The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
Trypsy Summers
Well-Known Member
Nah you've lost the plot, what are you talking about? Whose said you don't believe there is no viable option? Listen if you've got some self hate issue going on that you're seeking to justify, then just forget about involving me in it, cos being all up in negativity ain't me by any stretch of the imagination.
Just so that we're clear, If you wanna vote Clinton, then do that, I ain't looking for your justification for doing so - if that's what you think this is about! Listen, don't hate on me simply because I have the freewill to choose not immerse myself in plain old fuckery, i,e, politics! So that we're clear here, I ain't hating on anyone who is of the genuine conviction that their participation in the voting 'fraudulent' exercise is going to do them some good, good intentions and all that! Ya certainly don't need to be getting into insults and hatred to make a point, that's kinda the old way, that's on the way out!
I suppose the problem here is like Neo puts it, 'is about choice', and the fact that in this kinda bullshit,
I choose not to exercise my choice and give away my sovereignty to the likes of the cabal whether it be Clinton, Trump, or Tresemme, (Theresa May) Jeremy Corbyn, Angela Merkel or Justin Trudeau, cos at the end of the day, I ain't in the habit of willingly becoming a slave. A case in point here, is to look at the mad man whose currently running things in the Philippines! That mad fuck is promoting the wholesale summary execution of drug addicts (vigilante style, without trial) on a scale similar to how Canadians slaughter baby seals! Now that might be an extreme example, but that is the stark warning of what can happen when you make a cabal dictate to you how you should live.
Yeah, so maybe I'm rigid and I'm clinging to my thing, but why does make me incorrect? What better possibilities are on offer -as according to you? How can you deem to know what choices are good for me? By the way, I'm just a passer-by, observing whilst on my way!
Not saying
Just saying
Without saying 
Pure Peace
Last edited:
Yup!Nah you've lost the plot, what are you talking about? Whose said you don't believe there is no viable option? Listen if you've got some self hate issue going on that you're seeking to justify, then just forget about involving me in it, cos being all up in negativity ain't me by any stretch of the imagination.
Just so that we're clear, If you wanna vote Clinton, then do that, I ain't looking for your justification for doing so - if that's what you think this is about! Listen, don't hate on me simply because I have the freewill to choose not immerse myself in plain old fuckery, i,e, politics! So that we're clear here, I ain't hating on anyone who is of the genuine conviction that their participation in the voting 'fraudulent' exercise is going to do them some good, good intentions and all that! Ya certainly don't need to be getting into insults and hatred to make a point, that's kinda the old way, that's on the way out!
I suppose the problem here is like Neo puts it, 'is about choice', and the fact that in this kinda bullshit,
I choose not to exercise my choice and give away my sovereignty to the likes of the cabal whether it be Clinton, Trump, or Tresemme, (Theresa May) Jeremy Corbyn, Angela Merkel or Justin Trudeau, cos at the end of the day, I ain't in the habit of willingly becoming a slave. A case in point here, is to look at the mad man whose currently running things in the Philippines! That mad fuck is promoting the wholesale summary execution of drug addicts (vigilante style, without trial) on a scale similar to how Canadians slaughter baby seals! Now that might be an extreme example, but that is the stark warning of what can happen when you make a cabal dictate to you how you should live.
Yeah, so maybe I'm rigid and I'm clinging to my thing, but why does make me incorrect? What better possibilities is on offer -as according to you? How can you deem to know what choices are good for me? By the way, I'm just a passer-by, observing whilst on my way!
Not saying
Pure Peace
Live free or die... don't tread on me.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Nah you've lost the plot, what are you talking about? Whose said you don't believe there is no viable option? Listen if you've got some self hate issue going on that you're seeking to justify, then just forget about involving me in it, cos being all up in negativity ain't me by any stretch of the imagination.
Just so that we're clear, If you wanna vote Clinton, then do that, I ain't looking for your justification for doing so - if that's what you think this is about! Listen, don't hate on me simply because I have the freewill to choose not immerse myself in plain old fuckery, i,e, politics! So that we're clear here, I ain't hating on anyone who is of the genuine conviction that their participation in the voting 'fraudulent' exercise is going to do them some good, good intentions and all that! Ya certainly don't need to be getting into insults and hatred to make a point, that's kinda the old way, that's on the way out!
