you need to make sense and try to verbalize your positions with something more than baseless opinions. You are evidence free. J ever notice that your entire argument degrades into repeating slogans about how dems want to tqke your guns??.
However, at least youve been honest and staid about your beliefs aand political position (even though your discussions about this point have been
evidence-free). Lash, on the other hand, has made believe she was a Bernie Sanders supporter (who would be an anathema to you guys). Now, shes suddenly a Trumpie. I cannot see how theres even the thinnest of strands of connectivity between the two candidates, and what they espouse (Unless , of course, Trump is merely a stalking horse of the Clintons-put up as a sham candidate)
Jever think of that?
See how Trump has completely changed his pallette of beliefs? Hes been pro-life, anti gun, epanded government, (sorta typical New York liberal). Even Reagan, in hi Democrat yers, was more of a Blue dog
Continuously shooting himself in the dick seems to not be a great career move. He is basically clueless. We cant have a guy negotiating with Russia or China who is so damn volatile and sociopathic.
and try to verbalize your positions with something more than baseless opinions.
My positions are 100% fact.
farmerman wrote:
You are evidence free.
Is there something that you'd like evidence of?
farmerman wrote:
J ever notice that your entire argument degrades into repeating slogans about how dems want to tqke your guns??.
Since the Democrats are out to take our guns, what is wrong with saying so?
farmerman wrote:
Lash, on the other hand, has made believe she was a Bernie Sanders supporter (who would be an anathema to you guys).
I realize that sometimes people do engage in stunts like that. However, people also sometimes support candidates that you wouldn't expect.
I find that it is safer to take people at their word when they say they believe something. Maybe rarely someone fools you. But if so, so what? Big deal.
On the other hand if you denounce someone as a fake and it turns out that they weren't faking their views, you're likely to end up in a feud with someone who could have been an ally.
I have no way to tell how genuine Lash's support of Sanders is (I'm no mind reader). But I recommend just taking her claims at face value and not worrying about it.
farmerman wrote:
I cannot see how theres even the thinnest of strands of connectivity between the two candidates, and what they espouse
I can. Both Sanders and Trump offer revolution to people who are frustrated with the status quo.
farmerman wrote:
(Unless , of course, Trump is merely a stalking horse of the Clintons-put up as a sham candidate)
Jever think of that?
I once speculated about that (back before it became apparent that he was going to be nominated). But I really don't think he is. He tried too hard to win.
farmerman wrote:
See how Trump has completely changed his pallette of beliefs? Hes been pro-life, anti gun, epanded government, (sorta typical New York liberal). Even Reagan, in hi Democrat yers, was more of a Blue dog
Hmmmm?
Trump blew all the proper pro-gun dog whistles for me. I'm satisfied that he will defend the Second Amendment if he is elected.
0 Replies
cicerone imposter
3
Reply
Fri 21 Oct, 2016 12:42 pm
@Krumple,
Are you intentionally being stupid, or is that the real you?
0 Replies
blatham
2
Reply
Fri 21 Oct, 2016 12:48 pm
Richard Branson's account here certainly matches the personality characteristics we've come to be familiar with in Trump (short piece)
Quote:
Richard Branson: Trump vowed to destroy 5 people who refused to help him
I think Trump made a very important step towards showing who he is when he answered he was not ready to concede, if he loses, because the system is "rigged".
I will not deal much into American elections, but about Mexican elections, and democracy in general.
Mexico had rigged elections for decades. We always knew beforehand that the ruling PRI party was going to win, and win big. The PRI candidate would win where he won, and would win where he lost. It was called "The Perfect Dictatoship", a soft, party, non personal dictatorship.
The urban middle classes rose against that dictatorship in the late 60s. The Student Movement of 1968 was crushed in blood, but the following Presidents had to open gradually to democracy. A series of reforms made the Mexican political system more and more democratic. They weren't given to us, the citizens, we fought for them. By the mid 1990s we had so many locks in our electoral system, it was among the most secure in the world.
The first non-PRI governor was elected in 1989. The first non rigged elections were held in 1994. The PRI won. But the party lost the majority in Congress at the midterm elections of 1997. In the year 2000, the unthinkable came to be: the incumbent party for 70 years lost the Presidency.
Since then, several parties have won elections at every level: municipal, local, state and national. It is indeed very difficult to rig an election. Political plurality is a reality (though we have mostly horrible politicians, as elsewhere).
Mexican elections are organized by a Citizens' Authority, the INE (formerly IFE), which also provides the national identity card (without which you cannot vote). This authority had the utmost confidence of the people for a few years, then came the elections of 2006.
In those elections, the conservative candidate, Felipe Calderón, defeated -among other candidates- populist left-winger Andrés Manuel López Obrador (I'll use his acronym: AMLO) by a few thousand votes. AMLO refused to concede, spoke about a "plot" by the "mafia of the stablishment parties", drew his simpathizers to Mexico City to a big sit-in, which lasted week, demanding a total recount. He accused his party members, who had signed that he lost at a certain poll-booth, of "treason". The Media, of course, was part of the thick plot. A partial recount was made... and Calderón margin grew by a few hundred votes.
AMLO then proclaimed himself "Legitimate President", and made a joke of himself for most Mexicans, but not of his followers, who had became a herd of Faithful.
In 2012, presidential elections were held again. This time, the PRI came back to power, and AMLO came down in second place, millions of votes, and several percentage points behind Peña Nieto.
His party conceded defeat. Not AMLO. He said we was robbed of the Presidency because the system was rigged -no matter the locks for voters-; he said votes of poor people were bought by the PRI and those votes shouldn't count. Since his party was so full of "traitors", he repealed it, went and founded a new one, where he's the only boss -and the certain presidential candidate for 2018.
In the meantime, the prestige of INE and of Democracy as a system among Mexican poll takers has fallen steadilly, as AMLO's Community of the Faithful insist that it only works for the "mafia into power".
AMLO, who reminds many Mexicans of Venezuela's late Hugo Chávez, can win the elections of 2018. We know for sure that if he doesn't, he'll call it a Fraud, and will keep on working to demolish people's hope in the democratic system.
Guess what American candidate -albeit right wing- reminded us of AMLO, last Wednesday?
You know what? I don't care whether he concedes or not. If he loses, he doesn't get to be president. He just goes from being a loser to being a bad loser.
That is true, Roger.
The thing is that some people will stand by him if he does not concede.
And, if it works the way it did in Mexico, those people will erode the fiath in democracy and, ultimately, democracy itself.
Dosent make any difference if he concedes or not. The electoral collage will determine the winner.
0 Replies
Blickers
4
Reply
Fri 21 Oct, 2016 09:54 pm
@fbaezer,
Quote fbaezer:
Quote:
The thing is that some people will stand by him if he does not concede.
And, if it works the way it did in Mexico, those people will erode the fiath in democracy and, ultimately, democracy itself.
I don't think it will work here as it did in Mexico. Basically, you said that Mexican elections were hopelessly corrupt up to the 1960s, and are still feeling their way toward being honest. In America, the elections were always considered fair by the standards of the time, so the "rigged election" thing is not going to catch on the way it would in Mexico, where up until fairly recently the elections being rigged was considered a normal thing.
I hope you are right. If we accept (rightly or wrongly) that our government is corrupt from the top down, we are on the way to becoming a third world nation. A very large third world nation, but still. . . .
0 Replies
Real Music
3
Reply
Fri 21 Oct, 2016 10:36 pm
It is now widely known that Donald Trump has little or no respect for women. So, I'm sure he will be royally pissed if he has his ass handed to him by a woman on election day. Poor Donald.
It's not the women that are going to keep Donald out of the White House. It's going to be everybody who doesn't respect a guy who gropes women, calls them pigs, proved he's a racial bigot, doesn't understand the US Constitution, won't recognize the next elected president unless it's him, doesn't respect a war hero, and pretty much makes a fool of himself every time he opens his mouth.
That the Donald has a hyuge following just proves bigotry and misogyny is alive and well in this country.
I think all governments are essentially corrupt, especially at the top. The great strength of American democracy is the extent to which the people routinely order their local government--township, municipal and county officials, bond issues, tax levies and various referenda. I personally think that the greatest danger of this idiot Trump is the damage he is already doing to the Republican Party, and those at the top of the Republican establishment know it, and it's why they have spoken out against him. This is not necessarily new--in 1884, many Republicans considered their candidate, James Blaine, to be hopelessly corrupt. However, then, young Republicans like Theodore Roosevelt and Henry Cabot Lodge simply refused to campaign for Blaine--they did not publicly attack or repudiate him. That's what makes this election unique and bizarre--the acrimony within the Republican Party against their own candidate.
0 Replies
izzythepush
3
Reply
Sat 22 Oct, 2016 04:42 am
South Park was spot on last night, (UK screening)
Quote:
At a certain point though, the election became so highly scrutinized that, if the show was going to continue to successfully skewer it, Parker and Stone had to start getting more specific. The trajectory of their Trump surrogate had to more closely match that of The Donald himself. That comes to a head in “Douche And A Danish,” an episode broadcasted literally smack-dab in the middle of the final presidential debate between Trump and Hillary Clinton.
Parker and Stone wisely don’t try to predict the outcome of the debate. They don’t even depict the debate at all, at least not in any kind of official capacity. But via one of Garrison’s rallies, they do attempt to capture the current temperature of the Trump campaign and the audience on both sides: how he got to where he is, how people are reacting to him now, and the hypocrisy of some of his biggest supporters and detractors.
A lot of it works. Echoing the leak of the 2005 Access Hollywood tape, Garrison starts spitting all manner of misogynistic and sexually aggressive venom onstage. It’s equal parts Trump and Andrew Dice Clay, a cigarette dangling from his fingers as he brags about forcing himself upon women. It’s only with these remarks—not any of the outright hate-speech he’s been spewing across two seasons now—that his audience starts to turn on him.
That’s an apt criticism, and one that can be applied to both Trump’s fans and his critics. As Garrison notes, many supported him through all the talk of ******* immigrants to death, but the comments about women are the tipping point. Likewise, many people who disliked Trump from the beginning still saw the leaked tape as a clearer-drawn line in the sand. There’s no denying how disgusting and unacceptable his comments to Billy Bush were, but was anyone really that surprised? Why was that the point where Saturday Night Live suddenly went from gently poking fun at Trump and allowing him to host for a second time to finally subjecting him to the ruthless takedown he deserved? After all, he had already said all sorts of horrible **** on the campaign trail back in November. “Douche And A Danish” asks this tough question of all of us: How and why did we let it all get this far? Why are we so conveniently selective about what offends us?
It's not the women that are going to keep Donald out of the White House. It's going to be everybody who doesn't respect a guy who gropes women, calls them pigs, proved he's a racial bigot, doesn't understand the US Constitution, won't recognize the next elected president unless it's him, doesn't respect a war hero, and pretty much makes a fool of himself every time he opens his mouth.
That the Donald has a hyuge following just proves bigotry and misogyny is alive and well in this country.
good post CI The last is why we don't need to get complacent here at the very end. In my opinion, this election is not about Hillary anymore so much as beating Trump at all cost to keep from having a Trump presidency. Bernie Sanders has been making some good speeches at what it is all about. I knew he had no chance to beat Donald Trump (could have been wrong but I don't think so) but, he sure is good to keep after Hillary to keep the agenda progressive. !!
0 Replies
ehBeth
3
Reply
Sat 22 Oct, 2016 08:27 am
not sure what happened overnight, but I woke up to find a pile of my North Carolina FB friends announcing that they were moving their vote to McMullin from Trump.
The last is why we don't need to get complacent here at the very end. In my opinion, this election is not about Hillary anymore so much as beating Trump at all cost to keep from having a Trump presidency. Bernie Sanders has been making some good speeches at what it is all about. I knew he had no chance to beat Donald Trump (could have been wrong but I don't think so) but, he sure is good to keep after Hillary to keep the agenda progressive. !!
