to exist. Some people in our society who take these poisons even reach for them in almost the same show of distress as do some of the characters in Huxley’s novel. The people in his novel were also kept distracted by mindless entertainment such as The Feelies, Orgy porgy and a game called Centrifugal Bumble-Puppy. We’re kept distracted by video games, most of which are violent and disrespectful of humanity, we’re given pornography that’s now available even from the device in our hand if we want it that badly and we’re taught that many sexual partners regardless of the consequences is the norm today, no different than how character’s in the novel would go from sex partner to sex partner. Their euphemism for reckless sexual activities was referred to as “Having him or her”. This is little more than the constant preoccupation in Huxley’s novel people had with The Feelies and above mentioned mindless entertainment. While we have this Brave New World-like way of life today, our corporate high-jacked government continues to destroy what’s left of the constitution, continues to spy on us as well as on other countries and continue to deprive us of more freedom in the name of security. By the time any one of a significant number wakes up and realizes what’s happened and what’s going on, it might be too late to stop what’s happened. There could be still a chance if more and more people listen to and put in to action, the things for which Hedges, Stein, Chomsky and Wolin stand, but unless a great number of people do this that can matter or make a difference, then we’ll continue to live as we have been which will most likely worsen under Clinton and Trump.
James
This topic has been interesting reading.
What would the make-up sex between Clinton and Trump be like? And which network would televise it?
james, truly intellectual people have vocabularies which are extensive enough that the word "fuck" is obviated. with your vast stores of knowledge I'm sure you could think of much more expressive ways to exhibit your anger and angst.
So you have Trump and Clinton. What a terrible choice for the USA and the world.
Clinton pretends that she has had nothing to do with government even though her husband has been president for 8 years and she has been in Obama's eight-year long government.
Trump criticises Obama over Syria and Iran but he hasn't got a policy for dealing with Iran, and was against the liberation of Iraq. Liberating Iran would cost more lives.
Neither of the candidates seem to have any regard for the constitution. They seek to undermine it. They would rather it didn't exist.
They are both tax dodgers. They are both bad for the USA and the world.
The make up sex would be quite violent and thus banned in this country. So sad.
Saying these two candidates are on a par is just not accurate. That may be the narrative pushed by some media that want an exciting close race, and some with an agenda, but a thorough review of the actual facts, not the slanders and rumors, make it very clear who is better qualified and more likely to be a successful leader. And, it is not Mr. Trump.
Quite true.
I've been trying to comfirm that Clinton can't walk, or doesn't walk well.
I've asked some people that see her on TV and they aren't sure.
Anyone have a link that makes that claim true?
Not that walking has anything to do with her mental abilities to be boss, but it is an interesting fact.
If she has trouble walking it's because Bill is working her overtime in the bedroom. Lol!
If we're that concerned about presidents who have trouble walking, FDR was in a wheelchair, and he served twelve years -- the first, last and thus far only president who will ever serve that amount of time in office unless the 22nd Amendment gets repealed, which, BTW, I would support.
I honestly believe her and Bill have an agreement.
She likes exactly the same thing he does so understands when he's out getting some.
He was doing that way before he got Monica, or Monica got him, so it wasn't news I'm sure to Hilary.
When they were in the White House, she had Pajama parties.
Add that up.
They couldn't say, well Hilary's bisexual, or whatever, so Bill had to go to sex addiction classes.
He wasn't addicted, just didn't have any at home.
Now, if she does become boss I wonder how many of them sexy interns she'll have too.
We'll not hear about it, because women keep secrets better.
Laughing.
There is no evidence H. Clinton has walking problems. That is just another one of those conspiracy things that keep coming out of the fever swamps. She got ill in September, big deal, it happens. She is just fine now.
Personally I think the amendment limiting a President to two terms is a good one. It is a hugely demanding job. Every President who leaves office looks greatly aged by the experience. The only President serving more than two terms was FDR, and it killed him.
Well, she stands and moves about during long debates, so interesting.
I have to laugh at the people who keep bringing up Bill clinton's cheating. Its
like they forgot that Kennedy literally had to have sex daily, and did not get it
from Jackie all that often. He also had addison's, so add him to the list of
disabled presidents. Roosevelt, both of them really but in this case I mean the
second one, openly cheated on Eleanor. He even died at the home of his
mistress in Georgia. Our presidents have not been the most faithful of men, and
I for one could not possibly care less.
If I'm not mistaken, Eleanor was lesbian.
During these times, she couldn't say so, so kept it private.
They had an agreement and got on with life.
I also think Jackie and husband did as well.
Sex didn't keep any of them from doing a good job however no matter who they got it from.
Kennedy had more then a few extras, and it was public information.
Speaking of that.
Trump was a straight playboy. I guess he figures sense he was single that made it okay?
He was having that nasty sex out of wedlock, wasn't he?
Smile.
There's no proof that she was lesbian. There are some letters between her and
another woman that some people think sound lesbianish, but there's no proof.
Maybe not, but something was happening.
In any case, it didn't seem to matter.
They had an agreement, so whatever the issues were, things worked.
At that time, and even now, couples married for power, convenience, or whatever.
I don’t know why people have such a problem with things that should remain the couple’s affairs, but they do.
Trump especially has something going on.
Maybe he’s jealous, because as Hilary pointed out, her husband’s not running for office.
Think of it this way.
How many people can say they had some in the oval office?
Old Bill had plenty, and may have plenty more if his wife wins.
He’ll be able to say he had plenty sex as president, and plenty with the president possibly.
Now, that’s a title nobody has in American history.
The argument is also void, because Bill still won office despite his sexual interest.
Trump Bing as he is just might want at least the privilege of joining the oval office club.
Smile.
I know the academic lesbians of the late 80s early 90s accredited Eleanor as lesbian. Also true of Annie Sullivan and many others.
Not that it matters.
Ultimately, private agreements are just that, private agreements.
What few seem to talk about anymore is the Starr Report released on the Internet in 1998 for obviously sensational reasons. The major problem with this is that in many other court cases, the case would have been discredited by such a release before the proceedings were finished.
It was popular to portray Monica Lewinsky as the victim in the late 90s. But honestly, looks pretty consensual to me.
Aside from the miscarriage of justice done by releasing the Starr Report like they did, I've only one other thing. If people have these agreements they should say so. If the Clintons have such an agreement, then Hillary Clinton isn't the victim either, as portrayed in the late 90s. If they don't have such an agreement, however, then she was the victim of betrayal, if he told her he was going to do one thing and then did something toally different behind her back.
That damned Starr report shouldn't have been released like it was, though. Kenneth Starr thought he was gonna get some brownie points for this. He ought have been disbarred or something. Remember this wasn't a Tweeter doing the retweet thing or something. Starr had to deliberately upload it and release it. He didn't make any pretense about having done it, either. This was 1998 when there was no social networks the way we have now, and you had to be pretty damned deliberate in order to put something up on a private website, get it registered in the search engines, then propagate it everywhere. He meant to do it. I've seen people now claim it might have been an accident, which it complete bullshit considering how things were in 98.
It's basically a choice between a man who has boasted about committing acts of sexual abuse, and the wife of a man whose sexual misconduct has led to him having to compensate his victims. What a mess. Why can a country like the USA not produce better presidential candidates than Trump and Clinton? The people should demand better.
His wife has nothing to do with his sexual misconduct, if it was even that.
His partners were all consenting, and adults?
But again, that was his thing, and he’s not running for office.
His sexual habits shouldn’t even be a question raised.
She is running, and her mistakes, or virtues are the only things that should be out for viewing and examination.
I agree with Wayne on this.
The real problem in the U.S. is we focus on what everyone else is doing sexually.
Our Rapist and Chief???
After listening to the most recent episodes of the show Democracy Now hosted by Amy Goodman, I have to call Donald Trump “Our Rapist and Chief” and unfortunately that title of this posting isn’t a joke like some of my other ones attempt to be.
Back in 2005, Donald Trump was set to guest star on an episode of the soap opera Days of Our Lives. He was traveling to the set and being interviewed by Billy Busch, a cousin to Jeb Busch. During the course of the interview, Trump began a disgusting bragging on the fact that he has no problem raping women. At one point, he said: “I’ll have to have some ticktacks in case I start kissing her.” He was talking about the woman who was coming out to receive him and Busch, Arianne Zucker who plays Nicole Walker and who has played the role since 1998. Trump also went on to say: “It’s like a magnet, I just start kissing them I don’t know what it is. They let ya do anything ya want, ya can grabem by the pussy.”.
