Trump

PJfanwillneverleave1

Didn't see this coming.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/primary-delaware-maryland-pennsylvania-rhode-conneticut-1.3553946

All five states.

mrussel1

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Real revolutions are rarely the solution. How many true revolutions have been bloodless? Maybe the Glorious Revolution (appropriately misnamed)? Revolution for the sake of what? Is that going to eliminate the Israeli settlements? What are you fighting for precisely?

a voting non violent revolution to change the Path of destruction and hegemony we have been on for years. (again, it's done by voting and holding our leaders accountable)

Yes it will end the Israeli settlements, because for one. If we do not elect pro israeli folks, who continue to fund the Israeli army etc. Obvi, they will not be able to continue to build.

When we elect people who refuse to be critical of Israel, and then send them billions of dollars and weapons. Of course, what is gonna change?

When we stand at the UN and back Israel till the end? Course, what will change.

hegemony? This is the era of identity politics. Everyone is a friggin special interest today.

I guess I get what you're saying, or your perspective, but I don't understand how it's actionable. If I remember correctly, we had excellent turnout the last two elections. But the reason we don't 'change' is because the parties are too far divided. And it's real division, not manufactured by the politicians. If Paul Ryan pretends to make a deal with the Dems, he is destroyed in the right wing media. I fear the left is going in the same direction, that of 'purity' tests and the inability to compromise and strike deals.

Idris

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Real revolutions are rarely the solution. How many true revolutions have been bloodless? Maybe the Glorious Revolution (appropriately misnamed)? Revolution for the sake of what? Is that going to eliminate the Israeli settlements? What are you fighting for precisely?

a voting non violent revolution to change the Path of destruction and hegemony we have been on for years. (again, it's done by voting and holding our leaders accountable)

Yes it will end the Israeli settlements, because for one. If we do not elect pro israeli folks, who continue to fund the Israeli army etc. Obvi, they will not be able to continue to build.

When we elect people who refuse to be critical of Israel, and then send them billions of dollars and weapons. Of course, what is gonna change?

When we stand at the UN and back Israel till the end? Course, what will change.

Everyone is a friggin special interest today.

We need to hold our leaders accountable. Start with that. It's really not that difficult.

Again, nothing changes because of us. The voters. We demand nothing, and give them everything.

People worried about how the media will show them, destroyed by the right/left wing media.

Listen to that..

The news should just be news. Not slanted view points. CNN, Fox its all bullshit. But we take it as pure news. It is NOT.

Then you have these media outlets hosting presidential debates...Who gave them the power? Who allows it to continue? We do.

mrussel1

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Real revolutions are rarely the solution. How many true revolutions have been bloodless? Maybe the Glorious Revolution (appropriately misnamed)? Revolution for the sake of what? Is that going to eliminate the Israeli settlements? What are you fighting for precisely?

a voting non violent revolution to change the Path of destruction and hegemony we have been on for years. (again, it's done by voting and holding our leaders accountable)

Yes it will end the Israeli settlements, because for one. If we do not elect pro israeli folks, who continue to fund the Israeli army etc. Obvi, they will not be able to continue to build.

When we elect people who refuse to be critical of Israel, and then send them billions of dollars and weapons. Of course, what is gonna change?

When we stand at the UN and back Israel till the end? Course, what will change.

Everyone is a friggin special interest today.

We need to hold our leaders accountable. Start with that. It's really not that difficult.

Again, nothing changes because of us. The voters. We demand nothing, and give them everything.

People worried about how the media will show them, destroyed by the right/left wing media.

Listen to that..

The news should just be news. Not slanted view points. CNN, Fox its all bullshit. But we take it as pure news. It is NOT.

Then you have these media outlets hosting presidential debates...Who gave them the power? Who allows it to continue? We do.

What do you mean "hold them accountable"? That's very ambiguous. We have elections, impeachment articles, etc.