I suppose the problem here is like Neo puts it, 'is about choice', and the fact that in this kinda bullshit,
I choose not to exercise my choice and give away my sovereignty to the likes of the cabal whether it be Clinton, Trump, or Tresemme, (Theresa May) Jeremy Corbyn, Angela Merkel or Justin Trudeau, cos at the end of the day, I ain't in the habit of willingly becoming a slave. A case in point here, is to look at the mad man whose currently running things in the Philippines! That mad fuck is promoting the wholesale summary execution of drug addicts (vigilante style, without trial) on a scale similar to how Canadians slaughter baby seals! Now that might be an extreme example, but that is the stark warning of what can happen when you make a cabal dictate to you how you should live.
Yeah, so maybe I'm rigid and I'm clinging to my thing, but why does make me incorrect? What better possibilities is on offer -as according to you? How can you deem to know what choices are good for me? By the way, I'm just a passer-by, observing whilst on my way!
Not saying
Pure Peace
Would you call yourself a sovereign citizen?
...nor is there any such thing as a pure democracy.
I received my mail-in ballot days ago, and still haven't broken the envelope seal - I'm definitely in no rush to affix my signature to it - I may never. That would be my business for my own reasons and nobody else. When my boss tells me to "own it" (I hate that catch phrase) while I choke on the BS Koolaid she tries to siphon down my throat and my colleague's, I spit it out furiously and tell her without equivocation or fear of retribution, "I ain't owning it because I ain't buying it - you choke on it"!
Trypsy Summers
Well-Known Member
In answering your post, I will begin with your final sentiment "Again, there is no such thing as pure peace." Yet again I will reiterate what I said earlier, "with that mentality how can one even begin to seek for peace? But yet it has been stated' "peace becomes but the fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained, cos everywhere is war!" But never mind that, Right now I'm kinda half interested in your thinking, you say 'the system is corrupt, but yet still you comply? WTF!!
You then even have the sheer audacity to state that you could go on, go on! Go on about what?
Cos after reading what you're bigging up, it don't really sound like it's all that, to me! Certainly not enough to give away my sovereignty/consent away! Never will it be recorded that I condoned the system in any way, shape or form!
But to be fair I sort of understand the thinking behind your comment! However, yet here we are! So after reading your endorsement of that, which no right-minded person should endorse, lets deal with a very convenient fact that surprised me and may either have passed you by or if you're aware of it, then your omission is ominously LOUD! The fact is, the United States has been at war for 222 years out of the last 239 years. That’s 93% of the time! Since the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, the U.S. has actually been at peace (albeit planning for further wars) for a total of only 21 years. Not one U.S. president actually qualifies as a solely peacetime president, and the only time the United States lasted five years without going to war was between 1935 and 1940 — during the period of the Great Depression.
Let that sink in for a minute…
So whilst you're basing your vote on what you believe, just balance that with the following fact,
Today, the U.S. economy is now so dependent on war, there is no incentive for the U.S. government to strive for peace — it simply isn’t profitable. The U.S. defense industry employs a staggering 3.5 million Americans, while the private companies supporting the military generate in excess of $300 billion in revenue per year.
So let indulge the hypothetical for a moment;
Even if I was gullible enough as to want to participate in the election, I'd really have to bear in mind that neither candidate is gonna be telling me the hard facts (the truth) that I need to know! Cos whosoever is in charge ain't gonna be representing me, especially once they're in position, and even though I was foolish enough to readily give over my consent!
That's enough to make a conscious person not vote at all!
Just so that we're clear, I don't vote period cos I am not a slave, period
In answer to question from @OldNewbie,
Do I consider myself a Sovereign Citizen?
No! However I try to be, I do not comply when I don't have to, to be honest, I just get on with what works for me, and given I'm not in the business of causing anyone any harm or loss, I find that it works great for me, I have all that I need! and most of what I want, you can't ask for more than that! Well you can if want, but I ain't greedy, I know contentment when I find it.
PS; If we all tried to emulate the sentiment expressed by John Lennon, Imagine! And this world could be as one!
