Pesident Clinton

[planters]

John,

That is an interesting point. If you are actually asking if he believes what he is saying, I for one truly think he does and I certainly don't expect him to say, "Damn! A fair cop. How did you see though me?"

No, the arguments we see here from him and some others as well as in similar discussions elsewhere, are based on just that...believe rather than understand.

The dogma of social justice has so permeated every aspect of public life that there has been (up to now) little need to support these positions. They are accepted without having to withstand dissent or arguments based on evidence. Support for these positions has devolved into name calling and character assassination. The vehemence and shouting has accelerated to the point that the relatively passive majority of Americans and Europeans have woken to this threat and are beginning to respond; hence Trump, Brexit and Italy.

Trump is surely a flawed individual. We all are. His appeal is more interesting because of what he portends and less because of who he is.

[dkumpula]

That is an interesting point. If you are actually asking if he believes what he is saying, I for one truly think he does and I certainly don't expect him to say, "Damn! A fair cop. How did you see though me?"

The white guy who believes that he is part of an oppressed majority who has been under the thumb of a tyrannical president (despite same getting cock-blocked by congress for 6 years running) questions whether I believe what I'm saying? That's . . ADORABLE!


Back to business: I appreciate your #850 response and won't bother to quote it in full. In your points, 1, 4, 5, 6 . . as I read it, you concede that it was dumb on his part, but not necessarily racist. I think you could easily make a case for some of these, but others are clearly racist especially when taken into context based on the shear number of them. For example in point #11, I fully agree with you that some of his former employees may despise him and say things that aren't true. I raised this as an example because he admitted that the book was accurate in a Playboy interview.

Just a clarification regarding #6, they shoved the man down and kicked him several times. I don't like getting pushed down and kicked (despite what my wife tells the neighbors) so I call this a beating.

Obama has instructed the Border patrols to ignore immigration laws. He has instructed his justice department not to pursue sanctuary cities. Federal funds could be withheld from these cities for interfering with ICE.

I believe you can do better than this, Eric. Your original comment was "Obama has undermined the rule of law, supported criminals and invited terrorists into the White House". There are, of course, hundreds (thousands?) of examples where the US Federal Courts have rulings that conflict with local or state laws and have since the beginning of this country. As we both know, Federal laws supersede state/local laws unless the Supreme Court finds such Federal laws (or otherwise) to be unconstitutional. With this in mind, what do you think of the Federal law (generally) bans the sale/possession of marijuana in light of its approval by 26 states + DC for medical use and 7 for recreational use?

Also, which terrorists is Obama inviting into the White House, exactly? I recall someone holding hands with a Saudi prince in the rose garden, but I am quite sure that was George.

No, the arguments we see here from him and some others as well as in similar discussions elsewhere, are based on just that...believe rather than understand.

This raises an important point. We should all be searching for the most factual sources we can find, not just those sources which reaffirm what we want to believe. As such, I use an overwhelming consensus of media outlets who have withstood the scrutiny of time (albeit not without bias on many occasions over their 100+ year history) from Scientific American all the way to down to Fox News. I stop there. No random websites (not even the Huffington Post). I select outlets that have taken pride in being accurate and genuinely attempt to be unbiased (lets leave Fox News out on that front). But now we have something much worse than just biased sources to worry about, we have absurdly false sources. Lies and conspiracy stories have always existed, of course; JFK was assassinated by Lyndon Johnson, Swiftboat, Obama is a secret muslim, the US military blew up the twin towers, Barrack and Michele's terrorist fist bump, the Dems are coming for your guns, etc. But now we have even more people methodically pushing completely made up "news". Look at Pat B. in Post #827 for example. He believed that there was a child sex ring being run by the Clinton camp. Rational people shouldn't be able to run across something on Youtube or some random website that is so incredulous and believe it. Incredible revelations require great amounts of evidence.

The dogma of social justice has so permeated every aspect of public life that there has been (up to now) little need to support these positions. They are accepted without having to withstand dissent or arguments based on evidence. Support for these positions has devolved into name calling and character assassination. The vehemence and shouting has accelerated to the point that the relatively passive majority of Americans and Europeans have woken to this threat and are beginning to respond; hence Trump, Brexit and Italy.

I find it interesting that you point to the supporters of Donald as in the majority despite the results of the last election showing the contrary. I also find it interesting that you speak of character assassination, lack of evidence and shouting and imply that it is something the 'other side' is doing. Have you not done any fact checking for what the Donald said for the past year? Have you not seen the Donald's rallies where people were yelling violent things at minorities, the opposition (and some of the Right's) leaders, the free media and occasionally the beating (yes, kicking still counts) of attendees with opposing views?

Trump is surely a flawed individual. We all are. His appeal is more interesting because of what he portends and less because of who he is.

We certainly agree on the first two lines. Hitler was flawed as well (but he did like dogs).

With a pretty strong economy, unemployment at 4.6% and ISIS on the run, I admit I'm confused as to his appeal. That said,, I kind of liked the "drain the swamp" idea, specifically term limits and stopping former government officials from becoming lobbyists. In recent weeks however, he started bringing in folks like Goldman Sacs' Steven Mnuchin to be Treasury Secretary, Elaine Chao (Mitch McConnell's wife) as Transportation Secretary, Mike Pompeo, Nikki Haley, Jeff Sessions, Betsy DeVos and other long-term government insiders into his cabinet. At this point, it appears that "the swamp" is moving in to the White House!

P.S. We've covered hundreds of points regarding Donald and Hillary in this thread. Will you address climate change before or after Donald releases all of his tax returns? :0

[planters]

The white guy who believes that he is part of an oppressed majority who has been under the thumb of a tyrannical president (despite same getting cock-blocked by congress for 6 years running) questions whether I believe what I'm saying? That's . . ADORABLE!

Adorable...Yes, it is. But, It's cruel as well. It's like calling the fat girl, fat. I too have been guilty of this insensitivity. But, my approach has been a little more subtle. If you feel you have to, don't ask. In any case, if you are so interested in climate change, why not start a new thread predicated on this rather than repeatedly begging me to change the theme of this thread? I'm not even the OP. I'm interested to hear what you have to say on the subject.

Finale,
How did you find this forum?

[planters]

This is well stated.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/th...rticle/2609139

And, this is why many of his opponents are fearful...as we have seen. He just might be successful.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is...rticle/2609134

[swamidog]

This is well stated.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/th...rticle/2609139

And, this is why many of his opponents are fearful...as we have seen. He just might be successful.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is...rticle/2609134

thank you for the laugh.

[planters]

Glad you liked it.

You have the right attitude. Life is short and it is best to stay happy. By the way, congrats on the BBC recognition.

[swamidog]

Glad you liked it.

You have the right attitude. Life is short and it is best to stay happy. By the way, congrats on the BBC recognition.

thank you!

(some random chars)

[Laserman532]

these discussions are so cute...

[Laserman532]

Trump is a RACIST!!! Things could be worse...

[Laserman532]

"Look at Pat B. in Post #827 for example. He believed that there was a child sex ring being run by the Clinton camp. Rational people shouldn't be able to run across something on Youtube or some random website that is so incredulous and believe it. Incredible revelations require great amounts of evidence."

Podesta wrote the coded emails, people read them...the emails are only pixels until they are connected to form a picture. People speak in code when they want to hide something.

If you want to deny the fact that Podesta is a strange bird, and everyone connected to him is a strange bird...then so be it... It has been known for decades that "the elite" are perverted satanist and perform strange rituals in secret - Skull and Bones, Bohemium grove and the list goes on and on...

If you want to deny the fact that children go missing every year, deny it...but they do. They dont just wonder off in the woods by themselves and "disappear".

Data is there or have another glass of cool-aid

seems like normal behavior for a former presidential campaign manager and "close friend to the Clintons"