The Political Discussion Thread

[SGalisa]

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.

There is no doubt in the minds of many who have either worked with or seen Hillary Clinton in action, that she would have pulled the nuclear option against Russia. She is often described as being a pro (i.e., a professional) at deception, and based on what I've read about her, what some people see and perceive are often different than what is really going on behind the scenes.

"Never underestimate the power of a woman" -- including that of Hillary Clinton.

It was believed she wanted to set herself up as the *Queen Bee* so to speak, and if that meant taking whatever nuclear stuff our USA has remaining in its stock to (con job?) wiping out Russia to possibly and eventually gain world domination and #1 super power control ("over everyone" ... think *AntiChrist system being installed into place*), don't ever think she wouldn't have the strength or incentive(s) to give that fateful order. Also, remember that a USA President does NOT necessarily need to be within the continental USA just to give out that (proverbial?) RED phone Nuke command order. It is believed that she only needs to give the authorization code command, and the deed is done. Sealed and delivered, while the rest of us watch in horrid despair at the last remaining moments of our mortal life. She can thus be anywhere on this planet or (flying) up in Air Force One to do the command and deed. That also applies to *ANY* sitting President, or acting President, if the actual President is unable to respond in providing authoritative support and commands.

Remember, based on reports -- for her own gain, Hillary Clinton sold about 20% of our USA's uranium supplies to Russia. What makes people think or believe she wouldn't sell out the rest of the USA to some horrible, tragic event, just for her own gain, or self-ego pride's sake, or for spite against her enemies..? And if she only takes her closest friends/family with her to safety, her *wrath* just might be poured out upon the rest of us poor suckers just for spite? Is she really that compassionate towards everyone in the USA? or is she really just playing a con job game, until the time is right or ripe to suit her (wildest) fancies?

Besides, there is an even greater theory behind all of this speculation. It's Biblical. If "Gog" is symbolic of Russia, and Gog will be utterly destroyed or crippled beyond repair for many, many years (see the events of the war as noted in Ezekiel 38-39 for Gog's ultimate and *final* or *finale* fate, it is theoretically possible that Russia is Gog and will be annihilated at some future date (which many believers of this theory, believe that time will be very soon). If Russia is not the "Gog" of the Bible, then it should remain relatively safe and have a happy future, even if that future is bleak at best.

Also, if the USA is NOT anywhere described in the Bible as a future power during the time of Gog's demise or any time surrounding that, then theoretically, we folks of the USA are doomed to a fate many of us would prefer NOT to think or even ponder imagining about.

It is currently believed by those folks who are tracking all of this information (various events, people, and timelines), that our world is very near that ticking time clock, soon to see horrors that are Biblically described as being unrivaled from since the days (timeline) of Noah (in the Ark--sea ship).

I am personally not discarding the reality that just because some people do NOT believe in the Biblical prophesies, does not mean that it won't happen, including happen in that very similar way. So, I prefer to proceed in exercising *extreme caution* when reviewing these sorts of scenarios.

Anywho, if Hillary was either on Air Force One or in some other location on this earth other than the continental USA, it wouldn't be surprising if some sympathetic fools elsewhere on this planet might feel sad that she has no country to rule any more, and just those personas just might plant her in some sort of special, officiating role for the OWG (One World Gov't), which Obama whole-heartedly was leading us (in the USA) into and Hillary Clinton also supports. It's not just the USA any more in their mind, but the entire world or planet... Why support a tiny section of earth, when the whole world is at your beck and call? It may be likened to "delusions of grandeur" by those who oppose such a world, but why ignore it, when it's nearly within one's fingertips... The Paris Climate accord and several of the other items mentioned in your list (of what her accomplishments might be), was (were) part of forming that new OWG order system; but along came Donald Trump to burst that global balloon... even if it was only a temporary delay.

[thekillman]

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.

It's quite interesting that in the entire world, nobody decided to copy the american system. But yea, the issue is simple: changing the system would require a massive amount of power for a long time, and most politicians would rather use that to cram their policies through than to change the way people vote, no matter how useful this could be on the long run.

Politically it's just not an interesting goal to have. Politically the system is designed to favor the status quote as much as possible, so it's just not an efficient use of political time.

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

Yea, i wanted to bring that up but you beat me to it.

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 should've been clearer. The article shows that tories (conservatives) are overwhelmingly in favor of moral censorship and loyalty than the rest of the UK parties. Hence, the idea that censorship is something only the left wants is false. I quoted this particular because i read it about an hour before visiting this thread and instantly though of it, though a better example could've been used. Like the above quoted Cease and Desist from Trump, a textbook example of a conservative wanting to silence an opinion he doesn't agree with.

Nice dodge... But since he did win under the system we have in place, clearly enough people voted for him. And both sides knew that was the system in place going in.

The point is that most people didn't vote for him. hell, the combined votes of hilllary and trump (60mil each) makes up about a third of the country. Hence, only a relatively small group put him in office, which is the answer to the point. Sure he won, but it's fantasy to say that this is the will of the people, a phrase which only seems to mean "whatever i say the people mean".

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.

No, it's not. If your posts appear on this forum, they can be read. We're talking about third party censorship here, the deliberate removal of information by third parties. What you do or post yourself is up to you. Since you seem to agree with Annoyed's stance, that would mean that others judging your posts to be not worth it, isn't censorship because by definition it fulfills his criterion that people should judge for themselves.

I seriously doubt Hilary would have started war with Russia. Democrats tend to starve the military.

Nobody in the world spends as much on military as the USA. it takes the 5 or 6 next spenders to match. You could literally cut it by 75% and you'd still be spender no1.

As to the alternatives, did everyone conveniently forget the primaries? Because ask trump voters and it seems that nobody remembered that there were a ton of other candidates.

[LtColCarter]

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---



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


(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.

I always make my posts short and to the point. No, I didn't take anything personally. I say what I need to say without a lot unnecessary words. My comment arose out of others saying that "the people" put Mango Mussolini in office...when it was an antiquated system that should have been eradicated long ago. If "the people" (ie: the popular vote) aligned with the electoral college, I'd shut my mouth about this particular subject.

[Annoyed]

It's quite interesting that in the entire world, nobody decided to copy the american system. But yea, the issue is simple: changing the system would require a massive amount of power for a long time, and most politicians would rather use that to cram their policies through than to change the way people vote, no matter how useful this could be on the long run.

It's also interesting that that system that you are so anxious to change resulted in the most successful nation in the history of the earth in a scant 200 & change years.

The point is that most people didn't vote for him. hell, the combined votes of hilllary and trump (60mil each) makes up about a third of the country. Hence, only a relatively small group put him in office, which is the answer to the point. Sure he won, but it's fantasy to say that this is the will of the people, a phrase which only seems to mean "whatever i say the people mean".

Any citizen who wishes to do so has the undeniable right to register to vote and follow through by voting. That right is guaranteed. And there are more than enough public minded groups that offer assistance to those that need help with transportation to the pols or some other difficulty.

But, if someone chooses not to vote, that is their right as well. I myself have abstained in both 2008 and 2012. Although I absolutely despise Obama, I couldn't pull the lever for Romney or McCain either. So while I went to the polls and voted in other races, I did not cast a ballot for POTUS in those years.

Would you rather make voting mandatory, taking the choice of "none of the above" away from me? Face it, you can lead the horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

No, it's not. If your posts appear on this forum, they can be read. We're talking about third party censorship here, the deliberate removal of information by third parties. What you do or post yourself is up to you. Since you seem to agree with Annoyed's stance, that would mean that others judging your posts to be not worth it, isn't censorship because by definition it fulfills his criterion that people should judge for themselves.

This board is a social networking site. This section of this board is extremely good at being a free and open discussion for political matters because the moderators take a hands off approach except in extreme cases. It is that very policy that drew me here after SyFy's boards (which were moderated with a heavy bias to the left) closed down.

But we are hearing demands from various quarters that facebook, twitter and such remove posts that the arbitrary dictators of what is "true" label as "fake news" deem unworthy of public view. And you seem to be quite ok with that concept, as it is being considered today.

But the people who are claiming the position of arbitrators are decidedly biased to the left. I ask you again, would you be so eager to have such censorship if the people who were deciding what should be a deleted were strongly biased to the right? Breitbart, or Heritage to name two examples?

And just as an aside to this issue, there is a big legal question here that I can't wait to see land in the courts.

In order to avoid criminal liability for discussions that involve criminal activity, communications companies claim common carrier status; this absolves the phone company from being criminally liable for conversations carried on their systems. They don't look at the traffic, they just pass it.

In order to be immune from liability for criminal activity in communications regarding criminal activity, social networking sites should have to do the same thing, common carrier status. If they do start editing, they lose that status, and would then be subject to prosecution for illegal activity discussed on their networks/sites.

So there may be a very big legal reason why FB, Twitter and other social networking sites should apply a hands off policy when it comes to content.

Nobody in the world spends as much on military as the USA. it takes the 5 or 6 next spenders to match. You could literally cut it by 75% and you'd still be spender no1.

And aside from the occasional $800 hammer issue, I consider that money well spent. First, I would rather spend $ on high tech wiz-bang toys that lessen the risk to soldiers' lives, drones and whatever else rather than soldiers' lives. Second, the most expensive army in the world is the one that comes in 2nd place. Money spent to keep us in 1st place is well spent.

As to the alternatives, did everyone conveniently forget the primaries? Because ask trump voters and it seems that nobody remembered that there were a ton of other candidates.

You're conveniently forgetting that Trump was the overwhelming choice of the primary voters. He handed the rest of the pack their heads and he didn't bother with the basket. Contrast this with the Democratic party, who subverted the will of their primary voters by stacking the deck to insure Hilary was their nominee, despite very strong support for Sanders among their voters. And here is the painful part which the Democrats still have not come to grips with: If the DNC had done what their voters wanted and ran Sanders, rather than forcing Hilary, it's a damned good bet that Sanders would be in the White House today.

[Gatefan1976]

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



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.

No, it's not, and we will get to why it is not in good time.

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!").

Your inability to communicate is not the fault of anyone else, sorry.

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--

It wasn't worth commenting on.
You want the listener to decide, but claim you are being silenced by your -OWN- failures.
Would you like a participation award?
That's the go to insult from the right about the left, right?

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.

I'm sorry, Annoyed has stated MANY times to let people say what they want, and let others determine it's value. I am merely doing what he has asked me to do, listen to what he says, and judge it on it's merits.
If he cannot handle that (which, by the way I think he can), perhaps he should consider changing his stance.

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.

Coming from someone who is soon to quote the bible as a basis for all people to live as a superior system, I think your high horse got shot, and you don't like it.
Perhaps it is you who are blind?

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.

They won't. But let me ask you, what do you know of my religion?
I know -plenty- about yours, what do you know of mine?
What do you know of my country?
I know -plenty- about yours, what do you know of mine?

Or, did you not consider that -you- might be the one in need of sensitivity training?

[Gatefan1976]

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



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.

Are you kidding me?
Obama spent most of his time being accused of not even being American by the douchebag now sitting in the WH.
Annoyed is right on one point, the EC decides the president, but the argument that trump lost the popular vote has -NOTHING- to do with the EC, it has to do with his claims that he DID win the popular vote, and most Americans are happy with him.
This is a LIE
MOST voters did not want him
One could call him the king of lies, I believe your own religion has something to say about that position, does it not?

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.

Birther movement?
Denying SCOTUS judges?
Setting your only goal to dismantle everything Obama did?
Yeah, calling trump out on his BS is so much worse...........

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).

In 18 years, only two presidential elections have been determined by the EC, remind me which way they favoured.

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.

Perhaps the left should impune his birth status, works for you, right?

There is so much hatred against Trump, that this is all we keep hearing over and over and over.

I don't hate trump, he is not worthy of such emotion, I fear he will do something stupid without even knowing it because he is a moron.

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.

Read it and weep?
You really are tone deaf, aren't you?

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.

Change the channel.

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.

What, about 80 thousand of them?

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.

Hillary may have rigged the primary vote, trump rigged the national vote. Hillary's misdeeds affect her party, trumps affect your entire nation.

[Annoyed]

I'm sorry, Annoyed has stated MANY times to let people say what they want, and let others determine it's value. I am merely doing what he has asked me to do, listen to what he says, and judge it on it's merits.
If he cannot handle that (which, by the way I think he can), perhaps he should consider changing his stance.

You are quite right there. If someone or everyone for that matter considers my views to be something best spread over the back 40, they are perfectly welcome to do so, and give them all the consideration they feel they are worth. There is and should be no requirement that someone listen to the speaker, but the speaker should be allowed his say.

I do not believe in censorship of ideas. I doubt they will respond to confirm or deny this, but despite the strong disagreements I have with some other people's views on this board, I have never and will never ask the moderators to remove content that I disagree with. It's just not the way I am.

[Annoyed]

Hillary may have rigged the primary vote, trump rigged the national vote. Hillary's misdeeds affect her party, trumps affect your entire nation.

Not quite. If the Democratic primary process hadn't been rigged, I'm pretty sure we would have President Sanders now, rather than Trump. Trump won by the skin of his teeth simply because the Democrats chose to run a horrible candidate because that candidate knows where the bodies are buried.

While I like the way it turned out, (we did not get Hilary) you can't deny that it affected and continues to affect the entire country.

[Starsaber]

And aside from the occasional $800 hammer issue, I consider that money well spent. First, I would rather spend $ on high tech wiz-bang toys that lessen the risk to soldiers' lives, drones and whatever else rather than soldiers' lives. Second, the most expensive army in the world is the one that comes in 2nd place. Money spent to keep us in 1st place is well spent.

Then perhaps we should do a better job scoping the mission of our military. We don't have hostile governments on either of our borders, so we have no reason to spend more than the next ~10 countries combined.

And I'm saying this as someone who works for a defense contractor. Right-sizing our military for defense rather than as an expeditionary force could indirectly result in me losing my job, but if it's what's best for the country, well, there are other jobs out there.

