Messages

101

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: November 07, 2016, 07:17:11 AM »

It's hard to respond to you, Cherry.  Trump hasn't been honest about what he will do, so it's always been a matter of shadow boxing to argue against him.  In other words, he wouldn't do any of the things you mentioned, so pretending that he would have had a glorious reign in office is pointless.

For one example in more relevant news, now Trump is trashing Comey as a partisan hack and part of the ginormous Democratic Party corrupt machine.  He said the opposite 9 days ago when Comey announced that he was going to look into the new emails and lavished praise on him for his bravery and honesty.  That's a good example of how he flips what he says depending on circumstances rather than reflect any committed belief.  It amazes me that you believe a word he says.  His surrogates are no better.

One thing to keep in mind is that everything that everybody on either side of this election has said will be remembered.  I suspect the careers of dozens of people on Trump's side have been destroyed, and that Trump's own business reputation is in the gutter.  The only people who will stick by him are white nationalists, the KKK, 3%ers, and people like them.  They'll be emboldened by Trump and therefore easier to keep track of in the future.

102

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: November 06, 2016, 03:41:39 PM »

FBI Director James B. Comey notified key members of Congress Sunday afternoon that after reviewing all of the newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails the agency stands by its original findings against recommending charges.

Comey wrote that investigators had worked “around the clock” to review all the emails found on a device used by former congressman Anthony Weiner that had been sent to or from Clinton and that “we have not changed our conclusions expressed in July.”

Sadly, the damage was already done.

103

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: November 06, 2016, 09:02:10 AM »

The thing is that Hillary is *not* a polarizing figure.  How can she be both polarizing and a career politician who would extend Obama's agenda?  Trump is making it that way single-handedly with an echo chamber of hard-core nationalists, ultra-conservatives and alt-right extremists.  Their target audience is the vulnerable weak-willed soft center of the American populace whose personal frustrations and disappointments can be exacerbated into anger and outrage.  Whatever you may think of Hillary's own vulnerabilities, her campaign has been framed about issues.  They have gotten lost in the discussion because Trump has made the contest entirely about himself, that he should be President because he is the bigger bully.

They once said about the Vietnam War, When will this national nightmare end?  We're still not quite past that.  They'll be saying it about the ruins of our national political system beginning November 9, with no end in sight.

104

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)

« on: November 06, 2016, 08:51:38 AM »

Amazingly enough, after this unbearably long ordeal small things can have a big enough impact to change people's minds at the last minute.  Obama was interrupted by a single protester at one of his rallies.  Hillary's supporters started screaming and yelling to drown the man out, but Obama spent about 5 minutes telling them to quiet down before they finally did.  Then he spoke directly and respectfully to and about the man in a calm and confident tone.  Trump portrayed it differently, saying that it was a disgrace the way that Obama screamed at the man.  I've heard of a few cases of people who weren't sure they were going to vote, but are now at long last energized.  Reality bites.

105

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)

« on: November 05, 2016, 09:41:35 PM »

FWIW, I turned in my absentee ballot yesterday and was wearing 6 "I voted" stickers when I left. Is that suspicious?

106

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)

« on: November 05, 2016, 06:55:33 AM »

Are Republicans committing more voter fraud than Democrats? Are they just more likely to get caught because they are less adept at it or because other Republicans don't cover for them? Or is the mainstream media focusing more on Republican voter fraud because they've chosen a side?

I can't believe you don't get it.  These are the ones the Republicans want us to see, because why else would they be so obvious and stupid about how they go about it?  These are the sacrificial "collateral damage" they use to hide the rest of their massive vote fraud organization.  They make every attack on a Republican headquarters, black church or Muslim look so obviously like false flag attacks to distract us from what they're really doing.  How do I know this?  Because people are voting for him, which no one who recognizes him as a low-life con man would do if he didn't pull the wool over their eyes.

But if you're right and I'm wrong, how come none of the right-wing conservative or Republican arms of the media have caught any of the actual Democratic attempts to rig the vote? If they're not competent enough to do that, why haven't the Russians exposed anything?  So far almost every story from those sources have turned out to be hoaxes perpetrated by right-wing groups or obvious attempts to make Democrats look bad by exaggerating voter errors.

107

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)

« on: November 04, 2016, 11:21:10 PM »

More vote rigging by disenfranchisement caught by a judge:

A federal judge on Friday ordered elections boards in three North Carolina counties to restore voter registrations canceled too close to Election Day after the NAACP sued over thousands of the challenges.