Not saying (War) Just saying (One Love) Without saying (Politics)
Pure Peace
Last edited:
Trypsy Summers
Well-Known Member
In answer to your question, as long as you ain't hurting no one then of course its okay to refuse to see things from my perspective. I ain't trying to convert you, everyone has their own path! People wake up at different times, indeed some people never wake up!
In terms of the concise manner, yeah it would be nice I agree, but I find it easier to clarify things and avoid doubt, as @Snappo pointed out sometimes you need to be able to articulate what it is that needs to be said in a way that ensure the reader fully comprehends the point being made.
Pure Peace
Trypsy Summers
Well-Known Member
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Well, actually, he can. But not many are gonna believe him...
Trump’s latest accuser: ‘He can’t claim we’re all liars’
10/17/16 10:00 AM—Updated 10/17/16 03:01 PM
By Steve Benen
When some women went on the record last week to accuse Donald Trump of sexual misconduct, many wondered if the published allegations would lead to additional accusers. They have, and the Guardian reported on the latest over the weekend.
Trump and his campaign team continue to insist the GOP candidate did nothing wrong and his accusers’ claims are unfounded. Complicating matters, however, is the fact that Trump was recorded bragging about committing sexual assault, including boasts that he kisses women without their consent when he considers them attractive. “I don’t even wait,” Trump said in 2005, adding that he can get away with such behavior because of his public profile.
In other words, Cathy Heller’s allegations appear consistent with Trump’s description of his own behavior.
Accounts vary, but Heller appears to be the 10th woman to raise allegations against Trump over the last week, and NBC News has a rundown of the various claims.
Team Trump’s pushback against the accusations hasn’t gone smoothly.
On Friday, the Republican candidate publicly suggested one of his accusers wasn’t attractive enough for him to molest. Trump joked soon after about the impressiveness of his sex life.
After promising evidence that would exonerate the candidate, Team Trump put forward a witness on Friday to defend the candidate against one of the accusers, but given Anthony Gilberthorpe’s track record and credibility problems, this did little to undermine the controversy.
Meanwhile, A.J. Delgado, a Trump surrogate and conservative commentator, added on MSNBC yesterday that the candidate didn’t go after his accusers based on their appearance, but if he did, such a move would be justified.
“Mr. Trump isn’t referring to anybody’s looks. To the degree that he does perhaps, I don’t think he was referring to her looks. If he did, when you have somebody claiming that you sexually assaulted them, you have brought looks into the equation,” Delgado said.
Don’t ask me to explain this; I have no idea what it means.
Finally, as Rachel noted on Friday’s show, one of Trump’s accusers has decided to leave the country, fearing for her safety after coming forward last week.
Trump’s latest accuser: ‘He can’t claim we’re all liars’
10/17/16 10:00 AM—Updated 10/17/16 03:01 PM
By Steve Benen
When some women went on the record last week to accuse Donald Trump of sexual misconduct, many wondered if the published allegations would lead to additional accusers. They have, and the Guardian reported on the latest over the weekend.
On 7 October, as the political world convulsed from the revelation that Trump had bragged about kissing and groping women without their consent, Cathy Heller, 63, was sitting in her New York home fielding incredulous emails from a friend.
“I keep thinking about how he treated you,” her friend wrote, hours after showing Heller the tape. “Obviously not an isolated incident.”
It was a story Heller had told many friends and family members over the years, but is only now telling in public. Some 20 years ago, she claims, when she met Donald Trump for the first and only time, he grabbed her, went for a kiss, and grew angry with her as she twisted away. “Oh, come on,” she alleges that he barked, before holding her firmly in place and planting his lips on hers.
Heller told the Guardian, in reference to the Republican presidential nominee, “He can’t claim we’re all liars,” Heller said.“I keep thinking about how he treated you,” her friend wrote, hours after showing Heller the tape. “Obviously not an isolated incident.”
It was a story Heller had told many friends and family members over the years, but is only now telling in public. Some 20 years ago, she claims, when she met Donald Trump for the first and only time, he grabbed her, went for a kiss, and grew angry with her as she twisted away. “Oh, come on,” she alleges that he barked, before holding her firmly in place and planting his lips on hers.
