I think Chris Wallace actually did better than the previous three moderators at keeping them on track. Trump was extremely disrespectful to Lester Holt, Martha Raddatz, and Anderson Cooper. I think he was told to keep his rudeness in check for the final debate. I fully expected Wallace to tailor his questions to Trump and also to let him get away with much more, but he did okay as could be expected with a madman.
And I cannot stand anything about Faux News. Curiously, Drumpf hasn't ripped Wallace like he did the previous moderators, even though he lost the debate. I think he knows he needs that fake news outlet in his pocket if he's going to have any positive coverage for the last three weeks of this mess.
How interesting that when Clinton left the White House, we finally had a balanced budget [[with thanks to a Republican Congress that at least worked with him in that regard when they weren't trying to tar and feather him). Bush got in by buying votes for $500 per. There went the balanced budget. Obama inherited Bush's FUBAR and the TEA Party came into being and they were a bunch of puppets who were "taxed enough already". They tried to destroy the country's progress in order to make Obama look bad.
Same with the Christian Right, who had a Republican president and congress that failed to end Roe v. Wade when they could.
Flip to 2016 and President Obama is the most popular late term president in a generation while the TEA Party is all in with a guy whose only concrete proposal will raise the deficit to ridiculous levels. I'm starting to think that their problem with the president is not because of taxes or abortion. What is odd, is that the people who comprise these two groups are the ones who will/would benefit from President Obama and Hillary Clinton's proposals. Dumb asses.
Yup! Yup!
Uh, when did they have that chance??? It's up to the Supreme Court, not the republicans in congress or the president.Same with the Christian Right, who had a Republican president and congress that failed to end Roe v. Wade when they could.
They vote on ideology, but like to chide democrats and liberals for voting on a straight ticket. Hypocritical dumb asses!.Flip to 2016 and President Obama is the most popular late term president in a generation while the TEA Party is all in with a guy whose only concrete proposal will raise the deficit to ridiculous levels. I'm starting to think that their problem with the president is not because of taxes or abortion. What is odd, is that the people who comprise these two groups are the ones who will/would benefit from President Obama and Hillary Clinton's proposals. Dumb asses.
Never. But that doesn't stop them from feeding that line to the rabble nor the idiots believing it. They'd never get rid of abortion, even if they could because it is the one thing [[besides gun control) that works their base into a lather.
My point is that they say they'll get rid of abortion rights and they'll shrink government and they'll bring back jobs and they'll improve the economy. They've had plenty of opportunity to do each but it's less important once they're in power than when they want to be.
And, they are wrong.
When they say they want to shrink government, it is coded language to mean Blacks, and now Mexicans, from getting any government help. That's what it really means, and they have been using that kind of language since Richard Nixon ran for office in 1968. Ahh, but, don't take away their social security and medicare benefits!
When these fools talk about getting the jobs back, they are fooling themselves because those lost jobs are never coming back. Technology has replaced most of them. All they have to do is get retrained. The people they want you to vote for will keep sending jobs to other countries because so they don't have to pay U.S. workers what they are worth. And, it's more dog whistles to keep out "illegals". They like the cheap labor they provide without having to give them protection, but they know that the more immigrants who come here and gain citizenship, the more their majority rule dwindles. I made this point before and someone tried to take me to task on it, but it's very true: the foundation of this anti-immigrant movement is the fear of losing the majority in population and control. The white nationalists are the only ones who aren't afraid of saying it.
Keith Olberman on Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIHXhs7rYps
We like the same people, Soul.
Religious beliefs. Most anti-abortion activists, like gun advocates, are single-issue voters. All they really care about is one thing.
We have a clear separation of church and state in our Constitution, but they do not respect that. They want mention and allegiance to god everywhere it isn't currently allowed by law.
Jesus Christ!
[[Sorry, LOL)
I am very irreligious. I mean, I'm all for freedom of religion but religion itself should have nothing to do with the state. I do hate how it is still a part of how countries are governed. It's not so bad in the UK but there are some seats in Parliament [[the House of Lords) that are specifically reserved for bishops from the Church of England. I mean, what's all that about?! It's totally undemocratic and unfair to all the other religions, including non-believers, isn't it?!!
[[rant about religion is now over)
I am very anti-religious. That does not mean I am anti-God or anti-Jesus, or anything like that. I respect anyone for their religious beliefs as long as they do not try to force me to live by their rules. I do not try to challenge them as long as they don't try to proselytize me. At this point, I am even questioning the existence of god as an omnipresent figure. I guess you could call me am agnostic these days. I reserve a special hatred for hypocritical evangelical christians because of their politics. Even jesus warned his followers about false religions and getting into politics.
Last edited by TomatoTom123; 10-23-2016 at 04:34 PM.
I don't believe the existence of God can be logically proved because that would eliminate the need for faith.
I wish your dad would be able to explain to me [[1) why the expansion of the universe is accelerating [[2} what dark energy is, and [[3) why and how there is so much carbon [[without which life would be impossible) in the universe.
I'm Christian. That doesn't mean that my beliefs are more important than yours. It's up to you to save your own soul. As for abortion, someone of my faith would not likely use it for birth control, so what is it to me if someone else chooses to do it? As far as I am concerned, we should care about the kids already here.
I live in a state [[Ohio) that has a reasonably high number of technology jobs and institutions of higher learning, certainly it's not a backwoods state by any means. But we have an infant mortality rate that compares to some third world countries. I'll care more about the plight of the unborn when the born starts getting a fair shake.
The holier than thou set both wants to eliminate the options of women while continually trying to reduce society's burden toward helping their children have a good quality of life. Forcing someone to have a kid while also ensuring that they live in poverty is the opposite of a Christ-like thing to do. And not one takes the time to help those families or share their burdens as Christ would. SMH.
Consider: The same crew that thinks welfare that provides a few hundred dollars per month to a poor family is fighting hard to elect the biggest welfare mother in history president. What else is it when my tax dollars subsidize his poor business decisions and subsequent failures. Yah, I'm Christian all day, but don't confuse me with being "pro-religion".
Oh yes, of course, you don't have to be an atheist
I agree! That is a very fair and rational [[and Christian) way of looking at things. Although I don't believe in Jesus or that I have a soul to be saved. [[But I agree with everything else! )
Last edited by TomatoTom123; 10-24-2016 at 12:18 PM.
Jerry, I know not all so-called christians are rotten, but, man, they are the most obnoxious! And, what pisses me off is that the good ones don't speak out against them , at least not forcefully. It's like cops. You have bad cops and cops that don't do what the bad cops do, but they all maintain that blue wall of silence.
NO we do speak out forcefully. im a woman of God and a Christian but im also very pro choice and im for same sex marriage and im a real strong defender of rights for all. I always challenge Christians who have bigoted imo ways of thinking so some of us DO speak out forecfully.
In the same way, the UK press does not give any coverage when Moslem leaders speak out against terrorism.
It goes both ways. If all space and time began with the Big Bang, how could it have catalyzed? I can't give you answers but my response to every question of "why" is that there is order in the chaos of existence that nobody has ever explained to my satisfaction. I also question how life can [[1) come from non-life and [[2) how the first organisms not only survived but developed the means to reproduce and adapt to changing environments. Upon what did the protozoa [[i assume that was the first organism) subsist? And why would it be encoded toward mutation that allows evolution hundreds of millions of years later?
Any answer that you provide is as speculative as my belief that the universe was created as opposed to having just happened. God bless you in your belief, though.
If you love wars, including possibly war with Russia, Hillary Clinton will give you what you want. It's no coincidence that the neocons are all backing Hillary.
I hoped that Americans [[and Brits) would be sick of these wars after Iraq. Wrong. Just look at Libya and Syria.
Here's an editorial from Der Spiegel, a leading and influential left-of-center German news publication. Germans can't vote in this election, so it's not an "endorsement", but Jakob Augstein [[son of Rudolf Augstein, one of the founders of Spiegel) writes that Germans should hope for a Trump win, despite his obvious flaws. I'll translate the opening - if you don't read German, you can use Google translate to read the rest.
"Security risk Clinton
The Case for Trump
Is there at least one single reason to hope for a victory from Donald Trump? Yes - peace. Hillary Clinton wants to risk military confrontation with Russia in the Syrian war. Germany cannot want that."
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...a-1117476.html
Assad is horrible, but the US is arming terrorists fighting against him. Hillary Clinton continues to insist on a no-fly zone, despite statements by the US military that this means war with Russia [[she pushed for this while in the State Department, but Obama refused). Note that when directly asked in the third debate whether she was prepared to shoot down a Russian plane violating her no-fly zone, she deflected and did not answer the question. [[The answer is "yes", she will not declare a no-fly zone unless she intends to enforce it.) Russia has pointed out that it was invited by the legitimate government of Syria and warned that it will defend itself. It has moved S-300 anti-aircraft missiles into Syria - these are intended for American planes, as the rebels have none. Look for Russia to make a big push to defeat the rebels in Aleppo before Clinton is inaugurated; a Russian aircraft carrier just passed through the English Channel, probably on its way to Syria.
Meanwhile, the Russian government is preparing its people for a nuclear war.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...ashar-al-Assad
Even if this is a bluff, the state of high alert makes it more likely that a misunderstanding could lead to a nuclear exchange.
The Podesta emails from Wikileaks also show that Clinton plans to confront China in the South China Sea.
Brace yourself for more wars under Clinton, and possibly a very big one. Hillary Clinton is a war monger. I hope the UK can stay out of all this, but I have little confidence in that.
At least some Democrats are beginning to wake up:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...l_benefit.html
Last edited by calvin; 10-24-2016 at 05:45 PM.
Calvin, i'd rather have Clinton in office than an emotionally immature and unstable megalomaniacal narcissist that is Donald "grab her by the pussy" Trump.
None taken. I wasn't trying to convert you. When I say "God bless you", it's more for me than you. [[It's hard to explain.) My own beliefs are much different than those of traditional Christians. I don't even discuss it with them or I wind up in a contentious debate. I'm certainly not going to go into it on a message board.
But when I hear people ask existential questions, I often take the bait to ask a few of my own.
To the extent that there is any coherence at all in Trump's foreign policy, it seems to be in favor of less foreign military intervention, and that would be good. Knowing Hillary's past record and current positions, I think Trump is probably the lesser evil on this point. But I write "probably", because of course no one can be sure until the person is in office. Just look at Obama and the disasters in Libya and Syria.
I could vote in this election [[I'm both a US and UK citizen), but I decided months ago that the choice is so horrible that I will not. Now it's too late, but if I did vote I would certainly vote against Hillary, either holding my nose and going for Trump, or perhaps for Jill Stein as a protest.
Said it all? If the two of you are saying you'd rather have wars, with hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed [[Syrian civil war, 300,000-400,000 killed and still counting, with the US complicit in a fair share of that), because the megalomaniacal narcissist Trump [[and I agree with that assessment) said eleven years ago that he "grabbed some pussy", I'd invite you to reconsider your priorities.
Last edited by calvin; 10-25-2016 at 11:02 AM.
Clinton has certainly made mistakes, such as voting for the Iraqi war, and Trump keeps lying about his non-support for it despite there being recorded evidence of him supporting it.
I honestly don't know what Clinton would do with regard to using military muscle, but I wouldn't Trust trump's judgement or temperament to not do the same.
They're not "mistakes", it's part of who she is. Consider another example, Libya.
Muammar Gaddafi was not a nice guy and I'm not defending him in any way. But he did agree to give up his WMD [[weapons of mass destruction) program in exchange for recognition, lifting of sanctions, and a promised return to the "community of nations." But at the first signs of a popular uprising during the Arab Spring, the Obama administration [[Obama, Clinton, and Samantha Power) decided the time was ripe for "regime change". They first went to the UN to request a no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians; this was approved, Russia and China did not block it [[they abstained). But the Russians and Chinese were duped, as US planes [[along, sadly, with the UK and French) began attacking Libyan troops on the ground, including finally a convoy that Gaddafi was in, leading to his death.
And here's Clinton's sick reaction, laughing about and enjoying Gaddafi's death, it makes me wonder whether she is a psychopath:
What were the consequences? ISIS moved into Libya and the country remains in chaos. And do you really expect Russia and China to support the US the next time it asks for approval to protect civilians? And how about nuclear proliferation? The deal with Gaddafi shows that a country that the US doesn't like needs nuclear weapons and should never give them up, because the US can't be trusted. Kim Jong Un must know that if he agreed to give up his atomic bombs, the US would kill him the first chance they get. He can take out Seoul with a A-bomb, but his real survival strategy is to develop a missile that can carry an atomic bomb to the west coast of the US.
Now, because Obama encouraged the Arab Spring uprising in Syria in 2011 [[saying "Assad must go"), the US finds itself supporting terrorists and risking war with Russia in Syria because it is unwilling or unable to back down from that statement.
And how about those Saudis? Clinton's wikileak emails show that she knows they are funding ISIS and other terrorists around the world, and she considers the Saudis a threat to the US. And yet, Clinton approved massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia while heading the State Department after the Saudis paid her tens of millions. Now we just learned that John and Tony Podesta are being paid $140,000 per month by the Saudis. It is so cynical.
Reading this thread makes me pessimistic about the future. I can understand people going for what they believe is the lesser evil, but I can't understand praise for Clinton. People are so wrapped up in the Democrats vs Republicans contest that they can't see the forest for the trees. The American people are getting screwed by both parties, and have been for decades.
Check out this Princeton study, which concluded that the US is no longer an actual democracy. Summary: in cases where the interest of the people differs from the interest of the wealthy party donors, the party donors get what they want. [[Equally true for both parties.)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...nger-democracy
This article also came up in Wikileaks - a finance billionaire and big donor to Clinton emailed that link to John Podesta and remarked, "I guess it takes a study to point out the obvious."
Last edited by calvin; 10-26-2016 at 11:04 AM.
I can forgive a vote for the Iraqi war because a lot of people were duped by the big lie that Saddam had nukes, or was working on them.
So, how many in the W. Bush administration cheered when we executed Saddam?And here's Clinton's sick reaction, laughing about and enjoying Gaddafi's death, it makes me wonder whether she is a psychopath:
And, you want a guy who didn't even know that his pal Putin invaded Crimea and annexed it to the Russian Federation? You want a guy who wants to carpet bomb all of our enemies with nukes? Trump is the bigger psychopath.What were the consequences? ISIS moved into Libya and the country remains in chaos. And do you really expect Russia and China to support the US the next time it asks for approval to protect civilians? And how about nuclear proliferation? The deal with Gaddafi shows that a country that the US doesn't like needs nuclear weapons and should never give them up, because the US can't be trusted. Kim Jong Un must know that if he agreed to give up his atomic bombs, the US would kill him the first chance they get. He can take out Seoul with a A-bomb, but his real survival strategy is to develop a missile that can carry an atomic bomb to the west coast of the US.
If those "leaked" emails are true.Now, because Obama encouraged the Arab Spring uprising in Syria in 2011 [[saying "Assad must go"), the US finds itself supporting terrorists and risking war with Russia in Syria because it is unwilling or unable to back down from that statement.
And how about those Saudis? Clinton's wikileak emails show that she knows they are funding ISIS and other terrorists around the world, and she considers the Saudis a threat to the US. And yet, Clinton approved massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia while heading the State Department after the Saudis paid her tens of millions. Now we just learned that John and Tony Podesta are being paid $140,000 per month by the Saudis. It is so cynical.
As you know, domestic politics takes priority over all else. I don't know just how much information you guys get in the U.K., but trust me: Donald J. Trump is seriously bad news! There's a reason your previous administration planned to bar him from entering the U.K..
Trust me when I say that Clinton has a lot of negatives, but they do not outweigh Trump's negatives. As for parties, anyone who lives here knows that the republicans have screwed the American people for decades. They are the ones who have been in power most of the time, if not in the White House, in congress. Over the last six years, the republicans have held the majority, and have done absolutely nothing to help move this country forward. republicans keep trying to attach anti-LGBT religious freedom bills to military spending bills. They waste their time voting to repeal Obamacare instead of looking for ways to fix it. They take long breaks. They have done nothing just because they hate Obama.Reading this forum makes me pessimistic about the future. I can understand people going for what they believe is the lesser evil, but I can't understand praise for Clinton. People are so wrapped up in the Democrats vs Republicans contest that they can't see the forest for the trees. The American people are getting screwed by both parties, and have been for decades.
The U.S. was never a democracy. It is a republic. Look it up.Check out this Princeton study, which concluded that the US is no longer an actual democracy. Summary: in cases where the interest of the people differs from the interest of the wealthy party donors, the party donors get what they want. [[Equally true for both parties.)
I am not saying that Hilary is perfect, by no means is she perfect. But if you are seriously suggesting that we would be safer under the leadership of a racist, misogynist and megalomaniac, I cannot agree.
The situation in Syria is terrible. Because of previous wars I would say that the US and the UK are reluctant to go in with full military intervention. However, I don't even know what Donald Trump's foreign policy is - and that in itself is probably not a good sign.
I agree that neither candidate is very good though, and it is a case of the "lesser of the two evils". Donald Trump, however, is probably not the answer!
Say what you will. You're right in some cases and wrong in others. That's your problem. You have no problem proclaiming your belief, so it's interesting that you ascribe your meaning to the words of others who feel differently. God bless you, brother but it doesn't matter to me if you believe in heaven or hell, just as I'm not concerned whether you find either.
I proclaim by beliefs on the internet, but I respect people in person by not declaring my hatred of these religious types who insist on telling me to "Have a blessed day". If they only knew what I plan to do on the weekends! It's like those people who try to ram "Merry Christmas down everyone's throat. I don't say it because someone might be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, whatever. Someone may have lost their family in a car crash on Christmas. I don't know, and don't want to assume everyone celebrates Christmas. Hell, there are Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah Witnesses who don't celebrate Christmas!
Jerry, it sounds like this discussion is getting you steamed, so you might want to back out of it. Face it: not everyone likes or respects religion. I told you that I do respect religious people just as long as they do not force it on me, and telling me to have a "blessed" day is forcing their beliefs on me.
No one here has attacked you or your beliefs. But, I would be interested in how saying "Have a Blessed Day" helps the person saying it.
As I said, their blessing you has less to do with you than them. If you are so offended by "pardon me", I suggest that you not say "goodbye" either. You should also avoid saying that you hope something does or does not happen. Semantics and language are interesting.
I'm happy that you found your belief system and have not written one word against it here or elsewhere in spite of what I perceive to be your attitude toward others. You don't have to "get" why I might bless you just as I don't get [[or care, really) that you don't. But it's interesting that you care more about the words used to express kindness toward you than you do that someone who cared enough to do it.
I wasn't being very serious about the whole "bless you" or "pardon me" thing. I don't stay up at night, angry that someone has blessed me for sneezing or teaching myself to say "excuse me" instead of "pardon me", LOL! You're right, though, when I think about it, I rarely say "goodbye", it's always "bye" or "see ya". Now what does that say about me?? Lol
And I'm not really offended by "bless you". It's good that someone is being nice by saying it, it's just that I wouldn't really know they were being nice, it means nothing to me. It just feels a bit, I don't know, demeaning, like I need God's blessings because I don't believe in him. I don't know. It's probably just me
Last edited by TomatoTom123; 10-25-2016 at 07:48 PM.
Sean Hannitty has lost the last shred of dignity he had since he started shamelesly kissing Trumps rear end.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/hannity-i...150646880.html
Bookmarks