Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Talk about anything and everything.

Moderators: wallace044, rtn393, Irv, cru77jones

Re: Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Postby Irv » July 26, 2016, 10:03 pm

Mr. Glass wrote:In this country we look at politics on a spectrum scale ranging from left to right. In reality that may be all we need, but I've tried considering the issues using a "compass style" form of evaluation. In other words, do we have more than two stances on our country's major issues? Do we possess 3rd and 4th ideas that solidly stand up to the stances of the left and right? If so then yes, one could lean left or right, or "up" and "down". Take gun rights as an example - You're either a card carrying NRA member or you want regulation reform. What would a third party's stance be? What lobbyists would support that stance?

Personally I believe that MOST Americans are Libertarians with either the big "L" or the small "L". "Malleable Centrist" in you will. But since there are no major news outlets identifying with this demographic, we decide which of the two existing parties best describes us. Party narratives also sway the average American voter because the average American voter is simply ignorant or uncaring. I don't mean that in an insulting way - my father never cared because he was too busy busting his ass to take a stance on transgender bathrooms and shit.

While not perfect, I think the compass is an improvement over simple left-right positioning. Political leanings are difficult to illustrate on a two-axis chart, never mind a single line. To compound things further, people want to break things down by party as if Democrats are left and Republicans are right. That's a terribly misguided assumption. The compass model's Y-axis is authoritarian to libertarian and the X-axis is purely economic.

Democrats and Republicans are so close to each other in some areas that they often don't even present two different stances on their own. What kind of stance is ending the war on drugs? It's fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which goes in the bottom right quadrant. Where are the Democrat and Republican parties on this? Authoritarian and in favor of continuing to waste our tax dollars on this failed experiment.

The Big L (not Larry Johnson) as a party has issues of their own, but I think more people could get on board with a socially liberal and fiscally conservative stance if it's clarified as, "I mind my business, you mind yours, and our peers should be the driving force of social aid and services rather than a faceless entity like the government." That sounds great in theory, but a lot of people are also assholes, whether through upbringing or jadedness. That's where the idea of helping others because you want to help tends to fall apart. Inevitably, you end up with big money assholes telling little money assholes what to do, and the people who aren't assholes are wondering what the fuck just happened.

The Libertarian party tends to avoid this problem altogether by ignoring that people are lazy and/or shitty. It also has an image problem to the point where a lot of people think the motto of the party is, "Smoke weed every day and fuck everything else." Some people who claim to be libertarians are actually anarchists, and I guess they flock to the Libertarian party because anarchists still need to congregate. Biases and creative editing aside, there was a clip on Samantha Bee's Full Frontal show showing the Libertarian convention where the candidates were asked about whether they believed people should be required to have a driver's license to operate a vehicle. Gary Johnson actually got booed for saying yes. Who the hell boos that?

I agree that a lot of people have better things to worry about than politics. I do as well. Although my comments in this thread imply that I'm pretty invested, I really don't care about politics beyond expressing my frustration with people I know who are too myopic to realize that they are either incredibly biased or incredibly obsessed with narratives that don't actually affect their lives on a daily basis. I've always believed in getting your own shit together before trying to fight for causes of others.

I also believe in researching matters before speaking out on them, so along the lines of dcapodic's thoughts, I find image memes to be an incredibly ignorant means of discourse, but also quite fitting for the slacktivism rampant on social media. It allows people to delude themselves into thinking they're enlightened. It's the cheapest way to act involved, but it's a huge disservice to people who actually want to be more informed. This year is showing me that people actually respect each other's religion far more than each other's politics, which is funny because I used to consider religion to be touchier topic of the two by far.

Mr. Glass wrote:Consider this - Minorities really don't have major financial backers/lobbyist in DC. If they did things would be very different in the inner cities. This is the same reason why The Green party has no real power in DC. Sucks but the rich and powerful make the rules.

