2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

The double standard system precludes from responding in kind.

Given you said "since the Republicans took control of the Senate they have passed more bills and made more progress in that short time on policy reform than the entire tenure of Democrat Majority before them" why is it that this is the fourth time of asking now if you think 199 is a bigger number than 296 without you answering?

Are you under the impression that if you never admit to lying, nobody will pick up on it?

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

Given you said "since the Republicans took control of the Senate they have passed more bills and made more progress in that short time on policy reform than the entire tenure of Democrat Majority before them" why is it that this is the fourth time of asking now if you think 199 is a bigger number than 296 without you answering?

Are you under the impression that if you never admit to lying, nobody will pick up on it?

Because maybe some questions are so insipid they don’t warrant a response?

KingBrian2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Trump is every bit a part of the establishment as anyone else. The only thing that makes him stand out from it is his fondness for outlandish and provocative remarks. If he wins, it'll be very slight. He won't "win it all". Not a chance.

We have to remember which is often forgotten by many liberals that many of these Trump supporters are veterans who joined the US army in the aftermath of 9/11 and served their duty in Iraq. They proudly fought for the values that America stands for, now the reasons for them being in that conflict was not their responsibility. They go were the C&C orders them to go and here we have commentators insulting these people for supporting Trump when they get back home.

I also take issue with the notion that Trump is behind the devious attacks against his opponents. Words alone don't cause people to act aggressively, violence is a part of some organizations be they on the left or on the right. It is rubbish talking as if Trump is the kingpin of some dangerous underground movement. He is part of a conservative bloc of the GOP a party that includes a large number of centre right groupings. This bloc has been growing for many years with Trump having little in involvement with.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Because maybe some questions are so insipid they don’t warrant a response?

You said "since the Republicans took control of the Senate they have passed more bills and made more progress in that short time on policy reform than the entire tenure of Democrat Majority before them".

No wonder you're not interested in answering the question. Because you were caught being completely incorrect and/or lying. Yet again.

The Democrat-majority controlled Congress of 2013/14 passed 296 bills. The Republican-majority controlled Congress of 2014/15 had passed 199.

Not only have they not done what you incorrectly claimed, but they are not even on pace to have done so by the time the term is up in December; they are currently on pace for around 250-255. Which again, would less than the 2013/14 Congress by a good 15% or so.

So yes, you were completely wrong. Again. And refuse to acknowledge this again. And I am saying this is so consistent with you that it is hard to believe you even think you are being honest. Again.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

It appears that many DoD employees today still claim to use private emails for government business, even after all the widely circulated adverse press about the Hillary Email Scandal. Of course, the DoD has no American military secrets.

From the Government Business Council's February 2015 survey on internal workplace communication in federal agencies it showed that only 18% of DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE employees claimed to have never used private emails for government business. This does not represent an isolated Hillary Clinton private email event, rather a federal epidemic, so why are they focusing on Hillary Clinton and not the widespread use of private emails for government business? Could it be that Hillary Clinton is running for president 2016 and the Republicans and Donald Trump want to discredit her in particular?



It's not only the Obama administration that has had epidemic private email uses for government business, but the GW Bush administration had the same problem. And if everyone was honest in the US Congress, they would also have to admit that they too have done so; and to suggest otherwise is a pure fantasy that doesn't make for good fiction. I could find many examples ranging from today back to when emails were first exchanged between government, military, and universities. Why bother?

I don't like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, but the extraordinary focus on her emails has been nothing less than a Republican presidential election year motivated witch hunt.

It would interesting to see the chart results if the question was asked regarding the handling of top secret and classified information. Methinks the results might be strikingly different, not to mention prompting an internal investigation and possible jail terms... well, If you're name isn't Hillary Clinton and too big to jail, that is.

Christy42

Billy86 wrote: »

Given you said "since the Republicans took control of the Senate they have passed more bills and made more progress in that short time on policy reform than the entire tenure of Democrat Majority before them" why is it that this is the fourth time of asking now if you think 199 is a bigger number than 296 without you answering?

Are you under the impression that if you never admit to lying, nobody will pick up on it?

In his defense Trump does it all the time and is now only slightly shy of 50:50 odds on becoming the next President of the United States. It is a strategy that works.

Billy86

Christy42 wrote: »

In his defense Trump does it all the time and is now only slightly shy of 50:50 odds on becoming the next President of the United States. It is a strategy that works.

It's been the case since FOX News became prominent, maybe even from before. They learn well from their Masters.

Unfortunately though, on a message board with a written history, it's not so easy to pretend you never said it/it never happened/etc.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

You said "since the Republicans took control of the Senate they have passed more bills and made more progress in that short time on policy reform than the entire tenure of Democrat Majority before them".

No wonder you're not interested in answering the question. Because you were caught being completely incorrect and/or lying. Yet again.

The Democrat-majority controlled Congress of 2013/14 passed 296 bills. The Republican-majority controlled Congress of 2014/15 had passed 199.

Not only have they not done what you incorrectly claimed, but they are not even on pace to have done so by the time the term is up in December; they are currently on pace for around 250-255. Which again, would less than the 2013/14 Congress by a good 15% or so.

So yes, you were completely wrong. Again. And refuse to acknowledge this again. And I am saying this is so consistent with you that it is hard to believe you even think you are being honest. Again.

Not quite...
https://www.nrsc.org/news/the-majority-is-working-2016-07-14/

LostinKildare

Amerika wrote: »

The double standard system precludes me from responding in kind.

What is "the double standard system"? I don't want to (or need to) benefit from an unearned advantage.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

It would interesting to see the chart results if the question was asked regarding the handling of top secret and classified information. Methinks the results might be strikingly different, not to mention prompting an internal investigation and possible jail terms... well, If you're name isn't Hillary Clinton and too big to jail, that is.

And of course the DoD employees surveyed would admit to exchanging information that was secret in their private emails. Of course they would. The fact of the matter is any information ranging from non-classified to top secret information would be highly valued by an intelligence gathering organisation, be they wikileaks, Putin & Co, or whomever, but let's dilute the federal survey findings that only 18% claimed to have never used private emails for government business, and focus on whom RNC speaker Ben Carson claimed was Lucifer's associate.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

And of course the DoD employees surveyed would admit to exchanging information that was secret in their private emails. Of course they would. The fact of the matter is any information ranging from non-classified to top secret information would be highly valued by an intelligence gathering organisation, be they wikileaks, Putin & Co, or whomever, but let's dilute the federal survey findings that only 18% claimed to have never used private emails for government business, and focus on whom RNC speaker Ben Carson claimed was Lucifer's associate.

I agree DoD employees would not admit to it. But that fact pretty much makes your email analysis of comparisons to what Hillary Clinton did an apples to oranges type of thing.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Not quite...
https://www.nrsc.org/news/the-majority-is-working-2016-07-14/

Yes, quite. And your linking to yet another 'safe space' along the lines of The Federalist or Breitbart (in this instance, the National Republican Senatorial Committee - not even going for surrogate propagandists at this point) doesn't change that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_113th_United_States_Congress . Democrat majority. 296 passed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_114th_United_States_Congress . Republican majority. 199 passed (on pace for 250-255).

So yes, your statement of "since the Republicans took control of the Senate they have passed more bills and made more progress in that short time on policy reform than the entire tenure of Democrat Majority before them" was absolutely false and incorrect.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes, quite. And your linking to yet another 'safe space' along the lines of The Federalist or Breitbart (in this instance, the National Republican Senatorial Committee - not even going for surrogate propagandists at this point) doesn't change that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_113th_United_States_Congress . Democrat majority. 296 passed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acts_of_the_114th_United_States_Congress . Republican majority. 199 passed (on pace for 250-255).

So yes, your statement of "since the Republicans took control of the Senate they have passed more bills and made more progress in that short time on policy reform than the entire tenure of Democrat Majority before them" was absolutely false and incorrect.

Is there anything in that link I provided, incorrect?

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Is there anything in that link I provided, incorrect?

Is there anything in the official Republican Senatorial Committee piece you linked to that shows more bills have been passed in the 114th Congress than was in the 113rd like you claimed?

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

Is there anything in the official Republican Senatorial Committee piece you linked to that shows more bills have been passed in the 114th Congress than was in the 113rd like you claimed?

You first.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

You first.

So you are lying, and always were. That's certainly the impression your desperate avoidance of answering the question, at least. If you are not lying, then please support your posts with evidence.

You made the claim that the 114th Congress has already passed more bills than the 113rd. The 113rd passed 296 and the 114th has only passed 199 so far - I have repeatedly linked to that. You have shown nothing to counter it but continue to carry this farce on. You made the claim, the onus is on you.

Provide evidence of your claim or the only logical thing to do is to begin to report all of your mistruths and lies from this point on. We are not in After Hours.

PopePalpatine

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Nothing to worry about, im sure our current african born muslin president will change the laws in the 11th hour allowing a third term presidency

Where does one begin with this? All this time we sheeple believed Obama wasn't made of cloth at all!

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

So you are lying, and always were. That's certainly the impression your desperate avoidance of answering the question, at least. If you are not lying, then please support your posts with evidence.

You made the claim that the 114th Congress has already passed more bills than the 113rd. The 113rd passed 296 and the 114th has only passed 199 so far - I have repeatedly linked to that. You have shown nothing to counter it but continue to carry this farce on. You made the claim, the onus is on you.

Provide evidence of your claim or the only logical thing to do is to begin to report all of your mistruths and lies from this point on. We are not in After Hours.

I stand by my statement and use the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s information as basis. I trust their information. If you don't then that is your prerogative. Nothing wrong with that.

But, if it is your contention that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is providing false or misleading information, then I guess we should take that stance to the next logical step and contend that everything said at this weeks Democratic National Committee’s convention should also be viewed as false or misleading. Agreed?

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

I stand by my statement and use the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s information as basis. I trust their information.

Now, if it is your contention that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is providing false or misleading information, then I guess we should take that stance to the next logical step and contend that everything said at this weeks Democratic National Committee’s convention should be view as false or misleading. Agreed?

You have not provided anything from within that link to back up your statement, so I have reported the post.

Moo Moo Land

Trump said he would "cut the head off" ISIS (whatever that means). It's clear now that the interests of ISIS and the Trump campaign are now perfectly aligned. Fear is always the would-be tyrant’s greatest ally. A major terror attack in the USA between now and November could make him president.

LostinKildare

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Nothing to worry about, im sure our current african born muslin president will change the laws in the 11th hour allowing a third term presidency

If only!

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

It seems Democrats have become the party of lawlessness, corruption,

How so?

illegal immigration

Because they don't support ridiculous policies like building a wall along the southern border?

enablers of slackers

How so? Because they have the audacity to think that America's poverty rate is too high? Because they don't support the elimination of the safety net?

destroyers of rights under the Constitution,

Because the Republicans have been such staunch defenders of the 4th, 6th and 8th amendment.

job killing regulations

Let me guess, environmental regulation? Does that mean Republicans oppose planet saving regulations?

higher taxes, uncontrolled spending

And Republicans favour massive tax cuts without any spending cuts. Donald Trump hasn't proposed any spending cuts but has proposed almost $10tn in tax cuts whereas Clinton proposes a modest $1tn tax increase. Republicans are the party of uncontrolled deficits and fiscal irresponsibility.

political correctness gone mad

It's called decency not political correctness.

and baby killers

A pre-viable foetus isn't a baby, it's just a foetus.

johnnyskeleton

Mod Note:

Billy86, Amerika please stop hectoring each other.

KingBrian2

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

Trump said he would "cut the head off" ISIS (whatever that means). It's clear now that the interests of ISIS and the Trump campaign are now perfectly aligned. Fear is always the would-be tyrant’s greatest ally. A major terror attack in the USA between now and November could make him president.

He did say he would declare war on ISIS and all that is involved in that. Declaration of war frees up resources required to eliminate these organization's. Essentially doing what Bush & Obama did against Al Qaeda post 9/11.

To this date terrorists have been allowed to regroup recruit and pounce on Nations across the world. A fatwa was issued by Osama Bin Laden in 1998 that fatwa is still relevant in this day and age and the world has sadly been naïve in dealing with these Jihadists.

Moo Moo Land

KingBrian2 wrote: »

He did say he would declare war on ISIS and all that is involved in that. Declaration of war frees up resources required to eliminate these organization's. Essentially doing what Bush & Obama did against Al Qaeda post 9/11.

To this date terrorists have been allowed to regroup recruit and pounce on Nations across the world. A fatwa was issued by Osama Bin Laden in 1998 that fatwa is still relevant in this day and age and the world has sadly been naïve in dealing with these Jihadists.

And how would be succeed where Bush/Obama failed?

Count Dooku

LostinKildare wrote: »

Wow, brilliant speech by Michelle Obama:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZNWYqDU948

12:47
"Don't let anyone ever tell you that this country is not great. That somehow we need to make a great again. Because this right now is the greatest country on Earth."

Reminds me
"We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true."

KingBrian2

Moo Moo Land wrote: »

And how would be succeed where Bush/Obama failed?

He is not burying his head in the sand. Some of the reasons proposed to deal with the jihad i's are preposterous.

RobertKK

The latest unfavourable view of the candidates poll
Trump 59%
Clinton 57%

Neither of them doing great.

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

It appears that many DoD employees today still claim to use private emails for government business, even after all the widely circulated adverse press about the Hillary Email Scandal. Of course, the DoD has no American military secrets.

From the Government Business Council's February 2015 survey on internal workplace communication in federal agencies it showed that only 18% of DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE employees claimed to have never used private emails for government business. This does not represent an isolated Hillary Clinton private email event, rather a federal epidemic, so why are they focusing on Hillary Clinton and not the widespread use of private emails for government business? Could it be that Hillary Clinton is running for president 2016 and the Republicans and Donald Trump want to discredit her in particular?



It's not only the Obama administration that has had epidemic private email uses for government business, but the GW Bush administration had the same problem. And if everyone was honest in the US Congress, they would also have to admit that they too have done so; and to suggest otherwise is a pure fantasy that doesn't make for good fiction. I could find many examples ranging from today back to when emails were first exchanged between government, military, and universities. Why bother?

I don't like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, but the extraordinary focus on her emails has been nothing less than a Republican presidential election year motivated witch hunt.

Alternatively, it highlights her unsuitability to President, given the decision by her and her staff to repeatedly violate the law and subsequently lie about it.

You seen to be determined to mitigate Clinton's actions with respect to this. Highlighting the actions of others doesn't diminish or abrogate Clinton's wrongdoing. She is the one running for President.

feardeas

Have to say I'm following the whole thing a little but not as much as 08. Also I do believe that Clinton will win. In some way the fact that the Sanders supporters were a small bit anxty might actually help with independents. I think that Kaine was a good choice too and indeed if Obama had taken him as VP then he could be going for it now although without Bill in 2012 Obama may nnot have got the second term but sin sceál eile.

Main point I would like to make though is something that hit me like a thunderbolt the other day when reading a novel by Sebastian Faulks called 'Where my heart used to beat'. The narrator and central character is a doctor and fought in WW2. He was a med student in the years leading up to it and in a throwaway line says that people in the 30s didn't take either Hitler or Mussolini seriously because they were ridiculous.

In 2016 I don't think many take Trump seriously for similar reasons. Not saying he's a Hitler or Mussolini type character but he is spouting some seriously worrying guff that could lead to all manner of chaos. The world is as volatile as it has been for some time imo. The last thing needed is him anywhere within an ass's roar of power.

Could it happen? Possibly. Will it? Holy God I hope not.

As a footnote I think this and Brexit show how important it is that young people are taught about politics and current affairs in school Who knows it might serve them and society as well as coding.