Trump and his campaign team continue to insist the GOP candidate did nothing wrong and his accusers’ claims are unfounded. Complicating matters, however, is the fact that Trump was recorded bragging about committing sexual assault, including boasts that he kisses women without their consent when he considers them attractive. “I don’t even wait,” Trump said in 2005, adding that he can get away with such behavior because of his public profile.
In other words, Cathy Heller’s allegations appear consistent with Trump’s description of his own behavior.
Accounts vary, but Heller appears to be the 10th woman to raise allegations against Trump over the last week, and NBC News has a rundown of the various claims.
Team Trump’s pushback against the accusations hasn’t gone smoothly.
On Friday, the Republican candidate publicly suggested one of his accusers wasn’t attractive enough for him to molest. Trump joked soon after about the impressiveness of his sex life.
After promising evidence that would exonerate the candidate, Team Trump put forward a witness on Friday to defend the candidate against one of the accusers, but given Anthony Gilberthorpe’s track record and credibility problems, this did little to undermine the controversy.
Meanwhile, A.J. Delgado, a Trump surrogate and conservative commentator, added on MSNBC yesterday that the candidate didn’t go after his accusers based on their appearance, but if he did, such a move would be justified.
“Mr. Trump isn’t referring to anybody’s looks. To the degree that he does perhaps, I don’t think he was referring to her looks. If he did, when you have somebody claiming that you sexually assaulted them, you have brought looks into the equation,” Delgado said.
Don’t ask me to explain this; I have no idea what it means.
Finally, as Rachel noted on Friday’s show, one of Trump’s accusers has decided to leave the country, fearing for her safety after coming forward last week.
Last edited:
ataxian
PALE BLUE DOT
I keep seeing this idea that Donald Trump is really a righteous, honest man who is being treated unfairly and being abused by the liberal mainstream media that is owned by the democrats who are also participating in an extreme smear campaign that paints Donald Trump in a way that is not consistent with who he really is and how he really acts.
My response to this is that IF all of the media conspiracies are true and they are intentionally smearing Trump which I don't doubt, in my opinion there's nothing any media outlet could make up that is any worse than the truth that I see when I watch Donald.
I don't need the media to make up lies to make me believe Donald Trump is unintelligent or arrogant or sexist.
All I have to do is watch Donald, his words, his behaviors, his actions, and it becomes abundantly clear that's what he is.
ataxian
PALE BLUE DOT
This is not about political siding?
I wanted BERNIE before he was forced out.
I normally vote republican however this is a weird election?
Vote has you wish?
The president is a cosmetic representative anyway!
As the DANES say, "have ice in your stomach"!
4 years might be enough time to get our act together?
Opinions are like RECTUMS = we all have one!
@steama I'm reading a book on NON-FICTIONAL writing that encourage the writter not to sugar coat your words. (less is more)
@Trypsy Summers CANNABIS COLAS are what is needed and JOHN LENNON in the background! IMAGINE?
Let us laugh!
Last edited:
Trypsy Summers
Well-Known Member
What can I say? You have made it clear that you've got a fundamental issue with my view of things, so it stands to reason that what I have to say will not resonate with you, and as such, the words and themes are gonna be completely fucking alien to you!
As they say "Every word in English, but yet still a foreign language!" I get that.
Best thing to do is not to stress, just get whatever ya got, and put it into ya vape, chill, and just go with the flow, if your thing is anything decent you'll just forget about this and go on to enjoy the rest of your your day!
Well I sure hope that you do!
Pure Peace
AMEN! I get ya loud n clear... not a word wasted on me! Definitely NOT a rant, but a well-posited conviction I share.In answering your post, I will begin with your final sentiment "Again, there is no such thing as pure peace." Yet again I will reiterate what I said earlier, "with that mentality how can one even begin to seek for peace? But yet it has been stated' "peace becomes but the fleeting illusion, to be pursued but never attained, cos everywhere is war!" But never mind that, Right now I'm kinda half interested in your thinking, you say 'the system is corrupt, but yet still you comply? WTF!!
You then even have the sheer audacity to state that you could go on, go on! Go on about what?