Ultimately, positions of power are often sought for greed and exploitation. People who have a genuine desire to aid society while still maintaining some level of dignity and self-respect generally aren't seeking to become part of the political system.
User avatar
Irv
Administrator
 
Joined: February 8, 2003, 11:24 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Postby Mr. Glass » July 27, 2016, 12:53 pm

Irv, that really resonated with me, thanks.

Do you guys think it's inherent for mankind to seek out groups/organizations/frats/clubs/etc. as a way of finding like mindedness and parity, carnal pack mentality, both, neither or other? My opinion is that it's both. Intellectual unity is the apex of these groups while pack mentality is simply following a crowd of others that look and think like you. What's dangerous is that this group membership often fails to stimulate independent thought and growth. I read a book called Among The Thugs (Bill Buford). It mapped out mob mentality among soccer hooligans. In principal it claims that a single person transforms himself into a part of another element, the mob. Once set, this individual becomes more willing to do dastardly things within the group than he ever would as an individual. Add ignorance to this and you have the basic ingredients for civil unrest (on a larger scale). This is just as apparent in inner city gangs as it is in politics. As the melting-pot society that we are, pack mentality can easily be used as a powder keg in the hands of the malicious. Trump has been a fuse for this imo.

Last, our political party system has kept this country afloat in spite of its flaws, so I support it dearly. Sanders has been the stimulating opposition that I have been looking for since finding interest in politics. Does a third and fourth party simply create other mobs, or does it inspire growth and contrast in us all?
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dwight D Eisenhower
User avatar
Mr. Glass
 
Joined: June 29, 2007, 2:59 pm
Location: Down by the beach

Re: Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Postby Irv » July 27, 2016, 2:51 pm

Good points, Glass. I think many people seek acceptance as a means to validate their beliefs or activities. To that end, we probably all completely understand wanting to join groups where others have similar interests. I don’t think mob mentality is the goal so much as the byproduct because it satisfies the lust for revenge or redemption.

Mob mentality also seems to be the result of groups initially founded by those who were bullied or disenfranchised. A community garage sale group on Facebook isn’t a good breeding ground for mob mentality, unless you want to band against shoppers who always try to talk down your listed price of $1 for a t-shirt down to $0.25, those cheap bastards.

Anyway, once the disenfranchised gain enough prominence, they become the aggressors and the new bullies, and this can apply for either the group’s founders or its followers. When enough outcasts band together, they’re first going to want to stick it to those who wronged them. Only once the competition has been eliminated will they be so bored as to actually spend time determining their purpose.

As to whether or not more political parties will change the way people think, I would say no. All the volatile attributes you’ve pointed out in mob mentality are still present among us because people have not fundamentally changed. The movement to start a third party, or in general, a different viewpoint that critiques the behaviors of existing factions, is usually well-intentioned because it’s an outside voice that is trying to call attention to what the incumbents are doing.

However, to the new followers, it’s just an alternative faction to follow. I think people seek easy solutions because they expect someone else to do the heavy lifting as a leader, and when they join a group, they're assuming that someone is already the leader. It’s the bystander effect with membership benefits. Hence, the followers don't bring anything new to the table. They're just there to express their outrage.

Throughout this thread, I’ve made it clear that I don’t support the personas of Trillary and that I have significant disdain for both major political parties. However, I won’t claim allegiance to the other parties either because they’re still very idealistic. In the same vein though, I believe they deserve to be given a chance to prove themselves rather than have people heckle them and tell them that they're causing more harm than good because they're afraid of Trillary winning the election.

The problem at the very core is that everybody wants to talk but nobody wants to listen. People don’t listen willingly either. They just have pauses between the next opportunity for them to talk again. I will say that the two major incumbent parties are past the point of redemption though, because those people have been talking their entire lives and really need to just STFU.

I have to say the activism that Melo has led over the past several weeks is a far better approach to solving problems than what many politicians do. It’s more productive to start from a clean slate rather than trying to use preconceived biases as justification for one’s agenda. The thing that really caught my attention in Melo’s Instagram post was the part where he said, “While I don't have a solution, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't have a solution,” because that’s a level of self-awareness most people don’t have.
User avatar
Irv
Administrator
 
Joined: February 8, 2003, 11:24 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Postby washingtonparkjones » July 28, 2016, 6:40 pm

Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, pressed Comey on whether any of Clinton's statements rose to the level of a crime, including her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, during which she said unequivocally there were never any emails, sent or received, that were marked classified.