[SoulReaver]

so, people's thoughts on merican democracy once again under attack?
rigged votes & Govt stepping in to undermine the will of the People & steal an election
(this time in Virginia)

[Annoyed]

Then perhaps we should do a better job scoping the mission of our military. We don't have hostile governments on either of our borders, so we have no reason to spend more than the next ~10 countries combined.

And I'm saying this as someone who works for a defense contractor. Right-sizing our military for defense rather than as an expeditionary force could indirectly result in me losing my job, but if it's what's best for the country, well, there are other jobs out there.

But we live in a very hostile world. And one of the things you learn on the playground in preschool is that someone is always trying to knock the king of the hill of his perch.
I rather like the fact that we are so well-armed that aside from 1 or two other nations, no one will dare start shiznit with us because it's over before it starts. Much more peaceful that way.

[Annoyed]

so, people's thoughts on merican democracy once again under attack?
rigged votes & Govt stepping in to undermine the will of the People & steal an election
(this time in Virginia)

What, Roy Moore? He whined about vote recounts but the local authority slapped him down, certifying his opponent the winner 3 hours later. That's a done deal. The voters tossed him out, and out he went.

[aretood2]

But we live in a very hostile world. And one of the things you learn on the playground in preschool is that someone is always trying to knock the king of the hill of his perch.
I rather like the fact that we are so well-armed that aside from 1 or two other nations, no one will dare start shiznit with us because it's over before it starts. Much more peaceful that way.

It's also most interesting to note that no one wants to attack nor invade Costa Rica.
The ambitions of those who held power in the past is what made us a target. The fact is, blowback is a real thing. The more we interfere and try to nation build or play empire, the more it turns around and bites us in the rear end. It's one thing to step in with others to stop a big threat. But it is another to try to dictate domestic policy and politics to other countries as we have done in the past. I think it is foolish to think we can't back out of this dangerous and self defeating trend. Had Rome not expanded as large as it did and started focusing on it's own internal structure, it may have avoided collapse and simply evolved.

What, Roy Moore? He whined about vote recounts but the local authority slapped him down, certifying his opponent the winner 3 hours later. That's a done deal. The voters tossed him out, and out he went.

Roy Moore is doing exactly what Trump planned to do had he lost. Only he had his little cult he could rely on. That's Moore's mistake, people don't see him as their messiah.

[Annoyed]

It's also most interesting to note that no one wants to attack nor invade Costa Rica.
The ambitions of those who held power in the past is what made us a target. The fact is, blowback is a real thing. The more we interfere and try to nation build or play empire, the more it turns around and bites us in the rear end. It's one thing to step in with others to stop a big threat. But it is another to try to dictate domestic policy and politics to other countries as we have done in the past. I think it is foolish to think we can't back out of this dangerous and self defeating trend. Had Rome not expanded as large as it did and started focusing on it's own internal structure, it may have avoided collapse and simply evolved.

Oh, I definitely think we should be far more isolationist than we are. How often have I said we ought to quit the U.N. and tell them to get the hell out?

[aretood2]

Oh, I definitely think we should be far more isolationist than we are. How often have I said we ought to quit the U.N. and tell them to get the hell out?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want isolationism either. Just respect other countries' sovereignty and make other powers carry their own weight. For example, I'd start by leaving Latin America. Set up a military alliance with the friendliest countries, train for co-operationality between our respective forces and be able to use each other's facilities as needed and only act in cooperation with other countries, never alone. The OAS would work fine with setting up that system, and it would be a lot cheaper than what we have now. Then slowly build that system in other countries.

I would like us to scale back our NATO force commitment while getting the other countries to fill in the void. I would also like to see us scale back, way back, in the Middle East. Terrorists (the mostly political ones, not the world jihadist ones like ISIS) only really hate us because we are all up in their business. Syria really is a European problem, I don't mind helping, but they have to pull their weight and be as responsible for anything that is done. Fostering stronger friendships with the locals would also go a long way. As much as I'd like democracy to spread there, it can't come from the outside. That has rarely worked.

And realize that, well, the US can't afford to fight turf wars with China and the Russians. What the Huns and Sassanids were to the Romans, the Chinese and Russians are to us. It's a miracle that the cold war didn't bankrupt the US. Why tempt fate twice?

As for the UN, I think reforming would be a much wiser move. Learn from the failure of the League of Nations. It is completely inappropriate to use it as a political tool to do things like target Israel. It's also inappropriate to expect the world to treat us like an unquestionable king. If we were to leave it, that would mean Russia and China would slice the world into two pieces and we all know that Europe would do nothing until it is too late. It wouldn't be a problem if those two countries respected human rights and actually cared for their citizens and such, but their oppressive ways would destabilize the world and create an insatiable desire to expand and that will eventually reach us.