2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

5,751 to 5,800 of 7,079 << first < prev | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Trump isn't socially liberal about LGBTAIQ/abortion issues, he's socially apathetic. He really doesn't care about them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you want to stop gerrymandering and voter suppression, here's why the PotUS picks for SCotUS and federal judges matters:

Moter Jones: "Here's What's Happening in the Battle for Voting Rights"

WaPo: "Maryland redistricting lawsuit can go forward, federal judges rule"

FairVote.org: "Supreme Court Takes Up Two Gerrymandering Cases for October Term"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, I still am not voting for Trump or Clinton.

HOWEVER...the more I find out about him the more I really like Tim Kaine.

If we could have Clinton simply resign as soon as she is elected and have him as President...I'd be all for it.

In fact, at this point, with some of the things Tim Kaine has stated recently, I might actually get over enthusiastic about Tim Kaine (then again, it may just be the candidates we have available this year, Tim Kaine might just appeal because he seems to be the most normal person out there!).

{edit: He's not as liberal as I might normally look at, and in fact seems VERY in the middle. If anyone could bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, it sounds like he would be one that might be able to do it. I feel he's definitely left of Clinton (despite me saying he's more in the middle than anything else), but has some very conservative views (and has allied with conservatives at times and they with him) and think that he could do a lot in getting people on board to stop this crazy opposite spectrum type thing we are seeing in the US right now.

He seems FAR more reasonable when he talks than I would have expected. Ironically, the thing that caught my attention on him is a speech he gave where there was very LOW attendance (I think around 30 people total showed up) recently. However, what he said sounded so reasonable compared to the stuff that's been tossed around by the various Presidential candidates recently...it was almost like a relief to me!]

Yeah, that'll work. Preemptive surrender has such a great track record. Give the bully what he wants, then he'll cooperate. Shall we give up the SC nomination too, as you suggested earlier? And then watch Republicans block the next one, since it worked so well the first time.

There's no bridging this gap from the Democratic side. Short of complete surrender. Which would be abysmally stupid.


thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, I still am not voting for Trump or Clinton.

HOWEVER...the more I find out about him the more I really like Tim Kaine.

If we could have Clinton simply resign as soon as she is elected and have him as President...I'd be all for it.

In fact, at this point, with some of the things Tim Kaine has stated recently, I might actually get over enthusiastic about Tim Kaine (then again, it may just be the candidates we have available this year, Tim Kaine might just appeal because he seems to be the most normal person out there!).

{edit: He's not as liberal as I might normally look at, and in fact seems VERY in the middle. If anyone could bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, it sounds like he would be one that might be able to do it. I feel he's definitely left of Clinton (despite me saying he's more in the middle than anything else), but has some very conservative views (and has allied with conservatives at times and they with him) and think that he could do a lot in getting people on board to stop this crazy opposite spectrum type thing we are seeing in the US right now.

He seems FAR more reasonable when he talks than I would have expected. Ironically, the thing that caught my attention on him is a speech he gave where there was very LOW attendance (I think around 30 people total showed up) recently. However, what he said sounded so reasonable compared to the stuff that's been tossed around by the various Presidential candidates recently...it was almost like a relief to me!]

Yeah, that'll work. Preemptive surrender has such a great track record. Give the bully what he wants, then he'll cooperate. Shall we give up the SC nomination too, as you suggested earlier? And then watch Republicans block the next one, since it worked so well the first time.

There's no bridging this gap from the Democratic side. Short of complete surrender. Which would be abysmally stupid.

I think you lost me here on your logic.

I discussed how I like Tim Kaine and his overall reasonability. You then talk about pre-emptive surrender.

The closest I came to was talking about how I think Kaine may be able to build the bridges that have been burned in the past few years and make it so we have something that resembles a working congress rather than the shambles we have now where they won't even get a Justice selected to the SC.

I'm not sure how that is interpreted as automatic preemptive surrender.

Working together and cooperating is FAR different than surrender. It's that type of mindset that one is surrendering if they work with others is exactly the type of vitriol that has caused the caustic situation in the US government in the first place.

[Adding: What gives you the idea that Tim Kaine would surrender rather than finding compromise and regard for both his and the other side of the arguments point of view?]


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think you lost me here on your logic.

I discussed how I like Tim Kaine and his overall reasonability. You then talk about pre-emptive surrender.

The closest I came to was talking about how I think Kaine may be able to build the bridges that have been burned in the past few years and make it so we have something that resembles a working congress rather than the shambles we have now where they won't even get a Justice selected to the SC.

I'm not sure how that is interpreted as automatic preemptive surrender.

