lwien
Well-Known Member
@Trypsy Summers, I suggest that you edit out the above comments rather quickly before a mod comes in here and slaps you across the head. Just sayin'........
The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
@Trypsy Summers, I suggest that you edit out the above comments rather quickly before a mod comes in here and slaps you across the head. Just sayin'........
Trypsy Summers
Well-Known Member
Well after the legendary @Carol King told me about myself I'm gonna do as she suggest -walk away, so I will not post another thing in this section! I hope that allows you (not you, per se) to do your thing in peace
PS: The legendary tag is not a diss, I really happen to have time for some of the things that Mrs King has to say and this indeed one them!
Pure Peace
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
The Democratic Party WAS "the party of Jim Crow" until Richard Nixon offered the racist politicians AND VOTERS a home in the Republican Party: they accepted his offer, and the Republican Party has been the enthusiastic banner-carrier for systemic old-school racism for nearly 50 years. Some racist Dems, recanted, changed their hearts or something, and did NOT move to Galt's Gulch, and IF you look at their speeches and voting records, it shows.
I don't really believe that you never noticed: this is boilerplate 'tanglefoot' tactics, much beloved of the post-Gingrich/post-Limbaugh bullshit factory; not sure I believe that you believe it (almost no-one does, especially on the "right", it's been a popular tactic for decades).
Then again, it may have escaped you that Brietbart dot com, its founder, and its most recent obergruppenfuhrer are enthusiastic professional liars, and especially fond of seeing how outrageous they can make the crap they peddle. Mix in with the Gish Gallop, and normal conversationalists get gob-smacked trying to process the bullshit - and the "true patriots" high-five each other for their unashamed lying and disruption of what was once called 'civilized discourse'.
So, taking you as the concerned citizen you present, I respectfully suggest that you consider using sounder, more informed sources.
Thanks.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Well after the legendary @Carol King told me about myself I'm gonna do as she suggest -walk away, so I will not post another thing in this section! I hope that allows you (not you, per se) to do your thing in peace
PS: The legendary tag is not a diss, I really happen to have time for some of the things that Mrs King has to say and this indeed one them!
Leaving or staying is not the issue. Don't say I didn't warn ya......
You have some really unique perspectives here so for me, Id hate to see ya go. Ya just have to stay away from personal attacks.
Last edited:
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
That's the story the Democrats use to convince Black Americans their best hope is with them. The reality is, where are the problems right now?
You haven't really made any point other than to disagree on history. Come up with the current plan for Jim Crow laws by the Republicans before you start making such claims.
Facts are often good tactics.
I find it unlikely we can find a liar more professional than the one currently running for office and her ilk. I am literally uncertain as to if they consider anything a "fact" until spun.
Right back atcha.
That's the story the Democrats use to convince Black Americans their best hope is with them. The reality is, where are the problems right now?
You haven't really made any point other than to disagree on history. Come up with the current plan for Jim Crow laws by the Republicans before you start making such claims.
Facts are often good tactics.
I find it unlikely we can find a liar more professional than the one currently running for office and her ilk. I am literally uncertain as to if they consider anything a "fact" until spun.
Right back atcha.
Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both owned slaves. Does this historical fact have anything to do with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump who are the actual candidates running in 2016?
No. Saying that the Democrats are the racist party instead of the Republicans is just arguing over historical philosophy in an attempt to relate that to today's candidates instead of actually discussing the candidates themselves. The problem is even though the historical facts are true they are irrelevant.
Speaking of Hillary Clinton she is the definition of politically correct and speaks of racial inequalities and strategies to eliminate them in a coherent manner.
Donald Trump speaks of settling racist lawsuits without admitting guilt. He speaks of being "very popular with the blacks". And on the issue of race relations his answer is "Law and Order" with more stop and frisk.
No black person in their right mind is voting for Donald Trump.
This is of course is primarily talking of black race relations, it makes Donald look even more racist when you also consider Latin, middle Eastern, and Asian races specifically the Chinese....
lwien
Well-Known Member
Trypsy Summers
Well-Known Member
I would really like to respond to you but not here!
Ps Brexit -means jack shit to me -Not interested!! Doesn't matter to me if they are in or out, it really doesn't!