Bush is heard laughing hysterically while Trump continues talking. All this is happening before Zucker steps out to receive the two men. With two women who’ve recently come out about Trump trying to sexually assault them as well as Trump possibly facing criminal rape charges that stem from 20 years ago when he was accused of raping a 13-year-old girl, this isn’t a man fit for some much as even dog Catcher. For the charges he might be facing, reports have said that when Trump raped the child, he held her down, slapped her across the face when she tried to get free and said that he’d do whatever he wanted to her.
Anyone who would defend him by saying that this is just his haters making noise clearly can’t break free of their delusions. This isn’t about politics any longer, but about a woman-hating misogynistic rapist who should be in prison for what he’s done. What a fucking disgrace!
James
Hmm, you seems to have been listening to the first lady?
Smile.
I don't follow this stuff close, but I did know he had a low opinion about women.
Once in a Playboy interview he was asked why he dated a specific age range of women, and his remarks weren't kind.
I didn't know his opinion was this low however.
He keeps claiming Bill abused women, but he's dead wrong.
Bill enjoyed women, and the women enjoyed him.
Still does to this day it is said.
Consent, and manhandling and remarks such as this aren't locker room talk, it is pig language.
I hope people can see that it isn't just talk, but his opinion.
Sure, he's married now, but I'd bet money, she in it for the money, or she has low self esteem provided he views her in that light.
And I'll add.
Sure, I know other countries have leader that don't have a high opinion of women, but these same countries don't support women's rights either.
To me in America, this is important. Women are part of our foundation.
To elect someone with said opinions would be plain dumb.
I'll just be glad when this shitshow is over.
leo, I remember that star report with loathing and not for the reasons valid that they are that you mentioned. the day that thing was released, my nine year old son was undergoing and then recovering from a tonsillectomy at national children's medical center. there was nothing on the tv but comentators maundering on endlessly about this stuff. here I was in a hospital room with another 15 year old kid who was a really bad dude. the police were in there like all the time trying to get him to talk. although he was supposed to get private accomodations, I got the short straw supposedly because they were overcrowded and I was blind so wouldn't recognize him or whatever. during all this time, my son kept asking me "what is all this about? what is oral sex really?" The police were listening I'm sure and this sullen kid was I can just bet. I said it was because the president was alleged, that means suspected, of being unfaithful to mrs. Clinton. as for oral sex, that's a question that we will discuss at home." then he'd fall asleep because of the pain stuff he was on, wake up demanding to know where his shows were and we went through the whole thing again. that was the most uncomfortable that I've ever been in my life. mr. star owes me a big apology.
And I would not be shocked if Malania decided to dump Trump after this is all over. She has been humiliated just as Hillary was but has far less reason to remain loyal.
What keeps bothering me is people keep saying Hilary washumiliated .
I don't know why people think so when she never said anything about it until the press bothered her daughter.
That, and that alone was the only thing that made her mad.
She never talked about it and to this day doesn't back off when it is talked about.
Her husband was being, if it was that, unfaithful long before he was scape goated in the White house.
Ok let's deal with Truem straight and clear.
This was *not* so-called guy talk. I know many people usually academics
imagine, dare I say fantasize perhaps, that men talk this way about women
when they are by themselves. But the only reason Trump did this at some richy-
rich event and not at a bar? At a bar someone would have laid him out for it.
Hell, I was in Japan when I first had a nonacademic experience regarding
potential barroom sexual assault. Not academic theories about all men or
anything, this was the real deal. We were in a bar, this tall German chick had
drank too much and was about laid out. So a buddy of mine and I picked her up
off the floor, laid her on this divan thing, and I just turned her head to the side
so any spue would hit the ground, she wouldn't be going out Hendrix-style.
Some frat boy rich yuppie kid that was part of the larger group asked if we two
were gonna f** her right there, or he could join. Anyhow, sorry to burst
academic bubbles here, but there was four of us and one of him. We were in
fact going to do something about it, but not to her. The only thing stopped us
was a couple bouncers with night sticks or something. someone explained to the
bouncers what it was this yuppie was proposing. So they told us we were
supposed to leave him with them, and get out. The girl's friends came over, and
someone from her group was making arrangements for her ride back to the
hostel or wherever she was staying. But we were told unceremoniously that we
weren't being booted because we were preparing to beat his ass. We were being
booted because wee were about to do so in an inappropriate place, disrupting
the order and tranquility or something. My Japanese wasn't that good, someone
else translated, and one of the bouncers could speak some English.
Trump said what he said, where he said it, because if he had bragged about
doing such things in any normal working person environment, there's not a man
who wouldn't clean his clock for him. Hell, even in Japan during that incident,
nobody was coming off with "Now guys, violence isn't the answer," or any of
those platitudes.
I bet he does grab chicks, and for sure he's a little chicken-shit. Typical preppy-
asshole shit but not at all representative of a whole lot of us.
Now ladies and gentlemen, and anyone otherwise, you have seen on video what
a true misogynist looks like. That word is thrown around all the time now, even
to women believe it or not, but the word actually meant something at one point,
and boom! there he is. That producer ought to have pushed him on that shit, at
least, if he wasn't gonna do something about it.
Another idea.
Don’t be surprised if Trump’s wife doesn’t jump ship.
It is possible she doesn’t care about how he treated other women, nor what he thinks about them.
Maybe all that matters to her is how he treats and thinks about her.
She did marry the man, and I’d think she had enough man experience to know what he is and thinks.
He married her too, so maybe she’s his match?
People have the habit of deciding how others should feel, think, and behave based on what they’d do.
What we have to remember is some folks wouldn’t care about the things we do as long as their bread is buttered, so to say.
Just an idea.
Leo, as an academic, I can tell you I don't knwo any who think that. The one
saying it was just locker room talk was Trump himself. Academics are saying
that men don't talk that way. At least every one that I've seen. Choose your
words more carefully.
Just because Hillary hasn't bared her soul to journalists, doesn't mean she wasn't humiliated. She is a very private person which keeps getting her into trouble. As you say, don't think you know how someone feels just because they do not make a public statement. And I agree with Cody, do not generalize on how others act or think when you cannot know.
I think Trump has probably lost the election at this point. I'm pretty sure, like a lot of preppy assholes, he's gonna go home cruising along in his souped-up beamer with the big rims, and tell everyone he knew this was what was going to happen. He knew it all the time. Dumbass.
Of course I don't know.
That was and is exactly my point.
Not only here, but other places people just assume what they want to beor how they'd feel about a situation.
When it is public figures involved, they say what they would or wouldn't take, and they assume that person is upset.
Maybe not?
Like in Tiger Woods case, no one thought about what the man might have been experiencing, only his wife.
I could see why he did as he did, but people simply didn't care.
Was he right? Probably not.
He could have chosen a wiser path, but he didn't deserve all the blamein my opinion.
Even that wiser path, divorcing the woman wouldn't have been look on as wise either.
The man was up shit creek basicly. Damned if he did, and damned if he didn't, but his sponsors would have had more trouble dropping him for awhile.
You know what really makes me sad about this whole thing though? People,
including us, are sitting here talking about email scandals, rape accusations,
and audio clips from my sophomore year in high school. Why are we letting our
political decisions be made by things like this? Why is no one standing up and
saying "You know why Clinton is better? Because she actually has plans." When
trump was asked what his plan to increase jobs was, his answer was literally
that he would increase jobs by increasing jobs. No details of how he'd do that,
or what system he'd put in place to do that. Just that he would do it. And that's
how his entire campaign has gone. He gives grandeose speeches that say
nothing but sound good to his wildly undereducated white base. Then Clinton
gets up and starts talking about economic policy, and the eyes of american
viewers glaze over and they think she's so boring. Being unpresidential has
come to mean that you know what the fuck you're talking about and don't think
a debate should be held on the jerry springer show. That breaks my heart.
So one interesting development is what's going on with the evangelical wing of the Right. You'd think, or at least I thought, they were pretty monolithic. What you're seeing now is women and younger men from over there not just distancing themselves from Trump, but disavowing him altogether.
To an outsider, that may seem obvious. But remember, this is a movement who pulpit-pounds the idea that supreme court justices are why you vote for President, in order to reverse Rowe V. Wayde. That stuff's central to their faith and ideology, or was in the 70s / 80s when I was a kid, and certainly carried into the 90s and beyond.
There are evangelical women now supporting Clinton outright. Also, you see them now using terms you never hear in Evangelical politics, like racist, misogynist, etc.
It's an interesting development, and in this bilateral system everyone imagines, this completely blurs the lines. I think my father's generation will have to carry on as they are. People in their 40s and 50s are probably somewhere in the middle, old enough to remember some stuff the millennials never lived through, but not really wedded to the system the way some are.