Working together and cooperating is FAR different than surrender. It's that type of mindset that one is surrendering if they work with others is exactly the type of vitriol that has caused the caustic situation in the US government in the first place.

Because all the bridges were burned by Republicans, so any overture by Democrats to build new bridges is giving in to the Republican tantrum.


Caineach wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think you lost me here on your logic.

I discussed how I like Tim Kaine and his overall reasonability. You then talk about pre-emptive surrender.

The closest I came to was talking about how I think Kaine may be able to build the bridges that have been burned in the past few years and make it so we have something that resembles a working congress rather than the shambles we have now where they won't even get a Justice selected to the SC.

I'm not sure how that is interpreted as automatic preemptive surrender.

Working together and cooperating is FAR different than surrender. It's that type of mindset that one is surrendering if they work with others is exactly the type of vitriol that has caused the caustic situation in the US government in the first place.

Because all the bridges were burned by Republicans, so any overture by Democrats to build new bridges is giving in to the Republican tantrum.

The Republicans DID burn a LOT of the bridges, but I would say it's also a two way street.

Tim Kaine has shown that he can work with a Republican government and still get Democratic party plans passed.

That's the type of bridge building we want.

When one side goes to one extreme, and the other goes to the other, and no one wants to really communicate (sort of like Cruz who I actually view as being worse than Trump, politically speaking), that's what causes these problems in the government. When no one wants to parlay and compromise (and democrats are just as guilty in many areas)

Tim Kaine from what I've seen of his track record is able to communicate with BOTH sides of the aisle, and yet be able to support Democratic ideals at the same time. Part of it is learning to communicate, part of it is learning to compromise, and part of it is teaching the other side how to compromise and negotiate as well.

Why you don't think a Democrat can do that, especially one like Tim Kaine who seems to have done it while governor of Virginia and while a senator as well mystifies me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

.

If we could have Clinton simply resign as soon as she is elected and have him as President...I'd be all for it.

Yeah, that'll work. Preemptive surrender has such a great track record. Give the bully what he wants, then he'll cooperate. Shall we give up the SC nomination too, as you suggested earlier? And then watch Republicans block the next one, since it worked so well the first time.

There's no bridging this gap from the Democratic side. Short of complete surrender. Which would be abysmally stupid.

I think you lost me here on your logic.

I discussed how I like Tim Kaine and his overall reasonability. You then talk about pre-emptive surrender.

The closest I came to was talking about how I think Kaine may be able to build the bridges that have been burned in the past few years and make it so we have something that resembles a working congress rather than the shambles we have now where they won't even get a Justice selected to the SC.

I'm not sure how that is interpreted as automatic preemptive surrender.

Working together and cooperating is FAR different than surrender. It's that type of mindset that one is surrendering if they work with others is exactly the type of vitriol that has caused the caustic situation in the US government in the first place.

[Adding: What gives you the idea that Tim Kaine would surrender rather than finding compromise and regard for both his and the other side of the arguments point of view?]

That was the "Clinton simply resign" part.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Caineach wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

I think you lost me here on your logic.

I discussed how I like Tim Kaine and his overall reasonability. You then talk about pre-emptive surrender.

The closest I came to was talking about how I think Kaine may be able to build the bridges that have been burned in the past few years and make it so we have something that resembles a working congress rather than the shambles we have now where they won't even get a Justice selected to the SC.

I'm not sure how that is interpreted as automatic preemptive surrender.

Working together and cooperating is FAR different than surrender. It's that type of mindset that one is surrendering if they work with others is exactly the type of vitriol that has caused the caustic situation in the US government in the first place.

Because all the bridges were burned by Republicans, so any overture by Democrats to build new bridges is giving in to the Republican tantrum.

The Republicans DID burn a LOT of the bridges, but I would say it's also a two way street.

Tim Kaine has shown that he can work with a Republican government and still get Democratic party plans passed.

That's the type of bridge building we want.

When one side goes to one extreme, and the other goes to the other, and no one wants to really communicate (sort of like Cruz who I actually view as being worse than Trump, politically speaking), that's what causes these problems in the government. When no one wants to parlay and compromise (and democrats are just as guilty in many areas)

Tim Kaine from what I've seen of his track record is able to communicate with BOTH sides of the aisle, and yet be able to support Democratic ideals at the same time. Part of it is learning to communicate, part of it is learning to compromise, and part of it is teaching the other side how to compromise and negotiate as well.

Why you don't think a Democrat can do that, especially one like Tim Kaine who seems to have done it while governor of Virginia and...