Regarding news, I hear you, but I think that's fantasy. This country has never had unbiased political news. Parties have always had their own organs to dispense news and today's news is just the modern version of what's happened for 300 years. The only solution is for us to educate ourselves by reading the opposing viewpoint consistently. I'm a progressive but I read Red State, National Review, Weekly standard, etc. It typically pisses me off, but it helps me bullet my thought process.

The Fixer

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Didn't see this coming.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/primary-delaware-maryland-pennsylvania-rhode-conneticut-1.3553946

All five states.

love it.

Every time Hillary gives a speech I like her less. Cannot wait to see Trump demolish her in the debates.

mrussel1

The Fixer said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Didn't see this coming.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/primary-delaware-maryland-pennsylvania-rhode-conneticut-1.3553946

All five states.

love it.

Every time Hillary gives a speech I like her less. Cannot wait to see Trump demolish her in the debates.

Facts are useful in general election debates. Trump carries around fewer of them. Hillary is a very good debater. Plus, trying to bully a woman or name call like he did in the GOP debate will just further lower that 30% approval rate with women.

The bottom line is that the demographics don't work for Republicans to start. Add in his abysmal numbers with women and minorities, and the path to victory is quite narrow.

The Fixer

Who has Hillary had to debate against? No one. The Democratic debates were pillow fights...a complete joke. Hillary puts her foot in her mouth every time she speaks (or barks like a dog). She is a disgrace and her track record proves that. She couldn't even manage her marriage, how is she going to run a country?? The email server, Benghazi, her track record as secretary of state, etc. So many angles from which she can be exposed.

Trump has plenty of ammo to use in the upcoming debates. It's going to be hilarious

mrussel1

The Fixer said:

Who has Hillary had to debate against? No one. The Democratic debates were pillow fights...a complete joke. Hillary puts her foot in her mouth every time she speaks (or barks like a dog). She is a disgrace and her track record proves that. She couldn't even manage her marriage, how is she going to run a country?? The email server, Benghazi, her track record as secretary of state, etc. So many angles from which she can be exposed.

Trump has plenty of ammo to use in the upcoming debates. It's going to be hilarious

What a dumb argument.. she couldn't manage her marriage. Did Trump manage his marriage(s)? Is your double standard that obvious? And Hillary debated Obama. You know.. the guy that smoked the Republican field twice.... I thought you were going to come up with something a bit more analytical than right wing talking points. There's not one thing Trump can hit her with that hasn't been lobbed at her a 100x before.

The Fixer

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

Who has Hillary had to debate against? No one. The Democratic debates were pillow fights...a complete joke. Hillary puts her foot in her mouth every time she speaks (or barks like a dog). She is a disgrace and her track record proves that. She couldn't even manage her marriage, how is she going to run a country?? The email server, Benghazi, her track record as secretary of state, etc. So many angles from which she can be exposed.

Trump has plenty of ammo to use in the upcoming debates. It's going to be hilarious

What a dumb argument.. she couldn't manage her marriage. Did Trump manage his marriage(s)? Is your double standard that obvious? And Hillary debated Obama. You know.. the guy that smoked the Republican field twice.... I thought you were going to come up with something a bit more analytical than right wing talking points. There's not one thing Trump can hit her with that hasn't been lobbed at her a 100x before.

But trump didn't get walked all over in his failed marriages the way Hillary did and still does.

So Hillary was favored to beat obama and lost badly, but she did a good job debating? Ummm, OK right. That makes sense.

mrussel1

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

Who has Hillary had to debate against? No one. The Democratic debates were pillow fights...a complete joke. Hillary puts her foot in her mouth every time she speaks (or barks like a dog). She is a disgrace and her track record proves that. She couldn't even manage her marriage, how is she going to run a country?? The email server, Benghazi, her track record as secretary of state, etc. So many angles from which she can be exposed.