I think these so-called fault lines are just the next development; all dynasties ultimately come to an end. And now, even Christian sources are talking about what atheists have been whispering about for a while now: the political takeover of the Christian voting block by a select few in the late 60s and early 70s.
I'm not Christian, but I do think the socially conservative kind certainly have a right to find out they've been lied to for over 40 years, that most of the pulpit-pounding clipboard talking points they've been fed since the cradle are wholly figments of the imagination of a few people wanting to take political power. This during and after the time their competition, Jimmy Carter, openly declared himself a committee Christian. So what better move than to do what second-generation products usually do: "They were here first, but we will do better." And that's ultimately what Schaffer, Fallwell, Robertson and the rest did.
Good for the modern ones for finding this stuff out. It's a tough break to learn you've been deliberately deceived for a very long time, and that for political ends, but better to find out. And probably better to find out from one of your own rather than from one of us skeptics.
I just read an article that predicted the republican party spliting in two to form
a UKIP style far right party, and a center right conservative party. I can easily
see this happening, but I don't know who would really step forward to lead the
center right party. The far right has its leaders, but who leads the center right?
That be an interesting development.
Cody I would actually support that kind of development. In my youth we called them Rockafeller Republicans, and as center right, they're not opposed to safety nets and other things the way the extreme is. Also they stay the hell out of social issues that the Christian White gets into.
Whoever they get is coming out of corporate I suspect. Carly Fiorina could have been it if she'd not attached herself to Cruz. Most of what caused the problems at HP happened before Fiorina, and you might be curious to learn that many in the technology industry don't blame Fiorina the way political types typically do.
Hell, if Clinton weren't running as a Democrat, with her corporate experience I guess she could lead the centrist Right. In her actions, she's far more conservative on many issues than many liberals would like to admit.
The best way to look at the Christian Right, organizations like the Christian Coalition and Eagle Forum, is they passed their use-by date and something's starting to stink up the Republican house. Their purpose was to win over lower middle class voters, especially working people the Liberals had abandoned in favor of identity politics. The wooing, if we're to call it that, was a mixture of social reactionary activism and some vague promises about how American families would ultimately do better under a Republicans-only system. Unfortunately, politics requires compromise, and the evangelical mind eschews it at all costs, under the guise of "standing firm on your convictions", religion-speak for "My way or the highway".
Everyone's talking about how they're splitting. I think it's more than that though. The Christian Right were the arbiters of who is Christian and who isn't for the past 40 years. What's happening now is you've got "born-again" "saved" Christians leaving the Christian Right, talking about the deceit, calling the Christian Right "not Christian". My bet is the old guys are just gonna bankroll and get out. That, or have a come-to-Jesus moment, get on TV play the returning prodigal, and get on board with the new program.
But Cody's question kind of remains: Who's gonna lead it? The Centrist Right isn't going to want a religious faction. Remember in New York, gay marriage passed almost unanimously, and when one fo the old crowd asked, the response from New York republicans was: "Bigotry is bad for business." And all this mess in the Carolinas and elsewhere where states have legitimized discrimination against trans people and others, lots of the companies who left are run by Conservatives, the same types of people the Christian Right used to depend upon for donations.
Their little carnie act is about played out. They were to supply the votes, the corporate donors were to feed the super PACs and the priests of the bunch were to convince the rank and file that all Republican policies stemmed from their religion and theirs alone.
It's a crazy one, man.
this is an interesting topic. the thing which really is irritating me about this conversation is this. the so called Christian right is being treated as a monolith. all of us think the same, feel the same, and believe the same. believe it or not, becoming born again does not automatically shut down our brains. women who are critical of trump and are right wing Christians get my vote hands down. any thinking American who opposes him gets my vote hands down. if we believe in the bible as I do, we have a pretty clear road map as to how our lives should be lived. oh by the way that's not the bible as interpreted to us by some man. it's the one which I read and think about. correctly, we get angry if blind people are treated as a unit block. same goes for blacks, gays, and women. so, let's realize that Christian right members have the same options to be individuals. oh in my world tv evangelists are not Christian. they want my money. they aren't getting it. the god in whom I believe is shaking his head and crying over the stupid asses we are being about this election. that's all.
Unfortunately for you, groups are defined by the loudest members, and
christians like you are not the loudest of your members. On the other hand, the
loudest of you are quickly dying. I doubt we'll have Pat Robertson or Jim Baker
around much longer, and I for one will jump for joy when that time comes.
sadly, I won't be able to do it on their graves, but that's a topic for a different
board post.
My point is, if you want to be taken seriously as a christian, and not be
covered under that dirty umbrella, speak up. Become louder than they are. Until
then, we only hammer the nails we see sticking up.
Both Turricane and Cody have points here.
It was Dan Savage who said during the gay marriage debate that Christians who supported the rights of gays needed to tell other Christians this, instead of telling us the rest are not like that.
Turricane, I have watched with interest, you have some pretty prominent leaders on your side on these issues.
What's interesting about Christianity as a religion is the constant back-and-forth where there's almost this organic self-correction. Sure, as John Loftus points out, the Christianity of today is the heresy of 50 years ago.
But this back-and-forth push pull got stalemated during the Fallwellian explosion of the 60s, 70s, 80s and then the resurgence in the 90s.
I actually think Christians like you have a right to be pretty upset that your faith and ideology has been sold for votes for 50 years. Women's health concerns, by the way the Southern Baptist Convention released a very telling response to abortion in 1968, before Schaffer et al took over and did try to consolidate you guys.
Not a monolith? That is in many ways what it is to be protestant, to be "not a monolith". But you've a right to be very upset with the leadership who has tried to force monolithic response from you, call your faith into question when you didn't vote their way, and politically shame you in Christian communities. I agree with the article I read from Frank Schaffer who said those people did more to damage you guys' presentation than any of us heathens, or even the televangelists most of us already see through and don't compare to you guys at all.
I know there are quite a few Christians who either don't identify at all with the Christian Right, or wish to wrest it from corrupt hands.
I for one respect that, even if our beliefs about some social and faith issues couldn't be further apart. I'm not sure how you all will be able to do it, but I imagine in a way it's made easier by those who support Trump.
Not that my advice matters, but I'd think you all would do well to learn just how this happened, so you're not again put on the auction block and sold for votes. Again, I think the lease has just run out on what was once the Christian Right. This is the group who claimed my generation was supposed to turn out completely good for nothing on account of some music most of us were listening to, and a few of us performing and getting a bit of money for. That never happened as planned. Gay marriage has not resulted in the requirements that churches put on gay weddings, no pastors are in jail over this. All these predictions haven't worked out as planned.
I don't have a clue as to what the new version (2.0?) would look like, or how it would maintain political relevancy, but certainly that will be someone's challenge.
But no, when any of us refer to the Christian Righht, it's the conglomerate being referred to, not the individual like you.
it would be much much better received by folks like me if people said some people on the Christian right. I would never claim to say that all blacks feel a certain way or all gays. it is also very annoying that many people portrain the evangelical Christian as an uneducated working class person. our church in Bellingham has professors, business people, and folks who are a lot smarter and more well read then I ever would pretend to be. back in Maryland I was the shining light in bible study groups. out here at this church I'm in the robins. you know the slow group. in every elementary school class I was ever in in those early years the robins were the group you didn't want to be in. bluebirds or chicodees were much higher on the feeding chain. anyway... I digress. I don't know about all these people you mention leo. perhaps you could tell me where to look for their writings. no one speaks for me. they have an they never will. sorry too that I am not a political animal. I just try to make my section of the world better.
To further what Leo said, not only do you have the right to be upset at these
people, I would argue you have a responsibility to be so. If there were leading
atheists going around saying that the true atheism was one which hated
muslims or something like that, I'd be furious, and I'd be encouraging everyone
I knew with an atheist blog or a podcast or anything to get them on and tear
them apart. And it happens a lot in the atheist community. Look up someone
named S E Cupp for example, she got destroyed by the atheist community.
Richard carrier, DJ Gorthe are two other examples. They get absolutely
demolished by atheists when they do something bad for the community. If
liberal christians did that with pat Robertson or Jim Bkaer of peter Popov, I'd
agree with you. But those people are making millions upon millions. They're
clearly popular.
