Politics Vote for a president of USA - 2016 election

[Maleth]

Why now? Because it was only recently discovered that Anthony Wiener sent some of his "sexting" messages to an underage girl, so what was before questionable moral conduct suddenly became a crime. When men engage in sexual activity with minors through the media you get an FBI investigation, and they can get a search warrant for all of the man's computers, servers, phones, etc. If Huma Abadin, his wife, sent or received e-mails from Hillary Clinton on her husband's devices which contained classified information and/or showed disregard for laws regarding the handling of classified information, and/or showed that false testimony was given to the FBI, and/or there was an intent to circumvent the laws regarding the handling of sensitive information, he had no choice but to re-open the investigation. Had he done anything differently he could be subject to prosecution himself. Plus, as I said, he's been facing a virtual rebellion within the FBI.

The investigation has been going on for over a year. Now (11 days before election) some more e-mails surface in connection with the case. E-mails we will never know the content of till well after the election. Don't you think it is a weird coincidence?

To be clear, this doesn't mean that it's a done deal that there was classified information on his devices, or classified information was handled inappropriately. That remains to be seen.

So people would be voting in clouds without the decency for the electorate to be able to digest the facts and make their own judgment. Very unfair in my opinion.

What I think has happened is that the information was provided to Comey by a group of agents, and given how many of the career attorneys felt he mishandled the investigation initially, he did this by the book this time, even if it was personally embarrassing and informed the appropriate Congressional authorities than indeed the investigation wasn't over. He's not personally tied to Clinton, and he has his reputation and career to consider.

Still the time questions is going to remain very relevant. This is an issue that has been going on for a very long time.

I think you misread Hillary Clinton's personality and how she is perceived by the American public, even Democrats. Maybe you have to have lived with her day in and day out for 30 years. I know a lot of people who are going to vote for her, even card-carrying Republicans. I don't know anyone who really likes her, or trusts her. She's a singularly unsympathetic and unattractive character. Well, there's always people like Wanderlust, who would probably excuse anything a Democrat did.

Then the third question comes to mind if that would really be the case. Why such a tough campaign with so many stages ended up being run by these two characters? What happened to the so many other talented Americans that might have been better suited for the job? Its people who put them there. Wasn't this a rigorous democratic process the longest process in the world. Can it just be boiled down to the people being fooled? And don't we continuously hear that for democracy to work people need to be well informed (uncensored media). Isn't that what the USA has? So what is wrong?

 

[LeBrok]

The investigation has been going on for over a year. Now (11 days before election) some more e-mails surface in connection with the case. E-mails we will never know the content of till well after the election. Don't you think it is a weird coincidence?

One thing is for certain. If investigating chief officer was pro Clinton, he would definitely not rush with this investigation few days before election. He might have even let few officers to go quickly through emails to see if there is any substance for new investigation. As well there might not be. This tells me that chief investigating officer is in Trump's camp, because this "new scandal" will lower Hillary's ratings.
Surprisingly Hillary wants these emails to be published right away. She knows what is in her emails and that there is nothing of government importance.
On other hand she might be bluffing knowing that nothing will be published when investigation is ongoing. This means, before election.

Then the third question comes to mind if that would really be the case. Why such a tough campaign with so many stages ended up being run by these two characters? What happened to the so many other talented Americans that might have been better suited for the job? Its people who put them there. Wasn't this a rigorous democratic process the longest process in the world. Can it just be boiled down to the people being fooled? And don't we continuously hear that for democracy to work people need to be well informed (uncensored media). Isn't that what the USA has? So what is wrong?

Excellent question. Where are the talents in this election?! Just peculiar characters, demagoguery, lies and mudslinging. Where are the talented, smart and honest people in a country of 320 million?

 

[Sile]

I'm afraid that your bias on Italy is based on Liga Veneta/Venetian nationalism ideas of more than 20 years ago. Being that you don't live in Italy, and probably you never do, you continue to believe that these ideas are still relevant. Liga Veneta along with its companion of Lega Nord has ruled many times over the last twenty years and has had a leading role in bringing Italy to the current crisis. Italy would probably have been born as a federal country, I am convinced too, but all forms of peripheral power in Italy contributed to raise public spending. Besides ungovernability, the national debt is another major problem of Italy.

The instability of Italian governments is not related to its centralism but more related to the fact that the Italian voting system gives a lot of power to small parties and this leads to conflicting majorities in the two houses of Italian Parliament, Camera and Senato, which have equal power.

The problem comes from far, Italy has had for twenty years Fascism, and who created the Constitution, after the end of WW2, tried to prevent that this repeats again. This led to the birth of a system based on a perfect proportional representation, minimally modified in the 90s and more recently in the direction of a mild bipolarity.

Italy is again at a crossroads. Choose more governability and stability and reduce many of the democratic Constitutional tools, always with the specter that a strong bipolar system can lead to the return of unwanted forms of leaderism (recent governmental experiences of Berlusconi ally with the Northern League/Liga Veneta does not help). Or stay just as we are.

Certainly neither of these options can guarantee to improve the quality of Italian government, politics Lawmaking, and lead the country out of the crisis. Also because the instability of Italian governments always reflected the fragmentation of Italian society.

Just the fact that someone like Trump is running for the presidential elections of the USA redeems the murky figure of Berlusconi (which I never liked and never supported) and of all politicians like him in the rest of the world, that the American press has rightly criticized in all these years. Perhaps once again Italy was simply ahead of its time.



This is true. The problem is that in recent years a political system increasingly pervasive in all areas of Italian society, in an increasingly global system, has really started to brake on growth of the country.

there is no bias on Italy..........its the centralised system that has failed for the gifted italians

1860 centralised ..........1st government went backrupt

with Monarchy of Savoy .............centralised ..............starvation and practice of exporting italians to other countries, south-america, north-america, Belgium where the main ones.

with Mussolini , fascism..........centralised

after WWII, 60 plus governments ............all centralised

Italy needs a de-centralised government like successful other nations, Germany, USA, Australia etc etc .................the USA issue now is not the de-centralised, but that the same "families" govern, beginning from the Kennedy's,

 

[Angela]

The investigation has been going on for over a year. Now (11 days before election) some more e-mails surface in connection with the case. E-mails we will never know the content of till well after the election. Don't you think it is a weird coincidence?

Maleth, we're going to have to agree to disagree. No, I don't think it's a weird coincidence. I think it shows what happens when you have a conspiracy to obstruct justice where people being investigated don't turn over the information that has been requested. Have you ever heard the phrase "the cover up is worse than the crime"? Had Huma Abedin turned over these records when requested it would have been dealt with months ago. It's the FBI's fault that she broke the law by not doing it?

Indeed, had Hillary Clinton obeyed the laws about not having a private server and not mishandling classified e-mails in the first place, and not deleted 33,000 e-mails after receiving a subpoena to produce them, she wouldn't be in the trouble she's in. (Or maybe if we could have read those e-mails she's have gone to jail for a lot longer than a few years.)

For the latter alone she should have gone to prison. There's a navy seaman who is serving one year in prison right now for taking pictures of the submarine on which he was serving for his own memories, with no indication they ever left his possession. What makes her above the law?

So people would be voting in clouds without the decency for the electorate to be able to digest the facts and make their own judgment. Very unfair in my opinion.

What's unfair is that Jim Comey should have been put in this untenable position where no matter what he did he was going to be affecting the outcome of the election. What's unfair is that the American public has been put in this position. Again, the people who caused this are Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin. Had they complied with FBI requests when instructed this would have been over long ago.

To impugn Jim Comey because you don't like that he followed the law is ludicrous. Twenty-four hours ago Democrats thought he was wonderful. Now they think he's terrible. It's all hypocrisy and mud slinging based on nothing other than supporting one's own candidate.

If people don't know or understand the American laws which govern what an FBI director should do in this kind of situation maybe it would be prudent not to comment.

Still the time questions is going to remain very relevant. This is an issue that has been going on for a very long time.

Yes, indeed, it's taken way too long. That's what happens when you obstruct justice and engage in a cover up.

Look, if I have a religion anymore, it's the "LAW", and the law as blindfolded, as impartial as is humanly possible. It's the glue, now that religion is gone, that holds the society together. Without it, there is no democracy, there is no civilized society.

It applies to local influence peddlers of both parties like Mangano and Blagojevich, it applied to Nixon, and it should apply to Clinton. There's a seaman serving a year in jail right now for taking a few pictures of his quarters aboard a submarine for his own memories, and there's no claim he ever passed them on to anyone else. What places Hillary Clinton above the law while he pays the penalty?

Then the third question comes to mind if that would really be the case. Why such a tough campaign with so many stages ended up being run by these two characters? What happened to the so many other talented Americans that might have been better suited for the job? Its people who put them there. Wasn't this a rigorous democratic process the longest process in the world. Can it just be boiled down to the people being fooled? And don't we continuously hear that for democracy to work people need to be well informed (uncensored media). Isn't that what the USA has? So what is wrong?

In terms of the Republicans, Hillary Clinton was considered so beatable that 14 Republicans put their hats in the ring. Most Americans had no clue who most of them were. In an effort to be as "fair" as possible, the RNC let all of them have their moments on the debate stage, which meant they only got a few minutes each. In the midst of these policy wonks, there was Donald Trump, instantly recognizable from television, very entertaining, and a master at using media. It was like having a peacock in the middle of a bunch of mousy wrens. The mainstream media gave him millions of dollars of free time on top of all that. The rest of the "respectable" candidates split up the vote and Trump wound up with a bigger piece. Then, and perhaps more importantly, he was the only candidate to specifically address the concerns of the white working class, and in language they could understand, and he could get white working class votes even from the Democrats, because in a number of states the Republicans, in an effort to be more "democratic" had rules allowing everyone to vote in the Republican primaries, or at least to register as a Republican even on election day. Stupid, imo, but nobody asked me. Indeed, I'm not even a registered Republican.

There's nothing "democratic" about DNC rules for the primaries. Unlike the Republican primaries, which the "delegates" are apportioned by "popular vote", on the Democrat side there is a large number of "super-delegates", controlled by the DNC, and since Hillary Clinton stuffed that organization with all her people, effectively controlled by her. Some of these shenanigans on the part of Clinton and her hand picked head of the DNC have been exposed by those Wiki-Leaks e-mails ( as well as one of my favorites, which involves Clinton high staffers trying to figure out if they can create a "vision" for her for America, since she doesn't seem to have one, or even a reason for running for office, other than money and power, of course, but that's my glss on the subject, not theirs). Between all those super-delegates and the President telling African Americans to vote for Hillary, and the fact that Hispanic Americans didn't quite "get" this old, white, professor type who happily called himself a Socialist, the die was cast.

So, here we are. As Sparkey explained, the polls in New York favor Clinton by 20 points. I don't really have to face this "existential" Hillary vs Donald dilemma. If I lived in a swing state like Florida or Ohio or North Carolina I would

Which leads me to whether I think this is going to make a huge difference. I suspect not. Presidential elections are usually decided by Independants. The only difference or added twist this year will be those "Never Trump" Republicans, and those white working class Democrats. I think the working class vote is sort of baked in for Trump already, as is the Black vote, and maybe 70% of the Hispanic vote and all the actual registered, active Democrats out there. For these kind of people one or both of them could commit a crime on public television in front of all of America, and they wouldn't care.

Other than independents, the only ones to be perhaps affected are the "Never Trump" Republicans. I don't think they've been showing up in the polls as Trump supporters or Hillary supporters. They're probably in the "undecided" grouping. I don't think most of them would have wound up voting for Trump. The question is, are they going to sit home, a lot of them, because they're so disgusted, or just vote down ballot, or is Trump going to convert them? I don't think the latter is going to happen, so maybe we're looking at a two point swing? That might have happened anyway as elections always tighten as it comes down to the wire.

Of course, the real "October surprises" have also not happened yet. The Democrats always save the big result of their opposition research for the week-end before the election. Trump has run such a stupid campaign, with absolutely no ground game for heaven's sake, that he probably doesn 't have one, but there's always Wiki Leaks. I would think they would have been clever enough to hold back the really big one.

So, unfortunately this isn't over.

If only I really drank; I could go into a sort of fugue state until this is all over.

Oh, there are some salutary lessons from all this. If you discover you're married to a sleazy, degenerate pervert like "Don Carlos Danger" Wiener, forget about therapy, forget about forgiveness, and kick him to the curb instantly. This guy is the poster child for everything that's going wrong with modern culture.

https://ventrellaquest.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/carlos-danger.jpg

Ed. Poor Huma; she's already been kicked out of the plane. Well, at least it wasn't done while they were in the air. She's the only one for whom I have any sympathy in all this. She and her poor child.

 

[bicicleur 2]

One thing is for certain. If investigating chief officer was pro Clinton, he would definitely not rush with this investigation few days before election. He might have even let few officers to go quickly through emails to see if there is any substance for new investigation. As well there might not be. This tells me that chief investigating officer is in Trump's camp, because this "new scandal" will lower Hillary's ratings.
Surprisingly Hillary wants these emails to be published right away. She knows what is in her emails and that there is nothing of government importance.
On other hand she might be bluffing knowing that nothing will be published when investigation is ongoing. This means, before election.

I don't know the law in the US, but IMO an investigation chief officer can't make a new move unless he/she got some new evidence or elements.
I understood the case was closed and now it is reopened.
Hillary was interrogated before but appearantly she didn't disclose the whole truth to the investigating officers at that time.
That's how it looks to me.

Hillary almost got away with it. She's a better lier than Trump. She's a more experienced politician.

 

[Wanderlust]

It's been my experience that it's unproductive to debate someone who is rabidly partisan and looks at every single issue and candidate through that prism.

A weak deflection. Is this the best you can do when you've been proven wrong? I'd expect better from you. How about you debate me with facts? Facts aren't partisan. But I guarantee that would be inconvenient for you.

And "rabidly partisan?" lol What's hilarious is that you delusionally and condescendingly believe that you are a true moderate--wrong, you're aren't. You may be moderate for a conservative/Republican, but that's center-right and not the radical center. Anyone who thinks that the "truth" lies in between CNN, a news organization universally mocked for its pandering and often laughable, screwball attempts at "journalism" (the hiring of that Corey Lewandowski brute speaks volumes) and Fox news, which isn't actual journalism so much as it is a blatant right-wing propaganda machine, is almost by definition, "rabidly partisan." As usual, conservatives don't seem to really understand what being "fair and balanced" entails--what you all actually subscribe to is a false balance, which occurs when people confuse treating competing views fairly—i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance—with treating them equally, giving them equal time to present their views even when those views may be known beforehand to be based on false information. Do you understand now? I watch the Young Turks on the net, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, Russia Today, Al-Jazeera, etc...--unlike you, I engage the full spectrum of news coverage in order to understand an issue from all perspectives, even ones that I know are biased or have a particular lean. My point is that there's no way in hell you are more "balanced" than I am so feel free to drop the smugness.

I also find it interesting that far left people just drip compassion for disadvantaged blacks and other minorities, but don't have much to spare for poor and working class whites. My compassion is more even handed.

1.) That's bull, and consistently regurgitated bull at that. Liberals and progressives care about those who are vulnerable, PERIOD. We also understand that there are different levels of vulnerability and that many of them intersect and can compound each other. Ever hear of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders (who I voted for during the Democratic primaries)? Not only are they two of the most popular and well known politicians out there, but they also happen to be unabashed progressives with populist, working class based public policy platforms that appeal to all Americans. They follow in the tradition of FDR who strengthened, galvanized and supported the working class--therefore, I don't know what you're talking about; I guess this is what happens when one thinks Fox News is a reliable "news" source. Now if you want to indict the Clintons and (Republican-lite) neoliberalist policies that negatively impacted the white working class, FINE, let's do it together. But besides them, it is the Republicans that have relied on a nationwide “Southern strategy” of sorts to reach the white working class, demonizing Democrats as the party that coddles minorities, taking jobs and tax dollars from whites and giving them to people of color, all the the while, instituting policies that actually worked against working class interests. It has already been proven that the American working class has done the best when center-left policies were in place and usually under a Democratic president.

2.) The fact of the matter is that identity politics powerfully shape white working-class loyalties. And time and time again, they have voted against their financial interests (by voting Republican) due to a resistance to cultural liberalism (ethnic diversity, lgbt rights, etc...). It is not a coincidence that much of the white working class that supports Trump tend to be prone to bigotry and prejudice (For example, 65% of Trump supporters believe that President Obama was not born in the US).

I would also just suggest to you that the way you define "racism" cheapens what it actually is and the evil and suffering it has caused.

The way "I" define racism? How many definitions are there? I'm perfectly fine with using google's definition: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." Donald Trump and his father refused to let black people rent from them because they didn't want an inferior, "low class" people fouling up their "classy" (but actually bawdy and tacky) establishment. You don't think that caused those who were rejected suffering? You don't think that served as an impediment to climbing the social ladder? You don't think that kept them from giving their families a better life? So, if this type of discrimination doesn't qualify as racism in your book, what does?

I must say, what galls me is the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of it all. Though you could hardly veil it, you just about lost your sh*t when I once made a genuinely innocent mob reference to Early Neolithic Farmers. lol What's interesting is that your hyper-sensitivity was somewhat warranted considering the century old stereotypes of Italian Americans being seen/portrayed as innately criminal, violence prone, emotional, hyper-sexual, theatrical, domestic, blue collar, anti-intellectual and overall, "greasy." What's even more interesting is that the very same or similar stereotypes have often been hurled at a group Italian-Americans have had a particularly hostile relationship to > African-Americans. I don't know, perhaps it's just a thing that "conservative minded" peoples tend to unironically engage in the biases and prejudices that they themselves have been subjected to. It's just interesting (read: tragic) that conservatives always seem particularly attuned to perceived or actual slights and insults hurled at them but far more numb and disinterested as it pertains to others. Interesting but unsurprising.

 

[Angela]

A weak deflection. Is this the best you can do when you've been proven wrong? I'd expect better from you. How about you debate me with facts? Facts aren't partisan. But I guarantee that would be inconvenient for you.

And "rabidly partisan?" lol What's hilarious is that you delusionally and condescendingly believe that you are a true moderate--wrong, you're aren't. You may be moderate for a conservative/Republican, but that's center-right and not the radical center. Anyone who thinks that the "truth" lies in between CNN, a news organization universally mocked for its pandering and often laughable, screwball attempts at "journalism" (the hiring of that Corey Lewandowski brute speaks volumes) and Fox news, which isn't actual journalism so much as it is a blatant right-wing propaganda machine, is almost by definition, "rabidly partisan." As usual, conservatives don't seem to really understand what being "fair and balanced" entails--what you all actually subscribe to is a false balance, which occurs when people confuse treating competing views fairly—i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance—with treating them equally, giving them equal time to present their views even when those views may be known beforehand to be based on false information. Do you understand now? I watch the Young Turks on the net, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, Russia Today, Al-Jazeera, etc...--unlike you, I engage the full spectrum of news coverage in order to understand an issue from all perspectives, even ones that I know are biased or have a particular lean. My point is that there's no way in hell you are more "balanced" than I am so feel free to drop the smugness.



1.) That's bull, and consistently regurgitated bull at that. Liberals and progressives care about those who are vulnerable, PERIOD. We also understand that there are different levels of vulnerability and that many of them intersect and can compound each other. Ever hear of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders (who I voted for during the Democratic primaries)? Not only are they two of the most popular and well known politicians out there, but they also happen to be unabashed progressives with populist, working class based public policy platforms that appeal to all Americans. They follow in the tradition of FDR who strengthened, galvanized and supported the working class--therefore, I don't know what you're talking about; I guess this is what happens when one thinks Fox News is a reliable "news" source. Now if you want to indict the Clintons and (Republican-lite) neoliberalist policies that negatively impacted the white working class, FINE, let's do it together. But besides them, it is the Republicans that have relied on a nationwide “Southern strategy” of sorts to reach the white working class, demonizing Democrats as the party that coddles minorities, taking jobs and tax dollars from whites and giving them to people of color, all the the while, instituting policies that actually worked against working class interests. It has already been proven that the American working class has done the best when center-left policies were in place and usually under a Democratic president.

2.) The fact of the matter is that identity politics powerfully shape white working-class loyalties. And time and time again, they have voted against their financial interests (by voting Republican) due to a resistance to cultural liberalism (ethnic diversity, lgbt rights, etc...). It is not a coincidence that much of the white working class that supports Trump tend to be prone to bigotry and prejudice (For example, 65% of Trump supporters believe that President Obama was not born in the US).




The way "I" define racism? How many definitions are there? I'm perfectly fine with using google's definition: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." Donald Trump and his father refused to let black people rent from them because they didn't want an inferior, "low class" people fouling up their "classy" (but actually bawdy and tacky) establishment. You don't think that caused those who were rejected suffering? You don't think that served as an impediment to climbing the social ladder? You don't think that kept them from giving their families a better life? So, if this type of discrimination doesn't qualify as racism in your book, what does?

I must say, what galls me is the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of it all. Though you could hardly veil it, you just about lost your sh*t when I once made a genuinely innocent mob reference to Early Neolithic Farmers. lol What's interesting is that your hyper-sensitivity was somewhat warranted considering the century old stereotypes of Italian Americans being seen/portrayed as innately criminal, violence prone, emotional, hyper-sexual, theatrical, domestic, blue collar, anti-intellectual and overall, "greasy." What's even more interesting is that the very same or similar stereotypes have often been hurled at a group Italian-Americans have had a particularly hostile relationship to > African-Americans. I don't know, perhaps it's just a thing that "conservative minded" peoples tend to unironically engage in the biases and prejudices that they themselves have been subjected to. It's just interesting (read: tragic) that conservatives always seem particularly attuned to perceived or actual slights and insults hurled at them but far more numb and disinterested as it pertains to others. Interesting but unsurprising.

Are you incapable of rational argument? Where does all this venom and spite come from? What on earth could have happened to you in your life that this is how you react on thread after thread if you have decided in your divine wisdom that the other person is an "enemy" of some sort whose opinions must all, of course, be devoid of reason and must derive from the basest motives? Must you, like Hillary Clinton and that phony "Indian" Elizabeth Warren, who got promotion after promotion based on a phony pedigree, degenerate immediately into both personal and thinly veiled ethnic attacks? This kind of refusal to grant anyone who doesn't totally agree with you any modicum of respect, the refusal to believe that other people might actually be operating from genuine motives, and therefore the absolute refusal to compromise is exactly what's wrong with American politics today.

In the transparent guise of merely listing what others, not you, of course, have said, you always manage to trot out the whole disgusting list of stereotypes for the other person's ethnicity, don't you, instead of dealing with FACTS? Like the capitalization? I'll have to see if I can work in the red ink too. Ever heard of passive aggression? Of course, you only use it when you think you can get away with it. You'd never do it to blacks or Hispanics, but it's ok to do it to Poles, then Finns, and now the Italians. You may have done it to others and I didn't notice it because I've added you to my ignore list, the list headed by Sile. You're in great company.

I should have issued an infraction for it when you did it to Tomenable, even though I never agree with him, or to the Finn, but I didn't. I was wrong, and I apologize to them. At least they're civil when they disagree with someone.

You've also insulted a team member. Another infraction offense, so I could really give you two, but I'm feeling charitable today so I'll leave it at one.

Keep it up though and you'll get more.

 

[DuPidh]

A weak deflection. Is this the best you can do when you've been proven wrong? I'd expect better from you. How about you debate me with facts? Facts aren't partisan. But I guarantee that would be inconvenient for you.

And "rabidly partisan?" lol What's hilarious is that you delusionally and condescendingly believe that you are a true moderate--wrong, you're aren't. You may be moderate for a conservative/Republican, but that's center-right and not the radical center. Anyone who thinks that the "truth" lies in between CNN, a news organization universally mocked for its pandering and often laughable, screwball attempts at "journalism" (the hiring of that Corey Lewandowski brute speaks volumes) and Fox news, which isn't actual journalism so much as it is a blatant right-wing propaganda machine, is almost by definition, "rabidly partisan." As usual, conservatives don't seem to really understand what being "fair and balanced" entails--what you all actually subscribe to is a false balance, which occurs when people confuse treating competing views fairly—i.e., in proportion to their actual merits and significance—with treating them equally, giving them equal time to present their views even when those views may be known beforehand to be based on false information. Do you understand now? I watch the Young Turks on the net, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, Russia Today, Al-Jazeera, etc...--unlike you, I engage the full spectrum of news coverage in order to understand an issue from all perspectives, even ones that I know are biased or have a particular lean. My point is that there's no way in hell you are more "balanced" than I am so feel free to drop the smugness.



1.) That's bull, and consistently regurgitated bull at that. Liberals and progressives care about those who are vulnerable, PERIOD. We also understand that there are different levels of vulnerability and that many of them intersect and can compound each other. Ever hear of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders (who I voted for during the Democratic primaries)? Not only are they two of the most popular and well known politicians out there, but they also happen to be unabashed progressives with populist, working class based public policy platforms that appeal to all Americans. They follow in the tradition of FDR who strengthened, galvanized and supported the working class--therefore, I don't know what you're talking about; I guess this is what happens when one thinks Fox News is a reliable "news" source. Now if you want to indict the Clintons and (Republican-lite) neoliberalist policies that negatively impacted the white working class, FINE, let's do it together. But besides them, it is the Republicans that have relied on a nationwide “Southern strategy” of sorts to reach the white working class, demonizing Democrats as the party that coddles minorities, taking jobs and tax dollars from whites and giving them to people of color, all the the while, instituting policies that actually worked against working class interests. It has already been proven that the American working class has done the best when center-left policies were in place and usually under a Democratic president.

2.) The fact of the matter is that identity politics powerfully shape white working-class loyalties. And time and time again, they have voted against their financial interests (by voting Republican) due to a resistance to cultural liberalism (ethnic diversity, lgbt rights, etc...). It is not a coincidence that much of the white working class that supports Trump tend to be prone to bigotry and prejudice (For example, 65% of Trump supporters believe that President Obama was not born in the US).




The way "I" define racism? How many definitions are there? I'm perfectly fine with using google's definition: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." Donald Trump and his father refused to let black people rent from them because they didn't want an inferior, "low class" people fouling up their "classy" (but actually bawdy and tacky) establishment. You don't think that caused those who were rejected suffering? You don't think that served as an impediment to climbing the social ladder? You don't think that kept them from giving their families a better life? So, if this type of discrimination doesn't qualify as racism in your book, what does?

I must say, what galls me is the hypocrisy, the hypocrisy of it all. Though you could hardly veil it, you just about lost your sh*t when I once made a genuinely innocent mob reference to Early Neolithic Farmers. lol What's interesting is that your hyper-sensitivity was somewhat warranted considering the century old stereotypes of Italian Americans being seen/portrayed as innately criminal, violence prone, emotional, hyper-sexual, theatrical, domestic, blue collar, anti-intellectual and overall, "greasy." What's even more interesting is that the very same or similar stereotypes have often been hurled at a group Italian-Americans have had a particularly hostile relationship to > African-Americans. I don't know, perhaps it's just a thing that "conservative minded" peoples tend to unironically engage in the biases and prejudices that they themselves have been subjected to. It's just interesting (read: tragic) that conservatives always seem particularly attuned to perceived or actual slights and insults hurled at them but far more numb and disinterested as it pertains to others. Interesting but unsurprising.

You can't accuse Trump for racism. He likes Blacks! His fight is about culture. When Trump talks about Muslims he dos not mean race. He means culture. The Muslims are Trying to bring Sharia law so their presence threaten white christian culture. When he mention Mexicans he also means culture.

 

[bicicleur 2]

You can't accuse Trump for racism. He likes Blacks! His fight is about culture. When Trump talks about Muslims he dos not mean race. He means culture. The Muslims are Trying to bring Sharia law so their presence threaten white christian culture. When he mention Mexicans he also means culture.

the term 'racist' has been abused so many times, it has no meaning any more

 

[Maleth]

You can't accuse Trump for racism. He likes Blacks! His fight is about culture. When Trump talks about Muslims he dos not mean race. He means culture. The Muslims are Trying to bring Sharia law so their presence threaten white christian culture. When he mention Mexicans he also means culture.

If Trump finds it so difficult to explain himself and Generalize in his statements, then one truly does not need to hold a university degree to realize what a dangerous man he will be if ever president. The man talks on stage as if he just come out drunk from a pub. I presume that is what some people call politically incorrect and think its a good thing.

Besides bragging how rich he is he also call himself a genius for not paying taxes..... and a crowd stood up and applauded :banghead:

 

[DuPidh]

the term 'racist' has been abused so many times, it has no meaning any more

"Racism" now is being used as an extortion tool. Its an effective tool to extort undeserved benefits on the back of white working class. Look at affirmative actions! In one side demagogues will say all races are equal, on the other hand they will implement lower college admission requirements for brown and black people, on the assumptions that their 6th grandfather was a slave. Its not like these policies are harmless. They harm other students in particular white ones. I can go on and on , but that what it is.

 

[LeBrok]

One thing is for certain. If investigating chief officer was pro Clinton, he would definitely not rush with this investigation few days before election. He might have even let few officers to go quickly through emails to see if there is any substance for new investigation. As well there might not be. This tells me that chief investigating officer is in Trump's camp, because this "new scandal" will lower Hillary's ratings.
Surprisingly Hillary wants these emails to be published right away. She knows what is in her emails and that there is nothing of government importance.
On other hand she might be bluffing knowing that nothing will be published when investigation is ongoing. This means, before election.

So much for a coincidence in "reopening investigation" just few days before election. Director of FBI James Comey is lifelong Conservative.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/james...tigation-reopened-huma-abedin-anthony-weiner/
If there is nothing of importance found in these emails, he might be investigated in the future for trying to influence presidential election. I don't think it was the smartest move in his career. On other hand perhaps he read them and he is sure he stands on a solid ground.

 

[Angela]

For those like me who try to cope through humor...I can't decide between Colorado and Illinois.

https://thenib.com/today-s-electoral-map

 

[davef]

Both candidates are horrible in their own ways, it's a lose lose situation and i may end up just moving to France if this nation becomes overly ruined by a criminal or a psychotic pig. France? It's simply how its a crossroads between northern and southern europe.

 

[Twilight]

If Trump finds it so difficult to explain himself and Generalize in his statements, then one truly does not need to hold a university degree to realize what a dangerous man he will be if ever president. The man talks on stage as if he just come out drunk from a pub. I presume that is what some people call politically incorrect and think its a good thing.

Besides bragging how rich he is he also call himself a genius for not paying taxes..... and a crowd stood up and applauded :banghead:

You just made my day, such Burn XD. Question, I'm just looking at the Donald Trump facebook and trying to understand this, in the Donald Trump pages there are many posts that have been saying that Trump supporters want to throw out the Government. Do they mean just Governmental Officials or every employee; 100,000's of Governmental Employees fired?

Both candidates are horrible in their own ways, it's a lose lose situation and i may end up just moving to France if this nation becomes overly ruined by a criminal or a psychotic pig. France? It's simply how its a crossroads between northern and southern europe.

Well at least if that happens, I have reletives that live in Victoria BC and Calgary on my Paternal Grandfather's side. But hopefully America doesn't get ruined.

 

[Wanderlust]

Wow. This response is so egregiously unselfaware that it could pass as a conservative or Trump parody > Act arrogant, smug, condescending, patronizing and dismissive and then when challenged accordingly (in part by the utilization of similar tactics), reveal a super thin layer of skin and feign victimhood. Amazing.

Are you incapable of rational argument? Where does all this venom and spite come from? What on earth could have happened to you in your life that this is how you react on thread after thread if you have decided in your divine wisdom that the other person is an "enemy" of some sort whose opinions must all, of course, be devoid of reason and must derive from the basest motives?

So I comment on one of your comments, state facts, show no animosity or condescension, and then am told by you that I'm a "rabid partisan" that essentially isn't worth "debating" or responding to. And yet I'm the spiteful one incapable of a rational argument? And then when I give you a taste of your own smug medicine, suddenly you're confused and aghast? LOL The funny thing is that I never decided that you were some "enemy" regardless of how snide and smug you've been to me. I never felt the need to put you on my ignore list; as of a few days ago, I was still thumbing up your comments. It just affirms my belief that conservatives love to project who they actually are onto others. For some reason, you decided early on that I was someone to be condescended whereas in one of my first posts, I said how I was a longtime lurker and that you and Lebrok were my favorite posters. I'm not the one with the problem; and even when there was a testy disagreement and exchange, I still showed after the fact that I was capable of supporting/agreeing with someone who obviously didn't like me. Not once have I ever impugned your "motives" and suggested that "all" of your opinions are "devoid of reason" but quite the contrary; So, you are definitely mistaken and in my opinion, projecting. But thanks for proving that I'm actually more open-minded than you are.

Must you, like Hillary Clinton and that phony "Indian" Elizabeth Warren, who got promotion after promotion based on a phony pedigree, degenerate immediately into both personal and thinly veiled ethnic attacks? This kind of refusal to grant anyone who doesn't totally agree with you any modicum of respect, the refusal to believe that other people might actually be operating from genuine motives, and therefore the absolute refusal to compromise is exactly what's wrong with American politics today.

1.) Please cite the evidence that Elizabeth Warren received "promotion after promotion based on a phony pedigree." I'll sit here and wait for you to come back with nothing. Just as there is no evidence that she definitively has Native American ancestry, there is no evidence at all that she used it to advance her career. Regardless, that's a strawman. Her alleged ethnic background has nothing to do what she stands for and what she's fought for > working class people.

2.) I never made any "thinly veiled ethnic attacks"; that's more of your projection and skewed perception. But evidently you prefer the blatant ethnic attacks like the ones Donald Trump makes, who (laughably) according to you isn't a racist, but simply has "no filter."

3.) And no, I will never "compromise" with misogynists, racists, xenophobes, homophobes, and other bigots. If one's "genuine motives" propel and incite racial/ethnic/religious/gender divisiveness, hatred, and inequality, then no, I proudly will not compromise with these people; they need to be shut down, end of story. I don't subscribe to false balances but to actual balance--therefore, I don't believe that every opinion is a valid one. I believe that informed opinions based on substantive arguments are valid. Evidently you believe that so long as one says disgusting/evil/destructive/false things in a "civil" way, it's perfectly fine and I take umbrage with that. Tomenable goes around posting debunked racial pseudoscience ad nauseum but because he does it "civilly," that's fine? No, that is what should outrage you. THAT is what you should take offense to. THAT is the height of human incivility and should count for far more than the manner in which it is said. He makes all sorts of bigoted, ignorant remarks about entire swaths of people but because he doesn't direct it specifically to someone in a conversation on the net, he gets a pass? Ridiculous. This type of imbalanced thinking and prioritizing seems to define most conservatives; many moderate Republicans are ultimately just as bad as Trump supporters because even if they don't like Trump's wording, they essentially believe his views; And that makes sense as to why you are probably loathe to call him racist, because that would implicate you. Whatever, that's your problem and you won't make it mine.

In the transparent guise of merely listing what others, not you, of course, have said, you always manage to trot out the whole disgusting list of stereotypes for the other person's ethnicity, don't you, instead of dealing with FACTS? Like the capitalization? I'll have to see if I can work in the red ink too. Ever heard of passive aggression? Of course, you only use it when you think you can get away with it. You'd never do it to blacks or Hispanics, but it's ok to do it to Poles, then Finns, and now the Italians. You may have done it to others and I didn't notice it because I've added you to my ignore list, the list headed by Sile. You're in great company.

1.) My point is that you, and people who tend to think like you, are hypocrites to varying degrees. That's it. Now, I don't put you in the same category as a Trump or Tomenable, because you seem to be more thoughtful and balanced, but you have a few of the same "blind spots." I've probably said it at least 15 times on this board alone that empathy tends to be sorely lacking within certain corners of humanity (uncoincidentally, in more conservative oriented populations) and people have a short memory and forget where they've come from. No human group, not a single one has been spared abuse, oppression, stereotypes and other indignities. Therefore, I believe that we should all have more compassion and empathy for others who may be similarly maligned and stigmatized. When I've listed how "others" wrongfully see Poles, Finns or Italians, the point is never to attack--that goes against my entire anti-racist worldview and philosophy. But the point is to show that a.) no one is better than the next, b.) there can always be someone looking down on us c.) we all have been on the receiving end of oppression at some point and that d.) that should give us some perspective and subsequently, empathy and compassion. But that point seems to always fly over your head because you're too busy being triggered in your own one dimensional, narrow minded, "partisan" self-centeredness. And that's the real problem! On one hand, you have the audacity, the unmitigated gall to defend Trump's bigotry as him having "no filter" and not being racist but all I have to do is list century old Italian-American stereotypes--that other people have and still do subscribe to--and you hit the ceiling. You are so amazingly sensitive to the perceived slights your people have endured, but will mitigate and minimize the far worse vitriol directed at other groups who are more disenfranchised. And if you can't see how that's deeply problematic and hypocritical, then perhaps you aren't as "balanced" as you seem to think.

2.) It's also worth noting that in both of my comments, you never actually commented on the substance of what I said (and there is always substance), but the packaging. And I believe that's because you can't successfully refute it, so you do what many other "sore losers" do--distract.

I should have issued an infraction for it when you did it to Tomenable, even though I never agree with him, or to the Finn, but I didn't. I was wrong, and I apologize to them. At least they're civil when they disagree with someone.

You've also insulted a team member. Another infraction offense, so I could really give you two, but I'm feeling charitable today so I'll leave it at one.

Keep it up though and you'll get more.

1.) I never insulted you, you just take offense selectively.

2.) Don't be proud of this; This just shows why some people don't deserve even the smallest and most insignificant amount of "power." All this does is affirm my point that your outrage is selective and imbalanced. Or who knows, perhaps there is some genetic basis for a predisposition to authoritarianism.

You are the racist and also a hypocrite, **** you.

This idiot sent me an infraction message, this forum is full of racisms towards Europeans, it allows insults to Finns or Poles by some "world citizens".
**** you LeBrok, you cant win a debate with facts, you are the one that uses straw men in all debates.

By contrast this is the truth, genetic facts suggest that the POCs are not oppressed:

These are the "civil" people you think are owed apologies? Shameful. Seriously, some of you need to rework and rethink your priorities.

 

[Angela]

Wow. This response is so egregiously unselfaware that it could pass as a conservative or Trump parody > Act arrogant, smug, condescending, patronizing and dismissive and then when challenged accordingly (in part by the utilization of similar tactics), reveal a super thin layer of skin and feign victimhood. Amazing.



So I comment on one of your comments, state facts, show no animosity or condescension, and then am told by you that I'm a "rabid partisan" that essentially isn't worth "debating" or responding to. And yet I'm the spiteful one incapable of a rational argument? And then when I give you a taste of your own smug medicine, suddenly you're confused and aghast? LOL The funny thing is that I never decided that you were some "enemy" regardless of how snide and smug you've been to me. I never felt the need to put you on my ignore list; as of a few days ago, I was still thumbing up your comments. It just affirms my belief that conservatives love to project who they actually are onto others. For some reason, you decided early on that I was someone to be condescended whereas in one of my first posts, I said how I was a longtime lurker and that you and Lebrok were my favorite posters. I'm not the one with the problem; and even when there was a testy disagreement and exchange, I still showed after the fact that I was capable of supporting/agreeing with someone who obviously didn't like me. Not once have I ever impugned your "motives" and suggested that "all" of your opinions are "devoid of reason" but quite the contrary; So, you are definitely mistaken and in my opinion, projecting. But thanks for proving that I'm actually more open-minded than you are.



1.) Please cite the evidence that Elizabeth Warren received "promotion after promotion based on a phony pedigree." I'll sit here and wait for you to come back with nothing. Just as there is no evidence that she definitively has Native American ancestry, there is no evidence at all that she used it to advance her career. Regardless, that's a strawman. Her alleged ethnic background has nothing to do what she stands for and what she's fought for > working class people.

2.) I never made any "thinly veiled ethnic attacks"; that's more of your projection and skewed perception. But evidently you prefer the blatant ethnic attacks like the ones Donald Trump makes, who (laughably) according to you isn't a racist, but simply has "no filter."

3.) And no, I will never "compromise" with misogynists, racists, xenophobes, homophobes, and other bigots. If one's "genuine motives" propel and incite racial/ethnic/religious/gender divisiveness, hatred, and inequality, then no, I proudly will not compromise with these people; they need to be shut down, end of story. I don't subscribe to false balances but to actual balance--therefore, I don't believe that every opinion is a valid one. I believe that informed opinions based on substantive arguments are valid. Evidently you believe that so long as one says disgusting/evil/destructive/false things in a "civil" way, it's perfectly fine and I take umbrage with that. Tomenable goes around posting debunked racial pseudoscience ad nauseum but because he does it "civilly," that's fine? No, that is what should outrage you. THAT is what you should take offense to. THAT is the height of human incivility and should count for far more than the manner in which it is said. He makes all sorts of bigoted, ignorant remarks about entire swaths of people but because he doesn't direct it specifically to someone in a conversation on the net, he gets a pass? Ridiculous. This type of imbalanced thinking and prioritizing seems to define most conservatives; many moderate Republicans are ultimately just as bad as Trump supporters because even if they don't like Trump's wording, they essentially believe his views; And that makes sense as to why you are probably loathe to call him racist, because that would implicate you. Whatever, that's your problem and you won't make it mine.



1.) My point is that you, and people who tend to think like you, are hypocrites to varying degrees. That's it. Now, I don't put you in the same category as a Trump or Tomenable, because you seem to be more thoughtful and balanced, but you have a few of the same "blind spots." I've probably said it at least 15 times on this board alone that empathy tends to be sorely lacking within certain corners of humanity (uncoincidentally, in more conservative oriented populations) and people have a short memory and forget where they've come from. No human group, not a single one has been spared abuse, oppression, stereotypes and other indignities. Therefore, I believe that we should all have more compassion and empathy for others who may be similarly maligned and stigmatized. When I've listed how "others" wrongfully see Poles, Finns or Italians, the point is never to attack--that goes against my entire anti-racist worldview and philosophy. But the point is to show that a.) no one is better than the next, b.) there can always be someone looking down on us c.) we all have been on the receiving end of oppression at some point and that d.) that should give us some perspective and subsequently, empathy and compassion. But that point seems to always fly over your head because you're too busy being triggered in your own one dimensional, narrow minded, "partisan" self-centeredness. And that's the real problem! On one hand, you have the audacity, the unmitigated gall to defend Trump's bigotry as him having "no filter" and not being racist but all I have to do is list century old Italian-American stereotypes--that other people have and still do subscribe to--and you hit the ceiling. You are so amazingly sensitive to the perceived slights your people have endured, but will mitigate and minimize the far worse vitriol directed at other groups who are more disenfranchised. And if you can't see how that's deeply problematic and hypocritical, then perhaps you aren't as "balanced" as you seem to think.

2.) It's also worth noting that in both of my comments, you never actually commented on the substance of what I said (and there is always substance), but the packaging. And I believe that's because you can't successfully refute it, so you do what many other "sore losers" do--distract.



1.) I never insulted you, you just take offense selectively.

2.) Don't be proud of this; This just shows why some people don't deserve even the smallest and most insignificant amount of "power." All this does is affirm my point that your outrage is selective and imbalanced. Or who knows, perhaps there is some genetic basis for a predisposition to authoritarianism.





These are the "civil" people you think are owed apologies? Shameful. Seriously, some of you need to rework and rethink your priorities.

I told you to keep to the issues and to the facts about those issues, and not to post personal attacks, insults and invective. You either didn't process that or the consequences of being able to vent your spleen were worth it for you.

You have now gotten your wish. You have another infraction for insulting a fellow member.

Ed. The apology to Tomenable and to our Finnish member had nothing to do with the views they express; it had to do with the fact that you were allowed to insult their ethnicity in an underhanded way.

 

[Angela]

Every couple of hours it seems that new leaks sort of dribble out. This New York Times article contains some of them. I won't call them "facts", because I think this whole sorry affair should make all of us realize we probably don't know the "facts" yet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/u...partment-warrant-clinton-abedin-fbi.html?_r=0

My take-away is that when the New York FBI office examined Wiener's devices, they found these 640,000 e-mails, a good portion of which were those of his wife, Huma Abedin. In screening out her e-mails, it became clear that some might be pertinent to the investigation.The titles and source and recipient information alone would tell them that some of them were .gov, and others went through Hillary Clinton's private server. How much of the content they in fact read, I don't know. If they did, and there's something in there that is truly game changing, then perhaps history will treat Comey kindly. If they didn't and there isn't, all the fine points of what he's allowed or not allowed to do won't matter.

Just for a point of clarification, in normal circumstances the decision as to whether or not to notify the legislative committees that new evidence has been found would be made by Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General. However she, a Democrat, came under a cloud because ex-President Clinton boarded her plane while it was on a tarmac, and they had a private forty-five minute conversation right at the height of the investigation. She could have formally recused herself and turned it over to her assistant. Instead, she said she was going to leave it totally in the hands of the FBI director. So, there it rest.

One thing puzzles me. Huma Abedin has said, "apparently", that she didn't turn over the laptop to her lawyers (to turn over to the FBI) because she didn't think any of her e-mails were on it, and that, in fact, she doesn't know how they got on his computer.

How could it have happened? Can your e-mails go onto the computer of some one on your home network without your knowledge? Or did that weasel her husband download them from her computer and put them on his own? Is this part of his plea bargaining?

Goodness, I bet someone is writing the script of the movie right now.

 

[Angela]

Every couple of hours it seems that new leaks sort of dribble out. This New York Times article contains some of them. I won't call them "facts", because I think this whole sorry affair should make all of us realize we probably don't know the "facts" yet.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/u...partment-warrant-clinton-abedin-fbi.html?_r=0

My take-away is that when the New York FBI office examined Wiener's devices, they found these 640,000 e-mails, a good portion of which were those of his wife, Huma Abedin. In screening out her e-mails, it became clear that some might be pertinent to the investigation.The titles and source and recipient information alone would tell them that some of them were .gov, and others went through Hillary Clinton's private server. How much of the content they in fact read, I don't know. If they did, and there's something in there that is truly game changing, then perhaps history will treat Comey kindly. If they didn't and there isn't, all the fine points of what he's allowed or not allowed to do won't matter.

Just for a point of clarification, in normal circumstances the decision as to whether or not to notify the legislative committees that new evidence has been found would be made by Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General. However she, a Democrat, came under a cloud because ex-President Clinton boarded her plane while it was on a tarmac, and they had a private forty-five minute conversation right at the height of the investigation. She could have formally recused herself and turned it over to her assistant. Instead, she said she was going to leave it totally in the hands of the FBI director. So, there it rest.

One thing puzzles me. Huma Abedin has said, "apparently", that she didn't turn over the laptop to her lawyers (to turn over to the FBI) because she didn't think any of her e-mails were on it, and that, in fact, she doesn't know how they got on his computer.

How could it have happened? Can your e-mails go onto the computer of some one on your home network without your knowledge? Or did that weasel her husband download them from her computer and put them on his own? Is this part of his plea bargaining?

Goodness, I bet someone is writing the script of the movie right now.

My morning news show is MSNBC's "Morning Joe".

Some interesting segments this morning:

http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe

Internal Feud at FBI

I'm right: You're evil


Again, if you need something funny to lift the pall, this is one of the funniest campaign ads I've ever seen: Please elect Gerald. Bless her heart, I'm sure she's his best asset not only for the campaign, but in life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzjRwNUQDRU

 

[Maleth]

How could it have happened? Can your e-mails go onto the computer of some one on your home network without your knowledge? Or did that weasel her husband download them from her computer and put them on his own? Is this part of his plea bargaining?

Goodness, I bet someone is writing the script of the movie right now.

Maybe he obtained her password one way or another? I know it happens sometimes, that is why passwords are encouraged to be more complex these days as it can be an ongoing affair with some people