U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs issued the ruling after an emergency hearing earlier in the week on NAACP allegations that at least three counties purged voter rolls through a process disproportionately targeting blacks.

Biggs said the local elections boards must “take all steps necessary” to restore voter registrations canceled during the 90 days preceding Election Day on Tuesday.

Early voting ends Saturday in the critical swing state, which the NAACP has previously sued over other voter access issues.

The voters’ names were removed through challenges filed by activists, which the NAACP said was illegal under federal law because of the proximity to the election.

Does it seem strange to anyone else that with all of the claims by Trump and his supporters about Democratic attempts to rig the vote that so many of the news reports are about Republicans doing it to potential Democratic voters?

108

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)

« on: November 04, 2016, 02:36:22 PM »

Here's another story about Trump campaign voter intimidation. Wish this one away, too...

An Ohio federal judge on Friday issued a restraining order against the Donald Trump campaign, finding that Trump supporters are planning to monitor urban areas and illegally intimidate minority voters in the crucial swing state.

Seriati, ignoring the rest of your post which shows a lack of reading comprehension:

Meanwhile in states that didn't discriminate against black people when our grandparents were in diapers they had free reign to close polling places without any scrutiny whatsoever (and frequently do so, yet you don't bother to even pay attention to that).

Why would any kind of oversight be required when there was no pattern of voter discrimination?  Not to mention that you from time to time reject calls to consider past events as not relevant to current circumstances.  Otherwise, you'd have been up in arms about the 22,000,000 Bush WH emails spanning his 8 years in office that disappeared from the RNC email servers when he left office.  Imagine what they would have revealed about the conduct of his Administration's run-up to and prosecution of the war in Iraq.

109

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: November 04, 2016, 02:22:41 PM »

Then maybe the absurd implausible nuttiness I see on TV will be on programming that isn't suppose to be "news".

Quite honestly, I don't expect this election to be "over" for a long, long time.  You won't have to tell your unborn kids about it; they'll be watching it on their VR implants in real-time.

110

General Comments / Re: How should we assess differences between polls and voting results?

« on: November 04, 2016, 02:18:25 PM »

Going beyond Wayward's comment, the two parties appear to recognize and legitimize different polls.  For instance, after each of the debates Trump's campaign relied on on-line polls that showed him having won each by up to a 90-10 split.  They in turn dispute the findings or more traditional phone polls.  In other words, Trump has set up the situation (no surprise) to claim that the system is rigged if he doesn't win because his polls are honest and reliable and the actual voting was dishonest and rigged.  His modus operandi is heads I win, tails you lose.

Romney had the same problem in 2012, where on the day of the election Karl Rove and other conservative media were predicting a Romney landslide, claiming that pollsters like FiveThirtyEight were wrong because the polls they relied on "oversampled Democrats".  What Romney didn't do that I expect Trump will do is to then take the next illogical step and declare the vote rigged.

111

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)

« on: November 04, 2016, 12:23:28 PM »

For people like Cherry who are so upset about the potential for vote rigging and fraud, there is a very clear and overt effort in several states to reduce the number of people who vote in Democratic leaning precincts and districts:

A study of nearly 400 counties in Alabama, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Mississippi found that those counties collectively reduced the number of polling locations available to voters by at least 16 percent — eliminating more than 860 places. In Arizona, almost every single county shut down voting locations, and more than half of the counties in Louisiana, Texas, and Alabama that provided data to the researchers did so as well.

This sharp reduction — which would have difficult to implement if the Voting Rights Act were still in full force—means that voters in dozens of counties may have to travel a greater distance and wait in a longer line.

Researchers with the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights found that found that the vast majority of the closures happened in areas with a documented history of racial discrimination that used to hold elections under Justice Department supervision. Before the Supreme Court neutered the Voting Rights Act, these states and counties had to clear any voting changes with the federal government— even something as small as closing a single polling place — and prove the change wouldn’t harm voters of color.

112

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: November 04, 2016, 11:51:00 AM »

I couldn't help but think out loud, "At least that's something we can ALL agree on."

As a general comment I think you use your "outside voice" more than you should; people are easily frightened.

113

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)

« on: November 04, 2016, 11:44:19 AM »

Trump will either drive the country into the side of a mountain if he loses or off the cliff if he wins.  Either way expect maximum damage to the country and $$MM more in his pocket, so it's all good.

114

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)

« on: November 04, 2016, 08:33:44 AM »

Things are tightening up rather than shifting in the last few days before the main event.  Potential voters who were more reluctant than undecided are committing, as expected.  A few states are flipping in polls, but mostly they are slipping into the margin of error range, so pollsters are hedging their bets.  Clinton looked like an 80-90% lock on FiveThirtyEight 3 weeks ago, and now clocks in at about 65%.  Unless there is yet another bomb dropped about either Clinton or Trump over the weekend, it's already baked.

115

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: November 03, 2016, 07:11:59 PM »

It looks like Trump was right about massive undetected voter fraud too.

You keep stepping on your own message.  You call 83 ballots "massive"?  There are almost 18 million registered voters in California, so this amounts to 0.00046% of the total, and neither you nor the article has any idea who the votes would have been cast for.  So maybe it would have all been Trump votes, in which case maybe it wouldn't seem like such a big deal to you. 

The article also says that the Heritage Foundation has "verified" 430 cases of voter fraud.  They don't say over what time period or in what elections they discovered this 5x greater amount of massive fraud.  If that's in California, that's still a teeny weeny tiny number.  If it's nationwide, that's even teenier weenier tinier.  If it's over 3 election cycles it's about as teeny weeny tiny as it can possibly get. In other words, that's about as far from "massive" as you can get, but if it seems "massive" to you then it explains why you're so utterly terrified of Muslim terrorism in this country, which also occurs a teeny weeny tiny number of times.  If you were a finance officer in an 18,000,000 person company you'd probably spend all day every day looking for expense reports to reject for spending $0.05 more on a cup of coffee than they should have.

Hillary bus caught illegally dumping poop in street

Not nice, but in what bizarre way is that the same thing as a self-proclaimed Trump supporter dumping horse manure at a Democratic Party office? 

The kind of logical skills you are applying to the whole election strike me as what a person who locks himself in a car might possess.

116

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: November 03, 2016, 10:33:47 AM »

While I can't say I'm on board with cherry's assessment at the end of the list of stories, it does make a VERY important point that we need to stop as a country assuming that a situation fits neatly into a narrative we want to have happened.  It's not always Islamophobia.  It's not always a hate crime.  It's not always racism.  It's not always a bad cop. 

The news outlets need to grab eyeballs and put them on web pages.  They are going to try and push our buttons.  We can't seem to help ourselves and we play along.  Not sure what we can do about that at this point.  What we CAN do is read those stories and watch those videos with a skeptics eyes and ears.  It's OK to agree that all of those things listed above need addressed and fixed.  It's not OK to assume you know the entire story as soon as you have identified the victims and or those involved in the incident. 

(Hint:  We call that profiling.)

Well, the world could be flat.  Why don't we ask someone who believes that it is and they can tell us all about their evidence.  Then the rest of us can chase down all the crap and nonsense leads they throw out and patiently explain why the facts are not really facts or why their trusted soothsayers are not saying sooth.  Good liars use a kernel of truth as the seed for their theories, so that's enough to rebut the rebuttals.  But whatever you do you do knowing that you'll never dislodge them from their "truth" about the matter, because all evidence that says otherwise is false, part of a conspiracy to enslave their minds and the work of l-l-l-liberals, Jews and Communists.  Actually, Communists should not be on that list since Trump has embraced Putin and people like Cherry are suddenly "realizing" how wrong they've been to distrust him.  And Putin is not a Communist like Hillary is, so you can still vilify her for holding her Communist views.

In this particular example Cherry started off by citing someone he considers an icon of reason and beacon of truth, Pam Geller.  She is a proven liar and propagandist for far right ideology and conspiracy theories.  Among other finely reasoned views she has offered is that Hillary Clinton will invoke Sharia law to shut down Breitbart as soon as she is elected.  Don't even think you can prove her wrong, btw.  Geller happens to be a writer for Breitbart herself who regularly makes up false stories to demonize anyone and everyone left of the extreme right fringe, so if you talk about circular reasoning, you can start with that.

Or you can just walk away and hope that people who think like that never get so frustrated that they decide they have to kill democracy in order to save it.

117

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: November 03, 2016, 08:23:33 AM »

Of course, if you read only right-wing, fear-mongering and otherwise extremist sites instead of what ordinary people do you will get a different picture of the world.  I suspect if one of those sites ever posted a story favorable to any of the people you despise you would immediately become suspicious of their "truthfulness" and wonder if they'd been infiltrated.  You'd have to add them to the list of places to "clean up" when the time comes.