One side is screaming "Lock her up" and "Trump the B%*&$". The other decided after the Bush years to look forward and not "prosecute political differences", to which the response was to block everything that could be blocked.

Your equivalency is false.


thejeff wrote:
That was the "Clinton simply resign" part.

Oh that, that's because I don't like my perception of the media control Clinton has, nor the free pass that she receives in many areas (as per my perception).

As I determined a short while ago, there's no way I'm going to vote for her or Trump.

That comment is because I don't like Clinton, not because I'm saying she's going to surrender to Trump or something like that.

In addition, people may think she's a liberal, but to me, she's a warhawk through and through.

On the otherhand, I from what I've seen (and let's be honest, he's received an infinitesimally small amount of media coverage compared to the others, IMO), Tim Kaine is the voice of reason in a storm of chaotic insanity.

But, from what I've seen, I could completely support him in regards to trying to get a functional government, and even get enthusiastic about it.

(for example, there is talk about holding this SC situation for another four years if Clinton wins, which is absolute crazy talk. However, with our government being as dysfunctional as it has been for the past 6 years...I could see it as a possibility...and from what Clinton's done, I see her more of a my way or the highway type person. That means, even if she selected the most conservative judge alive the republicans won't budge, and she wouldn't either...because neither would talk to the other!

My impression is Kaine might actually be able to find a way past that impasse if he had the entirety of the executive power comparable to the President...as VP he's probably just going to be overlooked, something impossible to do if he's President).


thejeff wrote:

One side is screaming "Lock her up" and "Trump the B#!#@". The other decided after the Bush years to look forward and not "prosecute political differences", to which the response was to block everything that could be blocked.

Your equivalency is false.

You are loosing me again on your logic.

What does the Lock her up and other items have to do with Tim Kaine?

I've expressed my dislike of Clinton (and, I don't think what you are saying is doing anything to convince me otherwise, if anything, only convincing me more not to vote for her...ever)...

But my posts are over WHY I really like what I've seen about Tim Kaine.

I'd much rather have him as president than any other option I think at this point (including 3rd party).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Didn't he run early on.

Hopefully you'll get your chance.

In 8 years. :-)


GreyWolfLord wrote:
thejeff wrote:

One side is screaming "Lock her up" and "Trump the B#!#@". The other decided after the Bush years to look forward and not "prosecute political differences", to which the response was to block everything that could be blocked.

Your equivalency is false.

You are loosing me again on your logic.

What does the Lock her up and other items have to do with Tim Kaine?

I've expressed my dislike of Clinton (and, I don't think what you are saying is doing anything to convince me otherwise, if anything, only convincing me more not to vote for her...ever)...

But my posts are over WHY I really like what I've seen about Tim Kaine.

I'd much rather have him as president than any other option I think at this point (including 3rd party).

It has to do with the raving lunacy of the Republican base and the way the party caters to it. They're not going to compromise.

I think I get it. You largely share their opinion of Clinton and like Kaine, so you think they could take a similar path. I see it as "Obstruction and personal destruction are working. Keep it up! Double down."
If Clinton's too far for you, remember their attitude towards Obama - birtherism, Muslim, and so much weirder stuff. They haven't laid the groundwork for Kaine and it'll be a bit harder since he's a white guy and they don't have the base prejudices to tie into. I suspect if Clinton resigned in his favor, they'd paint him as illegitimate, since her resignation was obviously an admission of all her crimes and election rigging and then use that as an excuse to fire up the base again and block everything this not-really-a-president does.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:


(for example, there is talk about holding this SC situation for another four years if Clinton wins, which is absolute crazy talk. However, with our government being as dysfunctional as it has been for the past 6 years...I could see it as a possibility...and from what Clinton's done, I see her more of a my way or the highway type person. That means, even if she selected the most conservative judge alive the republicans won't budge, and she wouldn't either...because neither would talk to the other!

If Clinton selected the most conservative judge alive and the republicans still blocked him, what more do you want her to do? Where's she supposed to budge?

And frankly, while I know you despise Clinton, back in her days in the Senate, she did talk to Republicans. She did work across the aisle. Hell, she gets pilloried for it from the left to this day.

She's capable of it. Just like Obama was. But they both needed someone to meet them half way. Even a quarter of the way.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Wil Wheaton gave a presentation about his mental health issues, including severe depression and anxiety. Pointed out that there are some days he just can't get out of bed. Pointed out how it wasn't character or willpower that was at fault, but an actual, treatable illness.

Slammed Trump for calling soldiers with PTSD 'weak', saying that, like depression, this is not something they choose to experience.

Discussed Kaine's recent op-ed piece of mental health and health care. Discussed Clinton's platform for fully funding mental health benefits exactly the same way physical health benefits are funded.

Reminded people that Clinton is the only candidate who is running on a platform that ups the funding for mental health issues.

Asked everyone to vote and to make sure that at least one of their friends voted.

Stood by the new releases wall and let everyone in the store (~150 people at 11 am on a weekday) take selfies and chat for a few sentences with him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


(for example, there is talk about holding this SC situation for another four years if Clinton wins, which is absolute crazy talk. However, with our government being as dysfunctional as it has been for the past 6 years...I could see it as a possibility...and from what Clinton's done, I see her more of a my way or the highway type person. That means, even if she selected the most conservative judge alive the republicans won't budge, and she wouldn't either...because neither would talk to the other!

If Clinton selected the most conservative judge alive and the republicans still blocked him, what more do you want her to do? Where's she supposed to budge?

And frankly, while I know you despise Clinton, back in her days in the Senate, she did talk to Republicans. She did work across the aisle. Hell, she gets pilloried for it from the left to this day.

She's capable of it. Just like Obama was. But they both needed someone to meet them half way. Even a quarter of the way.

Pretty much this. Suggesting that Clinton is somehow less capable of reaching across the aisle than Kaine could be is to thoroughly ignore her record of doing just that during her time in the Senate.


Here' something that might make you smile...

...or maybe this.

Here' something that might make you cry. (It did me)


GreyWolfLord wrote:
If anyone could bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, it sounds like he would be one that might be able to do it. ]

That's what Bill Clinton's triangulation strategy was pretty much all about, which is why he was the most right-wing Democratic President of the last century. Hillary Clinton is pretty much only slightly more left than her husband. Due to deals cut with Sanders she has been obliged to take positions more left than she normally would have.

For a Democrat to meet the Republicans "across the middle" implies that the Republicans must in term be willing to shift out of their extremes and reciprocate. However the ideological purism of the current party has severely punished any Republican who even hinted at being willing to do so while Obama was in office.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think Michael Moore has articulate why the election is much closer than many of us might expect
The "F$$! You" voter

“He is the human Molotov cocktail that they’ve been waiting for, the human hand grenade that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them.”


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
thejeff wrote:
That was the "Clinton simply resign" part.

Oh that, that's because I don't like my perception of the media control Clinton has, nor the free pass that she receives in many areas (as per my perception).

As I determined a short while ago, there's no way I'm going to vote for her or Trump.

For what it's worth, which may not be much to you, I'll continue my line of recent posts following up on yours by stating that I heard more reporting on Clinton's emails yet again on the drive home today.

The report was something along the lines of "new hacked Clinton emails suggest that Clinton campaign was concerned about Sanders during the primary" except reported as if it were a surprise instead of the most obvious thing under the sun.

Just noting that my own perception continues to differ widely and that I still can't detect a media blackout on the topic.


Wis. clerk rejected voting site because she feared helping Dems


5 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, I still am not voting for Trump or Clinton.

HOWEVER...the more I find out about him the more I really like Tim Kaine.

If we could have Clinton simply resign as soon as she is elected and have him as President...I'd be all for it.

In fact, at this point, with some of the things Tim Kaine has stated recently, I might actually get over enthusiastic about Tim Kaine (then again, it may just be the candidates we have available this year, Tim Kaine might just appeal because he seems to be the most normal person out there!).

{edit: He's not as liberal as I might normally look at, and in fact seems VERY in the middle. If anyone could bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, it sounds like he would be one that might be able to do it. I feel he's definitely left of Clinton (despite me saying he's more in the middle than anything else), but has some very conservative views (and has allied with conservatives at times and they with him) and think that he could do a lot in getting people on board to stop this crazy opposite spectrum type thing we are seeing in the US right now.

He seems FAR more reasonable when he talks than I would have expected. Ironically, the thing that caught my attention on him is a speech he gave where there was very LOW attendance (I think around 30 people total showed up) recently. However, what he said sounded so reasonable compared to the stuff that's been tossed around by the various Presidential candidates recently...it was almost like a relief to me!]

Literally everything you're saying that you like about Kaine, applies to Hillary.

It's so true, that I'm have a difficult time finding the words to express it, because it's hard for me to fathom how you don't see it.

Imagine I was sitting next to you complaining about how I wished I had shoes... all the while I was holding my own perfectly good pair of shoes in my hands and nothing was wrong with them. You pointed at the shoes in my hands, but I never acknowledge them or even admit to ever owning a pair of shoes. I describe my perfect pair of shoes, which (not so) remarkably describe the very pair in my hands. You point out that everything I'm looking for is already in my hands and then I just go on to exclaim that I'll never find shoes like that.


Has there ever been a president that did what they said they were going to do? I am still waiting for Obama to close Guantanamo like he promised he would. If nobody believes they will keep their campaign promises, as is common practice, why are the voters listening to a single word either one actually says?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jaçinto wrote:
Has there ever been a president that did what they said they were going to do? I am still waiting for Obama to close Guantanamo like he promised he would. If nobody believes they will keep their campaign promises, as is common practice, why are the voters listening to a single word either one actually says?

Well, if Congress forbids you from closing Guantanamo, the closest you can come to fulfilling your promise is to get it as close to empty as possible without actually closing it.

Which he has done.

If you close it in spite of a law saying you are not allowed to close it, you can be impeached and thrown out of office.

Presidents can't usually act unilaterally. So the best you can do is vote for someone who tells you they're going to do their best to accomplish a certain list of things.

You vote for the person who has the best chance of getting through the changes you want to see made. Even if someone else's list looks like it has more things you want, you also have to evaluate how likely it is that the changes will actually occur.

I'm voting for the candidate who is most likely to achieve the changes I want to see.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
thunderspirit wrote:


Pretty much this. Suggesting that Clinton is somehow less capable of reaching across the aisle than Kaine could be is to thoroughly ignore her record of doing just that during her time in the Senate.

She has a record of reaching across the isle, after all she married a democrat...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Has there ever been a president that did what they said they were going to do? I am still waiting for Obama to close Guantanamo like he promised he would. If nobody believes they will keep their campaign promises, as is common practice, why are the voters listening to a single word either one actually says?

Why yes. Plenty of presidents have done many of the things they said they would. Obama would be a good example of that. Very few actually accomplish everything they said. Obama is also a good example of that.

Whether they accomplish the ones you care most about depends on a large number of factors - including whether you're looking to praise them or tear them down.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Okay, I normally lurk, but I had to chime in on this one, because the topic fascinates me a little.

Jaçinto wrote:
Has there ever been a president that did what they said they were going to do? I am still waiting for Obama to close Guantanamo like he promised he would. If nobody believes they will keep their campaign promises, as is common practice, why are the voters listening to a single word either one actually says?

Beyond what CrystalSeas said, Obama has kept 71% of his campaign promises in at least a compromised form which, if you consider the DC gridlock, is alot better then you'd expect.

And to be fair, that's a little above average for presidental promises made over the last 50 years. 2/3rds of such promises have been kept. I won't argue with the point that for most schooling, that's a D at best. But think about the country if 2/3rds of Trump's or Clinton's promises are kept.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thunderspirit wrote:


Pretty much this. Suggesting that Clinton is somehow less capable of reaching across the aisle than Kaine could be is to thoroughly ignore her record of doing just that during her time in the Senate.
She has a record of reaching across the isle, after all she married a democrat...

Nobody else here probably laughed at it, but I found it hilarious.

That's a good joke.


I didn't laugh because Bill is about as much a Democrat as Hillary—maybe even less so. He's just way better at playing it cool. :P

Silver Crusade

Also, if anyone cares, Obama *tried* to close Gitmo, but couldn't because everyone in Congress is a NIMBY. He needed to move the prisoners to somewhere stateside and was shut down.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

EPIC RAP BATTLES OF HISTORY, Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump

It's GLORIOUS.


Why doesn't that mean ol' Hillary Clinton work with the Republicans?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, I still am not voting for Trump or Clinton.

HOWEVER...the more I find out about him the more I really like Tim Kaine.

If we could have Clinton simply resign as soon as she is elected and have him as President...I'd be all for it.

In fact, at this point, with some of the things Tim Kaine has stated recently, I might actually get over enthusiastic about Tim Kaine (then again, it may just be the candidates we have available this year, Tim Kaine might just appeal because he seems to be the most normal person out there!).

{edit: He's not as liberal as I might normally look at, and in fact seems VERY in the middle. If anyone could bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, it sounds like he would be one that might be able to do it. I feel he's definitely left of Clinton (despite me saying he's more in the middle than anything else), but has some very conservative views (and has allied with conservatives at times and they with him) and think that he could do a lot in getting people on board to stop this crazy opposite spectrum type thing we are seeing in the US right now.

He seems FAR more reasonable when he talks than I would have expected. Ironically, the thing that caught my attention on him is a speech he gave where there was very LOW attendance (I think around 30 people total showed up) recently. However, what he said sounded so reasonable compared to the stuff that's been tossed around by the various Presidential candidates recently...it was almost like a relief to me!]

Literally everything you're saying that you like about Kaine, applies to Hillary.

It's so true, that I'm have a difficult time finding the words to express it, because it's hard for me to fathom how you don't see it.

Imagine I was sitting next to you complaining about how I wished I had shoes... all the while I was holding my own perfectly good pair of shoes in my hands and nothing was wrong with them. You pointed at the shoes in my hands, but I never acknowledge them or...

The answer is simple. Hillary has these two things on her chest. Too many people those two things are not something that can be compatible with behavior we expect from the half of the human race which lacks those two things. Because when we see those two things on a person, a different set of perception filters slam into place so that the same behaviors trigger different responses.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Crusader Wolf, Gitmo will never be closed. There are 25 to 50 senior AQ leaders who can never be let out of Gitmo because they are too dangerous. They can not be tried in Federal court because they underwent hostile interrogation because the USG was at and continues to be at war with AQ. The AQ leaders in Gitmo can not be brought into the Continental US because then they would be under the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal court system is not set up try terrorists captured on the battle field. Terrorists taken on the battle field have no rights .like you or I do if we are arrested by the police or federal law enforcement.

What do my liberal friends think of Terry mc caulif bribing the number man in the FBI by giving 675000 dollars in campaign money to his wife while he was in charge of Investigating Hillary?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, I still am not voting for Trump or Clinton.

HOWEVER...the more I find out about him the more I really like Tim Kaine.

If we could have Clinton simply resign as soon as she is elected and have him as President...I'd be all for it.

In fact, at this point, with some of the things Tim Kaine has stated recently, I might actually get over enthusiastic about Tim Kaine (then again, it may just be the candidates we have available this year, Tim Kaine might just appeal because he seems to be the most normal person out there!).

{edit: He's not as liberal as I might normally look at, and in fact seems VERY in the middle. If anyone could bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, it sounds like he would be one that might be able to do it. I feel he's definitely left of Clinton (despite me saying he's more in the middle than anything else), but has some very conservative views (and has allied with conservatives at times and they with him) and think that he could do a lot in getting people on board to stop this crazy opposite spectrum type thing we are seeing in the US right now.

He seems FAR more reasonable when he talks than I would have expected. Ironically, the thing that caught my attention on him is a speech he gave where there was very LOW attendance (I think around 30 people total showed up) recently. However, what he said sounded so reasonable compared to the stuff that's been tossed around by the various Presidential candidates recently...it was almost like a relief to me!]

Literally everything you're saying that you like about Kaine, applies to Hillary.

It's so true, that I'm have a difficult time finding the words to express it, because it's hard for me to fathom how you don't see it.

Imagine I was sitting next to you complaining about how I wished I had shoes... all the while I was holding my own perfectly good pair of shoes in my hands and nothing was wrong with them. You pointed at the shoes in my hands, but

...

That's not exactly right.

Clinton has a history that doesn't sit well for many of us. Twisting a media campaign and having control of media (as shown by the wikileaks in regards to the Sanders campaign...and that's just what got caught...if one gets caught, expect it to be FAAAAR worse in politics).

The fact that she is pretty warhawk like.

The thing that she is only saying things to placate the Sanders people rather than actually planning on doing anything in that regards in reality (or that those who supported Sanders actually expect her to do things like that)...

In fact, I'd say most of the Sanders supporters are STILL Burned by Clinton after the revelations of her actions towards his campaign came out.

I am one of those, and as I see signs that what was shown was only the tip of the iceberg of her corruption (in my view), the less I feel I could support her.

Tim Kaine has none of that baggage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:


What do my liberal friends think of Terry mc caulif bribing the number man in the FBI by giving 675000 dollars in campaign money to his wife while he was in charge of Investigating Hillary?

WOLF! WOLF!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lou Diamond wrote:
What do my liberal friends think of Terry mc caulif bribing the number man in the FBI by giving 675000 dollars in campaign money to his wife while he was in charge of Investigating Hillary?

I generally try not to think too hard about things presented as factual but that never actually happened. So, in direct answer, not too much.


So the Libertarians have conceded (EDIT: THIS IS AN INCORRECT STATEMENT). That was interesting, as I thought their chances of getting 5% this year were pretty good.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Well, I still am not voting for Trump or Clinton.

HOWEVER...the more I find out about him the more I really like Tim Kaine.

If we could have Clinton simply resign as soon as she is elected and have him as President...I'd be all for it.

In fact, at this point, with some of the things Tim Kaine has stated recently, I might actually get over enthusiastic about Tim Kaine (then again, it may just be the candidates we have available this year, Tim Kaine might just appeal because he seems to be the most normal person out there!).

{edit: He's not as liberal as I might normally look at, and in fact seems VERY in the middle. If anyone could bridge the gap between Republicans and Democrats, it sounds like he would be one that might be able to do it. I feel he's definitely left of Clinton (despite me saying he's more in the middle than anything else), but has some very conservative views (and has allied with conservatives at times and they with him) and think that he could do a lot in getting people on board to stop this crazy opposite spectrum type thing we are seeing in the US right now.

He seems FAR more reasonable when he talks than I would have expected. Ironically, the thing that caught my attention on him is a speech he gave where there was very LOW attendance (I think around 30 people total showed up) recently. However, what he said sounded so reasonable compared to the stuff that's been tossed around by the various Presidential candidates recently...it was almost like a relief to me!]

Literally everything you're saying that you like about Kaine, applies to Hillary.

It's so true, that I'm have a difficult time finding the words to express it, because it's hard for me to fathom how you don't see it.

Imagine I was sitting next to you complaining about how I wished I had shoes... all the while I was holding my own perfectly good pair of shoes in my hands and nothing was wrong with them. You

...

I'm not holding shoes in my hands.

Dark Archive

Berinor wrote:
MeriDoc- wrote:


First off the employer pays that tax, not the employee.

Buy anything from my company (or Paizo, or Apple, or your internet carrier) and the taxes are built in. Who pays that tax? - you do every time.

By the same token, my employer pays all the taxes I do. And my employer's customers pays all its taxes (including mine). And so on.

So it's true in a sense that the companies will pass on their taxes to their customers, but they still need to produce a product I'm willing to pay for and charge (including the taxes they're "passing along") a price I'm willing to pay. If what I'm willing to pay won't cover the tax, they need to take less profit (so they're paying for it) or not make the sale.

A fundemental gap exists in your reasoning. Competition may decrease prices (I will do more for less to win a job). Taxes are generally evenly distributed. So prices on all companies go up, and you pay regardless of what you buy. Use taxes on specific items beyond reason do not cause lost profits (cigarettes, alcohol, gas etc.) You pay those and the company makes 5-20% depending on the market segmnt.

Eitherway the popular "we got them" ends up hurting the very people who support the measure.


Abraham spalding wrote:
So the Libertarians have conceded. That was interesting, as I thought their chances of getting 5% this year were pretty good.

A lot of people are trying to paint that as a concession and endorsement of Hillary, but I don't think it is. Rather, I think Weld's statement is an attempt to get more Republican votes, seeing Trump as the weaker of the two major candidates.


Irontruth wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
So the Libertarians have conceded. That was interesting, as I thought their chances of getting 5% this year were pretty good.
A lot of people are trying to paint that as a concession and endorsement of Hillary, but I don't think it is. Rather, I think Weld's statement is an attempt to get more Republican votes, seeing Trump as the weaker of the two major candidates.

Yeah beyond the concession there is a lot of room for interpretation, which is why I didn't comment on that part.

It just seemed really odd to me that they stopped this close to 5%.

To my thinking the only reason to do that is to screw the Libertarian party out of major party status.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
So the Libertarians have conceded. That was interesting, as I thought their chances of getting 5% this year were pretty good.
A lot of people are trying to paint that as a concession and endorsement of Hillary, but I don't think it is. Rather, I think Weld's statement is an attempt to get more Republican votes, seeing Trump as the weaker of the two major candidates.

Yeah beyond the concession there is a lot of room for interpretation, which is why I didn't comment on that part.

It just seemed really odd to me that they stopped this close to 5%.

To my thinking the only reason to do that is to screw the Libertarian party out of major party status.

Update

Quote:

“Several web sites and media outlets have seized upon Governor Bill Weld’s statement from a news conference Tuesday in Boston to jump to conclusions that are wishful thinking, rather than reality.

“Led by Occupy Democrats, a well-known mouthpiece for the left, the sensationalists and wishful thinkers are re-writing Gov. Weld’s forceful condemnation of Donald Trump into a suggestion that voters should support Hillary Clinton. That is absurd.

Could be argued as him trying to walk it back, but I kind of agree. It's not clear to me why a third party candidate making a strong attack on one of the major party candidates without mentioning the other should be considered a concession and an endorsement in the first place.


thejeff wrote:
Could be argued as him trying to walk it back, but I kind of agree. It's not clear to me why a third party candidate making a strong attack on one of the major party candidates without mentioning the other should be considered a concession and an endorsement in the first place.

But the question is then who does he suggest supporting? I doubt he's a fan of Jill Stein, and I can't see him pushing to support Trump now, as there is no profit in it for him or the Libertarian party especially if they are trying to get away from the impressions of the Libertarians being the white college male's party such then endorsing Trump would not be the way to go.

So again I'm trying to puzzle out:


  • Why pull out now?
  • Who do they recommend now?

However this is level of bizarre I have come to expect from the Libertarian party.


Abraham spalding wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Could be argued as him trying to walk it back, but I kind of agree. It's not clear to me why a third party candidate making a strong attack on one of the major party candidates without mentioning the other should be considered a concession and an endorsement in the first place.

But the question is then who does he suggest supporting? I doubt he's a fan of Jill Stein, and I can't see him pushing to support Trump now, as there is no profit in it for him or the Libertarian party especially if they are trying to get away from the impressions of the Libertarians being the white college male's party such then endorsing Trump would not be the way to go.

So again I'm trying to puzzle out:


  • Why pull out now?
  • Who do they recommend now?

However this is level of bizarre I have come to expect from the Libertarian party.

Where are you getting the pull out now? Is there some explicit concession I've missed?

They suggest support Johnson/Weld of course.

Even before the update he starts the speech that triggered this with

Quote:
Gary and I will carry our message of fiscal responsibility, social inclusion, and smaller government through November 8, and I hope that this election cycle will secure for the Libertarian Party a permanent place in our national political dialogue.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MeriDoc- wrote:
Berinor wrote:


By the same token, my employer pays all the taxes I do. And my employer's customers pays all its taxes (including mine). And so on.

So it's true in a sense that the companies will pass on their taxes to their customers, but they still need to produce a product I'm willing to pay for and charge (including the taxes they're "passing along") a price I'm willing to pay. If what I'm willing to pay won't cover the tax, they need to take less profit (so they're paying for it) or not make the sale.

A fundemental gap exists in your reasoning. Competition may decrease prices (I will do more for less to win a job). Taxes are generally evenly distributed. So prices on all companies go up, and you pay regardless of what you buy. Use taxes on specific items beyond reason do not cause lost profits (cigarettes, alcohol, gas etc.) You pay those and the company makes 5-20% depending on the market segmnt.

Eitherway the popular "we got them" ends up hurting the very people who support the measure.

It depends on what the measure is, exactly. If we're tightening up loopholes, that will increase the taxes on larger companies (that tend to have better accountants) and more unscrupulous companies (that take shadier deductions) more than smaller ones. If we're taxing them to pay for a service they disproportionately use, we're baking the cost of something better into the price of that thing.

I agree that "we got them" is generally overly simplistic. But "no point in taxing companies - they'll just pass on the cost to people anyway" is even more so. Tax policy is easy to make into slogans, but the details are the important part.


Ah, I know what happened now; in his attack and depth over Trump's flaws his first paragraph manages to be overlooked.

I would suggest he should have ended with a paragraph along the lines of "And this is why it's important for you to come out and vote for us!"

The complete focus on Trump throws off the focus on his own campaign.

Though the response would have better optics if it was coming out of Weld instead of the communication office but I guess that's the point of a communication office.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lou Diamond wrote:
What do my liberal friends think of Terry mc caulif bribing the number man in the FBI by giving 675000 dollars in campaign money to his wife while he was in charge of Investigating Hillary?

I think it is sad that so many conservatives continue with this apparent need to be lied to. After decades of non-stop blatant falsehoods like this you'd think more of them would have 'wised up' and stopped accepting extraordinary claims at face value... but no, they seem to prefer to be deceived. Like small children who know at some level that Santa probably isn't real, but allow themselves to believe anyway.

Reality check

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The answer is simple. Hillary has these two things on her chest. Too many people those two things are not something that can be compatible with behavior we expect from the half of the human race which lacks those two things. Because when we see those two things on a person, a different set of perception filters slam into place so that the same behaviors trigger different responses.

I love that because I don't want to vote for a wholly corrupt politician that supports many policies that I hate and has made a career of lying, getting caught, and magically getting free, I MUST be sexist.

How about this...I want a woman president, just not badly enough to compromise every single bit or morality I have. I don't support abortion, especially past the midway point, so I must hate women (guess my wife and most of my female friends do too). I don't like people that lose their ability to practice law due to corruption, so I hate women. I don't like that I can find numerous top 20 Clinton Scandal lists that have vastly different scandals on them, the majority of which are true, so I hate women.
I actually am holding hope that our first woman president isn't going to be an absolute embarrassment to the entire female population. So I won't vote for Hillary....and for the record I am not fond of Trump either. If I could I would vote for a "do over".

5,751 to 5,800 of 7,079 << first < prev | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards