The Political Discussion Thread

[jelgate]

Kinda like poorly theologically educated Muslims following ISIS?

I think it's appealing to their emotions. I don't want to call people stupid but a lot of politicians know how to use speeches to evoke an emotional response. It my belief that a vast amount of voters vote with their heart and not their brain which is dangerous

[Womble]

Just a random thought here.

If one of the most often levied criticisms of Trump is true, that he's an unpredictable and mercurial "loose cannon", I'm not sure the soviets would want his finger on the trigger of our military if they're planning on behaving badly.

They may be applying reverse psychology; convince the US electorate that they want Trump as POTUS, so US voters think "well, if they want Trump, it can't be good for us" and therefore vote for Hillary. They may want Hillary, not Trump. Historically, Democrats have always been weak on military matters, at least for the past 60 years or so, as shown by Carter and the LSoS's gutting military budgets.

Supposedly, the Wikileaks have been assisted or carried out by the Russians. But that information merely provides confirmation of what most anti-Hillary people already know, at least in their minds. By the same token, Hillary supporters can be predicted to ignore the information shown in those leaks. So I don't expect them to make a big impact. If they were indeed carried out by the soviets, I suspect that was just a mistaken strategy move on their part.

Actually, the Russians interprete American politics very differently from the way you or American Democrats do. They have their own way of seeing these things.

You see, the Russians have a completely warped understanding of what the US State Department is and what it does. They see it as a kind of CIA on steroids, the center of American behind-the-scenes control of everything. For the Russian establishment, the US State Department is the shadowy hand behind all kinds of "orange revolutions", of which they are terrified, and they are utterly convinced (I'm serious here) that Obama's State Department - ergo Clinton as the Secretary of State - was the force that orchestrated the Maidan uprising in the Ukraine which removed the pro-Russian President. A Russian Maidan scenario is the recurring nightmare of the Putin regime, and Clinton is THE devil for the Russians right now, feared like no one else. Trump, on the other hand, is a shallow populist who oftentimes speaks highly of Putin; he is a potential agent of Russian influence in the White House who can be bought for cheap with money and flattery.

[Gatefan1976]

Right, because it's totally normal for countries during peacetime to calculate the minimum survivable caloric intake for their population in case of all-out war, and estimate how long they can maintain it.

Nothing to see here, nothing to do with anything else that's happening, move along, right?

Not what I meant.
It is unsurprising that they would do this given the move to a war footing, not that there is nothing to see.

Hillary thinks they're backgammon pieces.

ok

Did you borrow politifact's weed too?

No, just paying attention to the point they were making, which was Trump lying, again.

"US uranium mining is negligible"? Sure, it's "only" 1271 tons, but it's domestic supply. Right now it is simply cheaper and more politically expedient to buy uranium from Canada and Australia than mine it from the Navajo lands. But were the USA to begin preparing to massively boost nuclear weapons production, their first move would be an equally massive increase in domestic uranium mining. If the Russians want to monitor USA nuclear weapons production patterns, domesitc uranium mining is the thing to watch. And sabotage.

Strangely, if the scenario changes, my opinion would as well. -IF- the US were to do as you say, then sure, domestic supply becomes an issue. Right now, they are not, so it is not.

[Annoyed]

That's wishful thinking. I don't really think Trump would actually push the red button because an ambassador called him a stupid butt face. Let's be honest here, that's just hyperbolic if not irrational. But he would make rash choices which is a very bad thing when playing a game of chess. Especially when that game of chess actually involves human lives. Putin is playing rather well. He's guessed Western moves, he understands our weaknesses and has found out that we really wouldn't easily make a move. The last thing he needs is an American president who can think like him. And that's one of Hillary's issues...she is a warmonger. But warmongers do know how to play chess.

Johnson can't be president in this atmosphere, because he doesn't even know what chess is. And Stien? We could have had Rubio, or even Cruz. But you folks made the choice for us all when you choose Trump.

I have also learned (the media needs to talk about this more) that there is a large church of conservative white people who see Trump for what he is. The Church of Latter Day Saints, Mormons. Trump's support in the pulls in rocky mountain states is less than a third, so is Clinton's support. Those folks are looking for alternatives. Frankly, like Romney, they don't like Trump and they don't like the idea of trickle down racism.

Here's a CNN link http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politi...-dilemma-2016/

But I've looked elsewhere. Apparently Mormons don't think he's nice and they are not fans of religious persecution (considering that they have been on the receiving end of it, it makes sense). They also tend to be better educated than the general public (Trump pulls much more support from those who only have high school education than those who are college or votech educated). And they are also better educated theologically than Evangelicals (trump's religious groupies). They see call his egomania and his supporters blind faith idol worship (I guess I'm not the only one then).

It's my contention, personal, that Christians who support Trump strongly, as opposed to begrudgingly, are poorly theologically educated. Disclaimer, it's a feeling. I have no real proof beyond Mormons and it is based on my own religious beliefs and understandings.

He wouldn't have to use the red button. When not shackled down by a liberal such as the LSoS or former president peanut farmer, the US miltary is quite capable of wrecking havoc with conventional weapons alone. I recall reading somewhere that back in the days of the Gulf war, just one carrier strike group was the military equivalent of all but 3 other nations on Earth; former Soviet Union, China and Iraq, if I recall correctly. We've probably slipped a bit since then due to budget cuts, as I understand it there are a significant number of aircraft which are out of service atm 'cause they can't buy parts for them. That's nothing that can't be fixed with a Republican administration and Congress.
People may have the perception that Hillary is a hawk, but frankly, in my opinion, the Democrats are not to be trusted when it comes to defense.