118

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: November 03, 2016, 08:13:36 AM »

Pamela Geller recently quoted from Patrick Poole:

Cherry, you have to understand that quoting Pam Geller is like drinking out of a toilet.  You just saved me from having to read the rest of your post to find out if it contained a shred of reliable information.

119

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: November 02, 2016, 08:16:45 PM »

"A black church was burned yesterday and "Vote Trump" was painted on the wall.  Was that done by a Muslim or Syrian?"

No, it was done by a Hillary supporter. And too obviously.

OK, show me the evidence.

120

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: November 02, 2016, 06:21:53 PM »

More false equivalence.  There are millions of Muslims and Mideast immigrants in this country who are as good citizens as any white Christian male of European descent.  The number of so-called terrorist attacks (as opposed to hate crimes) is minuscule.   A black church was burned yesterday and "Vote Trump" was painted on the wall.  Was that done by a Muslim or Syrian?

I assume almost all such hate crimes and domestic terrorism attacks that aren't carried out by Muslims are carried out by people who are white and would call themselves Christians.  Why don't you start there to find the roots and causes of such crimes instead of denying people who are in fear for the lives or starving to death the relief that our country can offer?  I guarantee you that at least one of them will commit a serious crime one day, but the number will be far fewer than committed by those who don't "qualify" for membership in the group you want to exclude.

121

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: November 02, 2016, 09:57:56 AM »

As you just said, if terrorists come around knocking on our door selling their crazy violence, then to quote Jack Nicholson, "Sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here."

Would this be a new US immigration policy?

122

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: November 01, 2016, 06:07:36 PM »

Well, now things are moving into the realm of the bizarre:

An FBI Twitter account that had been dormant for over a year puzzled political observers on Tuesday by sending out a tweet linking to records from a long-closed case involving what was then known as the William J. Clinton Foundation.

An FBI list of documents recently added to the public vault states that this material, which related to former President Bill Clinton’s pardoning of Marc Rich, an international commodities trader indicted on tax evasion charges, was released on October 31. NBC's Pete Williams reported that the documents were the subject of a Freedom of Information Act request and were released “under normal guidelines”:

Yet the timing of the tweet struck many as odd, since the FBI Records Vault Twitter account had sent no messages from Oct. 8, 2015-Oct. 30, 2016. Suddenly, on Sunday, a flood of new tweets went out with links to records released over the course of 2016, including FBI files on Donald Trump’s father, Fred, and retired CIA director David Petraeus.

This head-scratching account reactivation came just two days after FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the agency was looking into more emails potentially tied to its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state.
...
An FBI spokesman did not immediately respond Tuesday to TPM's request for comment.

123

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: November 01, 2016, 12:43:50 PM »

I'm still not getting your point.  What I'm reading this morning is that agents in the FBI and leadership in the DoJ are furious with him for sending the letter last week.  I agree that he didn't have any good choices, because there was a high likelihood that somebody in the FBI *might* have leaked the news this week, which would have cast a partisan spell over him.  In that case, the sooner he did it the less overall impact it would be likely to have.  That doesn't mean him sending the letter was the right thing to do, however.

124

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: November 01, 2016, 10:36:04 AM »

You suggested above that his actions were perhaps a result of him being TOO honorable, rather than partisan. Admitting that bad press will cost Hillary votes does not require admitting anything bad about her or about Comey; that's just physics. The point is you not only paint everything about Hillary in a positive spin, but now Comey as well. Unless you think massive amounts of people within the FBI are so partisan that they would quit rather than work under someone fair, your assertion about Comey is vacuous.

I confess I can't keep up with the way you think.  If I'm such a Hillary bigot, how come I "praise" him for acting honorably?  Why can't I say that he did something he thought was honorable that damages the chances of the candidate I prefer?  That doesn't mean that *I* think he acted wisely or well, fWIW.  Is there anything anyone can do that won't be partisan?

125

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: November 01, 2016, 09:32:07 AM »

I don't think Comey is partisan, but perhaps too "honorable" and put a sense of purity and mission ahead of good judgment.

You're dreaming in technicolor when you say he's too honorable. It has been revealed that he re-opened the investigation in the midst of fury coming from all over the FBI at him, including a mountain of resignation letters from disaffected agents who believed he had disgraced the organization. Reportedly, many FBI members refused to speak with him after what he did, and even declined to reply when he would say hi to them in the corridors. I know you'd like to spin any act he did that helped Hillary as being within a "sense of purity and mission", but I fear this is a delusional interpretation of what really happened.