I dunno. I haven’t been putting in my proverbial two cents on these boards in a while because, quite honestly, I’ve been a little busy with my own stuff, following the news, etc., ad nauseam. And maybe I’ve been getting a little depressed where the elections are concerned because I just want the damned thing to be over with already so that we can actually get down to hopefully, maybe, someday, fixing things, or at least starting to talk about probably fixing them. And these next few thoughts are far from original, I have to say, but they do make perfect sense for how I’m voting. I watch Morning Joe before I get ready for work every morning; he’s a Republlican that both liberals and conservatives, I think, can respect. Anyway, he put it best: There’s a choice, it seems, that many people, including myself, face. We don’t like either candidate. One we regard as a crook. The other we regard as an idiot. But when you’re in an airplane and the pilot dies or conks out temporarily or whatever so he can’t fly, let’s say you have a choice between a crook who can fly the damned thing and an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s doing. Mind, these are admittedly sweeping generalizations, but they seem to sum up where we are as a nation right now. Me? I’m voting for the crook who’s eminently qualified to fly the plane. I don’t want the idiot near the nuke codes. I don’t want him anywhere near foreign policy decisions. I don’t have kids; never wanted them. But I do have grand-nephews and grand-nieces, and that thing running on the Republican ticket is someone I don’t want them to emulate. Maybe we can survive a Trump, but then, maybe we can’t. I’m not taking any chances with this republic even with as little power to affect anything as I have. So, my choice is clear. My calculations of the situation were done a long while ago now, and I’m not changing my mind.
But I do find the whole religion thing a rather fascinating discussion, as usual. I venture to say that perhaps it’s easier for atheists to demolish each other when one does something bad for the atheist community and in its name than it is for Christians to do likewise. Pure atheists don’t believe in a god or afterlife, am I right? So, you’ve actually got less at stake, spiritually speaking, than do Christians. Again, I’m speaking in generalities here, because for the moment I think it suits. See, if I’m understanding ideologically conservative Christianity as it’s believed and supposedly practiced by the Pat Robertsons, the Falwells and that ilk, and we’ll also throw in the proponents of the intelligent design theory, some of whom I’ve met and decidedly not chosen to have any kind of discussion with, there is only one way to believe, and it’s their way. Hokkay, black and white statements admittedly coming forth now. Gays are doomed, so I’m going to hell, right? Anyone who had an abortion or believes in a woman’s right to choose is equally damned. There is only one god, and only one way to believe in him, for clearly (we know this how?) he has a penis and is male. It says so in the Bible, which shall be taken literally and without question. Therefore, when this camp is confronted by the liberal Christian contingent, you know, who may take the Bible less seriously and views it more as a reference than The Literal Truth, you already have a war. The friend that I keep mentioning believes the church got it wrong all these centuries about homosexuality. He takes the Bible as a reference, not the absolutely literal truth, because after all, human beings wrote it and (get ready to gasp!) humans make mistakes. For him, the all-important message of the Bible,, particularly the New Testament as he reads it, is that Christ, to be specific, practiced a pure philosophy based in love, and that was the key. But looking at things from the outside the way this spiritually agnostic gay white human male does, it seems to me that these twain camps shall never meet – not as long as you’ve got one side who insists on their beliefs being the only true path and the other side being willing to accept debate, difference and outright questioning. But it’s not as easy for one Christian camp to destroy another because the Christian camp who believes that their way, and only their way, is the truth, has one thing going both for and against them, and that is their real fear of hell and damnation. I remember seeing that one pastor who had this big to-do sometime last fall which mmost of the Republican presidential candidates attended. This guy, naturally, was focusing all his attention on gay people, and how they are going to hell! And we should do everything we can to save them before it’s too late! Maybe I don’t read people as well as I think I do, but it seems to me that (a) this guy really, really believed what he was preaching at the time, and (b) it seems to me he had his own personal gay demons to contend with. Maybe he’s still fighting them now. But the guy really, really seemed scared to death of the prospect of everlasting torment. Some of us may laugh at the idea, and some of us may still wonder about it all, and perhaps get a little spooked. But an atheist who has totally rejected the idea of an everlasting punishment for the slightest misstep perhaps doesn’t have nearly as much at stake in fighting against a belief that he or she deems threatening to the cause for, after all, there is no hell and no afterlife. What we have is the here and the now, and we have to fight against an idea that threatens the here and now, and perhaps the future of humanity. If there are atheists who are anti-Muslim, for instance, or anti-gay, maybe it’s easier to fight that fight than Christians disagreeing on whether gay people are going to hell or not, because in the atheist mindset, all that matters is the here and now, and there’s nothing to worry about afterwards. But in the minds of many Christians, there’s your mortal soul to think about here, and maybe, just maybe, somebody is wrong. And if somebody is wrong, then you’ve got eternal damnation to worry about. And that’s a pretty big worry if you’re the kind of Christian who believes lock, stock and barrel in the notion that god will punish you for the slightest infractions, for all eternity, no matter that that particular infraction may have lasted only an hour or two in bed.
I almost feel like we should be puting this on a different board, but this
subject is fascinating. Here's how I see it. When I was a christian, one of the
worst things you could do was do harm to another. If I hurt some better else,
physically or emotionally, I had to atone for it. I had to apologizie to them, and
to god. If I allowed someone to be hurt, I had to do the same thing. So, does
not speaking out against Robertson and his ilk constitute people being hurt?
Steve Anderson, for example, says that he was only sad about the Pulse Night
Club shooting because it was done by a citizen, and not systematically done by
the federal government like it should be. Creflow Dollar, yes that is his real
name, took money from grandmas and grandpas to, and I'm not kidding here,
buy himself a private jet because he deserved it. Peter Popov got caught
defrauding people out of their money. There's video of him taking advantage of
people in wheelchairs and blind people, taking money from them and claiming
to heal them, when he was using a scam the whole time. yet he's back in
business doing the same exact thing, and making millions. he owns a mantion
in the most expensive county in all of America, Bradbury California. I could go
on for days with this stuff. Yet, I almost never see any kind of outcry from
christians about this. I only see a few, when faced with it, who say that they're
not real christians. Where are the call outs against Liberty University or Orell
Roberts University? where are the protests of the Westboro Baptists by
christians, rather than just a few facebook messages? Atheists bought the
house across the street from the westboro baptists, painted it rainbow, and
made it a safe haven for LGBTQ people. Why aren't christians doing this kind of
stuff?
If you're right, and the reason they aren't is a fear of going to hell, what does
that say about their faith? Are they so unsure of themselves in their liberal
philosophy of christianity that they can't face down someone who is so clearly
evil? if so, why aren't they following someone like Popov or Robertson?
Cody, you forgot about Joyce Mayers. She has more money than any of us, has her own jet, and tells people how to live. They all do it and it makes me sick.
What is going on right now with the cadre of people around Trump is nothing short of Fascist. I have always suspected he was a Fascist, though I doubt he even knows what that means, but now I am certain. He is openly and blatantly just making things up that have no basis in fact. He promises to jail his opponent, without due process I'd note. He advocates against ethnic groups and scapegoats them for the ills of our nation, and he has permitted the Alt Right, admitted neo Nazis, and white supremacists to have a say in his campaign, have input to his rhetoric, and if elected, would likely be his lieutenants and advisers. Surely you Clinton haters on here can see this? And now, he turns a blind eye to Russia screwing with our election process? He is in favor of vote suppression which goes directly against our democratic republic. To add insult to injury, the NY office of the FBI are taking an active role in election influence. The FBI our state police force, backing a particular candidate openly? This is fifth column tactics. Those traitors besmirch the reputation of all those other honest agents who try to do the right thing in spite of personal views.
This has been made possible by a Republican party which has abrogated its responsibility to help govern. Though some Republicans have done what they honestly feel is right for our nation, way too many want power at any cost. They are willing to back a Fascist leader if he can win. If he loses, which I have faith he will, they will have a tantrum again just like they did when Obama was elected, and refuse to help govern. They will obstruct, shut down government, and try to impeach a newly elected president even though she has actually done nothing in office yet to be impeached for. It is theater of the absurd. It is scary for those of us who believe democratic republicanism is a great system. If they actually manage to destroy trust in our election system, then we will be just like so many third world countries that kill political opponents or through threats keep people with new ideas from even running.
This scares the hell out of me. And don't give me this bull shit about how Clinton has been a bad girl with her emails or the foundation. There is no credible evidence of criminal activity here, though perhaps she has been foolish. The fact is though, she has done nothing to attack our nation itself. She has not colluded with enemy governments. She has not threatened her opponent. If you don't like her fine, that is your right. But, she does not threaten our underlying government. If we allow the entirely made up accusations of Trump to bring her down, then a complete miscarriage of justice will have taken place. If those tactics actually work, then our nation will have a long dark time to work through during which no one will be able to mount honest opposition without fearing for their reputations, their freedom, and even their lives. Do you really want to go there with Trump? Wake up!
