Which candidate will be held accountable by the media?
I think they're waiting to see how the Democrat convention shakes out. If Hillary walks away and everything is civil, then they'll start in on Trump. If the level of butthurt is over 9000 then it's anyone's guess.
Would it be possible to make a brief summary for those of us who have reached our limit of free articles for the month?
I have to say though that in the same way that all the dirt on Clinton is in the open and mostly has been taken into account by the populace, Trump's past bad behaviour also is well know if you bother to read up about it.
The dodgy deals, the failures in every area of business except real estate, the weak performance of his property business, the missing charity pledges, the multiple lawsuits by and against him, the many instances of apparent racism; all this is was public knowledge before he even began to campaign. I doubt Trump's supported will change their minds if this stuff is rubbed in their faces but I suppose it might affect the swing voters, but the same might be true about Clinton's past.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would it be possible to make a brief summary for those of us who have reached our limit of free articles for the month?
I have to say though that in the same way that all the dirt on Clinton is in the open and mostly has been taken into account by the populace, Trump's past bad behaviour also is well know if you bother to read up about it.
The dodgy deals, the failures in every area of business except real estate, the weak performance of his property business, the missing charity pledges, the multiple lawsuits by and against him, the many instances of apparent racism; all this is was public knowledge before he even began to campaign. I doubt Trump's supported will change their minds if this stuff is rubbed in their faces but I suppose it might affect the swing voters, but the same might be true about Clinton's past.
Very true.Claiming to be stone broke upon leaving the White House after 8 years of almost a half million a year salary while living on the tax payer's dime doesn't really give me confidence in her financial skills.
As far as I'm concerned, Bernie is a not someone I'd vote for, but I give credit to for being the least flip floppy and being more transparent. I just don't agree with his methods.
Clinton or Trump....do I want to be shot or stabbed.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would it be possible to make a brief summary for those of us who have reached our limit of free articles for the month?
The first article talks about how the media figured out to cover Trump: be reporters. The press finally figured out to do good old fashion journalism; ask questions, get answers, investigate, as more questions. He's a bully and everyone knows it, but even he will eventually cave (as he did with the veteran charity thing). They will stop with the wonderment of how this douchebag is actually winning primaries to holding him accountable for his constant barrage of verbal diarrhea, such as now claiming he did say he wants Japan to have nuclear weapons (even though he definitely did).
by your words if I don't like how you think and want to protest I can hit you, beat you and attack you and that is ok ?
If I advocate for the destruction of your lifestyle and spearhead a movement dedicated to it there isn't much else you can do that makes a practical difference. Right or wrong has nothing to do with the fact that the struggle for supremacy in society inevitably boils down to force.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would it be possible to make a brief summary for those of us who have reached our limit of free articles for the month?
I have to say though that in the same way that all the dirt on Clinton is in the open and mostly has been taken into account by the populace, Trump's past bad behaviour also is well know if you bother to read up about it.
The dodgy deals, the failures in every area of business except real estate, the weak performance of his property business, the missing charity pledges, the multiple lawsuits by and against him, the many instances of apparent racism; all this is was public knowledge before he even began to campaign. I doubt Trump's supported will change their minds if this stuff is rubbed in their faces but I suppose it might affect the swing voters, but the same might be true about Clinton's past.
Scootypuffjr nailed the summaries for you. One tip that works for me for the Washington post and Nytimes websites once you hit their monthly quotas. If you stop the page from fully loading immediately after the text appears, you won't get the pop up block telling you you should subscribe. It doesn't work for other sites though like the WSj which check your subscription before the story appears.
Apparently Trump has a history of firing veterans for fulfilling their military duty. There are at least three cases of it that have been reported. (Can't post links. Posting from my phone).
It's step one in where we know this is going. Accept it, it is your destiny.
...
Food for thought...
Which candidate will be held accountable by the media?
At the end of the day, it's always whichever one brings in the most advertising dollars. I guess that says more about the viewers, than the media itself, though.
Kilkrazy wrote: Would it be possible to make a brief summary for those of us who have reached our limit of free articles for the month?
The first article talks about how the media figured out to cover Trump: be reporters. The press finally figured out to do good old fashion journalism; ask questions, get answers, investigate, as more questions. He's a bully and everyone knows it, but even he will eventually cave (as he did with the veteran charity thing). They will stop with the wonderment of how this douchebag is actually winning primaries to holding him accountable for his constant barrage of verbal diarrhea, such as now claiming he did say he wants Japan to have nuclear weapons (even though he definitely did).
This video sums up the second article:
That guy is just a fething dickbag.
Its like talking to someone with a mental issue.
"he's a Mexican I am building a wall unfair I am building a Wall Mexican Wall unfair Wall Mexican Wexican"
dude are you on drugs???
by your words if I don't like how you think and want to protest I can hit you, beat you and attack you and that is ok ?
If I advocate for the destruction of your lifestyle and spearhead a movement dedicated to it there isn't much else you can do that makes a practical difference. Right or wrong has nothing to do with the fact that the struggle for supremacy in society inevitably boils down to force.
Nope. There was no justification for the violence. Even in your hyperbolic misconstrued version of what you think happened. Trump is a candidate, that's it. His politics speech has no power over anyone because Trump isn't even officially the Republican nominee yet. Political speech is already protected speech and in this instance it was empty rhetoric with no power behind it to boot. Plus Trump himself was never even attacked or targeted just his supporter whose attendance implied a likelihood that they would vote for him. There is no legal or moral justification for assaulting somebody simply because they might vote for a candidate you don't like. Those protestors are lucky they got violent in a state like CA if they attacked people like that here in my state the Trump supporters could legally shoot them dead.
by your words if I don't like how you think and want to protest I can hit you, beat you and attack you and that is ok ?
If I advocate for the destruction of your lifestyle and spearhead a movement dedicated to it there isn't much else you can do that makes a practical difference. Right or wrong has nothing to do with the fact that the struggle for supremacy in society inevitably boils down to force.
Nope. There was no justification for the violence. Even in your hyperbolic misconstrued version of what you think happened. Trump is a candidate, that's it. His politics speech has no power over anyone because Trump isn't even officially the Republican nominee yet. Political speech is already protected speech and in this instance it was empty rhetoric with no power behind it to boot. Plus Trump himself was never even attacked or targeted just his supporter whose attendance implied a likelihood that they would vote for him. There is no legal or moral justification for assaulting somebody simply because they might vote for a candidate you don't like. Those protestors are lucky they got violent in a state like CA if they attacked people like that here in my state the Trump supporters could legally shoot them dead.
I thought about adding my 2 cents, but you have already worded it well. Have an exalt.
Nope. There was no justification for the violence. Even in your hyperbolic misconstrued version of what you think happened. Trump is a candidate, that's it. His politics speech has no power over anyone because Trump isn't even officially the Republican nominee yet.
I remember the debates on this forum a few months back regarding Trump's potential incitement speech, which isn't protected. IIRC, it was regarding some heckler or person in the crowd and trump said something like "if someone tries to come up here, hit them" or hitting them with a tomato (maybe that was the second or third time he said it, because he always changes things when repeated)
Nope. There was no justification for the violence. Even in your hyperbolic misconstrued version of what you think happened. Trump is a candidate, that's it. His politics speech has no power over anyone because Trump isn't even officially the Republican nominee yet.
I remember the debates on this forum a few months back regarding Trump's potential incitement speech, which isn't protected. IIRC, it was regarding some heckler or person in the crowd and trump said something like "if someone tries to come up here, hit them" or hitting them with a tomato (maybe that was the second or third time he said it, because he always changes things when repeated)
I do recall that discussion.
However, the argument that has been made several times over the last few pages and that my quote above is in direct reply to is the notion that Trump's proposed immigration policies regarding Mexicans and Muslims create a justification for criminal violence to be committed against anyone suspected of desiring to vote for Trump. A political candidate's political platforms and campaign promises are political speech. Anyone can vehemently disagree with Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US but that proposal in no way, shape or form provides any legal or moral justification to assault people.
Nope. There was no justification for the violence. Even in your hyperbolic misconstrued version of what you think happened. Trump is a candidate, that's it. His politics speech has no power over anyone because Trump isn't even officially the Republican nominee yet.
I remember the debates on this forum a few months back regarding Trump's potential incitement speech, which isn't protected. IIRC, it was regarding some heckler or person in the crowd and trump said something like "if someone tries to come up here, hit them" or hitting them with a tomato (maybe that was the second or third time he said it, because he always changes things when repeated)
I do recall that discussion.
However, the argument that has been made several times over the last few pages and that my quote above is in direct reply to is the notion that Trump's proposed immigration policies regarding Mexicans and Muslims create a justification for criminal violence to be committed against anyone suspected of desiring to vote for Trump. A political candidate's political platforms and campaign promises are political speech. Anyone can vehemently disagree with Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US but that proposal in no way, shape or form provides any legal or moral justification to assault people.
Ohh, I agree with you, and you made the argument extremely well, I was just pointing out that when Donny opens his mouth, it isn't 100% political speech
Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
skyth wrote: Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
No, the general theory is that it is acceptable to use violence to not be a victim.
skyth wrote: Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
Getting your way is an odd way to describe the concept of defending yourself and your Liberty from the tyranny of unconstitutional oppression. If you are protecting/defending yourself from something than you aren't the aggressor. If you're ok with people assaulting other Americans in the street because they dislike the others political leanings you can just say so, the convoluted nonsensical false equivalences aren't necessary.
skyth wrote: Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
Getting your way is an odd way to describe the concept of defending yourself and your Liberty from the tyranny of unconstitutional oppression. If you are protecting/defending yourself from something than you aren't the aggressor. If you're ok with people assaulting other Americans in the street because they dislike the others political leanings you can just say so, the convoluted nonsensical false equivalences aren't necessary.
Rhetoric. One man's defense of Liberty is another man's Cliven Bundy Dildo Brigade. It all still comes down to Might Makes Right.
skyth wrote: Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
Getting your way is an odd way to describe the concept of defending yourself and your Liberty from the tyranny of unconstitutional oppression. If you are protecting/defending yourself from something than you aren't the aggressor. If you're ok with people assaulting other Americans in the street because they dislike the others political leanings you can just say so, the convoluted nonsensical false equivalences aren't necessary.
Rhetoric. One man's defense of Liberty is another man's Cliven Bundy Dildo Brigade. It all still comes down to Might Makes Right.
Did the Bundy idiots chase people down public streets and assault them for their political beliefs?
skyth wrote: Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
Getting your way is an odd way to describe the concept of defending yourself and your Liberty from the tyranny of unconstitutional oppression. If you are protecting/defending yourself from something than you aren't the aggressor. If you're ok with people assaulting other Americans in the street because they dislike the others political leanings you can just say so, the convoluted nonsensical false equivalences aren't necessary.
Rhetoric. One man's defense of Liberty is another man's Cliven Bundy Dildo Brigade. It all still comes down to Might Makes Right.
Did the Bundy idiots chase people down public streets and assault them for their political beliefs?
Yes.
There is a YouTube video where exactly that happened. It ended with one of them getting killed.
That's apart from following employees to their homes, brandishing weapons, destroying public property, and doing who-knows-what to those poor dildos.
skyth wrote: Well...Republicans often are saying that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. The general theory there is that it is acceptable to use violence to get your way.
Getting your way is an odd way to describe the concept of defending yourself and your Liberty from the tyranny of unconstitutional oppression. If you are protecting/defending yourself from something than you aren't the aggressor. If you're ok with people assaulting other Americans in the street because they dislike the others political leanings you can just say so, the convoluted nonsensical false equivalences aren't necessary.
Rhetoric. One man's defense of Liberty is another man's Cliven Bundy Dildo Brigade. It all still comes down to Might Makes Right.
Did the Bundy idiots chase people down public streets and assault them for their political beliefs?
Yes.
There is a YouTube video where exactly that happened. It ended with one of them getting killed.
That's apart from following employees to their homes, brandishing weapons, destroying public property, and doing who-knows-what to those poor dildos.
Are you referring to the video where the Bundy people try to run a police roadblock and one of them is shot and killed by the police? The two situations are very dissimilar. However, law enforcement properly responded to the Bundy group, and they are now incarcerated or dead. I didn't see the police doing much to interfere with the violence in the street in San Jose. What voting bloc were the Bundy people attacking? Which candidate did they believe was so bad that it justified assaulting anyone who might vote for said candidate?
Prestor Jon wrote: A political candidate's political platforms and campaign promises are political speech. Anyone can vehemently disagree with Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US but that proposal in no way, shape or form provides any legal or moral justification to assault people.
Except for people who don't share your particular values and view the world through a different lens. I believe it's moral to use violence to suppress the formation of a fascist movement because simply saying you disagree with them doesn't change anything. Others believe it's moral to use violence against civil rights activists or what have you because they present a challenge to white power. Obviously I disagree with them but if nobody did anything to stop them they would win. You can be stuck in the middle and cross your arms about it all you want but if you're unable or unwilling to use force to assert the superiority of your system then you're eventually going to lose it all.
No, we as citizens do not have a right to violence (it contradicts the right of life of others). We must let others practice their free speech, even speech that is idiotic and hateful. We then have the right to speak out against it, ridicule it and point out its flaws. If we convince enough people we are correct, the others' ideas will become ostracized and ignored, neutering it. That's the way it is designed to work here. Disagree with that system, fine, speak up about it and maybe you can get the constitution changed if you can change enough minds. Don't do it that way and become violent, go to jail. As it is, violence is less effective than speech anyway. MLK was much more effective at convincing white voters than Malcolm X
To put it another way, let's say anti Trump protesters who believe violence is ok are really successful with their violence (maybe they beat up or kill a lot of Trump supporters-because really, what other measure of successful violence is there?). Consider the result, Trump will get more support and get elected. Good job. On the other hand, say non violent speech protesters are really successful (they change other peoples' minds (again, because what other measure of political speech is there?) Consider the result, Trump will lose support and not get elected. Seems pretty simple to me.
Prestor Jon wrote: A political candidate's political platforms and campaign promises are political speech. Anyone can vehemently disagree with Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US but that proposal in no way, shape or form provides any legal or moral justification to assault people.
Except for people who don't share your particular values and view the world through a different lens. I believe it's moral to use violence to suppress the formation of a fascist movement because simply saying you disagree with them doesn't change anything. Others believe it's moral to use violence against civil rights activists or what have you because they present a challenge to white power. Obviously I disagree with them but if nobody did anything to stop them they would win. You can be stuck in the middle and cross your arms about it all you want but if you're unable or unwilling to use force to assert the superiority of your system then you're eventually going to lose it all.
If the violence was directed at actual members of a fascist government or some form of actual oppression/tyranny your argument would have some merit. The people who were attacked in the streets in San Jose weren't oppression anyone, weren't a threat to anyone. They were singled out and assaulted merely because they attended a Trump rally and might have voted for him in the upcoming CA primary. That's it, possibly voting for Trump in the state primary and then the general later this year of Trump holds onto the nomination through the convention. Possibly voting in a free democratic election isn't a form of fascism or tyranny in any way shape or form. Your argument is that it's ok for me to hurt you if I think you might vote for a political candidate that I don't like in an upcoming election. That's a horrible nonsensical argument. Participating in the democratic process doesn't justify violence.
Gordon Shumway wrote: No, we as citizens do not have a right to violence (it contradicts the right of life of others). We must let others practice their free speech, even speech that is idiotic and hateful. We then have the right to speak out against it, ridicule it and point out its flaws. If we convince enough people we are correct, the others' ideas will become ostracized and ignored, neutering it. That's the way it is designed to work here. Disagree with that system, fine, speak up about it and maybe you can get the constitution changed if you can change enough minds. Don't do it that way and become violent, go to jail. As it is, violence is less effective than speech anyway. MLK was much more effective at convincing white voters than Malcolm X
To put it another way, let's say anti Trump protesters who believe violence is ok are really successful with their violence (maybe they beat up or kill a lot of Trump supporters-because really, what other measure of successful violence is there?). Consider the result, Trump will get more support and get elected. Good job. On the other hand, say non violent speech protesters are really successful (they change other peoples' minds (again, because what other measure of political speech is there?) Consider the result, Trump will lose support and not get elected. Seems pretty simple to me.
This.
If I could use up the rest of my exalt of the year, this post is it.
Prestor Jon wrote: A political candidate's political platforms and campaign promises are political speech. Anyone can vehemently disagree with Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US but that proposal in no way, shape or form provides any legal or moral justification to assault people.
Except for people who don't share your particular values and view the world through a different lens. I believe it's moral to use violence to suppress the formation of a fascist movement because simply saying you disagree with them doesn't change anything. Others believe it's moral to use violence against civil rights activists or what have you because they present a challenge to white power. Obviously I disagree with them but if nobody did anything to stop them they would win. You can be stuck in the middle and cross your arms about it all you want but if you're unable or unwilling to use force to assert the superiority of your system then you're eventually going to lose it all.
so you are willing to throw away this countries 1st. Amendment rights like that because you don't agree with them? so by your own words, it is right for Trumps supporters to attack and hurt people because the government of California does not enforce the immigration laws? my Opinion is anyone who burns the American Flag should be burned, hung and shot then kicked out of the country, do I have the right to do those things to those people? according to you since Burning the American flag is a desecration to our countries Flag furthermore it is made worse by those same protesters waving a foreign nations flag, that is tantamount to insurrection and invasion, do I have the right to assault those people? according to you, I do.
as it goes all those protesters are doing are swaying more people to trump, since they see what the other side is capable of.
on a side note it appears Sanders will not go quietly into that gentle goodnight:
Rosebuddy wrote: I believe it's moral to use violence to suppress the formation of a fascist movement because simply saying you disagree with them doesn't change anything.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. You want to stop political movements you don't like? Vote, and organize like minded people to vote as well. Battle in the marketplace of ideas. Run for office. Be the change you want to see.
If you are willing to use violence to suppress political speech you don't like, you're the problem. In this country, freedom of speech applies to everyone, even the donkey-caves. Especially the donkey-caves, because people saying popular, mainstream things don't need protection.
Yup. As long as they are operating within a semblance of a democratic system you don't have the justification to use violence. Even Che Guevara thought so.
If they remove that democratic system then by all means form up and launch your revolution but until then combating them with violence is not acceptable.
Rosebuddy wrote: I believe it's moral to use violence to suppress the formation of a fascist movement because simply saying you disagree with them doesn't change anything.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. You want to stop political movements you don't like? Vote, and organize like minded people to vote as well. Battle in the marketplace of ideas. Run for office. Be the change you want to see.
If you are willing to use violence to suppress political speech you don't like, you're the problem. In this country, freedom of speech applies to everyone, even the donkey-caves. Especially the donkey-caves, because people saying popular, mainstream things don't need protection.
Yes. The whole point of a democracy with the right to free speech is that you use your voice, not your fists. I said it once some time ago in another thread, but in today's world, the greatest weapon in defending liberty can be the cellphone in your pocket (with the capability to communicate pictures, videos, and words to the world), and not the gun in your holster.
Trump's attack on this Judge ethnicity was racism plain and simple. I simply can't get past that.
To claim that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his job because of his race *is* racism... is it not?
I get the concern for that author's views on a Judge's appearance of impropriety... but, that's why we have appeals court if there were, indeed, some "impropriety".
Cellphones and such have effected todays society to a greater degree and more then people realize, things people used to get away with before you can't cause somebody is gonna get you on video, people can't say oh I saw a UFO or a Sasquatch or bigfoot or Elvis, but no picture, that doesn't wash in todays society now, no pics or videos it didn't happen and mainly because pics and video cannot lie, they may not be accurate since they will not show before, after or other things, but they do not lie, unlike people you can have a hundred different people watch the same seen and probably get almost a hundred different answers on what happened.
it used to be rare or very uncommon for someone to have a camera or video camera with them, now its rare or very uncommon to find someone without one.
whembly wrote: To claim that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his job because of his race *is* racism... is it not?
Yeah, it's almost as if Trump is actually a racist douchebag and not just pretending to "tell it like it is" for the sake of votes. Shocking, I know...
Asterios wrote: Cellphones and such have effected todays society to a greater degree and more then people realize, things people used to get away with before you can't cause somebody is gonna get you on video, people can't say oh I saw a UFO or a Sasquatch or bigfoot or Elvis, but no picture, that doesn't wash in todays society now, no pics or videos it didn't happen and mainly because pics and video cannot lie, they may not be accurate since they will not show before, after or other things, but they do not lie, unlike people you can have a hundred different people watch the same seen and probably get almost a hundred different answers on what happened.
it used to be rare or very uncommon for someone to have a camera or video camera with them, now its rare or very uncommon to find someone without one.
Asterios wrote: Cellphones and such have effected todays society to a greater degree and more then people realize, things people used to get away with before you can't cause somebody is gonna get you on video, people can't say oh I saw a UFO or a Sasquatch or bigfoot or Elvis, but no picture, that doesn't wash in todays society now, no pics or videos it didn't happen and mainly because pics and video cannot lie, they may not be accurate since they will not show before, after or other things, but they do not lie, unlike people you can have a hundred different people watch the same seen and probably get almost a hundred different answers on what happened.
it used to be rare or very uncommon for someone to have a camera or video camera with them, now its rare or very uncommon to find someone without one.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Are you familiar with photoshop?
Even with recording technology people view it differently. See the Zappruder film, the 9/11 truther videos, and the yellow/grey dress debate.
