|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 29, 2016 20:19:08 GMT -5
Well Roquefort, when it comes to taxes, you are a saint. But like a Priest who abstains from sexual relations, try to avoid getting sanctimonious about what the other 99% of the people do, as long as they obey the laws. Mete out your anger at those politicians who created the laws. Believe me, Hillary and her family are taking the deductions that they deserve as well.
And no one in their right mind actually thinks Trump is the champion of "the little people". Not even his supporters. They like the idea of anti-immigrant, law and order, outsider but he never held himself up as a common-folk savior. How could he? He was a millionaire the instant he was born
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 29, 2016 21:03:30 GMT -5
And no one in their right mind actually thinks Trump is the champion of "the little people". Exactly. Operative words:"No one in their right minds." The scary thing:That's forty percent of the American people.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 21:20:19 GMT -5
Sorry, Jez, but you're gettin' nowhere with this stuff. Next you'll be telling us that the Illuminati, the Tri-Lateral Commission and some folks from Area 51 are funding the Clintons. It is to laugh, really. It is if that's the best glib, sardonic rejoinder you can come up with. How high will Obamacare spike in your State, falstaff?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 21:22:02 GMT -5
They like the idea of anti-immigrant, law and order, outsider but he never held himself up as a common-folk savior. How could he? He was a millionaire the instant he was born I think it's anti-illegal immigrant.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 29, 2016 21:26:40 GMT -5
They like the idea of anti-immigrant, law and order, outsider but he never held himself up as a common-folk savior. How could he? He was a millionaire the instant he was born I think it's anti-illegal immigrant. To quote their leader, "Wrong."
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 29, 2016 21:39:41 GMT -5
Sorry, Jez, but you're gettin' nowhere with this stuff. Next you'll be telling us that the Illuminati, the Tri-Lateral Commission and some folks from Area 51 are funding the Clintons. It is to laugh, really. It is if that's the best glib, sardonic rejoinder you can come up with. How high will Obamacare spike in your State, falstaff? Over here it was called "Romney care" when our former governor instituted it. A conservative Republican, as you may be aware. As for the increase, yes, it will go up, just as all insurance plans do. For my sons, it maybe by 25 percent, all the way to about $80. But, since one of them has a pre- existing condition, it's a small price to pay for the kind of treatment he requires so that he can continue living and contributing to society. I thank Mitt Romney every day that pre-existing conditions no longer prevent a person from purchasing insurance. It's a shame pre-existing conditions like hatred, resentment, ignorance and prejudice can't be covered. If they could be, many of the Trumpists might be cured. What's the emoji for a wry smile?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 22:31:24 GMT -5
Here's the Haitian Senate President roasting Hillary about Haiti....claiming she wanted to bribe him. Falstaff, is he wearing a foil hat too?
(broken video link)
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Oct 29, 2016 23:43:27 GMT -5
All those concerned about Clinton's personal email use have a right to weigh that in their decision making. It wasn't a good practice and had, by that time, been discouraged by State Department policies. Though it is worth mentioning that other high ranking government officials, including her predecessor Colin Powell, had also used personal email accounts in the past for official business. Still it was a mistake and should be considered.
The other issue that has plagued her has been Benghazi. Her involvement with the tragedy was exhaustively probed by Congressional committees, which failed to find any wrongdoing. Since this was a Republican chaired and run committee, I'm assuming they tried really hard to find something. So if they couldn't, there must not be anything.
In addition, the rest of her record of public service should be considered as well and judged for what you consider good or bad, including her past statements. In Trump's case, he has no record of public service to look at, so we have to rely on his business record, his campaign thus far, and again his past statements. Many of his past statements have been horrifying, and his business track record has included several bankruptcies, claims of short changing contractors, and accusations of fraud.
With all that being considered, just from the hateful, bigoted comments and actions directly from Trump himself during the campaign alone, there's no way that I could ever vote for him. Add to that his plan of dredging up "trickle down economics", which failed miserably for Reagan, and again he's disqualified himself for my vote. Then there is his hair-trigger temper that is simply incompatible with diplomacy on an international level.
With all those things, and more, even if his opponent was incompetent, I couldn't vote for Trump. With Clinton, I agree with many of her proposals and her tax plans, and I feel she would be a much more rational person to put in the most powerful job in the world. So that's why I'm voting Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 30, 2016 0:01:36 GMT -5
There has been a few people to say that it comes down to a choice of the lesser evil. The problem being, once the election is over and you have a winner, it's still an evil person
The longer this campaign goes on, the more convinced I am not to participate in this horrendous choice I'm given. I will not gasp for air as I hold my nose and pull the lever in the voting booth. I will not spend 4 years outraged at some of the shenanigans that goes on in the White House knowing I voted that person into office. I will not take part in building up a Royal Family like the Clintons. 2 Bushes were 2 much and I don't want to see another dynasty get started.
Not voting or choosing a 3rd party candidate is a statement unto itself. But damn, I don't even see a 3rd party candidate I like
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Oct 30, 2016 8:43:43 GMT -5
An interesting op-ed here, titled: In the Nixon-Humphrey election, I refused to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils.’ That was a mistake.Interesting point of view from someone who was in a similar "lesser of two evils" election situation. Bottom line, Trump in the White House would be a disaster and an embarrassment around the world. Clinton's not perfect, but considering the alternative it's no contest.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2016 9:16:07 GMT -5
I do believe tv polls are rigged sometimes. ABC had Clinton at 50% and Trump at 38% barely a week ago, a so called unassailable lead of 12%. Hillary must have been printing her victory t-shirts. Barely 7 days later, ABC now has Hillary at 47% and Trump at 45%. A 2% difference is well within the margin of error. Is it likely for an 'underdog' to gain 9 points in such a short period of time?
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Oct 30, 2016 11:28:25 GMT -5
Not voting or choosing a 3rd party candidate is a statement unto itself. But damn, I don't even see a 3rd party candidate I like This could be one of the best years for third party voter turnout though. It could get the 5% vote needed for the Libs and Greens to secure federal funding for 2020.
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 30, 2016 12:39:38 GMT -5
An interesting op-ed here, titled: In the Nixon-Humphrey election, I refused to vote for the ‘lesser of two evils.’ That was a mistake.Interesting point of view from someone who was in a similar "lesser of two evils" election situation. Bottom line, Trump in the White House would be a disaster and an embarrassment around the world. Clinton's not perfect, but considering the alternative it's no contest. I agree with this assessment, yet at the same time, I disagree with the belief (not espoused by you but by others both here and in other outlets) that because Trump is SOOOOOOOO bad, we should just ignore Hillary's shortcomings and vote her in. There are, or at least should be, serious concerns about both her seeming lack of ethical fibre as well as her questionable judgment. Even if she did everything right in regard to the personal e-mail server (which is becoming more likely that was not the case), she, as an aspirant to the presidency whose transparency and ethics were already under suspicion, should have been smarter than to engage in any behavior that might call forth further scrutiny. It was just a dumb move on her part to open herself up to investigation, which falls into the "questionable judgement" category. Same thing with the questions surrounding the Clinton Foundation. When many Americans (and not just the tin-foil hat crowd) think that you're shady to some extent, you probably need to steer clear of taking donations from foreign sources while SoS or making arrangements for donations in exchange for your husband getting speaking engagements. It may or may not be illegal, but it doesn't look good for her to be engaged in things like that.
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Oct 30, 2016 21:52:15 GMT -5
Interesting point of view from someone who was in a similar "lesser of two evils" election situation. Bottom line, Trump in the White House would be a disaster and an embarrassment around the world. Clinton's not perfect, but considering the alternative it's no contest. I agree with this assessment, yet at the same time, I disagree with the belief (not espoused by you but by others both here and in other outlets) that because Trump is SOOOOOOOO bad, we should just ignore Hillary's shortcomings and vote her in. There are, or at least should be, serious concerns about both her seeming lack of ethical fibre as well as her questionable judgment. Even if she did everything right in regard to the personal e-mail server (which is becoming more likely that was not the case), she, as an aspirant to the presidency whose transparency and ethics were already under suspicion, should have been smarter than to engage in any behavior that might call forth further scrutiny. It was just a dumb move on her part to open herself up to investigation, which falls into the "questionable judgement" category. Same thing with the questions surrounding the Clinton Foundation. When many Americans (and not just the tin-foil hat crowd) think that you're shady to some extent, you probably need to steer clear of taking donations from foreign sources while SoS or making arrangements for donations in exchange for your husband getting speaking engagements. It may or may not be illegal, but it doesn't look good for her to be engaged in things like that. You have valid points, there are concerns with Clinton. But, Trump IS that bad.
|
|
|
Post by wildfire2099 on Oct 30, 2016 23:36:27 GMT -5
Sorry, Jez, but you're gettin' nowhere with this stuff. Next you'll be telling us that the Illuminati, the Tri-Lateral Commission and some folks from Area 51 are funding the Clintons. It is to laugh, really. It is if that's the best glib, sardonic rejoinder you can come up with. How high will Obamacare spike in your State, falstaff? My health insurance has gone down each of the last two years here in Massachusetts... and the rule about pre-existing conditions has helped out quite a few people I know. I don't quite get why people don't like Obamacare (which was really just a nicer version of Gov. Romney's heath care plan instituted here a few years ago). Honestly, I think both the e-mail crap and Trump's taxes are non issues. A far greater issue is Trump is a racist dilletante whose had two periods of success in is life.. gaming the system and being a reality TV star.. neither makes him anywhere near qualified for president, which was quite clear when he went to talk to the President of Mexico and didn't mention his signature 'project'. I have no doubt that if he was somehow elected, he'll be completely ineffectual, and half expect he might just quit before the term is over. Hillary Clinton is a consummate politician, in that she says whatever the people in front of her want to hear and has no opinions of her own that she'd ever admit to. Her presidency would no doubt look very much like Obamas, and while I greatly dislike her, that's pretty ok with me if she were to win.. at least I don't have to worry that she'll nuke someone if some other country disagrees with her one day. That said, I'm probably going to vote for Gary Johnson. He might be an idiot, but he's harmless, Bill Weld would make a great president, and I REALLY REALLY want some kind of 3rd party to get some traction in this country.
|
|