The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[HellsWindStaff]

I fugured Fox would be exploiting this tragedy to fit the republicans agenda, what I notice is the democrats don't do this. They don't continually play the blame game all the time. Action is what we need not words.

Found the first paragraph interesting. Two sides to same coin, because I notice Democrats typically blame, excuse, and bury their heads into the sand of the real problems. "Feels good on paper but doesn't work in reality" .02 though

As far as exploitation, again, two sides of the same coin. I find it pretty telling how there are emotional articles on the front page of MSNBC though about how bad of a guy Trump is for his Tweets, about the "stark" contrast in how the two different candidates approached it. I don't see one like that on Fox.

Here's an article about Trump and Hilary in response to this, right on first page
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-criticism-on-name-calling.html?intcmp=hpbt2

There are too many opinion pieces from people on MSNBC IMO, and while I'm not saying Fox News is perfect, I do think they are much better at giving actual reporting. Maybe it's only considered "conservative" because they don't fluff the pieces up? I'm not huge on Fox News either, but MSNBC is much worse reporting. Again, this is all opinion, we each can find a beevy of sites that say the other is more fair.

I've seen a pretty even split amongst my social media. The Republicans/Vets/Hicks are saying it's a big Muslim problem and "radical muslims" are the issue. The Liberals/CollegeKids/Homosexuals are saying its automatic guns that are the issue.

To relate to an earlier point, about Democrats/Liberals operating on feeling rather than facts. What was the cause in Orlando? Was it the gun? Was this event a big deal because it shows why we need gun reform? Or was it a radical nutjob? The radical nutjob is still going to be a radical nutjob even without the automatic rifle. They still will cause pain and harm without the rifle. Felons.....legally can't own a firearm........they have firearms still though right?

I've continually seen Democrats and liberals on social media using this as a platform for gun control and gun control. Sounds a lot like "exploiting this tragedy to fit the Democratic agenda"

By the way: I don't own a gun, never have owned a gun, shot a gun once, a little .22 in the woods (at beer cans), and don't think Automatic Weapons should be sold. I don't think the gun is to blame though. It is radical extremest. Not even saying Islamsits, extremists of any society. We need a better sysytem to monitor people and ensure they can't hurt anyone. The guns aren't the problem though. Ban automatic rifles, the radical will go buy some pistols, and change in the ability to monitor people correctly needs to be in place.

Democrats definitely exploit. And definitely blame. Not saying Repubs don't, but you'll be hard pressed to convince me that Democrats don't exploit or blame, especially with regards to "mass shootings". This isn't the first time.

As far as the Middle East and Iraq and stuff, again it's 2 sides of same coin, push and pull. Obama is a cause of ISIS, by pulling out the troops he destabilized the region again. That said, without Bush, our troops wouldn't be over there in the first place, he put us in a war we didn't want or need.

 

[lwien]

There are too many opinion pieces from people on MSNBC IMO, and while I'm not saying Fox News is perfect, I do think they are much better at giving actual reporting.

Wait a second. Are you actually saying that Fox is less opinionated in their reporting than MSNBC? If that's the case, than you and I must be watching a different Fox.

I don't think the gun is to blame though.

While guns is not solely to blame, the ability to purchase an assault rifle that has the ability to shoot so many people so quickly is partially to blame, eh. I have no doubt that if assault rifles were not available and all he had was a pistol, we would not see 50 people dead.

 

[BD9]

Yes and no, as this particular mass murderer had proclaimed his allegiance to ISIS via a 911 call just before starting his rampage. And ISIS had issued a call for lone wolves in the area just a few days ago, complete with a hit list of more than 600 people in florida alone. So it's a hate crime and an act of terrorism/jihad.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/isis-announced-florida-attack-three-days-ago/
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ar-mateen-swore-allegiance-isis-mass-killing/

I'm sick of this shit too, especially the way the msm handles it

Sure I get that. My point is that isis is not Islam. They have a distorted and extremist view of the religion. As do the Christians to which I posted links above.
It's the distortion of the religions by mentally ill sociopaths that are causing the problems.

 

[yogoshio]

I would argue their "news" events, like Shep Smith specifically, or Brett Bair, is far less opinionated than MSNBC's actual news segments

Now, when it comes to their specifically opinionated stuff, like O'Reilly and Kelly and whatnot, then yes, just as opinionated.

 

[lwien]

I would argue their "news" events, like Shep Smith specifically, or Brett Bair, is far less opinionated than MSNBC's actual news segments

Now, when it comes to their specifically opinionated stuff, like O'Reilly and Kelly and whatnot, then yes, just as opinionated.

I watch Fox quite a bit. Shep is the ONLY person on FOX that is not opinionated in their reporting and while Brett Bair is a bit less opinionated than the others, he still is. What is also interesting is that their only non-opinionated show (Shepherd Smith) is shown in the middle of the afternoon when most everyone is at work while their prime time and weekend shows are all right-winged propaganda machines.

 

[yogoshio]

As I said, Brett Bair to a lesser extent. However, I haven't been able to watch ANY MSNBC "news" segment WITHOUT hardcore opinion with it.

I am honestly quite shocked at the drastic transformation Matthews specifically went through. He was once one of the most fair minded and unbiased people in the news industry. Now with his tingles in his leg (I hope it wasn't an embolism....) and his apparent impossibility of reporting in an unbiased fashion, I am wondering which version of him is real, and which one was the act.

And I get it, opinionated stuff sells, and sells a LOT. It's just difficult when it is clearly visible that ALL media gets to filter to us what gets out there. It makes the truth incredibly difficult to find, and all the more so important.

 

[Snappo]

Both FOX & MSNBC, AND CNN express their opinionated views through the guests that they very selectively choose to comment on the issues in response to their select pointed questions. Shep Smith, IMO, is as opinionated and often more so, as he uses off-handed boyish coy tricks of expression to attract attention to a particular point of view. Again, JMO...

 

[grokit]

The Republicans/Vets/Hicks are saying it's a big Muslim problem and "radical muslims" are the issue. The Liberals/CollegeKids/Homosexuals are saying its automatic guns that are the issue.

I think homosexuals are coming around. I have a gay cousin (don't we all ), and he like bill maher has been way out in front of the anti-muslim bandwagon. And when he was defending his ideas about muslims to me he never once mentioned their pre-disposition to kill homosexuals. He was more concerned about a theology that has literally codexed jihad. He was unswayed by my counterargument that certain domestic fundamentalist christians are just as hateful, and sounded more like my ex-cia friend that told me recently that it's already too late. Meaning that as far as demographic projections go, if the muslim families already in the united states continue to reproduce at the current rate, they will have a voting majority here in a generation or two. Meaning sharia law here in the usa, which would be very bad for homosexuals. For these reasons he and my cousin are trump supporters through and through. I told him no way with gingrich, the only way I would consider trump is if jesse ventura joined the ticket lol he would get trump in line. But seriously folks we have big problems here, and trump is talking about doing something, hell anything, about it while hillary is promoting more of the same policies that got us into this mess in the first place.

 

[lwien]

And I get it, opinionated stuff sells, and sells a LOT. It's just difficult when it is clearly visible that ALL media gets to filter to us what gets out there. It makes the truth incredibly difficult to find, and all the more so important.

Which is the reason why it's important not to get all of your news from one channel, regardless what that channel is.

btw, just saw Hillary's most recent speech and her addressing of the tragic events in Orlando. She was very presidential in her presentation......very comprehensive in how she would address the issues. It's gonna be interesting to see what Trump has to say later this afternoon.

 

[Silat]

Sure I get that. My point is that isis is not Islam. They have a distorted and extremist view of the religion. As do the Christians to which I posted links above.
It's the distortion of the religions by mentally ill sociopaths that are causing the problems.