The result of the line of inquiry could mean a new phase in the yearlong Clinton email investigation -- whether she lied under oath before Congress.

"We have no basis to conclude that she lied to the FBI," Comey said.

"Did she lie to the public?" Chaffetz asked.

"That's a question I'm not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI," Comey responded. Chaffetz then asked Comey whether the FBI investigated Clinton for perjuring herself before Congress.

"Not to my knowledge. I don't think there's been a referral from Congress," Comey said.

"Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?" Chaffetz asked.

"Sure do," Comey retorted.

"You'll have one," Chaffetz said, laughing. "You'll have one in the next few hours."


dcapodic wrote:What do you think about this, part deux?

I think that it shows that the party of law and order blatantly corrupts the same by using it as a political tool and then deligitimizes the same by continuing to call things criminal after the legal process has determined its not. Did Chaffeetz even pause to consider whether there was a specific statement that could possibly qualify as perjury before he made the suggestion? lol. Think he cares if there's a real basis? Does anybody actually think he cares? Of course not. Its all wink wink.

This is the tactic against the Clintons from the beginning. It was a frivilous lawsuit (as in dismissed as frivilous by the Court) that was used to obtain the deposition of Bill which snowballed into the impeachment.

As an attorney nothing has concerned me more that the republican tendency to make accusation of criminality by reflex. Constantly taking things hyperbolic.
Last edited by washingtonparkjones on July 28, 2016, 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 1:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Postby washingtonparkjones » July 28, 2016, 6:54 pm

shakespeare wrote:Ever since Irv made this statement I research Clinton and she's actually a pretty scandalous politician. The difference between her and Trump?

Not much..

The difference is literally opposite ends of the spectrum
Image

Give serious consideration to whether you have been conned by the shear repetition of baseless allegations.

Just because she's been accused over and over doesn't mean any of its legitimate. In fact, given the level of scrutiny that come with that repetition, the fact that there's no proof of an ethic violations or her doing anything criminal tends to indicate that she's squeaky clean.
User avatar
washingtonparkjones
 
Joined: November 10, 2003, 1:40 pm
Location: Boulder, Colorado

Re: Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Postby dcapodic » July 30, 2016, 6:30 pm

WPJ, I never doubted that you must ba an excellent lawyer to have on your side. The above statement would be interesting if it were not for several factors:

- Why do we assume that this is al just starting recently?? This stuff has gone on for her entire public career.

Fired from Watergate Committee - As a 27 year old staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why Hillary Rodham was fired, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the Committee, and the rules of confidentiality."


Note the party of her "former" boss, that kinda refutes this idea of this all just being GOP fodder also.

No need to get much deeper into this stuff, it would just be a tit for tat and go no where. TBH, I kinda give myself the edge on this one because I WANT to be able to trust that I truly know Hillary but even just since 2008 my opinion of her has gone straight into the toilet. Admittedly, it wasn't much higher then but I felt she was the better choice over someone that had virtually zero experience and was mostly considered an academic. So, how did that work out? Most people around here love POTUS OBama, so the idea of going with the change person seems like it should have some merit. Fresh blood and all that.

Gotta love when people say Trump has no experience :)

I try not to quote directly but this one:

As an attorney nothing has concerned me more that the republican tendency to make accusation of criminality by reflex. Constantly taking things hyperbolic.


Republican, really :) Wow, just wow....
- Thanasis Antetokounmpo spelled backwards is Opmnuokotetna (which is Swahili for Hand Sanitizer). Mr. Glass, circa 2014
User avatar
dcapodic
 
Joined: February 4, 2007, 11:38 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Postby dcapodic » July 31, 2016, 9:42 pm

Irv wrote:Good points, Glass. I think many people seek acceptance as a means to validate their beliefs or activities. To that end, we probably all completely understand wanting to join groups where others have similar interests. I don’t think mob mentality is the goal so much as the byproduct because it satisfies the lust for revenge or redemption.

