The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread

[His_Highness]

Because there ARE no indiscriminate attacks. Does anyone really believe that we are firing drones for the fun of it? Or just to enrich the missile makers? THIS administration? Give me a fucking break.

So call me a war monger cause anyone who knows me will laugh at you. But I MUCH prefer killing these murdering assholes over there to trying to stop them here.

Couldn't agree more! I don't know enough about the collateral damage to pontificate though. I've read that ISIL and El Qaeda like to situate themselves close to hospitals, schools and heavily populated civilian locations. So while I agree that a terrorist who can't wait to meet Allah should be PROVIDED the chance ASAP.... I'd prefer not to kill one and create fifty. If it's true that drones are more accurate and cause less collateral damage I'd have to say "drone on".

EDIT: Before anyone takes offense at my wise ass comment about a terrorist in a hurry to meet Allah....please feel free to take it up with my Muslim friend who kiddingly told me that when I asked him why he did something very dangerous. If me using his wit to make a point was like only a Jew can make Jewish jokes - please accept my apology.

 

[yogoshio]

In a Cheney administration maybe, but certainly not in an Obama administration

Then why have drone attacks almost quadrupled post Cheney?

If it's true that drones are more accurate and cause less collateral damage

Except they're not. See my previous post with the link. We (DoD) are labeling all post-pubescent men as "potential" threats, so we aren't including them in our civilian casualty report. It's rather convenient, and rather disgusting and terrifying. Less than 10% of the deaths are actually named targets.

Considering we have also used drones to target American citizens WITHOUT trial that are overseas, and the argument has been made (albeit theoretically) that drones can and should be used to target American citizens on American soil strictly based on their affiliation with questionable groups, I am surprised by the lack of concern. Perhaps if we were the ones terrified of clear skies and sunny days we would think different.

@His_Highness I enjoy a topical joke more than most, so no concerns here. I honestly think political correctness is stifling society as a whole, but more in a way of limiting conversation about discussing difficult issues, and not so much the Trump version of "I can say whatever the fuck I want cause I want to so fuck the press," version....

 

[cybrguy]

Then why have drone attacks almost quadrupled post Cheney?

Because we took the troops out. Duh. We don't have IED deaths or dead or captured pilots either.

Except they're not. See my previous post with the link. We (DoD) are labeling all post-pubescent men as "potential" threats, so we aren't including them in our civilian casualty report. It's rather convenient, and rather disgusting and terrifying. Less than 10% of the deaths are actually named targets.

That's your opinion. You will get completely different numbers from the military and other third parties, especially about who is an innocent.

But regardless, putting troops on the ground requires you to protect them, leading to an order of magnitude more dead civilians...

 

[yogoshio]

Obama drastically increased drone attacks well before he took soldiers out.

And this isn't my opinion, this is the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

'The Bureau has tracked drone strike casualties in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia from 2004 onwards. In Yemen and Somalia these figures also include victims of drone strikes, airstrikes, missile attacks and ground operations. Unlike other organisations that track such deaths, the Bureau focuses on identifying non-militant deaths, including children.[27]The data from this research is published online.[28]

Findings have included that rescuers are targeted at drone strike sites,[29] that more civilians and children have been killed in strikes than previously reported,[30] and challenging a CIA claim that no civilians had been killed in Pakistan drone strikes at that point.[31]

The Martha Gellhorn Prize for Journalism was jointly given to three Bureau reporters in 2013 for "their research into Barack Obama’s drone wars and their consequences for civilians".[32]'

From the Out of Sight Out of Mind website about data collection:
"The primary data used in this visualization comes from a dataset maintained by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) . The BIJ is a not-for-profit organization with the aim of educating the public and the media on both the realities of today's world and the value of honest reporting. While there were other data sources that had listings of drone strikes, the BIJ seemed to have the most unbiased collection of information.
Because the US Government does not disclose strike information, the data must be manually collected on the ground by reporters. The challenge is that stories and estimates vary between sources. In cases where there are inconsistencies, a minimum and a maximum number of possible fatalities are recorded. We take the average whole number between these estimates for each attack. In a few instances there were fatalities confirmed, but the estimated number of fatalities was not obtainable. In these cases, we simply omitted the fatalities. The list of high-profile targets (the white squares) comes from the New America Foundation."

 

[CarolKing]

Ryan instructs Republicans to follow their "conscience" on Trump: In his interview for "Meet the Press" that will air on Sunday, House Speaker Paul Ryan essentially gave every Republican license to follow their conscience in whether or not to support Donald Trump.

TODD: Do you think it is that members in the House Republican conference follow your conscience? If you don't want to support him, don't. do it --

RYAN: Oh, absolutely. The last thing I would do is tell anybody to do something that's contrary to their conscience. Of course I wouldn't do that. Look, believe me, Chuck. I get that this a very strange situation. [Trump is] a very unique nominee. But I feel as a responsibility institutionally as the speaker of the House that I should not be leading some chasm in the middle of our party. Because you know what I know that'll do? That'll definitely knock us out of the White House.

Translation: We are getting very close where it will be every Republican for himself. The rest of the interview will air on Sunday.

 

[cybrguy]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...alties_would_be_much_higher_without_them.html

Gee, shall we look at the whole picture rather than chery picking. I mean, these are your guys, right?
---------------

Look at the record in Pakistan. The harshest tally of drone strikes, maintained by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, says drones have killed 2,449 to 3,949 people there, including 423 to 962 civilians. If you work with the low-end figures, that’s a civilian casualty rate of 17 percent. If you use the high-end figures, it’s 24 percent. In Yemen, the bureau counts 436 to 646 deaths by drone, of whom 65 to 96 were civilians. That’s a rate of 15 percent. If you factor in other incidents classified as possible but unconfirmed drone strikes, the rate in Yemen drops to somewhere between 8 percent and 14 percent.

These two deaths don’t change the fundamental truth: For civilians, drones are the safest form of war in modern history.

The New America Foundation keeps a different tally. Its figures imply a civilian casualty rate of 8 percent to 12 percent in Pakistan and 8 percent to 9 percent in Yemen. A third count, maintained by the Long War Journal, indicates a 5 percent civilian casualty rate in Pakistan (once Weinstein and Lo Porto are added to the tally) and 16 percent in Yemen.

Compare those numbers with any other method of warfare. Start with an apples-to-apples comparison: the Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s analysis of “other covert operations” in Yemen. According to BIJ’s methodology, this category consists of nondrone attacks by U.S. forces, “including airstrikes, missile attacks and ground operations.” BIJ counts 68 to 99 civilian deaths in these operations, among 156 to 365 total casualties. That’s a civilian casualty rate of 27 percent to 44 percent: three times worse than drone strikes in the same country. Or look at the bureau’s data from Somalia. For drones, the BIJ counts 23 to 105 casualties, of whom zero to five were civilian. For other covert operations, the BIJ counts 40 to 141 casualties, of whom seven to 47 were civilian. If you go with the low-end numbers, drones have a perfect record in Somalia. If you go with the high-end numbers, drones are seven times safer than the alternatives.


In the past month, hundreds of civilians have died in Yemen. But the culprit isn’t drones. It’s old-fashioned airstrikes and artillery fire, courtesy of Saudi Arabia and its Arab partners. The campaign got off to a roaring start, with attacks on schools, hospitals, houses, mosques, a market, a dairy factory, and a refugee camp. As of April 14, the U.N. reported at least 364 civilian deaths. During this time, the BIJ counted four drone strikes in Yemen, resulting in 13 to 22 fatalities. None of them were civilian.

 

[yogoshio]

Except those statistical calculations are completely ignoring the part where the US considers all deaths of post-pubescent men as potential combatants. Which happens to be the largest number of deaths reported by any account of drone strikes. We only exclude post-pubescent males from potential combatants if someone (and somehow) proves without a doubt that they were NOT combatants in the first place.

Add those back in and even your articles numbers get right back to the BIJ. Fun with numbers!

 

[cybrguy]

So, you are just going to ignore the fact that the BIJ is the source of most of the numbers in that article. What a surprise.

Sorry Yog, I'm done with you.

 

[yogoshio]

You're ignoring the allocation of data, I'm not ignoring the source of the data.

That article assumes the same thing the DoD does, that every death of an able bodied male is considered the death of a combatant (or "potential combatant), which there is absolutely, positively no way of knowing.

If I'm driving on I94 and a drug dealer is driving cross country next to me, and I get hit by a SWAT team, I don't count as a combatant. But if I'm in a marketplace in Pakistan, and a member of Al Qaeda happens to be three shops down from me and I get hit with a drone, I'm considered a "potential combatant" just by default. That's bullshit, and the article you quoted COMPELTELY ignores that.

 

[grokit]

In the past month, hundreds of civilians have died in Yemen. But the culprit isn’t drones. It’s old-fashioned airstrikes and artillery fire, courtesy of Saudi Arabia and its Arab partners.

These are our allies who do our dirty work in the region now so we can wash our hands of it; enabled by our media cover, using usa-made planes missiles and bombs, purchased with western bank oil dollars.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

Trump basically said if the Republican Party won't go along with him, he will go it alone. He can do it all by himself he was telling a group of supporters.

Edit
I second that @lwien - he's fucking delusional. He has the David Duke Supporters and the Tea Party members. He has Sarah Palin and Chris Christy at his side. What else does he need? Except for enough votes from sane people. He has the insane covered it looks like.
Trump also said he loves the uneducated.

Sorry if I insulted anybody that's voting for Trump. You have every right to vote who you want to. It just boggles my mind though.

I don't believe He can go it alone: I think the big secret in Trumpkins' taxes is that he's broke.

He thinks his "brand" is worth billions, but he owes billions and has guaranteed other billions personally (if we're to believe his self-created press); he personally owes money to foreign banks - a first for a US presidential candidates; he acts like a thug and talks like a cheap hood, stiffs his partners and his employees - except (apparently for some number of 'endearing' Elvis-like moments of clarity/generosity, the man is an entitlement syndrome all his own. All his businesses turn out to be bullshit, his "brand" is his own personal-signature hot air: he wears a smug self-congratulation that reminds me very unpleasantly of Benito Mussolini...so many people seem to think his magickal 'business' farts are going to sweep the world clean for real Americans again, but by the time this is done, he'll wish his brand was as good as Billy Mays' - and his supporters will wish they'd never heard of Donald J. Trump.

Carol, your sentiments do you credit, but I truly think that anyone who votes for - and ARGUES for - the likes of this clown must know on some level that their logic is going to seem faulty, even ridiculous, and that they're going to be faced with the need to respond (at least) to others); like their Dear Leader, though, they are perfectly willing to protect their own fee-fees by attacking rather than considering and answering...'cause hey, that's weak, that's for losers. I support your display of scruple, but most of Trump's SA corps use that sort of thing as a shield to bat you/us away: stay focused, and don't pull your punches just because lugs insist on getting in the way of your conceptual fist. "Nice people" don't discuss politics or money or sex - which lets BAD people screw up sex, economics and political reality for everyone who - well, not an asshole....

'Cause, of course, anyone who's an asshole is not a loser...and anyone who's a loser isn't enough of an asshole. So be an asshole - or be a loser. GREAT equation, dude... ...thanks, Trumpikins - and thanks to all the little Trumpkinettes who swoon over him, and so swell his self-inducced erection. Clearly it's worked for ... well, pretty much all the assholes, hasn't it? We keep buying the excuses, the apologies, the crocodile tears, but it WILL happen again. Because we let it.

Doesn't the Golden Rule ("the basis for all morality and ethics!") say in effect "don't be an asshole"?

Must be getting old: "traditionalists" who know nothing of tradition, 'adults' for whom other people aren't very real, "patriots" who know nothing of the nation or the people they're so stiff to 'serve'...and we keep picking assholes to run things, like it makes them good at the job..

I can't really imagine anything worse for the world, for our place in it, for our relations with it, for our ability to remain unpunished by the community of nations for our insistent need to be in charge of everything, than an entitled man-child like him. He would, of course, wreak havoc on the nation - seems like more than half of his acolytes believe he can just declare shit and have it be done - in other words, Trump supporters aren't voting for a president so much as they're voting for a tyrant...that's why they're voting for him.

HRC, OTOH, would be differently bad - and perhaps less notoriously bad, simply because she will pull the plow where the vast right-wing conspiracy wants it pulled. I remember I laughed with contempt when I first heard her voice the sentiment - I'd been involved in backwoods, survivalist, bug-out/hideout, survivalist and second-amendment, and still believed they were 'all that' on the appropriate topics, and I was still convinced it was harmless and even-handed, if wrong-headed - certainly not twisted up or inside-out.

I no longer laugh. The vast right-wing conspiracy is real.
We'll either wake up soon or become the Confederate States.

I had high hopes for the waking up to be happening...NOW.
Hard to tell what's going on, though

 

[CarolKing]

I'm not voting for Donald Trump @ClearBlueLou. You must be new to this thread. I was just repeating what Trump said. He's fucking delusional. I will vote for anybody but him. I will vote for Big Bird.

I was walking through the grocery store check out today and noticed an article on the headline of the front page of the National Enquirer. It was saying some of the emails Hillary deleted were about a lesbian girlfriend. The next thing we know it Trump will be talking about that, like if were a true story. After all he read that it must be true. All the other stories about him are untrue though.

It's important that everybody believes he has 10 billion dollars too. That's one of the areas Hillary needs to hit him on. He's very defensive about that. Most people say that he's not really worth that much because he owes so much money. I have read several articles about how he won't pay some companies that do business for him. Then he will eventually pay but not what they had settled on originally.

 

[ClearBlueLou]

I'm not voting for Donald Trump @ClearBlueLou. You must be new to this thread. I was just repeating what Trump said. He's fucking delusional. I will vote for anybody but him. I will vote for Big Bird.

I was walking through the grocery store check out today and noticed an article on the headline of the front page of the National Enquirer. It was saying some of the emails Hillary deleted were about a lesbian girlfriend. The next thing we know it Trump will be talking about that, like if were a true story. After all he read that it must be true. All the other stories about him are untrue though.

It's important that everybody believes he has 10 billion dollars too. That's one of the areas Hillary needs to hit him on. He's very defensive about that. Most people say that he's not really worth that much because he owes so much money. I have read several articles about how he won't pay some companies that do business for him. Then he will eventually pay but not what they had settled on originally.

Have read the thread from the beginning: must be lousy at typing today, as I never thought you were supporting Trump in any way - you've said as much too many times! Surprised I managed to suggest it.

All I meant is that I respect your being nice to the feelings of Trump supporters - but I can't really do that, Trump supporters are old enough to vote for him? They're old enough to be laughed at for it.

 

[CarolKing]

Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, believes that if there’d been more people with guns at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Saturday night, the horrific massacre that resulted in at least 50 people dead wouldn’t have been as bad.

“If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had,” Trump said in a CNN interview Monday morning.

Trump is pushing the “good guy with a gun” theory, a favorite of groups like the National Rifle Association that want to stop any gun control measures. The argument is that mass shootings can be stopped more quickly if other people have guns and are able to fire back at the shooter.

But as CNN pointed out to Trump, there actually was a good guy with a gun at the Orlando nightclub. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Orlando Police Chief John Mina said an off-duty police officer working security at the club in uniform traded gunfire with the attacker.

Officials said that after police responded to reports of the violence, the attacker retreated to a bathroom with hostages. Police held back because the attacker made statements about having explosives, they said.

Trump, however, insisted that the answer was simply more people firing guns in dark, crowded nightclubs.

“If you had guns in that room, if you had — even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had that tragedy,” Trump said.

Attempts by armed civilians to stop mass shooters are incredibly rare — and they often end up being deadly for the well-meaning civilians. It’s also hard in those chaotic, fast-moving situations for untrained civilians to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

On June 2, during a town hall discussion in Indiana, President Barack Obamaaddressed the “good guy with a gun” myth when an attendee asked why Obama wants to restrict law-abiding citizens from owning guns and protecting themselves. Obama pointed out that under his administration, there have been more guns sold than ever.

“There is a way for us to make sure that lawful, responsible gun owners like yourself are able to use it for sporting, hunting and protecting yourself,” he said. “But the only way we’re going to do that is if we don’t have a situation in which anything that is proposed is viewed as some tyrannical destruction of the Second Amendment. And that’s how the issue too often gets framed.”

 

[Silat]

Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, believes that if there’d been more people with guns at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, Saturday night, the horrific massacre that resulted in at least 50 people dead wouldn’t have been as bad.

“If you had some guns in that club the night that this took place, if you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy that you had,” Trump said in a CNN interview Monday morning.

Trump is pushing the “good guy with a gun” theory, a favorite of groups like the National Rifle Association that want to stop any gun control measures. The argument is that mass shootings can be stopped more quickly if other people have guns and are able to fire back at the shooter.

But as CNN pointed out to Trump, there actually was a good guy with a gun at the Orlando nightclub. As the Los Angeles Times reported:

Orlando Police Chief John Mina said an off-duty police officer working security at the club in uniform traded gunfire with the attacker.

Officials said that after police responded to reports of the violence, the attacker retreated to a bathroom with hostages. Police held back because the attacker made statements about having explosives, they said.

Trump, however, insisted that the answer was simply more people firing guns in dark, crowded nightclubs.

“If you had guns in that room, if you had — even if you had a number of people having them strapped to their ankle or strapped to their waist where bullets could have flown in the other direction right at him, you wouldn’t have had that tragedy,” Trump said.

Attempts by armed civilians to stop mass shooters are incredibly rare — and they often end up being deadly for the well-meaning civilians. It’s also hard in those chaotic, fast-moving situations for untrained civilians to sort out the good guys from the bad guys.

On June 2, during a town hall discussion in Indiana, President Barack Obamaaddressed the “good guy with a gun” myth when an attendee asked why Obama wants to restrict law-abiding citizens from owning guns and protecting themselves. Obama pointed out that under his administration, there have been more guns sold than ever.

“There is a way for us to make sure that lawful, responsible gun owners like yourself are able to use it for sporting, hunting and protecting yourself,” he said. “But the only way we’re going to do that is if we don’t have a situation in which anything that is proposed is viewed as some tyrannical destruction of the Second Amendment. And that’s how the issue too often gets framed.”

Carol good post
There is a reason that the reichwing does everything it can to make sure government agencies cannot study guns. Because they know what the facts will reveal.
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/...y_comment_id=1039179609456730#f1d5b6d82a4711c

 

[lwien]

Clearly it's worked for ... well, pretty much all the assholes, hasn't it?

Trump supporters are old enough to vote for him? They're old enough to be laughed at for it.

While I totally agree with everything you said, Clear, we're in a bit of a quandary here being that there are a few Trump supporters that are active in this thread and your statements could very well illicit a defensive response which could eventually get this thread shut down. I suggest to bash Trump all you want but not attack his supporters.

 

[Snappo]

Worth watching - it's short but concise...

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1707420279475525

 

[CarolKing]

Did anybody see Deepak Chopra on Real Time with Bill? He said that a good president gives the country hope, trust, compassion and stability. Donald Trump has none of those qualities he said. Chopra hopes that Elizabeth Warren is Hillary's running mate. He's a Hillary fan. It was an interesting interview. He said Donald Trump pisses him off too. He's trying to not allow Trump to effect him like that.

I liked the above video @Snappo, I don't know a lot about the Muslim faith due to my own laziness. I have some time off over the summer. I need to do some reading. My job is similar to yours. It does take a village to raise a child. I love that statement and a title to a book I never read. Not a Hillary fan but I will vote for her if Bernie isn't in the picture.

Edit
Bill Maher closed out Real Time on Friday by hammering on the apparent double standard given to Donald Trump compared to other political figures.

“Obama got endless sh*t for once saluting with coffee in his hand, violating an ancient military rule dating to never,” he explained. “But Trump can say John McCain isn’t a war hero? If Hillary said that, they’d be burning pantsuits in effigy.”

In the year since entering the presidential race by making his way down an escalator, Maher said, Trump had only continued descending.

“When it comes to lowering the bar, he really raised the bar,” the host quipped.

Maher showed clips of moments described as humongous gaffes during previous elections — George H.W. Bush checking his watch during a debate, for example — and noted how quaint they looked compared to Trump boasting about his genitalia while arguing with Sen. Marco Rubio.

“What if Bush had done that?” Maher asked. “‘Read my lips — six-and-a-half inches.'”

And while Sarah Palin at least tried to pretend like she read newspapers, Maher said, Trump doesn’t even do that — he just “hears things.”

“It could be from a passing mental patient; it could be the voices in his own head,” he said. “When he does read, it’s the National Enquirer and he refers to it as ‘the paper.'”

 

[ClearBlueLou]

While I totally agree with everything you said, Clear, we're in a bit of a quandary here being that there are a few Trump supporters that are active in this thread and your statements could very well illicit a defensive response which could eventually get this thread shut down. I suggest to bash Trump all you want but not attack his supporters.

I have no intention of doing so: and if I do not soft-pedal my opinions re: Trump, it is not to insult his supporters, or even to insult him.

On other channels, I'm trying to respond cogently to my brother's 'serious concerns' about Agenda 21, and the UN taking over Idaho to steal its water.... There, and here, I am trying to be clear and helpful - I may also be blunt and less-filtered

 

[cybrguy]

I think I would recommend medication.

 

[grokit]

Climate Change, Donald Trump, And The 2016 Election



Climate change just hit a new and frightening marker.
If you ever needed another reason – and there are so many – not to vote for Donald Trump, here’s one you may want to consider: climate change and the extinction of the human race.

Sure, Trump and his insane ideas about nuclear weapons could spark World War III and make a quick end to things. But even on the off chance that he should win the presidency, nobody in the military will allow him to carry out his ridiculous threats. We’d see a military coup for the first time in this country before that would happen. Nope, I rather doubt the Trumpster would be able to lead us off that kind of cliff.

But he’d have a willing coalition in the Republican Party, backed by people like the Koch brothers, when it comes to fossil fuels. The man – and the Party – that has proclaimed climate change a hoax would open the floodgates of additional carbon pollution, and our children and grandchildren would be the ones to pay the terrible price.

Two separate reports provide evidence that we are headed for some serious shit and there is no way we will be able to turn the tide in our lifetimes. We can turn it; it’s just going to take a long, long time to do so. The clock is ticking and the longer we fail to act, the worse the chances are that we will reach a tipping point that no matter what we do, it will be an effort taken too late.

Don’t get me wrong: The earth will survive. It’s just that we won’t.

The Halley Research Station in Antarctica, as well as a monitoring post at the South Pole, has announced that carbon dioxide levels have exceeded 400 parts per million. Pieter Tans, lead scientist for the Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network, stated that this is the highest level reached in at least 4 million years. In fact, every observatory on the planet has reported that the carbon dioxide levels are the highest they’ve been in those past millions of years. Every one of them.

Because most of the pollution emanating from carbon emissions due to burning fossil fuels occurs in the more populated northern hemisphere, it takes a while for that pollution to reach the South Pole. But reach it it has, and a press release from the British Antarctic Survey confirmed it:

This is the first time a sustained reading of 400 ppm, over a period of a day, has been recorded at a research station on the ice.”

Meanwhile, NASA, NOAA and the Japan Meteorological Agency have all issued reports that so far, 2016 is unrivaled in modern climate history.

According to NOAA, April 2016 was the 12th consecutive month to set a new record for the hottest average temperature in the 137 years records have been kept. That is unprecedented. 15 of the hottest 16 years have occurred in the 21st century. The Arctic has been the recipient of the most extreme heat and this summer’s ice cap is on track to be the smallest on record. If it keeps on going this way, the Arctic ice cap will disappear and the ocean currents will be disrupted and then who knows what will happen? Another ice age? Or continued warming of the planet at an even faster pace because the Arctic Ocean will absorb the heat from the sun rather than reflecting it off the ice cap until it’s just too hot to sustain human life? Whatever happens, it doesn’t bode well for the human race.

Looking at pictures of the charts and graphs puts me in mind of the charts and graphs illustrated by Al Gore in his Academy Award winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth. That much maligned warning of things to come is proving to be true.

Denying climate change will not make it go away. That’s just a fact. I know there are certain people who have difficulty dealing with facts they don’t like, but that doesn’t change reality.

We are standing on a dangerous precipice. How we deal with it will dictate the future of the planet and the future of the people on it.

It’s our call. Let’s make the right one.


http://samuel-warde.com/2016/06/79804-climate-change-donald-trump-2016-election/

 

[ClearBlueLou]

I have no intention of doing so: and if I do not soft-pedal my opinions re: Trump, it is not to insult his supporters, or even to insult him.

On other channels, I'm trying to respond cogently to my brother's 'serious concerns' about Agenda 21, and the UN taking over Idaho to steal its water.... There, and here, I am trying to be clear and helpful - I may also be blunt and less-filtered

There I go, being still unclear: I have no plans or desire or intention (or even HISTORY) of attacking Trump supporters qua Trump supporters. I like to play nice, I like it when everybody plays nice: persuasion and debate and discussion are best handled civilly, courteously, respectfully, and with humor; judging by what I see and hear, they should not be conducted as if they were a partisan rally, and I have little patience for the usual 'less-filling / tastes-great' pseudo-arguments / dueling insults that usually pass for 'debate' and 'commentary'.

