Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm finding it harder and harder to believe the media reports that there is nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton.

She's taking some missteps in handling this. Very unfortunate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-hillary-clinton-suffers-from-isnt-pneumonia/

 

[mheslep]

Of course, we've already had at least one president who was prone to stumbling:..

More like the press was prone to reporting their own narrative that Ford was prone to stumble.

A tendency to grant 'nothing to see here' dismissals of the evidence invites disaster down the road, especially when the tendency allows an incapable candidate to beat out perfectly capable candidates (e.g. Jim Webb).

 

[Dotini]

The nebulous thing called the 'DNC' can't directly replace the Democratic nominee of the Convention anymore than the RNC can replace the Democratic nominee.

Actually, my understanding is that the DNC can act unilaterally in naming a new nominee, should the present one step aside. On the other hand, I believe the RNC rules require a vote of the delegates under similar circumstances.

 

[Salvador]

Well quite frankly I doubt Hillary will stay this one out , she has waited basically all her life to get to this point. If this would be 18th century given her likely condition and age and pressure that she's under she would probably be dead by now but this is the 21st century and she has all kinds of assistance and lots of money earned in various ways... , so I think she'll get the best docs and they will literally stitch her together and she will probably come back stronger than ever.
My grandfather a good old man is 89 years old now , when he was 87 he broke both of his hips and spent close to 8 months in hospital and his heart almost failed at many points but now he's back and living fine in a wheelchair , so modern medicine can do wonders for people who would otherwise long be dead given the conditions of the human race merely a hundred years ago.

Sorry for my dark tone here but I just want to stick to real probabilities , I think Hillary is more likely to die from a sniper shot or some crazy man who hates her dearly than from a mere physical condition.
So both her fans and critics as myself we can relax , things will probably be back to usual next week.After all I want to see her against Trump in the debates , both are one of a kind they could make an interesting watch especially for those who follow through what they say and know how politics works.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Since Hitchens passing, Sam Harris is my new fave intellectual!

 

[Dotini]

In what seems like some kind of grotesque hoax or joke, it seems WABC TV Ch 7 in New York City has (prematurely?) announced Hillary Clinton's death.
https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/1996

 

[Salvador]

I am not sure since I didn't go through all of what that link has but it seems conspiracy theories are already up and running saying that the real Hillary is dead and the one which came out from her daughters apartment is a makeshift Hillary. :D::D
I wonder will Trump notice the difference ... :D

Its so interesting to see how the average human brain works when it needs to grasp simple moments of famous people getting ill or having their own problems.

Anyway I wonder where did they hide the real Hillary , help me out folks I'm getting nervous I want to know...

Maybe the "bad and evil, imperialist, bad" (ops I guess I already said bad once) Russians have not only hacked the DNC but also Hillary herself and now they are shutting her down.

 

[mheslep]

Actually, my understanding is that the DNC can act unilaterally in naming a new nominee, should the present one step aside. On the other hand, I believe the RNC rules require a vote of the delegates under similar circumstances.

Who is the DNC? If I go today and volunteer to stuff envelopes in some office with DNC on the door, do I have a say in a possible replacement nominee? You'll first have to say *who* the DNC is before granting it power. Then explain how the DNC will get its new nominee on the ballots and through the states to the state appointed electors, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct".

 

[Dotini]

Who is the DNC? If I go today and volunteer to stuff envelopes in some office with DNC on the door, do I have a say in a possible replacement nominee? You'll first have to say *who* the DNC is before granting it power. Then explain how the DNC will get its new nominee on the ballots and through the states to the state appointed electors, "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct".

"She won't withdraw unless she has to. But anxious Democrats will be so worried if she fails to be able to campaign and her health escalates as an issue that they might bring unbearable pressure on her to step aside.