As far as the Mormon's opposing Trump, you're quite right on that. Aside from the issues you mentioned, they favor more open immigration, and are opposed to Trump's hardnosed stance towards illegals. I have never heard a member of the church (I have a few friends on the 'net who are members) say anything, but I imagine there might be some resentment over Romney's failure.

[SGalisa]

Who is Russia preparing to go to war with?

OK who upset Putin this time?

Who is Russia going to war with? Don't know yet.
However, they will probably have an alliance with Iran and maybe Turkey -- depending on which side Turkey is willing to support at that time.

Who is Putin upset with this time?
Well, several months ago, it was USA's President Obama poking cat and mouse air/ground fights with Russia's military might in Syria (might also been Iraq, but mostly in Syria).

Now, it's Hillary Clinton for accusing Putin of hacking into her emails, etc. I read on some other discussion site that it's possible Putin is getting tired of the charades and will not hesitate much longer on Hillary's shrillary verbal jousting, against Russia personally. That's why if Hillary gets elected, there will be a volatile stage already set up between Russia and the USA, for any further heated exchanges to turn into an all out nuclear war, if necessary -- just to shut the other side up, once and for all.

Unfortunately for the rest of us in the USA, it's going to be us *poorer* schmuck folks, getting creamed, who don't have the luxury of flying off in some private plane or hiding out under some hidden bunker (which I would question how safe those bunkers really would be if every major city in the USA got hit anyway). On the other extreme, Hillary and company would most likely already be off the ground and safely flying out to some far away island paradise or possibly even Antarctica (just a guess, as a UN diplomatic declared safe haven) for shelter from the sparks flying back and forth.

[garhkal]

Doesn't he have a courtcase to go to in December? The new president takes office in January, right? So...

Which court docket is that?? His trump U? That might get him fined like crazy, but i can't see it sending him to jail, especially when what hillary has done SHOULD have landed her ass in jail..

Good luck proving that...

That's the thing, the PROOF of what happened should be the burden of the ACCUSER.. Not the one accused.

The better question would be, who aren't they going to war with?

The only ones i see them not doing anything towards are the Chinese..

[jelgate]

Rather Hillary deserves to be in jail or not is irrelevant as the justice system has decided not to prosecute. Call it what you want it doesn't really matter. The Trump U thing is fraud which does have the possibility for criminal charges which includes jail time

[Annoyed]

Rather Hillary deserves to be in jail or not is irrelevant as the justice system has decided not to prosecute. Call it what you want it doesn't really matter. The Trump U thing is fraud which does have the possibility for criminal charges which includes jail time

You mean to say that this administration has decided not to prosecute. There have been several reports of FBI folks being outraged that she isn't being prosecuted. You can bet that if Trump wins, the LSoS will issue a presidential pardon for her as one of his final acts. If he doesn't, She'll be in irons the day after inauguration day.

[jelgate]

You're just arguing semantics now. Regardless of the politics its still irrelevant

[SoulReaver]

There have been several reports of FBI folks being outraged that she isn't being prosecuted

such trust in the G-men is admirable (not)

You can bet that if Trump wins, the LSoS will issue a presidential pardon for her as one of his final acts. If he doesn't, She'll be in irons the day after inauguration day.

along with many other political opponents, ja

[thekillman]

If he doesn't, She'll be in irons the day after inauguration day.

Something something separation of powers?

[jelgate]

such trust in the G-men is admirable (not)

along with many other political opponents, ja

And the Constitution will be there as well

[Falcon Horus]

Which court docket is that?? His trump U? That might get him fined like crazy, but i can't see it sending him to jail, especially when what hillary has done SHOULD have landed her ass in jail.

This case:

Trump lawyers given court date over lawsuit alleging rape of 13-year-old

That's the thing, the PROOF of what happened should be the burden of the ACCUSER.. Not the one accused.

Except that there is apparently, plenty of proof to go around, but you're not going to buy it because it was just "lockerroom talk" to you and your man can do no wrong.

He's also gone off the deep end... again...

Breaking autocues, calling the elections rigged (loved that lawyers rant on twitter about how E Day works -- sadly no Trump supporter's gonna wanna believe the truth of it) and the best one yet... wanting a drug test before the next debate to make sure Hillary isn't on anything. She appeared hyperactive in the previous one to him -- perhaps he wants what she's having in order to do well.

[Annoyed]

Something something separation of powers?

Doesn't come into play. The Executive branch operates the police. It is their task to bring charges in the case of a crime, and the judicial system tries the case.
The current sorry excuse for an executive branch has chosen not to bring charges, despite the police (in the form of the FBI) having plenty of evidence. There have been several reports of FBI personnel expressing surprise that they weren't going to bring charges. Orders from above.

If the Republicans take the White House on January 20th, I feel certain that those orders from above will change, and the FBI will press charges.

[aretood2]

Doesn't come into play. The Executive branch operates the police. It is their task to bring charges in the case of a crime, and the judicial system tries the case.
The current sorry excuse for an executive branch has chosen not to bring charges, despite the police (in the form of the FBI) having plenty of evidence. There have been several reports of FBI personnel expressing surprise that they weren't going to bring charges. Orders from above.

If the Republicans take the White House on January 20th, I feel certain that those orders from above will change, and the FBI will press charges.

Are these FBI officials the ones involved in the investigation or are they random officials that weren't involved in the investigation? I ask because that distinction matters.

Furthermore, if police officers who kill people in what is a bad shooting to everyone with common sense get away with murder (literally) what makes you think that the ex-Secretary of State will be thrown in jail?