Cos after reading what you're bigging up, it don't really sound like it's all that, to me! Certainly not enough to give away my sovereignty/consent away! Never will it be recorded that I condoned the system in any way, shape or form!
But to be fair I sort of understand the thinking behind your comment! However, yet here we are! So after reading your endorsement of that, which no right-minded person should endorse, lets deal with a very convenient fact that surprised me and may either have passed you by or if you're aware of it, then your omission is ominously LOUD! The fact is, the United States has been at war for 222 years out of the last 239 years. That’s 93% of the time! Since the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, the U.S. has actually been at peace (albeit planning for further wars) for a total of only 21 years. Not one U.S. president actually qualifies as a solely peacetime president, and the only time the United States lasted five years without going to war was between 1935 and 1940 — during the period of the Great Depression.
Let that sink in for a minute…
So whilst you're basing your vote on what you believe, just balance that with the following fact,
Today, the U.S. economy is now so dependent on war, there is no incentive for the U.S. government to strive for peace — it simply isn’t profitable. The U.S. defense industry employs a staggering 3.5 million Americans, while the private companies supporting the military generate in excess of $300 billion in revenue per year.
So let indulge the hypothetical for a moment;
Even if I was gullible enough as to want to participate in the election, I'd really have to bear in mind that neither candidate is gonna be telling me the hard facts (the truth) that I need to know! Cos whosoever is in charge ain't gonna be representing me, especially once they're in position, and even though I was foolish enough to readily give over my consent!
That's enough to make a conscious person not vote at all!
Just so that we're clear, I don't vote period cos I am not a slave, period
In answer to question from @OldNewbie,
Do I consider myself a Sovereign Citizen?
No! However I try to be, I do not comply when I don't have to, to be honest, I just get on with what works for me, and given I'm not in the business of causing anyone any harm or loss, I find that it works great for me, I have all that I need! and most of what I want, you can't ask for more than that! Well you can if want, but I ain't greedy, I know contentment when I find it.
PS; If we all tried to emulate the sentiment expressed by John Lennon, Imagine! And this world could be as one!
Not saying (War) Just saying (One Love) Without saying (Politics)
Pure Peace
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Why Obama’s right to say democracy is ‘on the ballot’
10/17/16 12:47 PM—Updated 10/17/16 12:49 PM
By Steve Benen
In a much-discussed speech last month at a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation event, President Obama told the audience, “If you care about our legacy, realize everything we stand for is at stake. All the progress we’ve made is at stake in this election. My name may not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot. Tolerance is on the ballot. Democracy is on the ballot.”
This notion that democracy itself is facing a historic test resonated, and the president has started incorporating the line into other remarks.
But it’s worth pausing to consider what the argument means, exactly. Why do Obama and other progressives believe democracy itself on the ballot in 2016? It’s probably because Americans have arguably never seen a major-party presidential nominee as hostile towards democratic principles and institutions as Donald Trump.
The dynamic is actually getting worse as it appears more likely that the GOP candidate will lose. In recent weeks, voters have seen Trump call for the imprisonment of his rival candidate and her attorneys, condemn the free press and threaten to sue news organizations he disapproves of, attack the legitimacy of the American elections process, and suggest he may not concede the outcome of the presidential race. (This followed months in which Trump praised authoritarian regimes abroad.)
There is no precedent in the American tradition for a presidential hopeful to demonstrate quite this much hostility towards democratic norms – and we haven’t even gotten to Trump’s calls for “poll monitoring.” The Huffington Post noted yesterday that Trump “has explicitly and repeatedly warned of voter fraud – and told his supporters to serve as poll monitors in precincts where illegal voting is most likely.”
And what does this mean in practical terms? The Boston Globe talked to one Trump follower in Cincinnati who vowed to heed the candidate’s call.
“I’ll look for … well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American,” Steve Webb, a 61-year-old carpenter, said. “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”
Right. The goal is to identify non-white people who want to legally cast a ballot in the United States, and make them “nervous.”
Other Trump surrogates spent yesterday being quite explicit on this front, making the case that urban areas are hotbeds for voter fraud and election irregularities. The candidate and his allies have no proof – real-world evidence points in the opposite direction – but they’re nevertheless convinced and they’re persuading others to participate in intimidation campaigns against people of color.
