The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

The difference is that Trump is proposing changes which will directly benefit the middle class, improving the job market for those folks

at best this will also result in far worse working conditions for employees

We both know that the middle class ends up paying the taxes regardless of who is the "target" and that's not likely to change.

correct
what you don't know is that it'd probably be a lot worse under Trump

[Falcon Horus]

The only one scandal-free it seems, is Bernie Sanders, so stop with holier than thou ****.

[garhkal]

Campaign finance reform
Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.
Read more about why it's not just about the wealthy and the high incomes

Since SHE has been one of those 'wealthy', by taking oodles of dosh from big bankers to do speeches, i laugh at how she 'says she will work for the lower man/woman..

College
The New College Compact: Costs won’t be a barrier, debt won’t hold you back.

And whom will be paying for that "New compact"??

Criminal justice reform
Our criminal justice system is out of balance.

In regard to rich/powerful/sports stars getting away with stuff us mere mortals can't, i agree.

Disability rights
We must continue to expand opportunities for all Americans.

Don't we already do that, with the whole American's with Disabilities act??

Gun violence prevention
It is past time we act on gun violence.

We already have HUNDREDS of laws on the books,.. What we need is proper enforcement OF those laws, not knee jerk new laws which won't get enforced too..

Health care
Affordable health care is a basic human right.

Is it? And if it's affordable, why have so many people seen their premiums SKYROCKET cause of Obama care?

Immigration reform
America needs comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship.

No we don't. Just like with guns, we need PROPER enforcement of the laws we already have on the books. AS to 'pathway to citizenship' that is Amnesty. And imo is wrong as it rewards lawbreakers while snubbing a nose at the Millions each year that do follow the laws and do things properly (with cost and time)...
I can NEVER get behind someone who advocates amnesty.

Infrastructure
Strong infrastructure is critical to a strong economy.

I agree here. A good/strong infrastrucure is important. BUT seeing how much we pay in 'taxes' and 'add ons to our bills' to Cover these supposed infrastructure improvements, but we never SEE any, makes me wonder where all that dosh is going??

Labor
When unions are strong, America is strong.

I disagree whole heartedly. Look at how many times US the common citizen have had to suffer cause 'unions' call for a strike cause they don't get their way'..

LGBT equality
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans deserve to live their lives free from discrimination.

And what of the hundreds of christians they have discriminated against by bagering them into baking cakes etc against their faith? Or is that ok?

Paid leave
It’s time to guarantee paid family and medical leave in America.

IMO that should be up to each individual business.. NOT a mandated thing from the govt.

Racial justice
America’s long struggle with race is far from finished.

Race relations were doing well, till Obama got in, then stirred up things.

Rural communities
America’s rural communities are at the heart of what makes this country great.

Agreed. BUT too often i see them ignored cause the more populated CITIES vote in different ways so they are overruled.. Just look at CA. Cities go democrat, rural communities go conservative, so Dems win... Time and time again.

Social Security and Medicare
We must preserve, protect, and strengthen these lifelines.

Then stop letting the govt dip their hands into the pot of social security to pony up their pet projects without paying it back like they have been doing for DECADES. Also, start getting hot and heavy on those defrauding both..

Veterans, the armed forces, and their families
America must fully commit to supporting veterans.

This is fresh coming from Hillary, seeing how she dissed the military by leaving 3 to die along with the ambassador in Bengazi..

Voting rights
We should be making it easier to vote, not harder.

Easier to vote?? Its already easy as heck.. Just turn 18, and register. Or are you subutly ranting about all those states wanting voter ID??

Second Amendment Rights
The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon.

Immigration Reform
Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change.

Both of which i agree with. Name one other right, that we must get 'licensed' or certified, before we can 'practice it'?

[Annoyed]

Since SHE has been one of those 'wealthy', by taking oodles of dosh from big bankers to do speeches, i laugh at how she 'says she will work for the lower man/woman..

Well, she can't open her mouth without lying her arse off, so as long as her supporters believe it, who cares?

No we don't. Just like with guns, we need PROPER enforcement of the laws we already have on the books. AS to 'pathway to citizenship' that is Amnesty. And imo is wrong as it rewards lawbreakers while snubbing a nose at the Millions each year that do follow the laws and do things properly (with cost and time)...
I can NEVER get behind someone who advocates amnesty.

Don't forget, Amnesty was done in 1986. Didn't do a fat lot of good, did it?

I agree here. A good/strong infrastrucure is important. BUT seeing how much we pay in 'taxes' and 'add ons to our bills' to Cover these supposed infrastructure improvements, but we never SEE any, makes me wonder where all that dosh is going??

Can't speak for your state, but NY taxes the hell out of Gas, tires, other automotive products, vehicle purchases, registrations and whatnot and the money is redirected to the "general fund". If the taxes motorists already pay were directed to highway and bridge maintenance & repair, the DOT would have money coming out of its arse.

Agreed. BUT too often i see them ignored cause the more populated CITIES vote in different ways so they are overruled.. Just look at CA. Cities go democrat, rural communities go conservative, so Dems win... Time and time again.

