The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

but her emails

Mate, I just wanna know what she would have done "far worse"
Objectively, every foreign policy made by trump has weakened US standing across the globe and emboldened it's enemies. Trump destabilizes NATO, Russia is happy. Trump destabilized the pacific, China is happy.
These are not good outcomes for the US.

[SoulReaver]

Mate, I just wanna know what she would have done "far worse"

deleted even more emails

Objectively, every foreign policy made by trump has weakened US standing across the globe and emboldened it's enemies. Trump destabilizes NATO, Russia is happy. Trump destabilized the pacific, China is happy.
These are not good outcomes for the US.

but at least the US doesn't have a president who had a mail server in her bathroom

[Gatefan1976]

deleted even more emails

but at least the US doesn't have a president who had a mail server in her bathroom

You should try being serious sometimes soul.

[SoulReaver]

You should try being serious sometimes soul.

I know - but you took seriously a post that was blatantly non-serious. seriously?

[Annoyed]

Mate, I just wanna know what she would have done "far worse"
Objectively, every foreign policy made by trump has weakened US standing across the globe and emboldened it's enemies. Trump destabilizes NATO, Russia is happy. Trump destabilized the pacific, China is happy.
These are not good outcomes for the US.

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head..

Would have kept us in the TPP scam
Would have kept us in the Paris climate scam
Open borders w/ Mexico, along with amnesty for the millions already here illegally.
Continued expansion of LSoScare.
Continued behavior of a doormat for the U.N.

[jelgate]

Not have a unstable person in charge.

Some things are more important than politics

[aretood2]

He was responding to me, talking about the left's tendency to want to silence opinions they don't agree with. The article he cited has nothing to do with that.

I think the point was that it isn't a thing that the left does exclusively. That the right is just as guilty. "It's only free speech if it agrees with me" isn't exclusive to just one end of the spectrum.

[SoulReaver]

Mate, I just wanna know what she would have done "far worse"

Would have kept us in the Paris climate scam

Continued expansion of LSoScare.

he said "worse" not "better"

I think the point was that it isn't a thing that the left does exclusively. That the right is just as guilty. "It's only free speech if it agrees with me" isn't exclusive to just one end of the spectrum.

also isn't the PO(TU)S trying to silence the latest book against him?
he might as well say he wants to abolish the 1st amendment

[SGalisa]

Three part posting here... (this is part 1 of 3)

Also, I said that you like "to mock" me which can be a form of silencing in itself.

No, it's not.

Yes it is ~ in its own way. People who think they understand other people better than the other persona sees or feels, don't really grasp the whole picture. Not everyone knows what someone else is or has experienced in their past, so comprehension of that communication tends to get distorted in "the eyes of the beholder" so to speak.

Well, your version of mocking and my understanding of being on the receiving end of it may seem to be two, obviously different things. People who aren't gifted with witty comebacks, often feel silenced because they're basically at their wits end for speaking any further (and I'm NOT the only person who has felt this way or said that). That in its own way is a form of being silenced (short of being told to "just shut up!").


As for whatever other people here have already stated about silencing others on certain items... which Ian-S seemed to express it the best--with color/highlighted portions mine for emphasis--

What I've been saying is, the lefts stance of silencing people they don't agree with through forced censorship instead of letting the listener decide, while simultaneously claiming to stand up for peoples' "freedom" rights is hypercritical at best.

You and FH have proven my point by completely ignoring the core concept of my original post while getting your knickers in a twist over what you think I said, which FH clearly thinks I shouldn't be allowed to think either.

I've never shared my thoughts on what can contribute to "silencing" another person without directly stating it as such, because perhaps I was too hopeful to believe that most other people see things the same way ~ as I do. Obviously NOT. There are pages and pages on this very political topic where Annoyed has expressed his thoughts on various issues, and everyone who disagrees seems to basically *mock* and pulverize Annoyed's comments into the ground. That is how I view many of these conversations. Maybe some of you folks here don't see things that way, because your thoughts are blinding you into believing that your ideas are far superior than certain *other* people who think differently.

Maybe some of this stuff needs to go under "sensitivity" training--which isn't referring to GW folks, but to the world in general (especially since the world is recommending "sensitivity" training in learning about certain religions and various cultures. However, it may seem doubtful that both sides will ever see or feel/sense (as in getting the same vibe emotion of) things in the same way.

[SGalisa]

This is part 2 of 3 part posting here...

Remember...the electoral college put him in office. The popular vote was not in favor of Mango Mussolini.

Not singling out anyone here in particular, but all you who are against Trump, including the Never-Trumpers as well, seem to be forgetting one *major* item here.

If Hillary Clinton lost the "popular vote" by 50 or 3,000 or 3 million votes or whatever... but WON by electoral college vote ---- Then Hillary Clinton would have become our President...That in itself would have been the END of all debates and tough noogies to Donald Trump or whoever else would have been the opposing candidate.

If that situation had ever come into existence, then the opposing party (Republican or Independent/whatever) would have simply conceded and let go (some might complain, but not as fiercely demanding as the current Democratic party is doing)-- with all potential future complaints dropped. Why? Because she would have WON by the electoral system that has been set in place for decades. End result would be that the Democratic side wouldNOT be complaining because *their* side won, ha-ha! Tough noogies to the other side.

It was also believed that if the Dems won, they'd be Partying hardy and probably establish a new system to bury the opposing voting side from ever winning again... That's what the political atmosphere *seemed* to be radiating. If Obama or even Al Gore ran and won by electoral college ONLY, maybe not destroy or change the entire election system, but the same "party-hardy" thing would have happened. Democrats would be forever happy and the rest of us remain miserable (because of certain unwanted laws and regulations being passed, thus those deeds speak louder than words).


But *because* Donald Trump WON by electoral college vote, the Democrats are doing their extreme hardest to forever complain, protest, rant, scream, scratch/claw, whatever method will ultimately work to get Trump disqualified if not in 2016, then in the next election or ousted by impeachment. There is so much hatred against Trump, that this is all we keep hearing over and over and over.

It doesn't matter how qualified Trump is or not for the job, he won "fair and square" by the USA system (electoral college) that's been set in place for decades. *Read it and weep* Dems... Besides, not necessarily what he says personally, but his actual deeds of signing into Executive Order or Law while being President will ultimately be a major deciding influence on voters, if he lasts in office until the next election.

Doesn't anyone see the hypocrisy and double standard going on here? Some people have noted that they do see this and agree with what I just said, because those were the thoughts of people I've heard calling in to various radio programs. But the rest of the world apparently doesn't see it and refuses to acknowledge it.



One other item... There's been news that the Democrats are soooooooooooo desperate to wipe out the electoral system, that if they can't get the gov't to change the system, then certain Dems and their supportive friends have been making plans on moving (swarming in large numbers actually) into those areas that voted for Trump thru the electoral system, just to offset the balance during the next round of voting.


Plus, there's been so much corruption in the Democratic side, that those who knew hushed it up, and those who didn't know are just beginning to find out thru the judicial system of investigation just how bad and expansive all of those hideous Democratic deeds actually were. Barely the tip of the iceberg is beginning to shine forth, but those in the know are fighting harder than their usual hardest to STOP everything, before "they" and their misdeeds are exposed in front of the entire world.

[LtColCarter]

But *because* Donald Trump WON by electoral college vote, the Democrats are doing their extreme hardest to forever complain, protest, rant, scream, scratch/claw, whatever method will ultimately work to get Trump disqualified if not in 2016

Ummmm...no...you replied to one of my posts on one messaging forum. I have been in opposition of the electoral college for decades...not because of the outcome of the most recent presidential election.

[SGalisa]

Finally, this is part 3 of 3 part posting here...

Mate, I just wanna know what she would have done "far worse"...

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head..

Would have kept us in the TPP scam
Would have kept us in the Paris climate scam
Open borders w/ Mexico, along with amnesty for the millions already here illegally.
Continued expansion of LSoScare.
Continued behavior of a doormat for the U.N.

Here is another *very* critical (serious) and important item.
World War III initiated between the USA and Russia with the rest of the world dealing and reeling from the fallout and repercussions thereof. Lest anyone ever forgets that!

She would have given the order to blast whatever nukes we had left into Russia to wipe out the other super-power, world opposition force. She basically said so, when Putin challenged her during the 2016 USA election campaign, with him sending his forces into Syria and working on wiping out the I.S., etc. She openly stated then that she would do *whatever* it took to remove Russia from interfering with Syria and USA goals... which included annihilating Russia where the "source" originates, not just in the field. Putin basically said he would do the same, if she proceeded to attempt that scenario. I think (former) President Obama also instigated this idea originally, but Hillary Clinton supported it wholeheartedly.

Thus, WWIII would have resulted, causing most of the entire remaining world to probably be at a loss --or simply lost-- emotionally, politically, and economically (etc.) at how to work without any potentially urgent support from either the USA and/or Russia in resolving other turbulent issues going on elsewhere thruout the world. Even if either one of them *did* survive, then both the USA and Russian countries would most likely end up either severely destroyed or crippled... Also thus, unless a super miracle occurred, for many years after nuking *it* out with each other, both countries and PTB would have become devastated enough to be economically, agriculturally, and militarily unable to help the rest of the world or whomever they believed to be their allies in whatever dire circumstances might arise (hurricanes, cyclones, earthquake disasters, etc).

