U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[LexusInfernus 908]

On 8-12-2015 at 5:15 PM, MilitantRadical said:

To be fair, everyone (Senators and Congressmen) supported the Patriot Act at the time it was first introduced. As time went on a few  people in both parties fought to repeal it and haven't really succeeded. Heck, Obama could have signed an executive to get rid of it at any time in his presidency but hasn't and he didn't do anything about NSA surveillance programs until there was public outcry. Even then all Obama's done is put a band-aid on the problem and swept the dirt under the rug but the bulk collection of metadata and warrant-less surveillance continues. I haven't heard a single Democratic candidate talk about having non-intrusive government or getting rid of unconstitutional programs like Prism. Sanders couldn't even call Snowden a hero when asked if he was one.

Also, I don't think any Republican has ever tried to legislate what kind of sex is legal in private residences. Could be wrong, wouldn't be surprised if I was, but I've never heard of such a case, so I don't know if it's accurate to say they want to control what kind of sex you have in the bedroom. As far as I'm aware most Republicans could care less about that. Sure, there are the evangelicals who think homosexuality is immoral and that you'll go to hell if you do it, but there aren't any politicians actually trying to pass laws to make it illegal.

Sure, the democrats haven't done much better and Obama in particular has only made it worse. Thats the problem with these kinds of things though, once the government gets them, they are unlikely to want to give them up again. It doesn't really matter whose in charge, all parties will want to keep these types of capabilities. 

As for regulating sex, well there are some laws (local or state laws though) that do regulate what type of positions are legal. No one enforces those though. And then there are idiots like this: http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/19/virginias-gop-would-be-governor-ban-sodomy-married-couples.html Sounds an awful lot like trying to regulate what kinds of sex acts you do in the bedroom no? 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation", Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada about 40 years ago.

This was during the Parliamentary debate on all this, and in the end, the laws became completely silent on this issue.  However, we do have some rather tough rules on sexual assault, even between husband and wife.  If it is not consensual, look out.

It is time for the U.S. to abandon Leviticus.  You are supposed to separate church and state.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 2015-12-10 at 6:06 AM, LexusInfernus said:

Sure, the democrats haven't done much better and Obama in particular has only made it worse. Thats the problem with these kinds of things though, once the government gets them, they are unlikely to want to give them up again. It doesn't really matter whose in charge, all parties will want to keep these types of capabilities. 

As for regulating sex, well there are some laws (local or state laws though) that do regulate what type of positions are legal. No one enforces those though. And then there are idiots like this: http://www.politicususa.com/2013/07/19/virginias-gop-would-be-governor-ban-sodomy-married-couples.html Sounds an awful lot like trying to regulate what kinds of sex acts you do in the bedroom no? 

If you dig a bit deeper it appears he was trying to use the law to prosecute a sex criminal. He only wanted it to be enforced in this case or similar cases. The Politics USA article spins it to make it sound like his intention is to ban sodomy between married couples, but if you read the articles it links to there is no evidence that's what he actually wants.

This Buzzfeed article linked from the one you provided is much better: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/ken-cuccinelli-fights-to-keep-sodomy-law-on-the-books#.duMd0148Q

"The conservative Virginia attorney general asked an appeals court to allow the state to use to the sodomy law to prosecute a man for soliciting a minor."

"Cuccinelli’s office argues further that the Lawrence decision doesn’t render sodomy laws unconstitutional in all situations and that it is constitutional to apply the law in this situation because it involves a minor."

He recognizes that the law cannot be applied to married couples, but in this case he thinks it's applicable.

Using this law in this case could be considered a slippery slope but his intention doesn't appear to be regulating what goes on in people's bedrooms.

The unconstitutionality of the law would still hold if anyone attempted to apply it to married or consenting couples.

Better keep an eye out for Politics USA, they're blatantly dishonest. Every article you've linked from them has demonstrably false information that can be checked by simply following the links in their own articles. Even the headline of that article is a lie.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

21 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

"The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation", Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada about 40 years ago.

This was during the Parliamentary debate on all this, and in the end, the laws became completely silent on this issue.  However, we do have some rather tough rules on sexual assault, even between husband and wife.  If it is not consensual, look out.

It is time for the U.S. to abandon Leviticus.  You are supposed to separate church and state.

Canada smart, USA dumb. We get it. Got anything new?

Such a Canadian cliché.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Hilary finally has had enough comedy.

Of course, the question here is what says the Republican Party National Committee?  Can they not shut down this silly circus?

[Sabretooth78 808]

Trump has been making such an fool of himself that it wasn't until you posted that article that I realized that we still haven't reached the part of the campaign where the candidates chosen for us to select from actually debate each other.  Somehow I completely forgot about that part of it.  Honestly, I'm not sure it's even necessary this time around.  Far be it for me to offer advice to Hillary, but all she really needs to do is just stand there - stand there and sleep for all I care - and just let him continue to shoot himself in the foot.  Dragging the rotting carcass of the GOP down with him, of course; that way we'll drop our current disguised one party system for an overt one.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I am afraid the Grand Old Party has not only died, but the corpse has rotted and been eaten by maggots.  I think it may very well time to take the advice of Thomas Jefferson and have a 'little' revolution.  Somehow a new parties have to be found to replace the GOP and possibly the Democrats (who are not).  Everyone is so cynical about these old fossils that it really is impossible for them to form a government.

What does the U.S. constitution say about elections?  I don't believe there were any parties specified.  In those days they were probably the Whigs and Tories.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

1 hour ago, A Nonny Moose said:

I am afraid the Grand Old Party has not only died, but the corpse has rotted and been eaten by maggots.  I think it may very well time to take the advice of Thomas Jefferson and have a 'little' revolution.  Somehow a new parties have to be found to replace the GOP and possibly the Democrats (who are not).  Everyone is so cynical about these old fossils that it really is impossible for them to form a government.

What does the U.S. constitution say about elections?  I don't believe there were any parties specified.  In those days they were probably the Whigs and Tories.

Trump is the revolution. He is smashing up the GOP establishment. He is upsetting the king-makers in the media and he uses the their addiction to sensationalism to his advantage. Trump is popular because he doesn't play the politically correct game. He says what he thinks - he's genuine (genuinely a douche bag, but genuine nonetheless). That's why people like him. He isn't some carefully crafted persona like Hillary Clinton.

I don't like his message, but I have to admire how he causes the political and media establishment to have conniption fits. I mean the guy totally destroyed Jeb Bush - that's gotta be worth something.

If anything the GOP is far more vital than the Democratic party right now. They're actually having a huge energetic debate about what the party stands for and who should represent it. The voters are fired up, they're excited and invested. With the Democrats it's basically just the Hillary Clinton show. She and Bernie Sanders were the best the Democrats had in 2015. Meanwhile on the Republican side, they all lined up for the grand contest. They offered a diverse field with many different flavors. Sure, lots of those flavors might not be good, but the choice is there. If you're a Democrat right now you don't really have a choice.

Hillary's new campaign thing is this message of "love", but I don't think that's going to work this time. They tried hope in 2008 and now in 2015 the future doesn't seem brighter. The utopia Obama promised didn't happen. Race relations have worsened. The living standards of ethnic minorities hasn't risen. The Middle East is less stable (not putting that all on Obama). The fear of terrorism is at it's highest since 9/11. Trump is tapping in to that and we all know fear can be a more powerful political motivator than love, especially when people feel disenfranchised.

[LexusInfernus 908]

8 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

If you dig a bit deeper it appears he was trying to use the law to prosecute a sex criminal. He only wanted it to be enforced in this case or similar cases. The Politics USA article spins it to make it sound like his intention is to ban sodomy between married couples, but if you read the articles it links to there is no evidence that's what he actually wants.

This Buzzfeed article linked from the one you provided is much better: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/ken-cuccinelli-fights-to-keep-sodomy-law-on-the-books#.duMd0148Q

"The conservative Virginia attorney general asked an appeals court to allow the state to use to the sodomy law to prosecute a man for soliciting a minor."

"Cuccinelli’s office argues further that the Lawrence decision doesn’t render sodomy laws unconstitutional in all situations and that it is constitutional to apply the law in this situation because it involves a minor."

He recognizes that the law cannot be applied to married couples, but in this case he thinks it's applicable.

Using this law in this case could be considered a slippery slope but his intention doesn't appear to be regulating what goes on in people's bedrooms.

The unconstitutionality of the law would still hold if anyone attempted to apply it to married or consenting couples.

Better keep an eye out for Politics USA, they're blatantly dishonest. Every article you've linked from them has demonstrably false information that can be checked by simply following the links in their own articles. Even the headline of that article is a lie.

Uhuh, sure, he only cares about the law to protect children from predators. Which is why he wants to keep a law that makes no distinction between who does the sodomy and would technically also apply to married couples and has been deemed unconstitutional by the courts. I mean, its not like you could make a law that specifically only applies to actual child predators, because having a law that says its illegal for an adult to sodomize a minor or sodomize a person without consent, now that would be faaaaar to narrow to keep the streets safe from child predators. 

Look, the government already blatantly misuses laws that were designed to keep us safe from terrorists, they have proven that they cannot be trusted with broadly worded laws that purposefully allow the government a great deal of discretion when it comes to how to apply such laws. Why would you trust a known bigot and gay hater with a law that allows him to prosecute everyone for acts of sodomy? 

[Hellken 1,658]

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ Eagle!  Eagle!  Eagle!

The Donald clearly is not loved by every man nor beast.

[Sabretooth78 808]

I'm not always one for symbolism, but that is spot on.

Enough of this donkey and elephant horses*it, we need some more eagles and porcupines in our political discourse.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

16 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Uhuh, sure, he only cares about the law to protect children from predators. Which is why he wants to keep a law that makes no distinction between who does the sodomy and would technically also apply to married couples and has been deemed unconstitutional by the courts. I mean, its not like you could make a law that specifically only applies to actual child predators, because having a law that says its illegal for an adult to sodomize a minor or sodomize a person without consent, now that would be faaaaar to narrow to keep the streets safe from child predators. 

Look, the government already blatantly misuses laws that were designed to keep us safe from terrorists, they have proven that they cannot be trusted with broadly worded laws that purposefully allow the government a great deal of discretion when it comes to how to apply such laws. Why would you trust a known bigot and gay hater with a law that allows him to prosecute everyone for acts of sodomy? 

He just wants to use it in this case. Its unconstitutionality vis-a-vis consenting or married couples would still be upheld. If the appeal was accepted it wouldn't allow him to prosecute everyone for sodomy. Maybe he has some secret agenda I don't know. Can you read his mind? Are you psychic? He isn't running for Emperor of America. His will can be overridden by legal precedents.

If and when he tries to prosecute people for sodomy then I'll join you in denouncing those actions, but so far this is just appears to be left-wing fear mongering. It's not going to happen, and if it did it would be a national outrage. The Supreme Court would immediately strike down whatever case used this law to prosecute homosexuals or heterosexuals engaged in sodomy.

I don't trust this politician or any politician, but I don't automatically assume he has bad intentions. Yes the government can misuse laws and if I was the court I wouldn't approve of his appeal. I don't think it's a good way to get a conviction, but I don't see any actual evidence that he intends to resurrect this law just so he can go after gay people.

I don't want to defend this guy because I don't agree with his stance on homosexuality or anal and oral sex, but the article you provided is clearly distorting what he's doing and making broad assumptions about the power he would have if the law were used in this case.

[LexusInfernus 908]

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

He just wants to use it in this case. Its unconstitutionality vis-a-vis consenting or married couples would still be upheld. If the appeal was accepted it wouldn't allow him to prosecute everyone for sodomy. Maybe he has some secret agenda I don't know. Can you read his mind? Are you psychic? He isn't running for Emperor of America. His will can be overridden by legal precedents.

If and when he tries to prosecute people for sodomy then I'll join you in denouncing those actions, but so far this is just appears to be left-wing fear mongering. It's not going to happen, and if it did it would be a national outrage. The Supreme Court would immediately strike down whatever case used this law to prosecute homosexuals or heterosexuals engaged in sodomy.

I don't trust this politician or any politician, but I don't automatically assume he has bad intentions. Yes the government can misuse laws and if I was the court I wouldn't approve of his appeal. I don't think it's a good way to get a conviction, but I don't see any actual evidence that he intends to resurrect this law just so he can go after gay people.

I don't want to defend this guy because I don't agree with his stance on homosexuality or anal and oral sex, but the article you provided is clearly distorting what he's doing and making broad assumptions about the power he would have if the law were used in this case.

Well its a fairly common argument coming from anti gay bigots that their bigotry is fueled by some desire to 'protect children' from filthy predators, the implication of course being that gay people are only interested in going after children and 'converting' them to 'the gay lifestyle'. Russia uses the exact same excuse for their laws banning 'gay propaganda' and anti gay activists in Uganda also say its all about protecting children. So yeah, given his background and his known anti gay stance he does not get the benefit of the doubt on this. Even if he does not directly use it to actually prosecute people, he is still defending a law that technically makes it illegal for anyone to have anything but straight, vaginal intercourse. And that is legislating what happens in the bedroom, even if its just posturing and pandering and not actually gonna affect anyone but people who are being on trial as predators. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ This has been the excuse for quite a long time.  Fact is that most gays are not interested at all in children.  The ones who are are sick.

There is enough child protection legislation in most countries that nothing extra is needed.

As for the definition of Sodomy, if you look closely at the Bible on that, it may turn out that the Sin of Sodom is one of xenophobia or lack of hospitality, and nothing sexual at all.  This episode was clearly made up after the fact, and what hit the cities of the plain was probably a meteor shower.  Imagine what kind of stories would result if a big enough rock hit Manhattan, if it didn't start WW III.  The conspiracy aficionados would have a field day.  Unfortunately for many, the definition of Sodomy today is "unnatural" sexual activity.  Who is to say what is unnatural?

The unnatural thing at the moment is The Donald.  Could his activities actually have put paid to the GOP?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

3 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Well its a fairly common argument coming from anti gay bigots that their bigotry is fueled by some desire to 'protect children' from filthy predators, the implication of course being that gay people are only interested in going after children and 'converting' them to 'the gay lifestyle'. Russia uses the exact same excuse for their laws banning 'gay propaganda' and anti gay activists in Uganda also say its all about protecting children. So yeah, given his background and his known anti gay stance he does not get the benefit of the doubt on this. Even if he does not directly use it to actually prosecute people, he is still defending a law that technically makes it illegal for anyone to have anything but straight, vaginal intercourse. And that is legislating what happens in the bedroom, even if its just posturing and pandering and not actually gonna affect anyone but people who are being on trial as predators. 

All he's done is made an appeal for a conviction to be upheld in a specific case - a case which had nothing to do with homosexuality. If the conviction was upheld it would not have allowed for gays or consenting couples to be prosecuted for having oral or anal intercourse in their homes. It's a huge stretch (and i'm not talking about sodomy). This guy's appeal is in no way comparable to Russian or Ugandan laws. And I recognize that the "protect the children" thing is a ploy often used by anti-gay lobbies, but I just don't see that here. It was within the specific parameters of an actual crime that was committed. It didn't seek to stop potential crimes by spooky gay hypnotists.

You might be letting what you want to believe interfere with your judgement here. You want him to be bad, to be evil, to be morally wrong, to be oppressive because that fits your image of conservative republicans, and the article from Politics USA is telling you exactly what you want to hear. There are plenty of bigoted and backward republicans, this guy seems to be one, but from an objective standpoint it is incorrect to say he is trying to legislate what happens in people's bedrooms.

[LexusInfernus 908]

47 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

All he's done is made an appeal for a conviction to be upheld in a specific case - a case which had nothing to do with homosexuality. If the conviction was upheld it would not have allowed for gays or consenting couples to be prosecuted for having oral or anal intercourse in their homes. It's a huge stretch (and i'm not talking about sodomy). This guy's appeal is in no way comparable to Russian or Ugandan laws. And I recognize that the "protect the children" thing is a ploy often used by anti-gay lobbies, but I just don't see that here. It was within the specific parameters of an actual crime that was committed. It didn't seek to stop potential crimes by spooky gay hypnotists.

You might be letting what you want to believe interfere with your judgement here. You want him to be bad, to be evil, to be morally wrong, to be oppressive because that fits your image of conservative republicans, and the article from Politics USA is telling you exactly what you want to hear. There are plenty of bigoted and backward republicans, this guy seems to be one, but from an objective standpoint it is incorrect to say he is trying to legislate what happens in people's bedrooms.

Well yes, but again we are talking about a guy who said this: "My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong," he said four years ago. "They're intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural-law-based country, it's appropriate to have policies that reflect that." Thats him saying the US should have laws that ban homosexual acts. In other words, he wants to regulate what happens in the bedroom. Furthermore, he has supported a law that criminalized adultery. I admit, you have a good point when you point in this specific case it probably was just to keep a predator locked up and yes the media (its not just that site that puts this spin on it) may have overreacted a little. But are you surprised when this guy has a history of coming out in support of other laws that aim to regulate what happens in peoples bedrooms? 

And then there also was this case in Texas, where the GOP adopted a platform that also sought to criminalize sodomy again. http://www.rawstory.com/2010/06/tx-gop-platform-jail-mexicans-criminalize-sodomy-gay-marriage-felony/

And before you claim that rawstory is also biased, they provide a direct link to the pdf document. This is what it says: " We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy." And this is what they say about porn: " We urge our governmental bodies to enforce laws regarding all forms of pornography. We urge more stringent legislation to prohibit all pornography including virtual pornography and operation of sexually–oriented businesses. We oppose the sale of “Not Rated” (NR) movies and video games to minors."

Personally I find even the fact that the anti sodomy laws were only made unconstitutional in 2003 rather telling. 

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

17 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Well yes, but again we are talking about a guy who said this: "My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong," he said four years ago. "They're intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural-law-based country, it's appropriate to have policies that reflect that." Thats him saying the US should have laws that ban homosexual acts.

Yeah I read those statements and find them distasteful, but he is the Attorney General of Virginia, he has power, and so far he's managed to keep his personal beliefs and desires out of legislation when it comes to this issue - as far as I know.

17 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

And before you claim that rawstory is also biased, they provide a direct link to the pdf document. This is what it says: " We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy." And this is what they say about porn: " We urge our governmental bodies to enforce laws regarding all forms of pornography. We urge more stringent legislation to prohibit all pornography including virtual pornography and operation of sexually–oriented businesses. We oppose the sale of “Not Rated” (NR) movies and video games to minors."

Personally I find even the fact that the anti sodomy laws were only made unconstitutional in 2003 rather telling. 

My problem isn't the bias of a particular news organization, it's how well written and how informative their stories are. I try not to dismiss things simply on the basis of bias. I took issue with the Politics USA article because it blatantly mis-characterized the case and the very links they provided contradicted the narrative they were trying to spin. Through that article I found the Buzzfeed article, which is still a liberal publication, but what they wrote was far more informative and a lot less speculative (despite having a few distortions here and there).

Good thing those Republicans in Texas didn't get their way. It's a lame platform that did indeed seek to regulate what goes on in people's bedrooms. I think after public pressure they changed it and removed the sodomy stuff although I think they still oppose gay marriage. Still, not that it makes it less frightening, it's unlikely any law they attempted to pass would have gone through since Lawrence v. Texas already deemed anti-sodomy laws to be unconstitutional.

A lot of States had already repealed sodomy laws before 2003 but yeah there were still some living in the dark ages so it took the Supreme Court. So I was wrong to say "I don't think any Republican has ever tried to legislate what kind of sex is legal in private residences", very wrong. Of course they've tried. In retrospect i don't even know what compelled me to say that without checking first lol. I guess it's because I was thinking too much on the national level and not the local/State level.

Why do Christians need laws on earth to judge homosexuals if God has already judged them and they're going to hell anyway? Shouldn't they just let them sin and face the consequences in the afterlife? (not a question for you, just something I'd ask an anti-gay christian)

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

"Judge not, lest ye be judged" -- somewhere in the Christian ethic.  I don't pretend to know chapter and verse on any of this unless I look it up.

The Medieval kings had the right idea, but were impatient.  There were many cases where disputes were submitted to God in the only way possible (kill both parties).  At least our society has (nearly) given up that idea.  Judicial murder still breaks one of the ten commandments, so it is hard to say the courts follow a "Christian" ethic.  And unlike some countries, we have stopped maiming people for infractions of archaic rules.

Let's step away from the election for a moment and look at the mottoes of our two countries:  U.S.A. "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"; Canada "Peace, Order, and Good Government".  And people wonder how Canadians differ from Americans.  There you have it.

Recent reports I saw this morning has Ted Cruz in  front of The Donald in at least one state.  Quelle surprise!

[LexusInfernus 908]

3 hours ago, MilitantRadical said:

Why do Christians need laws on earth to judge homosexuals if God has already judged them and they're going to hell anyway? Shouldn't they just let them sin and face the consequences in the afterlife? (not a question for you, just something I'd ask an anti-gay christian)

Funny that you should ask that question, as someone on another forum I frequent asked basically the same question not to long ago. 

I think some of it is genuine concern for people they believe are going straight to hell because of their actions. For others, it appears to be the belief that God likes collective punishment (and if you take the old testament seriously its not surprising if you think that) and they are afraid that a society that tolerates homosexuality becomes a prime target for Gods wrath. Its what causes some of those idiots to claim that Hurricane Katrina was because of Ellen DeGeneres.  However, I think for most its toxic masculinity that dictates that even the slightest deviation from the hetero norm is cause for existential terror. Hence their need to repress it in every form where ever they can, lest someone calls them 'gay'. As well as the fact that making homosexuality acceptable is a direct attack on the patriarchal status quo because it subverts some of the rigid gender norms and shows that other forms besides the straight male-female relationship is possible. 

I know you didn't direct the question to me, but I felt it was an interesting question  

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

1 hour ago, LexusInfernus said:

Funny that you should ask that question, as someone on another forum I frequent asked basically the same question not to long ago. 

I think some of it is genuine concern for people they believe are going straight to hell because of their actions. For others, it appears to be the belief that God likes collective punishment (and if you take the old testament seriously its not surprising if you think that) and they are afraid that a society that tolerates homosexuality becomes a prime target for Gods wrath. Its what causes some of those idiots to claim that Hurricane Katrina was because of Ellen DeGeneres.  However, I think for most its toxic masculinity that dictates that even the slightest deviation from the hetero norm is cause for existential terror. Hence their need to repress it in every form where ever they can, lest someone calls them 'gay'. As well as the fact that making homosexuality acceptable is a direct attack on the patriarchal status quo because it subverts some of the rigid gender norms and shows that other forms besides the straight male-female relationship is possible. 

I know you didn't direct the question to me, but I felt it was an interesting question  

I put my reply in the Closet Thread since our conversation has kind of turned in that direction.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Can a Cuban wild-card trump Trump?

Both of these candidates are of Hispanic descent.  This puts them on the anathema list for The Donald maybe?  The Donald's xenophobia has not completely blossomed yet as far as can be seen.  He is running out of foreign targets, so who is next?

Two TEA partiers, but the GOP doesn't seem to have anyone else.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Hillary is going to knock the house of cards over, and probably could do it without speaking a word (unfortunately).  The only question is if the 'pubes can muster enough guts to beat her to it.  Logic and experience tells me no.

The only upshot to that I see is having Bill Jeff back at 1600 - compared to what we've had in the past (what will be) 16 years, he's looking golden.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Maybe the Democrats are going to win due to a sense of true American revulsion for the bizarre of The Donald.  However, he has a large and vocal following, so one wonders.

If Hillary wins, the GOP will be in a shambles.  Any prediction as to what will happen in the Senate where 1/3 of the seats are up for grabs?  The House?  Does the House Unamerican Activities Committee still exist?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The Irrepressible Donald.

I wonder what would happen if the rest of the candidates were as dismissive of him as Jeb Bush?  Would they dare to just ignore him and not rise to any of his bait?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 2015-12-15 at 7:23 AM, Sabretooth78 said:

Hillary is going to knock the house of cards over, and probably could do it without speaking a word (unfortunately).  The only question is if the 'pubes can muster enough guts to beat her to it.  Logic and experience tells me no.

The only upshot to that I see is having Bill Jeff back at 1600 - compared to what we've had in the past (what will be) 16 years, he's looking golden.

I don't think it's going to be that easy. Trump has a lot of energy behind him. The Republicans are energized in a way the Democrats aren't. Hillary isn't reaching people the same way Trump is. She hasn't ignited people's passions like Obama in 2008. When I watch Trump speak I see the same level of excitement I saw in Obama supporters in 2008. Hillary is boring, she's robotic, she's rehearsed. Everything she says is carefully calculated and approved by a committee. She lacks personality and authenticity.  

If it turns out to be Trump v. Hillary I think a lot of independents will be apathetic and will stay home instead of voting, leaving it to a contest between the core of both parties. As insane as it would be, if I were an American citizen, I'd be tempted to voted for Trump just to see something different. A lot of the things Trump says are crazy but I don't see him turning in to some kind of Hitler while in office.

Underneath all the rhetoric Trump seems to be a logical and very intelligent person. He's talking a big game now because that's what voters want to hear, but I doubt he'll implement some of the more extreme things he's talking about once he gets in office. For many it may be worth the risk just to see Hillary fall.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ That kind of thinking gave us an NDP government (very socialist, tax and spend) government in Ontario a few years back.  It was a disaster and I am not sure we've recovered from it yet.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think there is a point regarding Trumps more (apparently) genuine leadership as opposed to Clinton's committee approval stamped way, but neither leader is progressive.

If I were an American I would probably be tempted to vote for Don just because he is fresh and interesting but I would probably abstain or write Darth Vader or Bart Simpson on my paper as I find Trump's policies, while genuine and honest, to be backward.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Congratulations Donald. Look what you have done (you idiot!).

Islamophobia!  And the objecting parents probably have no idea what they've had done to them.  This is a victory for ISIL, and the fear in the U.S. is becoming palpable.

A school lesson on another culture, and look what happens.  Anyone who knows anything about Islam knows this is the most common phrase in Arabic, and a calligraphy lesson is just a lesson in fancy lettering.  Arabic is interesting because the meaning is from both context and the length of some of the strokes, which is the reason that Arabic is typeset using laser cutters or phototypesetting methods.

What has happened to the People of the United States to put them in such a state of fear?  They are worse than the Parisians.

[Odainsaker 2,134]

I'm glad I took a semester studying Islamic Architecture before the 9/11 attacks, and I shudder to think what sort of atmosphere such a class might have nowadays.  Interestingly, at the time I was in that class, Iran under President Mohammad Khatami was making tentative outreach efforts to the West following Khatami's "Dialogue Among Civilizations" policy, and opportunities were being promoted for American university students to visit Iran to see its art and architecture up close.  9/11 later slammed the door shut on those potential cultural exchanges as both Iran and the U.S. swung to their respective right wings under hapless George W. Bush and the vitriolic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the comparatively "reformist" Khatami was disgraced and purged.  He is still a political unperson.

Donald Trump in his opportunistic demagoguery has conflated New Jerseyites with widely broadcast images of dancing Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center so as to use Islamophobia as a divide-and-conquer political weapon against our own citizenry.  However, while Trump bombastically talks about making national religious databases, requiring Muslim ID cards, shutting down the internet, enforcing collective punishment by exterminating enemy families, dispatching special deportation squads to start moving 500,000 undesirable people a month out of our cities, and inflates stories about the Vast Muslim-American Conspiracy, I will instead specifically remember the 9/11 images broadcasted of Iranians in Tehran holding candlelight vigils and solemn moments of silence on behalf of America.

 

____________________

 

That Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul should be the lone voices of sanity on their debate stages is surreal, while the idea that Ted Cruz is the "more moderate candidate" in the coattails of Trump is freakish.  That last CNN Republican debate was entertaining, informative, and truly frightening.  It's one thing to go back to war, but to actually unabashedly embrace war crimes...

 

____________________

 

EDIT:  Maybe I should not have watched the new "Star Wars:  The Force Awakens" movie right after just watching the latest Democratic debate on ABC.  Hillary Clinton jokingly ended that debate with the famous line "May the Force Be With You."  Carrie Fisher as a much older Leia in the movie dramatically delivers the same line in a pantsuit, and I wasn't sure at that moment if Hillary was channeling Leia or if Leia was channeling Hillary!

 

  Edited December 20, 2015 by Odainsaker