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
The election is not just about Hillary and about Trump, but about the philosophy behind the parties. If one is supporting Hillary because Trump wants to bring us back to Jim Crow laws, I'm thinking they should give some example--especially when the historical record seems to disagree.
My favorite tweet for when things seem to go to heck racially, is:
https://twitter.com/exjon/status/537007913353883649
"My favorite part about the Obama era is all the racial healing."
The politically correct nonsense is creating segregation on college campuses and seem to be causing or associated with (Admittedly, correlation is not causation.) worse and worse problems. I assume all the Democrats in charge of the cities mentioned for decades (outside the obviously racist past we both agree they were involved with) are addressing the problems in coherent manner. How many more decades must we continue to hit our heads on the same politically correct wall expecting a different result without it being considered insanity?
Stop and Frisk is a legitimate issue to discuss. It is far more complex than a L&O script so won't go on. We also know that Trump has shown some courage in addressing racial issues. (Note the date. Far before the election.) http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB862335923489989500
At one point the then ADL President Foxman said about discrimination at private clubs at the time:
“He put the light on Palm Beach. Not on the beauty and the glitter, but on its seamier side of discrimination. It has an impact.” Foxman credited Trump’s move with encouraging other clubs in Palm Beach to do the same as Mar-a-Lago in opening up.
Every black person who thinks things are going well for them right now should vote for Hillary. The vast numbers who are...disappointed, might not want to hit their head on the same wall again.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Ah, Rule 5. It's a good'un.
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
It works best when superficial arguments claimed to be unchallengable are easily challenged. Once the patina of reason is scrapped from the surface, those who follow Alinsky always jump to Rule 5 rather than deal with the issue.
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
It works best when superficial arguments claimed to be unchallengable are easily challenged. Once the patina of reason is scrapped from the surface, those who follow Alinsky always jump to Rule 5 rather than deal with the issue.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
May I suggest if you want to be taken seriously you shouldn't begin your argument by suggesting that the modern republican party are the heroes of the civil rights movement. If you really insist that black people concerned with the way they are treated in America should look to the republican party for help with their communities and how they are policed, than you are either not paying ANY attention or you are intentionally trying to deceive your readers. I won't presume to know which it is.
Similarly the republican party and Donald Trump couldn't care less about women's issues or rights or health, believe they should be able to tell people who they can love and how they can love them, want to keep voters away from the polls rather than expanding the franchise, want to "legally" discriminate against non-christians and people of color, want to kill the unions (the only organizations created to protect workers rights), and have done EVERYTHING they could to keep the President from doing his job, including refusing to follow the constitution and allow him to pick Supreme Court Judges.
In life I have learned when someone uses a "but" in their sentence, one can usually ignore everything that comes before it. The manner and method of your posts often leaves me looking for a "but" in the last line...
Similarly the republican party and Donald Trump couldn't care less about women's issues or rights or health, believe they should be able to tell people who they can love and how they can love them, want to keep voters away from the polls rather than expanding the franchise, want to "legally" discriminate against non-christians and people of color, want to kill the unions (the only organizations created to protect workers rights), and have done EVERYTHING they could to keep the President from doing his job, including refusing to follow the constitution and allow him to pick Supreme Court Judges.
In life I have learned when someone uses a "but" in their sentence, one can usually ignore everything that comes before it. The manner and method of your posts often leaves me looking for a "but" in the last line...
lwien
Well-Known Member
This is the front page of FOX's sight as of two minutes ago. Can anyone please tell me how this is relevant to anything and furthermore, THIS is what they feel is newsworthy in regards to the leaked emails? 
OMG !!! Someone called someone's else's child a spoiled brat !!! The horror of it all !!!
OMG !!! Someone called someone's else's child a spoiled brat !!! The horror of it all !!!
Last edited:
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
If YOU want to be taken seriously, you should not make such a large straw man right up front.
Democrats have taken for granted the black vote for over a generation. How's that working out for them statistically? I'm not trying to deceive anyone. I want people to look behind the superficial and see what is really happening. All of the bad things is not solely because of racism.
Back to superficial generalizations stated with assurance without even a wiff of what you want or what you fear. Each one I could counter with similar generalities. [edit: My mistake. When I re-read, I find you did give a reason for why you believe we need unions. Sorry. I was just being superficial and over-generalizing.