As Vox’s Dara Lind recently explained, “It’s one thing to have election monitors stationed at polling places to make sure poll workers and campaign volunteers aren’t breaking election law; it’s quite another to encourage groups of vigilantes to hang out at polling places in unfamiliar neighborhoods, with the stated goal of making people feel too uncomfortable to vote if they look like they shouldn’t be voting.”
“Democracy is on the ballot”? It’s hardly hyperbolic given the circumstances.
10/17/16 12:47 PM—Updated 10/17/16 12:49 PM
By Steve Benen
In a much-discussed speech last month at a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation event, President Obama told the audience, “If you care about our legacy, realize everything we stand for is at stake. All the progress we’ve made is at stake in this election. My name may not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot. Tolerance is on the ballot. Democracy is on the ballot.”
This notion that democracy itself is facing a historic test resonated, and the president has started incorporating the line into other remarks.
But it’s worth pausing to consider what the argument means, exactly. Why do Obama and other progressives believe democracy itself on the ballot in 2016? It’s probably because Americans have arguably never seen a major-party presidential nominee as hostile towards democratic principles and institutions as Donald Trump.
The dynamic is actually getting worse as it appears more likely that the GOP candidate will lose. In recent weeks, voters have seen Trump call for the imprisonment of his rival candidate and her attorneys, condemn the free press and threaten to sue news organizations he disapproves of, attack the legitimacy of the American elections process, and suggest he may not concede the outcome of the presidential race. (This followed months in which Trump praised authoritarian regimes abroad.)
There is no precedent in the American tradition for a presidential hopeful to demonstrate quite this much hostility towards democratic norms – and we haven’t even gotten to Trump’s calls for “poll monitoring.” The Huffington Post noted yesterday that Trump “has explicitly and repeatedly warned of voter fraud – and told his supporters to serve as poll monitors in precincts where illegal voting is most likely.”
He’s mentioned the issue on at least three occasions in rural or western parts of Pennsylvania, warning about the possibilities of cheating in Philadelphia. The argument has obvious racial overtones, since his audiences are almost entirely white, and Philadelphia, like most large cities, has a significant African-American population. […]
[Mike] Pence, appearing on CBS “Face the Nation,” also endorsed the call for poll monitoring, brushing off concerns that doing so might intimidate minority voters who would be more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton.
“People that are concerned about this election and about us preserving the one person, one vote that’s at the very center of our American democracy, should become involved, should volunteer at their neighborhood polling place,” Pence said. “That’s how we ensure the accountability. Frankly, that’s how we protect the integrity of the vote for Republicans, Democrats, Independents.”[Mike] Pence, appearing on CBS “Face the Nation,” also endorsed the call for poll monitoring, brushing off concerns that doing so might intimidate minority voters who would be more likely to vote for Hillary Clinton.
And what does this mean in practical terms? The Boston Globe talked to one Trump follower in Cincinnati who vowed to heed the candidate’s call.
“I’ll look for … well, it’s called racial profiling. Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American,” Steve Webb, a 61-year-old carpenter, said. “I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally. I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”
Right. The goal is to identify non-white people who want to legally cast a ballot in the United States, and make them “nervous.”
Other Trump surrogates spent yesterday being quite explicit on this front, making the case that urban areas are hotbeds for voter fraud and election irregularities. The candidate and his allies have no proof – real-world evidence points in the opposite direction – but they’re nevertheless convinced and they’re persuading others to participate in intimidation campaigns against people of color.
As Vox’s Dara Lind recently explained, “It’s one thing to have election monitors stationed at polling places to make sure poll workers and campaign volunteers aren’t breaking election law; it’s quite another to encourage groups of vigilantes to hang out at polling places in unfamiliar neighborhoods, with the stated goal of making people feel too uncomfortable to vote if they look like they shouldn’t be voting.”
“Democracy is on the ballot”? It’s hardly hyperbolic given the circumstances.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
This thread started May 2015, a lot has gone down in that period of time. We have talked many subjects at length and gone through a lot together. Some folks might want to check how attitudes have changed for a lot of us except for @cybrguy and @Gunky. Many of us were against Hillary Clinton and voiced our opinions loud and clear.