There are movements afoot in several states such as NY & Colorado for the rural areas to split off from the urban areas which dominate the state's politics. Many in upstate NY want to split NYC and Albany off to a separate state.. Colorado wants to eject Denver.. There are others.

[aretood2]

No, I am thinking post Reagan, Jerry Falwell levels of "social conservatism".
Remember, the GOP is the party that supported the suffragette movement, the Black movement, and the dismanteling of institutional slavery, they were the socially progressive party.
Past Reagan however, the religious right has dominated the GOP in thinking. Those in power on the right will do nothing to reign in -their- level of power to curtail their own benefits, but they -will- do anything they can to "look good"
That's not to say the left would not either, but the left does not use small government as a political "plank", nor does it use religion beyond what it feels it must.

There certainly has been a strong shift post Reagan. Just watching the primary debates between Bush Sr. and Reagan makes you think they were in another party and not the GOP. Personally, I think religion became a sort of anchor for a lot of people. A quick way to dismiss the world and the necessities of what Conservatism was at first in favor of seeking to maintain a status quo in the face of immense social change that has developed and continues to develop in the US. That's the Religious right's Raison d'etre. That would explain their support of Trump. Unfortunately that means getting in bed with the likes of white supremacists.

But the fact is, and the establishment Republicans are quickly learning, America has changed. It has changed dramatically and will continue to do so. The world itself has also changed. Information, social constructs, and economic necessities have all changed from that in the past. I just wish more people would realize that the world and society on a very basic level no longer functions (and cannot) the way it did back in the 1800's. That's the problem with many Republicans, their conservatism is a desperate populist grab for a world that no longer exists.

Yes, but what makes one claim "special"?

The Jewish one? The main difference that it is the most recent one. And it came on the back of shocked world. Had Zionism started today, had it been today that Jews started to flock to their ancestral home, the circumstances would not lead to the same situation. It would be a total failure with minimal support from the US.

That's the question Tood.
IF there were enough people, would you want to see America returned to it's native inhabitants?
I don't see it happening, what is done is done, but let me ask another question.
IF one tribe got the support of Russia, and no one supported the other, would it be OK for the supported tribe to attack the other?
Would it be OK for the supported tribe to bring in other nations as well?

It won't be okay from my end, but it wouldn't be evil of that tribe to take back what is theirs either. It'd be a fight, but no bad or good guys. The best solution, the most right thing to do, would be to find an accord, a point in between. Palestinians were never willing to do that. They made that clear the moment immigrants started showing up before the world wars.

As Womble is from Russia, I would venture he is Ashkenazi, but "scientifically", only 3 "races" exist within the human genome, Caucazoid, Mongaloid, and Negroid.

Scientifically, that is in question to begin with. Race is quite literally skin deep. But I am referring to the social aspect, the construct we develop that we use to identify ourselves with. That's what matters the most. Jews have always been a people. And while religion plays a massive role in that identity, the identity can and has existed without the religion. Culture is strongly tied to religion in general. Western society, the culture, owes everything to its Judeo-Christian and European Pagan beliefs...despite the claims of humanists. Humanism is just an evolution of that culture.

No, what I am saying is that they are not a "race" any more than "Anglican" is a race. Historically, they were just another people, who called themselves a word.
As to the religion, yes, I agree it holds significance, but when it comes to religion, you cannot pick the "good from the bad", it is what it is, Good and Bad. The Bible holds that the story is "we came in and kicked people out", a story you should be all too familiar with. If you are not claiming that mantle, nor accepting what goes along with that mantle, there is no religious "justification" for their actions. If it is just historical however, then why not fight for -all- historical claims?
"we were here, and we have always been here in some degree" does not stop anyone, nor does it justify anyone from doing things. A few hundred years ago, Jerusalem (indeed the entire region) was majority Muslim, America was mostly "animist", as was Australia. How far do you think those claims will fly?

Were your people not asked, nay FORCED to do the same?
Were not the Aboriginals -forced- to do so as well?
My question is, and will remain, what makes the Jewish people "special" enough that their claim is respected -and defended- by other nations, but even more compelling claims are ignored?
Do not the people of South America have a far more continuous and unchallenged claim?
North America?
Australia?
New Zealand?
Africa?

Well, as to why not fight for all historical claims... Despite what paranoid people think, there's no push for Mexico to get the American South West back. It's a sore subject...but there is no will nor desire for it. Jews on the other hand had a strong desire and will. Taken that into consideration, the number of historical claims that would be required to be conceded dramatically decreases. Whatever is left of the Mexteca no longer wish to have a non-western Mexico. Whatever remains of the Inca, no longer wishes to have a united empire independent of Peru, Ecuador, and Chile. However that claim does exist for groups like the Kurds...whose claims, consequently, Israelis are sympathetic to.