If that happened, the Party rules state that the Democratic National Committee -- two from each state -- would be empowered to nominate a new presidential candidate. Tim Kaine would have no special claim on the nomination and, if there were a switch in the presidential nominee, would remain as the VP candidate."
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Dick-Morris-Hillary-replaced-Biden/2016/09/11/id/747703/

 

[Vanadium 50]

Picking on a sick woman. That's...um...deplorable.

 

[Salvador]

Given the moral and ethical lows that modern society and especially this race has come to , I must say Parkinson's or any other disease she or anyone else could have or has is the lesser problem for this race.

How about chronic diseases that have been diagnosed long ago like,suspiciously large speaking fees , shady deals , hidden tax returns ,unrealistic plans for the ignorant folks to catch their vote.
What strikes me most is probably the fact that a country with little over 300 million people has such a hard time finding two or more decent presidential candidates.
Oh and just for the record , sure you are correct in saying that it's a bad style to pick on a old and sick woman , but she's not just any woman , she's not just a woman walking down the street and falling down , trust me I would gladly help any such lady in any such scenario, I think when some folks want to see Hillary sick or dead I somewhat understand them , I don't agree with that but I understand that feeling because Hillary stands for a certain agenda and she is a public figure with a high chance of getting elected.

For her personal health I wish her well but for some of her ideas I wish she and her alike lost all their memory and their stupid and foolish policies would forever be gone and away.

As this all unfolds and goes along I still wonder , what exactly is that makes the liberals so open towards different cultures even ones that in their very core stand against the very values that formed the US and on which these modern day liberals can sit and eat and enjoy themselves.
Think what you want about me but I know the truth as I have seen it so many times and I say this , a liberal is a modern day communist , he may not think of himself as such but his policies and the very ideas he believes in are just as unreal in the long term and just as devastating for himself and others as those of communism.The only reason that saves the liberal for longer than the communist is that he isn't messing around with economy much and let's capitalism go on and serve the evil and selfish hearts of mankind.
And the liberal is lazier than the communist , he is less of a fanatic this all is the reason why liberalism has survived up until now and spread.
But make no mistake as any man who cuts the very tree on which he sits the liberal will go down the same path as the communist as the nazi and any other unnatural man made fallacy.

The problem the modern day liberal doesn't see is that people are not ready and not willing to share their life and space with other folks who may heavily disagree with them on many issues and I don't see a problem with that.The only way this could work is as with communism every man has to have a complete change in his thinking - utopia is a humble word to describe this.

For those who don't know , Soviets had a variety of posters with slogans like equality and brotherhood , they too tried to make different vastly different cultures and people somehow neighbors and friends, this didn't work well probably even worse than the planned economy.
Here we are modern day western world again striving for the same dead beliefs of the 20th century.

Sadly the US hasn't learned from Europe , Europe always makes the way first both in history and in misery , both world wars etc .This time it's no different , the very birthplace of modern western civilization has made it's first once more only this time in the way of destroying of what's left of the weak and divided liberal Europe.
Millions of stupid uneducated fools mixed with some true peace seekers are flooding Europe , their looting trucks on France's highways , leaving a mess after themselves , some refuse shower when presented with such an option.
their raping young girls by the thousands and stabbing pregnant woman.

You know what sickens me ? I'm not saying Trump is a great guy but when Trump says something mild he is suddenly on the cover pages of all media but when some stupid absolutely useless trash of a black skinned murderer stabs a lady in a supermarket in Sweden and calls Allahu Akbar this somehow doesn't make headlines.A pathetic situation.
Some friends of mine living in Sweden say the police rather don't go to the Muslim immigrant neighborhoods , great now even help has ran away.Same issue in France.How many times have immigrants in their filthy ghettos started riots , burning cars , smashing windows etc.And remember these are mostly folks who have been there for like years , not the recent immigrants so I suppose that over those years they maybe had a real chance at making a good living ehh?...
And even if somehow those low IQ's have been disrespected by the government is starting a riot the only way to fight for your rights in a modern civilized democracy ? I too have much to say against my government but I don't go throwing rocks and the government building and drinking all night.
Oh but guess what the media says they have rights , oh sure excuse me i'll silently move over so that all these stupid reckless trash can exercise their constitutional rights of killing, burning , destroying property and simply being a fool.Oh just one more thing , recently the United Nations made a add featuring some refugees and the add says that if we would be in their situation we would run too.
No we would not , we were through both world wars and my family fought for this country and gave their lives so that we could live in a country and build our lives.
I have a question why don't the muslims finally get together and start thinking ad fighting for their countries and building their homes?
The answer is simple , first because many proxy wars have devastated their region but secondly and this is the most important reason - because their are unable to advance and live in peace and that has all to do with their way of thinking , their RELIGION and much more.
If someone is a true housekeeper others will respect him and his house but if someone only seeks easy shortcuts and doesn't want to look after his house sooner or later his house will be in ruins.

The Muslims just as the Blacks have to get their act together finally and then oh what a wonderful world this could be.

 

[RonL]

Picking on a sick woman. That's...um...deplorable.

I believe she has coughed her way out of more than one confrontation.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...-struggles-fight-back-coughing-attack-n643026

 

[Salvador]

With all due respect , I would focus more on her real policy and serving office issues than a cough that might have been on purpose or a follow up on her latest medical problems.
Otherwise all the media reports about this race is either Trumps rants and Hillary's medical condition , but what about the issues that the next president must face , what about those ?Hillary's health? If you ask me here's a feeling I have.Hillary will be fine , as will be Trump , they will get together and debate , and most likely , I'd say some 80% Hilary will win this election simply because conservative ideas and especially more hardcore conservative ideas are starting to be the minority in US , also the US population background has changed and is not what it used to be some 30/40 years ago , more Latinos , Muslims , etc.
The current US is a wide mix of colors and races and most of them either liberals or rather liberals than conservatives + add Trump's harsh language and his shortcomings which scare even the usual hardcore conservatives and you get a Hillary president.
My 2 cents of prophecy.

 

[gleem]

One issue that has not been given enough attention is Trumps business interests and what he would do with them if elected. Surely at a minimum he must divest both his self and his family of any interest in the business using a blind trust during his presidency as previous presidents have. However his business is so large and expansive containing a multitude of international involvement that there are likely going to be conflicts of interest. In a Newsweek article " HOW THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION'S FOREIGN BUSINESS TIES COULD UPEND U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY" some of Trump's international business dealing are discussed and it is noted that even if he puts his business into a blind trust he still knows the foreign entities with which he is doing business with. The best solution would be to permanently divest himself and his family the the business. . Such a sacrifice would have to be made for his country. Would he do that? This seems to be a huge issue. Perhaps this issue will be discussed in the debates.

 

[Salvador]

Yup that would be an issue , as much as he says he is ready to put his business behind for the country , I doubt that , after all the presidency is for only 4 years , maybe 8 at best , after that you still have to live and leave stuff your children and I think he wants to have himself and leave them as much as he can so abandoning his business is probably the last thought in his head.

Actually I think that of the many goals he hopes to achieve with his candidacy especially if he wins , one of the biggest would actually be to increase his ratings and get more clients and more cash from his business , after all spending a night in a hotel that belongs to the US president sounds rather fancy.

 

[Dotini]

Perhaps Trump will want to build a new, more modern and safer White House? The old one is getting pretty rickety and vulnerable to the odd kook who jumps the fence. And don't forget it was designed by Masons and built by slaves - really, a national embarrassment. I think the great bulk of Trump supporters couldn't care less what he does as president, as long as they get good jobs, secure borders, and sound money in the bank. Remember, this election isn't about anything but the voters themselves. It's a prairie fire, a grassroots, populist rebellion against the failures of the elite establishment to protect the most vital national interests.

 

[mheslep]

Some weeks ago Trump "softened" the deportation aspect of his immigration position. However, his plan to build-the-wall on the southern US border plan remains unchanged. And now new barriers on borders are not unique:

Reuters:

...Norway is putting up a steel fence at a remote Arctic border post with Russia after an influx of migrants last year, sparking an outcry from refugees' rights groups and fears that cross- border ties with the former Cold War adversary will be harmed.

Telegraph:

...Britain is to build more than two miles of high-security fencing at the Channel Tunnel port in northern France, in an attempt to stop thousands of illegal migrants breaking into lorries bound for the UK.

 

[kyphysics]

Should this concern us? Posted a snippet of the article below.

http://observer.com/2016/09/wikileaks-guccifer-2-0-obama-sold-off-public-offices-to-donors/

WikiLeaks’ Guccifer 2.0: Obama Sold Off Public Offices to Donors
Corruption doesn't start or end with Hillary
By Michael Sainato • 09/14/16 11:00am

On September 13, WikiLeaks lived up to its promise of releasing more Democratic National Committee (DNC) documents. This time they were from hacker Guccifer 2.0, serving as a teaser for larger and likely more embarrassing leaks from the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

Both the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign have attempted to insulate themselves from the content of the releases by alleging the hacks were organized by the Russian government. The claims are a mix of paranoia and PR/damage control, and will have enduring consequences. It may lead to what former Secretary of Defense William Perry referred to as a drift back into Cold War mentalities.

The leaks include more evidence of overt corruption within the DNC. One email dated May 18, 2016, from Jacquelyn Lopez, an attorney with the law firm Perkins Coie, asked DNC staff if they could set up a brief call “to go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters.”Included in the leak was a list of high-profile donors from 2008 and the ambassadorship they received in exchange for their large donation to the DNC and Barack Obama’s Organizing For Action (OFA). Essentially, Obama was auctioning off foreign ambassador positions and other office positions while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. The largest donor listed at contributions totaling over $3.5 million, Matthew Barzun, served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011, served as President Obama’s National Finance Chair during his 2012 reelection campaign, and now serves as U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom.

The second largest donor, Julius Genachowski, donated just under $3.5 million to the DNC and OFA, and in exchange was appointed chairman of the FCC by Obama in 2009.

The third largest donor on the list, Frank Sanchez, donated just over $3.4 million and exchange was appointed to Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade by Obama in 2010.

A 2013 article published by the Guardian corroborates the pay-to-play scheme this list suggests. “Barack Obama has rewarded some of his most active campaign donors with plum jobs in foreign embassies, with the average amount raised by recent or imminent appointees soaring to $1.8m per post, according to a Guardian analysis,” wrote Dan Roberts. “The practice is hardly a new feature of U.S. politics, but career diplomats in Washington are increasingly alarmed at how it has grown. One former ambassador described it as the selling of public office.”

 

[Dotini]

Should this concern us? Posted a snippet of the article below.

http://observer.com/2016/09/wikileaks-guccifer-2-0-obama-sold-off-public-offices-to-donors/

WikiLeaks’ Guccifer 2.0: Obama Sold Off Public Offices to Donors
Corruption doesn't start or end with Hillary
By Michael Sainato • 09/14/16 11:00am

On September 13, WikiLeaks lived up to its promise of releasing more Democratic National Committee (DNC) documents. This time they were from hacker Guccifer 2.0, serving as a teaser for larger and likely more embarrassing leaks from the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign.

Both the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign have attempted to insulate themselves from the content of the releases by alleging the hacks were organized by the Russian government. The claims are a mix of paranoia and PR/damage control, and will have enduring consequences. It may lead to what former Secretary of Defense William Perry referred to as a drift back into Cold War mentalities.

The leaks include more evidence of overt corruption within the DNC. One email dated May 18, 2016, from Jacquelyn Lopez, an attorney with the law firm Perkins Coie, asked DNC staff if they could set up a brief call “to go over our process for handling donations from donors who have given us pay to play letters.”Included in the leak was a list of high-profile donors from 2008 and the ambassadorship they received in exchange for their large donation to the DNC and Barack Obama’s Organizing For Action (OFA). Essentially, Obama was auctioning off foreign ambassador positions and other office positions while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state. The largest donor listed at contributions totaling over $3.5 million, Matthew Barzun, served as U.S. Ambassador to Sweden from 2009 to 2011, served as President Obama’s National Finance Chair during his 2012 reelection campaign, and now serves as U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom.

The second largest donor, Julius Genachowski, donated just under $3.5 million to the DNC and OFA, and in exchange was appointed chairman of the FCC by Obama in 2009.

The third largest donor on the list, Frank Sanchez, donated just over $3.4 million and exchange was appointed to Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade by Obama in 2010.

A 2013 article published by the Guardian corroborates the pay-to-play scheme this list suggests. “Barack Obama has rewarded some of his most active campaign donors with plum jobs in foreign embassies, with the average amount raised by recent or imminent appointees soaring to $1.8m per post, according to a Guardian analysis,” wrote Dan Roberts. “The practice is hardly a new feature of U.S. politics, but career diplomats in Washington are increasingly alarmed at how it has grown. One former ambassador described it as the selling of public office.”

Oh this is rich! The NY Times ran basically the same story, but makes it out that the DNC is "the victim of a crime". Clearly your post should be deleted as a conspiracy, as there is a US media blackout on the corruption and crime element of the story.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/u...ss&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1&mtrref=t.co

 

[kyphysics]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/op-ed-ouch-powell-emails-150723886.html

Jake Novak (CNBC) had this to say of the Powell email leaks:

Far more damaging are the emails where Powell discusses Clinton, her email scandal, her health, and her apparent hatred of President Obama. I suspect each of these suddenly very current topics, and not the slam on Trump, are the real reason why the alleged hacking outfit, DCLeaks.com chose to publish the emails now.

This could be damaging to HRC if it's revealed she had some actual deep dislike or hate of Obama.

 

[mheslep]

Jobs for fund raisers is old news, though it's risen to new heights of the absurdly incompetent in the Obama administration.

 

[Salvador]

This is getting better by the day.Basically the Democrats have destroyed any leverage they have on criticizing Republicans or Russia or anyone who does the same thing they do.

Ok I might not get any likes on my post and that's fine but I want to say how I feel and how I see this.
First of all , if the ambassador thing is real and it most probably is , it is shameful of anyone to do this and Obama is no exception.It's basically fat old rich folks or sometimes maybe a little younger less fat still rich folks buying themselves a thing with which to show off later to their friends.
How come such an important job as an ambassador to a foreign country especially one with much influence and ties to US like UK or other countries can be bought for money.

But speaking more generally here's a thing about the Clintons and Obama, for example Obama is the kind of man who looks terrific at first , he seems like all the things he says "HOPE" "YES WE CAN" and to give him the benefit of doubt I would say maybe he even himself thinks that way and maybe his as innocent as a toddler playing around a sandbox from which all kinds of evil pedophiles are lurking.Maybe even he knows nothing about any bought office seat or doesn't have second thoughts about what he says publicly. Even if all this were true he still fails on all these issues , you are a hypocrite no matter whether you tell one thing and do the other on purpose or accidentally , the end result is still the same , better yet that you do it intentionally because when it happens accidentally , well there's a word for that - fool.
So basically this is how it seems from aside. The only real difference between "repubs" and "dems" is that the first ones aren't good enough liars and mostly they just say what they think and it sounds outrageous to many , the second ones want to do all the same outrageous stuff but they simply mask it cleverly behind appealing modern liberal slogans like "HOPE" "EQUALITY"
Maybe a harsh analog but , mind you the USSR under Stalin also did mass killings in the name of "EQUALITY" , because you see once we will shoot out all the bad folks - all the good ones then will be equal.
Back to modern liberal democracy - once we make everyone equal enough and all rights the same and blur all genders into one people will suddenly become better. Oh really ? :D Is this how this works?

There is a strong feeling that many supporters of modern liberal movement really have those blind eyes on what they support.I regularly go through liberal media sites and conservative sites and the thing I have noticed in the commentary from both the editors the authors and the public is that conservatives think they will be able to bring back the "good old days" and so they are willing to accept literally anyone who would help them do it - aka Trump , Also notice how much they mentioned Ronald Reagan in the debates and how they relate to him. And then there are the liberals , they believe that folks like Obama , Clinton and many others will truly make future better.Everytime I read their comments it makes me have this weird feeling the same feeling I get when I see someone being played a fool , I see texts like " Oh Hillary does take large sums of money from doubtful sources, so what Trump is still worse" Another thing I cannot help myself but to notice over these past 8 years , the Obama administration has been outplayed in their foreign policy like a kid.No really no hard feelings intended and no hate towards the US just mere facts and reflections , the man hated by the Democrats (atleast publicly) Vladimir Putin has outplayed them so many times.It's funny that now they blame him for the DNC hack , now sure he probably had much to do with it as it serves his purpose and I believe many things happening in the world have much to do with Kremlin , but in the end what difference does it make , it's not like the information isn't true, so are we going to deny all of it simply because the US adversary may have helped to make it public?

That's like crapping your pants with pieces falling out of the trouser leg and outright denying that it has happened ,in front of all your friends watching, simply because the one who pointed out that you did it, is your worst friend.

Just to stir some controversy here.
Europe just as the US in the past were nations whose society were based on Christian values , as Christianity was the dominant force throughout the centuries up until the industrial revolution and also the revolution of thought pushed forward by many often troubled and sometimes evil folks like Nietzsche for example.
I am not saying the Church didn't do bad stuff , sure but if we look at theory the belief was that if you steal it doesn't matter how much you are a crook no matter the sum or stuff , because the very thought of taking what doesn't belong to you makes the case.
Now when you are a liar it doesn't matter how big of a liar you are , lies are still lies.
Same goes for murder , after the first one it actually doesn't matter how many , you are a murderer , just that appetite grows with eating.

So for me this goes like this , the US has disqualified itself from criticizing folks like Putin and Russia or Iran or any other nation who may use things like force to suppress movements that are in opposition to the ruling elite or use propaganda to make their case or the silencing of media.
Because as I follow this campaign closely I see the same pattern in the US , the biasing of opinion , silence on certain critical issues , definitely propaganda from both parties.The only one thing lacking is brute force but I'm sure if things will go down this way it's only a matter of time...

So the quick resume for the past 8 years for me is that basically the US administration has been no better than any of it's adversaries , simply that it's adversaries have won more than the US.
Take the olympics for example , if you play by the rules and your opponent wins with the use of illegal means then you get to publicly denounce him, but if you both play by covert and illegal means and then your opponent wins , then your opponent is simply better than you, case closed.

 

[Salvador]

Another thing that pisses me off , hopefully it does the same to whoever is reading this.
Trump coming to Jimmy Fallon is now almost a crime , hardcore liberals shouting that we should boycott Fallon , oh so it's a late night talk show and comedy thing ,why can't anyone be on that show?
Again and again this just goes to prove that there is a strong wish and possibly more than just wish to bias opinion and change what people should hear.
Propaganda is the word , I believe.

Back in 2012 when Letterman made Trump look bad when he publicly showed Trump's shirts and ties and asked him whether they are made in China everyone seemed to be ok with such a show but now when Fallon jokes with Trump on his show it is somehow wrong.This is damn foolish.

For example , maybe I don't like young girls having unprotected sex or making stupid mistakes in terms of who they sleep with in general and maybe I don't support abortions but then that is my opinion and my right to it , so is my right to seeing a man who doesn't show his tax returns , maybe I like that , how does someone dare to say I shouldn't have that option or decide what I need to see and what I don't, oh but sure let's all forget that and focus on Russia , oh you see they have a bad human rights record... Nothing bad about the DNC emails because "RUSSIA DID IT!" Just focus on what we tell you to focus on and stop thinking about what's really going on.Speaking about the DNC

http://europe.newsweek.com/seth-ric...nge-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-492084?rm=euSure it may sound or even be a conspiracy theory but first, it's from a public official news site not some Alex Jones channel , secondly it's hard to tell the difference between lies and truth anymore so for me this story is credible given all the other things that are happening.and to give the opposite side of the agenda , drum roll ... Huffingtonpost - a super liberal newsblog pretending to be a serious news site , which actively and beyond any doubt supports everything that has to do with Clinton and Obama.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-seth-rich_us_57b1ddede4b007c36e4f5ffaPersonally I look at Huffpo only to entertain myself as their bias is so open and visible that 5 year olds are going like " Mommy Mommy is this what daddy calls propaganda?"
They are like the opposite of RT in terms of how they show the world.

Sure Ariana is probably laughing and enjoying herself because whatever the people think doesn't matter as long as it makes headlines and so makes money.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Jobs for fund raisers is old news, though it's risen to new heights of the absurdly incompetent in the Obama administration.

Yes, and that's why the US sent a soap opera producer to be ambassador to Hungary. But that's nothing new, excpet in magnitude. What is new is that donors to a private foundation run by the Secretary of State get federal appointments in State. (Maybe this is good, maybe this is bad, but it's new)

[JOKE]
Madam Secretary, did you receive a bribe for this appointment?
Certainly not! I appointed him because I like him!
We have evidence that he gave you a million dollars.
Man gives you a million dollars, you're going to like him!
[/JOKE]

 

[jim hardy]

So the quick resume for the past 8 years for me is that basically the US administration has been no better than any of it's adversaries , simply that it's adversaries have won more than the US.

You live in Europe, i believe ?
Thanks for the observations ! That's why i try to watch foreign newscasts .

O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us

old jim

 

[mheslep]

But that's nothing new, excpet in magnitude.

Per Senator McCain, ambassadorships for bungling fund raisers used to be limited to the like island nations, e.g. Vanuatu. More irritating is the fact that the Senate failed to reject those nominees. Even under Reid, there were sufficient respectable Senators in the majority that could have said no.

 

[Bystander]

sufficient respectable Senators in the majority that could have said no.

Obviously, there were not.

 

[russ_watters]

Another thing that pisses me off , hopefully it does the same to whoever is reading this.
Trump coming to Jimmy Fallon is now almost a crime , hardcore liberals shouting that we should boycott Fallon , oh so it's a late night talk show and comedy thing ,why can't anyone be on that show?

To be honest, you're ranting a bit and I'm not really following your point, however I did see some backlash against Fallon saying he "lost credibility" as a "member of the media" for making fun of Trump (a hair-mussing) instead of grilling him. This is worrisome to me, but not for the reason stated: it is worrisome because Fallon is a comedian, not a member of the media and for a comedian, "credibility" isn't a "thing" for him to have or not have. It isn't part of the job description. This idea that it is or should be or even possibly could be part of his job description is a symptom of the continued decline in political discourse in this country.

That said, while not a good thing, it is deliciously ironic to me that after complaining for years about the credibility of conservative talk radio, liberals have found their voice in credibility-irrelevant comedians! And I do love irony ever-so-much!

Disclaimer: It's not that I don't care, it's just that I'm so jaded I've decided I may as well just sit back and watch the show. It's liberating.

 

[jim hardy]

Disclaimer: It's not that I don't care, it's just that I'm so jaded I've decided may as well just sit back and watch the show. It's liberating.

i had to detach too.

 

[phinds]

i had to detach too.

Yeah, I may have posted this before, but I think it's appropriate in this thread at this time:

 

[Salvador]

That joke you wrote in your last post Vanadium , you might as well take away the (JOKE) signs , as it is closer to reality than to a joke.
So maybe the reality is becoming a joke ...

Yes indeed @russ_waters , well it's a bit sad for me that you didn't get my point but then again I was drinking my morning coffee and was a bit full of energy.
Anyway you are absolutely correct in pointing out that the once free liberals who argued against censorship of comedy and the use of rude words and freedom of speech and all other kinds of stuff are now so worried and even pissed off and angry that a comedian and his team and his writers choose to do a certain deal with Trump and approach him in a certain way , Jesus Christ , it's their full right to do so as a private company , they have their freedom of speech and their using it for good.

Oh but no , the whiny little liberal somewhere got offended just because the game isn't going the way, he himself appointed little ruler of the earth, wanted it.
Funny isn't it. The first sign that something is wrong with people is usually when they can't take a joke , the next part is when they deny reality, after that things go downhill so fast you better buckle a seat belt.

And I'm trying real hard to rant less , after all who am I , I myself am a sad little individual who loves his cat , recycles scrap metal and basically tries to clean up trash people left at the forest just to realize that even if I care there are another 10 000 that don't because their too stupid and ignorant , and this goes not only for trashing after yourself it goes for everything from politics to culture to family life.

Today I randomly watched a guy in youtube asking Californians what they think about Trump's sons killing endangered animals in Africa (which is a false statement to test one's level of knowledge) and everyone replied that it's bad and he shouldn't do that and some said it's ok , and then some didn't know what 9/11 stands for and from which country the hijackers were.And sure you could say oh this is staged for the video to make it funny etc but you know I think it's actually the reality , people are dumb as f***
Just to prove my point , I have a friend who thinks that the Earth is flat , well we aren't the best of friends (for a reason) it's hard to talk to him because he perceives many things differently.
I have other guys whom I know of who still think free energy is possible , and I could go on and on about the various encounters with lack of knowledge and outright stupidity I have come across.
I mean you don't need to be a nuclear physicist but atleast cmoon , know something about life.

So I came to a conclusion while drinking my coffee , sure this would never go through in a country like US , or in any other major democracy but instead of having a ban on immigrants which might be good , or instead of having all kinds of background checks , we would really benefit from a voting background check , in other words anyone is allowed to vote say from the age 16, but before your vote is cast you must fill out a check form which has questions that basically test whether you are intellectual and creative or whether you are a damn redneck or an absolutely worthless trash.
Just an idea while drinking my coffee, imagine that you would probably get some 20% less voters yet the vote itself would be more accurate and thought through , it would simply be better as the ones who are easy to manipulate with would be given no chance to decide important things for a big country let them better do their laundry or take out the trash.

 

[phinds]

Since we seem to be on a roll about political correctness run amok, here's one of my favorites:

 

[TurtleMeister]

So I came to a conclusion while drinking my coffee , sure this would never go through in a country like US , or in any other major democracy but instead of having a ban on immigrants which might be good , or instead of having all kinds of background checks , we would really benefit from a voting background check , in other words anyone is allowed to vote say from the age 16, but before your vote is cast you must fill out a check form which has questions that basically test whether you are intellectual and creative or whether you are a damn redneck or an absolutely worthless trash.
Just an idea while drinking my coffee, imagine that you would probably get some 20% less voters yet the vote itself would be more accurate and thought through , it would simply be better as the ones who are easy to manipulate with would be given no chance to decide important things for a big country let them better do their laundry or take out the trash.

That would give Clinton the White House because according to the media that 20% would be Trump supporters.

 

[Vanadium 50]

but before your vote is cast you must fill out a check form which has questions that basically test whether you are intellectual and creative or whether you are a damn redneck or an absolutely worthless trash.

Ah, yes. "The deplorables shouldn't get a vote" argument. We heard similar suggestions post-Brexit. Is it any wonder why the Depolrables are lining up against the politics that suggests they be disenfranchised?

 

[jim hardy]

imagine that you would probably get some 20% less voters yet the vote itself would be more accurate and thought through , it would simply be better as the ones who are easy to manipulate with would be given no chance to decide important things for a big country let them better do their laundry or take out the trash.

Who you going to trust to decide ? Both parties would salivate at the thought of that kind of power.

i don't think you've thought that one through.