I'm against career politicians. Hillary Career politician. Trump not. Though if Trump in office manages to negate a chunk of US Debt we all be praising him on his financial shenanigans eh (by not opening up the "Football"
True. We would seriously chuckle though if Trump does something off the wall to negate the debt. I can see it now. "China you build Islands in East China Sea?" and charge them something crazy like placing American made navigational bouys or something. Like a Million a day
Asterios wrote: Cellphones and such have effected todays society to a greater degree and more then people realize, things people used to get away with before you can't cause somebody is gonna get you on video, people can't say oh I saw a UFO or a Sasquatch or bigfoot or Elvis, but no picture, that doesn't wash in todays society now, no pics or videos it didn't happen and mainly because pics and video cannot lie, they may not be accurate since they will not show before, after or other things, but they do not lie, unlike people you can have a hundred different people watch the same seen and probably get almost a hundred different answers on what happened.
it used to be rare or very uncommon for someone to have a camera or video camera with them, now its rare or very uncommon to find someone without one.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Are you familiar with photoshop?
photoshop can be identified quickly with the original data file, and even many photoshops can be identified just by looking at the pic.
So he's a member of something that has a similar name to a group that opposes Trump so he shouldn't be able to try the case. Sounds like grasping at straws to try to justify Trump being an idiot...
hotsauceman1 wrote: Man, im close to voting for trump seeing all the hateful horrible stuff the bernie/hillary supporters are doing here in CA.
Care to show me the Sanders/Hillary shirts, signs or whatever these supposed supporters are wearing when attacking Trump supporters??
Because honestly, every single one of the videos that I've seen from San Jose or wherever else in California of anti-trump violence, they all look like they are just doing it to be dicks, and really don't support any political candidates (most even appear to not know what a political candidate is, even if you gave them a lesson written for 4 year olds)
skyth wrote: So he's a member of something that has a similar name to a group that opposes Trump so he shouldn't be able to try the case. Sounds like grasping at straws to try to justify Trump being an idiot...
no but should we ignore his concerns as just being racist? personally if you go after Trump there are more things that have more credence then this, personally most people would question the judge presiding over their case if they had reason too.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Man, im close to voting for trump seeing all the hateful horrible stuff the bernie/hillary supporters are doing here in CA.
Care to show me the Sanders/Hillary shirts, signs or whatever these supposed supporters are wearing when attacking Trump supporters??
Because honestly, every single one of the videos that I've seen from San Jose or wherever else in California of anti-trump violence, they all look like they are just doing it to be dicks, and really don't support any political candidates (most even appear to not know what a political candidate is, even if you gave them a lesson written for 4 year olds)
wouldn't know about Clinton but did see some Sander's feel the bern signs there.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Man, im close to voting for trump seeing all the hateful horrible stuff the bernie/hillary supporters are doing here in CA.
Care to show me the Sanders/Hillary shirts, signs or whatever these supposed supporters are wearing when attacking Trump supporters??
Because honestly, every single one of the videos that I've seen from San Jose or wherever else in California of anti-trump violence, they all look like they are just doing it to be dicks, and really don't support any political candidates (most even appear to not know what a political candidate is, even if you gave them a lesson written for 4 year olds)
Great. Fine. He (Trump) is building his wall...or atleast...expressing his desire to.
But to call an American citizen a Mexican...and to do so with a derogatory tone, implying that this man is NOT a US citizen....
If that doesn't reek of racism, I don't know what does.
And honestly...I think racism is a stupid term. We are all human beings (homo sapiens)
Unless science has proven that "Mexicans" or "Africans" or "Asians" or whatever color person you want to name is *not* a human being...then it is cultural-ism or color-ism, essentially.
Lol, I wasn't being serious to call you out on some gak... I am curious because I know you're from that part of the Best Coast, and thought you might have seen better stuff than I have via local news.
TheMeanDM wrote: Great. Fine. He (Trump) is building his wall...or atleast...expressing his desire to.
But to call an American citizen a Mexican...and to do so with a derogatory tone, implying that this man is NOT a US citizen....
If that doesn't reek of racism, I don't know what does.
And honestly...I think racism is a stupid term. We are all human beings (homo sapiens)
Unless science has proven that "Mexicans" or "Africans" or "Asians" or whatever color person you want to name is *not* a human being...then it is cultural-ism or color-ism, essentially.
wasn't aware Mexican was a race or color, do you wish to alter your statement?
I believe the question was more aimed at do you have any evidence that Clinton/Sanders supporters were engaged in any of the violence? Of course they are protesting, as is their right to do. They have been doing so since Trump got in the race.
"Everybody" (I use this loosely of course) has been using the term racist to describe Trump and his statements, based on their collective acceptance and understanding of the term..even Trump himself stating he isn't a racist, in response to aforementioned understanding and acceptance of said term.
Is that not a true statement?
If we therefore determine that Teump is not a racist (based on the argument that we are collectively one race).....
Then the question must be asked: what is he?
Does he meet the criteria for being termed a "bigot"?
-- intolerance or hatred against other "races", ethnicities, or even intolerance and hatred of others opinions.
Is he, as I would term it, practicing "culture-ism" (I define it as intolerance or hatred of someone's religion or cultural background/heritage) or is it "color-ism" ( intolerance or hatred toward a human who is a different color than you).
Perhaps it's national-ism?
Faith-ism?
Take your pick...he has demonstrated all the above at one point or another in his candidacy.
Regardless there is a difference between supports engage in violence and supporters engaging in violence are egged on and encouraged by the candidate...
skyth wrote: So he's a member of something that has a similar name to a group that opposes Trump so he shouldn't be able to try the case. Sounds like grasping at straws to try to justify Trump being an idiot...
no but should we ignore his concerns as just being racist? personally if you go after Trump there are more things that have more credence then this, personally most people would question the judge presiding over their case if they had reason too.
Considering that Trump stated that his 'concerns' because he was building a wall the judge wouldn't give him a fair trial...I would say the answer is yes.
skyth wrote:Considering that Trump stated that his 'concerns' because he was building a wall the judge wouldn't give him a fair trial...I would say the answer is yes.
Do you think that Trump's concerns are legitimate or illegitimate? Is it possible that the judge could be swayed because of Trump's political views on immigration?
"Everybody" (I use this loosely of course) has been using the term racist to describe Trump and his statements, based on their collective acceptance and understanding of the term..even Trump himself stating he isn't a racist, in response to aforementioned understanding and acceptance of said term.
Is that not a true statement?
If we therefore determine that Teump is not a racist (based on the argument that we are collectively one race).....
Then the question must be asked: what is he?
Does he meet the criteria for being termed a "bigot"?
-- intolerance or hatred against other "races", ethnicities, or even intolerance and hatred of others opinions.
Is he, as I would term it, practicing "culture-ism" (I define it as intolerance or hatred of someone's religion or cultural background/heritage) or is it "color-ism" ( intolerance or hatred toward a human who is a different color than you).
Perhaps it's national-ism?
Faith-ism?
Take your pick...he has demonstrated all the above at one point or another in his candidacy.
your exact words are he is racist because his hate of Mexicans, last I checked Mexican's are not one race nor one color, I have seen blonde hair blue eyed Mexicans, your statement is just evidence of your obvious ignorance of the word race, race is of a specific color, not people from another country or even a bunch of countries, as to the wall on the border, it makes sense since most illegals of all nationalities and colors coming thru our southern borders with the Florida area in coming in second followed by our other borders.
skyth wrote: Regardless there is a difference between supports engage in violence and supporters engaging in violence are egged on and encouraged by the candidate...
skyth wrote: So he's a member of something that has a similar name to a group that opposes Trump so he shouldn't be able to try the case. Sounds like grasping at straws to try to justify Trump being an idiot...
no but should we ignore his concerns as just being racist? personally if you go after Trump there are more things that have more credence then this, personally most people would question the judge presiding over their case if they had reason too.
Considering that Trump stated that his 'concerns' because he was building a wall the judge wouldn't give him a fair trial...I would say the answer is yes.
so you are saying that Trump wants to build a wall would never influence anyone?
as to protesters attacked Trump supporters with attacks and throwing things, and if we look at the track record how many mobs of protesters show up at Trump Rallys and cause problems? a lot, how many show up at Clinton rallys and cause problems? some, how many show up at Sanders Rallys? very few if any, i'm seeing a pattern here.
let us look at the protesters at Sanders rallys:
A lone protester wearing a Trump shirt which lasted a minute:
not sure that was a protest either, since it stated the organizer wanted to speak to Sanders and say how Seattle is racist and was booed by Sanders supporters.
Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him. He is jumping over the possibly legitimate rulings the judge has made and assuming the judge's motive (which only the judge can really know). As a result, I view it as Trump not really having any sort of leg to stand on as far as "unfair rulings" at all.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him.
no rulings have been made, me thinks Trump wants a different judge to handle his case.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him.
Do you think that the man's cultural heritage could have an impact on the way that he deals with Donald Trump?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him.
no rulings have been made, me thinks Trump wants a different judge to handle his case.
Judges make rulings constantly throughout a case, like sustaining or overruling objections, allowing certain forms of evidence and not others, etc. in this case, the only ruling Trump has actually complained about was the fact that the judge released some depositions/testimony and documents from some of the former educators.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him.
no rulings have been made, me thinks Trump wants a different judge to handle his case.
Judges make rulings constantly throughout a case, like sustaining or overruling objections, allowing certain forms of evidence and not others, etc. in this case, the only ruling Trump has actually complained about was the fact that the judge released some depositions/testimony and documents from some of the former educators.
so a judge released some depositions from employees who allegedly claimed they did not like some of the things going on in his school several years ago, and yet still continued to work there? (all this took place many years ago since Trump's school stopped accepting students back in 2010) I'd be not happy with that even if Judge Judy was on the bench, those testimonies will most likely get torn apart by any decent attorney, but still that they were released is odd. and to be honest does sound politically motivated if you ask me.
wonder if we can get a judge to release Clinton's documents?
sounds like he got his appeal approved to move it too a higher court.
also don't see any court documents being released in this case (at least i can't find any) so why should one judge rule one way while another rules another way and not question possible ethics violations?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him.
no rulings have been made, me thinks Trump wants a different judge to handle his case.
Judges make rulings constantly throughout a case, like sustaining or overruling objections, allowing certain forms of evidence and not others, etc. in this case, the only ruling Trump has actually complained about was the fact that the judge released some depositions/testimony and documents from some of the former educators.
so a judge released some depositions from employees who allegedly claimed they did not like some of the things going on in his school several years ago, and yet still continued to work there? (all this took place many years ago since Trump's school stopped accepting students back in 2010) I'd be not happy with that even if Judge Judy was on the bench, those testimonies will most likely get torn apart by any decent attorney, but still that they were released is odd. and to be honest does sound politically motivated if you ask me.
wonder if we can get a judge to release Clinton's documents?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Here's the thing, Trump might have some legitimate problems with some of the judge's rulings. That's fine and fair. If he wants to bring them up in public and thereby get the public to focus on his current lawsuit, that's his prerogative (but it seems to be a really dumb one). He is basically extending the story by doing so. What he should do if he is going to bring up his problems is actually bring up the problems. What are the actual rulings that Trump deems so unfair? I would like to know. By going after the man's cultural heritage as the reasoning seems completely misplaced and counterproductive (unless Trump assumes this sort of rhetoric really will appeal to his cultists). The judge doesn't have to be "a Mexican" to be prejudiced against him for his ideas of the wall. I am from German/Irish descent, and I find his ideas and rhetoric to prejudice me against him.
no rulings have been made, me thinks Trump wants a different judge to handle his case.
Judges make rulings constantly throughout a case, like sustaining or overruling objections, allowing certain forms of evidence and not others, etc. in this case, the only ruling Trump has actually complained about was the fact that the judge released some depositions/testimony and documents from some of the former educators.
so a judge released some depositions from employees who allegedly claimed they did not like some of the things going on in his school several years ago, and yet still continued to work there? (all this took place many years ago since Trump's school stopped accepting students back in 2010) I'd be not happy with that even if Judge Judy was on the bench, those testimonies will most likely get torn apart by any decent attorney, but still that they were released is odd. and to be honest does sound politically motivated if you ask me.
wonder if we can get a judge to release Clinton's documents?
yeah was reading that case now, and to be honest the judge releasing said documents like he did does sound politically motivated, so there might be some possibility to a violation of ethics, also noticed all the documents released were not negative from students. me thinks this case is not really going to go very far. especially when dealing with For-Profit schools, they are a scam and always a scam as far as i'm concerned but the most I see happening here to Trump is a fine. nor do i see it having any effect whatsoever on his presidential run since so much more to use against him, this is meh.
Well, whether or not it was a scam is precisely what the case is trying to determine and I have no idea what the punishment for said scam would be (not a legal expert on the NYC legal system). You are probably right with fines. Maybe some probation.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Well, whether or not it was a scam is precisely what the case is trying to determine and I have no idea what the punishment for said scam would be (not a legal expert on the NYC legal system). You are probably right with fines. Maybe some probation.
doubt probation, already seen several scam schools taken to school and only fined, and they had a lot more going against them, so like I said doubt this will go far, i look at this as akin to the Clintons and the white water scandal and that didn't hurt him much.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Well, whether or not it was a scam is precisely what the case is trying to determine and I have no idea what the punishment for said scam would be (not a legal expert on the NYC legal system). You are probably right with fines. Maybe some probation.
doubt probation, already seen several scam schools taken to school and only fined, and they had a lot more going against them, so like I said doubt this will go far, i look at this as akin to the Clintons and the white water scandal and that didn't hurt him much.
Except the Clintons never were actually charged with anything after three investigations found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Trump is actually going to trial.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Well, whether or not it was a scam is precisely what the case is trying to determine and I have no idea what the punishment for said scam would be (not a legal expert on the NYC legal system). You are probably right with fines. Maybe some probation.
doubt probation, already seen several scam schools taken to school and only fined, and they had a lot more going against them, so like I said doubt this will go far, i look at this as akin to the Clintons and the white water scandal and that didn't hurt him much.
Except the Clintons never were actually charged with anything after three investigations found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Trump is actually going to trial.
Trump is in essence in a civil suit. not a criminal case per se.
Lol, I wasn't being serious to call you out on some gak... I am curious because I know you're from that part of the Best Coast, and thought you might have seen better stuff than I have via local news.
Lol, So far all I know is when I shook hands with Bernie Sanders and met his campaign,he seemed very nice and genuine.
Some interesting parts though I have heard though Is that they foiled a mass shooting on my campus with a supposed "Conservative Motive". But that is word of mouth.
by your words if I don't like how you think and want to protest I can hit you, beat you and attack you and that is ok ?
If I advocate for the destruction of your lifestyle and spearhead a movement dedicated to it there isn't much else you can do that makes a practical difference. Right or wrong has nothing to do with the fact that the struggle for supremacy in society inevitably boils down to force.
Thats cute. The ones on the other side are the ones with the guns and the bullets. There is a substantial subculture within that group that has been preparing for you to do just that, and have lots and lots of cool toys they want to try out. College hothouse kids will go through a buzzsaw if they try that.
Jihadin wrote: I'm against career politicians. Hillary Career politician. Trump not. Though if Trump in office manages to negate a chunk of US Debt we all be praising him on his financial shenanigans eh (by not opening up the "Football"
It will send the US economy into a death spiral and join such economic powerhouses as Argentina and Zimbabwe.
I had a good laugh this morning. Figure I share from the New York Post
Are President Obama, Hillary Clinton and violent leftists in cahoots to elect Donald Trump? Or are they just idiots?
The evidence is overwhelming that they all belong to a conspiracy — either of secret GOP sympathizers or of dunces. Those are the only options after Democrats took turns denouncing Trump in ways that actually bolstered the potency of his arguments. Three examples tell the tale.
First, Obama traveled to Indiana to deliver what aides called his first attempt to influence the election. That’s a lie, of course, but not the biggest one of the day. No. 1 would be Obama’s touting the economy as a roaring success.
“If what you care about in this election is your pocketbook; if what you’re concerned about is who will look out for the interests of working people and grow the middle class,” the president claimed, “if what you’re concerned about is the economy, then the debate is not even close.”
He crowed about “progress” made during his tenure, and said sticking with Democrats was the only sensible option.
Two days later, the Labor Department reported that employers added a mere 38,000 jobs in May, the worst report in six years. Even with massive help from the Federal Reserve, the economy’s slow growth means it has created three million fewer jobs than it should have by now, making Obama’s boast look ridiculous.
It also makes Trump’s focus on creating jobs and criticism of international trade deals look like the right ideas. After all, if puny growth for seven years is the best Obama can do, why not give the other team and other ideas a chance?
Clinton provided the second backfire example with her foreign-policy speech. It had very little to do with actual foreign policy, and everything to do with a rehearsed rant on Trump. She called him reckless, childish, uninformed and unprepared.
“This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes,” she declared
The liberal press ate it up, displaying a remarkable talent for ignoring the foreign-policy disasters unfolding around the world, courtesy of Clinton and Obama. The next president will inherit the brutal aggressions of China and Russia and the cancerous spread of Islamic terrorism.
And it takes a special media willfulness to refuse to see the biblical deprivations befalling millions of refugees spilling out from Syria and Libya after Obama and Clinton helped turn those countries’ crises into catastrophes. In a recent span of just eight days, about 1,000 people drowned trying to escape across the Mediterranean to Europe.
If that’s the best Dems can do, why should they get a third term? Would Trump be worse?
The third evidence of a conspiracy involved a Trump rally in San Jose, Calif. Or rather, it involved the thugs, gang members and people burning the American flag and waving Mexican flags who attacked Trump supporters.
An ABC reporter tweeted that police lost control and that “Trump supporters [were] being terrorized and beaten up by mobs of protesters.” Among those beaten was a man named Juan Hernandez, a gay Latino Trump supporter who released photos of his broken nose and bloody shirt, along with a statement, writing:
“Got jumped last night as we exited the rally . . . Thanks for a broken nose, uncontrollable bleeding, and a bash to the head, Democrats. You sure are doing your party proud.”
As Hernandez notes, the violence helps make Trump’s case. If the candidate’s promise to control the border brings such a ferocious backlash, he’s on to something.
That scary thought must have seeped into the central brain of The New York Times, which gave a disgracefully distorted picture of what happened in San Jose. It called the one-way assaults “clashes” between “protesters” and Trump backers, as if both sides were equally to blame.
Even more shameful, the paper’s Friday article included this sentence: “While Mr. Trump has said he does not condone violence of any kind, his campaign made little effort to condemn it.”
You can’t be that ignorant without intent.
The pattern is obvious — the Democrats’ Way is in trouble. The economy won’t cooperate with their big-government nostrums, Clinton is dodging Bernie Sanders and the FBI, and Obama doesn’t understand why the world doesn’t treat his every utterance as gospel.
Maybe they should take a hint. Maybe, finally, America has had enough
Thats cute. The ones on the other side are the ones with the guns and the bullets. There is a substantial subculture within that group that has been preparing for you to do just that, and have lots and lots of cool toys they want to try out. College hothouse kids will go through a buzzsaw if they try that.
Yeeees, one side is currently more willing and able to use force?
As far as the Judge in the Trump U case. I think Ken from Popehat said it best:
Look, in the modern political climate I could burn ten thousand words on this and people who support Trump wouldn't buy it and people who oppose Trump would buy it even if the only word was " ." But in my judgment, Judge Curiel's partial denial of the summary judgment is pretty straightforward and well within the range of normal federal judicial decisions on summary judgment.
Thats cute. The ones on the other side are the ones with the guns and the bullets. There is a substantial subculture within that group that has been preparing for you to do just that, and have lots and lots of cool toys they want to try out. College hothouse kids will go through a buzzsaw if they try that.
Yeeees, one side is currently more willing and able to use force?
So far it has been leftists in this area to a greater preponderance, but both have been quick to throw a punch. But your argument about shutting them down with violence would lead to a very bad result for you. So lets not go down that route.
It no longer matters now. The "Mob" is getting a life of its own.
Edit
Anyone hear mention of a US Flags being burnt at the last one? I saw the news piece but never saw any flag burning just the little stick Mexican flags being waved. Just NPR this morning mention flag burning.
skyth wrote: All this talk about violence from supporters...I repeat again...Which candidate supported and encouraged violence and which ones opposed it?
Which ones burned a US flag while waiving foreign flags and attacked people outside the event? Thats three events this has occurred so far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: It no longer matters now. The "Mob" is getting a life of its own.
Edit
Anyone hear mention of a US Flags being burnt at the last one? I saw the news piece but never saw any flag burning just the little stick Mexican flags being waved. Just NPR this morning mention flag burning.
skyth wrote: All this talk about violence from supporters...I repeat again...Which candidate supported and encouraged violence and which ones opposed it?
Which ones burned a US flag while waiving foreign flags and attacked people outside the event? Thats three events this has occurred so far.
Really irrelevant. I think it's more important to see which candidate encouraged violence rather than who's 'supporters' did whatever. For all we know, these were actually Trump supporters trying to cause trouble and make the other side look bad.
skyth wrote: All this talk about violence from supporters...I repeat again...Which candidate supported and encouraged violence and which ones opposed it?
Which ones burned a US flag while waiving foreign flags and attacked people outside the event? Thats three events this has occurred so far.
