Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Nov 2, 2016 - 10:44am
black321 wrote:
The court issue is a legitimate argument to go republican. But does it justify the means? Are most folks smart enough to know how good or bad each candidate is? They should be, if they spent as much time analyzing the facts as they do analyzing Sunday football games. That's a problem with our culture. I personally don't think Clinton is as kind hearted as you appear to paint her, but also not much worse than your average politician. But this isn't just about the facts. Emotions are involved as well. To a die hard republican, how do they vote democratic, let alone for someone like Clinton? And many people just don't like her. How many democrats would have been able to swallow if the choice was GW against a democratic version of Trump? (Actually, at this point, GW doesn't look all that bad). That's a problem of our reliance on the two parties. I'm not part of a party, and I urged my kids not to become dem/repub. Perhaps that's the best start to us moving away from the two parties.
I agree that we need to break out of the 2-party death waltz.
As for Supreme Court Justices: The great majority of the folk who sound off on this have little or no idea what they are talking about in terms of the work of the Justices, the Constitution, and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. This issue has been demagogued to death, not just during this election cycle but for many years now. It pisses me off that the selection of Supreme Court Justices has become so politicized, and that bodes ill for our form of government as set forth in the Constitution and envisioned by the Founders. Most jurisprudential giants of the Supreme Court would have no chance of surviving the nomination process and getting on the Court today. I think that says it all. The ridiculous GOP Senate position over Garland's nomination — that they have no obligation to even consider his nomination and that they want the public to have a chance to weigh in on the selection of Scalia's successor via the November election — is a political maneuver that runs contrary to the Constitution's attempt to immunize the Justices from the political winds by giving them life tenure. *rant over*
I think that convincing people of that is the only hope of the GOP if they want someone in office to pick Supreme Court justices. They can't convince people that Trump is good, so they have to say that Hillary's bad - and not just bad and not Michael Jackson Bad but "'biggest liar ever" BAD. And that's clearly been the strategy.
They aren't the same, by any means. Although a politician and presumably well paid, her decades of experience are in the arena of "helping." She makes money from it, but it's a life that's by definition about trying to positively influence others. Successful or not - it's a completely different mindset than selling gold-plated hotel rooms or steaks. They are not the same and saying it just means that folks have listened to, and been influenced by, the talking points of the competition. Objectively, they are not the same.
The court issue is a legitimate argument to go republican. But does it justify the means? Are most folks smart enough to know how good or bad each candidate is? They should be, if they spent as much time analyzing the facts as they do analyzing Sunday football games. That's a problem with our culture. I personally don't think Clinton is as kind hearted as you appear to paint her, but also not much worse than your average politician. But this isn't just about the facts. Emotions are involved as well. To a die hard republican, how do they vote democratic, let alone for someone like Clinton? And many people just don't like her. How many democrats would have been able to swallow if the choice was GW against a democratic version of Trump? (Actually, at this point, GW doesn't look all that bad). That's a problem of our reliance on the two parties. I'm not part of a party, and I urged my kids not to become dem/repub. Perhaps that's the best start to us moving away from the two parties.
In terms of the magnitude or impact of their mistakes, I would agree...but only because of her role as first lady, senator, secretary of state. I wouldn't want to take the risk of seeing the "magnitude" of Trump's mistakes as a public figure. I think they are two sides of the same coin, narcissistic, ego maniacs...but Clinton has more control of her personality, and willing at the very least to pretend to do the right thing, or play the game.
I think that convincing people of that is the only hope of the GOP if they want someone in office to pick Supreme Court justices. They can't convince people that Trump is good, so they have to say that Hillary's bad - and not just bad and not Michael Jackson Bad but "'biggest liar ever" BAD. And that's clearly been the strategy.
They aren't the same, by any means. Although a politician and presumably well paid, her decades of experience are in the arena of "helping." She makes money from it, but it's a life that's by definition about trying to positively influence others. Successful or not - it's a completely different mindset than selling gold-plated hotel rooms or steaks. They are not the same and saying it just means that folks have listened to, and been influenced by, the talking points of the competition. Objectively, they are not the same.
In terms of the magnitude or impact of their mistakes, I would agree...but only because of her role as first lady, senator, secretary of state. I wouldn't want to take the risk of seeing the "magnitude" of Trump's mistakes as a public figure. I think they are two sides of the same coin, narcissistic, ego maniacs...but Clinton has more control of her personality, and willing at the very least to pretend to do the right thing, or play the game.
No matter how horrible you may think Trump is, Clinton is several orders of magnitude worse. That is our choice.
In terms of the magnitude or impact of their mistakes, I would agree...but only because of her role as first lady, senator, secretary of state. I wouldn't want to take the risk of seeing the "magnitude" of Trump's mistakes as a public figure. I think they are two sides of the same coin, narcissistic, ego maniacs...but Clinton has more control of her personality, and willing at the very least to pretend to do the right thing, or play the game.
No, that's false. There's a frothiness about lying and so forth that doesn't need rehashing here, but it's not true that she's worse than he. It's just not and saying it doesn't make it true. That seems to be the method: repeat lies enough until people just capitulate. (Obama's a Muslim...30% of the USA still believes that crap.)
The thing that could sway voters to him is that they want to put someone in the highest office in the land, the most powerful seat in the world - who's never held public office, cheated on his wives, been a financial failure, admitted to ripping off his business associates, promoted the ludicrous birther movement, began his campaign with racist inflammatory comments, made boldface lies about his opinion regarding going to war, incited violence at his rallies.
Hillary has clearly done bad things, too - but within the context of more than two decades of experience in public office including the White House. If you want to think they're both bad, that's fine - but at least she's bad while knowing the playing field. Trump is going to be learning the ropes for a very long time, and doesn't seem to be the kinda guy that makes good snap decisions in the interim.
No, that's false. There's a frothiness about lying and so forth that doesn't need rehashing here, but it's not true that she's worse than he. It's just not and saying it doesn't make it true. That seems to be the method: repeat lies enough until people just capitulate. (Obama's a Muslim...30% of the USA still believes that crap.)
The thing that could sway voters to him is that they want to put someone in the highest office in the land, the most powerful seat in the world - who's never held public office, cheated on his wives, been a financial failure, admitted to ripping off his business associates, promoted the ludicrous birther movement, began his campaign with racist inflammatory comments, made boldface lies about his opinion regarding going to war, incited violence at his rallies.
Hillary has clearly done bad things, too - but within the context of more than two decades of experience in public office including the White House. If you want to think they're both bad, that's fine - but at least she's bad while knowing the playing field. Trump is going to be learning the ropes for a very long time, and doesn't seem to be the kinda guy that makes good snap decisions in the interim.
Why. Is. This. Even. An. Issue. Hofuk King Stupid have we become?
No matter how horrible you may think Trump is, Clinton is several orders of magnitude worse. That is our choice.
No, that's false. There's a frothiness about lying and so forth that doesn't need rehashing here, but it's not true that she's worse than he. It's just not and saying it doesn't make it true. That seems to be the method: repeat lies enough until people just capitulate. (Obama's a Muslim...30% of the USA still believes that crap.)
The thing that could sway voters to him is that they want to put someone in the highest office in the land, the most powerful seat in the world - who's never held public office, cheated on his wives, been a financial failure, admitted to ripping off his business associates, promoted the ludicrous birther movement, began his campaign with racist inflammatory comments, made boldface lies about his opinion regarding going to war, incited violence at his rallies.
Hillary has clearly done bad things, too - but within the context of more than two decades of experience in public office including the White House. If you want to think they're both bad, that's fine - but at least she's bad while knowing the playing field. Trump is going to be learning the ropes for a very long time, and doesn't seem to be the kinda guy that makes good snap decisions in the interim.
"Lolita? Look, it was her idea. And I can understand that because women love me, even if they are girls. And she wasn't my daughter. But I just talked about her. Hey, I can write a great novel."
Catch 22? Sure, it was a tremendous catch, the best maybe, who knows, but 22 times? That's too many catches, folks, way too many catches.
"Lolita? Look, it was her idea. And I can understand that because women love me, even if they are girls. And she wasn't my daughter. But I just talked about her. Hey, I can write a great novel."
Maybe it's the perspective that's askew; the thoughts, the language, the projections... Maybe people need courage rather than frustration, brotherhood rather than self righteousness, humility rather than victimization...Think?
Noble, but maybe not the most implementable sollution in this case. I would start with different strategies for both teams. Less dirt throwing and more respect for each other. I think then the people would see the candidates less as dirty enemies and more as valid choices for presidenty.
Ah, ok. I understand your point now. I just wanted to understand a bit better where you were coming from. In popular culture it seems to be acceptable to use the personage or life teachings of Jesus as a reference point for everything from blatant hypocrisy to the debate over the health benefits of pea soup. He exists both within and outside the dark pools of human frailty and presupposition. A true man of sorrows...
Jesus is in my cheeseburger... no wait, that's Elvis. Carry on.
I just liked the mental image of people that had to choose between 2 enemies and choose the one they hated the least.
Maybe it's the perspective that's askew; the thoughts, the language, the projections... Maybe people need courage rather than frustration, brotherhood rather than self righteousness, humility rather than victimization...Think?
"Lolita? Look, it was her idea. And I can understand that because women love me, even if they are girls. And she wasn't my daughter. But I just talked about her. Hey, I can write a great novel."
