2016 Election
I'm concerned about gun rights, veterans affairs, and national defense. Who would be my best choice in next year's election?
Hold your horses a while and see what the field looks like closer to election day.
Too many choices at present.
Guv Kasich threw his hat into the ring. Even Democrat ohioanz rather like the guy.
He just jacked up his speech fee. I honestly believe that' why half of the run.
Guv Kasich threw his hat into the ring. Even Democrat ohioanz rather like the guy.
I was going to ask about him. Any chance he's not a neo-con idiot when it comes to foreign affairs?
I'm leaning Sanders even though I'll have to register Democrat temporarily as PA is a closed primary state. Why Sanders? He sees the problems clearly and hasn't been a shape shifter. I'm starting to think that it takes someone who believes in government to make government work. It's time for the pendulum to swing back.
Sanders is Aces on veteran's affairs. He is "okay" on gun rights. If you believe continuous warfare in the mid-east = secure America you will have a problem with him.
Ignore them all. Nothing relevant will happen until after the 2016 Super bowl. Apparent only then is who is relevant. Anyone reporting on presidential candidates now is playing us all as ignorant or naive. How many times must Donald Trump speak before reality becomes obvious.
It is currently impossible to answer Big Sarge's question. How many hundred years of history made that obvious?
Bloomberg says...
However
NPR reminds us...
Jeb Bush's presidential campaign got a nice fundraising haul last quarter, $11.5 million. But that's piddling compared to the $103 million his Super PAC pulled in, thanks to unlimited contributions.
TED CRUZ: The super PAC that's supporting us - we can't coordinate with them, but they announced publicly that they have already raised over $37 million in the bank.
That's a lot of fucking ads I'm going to have to endure, living in battleground Virginia. It's looking like Bush v. Clinton. Just shoot me.
$4.4 Billion on TV ads is the estimate.
We'll all have to give up tv for a little while. I saw that at present Hillary loses to Trump. She caps at 46% I doubt she goes any higher, sketchy ethics and a neo-con foreign policy won't generate much excitement. Hillary is good on women's issues and nothing else. Sanders beats Trump one to one but doesn't beat Hillary yet. Looks like an easy march for BushIII what a goddamn nightmare.
I like Sanders on the positions, but can he run the country? Is he executive material?
He can probably run this country, but not other countries. Hmm... maybe that's a good thing. :yesnod:
For what its worth he was a mayor. The bar is set pretty low for executive competence based on the last few administrations. People seem to trust him at the bargaining table which isn't an attribute we've seen in a while.
I too would prefer someone focused on this country.
I hope Biden throws his hat in the ring.
I hope Biden throws his hat in the ring.
Why?
You don't strike me as a Biden supporter.
I didn't finish my train of thought. I'm getting bad about that. To tell the truth, I'm very displeased with the Republican front runners. Joe Biden is a candidate I might be able to consider.
I like Biden. He's a bit cooky, and a slight touch of the Walter Mitty - but he seems a decent chap.
For what its worth he was a mayor. The bar is set pretty low for executive competence based on the last few administrations. People seem to trust him at the bargaining table which isn't an attribute we've seen in a while.
I too would prefer someone focused on this country.
I lived in Burlington when he was mayor. He was great.
He's also from Brooklyn so there's that.
He's the only candidate I trust because he isn't owned by any corporation, he's honest, he's not from old money, his agenda has always been the welfare of the general population not a select few.
Of course in politics none of this matters because people will always hedge their bets or vote strategically for the lesser of two evils rather than the good guy, because they are worried that the good guy won't win.
Further, the majority of the US populace is really too ignorant to be allowed to vote, in fact I'd say the entire population is too ignorant to vote. Not saying we are stupid, although many of us are, but that we are not given facts, background information, the whole story, and so on. Without information we can't make an informed vote. The fear that Obama or anyone else will "take away my guns" is a prime example. No one is going to take away anyone's guns. It's not feasible. That there is no serious penalty for politicians being caught lying adds to the nightmarish feeling of uncertainty. It's like the entire country is being gaslighted.
Our political system makes me sick, and I hate this aspect of my country. To me it's the 99% of politicians who give the rest a bad name. Almost by definition politicians are not patriots and are actually anti-American.
Our country is truly fucked and I don't think any president will be able to make any difference given that corporations own the government.
Bureaucrats, MBAs, lawyers, politicians, and corporate leviathans should all summarily banished to the middle of the Pacific Ocean on one of those rafts of jetsam, put Chinese handcuffs on their dicks and let them fight it out.
Did I mention I fucking hate everything about our shitty, pretend political system? It's the same as the TSA "security theater" it's democracy theater. I'm too old to enjoy playing "Let's pretend."
Your votes means shit. A republican will be put in the white house, any money in the coffers will be plundered and spent on the goods and services of the friends of the administration.
Stop beating around the bush, Foot. Tell us how you really feel
Our country is truly fucked and I don't think any president will be able to make any difference given that corporations own the government.
The race for the White House is just a dog & pony show to distract us from the right wing money buying Governors and Congress Critters.
The only pleasure I get out of voting is watching the local politicians scurry, like the rats that they are, when I show up at the polls.
No shit, the back slapping glad handers actually hide in the back room until I leave. :haha:
I'm concerned about gun rights, veterans affairs, and national defense. Who would be my best choice in next year's election?
Depends what exactly you want done about those things. I like Sanders on all of them.
Trump on immigration: "Build a wall, 2000 miles long. Have Mexico pay for it." No, I don't have a cite, look it up. Lots of people say it can't be done. But my personal good friend, Ron White *has* done the math on this project. Here you go:
ZO5EFYY6P14
The question is not whether it could be built, although getting Mexico to pay for it is not likely considering our trade deficit. The question is whether it should be built.
Trump is the only Republican candidate who's saying hands off Social Security/Medicare, and against raising the retirement age.
Everyone know I'm a gun collector, hunter, and target shooter. I've reached the point where I would be comfortable with a ban on assault weapons. I'd even be willing to give up all semi-automatic weapons.
I've always been a hawk in my military views. I strongly believe we have no reason to be involved in the ISIS conflict. This is a civil war between militant Sunni extremists vs Kurds vs Shias vs moderate Sunnis. Saudi Arabia is sitting there with the 3rd largest military budget in the world. Yes, they spend more on their military than Russia. Let them step up to the plate. There is no way we will come out of this with being covered with shit and being the bad guy. Let them fight among themselves and we only worry when they stray out of the sand box.
I want somebody in office who will use a common sense approach to immigration. This country was built with immigrants. Seems like I remember a poem on a plaque that was added to Statue of Liberty. Maybe our politician's should think about it.
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Of course, let's use common sense with illegal aliens. If they have a felony history and commit felonies here, ship them back. What the heck is this stuff about catching and releasing illegal aliens on violent crimes in sanctuary cities? Common sense people, common sense.
Here you have my views. Now do you see why I am looking for someone in the Democrat Party? I can't support Hillary. This private email server situation is horrible.
You are not asking for the moon. This should be doable.
It is doable by any reasonably competant government. So unfortunately it's not likely here. :( Who's fault is that? The voters. I've said before, the White House race is a dog & pony show for the masses, without cleaning up Congress we'll still be mired in this shit.
Educated people register more, but do they vote?
I'm a little too excited about a potential third-party run by Trump. Sure...go ahead...just give the presidency to the Democrats. Especially when conservatives are hot to trot over a Clinton again.
This private email server situation is horrible.
Why?
Trump on immigration: "Build a wall, 2000 miles long. Have Mexico pay for it." No, I don't have a cite, look it up. Lots of people say it can't be done. But my personal good friend, Ron White *has* done the math on this project. Here you go:
ZO5EFYY6P14
forgot the youtube tags, sorry.
[YOUTUBE]ZO5EFYY6P14[/YOUTUBE]
I'd vote for him in a hot second.
(That was my sarcasm voice)
I'd vote for him in a hot second.
Trump is simply doing what Hitler also did to become popular. He hyped soundbytes embodied with hate. It works on extremist who know only from their feelings. Hitler also said to disparage the intelligent people so as to inspire his wacko extremist and lower intelligent followers. Trump is simply appealing to similar people who know only from their feelings - inspired by a 'them verses us' mentality. Not from being educated and first learning facts.
BTW, Carly Fiorina also uses that tactic - just not as well. She has to be one of the dumbest executives I ever met. Others who worked with her in Lucent say same.
What kind of person bankrupts four companies and gets rich? Evil scammers. Strange. Trump did same. Fiorina almost did that in HP. Just a few examples of facts forgotten and ignore by adults who only entertain their emotions - cannot be bothered to first learn facts.
If Grandpa Joe runs, this is going to be the greatest election of all time.
You know Trump winning the presidency isn't as unlikely as people seem to think... He is in the lead of most republican polls, and the 8 year turnover rule has had very few exceptions since the current two-party system solidified. I hear a lot of over confidence among democrats regarding Hilary, which makes me wonder how many would end up thinking it's a sure thing and passing on the voting booths.
Also: On Israel's behalf - we can't even deal with Gaza, how the f' are we going to deal with Florida?
If the Dems roll with Hillary, they may just loose to Trumpenutter. Man what an awful pair of candidates. Who is the Greenie this time?
Sorry, you live in Pennsylvania so no third party candidates will be appearing on your ballot.
Yes as long as Wolf goes along with his plan to challenge the court decision
~ I am no longer available to the movement to work to convince him not to do this ~
Stay classy Pennsyltucky.
Classy? Why start now? :rolleyes:
You called?