Cody, you raise an interesting point, although I think that maybe something I said in my last post may need further clarifying/exploring. I also risk doing a bit of a hash job in trying to explain my understanding of the two camps because I have to admit that for me, only one of these camps is easily understood, whereas the other is sorta baffling in so many ways, largely because liberal Christianity is so mmuch more amorphous than the conservative kind many of us have grown accustomed to. I’m only explaining what I’ve come to understand over the years, and this understanding is imperfect. It’s also admittedly from an outsider, but hopefully an outsider who always questions what he learns.
As I see it, the fear of hell is far more prevalent amongst the fundamentalist Christian ilk than it is in the liberal Christian mindset. Remember on another topic where I discussed meeting some folks from the crazed intelligent design camp, and how I was pretty freaked out by them? It seems to me that their notion of Christianity is, first and foremost, fear-inspired. It’s the whole Jonathan Edwards mindset of sinners in the hands of an angry god sort of thing. The god they envision seems to me more along the lines of a punitive pater familias who mmust, in all event, be appeased. If he isn’t (and assuredly he is a he), then he will send you to hell forever and ever, amen. There is but one path of redemption, and that path is the one of least resistance. All must believe a certain way, and do as he has commanded, and there is but one interpretation of what is to be expected. That interpretation is the supposedly literal truth of the Bible. And the ones who seem to understand that literal truth, of course, are the elders of the church who are charged with the responsibility of interpreting that truth. This mindset believes in love, of course, but one mmust understand that this love is always conditional upon absolute obedience. You see it in the way the father treats his children in the home; the way the husband dominates his wife. It’s all modeled on that patriarchal, angry-god mmentality. Love can be earned, in other words, but not easily so, for we all must, must, must avoid everlasting hellfire, and that is the be-all/end-all of this mindset. Love is secondary to obedience, and if you do not obey, you don’t get love.
In the liberal Christian mindset, the godhead is seen not so much as a pater familias, but more amorphously. In other words, you take from the banquet table what you want. If you see god as a loving father, then so be it. Maybe that’s what he is to you, and that’s how he will appear in whatever afterlife comes next. If someone else sees this same god as a loving mother, well, then maybe for you this is also true. Also, the bible is not an ironclad book of commandments, but more of a reference book. The liberal Christian may doubt the existence of an afterlife from time to time, but he or she will see these moments of doubt as a sort of testing, the way I’ve come to understand it from talking to such people. But the overarching theme in liberal Christianity is love rather than fear, and love comes first. As for hell, my understanding is that the concept is rather different, and many believe it isn’t necessarily forever. Rather, it’s a place where you revisit the earthly harm you’ve done to others and, if you eventually see the light in terms of how you’ve harmed people in this life, you attain forgiveness. I suppose you could then argue that this is a sort of lesser form of pater fammilias, and perhaps this is so, but then one can argue that it makes more sense than the fundamentalist interpretation in which far, far more of us are going to hell than not. Now, as for liberal Christians standing up for their beliefs and whether or not they call out the Westboro Baptist Church and others of its ilk, that’s an interesting point. I have no easy answer for that because in large measure, I’m not really honestly sure that the liberal Christian community hasn’t done some of the same things that atheist groups have done. I’d actually like to explore this more with others who could talk better than I can about it. Also, quite frankly, I don’t think I have that much of a stake in defending one camp over the other, although I may seek to understand the two camps. I have to say that I probably understand the fundamentalists a little more than I understand the liberal Christians because I’ve had more unhappy familiarity with that brand than I have with the other. But I venture to say that if you ask a liberal Christian how he or she fights against the fundamentalist Christofascists, they might say they do so in their actions; in being as loving toward their fellow humans as they can be. If you’re really accepting of gay people, for instance, you’ll encourage those you know to partake of the so-called banquet table without judgment and with a welcoming heart. The theory behind this is that Jesus himself consorted with whores and thieves, and supposedly he preached love as the most important doctrine; the bee-all/end-all, and supposedly he didn’t preach a conditional form of it. So, you fight against conservative Christianity essentially by being more welcoming; more loving. Putting it plainly, perhaps, love conquers all. The problem I see is that this may bbe far too humble an approach if you want results that are more tangible. If you really espouse a more liberal, loving approach to Christianity that embraces all humanity, even those who doubt, even those who are gay, even those who are divorced, pro-choice, liberal Democrats or whatever, then it really does seem to me you have to be more activist in your approach. But I think there’s a sort of pacifist streak in liberal Christianity that may not easily lend itself to confrontation. It also seems a little bit too sunshine, lollipops and rainbows to me in some respects. The irony is that sometimes you do hear about activist Christians honestly confronting the bigotry of their church, and those activists seem to come from certain revolutionary Roman Catholic nuns and priests who may have to do a lot more fighting because their church is more along the lines of an absolute monarchy where edicts are handed down from one central seat of government.
I have no problem eating at the same table as a whore. lol.
Johndy et al, interesting discussion going on here. I've nothing to add to that,
I'm merely listening over here.
Pasco, I'm afraid you're right and Trump may make the Bush years seem
delightful by comparison.
Turrincane, I think when people are referring to the Christian Right, it's the
same way people refer to the Academic Left, the Labor Left, etc. It's not about
an individual person, it's the average of what is coming out of there. In
particular, the leadership. And I think many reasonable people assume that
Christian Right people aren't stupid, just as reasonable people assume that
liberals aren't just looking for an entitlement. You see, it works both ways, and
nobody here was implying any differently. Of course your side has a lot of very
intelligent people in it. To even have a side, one would have to have intelligent
people onboard, and a great many of them.
I agree with post 156, but I'd like to add Cody, and I argued this point before.
You lump all Christians in the same belief system. You don't seem to allow that Christians, like Atheist have different groups, or beliefs, but still call themselves Christian, or Atheist.
I used Devil worshipers as my example as Atheist that were different, and I understand why you refused to accept them as “real Atheist.”
I dropped the Christian title for just this reason, because if I say I’m Christian, depending on who I say it to, they will view me the way they believe I think, not in the way I actually think, or believe.
“Why didn’t the Christians do this or that?” Maybe just maybe some Christians did because they believe in love, and not love because of good behavior.
You say this.
Atheists bought the
house across the street from the Westbrook Baptists, painted it rainbow, and
made it a safe haven for LGBTQ people. Why aren't Christians doing this kind of
stuff?
“Remember, you are in the world, but not of the world.”
So it is extremely possible some of the money, and work for that project was done by Christians, or people such as myself who strongly believe in God.
We don’t need a banner. We don’t require a pat on the back.
We don’t need it made public, because it is what we are supposed to do, not what we do for our rewards, or to build up points with God.
We believe in God, so do what a loving God would do.
Open up another board, and let us talk it over.
Wayne, We say its wrong, because every actual definition of atheism says its wrong. Just because some people misunderstand what the word actually means, it doesn't mean that definition is correct.
You are absolutely 100 percent wrong.
If you can make a logical argument as to why you're correct, do so...
Otherwise, stop spreading uneducated bullshit, that does more harm than good.
Satanism is satanism
Atheism is Atheism
You're basically saying that because some people call a chair a table, tables and chairs are both tables.
This is right, that is wrong. Right and wrong are relative concepts and should not be tossed into the usual black and white thought process. Trump doesn't think what he promotes is wrong just as Hilary doesn't think she is wrong. It all comes up to a huge mathematical equation for which the result is bullshit.
Ah, but James, Christian is Christian.
Now how people practice it is different, right?
Just because people practice it, or get it wrong doesn't make them not Christians in your book does it?
Same bullshit.
Open another board, lets talk it over.
I believe that the bible is god breathed. in other wowrds it's his words. however,I peope interpret it based on their culture, experience, and mindset. the whole gays are bad and going to roast on the eternal bbq pit is not actually what is said. it is how it is interpreted. people do not understand the homosexual life style. it is outside their experience. therefore it is wrong. paul disavowed this lifestyle because there were those who practiced it at that time who did some pretty evil stuff in the name of their sexual preference. therefore according to him it was evil. now, someone here is going to ask me where I read this and honestly I can say I have no earthly idea. it ws a couple years ago and is lost in the mists of my faulty memory. the god in whomi believe is loving. this does not mean that we must stand around the camp fire singing folk songs and roasting marshmeallows. as for televangelists they are all charletins to one way or another. when my kids were young, I attended a day of teaching for sunday school teachers. this guy who was the most inspiring fascinating speaker I ever heard said "tell your children, when they turn on the tv particularly if they see a minister or preacher to repeat to themselves three times "tv lies. the camera is a liar." I always have thought that was pretty darned smart.
Turricane, was it "God and the Gay Christian?" My daughter read that book.
I doubt any thinking person is equating reasonable Christians like you and many others with Mr. T., aka Donald T. Rump, candidate for President.
I believe it was. thanks.
I can't help but equate right wingers to crazy bible thumpers who wish to turn back the clock.