[SGalisa]

Ummmm...no...you replied to one of my posts on one messaging forum. I have been in opposition of the electoral college for decades...not because of the outcome of the most recent presidential election.

Please don't take what I said personally, targeting you specifically. What I saw was the following---
Your post was worded "short and sweet and to the point" of what I wanted to comment upon, which simply was about Trump winning via the electoral college. Nothing more, nothing less than that.
Please note the portion of your quote which I colored/bolded highlight for expressive emphasis---

Remember...the electoral college put him in office. The popular vote was not in favor of Mango Mussolini.

So, I wasn't singling you out, as I noted below...

If Hillary Clinton lost the "popular vote" by 50 or 3,000 or 3 million votes or whatever... but WON by electoral college vote ---- Then Hillary Clinton would have become our President...That in itself would have been the END of all debates and tough noogies to Donald Trump or whoever else would have been the opposing candidate.

If that situation had ever come into existence, then the opposing party (Republican or Independent/whatever) would have simply conceded and let go (some might complain, but not as fiercely demanding as the current Democratic party is doing)-- with all potential future complaints dropped. Why? Because she would have WON by the electoral system that has been set in place for decades. End result would be that the Democratic side wouldNOT be complaining because *their* side won, ha-ha! Tough noogies to the other side.

(Color/Highlighted also for emphasis of content being discussed, in general.)

Apologies if you (LtColCarter) thought otherwise. But your comment simply stated what many other people have already been harping on for months in this topic, and what was stated seemed to be to the point of what I noted about afterwards.

[SGalisa]

Ack!!! she's following me... ... Falcon Horus---- (to you, and in front of everyone here) I apologize if my previous post about the "silent" subject sounded so overly serious... I was trying to write it in some sort of weirdly humorous light (that seems to be some sort of running, hidden banter between us), but unfortunately -- it seemed to sound different (more on the negative to me) after I re-read it a few hours ago. So, I tried to correct that and apologize.

See rest of posting along with this quote below---

...Sorry, I can't help but notice when these things happen. ...and I just happened to be passing thru recently, when these recent events occurred between FH and myself. ... I actually don't mind FH mentioning me (in whatever entertains her fancy visions)... if I have time, I'll stop by and *maybe* speak up now and then ---- I do lurk by here occasionally, but not reading ALL of the postings during the first pass).

Having the talented gift of humor and "wit" seems to have escaped me all my life... I may not show it or express it, but I do appreciate some of the interesting stuff you (FH) do write about.
Humble apologies...


okay... you all may now return to this political topic...

[Annoyed]

Finally, this is part 3 of 3 part posting here...



Here is another *very* critical (serious) and important item.
World War III initiated between the USA and Russia with the rest of the world dealing and reeling from the fallout and repercussions thereof. Lest anyone ever forgets that!

She would have given the order to blast whatever nukes we had left into Russia to wipe out the other super-power, world opposition force. She basically said so, when Putin challenged her during the 2016 USA election campaign, with him sending his forces into Syria and working on wiping out the I.S., etc. She openly stated then that she would do *whatever* it took to remove Russia from interfering with Syria and USA goals... which included annihilating Russia where the "source" originates, not just in the field. Putin basically said he would do the same, if she proceeded to attempt that scenario. I think (former) President Obama also instigated this idea originally, but Hillary Clinton supported it wholeheartedly.

Thus, WWIII would have resulted, causing most of the entire remaining world to probably be at a loss --or simply lost-- emotionally, politically, and economically (etc.) at how to work without any potentially urgent support from either the USA and/or Russia in resolving other turbulent issues going on elsewhere thruout the world. Even if either one of them *did* survive, then both the USA and Russian countries would most likely end up either severely destroyed or crippled... Also thus, unless a super miracle occurred, for many years after nuking *it* out with each other, both countries and PTB would have become devastated enough to be economically, agriculturally, and militarily unable to help the rest of the world or whomever they believed to be their allies in whatever dire circumstances might arise (hurricanes, cyclones, earthquake disasters, etc).

I seriously doubt Hilary would have started war with Russia. Democrats tend to starve the military. For ex:, late 1970's after 4 years of president peanut farmer, a rescue mission for 79 US hostages held by Iran failed; the helicopters fell out of the sky due to lack of maintenance. After 8 years of the former sorry excuse for an occupant of the White House, there are readiness issues in some areas today.