Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 11 Oct 2016, 7:57 am

bbauska wrote:http://www.evanmcmullin.com


So I talked to my father about this guy and sent him materials, and he changed his mind and is going to vote for McMullin as a write-in. Thanks Brad!!! He just needed a good alternative!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 11 Oct 2016, 8:27 am

geojanes wrote:
bbauska wrote:http://www.evanmcmullin.com


So I talked to my father about this guy and sent him materials, and he changed his mind and is going to vote for McMullin as a write-in. Thanks Brad!!! He just needed a good alternative!


If only we could find a good alternative to Mrs. Clinton...
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 11 Oct 2016, 8:46 am

Out of interest, as guys who are actually resident in the US and so presumably know a fair bit about the lesser known politicians from either party, would you say that better candidates actually exist ? I don't mean better as in 'a step up from Trump or Clinton' because Cthulhu vs Beelzebub would be an improvement on the current candidates. What I mean is are you aware of any actual bonefide political talent in either party who you'd say would make for a good President and around whom a clear majority of the nation could unite ? From the outside it doesn't half appear that both cupboards are looking pretty bare, but maybe I'm just not aware of the good ones.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 11 Oct 2016, 11:33 am

Manchin vs. Thune

A great deal more honor in those two, than what we have now...
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Oct 2016, 7:07 am

sass
Out of interest, as guys who are actually resident in the US and so presumably know a fair bit about the lesser known politicians from either party, would you say that better candidates actually exist ?


Obama launched himself nationally at the Democratic Convention. His rise from State Senator to Senator to candidate was fast . He might not have been totally unknown, but out side of Illinois, pretty much unknown.
There is always the potential for someone else to come along like that.
Of course, he's still seen as illegitimate by a third of Americans. And approved of by over half.

Then you have to ask whether or not just having the Executive office is enough. It probably isn't, as Obama proved.
Trump may actually have provided a unified country. That is if he continues to crater, and he may well, Clinton may end up with both the Senate and House Democratic. In that event, she may be able to exact actual change where Obama encountered nothing but obstructionism. (When Glen Beck is voting for Clinton, then you really are changing the landscape.)

Worth reading about Trump...

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ers-214350
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Oct 2016, 6:47 am

Ricky Ricky Ricky, just how blind is your partisanship?

Clinton may end up with both the Senate and House Democratic. In that event, she may be able to exact actual change where Obama encountered nothing but obstructionism.

Yet Obama had both the Senate and the House for 2 years and he did pretty much nothing, instead waiting until his second term when he started issuing executive orders avoiding the congress and senate. Why is Hillary going to be any different????

Oh, and Obama absolutely did not come out of nowhere.
He was the darling of the Democratic convention 4 years earlier and set the stage for his election at that time. He was a great speaker, THAT was his qualification for President and that is what made him well known. He did "come out of nowhere" at that earlier convention but he had four years to prepare for his presidential run and made himself more and more known in that time.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 Oct 2016, 9:15 am

Another unpleasant result of the Trump candicacy--white supremacists becoming more vocal.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us ... itter.html

2.6 million anti-Semitic tweets in one year? It's an understatement to say that is a lot of hate going out over Twitter.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 20 Oct 2016, 9:25 am

http://media.wix.com/ugd/3bebb2_98fe8b3559f64960a573ecad7dc22ec9.pdf

Evan McMullin +4 in Utah

As for Freeman's post about an anonymous harasser on Twitter... This is not attached to the Trump campaign at all, and is circumstantial.

Being a lawyer could preclude such jumping to conclusions, but I guess not in every situation
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 Oct 2016, 9:47 am

I don't think I said any such thing, Brad. All I said is that the Trump candicacy has brought out some white supremacists not anything specific about Trump supporters.As for the 2.6 million Twitter number, obviously I have no idea to what extent that it is related to Trump supporters and I was not claiming how many are, but what a staggering number of anti-Semitic tweets. We don't have a prior number for an earlier time period, however, which would be good for comparison.

Yes, McMullin...the two month candidate--just think where he would be if he were a three month candidate.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 20 Oct 2016, 9:57 am

freeman3 wrote:Another unpleasant result of the Trump candicacy--white supremacists becoming more vocal.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us ... itter.html

2.6 million anti-Semitic tweets in one year? It's an understatement to say that is a lot of hate going out over Twitter.


That's nothing ... you should read the foreign press.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 20 Oct 2016, 10:08 am

It would not be surprising if it were the Middle East but Twitter? I guess I am naive.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Oct 2016, 7:04 am

tom
Yet Obama had both the Senate and the House for 2 years and he did pretty much nothing
,
Tom, this is from Ohio.com . I've checked his chronology and its right.
Lies are easy to get away with if they are repeated often enough and given voice by many different people. Repeat a lie often enough and that lie often becomes conventional wisdom. Repeating a lie doesn't change the lie into the truth, it changes the people hearing the repeated lie. They begin to accept the lie as truth. One huge example: 'Iraq has WMD.'
Lies make it impossible for people to communicate with each other......lies make it impossible to, as the Villagers often talk about it, have a real "conversation."
One particular lie, often stated by right-of-center advocates, is the statement...."if Barack Obama wanted to increase taxes on the rich, stop the wars, pass a budget...blah, blah.....he could have chosen to do so because he had "total control" of the House and Senate for two full years."
Sometimes the "two full years" is omitted from the statement......but the lie is spread nevertheless, by the "total control of Congress" phrase.
Let's clear that all up, shall we?
Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans. There is no question that Democrats had total control in the House from 2009-2011.
Even with numerous "blue-dog" (allegedly fiscally conservative) Democrats often voting with Republicans.....Speaker Pelosi had little difficulty passing legislation in the House. The House does not have the pernicious filibuster rule which the Senate uses. A majority vote in the House is all that's necessary to pass legislation, except in rare occurrences (treaty ratification, overriding a presidential veto).
Okay, that's the House during the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For a lie to prosper, as it were, there needs to be a shred of truth woven inside the lie. It is absolutely true that from 2009-2011, Democrats and President Obama had "total control" of the House of Representatives.
But legislation does not become law without the Senate.
The Senate operates with the 60-vote-requirement filibuster rule. There are 100 Senate seats, and it takes 60 Senate votes for "closure" on a piece of legislation....to bring that piece of legislation to the floor of the Senate for amendments and a final vote....that final vote is decided by a simple majority in most cases. But it takes 60 Senate votes to even have a chance of being voted upon.
"Total control", then, of the Senate requires 60 Democratic or Republican Senators.
On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats...which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof "total control." Republicans held 41 seats.
The 59 number in January, 2009 included Ted Kennedy and Al Franken. Kennedy had a seizure during an Obama inaugural luncheon and never returned to vote in the Senate.....and Al Franken was not officially seated until July 7th, 2009 (hotly contested recount demanded by Norm Coleman.)
The real Democratic Senate seat number in January, 2009 was 55 Democrats plus 2 Independents equaling 57 Senate seats.
An aside....it was during this time that Obama's "stimulus" was passed. No Republicans in the House voted for the stimulus. However, in the Senate.....and because Democrats didn't have "total control" of that chamber.....three Republicans.....Snowe, Collins and Specter, voted to break a filibuster guaranteeing it's passage.
Then in April, 2009, Republican Senator Arlen Specter became a Democrat. Kennedy was still at home, dying, and Al Franken was still not seated. Score in April, 2009....Democratic votes 58.
In May, 2009, Robert Byrd got sick and did not return to the Senate until July 21, 2009. Even though Franken was finally seated July 7, 2009 and Byrd returned on July 21.....Democrats still only had 59 votes in the Senate because Kennedy never returned, dying on August 25, 2009.
Kennedy's empty seat was temporarily filled by Paul Kirk but not until September 24, 2009.
The swearing in of Kirk finally gave Democrats 60 votes (at least potentially) in the Senate. "Total control" of Congress by Democrats lasted all of 4 months. From September 24, 2009 through February 4, 2010...at which point Scott Brown, a Republican, was sworn in to replace Kennedy's Massachusetts seat.
The truth....then....is this: Democrats had "total control" of the House of Representatives from 2009-2011, 2 full years. Democrats, and therefore, Obama, had "total control" of the Senate from September 24, 2009 until February 4, 2010. A grand total of 4 months.
Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.
Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie.

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/mass-destruct ... s-1.332977
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 25 Oct 2016, 11:14 am

freeman3 wrote:It would not be surprising if it were the Middle East but Twitter? I guess I am naive.


I was referring to Europe.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 25 Oct 2016, 11:51 am

wow, really nit-picking huh?
Doesn't change the facts Ricky. The Democrats controlled both house and Senate for two years and they didn't even bother trying to pass almost guaranteed legislation why? ...because it MIGHT be fillibustered? C'mon, you are grasping at straws trying to be very literal, those who stoop to such literal interpretations only make themselves look petty and foolish. Your own link shows how they COULD do what they wanted (regarding the "stimulus" package) so why didn't they try to honor any of their promises? It could be done yet you want us to accept it could not, face it, it was damn near impossible to stop unless they stopped themselves now wasn't it? Nope, it;'s simply a matter of partisan politics where they want to blame the other side. What a freaking joke, how foolish do you take us to be? Or maybe I can ask how blindly partisan you really are ...don't answer, you prove that by the day!
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Oct 2016, 2:27 pm

tom
Doesn't change the facts Ricky. The Democrats controlled both house and Senate for two years and they didn't even bother trying to pass almost guaranteed legislation why?


The FACTS are:
Did President Obama have "total control" of Congress? Yes, for 4 entire months. And it was during that very small time window that Obamacare was passed in the Senate with 60 all-Democratic votes.
Did President Obama have "total control' of Congress during his first two years as president? Absolutely not and any assertions to the contrary.....as you can plainly see in the above chronology....is a lie