The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post Reply
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Looks like you didn't look up the word. Content and depth are in the eye of the beholder.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

YMix wrote: I really don't understand this part of you. You know that you refused to back up your own position. I know that you refused to back up your position. Everybody around here knows that. Maybe you think that your repeated refusal to acknowledge any inconvenient facts amounts to a tactical victory, but that's simply not the case.
It's really simple. You have formed an opinion you will not change that very few people share. The discussion you want to undertake would take countless hours on my part with no discernible benefit for me. In the US these are settled issues. I also don't debate the moon landing or Atlantis. It's not personal like you think.

And you misused the word shill.
Dodging is not an answer.
So why are you doing it.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:The discussion you want to undertake would take countless hours on my part with no discernible benefit for me.
Yes, I understand that the truth regarding certain matters has no discernible benefit to you. But it's not about your benefits.
In the US these are settled issues.
You've said this before when I asked you to explain Reagan's economic policies. Same as above; it doesn't make the issue go away.
So why are you doing it.
See, you can't say that you won't undertake a discussion and then claim that you've answered my question. It doesn't work like that.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

YMix wrote: Yes, I understand that the truth regarding certain matters has no discernible benefit to you. But it's not about your benefits.
it is about my benefits. If you want me to debate with you there has to be something in it for me. On this topic there is nothing in it for me. It requires an inordinate amount of typing and you won't accept any of it. Rather it is in my interest to keep you running around on it like a tinfoiler.
You've said this before when I asked you to explain Reagan's economic policies. Same as above; it doesn't make the issue go away.
It went away in America in 1984. We moved on.
See, you can't say that you won't undertake a discussion and then claim that you've answered my question. It doesn't work like that.
I answer almost all you guyses questions and you answer very few of mine, we can start documenting if you like.

The question I want answered is if you think the GOP is socialist why don't you like the GOP. Not that I expect you'll answer it but I would sincerely like to know.

It appears your position is that the democrats are not socialists but that the GOP is, which may make you alone in this world. Do you see where I'm coming from. Why pick that battle, from my pov.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:it is about my benefits. If you want me to debate with you there has to be something in it for me. On this topic there is nothing in it for me. It requires an inordinate amount of typing and you won't accept any of it. Rather it is in my interest to keep you running around on it like a tinfoiler.
Same as above. You think this kind of crap makes you look smart, but it doesn't.
It went away in America in 1984. We moved on.
Truth doesn't goes away when you feel like it.
I answer almost all you guyses questions and you answer very few of mine, we can start documenting if you like.
Document whatever you like.
The question I want answered is
Yes, I know you really want to move the discussion to another topic, but it's not happening.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

YMix wrote: Same as above. You think this kind of crap makes you look smart, but it doesn't.
I'm not concerned about what i look like, rather what you look like. I like how this makes you look.
Truth doesn't goes away when you feel like it.
I agree. But Americans discovered the truth of it in 1984, whether you ever will is an open question.

Document whatever you like.
ok

Yes, I know you really want to move the discussion to another topic, but it's not happening.
actually if you'll notice I'm really dragging this out. My question is designed to stay on the topic. Having you repeatedly claim democrats are not socialists and insinuate that the GOP is works so well for me. I hope in one way you won't answer it
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:I'm not concerned about what i look like, rather what you look like. I like how this makes you look.
Good for you.
I agree. But Americans discovered the truth of it in 1984, whether you ever will is an open question.
I already know it.
actually if you'll notice I'm really dragging this out. My question is designed to stay on the topic.
:lol:
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

I'm wondering though why you would think that a party that created the fed, social security, medicare and obamacare is not socialist but a party who hadn't created really anything on that scale is socialist.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:I'm wondering though why you would think that a party that created the fed, social security, medicare and obamacare is not socialist but a party who hadn't created really anything on that scale is socialist.
Keep wondering.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Well I think I know the answer but thought I'd give you a shot at it.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by YMix »

That's exactly how I feel about those issues mentioned above. What a coincidence.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

The difference is that your answer would be very short and on a new unsettled topic.

I understand you don't like Ronald Reagan and you never will, but in life we don't win em all. He came he saw and Americans went crazy about him. I also think Tom Brady is way overrated, and Beyonce is crap, but I've learned to ?I've with that extreme minority view and understand that nobody really wants to hear it. Such is life.

But tbh, I really have no idea why you hate him so much. Maybe that would be a more productive starting point. You indicate over and over a nonpartisan nonbias but your objections that I have heard seem right out of slate.com playbooks. I'm open to your ideas.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by kmich »

:roll:

The Long History of Political Idiocy - Joanne B. Freeman
NEW HAVEN — WE are currently enjoying a master class in the art of political stupidity. Donald J. Trump has been schooling us for some time, but the Iran nuclear deal has touched off a new race to the bottom. Mike Huckabee said the agreement with Iran would “take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven.” Ted Cruz called the Obama administration “the world’s leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism.” Let’s not even get started on the Affordable Care Act, which Ben Carson once called “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.”

It’s tempting to rail against the media’s ability to elicit and amplify such stupidity. But none of this is new. Politicians have always resorted to dumb claims, blatant insults, bold exaggerations and baldfaced lies to gain press coverage and win votes. Indeed, Americans of the 19th century invented a name for it. The word “bunkum” — the origin of the word “bunk” — dates from the 1820s, a product of the over-the-top speechifying of Representative Felix Walker, who forewarned his congressional colleagues to ignore a blustery grandstand speech because it was intended only for the folks back home in Buncombe County, N.C. Then as now, raising hackles before the eyes of the press was a play for power; politicians who displayed their fighting-man spunk were strutting their suitability as leaders.

Such grandstanding was particularly blatant in the mid-19th century, an era with a political climate much like our own. The nation was becoming increasingly polarized because of the debate over the spread of slavery in new states born of Western expansion. At a time of enormous change, a sense of do-or-die extremism was in the air. New technologies, like the steam-powered printing press and the telegraph, were dramatically reshaping the power of the press.

Congress was particularly newsworthy in the 1840s, ’50s and ’60s. A typical newspaper had an extended account of debates in both houses, commentary on those debates and a “letter” from a Washington reporter (thus the term “correspondent”) filled with gossip about congressional doings. Legislators who went to extremes were virtually guaranteed press coverage. As Senator Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire griped in 1838, the visitors’ galleries were empty during debates on “great measures of policy,” but became “crowded almost to suffocation” when personal insults were expected.

Some men were known for such performances. Take Representative Henry A. Wise, a congressman from Virginia from 1833 to 1844. Like many purveyors of bunk, Wise was by no means a stupid man, however problematic his politics. (After his congressional career, he went on to become governor of Virginia, and signed the abolitionist John Brown’s death warrant.)

Wise loved grandstanding of all kinds: the swaggering threat, the mocking taunt, the over-the-top insult. He even took an occasional swing at an opponent. In 1842, he demonstrated his pro-slavery credentials by threatening to assault John Quincy Adams, an opponent of slavery, who had returned to the House after serving as president. “If the Member from Massachusetts had not been an old man, protected by the imbecility of age,” Wise warned, “he would not have enjoyed, as long as he has, the mercy of my mere words.” A horrified Adams wrote in his diary that night that Wise made “a threat of murdering me in my seat.”

In 1838, Wise’s baldfaced claim that a Democratic congressman was corrupt led to a deadly duel. Speakers of the House had to be alert when Wise was on a roll. In 1834, a particularly alert speaker managed to stop Wise mid-insult (halfway through the word “malignant”). “Sir, I leave the blank to be filled by the House,” Wise said.

Over the top, yes. But Wise benefited from such behavior many times over. He was a star attraction. Crowds filled the galleries when he seemed likely to erupt; he sometimes advertised his flare-ups in advance. In an age when most congressmen served only one or two terms, Wise was elected to the House a remarkable six times.

Matters grew worse in the ever-more polarized 1850s, when grabbing attention and scoring points often rewarded new heights of hyperbole. During the fraught debate over new slave states in 1850, Southerners threatened bloody murder, earning national attention in the process. A threat by Representative Thomas Clingman of North Carolina to shed Northern blood in the House — he promised a “collision” as electric as the Battle of Lexington — received widespread press coverage.

Perhaps polarized times require such grandstanding. They certainly invite it. But, as now, some politicians in the 1850s recognized the risks and voiced their concerns. They understood that extreme claims and violent words have escalating consequences. The tossing of verbal “missiles” in Congress could cause bloodshed, one congressman presciently warned in July 1856.

In recent weeks, by contrast, we haven’t heard much talk of the consequences of political flame-throwing, save some hand-wringing by President Obama.

And so our crop of presidential contenders continues to spout stupidities with a swagger. Given the pack of candidates vying for attention (and basic name recognition), stupidity seems smart. It gets attention — but not without a price. In reaching for new heights of bunkum, these candidates are stoking the flames of extremism at a time when dialogue is desperately needed.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Can we settle on grumpy Gus being the opposite of pangloss.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by kmich »

Mr. Perfect wrote:Can we settle on grumpy Gus being the opposite of pangloss.
The article posted was basic historical realism which I prefer to those prone to self indulgent fantasy.

In any case I believe Voltaire's Candide is the proper foil for "Pangloss.'
'Well, my dear Pangloss,' said Candide to him, 'when you had been hanged, dissected, whipped, and were tugging at the oar, did you always think that everything happens for the best?'

'I am still of my first opinion,' answered Pangloss, 'for I am a philosopher and I cannot retract, especially as Leibniz could never be wrong; and besides, the pre-established harmony is the finest thing in the world, and so is his plenum and materia subtilis.'
;)
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:The difference is that your answer would be very short and on a new unsettled topic.

I understand you don't like Ronald Reagan and you never will, but in life we don't win em all. He came he saw and Americans went crazy about him. I also think Tom Brady is way overrated, and Beyonce is crap, but I've learned to ?I've with that extreme minority view and understand that nobody really wants to hear it. Such is life.

But tbh, I really have no idea why you hate him so much. Maybe that would be a more productive starting point. You indicate over and over a nonpartisan nonbias but your objections that I have heard seem right out of slate.com playbooks. I'm open to your ideas.
Well, you're talking about Reagan. That's a start. Pretty soon you'll be discussing his deficit spending.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

I'd like to hear you talk about Reagan. I have spoken of his deficit spending so many times its painful. Let's get your thoughts.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:I have spoken of his deficit spending so many times its painful.
Link?
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

kmich wrote: The article posted was basic historical realism which I prefer to those prone to self indulgent fantasy.
It was a partisan tantrum with a thin veneer of a night in wikipedia designed to be sold to a market segment that is handling political annihilation in a non adult way.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

YMix wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:I have spoken of his deficit spending so many times its painful.
Link?
do searches. I don't recall here or tinkers, but have spoken extensively about it with never fail and ethinker at Spengler's.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by YMix »

Mr. Perfect wrote:do searches. I don't recall here or tinkers, but have spoken extensively about it with never fail and ethinker at Spengler's.
So... no link.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Right. You are going to have to do the work.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: The eternal US elections - 2016 edition

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Hillary underwater with women. This ain't gonna happen folks.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/08/0 ... jnbc-poll/
In June, 44% of white women had a favorable view of Mrs. Clinton, compared to 43% who didn’t. In July, those numbers moved in the wrong direction for Mrs. Clinton: Only 34% of white women saw her in a positive light, compared to 53% who had a negative impression of her, the poll found.

Mr. Obama fared poorly with white women voters in the 2012 election, losing them to Republican challenger Mitt Romney by 14 points.

For Team Clinton, the latest poll numbers are a worrisome development. Mrs. Clinton is unlikely to match the African-American turnout that propelled Mr. Obama to two presidential victories, so she has to make up the difference somewhere else. Women eager to see a woman in the White House is a logical group to target.

Mrs. Clinton, of course, is a white woman. She was raised in the suburbs and earned both college and law degrees. She’s fared well among voters with a similar background in past polls, but this month’s survey shows that’s no longer the case.

In the first three months of the year, suburban women by a margin of 18 points had a positive view of Mrs. Clinton. In July, those numbers took a dramatic turn for the worse. By a five-point margin, suburban women had a negative view of Mrs. Clinton.

Among white women with at least a college degree, 51% had a positive view of Mrs. Clinton and 38% a negative as of June. In July, those numbers had turned to 43% positive and 47% negative.
Image

Not gonna work, Democrats.
Censorship isn't necessary
Nastarana
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:55 pm

Re: is Obama sandbagging HRC?

Post by Nastarana »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Is Obama taking Hillary out?


The Washington Times
By Monica Crowley
29 July 2015

Hillary Clinton is not going to be the Democratic nominee for president

Following his presidential endorsement, Mr. Obama will then support Mr. Biden with the full weight of the White House, including the sophisticated technical infrastructure his campaigns used to win in 2008 and 2012. For years, Mrs. Clinton has begged Mr. Obama to turn it over to her, and he refused. He’s been saving it for someone else.



Monica Crowley is online opinion editor at The Washington Times.l
Trust Mme. Clinton with "sophisticated technical infrastructure"? Are you kidding me? I wouldn't trust the incompetent fool with my sophisticated technical sewing machine.

Finally, in the last two years of his presidency, we are seeing the Obama for whom we voted. The tough, smart operator who takes care of business and doesn't do stupid. I just wish it hadn't taken so long.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11574
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: is Obama sandbagging HRC?

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

Nastarana wrote:.

Finally, in the last two years of his presidency, we are seeing the Obama for whom we voted. The tough, smart operator who takes care of business and doesn't do stupid. I just wish it hadn't taken so long.

.


Obama the best, most intelligent, smartest, most honest president America had since Franklin D. Roosevelt


.
Post Reply