Trump one. It's over.
ok... it's not yet over, Erick. We can protest. We can do other things. the things Trump says doesn't really mean that he's gonna do them. Congress is still there to make dicisions and to approve of what Trump is going to do. I doubt that he's gonna do what he says.
So for the first time in history, a billionaire will be moving into public housing after a black family moves out.
In all seriousness, the one promise I hope he is able to keep is trade deals.
The establishment has been beating the working class for long enough, and you can only beat a dog so long before that dog finally bites you.
This was a vote against the establishment pure and simple, no matter what the media tries to do. I never saw so much demonization of the *supporters*, not the candidate. They did it to the Bernie Sanders supporters, too. The establishment is scared as hell, or should be.
everyone woke up today feeling very Scared, Leo. It's not just the establishers, its the citizens who are afraid. I'm afraid for my family, a few friends who don't have papers... I get why we are afraid.
remember that fear is a marketing tool. the media wants us to be always afraid. that way we can easily be controlled. it's our choice to be scared or concerned. the latter is better to me because I'm not going to worry about it until I have to do so. although I do not like the current president elect at all and feel the same amount of love for the one who lost, I think that trump's election is a wake up call to the establishment. honestly, I'm sick of seeing the main leader change but the same old cast of characters remain. but of course as I said to my son a number of years ago "cancer is change. do you want cancer?" the man has only been in power for less than 12 hours. give him a little more time to screw up.
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Yes, I woke up quite afraid but we do have congress to stop Trump from being a dictator. It'll be okay. I will say that the fact that Trump made it is proof that the voting public is largely ignorant.
I truly feel so fucking ashamed to be an American. but you're right, Kevin.
He's not in power yet.
He's got to take the reins in January, so much can happen before that time.
He got elected, so we have to agree American's decided pretty much.
I do wonder how he'll deal with his stocks and such. He's a billionaire after all.
Maybe America just couldn’t see a woman as leader yet.
Time will tell. We’ve had bad elected presidents before, so hopefully we’ll get through this one.
Leo, the comment about the public housing made me laugh.
I wasn't looking forward to either candidate becoming president. Just didn't feel that either one really cared about the people as much as they cared about themselves. But because I'm an American who loves my country and appreciate the sacrifices many have endured to make sure that the people get to decide who governs, then I feel that we must keep our heads about us and continue to fight for what is good and right. I also believe however that our country has a rough road ahead. Guess our country deserves that because the people after all voted for the worst of the two candidates. What a mess.
Just want to throw this out here.
The republicans also got the congress.
So about those checks and balances.
The republicans are also extremely likely to pick more than 1 supreme court justice.
ok, that answered my question: who was part of the congress. thanks, James.
in all this wringing of hands, we have forgotten one thing that is good. Washington state elected one of the first if not the first lieutenant governors who is blind. he's also an Iranian American. go Washington!!!!
really? yay for Washington!
at least one good thing came out, sherreff urpile is not our sherreff anymore! racist guy is out!
Great but this new guy isn't making an impact so it doesn't count for much.
We are not without hope. Young people overwhelmingly voted for Cliton, so if
we can find another leader who is more popular than she was, we can win in
2020. If we can get someone to encourage people to vote in the midterms, we
can control trump for two years. We can protest. We can march. wE can join
lobbying groups like Association of Young Americans who lobby for us, instead
of for the elderly or for gun control. We can still survive this. The only thing we
can't do is surrender.
Somebody's been watching die hard. Lol but you're right. We cannot go quietly into that dark night. Wow listen to us ahahaha.
If you've not read this, this is the man's plan for his first 100 days.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2037
Also there is a pititon floating around to get the college to change the outcome on December 19th.
I've heard the Democrats are really working on getting an outsider for the next election.
Except for the inflammatory schoolyard name-callers, more sensible people are realizing that votes for Trump were votes against the establishment.
I know the banks will not finance a part who nominates Elizabeth Warren, but there is a progressive for you, someone who challenges the establishment often, who doesn't call working class people deplorable as did Clinton, or takers as did Romney.
It's become people against power, like it or not, schoolyard divisions or not.
The super delegates should never have stolen the nomination from Bernie Sanders.
Again, there's Jill Stein too, although I think she's pretty dedicated to the Greens.
Hillary Clinton was not the first woman in politics, is not the female savior. Hell I still think if the 1984 election had Ferraro at the President and Mondale as vice, Reagan might well have lost.
The actual sexist thing would be to imagine, fantasize, pretend, that Hillary Rodam Clinton was the only woman who could possibly be the first woman in the White House. Hell, Sarah Palin ran as vice in 2008, sorry for the mention and you throwing up in your mouth for that one.
Technically, the Electoral College could change that outcome.
What would be interesting about that is republicans typically support the electoral college.
A friend of mine and I were talking: So 2020 we get a lineup of all either women or trans women, maybe F2M trans man too. Kaitlyn Jenner for Republican presidential candidate.
Now, they won't be able to cry all these identity politics words. And we all know, those of us not sexist enough to attach womyn with Hillary Clinton only, that both sides of the aisle actually have quite a lot of qualified female candidates.
Damn the banks for refusing to finance the party who nominates Elizabeth Warren.
Oh, and right now I'm watching CNN, Trump is "making deals" with Obama to keep parts of Obama Care.
The crowd who is really upset at Trump are the social conservative republicans.
I guess people may have voted out of spite, or not wanting a woman, or whatever, but I understand she actually had the popular vote.
The popular vote is suppose to guide the tes Electoral Colllege's voting, but it didn't for some reason.
So, Trumps win could be over turned if they vote the popular vote on December 19th.
I have not checked, but if that should happen, would it be the first time it happened in America's history?
I guess people are Thinking they messed up, because of what he might try to do.
In the 100 days promise, he's got lots of stuff he intends to do, that will possibly cause us a fight with say China.
Seems he's been a business man so long, he's forgotten a country requires diplomacy, not threats
He wants to stop payments to the UN. How's that going to go over if the money just dries up all of a sudden?
I guess he can be overruled, but on some things he could maybe use his veto power?
How many does he get?
Even to suggest it is probably making some folks mad right now.
Hillary won't jump in the office chair and start using her pen to make people mad right away.
People know this.
Interesting.
I'm listening to CNN radio right now, Trump has already said the wall was a metaphor, that he has been making deals with Obama to keep Obamacare in many ways. He is now upsetting the Republicans. Ironically, in many of the ways the social conservative Republicans have said.
What's going on now seems to be quite different from the rhetoric he was pumping out.
Would be interesting in the Electors listen to that petition. They'd have to face fines and censure on account of going against the way their district voted. Some places that punishment is steeper than others.
And now there are protesters around his Trump Tower but they've also got guards outside too.
Okay, I know that everyone doesn't keep the promises they make in the heat of trying to win, but his were based on the reason he was running.
Maybe he's afraid he'll get booted before he gets started, so is making some concessions to stick until he's fix in office?
Weird.
Amusing...
Allow me to contribute to the theatrics.
When James Comey flip-flopped about Clinton's emails practically minutes before election day, I was reminded of what was done to Sanders by the media -- the Associated Press -- when it published that Clinton had won the primaries only seconds before they were to be decided by voters. That’s still controversial but if proved factual, looks like Clinton's campaign got hit by a dose of karma.
If you still believe president-elect Trump is simply and purely due to voters revolting against the Establishment, think again. A thing, some evil a lot worse and sinister that we can't, or maybe don't want to imagine, is afoot here folks. The FBI, the Company, media conglomerates, the Russians, a global movement of working class wizardly whites, billionaire donors, the devil...take your pick, everyone is suspect.
Rod Serling sure got it right all those decades ago, the monsters are due on Maple St, or should I say, Pennsylvania Ave.
Hilarious. Perhaps the nightmare everyone still wants to wish away has finally truly materialized. Let the chaos begin.
Oh, and I bet dooms day cults of the world along with apocalypticists are eagerly awaiting the Hereafter. What does Isaiah say, something about Truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. I do recall that, according to some shady biblical interpretations, in the last days people are supposed to love wickedness rather than goodness, just like Trumpists are being portrayed.
The wall simply being a metaphorical wall has been put forward for many months now.
I'm not sure what to make of all of this.
patience. all will be revealed. it just takes time. time is the healer, the stealer, and dthe revealer. it's just something most people under 30 can't stand. they seem to want a solution yesterday. life is not a tv show.
That's one of the big problems with Trump. He's absolutely unpredictable. we
have absolutely no idea what he's going to do as a president. he has held just
about every position it is possible to hold on every issue it is posible to hold a
position on. Which is one of the reasons I will not be surprised if he gets
impeached. His vice president is much more controllable, much more benign,
much more standard bland republican. Impeaching Trump would actually be a
masterstroke of political dealing by the republicans if they can ever get an
excuse, which I'm sure he'l give them eventually.