From this I gather you haven't read posts I made where I said this will cost her 1-2% and quite possibly the Senate.  I'm actually not two-dimensional for favoring Clinton and challenging you for having a visceral dislike towards her.

126

General Comments / Re: Election Predictions (with 4 weeks to go)

« on: November 01, 2016, 07:21:57 AM »

It may only cost her 1-2%, but even when she had a 7 point lead in the polls she didn't hit 49% except in a few outliers.

127

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: November 01, 2016, 07:20:52 AM »

How does allowing more legal immigration help the people who still aren't allowed to come here? Do they see someone else who was suffering get in and figure it balances the cosmic karma for the poverty and violence in the lives of their own children?

Another dark fantasy that justifies your xenophobia.

Is that like how we admonish our children not to waste food because there are children starving in Africa and it makes the starving children cry to imagine that somewhere in the world another child is wasting food and also makes them happier knowing that the same child cleaned off their plate instead?

Not quite sure how this analogy is supposed to pertain to the point.  A better analogy would be what Republicans in Congress have been doing for decades, deny services to people in desperate need because *some* might get more than they deserve or might game the system.  I suppose the only people who are pure of heart and purpose are those who want to keep all immigrants out and overthrow the government.

Allowing more legal immigrants only stops those lucky ones from coming here illegally. It does nothing to stop the ones we still deny.

Right, feeding someone who is hungry only encourages other hungry people to believe you won't let them starve to death.  They are fools, apparently.

128

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: November 01, 2016, 07:13:59 AM »

I don't think Comey is partisan, but perhaps too "honorable" and put a sense of purity and mission ahead of good judgment.  The letter to Congress was a huge mistake for which he may be fired.  If so, he may not even understand why.

129

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: October 31, 2016, 05:53:33 PM »

No worries, according to Republicans she can dribble Wall Street with either hand.

130

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: October 31, 2016, 04:59:18 PM »

Think of it like the cops going after the mob boss who is smarter than all of them put together.  They KNOW she's dirty, but she apparently knows the legal system better than they do and how to cover her tracks.  That is going to infuriate them far more than any ordinary criminal ever could.

That's what they have convinced themselves she is.  Maybe she is, maybe she isn't.  If there isn't at least a little truth to that, she's either A:  way too paranoid, or B:  been playing a long con on them just because she gets off on it / wants to see them self destruct over it.

The difference is that they know the mob boss runs a crime syndicate; here they just hope she does.  If she were as smart as you suggest she would have to be, then I suspect handling the US economy and fixing Obamacare with one hand and Putin and all other world leaders with the other would be no problem for her.  Come to think of it, that's exactly the kind of leader everybody who thinks they want Trump would really appreciate.

131

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: October 31, 2016, 04:52:12 PM »

The issue is whether WHAT she was hiding was the reason she set things up like this. It is that possible "what" that I think a lot of people are really concerned about, which may include various suspicions about the Clinton Foundation.

Suspicions have fueled every investigation into the Clinton's lives for the past 25 years, at a cost of many $100M's and have turned up nothing.  Republicans turn the notion of being an optimist on its head by hoping and praying that one day they will find her guilty of something they are desperate to believe that she did wrong.  Not to mention that they never let anything go when they do fail to find what they hoped for.  Trump has re-raised the Vince Foster witch hunt, and a number of right-wing bozo sites have touted "new and explosive" evidence about his murder.  In fact, Republicans have still never forgiven her for a chance comment she made in 1991(?) about not having time to bake cookies.

She's guilty, GUILTY they say.  They just need to figure out for what.

132

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: October 31, 2016, 04:32:03 PM »

The reason it's a "Big Deal", and not just to Republicans, is that this sever is seen as a tool premeditated to dodge disclosure laws and court orders to turn them over.  By (intentionally) blurring the line between private and "work" email she gained cover for deletion of those files before letting others see them.  It also gives her control over them meaning she would (in theory and in practice) have warning prior to them being accessed / handed over.

It's not so much WHAT she was hiding, but that she put into place a system that exists for no plausible reason other than to enable the hiding of info.

Does it bother you that a great many elected officials and their appointees have skirted those practices?  People here and elsewhere keep pointing out that the Bush WH used RNC email servers and deleted over 22,000,000 emails when they left office.  I'm sure there are many other egregious cases, where the details are always different, but the practice was basically for the same purpose.

