Trump v Clinton: who do you support?

[fohat]

It's those kinds of pejoratives that cast my statements earlier. Why is that necessary?

Sorry. Here is something of true substance:

https://www.facebook.com/moveon/videos/ ... =2&theater

[Redmaus]

Humans of New York

An Open Letter to Donald Trump:

Mr. Trump,
I try my hardest not to be political. I’ve refused to interview several of your fellow candidates. I didn’t want to risk any personal goodwill by appearing to take sides in a contentious election. I thought: ‘Maybe the timing is not right.’ But I realize now that there is no correct time to oppose violence and prejudice. The time is always now. Because along with millions of Americans, I’ve come to realize that opposing you is no longer a political decision. It is a moral one.
I’ve watched you retweet racist images. I’ve watched you retweet racist lies. I’ve watched you take 48 hours to disavow white supremacy. I’ve watched you joyfully encourage violence, and promise to ‘pay the legal fees’ of those who commit violence on your behalf. I’ve watched you advocate the use of torture and the murder of terrorists’ families. I’ve watched you gleefully tell stories of executing Muslims with bullets dipped in pig blood. I’ve watched you compare refugees to ‘snakes,’ and claim that ‘Islam hates us.’
I am a journalist, Mr. Trump. And over the last two years I have conducted extensive interviews with hundreds of Muslims, chosen at random, on the streets of Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. I’ve also interviewed hundreds of Syrian and Iraqi refugees across seven different countries. And I can confirm— the hateful one is you.
Those of us who have been paying attention will not allow you to rebrand yourself. You are not a ‘unifier.’ You are not ‘presidential.’ You are not a ‘victim’ of the very anger that you’ve joyfully enflamed for months. You are a man who has encouraged prejudice and violence in the pursuit of personal power. And though your words will no doubt change over the next few months, you will always remain who you are.

Sincerely,

Brandon Stanton

All the statements he made are absolutely laughable. "Racist images and Tweets"

This excerpt is so biased I can't take it seriously.

[emdude]

Well duh, Brandon Stanton has remained neutral for a while and with this has obviously taken a position against Trump.

I don't think it is intended to be at all a neutral statement.

[Redmaus]

Of course. But his claims of "white supremacy" and "gleefully tell stories of executing muslims" are just silly.

[kbdfr]

[…] his claims of […] "gleefully tell stories of executing muslims" are just silly.

I'm not arguing with you, just linking a video of Trump doing exactly what Brandon Stanton claims:

(minute 1:10 - 2:30)

[fohat]

I'm not arguing with you, just linking a video of Trump doing exactly what Brandon Stanton claims:

Not that Redmaus is interested in actual facts or truth:

http://time.com/4235405/donald-trump-pi ... ims-story/

[Muirium]

A week away and this one's still rumbling on. Ah, "politics!"


Spoiler: It's Hillary. No less a foregone conclusion than some weeks ago. The viable alternative candidates to her are falling dead like flies.

[seebart]

I think I'm gonna stop fueling this thread the way I have, pointless really. We all know our positions on this by now. The GOP nomination will be interesting though.

[Muirium]

Interesting like a clown car.

[seebart]

Interesting like a clown car.

No it's a clown car already.

[Muirium]

The internet clearly agrees. I only had to search for "clown car", without mentioning politics at all!





I especially like Fiorina's stagename.

[seebart]

Ugh, those bottom two are hardcore. I like "Wubby".

[vivalarevolución]

A week away and this one's still rumbling on. Ah, "politics!"


Spoiler: It's Hillary. No less a foregone conclusion than some weeks ago. The viable alternative candidates to her are falling dead like flies.

It ain't done til it's done. We need something to chat about!

Meanwhile, on the Trump lie train: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ods-213730

He truly is one of a kind. I think his daddy just didn't give him enough attention and his mother didn't hug him enough when he was younger, when it comes down to it.

[Redmaus]

I'm not arguing with you, just linking a video of Trump doing exactly what Brandon Stanton claims:

Not that Redmaus is interested in actual facts or truth:

http://time.com/4235405/donald-trump-pi ... ims-story/

I haven't visited this thread in a while, but they were executing terrorists. Terrorists.

If the pigs blood method was effective, why not use it? Why should we treat terrorists with kindness?

I am not denying what he said, I am actually agreeing with him on this.

[fohat]

If the pigs blood method was effective, why not use it?

Uh, did you miss the part about the "pig's blood method" being a falsehood made up in the aftermath of 09/11/2001?

[Redmaus]

I meant in general. Throughout the article you linked, they talk that pigs blood used in burials and pigs head was used in negotiation. That is what I was referring to.

[sth]

Sincerely,
Brandon Stanton

Always refreshing to hear from someone else from Marietta, Georgia, who is not an insane Republican, like most of our neighbors.

It's those kinds of pejoratives that cast my statements earlier. Why is that necessary?

this is what upsets you?

not the fact that millions of americans live below the poverty line, or can't afford higher education, or their medical bills?

or that our police are murdering people? or that we're spending billions of your dollars fucking things up all over the planet?

or that women still earn less than men? or that in some states it is virtually impossible for them to receive adequate reproductive health care because of lies republicans told to hateful people?

or that wealthy americans are able to get away with financial murder while thousands of poor people and people of color sit in prisons for buying pot? or that the leading republican candidate courts the votes of domestic terrorists?

the phrase "insane republicans" is really what upsets you?

[Redmaus]

or that our police are murdering people? or that we're spending billions of your dollars fucking things up all over the planet?

I don't understand either of these points. Is upholding the law murder? I don't disagree with your second point, I just don't understand what you are referring to specifically.

or that women still earn less than men?

Women don't still earn less than men. I don't know why you think that's true.

or that the leading republican candidate courts the votes of domestic terrorists?

What type of "courting" did Trump receive by terrorists?

[sth]

or that our police are murdering people? or that we're spending billions of your dollars fucking things up all over the planet?

I don't understand either of these points. Is upholding the law murder? I don't disagree with your second point, I just don't understand what you are referring to specifically.

or that women still earn less than men?

Women don't still earn less than men. I don't know why you think that's true.

or that the leading republican candidate courts the votes of domestic terrorists?

What type of "courting" did Trump receive by terrorists?

you dont need my help to look into any of this for yourself.
so don't ask me or anyone else to do it for you until you are able to.

[Redmaus]

I can't find anything about Trump courting terrorists and on the other points I either don't understand you(then I don't know what to look up) or just disagree with you.

[fohat]

I can't find anything about Trump courting terrorists

Not everyone defines "domestic terrorism" as "terrorism" occurring on US soil.

Some of us consider "domestic terrorism" to be terrorist acts on Americans, or on American itself, committed by other Americans.

These include, but are not limited to: racial violence, religious violence, attacks on women's centers and health care providers, refusal to obey laws regarding federal lands and parks, I could go on.

Trump has, at the minimum, not included these activities in all the other "problems" that he would solve with his toughness, and, in particular, has "courted" or at least tacitly tolerated, racist groups, religious fundamentalists, and nutballs who have mounted assaults and occupations against what they perceive to be "the guv'ment"

[chuckdee]

Always refreshing to hear from someone else from Marietta, Georgia, who is not an insane Republican, like most of our neighbors.

It's those kinds of pejoratives that cast my statements earlier. Why is that necessary?

this is what upsets you?

not the fact that millions of americans live below the poverty line, or can't afford higher education, or their medical bills?

or that our police are murdering people? or that we're spending billions of your dollars fucking things up all over the planet?

or that women still earn less than men? or that in some states it is virtually impossible for them to receive adequate reproductive health care because of lies republicans told to hateful people?

or that wealthy americans are able to get away with financial murder while thousands of poor people and people of color sit in prisons for buying pot? or that the leading republican candidate courts the votes of domestic terrorists?

the phrase "insane republicans" is really what upsets you?

Do I need to work on everything in this one post? I was pointing to the fact that in this particular thread, there are pejoratives that are being used that don't need to be used, and detracting from the conversation. Why is it that people think that just because there are other things (and perhaps more important things) going on, that you can't deal with the lesser things in a lesser context?

That's the reason that people cant deal with others in a rational fashion. They believe that just because they have 'right' on their side, that common human decency is allowed to go out the window. And they think that judgement can be made on the station of those that are merely trying to keep the discourse rational so that discussion can be carried on, and perhaps we can get past those discussions to finding a way to create a rational consensus and a compromise that can carry us forth with unity and respect. Perhaps it might be politic to go back and read what we were originally talking about that I was calling fohat on rather than taking it out of context. He understood. And his subsequent response was very much appreciated, and allowed me to see that he was merely speaking out of a place of emotional investment and willing to see reason, rather than frothing at the mouth knee-jerk reaction.

Respect and consideration needs to be the place where we start, no matter the underlying problems and solutions needed in all cases, in my opinion. It takes the animosity out, and lets us deal on a playing ground where all of us are working to make things better, rather than sniping at each other with trite statements that don't help to solve the issues.

After all, that's what we all want, in the end, right?

[seebart]

Apparently you have quite high standards and expectations for your conversations or at least for this thread chuckdee. A good thing. Only problem is you cannot demand that from anyone here or elsewhere! You can expect it, no more. In my experience upholding such high levels in any discussion is too arduous for many people to keep up.

[chuckdee]

Apparently you have quite high standards and expectations for your conversations or at least for this thread chuckdee. A good thing. Only problem is you cannot demand that from anyone here or elsewhere! You can expect it, no more. In my experience upholding such high levels in any discussion is too arduous for many people to keep up.

I'm not demanding. I just asked him a question. And he responded positively. Which I consider a win, for all sides.

[vivalarevolución]

It's good to have dreams, chuckdee. It's good to have dreams.

When it comes to political discussions in the good ole USA, concepts like respect, decency, and rationality might as well be a foreign language. We talk at each other rather than attempt to have actual conversations.

[Redmaus]

Did you really just mention respect and decency and then say it would be a foreign language in America?

Do you not see the irony?

EDIT: I don't know why, but I thought you were European. Now my point about irony doesn't make as much sense.

Better luck next time

[chuckdee]

I think that there is a "collective better idea" that is conceived and nurtured in compromise, that you can never get in an echo chamber. Everyone that signed the Declaration of Independence didn't have the same beliefs on all points, nor did they agree with each other on many others. However they took what they did agree on, and used that as a basis for the Constitution that came after, and set the stage for our United States. Not the United States of those that I agree with. But the United States of America. People can, and should disagree, and debate, and compromise in pursuit of that "collective better idea". But these days, it seems that more and more, we're after "Our Perfect Idea", and damn the other side. And as we spiral into the end of the republic as we know it, we laugh at and ridicule the other side, rather than recognizing the truths before us.

In my opinion, both sides want a better America. But conservatives tend to minimize the human factor, and liberals tend to minimize the fiduciary factor. The money given to the government to govern is given in trust. It doesn't belong to the government, but rather is given to stewardship to be used wisely and effectively for the benefit of all of the citizens. And currently, it's not. If both sides came together with that in mind, I (perhaps naively) think that "collective better idea" could be found.

The preamble of the constitution seems to be ignored as a vision statement by all sides, and it's sad to see.

[fohat]

The money given to the government to govern is given in trust. It doesn't belong to the government

I absolutely disagree with this concept in the strongest terms possible.

Although I left my religion behind long ago, and am today a raging atheist, I still look to the words of Jesus in this matter.

Re-read Mark 12:17

[jacobolus]

Money is a social construct, created out of thin air by governments when they demand taxes in some particular form. Without a government or some similar institution, money wouldn’t exist.

You could equally say that “money given to people is given in trust; it doesn’t *belong* to those people”. We have the social institution of money for instrumental reasons: it helps us to allocate our labor and other resources in productive ways. Same story for other things that folks consider themselves to “own” such as various property rights.

At the moment social institutions such as money and property rights stop functioning in socially beneficial ways, they should be modified / renegotiated. Otherwise, the whole society becomes destabilized.

[chuckdee]

The money given to the government to govern is given in trust. It doesn't belong to the government

I absolutely disagree with this concept in the strongest terms possible.

And that's cool. Still doesn't change my opinion as stated. And I'm not taking that from the bible, so not sure why the verse was quoted in that context.