I think that the electoral college is not quite understood on this forum. It was never directed to agree with the popular vote. Back when our constitution was under debate, there was a large powerful contingent who wanted the states as individual governments to be stronger than the federal government. The electoral college is one of the nods to the states rights people to keep them on board. More rural states were concerned that states with big cities would always end up electing candidates they liked. So it was set up that each individual state holds an election to see who its people want as president. So the winner from each state election is put forward to the electoral college which is just representatives from every state. So, technically, the state governments collectively elect our president, not the people. This is another example why we are called a republic, not technically a democracy. We elect representatives, and they elect the president. Back in the time before even a telegraph existed, this system had its advantages. It simplified the process. Now, with nearly instant election communications, it is more problematic. There was once a time when the electoral college did go against its instructions. I do not remember which election, but it was a long time ago. Even now, each state instructs its electoral reps how to act. Some apportion the votes by individual districts and so some reps of that state vote for one candidate, and some for the other. Then some states say, winner takes all. I think there are even a couple of districts in Washington state that say, vote your conscience. So it is complicated, and some of the same issues exist now. The mid American states which are much more sparsely populated are afraid they will lose ability to elect presidents if the system changes to popular vote. That's because California, Texas, New York etc. have huge populations compared to states like Oklahoma or Wyoming.
The election you speak of, I believe, was in 1888. Grover Cleeveland was running against Benjamin Harrison. Cleeveland got the popular vote, almost overwhelmingly, and Harrison got the electoral vote. Me, I think the electoral college is starting to cause more problems than it’s worth keeping. Do away with the electoral college altogether and maybe only the entire will of the country regardless of states would matter? Dunno. Either way,, I hate eating crow, because way back at the beginning of this thread, I predicted Clinton would be elected. All I can say is it’s probably gunna get really, really interesting. And you know what the ancient Chinese said about living in interesting times.
I hope this election turns out to be just like the one of 1888. A populus
president gets elected by making wild claims to the uneducated of america. Fails
to keep practically all of them, and loses the next election. I like the sound of
that.
I can't think of a single solitary thing Benjamin Harrison did as president except to interrupt the two terms of Cleeveland and make them into two non-consecutive terms. I worry that Trump is going to be ten times as worse.
Johndy, thanks for reminding me.
I agree, it is probably time to amend the constitution to do away with the the EC. The problem is, a constitutional amendment requires two thirds of the states to agree. Since sparser states have a stake in the current system, that might be a tough sell.
True enough.
But if you counted votes solely by popular will instead of counting the states? Just wondering. But then, probably not because states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc., would always have sway over Rhode Island, Delaware and even the biggest -- Alaska in terms of population density. I'm not sure there's an easy fix. Someone's gunna have to give up power.
Exactly. And when was the last time anyone you know gave up power willingly?
The electoral college is still a good system, just not a perfect one. The best
way to do it would be incredibly complicated, and so would never get passed.
But there's an easy fix to all of this, its called voting. If you don't like who won
the election, vote next time. and I don't mean voting for third party. Doing that
is more stupid than not voting at all.
I know there's a good reason for the current system, guys, but things like this really make me wonder.
So okay. California, New York, Texas and maybe a few other states have huge populations and would dominate the voting if we just added up all the votes in total and went that way. But, um, it's still the American people.
Put another way, if there are five hundred million of you, and two hundred and eight million vote democrat, does it really, really matter where they came from so long as they get the majority? I mean, that would suggest a majority vote, rather than all this slightly more complicated stuff from state to state. I feel a little as if the American people in general have forgotten that they're a country, and are existing state to state as if they're somehow in conflict with one another.
I dunno. Maybe I'm missing the point a bit. And do bear in mind, I can understand why the current system exists. I just think it's not really all that accurate when you get down to it, particularly when you bear in mind that if a given state's majority is 80% vs. another state's majority of 56%, they're still treated exactly the same instead of the disparity being noted one way or the other.
Cody, I agree we should vote but the average Joe isn't heard. The system doesn't work and simply casting your vote doesn't make anything happen. The popular vote is getting ignored.
Greg, the thing you're missing is this. Lets say that we had just the popular
vote, then people in LA and San Fran vote democrat. But that isn't the only
people in california, its just most of them. But its enough that the votes all
swing democratic. Same with places in Texas where the population is mostly
democratic, like Austin. So then, it wouldn't be just one state controlling the
government, it would be just one city, or two cities. So then, politicians would
just go to LA, sAn Fran and new york. They'd ask polsters what people in those
cities want on the ballot, and that's all they'd listen to, cuz its all that would
matter to them. So then, farmers in Kansas, ranchers in wyoming, poor blacks
in North carolina, blind people in Miniapolis, no one would listen to them. What
would politicians care about the state of voters in rural nebraska if the only
voters they need are all focused along the coast of california? And since the
voters in rural kansas don't matter, they'd have no recourse to the president,
since their vote wouldn't matter. With the electoral college, the farmers are on
almost an equal footing with the people in LA. Its proportional to population, but
they are at least given a voice, which is what representational democracy is
about.
Now then, as for votes not counting, I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it
again. states like new hampshire and Michigan and florida were not decided by
millions of votes, they were decided by a handful of thousands. New hampshire,
last I saw, was decided by less than three thousand votes. That's the population
of one small town. We had one hundred and eight million people not vote in this
election. They just stayed home. If those people voted, swing states become
even hotter.
Honestly, if your argument is that people's votes don't matter, you may as
well just move to a monarchy, because no matter what you do you're always
going to feel that way. If you get rid of the EC, then people in the middle of the
country don't matter. If you have it, people on the coast don't matter as much.
Californian voters, right now, don't make a lick of difference in the presidency,
they will always go democratic. But people in Kansas could easily change the
direction our country goes. Which is exactly why we have the electoral college
at all. But, I assure you, your vote always matters. That's how representational
democracy works. Its just that people forget we live in one of those.
Ah, so let me see if I'm understanding this. If politicians focused on the really hot cities, and ignored virtually everyone else, then those other people would feel underrepresented, might not vote or might not be educated/engaged enough to vote, and so those hot cities would stay influential simply because no one else gave a damn.
See, I had this crazy idea that people across the country would recognize "Hey, if I feel strongly about voting republican, I'm gonna do it regardless of how much attention my state/city/county/ninety-man village gets". I guess that's too idealistic for this day and age.
Its not that Greg. Think of it this way. If you have a hundred thousand people
in california, and only a thousand in nebraska, it doesn't matter how the people
in nebrask vote. They don't have enough numbers to sway the tallie. So
politicians will simply ignore them. Why waste time in nebraska when you have
a hundred thousand people in california to pander to? and that's how things are
in america. Maine, for example, has far fewer people than does its neighbor
Massachusetts, but different desires from its elected officials. But who cares
whta Maine thinks when all you need is Massachusetts to get elected? same for
Vermont and new hampshire and Rhode Island. They simply don't have the
population to compete with Massachusetts.
So its not that they wouldn't vote, though eventually they wouldn't. Its that
even if they all vote republican, they'd be offset by the hundreds of thousands
of people who voted democrat in California. so the politicians would focus on the
big pockets of people. That's the big cities, and there just aren't a lot of
conservative big cities.
But that's the kicker though. I can see smaller places deciding not to vote because they don't make a difference becoming a problem, but until or unless it does...well, it's just numbers, man. Just numbers.
Frankly, it's not the fault of Los Angeles that it's a big city. Ditto New York. Ditto Chicago. Ditto Miami, or wherever else. If there are more people there, as compared to, say, Omaha or Bismarck or Lansing or Charleston, then shouldn't their voices be louder by right of greater numbers?
If you have five hundred million people in a country, and over a hundred million are in concentrated places, why should that count against them?
I guess there are bits of this that I just don't get after all, quite apart from the bits where people in far less populated areas stop caring because they feel their vote doesn't matter.
Also, suppose the states with the higher population did things to make the people happier about a particular party they wanted to win?
But again, you're forgetting that we live in a representational democracy. Its
not actually supposed to be the will of the popular. Its supposed to be the
people coming to gether to make sure that everyone has rights and is
protected. So if only california votes, Nebraska doesn't have rights and aren't
protected. That's not representational democracy. Its direct democracy, but we
don't live in one of those.
Yup Texas's Trump voters would have power over us here in Oregon.
Johndy, you're not the only one eating crow. Hell, after the tapes came out, I actually said it was time for Trump to pout and go home, show's over. Couldn't have been more wrong, could I?