133

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: October 31, 2016, 04:25:24 PM »

I'm on the side that says there are valid reasons for those limits to immigration, limits that are already more generous by far than any other nation on Earth.

There are, but you make this point as a smokescreen.  How many of those limits exist to deter extremism and terrorism on US soil?  I remind you that if you want to root out those things, you could fill up a lot of buses with people who go to Trump rallies.  Out of 10,000 or so at each rally, if only 1% of the attendees are anti-American crazies, that's still 100 people per pop.  Getting rid of them would create even more openings for additional immigration of people who would appreciate living here, as you point out.

134

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: October 31, 2016, 04:21:54 PM »

1) Investigations aren't indictments. 
2) Iran-Contra is a bigger deal than Clinton using a private email server.

From the Republican perspective investigations of Hillary themselves are indictments.  If she didn't do anything wrong they wouldn't need to investigate to find out what she did.  That none of the investigations have led to criminal charges is irrelevant.

A great many scandals are far bigger with far greater consequences than her use of a private email server.  Those who make claims to the contrary are highly politicized and/or come from people who don't know their recent US history, like Trump.

135

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: October 31, 2016, 04:19:07 PM »

What it says to me is what a lot of qualified people have commented, that Comey overstepped in this case.  Is it your view that he acted properly and is being attacked for partisan reasons?  If so, then what do you think of Trump and all the other Republicans who attacked him viciously for not proposing charges against Clinton last summer who now think that he is a true patriot?

for being a patron of the party that avidly supports the concept of moral relativism

?  What Party doesn't?

136

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: October 31, 2016, 04:04:08 PM »

and...?

137

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: October 31, 2016, 09:12:36 AM »

We don't yet know what the impact of Comey's statement on Friday will be. I think nothing could happen that would give Trump the election before election day other than her dropping dead, but I'm concerned that what he did could cost her the Senate.  Note that Harry Reid raises the possibility that Comey himself could be charged with a federal crime by violating the Hatch Act.

138

General Comments / Re: Scott Adams is trying to hypnotize the country

« on: October 31, 2016, 09:07:09 AM »

Even if I charitably include the rest of your posts, all I see are a bunch of whiny assertions.  Nothing solid that you can point to where he's lying and his "true position" (which again you haven't explained) is dangerous.  Maybe I missed it, but sure looks to me like you're lying.

I appreciate that you only skim "opposition" posts, so check out #54 in this thread as the most recent, but also #20, #26.  FWIW, Trump has inspired a debate about the difference between "bull*censored*" and "lies".  A lot of people say that he is only bull*censored*ting when he claims he will do things like build the wall, drop out of NATO or thinks the US should use nuclear weapons to settle problems in the Mideast.  Others think he is lying because there is no way he would be able to do any of those things, and he knows it.  So he can talk about destabilizing the world any way he likes, knowing that he doesn't mean what he says.  If we were talking about something lesser than the US Presidency, like a playground argument among 5th graders, I'd go with the bull*censored*ter group.  But in this argument every word matters. If not, you and others wouldn't be so adamant that every word out of Clinton's mouth is just another lie.

I've read most of his substantive utterances, but I don't need to detail every lie since they are (finally!) being reported widely in the press.  You can look here for a summary, here for a site that exists only to track his lies, and also at articles in the NYTimes, Vanity Fair and even Forbes. 

Get back to me with rebuttals on all of these things, including why none of the things he says matters because, as the rest of his supporters would say, "*censored* You!".

139

General Comments / Re: Scott Adams is trying to hypnotize the country

« on: October 30, 2016, 09:53:39 PM »

I note, you utterly failed to talk substance in any of your replies.  What is he lying about that has you worried?  Seriously, what is he lying about that you think he's going to have a different position on that I should care about?

That's a remarkably obtuse comment, given that I cited some examples in the same post that you based this comment on.  Seriously, Seriati, at least try to argue in good faith. You're drifting into Cherry territory and it's not becoming.

140

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: October 30, 2016, 08:44:52 PM »

Michael Moore put it well in the Trumpland movie.  Trump's platform is "*censored* You!"  That only goes so far.

141

General Comments / Re: Scott Adams is trying to hypnotize the country

« on: October 30, 2016, 08:43:11 PM »

In what way will Trump turn on his supporters? How exactly will this happen? What are some of the possibilities? I'm genuinely curious as to how this betrayal might manifest itself.

Cherry, you know there's no way to know.  He doesn't actually stand for anything, witness his change of positions on almost everything.  Consider that in the past he has been *extremely* positive about both Hillary and Bill Clinton, but now condemns them for the same things he knew all about when he liked them. Consider that he has repeatedly called for the US to withdraw from Iraq and chastised Obama  for not doing it sooner than he did, and now vilifies him for withdrawing.  The man has no real positions on almost any issue.  He portrays himself as the true supporter of the military, but he dismisses McCain's 5 years in captivity, claims that PTSD sufferers lack the right temperament and implies that US forces embezzled $billions in Iraq.  If his "supporters" push him where he doesn't want to go, he will attack them just as fiercely as he has attacked his Miss Universe winners that he praised and extolled to the high heavens for their "beauty".

The man has no concept of loyalty except to himself.  If he's elected you better make sure you don't say anything that will piss him off.

142

General Comments / Re: Scott Adams is trying to hypnotize the country

« on: October 30, 2016, 07:15:56 PM »

And these are just some of the lies we know about. Electing Hillary means we never find out about the deceptions he got away with.

In other words, all lies are equivalent and each of their lies cancel the other's out.  One (of many) big difference is that Trump lies about everything, where Hillary lies to protect herself.  I'll take her every day of the week.  THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.

143

General Comments / Re: Scott Adams is trying to hypnotize the country

« on: October 30, 2016, 06:48:09 PM »

I can't help but notice that everyone freaking out about Trump's lies gives Obama a complete pass.

You only imagine that.  If you are constantly inundated with bull*censored* from a freakshow, then a committed, but not perfectly honest, alternative will be the slam dunk pick.  Trump is a stack of *censored* ready to dump all over you if you let him.  Get out now while you still have a shred of dignity.

And these are just some of the lies we know about. Electing Hillary means we never find out about the deceptions he got away with.

Elect Trump and you'll never catch up to that express train.  The man has no affinity for the truth at all, and you should recognize that he doesn't care anything about you.  Why don't you see that?

144

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: October 30, 2016, 06:44:34 PM »

Well then, you're one of the normals.  I wish there were more.

145

General Comments / Re: Most bizarre twist ever?

« on: October 30, 2016, 05:55:49 PM »

When trump claims the election is rigged I can't help wonder if something more is going on then the ploy of getting his followers out to vote.

Note that his poll numbers have improved slightly over the past few days, so he now says that the polls aren't quite as badly rigged as he thought.  The man is a pillar of crap.  If we elect him, he will *censored* all over us.  I saw Michael Moore's movie about Trumpland last night.  He made one very good observation, that people are voting for Trump to send a "*censored* You!" to the "establishment".  He likened it to the Brexit vote, where people did pretty much that, but in the weeks after the vote when they realized what they had done, 4 million signed a petition asking for a re-vote.  Didn't happen, and it won't happen here either.

146

General Comments / Re: Scott Adams is trying to hypnotize the country

« on: October 30, 2016, 05:52:34 PM »

Do you realize the disconnect in your post where you say the two highlighted things. 

I'll flat out say it.  There is no question that Trump is more honest than Hillary.  I have not seen one thing that convinces me Hillary ever tells the truth if she thinks a lie would serve her own interests better.

I'm not really seeing where we are at high risk for what Trump has said he'll do being lies in any case.  What is he lieing about where the truth will be worse for the country?

If I understand you’re saying both Hillary and Trump lie however Trump lies are more honest and or lies when telling the truth would be worse for the country makes him more honest.

No matter how well Trump picks those he delegates he will still be the voice of the American people and Americans representation to the world. I don’t see how any nation could or would work with a man like Trump except maybe Russia.

Trump has proven that he will not be managed and is easily provoked. He has also proven that he does not think words or truth matter. For him the ends justify the means and when the ends don’t, no matter, you spin the win. You will never get a straight answer from a man like Trump. 

Trump has demonstrated that he does not know the difference between promotion and state craft. Trump views all opposition as personal and does not negotiate in good faith. Friends become Enemies, followers must be yes men. He does not read, he does not study, he does not reflect. Trump is all reaction, all ID and Ego.

If this is the type of man the USA wants as the head of state and voice well… shame on America.

Trump is not psychologically fit to be head of state.

Regardless of Trump wining or losing this will not end well.

How the hell do you square them?  Basically, Trump is willing to tell you that he is bull*censored*ting you, and then he goes ahead and does it.  People stand back and somehow translate that into honesty.  It's as if he would say that he's going to steal your money and when he does it you say, Gee, at least he was honest about it.  I do agree that no matter who wins, this will not end well.

147

General Comments / Re: Scott Adams is trying to hypnotize the country

« on: October 30, 2016, 01:10:22 PM »

He's also not a good people manager.  Even his own lawyers have sued him, and he gave a speech in 2001 in which he explained that if anyone attacks him he will attack back 10 times harder.  To illustrate that he asked a former Miss Universe winner to come up from the audience on stage with no warning and proceeded to humiliate her.  Video here.

148

General Comments / Re: Scott Adams is trying to hypnotize the country

« on: October 29, 2016, 08:04:47 PM »

Leadership "at the top" is a strange critter. But for a large organization, it usually comes down to two things:
1) Delegate most authority to experts that have a clue.
2) Trust that the people you delegated authority to know what they're doing.

Really?  You think we elect the Manager of the United States?  The government is not some large organization, and the President is not in charge of a team of subordinates to whom he delegates decision making and strategy.  They work for him (if Hillary, for her).  You make it sound like he is just trying to make sure he gets a good bonus at the end of the year.  I can imagine the first State of the Union Address from Trump:

"Well, I told him to figure out the mess in the Mideast.  He didn't get it done, so I fired him."

"True, we wasted a lot of money on Immigration policy and things haven't gotten any better.  As soon as I find out who was responsible for that I promise the American people that he will be held accountable."

"I am looking for someone to head up the new Department of Tourism and Hotels.  My son is interested, and I assure you that he knows what to do.  I'll help him if he needs it."

"As for our ongoing war against ISIS.  My generals assured me they would have that taken care of by now, so I'm looking for other people who want to run the Defense Department.  Herman Cain has told me that he is still interested in the position, so once we negotiate his options and residuals I should have an announcement for you."

"I promised you that you would get tired of winning.  I'm very happy with our progress.  And may God bless us every one."

149

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: October 29, 2016, 07:55:42 PM »

"Take matters into their own hands" is pretty vague. You're going to lock someone up for that?

Possible acts of terrorism? More like inevitable. And promised by ISIS who say what you want about them has so far managed to keep such promises.

I was very clear that they have said they will declare war on the government.  Can you not hear what they (and perhaps you) are saying and understand that that is no different from the Isamist extremist jihadists you are so terrified of?

They scream that stuff out at every Trump rally, so it's not something you can pretend to be unaware of.  For some inexplicable reason you see nothing wrong with alt-right terrorist rhetoric.  Pretend that the US is under attack from ISIS all you want.  The threat from within is orders of magnitude greater.  Until you condemn it you would have to be considered a supporter, just like you think every Muslim is a secret ISIS supporter.

This is also part of national security, and there is a high degree of probability that Obama is culpable for paralyzing hundreds of American children when he let in tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors and purposefully distributed them throughout our school systems without a thought or care about the potential diseases they might spread and to which some of them may be for the most part immune.

More of your paranoid fantasy.

Of course this article won't mention the connection. Maybe it's just a coincidence in timing but not likely seeing as how this is much more common in Latin America and was much more rare in the U.S. until Obama threw caution, common sense, and any thought for the safety of American children to the wind and flung the borders wide open.

How and when did he do that?  I love that bolded part because it's so you.  They didn't mention it, which reinforces your absolute conviction that it's true.  But a more objective reader might say they would have mentioned it if it were true.

Of course our government will deny any possible links. They won't even seriously look for the links because to find them would be too politically explosive.

This is all just another indication that good intentions often come at a devastating cost.

Yep, once again they deny it, which can only mean that it's not only true, but they don't want you to know it. 

Now I know some will demand proof of the link. Of course I don't have it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

150

General Comments / Re: Trump on National Security

« on: October 29, 2016, 03:57:11 PM »

Regarding the domestic terrorists we already have, why make a bad situation worse by adding more ISIS terrorists into the mix than we have to? To help out suffering people? For the sake of diversity?

What you should do is obvious: bring down the hammer hard on these people who say out loud that they will take matters into their own hands if Trump loses.  You can't see the nose in front of your face.  There are 1000's of Trump supporters who have publicly threatened to overthrow our government.  You're ok with that but you're worrying about *possible* acts of terrorism from people we bring here to save their lives.

You live in a surreal world where you can't see what's right in front of you in stark daylight while you whine that you are terrified of the dark.