No to Hitlery. The email situation is beyond ridiculous.
Bringing out Uncle Joe is the backroom dealers insurance policy candidate.
There is no one on the R side I would want to vote for, but I'd vote for every one of them over Killary - that woman is pure evil.
You know, I don't think the true potential for drama in this race is fully realized yet - Melania Trump and Bill Clinton could make some really beautiful babies.
I haven't dug that deeply into the Hillary email thing. My general impression is that she has handled this poorly and it may cost her the presidency. But I did skim an article this morning, and have come to the conclusion that what she did was irregular, but nowhere near as bad as her detractors are saying. The "classified" emails she had on her private server were not classified when they were put there. They were designated as being classified long after the fact.
You can't retroactively make something illegal and then expect to nail somebody for it when it was legal at the time.
But we still have the issue of using a private server for government emails. That's very irregular. The only conclusion I can draw is that she wanted complete control and the ability to delete stuff she didn't want to be public. I can't approve of that. So I won't be voting for Hillary in the Virginia primary if Bernie Sanders is still in the running.
I don't know who I'll vote for in the general election. Too far off and I don't know who will be on the ballot. Like 90% of the population, I have a strong tendency to vote for my own team though. I can't think of any scenario where Trump would get my vote. I'm amazed he's doing so well and hasn't dropped out yet. Is he really going to keep at this?
Yes, he will, You can't keep a good ego down. Think about what he has, everything money can buy. Now add the adoration of the masses which has always been out of reach, especially all the people he's fucked over, and it's irresistible.
I've wondered what his motivation is.
pfft.. power fame attention...
I don't think he has demonstrated anything like a civic conscience.
Sure he has, to make America great again.. it says so on his hat. :lol2:
... But I did skim an article this morning, and have come to the conclusion that what she did was irregular, but nowhere near as bad as her detractors are saying. The "classified" emails she had on her private server were [B]not classified when they were put there. They were designated as being classified long after the fact.
[/B]
You can't retroactively make something illegal and then expect to nail somebody for it when it was legal at the time. ...
[BOLD MINE]
That's not the issue. Information is classified to control dissemination; because, uncontrolled dissemination is expected to be harmful to the US and its interests. How harmful it may be is reflected in the level of classification. Hillary had government information in her private account that rose to that level; but, failed to submit it to a classifying authority for determination and control.
If Hillary had been using her government account, that process would have happened automatically and potentially harmful information would have been classified in a timely fashion. Hillary could also have had her State Dept. staff put a tentative classification on potentially harmful information in her personal account pending classifying authority review. Everyone who came into contact with that information would then have been legally obligated to treat it as classified during the interim even if it was leaked.
As a SF Intelligence NCO, I had to do the same thing. It was expected that I would encounter and have to report raw information the dissemination of which had to be controlled. I wasn't a classifying authority (those are bona fide government agencies); but, I was formally trained and authorized to assign tentative classifications including formatting from cover sheets and page markings right down to proper font size to meet specifications that made it legally binding on others.
That Hillary, as Secretary of State, couldn't get this done to protect US interests reflects a lackadaisical attitude about information security and its importance. If I had done what she did, I would have lost my security clearance.
The "classified" emails she had on her private server were not classified when they were put there. They were designated as being classified long after the fact.
That is not entirely true. There are some that were clearly classified. She even wrote about it. Also there is the issue of the FOIA requests which were ignored.
But we still have the issue of using a private server for government emails. That's very irregular. The only conclusion I can draw is that she wanted complete control and the ability to delete stuff she didn't want to be public. I can't approve of that. So I won't be voting for Hillary in the Virginia primary if Bernie Sanders is still in the running.
Thats good to hear. I can't imagine anyone voting for her. What about Biden?
Nah. Send him here, I could use a shoulder massage.
Can someone explain the Trump thing to me? I get an instinctive skin crawl from the dude but somebody apparently likes him.
I think a lot of it is giving the government and the real politicians the finger.
I get an instinctive skin crawl from the dude .
Oh hell, me too. There's something really amiss with the guy. i don't mean in terms of his politics - I've known plenty of politicians whose ideas I despised but who were personally charismatic. When I see him on tv, my lizard brain tells me to beware.
What Bruce said. Well that and there is NO ONE on team R that is inspiring in any way. They're all trying to remain calm and keep the crazy inside from showing.
Here is the
article on Hillary and the email stuff relevant to the FOIA I mentioned.
Veteran reporter Sharyl Attkisson contends the latest batch of emails from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private server, released by the U.S. State Department, proves that the “law has been blatantly violated.”
and
here is her site
The newly-released batch of Hillary Clinton emails provides further proof that Freedom of Information (FOI) law has been blatantly violated. The documents include material directly responsive to a FOI request I made back in 2012 after the Benghazi terrorist attacks on the U.S. compounds. However, the material was not produced at the time, as required by law. Once again, there appears to be nobody who holds government officials and agencies accountable for their routine violation of this law. So the infractions occur frequently and with impunity. If nobody polices our government officials and agencies–if they are above the law–then how does a lawful society function?
Well, I can think of few reasons people might like Trump:
1. Speaking his mind:
Plenty of republicans who share his views but live in a cultural mindset that they are not alright to say. I know this because when people used to mistake my libertarian preferences to mean republican, they'd often assume I was part of the club and just spew that shit with me - "I don't believe we should let black people run the country", "I don't believe a women can govern", etc. But most of the time in social situations they try to maneuver around saying it. Can you imagine how cathartic it could feel for them to hear someone saying things like this out loud?
2. Jealousy for his lifestyle:
Plenty of people fantasize about been all powerful billionaires, plenty of people look at his luxury lifestyle with lust, plenty of guys would like his wife for a trophy. Really, who wouldn't want to give children a helicopter ride they'll remember for a lifetime? Where there is jealousy, there is often also admiration, and that can create glasses through which he'd seem a lot more charming then otherwise.
3. Frustration with the current system:
Bruce is right on that one. But it's more then the middle finger, to some extent it can be justified. Every other politician in the race is going to be backed up by lobbyists and interest groups from everywhere. It's kind of ironic, because voting to trump is kind of like jumping over the politician and voting straight to the financial backer, but the result is that he appears uncorruptible. Realistically, he still runs multi billion dollar companies and will be in a position to give political favors with financial returns - something we saw quite a bit in the Bush administration, but this could take it to a whole new level.
Work in facilities that are government secure and learn that nobody really knows what is secret and what is not. Many times things get classified secret after the fact. Or because what is common knowledge was once secret. All this secret messages in a server is hooey designed to manipulate us who have no idea what nonsnese this really is.
Just like Swift boating that also manipulated the naive with a lie.
Work in facilities that are government secure and learn that nobody really knows what is secret and what is not. Many times things get classified secret after the fact. Or because what is common knowledge was once secret. All this secret messages in a server is hooey designed to manipulate us who have no idea what nonsnese this really is.
Just like Swift boating that also manipulated the naive with a lie.
Hooey on you oh naïve one:
Reuters | Alistair Bell and Susan Heavey
... Clinton, the Democratic front-runner for the November 2016 election, did not apologize for her own behavior but said she was wrong not to use a government email account when she was serving as the nation's top diplomat. ...
... "I certainly wish that I had made a different choice and I know why the American people have questions about it," Clinton said. "I take responsibility. I should have had two accounts, one for personal and one for work-related." ...
... The FBI is now investigating the security of the private server and any classified information on it. ...
... Reviews by Reuters of Clinton emails released to the public under a judge's orders found 87 email threads that the State Department has marked to show they include information shared in confidence by foreign government officials, from prime ministers to spy chiefs.
U.S. government regulations say this sort of information, whether written or spoken, must be classified from the start and handled through secure, government-controlled channels.
Clinton said she used the personal email account for convenience and did not give the issue much thought when she took over as secretary of state in 2009. ...
I told you so. :p:
I think this election will be a choice between bad or worse.
I think this election will be a choice between bad or worse.
As apposed to which elections in what country and/or alternative universe?
The powers that be, and wish to remain being, are worried.
How can we stop Donald Trump? This is a question Republican Party donors and strategists have been asking themselves for weeks, a report says.
The GOP’s biggest donors are planning to invest scores of millions of dollars in a campaign to take Trump down, the New York Times reported. Republican strategists and donors have gathered groups to launch a smear campaign against Trump and amassed dossiers on his previous support for universal health care and higher taxes, the Times report published on Friday said. They have even discussed to establish a “super PAC” in order to convince conservative voters that the New York billionaire is not one of them. But the big-money Republican network is also extremely worried that any concerted attack against Trump might backfire, given his tendency to counterattack viciously.
Attack viciously? I'd say that's a given. :lol:
The wealthy donors have committed hundreds of millions of dollars to shape the Republican primary race and groom a contender who can win the White House back for them, but the maverick Manhattan developer has rocked their boat. They are also finding that money is a devalued currency in the blustery, post-policy campaign designed by Trump, which is not driven expensive advertising campaigns but by social media feuds and unending free publicity, the Times report said.
The Club for Growth, which helped sabotage the populist presidential run of Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, in 2008, is also planning to attack Trump. Republican presidential hopeful and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. The group has spent millions of dollars on intraparty campaigns attacking Republican candidates who deviate from conservative economic orthodoxy.The group’s president, David McIntosh, however, said they were still not clear how to deal with Trump, who is tapping into the raw anger of Republican voters against leaders on Capitol Hill.
link The raw anger in most of the voters, of any stripe, is next step after desperation and exasperation, with the bullshit in congress. But they all forget the white house is the dog & pony show. The real problem is the manipulation of primaries to put puppets from gerrymandered districts in congress, state legislatures, and governor's mansions.
Just to be clear, the problem is for the voters, who are angry. The gerrymandered districts, which are the real problem, are the intentional product of the hard work of the politicians.
Just to be clear, the problem is for the voters, who are angry. The gerrymandered districts, which are the real problem, are the intentional product of the hard work of the politicians.
Eh. Sure - gerrymandering, the electoral college, first-past-the-post /winner-takes-all voting... There are many hindrances on the way to a more democratic system.
But I doubt having a more democratic system in place would solve many of your problems.
Instead they create muddy middle grounds, on one hand it would be much harder for one party to monopolize The House and cockblock every move of the other party, because when things are more democratic there are often smaller parties you can sway instead... On the other hand that becomes the standard procedure since the "ruling party" can't really monopolize it either, so every single move requires a lot of I scratch your back you scratch mine, every executive act becomes an awkward multi-party negotiation, thus voting one way or another on matters that the small party blocks voter's did not cast their votes about and might very well have completely different opinions. A more democratic election system can very easily result in a government that does a worst job in executing the will of the people then otherwise.
p.s.
I am not yet a 100% sure if the above is devil advocating or me changing my mind, I usually argue the exact opposite.
p.s.
I am not yet a 100% sure if the above is devil advocating or me changing my mind, I usually argue the exact opposite.
We call it flip-flopping. It's a sport here. Maybe you could go pro.
We call it flip-flopping. It's a sport here. Maybe you could go pro.
...For politicians, having consistent opinions between the time you run to get elected for describing what you think you should do and the time you actually get elected to do what you think you should do... Makes you a good representative.
For everyone else, not changing your opinion when you find a good enough reason to change it makes you an unreasonable human being.
Except ofcourse, the "for everyone else" bit is stupid, it applies equally to politicians, and creates an interesting result where what makes them good representatives also makes them unreasonable human beings. But just for kicks and/or potential point conveying, and mostly to see how you'd react, I am going to leave the "for everyone else" bit in there despite changing my mind about it mid post.
Well, I suppose that's alright, as long as it's for anyone else and not for everyone else.
Well, I suppose that's alright, as long as it's for anyone else and not for everyone else.
Got me there :p:
“Today, the largest six financial institutions in this country have assets of some $10 trillion, equivalent to 60 percent of the GDP of America,” the senator from Vermont told a crowd of 11,000. “After we bailed them out, because they were ‘too big to fail,’ most of them are now a lot bigger than they were before.” - - Bernie Sanders.
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/liberal-activists-see-bernie-sanders-as-champion-for-causes-failed-by-obama/2015/07/19/8b5fc752-2e09-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html
I'm glad to hear someone who's not an Occupy Wall Street activist acknowledge this dangerous situation.
Dangerous for whom? Certainly not the 1% who control the government.
So for those who appose Hillary...
If it came down to Clinton vs. Trump, who would you vote for?
The one who has the best vice presidential running mate to take over.
Whoever has the sharpest creases. I *swoon* for sharp creases!
When it comes down to it, does it really matter who is president? I think it is the corporations that control the Speaker of the House are the ones that control the nation. The party and constituents seem to have no influence over the speaker.
Whoever has the sharpest creases. I *swoon* for sharp creases!
I don't care how sharp his creases they could never outweigh Trump's hair.
Quizes are sometimes fun.
Take the quiz, tell the computer what you think of the issues, and then let it tell you who matches your positions most closely.
Share your results, if you want.
Based on my understanding of the candidates, I like Bernie Sanders the best, but the computer said:
[ATTACH]53333[/ATTACH]
Apparently I also side with Sanders.
Well, ain't this awkward...
Apparently I also side with Sanders.
[ATTACH]53340[/ATTACH]
Maybe .... maybe deep down, we all side with Sanders* eventually.
* though given a choice I'd probably opt for Colonel Sanders, 'cause chicken.
You know that wouldn't be a bad business plan, rigging "who's your candidate" quiz to the highest bidder. If that's what they are doing then I am jelly of the site owner for thinking about it first.
Believe it or not, I came up with Sanders on that site as well.
As for V's question - ANYONE BUT KILLARY. seriously. That woman is pure evil.
I actually find it interesting that Hilary is increasingly portrayed as cold and strategic by her opponents... This is as strategically demanding position as they come.
It's seems like a repeat of the Al Gore vs. George Bush elections - people voting for who they like as a person, not who they'd think would make a better leader.
I think Clinton would be capable. I definitely don't think she's evil. It wasn't my question. And I think Trump would be a fatal mistake. I have heard, since the joint rally with Cruz and Trump, talk of them on the same ticket. Tcha, like that's gonna happen.
I think it was my question.
* though given a choice I'd probably opt for Colonel Sanders, 'cause chicken.
Well...
[YOUTUBE]KlPQkd_AA6c[/YOUTUBE]
Hilary may not be a very nice person. But evil? Seriously? In a contest that includes Trump?
[eta] I find it really hard to understand the level of vitriol against Clinton. Given the kinds of things politicians of every stripe seem to get up to, her shennanigans seem small fry to me. I don't mean by this to suggest that anybody here is sexist 0 just that we, all of us, tend to see people's actions differently depending on their gender (lot of studies show that unconsious bias - where the exact same set of actions/behaviours are viewed wholly differently depending on whether the subject is a woman or a man) but I do think if a male politician had the exact same political motivations and attitudes and acted in the same way whilst in office - he'd be seen very differently. His enemies would still make hay and his disillusioned former supporters wuld still despise - but I doubt anybody would be calling him evil, because he would seem a lightweight compared to some of the other monsters on the field.
Not yet, but... It brings up a very interesting question IMO, that really shuns a lot of light on the question of how you judge people: Is it possible - at all - to become the president and not be evil?
If we agree that people are to be judged by their actions, then evil isn't a matter of motive or personality.... Even when it includes matters of personality as inflouncing attributes - a psychopath or a pedophile or a rapists aren't evil until the first time they act on it. Likewise, Hitler was probably a relatively decent person prior to taking over Germany. On the same vein, someone can have decent motives and try their best to do well by others but then one day makes a bad decision that causes more harm then good.
But that brings another question - how do you scale it? Do certain amoral actions automatically make you evil, or is it a matter of balance? Would someone who murdered 50 people but saved the lives of 200 be a better person then someone who has done neither?
Then there's a matter of how you judge someone's responsibility and agency, how you judge non-action choices, how do you judge accidents or conflicting intentions, how do you relate it to the circumstances, et...
Depending on how you answer all of the above, you might very well be able to determine that the moment obama came into office he became responsible for every wrongful death in America which can be related to the federal government.
I poste dmy edit before I saw your post Trace - that's a really interesting question.
I'm not so big on the evil thing - that's so subjective.
But do I think Hitler was a jolly nice, balanced chap right up until the second the first Jewish person was killed in Germany because of his laws?
Errrrrr, no.
Do I believe Clinton is evil in my understanding of the word? No, not at all. In that I agree with you, Trac. Politicians are deal-makers, deal-breakers, ultimate diplomats and occasionally even liars of necessity depending on what they perceive as the best interests of their constituency/ beliefs/ country. They also need to be at least in some degree ruthless, or at least ambitious and thick-skinned.
Clinton is not being judged by the standards used to judge Presidents of the past. She's being judged as a woman. IMHO.
But then she's towards the left of American politics and I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I'd be less likely to call the gender card on Sarah Palin or Ann Coulter. So I'm as biased as the next person. I just don't try to fuck them or kill them before I talk to them.
Hilary may not be a very nice person. But evil? Seriously? In a contest that includes Trump?
[eta] I find it really hard to understand the level of vitriol against Clinton. Given the kinds of things politicians of every stripe seem to get up to, her shennanigans seem small fry to me. I don't mean by this to suggest that anybody here is sexist 0 just that we, all of us, tend to see people's actions differently depending on their gender (lot of studies show that unconsious bias - where the exact same set of actions/behaviours are viewed wholly differently depending on whether the subject is a woman or a man) but I do think if a male politician had the exact same political motivations and attitudes and acted in the same way whilst in office - he'd be seen very differently. His enemies would still make hay and his disillusioned former supporters wuld still despise - but I doubt anybody would be calling him evil, because he would seem a lightweight compared to some of the other monsters on the field.
Not yet, but... It brings up a very interesting question IMO, that really shuns a lot of light on the question of how you judge people: Is it possible - at all - to become the president and not be evil?
If we agree that people are to be judged by their actions, then evil isn't a matter of motive or personality.... Even when it includes matters of personality as inflouncing attributes - a psychopath or a pedophile or a rapists aren't evil until the first time they act on it. Likewise, Hitler was probably a relatively decent person prior to taking over Germany. On the same vein, someone can have decent motives and try their best to do well by others but then one day makes a bad decision that causes more harm then good.
But that brings another question - how do you scale it? Do certain amoral actions automatically make you evil, or is it a matter of balance? Would someone who murdered 50 people but saved the lives of 200 be a better person then someone who has done neither?
Then there's a matter of how you judge someone's responsibility and agency, how you judge non-action choices, how do you judge accidents or conflicting intentions, how do you relate it to the circumstances, et...
Depending on how you answer all of the above, you might very well be able to determine that the moment obama came into office he became responsible for every wrongful death in America which can be related to the federal government.
You can propitiate all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot propitiate all the people all the time;
so,
the utilitarian function of the President is to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people while upholding the Constitution. The President is in a unique position to assess that big picture since the President's constituency is all citizens. That constituency; however, sees only parts of the big picture. It uses character assessment to fill in the gaps which breaks down roughly to:
Bad - those who do what's wrong just for their own aggrandizement. Most of the constituency has no use for bad people.
Good - those who do what's right; but, often only because they have to. Good people make the world go 'round. This is where most of the constituency and their choices, in their own image, for President fall.
Honorable - those who usually (no one's perfect) do what's right just for the sake of doing what's right, not because they have to. While good people make the world go 'round, honorable people set the pace. Most of the constituency aspires to at least be represented by an honorable President.
After character comes personality assessment. Presidents have to be able to work with other people.
When someone labels a President (or candidate) "evil" it generally means they find them insufficiently utilitarian, less than a good person, and disagreeable thus failing in all three areas of assessment. It doesn't necessarily mean oppressive, just self serving and indifferent . That's the part of the big picture they came away with.
Society couples actions and motives. That's why we vest authority in the President, who's in a unique position to get the big picture, to grant pardons. The sitting President will be judged by the next President in that regard. At that level, someone who murdered 50 people; but, saved the lives of 200 can be a better person than someone who has done neither if the continued existence of the country hanged in the balance. Below that level, protocols are well established and
what ifs are fruitless folly.
Hilary may not be a very nice person. But evil? Seriously? In a contest that includes Trump?
[eta] I find it really hard to understand the level of vitriol against Clinton. Given the kinds of things politicians of every stripe seem to get up to, her shennanigans seem small fry to me. <snip>
What I find interesting and hard to understand is just
"what" has Hillary actually done that people don't like ?
I would like to see the list of specifics
My wife says she will not vote for Hillary.
My wife detests her but will not give any particular reason(s)
My wife is much more liberal than me - so go figure.
The GOP Koolade is powerful stuff
,
Maybe she thinks Hillary took Bill back, after his infidelity, just to ride his coattails.
Maybe she thinks Hillary took Bill back, after his infidelity, [COLOR="White"]just to ride his coattails[/COLOR].
It's more likely true for some if you drop that last clause.
.
You make a good point: if she got into bed with Bill after he betrayed their relationship, maybe she'd get into bed with the leadership of another country after they betrayed us.
Maybe she thinks Hillary took Bill back, after his infidelity, just to ride his coattails.
Even if that was true, why would it be so bad?
Is it worse than one spouse taking another back for financial security, for the sake of the children, for religious reasons? Why is ambition worse?
I mean it is often judged that way here, but I thought America celebrated all of the above?
Not making this European vs American - I think we should value ambition and success more in this country. But to suggest she was somehow freeloading, just because she chose to remain in a relationship is very harsh. She's an intelligent, ambitious person, so who cares whether it was a hormonal decision, a romantic one or a business transaction. Do you really want a President who will turn his/ her back on duty for "love" like King Edward VIII?
Well, if it's a her and she reeeeeeeally loves me ...
Do you ever wonder if they just had an open marriage but when they got caught they figured good ol' conservative america would be even less accepting towards that?
That we missed the part of them laughing and teasing each other with stories about Monica on his end and stories about the pool boy on hers?
Hillary is 100% political, zero warmth, zero personality, every word carefully chosen, lies like a fuckin' rug and smiles while doing it, no conviction too deeply held to sell out for the right price, I would vote for her if I were a voting person.
Trump is the anti-Hillary, not via warmth but via strength of personality and anti-political shoot from the hip quality. That's actually what we want right now, a giant blowhard douche. That's why no gaffe can fell him. After 7 years of intellectual, quiet, considered Presidency, we are ready for a cycle of the polar opposite. We had Mom for a while, and that was OK, but now we want Dad, even if he's... Dad.
The fantasy is that he would cut the Gordian knot of a lot of problems. It would appear there is nobody in the world willing to call Putin a dick. It would be at least tremendously entertaining to see Trump take on a Kim Jong Un.
We'd all die laughing I suppose...
If he wins, I wonder if others might follow. It could actually create an interesting precedent - instead of just lobbying other politicians, rich people lobbying for themselves.
And it doesn't have to just be conservatives - There are plenty of impressive and highly popular capitalist tycoons on the progressive side as well. Who's to say someone like Elon Musk* or Larry Page couldn't run? Or perhaps the next Steve Jobs?
[SIZE="1"]*. After the republicans appealed the birth certificate requirements before the 2024 elections when Schwarzenegger was head of the GOP, obviously.[/SIZE]
The only thing cooler than X, is having X and walking away from it.
I believe Trump doesn't want the presidency. He wants to prove he could have it if he wanted, then go back to fucking around all day with his billions. Hillary, on the other hand, wants it too badly. She's the desperate ugly sorority girl who doesn't understand that she should have just stuck with the other nerds who quietly get all the important shit done in the background.
I'll tell you what I'm really hoping, even fantasizing about with the same part of my brain that other people use for porn:
Jon Stewart 2016.
But like porn, we all know life never really happens that way.
I'll tell you what I'm really hoping, even fantasizing about with the same part of my brain that other people use for porn:
Jon Stewart 2016.
But like porn, we all know life never really happens that way.
*fap fap fap*
Not for 2016, no... But I wouldn't be shocked if he does go into politics a few years down the line. He has talked a lot about the impotence he feels about his position as a commentator and not been able to do anything. Even then, I doubt it would ever be the presidency. Frankly I don't think America would vote for an agnostic Jewish guy as a president (And I am saying that as an agnostic Jewish guy), but they already have when it comes to senators and congressmen. Ofcourse, he'll then become Secretary of State, where he'll gets exposed to even more information and feels even more powerless to stop it, and.. That is the story of how he dies. The End.
glatt - That site is rigged!! I ought to sue it for cruel and inhumane mental torture. It selected HILLARY as the candidate for me! Hillary? Really? The end is near, I'm going to prepare for the rapture.
glatt - That site is rigged!! I ought to sue it for cruel and inhumane mental torture. It selected HILLARY as the candidate for me! Hillary? Really? The end is near, I'm going to prepare for the rapture.
Well, I was pretty sure it was rigged until you just posted, since your the first person to not get Sanders...
Trump 25 years ago on Oprah.
[YOUTUBE]MOKi5YeNtRI[/YOUTUBE]
But my personal good friend, Ron White *has* done the math on this project.
SHIYAH. Like you really know the man they call Tater Salad.
Everyone know I'm a gun collector, hunter, and target shooter.
As long as you don't hunt purely for sport.
forgot the youtube tags, sorry.
[YOUTUBE]ZO5EFYY6P14[/YOUTUBE]
Tater's a mite good comedian alrite.
Can someone explain the Trump thing to me?
Ok. Put simply, he's a narcissistic asshole, which is one good reason he'd make a bad POTUS.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]WpiZ6fMGBBk[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
-------------------------------------------
Now, here's my opinion on the presidency:
[LIST]
[*]We need a kind of co-presidency, a politician to handle the executive and legislative side of things, and an expert economist to figure out how to completely eliminate the national debt, end our dependence on foreign oil, and increase the value of paper money by associating it with the value of gold and silver.
[/LIST]
[LIST]
[*]We need a kind of co-presidency, a politician to handle the executive and legislative side of things, and an expert economist
[/LIST]
You already have that, her name is Janet Yellen.
You already have that, her name is Janet Yellen.
I was unaware of that.
glatt - That site is rigged!! I ought to sue it for cruel and inhumane mental torture. It selected HILLARY as the candidate for me! Hillary? Really? The end is near, I'm going to prepare for the rapture.
Well, I was pretty sure it was rigged until you just posted, since your the first person to not get Sanders...
What that site shows is that Democrats would win on policy, if people voted on policy.
I saw that same "voters are secretly stupid" theory advanced in the Libertarian Party many times.
I saw that same "voters are secretly stupid" theory advanced in the Libertarian Party many times.
Stupid? Or dumb?
There are any number of reasons to vote on things other than policy; not all of them are stupid.
Of course, not all of them aren't.
So what you're saying is, the voters may be dumb, but they're not stupid.
~ or is it the other way around ~
I'd have to say they're stupid, but not dumb 'cause it seems they're able to speak.
Dumb - Not knowing any better.
Stupid - Knowing better, but doing something anyway, even tho it may not be a good idea.
That might be a regional distinction... It's one of the answers on
this Stack Exchange question, but I'm not sure how widespread it is.
That might be a regional distinction... It's one of the answers on this Stack Exchange question, but I'm not sure how widespread it is.
Dunno 'bout all 'at, but it's my mother's distinction.
I think nowadays it's kind of like trying to make
a distinction between a dick and an asshole, even though as curse words they mean the exact same thing.
That's cuz most people are p'tahks. Or are they topahs? Maybe they're just pieces of baktag. #BAZINGA
has anybody said welcome to the Cellar, Zathris? (unless you're an old dwellar with a new name and I just don't know :P) ... welcome to the Cellar, Zathris!
He made me look things up in the Klingon dictionary :joylove:
...Also he kind of came up with a democratic version of the spartan duel-king system to reflect today's economical needs. He's a keeper. Which I suppose is what cellars are for...
has anybody said welcome to the Cellar, Zathris? (unless you're an old dwellar with a new name and I just don't know :P) ... welcome to the Cellar, Zathris!
You're the first, so, thanks.
spartan duel-king system
Welcome Zathris!
You've clearly made yourself at home, I look forward to more of your contributions.
After my nine year old went to bed, I tried to watch the latter half of last night's 'debate'...fell asleep in the middle of things...clear indication of my 'I don't give a fuck'...knowing the 'analysis' that would dominate the news this morning, I opted for cartoons instead...let's just hire the commie bastid (any of 'em) already so we can get back to eatin' doughnuts.
remarkably similar to my strategy!
great minds think alike.
Let's just hire the commie bastid (any of 'em) already so we can get back to eatin' doughnuts.
What about the bitch?
[YOUTUBEWIDE]j_6mBUKLSMg[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
BTW, whutsa bastid?
"great minds think alike"
Sometimes... ;)
I'm gonna be hard-pressed to build up a sufficient amount of 'give a shit' so as to gut my way through the soon-to-come dem 'debates'.
Thinkin' I'll probably sleep through those too.
#
"What about the bitch?"
Just one of a whole whack of folks who I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for.
Hillary is 100% political, zero warmth, zero personality, every word carefully chosen, lies like a fuckin' rug and smiles while doing it, no conviction too deeply held to sell out for the right price
Well said
It would appear there is nobody in the world willing to call Putin a dick.
Putin is a DICK.
So looking over the polls, I am rethinking this position:
Frankly I don't think America would vote for a Jewish guy as a president (And I am saying that as a Jewish guy)
Would Americans actually vote for Bernie Sanders in the general elections?
People said something similar about JFK, who was Catholic, thinking that as President he would defer to the Pope on matters of national importance. The religion barrier was broken 50 years ago. If a candidate can convince the voters that for public matters nationality comes first even if a mainstream religion comes first in private, that person has as good a chance as any.
I would vote for Mr. Sanders.
I, too, would vote for Bernie Sanders.
On the larger question about religion and the Presidency, I was aghast at the
comments by Ben Carson, campaigner for the Republican nomination for the office.
Asked Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" whether a president's faith should matter, Carson said, "I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter."
Related: Ben Carson's Campaign Responds to Outrage Over Comments on Islam
Then Carson added, "I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that."
Carson was, of course, expressing his personal view and did not call for barring Muslims from the presidency. But many constitutional scholars say Carson's view is at odds with the design of the nation's founders.
OMFG.
Personal views, sure, ok, you religious bigot. Please pardon me while I catch my breath from the shock of your ignorance of our Constitution, especially the part about
no religious tests for holders of public office... Mr Carson, this is an example of a deal killer for me. You can't espouse this belief, and any other combination of other beliefs and still persuade me to vote for you. Nuh-uh, nope, nada, zip, no way.
In other happy news, I just heard that Scott Walker, he of the selective intolerance of collective bargaining (cops and firefighters, ok; teachers, no way), has just announced that he'll suspend his campaign.
Oh happy day!
“I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same, so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive conservative alternative to the current front-runner,” Mr. Walker said in the short appearance, at which he took no questions. “This is fundamentally important to the future of the party and, more importantly, to the future of our country.”
Way to take one for the team. And it shows a certain mortal fear of the power of Trump's blithering demagoguery. And they're right to be afraid, we should all be afraid, at least when we're not rotfloao.
It's a competitive title, but I think he was the worst of the lot.
It's a competitive title, but I think he was the worst of the lot.
When the GOP campaign began, he worried me more than any of the others.
FWIW, I had a lot of fun debating my wife today on what it would be like if
Fionena became the GOP candidate and Clinton was the Democratic candidate.
Then no matter which won, the winner would say they proved 1 woman can beat 16 men*. :D
*... when all the men are Republicans...
I, too, would vote for Bernie Sanders.
On the larger question about religion and the Presidency, I was aghast at the comments by Ben Carson, campaigner for the Republican nomination for the office.
OMFG.
Personal views, sure, ok, you religious bigot. Please pardon me while I catch my breath from the shock of your ignorance of our Constitution, especially the part about no religious tests for holders of public office... Mr Carson, this is an example of a deal killer for me. You can't espouse this belief, and any other combination of other beliefs and still persuade me to vote for you. Nuh-uh, nope, nada, zip, no way.
I don't think he is saying we should legally prevent someone from running based on their religion, I think he is saying that we should consider someone's religious beliefs when deciding who to vote for, and that it's ok to choose not to vote for someone based on their religious beliefs.
IMO it isn't "wrong" so much as it misses the importance of looking for the context religious takes within the person's life and the role it takes in informing their ethics and ideology. There is an important difference between someone who is religious in their personal life and someone is running in the name of religion.
I have voted for both parties lead by Jewish and for parties lead by Muslim politicians in different elections here in Israel, depending on the state of the elections (I find that the need to pander to Arab parties helps keep the left in check), but they were also mostly secular liberal people.
On the opposite side of the context coin, we also have Jewish parties who are outright defined by their religion and would like nothing more then to turn keeping the shabat into law, biblical dress code into public decency requirements and kosher food into government regulations, and I would - and have in the past - voted for alternative small parties with the expressed intention to weaken the religious parties power. Likewise, I have friends in Egypt who were protesting against the Muslim brotherhood, and if I lived in Egypt I likely would have done the same. Much the same way, if I was living in the US as a citizen, I would probably not mind voting for a christian, but I would be quite reluctant to vote for someone who uses Christianity to inform their beliefs and policies that regard human sexuality.
(I admit though, it is very easy for me to say because I never actually had a choice of voting for someone who shares my beliefs - or lack thereof - in the first place. It's quite possible that if I had lived long enough with the option of voting for people who are openly agnostic or atheists, I would eventually come to look for that as a requirement. When you declare you would never eat the candy you never had access too, that's one very fragile high horse).
I was talking with my eldest about the election and got thinking about an issue I just found covered in a recent the Federalist article. Her politics are more like my own carrying a healthy skepticism about bureaucracies effectiveness along with a desire for a more egalitarian state. My younger is a more intense liberal with a little less skepticism. Finding a news source which is at all reliable is a problem especially in election cycles. Let's face it nobody has time to read all sides except for journalists and they don't seem interested is presenting a fair minded view...
But we’re also separated, increasingly, by the news and commentary we read and watch. To the extent that it informs us of what’s going on, and why, and what to expect, our fragmentation and insularity has reached a dangerous tipping point: we no longer agree on what’s real.Ain't nobody got time for that reading, I just have to assume everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. :lol2:
traceur--
I see from reading and rereading your remarks that we're saying the same thing. Voting for someone should involve examining their character, etc, including their ideas on religion. What Ben Carson's saying is that being a Muslim is a disqualifying condition for President of the United States. *I'm* saying that's a completely bullshit point of view. And that someone who's vying for public office that holds such unambiguously rigid prejudices is himself unfit for public office.
He's saying "no" *because* someone's a Muslim.
He's not saying any more about "the importance of looking for the context religious takes within the person's life and the role it takes in informing their ethics and ideology." He's just saying "no", being Muslim is enough for him to make his decision. That's prejudiced and ignorant and bigoted, not characteristics I believe are conducive to good public leadership. He compounds this error by citing its "unconstitutionality", adding a good dose of dumb to his remarks.
do you have some complete quotes for this so we can judge the level at which we should be aghast and all harumphing at
do you have some complete quotes for this so we can judge the level at which we should be aghast and all harumphing at
Sure. I quoted him in post number 137, and included a link in that post to my source. He said this during an appearance on meet the press. He's subsequently reaffirmed his position.
Oh, is that all? I, too, would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I was expecting some sort of actual Constitutional challenge or something. Something to really be aghast about.
Huh.
So, I can't ask Ben Carson, but I can ask you: that's all it takes for you to reject a candidate? Don't need to know anything else about them, once it's clear they're Muslim, the answer for you is "no".
Right now? 2016? Yeah, no.
Yabut, there's already a Muslim in the White House, dintcha know?
It's on all the honest patriotic websites. :us:
Oh, is that all? I, too, would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation.
I was expecting some sort of actual Constitutional challenge or something.
Something to really be aghast about.
Transcript of Carson's words on
Meet The Press 9/20/2015
...
CHUCK TODD:...Let me ask you the question this way:
Should a President's faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?
DR. BEN CARSON:Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is.
If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter.
But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem.
CHUCK TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?
DR. BEN CARSON: No, I don't, I do not.
CHUCK TODD: So you--
DR. BEN CARSON: I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that. ...
Then the 6th Amendment...
...The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures,
and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution
but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States....
UT: What does it take for something to be a "religious test" or an actual declaration to be taken "aghast about" ?
.
There is a citizenship test for office of the President. One has to be born in this country.
There is no religious test for office of the President. One does not have to be a certain religion.
Those are qualifications.
Disqualifications: Anything that undermines the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Religion can be a disqualifier if it promotes theocracy; but, doesn't necessarily have to be depending on an individual's ability to maintain a separation of church and state in their mind despite group pressure.
Islam, as it is practiced by a huge majority of its adherents although not all, is not compatible with the US Constitution.
This is not to say that one couldn't locate moderate practitioners who would agree to the standards of the Constitution. Of course one could. And those practitioners would be considered apostate in a huge majority of the Islamic world.
I don't really want a Southern Baptist to be President either. I don't consider their beliefs all that Constitutional. You could find me a "moderate one" but I would only ask why they are hanging out with and defending their friends if they want to be President of a country with LGBT equality and gender equality and freedom of religion.
And so would you, my progressive brethren. Not demanding the same of Muslims is just your attempt to say how well-evolved you are.
Don't hire X if X can't do the job.
Fire X if X refuses to do the job.
Offer no accommodations that relieve X of work at the expense of other employees.
#
Don't apply for work you can't do.
Quit if the work becomes unacceptable.
Don't expect accommodations that relieve you of doing your job.
Islam, as it is practiced by a huge majority of its adherents although not all, is not compatible with the US Constitution.
This is not to say that one couldn't locate moderate practitioners who would agree to the standards of the Constitution. Of course one could. And those practitioners would be considered apostate in a huge majority of the Islamic world.
I don't really want a Southern Baptist to be President either. I don't consider their beliefs all that Constitutional. You could find me a "moderate one" but I would only ask why they are hanging out with and defending their friends if they want to be President of a country with LGBT equality and gender equality and freedom of religion.
And so would you, my progressive brethren. Not demanding the same of Muslims is just your attempt to say how well-evolved you are.
So it's less about them being muslim, than it is about them potentially holding views that are counter to the duties of president- which in your opinion much of Islam is, in the same way that many branches of Christianity are?
Would you waive your objection if said muslim was an army veteran? Or had served his/her country in some other very tangible way?
Because 'muslim' conjures up the Islamic world, whereas there are plenty of secular muslims -many of whom are born in America.
Yeah, the first thing people say when confronted with this kind of question is "well what about the ones who are modern?"
(Because you can't say "Well what about the good ones?" ...unless they are Southern Baptist or some religion that we may safely criticize)
No matter how carefully the "although not all" qualifier is placed, it's invisible to progressives!
Point is, it doesn't matter; we here are the evolved thinkers and we are already into nuances just starting; and once we get into nuances, leadership becomes more difficult/impossible. You can't start by losing the support of over half the country and expect to lead it. So once we say "This person is part of a global belief system that is anti-American, anti-freedom, and actually rejects a separation of church and state as one of its central beliefs... but forget all that because this person is one of the good ones!" You've already lost. Whether they are one of the good ones is the only debate we would be having for 4 years.
The first step to a Muslim becoming POTUS, electorally, is a wholesale rejection of almost everything Muslim. Does that work on the world stage?
Also, I can't imagine a Muslim POTUS just seeming to support one side of Shia versus Sunni and the world coming out a better place in the end. Serious shit will have hit the fan.
For the record UT, both Carter and Clinton have been Southern Baptists...apparently they are now just Baptists.
They share my take on this.
How do you know? Were you and Bubba sharing cigars between a lady? Were you chatting with Jimmy in-between building houses and monitoring elections in Africa?
That was the same rationale used for blocking catholics from positions of power and influence in many European nations during the 19th century.
Islam, as it is practiced by a huge majority of its adherents although not all, is not compatible with the US Constitution. <snip<
UT: To begin with, such a comment creates situational denial of a Constitutional Amendment.
Can "...
no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification..." be interpreted other than
as ”no” religious test, not yours or mine or some orange-vs-black pundits
…unless you are of Scalian-thinking: “The Constitution means what I say it means.”
.
I know of few religious adherents that stick to the tenets of their religion lock, stock and barrel.
I hate to defend Ben Carson, but unless he was saying that a Muslim should be denied the Presidency after winning the election, or that states should be able to deny Muslims a place on the ballot, then I don't see the constitutional angle to this.
Individuals can have any test they like for their vote, and even for their public pronouncements of support. That doesn't innure them from criticism, but that criticism isn't really about the Constitution.
That was the same rationale used for blocking catholics from positions of power and influence in many European nations during the 19th century.
What, everything I said?
such a comment creates situational denial of a Constitutional Amendment.
Please see sexobon's comment thank you
I know of few religious adherents that stick to the tenets of their religion lock, stock and barrel.
That is your experience living in a secular society. In many, but not all Islamic countries, you are likely to be killed if you claim you don't believe in Islam.
...Let's face it nobody has time to read all sides except for journalists
and they don't seem interested is presenting a fair minded view...
But we’re also separated, increasingly, by the news and commentary we read and watch.
To the extent that it informs us of what’s going on, and why, and what to expect,
our fragmentation and insularity has reached a dangerous tipping point: we no longer agree on what’s real.
Griff: I understand the concept of learning both sides of a news story.
So I may be misreading your intent here, especially in your selection of that particular
Federalist article,
which criticizes only the liberal media's handling of Fiorina's attribution's to "Planned Parenthood Videos".
Here are the link and sub-links…
First link - The Federalist:
<snip>
The other story was what Carly Fiorina said during the GOP debate about those Planned Parenthood videos.
One of them shows a baby, she said, “its heart beating, its legs kicking,”
having survived an abortion but left to die in a metal dish.
…linked to: The Federalist:
To be clear, Fiorina, like the other Republicans attacking Planned Parenthood,
doesn’t have her facts straight. None of the videos have anyone talking about “harvesting” brains.
The supposedly macabre video she’s talking about was highly, selectively edited by right-wing activists.
The anti-abortion-rights group targeting Planned Parenthood is acknowledging
that its most recent video used an image of a stillborn baby that was made to look like an aborted fetus.
The Center for Medical Progress posted a new link on its video late Thursday,
adding that one of the images was actually a baby named Walter Fretz, born prematurely at 19 weeks.
While it is obviously not the same baby as the one she harvested the brain of,
the footage helps viewers to understand what a 19-week old baby looks like
when hearing the testimony of an ex-employee who harvested brains from babies of the same age.
Then, despite their own "fact-finding" and editorial comment,
the author dismisses them with an editorial contrivance that:
ibid
Illustrating stories with appropriate images is a common journalistic technique, one used by all media outlets.
Which is followed a sub-link to: Breitbart.com headline:
Carly Fiorina PAC Video Proves Planned Parenthood ‘Legs Kicking, Heart Beating’ Fetus True
Which takes us yet to another sub-link to another Breitbart.com headline:
Carly for America’s headline: Carly Under Attack By Planned Parenthood and Their Media Allies
What, everything I said?
No, sorry hehe. I was flyby posting and should have been clearer:
Islam, as it is practiced by a huge majority of its adherents although not all, is not compatible with the US Constitution.
This is not to say that one couldn't locate moderate practitioners who would agree to the standards of the Constitution. Of course one could. And those practitioners would be considered apostate in a huge majority of the Islamic world.
Very similar argument against catholics in a lot of the protestant European nations- effectively the argument was that their first loyalty was to the church, and that papal authority sat higher in the catholic mind than the highest authority of the land. Prior to that it was wrapped up with absolutism of catholic monarchs, but in the 19th century it was much more about acceptance of the authority of the nation and questions of loyalty to nation versus loyalty and assumptions of obedience to an external power. Along with that came assumptions that catholic beliefs were backward and incompatible with 'modern' living. Also that the catholic church, its clergy, its schools and its ministries represented in effect, the enemy withn.
The German kulturkampf was the most extreme (I think) and systematic approach to it during that era.
[eta]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturkampfeffectively the argument was that their first loyalty was to the church
That's not my argument at all. But it will be the argument of everyone else who isn't evolved and can't think in a straight line. They too require governance, that they believe fairly represents them. One fair test of that is whether the person is electable, although I would prefer if a super-majority believes the POTUS can be representational.
To be Muslim and to be electable here would require you to swear off just about everything considered Islamic. Not even the women's headgear would work. But is that person Muslim?
I'm rather atheist and I would never be elected... unless I noted from time to time that there is a God...
Yes, a Muslim is
permitted to be President. Nothing I've said refutes that one iota.
UT: To begin with, such a comment creates situational denial of a Constitutional Amendment.
Can "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification..." be interpreted other than
as ”no” religious test, not yours or mine or some orange-vs-black pundits
…unless you are of Scalian-thinking: “The Constitution means what I say it means.”
The Constitution says nobody can be barred from running for office because of their religious convictions.
However, who I vote for (or against), nor the reasons I make my choice, are regulated by the government. If I chose to vote for a man instead of a woman, or a white over a black, or Christian versus a Muslim, ain't nobody's business but my own. Same applies if I choose to go out and campaign for my choices.
The government/law is only concerned if I go out and campaign against my choice's opponents by attacking their race, ethnicity, sex, or religion, although it didn't seem to hurt Karl Rove too much.
So I may be misreading your intent here,..
Yes, apparently you are. I'm simply wishing for journalistic integrity. When I read a left-wing and a right-wing account of the same story and still don't have enough facts to put a coherent narrative together I feel like the public needs to work harder than we really have time for.
The Constitution says nobody can be barred from running for office because of their religious convictions.
However, who I vote for (or against), nor the reasons I make my choice, are regulated by the government. If I chose to vote for a man instead of a woman, or a white over a black, or Christian versus a Muslim, ain't nobody's business but my own. Same applies if I choose to go out and campaign for my choices.
The government/law is only concerned if I go out and campaign against my choice's opponents by attacking their race, ethnicity, sex, or religion, although it didn't seem to hurt Karl Rove too much.
Well said. The interesting thing to me is that pols will continue to lie and say they're serious about their religion to get votes when the world really needs someone firmly grounded in this world.
I think it depends on what someone means by muslim really. Just as it depends on what kind of christianity someone espouses. For many muslims and christians their faith is a part of them but not their defining feature. I've known plenty of muslims who really didn't fit the mullah picture, ya know. They were muslim because they were born into the faith and that's the faith their families followed, but they themselves were no more religious than the people who only attend church for funerals and weddings.
That a politician is devout in faith is usually a huge turn-off for me regardless of which book they follow. There are a handful of exceptions to that.
I don't like this lumping together of all muslims as if they were of one mind, or even of one ideology. Islam is just as adaptable as christianity and judaism - it gets shaped by the country and culture it is in. Right now there is a problem with particular branches of Islam having an awful traction and reach - which kind of overshadows all the people who are just getting on with their lives and don't subscribe to medieval notions of female subservience and sharia law.
I admit though, that my suspicion of the devout is magnified with muslims because of the apparent place of women in that ideology. I find it difficult to be comfortable around someone who thinks I am inferior or infantilised by my sex.
Talking about others' religious beliefs is really difficult because to the devout language doesn't encompass the experience. We are left with describing the effects of the religion which as things are going in the Mid-East cannot be described as a positive good. Mitt Romney's religion probably didn't help him but his loss was ascribed to being out of touch. It seems you can be out of touch and successful as long as your alternate reality appears close enough to the herds.
Speaking of alternate reality my local paper was all over it last week.
LDS open historical, sacred siteIslam is just as adaptable as christianity and judaism - it gets shaped by the country and culture it is in. Right now there is a problem with particular branches of Islam having an awful traction and reach
There's little doubt that Islam will eventually reform but at this time "particular branches" is the majority.
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/Those charts are fascinating. Thanks for finding and posting them.
So much of this thread is about personal point of view, but that data is good.
The deeper conversations about how you account for a person's faith and the potential conflict between muslim faith and western values is interesting and a worthwhile debate...
But are you seriously saying that a voter's choice of who to vote for is unconstitutional because it can qualify as a test?
There's little doubt that Islam will eventually reform
Why?
This assumption reeks of social e
volutionary levels, with all of the same problems.
All of these points of view about Islam, Muslims, Sharia Law,
and how each Dwellar evaluates them is interesting,
but the discussion started with Ben Carson and his statements on Meet the Press,
as a Candidate for the G.O.P. nomination for President of the US.
The point was:
Ben Carson,himself, used a religious test to reject all of Islam
as being inconsistent with the US Constitution.
But the Constitution (6th Amendment) prohibits any religious test
from ever being used as a qualification of a candidate.
If US voters use such a test in voting for or against any candidate,
no one will know except the voters, themselves
... such is the definition of hypocrisy.
used a religious test to reject all of Islam
as being inconsistent with the US Constitution.
But the Constitution (6th Amendment) prohibits any religious test
from ever being used as a qualification of a candidate.
If US voters use such a test in voting for or against any candidate,
no one will know except the voters, themselves
... such is the definition of hypocrisy.
So I'll ask again: Do you seriously think that the correct interpretation of the constitutional amendment's idea of a "test" within the context of the amendment includes the voter's choice of who to vote for as such as test?
As Carson himself misses, whether it is "muslim" or "test", context is kind of important in understanding the meaning of things...
So I'll ask again: Do you seriously think that the correct interpretation
of the constitutional amendment's idea of a "test" within the context of
the amendment includes the voter's choice of who to vote for as such as test? ...
No.
My interpretation is that Carson's statement is a test in that:
No Muslim can be President of the US because Islam is inconsistent with the US Constitution.
If US voters use such a test in voting for or against any candidate,
no one will know except the voters, themselves
... such is the definition of hypocrisy.
Such is the definition of bullshit! You're telling me if I vote for, or against, someone because I disagree with, or fear, their religious tenets, that makes me a hypocrite? Get the fuck out of here, it's called democracy, it's called freedom, don't force me to call sexobon to give you a ten minute speech on the men and women who have given all, to protect my right to use any fucking basis I want in making selection. :rtfm:
Let's see... no, he's half Jew... no, heard he's a faggot... Woman, oh please... not you negro.
Appalling? Yes. Disgusting? Yes. Illegal? No. Hypocritical? Nope, not at all, because the constitutional point of law that nobody can be barred from running, has absolutely no bearing on how or why individuals vote. Wanting the ballot to be open to all, but not wanting certain people elected, is not hypocrisy, it's democracy.
Do you suggest I submit my choices along with my reasons for them, to the ballot approval board, Senator McCarthy?
No.
My interpretation is that Carson's statement is a test in that:
No Muslim can be President of the US because Islam is inconsistent with the US Constitution.
Again, context. He is essentially saying no Muslim can be a good president because he thinks Islam is inconsistent with the US constitution, thus, he does not think Americans should vote for a Muslim president. The "test" is in the voting booth.
Contrast with
the requirement for the royalty to belong to The Church of England in the very same rule they just gained independence from - which is the most likely context at the time, or for that matter with the Imam's self-given right to test the faith and filter presidential candidates in Iran prior to being allowed to run, if you want a more recent example.
My interpretation is that Carson's statement is a test in that:
Yeah, but who the hell is Carson? He's just some guy. His personal test means nothing.
He is essentially saying ...
Not "essentially". That becomes your interpretation.
Read his actual words, above.
Contrast with the requirement for the royalty to belong to the church of England ...
The US is not England, so any such a contrast is a misdirection.
Yeah, but who the hell is Carson? He's just some guy. His personal test means nothing.
No, he is a formal candidate of the G.O.P. as their nomination for President of the US.
As GOP Nominee for President, his "personal test" could be meaningful. (e.g., in selection of Vice President)
Otherwise, I would agree --- just as I agree or disagree with Dwellars above saying how they interpret Islam.
Not "essentially". That becomes your interpretation.
Read his actual words, above.
The US is not England, so any such a contrast is a misdirection.
....It's not England, but it was Britain, and for the writers of the constitution, very recently. This was the historical context the amendment was written in.
Given as they just recently deposed a monarchy that had an official religious test, it is far more likely they meant it in the context, rather then an abstract post-modern meaning of being judged for their religion, which is in itself a meaning the concept of judgment wouldn't even start to form until 2 centuries after, which would have being an amazing but very unlikely prediction of social evolution for any of them to have made.
You are somehow under the impression that the later interpretation is free of personal interpretation and the clear cut meaning, when it is completely built in a verbal context that would have being impossible at the time. If you hear someone from the 17th century say the word "ship", they probably didn't mean a spaceship (Also you may want to check if ghostbusters do ear exams).
... Wanting the ballot to be open to all, but not wanting certain people elected, is not hypocrisy, it's democracy. ...
Exactly.
But that is not what Carson said. Pls read his actual words.
Closing the Presidential ballot to all Muslims because
"Islam is not consistent with the US Constitution" is,
in itself, not consistent with the 6th Amendment.
Therefore, a voting for a candidate because he/she makes such a proposal is hypocritical.
The US went through this before with the Catholic religion and JF Kennedy.
We put it behind us.
I feel like I should explain better....
The leap of logic you are making is that "a test" does not have to be an actual concrete disqualifying test judging the person's qualifications and legally preventing them from running, but rather that people judging the qualification of the person fall under such a test.
The idea that personal judgement holds any weight at all, or it's current evolution to the notion that personal judgement is bad, is a rather modern one. The semantic framework did not exist at the time, and for someone to try to establish it would been nothing short of poetry (Or a day to day conversation in my 1st marriage).
In contrast, the established concept of such a test at the time was the one given by the heritage of a newly independent British colony, that no longer serves a Monarch that used to have a religious requirement for the sit.
@DanaC, historical context is your thing, help out here...
edit: Just realized mentions don't work here....
Well they kind of do :P But not in that way, no.
You're right that the idea of a religious test had very specific connotations. I think the question here is whether or not this politician was advocating restriction from running for office on the grounds of religion, or expressing a view about whether a particular religion was compatible with the constitution.
Can "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification..." be interpreted other than
as ”no” religious test, not yours or mine or some orange-vs-black pundits
Number one, the US Constitution always places restrictions on law, not on people. That's actually how it operates and why the language in the amendment on religion (Amendment 1, not Article 6 here) says "US Congress
shall place no restrictions..."
Number two, this section of text is in an Article speaking to "Oaths of Office". It's a discussion of what restrictions can be placed on people entering government, by government, in the form of Oaths that must be sworn on taking office. I believe this particular section has rarely been tested in case law (there are few
annotations on it) because it's well-understood ...and does not mean what you think it does.
I feel like I should explain better....
The leap of logic you are making is that "a test" does not have to be
an actual concrete disqualifying test judging the person's qualifications
and legally preventing them from running, but rather that people judging
the qualification of the person fall under such a test.
I have not said that.
Ben Carson's words already made a religious test of Islam as not being consistent with the US Constitution.
That statement is a test and is, in itself, not consistent with the Constitution.
My argument is that it is not illegal (unconstitutional) to vote for Carson
because he made such an "unconstitutional test", but it is hypocritical.
In contrast, the established concept of such a test at the time was...
This is Scalian logic-tool used to argue that because my knowledge
of the historical thinking back at that time is authoritative, therefore:
"The Constitution means what I say it means."
Thank you, Henry !
Maybe for the first time we agree with one another !
:D
....it's not about religion, but only about employees doin’ the work they were hired to do.
Again...
Employers (of presidents, clerks of court, stewardesses, etc.):
Don't hire X if X can't do the job.
Fire X if X refuses to do the job.
Offer no accommodations that relieve X of work at the expense of other employees.
Potential and actual employees (wanna be presidents, clerks of court, stewardesses, etc.):
Don't apply for work you can't do.
Quit if the work becomes unacceptable.
Don't expect accommodations that relieve you of doing your job.
This is Scalian logic-tool used to argue that because my knowledge of the historical thinking back at that time is authoritative, therefore: "The Constitution means what I say it means."
Scalia said the Constitution means what I say it means
Therefore
The Constitution means what
Lamplighter says it means.
Q E fuckin' D people
The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.[a]
This has been interpreted to mean that no federal employee, whether elected or appointed, career or political, can be required to adhere to or accept any religion or belief. This clause immediately follows one requiring all federal and state officers to take an oath or affirmation of support to the Constitution, indicating that the requirement of such a statement does not imply any requirement by those so sworn to accept a particular religion or a particular doctrine. The option of giving an "affirmation" (rather than an "oath") can be interpreted as not requiring any religious belief or as a nod to Mennonites and Quakers who would not swear oaths but would make affirmations. This does not apply to voters, who are free to apply a religious test or any other test of their devising to their consciences before casting their secret ballot for a candidate for federal office; it only means that the federal government may not refuse to swear-in and seat an elected official based on a religious test of their devising.
The people who would risk boarding a leaky little boat, being devoured by dragons or falling off the end of the Earth, had to be pretty fucking desperate. They were, not just England but all of Europe was owned/controlled by the landed gentry. If you weren't born into it, or manage to marry into it, you lived by the grace of the gentry. Did the work they wanted you to, ate the food they allowed you to, and worshipped the God they told you to. You had no choice because they owned the land, all the land, plus every plant and animal on it. If you ate any of those plants or animals, you were a criminal. Since jails are costly, you were disposed of by execution, or sold into indentured service in the New World.
But once you get past the dragons, work out your indenture, things look better. Land is pretty much for the taking, England doesn't fuck with you too much, mostly indirectly through the merchants in Boston, New York, Philly. You can find an area where the people speak the same language and share the same God(s). Life isn't exactly easy but at least it's better than Europe if you're poor.
Now these Guys in Philly with their fancy britches, gold watches and book learning, not to mention scary big red headed General Washington, say here we go, one big government to bring us all together. What? Are you kidding? After the boats and dragons, and war, you want us to give it all up? To willingly submit to your will, your taxes, your choice of God(s)? I don't fucking think so. Even most of the people who felt they belonged to the religion which would be chosen as official, didn't think it was a good idea.
The dust up in England around changing the official state religion really didn't mean jack shit to the peasants, they were fucked either way. Whereas here there was more at stake for the little people... and they were armed. ;)
So the wig wearers in Philly heard their plan hooted down, and in order to calm the opposition and reassure the bumpkins out in the sticks, like Rhode Island, they wrote the no state religion guaranty into the Constitution. But that was immediately forgotten until the lawyers figured out how the make a buck off it after WW II. The reality was the communities were far enough apart that if some one with the wrong credentials showed up, the were sent packing. Religious discrimination was open and popular. Several states even wrote laws barring the wrong kind of people from holding public office.
Now, after 200 years of warm and fuzzy, the neighbors are just like us, you want to talk about the founding father's intentions? No, the founding fathers did what they had to do to finish the job, went home and didn't give a rat's ass about what was actually going on in the hinterlands. Look, if Delaware passes and lives happily with a law saying only certain kinds of Christians can hold office. And the Feds don't say anything for all that time, then quibbling over the wording and intentions of the founding fathers is mental masturbation. The feds can force people into the NSA's desert camps, but they can't force people to change their past.
I have not said that.
Ben Carson's words already made a religious test of Islam as not being consistent with the US Constitution.
That statement is a test and is, in itself, not consistent with the Constitution.
My argument is that it is not illegal (unconstitutional) to vote for Carson
because he made such an "unconstitutional test", but it is hypocritical.
This is Scalian logic-tool used to argue that because my knowledge
of the historical thinking back at that time is authoritative, therefore:
"The Constitution means what I say it means."
No. I am not appealing to my own authority built by what I know, I am building it on specific pieces of information, statement's who's factual nature can be discussed and examined. I am not saying that "C is right because look how much I know", I am saying "I am right because based on the facts that I know, A & B, we can understand that C doesn't mean D".
Now, A & B can be disputed, and so can their relationship to C:
Perhaps I am wrong to think that america was a british colony that has recently gained independence at the time of writing the constitution, perhaps I am wrong to think that the concept of subjective weight in judging is one that has developed with post modernism, or perhaps I made some logical fallacy in connecting the pieces of information themselves to the context I described, and if one of those is the case, you could - quite easily - provide information to dispute it.
However, appealing to my own authority is not one of them, and let me make it clear that I have none - I am not american and it is quite likely you've learned plenty of things about american history that I did not). Frankly, in my experience the only people who's authority is worth anything are those that never need to appeal to it in the first place.
tldr - My arguments are built on bra sizes, not hat stores.
Scalia said the Constitution means what I say it means
Therefore
The Constitution means what Lamplighter says it means.
Q E fuckin' D people
Apres le deluge, je serai roi.
:king:
.
I was talking with my eldest about the election
and got thinking about an issue I just found covered in a recent the Federalist article.
Her politics are more like my own carrying a healthy skepticism about bureaucracies effectiveness
along with a desire for a more egalitarian state.
My younger is a more intense liberal with a little less skepticism. <snip>
Griff, maybe you should be prepared tonight to resume that discussion with your "younger".
Fiorina has been refusing to answer questions posed by the Press regarding her remarks
about those "Planned Parenthood videos", and the description of a fetus, etc. etc.
The "liberal press" immediate refuted her remarks, which in turn led to articles such as your link to The Federalist.
All this is just my way of saying that Fiorina is now being confronted in the press,
by the mother of the stillborn infant shown in the doctored videos.
This mother's story may well be a major issue in the next few days.
We're actually on the same side on planned parenthood. The original refutation, which i heard, was not correct since it said that Fiorina hadn't seen the footage. It turned out she had seen the footage but the footage was doctored. The problem for me is that journalists pick a side and work it until they have their facts but like the Federalist crowd they stop when they have the facts they want never looking deeper. UT looked deeper on the "invention" of a clock story but we didn't see that in the press. We saw two sides stopping with the facts they liked.
journalists pick a side and work it until they have their facts but like the Federalist crowd they stop when they have the facts they want never looking deeper.
The following video wuz published 2 months ago, but it just appeared in my sidelist.
[YOUTUBEWIDE]wLA6WdYzQwg[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
After watching the debates, I'm leaning toward Sanders. I know this is a radical shift for me from 4 years ago, but I feel we need it
A radical shift sounds like a good plan right now - the current direction of travel is not very inspiring.
The thing is - you were always a pretty sensible and reasonable republican (iirc) - unfortunately the Republican Party seems to have gone careening off into bizarroland and left behind all the sensible and reasonable republican supporters.
Scott Walker cured me of repubicanizm. I voted for him the first time, and I'm very sorry I did. The tea party republicans are the problem, being willing to bring down the whole thing over some stupid cause. These people are really fucked up.
I look at the GOP right now and I don't see a clear way for them to right the ship. It seems like there are at least three separate constituencies who are incompatible with each other. I don't feel bad that monopolists and Tea Partiers are gonna get punched in the gob but small business people need representation.
Bernie is a great guy - He'd give you the shirt of someone else's back.
Very disheartened here. The GOP has no one that I like and I HATE Killary.
So far the political quizzes have me supporting Bernie the most. I'm still hoping Joe runs.
At least I think he loves this country. Thats more than I can say fro the rest of them.
After watching the debates, I'm leaning toward Sanders.
His details are completely different. But his overall strategy (or how he promotes himself) is similar to what Ross Perot did.
OK, 2016 election minus one year, time for the candidate anointed by the money behind the curtain to be revealed. Time for him... her? fuck no... to start his push, having so far avoided interaction with the dog & pony show, which might have soiled the voter's perception of the white knight.
Oh, and Putin blew up that plane to have an excuse to push further into the middle east.
Herman Cain has been sitting quietly and is looking very good now.
.
^^^ update, on Thursday, Wolf lost the appeal; and now there will be a battle over ballot access laws for third parties in Pennsylvania.
Which will affect the upcoming election season. Someone can give the Johnson/Weld campaign a boost, or a headache, according to how the law is legislated or interpreted from here on out.
It's kind of a big deal, but the only reason I know this happened is because one of the people in the lawsuit is a good friend. Because there is no coverage of any of this, in any media... yet...
OK, glad to hear no coverage, because I hadn't heard anything. :eek:
Legal battle or legislative battle?
Don't know, I think it clears the land for new legislation to figure out how it works. But there isn't much time and I don't know what happens if they don't get it done.
I'm still trying to figure out how we could have come up with worse candidates for this thing. Maybe if the Stanford rapist would run?
It's disheartening.
It was a train wreck happening in slow motion right in front of our noses, and there was not a damn thing we could do about it.
The blind partisans have won.
What's the prognosis for either party? My gut says whoever wins destroys their party but will the losing party do a sensible realignment?
The Dems have an obvious need to move in a Progressive direction but I don't expect the Waltons etc... to let that happen.
The Republicans don't appear to have an obvious move. They're in deep trouble with the next generation on social issues but their core is driven by the same. It looks like the Whigs are back.
The GOP has been victim of the chest burster tea party, destroying their friends-with-benefits affair with the Chamber of Commerce, and biting the hand, while giving the finger, to the Koch&Co imperial council.
I've decided to blame lesser of two evils voters.
Maybe we should have a referendum on whether or not we should rejoin England and the UK. We might get EU benefits. It's only been 240 years.
Too soon?
At this point, I'm ready for a giant asteroid to hit. I think that is the best option
Maybe we should have a referendum on whether or not we should rejoin England and the UK. We might get EU benefits. It's only been 240 years.
Too soon?
:p:
No, never too soon. Maybe too late?
We had a federal election over the weekend. It has almost ended in a hung parliament, but it looks like the conservatives might get another term in office.
Stay tuned for more after these messages.