U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

This is getting a little far afield, as American politics is wont to do.  One of the things I dislike about the whole process is the delving into the most intimate details of a candidate's or appointee's private life.  If the public record isn't good enough, why nominate such a person in the first place?

[philforhockey51 4,220]

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

So you have a personal bias against Trump because your company is owed money by his and you've heard stuff about him. Okay..

No I couldn't care it's not my money just demonstrates that I have a little more knowledge than the next guy on how he handles things.

 

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Ouch, that sentence doesn't demonstrate it, but maybe English isn't you're first language. Sorry but if you're going to say you're smart you should write intelligently.

Granted I was trying to sneak in a comment while I was at work and as this is not an official document I did not attempt nor care to reread just to make sure my punctuation and sentence was complete, and did not claim to be smart just not stupid. lol I also said reading not writing but I get what you're saying

3 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Well for a misogynist gender would be a factor, wouldn't it?

Dollars have no gender. His priority is dollars.

I think it is as difficult to prove what he feels as it is to prove that Hillary is incapable because her husband did... well anything that conservatives dislike. Comments he has made within the time frame of his campaign alone are adding up, his attack on the fox reporter about her menstrual cycle, as a single example, is enough to perceive him as someone whom has a poor understanding of gender equality. I wonder about the time he said Heidi Klum is no longer a ten, why? In an attempt at attacking her he brings up beauty? 

I really don't care what he thinks about women, because I really don't care what he thinks at all, I'll just form an opinion of my own of the people who will and want to vote for him, and shake my head at them in sadness for our society.

[LexusInfernus 908]

21 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

And oooh... menstruation! How dare a guy suggest that a woman might be on her period! Get a sense of humor. Insulting a person who happens to be a woman isn't misogynist.

Insulting a woman over the fact that she is a woman, with the fact that she is a woman however, is the very definition of misogyny. Which is exactly what he did when he made that period comment. 

Oh and you wanted citations over when Trump called women pigs and made other, sexist comments? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/08/so-which-women-has-donald-trump-called-dogs-and-fat-pigs/ The Washington Post got your back, with a neat little summary of when and where. 

Quote

but all this "he's a hateful bigot" stuff is way over the top.

It would be over the top if what he says wasn't actually flat out racist or code for racism. Whether he actually believes any of the stuff he says is a different story, but it doesn't change the fact that he is appealing to racist and xenophobic arguments, policy proposals and the people that support it. That makes it fair to call him a hateful bigot. 

[krbe 193]

On 15/04/2016 at 7:57 PM, MilitantRadical said:

So you have a personal bias against Trump because your company is owed money by his and you've heard stuff about him. Okay...

Well, for a guy who likes to portray himself as a wealthy and successful businessman, the inability to pay should say a lot.

That being said, he has built his entire image not on the fact that he is a wealthy and successful businessman, but on his mere feelings. That pretty much guarantees that at the end of his term(s), America will indeed be great again, regardless of the state of the nation.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 4/16/2016 at 8:58 AM, LexusInfernus said:

Insulting a woman over the fact that she is a woman, with the fact that she is a woman however, is the very definition of misogyny. Which is exactly what he did when he made that period comment.

It's just a joke. Megyn Kelly's a big girl, she can handle it. Women do bleed from their vaginas (once a month).

If you call a guy a 'prick' or a 'dick' that doesn't make you a misandrist. Now if Trump said something like: "women can't control their emotions because of PMS" as a general blanket statement or rule then I think that would be misogynistic, but he just made a joke about a particular woman in a particular instance.

Don't you see that he was intentionally trying to court controversy with that statement?

Think back to the debate where Megyn Kelly asked him about his "pig" comments and he said something to the effect of: "America doesn't have time for political correctness" and got a huge applaud for it. By saying "she was bleeding from wherever" he was intentionally pushing the media's knee jerk reactionary button to get them talking about him. And the politically correct press's reaction actually only further proved his point.

On 4/16/2016 at 8:58 AM, LexusInfernus said:

Oh and you wanted citations over when Trump called women pigs and made other, sexist comments? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/08/so-which-women-has-donald-trump-called-dogs-and-fat-pigs/ The Washington Post got your back, with a neat little summary of when and where. 

Dude, that was between igotthis and I. It was a test (more like a trap). I'm familiar with those comments and I was counting on the very kind of "citation" you provided. Too predictable.

Did you even read this article to make sure it proved what I wanted you to prove?

Still not seeing where he called women "pigs". He called a woman a pig. Big whoop. Lets not forget Rosie O'Donnell started the feud with Trump, he was provoked by her. He didn't just call her a pig for no reason. They both said nasty things to each other.

What y'all are upset about is the fact that Trump actually treats women and men equally. That's right, equally. When it comes to insulting people who are female he doesn't pull any punches, just as with men. It's called equality.

All this pearl clutching over insulting a woman only shows a sexist standard of how women should be treated compared to men. Not one person has made a big deal of any of the insults he's said to men, but say one thing wrong to a woman and boom he hates a whole group of people now.

On 4/16/2016 at 8:58 AM, LexusInfernus said:

It would be over the top if what he says wasn't actually flat out racist or code for racism. Whether he actually believes any of the stuff he says is a different story, but it doesn't change the fact that he is appealing to racist and xenophobic arguments, policy proposals and the people that support it. That makes it fair to call him a hateful bigot. 

His message does appeal to some racists because they tend to be nationalists and Trump is very nationalistic. But most of his supporters are just ordinary people, not the KKK. I recognize an element of xenophobia in what he says, but part of it is rational.

For example the temporary Muslim ban. After the FBI director James Comey came out and said they couldn't vet all the Syrian refugees, Trump suggested a temporary ban on Muslim migration until they can figure it out. I don't agree with this plan, but I understand it. It's based on a potential threat confirmed by the FBI. This is also in the context of the terror attacks in Europe, something people have a reasonable right to be concerned about.

Another example is illegal immigration. Many people are concerned about the crime coming across the border as well as illegal immigrants taking the jobs of Americans. That's not racist. The issue is the status of citizenship and border security, not race. There are legal South American immigrants who support Trump on this issue.

Just because some of his supporters are hateful bigots doesn't mean he is a hateful bigot. And don't think for one second that Trump is the only person with hateful and bigoted supporters. Some Sanders supporters are rabid, and they are way more vocally hateful and bigoted than any Trump supporter I've seen. Racists are racists, even if it's against white people, and I've seen plenty of racist Sanders supporters. They're obsessed with skin color, that's all they see, and it's all that matters to them. Think back to that video I shared in our PM.

On 4/15/2016 at 5:30 PM, philforhockey51 said:

I wonder about the time he said Heidi Klum is no longer a ten, why? In an attempt at attacking her he brings up beauty?

Heidi Klum is a model, not an astrophysicist, criticizing the way she looks is fair game.

3 hours ago, krbe said:

Well, for a guy who likes to portray himself as a wealthy and successful businessman, the inability to pay should say a lot.

Companies owe other companies money, it's just a thing. We don't know the specifics of phil's story. How much is owed, for how long it's been owed, if it's true or just an anti-Trump sentiment in the grapevine at his workplace, we don't know.

[krbe 193]

3 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Companies owe other companies money, it's just a thing. We don't know the specifics of phil's story. How much is owed, for how long it's been owed, if it's true or just an anti-Trump sentiment in the grapevine at his workplace, we don't know.

Indeed it could. The amount probably fluctuates depending on the feelings of the directors owed as well. Mr Trump must be waiting for the moment where they 'feel' the least amount. Or perhaps for that moment where he 'feels' that he's 'really rich' and is in a position of paying bills.

[philforhockey51 4,220]

Please note, I have no reason to make anything up to say something about someone. Without getting into too many details as this is the internet after all, yes his company owes the company I work for $##,###,### for work done on the interiors of some of his Casinos and Hotels. This happened about 9 to 11 years ago. Yes companies owe companies money, but if your business model includes the strategy of cheating, screwing over, loopholing your way out of having to pay for products or services received then you simply speak to the lack of some basic staples of society like honor, loyalty, and trustworthiness. Something that should be expected of those that are put in a position of power representing the public. 

The comment about Megan Kelly demonstrates that he felt her incapable of doing her job due to something that she has no choice or decision of, this is not a joke. For someone running to represent the interests of the people, in which more than half of is made up of those whom have no choice in what happens in their body, they should have a better understanding of the facts of life beyond what happens to him individually. Though I will not waste my time chasing down the citations, Trump also unwittingly made fun of a reporter for his stuttering. He said he did not know the guy had the problem, but that does not make it right to make fun of or look down on someone for something that is out of their control. Even if the reporter did not have a natural problem, to think of it as something that can be mocked is a demonstration of the lack of empathy that he has in general.   

To MilitantRadical, I'm not really sure trying to trap people into finding data that you are aware of and disregard or "feel"(understand, comprehend, not sure of what word is the correct one for this moment, how you feel about something not about how intellectually capable you are of understanding, do you know what I mean?) does not apply is beneficial to the conversation, maybe mention first what you think they refer to and explain your opinion on it then let them bring in any additional items they were thinking of. Might keep the conversation from getting too..."hostile" if that's a good word for it   

[igotthis 12]

On 4/15/2016 at 10:42 AM, MilitantRadical said:

What did Trump say about David Duke a few years ago?

"I think you need to start watching the debates. I don't need to cite anything, you need to pay attention to politics if you are going to post on a politics thread."

Yes you do need to cite. You've only demonstrated your own ignorance, not mine. Show me where he called women "pigs".

 

Okay, sure.
 

 

 

IGT

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"La comedia e stupenda" -- Leoncavallo in I Pagliacci.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Trump's foreign policy.

Sounds like if he is elected POTUS, he will put a halt to a lot of spending on foreign governments and adventures.  This will probably please his redneck constituency and alarm a lot of governments around the Med.  I wonder if the Israelis were listening?

Does this mean that America will stop being the world's biggest arms dealer?

[igotthis 12]

22 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Trump's foreign policy.

Sounds like if he is elected POTUS, he will put a halt to a lot of spending on foreign governments and adventures.  This will probably please his redneck constituency and alarm a lot of governments around the Med.  I wonder if the Israelis were listening?

Does this mean that America will stop being the world's biggest arms dealer?

 

22 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Trump's foreign policy.

Sounds like if he is elected POTUS, he will put a halt to a lot of spending on foreign governments and adventures.  This will probably please his redneck constituency and alarm a lot of governments around the Med.  I wonder if the Israelis were listening?

Does this mean that America will stop being the world's biggest arms dealer?

Not sure why I am seeing your quote twice. Oh well.

I don't really care what Israelis think. For the record, I don't know why we are giving them any money anyway. They have plenty.

As to arms, wouldn't that be great? Unfortunately, it won't happen so long as we love our guns and sell them to anyone.

IGT

[LexusInfernus 908]

As much as I'm loath to admit it, but Trump has a few good points in that foreign policy speech. A lot of bad points as well, and I think his foreign policy would be a disaster for both the world and the United States. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

One might be surprised at how unworldly-wise many Americans are and would easily buy into this nonsense.  U.S. has been acting like Big Brother to the rest of the world for far too long and have their snoot in too many pies, so a bit of a pull back wouldn't be all that bad.  Most importantly, get out of trying to export their brand of "democracy".  They don't have any, so why try to give away what they don't have?

[Sabretooth78 808]

On 4/27/2016 at 4:21 PM, A Nonny Moose said:

Trump's foreign policy.

Sounds like if he is elected POTUS, he will put a halt to a lot of spending on foreign governments and adventures.  This will probably please his redneck constituency and alarm a lot of governments around the Med.  I wonder if the Israelis were listening?

Does this mean that America will stop being the world's biggest arms dealer?

There's something fundamental about that which doesn't make sense, though.  How are we supposed to continue going after those moose-lims and otherwise feed into the military as the same rednecks so crave?  Or maybe this is all just an example of how easily those peoples' hearts and minds are bought; more thought socialism.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Most Americans equate socialism with Soviet Communism, and haven't had a thought about it since 1945 or so.  The general parochial attitude found in the average American, with all the folderol their governments engage in, astounds and saddens me.  If the last isolationist, Wendell Wilkie, had defeated FDR, America would now be speaking German.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 4/18/2016 at 1:03 PM, igotthis said:

Okay, sure.
 

 

 

IGT

So where does he call women "pigs"?

16 years ago Trump called out David Duke as a racist and now he forgets who he is and that makes him a racist? Is Trump just supposed to keep a list of all the racist people in America?

On 4/28/2016 at 4:15 AM, LexusInfernus said:

As much as I'm loath to admit it, but Trump has a few good points in that foreign policy speech. A lot of bad points as well, and I think his foreign policy would be a disaster for both the world and the United States. 

I only heard segments of the speech so I can't comment on the whole thing, but I think Trump is the kind of guy, despite his bluster, who would be humble enough to take advice from his generals. He says lots of things off the top of his head, he makes grand statements, but part of it is a persona, part of it is about managing perceptions (imo). Is that a good thing? Maybe. I don't know.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 4/17/2016 at 3:16 PM, philforhockey51 said:

To MilitantRadical, I'm not really sure trying to trap people into finding data that you are aware of and disregard or "feel"(understand, comprehend, not sure of what word is the correct one for this moment, how you feel about something not about how intellectually capable you are of understanding, do you know what I mean?) does not apply is beneficial to the conversation, maybe mention first what you think they refer to and explain your opinion on it then let them bring in any additional items they were thinking of. Might keep the conversation from getting too..."hostile" if that's a good word for it   

I just want to know what other people think they know. I can't argue with someone's opinion, so I want them to bring forward what they're basing their opinion on. If someone's going to make a claim, then they should be prepared to give evidence in support of that claim.

Also, by having people revisit what they think they know it gives them a chance to reconsider what they're saying. Look at IGT, he just flat out gave me the Megyn Kelly clip without even considering what I was asking him to prove. It's pretty darn amusing.

[LexusInfernus 908]

3 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

I only heard segments of the speech so I can't comment on the whole thing, but I think Trump is the kind of guy, despite his bluster, who would be humble enough to take advice from his generals. He says lots of things off the top of his head, he makes grand statements, but part of it is a persona, part of it is about managing perceptions (imo). Is that a good thing? Maybe. I don't know.

Meh, generals make useless foreign policy advisers. As for Trumps stated foreign policy goals, most of it would be terrible for the world and terrible for the United States. Starting trade wars and protectionist policies are generally bad for everyone involved. On top of that, while he is all about setting up a persona, he will be judged by the rest of the world in part on the image they have of him. Needless to say, to most of the world Donald Trump as president of the United States would be seen as an unmitigated disaster. His mere election would damage the US foreign policy. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

1 minute ago, LexusInfernus said:

Meh, generals make useless foreign policy advisers. As for Trumps stated foreign policy goals, most of it would be terrible for the world and terrible for the United States. Starting trade wars and protectionist policies are generally bad for everyone involved. On top of that, while he is all about setting up a persona, he will be judged by the rest of the world in part on the image they have of him. Needless to say, to most of the world Donald Trump as president of the United States would be seen as an unmitigated disaster. His mere election would damage the US foreign policy. 

I'm kinda curious to see what it would be like.

[igotthis 12]

52 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

I'm kinda curious to see what it would be like.

I'm not. That is the type of thinking that is very destructive. "What is wrong with my gas tank? Let me light this match and find out..."

IGT

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The problem for the American people is that they can turn to the radical right Republicans who have yet to produce a sensible candidate, or the same old, same old Democrats who will maintain the status long after it has lost its quo.  A two party system doesn't give much choice.

Two general elections ago, Canada got the scare of its life when the NDP became the official opposition.  These tax and spend socialists would have been a disaster had they been elected to govern as they were when they unexpectedly got elected to a majority in Ontario.  It is good to have them around though.  They are back in third place where they belong.  Every legislature needs gadflies.  Canada is now in the hands of a majority centre left party (Liberal Party of Canada) with a charismatic prime minister replacing a decade of Conservative program cutting right of centre people who got the bit in their teeth and were heaved out in a surprise turn around.  The NDP dropped to third in the rush to get rid of the Conservatives.  With only two parties, the American electorate can't take such a set of steps.

Isn't an oligarchic plutocracy cute?

[LexusInfernus 908]

2 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

I'm kinda curious to see what it would be like.

Get a 20th century history book and look up Europe after WW1 to see what protectionism and xenophobia do to countries. And no, I'm not just talking about the rise of Nazism/Fascism. 

As for what a world looks like where states do not believe in international cooperation, again, history books will provide with a nice answer, in particular Europe from the Peace of Westphalia until the first World War. 

[philforhockey51 4,220]

@MilitantRadical  Agreed, people should double check their opinions to make sure it is as they think it is. Since I have little time to chase links, I'm hoping my comments on items/events are general knowledge and for most part people are aware of it. Also agree that everyone can watch the same clip and have a different opinion on it.

Nice someone mentioned checking history books, so few do and so few understand it all happens over and over again. You can look into the future by looking at the past. Also as noted the nazi controlled government was not the only "dictator" in Europe. Though few in the USA have studied the histories of other conutries unless they directly related to the USA, so some Americans are aware of say the history of the English Isles but have little to no clue of the history of the other historically major powers like Spain or Portugal. For those unaware both countries sat under dictators for decades.

ohh and my favorite version someone made recently..

 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

1. Chairman Mao is responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler and his party is still in charge. However, they are valuable allies and trade partners while Russia is sanctioned. China invaded Tibet; Russia invaded Crimea.

2. The most boring candidate is Hilary; she will compromise left and right to be able to say at least something got done under her reign.

3. The most interesting candidate is The Donald; he will destroy America and likely trigger The Fall.

4. The best candidate is Bernie; he will enact a new, new deal and end America's gun running.

[Delta 88 262]

On 4/30/2016 at 6:13 PM, OcramsRzr said:

1. Chairman Mao is responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler and his party is still in charge. However, they are valuable allies and trade partners while Russia is sanctioned. China invaded Tibet; Russia invaded Crimea.

2. The most boring candidate is Hilary; she will compromise left and right to be able to say at least something got done under her reign.

3. The most interesting candidate is The Donald; he will destroy America and likely trigger The Fall.

4. The best candidate is Bernie; he will enact a new, new deal and end America's gun running.

Regarding #1: China and Russia are conducting more economic business now more than ever. Then they both cooperated with Cuba and built what they are calling an "intelligence center" on the part of Cuba closest to Florida, and then suddenly the US went "Heeeeey Cuba! Buddy! Long time, no talk! Whaddya say we become friends again, ya?" And nobody saw what just happened. :| I saw, and took notes...

#4: I recall hearing very similar things about Obama in 2008, and again in 2012. "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me....." Bernie would be the third time, if I ever wasted my time voting in the first place.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Yeah, there is a surprising number of serial killers and war criminals worse than old Dolphy.  He's the only one that has achieved synonymy with evil, though (in the western world anyway), for whatever reasons.  Is there even a Wikipedia game for any others?  (And if you take that whole genocide thing away, he tends to look even better err not quite as awful.)

I, how should I put this, sympathize with Bernie but I still won't vote for him.  I don't think I'm alone in my voting demographic - the other day I saw a car displaying both Ron Paul and Bernie stickers.  Politically speaking, it's a paradox yet it somehow makes the most sense this time around.  I can actually respect that.  Someone in Trump's role should fill the Ron Paul shoes, and while I can respect Trump's ability to say what he thinks (although I'm too cynical to see it as much more than just theatrics from an entertainment figure), it ends there.  The problem is, what he says is mostly raw sewage; i.e. making the preposterous, cost ever-changing and ever-increasing boondoggle of a project such as a wall on the Mexican border (and insisting they pay for it!) a cornerstone of your foreign policy.  Ummm, no.  How about ending the drug war and fixing the broken immigration system instead (and then solving our new problem of too much money to spend)?  I'd rather move to Flint for the water.  The republicans would rather fade into irrelevance than return to their principles.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

"If Hitler invaded Hell, I would at least say something nice about the Devil."  Sir Winston Churchill on Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union.

Winnie knew how to speak his mind, but Der Donald is just a fount of bafflegab.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Even more telling considering the UK (and eventual US) support of the USSR was a marriage of convenience if there ever was one.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

1 hour ago, Sabretooth78 said:

Even more telling considering the UK (and eventual US) support of the USSR was a marriage of convenience if there ever was one.

And don't forget the butcher's bill from Uncle Joe.  Somewhere in excess of 33 million, many of them in the Ukraine.

Does anyone think Der Donald would really make a viable POTUS?  So far all I can see from here is a lot of bombast that is ripping apart the Republican party.

[igotthis 12]

On 4/30/2016 at 6:13 PM, OcramsRzr said:

1. Chairman Mao is responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler and his party is still in charge. However, they are valuable allies and trade partners while Russia is sanctioned. China invaded Tibet; Russia invaded Crimea.

2. The most boring candidate is Hilary; she will compromise left and right to be able to say at least something got done under her reign.

3. The most interesting candidate is The Donald; he will destroy America and likely trigger The Fall.

4. The best candidate is Bernie; he will enact a new, new deal and end America's gun running.

1) I am not sure if you are trying to justify Adolph Hitler or be an apologist for Mao Tze Tung.

2) While I am a Bernie supporter, I would take Hillary any day over Drumpf. "Vote Blue, No Matter Who"

3) Thank you, Susan Sarandon. =) I'm just teasing and referencing a past comment (on radio, not here)

4) Agreed. Unfortunately, it will not happen. Hillary will win, no matter what we wish for. She has too much support in the Party. While I don't like it, I accept it was a known from the beginning. A Lesser of Two Evils. We can't have Trump or another Republican set us back 50-100 years Primaries are voting from the heart. General elections are voting from the mind. Republicans must be stopped. They are deadly and don't even know it. I do not want to see 'the fall of Rome' in my lifetime.