papadage wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

papadage wrote:
Rubio is an empty suit lightweight, and Kasich is a RINO to most of the party.

And, btw, many, many people also view(ed) Obama as an empty suit. We know how that turned out: beat Hillary and got elected twice.

I do not remember anyone calling Obama an empty suit.

As for Kasich, the VP position would alienate much of the base since Rubio is not very well liked among the core of the party and the hardcore TP types. He would need to add a true blue nut to his ticket to get them to vote for him.

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
If Kasich were the Republican nod, I?d vote for him over Hillary. I don?t see it happening as he?s not racist enough for the base.

Really? I can't support any Republican candidate--even the ones that are considered moderate.

John Kasich is no ?moderate?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/20 ... lBW4Ktt4K7vL8K/story.html

Pebble wrote:
If Kasich were the Republican nod, I?d vote for him over Hillary. I don?t see it happening as he?s not racist enough for the base.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

papadage wrote:
Rubio is an empty suit lightweight, and Kasich is a RINO to most of the party.

And, btw, many, many people also view(ed) Obama as an empty suit. We know how that turned out: beat Hillary and got elected twice.

dtjcview wrote:
Here's a question for those of you who remember.

Trump is using the Reagan election playbook. The outside world was horrified with Reagan's election at the time. What they didn't get - was the checks and balances in the US ensure the POTUS rules by compromise and consensus - more than any other democratic leader in the world.

Trump getting elected president a bad thing? Actually - it might be good to have other countries think we have a loose cannon in the Oval office. Particularly at this point in history with issues with Putin, China and ISIL.

Me - I'm sitting back and just enjoying the political theater.

bodhipooh wrote:
I normally sit out the political threads, but I have to say that I agree with your last two posts 100% in that I am just sitting back and enjoying this political circus, and on the above I think you are head on: Hillary would most likely get elected based on her brand, but only if running against a weak GOP ticket. Right now, the Dems are (were?) underestimating the pull and allure of Trump. Just yesterday, the NYT ran a piece detailing how the Dem machine, and particularly the Hillary campaign, are just waking up to the fact that Trump is not just a blip in the radar that can be safely ignored.

I will tell you this: I find it baffling that Hillary Clinton is repeating the same mistakes from 8 years ago by underestimating potential opponents. First, it was Bernie Sanders (that seems to be neutralized for now) and now Trump and other potential GOP candidates. Personally, I never thought Trump *really* wants to be president but instead wants to play kingmaker during the convention. If he can capture enough delegates during the early nomination contests, he could ride things all the way to Cleveland and just pledge his candidates to whomever makes him the best offer. I just don't see someone like him wanting to be saddled with the responsibilities of being POTUS and instead just wants the power and influence that comes with being able to, essentially, determine who gets to run.

In the end, given the electoral college math, the dream GOP ticket is Rubio/Kasich, as that would be two (out of three) main swing states on one ticket. Whoever can win at least two of the main three swing states will win the election.

papadage wrote:
Rubio is an empty suit lightweight, and Kasich is a RINO to most of the party.

papadage wrote:
Rubio is an empty suit lightweight, and Kasich is a RINO to most of the party.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Here's a question for those of you who remember.

Trump is using the Reagan election playbook. The outside world was horrified with Reagan's election at the time. What they didn't get - was the checks and balances in the US ensure the POTUS rules by compromise and consensus - more than any other democratic leader in the world.

Trump getting elected president a bad thing? Actually - it might be good to have other countries think we have a loose cannon in the Oval office. Particularly at this point in history with issues with Putin, China and ISIL.

Me - I'm sitting back and just enjoying the political theater.

Not saying I agree with your post, but it's important to remember (and always ignored in the mass media) that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and took the helm during many of these foreign policy blunders.

And if you try to say she was just following Obama's lead, then what exactly did she do during her years as Secretary of State? And what exactly did she do during her time as Senator for a state she never even lived in before she got elected due to her last name?

My take on Hillary - is she won't carry the election on her husband's foreign policy successes, nor her own record.

The only thing Hillary has as Dem nominee is brand name. Head-to-head - think she'd beat Trump - but that's not saying much. She'd get killed by a strong GOP ticket. The Dems don't see that coming...

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Here's a question for those of you who remember.

Trump is using the Reagan election playbook. The outside world was horrified with Reagan's election at the time. What they didn't get - was the checks and balances in the US ensure the POTUS rules by compromise and consensus - more than any other democratic leader in the world.

Trump getting elected president a bad thing? Actually - it might be good to have other countries think we have a loose cannon in the Oval office. Particularly at this point in history with issues with Putin, China and ISIL.

Me - I'm sitting back and just enjoying the political theater.

Not saying I agree with your post, but it's important to remember (and always ignored in the mass media) that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and took the helm during many of these foreign policy blunders.

And if you try to say she was just following Obama's lead, then what exactly did she do during her years as Secretary of State? And what exactly did she do during her time as Senator for a state she never even lived in before she got elected due to her last name?

dtjcview wrote:
Here's a question for those of you who remember.

Trump is using the Reagan election playbook. The outside world was horrified with Reagan's election at the time. What they didn't get - was the checks and balances in the US ensure the POTUS rules by compromise and consensus - more than any other democratic leader in the world.

Trump getting elected president a bad thing? Actually - it might be good to have other countries think we have a loose cannon in the Oval office. Particularly at this point in history with issues with Putin, China and ISIL.

Me - I'm sitting back and just enjoying the political theater.

score09 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Muslim Community Leader Supports Trump's Proposed Ban

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4654597724 ... orts-trumps-proposed-ban/

I see, so Sean Hannity and Fox News. A very credible source, lol. An Imam whose credentials are unclear, aside from being a religious leader. Of course there is no text to accompany the video. And of course, no mention of the other Muslim panelist whose views are diametrically opposed. And surprise surprise, the conservative astro turf is fully rolled out on the internet when you google his name. A typical political construct designed exclusively to sway sheeple opinion. Sad but true.

JCMan8 wrote:
Muslim Community Leader Supports Trump's Proposed Ban

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4654597724 ... orts-trumps-proposed-ban/

JCishome wrote:
One of the few things I remember from my expensive political science degree is this quote from HL Mencken, written in 1920. It took a lot of years, but it looks like his prediction has finally come true:

"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre ? the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Pebbles...

I am challenging your faulty logic that equalizes organized Muslim violence against your perception of organized Christian attacks on Planned Parenthood offices.

Full stop right here.
1. I never wrote ?organized Christian attacks.? If you so need to search the archives, by all means. It never happened.

2. I?m equating the shootings of the two individuals in San Bernardino and the individual that went to Planned Parenthood.

In both instances, the parties were not a member of a larger organization. In both instances, the parties were radicalized by watching highly inflammatory material online. In both instances, a religious group was behind the production of the materials. In both instances, innocent people were murdered. In both instances, the parties obtained their weapons legally. In both instances, the parties were legal U.S. citizens (save the wife which moved here via marriage and does not appear to be the impetus for the attacks). In both instances, the parties were radicalized while living in the U.S. as citizens (again, save the wife which was possibly/probably radicalized prior but the latest information says that the husband was radicalized before he met her).

Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Is it possible that the recent Denver PP Office attack could be carried by an agnostic/atheist who finds scavenging for baby parts morally offensive to his personal value system? So far authorities have not linked that killer to any Christian organization.

For one, writing ?scavenging for baby parts? shows a severe lack of knowledge regarding what specifically Planned Parenthood was doing. I also find the use of ?scavenging? to be an exceptionally funny word in this instance

The reality is, the shooter at Planned Parenthood was radicalized by Christians with a specific agenda. The end result is dead doctors and wounded police officers. On top of this, I had posted multiple links about Christians celebrating the murder of those doctors.

Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Then offering the link to 12/01/15 CNN news analysis of a 2010 report about PP Office violence between 1973 and 2003 to support your premise was priceless. Can?t CNN find any Rand Report more current that supports their anti-Christian / pro gun control bias?

It?s rather sad that your argument here is that CNN is biased (something that?s rather silly) and that I didn?t post all sorts of recent links.

The simple fact is that I posted two links to two sources (one very recent using FBI data) proving that there is a rise in attacks on Planned Parenthood. You have provided zero links backing up anything you have written.

In the most basic of debate structures, your argument is based on personal biases and feelings about a topic. Your argument is not based in reality or factual evidence.

Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
The CNN news anchors tried to attribute the initial shooting reports in San Bernardino as an attack on a PP Office blocks away from the actual shooting address. They looked pretty sad when they were corrected by the local reporter.

I don?t watch CNN. I don?t really care about it. What I know is that CNN used a headline stating that an anti-Trump protestor was escorted out of an event while most other news agencies ran with the story of how said protestor was assaulted and beaten.

I am also quite impressed with your mind reading skills at determining the motive of television anchors and their deep desires.

Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
The 2010 report indicated that in the US over a 30 year span, a total of 6 people were murdered with 4 attempted charges. So, how do those numbers compare against Muslim atrocities committed within the USA during the same time period? Let?s start with the (2) obvious attacks on the WTC where thousands died?

This is a rather interesting false equivalence that you want to propose. You limit Christian attacks to one type of location and one type of motive, Planned Parenthood and anti-Abortion. You choose to include attacks by Al Qaeda along with ISIS and atrocities performed by thug governments run by people that happen to be Muslim.

What if we opened up all Christian attacks? for instance every Klan murder. You also have the assaulting of gay people for being gay. How about the rampant attacks on Muslims (and non-Muslims that just looked brown enough) after 9/11 occurred? I have neighbors that have been assaulted in the last week for simply being Muslim.

Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
As to current FBI statistics you mention, I have no faith that they can honestly assess evidence in these jihadi crimes without redefining extremist violence as workplace violence to protect the failed Obama Open Borders Policy that you foolishly embrace.

So what you are saying is that the government agency in charge of our safety is just making up numbers and statistics. Of course your evidence for this is...?

To reiterate a point I made earlier: I am providing links and evidence to back up the factual statements that I have made. You are responding to this with conspiracy theories back up by your own personal belief. At least Yvonne had posted a link to NewsMax, as absurd as they are, to backup her bigoted argument!

Quote:

TheBigGuy wrote:
Your denial of Muslim terror and its true threat to American citizens, now from inside the US, is just stunning.

I?m unsure of what ?Muslim terror? I should be afraid of.

Is it radicalized Muslims? I am not scared of them. I do want them caught, detained and interrogated in order to gain further insight.

Is it the Muslim children coming over from Syria? Nope. I?m not afraid of children. They usually just want to run around and play.

The reality is that we are threatened by many things on a daily basis. I think gang activity in our city is a bigger threat than the possibility of Muslims attacking Barcade. I also think gang activity is a bigger threat than Christians attacking a Planned Parenthood.

You choose to focus all of your cowardice on brown people that pray to Allah. I can only feel sorry for you. I would hate to walk around with such fear each and every day.


Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Didn't Leibowitz retire?

He did just sign a new deal with HBO. Not sure what he's doing with them, but his retirement didn't last too long...

JCishome wrote:
One of the few things I remember from my expensive political science degree is this quote from HL Mencken, written in 1920. It took a lot of years, but it looks like his prediction has finally come true:

"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre ? the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

TheBigGuy wrote:
Pebbles...

I am challenging your faulty logic that equalizes organized Muslim violence against your perception of organized Christian attacks on Planned Parenthood offices.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Is it possible that the recent Denver PP Office attack could be carried by an agnostic/atheist who finds scavenging for baby parts morally offensive to his personal value system? So far authorities have not linked that killer to any Christian organization.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Then offering the link to 12/01/15 CNN news analysis of a 2010 report about PP Office violence between 1973 and 2003 to support your premise was priceless. Can?t CNN find any Rand Report more current that supports their anti-Christian / pro gun control bias?

TheBigGuy wrote:
The CNN news anchors tried to attribute the initial shooting reports in San Bernardino as an attack on a PP Office blocks away from the actual shooting address. They looked pretty sad when they were corrected by the local reporter.

TheBigGuy wrote:
The 2010 report indicated that in the US over a 30 year span, a total of 6 people were murdered with 4 attempted charges. So, how do those numbers compare against Muslim atrocities committed within the USA during the same time period? Let?s start with the (2) obvious attacks on the WTC where thousands died?

TheBigGuy wrote:
As to current FBI statistics you mention, I have no faith that they can honestly assess evidence in these jihadi crimes without redefining extremist violence as workplace violence to protect the failed Obama Open Borders Policy that you foolishly embrace.

TheBigGuy wrote:
Your denial of Muslim terror and its true threat to American citizens, now from inside the US, is just stunning.

Monroe wrote:
Didn't Leibowitz retire?

Monroe wrote:
Didn't Leibowitz retire?

Monroe wrote:
Didn't Leibowitz retire?