We have seen Trump change from one persona to the next. We never know what Trump to expect. He's back to the renegade Trump now. Trump unhinged you might say.
We have said over and over again we don't have much of a choice here. It's the crazy/mean guy or the person that isn't that truthful at times. Do we want to put our feet in the hot pan or dive into the fire?
Melanie is trying to make excuses for her husband talking inappropriately about women. Calling it "boy talk" is rediculous he was a 59 year old grandfather at the time. I don't think this is going to help. She needed to come out along with her husband as soon as this story broke. Too little too late. They are just making this whole thing drag on.
We have seen Trump change from one persona to the next. We never know what Trump to expect. He's back to the renegade Trump now. Trump unhinged you might say.
We have said over and over again we don't have much of a choice here. It's the crazy/mean guy or the person that isn't that truthful at times. Do we want to put our feet in the hot pan or dive into the fire?
Melanie is trying to make excuses for her husband talking inappropriately about women. Calling it "boy talk" is rediculous he was a 59 year old grandfather at the time. I don't think this is going to help. She needed to come out along with her husband as soon as this story broke. Too little too late. They are just making this whole thing drag on.
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Yeah, this has been fairly easy for me because I have supported Hillary from the beginning. It has always been obvious to me that she had the most and the best experience, and that we are in a time (in the world) when there are critical things that must be managed (climate, nukes, alternative energy, refugee issues, rise of Putin) and mishandling them could/will have catastrophic results. Domestically the same is true, income inequality must be addressed, and we must stop this tendency for all the profits to go to the 1% rather than helping the nation at large. And we have to reverse this effort to go back in time to the bad old days of Jim Crow and women in their place.
Hillary might not be my first choice if I could choose anyone, but she is certainly the best choice from what we have been given to choose from.
And the insanity, willful ignorance and disgusting persona of Trump make this last decision a no brainier.
Last edited:
HighSeasSailor
Well-Known Member
Who Really Runs the Country?
Not news to me, but an enlightening look at why your vote is as good as toilet paper and always has been.
Not news to me, but an enlightening look at why your vote is as good as toilet paper and always has been.
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
Since you don't live here, aren't 'one of us' and aren't contributing beyond haranguing us, perhaps you should start a Brexit thread, so we can return the favor.
Last edited:
Trypsy Summers
Well-Known Member
Name calling and insults are not tolerated here. Warning point issued.
@Trypsy Summers, hey I'm not finished with you yet my friend.
I have said everything you are ranting about earlier in this thread nearly verbatim. Go back and read it if you are curious. My perspective was not to participate at all because either choice is not looking out for my interests or had no way of addressing the nation's problems. I did like what Bernie had to say and even sent in a donation, however, Hillary eviscerated him in the primary, fair or not. I have never supported or approved of Hillary and I still don't. With the beginning of the general election and because my perspective of not being willing to participate in a pointless situation. I get it and I have those feelings. In fact I think most all Americans have experienced that sort of apathy.
When the general election kicked off I looked at the fact that whoever will be president is going to be someone I do not support at all. As time past is became clear to me Mr. Trump, one of the two that would be president, is mentally disturbed and has zero self control, and wonders what in the world is wrong with using nuclear weapons. Another problem is that in the event Trump is elected you will be looking at a Chris Christie or Rudy Giuliani as the nation's attorney general, both have stated their opposition to marijuana legalization and Chris Christie has said he would shut it down nationwide. These are some of the inherent risks of a Trump presidency.
Are there risks to a Hillary presidency? Sure, there are many. It is clear she lies, and has sold her soul to wall street but I am still going to cast a vote for Hillary as my small hedge against a Trump presidency.
Nah but I've finished with you!
You're the one whose ranting, I realized that I was conversing with a fool, so fair do's hence that is why I stopped, inorder to allow to do your thing - in peace.
Cos me being in a debate with you, ain't doing nothing for me but bringing me down to a low level!
