What does it say about PC culture that a poster makes a short and ambiguous statement about black people and is greeted with not-so-subtle references about the Klan and Hitler? My goodness.
The way I took it is that black people remain in a situation where they lag behind other races in income and various other parameters of quality of life. Many possible interpretations have been thrown out to its causes from poverty, to culture, and everything inbetween. I would suggest that it is another complicated issue without a singular cause.
In any case, I firmly believe that Donald Trump stands with all American citizens, regardless of color, gender, or anything along those lines. See the article I posted a while back about him visiting a predominantly black church in Detroit, a city that has been hit hard by urban decay, to put it mildly.
See some of the policies that he has released that help lower and middle class Americans rebuild. Maybe some people think that is all a front to get elected and so be it. I don't think that. I think it is genuine. Even if you don't have trust in that, ask yourselves what the Democrats have done for black people in this country? Look at any high crime, inner city that has been hit hard by urban decay, failing schools, and corrupt politicians. You'll find that, with very few exceptions, such cities have had Democratic mayors for at least 30-40 years in a row. Why not try something new?!
Insanity: Trying the same thing over and over but expecting different results.
I was 5 years old. I'm not sure I was allowed to vote that election cycle.
But now that bill is running, I can hold him to the same standard as trump.
Oh wait, Bill isn't running?
So you're being pointless again? I'm simply shocked!! Shocked, I tell you!!!
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Ah. It was okay then........cause, you know, it was different, right? So you excuse bill for his deferment, yet you hold a deferment from 1965 or so against trump.
Typical of you.
You may not be old enough to remember, but I do. Dem's made a huge deal of W having only served in the national guard. Said he wasn't fit to be the commander in chief since he hadn't "served".
Yet, the same "rules" didn't apply to bill. Or obama. And when Mccain was involved it was all "he's got a heart issue, and his military service doesn't matter"
And now we have hillary - who never served, just took - and her health problems, but none of that matters, right?
2 facedness. Holding something against 1 person, while completely ignoring the same issue of another person.
I was 5 years old. I'm not sure I was allowed to vote that election cycle.
But now that bill is running, I can hold him to the same standard as trump.
Oh wait, Bill isn't running?
So you're being pointless again? I'm simply shocked!! Shocked, I tell you!!!
The Bill Clinton angle is kind of unique. On one hand, you're right in that he's not running for president and shouldn't face the same level of scrutiny that Hillary or Donald does.
On the other hand, he's still involved in Democratic politics to some extent. He's a former president. He's involved in the Clinton Foundation. He was caught in what was supposed to be a secret meeting with Loretta Lynch, who Bill had previously nominated as a federal attorney. That meeting was at a time when Hillary was facing a possible indictment for the email scandal.
I'm just saying, I don't think it's quite like the people who are going after Melania, who has little or nothing to do with politics. That said, I don't personally care to dig too deeply into Bill's faults. Hillary herself has provided plenty to go after.
Bill Clinton is out jogging around in some of the seedier areas of Washington D.C. He notices a good looking prostitute. She sees him and calls out, “Fifty dollars!”
He's tempted, but the price is a little high so he calls back, “Five!”
She's disgusted and turns away while Bill continues his jog.
A few days later, he finds himself jogging in the same area and as luck would have it, the prostitute is still there. But she won't come down on her price.
“Fifty!” she shouts.
Bill answers her, “Five!”
No sale.
About a week later, Hillary has decided that she wants to get into shape so she demands to go jogging with Bill. They get to the seedy part of town and the same prostitute is still there.
She eyes Bill and Hillary together and yells, “See what you get for five dollars!”
The Views Expressed By Me Are Not Necessarily The Views That You Will Agree With, I'm In My Own Little World But They Know Me Here.
I asked for clarification on that ambiguous statement, which 40 kindly did. I told him a possible misinterpretation of that statement. It was not an accusation.
I asked for clarification on that ambiguous statement, which 40 kindly did. I told him a possible misinterpretation of that statement. It was not an accusation.