On 60 minutes, Trump tried to appeal to the social conservatives by claiming himself pro-life, no mention of his contributions to Planned Parenthood, running the same line about leaving abortion up to the states. But on LGBT marriage, he said that's all done, no going back.
Hella punkin, I think Rowe V. Wayde's long since done.
Go back and read what the social conservatives had to say about Trump before he was their only option. He's no more one of them than Clinton is a progressive. Not an endorsement, but still. Cody had it right, he's a loose cannon.
Impeached? I don't know. Couldn't happen until the opposition party takes the house and senate in a couple years, unless he does something so drastically illegal as to get his own party to impeach him.
I absolutely do not want Pence though, speaking of turning back the clock. Pence is absolutely dedicated to the worst aspects of social conservatism.
I really don't have anything valuable to add here other than, I do not want Trump to be impeached. If that happens, we're stuck with Pence, and nobody wants that. So, let's all chill out until 2018, and if you didn't vote this time, go fucking vote next time.
I'd rather him than Trump to tell you the truth. And cody, I voted because I want the right to complain but I feel the need to say something. You seem to be one of those people who was roped into thinking that the system works.
Ok fine, experience, but not with the things that he's done... Instead of building walls, he'll build churches.
The system does work. It isn't perfect, and it doesn't always mean you get
your way, but it does work. No, you're not always going to come out on the
good side of every issue, and it isn't always going to be fast, but it does work.
and here's the thing, if Trump had lost, the people who are now saying that the
system didn't work, would be saying how wonderful it is that they can vote to
defeat Trump. The only reason that the system didn't work is because people
don't engage with it. The founding fathers designed this system to be run by
educated, well-informed, active voters. Its one of the reasons they originally
restricted it to white property owners. They were the only ones at the time who
they, wrongly of course, felt could be educated and well-informed. The problem
si that people have forgotten the well-informed part. so now we have people
who know what position the others on teen mom got knocked up in, but not
who their fucking representative is. More than half of the voting population
didn't vote. So how can we say that the system doesn't work, when we don't
engage with the system. Its like bitching that your car doesn't start when you
haven't put gas in it in a hundred years. Want the system to work, get out and
make it work.
And don't give me any of this bullshit that politicians don't answer to voters,
they only answer to lobbyists. Its utter bullshit. In this very election, a group
called the wolf pac, no K, got out in New Hampshire and knocked on every door
they could in support of a voter funded candidate. That candidate will, I'm sure,
enjoy the seat they won in this election. They kicked the shit out of the
lobbyist's candidate because people got involved. So, until we can get people
involved in the system, the system isn't going to work the way we want it to.
Until we young people start voting, old people are always going to be in charge.
cody as far as i understand it, your explanation of the electoral college was right on and correct. right now i'm taking a US history class on line. the guy who wrote the book should have come and asked you to cover that topic.
for those of us who don't get this process, here is a current example. as everyone knows, i live in washington state. in our state we have i believe 47 counties. we just elected a democratic governor whose name is jay insley. there was some republican guy running but honestly since i didn't vote for him, his name escapes me.
anyway, eight counties in the western part of our state elected mr. insley and mr. habib who is the lieutenant governor who is blind. this is where most of the people live and most of them are democrats.
the other 39 counties contain much fewer residents. the vast majority of these individuals are predominantly republican.
therefore it has been some long time, 32 or 42 years, that we have had democratic governors. unless the republicans can find someone with mass appeal we will still have this state of affairs for the foreseeable future.
if washington had an electoral college for state elections, which would never happen, the playing field would be leveled. republicans could be chosen more frequently.
yes, the system is not perfect. hot news flash, humans made it and none of us can say that we are perfect. it's worked well for over 200 years. if people actually read, learned, stopped whining, and asked questions commonsense would have a better chance of reigning. Of course, if we keep closing our schools so that our pampered little snowflake children can mourn the fact that democracy in action didn't go their way, learning will be slowed even more. educators have missed or misinterpreted a great teaching opportunity. oh well... that's another rant for a different day.
Well, the man wants top secret clearance for 3 or his children. I'm hoping sound minds will not grant them that.
Cody is right. The real agony here is that half the eligible voters don't bother. In the long run, this will destroy our nation if we don't turn it around.
In the short run, my more immediate concern is we have elected a Fascist. This is a very dangerous event. Though we must plan for the future and reform our politics and get better voter participation, we need as citizens to be very vigilant now and willing to do what each and every one of us can to prevent Fascism from ending our democratic power altogether. It has happened in a number of other countries. We need to make sure it does not happen here.
But Cody, one of the many reasons that people don't vote is because they don't feel that they're being represented properly. How can we say that we are for the people if we are only for certain people. Let's really work on ways to encourage voting by training politicians to speak everyone's language instead of being programmed to serve a government that protects itself at all costs.
Yes, but the reason voters aren't represented is because they don't vote. If
you wanted a different person in congress, all you had to do was go and vote for
that candidate. How do you think senators like Sanders and warren got elected?
Of course but it's hard to ask for representation when politicians currently running don't care about the average Joe's concerns?
make them care. I'm an old gal. this complaint has been around since I was a kid. be the change you want to see. get involved in politics. vote. encourage your neighbors to do so. write letters. go to town hall meetings. whining is easy. complaining is also. if we want things to happen we have to get off our fat butts and make it so.
you can pray without even leaving your home. even a small step toward being a change maker is helps.
Quite right. Those candidates do exist, especially on a local level. People do
not, by and large, run for mayor of your town without caring about the issues
facing your town. Vote for them, and support them if you think they should run
for state representative. Find the people who you want to support and support
them. Make calls, volunteer your time, give money, but do something. Just
sitting and whining about how the politicians don't care about you is first and
foremost icorrect and annoying, and secondly less than worthless if you want to
make a change.
Agree Turricane, well said. I will not give the time of day to someone's complaints if they don't even trouble to vote.
I actually don't believe not voting makes you less of an American or any of that bullshit. This system is botched and I think people are just sick of it. I do agree that in order to have change you have to be the change. I'm just saying I understand the psychology behind it.
margorp it is wonderful that you understand. now what are you going to do?
Well I always understood I'm just saying let's not walk around thinking the system works.
If, as you say, the system doesn't work, it is the lack of participation that makes it that way. It was intended by the designers of our system that all citizens would be educated in the necessity of taking responsibility for our own self governance. Dropping out is just lazy. People say its because their vote doesn't matter, but that is an excuse to be lazy pure and simple. How can your vote count if you do not cast it? Sometimes the difference in a state going one way or the other in a matter of a couple thousand votes. That translates to 3 or 4 votes per district. In this election something like 90 million people who had the right to vote, did not vote. Are you really saying that 90 million votes would not make a difference? We cannot self govern if we who are the selfs don't take on that responsibility. To not vote is selfish and extremely short sighted. If this election doesn't prove my point, I don't know what will. Well, you non-voters may have waited one election too long. This is a fascist rgime installing itself, next time, your vote may in fact not matter. I pray we have another chance.
I am not a non voter. I am just saying that we have a serious problem in this country.
But we don't. The only real problem we have is that we don't have a lot of
people running for office, and we have far too many uneducated voters. i don't
only mean people who didn't go to college, but more the people who don't look
down ballot, and barely know anything about the presidency. We've become a
nation where the person who wins a reality show wins the election, rather than
a nation of people who understand the issues and vote accordingly. we focus
more on what the candidate said yesterday about grabbing women, rather than
whether their tax plan will bankrupt the country. and that goes double and
tripple for down ballot candidates. People have no idea whose running for the
representative spot in their district, or what they stood for, and couldn't be
bothered to care if they actually carried out what they ran for. No one checks
voting records anymore. Like, did your representative vote yes or no for this
issue or that, no one knows anymore. That's the problem with our system, not
the system itself. You want to be represented, start giving a shit.
ok, for all you sitters on the couch, if you so choose, here is a way you can make a difference. money rules the Donald's world. if you didn't vote for him don't like him and want to make his life miserable, don't patronize the businesses in which he has financial interests. some of these are papa johns, pep boys, and home depot. there are others, but I don't want to be boring. enjoy your day. ps he also has interests in the new England patriots. another reason I don't like them.
The uneducated, nonvoters, and the single-issue voters are the people who kills me, but people will start to wake up when, Paul Ryan starts enacting cuts to the programs that a lot of disabled nonvoters benefits from. lol
The real issue Turricain is that Trump is not full owner of anything. He gets in with investors and does a cut and run no matter how the business is doing. And Cody, I really think the issue is that people don't know their history. Well, it's repeating itself and most people are so dim witted they don't even notice it.
As a historian, you'll hear no argument from me about that.