Really irrelevant. I think it's more important to see which candidate encouraged violence rather than who's 'supporters' did whatever. For all we know, these were actually Trump supporters trying to cause trouble and make the other side look bad.
Doesn't matter. The US Flag getting burnt stands out more to a good chunk of US Civilians then which side the "protestors" are actual on. Has protestors against Hillary/Bernie been burning US Flags?
Edit
Hold that thought. Word it wrong
The US Flag burning going to be associated towards Bernie and Hillary. I'm not saying a huge chunk of people are going to sway their votes towards Trump because of that but some voters who are on the fence might go ahead and vote for Trump due to that.
well right after the incident in San Jose Sanders condemned that attacks that took place there and furthermore stated he does not need Supporters like that so even he might think people who support him were involved, while also doing a classic CYA before something nasty happens, as it goes wonder if Trump will be doing a rally in Idaho? and if so will protesters be there? if so it will get ugly real quick there with all the militias around there.
as to flag burning there was flag burning in San Jose along with hat burning and sign burning and weed burning, which parties supporters did it, unknown or even if they support a party, but people are seeing flags being burned by people who are waving a foreign nations flag and waving signs of California belongs to Mexico, these are not seen at other candidates rallys, just Trumps, so American citizens see these things and think Trump may be the way to go.
also the California belongs to Mexico is so flawed its a joke, before them Spain owned it until the revolution took it from them, before that the Indians owned it before the Spanish took it from them and before that another culture owned it before the Indians took it from them.
So in other words the truth doesn't really matter at all to poeople who would possibly support Trump. Looks like Trump has them pegged and has been doing it right all along.
Trump is not a politician so I doubt he would condemned the violence during protests. Since the perception of the protestors are Dem supporters it works in his favor. If you think about it. I have not seen any ads promoting Trump for POTUS yet.
Gordon Shumway wrote: So in other words the truth doesn't really matter at all to poeople who would possibly support Trump. Looks like Trump has them pegged and has been doing it right all along.
the truth is a foreign nations people are burning the American flag while waving their foreign nations flag and waving signs saying California belongs to Mexico, trump is the only one who says he will try to stop them, not Hillary, not Bernie, they will accept them with open arms.
sorry but I'm all for repelling boarders not inviting them on to take the ship. you want to hand over your land with a smile and a wave go for it. but not me.
also the California belongs to Mexico is so flawed its a joke, before them Spain owned it until the revolution took it from them, before that the Indians owned it before the Spanish took it from them and before that another culture owned it before the Indians took it from them.
exactly. Mexico's ownership of California could best be described as...temporary.
Jihadin wrote: Trump is not a politician so I doubt he would condemned the violence during protests. Since the perception of the protestors are Dem supporters it works in his favor. If you think about it. I have not seen any ads promoting Trump for POTUS yet.
That's right. Trump has endorsed violence at his rallies.
also the California belongs to Mexico is so flawed its a joke, before them Spain owned it until the revolution took it from them, before that the Indians owned it before the Spanish took it from them and before that another culture owned it before the Indians took it from them.
exactly. Mexico's ownership of California could best be described as...temporary.
all ownership of land in the grand scheme of things could be termed temporary at best, just like governments rise and fall and while the US is still standing does not mean it will always stand and the founding fathers knew and encouraged this.
Jihadin wrote: Trump is not a politician so I doubt he would condemned the violence during protests. Since the perception of the protestors are Dem supporters it works in his favor. If you think about it. I have not seen any ads promoting Trump for POTUS yet.
That's right. Trump has endorsed violence at his rallies.
Jihadin wrote: Trump is not a politician so I doubt he would condemned the violence during protests. Since the perception of the protestors are Dem supporters it works in his favor. If you think about it. I have not seen any ads promoting Trump for POTUS yet.
That's right. Trump has endorsed violence at his rallies.
he has endorsed Supporters to defend themselves.
No, he endorsed any of his supporters beating up any protesters in his rallies, whether they were violent or not.
Jihadin wrote: Trump is not a politician so I doubt he would condemned the violence during protests. Since the perception of the protestors are Dem supporters it works in his favor. If you think about it. I have not seen any ads promoting Trump for POTUS yet.
That's right. Trump has endorsed violence at his rallies.
he has endorsed Supporters to defend themselves.
No, he endorsed any of his supporters beating up any protesters in his rallies, whether they were violent or not.
really where does he say that?
Kilkrazy wrote: That's right. He even said he would pay their legal costs.
he would pay the legal fees of those defending themselves.
Kilkrazy wrote: In the links posted earlier in the thread to confirm this point which you seem to have ignore but are still there for you to refer to.
then do point them out, and looking for actual video of him saying it or unbiased articles saying he said that, please enlighten me and show me these things.
Kilkrazy wrote: In the links posted earlier in the thread to confirm this point which you seem to have ignore but are still there for you to refer to.
then do point them out, and looking for actual video of him saying it or unbiased articles saying he said that, please enlighten me and show me these things.
If you flip through the past few pages you will find them posted by me. I'm not going to waste my time doing your work for you.
Kilkrazy wrote: In the links posted earlier in the thread to confirm this point which you seem to have ignore but are still there for you to refer to.
then do point them out, and looking for actual video of him saying it or unbiased articles saying he said that, please enlighten me and show me these things.
If you flip through the past few pages you will find them posted by me. I'm not going to waste my time doing your work for you.
but you expect me to waste my time to amuse you, you state Trump said this and that and yet the evidence shows otherwise, it is not articles, and videos and images we see of Trump supporters attacking protesters of late, but of protesters attacking Trump supporters so if he said what you said he did and you claim his supporters are mindless drones who will follow him in all things, then why are they not attacking them willy nilly? even in San Jose protesters got in the rally and Trump told people to leave them alone and let them be, that sounds contrary to what you just said.
in fact when I pointed that out you called it Spam and threatened me to stop doing that, so you used your position as a moderator to push your own political agenda and squelch my voice, which makes you a poor moderator.
Jihadin wrote: Trump is not a politician so I doubt he would condemned the violence during protests. Since the perception of the protestors are Dem supporters it works in his favor. If you think about it. I have not seen any ads promoting Trump for POTUS yet.
That's right. Trump has endorsed violence at his rallies.
he has endorsed Supporters to defend themselves.
No, he endorsed any of his supporters beating up any protesters in his rallies, whether they were violent or not.
really where does he say that?
Kilkrazy wrote: That's right. He even said he would pay their legal costs.
he would pay the legal fees of those defending themselves.
Jihadin wrote: Trump is not a politician so I doubt he would condemned the violence during protests. Since the perception of the protestors are Dem supporters it works in his favor. If you think about it. I have not seen any ads promoting Trump for POTUS yet.
That's right. Trump has endorsed violence at his rallies.
he has endorsed Supporters to defend themselves.
No, he endorsed any of his supporters beating up any protesters in his rallies, whether they were violent or not.
really where does he say that?
Kilkrazy wrote: That's right. He even said he would pay their legal costs.
he would pay the legal fees of those defending themselves.
did you read this article? it is all based on him saying he might pay the legal fees, furthermore his statement of attack is if you see someone going to throw a tomato at you, so i repeat did you read the article?
IronWarLeg wrote: Here is another, with video of him saying it for easy convenience.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for the record, that took literally 5 seconds, googling the following: "trump says he will pay legal fees".
I remember an age old adage in regards to making this reply: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
this goes back to the other link, so this is your whole arguments for how Trump said to attack protesters? your evidence fu is weak, and love how you made that last added statement since you obviously realized your evidence was weak.
I go by facts, did trump supporters attack Protesters in San Jose? no, did those protesters attack Supporters just trying to get in and out of the rally? yes.
did you read this article? it is all based on him saying he might pay the legal fees, furthermore his statement of attack is if you see someone going to throw a tomato at you, so i repeat did you read the article?
He also said '"I’d like to punch him in the face,” he told the Las Vegas crowd when one protester was ejected.' Also, tomatoes are not really the same as a rock or a brick, so I think stomping the gak out of someone is a bit much.
did you read this article? it is all based on him saying he might pay the legal fees, furthermore his statement of attack is if you see someone going to throw a tomato at you, so i repeat did you read the article?
IronWarLeg wrote: Here is another, with video of him saying it for easy convenience.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for the record, that took literally 5 seconds, googling the following: "trump says he will pay legal fees".
I remember an age old adage in regards to making this reply: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
this goes back to the other link, so this is your whole arguments for how Trump said to attack protesters? your evidence fu is weak, and love how you made that last added statement since you obviously realized your evidence was weak.
I go by facts, did trump supporters attack Protesters in San Jose? no, did those protesters attack Supporters just trying to get in and out of the rally? yes.
From the article:
"At a rally on the day of the Iowa caucuses this year, Donald Trump told the audience that he'd been warned about protesters with tomatoes in the audience.
"So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.""
I didn't realize that the goal post was to be moved to only be in regards to the protesters in San Jose. This isn't weak evidence, this is a direct quote from the Donald's mouth inciting violence against any possible trouble makers in his audience, and in the same breath offering to cover any legal fees. The following quote: " I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise" doesn't sound like might to me, but what do I know?
Kilkrazy wrote: That's right. He even said he would pay their legal costs.
I thought this was getting off topic. Pick a team Killkrazy!
He has made "interesting statements" in that regard, where neither Bernie nor Hillary said anything at all like that. This however is counterbalanced by the violence that is now occurring.
Here's an idea. peaceful protests = good. Physically attacking the opposition = bad.
did you read this article? it is all based on him saying he might pay the legal fees, furthermore his statement of attack is if you see someone going to throw a tomato at you, so i repeat did you read the article?
IronWarLeg wrote: Here is another, with video of him saying it for easy convenience.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for the record, that took literally 5 seconds, googling the following: "trump says he will pay legal fees".
I remember an age old adage in regards to making this reply: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
this goes back to the other link, so this is your whole arguments for how Trump said to attack protesters? your evidence fu is weak, and love how you made that last added statement since you obviously realized your evidence was weak.
I go by facts, did trump supporters attack Protesters in San Jose? no, did those protesters attack Supporters just trying to get in and out of the rally? yes.
From the article:
"At a rally on the day of the Iowa caucuses this year, Donald Trump told the audience that he'd been warned about protesters with tomatoes in the audience.
"So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of 'em, would you? Seriously. Okay? Just knock the hell — I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise.""
I didn't realize that the goal post was to be moved to only be in regards to the protesters in San Jose. This isn't weak evidence, this is a direct quote from the Donald's mouth inciting violence against any possible trouble makers in his audience, and in the same breath offering to cover any legal fees. The following quote: " I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. I promise" doesn't sound like might to me, but what do I know?
so if you see someone ready to throw something at you will you just sit there and allow them too? you will do nothing? the point is he didn't say to attack innocent protesters, he said to knock out someone ready to assault someone, big freaking difference, unlike the protesters who will attack you if you just support someone. furthermore I do not condone that lone individual who attacked a protester at Trump's rally by hitting him, but on the other hand big differance between lone person and mobs of people.
furthermore the above incident with the tomatoes comes back to defend themselves. Trump did not say if you see a protester attack them, eh said if you see them about to throw a tomato.
Jihadin wrote: Trump is not a politician so I doubt he would condemned the violence during protests. Since the perception of the protestors are Dem supporters it works in his favor. If you think about it. I have not seen any ads promoting Trump for POTUS yet.
That's right. Trump has endorsed violence at his rallies.
Yet Trump supporters aren't committing the amount and level of violence that anti Trump protestors (regardless of their political affiliation). So it seems that Trump's endorsement of violence isn't leading to violence while people's disdain for Trump is directly leading to criminal acts of violence.
Trump's endorsement of violence and/or self defense do absolutely nothing to mitigate the unjustifiable acts of violence being commited by anti Trump protestors.
Prestor Jon wrote:Yet Trump supporters aren't committing the amount and level of violence that anti Trump protestors (regardless of their political affiliation). So it seems that Trump's endorsement of violence isn't leading to violence while people's disdain for Trump is directly leading to criminal acts of violence.
Trump's endorsement of violence and/or self defense do absolutely nothing to mitigate the unjustifiable acts of violence being commited by anti Trump protestors.
Agreed. Trump supporters generally don't show up to Sanders' rallies and make complete fools of themselves (why on earth would they?). Sanders supporters do show up to Trump rallies and make complete fools of themselves.
People will criticize Trump's "calls for violence."
I tell you what:
If someone acted like a Sanders supporter in your home, you might just commit the kinds of "violence" that Trump seems to be in favor of (forcible removal).
Prestor Jon wrote:Yet Trump supporters aren't committing the amount and level of violence that anti Trump protestors (regardless of their political affiliation). So it seems that Trump's endorsement of violence isn't leading to violence while people's disdain for Trump is directly leading to criminal acts of violence.
Trump's endorsement of violence and/or self defense do absolutely nothing to mitigate the unjustifiable acts of violence being commited by anti Trump protestors.
Agreed. Trump supporters generally don't show up to Sanders' rallies and make complete fools of themselves (why on earth would they?). Sanders supporters do show up to Trump rallies and make complete fools of themselves.
People will criticize Trump's "calls for violence."
I tell you what:
If someone acted like a Sanders supporter in your home, you might just commit the kinds of "violence" that Trump seems to be in favor of (forcible removal).
I don't think every Sanders Supporter commits acts of violence...
Tactical_Spam wrote:I don't think every Sanders Supporter commits acts of violence...
No. It would be absolutely silly to think that.
The people who actually bother leaving their homes (to protest, to attend rallies, or anything of the sort) are likely in the slim minority of total "supporters" for any given politician.
When I say "sanders supporters," I'm specifically referring to the subset who show up to Trump rallies and act like uneducated, uncivilized, unenculturated thugs.
Prestor Jon wrote:Yet Trump supporters aren't committing the amount and level of violence that anti Trump protestors (regardless of their political affiliation). So it seems that Trump's endorsement of violence isn't leading to violence while people's disdain for Trump is directly leading to criminal acts of violence.
Trump's endorsement of violence and/or self defense do absolutely nothing to mitigate the unjustifiable acts of violence being commited by anti Trump protestors.
Agreed. Trump supporters generally don't show up to Sanders' rallies and make complete fools of themselves (why on earth would they?). Sanders supporters do show up to Trump rallies and make complete fools of themselves.
People will criticize Trump's "calls for violence."
I tell you what:
If someone acted like a Sanders supporter in your home, you might just commit the kinds of "violence" that Trump seems to be in favor of (forcible removal).
I don't think every Sanders Supporter commits acts of violence...
I don't either, in fact wouldn't be surprised if it is just a handful of them doing it, but even Sanders has stressed he does not need supporters who do that so even he realizes some of his supporters might be involved and he is condemning them for doing such, as it goes I never said anything about Sanders promoting violence or even condoning it. same with Clinton and yet it does happen, if I had to blame a force I'm more likely to blame the Mexican Government, since the bulk of protesters burning the flag and such are also waving Mexican flags and waving signs California belongs to Mexico and such. Trump is a threat to illegals since he wants to get them out and if elected president he can do that by having ICE to enforce our current immigration laws.
Can someone get me a source or Venn diagram of "Protesters who are violent vs. Bernie/Hillary supporters"? I've seen a lot of people lumping them in together and I'd be interested to see the breakdown of how many people are actually supporters versus just general protesters mad at Trump.
jreilly89 wrote: Can someone get me a source or Venn diagram of "Protesters who are violent vs. Bernie/Hillary supporters"? I've seen a lot of people lumping them in together and I'd be interested to see the breakdown of how many people are actually supporters versus just general protesters mad at Trump.
sorry but reporters too busy reporting the assaults to get actual numbers of who is supporting who, which is why I say not all protesters support Sanders or Hillary or both, but they do exist, just not the whole group, if I had to lean towards one group being the majority my money is on the country of Mexico, since the ones waving the Mexican Flag and burning the American flag and saying California belongs to Mexico are firmly in that camp and at the majority of the issues.
jreilly89 wrote: Can someone get me a source or Venn diagram of "Protesters who are violent vs. Bernie/Hillary supporters"? I've seen a lot of people lumping them in together and I'd be interested to see the breakdown of how many people are actually supporters versus just general protesters mad at Trump.
That would be irrelevant and impossible to collect anyway but you were just trying to use sarcasm to make a point.
It doesn't matter. Using criminal violence to try to suppress political opinions is unjustifiable. Instead of trying to deflect and distract from that core societal value we should all condemn such actions and then move on. Trump can say whatever he wants deal with any legal or political consequences his speech creates for him. Nothing he says makes it ok for people to attack other people just because those people express a desire to vote for Trump. That is simply using violence to intimidate and suppress political speech in the form of supporting a candidate. That's never ok.
Jihadin wrote: Trump is not a politician so I doubt he would condemned the violence during protests. Since the perception of the protestors are Dem supporters it works in his favor. If you think about it. I have not seen any ads promoting Trump for POTUS yet.
That's right. Trump has endorsed violence at his rallies.
he has endorsed Supporters to defend themselves.
No, he endorsed any of his supporters beating up any protesters in his rallies, whether they were violent or not.
really where does he say that?
Kilkrazy wrote: That's right. He even said he would pay their legal costs.
he would pay the legal fees of those defending themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And for the record, that took literally 5 seconds, googling the following: "trump says he will pay legal fees".
I remember an age old adage in regards to making this reply: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
I'd say something about it being easier to just shoot the horse, but then there is the other saying about beating them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So after multiple pages of repeating "Trump and Hillary supporters are committing violence" and offering zero proof, it seems like it would be best to ignore the people making unsubstantiated arguments and get the thread back on some sort of topic.
Traditio wrote: Funny; I don't recall Trump supporters rioting and attacking people at Sanders' rallies.
Neither have Clinton or Sanders endorsed supporters committing violence at Trumpo rallies. In fact there isn't actually any indication that the people protesting at Trumpo rallies actually are Clinton or Sanders supporters, rather than simply anti-Trumpo people.
OTOH Trumpo actually is on record as endorsing violence against protestors at his rallies.
I think it's pretty well established that the majority of veterans organization didn't see any of the money he raised until after the news questioned if the money was actually given to them, and Trump is criticizing the news for criticizing him for something he didn't do until after they criticized him.
jreilly89 wrote: Can someone get me a source or Venn diagram of "Protesters who are violent vs. Bernie/Hillary supporters"? I've seen a lot of people lumping them in together and I'd be interested to see the breakdown of how many people are actually supporters versus just general protesters mad at Trump.
That would be irrelevant and impossible to collect anyway but you were just trying to use sarcasm to make a point.
It doesn't matter. Using criminal violence to try to suppress political opinions is unjustifiable. Instead of trying to deflect and distract from that core societal value we should all condemn such actions and then move on. Trump can say whatever he wants deal with any legal or political consequences his speech creates for him. Nothing he says makes it ok for people to attack other people just because those people express a desire to vote for Trump. That is simply using violence to intimidate and suppress political speech in the form of supporting a candidate. That's never ok.
Or if you stop jumping to conclusions, it wasn't sarcasm, I was genuinely curious because Trump supporters kept lashing out that Bernie and Hillary are sending protest squads to their rallies. But sure, pretend I wasn't actually interested in legitimate proof.
I think it's pretty well established that the majority of veterans organization didn't see any of the money he raised until after the news questioned if the money was actually given to them, and Trump is criticizing the news for criticizing him for something he didn't do until after they criticized him.
Not to mention Trump fired veterans because they had to serve their military duty. It's amazing that people think that Trump is pro-soldier.
To paraphrase the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies of the Profumo Scandal, "Well they would say that, wouldn't they?"
I don't think there is any proof.
Everyone protesting against Trump isn't necessarily a supporter of Clinton/Sanders. They are just anti-Trump. He's given enough reasons for people to dislike him on his own account. His supporters ought to be pleased.
Clinton/Sanders don't need to organise violent protests. There's enough dirt to start flinging at Trump once the contest begins.
Clinton in particular being a very canny political operator never would organise a violent protest, since she knows it plays against her. That's the best indication it isn't her behind these protests.
Three years after the IRS admitted officials singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny, the tax-collecting agency has released a near-complete list of the organizations targeted.
And it numbers in the hundreds — for the first time showing the extent to which the agency slow-walked applications for tax-exempt status.
The new list shows a total of 426 organizations, far higher than what the Treasury Department’s inspector general believed there to be in May 2013, when he identified 298 groups.
The names span the gamut, covering well-known groups like Tea Party Patriots but also lower-profile local outfits like the Louisiana Campaign for Liberty, Patriots of Charleston, the Asheville Tea Party, Inc. and many more.
The Washington Times first reported on the list, which the IRS filed last month after being prodded by federal judges. The document was produced as part of a class-action lawsuit being led by Tea Party groups.
According to the Times, 60 of the groups' names contained the word “tea,” 33 contained the word “patriot,” eight used the word “Constitution” and 26 others had the word “liberty” in the title.
A lawyer representing NorCal Tea Party Patriots as part of the lawsuit said the list may have increased in number so dramatically since 2013 as the IRS targeted more liberal groups after the investigation began so as to try and soften the perception of bias.
“Based on these changes, which to date remain unexplained, a very real possibility — if not probability — exists that the IRS modified its targeting in light of the investigations, packing its own internal lists of targeted groups to support its preferred narrative, including by adding ideologically diverse groups,” Edward D. Greim told The Times.
Regardless of the backstory, a federal judge earlier this year scolded the IRS for allegedly holding up requests for information.