Mob mentality also seems to be the result of groups initially founded by those who were bullied or disenfranchised. A community garage sale group on Facebook isn’t a good breeding ground for mob mentality, unless you want to band against shoppers who always try to talk down your listed price of $1 for a t-shirt down to $0.25, those cheap bastards.

Anyway, once the disenfranchised gain enough prominence, they become the aggressors and the new bullies, and this can apply for either the group’s founders or its followers. When enough outcasts band together, they’re first going to want to stick it to those who wronged them. Only once the competition has been eliminated will they be so bored as to actually spend time determining their purpose.

As to whether or not more political parties will change the way people think, I would say no. All the volatile attributes you’ve pointed out in mob mentality are still present among us because people have not fundamentally changed. The movement to start a third party, or in general, a different viewpoint that critiques the behaviors of existing factions, is usually well-intentioned because it’s an outside voice that is trying to call attention to what the incumbents are doing.

However, to the new followers, it’s just an alternative faction to follow. I think people seek easy solutions because they expect someone else to do the heavy lifting as a leader, and when they join a group, they're assuming that someone is already the leader. It’s the bystander effect with membership benefits. Hence, the followers don't bring anything new to the table. They're just there to express their outrage.

Throughout this thread, I’ve made it clear that I don’t support the personas of Trillary and that I have significant disdain for both major political parties. However, I won’t claim allegiance to the other parties either because they’re still very idealistic. In the same vein though, I believe they deserve to be given a chance to prove themselves rather than have people heckle them and tell them that they're causing more harm than good because they're afraid of Trillary winning the election.

The problem at the very core is that everybody wants to talk but nobody wants to listen. People don’t listen willingly either. They just have pauses between the next opportunity for them to talk again. I will say that the two major incumbent parties are past the point of redemption though, because those people have been talking their entire lives and really need to just STFU.

I have to say the activism that Melo has led over the past several weeks is a far better approach to solving problems than what many politicians do. It’s more productive to start from a clean slate rather than trying to use preconceived biases as justification for one’s agenda. The thing that really caught my attention in Melo’s Instagram post was the part where he said, “While I don't have a solution, and I'm pretty sure a lot of people don't have a solution,” because that’s a level of self-awareness most people don’t have.


Well said Irv, well said. To your point, I call it "Herd mentality". Someone starts yelling, people join in, they move along, more people join with less idea of why but liking the idea of being a part, until people are onboard without realizing what the reason for the mob is in the first place. See, "10 monkeys in a cage with a ladder".

Everyone wants to be with like minded folks, its easy and safe and you hit the nail on the head, it is assumed that others will do the heavy lifting while most ride along. So, essentially it is a group made up of the ideas of a few. I am not sure that any one thing upsets me more than people in this situation that either don't realize it or in most cases, refuse to accept it.

Mob mentality usually leads to bullying tactics which is essentially what you are referring to and social media has become. Many seem to forget the basic tenants of understanding that different people have different things that drive them, are important to them and wouldn't it be nice if we understood and accepted that. How can anyone expect a deeply religious person to accept pro choice. How can anyone expect a Sandy Hook resident to not support gun control, etc. Yet, we beat people over the head to try and convince them "they are wrong".

Want proof? How often do you hear/see anyone speaking abuot the virtues of their candidate or the things about the planks in the platform that they like? Nope, it is all about ripping apart the other side. Intelligent converesations break down into name calling, etc.

Boil it down, I mean WAY down....basic respect. not sure where it went but it seems that most people just think it is easier to slap a label on someone that they don't agree with so they can move on.

Repeat until wrung out. I am liking this expression.

