|
|
Post by dupersuper on Aug 13, 2015 6:07:24 GMT -5
I think we can discuss the man's policies, ethics, and behaviors, without taking cheap shots at his appearance/health. While we're on the subject, can we keep the shots at religion somewhat respectful? Granted, when a candidate drags his religion into the political race as if it's an endorsement, criticism is fair game. But perhaps we could avoid terms that offend normal people who are religious (ie. "Jesus humper"). Jesusexual? |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Aug 13, 2015 6:19:02 GMT -5
Not just reactionaries, but also uninformed voters who cling to disproven tropes like "Republicans are better for the economy" etc. Something similar seems to hold true everywhere - it certainly does in Canada where our Conservative Party inexplicably has a reputation for responsible fiscal and economic management that as far as I can tell does not match the numbers from the last, say 30 years or so. Yeah, I don't understand why people in US or Canada buy their spin on their economic skill. After "trickle down" economics, unfunded wars, insane defense spending...and the less said about Harper up here the better (also a good general rule). Also, even with Harper still in power, those who say they'd consider "moving to Canada" while saying Sanders is too liberal make me do a double take... |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Aug 13, 2015 8:17:57 GMT -5
The tone in the thread has devolved a bit with terms like "nutjob" and "scumbag" being tossed around, in which I'm not totally innocent either. Let's all please remember that whether you're a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or just fed up with the whole thing, we can discuss the various merits of candidates without making fellow members feel unwelcome because their chosen party (or disaffection with all of them) is labeled "nutjob" or any other insulting terms. Carry on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 11:11:02 GMT -5
Hey, having grown up with one & occasionally been played in that ballpark myself, I know a nutjob when I see one ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Aug 13, 2015 11:15:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Aug 13, 2015 11:44:29 GMT -5
While this is something of a step in the right direction it's still little more than a band-aid. At least in this scenario the Prosecutor has to take full responsibility instead of throwing a put-up job to a grand jury and then claiming it isn't his/her fault they didn't indict. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 12:17:18 GMT -5
This is my 1st post here on this thread
Personally, I just can't find the right candidate for President of the United States for the 2016 Election and having a hard time finding one ... I read this thread faithfully every single day and not one candidate that has the moxie to become the next President and having said that it's boils down to 2-3 candidates for that office alone and find the one candidate that you feel that has the chance to do more good than bad.
Right now, and sadly ... none of them fits the bill!
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Aug 13, 2015 12:36:40 GMT -5
Former head of United Against a Nuclear Iran explains why he supports deal with Iran.This is the guy who was replaced by Joe Lieberman. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Aug 13, 2015 12:51:23 GMT -5
Ben Carson used fetal tissue in his research and published a paper on it.Oops. A comment further down in the diary quoted a Washington Post article that had Carson's response: |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 12:55:11 GMT -5
On the one hand, I'd say Ben Carson has as much chance at being president as my youngest cat.
On the other, I'd have said the same thing about Obama in 2007. And probably did in so many words, not that I had any animals back then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 12:56:56 GMT -5
On the one hand, I'd say Ben Carson has as much chance at being president as my youngest cat. Though, y'know, "President FluffyButt" does carry a certain appeal, n'est-ce pas? Hmmm ... It took an irredeemably & audaciously corrupt Supreme Court to make the younger Bush president after the 2000 election. Do we know how many of today's lineup might be cat-lovers? |
|
|
|
Post by the4thpip on Aug 13, 2015 13:46:56 GMT -5
The tone in the thread has devolved a bit with terms like "nutjob" and "scumbag" being tossed around, in which I'm not totally innocent either. Let's all please remember that whether you're a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or just fed up with the whole thing, we can discuss the various merits of candidates without making fellow members feel unwelcome because their chosen party (or disaffection with all of them) is labeled "nutjob" or any other insulting terms. Carry on. So we can't talk about Trump?  |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 13, 2015 13:48:53 GMT -5
The tone in the thread has devolved a bit with terms like "nutjob" and "scumbag" being tossed around, in which I'm not totally innocent either. Let's all please remember that whether you're a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or just fed up with the whole thing, we can discuss the various merits of candidates without making fellow members feel unwelcome because their chosen party (or disaffection with all of them) is labeled "nutjob" or any other insulting terms. Carry on. So we can't talk about Trump? It would be so much easier to dismiss Trump as a "nutjub," but it would appear the reason he's making such gains is that he's saying the things that a large number of Americans are thinking. And that's quite disturbing to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Aug 13, 2015 14:04:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2015 14:05:16 GMT -5
So we can't talk about Trump? It would be so much easier to dismiss Trump as a "nutjub," but it would appear the reason he's making such gains is that he's saying the things that a large number of Americans are thinking. And that's quite disturbing to me. As if rampant ammosexuality & the corresponding death tolls, year after year, weren't enough to make me suspect we're basically living in the world's largest insane asylum over here ... |
|