“The lawsuit has progressed as slowly as the underlying applications themselves: at every turn the IRS has resisted the plaintiffs’ requests for information regarding the IRS’s treatment of the plaintiff class, eventually to the open frustration of the district court,” Circuit Court Judge Raymond Kethledge said in a March ruling.
“Among the most serious allegations a federal court can address are that an Executive agency has targeted citizens for mistreatment based on their political views. No citizen—Republican or Democrat, socialist or libertarian—should be targeted or even have to fear being targeted on those grounds,” Kethledge said.
House Republicans ramped up pressure on the IRS in May, introducing a measure to censure IRS Commissioner John Koskinen -- and remove him from office without a pension.
Tea Party Patriots on Monday renewed their call for Koskinen's impeachment.
It's time to #ImpeachKoskinen for failing to comply with a subpoena for evidence. https://t.co/O7Rco8UTZz #TeaParty
— Tea Party Patriots (@TPPatriots) June 6, 2016
I hope Congress impeach/removes Koskinen's ass. Such that, in a Clinton or Trump administration, the next IRS dept Head would refuse to be a political weapon.
It would suck if you were caught up in this when you're group (for example the Austin Tea Party) is really just a group centered around having afternoon tea and discussion of all things Earl Grey...
Let’s agree that this is not about Bernie or Hillary or who’s side I’m on. Let’s agree that this is about simple facts and the truth. We don’t need to get into who would make the better president or who’s more qualified; who should step down because they’re losing or are in the middle of an email scandal or because you simply don’t like them. Let’s worry more about being lied to – or at the very least misled – by a party that’s supposed to be representing us, the voter. The truth is it’s just a small portion of the population making up the demographic.
In summary: Bernie has won more caucus states, which neither record nor award individual votes.
As examples:
Sanders won 81% of Alaska votes
Sanders win 71% of Oregon votes
No individual (i.e. popular) votes are awarded or counted for him.
In summary: Bernie has won more caucus states, which neither record nor award individual votes.
As examples:
Sanders won 81% of Alaska votes
Sanders win 71% of Oregon votes
No individual (i.e. popular) votes are awarded or counted for him.
The argument was made in 2008 that Clinton beat Obama in the popular vote since she won Florida and Michigan and both states had their primaries sanctioned by the DNC for moving up the dates the primaries were held without DNC approval. In the end Obama still won. Given the make up of the DNC I don't think they would give much credence to technical arguments against Clinton if she maintains her 3,000.000 lead in primary votes cast, especially if she wins the states voting on Tuesday.
Let’s agree that this is not about Bernie or Hillary or who’s side I’m on. Let’s agree that this is about simple facts and the truth. We don’t need to get into who would make the better president or who’s more qualified; who should step down because they’re losing or are in the middle of an email scandal or because you simply don’t like them. Let’s worry more about being lied to – or at the very least misled – by a party that’s supposed to be representing us, the voter. The truth is it’s just a small portion of the population making up the demographic.
In summary: Bernie has won more caucus states, which neither record nor award individual votes.
As examples:
Sanders won 81% of Alaska votes
Sanders win 71% of Oregon votes
No individual (i.e. popular) votes are awarded or counted for him.
So according to this article some people vote for some people to vote for some people to be voted for by some people who vote for some people to vote for someone.
Frazzled wrote: It would suck if you were caught up in this when you're group (for example the Austin Tea Party) is really just a group centered around having afternoon tea and discussion of all things Earl Grey...
The Liberty Tea Constitution Patriots Bowling Club really got screwed here.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If we're still doing the whole "this candidate's supporters are worse than that one's!" schtick, Trump was endorsed by the Klan, no?
thats like saying Clinton's mentor was a card carrying KKK member.
but back to your point it has effected his campaign, just like the protesters are affecting Sanders campaign.
Traditio wrote: Funny; I don't recall Trump supporters rioting and attacking people at Sanders' rallies.
Neither have Clinton or Sanders endorsed supporters committing violence at Trumpo rallies. In fact there isn't actually any indication that the people protesting at Trumpo rallies actually are Clinton or Sanders supporters, rather than simply anti-Trumpo people.
OTOH Trumpo actually is on record as endorsing violence against protestors at his rallies.
Here is an observation, you may research it a bit, but from all the history I have read it would seem to me that the ONLY way Communists and Socialists can take power is by violence, it is also how they maintain power.
It is less a consideration of the workers and the people than those at the top deciding how to divvy up YOUR stuff. The only way to take is by force or threat of force. Who gets more stuff? The people in power, and they do not share. They expect YOU to share but not them. Wealth redistribution is nothing less than theft with the threat of violence.
Look at history.
Communist and Socialist countries neither produce nor innovate, they are regressive and are a shift back towards feudalism as there is no incentive for people to better themselves by chasing a profitable idea. An idea which would either have to be sanctioned by the state to see development, or would be appropriated by the state after work has been done; because all work is for the state, all profit is for the state, efforts not benefitting the state are discouraged.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If we're still doing the whole "this candidate's supporters are worse than that one's!" schtick, Trump was endorsed by the Klan, no?
thats like saying Clinton's mentor was a card carrying KKK member.
Well other than the fact tgat Byrd disavowed the KKK, repeatedly apologized, became an adiment supporter of Civil Rights, and was repeatedly praised by tge NAACP. Just read this statement by the group.
But just keep repeating that bs. Remember, it gets truer every time you say it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xraytango wrote: Here is an observation, you may research it a bit, but from all the history I have read it would seem to me that the ONLY way Communists and Socialists can take power is by violence, it is also how they maintain power.
It is less a consideration of the workers and the people than those at the top deciding how to divvy up YOUR stuff. The only way to take is by force or threat of force. Who gets more stuff? The people in power, and they do not share. They expect YOU to share but not them. Wealth redistribution is nothing less than theft with the threat of violence.
Look at history.
Communist and Socialist countries neither produce nor innovate, they are regressive and are a shift back towards feudalism as there is no incentive for people to better themselves by chasing a profitable idea. An idea which would either have to be sanctioned by the state to see development, or would be appropriated by the state after work has been done; because all work is for the state, all profit is for the state, efforts not benefitting the state are discouraged.
Well, I guess if you fundamentally ignore what a socialist is and pretend most of Europe doesn't exist you are technically correct. I wouldn't want reality to get in the way of your delusions.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If we're still doing the whole "this candidate's supporters are worse than that one's!" schtick, Trump was endorsed by the Klan, no?
thats like saying Clinton's mentor was a card carrying KKK member.
Well other than the fact tgat Byrd disavowed the KKK, repeatedly apologized, became an adiment supporter of Civil Rights, and was repeatedly praised by tge NAACP. Just read this statement by the group.
But just keep repeating that bs. Remember, it gets truer every time you say it!
"Sen. Byrd, wasn't just a member of the KKK. He was a Klan leader holding titles of "Kleagle" and "Exalted Cyclops." The senator claimed to have left the organization in 1943, but later wrote a letter to the group's grand wizard, saying, quote, "The Klan is needed today more as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia," end quote.
As recently as 2005, in his memoir, Byrd describes the KKK as a fraternal assembly of, quote, "upstanding people," end quote. He was the only senator to vote against both African-American Supreme Court nominees Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.
He personally filibustered the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed President Truman's initiative to integrate the Armed Forces. And he said he would never fight, quote, "with a negro by my side. Rather, I should die 1,000 times than to see this beloved land become degraded by race mongrels," end quote.
He once called Martin Luther King a, quote, "self-seeking rabble- rouser" and even told the FBI he could give a speech condemning King on the floor of the Senate, saying it was time that the civil rights leader, quote, "met his waterloo."
He also once said the writers of the Declaration of Independence did not intend for words "all men created equal" to be taken literally."
so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?
Well, I guess if you fundamentally ignore what a socialist is and pretend most of Europe doesn't exist you are technically correct. I wouldn't want reality to get in the way of your delusions.
Hitler was a socialist liberal, is that a socialist?
"Sen. Byrd, wasn't just a member of the KKK. He was a Klan leader holding titles of "Kleagle" and "Exalted Cyclops." The senator claimed to have left the organization in 1943, but later wrote a letter to the group's grand wizard, saying, quote, "The Klan is needed today more as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia," end quote.
As recently as 2005, in his memoir, Byrd describes the KKK as a fraternal assembly of, quote, "upstanding people," end quote. He was the only senator to vote against both African-American Supreme Court nominees Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.
He personally filibustered the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed President Truman's initiative to integrate the Armed Forces. And he said he would never fight, quote, "with a negro by my side. Rather, I should die 1,000 times than to see this beloved land become degraded by race mongrels," end quote.
He once called Martin Luther King a, quote, "self-seeking rabble- rouser" and even told the FBI he could give a speech condemning King on the floor of the Senate, saying it was time that the civil rights leader, quote, "met his waterloo."
He also once said the writers of the Declaration of Independence did not intend for words "all men created equal" to be taken literally."
so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?
No, I'm allowing people to change and evolve. I think the praise lumped on him by the NAACP was proof enough he had changed.
Also, post the sources you are quoting.
Hitler was a socialist liberal, is that a socialist?
The term was National Socialist, actually. Also, Hitler was a fascist. Not a socialist. But sure, try that line, see how far it gets you.
"Sen. Byrd, wasn't just a member of the KKK. He was a Klan leader holding titles of "Kleagle" and "Exalted Cyclops." The senator claimed to have left the organization in 1943, but later wrote a letter to the group's grand wizard, saying, quote, "The Klan is needed today more as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia," end quote.
As recently as 2005, in his memoir, Byrd describes the KKK as a fraternal assembly of, quote, "upstanding people," end quote. He was the only senator to vote against both African-American Supreme Court nominees Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas.
He personally filibustered the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposed President Truman's initiative to integrate the Armed Forces. And he said he would never fight, quote, "with a negro by my side. Rather, I should die 1,000 times than to see this beloved land become degraded by race mongrels," end quote.
He once called Martin Luther King a, quote, "self-seeking rabble- rouser" and even told the FBI he could give a speech condemning King on the floor of the Senate, saying it was time that the civil rights leader, quote, "met his waterloo."
He also once said the writers of the Declaration of Independence did not intend for words "all men created equal" to be taken literally."
so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?
No, I'm allowing people to change and evolve. I think the praise lumped on him by the NAACP was proof enough he had changed.
Also, post the sources you are quoting.
Hitler was a socialist liberal, is that a socialist?
The term was National Socialist, actually. Also, Hitler was a fascist. Not a socialist. But sure, try that line, see how far it gets you.
I would quote my sources but last time I did I got warned for spam from a moderator who did not agree with me since there is more then one source involved, as it goes its not hard to find its all part of the public record, also of course the NAACP would defend a democrat, they are democrats and yet fail to mention how Democrats founded the KKK.and actually you may call Hitler a fascist but he was a liberal socialist trying to fight for the little guy and that was his party stance.which started off as the worker's party.
I would quote my sources but last time I did I got warned for spam from a moderator who did not agree with me since there is more then one source involved,
Just make the whole quote a link. Problem solved.
as it goes its not hard to find its all part of the public record, also of course the NAACP would defend a democrat, they are democrats
Yeah, no. The NAACP supports black people and isn't going ro protect someone who works against their wellbeing.
and yet fail to mention how Democrats founded the KKK.
The dempcratic party then and now are dramatically different, same for the republican party. But sure, democrats are the real racists.
and actually you may call Hitler a fascist but he was a liberal socialist trying to fight for the little guy and that was his party stance.which started off as the worker's party.
Oh, so you are just devoid from reality. Good to know. Because if you actually knew history, you would know that Hitler was extremely anti-communist. And was a fething fascist.
xraytango wrote: Here is an observation, you may research it a bit, but from all the history I have read it would seem to me that the ONLY way Communists and Socialists can take power is by violence, it is also how they maintain power.
It is less a consideration of the workers and the people than those at the top deciding how to divvy up YOUR stuff. The only way to take is by force or threat of force. Who gets more stuff? The people in power, and they do not share. They expect YOU to share but not them. Wealth redistribution is nothing less than theft with the threat of violence.
Look at history. ...
Last time I checked, it took quite a lotof violence to create the United States of America.
I would quote my sources but last time I did I got warned for spam from a moderator who did not agree with me since there is more then one source involved,
Just make the whole quote a link. Problem solved.
as it goes its not hard to find its all part of the public record, also of course the NAACP would defend a democrat, they are democrats
Yeah, no. The NAACP supports black people and isn't going ro protect someone who works against their wellbeing.
and yet fail to mention how Democrats founded the KKK.
The dempcratic party then and now are dramatically different, same for the republican party. But sure, democrats are the real racists.
and actually you may call Hitler a fascist but he was a liberal socialist trying to fight for the little guy and that was his party stance.which started off as the worker's party.
Oh, so you are just devoid from reality. Good to know. Because if you actually knew history, you would know that Hitler was extremely anti-communist. And was a fething fascist.
actually my sources are not one, albeit some sites may have combined them into one, but from various sources, the NAACP is one of the biggest racist organizations I know of on par with the KKK so I don't see any difference to be honest., no party is all racists and I didn't say Democrats are racists, just that the KKK was founded by Democrats, but hey your logic is your own but try not putting words into my mouth ok ? As to German fighting Russia, Socialism is not the same as Communism.
so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
com·mu·nism
ˈkämyəˌnizəm/Submit
noun
a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
but if you want to believe they are the same thing, go for it.
So now you have proven beyond any doubt that your arguments have no basis in reality. Further discourse is pointless so on to the ignore list another troll goes.
actually my sources are not one, albeit some sites may have combined them into one, but from various sources,
Then just make the relivent quotes a link. It's not rocket science.
the NAACP is one of the biggest racist organizations I know of on par with the KKK so I don't see any difference to be honest.,
Care to back that up?
no party is all racists and I didn't say Democrats are racists, just that the KKK was founded by Democrats,
Which is a completely irrleivant peice of information in totday's society, and the political parties are not the same as they were back then.
but hey your logic is your own but try not putting words into my mouth ok ?
And if you aren't trying to insunuate that the D's are racist, what was the point of that?
As to German fighting Russia, Socialism is not the same as Communism.
so·cial·ism ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit noun a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
com·mu·nism ˈkämyəˌnizəm/Submit noun a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.
but if you want to believe they are the same thing, go for it.
I'm not saying they are, I'm saying they are directly linked. Communism is a radical off-shoot of Socialism. It takes the government control of the means of production one step further, to government constorl of everything. And Hitler being anti-communist is a good indication that he is not, in fact, a "liberal socialist". He wan't "a person who disagreed with communism", he was an "anti-communist".
Now can you stop avoiding the point and provide your proof that Hitler was a "liberal socialist", and not a fascist.
Edit: Also, actually use the period. Your run-ons are getting ridiculous.
Asterios wrote:so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?
Lol. I get it.
Back to Trump, Clinton and Sanders, though:
Does anyone foresee the American public having a more favorable view of Clinton as the race wears on?
Nope.
Which poison do you prefer? Cyanide, VX or Mustard?
Besides... there's always that Libertarian candidate.
Ehh, to the undecided voters who haven't spent their entire lives fighting Clinton ( ), seeing Trump become more and more insane will make Clinton be a more palatable choice. She might not be likable , but at least she's sane (new campaign slogan!).
Which poison do you prefer? Cyanide, VX or Mustard?
Besides... there's always that Libertarian candidate.
I'm not a fan of the libertarian political ideology.
I am cautiously optimistic about Trump. If he actually keeps his campaign promises, I'll be a very pleased Traditio (though I do wish that he would change his views on the environment/global warming).
To my mind, at this point, there's simply no real question of whether or not there will be a Trump presidency. Trump is closing on Clinton in most polls, and somewhat beating her in others, and public opinion of Clinton just keeps falling.
I think Sanders could have beaten Trump, but the democratic party fethed him over.
Trump's comments about the hispanic judge may come back to haunt him, but I seriously doubt it.
They basically jive with his political base anyway.
"Liberalism is a political philosophy founded on Liberty and Equality..."
Hmm... what part of Hitler's "Lebensraum" or "master race," or subjugation, confinement, and eventual execution of all "undesirables" would even remotely equate to "Liberty" or "Equality"
I hope you realize that his "socialist" policies were actually well disguised Godfather type deals.... Hitler literally made them an offer they couldn't refuse. But, I know, like some other posters here that this will largely go in one ear and out the other, because it doesn't fit the perfect rose tinted world view.
That's what is called true liberalism, however the leftist version of liberalism actually means to liberally apply government. Make government bigger, increase taxation to liberally pay for services and use taxation to redistribute wealth.
It is not the liberalism you think.
Liberalism for personal freedom and liberty with small government is actually called conservatism, and in the extreme libertarianism.
Usually liberalism in government refers to fiscal and regulatory being liberally applied in order to reach a government's objective.
xraytango wrote: That's what is called true liberalism, however the leftist version of liberalism actually means to liberally apply government. Make government bigger, increase taxation to liberally pay for services and use taxation to redistribute wealth.
It is not the liberalism you think.
Liberalism for personal freedom and liberty with small government is actually called conservatism, and in the extreme libertarianism.
Usually liberalism in government refers to fiscal and regulatory being liberally applied in order to reach a government's objective.
That is actually included in the Wiki link...
You are referring to Classical Liberalism and Progressive Liberalism. Yeah, I've taken Political Science 101 too, brah.
And really... rereading what you wrote, it's just so laughably wrong.... the "leftist" idea of liberalism does not in any way mean to "liberally apply"... we're not talking about putting ketchup on fries here.
the left leaning people in the US follow the progressive liberal views, in that they see that while the Ideal is that all are equal, the reality is that we aren't. They mean to make progress through government programs that promote more equality within the populace, because they see the historical evidence that shows that conservatism is completely cool with keeping the downtrodden, downtrodden.... Progressives see that continuing to simply be lazy, and allow the "free market, private sector" to uphold and act on its whims, is detrimental to everyone.
xraytango wrote: If you re-read what I wrote you will see that my analysis of the difference is not wrong, just not textbook.
And again, what I'm seeing here, is you're apparently taking the definition of liberal to me something as a descriptor... As in, again, to liberally put ketchup on fries, or to liberally apply glue to a model.
That is quite well away from, and nowhere near textbook, I'll give you that.... I still think you're completely wrong in that definition.
Either way... as it relates to previous discussion... there is pretty much no way to use the political science term of "liberal" and Hitler in the same sentence, and be factually correct, unless it is a sentence that says he wasn't a liberal
Honestly, I think that in today's political climate, all of the candidates will be held "accountable" by the media. While this is hyperbole, it just seems like we're getting to the point where if Bernie eats a pastrami sandwich, it's gonna face massive media scrutiny. A buddy of mine on FB posts a gakload of pictures that I often just scroll by. One of them today was about the "irony" of Clinton giving a speech on inequality, while wearing a $12k jacket. As seb's post shows, she gets the most negative coverage... but are we really to the point of scrutinizing wardrobe choices as legitimate political statements?
xraytango wrote: If you re-read what I wrote you will see that my analysis of the difference is not wrong, just not textbook.
And again, what I'm seeing here, is you're apparently taking the definition of liberal to me something as a descriptor... As in, again, to liberally put ketchup on fries, or to liberally apply glue to a model.
That is quite well away from, and nowhere near textbook, I'll give you that.... I still think you're completely wrong in that definition.
Either way... as it relates to previous discussion... there is pretty much no way to use the political science term of "liberal" and Hitler in the same sentence, and be factually correct, unless it is a sentence that says he wasn't a liberal
Rosebuddy wrote: I believe it's moral to use violence to suppress the formation of a fascist movement because simply saying you disagree with them doesn't change anything.
You can believe it's moral if you want, that's really up to you.
But the simple reality is that it doesn't work. You think the KKK marches that have been met with violent counter-protests led to KKK members saying 'gee those other guys are really angry about us, they must have a point and I should cancel my KKK membership.' You think there's a single person anywhere who went to a Trump rally and gave up support for the guy because of violent protestors? You think anyone watching on tv sees the violent protest and becomes less likely to vote for Trump?
Obviously not. What becomes interesting then is to wonder why so many people opt for that kind of aggressive reaction when it obviously doesn't work. They claim its because the cause is so important... but if the cause was so important then wouldn't they focus on what works? It's actually nothing to do with the cause, it's about the protesters proving something to themselves, or to someone else. They are looking to play the role of the revolutionary, they want to look and feel important.
Ultimately it's not about the cause at all, but about the excitement of being part of a radical movement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Yeah, it's almost as if Trump is actually a racist douchebag and not just pretending to "tell it like it is" for the sake of votes. Shocking, I know...
Nah, he's just a liar who lies.
Thing is, while Trump is out in the media talking about how a judge with Mexican ancestry can't preside over a case he's involved in, his legal defence in that case has made no motion to disqualify the judge. Because Trump and his legal team know there is absolutely no legal precedent for what he's claiming, because it would blow up the legal system. It would mean, for instance, that if an issue of religious protection went before a court in which Catholics might be given a legal protection, no Catholic judge could rule on it, and also maybe no non-Catholic judge could rule on it either. It's a completely ridiculous view of judicial impartiality.
And the thing to understand is that Trump doesn't give a gak that it's ridiculous nonsense. He also doesn't care that people will view it as racist. What Trump is thinking is that actual coverage of the lawsuit against his pretend university would have shown that he was running a con, and that would be bad for his campaign. So instead he made some stupid comments about the judge having Mexican ancestry, so now the conversation is about whether or not Trump is racist. That's safer ground for Trump, and possibly even winning ground amongst a lot of his likely voters.
It's probably going to be a pattern through the campaign - when Trump gets hit on an issue he'll respond with some ridiculous claim referencing race.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: True. We would seriously chuckle though if Trump does something off the wall to negate the debt. I can see it now. "China you build Islands in East China Sea?" and charge them something crazy like placing American made navigational bouys or something. Like a Million a day
Yes, collapsing international trade and sinking the world economy. What a chuckle that'd be.
sebster wrote: But the simple reality is that it doesn't work. You think the KKK marches that have been met with violent counter-protests led to KKK members saying 'gee those other guys are really angry about us, they must have a point and I should cancel my KKK membership.' You think there's a single person anywhere who went to a Trump rally and gave up support for the guy because of violent protestors? You think anyone watching on tv sees the violent protest and becomes less likely to vote for Trump?
To be fair, you could argue that the reason the KKK hasn't been stopped by violence is that people haven't used enough violence. If every KKK march was met by counter-protesters with AR-15s gunning down as many KKK members as possible while the police looked the other way I suspect you would quickly see the end of KKK marches. I think the much greater factor in violence failing to suppress the KKK is that there wasn't really much of a period where the question was relevant. Over a fairly short time it went from enjoying widespread support to being an irrelevant bunch of s with no meaningful political power. And there's not a whole lot of motivation to take the risks of escalating to violence when the enemy is already defeated.
It's kind of a similar situation when you look at violent opposition to Trump. You don't see mass assaults on Trump events or constant assassination attempts on Trump himself. There are just occasional punches exchanged with a small handful of violent counter-protestors. So in that situation it's safe to keep supporting Trump in defiance of the violent opposition. You know perfectly well that nobody is going to hurt you, and you can just sit around congratulating yourself on how brave you are for supporting Trump. But let's see a few Trump rallies gunned down and anti-fascist flags planted in the corpses and ask again whether or not people have been deterred from supporting Trump.
Asterios wrote: no rulings have been made, me thinks Trump wants a different judge to handle his case.
You thinks wrong. Complaining about a judge in the media doesn't actually get you a new judge. To get a new judge you have to your lawyer file a brief saying 'this judge is biased'. Trump's lawyers haven't done that, because they know Trump's complaints are vapid nonsense.
Trump is playing this in the media. Because if people focused on how the court case shows that he ran a timeshare/hard sale scam that pretended to be a university, it would look bad for him. Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Traditio wrote: Funny; I don't recall Trump supporters rioting and attacking people at Sanders' rallies.
Neither have Clinton or Sanders endorsed supporters committing violence at Trumpo rallies. In fact there isn't actually any indication that the people protesting at Trumpo rallies actually are Clinton or Sanders supporters, rather than simply anti-Trumpo people.
OTOH Trumpo actually is on record as endorsing violence against protestors at his rallies.
I know in Salt Lake, Sanders supporters tried, as a mob, to storm into the Trump rally. They ended up destroying some propert before they dispersed.
The article doesn't say that. It says they infiltrated carefully. There were some scuffles between both sides. When the rally was cancelled one of them ripped up a sign, and was attacked by Trump fans and had a bottle thrown at him.
I expect the sign being torn counts as property destruction in some sense of the term.
TheMeanDM wrote: In summary: Bernie has won more caucus states, which neither record nor award individual votes.
As examples:
Sanders won 81% of Alaska votes
Sanders win 71% of Oregon votes
No individual (i.e. popular) votes are awarded or counted for him.
This is just completely fething bonkers. I mean, this article observes that the states that held caucuses pretty consistently favoured Sanders, and it then asks us to believe that this has nothing to do with the caucus process itself, it was just a coincidence. It asks people to not even consider that a process that favours a smaller but more committed voter base over a larger but less committed vote base might just possibly have helped Sanders in the caucus states. No, it just takes the results of the caucus as gospel and representative of what the true will of the democatic base of that state must be.
At the same time, Sanders supporters are arguing that Clinton has done better in closed primaries and that's not fair. At no point did the Sanders supporters than maybe all the states with closed primaries just happen to like Clinton more... because obviously that's really stupid. But when it came to trying to pump up the Sanders campaign there's no reason applied, they just buy in to the very stupid idea that the caucuses can be used as a proxy for the popular vote and that's that.
The article starts by saying this isn't about one candidate or another, but about not lying or misleading anyone. That would be nice, yes. And any time the Sanders supporters decide to recognise that Clinton is winning because, as it was put brilliantly by Nate Silver;
"Clinton "strategy" is to persuade more "people" to "vote" for her, hence producing "majority" of "delegates"."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xraytango wrote: Here is an observation, you may research it a bit, but from all the history I have read it would seem to me that the ONLY way Communists and Socialists can take power is by violence, it is also how they maintain power.
Read more history. The Spanish Civil War is largely ignored, and that's a shame because the event should give people a great deal of political insight. Anyway, point is that a communist government was democratically elected, and then overthrown by fascists after a long and brutal civil war.
But in general communists and hardline socialists have a hard time winning power through the ballot box - their concepts just aren't that popular. But I have no idea why we're talking about communists and hardline socialists in a thread about US politics. Is this because Sanders says he's a democratic socialist? If socialist like Sanders argues for is the kind of socialism we're talking about, then pretty much all of the developed world has democratically elected governments that are to the left of Sanders.
Wealth redistribution is nothing less than theft with the threat of violence.
No, you may not like redistribution, it may even be economically harmful or just plain morally wrong, but that doesn't make it theft. This is because 'theft' is a word with an actual meaning, and that meaning requires the taking of the property to be outside of the law. Obviously if the government is enacting the taking of stuff by passing laws to do so, then the taking of stuff can't be in breach of those laws.
Ironically enough, socialists will often say 'property is theft', and be just as wrong for exactly the same reason as the anti-socialists.
Communist and Socialist countries neither produce nor innovate, they are regressive and are a shift back towards feudalism as there is no incentive for people to better themselves by chasing a profitable idea.
You are right about the stifling effect on innovation, but you are wrong about production.
Your overall point about communism stifling innovation was accurate, but you kind of let that down with the bit about sliding in to feudalism - that was just silly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: Hitler was a socialist liberal, is that a socialist?
Describing Hitler as a liberal socialist means you really, really don't understand what it means when you put liberal in front of socialist. Go and read, learn.
Anyhow, as to whether Hitler was any kind of socialist... the party's original reason for being was fighting communists. They did have socialist elements in their platform (the right to work, a populist hatred of the banks, the normal kind of stuff). But within the party support for all that stuff was always highly contentious - and that was a conflict that was finally settled when the leading figure of the socialist element of the party, Gregor Strasser, was murdered by Hitler's men in The Night of Long Knives. Hitler's opinion on socialism was made pretty clear that night.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Traditio wrote: To my mind, at this point, there's simply no real question of whether or not there will be a Trump presidency. Trump is closing on Clinton in most polls, and somewhat beating her in others, and public opinion of Clinton just keeps falling.
First up, it's fething June. Being certain about a two horse race that is happening 5 months from now is silly.
Second up, Trump consolidated Republican support after the rest of the field dropped out, while Clinton is still in a primary race. So what we're seeing is a point in time where temporary factors advantage Trump, and despite that advantage he's still trailing in average of polls.
As such, concluding that Trump is the favourite is dubious, and concluding that he has the race won is bonkers.
I think Sanders could have beaten Trump, but the democratic party fethed him over.
Holy gak that's silly. Clinton has more votes and more pledged delegates. She is winning because more of the base has supported her. This nonsense has been going on for months now and people are still oblivious about one number being higher than another number. How is that possible?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
xraytango wrote: That's what is called true liberalism, however the leftist version of liberalism actually means to liberally apply government.
No, it doesn't. It came about in the first half of the 20th century, as the values of classical liberalism were extended to make a case for new progressive ideas, such as the New Deal. They would argue, as an example I'm making up right now, that in classical liberalism individual freedom is important, and they would then point out that a person isn't actually very free at all if he's living on a street corner and begging for change, and so jobs programs and a social safety net become important to individual liberty.
And I mean, really, just ask yourself if anyone, anywhere would actually be in favour of liberalism and think refer to their own policies as 'liberally applying government'? You really should be able to tell how that's a smear invented by people opposed to modern liberalism.
Teh Bern not liking AP "deciding" that Clinton secured the nomination right before CA's primary:
No-one should like what the AP has done. Counting super-delegates at this point is basically saying 'based on how this person says they're going to vote in a fortnight, we've announced the election'. It's bonkers.
Probably the only effect it will have is that it will further confuse people's understanding of the Democratic primary race, a process that the media has already done a very good job of confusing everyone about. It will continue the nonsense myth that Clinton has only won because of super-delegates
That in turn might make it Clinton's plan to declare victory in New Jersey a little less dramatic, and a little less effective. Cheering your voters for giving you the most votes and most pledged delegates and calling the party around you is a solid strategy, but if there's nonsense out there about how super-delegates (who haven't even voted yet) have already decided the race, that message might get a little bit lost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Honestly, I think that in today's political climate, all of the candidates will be held "accountable" by the media. While this is hyperbole, it just seems like we're getting to the point where if Bernie eats a pastrami sandwich, it's gonna face massive media scrutiny. A buddy of mine on FB posts a gakload of pictures that I often just scroll by. One of them today was about the "irony" of Clinton giving a speech on inequality, while wearing a $12k jacket. As seb's post shows, she gets the most negative coverage... but are we really to the point of scrutinizing wardrobe choices as legitimate political statements?
Yeah, I think there's certainly a new media culture of heaping criticism on everyone in politics. Gotcha nonsense like Clinton wearing an expensive jacket is an example. I think this is largely because the media gets pulled by the nose... in the new media environment with skeleton staffs journalists are basically overworked and short on time, so if someone else has already written something, they'll just follow along. So they follow the sea of blogs and other internet noise that posts endless negative nonsense about people on the opposite side of politics.
The recent thing about Trump talking about a black guy as 'my African American' is a classic example. It was absolute nonsense - Trump didn't use the exact right words in the exact right way, but there's a vast number of racially conscious blogs who'll put up hundreds of thousands of words about this, and the media just follows along.
From there it shouldn't be too hard to see why Clinton has gotten the most negative media. Professional Clinton haters pre-date the internet, and were some of its earliest adopters. The media just eats that crap up and puts it in the mainstream.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: To be fair, you could argue that the reason the KKK hasn't been stopped by violence is that people haven't used enough violence. If every KKK march was met by counter-protesters with AR-15s gunning down as many KKK members as possible while the police looked the other way I suspect you would quickly see the end of KKK marches.
It might lead to the end of KKK marches, but not the KKK, because you don't change anyone's opinion by punching them. As such it should be pretty clear that people go about punching political opponents for reasons other than trying to advance their political ideals.
It's kind of a similar situation when you look at violent opposition to Trump. You don't see mass assaults on Trump events or constant assassination attempts on Trump himself. There are just occasional punches exchanged with a small handful of violent counter-protestors. So in that situation it's safe to keep supporting Trump in defiance of the violent opposition. You know perfectly well that nobody is going to hurt you, and you can just sit around congratulating yourself on how brave you are for supporting Trump.
The same thing is true of the anti-Trump protesters. They shout and get boisterous and maybe even get in a physical altercation. Then they feel good for how brave they were in standing up to Trump. They didn't actually do anything useful, but of course that's not the point.
But let's see a few Trump rallies gunned down and anti-fascist flags planted in the corpses and ask again whether or not people have been deterred from supporting Trump.
Again, there might be fewer people at Trump rallies, but you wouldn't see reduced support. People don't work that way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Yep, that's exactly it. Trump doesn't want coverage of the actual case, because his Trump University wasn't just a scam, it was an amazingly lazy, gakky scam that was always going to blow up in his face. So instead he makes noise that touches on race, the media and blogging world falls for Trump's stupid trick, and that's that.
Communist and Socialist countries neither produce nor innovate, they are regressive and are a shift back towards feudalism as there is no incentive for people to better themselves by chasing a profitable idea. An idea which would either have to be sanctioned by the state to see development, or would be appropriated by the state after work has been done; because all work is for the state, all profit is for the state, efforts not benefitting the state are discouraged.
Soviet Russia put the first animal, man, woman, satellite and space station in orbit, they took the first pictures of the far side of the moon, they landed the first probe on Venus etc.
So please, tell me again about how there is never any innovation or production in socialist/communist countries.
I think Sanders could have beaten Trump, but the democratic party fethed him over.
Holy gak that's silly. Clinton has more votes and more pledged delegates. She is winning because more of the base has supported her. This nonsense has been going on for months now and people are still oblivious about one number being higher than another number. How is that possible?
Consider that she barely won against a political nobody while having the whole democratic party establishment behind here, It makes you think that her support outside the democratic establishment is weak.
Also Trumps strongpoint is his anti-establishment attiutde, which probably is going to work better against Hillary then Sanders.
Asterios wrote:so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?
Lol. I get it.
Back to Trump, Clinton and Sanders, though:
Does anyone foresee the American public having a more favorable view of Clinton as the race wears on?
Nope.
Which poison do you prefer? Cyanide, VX or Mustard?
Besides... there's always that Libertarian candidate.
Johnson is a dope smoking (at least six weeks ago), open borders, sales tax kind of guy. He's still better than HRC and...IT.
Her interview Sunday was exactly why her approval ratings are almost as bad as IT. When asked if she believed people had a right to Firearms under the Second, she started with "if there is a right." Jeez pick a side and quit playing lawyer.
sebster wrote: But the simple reality is that it doesn't work. You think the KKK marches that have been met with violent counter-protests led to KKK members saying 'gee those other guys are really angry about us, they must have a point and I should cancel my KKK membership.' You think there's a single person anywhere who went to a Trump rally and gave up support for the guy because of violent protestors? You think anyone watching on tv sees the violent protest and becomes less likely to vote for Trump?
To be fair, you could argue that the reason the KKK hasn't been stopped by violence is that people haven't used enough violence. If every KKK march was met by counter-protesters with AR-15s gunning down as many KKK members as possible while the police looked the other way I suspect you would quickly see the end of KKK marches. I think the much greater factor in violence failing to suppress the KKK is that there wasn't really much of a period where the question was relevant. Over a fairly short time it went from enjoying widespread support to being an irrelevant bunch of s with no meaningful political power. And there's not a whole lot of motivation to take the risks of escalating to violence when the enemy is already defeated.
It's kind of a similar situation when you look at violent opposition to Trump. You don't see mass assaults on Trump events or constant assassination attempts on Trump himself. There are just occasional punches exchanged with a small handful of violent counter-protestors. So in that situation it's safe to keep supporting Trump in defiance of the violent opposition. You know perfectly well that nobody is going to hurt you, and you can just sit around congratulating yourself on how brave you are for supporting Trump. But let's see a few Trump rallies gunned down and anti-fascist flags planted in the corpses and ask again whether or not people have been deterred from supporting Trump.
Actually Sebster, if you take a step back and look at it....it does make sense.
But you have to understand how a caucus works....
Lets say Oregon is a caucus state.
--every person gathers in a group at a caucus site
-- the groups are counted and compared and the results are reported as # of delegates awarded (not as # of voters or caucus goers). It is strictly by delegate count.
Lets say Missouri is a voting state.
--you go vote, your vote is recorded, and it is tallied with everybody else that votes
Lets say each state has 100 delegates to award.
If 10 million in people CAUCUS in Oregon, and 7 million CAUCUS for Sanders, that means he gets 70 delegates.
If 50 million people in Oregon CAUCUSED (I know there arent that many in the state) and 70% CAUCUS for Sanders....he still only gets 70 delegates.
Now in Missouri....its is different obviously because every vote is tracked and counted and reported.
So if 1 million people vote and 40% vote for Sanders, he is recorded as having won 40 Delegates and 400,000 votes.
If 10 million vote and Sanders gets 40%, he gets 40 delegates and 4 million votes.
So....
You cannot arbitrarily dismiss the fact that caucus state results *could* skew the popular vote, because there is no accounting of how many peple actually showed up to caucus for any given candidate.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
TheMeanDM wrote: Actually Sebster, if you take a step back and look at it....it does make sense.
But you have to understand how a caucus works....
Lets say Oregon is a caucus state.
--every person gathers in a group at a caucus site
-- the groups are counted and compared and the results are reported as # of delegates awarded (not as # of voters or caucus goers). It is strictly by delegate count.
Lets say Missouri is a voting state.
--you go vote, your vote is recorded, and it is tallied with everybody else that votes
Lets say each state has 100 delegates to award.
If 10 million in people CAUCUS in Oregon, and 7 million CAUCUS for Sanders, that means he gets 70 delegates.
If 50 million people in Oregon CAUCUSED (I know there arent that many in the state) and 70% CAUCUS for Sanders....he still only gets 70 delegates.
Now in Missouri....its is different obviously because every vote is tracked and counted and reported.
So if 1 million people vote and 40% vote for Sanders, he is recorded as having won 40 Delegates and 400,000 votes.
If 10 million vote and Sanders gets 40%, he gets 40 delegates and 4 million votes.
So....
You cannot arbitrarily dismiss the fact that caucus state results *could* skew the popular vote, because there is no accounting of how many peple actually showed up to caucus for any given candidate.
the idea of one person, one vote has long been extinct.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
Here's the double-standards that I think everyone is missing...
This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
Here's the double-standards that I think everyone is missing...
This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
Interesting point whembly. So then, by definition, is it racist to say a supreme court full of only white male judges is bad? I know most people would argue diversity is better, even if it is by definition racist.
It's not at all racism. How good are white male actors at playing oriental women roles, for example? Obviously being an oriental woman is a massive advantage in filling the role of an oriental woman.
What is racism is to suggest that a judge must be biased just because he's a Mexican. (Especially when it isn't true.)
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
Here's the double-standards that I think everyone is missing...
This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
Always worth noting that racism itself is also pervasive in our culture, and many people support Trump precisely because he is a racist.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
Here's the double-standards that I think everyone is missing...
This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
Always worth noting that racism itself is also pervasive in our culture, and many people support Trump precisely because he is a racist.
problem is racism comes in many shades and colors and even according to some minorities cannot be racist and that is racist in and of itself, anything that sets one race apart from others is racist, people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
Here's the double-standards that I think everyone is missing...
This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
Interesting point whembly. So then, by definition, is it racist to say a supreme court full of only white male judges is bad?
Yes.
I know most people would argue diversity is better, even if it is by definition racist.
I'd argue it would indeed be better if there's diversity, there's nothing inherently wrong making such statements. But to put forth the idea that an all white (or all female, or all whateves) is bad is by definition racist/bigoted/x-ist.
sebster wrote: Instead Trump is changing this to a story about racism and a white person getting picked on, because a decent chunk of his base eats that nonsense up.
And, just as importantly, the people who are going to refuse to vote for Trump over his racism are already refusing to do so. Short of him appearing on stage at a KKK rally there just isn't much Trump can do to hurt himself by continuing to be racist. But his business record (his only claimed qualification for being president) is an entirely different question. There are probably a lot of unenthusiastic Trump supporters who are willing to overlook the racism because he's the designated pro-business candidate. But if there's lots of media attention on his business being a fraud and a complete failure...
Agreed but it's also another example of Trump's penchant to misconstrue concepts and mislead the public on important factual matters. It's ok for judges to have a bias, they're human, we all have different perspectives and bias. We have rules for our judicial system and an appelate process to keep personal bias from becoming a problem. What judges have to avoid isn't bias, it's a conflict of interest. If there is a conflict of interest or the perception of a possible conflict of interest then it might be necessary for a judge to recuse himself/herself from the case or petition for a different judge to try to case. It's this kind of erroroneous divisive rhetoric that Trump spews out that makes him such a terrible candidate. He makes public discourse demonstrablyworse and the public more misinformed than ever. I can distinctly recall Sotomayor stating that her being a Latina would bring a different perspective to SCOTUS during her confirmation hearings and she's right and that's perfectly fine. It doesn't make her a better judge or prevent her from making bad rulings it just means that she's just as human as the other SCOTUS judges. This kind of rhetoric from Trump, and other groups, that pushes extreme tribalism and distrust of everyone not exactly like you is bad for society as it encourages people to make decisions based on false perceptions.
Here's the double-standards that I think everyone is missing...
This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
Always worth noting that racism itself is also pervasive in our culture, and many people support Trump precisely because he is a racist.
In addition to agism, sexism, 'whatever flavor of'-ism.
The key is to honestly point it out and address it head on.
ok quick question, there is a unique job and a unique company that is in need of unique workers who have to already have the skill required, many people of many colors apply, yet only those of one color actually qualify, if the employer only hires those of the one color does it make him racist?
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
because by doing so they segregate themselves from the rest of America, hold onto your backgrounds, but don't make them identify you, everything that has gone before has culminated into what you are now, identify yourself, not how others identify you.
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
because by doing so they segregate themselves from the rest of America, hold onto your backgrounds, but don't make them identify you, everything that has gone before has culminated into what you are now, identify yourself, not how others identify you.
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
There is nothing wron with knowing your background/ancestory/culture and being proud of it. However there is nothing positive about being divisive over false perceptions of differences. We're all different but all Americans are equally American. There is no good reason to be divisive instead of inclusive, of dividing people up into being this kind of American and that kind of American when there really isn't any consequential difference. An Iriah American and a Muslim American are equal under the law and are fundamentally the same in all official regards so why highlight differences just for the sake of tribalism?
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
because by doing so they segregate themselves from the rest of America, hold onto your backgrounds, but don't make them identify you, everything that has gone before has culminated into what you are now, identify yourself, not how others identify you.
What is American culture?
American culture is where all become one, we are all American's.
meanwhile wonders if somebody is trying to assure Clinton gets the Nomination and/or election?
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
because by doing so they segregate themselves from the rest of America, hold onto your backgrounds, but don't make them identify you, everything that has gone before has culminated into what you are now, identify yourself, not how others identify you.
What is American culture?
American culture is where all become one, we are all American's.
Like these lovely ladies?
or these happy chaps?
Joking aside, "all become one" is not a culture. Can you give me examples of American culture?
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
because by doing so they segregate themselves from the rest of America, hold onto your backgrounds, but don't make them identify you, everything that has gone before has culminated into what you are now, identify yourself, not how others identify you.
What is American culture?
American culture is where all become one, we are all American's.
This might exist as an idea, but I'm not sure it ever really happened. People have been dividing themselves on identity lines, and have been divided by others on identity lines, as long as the United States has existed.
people need to learn in America it is not African American, Asian American, Hispanic American we are all Americans and only Americans. by adding anything to that you are seperating yourselves from the rest of America and thereby making yourself a racist.
Just curios, but why do you think that people "need to learn" this? What will be better if people stop identifying with their ethnic, cultural, or religious backgrounds?
because by doing so they segregate themselves from the rest of America, hold onto your backgrounds, but don't make them identify you, everything that has gone before has culminated into what you are now, identify yourself, not how others identify you.
What is American culture?
American culture is where all become one, we are all American's.
Joking aside, "all become one" is not a culture. Can you give me examples of American culture?
American cultures is a melting pot of all cultures and ideals, we are each unique, but all American, by calling yourself something else you set yourself apart you separate yourself from others and this is not American ideals, if I go up to 100 Americans of various colors and ideals they should say we are American, not something else, since by doing so you set yourself apart and segregate yourself from the rest.
Exactly. Hence the term African American, Chinese American, Irish American, Native American, etc. Unique, but all American.
but by calling yourself African American, Chinese American, Irish American and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America, you say you are American, but....
Exactly. Hence the term African American, Chinese American, Irish American, Native American, etc. Unique, but all American.
but by calling yourself African American, Chinese American, Irish American and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America, you say you are American, but....
What exactly is "the rest of America"? We are all made up of our ethnic heritages.
Exactly. Hence the term African American, Chinese American, Irish American, Native American, etc. Unique, but all American.
but by calling yourself African American, Chinese American, Irish American and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America, you say you are American, but....
"By calling yourself North Carolinian, Californian, Texan, and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America. You say you are American, but..."
We're a country built on division from the very start. Lots of parts coming together to make a whole. The key part of "_____ American" is the second word; just because there's an identifier before it doesn't mean that it's not a part of this country and culture.
Damn you, feeder, for beating me to the Borg joke.
Exactly. Hence the term African American, Chinese American, Irish American, Native American, etc. Unique, but all American.
but by calling yourself African American, Chinese American, Irish American and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America, you say you are American, but....
What exactly is "the rest of America"? We are all made up of our ethnic heritages.
but America is the great melting pot where we all combine into one culture one people American. we should identify with our ethnic heritages but we should not separate ourselves because of them.
Exactly. Hence the term African American, Chinese American, Irish American, Native American, etc. Unique, but all American.
but by calling yourself African American, Chinese American, Irish American and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America, you say you are American, but....
"By calling yourself North Carolinian, Californian, Texan, and so on and so on, you segregate yourself from the rest of America. You say you are American, but..."
We're a country built on division from the very start. Lots of parts coming together to make a whole. The key part of "_____ American" is the second word; just because there's an identifier before it doesn't mean that it's not a part of this country and culture.
Damn you, feeder, for beating me to the Borg joke.
that is where you are wrong I do not identify myself as Californian, I say i'm in California, but identify myself as an American, just because you practice segregation and separate yourself from the rest does not mean all do.
He has a point. We must be careful that separation does not intensify. The Balkans is an excellent example of what happens when you do that. Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan are others. The wars between the Scottish clans would be another. Clan McBlarrghhh vs. Clan McBLLarrgghh.
Separate too much and you become tribes in the area, and not the nation.
that is where you are wrong I do not identify myself as Californian, I say i'm in California, but identify myself as an American, just because you practice segregation and separate yourself from the rest does not mean all do.
I am a Texan. "You may all go to Hell. I shall go to Texas. " "If I owned Hell and Texas I would rent out Texas and live in Hell."
There is no such thing as a cohesive "American" culture. The closest thing we have to an American culture is the fact that we are made up of many individual cultures.
I am also pretty sure we just had this conversation a month or so back. I'm pretty sure we have it at least every other month.
@Asterios: To follow your logic why even identify as an American? After all, you'reca member of the human species before you're an American. Why not just identify as a "citizen of Earth"?
jasper76 wrote: @Asterios: To follow your logic why even identify as an American? After all, you'reca member of the human species before you're an American. Why not just identify as a "citizen of Earth"?
because Earth is not unified or even close to it and until then I will still strive to push for a unified America, once done, then I'll push for a unified Earth. one step at a time.
Frazzled wrote: He has a point. We must be careful that separation does not intensify. The Balkans is an excellent example of what happens when you do that. Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan are others. The wars between the Scottish clans would be another. Clan McBlarrghhh vs. Clan McBLLarrgghh.
Separate too much and you become tribes in the area, and not the nation.
that is where you are wrong I do not identify myself as Californian, I say i'm in California, but identify myself as an American, just because you practice segregation and separate yourself from the rest does not mean all do.
I am a Texan. "You may all go to Hell. I shall go to Texas. " "If I owned Hell and Texas I would rent out Texas and live in Hell."
In other words, people shouldn't do that, but I can, because I'm a Texan. Maybe we should get rid of the mex part in Tex-mex food? Just call it Texan stew?
jasper76 wrote: @Asterios: To follow your logic why even identify as an American? After all, you'reca member of the human species before you're an American. Why not just identify as a "citizen of Earth"?
because Earth is not unified or even close to it and until then I will still strive to push for a unified America, once done, then I'll push for a unified Earth. one step at a time.
But we aren't just America. We are the United States of America. (I thought it was conservatives who pushed for greater states' sovereignty?" separate but part of a whole. That's "America".
Frazzled wrote: He has a point. We must be careful that separation does not intensify. The Balkans is an excellent example of what happens when you do that. Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan are others. The wars between the Scottish clans would be another. Clan McBlarrghhh vs. Clan McBLLarrgghh.
Separate too much and you become tribes in the area, and not the nation.
that is where you are wrong I do not identify myself as Californian, I say i'm in California, but identify myself as an American, just because you practice segregation and separate yourself from the rest does not mean all do.
I am a Texan. "You may all go to Hell. I shall go to Texas. " "If I owned Hell and Texas I would rent out Texas and live in Hell."
In other words, people shouldn't do that, but I can, because I'm a Texan. Maybe we should get rid of the mex part in Tex-mex food? Just call it Texan stew?
jasper76 wrote: @Asterios: To follow your logic why even identify as an American? After all, you'reca member of the human species before you're an American. Why not just identify as a "citizen of Earth"?
because Earth is not unified or even close to it and until then I will still strive to push for a unified America, once done, then I'll push for a unified Earth. one step at a time.
But we aren't just America. We are the United States of America. (I thought it was conservatives who pushed for greater states' sovereignty?" separate but part of a whole. That's "America".
jasper76 wrote: @Asterios: To follow your logic why even identify as an American? After all, you'reca member of the human species before you're an American. Why not just identify as a "citizen of Earth"?
because Earth is not unified or even close to it and until then I will still strive to push for a unified America, once done, then I'll push for a unified Earth. one step at a time.
But Earth is plenty unified. We don't have the capability to divide it, and it will still be here after the human race is extinct.
In other words, people shouldn't do that, but I can, because I'm a Texan. Maybe we should get rid of the mex part in Tex-mex food? Just call it Texan stew?
It means we only suffer the other states to stay with us at our convenience.
WWIII: The Great California Texas Shootout-TexMex vs. Mex, which is better!
Asterios wrote:so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?
Lol. I get it.
Back to Trump, Clinton and Sanders, though:
Does anyone foresee the American public having a more favorable view of Clinton as the race wears on?
Yes. After the primary, when the Sanders inflammation begins to smoothie away, a lot of that energy will be spend on general DNC defense and talking points, some of which will benefit Clinton. Also, by the 200th mention of Bengazi or email scandal, the public will probably have become so desensitized to those attacks that they will form a protective callous over and around their perception of Hillary that will ward away all kinds of Republican talking point irritants. I suspect numbness is more favorable than the current view, yes?
Asterios wrote:so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?
Lol. I get it.
Back to Trump, Clinton and Sanders, though:
Does anyone foresee the American public having a more favorable view of Clinton as the race wears on?
Yes. After the primary, when the Sanders inflammation begins to smoothie away, a lot of that energy will be spend on general DNC defense and talking points, some of which will benefit Clinton. Also, by the 200th mention of Bengazi or email scandal, the public will probably have become so desensitized to those attacks that they will form a protective callous over and around their perception of Hillary that will ward away all kinds of Republican talking point
We're already to that point I believe. Republucans have become the little boy that cried 'scandal' with regards to the Clintons. So much energy and effort has been spent during the last 20+ tears inventing obviously bs claims that anything new is likely to be met with disbelief and make the person claiming it look bad regardless of how true it is.
Asterios wrote:so essentially you are whitewashing his history to suit your needs?
Lol. I get it.
Back to Trump, Clinton and Sanders, though:
Does anyone foresee the American public having a more favorable view of Clinton as the race wears on?
Yes. After the primary, when the Sanders inflammation begins to smoothie away, a lot of that energy will be spend on general DNC defense and talking points, some of which will benefit Clinton. Also, by the 200th mention of Bengazi or email scandal, the public will probably have become so desensitized to those attacks that they will form a protective callous over and around their perception of Hillary that will ward away all kinds of Republican talking point
We're already to that point I believe. Republucans have become the little boy that cried 'scandal' with regards to the Clintons. So much energy and effort has been spent during the last 20+ tears inventing obviously bs claims that anything new is likely to be met with disbelief and make the person claiming it look bad regardless of how true it is.
Tell that to the FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton... the first female Presidential nominee who's also under the thread of federal indictments.
The first female nominee that has a drivers license.
The first female nominee to drink water.
The first female nominee to say the word "purple"
Etc, etc.
And?
Trump would be the first Orangutan President...
Point being, Hillary is in danger of being recommended for formal criminal indictment. If she skates this and becomes President, gak ain't going to get done. The stalemate would be glorious.
DNC would be better off with Sanders or Biden as the nominee, just as RNC would be better having Kasich/Rubio/Cruz as their nominee.
d-usa wrote: There is no such thing as a cohesive "American" culture. The closest thing we have to an American culture is the fact that we are made up of many individual cultures.
I am also pretty sure we just had this conversation a month or so back. I'm pretty sure we have it at least every other month.
American culture is the widespread acceptance of a set of social values and legal concepts under the auspices of which we have created a specific nation that protects these values and concepts. There are many nations on earth that don't hold he same values and legal concepts and that is the appeal that inspires people to immigrate to become American to enjoy living in our unique environment. In most countries it is much harder to be accepted as being an equal citizen regardless of your background than it is in America. We live in a huge country full of people that look different, talk different, act different, etc. but the vast majority of us accept our fellow citizens as being just as American as ourselves regardless of those differences.
@whembley, the way I read your post it seemed you were trying to differentiate Clinton from other female Presidential nominees for the FBI investigation, but there have been no other females Presidential nominees. And as a side note, Clinton's gender is irrelevant (so far as I can tell) to the FBI investigation.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley, the way I read your post it seemed you were trying to differentiate Clinton from other female Presidential nominees for the FBI investigation, but there have been no other females Presidential nominees. And as a side note, Clinton's gender is irrelevant (so far as I can tell) to the FBI investigation.
There are those who'll push the achievement that Clinton is the first Female Presidential nominee... that is, she broke the glass barrier.
If we're playing the "first" game, then the obvious retort is that she's the first Presidential nominee under serious federal investigations.
DNC would be better off with Sanders or Biden as the nominee, just as RNC would be better having Kasich/Rubio/Cruz as their nominee.
Yes.
It seems like every thirty years, the major parties have to nominate one or two real losers in succession before they get their act together again. Unfortunately this time both parties have done it at the same time.
The Republicans did it with Goldwater and then Dole (I liked Dole)
The Democrats did it with McGovern and the dynamic duo of Mondale and Dukakis.
Prestor Jon wrote: but the vast majority of us accept our fellow citizens as being just as American as ourselves regardless of those differences.
Endless soundbites from conservatives about the "real America" and "real Americans" undermines your point, as does the very recent and very real effort of Americans to suppress the rights of homosexuals.
Voter suppression may as well be one of the core principals of the GOP.
"Just as American as oiurselves" is a nice phrase...but there's plenty of evidence that many Americans do not think about their fellow citizens this way.
Hell, it wasn't all that long ago that President HW Bush said atheists should not be considered citizens.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley, the way I read your post it seemed you were trying to differentiate Clinton from other female Presidential nominees for the FBI investigation, but there have been no other females Presidential nominees. And as a side note, Clinton's gender is irrelevant (so far as I can tell) to the FBI investigation.
There are those who'll push the achievement that Clinton is the first Female Presidential nominee... that is, she broke the glass barrier.
If we're playing the "first" game, then the obvious retort is that she's the first Presidential nominee under serious federal investigations.
Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.
Prestor Jon wrote: but the vast majority of us accept our fellow citizens as being just as American as ourselves regardless of those differences.
Endless soundbites from conservatives about the "real America" and "real Americans" undermines your point, as does the very recent and very real effort of Americans to suppress the rights of homosexuals.
Voter suppression may as well be one of the core principals of the GOP.
"Just as American as oiurselves" is a nice phrase...but there's plenty of evidence that many Americans do not think about their fellow citizens this way.
Hell, it wasn't all that long ago that President HW Bush said atheists should not be considered citizens.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley, the way I read your post it seemed you were trying to differentiate Clinton from other female Presidential nominees for the FBI investigation, but there have been no other females Presidential nominees. And as a side note, Clinton's gender is irrelevant (so far as I can tell) to the FBI investigation.
There are those who'll push the achievement that Clinton is the first Female Presidential nominee... that is, she broke the glass barrier.
If we're playing the "first" game, then the obvious retort is that she's the first Presidential nominee under serious federal investigations.
Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.
I don't consider an IRS audit to be serious, seriously i've gone thru a couple of them myself and ended up getting back more money from the government. the IRS does audits too numerous to be considered serious. its like their traffic tickets.
Prestor Jon wrote: but the vast majority of us accept our fellow citizens as being just as American as ourselves regardless of those differences.
Endless soundbites from conservatives about the "real America" and "real Americans" undermines your point, as does the very recent and very real effort of Americans to suppress the rights of homosexuals.
Voter suppression may as well be one of the core principals of the GOP.
"Just as American as oiurselves" is a nice phrase...but there's plenty of evidence that many Americans do not think about their fellow citizens this way.
Hell, it wasn't all that long ago that President HW Bush said atheists should not be considered citizens.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley, the way I read your post it seemed you were trying to differentiate Clinton from other female Presidential nominees for the FBI investigation, but there have been no other females Presidential nominees. And as a side note, Clinton's gender is irrelevant (so far as I can tell) to the FBI investigation.
There are those who'll push the achievement that Clinton is the first Female Presidential nominee... that is, she broke the glass barrier.
If we're playing the "first" game, then the obvious retort is that she's the first Presidential nominee under serious federal investigations.
Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.
There have been several concerted attempts to block homosexual marriage here in NC but I've never seen any of the proponents of such measures suggest that homosexual Americans aren't US citizens. I wouldn't characterize political ad campaigns and speeches as reflective of widespread American ideals or beliefs. The two might align in some instances but it's certainly not a direct correlation.
jasper76 wrote: @whembley, the way I read your post it seemed you were trying to differentiate Clinton from other female Presidential nominees for the FBI investigation, but there have been no other females Presidential nominees. And as a side note, Clinton's gender is irrelevant (so far as I can tell) to the FBI investigation.
There are those who'll push the achievement that Clinton is the first Female Presidential nominee... that is, she broke the glass barrier.
If we're playing the "first" game, then the obvious retort is that she's the first Presidential nominee under serious federal investigations.
Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.
You referring to Trump's IRS audit? Is it a serious thing? Sure. We'd like everyone to play by the rules and pay their taxes.
Just as we'd like for our elected official to follow the fething law on handling TS/SCI information.
@ Preston Jon: IMO, any effort to suppress the civil rights of a minority group is to brand them as second class citizens...in other words, not full citizens.
@Asterios: Do you know why Trump was selected for auditing? I don't. Because the IRS performs many audits does not mean that any one of those audits is "not serious".
@whembley: yep, tax evasion and insecure IT setups are both bad. I don't expect everyone to be an IT expert...I do expect everyone to pay the taxes they owe.
Prestor Jon wrote: There have been several concerted attempts to block homosexual marriage here in NC but I've never seen any of the proponents of such measures suggest that homosexual Americans aren't US citizens..
Yes, citizens with fewer rights that other citizens. However, Jasper didn't say that gays aren't viewed as citizens, just that there is a very real effort to not allow them the full protection under the law that everyone else enjoys.
Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.
An audit is not a criminal investigation.
Oh and in regards to who's an American, I'll just note cat lovers aren't even real people, much less citizens. You know they are hollow inside right? Thats what Rodney tells me.
And now we've seriously got the argument that a nation founded on the ideas of liberty and freedom from persecution requires people to confirm to the majority, otherwise they're being racist. The Off-Topic forum never ceases to amaze me.
Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.
An audit is not a criminal investigation.
Oh and in regards to who's an American, I'll just note cat lovers aren't even real people, much less citizens. You know they are hollow inside right? Thats what Rodney tells me.
All whembley said was "serious federal investigation".
Prestor Jon wrote: There have been several concerted attempts to block homosexual marriage here in NC but I've never seen any of the proponents of such measures suggest that homosexual Americans aren't US citizens..
Yes, citizens with fewer rights that other citizens. However, Jasper didn't say that gays aren't viewed as citizens, just that there is a very real effort to not allow them the full protection under the law that everyone else enjoys.
Yet national polls show support for the legalization of homosexual marriage and it's now legal in all 50 states. Are we now counting ineffectual attempts that failed to be actively harmful to people?
The fact remains that the US is much more tolerant and welcoming in regards to accepting people as citizens as other countries. We have nothing that compares to the vast Muslim ghettos in France where generations of people who have been born in France still aren't considered to be real French people. We have a huge country wherein we share a common language unlike other large countries like China. There are a host of nations out there where people are in open violent conflict with each other over religious differences while people of the same religious groups peacefully coexist here in the US. If you guys really don't think that we live in a far more tolerant society than most parts of the world you need to get out more.
@whembley: yep, tax evasion and insecure IT setups are both bad. I don't expect everyone to be an IT expert...I do expect everyone to pay the taxes they owe.
I'd proffer that by not following the laws/regulation in handling TS/SCI information is a far more serious crime than anything to do with an IRS audit (which isn't criminal... yet.)
Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.
An audit is not a criminal investigation.
Oh and in regards to who's an American, I'll just note cat lovers aren't even real people, much less citizens. You know they are hollow inside right? Thats what Rodney tells me.
All whembley said was "serious federal investigation".
Thanks fore the clarification. Then to be further clear, HRC is under criminal investigation by the FBI. Those boys don't play.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now we've seriously got the argument that a nation founded on the ideas of liberty and freedom from persecution requires people to confirm to the majority, otherwise they're being racist. The Off-Topic forum never ceases to amaze me.
Citizens of the USA live in a society, therefore they live under the auspices of commonly accepted and held values and beliefs. We certainly don't live in anarchy. If we didn't all mostly agree on basic common principles then we wouldn't have the functioning society that we currently enjoy.
Do you consider an IRS audit to be a serious federal investigation? I do. So she's not even the only current candidate under a serious federal investigation.
An audit is not a criminal investigation.
Oh and in regards to who's an American, I'll just note cat lovers aren't even real people, much less citizens. You know they are hollow inside right? Thats what Rodney tells me.
All whembley said was "serious federal investigation".
Thanks fore the clarification. Then to be further clear, HRC is under criminal investigation by the FBI. Those boys don't play.
Yup. Not a "security review" that the Clintonistas tried to spin. The FBI don't waste their time.
From what I understand, the FBI has not publicly identified which if any federal statute Clinton is being investigated for violating... meaning that, at least right now, cannot be considered a "criminal investigation." Of course, it should also be noted that the FBI has no legal obligation to identify any federal statute that might have been violated.
whembly wrote: Yup. Not a "security review" that the Clintonistas tried to spin. The FBI don't waste their time.
Not according to the government attorneys most recent court filing.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now we've seriously got the argument that a nation founded on the ideas of liberty and freedom from persecution requires people to confirm to the majority, otherwise they're being racist. The Off-Topic forum never ceases to amaze me.
Citizens of the USA live in a society, therefore they live under the auspices of commonly accepted and held values and beliefs. We certainly don't live in anarchy. If we didn't all mostly agree on basic common principles then we wouldn't have the functioning society that we currently enjoy.
True, but that does not mean total cultural conformation. One can be very different culturally from a countryman and still follow all the laws of one's country.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now we've seriously got the argument that a nation founded on the ideas of liberty and freedom from persecution requires people to confirm to the majority, otherwise they're being racist. The Off-Topic forum never ceases to amaze me.
Citizens of the USA live in a society, therefore they live under the auspices of commonly accepted and held values and beliefs. We certainly don't live in anarchy. If we didn't all mostly agree on basic common principles then we wouldn't have the functioning society that we currently enjoy.
True, but that does not mean total cultural conformation. One can be very different culturally from a countryman and still follow all the laws of one's country.
True and the widespread acceptance of that truth in the USA sets us apart from a lot of other countries. We can all be different people but we're the same in that we believe in the same rules and values for society so we can peacefully and productively coexist.
jasper76 wrote: @ Preston Jon: IMO, any effort to suppress the civil rights of a minority group is to brand them as second class citizens...in other words, not full citizens.
@Asterios: Do you know why Trump was selected for auditing? I don't. Because the IRS performs many audits does not mean that any one of those audits is "not serious".
@whembley: yep, tax evasion and insecure IT setups are both bad. I don't expect everyone to be an IT expert...I do expect everyone to pay the taxes they owe.
Why was I audited? they never told me except it was random, hell a case could be made that Trump's audit is political in nature? wouldn't be the first time the IRS was influenced by politics (hint hint the tea party deal), so the fact you would compare an audit to what Clinton is going thru is just showing you are desperate for anything against Trump while deflecting off of Clinton.
From what I understand, the FBI has not publicly identified which if any federal statute Clinton is being investigated for violating... meaning that, at least right now, cannot be considered a "criminal investigation." Of course, it should also be noted that the FBI has no legal obligation to identify any federal statute that might have been violated.
whembly wrote: Yup. Not a "security review" that the Clintonistas tried to spin. The FBI don't waste their time.
Not according to the government attorneys most recent court filing.
BS. The FBI investigates crimes, not civil actions.
Frazzled wrote: BS. The FBI investigates crimes, not civil actions.
They investigate alleged criminal activity and also function as a part of the United States national security apparatus as a domestic intelligence agency.
This isn't the 1930s and they don't just hunt rum-runners and mobsters; their mission is incredibly varied and pretty damn broad.
@Asterios: I didn't really compare the two, except that both constitute "serious federal investigations", which was not even my own choice of words.
I don't really need to search far to find things wrong with Trump. The guy has more red flags than a Chinese parade. And I don't support Clinton at present. My humble endorsement, for what it's worth, goes to Bernie Sanders.
All this to say, please don't assume you understand my motives.
whembly wrote: Yup. Not a "security review" that the Clintonistas tried to spin. The FBI don't waste their time.
Not according to the government attorneys most recent court filing.
You might want to read that again...
The DoJ requested permission for the FBI to enter a secret declaration that the agency could not find records responsive to a FOIA demand from VICE regarding HRC’s email server.
As such, it is the DoJ who argues that the FBI isn’t just doing a “security review,” but is in fact collecting records for the purpose of enforcing the law And because this is an active investigation, the FBI/DoJ is given leeway to not provide any response to an FOIA request.
Duh.
Besides, the FBI director is on record in stated that the FBI doesn't "do" security review. Don't get snooker'ed into the Clinton spin machine.
To recap: The DoJ, honest to god, acknowledges in that scribd doc that the FBI is conducting a law enforcement action, in addtion to a counterintelligence assessment.
Another interesting thing to note: this is the SECOND request by the FBI to seek a "declaration secret" in a civil FOIA case... seems to me that the FBI investigators are dotting their "i" and "t" in this regard.
jasper76 wrote: @Asterios: I didn't really compare the two, except that both constitute "serious federal investigations", which was not even my own choice of words.
I don't really need to search far to find things wrong with Trump. The guy has more red flags than a Chinese parade. And I don't support Clinton at present. My humble endorsement, for what it's worth, goes to Bernie Sanders.
All this to say, please don't assume you understand my motives.
no but you insinuate an IRS audit is a serious investigation when it is not, there is a 1 in 116 chance of being audited on your tax return, does that sound like it is something severe? hell i've been audited twice and both times got even more money back from the Government.
I'll ask again, do you know why Donald Trump was selected to be audited? And do you know why he had been audited by the IRS every year for the past 14 years?
I do not, and he hinself has not been forthcoming on the subject, and has been behaving quite suspiciously by refusing to release his tax records.
If you know why he's being audited, please share the source, because I'm interested. Somehow I doubt his name was pulled out of a hat at random, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Frazzled wrote: BS. The FBI investigates crimes, not civil actions.
They investigate alleged criminal activity and also function as a part of the United States national security apparatus as a domestic intelligence agency.
This isn't the 1930s and they don't just hunt rum-runners and mobsters; their mission is incredibly varied and pretty damn broad.
No gak. However their investigations are only criminal. They do not investigate civil actions. They have given criminal immunity to at least one witness at this point.
The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I'll ask again, do you know why Donald Trump was selected to be audited? And do you know why he had been audited by the IRS every year for the past 14 years?
I do not, and he hinself has not been forthcoming on the subject, and has been behaving quite suspiciously by refusing to release his tax records.
If you know why he's being audited, please share the source, because I'm interested. Somehow I doubt his name was pulled out of a hat at random, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Now I think we will both acknowledge, that, while the IRS audit may not be criminal, it could lead to both massive penalties and referral for actual criminal charges. (crosses fingers...)
Frazzled wrote: BS. The FBI investigates crimes, not civil actions.
They investigate alleged criminal activity and also function as a part of the United States national security apparatus as a domestic intelligence agency.
This isn't the 1930s and they don't just hunt rum-runners and mobsters; their mission is incredibly varied and pretty damn broad.
No gak. However their investigations are only criminal. They do not investigate civil actions. They have given criminal immunity to at least one witness at this point.
Their investigations can be both security-related or criminal (or both).
Regardless, the FBI is currently investigation Clinton but has not named any federal statute that she is accused of violating (because they don't have to). I know to some people, coughcough::Whembly::cough, an investigation equals guilt but we'll have to wait and see. We won't know if it's criminal until they get to the end of it.
jasper76 wrote: @ Preston Jon: IMO, any effort to suppress the civil rights of a minority group is to brand them as second class citizens...in other words, not full citizens.
@Asterios: Do you know why Trump was selected for auditing? I don't. Because the IRS performs many audits does not mean that any one of those audits is "not serious".
@whembley: yep, tax evasion and insecure IT setups are both bad. I don't expect everyone to be an IT expert...I do expect everyone to pay the taxes they owe.
Why was I audited? they never told me except it was random, hell a case could be made that Trump's audit is political in nature? wouldn't be the first time the IRS was influenced by politics (hint hint the tea party deal), so the fact you would compare an audit to what Clinton is going thru is just showing you are desperate for anything against Trump while deflecting off of Clinton.
Initially he could have been selected for an audit at random, or there could have been figures on his return that threw up red flags that automatically generate an audit, same with specific credits, some will automatically refer a return for further review, then moved forward for audit.
Asterios wrote:
jasper76 wrote: @Asterios: I didn't really compare the two, except that both constitute "serious federal investigations", which was not even my own choice of words.
I don't really need to search far to find things wrong with Trump. The guy has more red flags than a Chinese parade. And I don't support Clinton at present. My humble endorsement, for what it's worth, goes to Bernie Sanders.
All this to say, please don't assume you understand my motives.
no but you insinuate an IRS audit is a serious investigation when it is not, there is a 1 in 116 chance of being audited on your tax return, does that sound like it is something severe? hell i've been audited twice and both times got even more money back from the Government.
That happens, it means you are claiming things on your return that you can easily back up and support. Obviously with a return such as Donald Trump's, its a bit more complicated, but trying to jump through tax loopholes and bending the word of our overly complicated tax laws to your benefit can make things take longer when you have to justify the numbers on your return.
jasper76 wrote:I'll ask again, do you know why Donald Trump was selected to be audited? And do you know why he had been audited by the IRS every year for the past 14 years?
I do not, and he hinself has not been forthcoming on the subject, and has been behaving quite suspiciously by refusing to release his tax records.
If you know why he's being audited, please share the source, because I'm interested. Somehow I doubt his name was pulled out of a hat at random, but feel free to prove me wrong.
See above for reason he may have been audited. There isn't a spot on a 1040 where you declare your political affiliation, and while his initial return may have been audited due to a red flag (or randomly, who knows?) the subsequent returns could have been pulled for auditing because he was a high risk at that point due to the information found in his initial audit. To bring it down to a relatable level, if you are audited for the Earned Income Credit, and are denied that credit, you face greater scrutiny in subsequent years filings when you claim the Earned Income Credit.
Frazzled wrote: BS. The FBI investigates crimes, not civil actions.
They investigate alleged criminal activity and also function as a part of the United States national security apparatus as a domestic intelligence agency.
This isn't the 1930s and they don't just hunt rum-runners and mobsters; their mission is incredibly varied and pretty damn broad.
No gak. However their investigations are only criminal. They do not investigate civil actions. They have given criminal immunity to at least one witness at this point.
The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I'll ask again, do you know why Donald Trump was selected to be audited? And do you know why he had been audited by the IRS every year for the past 14 years?
I do not, and he hinself has not been forthcoming on the subject, and has been behaving quite suspiciously by refusing to release his tax records.
If you know why he's being audited, please share the source, because I'm interested. Somehow I doubt his name was pulled out of a hat at random, but feel free to prove me wrong.
Now I think we will both acknowledge, that, while the IRS audit may not be criminal, it could lead to both massive penalties and referral for actual criminal charges. (crosses fingers...)
If there is an issue found in an audit that could lead to a criminal charge, such as fraud or ID theft, the IRS will refer the case to its Criminal Investigation Unit, who works with Law Enforcement to gather evidence and prosecute. At the same time, penalties can be levied against whoever this is taking place against in the court proceedings, but the judge of the case will usually determine if the IRS will be awarded these penalties (all court cases differ, but this is generally how things are). IRS will often work alongside the local authorities, and in some cases FBI/DEA/other alphabet agencies to bring about prosecution, but can also go after the person directly.
feeder wrote:
Frazzled wrote: They don't have to name what they are investigating her on until (and if) they charge her.
Please show me what civil action the FBI has ever investigated.
Didn't the FBI nail Capone on taxes?
IRS nailed Capone, they investigated for tax evasion (which is a criminal offense) and gathered evidence over 3 years, tracking his money and where he spent it.
FYI: I work for the IRS, in collections, and see audits every day. I do understand how these things work, and hearing things like: "My last 8 years of tax returns are being audited so I cant release them" throws up red flags for me. I am not attempting to use an "appeal to authority" fallacy here, I am simply sharing my view on how things work as I see them every day.
Considering that Trump keeps on getting the Star credit in New York (A credit for people that earn less than $500k) it's not surprising to me that he keeps on getting audited.
With how much he lies about everything, it wouldn't surprise me if he was lying on his taxes.
jasper76 wrote: I'll ask again, do you know why Donald Trump was selected to be audited? And do you know why he had been audited by the IRS every year for the past 14 years?
I do not, and he hinself has not been forthcoming on the subject, and has been behaving quite suspiciously by refusing to release his tax records.
If you know why he's being audited, please share the source, because I'm interested. Somehow I doubt his name was pulled out of a hat at random, but feel free to prove me wrong.
well according to the IRS 10% of those making a million or more were audited in 2015, so odds not in his favor
so I find it funny how some people here say Trump supporters are fools for listening to Trump and here you are taking him for his word, and funny thing is even though i'm gonna vote for trump I take his word with a grain of salt and then some.
I think that proves you wrong, and only took me 10 seconds to find that article.
IRS nailed Capone, they investigated for tax evasion (which is a criminal offense) and gathered evidence over 3 years, tracking his money and where he spent it.
and here I've been told all this time it was the Treasury Department who busted Capone, especially since they were the ones charged with bringing him down.
d-usa wrote: There is no such thing as a cohesive "American" culture. The closest thing we have to an American culture is the fact that we are made up of many individual cultures.
I am also pretty sure we just had this conversation a month or so back. I'm pretty sure we have it at least every other month.
American culture is the widespread acceptance of a set of social values and legal concepts under the auspices of which we have created a specific nation that protects these values and concepts. There are many nations on earth that don't hold he same values and legal concepts and that is the appeal that inspires people to immigrate to become American to enjoy living in our unique environment. In most countries it is much harder to be accepted as being an equal citizen regardless of your background than it is in America. We live in a huge country full of people that look different, talk different, act different, etc. but the vast majority of us accept our fellow citizens as being just as American as ourselves regardless of those differences.
But none of that is really affected by having subsets of cultures or identifying as Irish American, Asian American, African American, or any other cultural affiliation.
skyth wrote: Considering that Trump keeps on getting the Star credit in New York (A credit for people that earn less than $500k) it's not surprising to me that he keeps on getting audited.
With how much he lies about everything, it wouldn't surprise me if he was lying on his taxes.
This is a State of New York Credit, IRS has nothing to do with it. Federal and State completely separate, although if his state return is being audited by the state and there are discrepancies they may let us know. Edit: What it does do though is give a general perception that his accountants may be jumping through loopholes to get lower tax rates, thereby making it a little easier to believe that he is often audited and that the issues may be that much more complicated.
d-usa wrote: There is no such thing as a cohesive "American" culture. The closest thing we have to an American culture is the fact that we are made up of many individual cultures.
I am also pretty sure we just had this conversation a month or so back. I'm pretty sure we have it at least every other month.
American culture is the widespread acceptance of a set of social values and legal concepts under the auspices of which we have created a specific nation that protects these values and concepts. There are many nations on earth that don't hold he same values and legal concepts and that is the appeal that inspires people to immigrate to become American to enjoy living in our unique environment. In most countries it is much harder to be accepted as being an equal citizen regardless of your background than it is in America. We live in a huge country full of people that look different, talk different, act different, etc. but the vast majority of us accept our fellow citizens as being just as American as ourselves regardless of those differences.
But none of that is really affected by having subsets of cultures or identifying as Irish American, Asian American, African American, or any other cultural affiliation.
jasper76 wrote: I'll ask again, do you know why Donald Trump was selected to be audited? And do you know why he had been audited by the IRS every year for the past 14 years?
I do not, and he hinself has not been forthcoming on the subject, and has been behaving quite suspiciously by refusing to release his tax records.
If you know why he's being audited, please share the source, because I'm interested. Somehow I doubt his name was pulled out of a hat at random, but feel free to prove me wrong.
well according to the IRS 10% of those making a million or more were audited in 2015, so odds not in his favor
so I find it funny how some people here say Trump supporters are fools for listening to Trump and here you are taking him for his word, and funny thing is even though i'm gonna vote for trump I take his word with a grain of salt and then some.
I think that proves you wrong, and only took me 10 seconds to find that article.
This issue wouldn't even be on my radar except that Trump refuses to release his tax records. That's a deal-breaker for me as a modern voter. Too suspicious. But then again I'd never be voting for someone like Trump in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the subject of American culture, it's weird that proponents of American culture are denouncing identity politics, because a strong sense of ethnic identity has always been a pretty distinctive aspect of American culture.
jasper76 wrote: I'll ask again, do you know why Donald Trump was selected to be audited? And do you know why he had been audited by the IRS every year for the past 14 years?
I do not, and he hinself has not been forthcoming on the subject, and has been behaving quite suspiciously by refusing to release his tax records.
If you know why he's being audited, please share the source, because I'm interested. Somehow I doubt his name was pulled out of a hat at random, but feel free to prove me wrong.
well according to the IRS 10% of those making a million or more were audited in 2015, so odds not in his favor
so I find it funny how some people here say Trump supporters are fools for listening to Trump and here you are taking him for his word, and funny thing is even though i'm gonna vote for trump I take his word with a grain of salt and then some.
I think that proves you wrong, and only took me 10 seconds to find that article.
This issue wouldn't even be on my radar except that Trump refuses to release his tax records. That's a deal-breaker for me as a modern voter. Too suspicious. But then again I'd never be voting for someone like Trump in the first place.
too be honest I never got into the whole releasing of tax records, seriously what do they prove? nothing, they are no major revelation, no ah ha moment, no nothing and those who take tax records into consideration should really consider what they stand for.
All candidates for our highest office should be beyond reproach when it comes to their taxes. IMO, anyone who aspires to elected office should make their tax records public.
If you don't agree, that's fine and all. I just have higher standards I guess.
jasper76 wrote: All candidates for our highest office should be beyond reproach when it comes to their taxes. IMO, anyone who aspires to elected office should make their tax records public.
If you don't agree, that's fine and all. I just have higher standards I guess.
but why would their tax returns matter? what will they prove? what will they mean? seriously why does anyone care?
jasper76 wrote: I'll ask again, do you know why Donald Trump was selected to be audited? And do you know why he had been audited by the IRS every year for the past 14 years?
I do not, and he hinself has not been forthcoming on the subject, and has been behaving quite suspiciously by refusing to release his tax records.
If you know why he's being audited, please share the source, because I'm interested. Somehow I doubt his name was pulled out of a hat at random, but feel free to prove me wrong.
well according to the IRS 10% of those making a million or more were audited in 2015, so odds not in his favor
so I find it funny how some people here say Trump supporters are fools for listening to Trump and here you are taking him for his word, and funny thing is even though i'm gonna vote for trump I take his word with a grain of salt and then some.
I think that proves you wrong, and only took me 10 seconds to find that article.
This issue wouldn't even be on my radar except that Trump refuses to release his tax records. That's a deal-breaker for me as a modern voter. Too suspicious. But then again I'd never be voting for someone like Trump in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the subject of American culture, it's weird that proponents of American culture are denouncing identity politics, because a strong sense of ethnic identity has always been a pretty distinctive aspect of American culture.
If I recall, there are several items the self described "transparent" Obama wouldn't release, such as his school records. It appears the pattern that candidates are prone to holding out on us.
This is true about the ethnic identity. I think we all know.know several people who claim to be from some American tribe or another, or people whose families have been in this country for generations who claim to be Scottish, Italian, French, or whatever.
Well, I'll be voting in about an hour or so. What do I do, guys? I dislike both of the Democratic nominees, but I don't dislike either of them as much as I dislike the Republican ones.
Hillary will likely win the nomination, and likely will likely go on to win the presidency, but she's a TPP supporter her foreign policy ideas are gak and I'm not interested in America getting dragged into another "intervention".
I like all of Bernie's ideas from a moral perspective, but at best, if he became President 90% of what he wants to achieve will never, ever go anywhere while at worst, I'm not confident that he could beat the Republican opposition in the primary even if he did somehow clinch the Democratic nomination.
I'd like to see college records. High school records seem kind of creepy. Obama got written up by Mr. Benkley for smoking a Marlboro behind a dumpster!?!? Lol
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BlaxicanX wrote: Well, I'll be voting in about an hour or so. What do I do, guys? I dislike both of the Democratic nominees, but I don't dislike either of them as much as I dislike the Republican ones.
Hillary will likely win the nomination, and likely will likely go on to win the presidency, but she's a TPP supporter her foreign policy ideas are gak and I'm not interested in America getting dragged into another "intervention".
I like all of Bernie's ideas from a moral perspective, but at best, if he became President 90% of what he wants to achieve will never, ever go anywhere while at worst, I'm not confident that he could beat the Republican opposition in the primary even if he did somehow clinch the Democratic nomination.
What do?
Vote for Bernie. It's more about the principles then his ability to achieve them. That's my 2 cents.
BlaxicanX wrote: Well, I'll be voting in about an hour or so. What do I do, guys? I dislike both of the Democratic nominees, but I don't dislike either of them as much as I dislike the Republican ones.
Hillary will likely win the nomination, and likely will likely go on to win the presidency, but she's a TPP supporter her foreign policy ideas are gak and I'm not interested in America getting dragged into another "intervention".
I like all of Bernie's ideas from a moral perspective, but at best, if he became President 90% of what he wants to achieve will never, ever go anywhere while at worst, I'm not confident that he could beat the Republican opposition in the primary even if he did somehow clinch the Democratic nomination.
What do?
Vote for what you believe in. Ultimately it doesn't matter.
Eh, it didn't matter anyway. The incompetent people at my voting spot took my paperwork and slipped it into the ballet before I could actually write out my votes, and allegedly once it's put into the ballet it's too late. They told me "try again next election".
BlaxicanX wrote: Eh, it didn't matter anyway. The incompetent people at my voting spot took my paperwork and slipped it into the ballet before I could actually write out my votes, and allegedly once it's put into the ballet it's too late. They told me "try again next election".
"Democracy", ayyy.
I have to wonder how many times that happened tonight...
Traditio wrote: Funny; I don't recall Trump supporters rioting and attacking people at Sanders' rallies.
Neither have Clinton or Sanders endorsed supporters committing violence at Trumpo rallies. In fact there isn't actually any indication that the people protesting at Trumpo rallies actually are Clinton or Sanders supporters, rather than simply anti-Trumpo people.