Trump has plenty of ammo to use in the upcoming debates. It's going to be hilarious

What a dumb argument.. she couldn't manage her marriage. Did Trump manage his marriage(s)? Is your double standard that obvious? And Hillary debated Obama. You know.. the guy that smoked the Republican field twice.... I thought you were going to come up with something a bit more analytical than right wing talking points. There's not one thing Trump can hit her with that hasn't been lobbed at her a 100x before.

But trump didn't get walked all over in his failed marriages the way Hillary did and still does.

So Hillary was favored to beat obama and lost badly, but she did a good job debating? Ummm, OK right. That makes sense.

I don't know what 'favored' means. I didn't check the oddsmakers in 2008 when they both announced. But if you recall, Obama picked up Edwards voters while HRC stayed steady in 2007.

And the marriage argument is a stupid one. Do you really think that blaming HRC for Bill's infidelities is going to help close the enormous gap Trump has with women? Do you think that's the solution for Trump? Yeah, women, who make up 55% of the electorate, will surely gravitate to that argument.

Free

>I think we need to take a few steps back, before moving forward and ask ourselves, what kinda of a country, world, society we want to live in.

This

The Fixer

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

Who has Hillary had to debate against? No one. The Democratic debates were pillow fights...a complete joke. Hillary puts her foot in her mouth every time she speaks (or barks like a dog). She is a disgrace and her track record proves that. She couldn't even manage her marriage, how is she going to run a country?? The email server, Benghazi, her track record as secretary of state, etc. So many angles from which she can be exposed.

Trump has plenty of ammo to use in the upcoming debates. It's going to be hilarious

What a dumb argument.. she couldn't manage her marriage. Did Trump manage his marriage(s)? Is your double standard that obvious? And Hillary debated Obama. You know.. the guy that smoked the Republican field twice.... I thought you were going to come up with something a bit more analytical than right wing talking points. There's not one thing Trump can hit her with that hasn't been lobbed at her a 100x before.

But trump didn't get walked all over in his failed marriages the way Hillary did and still does.

So Hillary was favored to beat obama and lost badly, but she did a good job debating? Ummm, OK right. That makes sense.

I don't know what 'favored' means. I didn't check the oddsmakers in 2008 when they both announced. But if you recall, Obama picked up Edwards voters while HRC stayed steady in 2007.

And the marriage argument is a stupid one. Do you really think that blaming HRC for Bill's infidelities is going to help close the enormous gap Trump has with women? Do you think that's the solution for Trump? Yeah, women, who make up 55% of the electorate, will surely gravitate to that argument.

favored means predicted to win. when you don't win as a favorite it means you choked. In terms of politics it does not reflect well on a candidates' ability to debate (among other things). Hillary was favored to win the nomination the first time she ran. She failed miserably.

The marriage thing is a reflection of her character. Not sure why she would stay with a guy who walked all over her for years. To me it shows weakness, which is one of many reasons why I think she is a horrible candidate.

At the end of the day, the marriage thing ranks low on the reasons why I would never support her. But I think it's relevant...and fair game if trump decides to play that card in the upcoming debates.

PJfanwillneverleave1

Free said:

>I think we need to take a few steps back, before moving forward and ask ourselves, what kinda of a country, world, society we want to live in.

I would hope it's not a society that thinks because a fuc#### bird landed beside them it should be a sign.

mrussel1

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

mrussel1 said:

The Fixer said:

Who has Hillary had to debate against? No one. The Democratic debates were pillow fights...a complete joke. Hillary puts her foot in her mouth every time she speaks (or barks like a dog). She is a disgrace and her track record proves that. She couldn't even manage her marriage, how is she going to run a country?? The email server, Benghazi, her track record as secretary of state, etc. So many angles from which she can be exposed.

Trump has plenty of ammo to use in the upcoming debates. It's going to be hilarious

What a dumb argument.. she couldn't manage her marriage. Did Trump manage his marriage(s)? Is your double standard that obvious? And Hillary debated Obama. You know.. the guy that smoked the Republican field twice.... I thought you were going to come up with something a bit more analytical than right wing talking points. There's not one thing Trump can hit her with that hasn't been lobbed at her a 100x before.

