|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 10:10:35 GMT -5
Not pointing fingers, but since the tone is progressively getting more heated... I remind my fellow posters that for a thread as explosive as one on politics to thrive, we must all maintain a courteous tone with one another. Let us please stick to facts and arguments, not to personal attacks. Thanks for a passionate but respectful debate. Well there have been lots of childish and nasty jabs thrown at Trump, without Slam Bradley feeling the need to interject as he did with me. It's this kind of nasty bias that spoils it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 10:11:52 GMT -5
Florida can go either way. It's a swing state that looks good for Trump as well.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 18, 2016 10:12:17 GMT -5
Like I said. Anyone who's not sincerely interested can just ignore that list.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 18, 2016 10:16:48 GMT -5
As senator, Clinton promised 200,000 jobs in Upstate New York. Her efforts fell flat.
In her presidential bid, Hillary Clinton has made job creation a centerpiece of her platform, casting herself as a pragmatist who would inspire “the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II.’’
Her argument that she would put more Americans to work has focused on her time in the Senate, when she took on the mission of creating jobs in chronically depressed Upstate New York. As her husband, former president Bill Clinton, put it recently, she became the region’s “de facto economic development officer.”
But nearly eight years after Clinton’s Senate exit, there is little evidence that her economic development programs had a substantial impact on upstate employment. Despite Clinton’s efforts, upstate job growth stagnated overall during her tenure, with manufacturing jobs plunging nearly 25 percent, according to jobs data.
The former first lady was unable to pass the big-ticket legislation she introduced to benefit the upstate economy. She turned to smaller-scale projects, but some of those fell flat after initial glowing headlines, a Washington Post review shows. Many promised jobs never materialized and others migrated to other states as she turned to her first presidential run, said former officials who worked with her in New York.
Perhaps her fans like RR and Hoosier can speak of her other accomplishments that qualifies her to be commander-in-chief? Since I'm so invited, I invite you to read this earlier post. However, while recognizing her competence to fill the POTUS's shoes, I wouldn't call myself a fan of Hillary; I was rooting for Sanders. Clinton was way too hawkish in that demented war against a third world country that posed absolutely no threat to the security of the United States, and she did so out of pure political opportunism. I earlier referred to that decision as something shameful that she would carry with her for the rest of her career. The reason I'm so keen on seeing Clinton president is that there are two choices: either a career politician I can live with, or a man who has managed to plant discord into his own party, so awful is his behaviour. Clinton is, if we really want to be hard on her, a lesser evil. (I'd rather define her as "another politician" rather than a lesser evil, but in any case anyone looks pretty good compared to Trump).
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 18, 2016 10:21:29 GMT -5
It looks like it's time to give Marco Rubio some credit for something. He spoke out against the "rigging the election" narrative that Trump and his supporters are trying to start. It's refreshing to hear that Rubio recognizes that a Saturday Night Live skit making fun of Trump isn't "rigging the election" no matter how hard Trump believes it.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 18, 2016 10:24:07 GMT -5
It looks like it's time to give Marco Rubio some credit for something. He spoke out against the "rigging the election" narrative that Trump and his supporters are trying to start. It's refreshing to hear that Rubio recognizes that a Saturday Night Live skit making fun of Trump isn't "rigging the election" no matter how hard Trump believes it. I'm convinced many Republicans are preparing for the after-Trump era. There'll be a party to rebuild, and having shown some common sense before November 8th will probably count for something. Hey, maybe something good will finally come out of all this!
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 18, 2016 10:25:44 GMT -5
A little levity to lighten up a thread that's getting a bit tense and combative. This is hilarious! Watch this little girl pull away from Trump when he tries to kiss her on the lips: Stranger Danger!
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 18, 2016 10:37:11 GMT -5
Here's another list. This one is a bunch more anti-Hillary conspiracy theories. This is a provided as a public service for the Trump apologists who might have missed one.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 18, 2016 10:45:11 GMT -5
I love John Oliver's Bill Clinton imitation. It's terrible but hilarious. Thanks for that video, Wes. It simplifies some complex issues. Anybody who wants to attack Hillary on the emails with some specific charges instead of just vague sound-bites and smug quips should start from here. (I do have one quibble: They were a little mean to Tim Tebow.) The Clinton critics and attackers could never explain what exactly her crime was with Whitewater, nor with Benghazi. Now there are two new boogeyman words they love throwing around yet can't really fill with substance: E-Mail and Wikileaks. Responding to this comment with something a little more specific than more tedious GOP talking points might be a great way to spark a real discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 18, 2016 10:47:48 GMT -5
I must admit I like the extra-terrestrial one! It sounds like something Warren Ellis would have come up with.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 10,069
|
Post by Confessor on Oct 18, 2016 10:48:05 GMT -5
Not pointing fingers, but since the tone is progressively getting more heated... I remind my fellow posters that for a thread as explosive as one on politics to thrive, we must all maintain a courteous tone with one another. Let us please stick to facts and arguments, not to personal attacks. Thanks for a passionate but respectful debate. Well there have been lots of childish and nasty jabs thrown at Trump, without Slam Bradley feeling the need to interject as he did with me. It's this kind of nasty bias that spoils it. It's not "nasty bias" though. Slam was just putting forward his counter argument to your points about Hillary Clinton's lawsuit. If childish and nasty jabs have been thrown at Donald Trump, that doesn't matter because, as far as I know, he's not a regular poster here at the CCF. All Roquefort Raider, myself and the other moderators are interested in is that everyone who does post in this thread remains civil towards each other, no matter how heated the debate gets. Disagree about the politics all you want, but stay civil to your fellow poster.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 18, 2016 10:48:51 GMT -5
I'm convinced many Republicans are preparing for the after-Trump era. There'll be a party to rebuild, and having shown some common sense before November 8th will probably count for something. Hey, maybe something good will finally come out of all this! The question is...why did some 14 million Republican vote for Trump in the primaries instead of one of their 'established' candidates? I believe there was a poll among Republians that showed many of them being dissatisfied with the status quo. They're not going back to people like Jeb Bush. By the way, how did you feel when the wikileaks emails showed that Bernie never really had a chance? When the democrats hierarchy seemed to stack the odds against him and mock him?
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 18, 2016 10:54:59 GMT -5
This is too much. The highlights are Ms. Trump defending her husband's sexual assault confession by calling it "boy talk" and then blaming Billy Bush for applying peer pressure and forcing Mr. Trump to say bad things. Yup. That's presidential material right there! Cracks under pressure from Billy Bush! How can there really be people in the U.S. who think Donald Trump will be able to face Kim Jong Un, the leaders of Iran and his master Putin when Billy Bush can just giggle and make him admit that he's a serial groper?
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 18, 2016 10:58:32 GMT -5
I'm convinced many Republicans are preparing for the after-Trump era. There'll be a party to rebuild, and having shown some common sense before November 8th will probably count for something. Hey, maybe something good will finally come out of all this! The question is...why did some 14 million Republican vote for Trump in the primaries instead of one of their 'established' candidates? I believe there was a poll among Republians that showed many of them being dissatisfied with the status quo. They're not going back to people like Jeb Bush. By the way, how did you feel when the wikileaks emails showed that Bernie never really had a chance? When the democrats hierarchy seemed to stack the odds against him and mock him? It sucks. But I don't see how any of that makes Mr. Trump a good prospect for president. But if you prefer the serial groper from the party that continues to exploit the Benghazi tragedy at every turn, that's your cross to bear.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 18, 2016 10:59:31 GMT -5
I'm convinced many Republicans are preparing for the after-Trump era. There'll be a party to rebuild, and having shown some common sense before November 8th will probably count for something. Hey, maybe something good will finally come out of all this! The question is...why did some 14 million Republican vote for Trump in the primaries instead of one of their 'established' candidates? I believe there was a poll among Republians that showed many of them being dissatisfied with the status quo. They're not going back to people like Jeb Bush. I think you're right, and that the support for Trump reflected a desire for change among the US electorate. People can see how the country is evolving, and I believe they're tired of seeing the rich get ever richer, the poor get ever poorer, and the middle class disappear. Considering that the politicians who are already there don't seem to be doing a whole lot to change the system (they'd rather try to end up on top, like the Ferengi), it makes sense to go for a "new" flavour. The Dems were in the same boat, considering how much traction the Sanders candidacy got. The problem with Trump is that he'd be far worse than the status quo. Are the current key Republican figures wrong when they thing they can regain their influence after Trump? Perhaps. I have honestly no idea what the electors are looking for right now. I'd sure welcome a change in direction for both parties, with less emphasis on money all the time and more effort in making the country more just, more educated and... more American (in its "e pluribus unum" sense). Not particularly surprised to see ambitious people behaving like what they are. I'm convinced that even Democratic higher-ups who found Sanders's ideas pretty cool agreed that a socialist had no chance of defeating the Republicans, and that he therefore had to fail in his bid for candidacy.
|
|