OTOH Trumpo actually is on record as endorsing violence against protestors at his rallies.
I know in Salt Lake, Sanders supporters tried, as a mob, to storm into the Trump rally. They ended up destroying some propert before they dispersed.
The article doesn't say that. It says they infiltrated carefully. There were some scuffles between both sides. When the rally was cancelled one of them ripped up a sign, and was attacked by Trump fans and had a bottle thrown at him.
I expect the sign being torn counts as property destruction in some sense of the term.
the article pretty much spells it out in plain English that it was a Sanders supporter who got the ball rolling and there was a fair sized group of Sanders supporters in on the disruptions with congratulations all around after it was over.
Actually, she's not. Victoria Claflin Woodhull..... Really not all that important historically, but she may come in handy for winning pub trivia night some day
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now we've seriously got the argument that a nation founded on the ideas of liberty and freedom from persecution requires people to confirm to the majority, otherwise they're being racist. The Off-Topic forum never ceases to amaze me.
You should study more US history.... we were founded on those principles on paper... but in practice we were quite often quite far from those lofty ideals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I'll ask again, do you know why Donald Trump was selected to be audited? And do you know why he had been audited by the IRS every year for the past 14 years?
Generally speaking, and this really is generalized stuff here... the majority of people who are audited are done so because there is a "flag" or some other marker on their taxes that suggest that things may not be on the up and up. The purpose of the audit is to ensure that the person being audited did in fact file correctly, and that whatever caused the flag is a non-issue.
The fact that, as you say, Trumpo has been audited every single year for the past 14 years running suggests to me that there's a bit more than an "oops, I put the decimal point wrong on line 823 on form 11231124124-OD, I'll file an amendment right away," while obviously none of us can know for sure why Trump gets audited so much (unless of course, one of you gits is an IRS auditor), the suggestion to me is that he is misfiling, or perhaps even committing fraud or tax evasion or something. I'm not saying for certain that he is, merely that the bread crumbs suggest it.
Actually, she's not. Victoria Claflin Woodhull..... Really not all that important historically, but she may come in handy for winning pub trivia night some day
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And now we've seriously got the argument that a nation founded on the ideas of liberty and freedom from persecution requires people to confirm to the majority, otherwise they're being racist. The Off-Topic forum never ceases to amaze me.
You should study more US history.... we were founded on those principles on paper... but in practice we were quite often quite far from those lofty ideals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: I'll ask again, do you know why Donald Trump was selected to be audited? And do you know why he had been audited by the IRS every year for the past 14 years?
Generally speaking, and this really is generalized stuff here... the majority of people who are audited are done so because there is a "flag" or some other marker on their taxes that suggest that things may not be on the up and up. The purpose of the audit is to ensure that the person being audited did in fact file correctly, and that whatever caused the flag is a non-issue.
The fact that, as you say, Trumpo has been audited every single year for the past 14 years running suggests to me that there's a bit more than an "oops, I put the decimal point wrong on line 823 on form 11231124124-OD, I'll file an amendment right away," while obviously none of us can know for sure why Trump gets audited so much (unless of course, one of you gits is an IRS auditor), the suggestion to me is that he is misfiling, or perhaps even committing fraud or tax evasion or something. I'm not saying for certain that he is, merely that the bread crumbs suggest it.
the link I linked earlier had the IRS commisioner saying it might not be so about Trump getting audited 14 years in a row.
ulgurstasta wrote: Consider that she barely won against a political nobody while having the whole democratic party establishment behind here, It makes you think that her support outside the democratic establishment is weak.
People keep talking about how she's got the whole establishment behind her... but how does that produce votes. If a person is deciding between Clinton and Sanders, exactly how does the support of Warren or Biden or Kerry or push a person over to voting for Clinton? It makes no sense - candidates stand alone. Party establishment helps because of money... but then Sanders had plenty of money of his own so that's a wash.
There's also a weird thing going on, where people talk about Sanders as being a very good candidate, the guy who is gonna beat Trump. But then when people talk about Clinton having beaten Sanders... they say that doesn't show anything about Clinton because she only beat this nobody socialist.. Well people have to pick one.
Also Trumps strongpoint is his anti-establishment attiutde, which probably is going to work better against Hillary then Sanders.
Trump's strongpoint is his willingness to take already crazy Republican positions and turn them up to 11. It left Republicans in a weird position, on the one hand they wanted to show they were hardline to the brink of insanity on immigration or tax cuts, but then there's Trump who's marched way past the point of insanity. They couldn't point out Trump's position was totally loopy without also accepting their own position is right on the edge of ridiculousness.
Neither Clinton nor Sanders would have that problem in a general election.
sebster wrote: It makes no sense - candidates stand alone.
That would make sense if this weren't a party primary but it is so it does matter somewhat. I understand the basic concept but the idea that having the party backing someone in a party-centric election having no effect seems a bit off. Now it isn't everything, because if it was then she would have been the nominee in 2008.
There's also a weird thing going on, where people talk about Sanders as being a very good candidate, the guy who is gonna beat Trump. But then when people talk about Clinton having beaten Sanders... they say that doesn't show anything about Clinton because she only beat this nobody socialist.. Well people have to pick one.
Thats because damn near every poll or article that I've seen on the subject, has Sanders beating Trump, in some cases, handily..... But I think there's also something to be said for the story of the "rigged" election going for the reason why Sanders is apparently not beating Clinton. The combination of the two create a situation where people who support Sanders aren't entirely comfortable with how we got to the results.
TheMeanDM wrote: Actually Sebster, if you take a step back and look at it....it does make sense.
But you have to understand how a caucus works....
I know how a caucus works, and I'll thank you to not be quite so silly in future.
And you're still missing the point - a caucus isn't an election and so can't pretend its an election, even if pretending it is makes Sanders look better.
We know less people show for caucus votes, because very fething obviously if voting takes a whole day instead of an hour then less people are going to do it. And we know the ones who remain are going to be the most committed supporters. And we know in this cycle Sanders has had a significant advantage in enthusiasm over Clinton. That's why the best models for predicting state votes have taken demographic data and then factored in whether the vote is closed, open or a caucus (with the first helping Clinton and the latter two helping Sanders).
As such, it's completely idiotic to take the advantage of it being a caucus, and then start to pretend that a popular vote had taken place. It would be equally ridiculous for the Clinton camp to notice that their best states were closed primaries, and then to claim that if they'd been open the vote total would have been greater, so she was just going to increase the vote count to what it might have been in an open primary... but keeping the vote shares the same.
You of course, instinctively know that last example is incredibly silly. And yet you can't see the exact same thing when it's applied to the caucus states... because you want to believe.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
First up, I think you've got the bull before the horns - we had racism long before we had identity politics. Blaming racism on identity politics is out of sync by about 500 years.
Second up, recognising that a different background brings a different perspective is not racism. Seeing that a committee of six white women might benefit from a different point of view if the seventh member was a black man isn't sexist or racist. What is racist is the decision that because a person is of a background then he must be incapable in some thing or another.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: He has a point. We must be careful that separation does not intensify. The Balkans is an excellent example of what happens when you do that. Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan are others. The wars between the Scottish clans would be another. Clan McBlarrghhh vs. Clan McBLLarrgghh.
Separate too much and you become tribes in the area, and not the nation.
The primary driver of aggressive seperation isn't from people speaking of their own identity, but when the dominant tribe tells the rest that they can't be any different If a person says "I am a Chinese American"... well so what? They're still going to work to get food on the table and a roof over their head, still gonna raise kids and try and get a babysitter once a month so they can go out on a date night and get really angry about the latest TMNT movie.
But if someone says to them that they aren't Chinese American, but instead are just American... well then you get seperation. Because that's denying them their heritage, telling them that unique experiences they had because of their background should just be ignored or maybe even denied. That's not healthy and that's where you actually see seperation start.
Regardless, the FBI is currently investigation Clinton but has not named any federal statute that she is accused of violating (because they don't have to). I know to some people, coughcough::Whembly::cough, an investigation equals guilt but we'll have to wait and see. We won't know if it's criminal until they get to the end of it.
She's guilty as hell and it doesn't take a partisan to come to that conclusion.
whembly wrote: This is the end result of a culture infested with identity politics.
I repeat myself, but the idea that someone is unable to objectively and professionally perform his/her job OR perform it better because of your race *is* by definition racism. But, because identity politics is so pervasive in our culture, many are blind to it.
First up, I think you've got the bull before the horns - we had racism long before we had identity politics. Blaming racism on identity politics is out of sync by about 500 years.
You misunderstand my point. It isn't that racism = identity politics. It's the fact that identity politics is everywhere, such that people are numb to the implications... such as Trump believing that his judge cannot objectively do his job on the simple basis of his ethnicity.
Second up, recognising that a different background brings a different perspective is not racism. Seeing that a committee of six white women might benefit from a different point of view if the seventh member was a black man isn't sexist or racist. What is racist is the decision that because a person is of a background then he must be incapable in some thing or another.
BlaxicanX wrote: Well, I'll be voting in about an hour or so. What do I do, guys? I dislike both of the Democratic nominees, but I don't dislike either of them as much as I dislike the Republican ones.
Hillary will likely win the nomination, and likely will likely go on to win the presidency, but she's a TPP supporter her foreign policy ideas are gak and I'm not interested in America getting dragged into another "intervention".
I like all of Bernie's ideas from a moral perspective, but at best, if he became President 90% of what he wants to achieve will never, ever go anywhere while at worst, I'm not confident that he could beat the Republican opposition in the primary even if he did somehow clinch the Democratic nomination.
What do?
Write in a candidate or vote for one of the lesser ones.
Hope everyone in OC voted against the two judge candidates involved in the big OC prosecutors scandal. I can't believe they had the chutzpah to run.
The primary driver of aggressive seperation isn't from people speaking of their own identity, but when the dominant tribe tells the rest that they can't be any different If a person says "I am a Chinese American"... well so what? They're still going to work to get food on the table and a roof over their head, still gonna raise kids and try and get a babysitter once a month so they can go out on a date night and get really angry about the latest TMNT movie.
But if someone says to them that they aren't Chinese American, but instead are just American... well then you get seperation. Because that's denying them their heritage, telling them that unique experiences they had because of their background should just be ignored or maybe even denied. That's not healthy and that's where you actually see seperation start.
do you see what you write? how is 4 people 1 American, 1 Irish-American, 1 Chinese-American and 1 African-America is not a separation? if all American you have one group of Americans, but with the appalations of a specific culture or group type now we have 4 groups, not one.
If individual votes had been counted in caucus states...instead of the ridiculous caucus system....Clinton would not be able to claim a 3m vote lead in popular voting.
That is all I, and the article, was saying. But you seem to get your panties twisted in a bunch or some kind of rage induced vision when it comes to things I post....even if they make sense. Its like you purposely go out of your way to twist things.
Do I believe that Sanders would be winning the popular vote? Not at this moment, based on (you are wholly correct) the fact that caucus states DO INDEED have lower voter turnout.
The 3m votes from the primary states would be damn hard to overcome based on that fact.
I never said he would succeed in doing that....neither did the article.
Just pointing out the fallacy in saying she has a 3m vote lead as it does not accurately reflect all individuals voting.
If individual votes had been counted in caucus states...instead of the ridiculous caucus system....Clinton would not be able to claim a 3m vote lead in popular voting.
That is all I, and the article, was saying. But you seem to get your panties twisted in a bunch or some kind of rage induced vision when it comes to things I post....even if they make sense. Its like you purposely go out of your way to twist things.
Do I believe that Sanders would be winning the popular vote? Not at this moment, based on (you are wholly correct) the fact that caucus states DO INDEED have lower voter turnout.
The 3m votes from the primary states would be damn hard to overcome based on that fact.
I never said he would succeed in doing that....neither did the article.
Just pointing out the fallacy in saying she has a 3m vote lead as it does not accurately reflect all individuals voting.
Meanwhile the primaries are coming in and, well wouldn't ya know it, Sanders is nowhere near the 65% of the vote he would have needed to draw level in pledged delegates. He's had a thumping win in North Dakota, and Montana is still tight, but other than that? South Dakota was a tie, New Mexico was a 52-48 win for Clinton, and New Jersey was a big Clinton win - 63 to 37. California is in the early stages of counting, but its 62-36 for Clinton at this point.
So Clinton will extend her lead in votes and extend her lead in pledged delegates. She will have beaten Sanders through the simple strategy of having more people vote for her. Do you think everyone can move on now, realise that the more popular candidate won?
And then can everyone focus on November, because holy crap the Republicans are running a guy who thinks we should bring back CFCs because he likes the older kind of hairspray.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: That would make sense if this weren't a party primary but it is so it does matter somewhat. I understand the basic concept but the idea that having the party backing someone in a party-centric election having no effect seems a bit off. Now it isn't everything, because if it was then she would have been the nominee in 2008.
But how does it impact someone's vote? Seriously, if someone is on the border between Sanders and Clinton, and the party is behind Clinton... is that person going to switch to support Clinton? How does that process work?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Thats because damn near every poll or article that I've seen on the subject, has Sanders beating Trump, in some cases, handily.....
Sure, because Republicans never attacked Sanders, because he never going to win the general. It's pretty crazy to think polls right now give a good impression of how Sanders will fare in November, after half a year of dedicated Republican attacks.
But I think there's also something to be said for the story of the "rigged" election going for the reason why Sanders is apparently not beating Clinton. The combination of the two create a situation where people who support Sanders aren't entirely comfortable with how we got to the results.
Yeah, but that narrative has been bs from day one. From day one there's been a story that Clinton is only winning because of super-delegates, and then on top of that we've had stories about shenanigans (remember how we were supposed to be outraged about the Nevada process, in which the Sanders camp was dismayed that they weren't able to game the system to get more delegates than Clinton... in a state where they lost the caucus).
And through out all that nonsense and it's ignored the basic reality that Clinton has won more states by more votes, to secure more pledged delegates.
Democracy people. Get more votes, win elections.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: You misunderstand my point. It isn't that racism = identity politics. It's the fact that identity politics is everywhere, such that people are numb to the implications... such as Trump believing that his judge cannot objectively do his job on the simple basis of his ethnicity.
Sure, but the reality is that people were plenty bigoted before identity politics came in to fashion. So when Trump says something racist, it's probably because he's playing up to the same old racists who've been around since forever, and not for any other reason.
I do get your point that identity politics does muddy the water, but the answer isn't to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Diversity has a place and it has value, even if it is sometimes used to argue for token placements and other problematic things. And denying the value of that diversity is probably the worst thing we can do if we want racism to diminish.
It repeats the same silly error I was pointing out originally - the caucuses massively impact the people who vote in those states. You can come up with an okay guess of which way the participants in the caucus probably split their support, but you can never say which what the vote tally might have been if an actual vote had been held. A caucus that went 60-40 to Sanders might have been 55-45 to Sanders in an actual vote, or maybe even changed enough to change for Clinton.
You can't just ignore that and 'convert' caucus participation to votes, because it's an entirely different process.
You can make the argument that the vote total is misleading because it's combining two kinds of elections, closed and open, and failing to include the third kind of election entirely. Perhaps even better is the argument that the voting total is completely irrelevant, because it is the pledged delegates that matter. Personally I only use the vote total in addition to the pledged delegate count because so many people don't understand how pledged delegates are assigned.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: do you see what you write? how is 4 people 1 American, 1 Irish-American, 1 Chinese-American and 1 African-America is not a separation? if all American you have one group of Americans, but with the appalations of a specific culture or group type now we have 4 groups, not one.
You're arguing that you can't have groups within a group. It's beyond absurd.
Can people be left handed, and also be American? Or does everyone have to be just American, because using any other descriptor at all is tearing this once great nation apart....
If individual votes had been counted in caucus states...instead of the ridiculous caucus system....Clinton would not be able to claim a 3m vote lead in popular voting.
Nope, your argument is a total fail, because you have no idea how the states would have voted under a different system. Read the words slowly - a caucus impacts the result in that state, it favours a candidate with a more enthusiastic core of voters over a candidate with a larger but less enthusiastic voter base.
If you want to talk about what might have happened in a state with no caucus... then the actual reality of that would be Clinton winning a bunch more delegates.
Do I believe that Sanders would be winning the popular vote? Not at this moment, based on (you are wholly correct) the fact that caucus states DO INDEED have lower voter turnout.
And you keep missing the point that they are low participating states, and states that went for Sanders because they ran caucuses.
@Sebster: I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out how the popular vote was calculated in caucus states even though they aren't recorded, and if factored in, don't really change the total popular vote count enough to be significant.
If you want a good illustration about how much a caucus depresses the vote and how Sanders benefits from that depressed vote, take a look at the ND and SD votes tonight. (Caveat- I live in SD so I find this interesting). Both have extremely similar demographics and political leanings. ND was a caucus and SD was a primary. The results? Sanders won ND by +40% over Clinton. In SD, Clinton won by two.
Another interesting takeaway from the SD vote was Trump was only able to get 67% and he was unopposed.
Asterios wrote: do you see what you write? how is 4 people 1 American, 1 Irish-American, 1 Chinese-American and 1 African-America is not a separation? if all American you have one group of Americans, but with the appalations of a specific culture or group type now we have 4 groups, not one.
You're arguing that you can't have groups within a group. It's beyond absurd.
Can people be left handed, and also be American? Or does everyone have to be just American, because using any other descriptor at all is tearing this once great nation apart....
can be? people are, but do they need to shout it out? no, I don't say I'm Scottish American, or Swedish American, or Irish American, or anything else, I'm just an American plain and simple I don't have a desperate need to pigeon hole myself into something because I feel insecure about who I am, if you feel that need you go right ahead too. but me I'm American and Proud.
Whelp it looks like Sanders has seen the writing on the wall and those of you thinking (hoping?) he would run third party seem to be out of luck. Tomorrow he is cutting his staff by over half and has requested a meeting with Obama on Thursday. He might still "stay in" until the convention, but this certainly doesn't look like the actions of a man who is considering an independent run.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @Sebster: I don't disagree with you. I was just pointing out how the popular vote was calculated in caucus states even though they aren't recorded, and if factored in, don't really change the total popular vote count enough to be significant.
If you want a good illustration about how much a caucus depresses the vote and how Sanders benefits from that depressed vote, take a look at the ND and SD votes tonight.
Heh, I popped back in to this thread after seeing ND and SD and the effect that the caucus had
And yeah, I take your point that it doesn't really change the vote margin, but even then I still wanted to make the case as strongly as possible (just not necessarily to you). I probably didn't communicate that in the best way possible.
Another interesting takeaway from the SD vote was Trump was only able to get 67% and he was unopposed.
There's speculation about what that might mean for his numbers for the Upper Midwest in general. It's speculation of course, but it isn't a good sign for Trump.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote: can be? people are, but do they need to shout it out? no, I don't say I'm Scottish American, or Swedish American, or Irish American, or anything else
They are is the point. It is nothing to do with how much people talk about it, it is about a basic recognition of the reality that people from different backgrounds have different life experiences.
Whether a person identifies with it or doesn't, it still remains a reality.
I'm just an American plain and simple I don't have a desperate need to pigeon hole myself into something because I feel insecure about who I am, if you feel that need you go right ahead too. but me I'm American and Proud.
And that's where we get to the real weirdness of this. You think claiming some kind of ethnic heritage has some kind of basis in insecurity, but then in the next sentence you're proclaiming you are proud to be American.
You're asking us to believe that saying "I'm Indian American" is based in insecurity, but "I'm American and Proud" comes from a place of strong self esteem.
If anybody happened to be watching CNN's election coverage tonight, it was exactly like this thread has been for the past few weeks. Just try to follow Trump's supporter's "logic" here. It was a bloodbath.
So now that Hillary is officially the Democrat Party nominee (not that there was any doubt) we just need to see who gets the best bump out of the conventions. Then it's OFF TO THE DEBATES!! ...again.
As much as I dislike it, it's been pretty obvious for a while that Sanders wasn't going to win the nomination. So I'm looking at what I feel to be most important to me: the TPP.
And despite the fact that I despise Trump on a number of things, the fact that Clinton has championed the TPP, and lobbyists expect her to sign the treaty if she is elected.
Having the backing of the party leadership seems pretty handy for things like access to mass media and favour with superdelegates. Like, superdelegates are capable of swaying the nomination to the person with fewer popular votes. It's what they're there for. They're meant to give the Democratic Party a greater degree of control over a populist candidate.
To claim that the open support of the party leadership has no bearing on an inter-party election when there are mechanics in place to specifically give the party leadership influence over the outcome is silly.
BlaxicanX wrote: Eh, it didn't matter anyway. The incompetent people at my voting spot took my paperwork and slipped it into the ballet before I could actually write out my votes, and allegedly once it's put into the ballet it's too late. They told me "try again next election".
BlaxicanX wrote: Eh, it didn't matter anyway. The incompetent people at my voting spot took my paperwork and slipped it into the ballet before I could actually write out my votes, and allegedly once it's put into the ballet it's too late. They told me "try again next election".
"Democracy", ayyy.
I have to wonder how many times that happened tonight...
Don't worry. That vote will be properly accounted for. Oh look Hillary won.
." But in my judgment, Judge Curiel's partial denial of the summary judgment is pretty straightforward and well within the range of normal federal judicial decisions on summary judgment.
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/6337007/CrimsonHexagon1.jpg)