It's all good. I don't think you did anything wrong, or OCD for that matter. I don't think 40 meant anything bad by it. Rather, think about the political atmosphere/PC culture that allows a short, poorly written, but completely ambiguous statement to be even be suggested along those lines. It just seems so strange to me, like people are way too high-strung on these things. Others may disagree.
so you're argument has boiled down to Hillary didn't serve in Vietnam? you do realize THIS is the topic of discussion, right?
i didn't know she was eligible for the draft. anybody got a link for that? thanks guys. Haus, you're good with links since you're now on this train.
can i get a link that says Hillary was eligible for the draft? thanks bro, i knew i could count on you.
Obama wasn't old enough to be eligible for the draft. so i don't know why obama has came up in this.
So how am i being two faced? Bill isn't running for president, and Hillary didn't enter the draft.
i wasn't old enough to remember whatever bush's problem was, nor is he running. unless of course...that's right..you're talking about Jeb Bush, right?
oh, no, cause he isn't running for president this election cycle anymore?
well damn bro....what the hell are you talking about then?
so the ONLY way i can be two faced is if anybody believes your bold faced ass lies.
your hatred was annoying. now it's pathetic.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Libertarian Gary Johnson Scores a Major Victory in His White House Bid Eric Pianin,The Fiscal Times 5 hours ago
Following a humiliating televised gaffe in which he couldn’t identify Aleppo as an embattled Syrian city, Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson sought to reboot his campaign on Wednesday with the announcement that he will appear on the ballot in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Johnson, the former two-term governor from New Mexico who favors the legalization of marijuana and minimal government control, displayed his ignorance and relative indifference to foreign policy and defense issues during an ill-fated appearance last week on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program.
But he and his running mate, former Republican Massachusetts governor Bill Weld, displayed no small political skill and organizational capability by qualifying to appear on the ballot throughout the country.
Not since 1996 has a third-party candidate appeared on every state ballot – a testament to a sophisticated and well-funded political ground game in which supporters had to collect the requisite number of valid signatures on petitions in order for Johnson to qualify for a spot on the November ballot.
Over the years, state lawmakers have developed ballot access procedures that make it difficult for third party or independent candidates to appear on the ballot. According to Ballotpedia, an on-line encyclopedia of American politics, independent candidates for president this year needed to collect in excess of 880,000 signatures overall in order to appear on the general election ballot in every state plus the nation’s capital. California demanded that independent candidates collect 178,039 signatures, more than any other state. Tennessee required just 275 signatures, the fewest of any state.
Johnson and Weld are hoping that this political feat will put added pressure on the Commission on Presidential Debates to allow Johnson on stage Sept. 26 when Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump go head-to-head in the first of three nationally televised presidential debates. For now, however, Johnson is being excluded from the debate because he hasn’t reached the required 15 percent average in five major national polls since Labor Day.
Related: Third Party Candidates Johnson and Stein Suddenly Hit a Rough Patch
“The majority of the people are not happy with the two major party candidates and have been clear in their desire to hear from a credible alternative,” Johnson and Weld stated in a full page ad in today’s New York Times.
Clinton is struggling to retain a narrow lead in the polls over Trump after the latest flap over her health and her disparaging remarks about Trump’s “deplorable” supporters. Clinton and Trump are both saddled with high negative ratings and are generally not trusted by voters.
A recent Quinnipiac University national poll released Aug. 25 showed that 62 percent of voters favored Johnson taking part in the debates. Many of those calling for his inclusion are young people, Latinos and active duty members of the military.
Moreover, a recent Washington Post/SurveyMonkey poll of more than 70,000 voters showed double-digit support for the Johnson-Weld ticket in 42 states; more than 15 percent support in 15 states; and 19 percent or more support in four states.
“We are successful governors who have achieved greater support by far in relation to campaign dollars spent than either the Republican or Democrat – and a majority of Americans want and deserve to hear what we have to say,” Johnson and Weld said in the ad, an open letter to the debate commission members.
