- #1,331
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2023 Award
- 33,294
- 19,814
phinds said:one of those Latin phrase things.
It is Latin for "[towards a] Spring bath", though.
phinds said:one of those Latin phrase things.
I heard about his statements, so there was no surprise. His statement is further evidence that the guy is unfit to be president. It's hard to fathom that someone who brags about violating women would be seriously concerned about protecting the liberties of others.Krylov said:Has this already been posted? From the BBC:
US election 2016: Trump and his Central Park Five defiance
I agree with the article that this deserves more attention, as it is about scientific fact and its role in justice.
Also, I give Senator McCain (see the bottom of the article) a lot of credit for his honest reaction.
... establishment figures again wrung their hands during Andrew Jackson’s campaign. The former general became a hero for his stunning victory over the British at New Orleans in 1815, ... But Jackson’s rivals called him a “military chieftain” and warned that he would subvert the American republic as Caesar had subverted its Roman forerunner...In retirement, Jefferson shook his head in worry as Jackson appealed directly to voters. “I feel very much alarmed at the prospect of seeing General [Andrew] Jackson president,” he told Daniel Webster. “He is one of the most unfit men I know of for such a place. He has had very little respect for laws or constitutions…He is a dangerous man.”
... opponents [of Thomas Jefferson] branded him a mad Jacobin for his support of the French Revolution and warned that his election would place the country’s morals in grave peril. “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will all be openly taught and practiced,” an anti-Jefferson paper predicted in the fall of 1800. “The air will be rent with the cries of distress, the soil will be soaked with blood, and the nation black with crimes.”
...one of the important aspects of this race is role modeling what good families should look like. Any my view is that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House
Have you personally had any luck with that?Astronuc said:It might be a challenge, but through positive and constructive engagement. If one wishes to change the hearts and minds of someone, then one has to find a positive way, knowing that it may not work in all cases. One can address the issues without denigrating the other.
Om's sister said:sanctuary cities
$75,000,000 to mexico for wall
$100,000,000 soros mexico isis
crime rates going up 93%
12 year old raped in idaho falls by immigrant
ss nazi police
$770,000,000 obama fix worlwide mosques
san bernardino isis
florida gay nightclub isis
$1.7 billion to iran
$400 million in cash to iran so it's untraceable
trump supporters
police
military
Om's sister said:I don't trust snopes.
...
By the way, snopes is a left wing liberal site - "And of course emphasizing that very point is the popular myth-busting website Snopes, which apparently was caught with its biases exposed, or perhaps more to the point the author and fact checker describing herself as a liberal..."
Snopes is given too much credit in its objectivity to facts.
...
Which site do you want to believe? The pattern is there.
...
Bottom line - I just can't understand how adding this up does not paint a picture of corruption by following the events. It is a scary time. America having open borders, Clinton's email lies, Clinton ridiculous charity. She is crazy as far as I'm concerned.
Om said:But just for fun, I checked out your second reference. When doing that, I usually look at who’s running the place before reading the article:
"The Center for Immigration Studies is one of the network of anti-immigration groups founded by John Tanton, an activist with white nationalist leanings”
Ummmm….. I don’t usually accept anything from neo-Nazis as reference material.
Om's sister said:It is interesting how different the views are between the east and the west coast. Conservatives vs liberals. I will leave you with your opinions.
I gather that you don't mean everything you say to be taken literally Om, but that's still an odd summary of your response to the gay night club - ISIS and San Bernardino attacks, about the $1.7 billion the US paid to Iran, much of it in cash, which Obama acnowledges.OmCheeto said:...found it all to be numbers whipped up into hysterical conspiratorial nonsense.
CalcNerd said:...So, I will be voting for a scumbag. I just am not voting for a crazy scumbag.
mheslep said:I gather that you don't mean everything you say to be taken literally Om, but that's still an odd summary of your response to the gay night club - ISIS and San Bernardino attacks, about the $1.7 billion the US paid to Iran, much of it in cash, which Obama acnowledges.
If you're actually interested in more constructive engagement as you say, it might help if you allow me to note what I see above in the summary of the response to your sibling. First, not a single word of actual evidence. Yes I gather you don't want to repeat it all here. But you do find room to say you shredded her, that you "shut her up", and the only detail you provide is that one of her references has racist connections.
And that's why I'm seriously considering switching my vote away from Hillary.mrspeedybob said:Crazy scumbag will never get enough cooperation from congress to get any of his scumbagging done.
Intelligent scumbag has some allies and will likely be able to coerce cooperation from others, hence, more scumbagging will get done.
Best case scenario I think for the next 4 years is going to be total governmental gridlock. I think Trump is more likely to achieve that.
I would rather trust the impeachment process, than Hillary, at this point.OmCheeto said:And that's why I'm seriously considering switching my vote away from Hillary.
Obummer seems to have done a lot with a totally obstructionist opposition. Imagine what Trump could do!
'Merka!
What on god's green Earth is "impeachment"?RonL said:I would rather trust the impeachment process, than Hillary, at this point.
Why the heck would anyone want another 4 years of the government accomplishing very little to nothing?mrspeedybob said:Best case scenario I think for the next 4 years is going to be total governmental gridlock. I think Trump is more likely to achieve that.
Because it's better than two unpaid for, multi-trillion dollar wars?olivermsun said:Why the heck would anyone want another 4 years of the government accomplishing very little to nothing?
Not to belabor the obvious, but there's much more that could be accomplished in the next 4 years than just waging wars.OmCheeto said:Because it's better than two unpaid for, multi-trillion dollar wars?