Personally, I find the most rewarding experience is to exchange ideas with someone I seem on opposite sides of the speactrum from. Frist off, I never assume I am right so I want them to convince me why they are. Don't tell me about my side, I already know all about that so when someone starts like that I tend to stop them and ask them to tell me about them, I want to hear their thoughts not what mine are. You know, the idea and line.....nd yea, wow you said it so well....listening today is simply a time to take breaths until you can spout off again about your own self/ideas.
- Thanasis Antetokounmpo spelled backwards is Opmnuokotetna (which is Swahili for Hand Sanitizer). Mr. Glass, circa 2014
User avatar
dcapodic
 
Joined: February 4, 2007, 11:38 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Postby dcapodic » August 19, 2016, 5:07 pm

To slip back to a subject that there has been a lot of back and forth on in this and other threads....it has been said that POTUS OBama has been treated more rough by the press because he is African American. I have taken the side that this is not true and posted many examples. Recently though, there is an apples to apples, oranges to oranges comparison.

http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/opinion/our_views/article_f1ce22ee-64b4-11e6-b11a-a393ff25161d.html

Let me say first, this does not seem like much of an issue to me but I am not from Louisiana. Nor, did I rip apart George Bush when he waited 1 day and then "only" did a fly over of the areas hit by hurricane Katrina. Both POTUS OBama and Bush have done wha their job calls for, put the pieces in motion to get the affected areas help. However:

We’ve seen this story before in Louisiana, and we don’t deserve a sequel. In 2005, a fly-over by a vacationing President George W. Bush became a symbol of official neglect for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. The current president was among those making political hay out of Bush’s aloofness.


POTUS OBama himself as well as other peeps ripped Bush, there was a media firestorm over it....so what about now?!? Where is the media outrage.

This is a straight apples to apples comparison and if anything, the optics of the current situation seem worse. Bush was on vaca also but fly over the next day. All we see are pics of POTUS OBama playing gold and now the news that he did take time out to atten a Clinton fundrasier.

And if the president can interrupt his vacation for a swanky fundraiser for fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton, as he did on Monday, then surely he can make time to show up for a catastrophe that’s displaced thousands.


So, to the people that continue to say that the media is still conservatively biased (I am not sure what country you are living in) and to the peeps that have said the media is rougher on OBama, something I have never seen or understood, why is it that there is no media coverage, no firestorm and virutally no mention of this?!? This article is from the "Advocate" of Baton Rouge, LA.

Do you still believe that the media is conservatively biased and that POTUS OBama is treated rougher than Bush, for whatever reason? If so, I would like to hear what your thoughts are about this?
- Thanasis Antetokounmpo spelled backwards is Opmnuokotetna (which is Swahili for Hand Sanitizer). Mr. Glass, circa 2014
User avatar
dcapodic
 
Joined: February 4, 2007, 11:38 pm

Re: Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Postby Mr. Glass » September 8, 2016, 3:52 pm

Just sitting here wondering (a day after the Commander in Chief broadcast). If Trump does not win the election, what in the name of Hindenburg will his concessions speech be like? Will he even give one? He strikes me as someone who will try to show grace, but will fail miserably in doing so.

Looking forward to this more than turkey day!
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." Dwight D Eisenhower
User avatar
Mr. Glass
 
Joined: June 29, 2007, 2:59 pm
Location: Down by the beach

Re: Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Postby shakespeare » September 26, 2016, 8:39 pm

It's time...

Image
The Porzingis blessing is real.
User avatar
shakespeare
Writer
 
Joined: June 28, 2004, 2:43 am
Location: Manhattan, NY

Re: Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Postby shakespeare » September 26, 2016, 9:40 pm

Live Fact Check: Trump And Clinton Debate For The First Time. http://www.npr.org/2016/09/26/495115346 ... ial-debate
The Porzingis blessing is real.
User avatar
shakespeare
Writer
 
Joined: June 28, 2004, 2:43 am
Location: Manhattan, NY

Re: Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

Postby CommonSense » September 26, 2016, 11:53 pm

That was hilarious. Scary, but hilarious.
The future ain't what it used to be~Yogi Berra
User avatar
CommonSense
 
Joined: July 26, 2005, 12:50 pm

Previous

Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron