The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
Trypsy Summers
Well-Known Member
1) Whatever... what one sees another may not, and it needn't be justified to anyone.
2) Doesn't sound like complaining at all, but rather, articulating what most folks don't intellectually understand well-enough to articulate for themselves what's roiling in their gut, or have the guts to admit to themselves or their peers... after all, how could such cruel insanity be so?
3) Never said s/he wasn't participating in life in his/her own way, just not in the political bullshit by voting. If everyone refused to fight in a war, there would be no civilian-soldier fatalities as a result of that war - let the political leaders shed each others blood.
Its nice to actually see(read) someone exercising their critical faculties!
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
1) Whatever
What?
Facts count. Your quote was wrong.
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
So ISIS and the other extremists all suddenly appeared when Europe asked us to help them take out Gad?
Well that is not how those groups started and Hillary did not unleash them on the world. That honor goes to the reich wing neocons and the Project for the New American Century.
And I think you know that.
ISIS came about when the reich wing destroyed Saddam and told the military and the bureaucrats to go home.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Bush+cheney+disband+military+and+bureaucracy+which+leads+to+ISIS
And for the record I was drafted bub. So do not talk to me about bombing and people dying and then assume I do not care. I am a realist.
I love those that think there is no violence in the world and all military actions can be perfect.
Well that is not how those groups started and Hillary did not unleash them on the world. That honor goes to the reich wing neocons and the Project for the New American Century.
And I think you know that.
ISIS came about when the reich wing destroyed Saddam and told the military and the bureaucrats to go home.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Bush+cheney+disband+military+and+bureaucracy+which+leads+to+ISIS
And for the record I was drafted bub. So do not talk to me about bombing and people dying and then assume I do not care. I am a realist.
I love those that think there is no violence in the world and all military actions can be perfect.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
The quote was wrong, but the sentiment was true. See how broken up she is while talking about killing someone.What?
Facts count. Your quote was wrong.
I have avoided "like"ing anytime someone casually defamed either candidate. "Killary" falls into that category. However, between a casual joke (Allegedly. Others say it took a bit for her to understand we couldn't just kill Assange.) about droning the face of Wikileaks and her obvious good humor at causing the death (Actually, causing events that later resulted in death.) of Gaddafi (choose your own spelling), I am uncertain as to the "fact check" on how Killary came to be.
As to Wikileaks, we may have shut it down.
https://www.rt.com/news/362985-julian-assange-internet-link/
Last edited:
Wasn't my quote, so get YOUR fact straight. Another poster. Either way, irrelevant.What?
Facts count. Your quote was wrong.
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
I was responding to your comment about the quote. I think you know that.
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
So Hillary is the devil. She alone went into Libya and killed Gaddafi.
It was just a rumor that the Euro's were the leaders of that mission.
Got it.
Except for that one pesky detail.
Libyans killed Gaddafi.
Think what you want, that was not my interpretation of your comment. You said, "Your quote was wrong". To be clear, it was not quoted by me but by another poster - that was my interpretation. Whether or not the poster quoted it correctly or incorrectly is, once again, irrelevant to your issue, but relevant only as perceived and stated by that poster, which needn't be justified to anyone but himself.
Last edited:
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Since my entire post is a paragraph and a few sentences, you might review: "(Actually, causing events that later resulted in death.)".
I distinctly recall the rumor I repeatedly heard that we were "Leading from behind" in Libya. Were Obama and Hillary lying to me just to prove how tough they were? Of course not, Obama said: “This was a phrase that the media picked up on,” Obama said, adding the U.S. actually “led from the front” through the United Nations and in NATO. ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...hite-house-leading-from-behind_n_1035770.html )
Trypsy Summers
Well-Known Member
@Silat, Indeed I did make a wrong quote re Killary, but the salient point of that quote was "he died!" but I'm indeed sorry if that mistake has left you so offended!
Oh by the way, you're spot on! I fully know and accept that Klilary didn't go into Libya and kill Ghaddafi, no way would that happen, cos outside of rituals, those in charge never do any dirty work. But you have to concede that she is the only one openly gloating about his demise - ("...He died!")
At the risk of being pedantic, just remind me again what exactly was it that he (he being Gadaffii) had actually done to get overthrown? Cos the last I heard, he'd been welcome in from the cold with a handshake from Blair! Indeed what you're alluding to is a bit like the pre text to kill Saddam, cos (as we all know) he had fuck all to do with the W.T.C. atrocity, much-less was he harboring weapons of mass destruction! If we're being just a tad bit truthful!
However, moving on, in the first instance, I would suggest you re-read what has been written and don't be submitting a different narrative! I actually wrote "they have taken a very strong hold down there!"
Also for the record, there is no need to stoop to insults (I ain't no bub!) also bear in mind it is you whose assumed that I think you don't care. Cos I have not said that.
If you are indeed real, as opposed to being merely 'a realist,' then you'd know, and not merely believe, you would know, and you would not feel the need to get so aggressive and attack minded, mistaking that approach as the best form of defence! But then again maybe its me, for just not having that kind of mentality!
In terms of your final comment, then you must hate me, cos all I know is that there is pure violence out there in the world and I also know that no military action is perfect!
Not saying
![:\](/i/s/hmm.gif "Hmm :\")
, Just saying
, Without saying
,
Pure Peace
Last edited:
lwien
Well-Known Member
It's not just the election folks. These people will STILL be here even when Trump loses. They've ALWAYS been here but now they've been legitimized and that legitimization "can" escalate from mere words to actions and THAT is kinda scary.
And, btw, those scary actions won't just happen within the GOP ranks either:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/north-carolina-gop-office-vandalized/
Trump has lit a fuse and I'm afraid that it's one of those that can't be extinguished. Being that he has totally destroyed the Republican Party, I have no doubt that after his loss, he will STILL be very vocal and between him and Steve Bannon, they will both spur the creation of a new alt-right third party that will be with us for decades to come and may very well have both a radio and television station to spread the word.
So for those of you that condemn the two party system and dreamed of having a very vibrant third party, ya kinda gotta be careful what you wish for.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/politics/north-carolina-gop-office-vandalized/
Trump has lit a fuse and I'm afraid that it's one of those that can't be extinguished. Being that he has totally destroyed the Republican Party, I have no doubt that after his loss, he will STILL be very vocal and between him and Steve Bannon, they will both spur the creation of a new alt-right third party that will be with us for decades to come and may very well have both a radio and television station to spread the word.
So for those of you that condemn the two party system and dreamed of having a very vibrant third party, ya kinda gotta be careful what you wish for.
Last edited:
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
The Arizona Republic's editorial board knew it was wading into controversy last month when it endorsed a Democrat for president-- the first time it had done so in its 126-year history.
But some of the backlash that followed the paper's decision to back Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump went beyond the pale. An op-ed published this weekend by the newspaper's top executive details some of the most disturbing threats her employees have received over the past month.
Related: Arizona Republic endorses Clinton for president, first time ever backing a Democrat
"We're being targeted ... it's not the America I know. It's not the democracy I love," Republic Media president Mi-Ai Parrish told CNNMoney on Sunday.
Parrish's column described a number of violent threats the paper has received since its endorsement. One anonymous caller referenced Republic reporter Don Bolles, who was assassinated by a car bomb in 1976. The killing was speculated to have been linked to organized crime, which Bolles covered. One of his last words was "mafia."
The caller "threatened that more of our reporters would be blown up because of the endorsement," Parrish wrote.
Parrish also chronicled her employees' response to such threats. She wrote that the woman who spoke with that caller "walked to church and prayed" for the person.
Speaking with CNNMoney, Parrish called the phone call "horrifying."
"I absolutely welcome debate and free expression, and I will protect and uphold the right of people to say ugly things to me. That's part of how this works," Parrish said. But she called threats like that one "incredibly dangerous."
Edit
I thought the citizens of Libya killed Ghaddafi? I don't like vigilante gang type mentality. He needed a trial of his peers. Then sent to prison or given the death penalty.
But some of the backlash that followed the paper's decision to back Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump went beyond the pale. An op-ed published this weekend by the newspaper's top executive details some of the most disturbing threats her employees have received over the past month.
Related: Arizona Republic endorses Clinton for president, first time ever backing a Democrat
"We're being targeted ... it's not the America I know. It's not the democracy I love," Republic Media president Mi-Ai Parrish told CNNMoney on Sunday.
Parrish's column described a number of violent threats the paper has received since its endorsement. One anonymous caller referenced Republic reporter Don Bolles, who was assassinated by a car bomb in 1976. The killing was speculated to have been linked to organized crime, which Bolles covered. One of his last words was "mafia."
The caller "threatened that more of our reporters would be blown up because of the endorsement," Parrish wrote.
Parrish also chronicled her employees' response to such threats. She wrote that the woman who spoke with that caller "walked to church and prayed" for the person.
Speaking with CNNMoney, Parrish called the phone call "horrifying."
"I absolutely welcome debate and free expression, and I will protect and uphold the right of people to say ugly things to me. That's part of how this works," Parrish said. But she called threats like that one "incredibly dangerous."
Edit
I thought the citizens of Libya killed Ghaddafi? I don't like vigilante gang type mentality. He needed a trial of his peers. Then sent to prison or given the death penalty.
Last edited:
CuckFumbustion
Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
Trump and all the trash cans he set fire too will still be around after the election. We not only need to keep him and anybody associated with him out office. We have to keep him on the ropes after the election. My current sentiment is with the Elwood twins. I hate Illinois Nazis.
gangababa
Well-Known Member
The motivation for all animal activity and most* human activity, falls into one of four categories.
1-Eating
2-Sleeping
3-Mating
4-Defending
Each category can be understood to suggest bundles of desire and aversion and belief driven actions, including politics.
Additionally in the human condition, one may observe a fifth category of mindfulness.
The ego is in the mind. Or, technically the ego (ahamkara) uses the mind (manas).
I observe it where ever the ideas of mind are guarded by number 4 above.
One can see it in this thread.
*Most: a weasel word so I need not enter argument.
1-Eating
2-Sleeping
3-Mating
4-Defending
Each category can be understood to suggest bundles of desire and aversion and belief driven actions, including politics.
Additionally in the human condition, one may observe a fifth category of mindfulness.
The ego is in the mind. Or, technically the ego (ahamkara) uses the mind (manas).
I observe it where ever the ideas of mind are guarded by number 4 above.
One can see it in this thread.
*Most: a weasel word so I need not enter argument.
Last edited:
CuckFumbustion
Lo and Behold! The transformative power of Vapor.
Please elaborate more on this subject and how relevant it is. I's like to hear any other way of measuring what is happening.
What if I were to say....Compare your Ahamkara and manas terms to Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
My only hope is that by doing this they may allow the Republican party to return to some kind of normalcy and allow America and its institutions to get back to actually governing. The third party they create, lets call it the stupid violent party, will be comprised of what used to be called the lunatic fringe, and for the most part will (should) be fairly toothless, as they always were in the past.
That is assuming the third party IS the home of the lunatics and doesn't pull in too many of the ignorant. Hopefully they will be ugly enough to drive away the "godly" in to one or the other of the "legitimate" parties...
Trypsy Summers
Well-Known Member
Well if we're going to go down the pictorial route (a picture speaks a thousand words...) then how about this one as food for thought!
(Let’s call this one above the Government Trust.)
Under this model, Government acts for and on behalf of the people. Your rights are inherent, based upon who and what you are as a living human being. The rules and objectives of Government were established by the People, and Government adopted those objectives on behalf of the People.
However the behaviour of those claiming to be “government” today is in complete contrast with this trust agreement. Today’s “government” acts as executor and beneficiary of this arrangement.
(Let’s call this one above the Dictatorship Trust.) Spot the difference to the previous diagram!
In this model, “Government” possesses supreme or ultimate power and assumes the role of sovereign, and you act as a legal entity – a creation of the “Government”. Under this model, “Government” dictates the rules and objectives, and prescribes your rights and obligations. You are merely a trustee, employed to return benefits to “Government” as the sole beneficiary of the arrangement.
Contrast the two Trust diagrams above. Are you considered a free sovereign being under your current model of government? Or a regulated trustee to the priorities of government?
Now consider this situation a step further. If you are not sovereign under the current model of government, and your “Government” is claiming executor and beneficiary status over you and your community, isn’t your “Government” an impostor? Undemocratic? A dictatorship? Committing treason?
Personally in answer to that question I would say no, if you've readily given over your consent for them to control you, and act on your behalf!
Not saying Just saying
Without saying
Pure Peace
(Let’s call this one above the Government Trust.)
Under this model, Government acts for and on behalf of the people. Your rights are inherent, based upon who and what you are as a living human being. The rules and objectives of Government were established by the People, and Government adopted those objectives on behalf of the People.
However the behaviour of those claiming to be “government” today is in complete contrast with this trust agreement. Today’s “government” acts as executor and beneficiary of this arrangement.
(Let’s call this one above the Dictatorship Trust.) Spot the difference to the previous diagram!
In this model, “Government” possesses supreme or ultimate power and assumes the role of sovereign, and you act as a legal entity – a creation of the “Government”. Under this model, “Government” dictates the rules and objectives, and prescribes your rights and obligations. You are merely a trustee, employed to return benefits to “Government” as the sole beneficiary of the arrangement.
Contrast the two Trust diagrams above. Are you considered a free sovereign being under your current model of government? Or a regulated trustee to the priorities of government?
Now consider this situation a step further. If you are not sovereign under the current model of government, and your “Government” is claiming executor and beneficiary status over you and your community, isn’t your “Government” an impostor? Undemocratic? A dictatorship? Committing treason?
Personally in answer to that question I would say no, if you've readily given over your consent for them to control you, and act on your behalf!
Not saying
Just saying Without sayingPure Peace
ataxian
PALE BLUE DOT
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Typical selfish voter:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
A Shift in the Conversation
by Nancy LeTourneau
October 17, 2016 10:08 AM
With three weeks left in the election season and voters all over the country already starting to cast their early ballots, I’m noticing an interesting shift in the conversation: a lot of the different takes on what happens AFTER the election.
For example, right now Donald Trump is spending an awful lot of energy trying to convince everyone that the outcome of the election will be rigged. In other words, even he knows that he’s going to lose and – with three weeks to go – is lining up his excuse. That is both unprecedented and dangerous. It also places a huge burden on GOP leaders to speak up both now and after the election about the importance of honoring our democratic processes because it is highly unlikely that Trump will demonstrate the kind of integrity we saw from Al Gore after the 2000 election.
Another way people are starting to talk about the aftermath of the election comes mostly from liberal publications and writers. We’re seeing a lot of talk about how Democrats should react to Trump supporters after the election. Last week I linked to articles by E.J. Dionne and Charles Pierce on that. But perhaps the most thorough look at that came from Dylan Matthews in his article titled, “Taking Trump voters’ concerns seriously means listening to what they’re actually saying.”
That brings up the third way we’re hearing a lot about what happens after the election. The big question on a lot of minds is: what will the post-Trump Republican Party look like? And how will they react to a Clinton presidency? We’ve been hearing a lot of speculation on those questions throughout the course of this election season, but they are starting to intensify. I don’t put a lot of stock in anyone’s answers at this point because frankly…we don’t know. In the end, a lot of that will depend on both the size of Clinton’s win and the make-up of Congress. On the former, Ryan Lizza tweeted an interesting reminder.
Kevin Drum takes a look at the future of the Republican Party and says it’s all up to Paul Ryan.
Finally, there is also the question of how Democrats will handle a Clinton presidency. This one isn’t getting as much attention, but Jonathan Cohn, in his in-depth look at the Clinton policy shop, pointed out some of the challenges she’ll face on that front. He keys in on what will likely be Clinton’s first policy initiative – infrastructure.
I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of having our national conversation focused solely on a man who is clearly unfit to be president. I’m ready for that to be over and start the process of answering the next questions that we will have to address. These are the prominent ones that come to mind.
by Nancy LeTourneau
October 17, 2016 10:08 AM
With three weeks left in the election season and voters all over the country already starting to cast their early ballots, I’m noticing an interesting shift in the conversation: a lot of the different takes on what happens AFTER the election.
For example, right now Donald Trump is spending an awful lot of energy trying to convince everyone that the outcome of the election will be rigged. In other words, even he knows that he’s going to lose and – with three weeks to go – is lining up his excuse. That is both unprecedented and dangerous. It also places a huge burden on GOP leaders to speak up both now and after the election about the importance of honoring our democratic processes because it is highly unlikely that Trump will demonstrate the kind of integrity we saw from Al Gore after the 2000 election.
Another way people are starting to talk about the aftermath of the election comes mostly from liberal publications and writers. We’re seeing a lot of talk about how Democrats should react to Trump supporters after the election. Last week I linked to articles by E.J. Dionne and Charles Pierce on that. But perhaps the most thorough look at that came from Dylan Matthews in his article titled, “Taking Trump voters’ concerns seriously means listening to what they’re actually saying.”
Any solution has to begin with a correct diagnosis of the problem. If Trump’s supporters are not, in fact, motivated by economic marginalization, then even full Bernie Sanders–style social democracy is not going to prevent a Trump recurrence. Nor are GOP-style tax cuts, and liberal pundits aggressively signaling virtue to each other by writing ad nauseam about the need to empathize with the Trump Voter aren’t doing anyone any good.
What’s needed is an honest reckoning with what it means that a large segment of the US population, large enough to capture one of the two major political parties, is motivated primarily by white nationalism and an anxiety over the fast-changing demographics of the country. Maybe the GOP will find a way to control and contain this part of its base. Maybe the racist faction of the party will dissipate over time, especially as Obama’s presidency recedes into memory. Maybe it took Trump’s celebrity to mobilize them at all, and future attempts will fail.
But Donald Trump’s supporters’ concerns are heavily about race. Taking them seriously means, first and foremost, acknowledging that, and dealing with it honestly.
What’s needed is an honest reckoning with what it means that a large segment of the US population, large enough to capture one of the two major political parties, is motivated primarily by white nationalism and an anxiety over the fast-changing demographics of the country. Maybe the GOP will find a way to control and contain this part of its base. Maybe the racist faction of the party will dissipate over time, especially as Obama’s presidency recedes into memory. Maybe it took Trump’s celebrity to mobilize them at all, and future attempts will fail.
But Donald Trump’s supporters’ concerns are heavily about race. Taking them seriously means, first and foremost, acknowledging that, and dealing with it honestly.
That brings up the third way we’re hearing a lot about what happens after the election. The big question on a lot of minds is: what will the post-Trump Republican Party look like? And how will they react to a Clinton presidency? We’ve been hearing a lot of speculation on those questions throughout the course of this election season, but they are starting to intensify. I don’t put a lot of stock in anyone’s answers at this point because frankly…we don’t know. In the end, a lot of that will depend on both the size of Clinton’s win and the make-up of Congress. On the former, Ryan Lizza tweeted an interesting reminder.
Ryan Lizza ✔ @RyanLizza
Yep. In '12, final polling avg had Obama +1.5 over Romney & Obama won by 3.9 pts. Clinton avg is currently +7.6. She's headed for a blowout. https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/787650576758603776 …
Yep. In '12, final polling avg had Obama +1.5 over Romney & Obama won by 3.9 pts. Clinton avg is currently +7.6. She's headed for a blowout. https://twitter.com/matthewjdowd/status/787650576758603776 …
Kevin Drum takes a look at the future of the Republican Party and says it’s all up to Paul Ryan.
So what will Ryan do? One possibility, of course, is that he’ll take the simplest route: endless obstruction, just like 2009. Republicans may be a divided party, but one thing they all agree on is that they hate Hillary Clinton and they want to prevent her from doing anything.
But there’s another possibility. Ryan is not a racial fearmonger. He’s always been open to immigration reform. He’s consistently shown genuine disgust for Donald Trump. He’s been open to making low-key deals in the past. He’s smart enough to know precisely the depth of the demographic hole Republicans are in. And despite being conservative himself, he may well realize that the GOP simply can’t stay in thrall to the tea party caucus forever if it wants to survive. On a personal level, he saw what they did to John Boehner, and he may well be sick and tired of them himself.
It’s also possible that he wants to run for president in 2020, and if that’s the case he’ll do better if he has some real accomplishments to show over the next four years. Running on a platform of scorched-earth obstruction might get the tea partiers excited, but that’s not enough to win the presidency.
So maybe Ryan decides that now is the time to try to reform the Republican Party.
But there’s another possibility. Ryan is not a racial fearmonger. He’s always been open to immigration reform. He’s consistently shown genuine disgust for Donald Trump. He’s been open to making low-key deals in the past. He’s smart enough to know precisely the depth of the demographic hole Republicans are in. And despite being conservative himself, he may well realize that the GOP simply can’t stay in thrall to the tea party caucus forever if it wants to survive. On a personal level, he saw what they did to John Boehner, and he may well be sick and tired of them himself.
It’s also possible that he wants to run for president in 2020, and if that’s the case he’ll do better if he has some real accomplishments to show over the next four years. Running on a platform of scorched-earth obstruction might get the tea partiers excited, but that’s not enough to win the presidency.
So maybe Ryan decides that now is the time to try to reform the Republican Party.
Finally, there is also the question of how Democrats will handle a Clinton presidency. This one isn’t getting as much attention, but Jonathan Cohn, in his in-depth look at the Clinton policy shop, pointed out some of the challenges she’ll face on that front. He keys in on what will likely be Clinton’s first policy initiative – infrastructure.
It’s not only Republicans who will be giving Clinton headaches—she’ll get plenty of those from Democrats, too. To pass anything at all, she needs to be able to compromise with the GOP without alienating progressives. Inside the Capitol, the consensus is that the only way to get an infrastructure bill is to package the new spending with corporate tax cuts that Republicans covet—for instance, lowering taxes on U.S. companies with operations abroad. Such a move will meet intense skepticism from Sanders or Warren, who basically see it as an invitation for U.S. companies to shift jobs off-shore. (“That is nuts,” Warren wrote in a New York Times op-ed in September.) “I think the politics are now going to be harder from the left,” says one person who has been privy to recent tax reform negotiations in Congress. “I am worried that anything that is attractive enough to Paul Ryan on the corporate side is going to be really hard for the Warren-Sanders side.”
I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of having our national conversation focused solely on a man who is clearly unfit to be president. I’m ready for that to be over and start the process of answering the next questions that we will have to address. These are the prominent ones that come to mind.
ataxian
PALE BLUE DOT
grokit
well-worn member
If drumpf loses, I'm hoping that this alt-right nonsense will merge with the failed corporate tea party as the radicalized right, splitting off from the true conservatives in the gop. Not really, they like to win so they will always bargain with each other; just like the progressive berniecrats on the other side. It would be nice if we could get out of this left/right bs, but all I see is two fractured parties acting like four cohesive ones when it really counts at the polls. We still have a ways to go before we can become more than the left/right paradigm allows, and it may take some changes to our electoral system like runoffs and whatnot to make these progressive third parties more relevant, not less, because we need the vitality of new energy in order to avoid stagnation. We are getting there with perot nader sanders and now johnson & stein, but the finish line keeps moving. If drumpf wins this all goes out the window; katie bar the door the worms are coming.
Last edited: