Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: jstcrsn Oct 12 2016, 11:03 PM

And people don't want Donald because he talks like he is Tommy lee

Posted by: fkalich Oct 13 2016, 02:18 AM

And now they are coming out, women exposing Trump as an actual real life sexual predator, that it was not just "locker room talk" as Trump claimed, when the tape was released of him bragging about sexually molesting women. Two today, with many to follow.

How much will this effect his supporters? Little or nothing, it won't matter to them. Here is an interview with one of them, a congressman from Texas. He was asked that if a tape emerged where Trump said that "he liked to rape women", would he still endorse him? The conservative congressman said "I would consider it".

Posted by: Todd Simpson Oct 13 2016, 05:36 AM

Bingo! It's almost like watching folks who have been a pinch brainwashed IMHO. No matter what comes out, no matter how awful it is, (E.G. I'm famous so I grab them in the P***Y), those who have drunk the Koolaid, just won't care. He could do horrible things to children right in front of trump tower, and cameras could be rolling, and it still would not matter. His "Surrogates" woujld get back on the news and claim "People don't care about that".

Now the new York times reports that he actually has women that say he sexually assaulted them. Not a blog, or some nut case, the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/opinion/sunday/donald-trump-groper-in-chief.html?_r=0

So yeah, it doesn't matter what he does, or says, or doesn't do or doesn't say. His "Base" just doesn't care enough about any of that to be swayed. They have been sold on the idea that Mrs Clinton is pretty much the Devil Made Flesh who wants to "Take our Guns" and "Destroy Our Country". At least she won't try to grab it in the "P***Y"

BTW This is my fave vid so far With Pence saying one thing, then a clip of Trump saying the exact opposite. Classic


BOTTOM LINE: Until the supreme court overturns something called the "CITIZENS UNITED" case, we can't get the "Dark Money" out of our politics. As a result, we have sold our souls to a small group of companies and very rich folks like the KOCH brothers, who have turned our "Democracy" in to a total sham.

That's why the big dust up over approving the next few supreme court nominees. If "people are corporations" under the law, then any company can secretly buy any politician. Such as been the case for a while now. Until we get the money out, I fear for our countries future.

Posted by: klasaine Oct 13 2016, 03:06 PM

Speaking of Citizens United ...

In CA this November, besides the Pres. election we also have a lot of other ballot measures. One of them, Proposition 59 is an advisory measure seeking voter opinion on whether officials should act to overturn the Citizens United court ruling. If Ca approves this then it gets sent to Washington DC as an 'opinion'. Doesn't sound like much of anything, right? Well, this is how Prohibition and it's eventual repeal got started. This is how an amendment to the constitution gets started. Don't need the SCOTUS to overturn anything. Enacting Prohibition took years. Repealing it took about 18 months.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Oct 13 2016, 03:38 PM

I'm all for PROP 59. In fact, I might have some Tshirts and Bumper Stickers made!! That one issue really is at the core, IMHO of everything that is wrong with out political system, along with everything else of course But yeah, if we could get that fixed, I'd regain at least some faith in our "Democracy". Or else we will just have to start calling it a "Buy-Ocracy", Bought by the rich, for the rich, serving the rich, giving everyone else the short straw.

Found another funny SNL skit that reminded me so much of watching CNN lately If you don't watch CNN and have not seen the "Surrogates" you may not get this gag at all. But if you have,.....

Posted by: AK Rich Oct 13 2016, 04:02 PM

This is laughable. If we are to believe every accusation leveled against either candidate then it would mean that Hillary is on a whole different level of "dirty" and is far more unfit to be President than Trump, and a far better candidate for prison, (or even a firing squad in a different day and age) than Trump would be, right?
Have fun guys. I'm out.

Posted by: Rammikin Oct 13 2016, 04:38 PM

Whoa. Can we at least agree to not advocate killing people with whom we disagree?

Posted by: fkalich Oct 13 2016, 05:14 PM

If Clinton wins by a big enough margin the Dems could take the Senate. Then they could get the Supreme court set so we could have reforms as you are talking about. I don't want them to get the house as well, I don't want anyone to have that much power.

Did you see that Bob Dylan got a Nobel Prize for literature?

Posted by: fkalich Oct 13 2016, 05:42 PM

I don't know what to think about that. But he just took what Trump said to the next level. This is the effect of his influence, where people say things that a year ago nobody would have said, that we would have felt were un-American. I don't hate Trump. I find him repulsive, I always have. I also think he is a stupid man in some fundamental ways, a very ignorant man. I look on him as a narcissistic psychopath But I don't hate him, I just want him to go away. I just look on people like him as I do cockroaches, I don't hate them either.


Here is Tom Hanks on why you should vote for Clinton:

Posted by: Rammikin Oct 13 2016, 07:22 PM

There seem to be two schools of thought on that. One, Trump is encouraging people to express hateful thoughts they have always had, but only now feel emboldened to express out loud. Two, Trump is inciting people to say hateful things they don’t really mean. I don’t know which is worse, but it’s definitely leading our society in a dark direction.

Posted by: klasaine Oct 13 2016, 07:24 PM

“You used to laugh about/ Everybody that was hanging out/ Now you don’t talk so loud/ Now you don’t seem so proud/ About having to be scrounging for your next meal”.

Posted by: AK Rich Oct 14 2016, 03:00 AM

Ok I guess I am not out quite yet. That post was supposed to be in response to the 2nd post in this thread from fkalich.
To be clear, I am not advocating anything. I am simply pointing out that some of the things she is accused of have warranted that kind of action in the past. That's how serious the accusations are. Obviously that kind of repercussion is not going to happen in this day and age.
The point I was making is that if the election is to be decided on who has more, and more serious accusations against them being the loser, then the winner hands down would be Trump.
Also to be clear, I don't much care for either of the candidates this time around. But I will be damned if I will vote for more of the same and quite probably worse in my view than what I have seen in the past 7+ years.
And the way some of you feel about Trump is pretty similar to the way I have felt for the last 7 years. So maybe it's your turn.

Peace guys, Rich...

Posted by: Rammikin Oct 14 2016, 03:25 AM

Thanks for clearing that up. FWIW, you might want to edit your post above, especially the "better yet" bit which makes it sound like you would prefer a lethal course of action be taken against Clinton.

Posted by: AK Rich Oct 14 2016, 03:44 AM

Thanks Rammikin, point taken and changes made. A bad choice of words in a hurried response.

However, If she is guilty (and there is quite a bit of evidence to back up most allegations unlike the allegations against Trump, the latest which have not even been verified btw.) The punishment must be harsh enough to send a clear message to other politicians that the consequences for such crimes are extremely severe.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/marc-turi-libyan-rebels-hillary-clinton-229115

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press-buries-hillary-clintons-sins-1476401308

Posted by: Todd Simpson Oct 14 2016, 04:13 AM

I'm all for that Let's agree not to advocate killing folks, or advocate sexual assault just as a baseline and go from there

Seems to be a bit of both Encouraging folks who were already leaning towards wanting do unconstitutional stuff like have a "religious clause" for folks to enter the country (E.G. Proposing a Total Ban on Muslims, until he walked it back a bit), and advocating war crimes "You have to go after their families" (Trump talking about going after the Families of Terrorists, not just the bad guys themselves), advocating sexual assault, (The famous "grab em in the P***Y) line, etc.

It seems to legitimize the very worst parts of who we are as a nation and a people. Which is quite sad



To be clear, Hillary is no Saint. She is a very shrewd political insider who has been working it from her side of the fence for many decades. However, of all the things she has been accused of. I have yet to hear recordings of her advocating sexual assault, just as an example I wish I could vote for the "What is Aleppo?" guy, but he is just too out of touch to be a real choice. Clearly our choices are very limited in this election. There are not "good choices", only the lesser of two evils. The electoral college will hopefully pick the least evil candidate, and we will go from there

Posted by: klasaine Oct 14 2016, 05:24 AM

"Lesser of two Evils" ... if I hear that one more friggin' time.

Neither of them are evil. One's just an overly entitled blowhard and the other one's a career politician (and that's not meant as a compliment).
If one looks to vote for a person that makes me feel good or believes the same things I believe then you're never going to ever find anyone to vote for. You don't get to the top of your party by being nice guys and gals with a totally clean past and making everybody feel good.

No politician (or person in office) cares about you the individual. They can't. At their most altruistic they have a constituency to serve. Whoever thinks that a politician gives a shit about them (the individual) is an idiot. Politics is a cross between 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' and 'A Face In the Crowd'. *If you haven't seen those two movies I suggest watching them one after another. Add in 'Elmer Gantry' for extra credit.

For me personally, it comes down to experience.
At the end of the day, the President of the United States of America, is not an entry level position.

I say she takes it over the Donald by 6%.

Posted by: fkalich Oct 14 2016, 06:13 AM

She actually is a pretty good candidate. The most qualified candidate we have had in American history, running against perhaps the least qualified; I don't know if Harding was worse than Trump, that is a difficult call. But it would be either Trump of Harding. It is not fair how so many trash her. I don't understand it, but I think it is most irrational. I can't think of anyone else I would trust more with the powers of the presidency. Beyond her plans, which I mostly approve of, I am talking about keeping us safe.

Posted by: fkalich Oct 14 2016, 06:50 AM

I agree mostly, but not entirely. You are a bit too cynical. Some politicians have some decency in them. They are just like the rest of us in that way. I really think that Clinton has some morals. I don't think Trump has any. It is just like in my own world, some people have some morals, some don't seem to. And to tell you the truth, I have not seen where having a religion or being an atheist matters in that regard.

I hope you are right about Clinton winning. I expect she will. But the prospect of Trump is so terrifying. I don't mean to be an elitist, but I have read so much history in my life, I see us as being in serious danger, even mortal danger should Trump be elected. Listen to what he said about McCain and Ryan. He said that he will be able to control them. That tells you a lot about what he intends to try and do, to try and turn the Presidency into something like what Putin has. Perhaps our Constitution would protect us, but still it is all pretty frightening.

I am so disappointed in America, I thought we were better than this. It should not be your projected 6% margin of victory. Someone like Trump should be getting no more than 5% of the vote.

Posted by: klasaine Oct 14 2016, 03:05 PM

Cynically optimistic I like to say

I predict 6% because I'm a cautious gambler. I won't be surprised if it's a slaughter, say 20%.

As for being shocked or surprised or embarrassed about a candidate hell, we re-elected both Nixon and George W. Plenty of first world countries have (recently) had idiots at the helm. Talk to Italy. How about Brexit? Russia?
If the Donald actually gets elected then maybe we'll be the laughing stock of the western world, but I don't think that's gonna happen. The loser gets forgotten. I'd like to see a study or article on failed presidential candidates (that got a lot of votes). Didn't Eugene Debs run from prison in the mid 20s? Aaron Burr (1800) - independently tried to take Mexico and he eventually killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Strom Thurmond and George Wallace, both staunch segregationists, ran strong campaigns for the presidency.

Posted by: fkalich Oct 14 2016, 06:40 PM

Actually I think you are making sense there, hopefully I am reacting too much to media comments. I don't know though. He really is an idiot, and somewhat deranged. That is not a politically biased opinion. He is a very ignorant man, he never reads books, never has. Even George Bush was a reader, all presidents that I know of were readers. You may have seen my post where candidates responded to a questionnaire, based on input from institutions representing 10 million scientists and engineers, and he scored 7 points out of 100. Do you think he would do any better than that on an American history test? Hell the guy thinks Douglas MacArthur is a hero. You have to look around hard to find historians who don't hold MacArthur in contempt. He probably picked that up when he was marching around in his uniform at boarding school. He is a very ignorant man, and he is deranged. I think he is more dangerous than a lot of people imagine. You know, German politicians thought the same of Hitler, that he was nuts but they could control him. People are thinking the same of Trump, that once elected he will get on more an even keel. I am not sure of that, I could see him doing the same kind of things to get his way that he is doing now to try and get elected. It would not end well. Hopefully we don't have to find out.

Posted by: klasaine Oct 14 2016, 07:10 PM

Hey, if everything goes south - move out west. We don't call it the Republic of California for nothing. Well, actually it is for nothing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Republic ... but no matter. CA is the 9th largest economy in the world. Money talks, bullshit walks. We're usually fine.

Posted by: fkalich Oct 14 2016, 11:51 PM

Always been fond of CA for being in the forefront of the progressive movement.

Actually the KC area is not bad, in fact I noticed that the Humane Society endorsed our Congressman, rare for a Republican, the single lawmaker endorsed from the State of Kansas. And the same goes on the Missouri side with Emanuel Cleaver, a really good black man. It is a pretty moderate area. However once you get west of Lawrence and the University of Kansas, or east of KC except for St. Louis, you can hear banjos playing.

For the most part, red state politicians vote against animal welfare/protection. I find this a good barometer of moral compass, compassion for animals. In CA, nearly all of them are endorsed.

http://www.hslf.org/assets/pdfs/hslf-2016-endorsements.pdf

Posted by: jstcrsn Oct 15 2016, 03:15 AM

yup, just us deplorable s west of Kc playing our banjos, you need to wake up and smell your hypocritical BS about the acceptance and tolerance your party thinks you have

P. freakin s.

ttttttttttttttrrrrigggggggggggered

Posted by: jstcrsn Oct 15 2016, 11:41 AM

all hearsay at this point, who is drinking what cool-aid ?

Posted by: Rammikin Oct 15 2016, 12:27 PM

No! There are enough people here already. Don't listen to Ken .

Posted by: jstcrsn Oct 15 2016, 01:00 PM

Posted by: klasaine Oct 15 2016, 02:25 PM

Hey, he's from around KC, he might bring some BBQ.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Oct 15 2016, 11:34 PM

I'm with ya Also, I'd say that "Liberalism" or "Humanitarianism" is just another word for "Enlightenment". Care for ones fellow man and fellow beast, is something that we as a race have struggled with since the dawn of time. It's always disheartening when I hear politicos trying to push people toward the worst version themselves by trying to scare them with the worst version of the "Other".

As for CA, there is an old saying. As goes California, so goes the nation. California has been at the leading edge of political and social change for many decades here in the U.S. Of course, I"m guessing not everyone agrees with that But it's been said for quite some time and it sure rings true to me.
Todd

Sigh... Crsn, crsn, oh crsn. Please try to refrain from saying things like "You need to wake up and smell your hypocritical BS". It's accusatory, it's a personal attack, etc. Try instead to depersonalize as much as possible, if possible So that we can maintain a semblance of civility?

Posted by: fkalich Oct 16 2016, 02:25 AM

Here is an interesting video you may have missed, and I think a poignant one, as well as one suitable for the comedy channel. An 11 year old girl scout talked about things Trump has said, and responded "After listening to those things and looking in the mirror, I feel bad about myself". That is the sad part. The hilarious part is Pence's replay. Really, they could play this on SNL, just as it is.

Posted by: fkalich Oct 16 2016, 04:03 AM

Thanks Todd. But I thought about this. I don't want to be the cause of Kris cracking down. It did not bother me. I am not saying HIllary is perfect. Although she is one the most experienced person to ever run for the White House. But I know without question that Trump is so awful, so horrible, that nothing anyone could say would phase me.

I know he is not going to be a Chester A. Arthur. Arthur had a shifty background, if you have forgotten, he took over when Garfield was shot. But he turned out to be a good president. I know that Trump will not make this metamorphosis, he is a narcissistic psychopath, he is not capable of pursuing decency. I just can't get over the shock that he actually could be president. I was opposed to Romney, also McCain, but I never felt this way about them, I never felt that the country was in danger with them. I think we will be if Trump is elected. In 1932 people discounted the dangers of Adolf as well, the politicians thought he would moderate, that they could control him. If Trump is elected he will try to run the Presidency as a dictatorship, to the degree he can, the same way he is running this campaign. He will try to mobilize his herd to frighten intimidate opposition, just as Adolf did. And unfortunately I think he supporters actually think that would be a good thing. It is all like a bad dream.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Oct 16 2016, 07:19 AM

Just trying to keep the peace If we could all avoid the word "you" in general, when talking about politics, that alone would tend to soften the exchange a bit. After all, we are talking about political parties and political people, not about each other, hopefully

As a student of history, I can't help but see the same historical parallels you mentioned. The branding of the "other" as dangerous, as the reason for all of our problems. The need for the "Strong Man" to come in and take charge. Etc. Very reminiscent of a certain Italian leader of the same time period. It does reflect a large section of the populace that simply fed up and want simple answers to complex questions, and believe in impossible promises of bringing back "the good old days". Sadly, those days are gone. Globalization is just part of the new normal IMHO. Still, there is that huge chunk of the electorate that just can't stomach that idea. If there is a financial crisis ( a new, worsening, rapid crisis, like the crash of 2008 for example) or a big attack on the country with buildings getting destroyed and lots of folks getting killed, I fear it will ensure Trumps victory in the same way the burning of the Reichstag led to another political shift all those years ago.
P.S. a couple of "Drumpf" (Trumps original Family name) cartoons that gave me a giggle

Posted by: klasaine Oct 16 2016, 05:15 PM

Like I said, Hillary by 6%.
Relax.
Play guitar until it's over.

Posted by: AK Rich Oct 16 2016, 06:04 PM

That is his opinion and he is entitled to have it and express it as well, does he not? I happen to agree with him. We have sat in here and watched as you two have slammed Trump supporters and before that, Tea Party supporters as racist, uneducated and every kind of phobic there is while completely ignoring and dismissing any and virtually all of the accusations there have been against anyone with a (D) before their name no matter how much evidence there is to support those accusations and then you pat each other on the back for doing so.
When you attack and disparage Trump supporters and Conservatives in this way you disparage Cursin, myself, and millions of Americans as well and are following the lead of mainstream media and the Obama admin that has created the divide this country is now seeing.
All of this does nothing to advance any kind of honest debate. So maybe you shouldn't dish it out if you can't take it.
Have you guys ever considered that maybe you are not as intelligent and grown up as you believe? I certainly have because you're really not talking about the issues at all, you're just slamming folks that don't see things the way you do.
So how about you end the passive aggressive BS if you don't want to be insulted return?

Posted by: Kristofer Dahl Oct 16 2016, 09:38 PM

Hey Cursin, this is not the first time you do this and you have received warnings in the past. I will now suspend your posting ability for three days. I want to remind you that debates are only ok if you can refrain from personal attacks.



AK - you are on the borderline here. Is this a threat, implying you are about to start insulting people? And are you saying that your fellow GMC:ers are unintelligent? I do not see how this post could contribute to the positive atmosphere on our forum.

I have not warned you in the past and will consider this a one time event.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Oct 16 2016, 11:27 PM

Well said!!! All of the time from this thread could have been much better spent in practice or song writing imho. It represents a sad loss of opportunity.

Todd

Slamming a candidate or supporters is one thing. Directing a personal attack at a fellow member of our community is QUITE another thing. These two are NOT equal.

Please feel free to express any thoughts, on anything, or any candidate/followers of candidate. Just try to refrain from making it personal. That's all Avoid, "You need too..." statements in general I'd say, in order to maintain our civility that is the best part of our community. That's all I was saying

Of course everyone has the right to their personal op. Also the right to express it. However, per the conditions of our fine community here, we do NOT have the right to attack folks directly, based on their views. It's pretty simple. Let's all just speak our minds without getting personal. Should be easy enough If you see a post that you don't like, don't take it personally. It's hopefully not got your name on it, and not voiced in "you need to.." terms. So one can reply in a calm and measured fashion, hopefully, no matter what the topic, or post.

I do feel that there is a HUGE amount of racism, sexism, etc. In the current Republican candidate. I have every right to hold that view. I"m not accusing you, of anything. I'd hope you are not accusing me as well This is what I'm trying so hard to communicate. I can despise a candidate, and have doubts about his/her supporters without leveling accusations at anyone here. Perhaps it's taking things personally that is the problem. I don't take any slams/crazy vids/blog posts against Hilary, personally. I'm not her. Also, I'm not focused on accusations against candidates so much as things that the candidates have said, on tape, that we can verify. These things are not accusations, just facts. Both candidates have said disturbing things to be sure. The tape of one candidate urging sexual assault was just too much to take. I found myself posting on that issue. But not attacking anyone while doing so.

Again, I"m NOT DISPARAGING ANYONE PERSONALLY. I keep saying this to no effect. I have seen many posts slagging Hillary supporters (I don't consider myself one) but if I did, I would NOT take it personally. That's the real point. Let's be able to talk about things, and groups of people, without taking it personally. If we can't then we should leave certain topics alone IMHO. As they create a negative vibe

So I'm not "dishing it out" at all. I'm not attacking folks personally. I'm certainly ok with "taking it" as I've done so for some time now All without lashing out in personal attacks. I can say what I think about Trump and his support without attacking you or crsn personally, just the same as you can say what you think of "crooked Hillary" and her supporters without attacking me or anyone else personally. just expressing your views is fine of course, putting "you..." in it makes it personal attack. Let's just avoid those, ok?

Then I read this in your post.
"Have you guys ever considered that maybe you are not as intelligent and grown up as you believe? I certainly have because you're really not talking about the issues at all, you're just slamming folks that don't see things the way you do.So how about you end the passive aggressive BS if you don't want to be insulted return?"

To answer, YES I've considered that I'm not very smart, and not very grown up There are certainly smarter, more grown up people than me. I'm just a guitar teacher with a fondness of News/History/Politics. That's all Nothing more. That bit of your post however, was more of me "taking it". As it's directed at "You guys", not at a candidate or supporters of said candidate.

Instead, you could have said.

"It's possible that the supporters of Hillary Clinton are not as intelligent or grown up as they believe themselves to be."

This puts the statement in the abstract and prevents it from being a personal attack.

I'm not engaging in "PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE BS" as you put it. Just expressing my views as you are welcome to express yours. That's all

Let's all just try to keep it civil no matter what views are expressed? and keep the word "you" out of it entirely if possible.



Todd

Posted by: KenA Oct 17 2016, 02:15 AM

Hi everyone,

I believe the right questioning is why they [ US Govmt + Mainstream Media + FBI + NSA, etc ] are so worry about Trump's winning this election? The answer is much more complex than this, but to sum things up, basically Trump is a possibility to expose all this 'group' and its darkest plans, and just a slight possibility of it is enough for this desperate behaviour.

Trump wins > Civil War
Hillary wins > US x Russia starting with this fake accusations of Russia hacking US and maybe WW3

Russia is training their population:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/717446/russia-evacuate-40-million-people-emergency-drill-vladimir-putin-ww3

While US is creating the 'atmosphere':
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/10/13/executive-order-coordinating-efforts-prepare-nation-space-weather-events

To understand 'space weather events' search for EMP bomb.

It's a complex subject, but goes way beyond Crooked Hillary vs Rock Star Trump.

My question: why do you think Hillary (the group) wants open borders?

Posted by: klasaine Oct 17 2016, 05:22 AM

The recent Wiki-leaks 'open borders' remark was in reference to free trade during a speech on free trade in Brasil in 2013 and the context is only pertaining to the western hemisphere. If you're interested, here's HRCs actual immigration proposals ... http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/twisting-clintons-immigration-plan/

*And explain to me again, what do sun spots and solar flares have to do with this year's US presidential election - ?

Posted by: fkalich Oct 17 2016, 06:33 AM

Hey, not worried about the Russians having the upper hand in preparation for WW3, we are far ahead in that game, ever since 1951 we have had our act together here.

Posted by: Rammikin Oct 17 2016, 06:38 AM

The US government congressional branch is controlled by the Republican party, which is working actively get to their candidate, Donald Trump, elected president. The head of the FBI is a member of the Republican party. The largest cable news media network in the US is actively promoting Trump for president. However, I think it's safe to say "etc" is worried about a Trump presidency.

Posted by: fkalich Oct 17 2016, 07:09 AM

Well the real world is different than Internet world. I expect we will gather evidence of corruption, financial holdings of government officials and their families, and either release that, or threaten to if they don't stop the hacking. It may not exactly be Putin orchestrating all this, but is the one who needs to get the dogs on a chain. They did not go after our infrastructure, they went after private servers, we will do the same. Or perhaps we already have. But we may never hear about it, or not for years, and that would be a good thing.

Regarding people being apposed to Trump, most in Congress and the Senate find him contemptible, and unfit to be president. But the screwy nominating process put him there, and he is what they have. They think he is awful, but they don't want Clinton nominating the 3 or 4 Supreme court vacancies likely to occur. The average judge hangs around for 30 years now. I think that is the big thing, why they still try to stick with him to an extent, even though they find him as reprehensible as I do.

Posted by: KenA Oct 17 2016, 11:08 AM

Hi klasaine, thanks for the tips in regards to open borders, i'll read that for sure ...

I'm going 'conspiracy theories' mode on that doc of 'solar flares...', hehe, if we have that kind of atmosphere, I believe one can make the EMP device to work, but don't take me serious on these things. :-)



When you say 'The largest cable news media...' I believe you're referring to FOX?



That's a good point, nowadays i'm more 'Internet world' than what you call 'real world', that I believe you're talking about TV, newspapers, etc ... so I tend to follow more what people call 'Alternative Media: infowars, AMTV, wikileaks, etc', but it does not necessarily means A is true and B is false.

Back to H and T, well I think they are both unfit to be POTUS

Posted by: AK Rich Oct 17 2016, 04:43 PM

Not at all. Simply making some observations and suggesting a course of action, and I don't believe what I posted suggests that anyone is unintelligent. I asked if the possibility has been considered that some might not be as intelligent as they may believe and that I have considered it.
There is for the most part a "positive atmosphere on our forum" as you say, but in this thread and a few others lately, not so much in my view.
The only other thing I have to ask is this. How can someone, anyone, politician, pundit or person have an expectation of respect when they are dishing out the disrespect?
So I will stand by what I posted since that is how I see things here lately. It is my opinion. Maybe you will forgive me for that, maybe not.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Oct 18 2016, 02:40 AM

AKRICH: here is where you sorta crossed the line. In your previous statement, I quote

"Have you guys ever considered that maybe you are not as intelligent and grown up as you believe?"

The use of "you guys" followed by the question you posed, leans toward personal attack. The way you rephrased it in your recent post, is depersonalized and a much better approach in general IMHO when talking about politics in order to keep discussion civil.

I quote again, this time from your most recent post

"I asked if the possibility has been considered that some might not be as intelligent as they may believe and that I have considered it."

this is much less confrontational, less aggro and more abstract, less personal, etc. It's a general question instead of an accusation.

Folks should feel free to voice anything they wish in terms of party and or candidate and or candidates supporters in general as long as it's general. The problem is when it gets specific. That's when it turns in to a "personal attack" and gets folks banned for breaking the rules after being warned.

Todd

Posted by: fkalich Oct 18 2016, 05:24 AM

H is the most qualified person to run for the presidency in our history. That means a lot, it is very important to have first hand experience. She is a politician, and they HAVE to hide some of their cards, it goes with the turf. I don't know what type of world people think we live in, or can live in, things have to be like that. Anything you can say about her, you could have said about FDR double.

Trump is without question the least qualified in terms of prior experience in our history to be a major candidate. This should really frighten everyone. Anyone notice besides me that North Korea's leader said that they might launch a first preemptive nuclear strike? You really want someone like Trump, using his vast experiences in building Casinos and Golf Courses, and hosting Reality TV, dealing with that? Nuts.

I never have gotten why people trash her so much. I don't get it. She is a politician. I hate to say it, but I am certain that much less would be said about her negatively if she were a man.

She will make a good president. There are indications that her and Ryan can fight it out and then strike deals, like politicians used to in the past. If Trump loses, cross my fingers, most voting for him will abandon him. Only a portion of them are his core, most just support him because they don't want Hillary. If she wins, well I expect he and his right wing supporters will be at least somewhat marginalized.

Posted by: klasaine Oct 18 2016, 04:25 PM

Who started the thread.

Posted by: AK Rich Oct 18 2016, 04:26 PM

I guess you edited out the part of your post that I read last night where you stated that insulting Trump supporters is not a personal attack, basically because it references a group of people rather than just one. What you posted is still on my phone because it was left open over night. Here is what you originally posted in case somebody missed it.

"An negative view/statement on trump and trumps followers is NOT a personal attack on anyone in particular even if you happen to consider yourself part of said group. Being able to objectify such things is the key to maintaining civility IMHO."
[attachment=45338:Screensh...08_04_46.png]
Good move because that logic is ridiculous. When HRC called Trump supporters "A basket of deplorables." That was a personal attack en masse and it is no different when someone like you does it here.

That brings me back to Intelligence.
How intelligent is it to be insulting a group of people when debating Presidential candidates and the issues of a Presidential Election?
How intelligent is it for a candidate to personally attack millions of Americans when the candidate is supposed to be telling us why we should vote for them by listing accomplishment and what their policies would be etc?

And folks are indeed insulted, as they should be by this kind of comment and a long list of comments like it that have come from our current President and many in his administration, other Democrats in congress and mainstream media for the past 8 plus years.
Starting off a debate like this immediately creates a hostile atmosphere and is not at all constructive nor intelligent in my view. The only thing it does is take the attention away from the actual issues at hand.
Enough of the nanny nanny boo boo politics already. While we are all being divided and conquered I'll bet there are some folks in DC just laughing their asses off because all of this is a distraction from the REAL issues. The whole thing is nothing more than a big 3 ring circus. And we are ALL being played like a fiddle.

Posted by: Rammikin Oct 18 2016, 05:39 PM

Just asking a sincere question here: are you disagreeing with studies that show Clinton supporters as a whole are better educated than Trump supporters? If so, can you share the quantitative evidence for your dissenting opinion? And are you saying sharing or alluding to that evidence is an insult to somebody?

And you're disagreeing with the observation that in the last debate only one candidate, i.e. Clinton, listed accomplishments and described detailed policies? I'm not saying that's wrong, but that would run counter to widespread opinion, so you should expect to have to provide something to back up your assertion if you're going to say that.

Posted by: klasaine Oct 18 2016, 05:45 PM

Here's what HRC said exactly ...
"To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables,"

Nobody at GMC is in that half.

Even though it's the 'chill out' section (irony not lost), it's still a guitar forum.
Anyone who posts a video or a link to a politically (and polemically) charged subject, whether it's a Saturday Night Live skit or some type of tin foil hat paranoid propaganda, should expect a reaction and just has to deal with it.

Because you don't post it for no reaction.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Oct 19 2016, 01:04 AM

I knew the statement would agitate you personally, so I removed it. It seems I was correct. However, the logic itself is sound. I can say that trump supporters seem to be a certain way in general, without attacking anyone in particular. Your perception of it being "ridiculous" is just that, a perception. You are welcome to it of course. The fact remains, you could make an observation, ( which you did in the quotes of yours I referenced) and in the second quote, you depersonalized it so that it's not a personal attack. Anyone should be able to say those things without folks on the other side freaking out and taking it entirely personally. After all, not every member of a given group is the same. There are exceptions in every rule and generalization. Which is why they are called "generalizations". You and crsn in particular seem to personalize the abstract observations and lash out with personal attacks. This is the root of the issue IMHO

BASKET OF DEPLORABLES
This quote gets used quite a bit. If you watch the entire video, she is talking about the racists, sexist, isolationist, fans of dictator Putin, etc. Not about the populace in general. Trump himself, was recorded telling Billy Bush that he likes to "grab em in the P**Y" advocating sexual assault. Anyone advocating sexual assault is in the basket IMHO. Billy Bush WAS FIRED from his job. Trump moves on.

I'm sure you have seen many folks (typically Trump Supporters) saying things like " Obama is a Muslim" I'd be happy to provide clips if needed. Point of fact, Obama is a Born Again Christian and attends a Christian church. He is NOT Muslim. Then I've heard trump supporter say "he might as well be". It's this sort of clear ignorance (no other word for it) that leads me and others to categorize entire swaths of Trump supporters as being in a fact free bubble.

However, I'm not saying that every single supporter, including you and crsn and anyone else is part of that group. I certainly hope you are not. That's why I don't use personal attacks, I"m not trying to disparage anyone personally. We keep going over the same ground, over and over and over. It's becoming tiresome Matter of fact, I'm so tired of it, that I'm gonna quit posting in this thread after tonight, as it's a bit of an echo chamber in here. No progress seems to be made, just a few comments, then come the personal attacks. I have not made any personal attacks. I have noticed that they seem to be coming from one side of the conversation.

Good question here is a PEW RESEARCH POLL (not a blog post or something from Alex Jones, or Fox or MSNBC, etc. One of the most revered and time honored sources valid statistical information that we have on planet earth)

This is the breakdown. So yes. Statistically speaking, you can say certain things about both sides. However, AGAIN this is not to say that these are "UNIVERSAL TRUTHS" (E.G. some Trump Supporters have Ph.Ds and some Clinton supporters are high school dropouts). But "Generally Speaking" we can see that 59% folks with a Post Graduate Degree are leaning toward CLINTON. I "lean" toward Clinton and fall in to that group of Post Grads. Where 21% of folks with a Post Grad Education "lean" toward trump.


DOES THIS MEAN THE POLL AND EVERYONE WHO READS IS CALLING EVERY TRUMP SUPPORTER AN IDIOT? NO IT DOES NOT.

It's just a statistical inference from a Valid Poll. That's it.







Well said Let's not forget, the thread was started by CRSN with an attack add against Clinton showing her with the Evil Emperor from star wars and the thread titled "HILLARY MUST LOSE"

https://www.guitarmasterclass.net/guitar_forum/index.php?showtopic=57525&view=findpost&p=739241

Posted by: fkalich Oct 19 2016, 02:02 AM

When I was out of high school, I worked for 5 years in a warehouse as a driver, and then for a year on an assembly line in a factory. In that time I attended night school at a college, and then went away to KU as a Junior. And the people I worked with back then, well a lot of them were really intelligent guys. Sensible. Even philosophical. Well those were different times. But I think things have changed today, due to decades of Cable TV and Internet. Back then people had more humility. Today every Tom Dick and Harry thinks he has the answers, based on what they have seen on Internet sites. I have humility I think, although it may not seem that way. I know that in life, until you actually have direct experiences in a venue, you really cannot understand what it is like to deal in that venue, whatever perception you have of it will be way off the mark.

It is not formal education that has set me in my values. It is more all the books I have read, all the History, and Science.

Regarding this election, regardless of political slant, one candidate is the least qualified in American history. If you dispute that I will gladly discussion all 44 prior presidencies to illustrate that yes, nobody even comes close to Trump's lack of experience. I can see some argument for that as being positive on domestic issues. But dealing with global political situations, there is no way that someone like Trump will have even a clue what he is doing in that realm.

On the other side, Clinton is one of the most qualified candidates in American history, if not the most qualified w.r.t. prior experience.

If the candidate was Cruz, I would say he was a scoundrel, but I would not say it was insane. With Trump, it is insane, it is hard to believe this is really happening. What would people 40 or 50 years think if they could peak at this, that someone like that, with no experience in government service would be running to be the man who, if a crises occurs, or a glitch occurs that looks like a possible preemptive strike, has to make the call. It is totally insane. The big danger we all face is the same one we have always faced, that in a crises situation, the person in charge makes the wrong call, and that is the end of it. Maybe in 50 million years the cockroaches evolve a big brain and they get to have a go at what we failed at.

Posted by: klasaine Oct 19 2016, 02:17 AM

My dad went to KU.

Ted Cruz actually scares me more than Donald Trump. Ted Cruz is a religious ideologue. Historically, that never goes well.

Go Jayhawkers!

Posted by: AK Rich Oct 19 2016, 04:02 PM

The logic is sound eh? Then by that logic, since I referenced a group of people (you two) I haven't made a personal attack on anyone then have I?
Nevermind that , you can throw it out.

Let's say Joe Blow says that X race or X ethnic group are subhuman. And then walks it back to say half of race X or ethnic group X is subhuman. Either way Joe has insulted the entire race or ethnic group. That race or ethnic group views it as an attack or insult on the entire group because they have no way of knowing which half Joe was talking about.

I don't really care about studies or folks trying to rationalize why people support Trump. I know why, and I believe I have spelled it out before in other threads. It really doesn't have much to do with intelligence. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know when they are being shafted and that the country is on the wrong path based on how the policies of a certain political group has negatively affected their lives.
Would you scrutinize the BLM movement based on intelligence? And where do you think that would take us? Into hostility maybe?

This kind of thing re-enforces the view that some in Gov have which is that common folks don't really know what's good for them and they need to be led by the hand through life and monitored to make sure they stay on the path that the Gov lays out for them, not limited to but including moral beliefs and how and what folks should think and believe.

This is further than I wanted to go in this discussion and I really have no desire to get into a never ending back and forth on the candidates themselves. I only wanted to comment on the distraction that this kind of talk is from the real issues that need to be honestly discussed and up to this point in my view, haven't been.

Like some others here, I'll be glad when it's over. Although it will probably just be the beginning, all over again.