I'm not saying it was "good" or it's what they should have done. But the fact is that it isn't villainous that it did happen. I can understand and sympathize with the creation of Israel, I cannot condemn it anymore than I could condemn the creation of a "Kurdistan" or Tibetan independence. That's where I think BDS people miss the mark. It's a complex issue, and not a simple issue to march for like say...civil rights.

Is that cultural call reason enough?
That's what I want to know.

That would be a case by case call I think. But remember, it wasn't just the claim, but also the immediate events that transpired in Europe that also impacted how events unfolded.

Umm, you do know that generations were -literally- forced to move here, and we have constructed a society that works, right?

That was my point. The only reason Westernized Australia exists is because force was employed to create it. With nothing special to draw an entire society to a California or an Australian gift land, force would be the only way to make everyone go there. To have the State of Israel be created in the 1940's anywhere else would have required forced migration and settlement. People are irrational, we gravitate to what we feel belongs, not to what is most efficient, when it comes to things like nation building.

The trump card, Post holocaust.
I'm sorry, but the Jews were not the only people the Nazi's tried to kill off, They tried to kill off -ALL- "undesirables", something that people seem to forget all too easily.
As for forcing, I never mentioned forcing anyone anywhere, but as you bring it up, should the people of the Palestinian (by modern reckoning) region have had a separate state -forced- on them?

Everyone else had a home state, but the Jews...and Gypsies but they haven't made any claims to any homeland. Like it or not, that was upfront in everyone's mind. It is what people saw and felt, period. Going beyond that is purely academic on a level of irrelevance. You can condemn anything at that point, and it wouldn't matter because that's not how it works. It, as an event, weighed heavily on everyone as much as the cold war prompted the US to eventually recognize Israel.

No, and if I think you look at that statement, you might find why the peace process is so difficult.
Peace is no longer what we seem to want, nor forgiveness, but revenge, and if revenge is the goal of social evolution, would it not be wise of the "incumbent system" to crush it?
(there is some totalitarian thinking for you)

Maybe Machiavelli could serve as some inspiration . But to be honest, I don't think revenge was part of the equation, at least not in the 40's.

I mostly agree with this.
What I disagree with is the notion that either side is "innocent", and somehow "better" then the other. It -also- grates on me this notion that "we did it alone"
No one does anything "alone", certainly not a nation.

I didn't imply that one is innocent in the beginning. Both sides were victims to circumstances that were brought upon by outside powers. They reacted based on those exterior influences. Both suffered a disaster in their own right. What I don't like is trying to accuse them. We should be more worried about what their children are doing and how they react/reacted. And so far, if you ask me, it seems like Israelis are a bit more open to a peaceful end than Palestinians. And I think that's where there can be more or less reasonable disagreements. But my impression of BDS is that Israelis founders and their children are just bad and evil. I can't accept nor support that.

[aretood2]

Is it? And if it's affordable, why have so many people seen their premiums SKYROCKET cause of Obama care?

Premiums had to be recalculated since there are no longer lifetime limits or ceilings for health insurance claims. Also, since premiums can't be raised based on health status or gender, and high risk individuals (people with pre-existing conditions). But the increases have mostly stopped and given way to natural fluctuations recently now that things are stabilizing. It just means that a lot of people who were low risk with low premiums ended up getting higher premiums due to the recalculations. And high risk individuals did get (depending) slight decreases of premiums. Some states had higher hikes than others.

I agree here. A good/strong infrastrucure is important. BUT seeing how much we pay in 'taxes' and 'add ons to our bills' to Cover these supposed infrastructure improvements, but we never SEE any, makes me wonder where all that dosh is going??

Have you not seen a third world country where there are no such taxes? Or even a second world nation...the roads are really bad. Lanes are not drawn properly more often than not (and that's if they are drawn at all). Potholes are crazy common and render entire stretches of highway and roads undrivable above 20-30 mph. And when they get patched, the patches don't last. Lights, signs, and enforcement can be none-existent in entire regions. And you can forget about quality high way patrols and there are no such things as rest stops or visitor centers...oh and the highway systems aren't exactly consistent nor do they make logical sense in the way they do here in the US or other first world nations.

And then the utilities are no better. Power regularly can go out at random. Water supply is capped or you have to have tanks to store water for the days when they pump water through the system....and don't drink the water...anywhere, ever. Telephones don't exist in any real capacity outside of cell phones, and cellpones don't exist in the 3rd world nations as much as they do in the 2nd world ones. Sewage...well...that's a hazardous nightmare.

I disagree whole heartedly. Look at how many times US the common citizen have had to suffer cause 'unions' call for a strike cause they don't get their way'..

How many cops would quickly be fired for crazy reasons if not for the police unions?

Race relations were doing well, till Obama got in, then stirred up things.

So all my experiences of being on the receiving end of racist comments/actions (and that of my family and friends) before Obama were just dreamed up? Give me a break.

Easier to vote?? Its already easy as heck.. Just turn 18, and register. Or are you subutly ranting about all those states wanting voter ID??

To be honest, the kind of voter fraud that that is aimed to prevent is virtually non-existent in the US. I mean it's to the point where it simply doesn't affect the system at all.