Already world leaders and religious leaders are making excuses for religion. This happens each and every time a person commits violence in the name of religion.
When right wing conservatives in America try to pass Christian sharia against women, they are not real Christians.
When right wing Christian Talibanista's commit violence at women's health clinics we hear that they were not real Christians.
When Christians committed rape, murder and genocide in Bosnia in the name of christianity we were told they were not true Christians and ethnicity was what it was about.
When Christian conservatives from America go to Africa and promote death of gays we are told they are not real Christians.
When Mormon extremists commit terrorism they are not real Mormons.
When Muslim extremists commit violence we hear the same excuses.
"Religion hijacked by these extremists"
"This has nothing to do with religion"
WRONG
This has everything to do with religion.
Whether it be a Christian, Muslim or any other religion, when acts of violence are committed in a religions name it can be directly laid at the feet of that RELIGION.

 

[lwien]

Whether it be a Christian, Muslim or any other religion, when acts of violence are committed in a religions name it can be directly laid at the feet of that RELIGION.

Wrong. It can be directly laid at the feet of "some" of those that practice that religion. The way I see it, religion is not to blame but fundamentalism within any religion is to blame.

 

[Silat]

Wrong. It can be directly laid at the feet of "some" of those that practice that religion. The way I see it, religion is not to blame but fundamentalism within any religion is to blame.

We disagree....
I can post the numerous violent passages in the buybull or the Koran if you like.

 

[yogoshio]

That's interesting logic, considering that PEOPLE are required to be in religion, PEOPLE are required to pull a trigger, and PEOPLE are responsible for their actions, not their religion, but I digress.

And then what about the good that comes from religion? Do we really only judge religions based on their worst, not their best? In what other context is this the model? Do we judge all those in prison based on the rapists? Do we judge all doctors based on the ones with most mistakes? Do we judge all races by their least common denominator? But I digress..

 

[His_Highness]

Which is the reason why it's important not to get all of your news from one channel, regardless what that channel is.

I get all my news from this thread as well as the need for blood pressure meds .

Seriously....for every political 'yin' article, commentary, tattoo there is a 'yang' to oppose it. So yeah....you're damn right you gotta get your news from different sources. The problem is that you gotta peel back the onion in the hopes of finding that the source is not biased. Good luck with that. I think most folk that attempt to absorb all this info from all these angles end back up relying on their gut and preconceived notions anyway. The only other choice is not digging beyond face value on the news and who is reporting it which is dangerous.

EDIT: I like the idea of writing in Bernie that @stickstones alluded to but not until Bernie selects him as his running mate.

 

[lwien]

We disagree....
I can post the numerous violent passages in the buybull or the Koran if you like.

So can I but it's the fundamentalists who take those passages literally and take action on those passages.

As an example, there are TONS of super violent passages in the Old Testament but I don't know any Jews, (while I am sure that there are a few), that take those passages literally and act on those passages.

 

[Snappo]

I'm an FC fundamentalist in the most extreme... FUCK COMBUSTION!!!

 

[Silat]

So can I but it's the fundamentalists who take those passages literally and take action on those passages.

As an example, there are TONS of super violent passages in the Old Testament but I don't know any Jews, (while I am sure that there are a few), that take those passages literally and act on those passages.

I can quote many religious folks who take the so called word of Cod literally. Those books are the cult handbooks. The end all be all of the orders from their skyfairy.
Are you really saying that the religious should pick and choose what their cod told them to do?

 

[lwien]

Are you really saying that the religious should pick and choose what their cod told them to do?

I'm not saying what they should do. I am saying what they do...........do.

 

[yogoshio]

Sorry, had to edit this out. I meant what I said, but it doesn't add to the discussion in a responsible way.

 

[grokit]

So can I but it's the fundamentalists who take those passages literally and take action on those passages.

As an example, there are TONS of super violent passages in the Old Testament but I don't know any Jews, (while I am sure that there are a few), that take those passages literally and act on those passages.

I'm guessing that you don't know any of these guys: "Contemporary Hasidism is a sub-group within Ultra-Orthodox ("Haredi") Judaism, and is noted for its religious conservatism and social seclusion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasidic_Judaism

 

[yogoshio]

They might be seclusive, but does that mean they are violent? I think that's what he was getting at.

 

[grokit]

They might be seclusive, but does that mean they are violent? I think that's what he was getting at.

That's correct, as far as jewish violence goes the zealots have historically handled it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism

but;/edit:
"In the case of [post-1948] Jewish terrorism most networks consist of religious Zionists and ultra-orthodox Jews living in isolated, homogenous communities."

I think the above quote could be applied to any violent fundamentalist religious sect

 

[Snappo]

I'm guessing that you don't know any of these guys: "Contemporary Hasidism is a sub-group within Ultra-Orthodox ("Haredi") Judaism, and is noted for its religious conservatism and social seclusion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasidic_Judaism

Their views are ultra orthodox to the extent that they firmly believe the Earth was created only six thousand years ago, but they don't cut off heads and crash planes into buildings. Yes, there is a very small segment of Jewish terrorist, but it is not a movement that has ever built a head of steam in an extremist movement sense. Usually just a lone wolf destroying property or defacing with graffiti, with a rare killing or two over a long period of time - lone nut jobs usually.

 

[His_Highness]

There's a reason you take your chances when discussing religion and politics. It's because neither has a patent on peaceful coexistence.

 

[grokit]

Their views are ultra orthodox to the extent that they firmly believe the Earth was created only six thousand years ago, but they don't cut off heads and crash planes into buildings. Yes, there is a very small segment of Jewish terrorists, but it is not a movement that has ever built a head of steam. Usually just a lone wolf destroying property of defacing with graffiti, with a rare killing or two over a long period of time - lone nut jobs usually.

I agree that it is very minor in comparison, and is mainly reactionary, but their extremism is entrenched:

According to a study by the political scientist Noemi Gal-Or, after the creation of Israel, Jewish terrorism has been assessed in Israel as "far less significant" than Arab terrorism. It lasted a few years during the 1950s and was directed at internal Israeli-Jewish targets, not at the Israeli Arab population. There was then a long intermission until the 1980s, when the Jewish Underground was exposed.[7] However, some argue that in the modern era Jewish religious extremism has been greatly underestimated.

The phenomena of price tag attacks began around 2008. These are hate crimes done by extremist settler Jewish Israelis usually involve the destruction of property or hateful graffiti, particularly targeting property associated with Arabs, Christians, secular Israelis, and Israeli soldiers. The name was derived from the words "Price tag" which may be scrawled on the site of the attack — with the allegation that the attack was a "price" for settlements the government forced them to give up and revenge for Palestinian attacks on settlers.[8] They have been variously called terrorism, particularly when they result in death. Another modern phenomenon is "revenge" attacks, motivated by a desire for "revenge" against Palestinian terrorism.

A particularly egregious example of this phenomenon was the Kidnapping and murder of Mohammed Abu Khdeir, in which a Palestinian teenager was burned to death by an Israeli man and two teenagers. Their declared motive was vengeance for the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers. In July 2015, two attacks suspected to be by religious Israeli Jews occurred a day apart, the first a stabbing attack at a Jerusalem Gay Pride Parade and the second a price-tag arson attack against a Palestinian house in Duma. Shortly after the two terror attacks, one of which killed an Israeli girl and another a Palestinian infant, Israel came under criticism, including from within its government and from the Jewish community in the U.S., for not doing enough to address the threat of terrorism by Jewish extremists. Those saying Israel should be more proactive in addressing Jewish extremism included the ADL and AJC.

It has been suggested that a similarity between Jewish religious terrorists and jihad networks in Western democracies is their alienation and isolation from the values of the majority, mainstream culture, which they view as an existential threat to their own community. Other similarities between these groups are that their ideology is not exclusively religious, as it attempts to achieve political, territorial and nationalistic goals as well, e.g. the disruption of the Camp David accords. However, the newer of these Jewish groups have tended to emphasize religious motives for their actions at the expense of secular ones. In the case of Jewish terrorism most networks consist of religious Zionists and ultra-orthodox Jews living in isolated, homogenous communities.

edit/:
I'm sure that there are many arabs/persians/palestineans that think the creation of isreal was a violent terrorist act in as of itself. As a (half) cultural jew and an anti-zionist, I can certainly see their point.