]I suppose we all need ways to make sense of the world. I allow the readers to decide if this is a good one.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
The Anticonservative Attacks on Our Election System
by Martin Longman
October 18, 2016 12:47 PM
It’s unfortunate that the two major American political parties have evolved in a way where one party gains an advantage by making it easier to vote and the other gains an advantage by making it harder to vote. It’s a problem because it introduces self-interest into a question that shouldn’t be partisan. Who should vote?
You can come at that question in a number of ways: legal, constitutional, ethical, philosophical, idealistic, ideological, etc. I come at it in a practical way.
In a representative democracy, you exchange some rationality and expertise (which are both overrated among elites anyway) for legitimacy. You want a population that consents to be governed and that respects the laws. Without that, you can’t build up a peaceful and prosperous country, especially if you want to avoid suppressing people’s rights. An individual’s vote is only decisive in the rarest of cases (although it happens more than you might think), but it’s important that no one is shut out.
This view comes at the question much differently from those who focus on voters having some minimal base of knowledge with which to make decisions, whether that’s on candidates or referendums. There are certainly a lot of people who know absolutely nothing of value to assist them in making decisions about our foreign policy or to judge between competing health, education, and tax plans. Why would we want the opinion of these people? Why not insist that voters have some minimal level of education? Can they even read and write? Are they sane? Are they criminals?
We don’t allow voter registration officials to give tests to applicants. The right to vote is strongly protected under our current legal regime. And we have been expanding access to the ballot in a variety of ways in recent decades, from lowering the voting age to creating same-day registration to expanding vote-by-mail to setting up early voting centers. The Republican Party is now openly at war with these reforms and has even gone so far as to invent in-person voter fraud as a concern that justifies requiring state-issued photo identification for people who want to cast their votes. The GOP lawyers and election officials who challenge these laws continue to lose in court with regularity.
They’ve had successes, though. They destroyed my former employer ACORN, for example. ACORN was mainly a housing advocacy group dedicated to helping people avoid losing their homes, but they advocated for a variety of issues of pressing concern to inner city communities. And they were very good at registering people to vote which is why they were targeted and destroyed.
It wouldn’t have made sense for Republicans to attack ACORN though if the party did well with minorities at the ballot box. If they won, say, 35% of the black vote, it wouldn’t have been worth the effort to destroy ACORN. The campaign was only rational because blacks and other minorities overwhelmingly support their opponents.
Now, Donald Trump is taking things to another level in questioning the legitimacy of our elections. And his surrogates are playing along.
As I said at the top, at least part of the reason why we want everyone to have the right and opportunity to vote is pragmatic. If they feel that they have a voice in the outcome, they’re more likely to submit to authority (in the good sense). In a typical American election, more than forty percent of the people vote for the loser. We need them to accept the outcome without resorting to violence or widespread civil disobedience. I assume that I’d get more agreement on this from traditional conservatives than the more antiestablishment and countercultural left.
Deliberately undermining millions of people’s faith in the fairness of a presidential election is the opposite of practical in this sense. It’s an incitement to civil disorder and an invitation for huge numbers of people to disrespect the law and the legitimacy of authority. It’s not conservative in any normal sense of the word.
Of course it’s dangerous, but it’s also ideologically schismatic.
Yet, it’s a logical outgrowth of the GOP’s self-interest in voter suppression.
Democrats are taking the high road on these voting issues and they have the courts on their side. It’s just unfortunate that the purity of their motives is called into question because they’re the party that benefits when more people vote. Would Democrats defend voting rights if their chances were diminished by good turnout?
I actually think they would, but not with the same energy and urgency.
I’m hoping we can get to the point (peaceably) in this country where conservatives relinquish control of the Republican Party rather than hold onto it like grim death. Because, as long as conservatives control the GOP and refuse to bend to a changing demographic reality in this country, they will continue to work at disenfranchising people and calling into question the integrity of our election system. And that’s a recipe for dystopia.
by Martin Longman
October 18, 2016 12:47 PM
It’s unfortunate that the two major American political parties have evolved in a way where one party gains an advantage by making it easier to vote and the other gains an advantage by making it harder to vote. It’s a problem because it introduces self-interest into a question that shouldn’t be partisan. Who should vote?
You can come at that question in a number of ways: legal, constitutional, ethical, philosophical, idealistic, ideological, etc. I come at it in a practical way.