I also realize that with all that GMO shit you probably consuming, you probably suffering from Attention Deficit disorder and all that, so it explains a lot like why your level of reasoning is so undeveloped, and to be honest I am not interested in your confessional justification as to why you feel the need to be involved(vote)!
Just be safe - to others!
Pure PeaceHighSeasSailor
Well-Known Member
Your comment is a complete non sequitur in this context. You didn't read the article, did you?
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
@Trypsy Summers Can we stop the put downs please!! We have 3 weeks until the election. Let's keep this thread open shall we!! Our little part of the world isn't going to change this election one bit. If you feel too upset regarding this thread walk away.
Most of us have worked to try to keep our name calling in check. We are all guests here.
Trump talking about rigged polls is irresponsible. Voting is the number one fundamental right in a country that has open elections. To be honest not everybody changes their address when they move on their voter's registration. So technically that vote would be null and void if they really checked. A technicality that evens itself out between the two parties.
The election was definitely stolen from the democrats in the year 2000 thanks to the BS that went on in FL. Are we whining about that? That was a clusterfuck! Remember the hanging chads?
Melania was telling Anderson Cooper she has 2 boys at home her son and her husband ha ha ha
Edit
I want Hillary to try to stick to the issues in the next debate and let Trump do what he wants. I say ignore the stink in the room. So Hillary if you are reading this - No Butting In.
Most of us have worked to try to keep our name calling in check. We are all guests here.
Trump talking about rigged polls is irresponsible. Voting is the number one fundamental right in a country that has open elections. To be honest not everybody changes their address when they move on their voter's registration. So technically that vote would be null and void if they really checked. A technicality that evens itself out between the two parties.
The election was definitely stolen from the democrats in the year 2000 thanks to the BS that went on in FL. Are we whining about that? That was a clusterfuck! Remember the hanging chads?
Melania was telling Anderson Cooper she has 2 boys at home her son and her husband ha ha ha
Edit
I want Hillary to try to stick to the issues in the next debate and let Trump do what he wants. I say ignore the stink in the room. So Hillary if you are reading this - No Butting In.
Last edited:
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
While the key point of most posts here is Trump a stinkyhead, when we get to issues, I suspect I am the opposite side of Hillary in almost all.
Climate? Give me the end game. Don't tell me what I have to do at great cost that won't change anything anyway in the hope others act against their own bests interests similarly. (Also, it might be nice if the people telling me about how bad my carbon footprint is don't have footprints better measured on an exponential scale greater than I.)
Nukes? Modernize.
Alternative energy? Let the market decide rather than the government tossing out billions on bad guesses. When the person who is putting up the investment is investing their own money (rather than mine), it seems success comes faster. It's almost like they look at the facts over their pretty theory of things. I thought the Soviet Union taught us the folly of 5 year plans from the top down.
Refugee issues? We have a human duty to care for those in such profound need. The way it is being done is stupid for any of a number of reasons. My complaint with the current administration and the future one is complex and not a 1 or 0. It would have been awesome to discuss something like this before the pejorative hate terms came out. That is the power of calling someone a racist, misogynist, hater, or whatever dehumanizing term preferred for the situation. It eliminates discussion of the topic in a rational manner.
Putin is a problem. We got the cold war foreign policy Romney warned us against. (Is he still evil? I bet he STILL has a binder full of women. Misogynist bastard.) Instead of dealing with the problem when she previously had the power to do so, Hillary "reset" the relationship. Since Putin's behavior got worse, I'm thinking the reset a failure. What is her new plan?
Income inequality? What concrete steps should be taken? It is difficult to be for or against a focus-group tested phrase that gets fuzzier the closer you look at it.
Jim Crow? http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presi...illary-clinton-friend-mentor-robert-byrd-kkk/ The Democrats are the party of Jim Crow and fought like crazy to prevent the civil rights changes to stop it. You might want to give some specific examples to show why we should feel it is Trump who will bring back Jim Crow laws over the party intimately involved with the historical support of them. Then we might point out that while Trump may be a bit
It's almost like the powers that be don't want us talking about real issues.
Trump = stinkyhead
stinkyhead = distraction
distraction = corporate ownership of information sources
corporate ownership of information sources = more of the same
more of the same = profit?