In arguing for a spot on the debate podium later this month, Johnson said that he would be willing to forgo appearances in the second and third debates if his polling averages still haven’t reached the 15 percent standard.
Precisely how much of a factor Johnson or Jill Stein, the Green Party nominee, will be in the general election contest is open to debate. The Green Party with Stein at the top of the ticket reportedly will be on the ballot in 44 states and the District of Columbia.
Johnson and Stein appear to be having some effect on the fight over the critical swing state of Ohio. According to a new Bloomberg poll released today, Trump is leading Clinton, 44 percent to 39 percent among the state’s likely voters. Johnson picked up 10 percent of the vote and Stein received 3 percent.
Related: Your Vote for a Third Party Candidate Won’t Be a Waste in 2016
Nationally, the Real Clear Politics average of polls shows Clinton narrowly leading Trump, 41.8 percent to 40 percent, with Johnson at 9 percent and Stein at 2.8 percent.
During the most recent surveys, Johnson has toggled between 9 percent and 11 percent in a four-way presidential contest. The conventional political wisdom is that the third-party candidates probably hurt Clinton more than Trump, but probably not by much.
Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight politics blog in early July concluded after analyzing 18 polls that Johnson and Stein at most would take about one percentage point away from Clinton’s margin on average.
Larry J. Sabato of the University of Virginia said in an email today that “It’s very unlikely Johnson will get the 15 percent necessary to be included in the debates. His percentage of the vote may decline as Election Day approaches. It’s too early to say whether Clinton or Trump will be hurt more by the votes he receives.
No, not at all. I have NEVER supported the platform by teacher unions to limit educational opportunities. I believe families should have a choice in where their kids go to school.
Will Gary Johnson Debate Trump And Clinton? Libertarian Debuts Full Page New York Times Ad BY ALEX GAROFALO @JA9GAROFALOTV ON 09/14/16 AT 9:18 AM
Gary Johnson is going all out in a final push to qualify for the presidential debates.
Johnson, the Libertarian candidate who made headlines last week for asking "What is Aleppo" on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," debuted a full page ad in The New York Times Wednesday calling on the Commission on Presidential Debates to give him a spot in the upcoming presidential debates against Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But Johnson is running out of time to qualify for the first debate, which will be moderated by NBC News' Lester Holt on Sep. 26.
As per the Commission on Presidential Debates' rules, Johnson must reach a threshold of 15 points in the polls to earn a spot on the debate stage. Currently, he is averaging nine points across all polls, according to Real Clear Politics.
RCP Poll Average - Clinton vs. Trump vs. Johnson | InsideGov Johnson has argued that a lack of exposure unfairly harms his ability to get his message to the American people and rise further in the polls. He claims if major media outlets covered him proportional to his standing in the polls, the equivalent to one mention for every four mentions of Trump, he would easily hit the 15 percent mark.
Johnson's New York Times ad argues that there are metrics the debate commission should look at when considering his potential placement in the debates. He cites a Quinnipiac poll that found that 62 percent of Americans want to see Johnson in the debates and also lists off a bunch of high profile newspaper endorsements, including those of the Chicago Tribune, the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Boston Herald.
"We understand your reasons for basing debate inclusion on the 5 national polls of your choosing. But much has changed since 1992. The conditions of the presidential election of 2016 are extraordinary and without precedent," the ad reads. "The collective destiny of millions of American voters now comes down to the methodologies of pollsters, the handful of respondents surveyed and the board members, directors and co-chairmen of your organization. America has stated that’s too great a responsibility to reside in the hands of so small a number of people."
Johnson proposes a grand bargain to the debate commission: put him on the stage for the first debate and if he does not rise above the 15 percent mark after that, then he will not complain about further debates.
Johnson is currently in the midst of a dizzying media tour around the country — Clinton and Trump have largely focused on swing states — in the hopes of giving his national poll numbers a bump. The first presidential debate will be moderated by NBC News' Lester Holt on Sep. 26 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York
From a citizen standpoint, it would be nice to see a third party on the debate stage.
now, let's see how many people can keep an open mind with this next statement:
from a PURELY campaign strategy perspective, if I'm Trump, i have to ensure that this doesn't happen, the LEGAL way, of course.
so now i gotta get my people on to throwing some shade toward Gary's way, because the reality of the situation is that Gary is a center-right libertarian.
most of the support he gets pulls from is coming from conservatives. so the percentage of voters he pulls is gonna affect Trump way more than it will Clinton.
*** i know it's highly debatable if this is what really caused him to lose**** but, we're talking Nadar ruining it for Gore type of situation.
Trump already needs all the help he can get. Gary showing up on the debate stage, and then keeping/growing the percentage will cost Trump big time.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
so you're argument has boiled down to Hillary didn't serve in Vietnam? you do realize THIS is the topic of discussion, right?
i didn't know she was eligible for the draft. anybody got a link for that? thanks guys. Haus, you're good with links since you're now on this train.
can i get a link that says Hillary was eligible for the draft? thanks bro, i knew i could count on you.
Obama wasn't old enough to be eligible for the draft. so i don't know why obama has came up in this.
So how am i being two faced? Bill isn't running for president, and Hillary didn't enter the draft.
i wasn't old enough to remember whatever bush's problem was, nor is he running. unless of course...that's right..you're talking about Jeb Bush, right?
oh, no, cause he isn't running for president this election cycle anymore?
well damn bro....what the hell are you talking about then?
so the ONLY way i can be two faced is if anybody believes your bold faced ass lies.
your hatred was annoying. now it's pathetic.
I don't know what happened with Trump and the draft 50 or so years ago. I have not really seen any convincing arguments either way, and quite frankly, I'm not sure how relevant it really is 50 years later anyway. Like are we holding what Hillary did in college against her? Maybe some people are, but I would find that kind of strange*
* There are some things that are so awful that no amount of time can erase them but I do not think this applies to anything these candidates did when they were in their teens or twenties.
Here's a question for you, what are your thoughts on Muhammad Ali? I only ask because I have seen liberals hold him in high regard for his staunch opposition to and refusal to fight in Vietnam, and yet some of the same people blast Donald Trump for supposedly getting out of the draft for the same war. I understand the situations were not exactly the same. There are differences. Ali spent time in prison for it. I'm just saying that I feel there is a fundamental difference in how the men are viewed (I am not extremely well-read into either topic. I might be missing something completely obvious here, so go easy on me).
You know what is amazing to me? Well, you guys probably do not care, but my big mouth is going to tell you anyway.
I read these threads occasionally. It's the same crap in each and every one. Those backing Trump bad-mouth Hillary. Those backing Hillary, bad-mouth Trump.
I rarely see why either of these candidates are a good choice based on their own merits.
Yet, the vast majority of you completely ignore Johnson, who is a far superior candidate. He is not nearly as dangerous as the other two and he actually speaks to the ideology of more folks than either Trump or Clinton.
It's mind-boggling that you guys invest so much time in talking politics and are completely opposed to the idea of creating a positive change in this country.
you did lie. you called me two faced while completely whiffing on the position or points im making.
if you realize that-and i quote "bill isn't "running" for president today", then you literally just answered your own ridiculous question as to why it's different.
again, i don't remember the issues when Bush ran in 2000. i was 13.
13.
the last thing on my mind is arguing about politics.
Also, with bush, i don't care what the other Democrats said at that time. he served, national guard or not.
it's still a hell of a lot more than what your boy Trump - who is ACTIVELY running for office- did.
this has nothing to do with D and R, and everything to do with you aren't even comparing apples to apples, or even apples to oranges.
your argument holds absolute zero weight.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I've always felt charters and voucher programs fail to address the underlying problems.
80% of charters do the same or worse than public schools when it comes to test scores. The other 20% that do well? They find ways to exclude minority students, or those on IEPs to inflate their test scores.
Many of the vouchers end up going to private religious based schools, and you get into the murky waters of legality behind the separation of church and state.
i never really had an opinion on it. to be honest with you, because Ali is a boxer, and i don't watch nor care for boxing or MMA or any of that, i just never really bother learning much about him.
when i first heard about it, i just thought he was another draft dodger. im sure his reasoning is why a lot of people, both white and black, hold him up to such high prestige, but at the end of the day, he still dodged the draft.
i know somebody is about to chew me out over this post, but honestly i don't have anything else to say about him. he's got some awesome inspirational quotes?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
your points aren't anywhere close to 100% validity.
and i just told you why.
again, he served, national guard or not, and i identify as a democrat.
so i really don't care what other dems said about it.
Last edited by Swish; 09/14/1608:00 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
i acknowledged and refuted the points you made. ya know, the opposite of ignore.
keep lying though.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
We all have our opinions. I tried to do research instead of just blindly buying what the union was selling.
I am not saying I am a huge fan of charter schools, but I believe they have the right to exist.
Oh......................and y'all continue to ignore my points about Clinton, Trump, and Johnson. How can any of you actually support either of those turds and not at least consider Johnson? Why do you not even contemplate trying to change the way we do politics in America?
we had a whole thread dedicated to the guy, and we talk about him here and there after the fact.
as a matter of fact, as we go along, people have been saying why they aren't gonna support gary after learning more and more about him.
so i dunno what board you're reading, but it certainly isn't this one.
also, i responded like 30 minutes ago to your article.
are you ignoring that too? i mean, since we decided to pull baseless accusations out of our asses now.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
You know what is amazing to me? Well, you guys probably do not care, but my big mouth is going to tell you anyway.
I read these threads occasionally. It's the same crap in each and every one. Those backing Trump bad-mouth Hillary. Those backing Hillary, bad-mouth Trump.
I rarely see why either of these candidates are a good choice based on their own merits.
Yet, the vast majority of you completely ignore Johnson, who is a far superior candidate. He is not nearly as dangerous as the other two and he actually speaks to the ideology of more folks than either Trump or Clinton.
It's mind-boggling that you guys invest so much time in talking politics and are completely opposed to the idea of creating a positive change in this country.
I can't speak for anybody else but I'm well aware of Johnson. I've tended to lean conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues, which is the underlying basis of the Libertarian platform. That said, I think it was Rocket that made a good point that human nature is such that a true Libertarian platform is unrealistic, although he and I may disagree on the specifics on that. We can go back and forth on how good of a candidate he is but there is this reality that I posted in one of these threads a while back (last paragraph):
Quote:
The current system hardly even allows an outsider to win the presidency. Look at what the DNC did to Bernie. The Democratic National Convention went out of its way to slander a fellow Democrat. They wanted to paint him as an atheist because they felt that would do him worse in the bible belt than being Jewish. There was a direct order from someone high up in the DNC to, in an unattributable manner, paint his supporters as violent and belligerent to discredit them. On and on it goes.
There is some circumstantial evidence to suggest electronic voter fraud/hacking although I'm not well read into that enough to make any claims there. I would say that very little would surprise me at this point.
The RNC tried to block Trump's nomination too, FWIW. He was just too popular and they underestimated him for far too long. They weren't able to stop him, but I'm sure you remember how Kasich and Cruz tried to work as a team to deny Trump from getting the majority of the delegates. That is less underhanded than what the DNC did for sure, but still nothing to be proud of. Having the voters speak and letting the results fall where they may would be something to be proud of.
About Johnson: He has no chance. He nor any other third party has a chance in 2020 either. People say that if he can just get to 15%, he can get into the debates, and maybe he can springboard that into a stunning win in this election (or maybe more realistically, next election). That's less likely than the Browns winning the Super Bowl this season, in my opinion. What will actually happen is a third party (Libertarian) that is more closely related to the conservative platform than the liberal platform will mostly take votes away from the Republicans, thereby effectively changing our two party system into a one party system. Some solution.
About the negativity: Yeah. Lol. I stayed away from this board for a few weeks recently because it just gets silly after a while. I realize that I'm part of it, it's almost like people naturally gravitate toward that approach when it comes to politics. Still working on it (I have posted a few positive pieces in the last couple days, fwiw).
Thanks for actually putting forth effort to address my question rather than that BS Swish tried to feed me.
I get what you are saying, but I wanna run this by you. As I was studying Johnson's platform [and I only did so because I despised both Hillary and Donald] I discovered that while he is running under the Libertarian party, his platform varies significantly from his parties typical stances.
You seem like a smart guy. I encourage you to examine his platform more studiously. And I also encourage you to make a stand that tells our two major parties that we want to have a voice and are tired of being force-fed the crap they have been feeding us for years.
It's time for Americans to change the way things are done in the political venue. No, it won't happen overnight, but fruit does not grow if you never plant the seeds.
how did i deflect? you and arch are really good at making things up. y'all should start a band in your mom's garage. you guys are really creative.
one of the big reasons is that i'm against market based healthcare like we had prior to obamacare.
Gary wants healthcare like it was when everybody was complaining about it before obama took office. i'm good. i like the current direction we are going.
market based hasn't worked. at all. i've laid my opinion out on this multiple times already. so i'm not gonna get into that again. Somebody is sure to respond to me about healthcare, however. but i'm still not gonna get into it.
the market should not be in control of people's lives. that's just how i feel.
anyway, some of his foreign policy positions are head scratchers. i get the idea of his stances but this isn't slovakia. this is the US.
if you want to be an isolationist, then go Gary. if you feel like we need/maintain strong leadership abroad, he doesn't fit that bill.
those are two big issues that i can't support Gary on.
Last edited by Swish; 09/14/1608:26 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Thanks for actually putting forth effort to address my question rather than that BS Swish tried to feed me.
what the hell are you talking about?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Dude, you said that there was one thread about Johnson. You ignored the tons of threads on the two idiots. You say I am making up baseless accusations. What?'
Btw------------you still haven't told me why you prefer Hillary over Johnson. You pointed out two things you don't like about Johnson, but are insinuating that there is NOTHING you don't like about Hillary?
Thanks for actually putting forth effort to address my question rather than that BS Swish tried to feed me.
I get what you are saying, but I wanna run this by you. As I was studying Johnson's platform [and I only did so because I despised both Hillary and Donald] I discovered that while he is running under the Libertarian party, his platform varies significantly from his parties typical stances.
You seem like a smart guy. I encourage you to examine his platform more studiously. And I also encourage you to make a stand that tells our two major parties that we want to have a voice and are tired of being force-fed the crap they have been feeding us for years.
It's time for Americans to change the way things are done in the political venue. No, it won't happen overnight, but fruit does not grow if you never plant the seeds.
You're welcome
I do need to read more into Johnson's platform (I have, just probably not enough). I also recall him deviating from the Libertarian platform relating to religious freedom vs discrimination although I can't remember all the details off the top of my head.
I will make an effort to examine his platform further. I hope that you will also take the time to listen to Donald Trump, as he continues to roll out impressive policy details and has toned down the rhetoric to the point where he actually now sounds like the more presidential of the two major candidates.
And look..........I know it is coming across wrong, but it is not my intent for you guys to vote for Johnson. I just wish people would educate themselves a bit more.
And like I said earlier, the only reason I did so was because I was so appalled by the two candidates that the two major parties gave us. Hell, look at these threads..........almost every single post is a negative take on one or the other.
Is the "other" really who we want to vote for? Or, do we wanna go in another direction and try to implement change?
(I have posted a few positive pieces in the last couple days, fwiw).