As I mentioned earlier; "If he just sits on his hands for the next four years, he'll do much better than G.W."
[ref]
Hi, I'm a Republican. Have we not met?olivermsun said:Why the heck would anyone want another 4 years of the government accomplishing very little to nothing?
olivermsun said:Why the heck would anyone want another 4 years of the government accomplishing very little to nothing?
OmCheeto said:Because it's better than two unpaid for, multi-trillion dollar wars?
As I mentioned earlier; "If he just sits on his hands for the next four years, he'll do much better than G.W."
Every time, huh?mrspeedybob said:Because every time the federal government does something, they screw it up and make things worse instead of better.
olivermsun said:Every time, huh?
Even if "every time" is an exaggeration, you should at least recognize (and not be surprised to hear) that wanting government to do less is pretty much the fundamental component of what a conservative/Republican believes. So when you swap exaggerations, your "very little to nothing", whether strictly true or not, is indeed preferable to the liberal/Democrat status quo, to a Republican.olivermsun said:Every time, huh?
If we focus on what happened during the last 4 years, where "nothing" meant gridlock where regulations were neither added nor removed, that's a better result to me (and, clearly, you) than early in the Obama Presidency, when Obama had control of Congress and pushed through major - and expensive - policy initiatives.mrspeedybob said:Pretty much. There may be rare exception.
Later this weekend when I've got time I'll try to go through all the major stuff that the feds have done over the last 3 decades and explain how each one was a failure (or success).
If someone else has more free time then I do and can beat me to it, go for it.
The two approved articles of impeachment for Clinton were Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, period. That he was guilty is not in serious dispute; Clinton lied in front of a federal judge. Me, I'm inclined not to let that go. Removal from office for these acts was very much in dispute. The Senate said no. Clinton was later disbarred.OmCheeto said:what was that for?
Smaller government is a fundamental component of what many conservative Republicans believe. It is by no means clear that it is the fundamental component, especially when it comes to expansion of government programs that align with other typically conservative stances. Military spending and homeland security come to mind immediately.russ_watters said:you should at least recognize (and not be surprised to hear) that wanting government to do less is pretty much the fundamental component of what a conservative/Republican believes.
It's one thing to want a reduction in the size of the government's job. It's a very different thing to want the government to be prevented from doing the job it currently has.Indeed, if you define the baseline as what we have now, your typical Republican wants those currently in government to do less than nothing - which is to say, reduce government intervention.
Sounds like an interesting exercise. I think it's going to take a lot longer than a weekend, though.mrspeedybob said:Pretty much. There may be rare exception.
Later this weekend when I've got time I'll try to go through all the major stuff that the feds have done over the last 3 decades and explain how each one was a failure (or success).
$70,000,000 to find out a politician lied.mheslep said:The two approved articles of impeachment for Clinton were Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, period. That he was guilty is not in serious dispute; Clinton lied in front of a federal judge. Me, I'm inclined not to let that go. Removal from office for these acts was very much in dispute. The Senate said no. Clinton was later disbarred.
Clinton's statements by ruling
True 65
Mostly True 73
Half True 58
Mostly False 40
False 28
Pants on Fire 6
Trump's statements by ruling
True 12
Mostly True 33
Half True 40
Mostly False 55
False 102
Pants on Fire 51
Evo said:back to the 2016 election or the thread gets closed. We no longer have a politics forum...
Referring to the title of this thread, I think that the 2016 POTUS Race has pretty much broken itself down.Evo said:Ok, this has gone WAY off topic, back to the 2016 election or the thread gets closed. We no longer have a politics forum, I've only left this thread open for the sake of keeping the 2016 election posts in one place.
Are you referring to your comment from post #1354?mrspeedybob said:May I ask for clarification?
How do we discuss the 2016 election without discussing politics. What aspects are OK or taboo?
Could you perhaps cite some post numbers where you consider the content in bounds and some where you consider the content out-of-bounds to give me a sense of what's what?
I'm really not trying to be difficult. I genuinely don't see the distinction you're making and I want to understand so that any future contributions I might make are in-bounds.
mrspeedybob said:Later this weekend when I've got time I'll try to go through all the major stuff that the feds have done over the last 3 decades and explain how each one was a failure (or success).
sanctuary cities
$75,000,000 to mexico for wall
$100,000,000 soros mexico isis
crime rates going up 93%
12 year old raped in idaho falls by immigrant
ss nazi police
$770,000,000 obama fix worlwide mosques
san bernardino isis
florida gay nightclub isis
$1.7 billion to iran
$400 million in cash to iran so it's untraceable
NewbieOm said:post #488 Feb 26, 2008
I posted my research of Obama's voting record on key bills last month in the "Why is anyone supporting Obama?" thread. He voted the same way I would have. He therefore represents my values. I will therefore vote for him, regardless of what he says. Because it's been my experience that in order to get elected, all successful politicians will say whatever they think you want to hear.
Hence, I never listen to any of them.
It's fairly easy, this forum is now "Current News Events". Just make sure that whatever you post about the election has a current news story from an acceptable mainstream source associated with it. Even current news will go back and dredge up ancient issues if that is what is being discussed. And that is what is allowable.mrspeedybob said:May I ask for clarification?
How do we discuss the 2016 election without discussing politics. What aspects are OK or taboo?
Could you perhaps cite some post numbers where you consider the content in bounds and some where you consider the content out-of-bounds to give me a sense of what's what?
I'm really not trying to be difficult. I genuinely don't see the distinction you're making and I want to understand so that any future contributions I might make are in-bounds.