2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Call Me Jimmy

RobertKK wrote: »

The army man who asked the question said it was sickening and twisted, even said he had PTSD stress when he returned and he got help and is now fine.
The military guy who asked the question seemed to be saying Trump understood the issue and the people in the room are strong as they got help, but others come back from war and are not - and that they need help and that is what Trump wants to give them.

From when I first read the supposedly insulting quote I did not see the insult. The problem seems to be the word 'strong'.
This is a problem when it comes to mental health, it seems some people take insult if one's mental health is not described as 'strong'.
When it comes to lets say a heart beat and it is described as 'weak' it is not seen as an insult but a health problem, when it comes to mental health, it seems to be different and if you talk about people having seen the same thing as being strong and others not, then it is a terrible insult.
Everyone's mental health varies sometimes we have good strong mental health, something might happen and it is not strong.
Seems the taboo over mental health is alive and well, and saying people are strong and implying others are not is avoiding the real issue when the issue is people do have a weakened mental health, some people are stronger mentally.
People getting offended for the sake of it.

I saw what people said and read it, a complete overreaction in any reasonable person's estimation. There's enough crap trump says to use against him, this is reaching.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

You've done some serious mental gymnastics there. Trump said a horrible thing, the latest in a long list.

People who found it offensive, are people who want mental health to be a taboo.
It is saying all people have to be mentally strong, that people can't have periods of weakness.
They should keep it hidden to retain an appearance of being strong, rather than just looking at it like any other health issue.
The military veteran who asked the question said he helped 1,100 people with their mental health issues. He was not offended and actually thanked Trump.

I really don't see what there is to be offended by. There is a lot of stuff that Trump said that I don't like. To be getting offended at this is ridiculous.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

People who found it offensive, are people who want mental health to be a taboo.

Absolute nonsense. I'd say the people who found it most offensive are veterans suffering from PTSD.

It is saying all people have to be mentally strong, that people can't have periods of weakness.
They should keep it hidden to retain an appearance of being strong, rather than just looking at it like any other health issue.

More backwards nonsense. If I come home from Iraq missing a foot, am I not as strong as a man who come home with both feet? Applying Trump's logic, I am not. Just like POWs aren't heroes because they were captured.

The military veteran who asked the question said he helped 1,100 people with their mental health issues. He was not offended and actually thanked Trump.

Good for him. I have no idea why he thanked Trump

I really don't see what there is to be offended by. There is a lot of stuff that Trump said that I don't like. To be getting offended at this is ridiculous.

I'm not offended by it. I am neither a veteran of a sufferer of PTSD. I think it's a horrible thing to say about veterans suffering from PTSD. You're minimising what he said. He's said far worse things, but that doesn't mean this was ok.

Amerika

The VP debate tonight can go either way. I think it will either be one big policy snoozefest, or a prosecutorial fireworks display by Pence against Clinton that Trump can’t seem to effectively deliver, which would put Kaine on defense. I’m hoping for fireworks.

The policies Clinton espouses will either hurt or ignore most of middle class America. She pretends to be the candidate of the people, but her actions prove to us she is the candidate of Wall Street. She talks a good game but her reign will be one status quo and of protection for her elite allies. Clinton’s plan is trickle down government. And Pence needs to drive home, effectively, that Hillary is corrupt, sacrifices national security to protect her insecurities, and will lie at every turn to achieve the position she believes is entitled to.

Pence needs to drive home the fact that Trump has huge faults and shortcomings, but working together they will fight to defend our country, all of our citizens, our borders, our rule of law, and the institutions that safeguard liberty. That they realize, like the majority of the country, that something is wrong with America, that the political ruling class of both parties is filled with corruption and governed by special interests. That he and Trump's only goal is to make America great again. And they will fight for what is good in America and not for themselves.

I hope Pence grabs the bull by the horns, but I not overly optimistic. Unfortunately, I fear he go the safe route and lay with the sheep.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

The VP debate tonight can go either way. I think it will either be one big policy snoozefest, or a prosecutorial fireworks display by Pence against Clinton that Trump can’t seem to effectively deliver, which would put Kaine on defense. I’m hoping for fireworks.

The policies Clinton espouses will either hurt or ignore most of middle class America. She pretends to be the candidate of the people, but her actions prove to us she is the candidate of Wall Street. She talks a good game but her reign will be one status quo and of protection for her elite allies. Clinton’s plan is trickle down government. And Pence needs to drive home, effectively, that Hillary is corrupt, sacrifices national security to protect her insecurities, and will lie at every turn to achieve the position she believes is entitled to.

Pence needs to drive home the fact that Trump has huge faults and shortcomings, but working together they will fight to defend our country, all of our citizens, our borders, our rule of law, and the institutions that safeguard liberty. That they realize, like the majority of the country, that something is wrong with America, that the political ruling class of both parties is filled with corruption and governed by special interests. That he and Trump's only goal is to make America great again. And they will fight for what is good in America and not for themselves.

I hope Pence grabs the bull by the horns, but I not overly optimistic. Unfortunately, I fear he go the safe route and lay with the sheep.

What do you mean lay with the sheep?

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. I'd say the people who found it most offensive are veterans suffering from PTSD.



More backwards nonsense. If I come home from Iraq missing a foot, am I not as strong as a man who come home with both feet? Applying Trump's logic, I am not. Just like POWs aren't heroes because they were captured.



Good for him. I have no idea why he thanked Trump



I'm not offended by it. I am neither a veteran of a sufferer of PTSD. I think it's a horrible thing to say about veterans suffering from PTSD. You're minimising what he said. He's said far worse things, but that doesn't mean this was ok.

People are choosing to make mental health a taboo subject.

If you lose a foot you are not as strong as a person with two feet when it comes to using your feet/legs, the person missing a foot has a disability which a prosthetic can help minimise the disability.
If there was no difference then the paralympics would not exist.
People are individuals, some people are strong mentally, others are not, that is life, and that is why there are people to help people with mental health problems.
Everyone does not have to go for mental health treatment as they don't need it, but there are people who do, some people are stronger mentally than others, that is life, that is being an individual, that is being human.

Trump was wrong about captured soldiers, just like he was wrong about dealing with his taxes brilliantly by losing near $1 billion to start with, or a genius as Chris Christie called - that was crazy.
The mental health thing is people wanting to act offended because some in the media believe they should be.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

What do you mean lay with the sheep?

It's a metaphor. Look up the meaning of 'sheeple.'

Peist2007

Brian? wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. I'd say the people who found it most offensive are veterans suffering from PTSD.

Trump insults veterans. Hillary creates them. Take your pick.

Mental gymnastics indeed.

Billy86

All well and good if Trump's campaign wasn't being run on the idea of creating plenty more.

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

All well and good if Trump's campaign wasn't being run on the idea of creating plenty more.

So you prefer to fear hypothetical scenarios put out there to appeal to redneck republicans rather than actual real ones based on historical events? That's some gold medal cognitive dissonance there.

Christy42

Peist2007 wrote: »

So you prefer to fear hypothetical scenarios put out there to appeal to redneck republicans rather than actual real ones based on historical events? That's some gold medal cognitive dissonance there.

So legitimately anyone who hasn't held office ni matter what they said or what they promised would be better than Hillary.

By your logic someone campaigning on starting ww3 would even be better (it is just rhetoric after all....).
It is only rhetoric until the crazy person gets elected.

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

So you prefer to fear hypothetical scenarios put out there to appeal to redneck republicans rather than actual real ones based on historical events? That's some gold medal cognitive dissonance there.

No, given Trump has zero experience in government all we have to go by is what he says he will do, his past, and his general nature. All of which are very, very volatile - with explicit claims he will create more veterans to boot.

You don't seem to understand what cognitive dissonance means, by the way.

Brian?

Peist2007 wrote: »

Trump insults veterans. Hillary creates them. Take your pick.

Mental gymnastics indeed.

I don't remember Hillary ever being a part of the department of defence.

Igotadose

Amerika wrote: »

The VP debate tonight can go either way. I think it will either be one big policy snoozefest, or a prosecutorial fireworks display by Pence against Clinton that Trump can’t seem to effectively deliver, which would put Kaine on defense. I’m hoping for fireworks.


Pence needs to drive home the fact that Trump has huge faults and shortcomings, but working together they will fight to defend our country, all of our citizens, our borders, our rule of law, and the institutions that safeguard liberty. That they realize, like the majority of the country, that something is wrong with America, that the political ruling class of both parties is filled with corruption and governed by special interests. That he and Trump's only goal is to make America great again. And they will fight for what is good in America and not for themselves.

Normally the VP debates are actually the most watchable ones, but it'd be hard to be more entertaining - in a slow-mo trainwreck sort of way - than the first Presidential debate.


What evidence do you have that Trump will actually do anything like you say? It's wishful thinking at best, and his statements and life's story is 180 degrees out of phase with your dream there. He's completely self-centered and venal, to the point of soliciting donations to his charity (to which he no longer personally donates and hasn't in 8 years), to further his business ends. He's more corrupt than any presidential candidate ever, certainly more than HRC.

Face it - any other Republican primary candidate might be in a substantial lead by now, but Trump's who was chosen, and the game is over except for election day.

Overheal

"Whenever people make extraordinary claims, it's always a good idea to consider for a moment whether they are personally benefiting from the claim or if it's a truly objective observation."

-Jonathan Hill, Arizona State University

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/04/wikileaks-to-publish-presidential-election-docs-every-week-for-next-10-weeks.html

Assange said he will publish documents regarding at least three governments before the end of the year.

“The documents themselves are revealing, but also the government/state reactions to the releases are revealing also,” he said.

Assange denied that he was specifically targeting Clinton with his document dumps, insisting that some of his statements have been misconstrued. He added that WikiLeaks will publish leaked documents on war, oil, Google and mass surveillance in addition to the U.S. election.

Assange also announced changes in its funding and organization. He called upon readers to donate to WikiLeaks and urged his followers to join the WikiLeaks Task Force to help defend the whistle-blowing website.

The 45-year-old Assange opted not to appear from the embassy after WikiLeaks developed "specific information" regarding Assange's safety.

Sounds like a series of calculated publicity stunts to aggrandize himself, I'm not certain why he is holding back information if he is such a big believer in truth...

KingBrian2

I hope in the next presidential debate someone in the audience gets to ask what exactly is Mrs Clinton's foreign policy is going to be as it is very unclear.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

It's a metaphor. Look up the meaning of 'sheeple.'

Yep, and its use is frowned on in the forum because it's below the standard.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

It's a metaphor. Look up the meaning of 'sheeple.'

I understand the term sheeple. I thought you were above such nonsense.

Why would Pence lie with the sheeple? He will have his marching orders from the Trump campaign.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I hope in the next presidential debate someone in the audience gets to ask what exactly is Mrs Clinton's foreign policy is going to be as it is very unclear.

Yes, very unclear if you have 'been on Mars for the last decade, in a cave, with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.'

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-on-foreign-policy/

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/combating-terrorism/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/military-and-defense/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/veterans/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, and its use is frowned on in the forum because it's below the standard.

And that is why I didn't want to use the term, although it has become a legitimate term in US politics as of late.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Yes, very unclear if you have 'been on Mars for the last decade, in a cave, with your eyes shut and your fingers in your ears.'

http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-on-foreign-policy/

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/combating-terrorism/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/military-and-defense/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/veterans/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/

All of those statements are to win over a crowd like what Trump does. She is at odds with most of the people on these core issues and the drift to Trump is partially due to her lack of foreign policy changes. Trade is linked to foreign policy and that too has strained Global relations. Lets see what her real plans are and not the noise used to gain Democratic backing.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

All of those statements are to win over a crowd like what Trump does. She is at odds with most of the people on these core issues and the drift to Trump is partially due to her lack of foreign policy changes. Trade is linked to foreign policy and that too has strained Global relations. Lets see what her real plans are and not the noise used to gain Democratic backing.

I'm not sure what you're looking for then. Best of luck on your search.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I understand the term sheeple. I thought you were above such nonsense.

Why would Pence lie with the sheeple? He will have his marching orders from the Trump campaign.

It defines people who are meek, easily persuaded, and tend to follow the crowd. How is that considered nonsense?

The Trump campaign hasn't always followed the best of tactics. Now is not the time to be acquiescent and merely come to the aid of the party. Now is the time to go on the offensive.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

And that is why I didn't want to use the term, although it has become a legitimate term in US politics as of late.

It may well be, but that's a comment about how low political discourse has got in the campaign.

That type of stuff is best left for subreddits for Trump.

I warned another poster about tarring Trump supporters with one brush yesterday, I expect Trump supporters to to be held to the same standard.

In short, no sheeple comments or calling others meek etc.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

It may well be, but that's a comment about how low political discourse has got in the campaign.

That type of stuff is best left for subreddits for Trump.

I warned another poster about tarring Trump supporters with one brush yesterday, I expect Trump supporters to to be held to the same standard.

In short, no sheeple comments or calling others meek etc.

Actually, if you look back at what I commented, you will see that the metaphor with the passivity connotation was directed at Trump’s vice presidential pick, and I support Trump over Clinton. It had nothing to do with any candidates supporters.

But if you are merely providing this information as a public service announcement, then it makes sense.

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Contradicting yourself there. You stated a third party representative in a debate would detract from the main candidates ability to speak on the issues, yet then laud Clinton for using the debate as opportunity to needle Trump.

To say a third candidate would lack understanding of the issues is disingenuous at best. How well did Trump or Clinton display their knowledge of issues such as trade deals, economic theory or gun rights? How many times have they been exposed making a gaffe when speaking publicly? Condemning a candidate for a mistake or gotcha moment is a childish approach to selecting our public servants.

Your point re: public perception of candidates and their message ignores the fact that the public needs to be able to hear a candidate's message in order to form an opinion on it. Therefore, having the money to publish ads etc absolutely affords well monied candidates considerable advantages.

Your final point goes against the polling data from the 1992 election, which showed very favorable numbers for Perot after the debates. Giving third party candidates an opportunity to present their ideas and challenge the main party candidates would have no downside to my eyes, and could show up the establishment parties for the unoriginal, blustering corporate representatives they are.

Clinton used the debate to show how unfit to be president Trump was.

The two main third party candidate do lack understanding of the issues. Trying to claim otherwise is preposterous.

Ads will have little benefit to the third party candidates as ads don't make voters change their vote. Ads just make voters more likely to get out and vote for the candidate they already support.

Perot polled in the high 30s at the beginning of 1992. He then dropped out of the race before reentering in late September. His numbers were trending upwards before the debate due to him reentering the race but even after the debates his polling numbers only reached half the level they were in early 1992. You can claim that debates helped him but that's just bad statistics. Regardless, he didn't even manage to get a single electoral vote so his inclusion in the debates was pointless.

AbusesToilets

Clinton used the debate to show how unfit to be president Trump was.

She spoke very little with regards to policy, which was at the heart of your claim that a 3rd party candidate would prevent greater discourse thereof in event of their inclusion.

The two main third party candidate do lack understanding of the issues. Trying to claim otherwise is preposterous.

They clearly have established platforms and policy ideas. They have differing views on American Government and its conduct, that doesn't mean they are ignorant.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gary_Johnson.htm

Johnson's Aleppo gaffe doesn't mean he is ignorant of US foreign policy, as was evidenced by his answer to the question asked of him.

BARNICLE: What would you do, if you were elected, about Aleppo?

JOHNSON: About?

BARNICLE: Aleppo.

JOHNSON: And what is Aleppo?

BARNICLE: You’re kidding.

JOHNSON: No.

BARNICLE: Aleppo is in Syria. It’s the — it’s the epicenter of the refugee crisis.

JOHNSON: OK, got it, got it.

BARNICLE: OK.

JOHNSON: Well, with regard to Syria, I do think that it’s a mess. I think that the only way that we deal with Syria is to join hands with Russia to diplomatically bring that at an end. But when we’ve aligned ourselves with — when we’ve supported the opposition of the Free Syrian Army — the Free Syrian Army is also coupled with the Islamists.

And then the fact that we’re also supporting the Kurds and this is — it’s just — it’s just a mess. And that this is the result of regime change that we end up supporting. And, inevitably, these regime changes have led a less-safe world.

GEIST: So alliance with Russia is the solution to Syria. Do you think Vladimir Putin and Russia are good and a reliable partner?

JOHNSON: Well, I think diplomatically that that is the — that that has to be the solution, is joining hands with Russia to bring — to bring this civil war to an end.

http://time.com/4483779/gary-johnson-aleppo-transcript/

To hold a position that a candidate be infallible and all knowing is a ridiculous pretense. I would be more focused on their policy ideas and vision for the nation than their public speaking ability.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Ads will have little benefit to the third party candidates as ads don't make voters change their vote. Ads just make voters more likely to get out and vote for the candidate they already support.

Perot polled in the high 30s at the beginning of 1992. He then dropped out of the race before reentering in late September. His numbers were trending upwards before the debate due to him reentering the race but even after the debates his polling numbers only reached half the level they were in early 1992. You can claim that debates helped him but that's just bad statistics. Regardless, he didn't even manage to get a single electoral vote so his inclusion in the debates was pointless.

Utter tosh. The connection between a campaign having the money to purchase airspace and their ability for their message to permeate into the public consciousness is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Perot was able to challenge blandishments put forth by Clinton and Bush. He attracted supporters from those dissatisfied with Bush's decision to raise taxes and those who were opposed to the ideas on Government spending put worth by the Democrats and Clinton. You state yourself that his numbers improved post debate, so clearly his inclusion allowed more voters to be drawn to his message.

You have failed to put worth any valid reason why a 3rd party candidate shouldn't be included, bar perhaps your personal dislike for said candidates.

Black Swan

Tonight across the pond will be held the 90 minute VP debate (Tuesday 4 October 2016 9PM Eastern Time. Airing on telly: ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, Fox Business Network, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC) at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia. I already know whom will be proclaimed the winner after the debate. Clinton supporters will claim Tim Kaine won, and Trump supporters will claim Mike Pence won. No surprises there.

Here's a couple questions for you. Will Tim Kaine speak a few Spanish phrases at the introductions, or during debate, or at the end to appeal to the large block of Hispanic-American voters in America, or stay with English? Kaine is a fluent Spanish speaker having been a volunteer with Jesuit missionaries in northern Honduras during civil war. If he does speak Spanish, what do you think the reaction of Spanish and non-Spanish speaking voters will be?

AbusesToilets

Black Swan wrote: »

Tonight across the pond will be held the 90 minute VP debate (Tuesday 4 October 2016 9PM Eastern Time. Airing on telly: ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, Fox Business Network, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC) at Longwood University in Farmville, Virginia. I already know whom will be proclaimed the winner after the debate. Clinton supporters will claim Tim Kaine won, and Trump supporters will claim Mike Pence won. No surprises there.

Here's a couple questions for you. Will Tim Kaine speak a few Spanish phrases at the introductions, or during debate, or at the end to appeal to the large block of Hispanic-American voters in America, or stay with English? Kaine is a fluent Spanish speaker having been a volunteer with Jesuit missionaries in northern Honduras during civil war. If he does speak Spanish, what do you think the reaction of Spanish and non-Spanish speaking voters will be?

Hopefully they would see it as the political sop that it's intended to be, from a party that only cares for their communities come election time.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Here's a couple questions for you. Will Tim Kaine speak a few Spanish phrases at the introductions, or during debate, or at the end to appeal to the large block of Hispanic-American voters in America, or stay with English? Kaine is a fluent Spanish speaker having been a volunteer with Jesuit missionaries in northern Honduras during civil war. If he does speak Spanish, what do you think the reaction of Spanish and non-Spanish speaking voters will be?

You really think Suburban Dad would miss an opportunity to pander to a group of voters... and future democratic voters once our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided? And that reminds me... I better binge watch Dora the Explorer so I know what's going on in a country who's primary language has always been English, until the southern invasion.

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She spoke very little with regards to policy, which was at the heart of your claim that a 3rd party candidate would prevent greater discourse thereof in event of their inclusion.

I never said that. I'm not surprised that you would misrepresent what I said considering all you ever do is misrepresent things.

They clearly have established platforms and policy ideas. They have differing views on American Government and its conduct, that doesn't mean they are ignorant.

Their views don't make them ignorant, their policies do. One of Jill Stein's big policy ideas is to tackle the student debt problem using QE despite showing on a number of occasions that she hasn't the faintest understanding of QE>

Johnson's Aleppo gaffe doesn't mean he is ignorant of US foreign policy, as was evidenced by his answer to the question asked of him.

He spoofed out an incoherent answer. That seems like ignorance to me. It also seems like ignorance when he can't name a foreign leader apart from "the former Mexican President".

To hold a position that a candidate be infallible and all knowing is a ridiculous pretense. I would be more focused on their policy ideas and vision for the nation than their public speaking ability.

We don't know all the foreign policy challenges the next POTUS will face. We do know for a fact that on day one they will be expected to address the Syrian Civil War. We also know for a fact that Gary Johnson is completely unprepared to deal with it.

Utter tosh. The connection between a campaign having the money to purchase airspace and their ability for their message to permeate into the public consciousness is as obvious as the nose on your face.

Steven Levitt showed that campaign spending has a negligible effect on outcomes.

Perot was able to challenge blandishments put forth by Clinton and Bush. He attracted supporters from those dissatisfied with Bush's decision to raise taxes and those who were opposed to the ideas on Government spending put worth by the Democrats and Clinton. You state yourself that his numbers improved post debate, so clearly his inclusion allowed more voters to be drawn to his message.

Correlation =/= causation. You should really learn some basic statistics before you try to bring up changes in polling numbers. His polling numbers continued along a trend but never came anywhere close to his earlier numbers.

You have failed to put worth any valid reason why a 3rd party candidate shouldn't be included, bar perhaps your personal dislike for said candidates.

I dislike both candidates because they are dreadful candidates. I supported Gary Johnson up until he revealed himself to be an ignoramus.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

You really think Suburban Dad would miss an opportunity to pander to a group of voters... and future democratic voters once our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided? And that reminds me... I better binge watch Dora the Explorer so I know what's going on in a country who's primary language has always been English, until the southern invasion.

Amerika - this is a disappointing post from you .

The English language is more robust than you think and will survive the 'southern invasion'

And for a guy that knows knows his history so well have you forgotten how you came by Texas California etc - that was the real 'southern invasion'
That was the way of the world back then but lets not pretend it was anything other than what it was .

It seems over the course of time what goes around comes around .

AbusesToilets

I never said that. I'm not surprised that you would misrepresent what I said considering all you ever do is misrepresent things.

The American public have been beaten over the head all year about third party candidates and yet the combined support for third party candidates doesn't reach 15%. None of the third party candidates deserve to be on the stage. If Stein and Johnson were on the stage then the time allocated to each candidate would half and less issues would get covered. Is it really worth spending half as much time scrutinising candidates that stand a chance of winning just so Gary Johnson can have another "Aleppo moment" or so Jill Stein can show that she hasn't a clue how QE works?

Take from that what you will.

Their views don't make them ignorant, their policies do. One of Jill Stein's big policy ideas is to tackle the student debt problem using QE despite showing on a number of occasions that she hasn't the faintest understanding of QE>

I haven't followed Stein's campaign in any detail, reading on her statements re: college debt, she is fundamentally incorrect, as you stated.

He spoofed out an incoherent answer. That seems like ignorance to me. It also seems like ignorance when he can't name a foreign leader apart from "the former Mexican President".

We don't know all the foreign policy challenges the next POTUS will face. We do know for a fact that on day one they will be expected to address the Syrian Civil War. We also know for a fact that Gary Johnson is completely unprepared to deal with it.

Johnson's response is far from incoherent, certainly less so than the US's current policy of training Islamist groups under the pretense that they are "good". A strategy that has its genesis with Clinton and her response to the Arab Spring. So how well will she be expected to handle said crisis?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Steven Levitt showed that campaign spending has a negligible effect on outcomes.



Correlation =/= causation. You should really learn some basic statistics before you try to bring up changes in polling numbers. His polling numbers continued along a trend but never came anywhere close to his earlier numbers.



I dislike both candidates because they are dreadful candidates. I supported Gary Johnson up until he revealed himself to be an ignoramus.

I would suggest that while political spending isn't the singular factor that decides electoral success, it is true having access to funds greatly improves a candidates ability to reach voters. If said candidate possesses the necessary qualities to attract support, having an expanded reach is going to benefit them significantly.

https://www.google.com/search?q=effect+of+campaign+spending+on+election+outcomes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

You really think Suburban Dad would miss an opportunity to pander to a group of voters... and future democratic voters once our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided? And that reminds me... I better binge watch Dora the Explorer so I know what's going on in a country who's primary language has always been English, until the southern invasion.

True look what happened to the continent after the invasion from the east. It has been a few hundred years and they aren't rid of those blighters.

Seriously. Your complaint is that he is nice to Spanish speakers and are hoping the dyed in the wool homophobe who has about as much understanding of how science works as Donald Trump (potentially less if that is possible).

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

...future democratic voters once our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided?

Donald Trump has more than once quoted Ronald Reagan as a source of grand government. What would Republican President Ronald Reagan do if president today? Would history repeat itself? In 1986 Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law, which "granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants." It's doubtful that most Republicans, including former Democrat now Republican Donald Trump, would say that "our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided" when referring to Ronald Reagan. And of course no Republican wants to talk during today's presidential campaign about the Reagan amnesties or the George H.W. Bush amnesties or the GW Bush amnesties, or that rose by another name allowing tens of thousands of "unaccompanied illegal immigrants under age 18" to stay.

This reminds me when we Irish came by the millions and flooded America in bygone days, with many non-Irish that came before us claiming we were taking all the good jobs and should go back to Ireland. And back then the Statue of Liberty was a welcoming symbol to immigrants from Europe, rather than today branded as a symbol of a for-profit insurance corporation. We Irish helped make American Great, way before Trump University, Trump Airlines, Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump Mortgage.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

Amerika - this is a disappointing post from you .

The English language is more robust than you think and will survive the 'southern invasion'

And for a guy that knows knows his history so well have you forgotten how you came by Texas California etc - that was the real 'southern invasion'
That was the way of the world back then but lets not pretend it was anything other than what it was .

It seems over the course of time what goes around comes around .

Actually, the Republic of Texas became it’s own country in 1836 after it declared its independence from Mexico (although Mexico refused to recognize the Republic of Texas and intermittent conflicts between the two countries continued into the 1840’s). The annexation of Texas as the 28th state of the United States happened in 1845.

And unless we secure our southern border I don't know if the English language will survive. I already need to press '1' to speak to someone in English.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Actually, the Republic of Texas became it’s own country in 1836 after it declared its independence from Mexico (although Mexico refused to recognize the Republic of Texas and intermittent conflicts between the two countries continued into the 1840’s). The annexation of Texas as the 28th state of the United States happened in 1845.

And unless we secure our southern border I don't know if the English language will survive. I already need to press '1' to speak to someone in English.

English will survive OK Amerika - but so what if it didn't ? Just like New Amsterdam and the Dutch , New Orleans and the French ?

Isn't that the essence of the American melting pot , constant change and renewal . Or are you saying to be a true American you must speak English ?

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Donald Trump has more than once quoted Ronald Reagan as a source of grand government. What would Republican President Ronald Reagan do if president today? Would history repeat itself? In 1986 Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping immigration reform bill into law, which "granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants." It's doubtful that most Republicans, including former Democrat now Republican Donald Trump, would say that "our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided" when referring to Ronald Reagan. And of course no Republican wants to talk during today's presidential campaign about the Reagan amnesties or the George H.W. Bush amnesties or the GW Bush amnesties, or that rose by another name allowing tens of thousands of "unaccompanied illegal immigrants under age 18" to stay.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act was sold to the people as a illegal immigration crackdown. It guaranteed there would be tighter security at the Mexican border, and employers would face strict penalties for hiring undocumented workers, so we would never have to deal with illegal immigration again. It also made any immigrant who'd entered the country before 1982 eligible for amnesty.

In my book any talk of amnesty would be illegal since as far as I’m concerned we have not fulfilled the requirements of the prior act. Therefore the act is null and void, and even those immigrants should lose their US citizenship and no further amnesty should be provided for those who came into the country illegally until the conditions of the 1986 are honored.

Both parties are to blame for the terrible condition our country is in due to illegal immigration. Time to correct it. And Trump is the only one with the guts to do something about it.

This reminds me when we Irish came by the millions and flooded America in bygone days, with many non-Irish that came before us claiming we were taking all the good jobs and should go back to Ireland. And back then the Statue of Liberty was a welcoming symbol to immigrants from Europe, rather than today branded as a symbol of a for-profit insurance corporation. We Irish helped make American Great, way before Trump University, Trump Airlines, Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump Mortgage, etc., etc.

I'm Irish also, and by law considered an Irish citizen. Interesting when you get on this kick about the good old days of early immigration and The New Colossus sonnet, you always fail to note they all came here LEGALLY!

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

English will survive OK Amerika - but so what if it didn't ? Just like New Amsterdam and the Dutch , New Orleans and the French ?

Isn't that the essence of the American melting pot , constant change and renewal . Or are you saying to be a true American you must speak English ?

Yes, give honor to customs and traditions, but we all need to be able to speak English. It has always been the case. Even the amnesty act of 1986 provided that that they possess minimal knowledge about US history, government, and the English language in order to receive amnesty. We've slid down the rabbit hole, and need to find a way out.

ancapailldorcha

Amerika wrote: »

You really think Suburban Dad would miss an opportunity to pander to a group of voters... and future democratic voters once our laws are trashed and amnesty is provided? And that reminds me... I better binge watch Dora the Explorer so I know what's going on in a country who's primary language has always been English, until the southern invasion.

Use the candidates proper names please and ditch the petty name calling.

Amerika

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Use the candidates proper names please and ditch the petty name calling.

That's his nickname.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/tim-kaine-democratic-conventon-226350

Overheal

In my book any talk of amnesty would be illegal

'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.'

Therefore the act is null and void, and even those immigrants should lose their US citizenship and no further amnesty should be provided for those who came into the country illegally until the conditions of the 1986 are honored.

I'm not certain your post exemplifies any experience on the bench..

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

I'm not certain your post exemplifies any experience on the bench..

Never claimed it did... but it does represent a good portion of 'we the people.'

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Never claimed it did... but it does represent a good portion of 'we the people.'

Hopefully not; I assume the people have a better understanding of the law, especially that of free speech.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Hopefully not; I assume the people have a better understanding of the law, especially that of free speech.

What does free speech have to do with it?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I'm Irish also, and by law considered an Irish citizen. Interesting when you get on this kick about the good old days of early immigration and The New Colossus sonnet, you always fail to note they all came here LEGALLY!

This ignores and diverts the discussion from today's presidential policy positions regarding illegal immigration, including a history of amnesties signed into law (or by executive order) by Republican and Democrat presidents (including Ronald Reagan). They were illegal, yet allowed to stay and in many cases naturalised.

Using your "LEGALLY" rationale, should the US under the rule of law now honour the treaties they signed with the original peoples that were here thousands of years before your "English" speaking settlers and miners and oil pumpers arrived? For example, should the US now honour the Sioux Treaty of 1868 and give back large parts of Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Colorado to the Sioux, who have been infested with illegal immigrant miners, oilers, ranchers, and farmers from the surrounding US in violation of treaties signed by the US? Does not the rule of law apply to everyone, not just special interests? I find all too often that today's illegal immigration Republicans and Democrats during presidential campaigns always talk tall about laws when it serves their own financial interests, and conveniently ignore or revise history when it doesn't.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

This ignores and diverts the discussion from today's presidential policy positions regarding illegal immigration, including a history of amnesties signed into law (or by executive order) by Republican and Democrat presidents (including Ronald Reagan). They were illegal, yet allowed to stay and in many cases naturalised.

Using your "LEGALLY" rationale, should the US under the rule of law now honour the treaties they signed with the original peoples that were here thousands of years before your "English" speaking settlers and miners and oil pumpers arrived? For example, should the US now honour the Sioux Treaty of 1868 and give back large parts of Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Colorado to the Sioux, who have been infested with illegal immigrant miners, oilers, ranchers, and farmers from the surrounding US in violation of treaties signed by the US? Does not the rule of law apply to everyone, not just special interests? I find all too often that today's illegal immigration Republicans and Democrats during presidential campaigns always talk tall about laws when it serves their own financial interests, and conveniently ignore or revise history when it doesn't.

I gleamed most of this from elsewhere:

Native Americans became part of the United States. I believe then the treaties were voided. Where they could, tribes renegotiated treaties guaranteeing them reservation of remaining land and assets, and retention of sovereignty. Although their sovereignty has been diminished, it has not been terminated. Tribal sovereignty is recognized and protected by the U.S. Constitution, legal precedent, new treaties, as well as applicable principles of human rights.

I guess they could always decide to proclaim independence and go to war with the US. But something tells me that wouldn't work out well. I think they can get more for themselves in courts of law.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I gleamed most of this from elsewhere:

Native Americans became part of the United States. And as such prior treaties became voided as treaties are with nations not of the US. Where they could, tribes renegotiated treaties guaranteeing them reservation of remaining land and assets, and retention of sovereignty. Although their sovereignty has been diminished, it has not been terminated. Tribal sovereignty is recognized and protected by the U.S. Constitution, legal precedent, new treaties, as well as applicable principles of human rights.

I guess they could always decide to proclaim independence and go to war with the US. But something tells me that wouldn't work out well. I think they can get more for themselves in courts of law.

US National Archives (retrieved today): "The Black Hills of Dakota are sacred to the Sioux Indians. In the 1868 treaty, signed at Fort Laramie and other military posts in Sioux country, the United States recognized the Black Hills as part of the Great Sioux Reservation, set aside for exclusive use by the Sioux people. In 1874, however, General George A. Custer led an expedition into the Black Hills accompanied by miners who were seeking gold. Once gold was found in the Black Hills, miners were soon moving into the Sioux hunting grounds and demanding protection from the United States Army..."

Once again, the rule of law should apply to everyone, not just special interests that influence both Republican and Democratic presidential party candidates. In the early case, the rule of law was to be governed by treaty with the Sioux, but when gold was found in the Black Hills, not only did US citizens illegally migrate to the Black Hills to pillage Sioux gold, but they were supported by the US Army in violation of treaty.

US National Archives (continued): "...the United States would continue its battle against the Sioux in the Black Hills until the government confiscated the land in 1877. To this day, ownership of the Black Hills remains the subject of a legal dispute between the U.S. government and the Sioux." So much for the rule of law regarding illegal immigration when there's a profit to be made.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

I gleamed most of this from elsewhere:

Native Americans became part of the United States. I believe then the treaties were voided. Where they could, tribes renegotiated treaties guaranteeing them reservation of remaining land and assets, and retention of sovereignty. Although their sovereignty has been diminished, it has not been terminated. Tribal sovereignty is recognized and protected by the U.S. Constitution, legal precedent, new treaties, as well as applicable principles of human rights.

I guess they could always decide to proclaim independence and go to war with the US. But something tells me that wouldn't work out well. I think they can get more for themselves in courts of law.

How then is there a case from the SC in 1980 titled UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. SIOUX NATION OF INDIANS et al. found at https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/448/371

I have to say some (in fact all) of your musings I disagree with but I must say your understanding of the law is totally incorrect.

How you can legally think an Act of congress is illegal when same has never been struck down by the SC is staggering.

Amerika

Pence CLEARLY won the VP debate.

That is all.