(09-28-2016, 01:56 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I think Kaplan pretty much nailed it.

Kaplan didn't write that.

The "had it list" whoever wrote it, have to agree pretty much sums up the feelings of many! Unfortunately, The Donald is the one who is touting these type changes that so many people want.

I like most of the list, but the Donald not so much.

Again, I wish there was a viable 3^rd candidate!

Why can't we have it all, and not have to settle for the lesser of the two evils?

(09-28-2016, 02:53 PM)Carsman Wrote: The "had it list" whoever wrote it, have to agree pretty much sums up the feelings of many! Unfortunately, The Donald is the one who is touting these type changes that so many people want.

I like most of the list, but the Donald not so much.

Again, I wish there was a viable 3^rd candidate!

Why can't we have it all, and not have to settle for the lesser of the two evils?

I wish there was at least one viable candidate.

(09-27-2016, 06:04 AM)Duchess Wrote: Hillary did a great job, she was brilliant, as I knew she would be. My only complaint is that I didn't hear her ask him why he was running around the country saying she intends to abolish the 2^nd amendment. I really wanted her to confront him directly. Anyone who pays attention knows he's lying, I wanted to see him refute that.

I think she should have concentrated on that instead of the Miss America chick he supposedly called Miss Piggy or whatever. Stupid.

I think Howard Dean my have been right when he said Trump was on coke because he kept sucking his nose in. He probably did do a few lines to get the jitters out. He probably does coke all the time .

(09-28-2016, 04:19 PM)sally Wrote:

(09-27-2016, 06:04 AM)Duchess Wrote: Hillary did a great job, she was brilliant, as I knew she would be. My only complaint is that I didn't hear her ask him why he was running around the country saying she intends to abolish the 2^nd amendment. I really wanted her to confront him directly. Anyone who pays attention knows he's lying, I wanted to see him refute that.

I think she should have concentrated on that instead of the Miss America chick he supposedly called Miss Piggy or whatever. Stupid.

I think Howard Dean my have been right when he said Trump was on coke because he kept sucking his nose in. He probably did do a few lines to get the jitters out. He probably does coke all the time .

(09-28-2016, 04:19 PM)sally Wrote: he kept sucking his nose in.

That was so bizarre but it never occurred to me that he may have did a couple lines. If that's what he's into I don't think he does it regularly because he's a fat fuck.

(09-28-2016, 01:34 PM)Maggot Wrote: He's not a politician. It's good enough for me.

Thanks for responding!

I'm a little surprised that you would be okay with him having zero experience and the fact he is so vulgar but I know you're not alone in that opinion, many people like that he isn't a traditional politician.

I actually like the fact that he's vulgar, it's having zero experience that bothers me a bit.

(09-28-2016, 04:59 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote:

I'm sure if anyone knows about doing some rails before an appearance it's him.

(09-28-2016, 05:48 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 01:34 PM)Maggot Wrote: He's not a politician. It's good enough for me.

Thanks for responding!

I'm a little surprised that you would be okay with him having zero experience and the fact he is so vulgar but I know you're not alone in that opinion, many people like that he isn't a traditional politician.

The thing that's great is there are checks and balances, the Senate, the House. Plenty of stops for knee jerk mentality. As long as the representatives and Senators don't vote lock step things might be better. Political party's were never in such a trance that common sense was ignored. The political tree needs shaking and Trump scares the living shit out of the established status quo. I believe they need to be less solidified to create working formulas that work. He might be ignored by the political hacks but the controversy he has started has been reflected in the public's eye. And that wrestles power away from the cemented statues.

(09-28-2016, 02:31 PM)cannongal Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 01:56 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I think Kaplan pretty much nailed it.

Kaplan didn't write that.

Yeah, I've never seen anyone try to pass that blog post off as being the work of "Kaplan from The New Yorker" before. But, that piece is definitely not the work of NY columnists Michael Kaplan or Thomas Kaplan.

And, I have no idea who the hell Roy Kaplan is, but he didn't write it either. Neither did Gabe Kaplan from Welcome Back Kotter.

That piece was written like a year or so ago by an obsessed anti-Obama hater, avid birther blogger, and yuge Trump supporter named Don Fredrick. Ref: http://thecompleteobamatimeline.com/index.html

The piece (wherein a couple of the points make some sense, to me) was plucked from the anti-government conspiracy theorist's Facebook page and circulated with a hoax claim that it was written by a high profile liberal writer, in order to inspire gullible people (who don't need no stinking attribution verification or source link) to feed the bullshit machine by passing it along as a credible and left-wing perspective.

(09-28-2016, 08:18 PM)Maggot Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 05:48 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 01:34 PM)Maggot Wrote: He's not a politician. It's good enough for me.

Thanks for responding!

I'm a little surprised that you would be okay with him having zero experience and the fact he is so vulgar but I know you're not alone in that opinion, many people like that he isn't a traditional politician.

The thing that's great is there are checks and balances, the Senate, the House. Plenty of stops for knee jerk mentality. As long as the representatives and Senators don't vote lock step things might be better. Political party's were never in such a trance that common sense was ignored. The political tree needs shaking and Trump scares the living shit out of the established status quo. I believe they need to be less solidified to create working formulas that work. He might be ignored by the political hacks but the controversy he has started has been reflected in the public's eye. And that wrestles power away from the cemented statues.

Well said Maggs.

Even if the Donald looses, hopefully he opened some doors for change that will be on the Reps, Sen's, & Hill's minds to finally bring about changes. Wishful thinking!

(09-28-2016, 09:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 02:31 PM)cannongal Wrote:

(09-28-2016, 01:56 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I think Kaplan pretty much nailed it.

Kaplan didn't write that.

Yeah, I've never seen anyone try to pass that blog post off as being the work of "Kaplan from The New Yorker" before. But, that piece is definitely not the work of NY columnists Michael Kaplan or Thomas Kaplan.

And, I have no idea who the hell Roy Kaplan is, but he didn't write it either. Neither did Gabe Kaplan from Welcome Back Kotter.

That piece was written like a year or so ago by an obsessed anti-Obama hater, avid birther blogger, and yuge Trump supporter named Don Fredrick. Ref: http://thecompleteobamatimeline.com/index.html

The piece (wherein a couple of the points make some sense, to me) was plucked from the anti-government conspiracy theorist's Facebook page and circulated with a hoax claim that it was written by a high profile liberal writer, in order to inspire gullible people (who don't need no stinking attribution verification or source link) to feed the bullshit machine by passing it along as a credible and left-wing perspective.

I tried to check the source on snopes yesterday after CG said it wasn't his and they had the page down. It must have made it's rounds. Either way there's a lot of good points in the piece, whoever wrote it.

I think it's obvious that there's no way a liberal journalist or voter (or even a moderate conservative or centrist) would write such a piece. Most people would read such a claim and consider the source before propagating it, especially if the source from which they plucked it didn't provide a link to the original source. It doesn't take Snopes to avoid repeatedly doing that, but some people are easily reeled in.

Anyway, I think Don Fredrick is right that a lot of Trump's base shares his disgruntled anti-government/establishment views and that they don't care much about the accuracy/credibility of those views or the candidate who's parroting them back to them. I also think he's right that much of that base is supporting Trump because they see him as saying "screw you!" to the established government. He's probably also right that Clinton will fill most cabinet positions with experienced politicians if/when she's elected.

The rest of what Don Fredrick wrote doesn't reflect my views at all, personally, and isn't anything I haven't read from anti-government and extreme right wingers hundreds of time over the years, though I do think Fredrick's packaging and presentation of it was highly effective and he deserves credit for it.

(09-29-2016, 10:21 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I think it's obvious that there's no way a liberal journalist or voter (or even a moderate conservative or centrist) would write such a piece. Most people would read such a claim and consider the source before propagating it, especially if the source from which they plucked it didn't provide a link to the original source. It doesn't take Snopes to avoid repeatedly doing that, but some people are easily reeled in.

Anyway, I think Don Fredrick is right that a lot of Trump's base shares his disgruntled anti-government/establishment views and that they don't care much about the accuracy/credibility of those views or the candidate who's parroting them back to them. I also think he's right that much of that base is supporting Trump because they see him as saying "screw you!" to the established government. He's probably also right that Clinton will fill most cabinet positions with experienced politicians if/when she's elected.

The rest of what Don Fredrick wrote doesn't reflect my views at all, personally, and isn't anything I haven't read from anti-government and extreme right wingers hundreds of time over the years, though I do think Fredrick's packaging and presentation of it was highly effective and he deserves credit for it.

I never claimed a liberal wrote it. If you assumed as much that's on you. I don't really care what side of the isle the author sits on, there were some very good points in the piece which as you say above you even agree on so just appreciate it for what it is and get over your link obsession.

So..............last month, Gary Johnson survived not knowing what Aleppo was in an interview. He owned up to that WTF moment and managed to carry on and gain some steam.

Last night, he was asked a predictable and easy question by Chris Matthews at a Town Hall, but couldn't answer it. He sat their blank-faced and then said, "I think I'm having an Aleppo moment" when asked to name a world leader he admired. He's a likable guy, has good political experience, and his self-depreciating admission made me smile. But, it's harmful politically to come across so ignorant.

I'd still vote for Johnson over Trump any old day, but I wonder if he'll fizzle out, whether Clinton and/or Trump will proactively address and pitch to Johnson's base, and which candidate (if any) most of his supporters will migrate towards if they abandon him. Those voters could make all the difference in the outcome of such a tight race.

(09-29-2016, 10:41 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Last night, he was asked a predictable and easy question by Matthews, but couldn't answer it. He sat their blank faced and then said, "I think I'm having an Aleppo moment."

I watched that go down. I saw the Aleppo moment as well. I'm not familiar with him so seeing him recently is all I have to go by and I'm left with the impression he's an airhead.

I'm not against him personally but he seems lacking in so many ways. I want smart, knowledgeable people in positions of power, I want people who are fast on their feet and know how to deal with others in a firm, respectful manner. I don't want a clown or a pothead.

(09-29-2016, 10:35 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I never claimed a liberal wrote it. If you assumed as much that's on you. I don't really care what side of the isle the author sits on, there were some very good points in the piece which as you say above you even agree on so just appreciate it for what it is and get over your link obsession.

Did you read the first sentence of what you copied and pasted where it says the writer worked for a typically "left wing" publication, which equates to 'liberal or socialist" leaning?

I don't appreciate lazy-mindedness and lies, especially from people who constantly argue against proven facts and logic and propagate obvious bullshit (whether it's linked or not), Gunnar. Sometimes I'll set the record straight because it's not hard to do.

The points that I said made some sense in the piece were ones we and many others have expressed multiple times as well, but it was Fredrick who authored that well-written piece and it didn't take more than a couple of seconds to confirm that fact (without Snopes) and give him appropriate credit. You get credit for being the sucker, once again, who got reeled in and then spread a hoax claim that you liked. I can tolerate that easily, but it's not something I appreciate.

(09-29-2016, 10:47 AM)Duchess Wrote: I'm not against him personally but he seems lacking in so many ways. I want smart, knowledgeable people in positions of power, I want people who are fast on their feet and know how to deal with others in a firm, respectful manner. I don't want a clown or a pothead.

Yeah, I feel the same way.

There are parts of the established political system that I don't like at all myself. Special interest control over many in Congress, campaign finance regulations (or lack thereof), little policy attention to problems facing the middle class, for-profit criminal justice corruption...

I think Sanders did a great job bringing those types of issues to the national forefront and I'm glad Clinton jumped on board and adopted much of his key platform points, in addition to the reform plans she herself had previously introduced.

Trump gets credit from me for shaking up some of the established Republican politicians who didn't see the level of public frustration across the country (some of which they created, in my opinion) and who seemed prepared to keep doing the same old same old. But, Trump doesn't present clear or realistic solutions and often doesn't listen to the experienced experts who are attempting to advise him. He's not a credible candidate to address/fix the problems and improve the system, in my view.

(09-29-2016, 11:07 AM)HairOfTheDog Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 10:35 AM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: I never claimed a liberal wrote it. If you assumed as much that's on you. I don't really care what side of the isle the author sits on, there were some very good points in the piece which as you say above you even agree on so just appreciate it for what it is and get over your link obsession.

Did you read the first sentence of what you copied and pasted where it says the writer worked for a typically "left wing" publication, which equates to 'liberal or socialist" leaning?

I don't appreciate lazy-mindedness and lies, especially from people who constantly argue against proven facts and logic and propagate obvious bullshit (whether it's linked or not), Gunnar. Sometimes I'll set the record straight because it's not hard to do.

The points that I said made some sense in the piece were ones we and many others have expressed multiple times as well, but it was Fredrick who authored that well-written piece and it didn't take more than a couple of seconds to confirm that fact (without Snopes) and give him appropriate credit. You get credit for being the sucker, once again, who got reeled in and then spread a hoax claim that you liked. I can tolerate that easily, but it's not something I appreciate.

You're much nicer than Lady Cop would have been. She would have tazed & skewered BG for posting that drivel with out a source/reference link.