That said, I'm just in this thread because these things are critically important and they matter to me, to my family, and to the things I've worked for and believed in all my life. I've been patient for a long time, and I'm slow to rile up, but I plan to stay on my feet and push back against what I see as bullshit, and offer the best arguments I can.

Seriously. Reformed bully; learned better ways.

 

[grokit]

So this was somewhat predictable, unless you predict for the msm:

Support for Trump and Muslim Ban Grows in Week After Orlando Shooting

Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at Saint Anselm College on June 13, 2016 in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Donald Trump’s response to the Orlando mass shooting may have been scary, and exactly what ISIS wants, but it also seems to have been what some part of the electorate wanted to hear. In the five days after the attack, Hillary Clinton’s lead over Trump narrowed to 10.7 points, down from 14.3 points on Sunday, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The five-day average of the poll showed Clinton with 45.5 percent support while Trump obtained 34.8 percent. Those numbers compare to 46.6 percent for Clinton and 32.3 percent for Trump on Sunday.

The poll also showed 45 percent of Americans agree with Trump that the immigration of Muslims to the United States should be suspended. That marks an increase from 41.9 percent in the beginning of June. An NBC News/Survey Monkey poll released earlier this week showed even higher support for the ban, with 28 percent saying they “strongly support” while 22 percent “somewhat support” the measure.

According to the latest average of polls by Real Clear Politics, Clinton leads Trump by 5.8 points.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._muslim_ban_grows_after_orlando_shooting.html

 

[Vicki]

So this was somewhat predictable, unless you predict for the msm:

Support for Trump and Muslim Ban Grows in Week After Orlando Shooting

Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at Saint Anselm College on June 13, 2016 in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Donald Trump’s response to the Orlando mass shooting may have been scary, and exactly what ISIS wants, but it also seems to have been what some part of the electorate wanted to hear. In the five days after the attack, Hillary Clinton’s lead over Trump narrowed to 10.7 points, down from 14.3 points on Sunday, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The five-day average of the poll showed Clinton with 45.5 percent support while Trump obtained 34.8 percent. Those numbers compare to 46.6 percent for Clinton and 32.3 percent for Trump on Sunday.

The poll also showed 45 percent of Americans agree with Trump that the immigration of Muslims to the United States should be suspended. That marks an increase from 41.9 percent in the beginning of June. An NBC News/Survey Monkey poll released earlier this week showed even higher support for the ban, with 28 percent saying they “strongly support” while 22 percent “somewhat support” the measure.

According to the latest average of polls by Real Clear Politics, Clinton leads Trump by 5.8 points.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._muslim_ban_grows_after_orlando_shooting.html

We have a Muslim family with small children 6 houses down from us. What are they going to do, deport them too?

 

[Silat]

So this was somewhat predictable, unless you predict for the msm:

Support for Trump and Muslim Ban Grows in Week After Orlando Shooting

Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at Saint Anselm College on June 13, 2016 in Manchester, New Hampshire.

Donald Trump’s response to the Orlando mass shooting may have been scary, and exactly what ISIS wants, but it also seems to have been what some part of the electorate wanted to hear. In the five days after the attack, Hillary Clinton’s lead over Trump narrowed to 10.7 points, down from 14.3 points on Sunday, according to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll.

The five-day average of the poll showed Clinton with 45.5 percent support while Trump obtained 34.8 percent. Those numbers compare to 46.6 percent for Clinton and 32.3 percent for Trump on Sunday.

The poll also showed 45 percent of Americans agree with Trump that the immigration of Muslims to the United States should be suspended. That marks an increase from 41.9 percent in the beginning of June. An NBC News/Survey Monkey poll released earlier this week showed even higher support for the ban, with 28 percent saying they “strongly support” while 22 percent “somewhat support” the measure.

According to the latest average of polls by Real Clear Politics, Clinton leads Trump by 5.8 points.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._muslim_ban_grows_after_orlando_shooting.html

I never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter and the failure of the media to tell the truth about people and things. The 4th estate has failed us. Drumpf is not qualified to be anything but a carnival barker grifter.
Aside from that the campaign has not even started yet. After the conventions the left will start running ads showing Drumpf in all his insane grifter glory.
I predict Hillary in a landslide and hopefully Drumpf and his built on sand business falls into the abyss.