In a representative democracy, you exchange some rationality and expertise (which are both overrated among elites anyway) for legitimacy. You want a population that consents to be governed and that respects the laws. Without that, you can’t build up a peaceful and prosperous country, especially if you want to avoid suppressing people’s rights. An individual’s vote is only decisive in the rarest of cases (although it happens more than you might think), but it’s important that no one is shut out.
This view comes at the question much differently from those who focus on voters having some minimal base of knowledge with which to make decisions, whether that’s on candidates or referendums. There are certainly a lot of people who know absolutely nothing of value to assist them in making decisions about our foreign policy or to judge between competing health, education, and tax plans. Why would we want the opinion of these people? Why not insist that voters have some minimal level of education? Can they even read and write? Are they sane? Are they criminals?
We don’t allow voter registration officials to give tests to applicants. The right to vote is strongly protected under our current legal regime. And we have been expanding access to the ballot in a variety of ways in recent decades, from lowering the voting age to creating same-day registration to expanding vote-by-mail to setting up early voting centers. The Republican Party is now openly at war with these reforms and has even gone so far as to invent in-person voter fraud as a concern that justifies requiring state-issued photo identification for people who want to cast their votes. The GOP lawyers and election officials who challenge these laws continue to lose in court with regularity.
They’ve had successes, though. They destroyed my former employer ACORN, for example. ACORN was mainly a housing advocacy group dedicated to helping people avoid losing their homes, but they advocated for a variety of issues of pressing concern to inner city communities. And they were very good at registering people to vote which is why they were targeted and destroyed.
It wouldn’t have made sense for Republicans to attack ACORN though if the party did well with minorities at the ballot box. If they won, say, 35% of the black vote, it wouldn’t have been worth the effort to destroy ACORN. The campaign was only rational because blacks and other minorities overwhelmingly support their opponents.
Now, Donald Trump is taking things to another level in questioning the legitimacy of our elections. And his surrogates are playing along.
What’s more, several high-profile Republicans are endorsing Trump’s rigged election narrative, showing no signs they’ll vouch for the legitimacy of the process. “They are attempting to rig this election,” Senator Jeff Sessions said on Saturday. “They will not succeed.” Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Sunday accused TV executives of a “coup d’etat” against Trump. And former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani pushed the voter fraud canard Sunday on CNN, saying, “I’m sorry, dead people generally vote for Democrats.”
As I said at the top, at least part of the reason why we want everyone to have the right and opportunity to vote is pragmatic. If they feel that they have a voice in the outcome, they’re more likely to submit to authority (in the good sense). In a typical American election, more than forty percent of the people vote for the loser. We need them to accept the outcome without resorting to violence or widespread civil disobedience. I assume that I’d get more agreement on this from traditional conservatives than the more antiestablishment and countercultural left.
Deliberately undermining millions of people’s faith in the fairness of a presidential election is the opposite of practical in this sense. It’s an incitement to civil disorder and an invitation for huge numbers of people to disrespect the law and the legitimacy of authority. It’s not conservative in any normal sense of the word.
Of course it’s dangerous, but it’s also ideologically schismatic.
Yet, it’s a logical outgrowth of the GOP’s self-interest in voter suppression.
Democrats are taking the high road on these voting issues and they have the courts on their side. It’s just unfortunate that the purity of their motives is called into question because they’re the party that benefits when more people vote. Would Democrats defend voting rights if their chances were diminished by good turnout?
I actually think they would, but not with the same energy and urgency.
I’m hoping we can get to the point (peaceably) in this country where conservatives relinquish control of the Republican Party rather than hold onto it like grim death. Because, as long as conservatives control the GOP and refuse to bend to a changing demographic reality in this country, they will continue to work at disenfranchising people and calling into question the integrity of our election system. And that’s a recipe for dystopia.
To me the election is exactly about Hillary and Donald.
The parties ideologies are present as a point of discussion but I feel that is much more relevant to senators, house members, governors, mayors, etc. To look at the faults of a party you should look to the large scale, when looking at the faults of a presidential candidate however, it completely comes down to each individual, namely Hillary and Donald.
Speaking out against political correctness is not an excuse to be blatantly racist. I recently read an article about a white guy who told a black woman this:
That is blatant racism, it has nothing to do with political correctness. I don't think Donald Trump is supporting this kind of behavior at least not officially. I will say that nowhere have I seen Donald urge his supporters to act more racially sensitive in order to show that their issues are being misunderstood. If Donald did something like that he would lose some of the most die hard of his supporters.
I think you missed my point. Donald was asked "what would you do to repair race relations"
His literal answer was "Law, and Order." and he repeated this multiple times.
This is my issue with Donald Trump, he gets asked a legitimate question and he responds with complete and utter bullshit. What does he mean by law and order? Why doesn't he elaborate on his plans? Why did he repeat the same thing over and over without answering either of the previous questions?
No one knows. My personal guess is because Donald has absolutely no idea what he was being asked and he had no idea about any kind of plan to help fix racial issues within the U.S. Otherwise, why would he just literally repeat "Law and Order".... over and over again.
"Be vigilant, be strong, law and order, be better, Chicago is terrible I have property there, you need better relationships."
This is exactly what a student who didn't do their homework does to bullshit an assignment. Just say a bunch of words that sound related to the topic and maybe you'll get a C.
I'll also say that when I said "no black person in their right mind would vote for Trump" that was hyperbole but that represents my feelings on this topic more than if I were to rephrase that statement.
grokit
well-worn member
I think that this is just a pre-emptive shot across the bow, as chelsea has just been made an official surrogate on the same level as sanders and warren; they are all on the stump for their candidate.
On the lighter side... many younger voters would prefer an extinction-level event to these two
Trump? Clinton? Many young Americans prefer giant meteor, poll finds
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during their presidential town hall debate in St. Louis. REUTERS/Jim Young
Young Americans are so dissatisfied with their choices in this presidential election that nearly one in four told an opinion poll they would rather have a giant meteor destroy the Earth than see Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton in the White House.
The tongue-in-cheek question was intended to gauge young Americans' level of unhappiness about their choices in the Nov. 8 election, said Joshua Dyck, co-director of UMass Lowell’s Center for Public Opinion, which conducted the poll alongside Odyssey Millennials.
The choice alluded to the Twitter hashtag "#GiantMeteor2016," a reference to an imaginary presidential candidate used to express frustration about this year's election choices.
Some 53 percent of the 1,247 people aged 18 to 35 said they would prefer to see a meteor destroy the world than have Republican New York real estate developer Trump in the Oval Office, with some 34 percent preferring planetary annihilation to seeing the Democratic former Secretary of State win.
Some 39 percent said they would prefer that U.S. President Barack Obama declare himself president for life than hand over power to Clinton or Trump, with 26 percent saying the nation would do better to select its next leader in a random lottery.
Some 23 percent, nearly one in four, preferred the giant meteor outcome to either Trump or Clinton...
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
This paragraph was unnecessarily insulting and after reading it again I apologize.
I need to be better at disagreeing with out being disagreeable.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
If you read my introduction post in the appropriate thread, I mentioned how I landed here and at least one reason for staying. This is a nice place. I think the moderators and all the participants are doing a wonderful job at keeping it such.This paragraph was unnecessarily insulting and after reading it again I apologize.
I need to be better at disagreeing with out being disagreeable.
I appreciate the self-reflection.
But,...
--------------------
Also on the lighter side, these statues appearing in cities made me laugh . . .
And another for balance . . .
Best part of this abysmal mess so far . . .
I have it on good authority (same source that Marco Rubio used in reference to small hand size) that this depiction of his private part is exaggerated, i.e., it's not nearly THAT large.Also on the lighter side, these statues appearing in cities made me laugh . . .
Last edited:
HighSeasSailor
Well-Known Member
But I don't, I think it's entirely untrue. I think that a million nothings is still nothing. The smallness of a single vote is not the question, but the effectiveness of modern elections* as a whole.
My comparison was unfair, though. Toilet paper at least has a use.
*Not all votes are futile. Plebicites and small local elections still offer an opportunity for direct democracy, but national elections never do, presidential races least of all.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Check out the vid in this link: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-upping-pressure-to-tilt-race-at-debate.html
......showing red states like Texas and Georgia turning purple. Don't look now Donald but that light at the end of the tunnel could very well be an incoming train.
......showing red states like Texas and Georgia turning purple. Don't look now Donald but that light at the end of the tunnel could very well be an incoming train.
Last edited:
