The Next American President Thread (2016)

18586889091198

Comments

  • bondjames wrote: »

    I'll be back to discuss here after the first debate. In the meanwhile, carry on with the Kumbaya.

    Gosh, thanks for minimizing the importance of this particular moment in our great ongoing national debate.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I will continue to post news articles, etc. that I think may be of interest to all.
  • "Someone's praying Lord, Kumbaya
    I can't wait for the cynics to start making fun of them Lord, Kumbaya
    When will our Long National Nightmare be over Lord? Kumbaya
    Oh Lord... let's just outlaw religion in the name of freedom and be done with it...
    Kumbaya"

    Here's Pete Seeger, a victim of the Blacklists of the 1950s, to give us a little sense of history...



  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Oh that blacklisted time ... yes. I'm glad you mentioned that. I think looking at history is definitely helpful for our current situation. Thanks for the song, too. Genuine Americana, which happened during another time of political turmoil in our country. Though of course, so easy to ridicule this song: but its roots are true.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 3,564
    The ability of music to evoke another time & another place is endlessly fascinating to me. I hope some will check back a page or so & catch my link to Dan Hicks' "I Scare Myself." While not widely known throughout the country, Hicks was pretty big in the SF Bay area and these songs were regularly on my turntable during the Watergate era. I can imagine Dick Nixon wandering the White House on the solitary 3 AM vigils that Henry Kissinger has told us about...meeting and arguing with the ghosts of past Presidents... insisting to portraits of FDR and Abe Lincoln, "I am NOT a crook, I'm NOT!!!" while the melancholy strains of the violin solo from "I Scare Myself" waft through the empty halls and Pat Nixon tosses dreamlessly in bed...
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    Meg Whitman, noted Republican fund-raiser (and occasional unsuccessful candidate for the Republicans here in California) is endorsing Hillary and will be actively fundraising on her behalf. A couple of current Republican senators are pointedly repudiating him, with more sure to follow.

    I just can't understand why one would endorse Hillary, I mean... If you solely look at the times she has been lying about the email affaire. She either knew what she was doing, or she is not so bright. Either way, she's not fit to be the POTUS.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,028
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Meg Whitman, noted Republican fund-raiser (and occasional unsuccessful candidate for the Republicans here in California) is endorsing Hillary and will be actively fundraising on her behalf. A couple of current Republican senators are pointedly repudiating him, with more sure to follow.

    I just can't understand why one would endorse Hillary, I mean... If you solely look at the times she has been lying about the email affaire. She either knew what she was doing, or she is not so bright. Either way, she's not fit to be the POTUS.

    Enlighten us with the times she has proven to be lying about the e-mails. as far as i can tell even the FBI under a Republican director found no ground to persecute her. If you took away all the candidates ever for the presidency who'd been lying, you wouldn't have had a president in ages.

  • Posts: 11,119
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Meg Whitman, noted Republican fund-raiser (and occasional unsuccessful candidate for the Republicans here in California) is endorsing Hillary and will be actively fundraising on her behalf. A couple of current Republican senators are pointedly repudiating him, with more sure to follow.

    I just can't understand why one would endorse Hillary, I mean... If you solely look at the times she has been lying about the email affaire. She either knew what she was doing, or she is not so bright. Either way, she's not fit to be the POTUS.

    You gotta be kidding me. There's a difference between thinking why or why not someone should be elected president (or prime minister) or why or why not someone actually is capable of properly governing a country once in office. Now your history, especially our own Dutch recent political history.

    On top of that, I think both candidates really need to show honesty and transparency at this stage. That goes for Clinton, but also for Trump. The big advantage for Trump is, that his tax returns are not part of politics....just yet. It makes him an outsider yes, but does that mean he's more good than Clinton when he still refuses to release his tax returns? The difference between a politician destroying people's lives and a private citizen destroying people's life these days seem to be one word: The devil. And that stinks.

    I have been in politics myself. Perhaps as an outsider at first. But does that mean politicians are 'corrupt aliens who need to die'? No. That also goes for already established politicians like Geert Wilders.

    OHMSS69 wrote: »
    Trump supporters at this stage are like being covered in honey with nothing but a twig to defend yourself against a group of hungry bears...Not defensible and should have the brains to get the hell out.

    This is true of every Presidential candidate at some point or another. The same goes for Obama and his infamous "you didn't build that" speech. one of the most important qualities to be President is that you don't start waving the white flag at the first sign of being it trouble. it's about how you handle the situation.

    Comparing Obama as president with Trump right now trying to get president....doesn't come even close to comparing apples with oranges. It's comparing apples with.....cars. Or apples with.......planets.

    The biggest problem I have with Trump is the fact that he sees the presidency as one big business deal for himself in which his media skills perhaps even help him right until November 8th. And it's true that Trump is seen as the 'people's man', the common, hardworking, ordinary people. But if that's really the only reason to elect him, then I want you to look at some examples in recent Dutch politics in which other populist parties and people were actually governing the country.

    And in all honesty, that's the moment where it usually goes wrong. That's the moment were populists with narcist tendencies are being revealed as incapable in actually governing a country.


    Majority coalition government of CDA-VVD-LPF (2002-2003)
    200px-ZetelsBalkenendeI.svg.png
    Let's start with the late Pim Fortuyn. He wrote a book -"De Puinhopen Van Paars" ("The Disasters of Eight Years Purple Coalition"- and he thought that was enough to govern. He thought a carefully written party program with solutions wasn't necessary. But then his party LPF (Lijst Pim Fortuyn, an early predecessor of Geert Wilders' PVV) entered the coalition government with CDA (Conservatives) and VVD (Conservative Liberals) in 2002, and what we got then was nothing short of banana republic affairs and a powerless outgoing 'caretaker' government until May 2003. It was....a mess.

    Now we all know Pim Fortuyn got assassinated on May 6th 2002. And trust me, I was shocked about itIt was an attack on the freedom of speech. And as of today, I do admire Pim Fortuyn on at least some issues. But make no mistake, his character was authoritarian, he was in many ways slightly narcist, and self-criticism and nuance were truly unknowns to him. And even if he was still the party leader of LPF, I don't see how the coalition government of CDA-VVD-LPF would have survived.


    Minority coalition government of VVD-CDA + extraparliamentary support PVV (2010-2012)
    200px-ZetelsRutte-metPVV.svg.png
    Then 3 years later in 2005 Mr Geert Wilders founded the PVV (Party of Freedom), which is now one of the bigger political forces in Dutch politics. They, sort of, entered the government of VVD (Conservative Liberals) and CDA (Christian Conservatives) in a minority construction in 2010: VVD and CDA were forming a government, but didn't have a majority in the government together. They delivered the kabinet and the PM. But in a minority accord with PVV, the PVV became the sole supporter of this minority government. By backing proposals from the minority supporter, the minority government in return executed all wishes from the PVV with regard to immigration and (anti-)Islam. The biggest advantage for the PVV was the fact that they could push their agenda forcefully, without having real government responsibility and without delivering members for the cabinet.

    The minority government of VVD and CDA with extraparliamentary support from PVV, as written down in the minority coalition agreement between VVD-CDA on one hand and PVV on the other hand, fell only 1,5 years after it was sworn in.


    So, both periods of the above governments, July 22nd 2002 until May 27th 2003 (with populist party LPF) and October 14th 2010 until April 23rd 2012 (with populist party PVV), were messy affairs in which, in my opinion, the country stood still. Both governments didn't come even close to finish a full 4-year term! No real backbone was shown in actually really changing the country with progressive legislation. The constant focus on immigration reform made the country less attractive for investors. The economy underperformed in those periods. But most importantly, the populists themselves could not find common ground in actually governing the country. The periods were marked by lots of gossip, bullying, narcism, little internal rows, unexpected resignations and God knows what other nonsense that distracted from a real important goal that was never really met: Effective government.


    So, in my honest opinion I do think I can say what mess you get when you start giving some power to populists: They corrupt themselves. And in the case of the 2010-2012 minority government, PVV didn't even have the balls to be a full government partner, but the damage to that government was still farfetching. So again, please stop comparing Obama with Trump? Running a business is one thing.

    But running a country is so much more delicate, it is full of nuances and complexities, and it is built on the notion that it actually IS impossible to always find common ground and that it IS necessary on many occasions to disappoint the people who have voted for you! And with the above examples in Dutch politics, by jolly....let's be sane and pragmatic here: Donald Trump simply doesn't have it to be a US president, to lead a government with the understanding that there's a 'Three-way Separation of Powers'.

    In The Netherlands we have endured the rise of populism since 2002. Populist parties like the PVV (with Geert Wilders) and its predecessor LPF have been part of politics since 2002. So in a way they can be seen as firm establishment forces now as of 2016. And in all honesty? 'They' promised us heavens and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. Well, look where we are now 14 years later.....
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Meg Whitman, noted Republican fund-raiser (and occasional unsuccessful candidate for the Republicans here in California) is endorsing Hillary and will be actively fundraising on her behalf. A couple of current Republican senators are pointedly repudiating him, with more sure to follow.

    I just can't understand why one would endorse Hillary, I mean... If you solely look at the times she has been lying about the email affaire. She either knew what she was doing, or she is not so bright. Either way, she's not fit to be the POTUS.

    Enlighten us with the times she has proven to be lying about the e-mails. as far as i can tell even the FBI under a Republican director found no ground to persecute her. If you took away all the candidates ever for the presidency who'd been lying, you wouldn't have had a president in ages.

    No problem, here you have it

    Or this video:

    If you watch that and you still conclude she isn't lying... Based on all this I also can't for the life of me figure out why there is no ground to prosecute.
    On top of that, I think both candidates really need to show honesty and transparency at this stage. That goes for Clinton, but also for Trump. The big advantage for Trump is, that his tax returns are not part of politics....just yet. It makes him an outsider yes, but does that mean he's more good than Clinton when he still refuses to release his tax returns? The difference between a politician destroying people's lives and a private citizen destroying people's life these days seem to be one word: The devil. And that stinks.

    I agree with you on that. I don't think Trump is a good candidate either. But I'd pick Trump over Hillary if I had to choose.

    Also, I'm not a Geert Wilders supporter and I don't think Dutch politics really have anything to do with my previous comment.

    I stated a fact, Hillary lied multiple times about the emails. I therefore think she should not be POTUS.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Also, I'm not a Geert Wilders supporter and I don't think Dutch politics really have anything to do with my previous comment.

    Ooowh I do think it has everything to do with what is happening in the USA. Everything!

    First of all, the Dutch example gives you insight in how effective or ineffective governments, consisting of populist parties or populist wings of parties, actually are. And they were, in the case of The Netherlands, failures. Period! The country stood still because of obstructionism in the parliament and internal quarrels within the populist parties. It damaged our country.

    In my opinion the late Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders are no different from Donald Trump either. Entertaining narcists. In my opinion populists of today also remind me of past American politicians with rather 'dark agenda's'. Think of George Wallace or Joseph McCarthy.

    Regarding the lies of Hillary Clinton, you seriously need to see things into perspective and read some books from Carl Bernstein. People compare Hillary Clinton with Richard Nixon these days....and that Hillary's so called lies are worse than the Watergate Scandal. It is pure utter bullocks.

    That doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton goes without blame. She as well needs to be more empathic and transparent when she's talking about her email servers. It is fact that she did not do a criminal thing. And journalism should be based on facts, not emotions. But in the current populist sentiment that is ruling the West, one needs to appeal better to the worries of ordinary people.

    Still, when we solely talk about who will be more fit and effective as president, then by all means give me Hillary Clinton. She's a bitch yes, but so was Judi Dench as 'M'. So she has the balls, but also the tact to work within the complex boundaries as a president. With Trump my biggest fear is a situation like we saw in The Netherlands.

    This video basically.......makes me like Clinton even more than Trump :-):

  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    edited August 2016 Posts: 8,028
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Meg Whitman, noted Republican fund-raiser (and occasional unsuccessful candidate for the Republicans here in California) is endorsing Hillary and will be actively fundraising on her behalf. A couple of current Republican senators are pointedly repudiating him, with more sure to follow.

    I just can't understand why one would endorse Hillary, I mean... If you solely look at the times she has been lying about the email affaire. She either knew what she was doing, or she is not so bright. Either way, she's not fit to be the POTUS.

    Enlighten us with the times she has proven to be lying about the e-mails. as far as i can tell even the FBI under a Republican director found no ground to persecute her. If you took away all the candidates ever for the presidency who'd been lying, you wouldn't have had a president in ages.

    No problem, here you have it

    Or this video:

    If you watch that and you still conclude she isn't lying... Based on all this I also can't for the life of me figure out why there is no ground to prosecute.
    On top of that, I think both candidates really need to show honesty and transparency at this stage. That goes for Clinton, but also for Trump. The big advantage for Trump is, that his tax returns are not part of politics....just yet. It makes him an outsider yes, but does that mean he's more good than Clinton when he still refuses to release his tax returns? The difference between a politician destroying people's lives and a private citizen destroying people's life these days seem to be one word: The devil. And that stinks.

    I agree with you on that. I don't think Trump is a good candidate either. But I'd pick Trump over Hillary if I had to choose.

    Also, I'm not a Geert Wilders supporter and I don't think Dutch politics really have anything to do with my previous comment.

    I stated a fact, Hillary lied multiple times about the emails. I therefore think she should not be POTUS.





    Interesting to see that the congressman himself is lying too: 'thousands of classified emails" whereas in fact it were 110. Of 30.000 emails on her server.

    110 e-mails on 30.000 isn't much, and Clinton said this for a tv camera, not in a hearing. All in all it isn't strange she thought there were no classified emails on that server. If you have any idea how many emails she gets per day you might understand.

    Politicians all use private accounts for their work, as their work is 24/7. This I don't condone as beeing good (it is after all the line of work i'm ín and I wish they didn't) but it isn't as bad as you claim it is either. And it certainly sais nothing about if she's fit to be president.

    Minister Kamp of your (our) own government has done exactly the same, and that all went down with a 'I'll pay more attention next time'.

    Perhaps you should try less biased sources then Trump propaganda.

  • Posts: 11,119
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Meg Whitman, noted Republican fund-raiser (and occasional unsuccessful candidate for the Republicans here in California) is endorsing Hillary and will be actively fundraising on her behalf. A couple of current Republican senators are pointedly repudiating him, with more sure to follow.

    I just can't understand why one would endorse Hillary, I mean... If you solely look at the times she has been lying about the email affaire. She either knew what she was doing, or she is not so bright. Either way, she's not fit to be the POTUS.

    Enlighten us with the times she has proven to be lying about the e-mails. as far as i can tell even the FBI under a Republican director found no ground to persecute her. If you took away all the candidates ever for the presidency who'd been lying, you wouldn't have had a president in ages.

    No problem, here you have it

    Or this video:

    If you watch that and you still conclude she isn't lying... Based on all this I also can't for the life of me figure out why there is no ground to prosecute.
    On top of that, I think both candidates really need to show honesty and transparency at this stage. That goes for Clinton, but also for Trump. The big advantage for Trump is, that his tax returns are not part of politics....just yet. It makes him an outsider yes, but does that mean he's more good than Clinton when he still refuses to release his tax returns? The difference between a politician destroying people's lives and a private citizen destroying people's life these days seem to be one word: The devil. And that stinks.

    I agree with you on that. I don't think Trump is a good candidate either. But I'd pick Trump over Hillary if I had to choose.

    Also, I'm not a Geert Wilders supporter and I don't think Dutch politics really have anything to do with my previous comment.

    I stated a fact, Hillary lied multiple times about the emails. I therefore think she should not be POTUS.





    Interesting to see that the congressman himself is lying too: 'thousands of classified emails" whereas in fact it were 110. Of 30.000 emails on her server.

    110 e-mails on 30.000 isn't much, and Clinton said this for a tv camera, not in a hearing. All in all it isn't strange she thought there were no classified emails on that server. If you have any idea how many emails she gets per day you might understand.

    Politicians all use private accounts for their work, as their work is 24/7. This I don't condone as beeing good (it is after all the line of work i'm ín and I wish they didn't) but it isn't as bad as you claim it is either. And it certainly sais nothing about if she's fit to be president.

    Minister Kamp of your (our) own government has done exactly the same, and that all went down with a 'I'll pay more attention next time'.

    Perhaps you should try less biased sources then Trump propaganda.

    *High Five*
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    Interesting to see that the congressman himself is lying too: 'thousands of classified emails" whereas in fact it were 110. Of 30.000 emails on her server.

    110 e-mails on 30.000 isn't much, and Clinton said this for a tv camera, not in a hearing. All in all it isn't strange she thought there were no classified emails on that server. If you have any idea how many emails she gets per day you might understand.

    Politicians all use private accounts for their work, as their work is 24/7. This I don't condone as beeing good (it is after all the line of work i'm ín and I wish they didn't) but it isn't as bad as you claim it is either. And it certainly sais nothing about if she's fit to be president.

    Minister Kamp of your (our) own government has done exactly the same, and that all went down with a 'I'll pay more attention next time'.

    Perhaps you should try less biased sources then Trump propaganda.

    You can't use your work email when not at work? I mean you should be able to access you're work email 24/7 these days. No reason to fall back on private email.

    Minister Kamp was careless as well. But he did not set up a private email server in his basement like Hillary did. In the case of Hillary it to me suggest she has something to hide.

    30.000 emails where received by the investigating team. Because large numbers where deleted. By her attorneys... she claims that she doesn't know why they did that...
    Ooowh I do think it has everything to do with what is happening in the USA. Everything!

    But still, my comment (about Hillary lying) has nothing to do with Dutch politics. I agree populist parties have failed in The Netherlands. I think Wilders lost al his believability when he did not take responsibility and made cabinet Rutte I fall.
  • Posts: 315
    From Day 1 of the Obama Presidency, it's been one Republican manufactured scandal in an attempt to bring him down. And they have continued this tired strategy against Hillary Clinton. Remember the frothing Darrel Issa who beat the dead horse of ;Fast and Furious' into the ground. Someone forgot to tell him that F and F was started under Bush Jr. and couldn't find anything against Pres. Obama. Then there was the massive voter fraud rampant in the country, especially Wisconsin-home of Repubs lightweights Walker, Ryan and Preibus. They found one guy who voted 7 times in 2012 and he was a Republican. Wow!

    Then was the strange case of Trey Gowdy from South Carolina. Gowdy had numerous hearings over the course of a couple years to try to nail Hillary. Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy said the committee was a joke and the investigation was a scam just to get Hillary. Gowdy and his cronies failed again. She was exonerated. Gowdy is known on Capitol Hill for his cosmetic surgeries, botox jowl treatments and bizzare hiar. Thru one of my NSA contacts, here's what Gowdy's hair is covering up.

    Pinhead.jpeg

    A scanda is brewing.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Talking to chairs and now this, I'm not sure if Clint Eastwood has Alzheimers or not.

    "We're really in a pussy generation," he said. "Everybody's walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren't called racist."

    Yeah the good old days Clint when you could be racist and it wasn't called out, such a shame white people can't be like that anymore.

    If he doesn't think what has been coming out of Trump's mouth isn't stirring up racial hatred I have to question whether Eastwood knows what a racist is?

    http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/clint-eastwood-defends-donald-trump-and-says-we-re/413987
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,159
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Talking to chairs and now this, I'm not sure if Clint Eastwood has Alzheimers or not.

    "We're really in a pussy generation," he said. "Everybody's walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren't called racist."

    Yeah the good old days Clint when you could be racist and it wasn't called out, such a shame white people can't be like that anymore.

    If he doesn't think what has been coming out of Trump's mouth isn't stirring up racial hatred I have to question whether Eastwood knows what a racist is?

    http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/clint-eastwood-defends-donald-trump-and-says-we-re/413987

    I think what he is saying is that the definitions have expanded over time as language policing has become more socially acceptable.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    I thought this was really interesting. Immigrants coming to U.S., mapped, over many years.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,696
    I thought this was really interesting. Immigrants coming to U.S., mapped, over many years.
    We are being invaded by Mexico & Canada!


    :))
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    Started out with so many Irish, like my ancestors! ;)
    Yep I'm from Florida. Quite some changes. I do find it interesting. I've always been happy that America is a "melting pot."
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited August 2016 Posts: 4,554
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Meg Whitman, noted Republican fund-raiser (and occasional unsuccessful candidate for the Republicans here in California) is endorsing Hillary and will be actively fundraising on her behalf. A couple of current Republican senators are pointedly repudiating him, with more sure to follow.

    I just can't understand why one would endorse Hillary, I mean... If you solely look at the times she has been lying about the email affaire. She either knew what she was doing, or she is not so bright. Either way, she's not fit to be the POTUS.

    Enlighten us with the times she has proven to be lying about the e-mails. as far as i can tell even the FBI under a Republican director found no ground to persecute her. If you took away all the candidates ever for the presidency who'd been lying, you wouldn't have had a president in ages.

    No problem, here you have it

    Or this video:

    If you watch that and you still conclude she isn't lying... Based on all this I also can't for the life of me figure out why there is no ground to prosecute.
    On top of that, I think both candidates really need to show honesty and transparency at this stage. That goes for Clinton, but also for Trump. The big advantage for Trump is, that his tax returns are not part of politics....just yet. It makes him an outsider yes, but does that mean he's more good than Clinton when he still refuses to release his tax returns? The difference between a politician destroying people's lives and a private citizen destroying people's life these days seem to be one word: The devil. And that stinks.

    I agree with you on that. I don't think Trump is a good candidate either. But I'd pick Trump over Hillary if I had to choose.

    Also, I'm not a Geert Wilders supporter and I don't think Dutch politics really have anything to do with my previous comment.

    I stated a fact, Hillary lied multiple times about the emails. I therefore think she should not be POTUS.

    I love the "edits" within the Gowdy video. It's a classic conservative trick. Ask Shirley Sherrod. Fact is, and this is legal mumbo-jumbo, HRC never received or sent anything marked "classified." In some cases, there a few (out of all those thousands) that were marked "C."* And there is no way of knowing whether or not HRC saw this or recognized it. In the court of public opinion, it's sketchy; but in a court of law, HRC can't be convicted of lying because, for a FACT, nothing was marked "CLASSIFIED."

    All that said, I got a big laugh out of Trey Gowdy being called a bulldog. He's more like a Pekingese terrier.

    *And we all know what C stands for: "careless." :-)
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Talking to chairs and now this, I'm not sure if Clint Eastwood has Alzheimers or not.

    "We're really in a pussy generation," he said. "Everybody's walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren't called racist."

    Yeah the good old days Clint when you could be racist and it wasn't called out, such a shame white people can't be like that anymore.

    If he doesn't think what has been coming out of Trump's mouth isn't stirring up racial hatred I have to question whether Eastwood knows what a racist is?

    http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/clint-eastwood-defends-donald-trump-and-says-we-re/413987

    I think what he is saying is that the definitions have expanded over time as language policing has become more socially acceptable.

    And I think you're hitting on what is the basic, underlying problem in the U.S. It really comes down to this: for 200 years, you had a segment of society (basically, white, heterosexual, "Christian" males) who ran roughshod over everything; then came the 1960s, and the you know what started to hit the fan. Suddenly, people stood up and said, "No more." Women said it. Minorities said it. Gays said it. The crap that that segment was getting away with was not going to be tolerated anymore. Here we are, fifty years later, and that fight is still being waged. That white segment has been throwing a temper tantrum for decades, because, no, they don't get to shoot and hang blacks for no reason and send them to other parts of the cafeteria. No, they don't get to pinch a woman's ass and gawk at her at work and pay her half what they pay a man. No, they don't get to put up the Ten Commandments on a city courthouse. No, they don't get to start school with a prayer to Jesus. No, they don't get to keep homosexuals from serving in the military. And and and on. The collective whine has grown louder and louder, especially over the past eight years, because they lost the presidency to a BLACK man! (The horror!)
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,696
    Tell it Trip!!
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    It doesn't surprise me that @Mendes4Lyfe would come back with such a comment.

    The Tory party isn't right wing enough for him, says it all really.

    Telling the Republicans they can't do what they used because it's about common decency seems to be winding them all up a treat.

    Why can't I pick on them like I used to it's just not fair.
  • JeffreyJeffrey The Netherlands
    Posts: 308
    Shardlake wrote: »
    It doesn't surprise me that @Mendes4Lyfe would come back with such a comment.

    The Tory party isn't right wing enough for him, says it all really.

    Telling the Republicans they can't do what they used because it's about common decency seems to be winding them all up a treat.

    Why can't I pick on them like I used to it's just not fair.

    And this is all based on that one comment from him? :/

    So Eastwood does not agree with you, he therefore must he must be ill. That's just so typical.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    edited August 2016 Posts: 8,159
    TripAces wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    Meg Whitman, noted Republican fund-raiser (and occasional unsuccessful candidate for the Republicans here in California) is endorsing Hillary and will be actively fundraising on her behalf. A couple of current Republican senators are pointedly repudiating him, with more sure to follow.

    I just can't understand why one would endorse Hillary, I mean... If you solely look at the times she has been lying about the email affaire. She either knew what she was doing, or she is not so bright. Either way, she's not fit to be the POTUS.

    Enlighten us with the times she has proven to be lying about the e-mails. as far as i can tell even the FBI under a Republican director found no ground to persecute her. If you took away all the candidates ever for the presidency who'd been lying, you wouldn't have had a president in ages.

    No problem, here you have it

    Or this video:

    If you watch that and you still conclude she isn't lying... Based on all this I also can't for the life of me figure out why there is no ground to prosecute.
    On top of that, I think both candidates really need to show honesty and transparency at this stage. That goes for Clinton, but also for Trump. The big advantage for Trump is, that his tax returns are not part of politics....just yet. It makes him an outsider yes, but does that mean he's more good than Clinton when he still refuses to release his tax returns? The difference between a politician destroying people's lives and a private citizen destroying people's life these days seem to be one word: The devil. And that stinks.

    I agree with you on that. I don't think Trump is a good candidate either. But I'd pick Trump over Hillary if I had to choose.

    Also, I'm not a Geert Wilders supporter and I don't think Dutch politics really have anything to do with my previous comment.

    I stated a fact, Hillary lied multiple times about the emails. I therefore think she should not be POTUS.

    I love the "edits" within the Gowdy video. It's a classic conservative trick. Ask Shirley Sherrod. Fact is, and this is legal mumbo-jumbo, HRC never received or sent anything marked "classified." In some cases, there a few (out of all those thousands) that were marked "C."* And there is no way of knowing whether or not HRC saw this or recognized it. In the court of public opinion, it's sketchy; but in a court of law, HRC can't be convicted of lying because, for a FACT, nothing was marked "CLASSIFIED."

    All that said, I got a big laugh out of Trey Gowdy being called a bulldog. He's more like a Pekingese terrier.

    *And we all know what C stands for: "careless." :-)
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Talking to chairs and now this, I'm not sure if Clint Eastwood has Alzheimers or not.

    "We're really in a pussy generation," he said. "Everybody's walking on eggshells. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren't called racist."

    Yeah the good old days Clint when you could be racist and it wasn't called out, such a shame white people can't be like that anymore.

    If he doesn't think what has been coming out of Trump's mouth isn't stirring up racial hatred I have to question whether Eastwood knows what a racist is?

    http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/clint-eastwood-defends-donald-trump-and-says-we-re/413987

    I think what he is saying is that the definitions have expanded over time as language policing has become more socially acceptable.

    And I think you're hitting on what is the basic, underlying problem in the U.S. It really comes down to this: for 200 years, you had a segment of society (basically, white, heterosexual, "Christian" males) who ran roughshod over everything; then came the 1960s, and the you know what started to hit the fan. Suddenly, people stood up and said, "No more." Women said it. Minorities said it. Gays said it. The crap that that segment was getting away with was not going to be tolerated anymore. Here we are, fifty years later, and that fight is still being waged. That white segment has been throwing a temper tantrum for decades, because, no, they don't get to shoot and hang blacks for no reason and send them to other parts of the cafeteria. No, they don't get to pinch a woman's ass and gawk at her at work and pay her half what they pay a man. No, they don't get to put up the Ten Commandments on a city courthouse. No, they don't get to start school with a prayer to Jesus. No, they don't get to keep homosexuals from serving in the military. And and and on. The collective whine has grown louder and louder, especially over the past eight years, because they lost the presidency to a BLACK man! (The horror!)

    I really think the problem is human nature, not white, cis, male nature. Removing white males from the equations won't fix the problems with human nature. Its a big waste of time and energy.
  • Jeffrey wrote: »
    Shardlake wrote: »
    It doesn't surprise me that @Mendes4Lyfe would come back with such a comment.

    The Tory party isn't right wing enough for him, says it all really.

    Telling the Republicans they can't do what they used because it's about common decency seems to be winding them all up a treat.

    Why can't I pick on them like I used to it's just not fair.

    And this is all based on that one comment from him? :/

    So Eastwood does not agree with you, he therefore must he must be ill. That's just so typical.

    You've come to the party a bit late, @Jeffrey. Go back a few months & see what you see...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,696
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    So Eastwood does not agree with you, he therefore must he must be ill. That's just so typical.
    Eastwood was always a bit nutty like that. Some grow out of it & others embrace it in some kind of demented choke hold as they age....
  • chrisisall wrote: »
    Jeffrey wrote: »
    So Eastwood does not agree with you, he therefore must he must be ill. That's just so typical.
    Eastwood was always a bit nutty like that. Some grow out of it & others embrace it in some kind of demented choke hold as they age....

    We must remember that this is a man who held a televised argument with an empty chair at the last Republican convention. I hold a great deal of respect for Eastwood's body of work as an actor & director so I'll not suggest what may be going on w/ him as the aging process takes hold. No, my reticence is not out of the dreaded demon of Political Correctness. It's out of common courtesy, something that seems to be less and less common as Trumpishness fastens its iron grip on our society.
  • Well, this is sweet. Trump has just ejected multiple protesters from a rally...because they stood up & silently held aloft copies of the pocket US Constitution. Yes, he has been viciously attacked....by the Constitution. You can't make this stuff up.
This discussion has been closed.