[garhkal]

Well, she can't open her mouth without lying her arse off, so as long as her supporters believe it, who cares?

It does seem like to her supporters, she can never do or be wrong. heck i doubt her supporters would turn on her if she killed someone with her bare hands on life TV and ate his (or her) liver, all the while cackling like a 'evil overlord'..

Don't forget, Amnesty was done in 1986. Didn't do a fat lot of good, did it?

To which the Dems PROMISED Reagan they would secure the border to get him to sign off on it, but never did hold up their end of the bargain.

Can't speak for your state, but NY taxes the hell out of Gas, tires, other automotive products, vehicle purchases, registrations and whatnot and the money is redirected to the "general fund". If the taxes motorists already pay were directed to highway and bridge maintenance & repair, the DOT would have money coming out of its arse.

Just like taxes on smokes are supposed to go into health care, but often get nicked for all sorts of other pet projects (like schools)...

There are movements afoot in several states such as NY & Colorado for the rural areas to split off from the urban areas which dominate the state's politics. Many in upstate NY want to split NYC and Albany off to a separate state.. Colorado wants to eject Denver.. There are others.

Good on those areas..

It just means that a lot of people who were low risk with low premiums ended up getting higher premiums due to the recalculations. And high risk individuals did get (depending) slight decreases of premiums. Some states had higher hikes than others.

So the ones who will use health insurance the LEAST get screwed over, while those who use it the most (or will need it the most) get benefitted? How is that fair now??

Have you not seen a third world country where there are no such taxes? Or even a second world nation...the roads are really bad. Lanes are not drawn properly more often than not (and that's if they are drawn at all). Potholes are crazy common and render entire stretches of highway and roads undrivable above 20-30 mph. And when they get patched, the patches don't last.

Which is not much better than over here. There has been several stretches of the SAME freeway that has been repaired/replaced like 4 times in the past 6 years here in cbus.. Other areas, have been done almost as frequently as well...

How many cops would quickly be fired for crazy reasons if not for the police unions?

And how many useless teachers would be gone if NOT for the teachers unions???

[Gatefan1976]

There certainly has been a strong shift post Reagan. Just watching the primary debates between Bush Sr. and Reagan makes you think they were in another party and not the GOP. Personally, I think religion became a sort of anchor for a lot of people. A quick way to dismiss the world and the necessities of what Conservatism was at first in favor of seeking to maintain a status quo in the face of immense social change that has developed and continues to develop in the US. That's the Religious right's Raison d'etre. That would explain their support of Trump. Unfortunately that means getting in bed with the likes of white supremacists.

I won't argue with any of this.

But the fact is, and the establishment Republicans are quickly learning, America has changed. It has changed dramatically and will continue to do so. The world itself has also changed. Information, social constructs, and economic necessities have all changed from that in the past. I just wish more people would realize that the world and society on a very basic level no longer functions (and cannot) the way it did back in the 1800's. That's the problem with many Republicans, their conservatism is a desperate populist grab for a world that no longer exists.

To be fair, the Democrats are just as likely to make that populist grab as well. I mean, I like Burnie, but he -really- is going for a populist approach. Yes, I think there is a vast gulf in -approach- between Bernie and Trump, but to be brutally honest, they are both riding populist waves.

The Jewish one? The main difference that it is the most recent one. And it came on the back of shocked world. Had Zionism started today, had it been today that Jews started to flock to their ancestral home, the circumstances would not lead to the same situation. It would be a total failure with minimal support from the US.

So, right place right time?

It won't be okay from my end, but it wouldn't be evil of that tribe to take back what is theirs either. It'd be a fight, but no bad or good guys. The best solution, the most right thing to do, would be to find an accord, a point in between. Palestinians were never willing to do that. They made that clear the moment immigrants started showing up before the world wars.

Correct. No good guys, no bad guys. What riles me is the notion of either -claiming- to be the good guys.

Scientifically, that is in question to begin with. Race is quite literally skin deep. But I am referring to the social aspect, the construct we develop that we use to identify ourselves with. That's what matters the most. Jews have always been a people. And while religion plays a massive role in that identity, the identity can and has existed without the religion. Culture is strongly tied to religion in general. Western society, the culture, owes everything to its Judeo-Christian and European Pagan beliefs...despite the claims of humanists. Humanism is just an evolution of that culture.

I won't argue this either, except to say that there is indeed anthropological markers that can be used to differentiate the 3 sub species of the only one (race) that matters, the human race. As for the sociological aspect, I agree with you.

Well, as to why not fight for all historical claims... Despite what paranoid people think, there's no push for Mexico to get the American South West back. It's a sore subject...but there is no will nor desire for it. Jews on the other hand had a strong desire and will. Taken that into consideration, the number of historical claims that would be required to be conceded dramatically decreases. Whatever is left of the Mexteca no longer wish to have a non-western Mexico. Whatever remains of the Inca, no longer wishes to have a united empire independent of Peru, Ecuador, and Chile. However that claim does exist for groups like the Kurds...whose claims, consequently, Israelis are sympathetic to.

What if their feelings change?
I understand the difference you are making, and yes, if the people have no real desire to recreate "the homeland", it is a non issue, -but only as long as their feelings do not change-. We can agree that America cannot act as it once did given the social changes taking place in the world, what if other people develop a "nationalistic streak"?

I'm not saying it was "good" or it's what they should have done. But the fact is that it isn't villainous that it did happen. I can understand and sympathize with the creation of Israel, I cannot condemn it anymore than I could condemn the creation of a "Kurdistan" or Tibetan independence. That's where I think BDS people miss the mark. It's a complex issue, and not a simple issue to march for like say...civil rights.

It's not "villainous", no.

That would be a case by case call I think. But remember, it wasn't just the claim, but also the immediate events that transpired in Europe that also impacted how events unfolded.

Again, right place, right time.

That was my point. The only reason Westernized Australia exists is because force was employed to create it. With nothing special to draw an entire society to a California or an Australian gift land, force would be the only way to make everyone go there. To have the State of Israel be created in the 1940's anywhere else would have required forced migration and settlement. People are irrational, we gravitate to what we feel belongs, not to what is most efficient, when it comes to things like nation building.

I think you have 2 separate points going on there.
Yes, Australia was created by force, it was created by some -very- disgusting actions and policies. I don't try to hide that fact, or ignore it, or not accept it.
With Israel, you -had- a "California", in fact there were multiple options for "California" and you are right, people don't act rationally when it comes to stuff like this.

Everyone else had a home state, but the Jews...and Gypsies but they haven't made any claims to any homeland. Like it or not, that was upfront in everyone's mind. It is what people saw and felt, period. Going beyond that is purely academic on a level of irrelevance. You can condemn anything at that point, and it wouldn't matter because that's not how it works. It, as an event, weighed heavily on everyone as much as the cold war prompted the US to eventually recognize Israel.

I understand that Tood, but does that not raise it's own issues?

Maybe Machiavelli could serve as some inspiration . But to be honest, I don't think revenge was part of the equation, at least not in the 40's.

Oh, nononono, certainly not in the 40's, but as you said, it is not the same world as it was then, and there is certainly not the shell shock that created the situation then either.

I didn't imply that one is innocent in the beginning. Both sides were victims to circumstances that were brought upon by outside powers. They reacted based on those exterior influences. Both suffered a disaster in their own right. What I don't like is trying to accuse them. We should be more worried about what their children are doing and how they react/reacted. And so far, if you ask me, it seems like Israelis are a bit more open to a peaceful end than Palestinians. And I think that's where there can be more or less reasonable disagreements. But my impression of BDS is that Israelis founders and their children are just bad and evil. I can't accept nor support that.

[/quote]
The BDS, and especially their methods are counterproductive to their stated goals (probably because their stated goals are quite probably lies), but that merely shows the move away from wanting to broker deals which are best for all, but onto revenge.

[Gatefan1976]

It does seem like to her supporters, she can never do or be wrong. heck i doubt her supporters would turn on her if she killed someone with her bare hands on life TV and ate his (or her) liver, all the while cackling like a 'evil overlord'..

Is that like -actually- claiming you could shoot someone on live TV?
Cause that's not a hypothetical.........

Just like taxes on smokes are supposed to go into health care, but often get nicked for all sorts of other pet projects (like schools)...

Tax on Tobacco is a sin tax, don't think for a second it is being used for anything good.
Schools however are not exactly a bad thing.

So the ones who will use health insurance the LEAST get screwed over, while those who use it the most (or will need it the most) get benefitted? How is that fair now??

I don't understand this thinking.
I mean, I -understand- it, but I do not get it.

Which is not much better than over here. There has been several stretches of the SAME freeway that has been repaired/replaced like 4 times in the past 6 years here in cbus.. Other areas, have been done almost as frequently as well...

That's everywhere dude

And how many useless teachers would be gone if NOT for the teachers unions???

How many good would be gone due to bogus "complaints" by snot nosed little brats?
Believe me, people try it.

[Annoyed]

Regardless of who wins this fall, there is one thing I am enjoying immensely this year.

The rank and file Republican voter has been seeing how badly the National party or "Establishment" Republicans have been representing their interest for decades now, and finally, someone with the means to do so is speaking up for them.

The "establishment" management of the Republican party is terrified and in full panic mode. Why do you think they are getting anyone that can possibly say anything, from McCain to Romney to god knows who else to castigate Trump in public? They know damned well that the end of "business as usual" is at hand.

They made their bed over a period of decades, and it is damned nice to see them finally made to lie down in it.

[SGalisa]

Had to break this in 2 posts -- First, GF. Next posting, FH.

Hillary certainly is not "favoured" in any way, shape or form.

Well, she's obviously being *favored* by somebody to keep her in the election process and not indicted yet for past blunders.

Right after the whole Benghazi incident, Hillary looked horrible (and I actually felt empathy for her-- figured her SOS status was over because of that incident) -- as if she aged ten years (if the reports of her having a stroke were true), and many of us watching the news thought sure President Obama was going to kick her to the curb and keep her under the proverbial bus forever. But he didn't do that. In fact, he has let her go on this campaign trail without being burdened with a trial of any kind. Of course, a few weeks or so ago, rumor claimed that she was supporting "the enemy" with tactical weapons / supplies, etc.

So, anyway -- with Hillary on the presidential campaign trail -- who or what power authority is keeping her in there? I've heard rumors of it being George Soros is one of the behind-the-scenes powers pulling many of the strings to the various events happening around the world. I've also heard that Soros is the *Master* controlling Obama as a puppet on a string of sorts. If that is a conspiracy of sorts, it certainly doesn't seem to conflict with anything Soros has actually stated that got published into the world's news.

It took you that long to notice he was a madman?

re-- Cruz vs. Donald Trump.
No. I just don't hop on this topic's bandwagon discussing that sort of stuff right away like the rest of you folks here have done, at times.

I noticed it the moment he started picking on Trump as if Trump was his most dangerous enemy, and not a fellow "Republican" candidate. If these guys were smart, they would have done everything to pool and pull together all of their genius strategies to potentially and maybe eventually form the next possible gov't cabinet Admin, but no--Cruz and Rubio had to resort to mud-slinging against their fellow candidate competitors.

As for the "debates", they -started- as a 3 ring circus, they have just gotten worse.

Worse indeed.

I have very little respect for some of the issues with each one of the top 3 contenders. Trump simply has an ego problem, and needs to not give in to being rialed up with reacting to the petty comments from his fellow competitors, stop making Glenn Beck phrased comments about Megyn Kelly (-GYN?! bad joke, which is not what Glenn Beck meant when he mentions "blood shooting from {his} (own) eyes"); and work more on refining his agenda with immigration and "the wall". Cruz needs to stop with the grade school name calling and claiming his competition are liars. And Rubio, worst offender of all -- needs to stop with the macho *manhood* type of comments. It destroys any significant respect for Rubio (at least from my POV.

Correlation is not Causation, and it is human nature to see patterns where none exist -especially- when you are actually looking for them.

I wasn't looking for those correlations. They were listed in the footnotes, as well as other study materials. So, blame the other guy.

Which of the 3 genomes was Noah?
How did he have 3 sons with different genomes?

Since we all *know* that the Bible leaves out some details, if Noah's sons were not his son-in-laws, perhaps they were adopted into his family..? If yes, then they could have had *pure* gene traits from the lineages (genomes) mentioned.

Besides, we do know that it *is* possible for one parent to hold three different genetical traits and pass them on to the children. I saw a batch of triplets who came out in 3 different colors and hair types. One child was mostly (Negro) "black" with typical kinky/super curly black hair and dark eyes, one was blond with blue eyes and light skin, and the other one was in between the shade colors of the other two with wavy brown hair and a nice built-in tan. I think I looked at the picture for almost a half hour trying to see what their differences were, besides their obvious skin tones. It was amazing to see what an *identical* twin person could look like -- side by side. I saw another group of triplets where the mom pointed out how to identify each by their hair color, even when dressed in identical clothing.

[SGalisa]

I doubt she cares what conspiricies are floating around - entertainment really is the lowest on any politicians agenda, I'm afraid. Or I would hope so.

Here's what Hillary will most likely do if she becomes President of the USA...

*sigh* .. I'm going to guess you folks in other countries simply doNOT *know* Hillary the way the rest of us, who grew up with her in office, know her. It was believed by many observers that it was really Hillary running the White House during most of Bill Clinton's presidential reign. She seemed to "wear the pants" in the family -- more than Bill. He was just a brilliant diplomat speaker of the decisions made behind closed (policy-making) doors. She perhaps held some sort of influence on the creation/draft -- of what Bill signed into regulatory law, etc.

So, now Bill will be in the background and Hillary will be the main speaker. If she wins, she really needs to learn to tone down her screeching rants.. her voice at that level sort of grates on the ears enough to tune her out.. Thus, the radio and news folks need to review what she was actually shouting about.

Most of Hillary's supporters look at her and her *promises* with "Blinders" on -- even when the proverbial rug / floor is being pulled out from underneath them / or other people.

Perhaps you should listen to your own advice.

Really? (FH) You're the one who suggested I expand my reading sources, so they weren't so narrow minded. So I did. I found a wonderful index site that gets updated nearly daily from news all over the globe. Even mentions stuff that no one dares venturing into the actual websites, because some of it comes directly from the Muslim communities and is translated (from whatever native language it was originally written in) into English by the wonderful folks caring enough to invest the time in passing the info on -- in English.

One news report mentioned an investigation into the "DARK web" about stuff that the I.S. was up to (one of their posting places, and item in question was a threat made against the USA) and the article had a safe link to the original author. So, I checked out the web page.. no problem. Except when I tried to look at one of the sublinks, my anti-virus software was sending out all sorts of major "alerts!!!" and I never did see what the author was babbling about--translated info into English.

That's not a conspiracy site, either. So.. that tosses out attaching any imaginary conspiracies circling about in my head.. I think I know a whole lot more than what you *think* I know. Except I have chosen not to discuss some of those items at the moment... that's part of holding a *conservative* POV on certain items.
Conserve -- means to remain reserved.. my definition, not the dictionary..
Dictionary def "conservative" = restrained in style... cautious.. guarded.

Plus, sometimes it takes a while to absorb into my brain and figure out if it seems to stick out in a prophetic manner -- how to write it up on the other *prophecy* topic -- if I even bother in mentioning it over there.

BS -- it has nothing to with having a creative or practical mind. That's a myth which science debunked years ago.

About what Jesus did.. that is your choice to believe what you just wrote.

The people making a big noise on what they'd do if Trump wins and is POTUS are just blowing smoke.

They said they'd leave the USA if Obama became president but they never left. I remember before that people were saying that.

Madonna actually left when GWBush became President, and she moved to the UK.

Except now everyone's threatening to leave, not just the opposite dem/rep-side... a reverse world.

Good. Let them leave. It's not going to be *everyone*, because the rest of us who can't afford to move are stuck in place. Doubt if Canada will be the permanent residences of the deserters, too. It's kind of COLD up there, especially in the winter with the ARTIC Clippers.

Those (among the rich and famous) folks able to up and leave, will probably make a 2nd home in South America or Europe or on some exotic Carribean island. That's a perk of the wealthier folks out here.

The rest of us underlings can't move even if the bombs start falling from sky, or wherever.

[Gatefan1976]

Regardless of who wins this fall, there is one thing I am enjoying immensely this year.

The rank and file Republican voter has been seeing how badly the National party or "Establishment" Republicans have been representing their interest for decades now, and finally, someone with the means to do so is speaking up for them.

People have been telling you that for years dude

The "establishment" management of the Republican party is terrified and in full panic mode. Why do you think they are getting anyone that can possibly say anything, from McCain to Romney to god knows who else to castigate Trump in public? They know damned well that the end of "business as usual" is at hand.

Oh, I won't argue that, but the wreckage is not minor.

They made their bed over a period of decades, and it is damned nice to see them finally made to lie down in it.

Yep

[Gatefan1976]

Had to break this in 2 posts -- First, GF. Next posting, FH.



Well, she's obviously being *favored* by somebody to keep her in the election process and not indicted yet for past blunders.

Do you -know- how many politicians should have been indicted?
I don't mean in just America, but -all over the world-??
She's a politician, wake up and stop seeing the "hand of god" in everything.

Right after the whole Benghazi incident, Hillary looked horrible (and I actually felt empathy for her-- figured her SOS status was over because of that incident) -- as if she aged ten years (if the reports of her having a stroke were true), and many of us watching the news thought sure President Obama was going to kick her to the curb and keep her under the proverbial bus forever. But he didn't do that. In fact, he has let her go on this campaign trail without being burdened with a trial of any kind. Of course, a few weeks or so ago, rumor claimed that she was supporting "the enemy" with tactical weapons / supplies, etc.

Rumor, conspiracy, and -unproven- accusations.
That's all you have.

So, anyway -- with Hillary on the presidential campaign trail -- who or what power authority is keeping her in there? I've heard rumors of it being George Soros is one of the behind-the-scenes powers pulling many of the strings to the various events happening around the world. I've also heard that Soros is the *Master* controlling Obama as a puppet on a string of sorts. If that is a conspiracy of sorts, it certainly doesn't seem to conflict with anything Soros has actually stated that got published into the world's news.

Wow!!
Breaking news!!
A wealthy democrat gave money, get this, to a DEMOCRAT!!

re-- Cruz vs. Donald Trump.
No. I just don't hop on this topic's bandwagon discussing that sort of stuff right away like the rest of you folks here have done, at times.

You know that -is- the reason for the thread?
To shoot the breeze about politics?

I noticed it the moment he started picking on Trump as if Trump was his most dangerous enemy, and not a fellow "Republican" candidate. If these guys were smart, they would have done everything to pool and pull together all of their genius strategies to potentially and maybe eventually form the next possible gov't cabinet Admin, but no--Cruz and Rubio had to resort to mud-slinging against their fellow candidate competitors.

Cruz and Rubio -responded- to Drumpf slinging more poo than a caged monkey.
I don't like either of them, but jeez, there is a point where you have just had enough of the bully, and that's all Drumpf is, a schoolyard bully who like all bullies is having a cwy because people are picking on him and calling him on his absolute BS.

Worse indeed.

I have very little respect for some of the issues with each one of the top 3 contenders. Trump simply has an ego problem, and needs to not give in to being rialed up with reacting to the petty comments from his fellow competitors, stop making Glenn Beck phrased comments about Megyn Kelly (-GYN?! bad joke, which is not what Glenn Beck meant when he mentions "blood shooting from {his} (own) eyes"); and work more on refining his agenda with immigration and "the wall". Cruz needs to stop with the grade school name calling and claiming his competition are liars. And Rubio, worst offender of all -- needs to stop with the macho *manhood* type of comments. It destroys any significant respect for Rubio (at least from my POV.

From day one Trump turned this into a circus, and I just watched the latest debate in Chicago. The only thing that has changed is that the other top two have joined in on the crazy train that Drumpf pulled into the station. Kasich looked like the only adult in the room trying to stay on topic with the cast of Jack Arse.

I wasn't looking for those correlations. They were listed in the footnotes, as well as other study materials. So, blame the other guy.

You always look for them.

Since we all *know* that the Bible leaves out some details, if Noah's sons were not his son-in-laws, perhaps they were adopted into his family..? If yes, then they could have had *pure* gene traits from the lineages (genomes) mentioned.

Mr fantastic would call that a stretch.

Besides, we do know that it *is* possible for one parent to hold three different genetical traits and pass them on to the children. I saw a batch of triplets who came out in 3 different colors and hair types. One child was mostly (Negro) "black" with typical kinky/super curly black hair and dark eyes, one was blond with blue eyes and light skin, and the other one was in between the shade colors of the other two with wavy brown hair and a nice built-in tan. I think I looked at the picture for almost a half hour trying to see what their differences were, besides their obvious skin tones. It was amazing to see what an *identical* twin person could look like -- side by side. I saw another group of triplets where the mom pointed out how to identify each by their hair color, even when dressed in identical clothing.

That's cosmetic traits, which is in no way shape or form what I am talking about.

[Gatefan1976]

*sigh* .. I'm going to guess you folks in other countries simply doNOT *know* Hillary the way the rest of us, who grew up with her in office, know her. It was believed by many observers that it was really Hillary running the White House during most of Bill Clinton's presidential reign. She seemed to "wear the pants" in the family -- more than Bill. He was just a brilliant diplomat speaker of the decisions made behind closed (policy-making) doors. She perhaps held some sort of influence on the creation/draft -- of what Bill signed into regulatory law, etc.

Were the Clinton years, if you strip them of partisanship, bad?
To my understanding, the Clinton Years were some of the most stabilizing and economically productive years of America.
Does it matter if Hillary was blunting some of Bill's idea's, if the final product was good?
Or is the fact that Hillary influenced her husband (which is pretty normal in spouses) bad?

I don't get the value of this argument.
From that -useless "outsider" POV-, we SAW America as the good guys, the people who wanted to lead, not just America, but the (western) world in moving forward. America was -trusted- and -respected- on the worlds stage, and while Americans may not see the value in that because it might not have "aligned with their political morals", or worse, they simply did not care, believe me, the rest of the world saw a great deal of value in it.

Basically, your argument is the basest form of sexism, and I hate to see what my more "vocal" female friends would make of it.

So, now Bill will be in the background and Hillary will be the main speaker. If she wins, she really needs to learn to tone down her screeching rants.. her voice at that level sort of grates on the ears enough to tune her out.. Thus, the radio and news folks need to review what she was actually shouting about.

Men "lead with power", and women "screech"
Uh huh.

Most of Hillary's supporters look at her and her *promises* with "Blinders" on -- even when the proverbial rug / floor is being pulled out from underneath them / or other people.

Most people see their whatever political candidate with blinders on, it is unique to no one, nor party, or even politics.
"The Earth is billions of years old" proves science.
"God's years are not our years" proclaims religion.

Really? (FH) You're the one who suggested I expand my reading sources, so they weren't so narrow minded. So I did. I found a wonderful index site that gets updated nearly daily from news all over the globe. Even mentions stuff that no one dares venturing into the actual websites, because some of it comes directly from the Muslim communities and is translated (from whatever native language it was originally written in) into English by the wonderful folks caring enough to invest the time in passing the info on -- in English.

What?

One news report mentioned an investigation into the "DARK web" about stuff that the I.S. was up to (one of their posting places, and item in question was a threat made against the USA) and the article had a safe link to the original author. So, I checked out the web page.. no problem. Except when I tried to look at one of the sublinks, my anti-virus software was sending out all sorts of major "alerts!!!" and I never did see what the author was babbling about--translated info into English.

Don't mess with the dark web, it's not a nice place.

That's not a conspiracy site, either. So.. that tosses out attaching any imaginary conspiracies circling about in my head..

Hardly.

I think I know a whole lot more than what you *think* I know. Except I have chosen not to discuss some of those items at the moment... that's part of holding a *conservative* POV on certain items.
Conserve -- means to remain reserved.. my definition, not the dictionary..
Dictionary def "conservative" = restrained in style... cautious.. guarded.

We -ALL- know more than we put out here.

Plus, sometimes it takes a while to absorb into my brain and figure out if it seems to stick out in a prophetic manner -- how to write it up on the other *prophecy* topic -- if I even bother in mentioning it over there.

You should do it there more than here.