But trump didn't get walked all over in his failed marriages the way Hillary did and still does.

So Hillary was favored to beat obama and lost badly, but she did a good job debating? Ummm, OK right. That makes sense.

I don't know what 'favored' means. I didn't check the oddsmakers in 2008 when they both announced. But if you recall, Obama picked up Edwards voters while HRC stayed steady in 2007.

And the marriage argument is a stupid one. Do you really think that blaming HRC for Bill's infidelities is going to help close the enormous gap Trump has with women? Do you think that's the solution for Trump? Yeah, women, who make up 55% of the electorate, will surely gravitate to that argument.

favored means predicted to win. when you don't win as a favorite it means you choked. In terms of politics it does not reflect well on a candidates' ability to debate (among other things). Hillary was favored to win the nomination the first time she ran. She failed miserably.

The marriage thing is a reflection of her character. Not sure why she would stay with a guy who walked all over her for years. To me it shows weakness, which is one of many reasons why I think she is a horrible candidate.

At the end of the day, the marriage thing ranks low on the reasons why I would never support her. But I think it's relevant...and fair game if trump decides to play that card in the upcoming debates.

Bringing up Bills infidelities would be the height of stupidity for Trump.. so it's guaranteed to happen I guess.

And she didn't fail miserably. That's a ridiculous statement. It went into June and then the super delegates committed to Obama, who is no political slouch. She didn't fail like say... Trump University, or Tour de Trump (ha!), Trump Airlines, Trump Casinos, Trump: the Game, and more..

Free

We have the ability in the USA to have non violent revolutions, it starts with us. But these non violent revolutions will not happen until we demand more from the ones we elect and/or hold them accountable. Even bernie sanders, he's talking revolution, but then says he'll support Clinton because...He's a democrat. Well aint that nice.

We can only collectively demand more from the ones we elect and/or hold them accountable by...

Actually being United, though. That's our first problem and the two-party system knows it. Ever wonder why the mainstream media encourages us to "pick one side or the other?" We have to see - and then get - beyond this phoniness that "either you're with us or against us" mentality.

Idris

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Real revolutions are rarely the solution. How many true revolutions have been bloodless? Maybe the Glorious Revolution (appropriately misnamed)? Revolution for the sake of what? Is that going to eliminate the Israeli settlements? What are you fighting for precisely?

a voting non violent revolution to change the Path of destruction and hegemony we have been on for years. (again, it's done by voting and holding our leaders accountable)

Yes it will end the Israeli settlements, because for one. If we do not elect pro israeli folks, who continue to fund the Israeli army etc. Obvi, they will not be able to continue to build.

When we elect people who refuse to be critical of Israel, and then send them billions of dollars and weapons. Of course, what is gonna change?

When we stand at the UN and back Israel till the end? Course, what will change.

Everyone is a friggin special interest today.

We need to hold our leaders accountable. Start with that. It's really not that difficult.

Again, nothing changes because of us. The voters. We demand nothing, and give them everything.

People worried about how the media will show them, destroyed by the right/left wing media.

Listen to that..

The news should just be news. Not slanted view points. CNN, Fox its all bullshit. But we take it as pure news. It is NOT.

Then you have these media outlets hosting presidential debates...Who gave them the power? Who allows it to continue? We do.

What do you mean "hold them accountable"? That's very ambiguous. We have elections, impeachment articles, etc.

When they break international law, I dunno, when they drop bombs on innocent people...Hold them accountable. Courts, punish, get it? We have elections, yes and we (again) vote for people who do not truly represent us, but their own(?) interests and/or the interests of corporations.

Obama refused to go after W Bush on war crimes, and we supported that. So sure we have outlets to use. But we don't use them (I'm just repeating myself at this point)

brianlux

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Free said:

>I think we need to take a few steps back, before moving forward and ask ourselves, what kinda of a country, world, society we want to live in.

I would hope it's not a society that thinks because a fuc#### bird landed beside them it should be a sign.

I had a bird land beside me in the desert once and it started to snatch up and eat flies that got to close and were buzzing me. This went on for quite a while until it got too hot to sit outside and when I got in my car, the wild starling got in the car with me. I'm fairly certain that same bird is the one that landed near Bernie. It's a sign. You would do well to head it!

And on another note, this is interesting-- when I hit preview, your expletive reads "fuc####"!

mrussel1

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Idris said:

mrussel1 said:

Real revolutions are rarely the solution. How many true revolutions have been bloodless? Maybe the Glorious Revolution (appropriately misnamed)? Revolution for the sake of what? Is that going to eliminate the Israeli settlements? What are you fighting for precisely?

a voting non violent revolution to change the Path of destruction and hegemony we have been on for years. (again, it's done by voting and holding our leaders accountable)

Yes it will end the Israeli settlements, because for one. If we do not elect pro israeli folks, who continue to fund the Israeli army etc. Obvi, they will not be able to continue to build.

When we elect people who refuse to be critical of Israel, and then send them billions of dollars and weapons. Of course, what is gonna change?

When we stand at the UN and back Israel till the end? Course, what will change.

Everyone is a friggin special interest today.

We need to hold our leaders accountable. Start with that. It's really not that difficult.

Again, nothing changes because of us. The voters. We demand nothing, and give them everything.

People worried about how the media will show them, destroyed by the right/left wing media.

Listen to that..

The news should just be news. Not slanted view points. CNN, Fox its all bullshit. But we take it as pure news. It is NOT.

Then you have these media outlets hosting presidential debates...Who gave them the power? Who allows it to continue? We do.

What do you mean "hold them accountable"? That's very ambiguous. We have elections, impeachment articles, etc.

When they break international law, I dunno, when they drop bombs on innocent people...Hold them accountable. Courts, punish, get it? We have elections, yes and we (again) vote for people who do not truly represent us, but their own(?) interests and/or the interests of corporations.

Obama refused to go after W Bush on war crimes, and we supported that. So sure we have outlets to use. But we don't use them (I'm just repeating myself at this point)

If you were to make the argument that there were specific US laws that the administration broke, I could support that but it's still useless. The chance of conviction would be low due to executive privilege and other bedrock constitutional privileges afforded the office. And we're sure as hell not sending an ex-president to the Hague for trial. Additionally, remember that the Union didn't even prosecute Davis or Stephens for treason.

Free

brianlux said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Free said:

>I think we need to take a few steps back, before moving forward and ask ourselves, what kinda of a country, world, society we want to live in.

I would hope it's not a society that thinks because a fuc#### bird landed beside them it should be a sign.

I had a bird land beside me in the desert once and it started to snatch up and eat flies that got to close and were buzzing me. This went on for quite a while until it got too hot to sit outside and when I got in my car, the wild starling got in the car with me. I'm fairly certain that same bird is the one that landed near Bernie. It's a sign. You would do well to head it!

And on another note, this is interesting-- when I hit preview, your expletive reads "fuc####"!

Cool story.

And

brianlux

Free said:

brianlux said:

PJfanwillneverleave1 said:

Free said:

>I think we need to take a few steps back, before moving forward and ask ourselves, what kinda of a country, world, society we want to live in.

I would hope it's not a society that thinks because a fuc#### bird landed beside them it should be a sign.

I had a bird land beside me in the desert once and it started to snatch up and eat flies that got to close and were buzzing me. This went on for quite a while until it got too hot to sit outside and when I got in my car, the wild starling got in the car with me. I'm fairly certain that same bird is the one that landed near Bernie. It's a sign. You would do well to head it!

And on another note, this is interesting-- when I hit preview, your expletive reads "fuc####"!

Cool story.

And

In this loony bin we have to laugh to keep from... screaming?? pulling out our hair??