Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

09/26/16 Presidential Debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by redrover View Post

    I know right where the Dead records are but I never had the love beads or granny glasses. I thought the debate moderate moderator did a good job in pinning Donald down to at least trying to answer the question that was asked. You know Donald likes to drift off into blithering idiocy.
    And what do you think the moderator did a good job on pinning Hillary down about?

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #32
      Originally posted by redrover View Post

      You are half right right wing media is full of crap. Even Trump thinks he lost that's why he's spending so much time whining about the microphone. Trump then says he won the debate biggly I wish one of his supporters would tell Donald that biggly isn't a word Of course none of his supporters know that. That's why his performance is immaterial. remember winning a debate doesn't mean you'll win the election.
      He's saying Bid League. Not Biggly, LOL

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #33
        Originally posted by RDK View Post
        I really have to wonder what the impact of the debates will be.

        There was no clear knockout blow delivered by either side.

        There were pluses and minuses on both sides so I’d overall call it a draw.

        Those strongly committed to one or the other candidate will remain committed to that candidate.

        Those weakly committed to one candidate will most likely remain weakly committed to that candidate.

        The true undecided’s will most likely stay undecided until later in the election cycle, any of these who decide on the basis of the debates will split about 50-50 towards one or the other candidate.

        In other words this does not change anything at all.
        I kinda felt like it was a draw as well. But then I tried to put myself in the place of someone who was watching, that was looking to get information about how to solve America's problems going forward. Trump did offer a very detailed and passionate understanding about the mishandling of the economy and his strong belief about what will work, with examples of how he's made it work. Though I did wish he would have explained why it will work. Hillary offered nothing. If you were looking for answers Trump won. If you were looking to see if Trump would faulter in presentation. Hillary won. I was hoping Trump would remain composed. In the beginning he was. I watched his face as Hillary spoke, especially when she threw out the first Zing. He did well. But only in the beginning.

        It makes complete sense that the Hillary supporters are pleased and satisfied with her performance. She already has them on board, presenting composure as the only important thing to become president, while going into this debate. She did accomplish what she wanted to accomplish for them. Trump on the other hand presents to his supporters that it is more important to have successful policies to better the country. He allowed Hillary's plan to overshadow his plan.

        I also think the Trump supporters who believe he lost the debate, believe so because they were hoping Trump would wipe the floor with Hillary and expose her for what she is. In the end, he failed. That's why they thought he lost. Not because they were now considering if he wouldn't be the best choice. People were merely disappointed that he didn't do a better job to get the independents on board.

        Trying to analyze his behavior, I noticed that when he loses composure, it's when lies and wrongful insinuations are made directly about him. When he talks about policy differences, he presents very intellectual. A lot of his anger was actually towards Holt. Holt said Trump supported the Iraq war. That is not a fact, but a false insinuation presented as a fact. The question started with a lie about Trump. The average uninvolved viewer believes the moderator is neutral and accurate, and regardless of the candidate's response, what the viewer hears from the moderator, resonates. Can't say I blame Trump for getting angry.

        (Though it is a fact that Hillary voted to make the Iraq war happen and her support had actual relevance to the state of the nation, yet she was not required to explain herself). Holt arranged the delivery of his questions towards Trump in an accusatory fashion, while all questions towards Hillary were actual questions that went unchallenged by Holt.

        But in all fairness, I do think it's hard for us to be neutral when analyzing the debate. Most of us are bias. I certainly am. I know what I support and what I want, as my opposition does as well. We don't have neutral minds. We will certainly see it in a skewed fashion as hard as we try to be neutral. It's really the true undecided that can actually make a fair determination.

        The key to knowing if someone won, lies with the undecided and on what they were looking for.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #34
          Originally posted by redrover View Post

          Putting aside Bluedoggy's desire to overthrow a system that has served us pretty well since 1778. I think objectively Hillary won the debate but the bar is set so low for Trump I don't think he lost any of his devotees. So Doggy what is it your bucking for monarchy or something on a soviet model?
          That system you refer to exist only in "forms". When the roman empire lost their republic, the forms, like their Senate was still there. But the republic was dead. The same thing has happened here, and if you want to ignore just one of the pieces of evidence, the Princeton Study, you can of course do that, but then you will argue from simple ignoran-ance, which is exactly what you are doing. You are not actually left wing, or liberal, Chris Hedges is an example of that, real liberalism, and you would agree with nothing that he says. But there is a whole host of people just like hedges, who agree with him on oligarchy, but do not agree with him on other issues. So, we have learned, experienced, credible men, who agree with me, although I arrived at my own conclusion independent of them, and only discovered that others agree with me much later. I credit being able to see this, independent of these other people, because of being educated at a time before oligarchy. Being raised up in a period where journalism had principles, integrity and intellectual honesty. All of that is gone, and yet you cannot see it. But then you were educated in my era as well, so it has to be more than just the kind of education involved here. For you are proof that an older education does not create rational observation. Perhaps I am just not such a tribal minded individual? I think that might have something to do with it. I was never a person who succumbed or was affected by peer pressure. I never sought confirmation bias with a group. I think this creates stupidity, or can create it. It generally stops individualistic thinking, or so it appears.

          So you are absolutely wrong if you think our system is a working Republic. A working republic has representatives that actually represent the best interests of the People, and their common good, and if you think that is our reality, go and read the Princeton Study. But, it would contradict what you believe, and of course it is doubtful you want that. Truth, or fact is not important, right? What you want to believe guides you, right? Well, I do not want to believe the reality either, but rationally, I cannot just replace it with what I would rather believe.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #35
            Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post

            Long ago, you've demonstrated objectivity is not a quality you possess. BD wants us to be a democracy again. Hillary, and by extension you, are fighting for a system by the establishment, of the establishment, and for only the establishment.
            LOL. You simply have no clue of what I have actually said, if you can tie me with the current establishment. In fact, the only way you or anyone could ever say this is from utter ignorance of what I have said, consistently since day one. I have never changed on these core issues.

            I smell a Cruz supporter? LOL Or would that be a Bush supporter? See, I really do not know, since you post so little, and I am too lazy to spend the time to research your ideology.

            I happen to think that I am the most objective person that I know. For I am not a dem or a repub, for neither one of those has the ability to be even close to objectivity. It is like being a Baptist or an atheist. You will not find an objective mind in either of those groups either. These groups one belongs to precludes objectivity. That is the objective view. For there is much truth in it. For neither one in totality are grounded in truth, but upon beliefs influenced not by rationality, logic, reason, but emotions and personal values given by other people, in large part. Conditioning, with some personal quirks thrown in.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #36
              Originally posted by redrover View Post

              OMG War on the establishment. Let me see if I can find my love beads and my Grateful Dead records and I'll have to score some weed.Yeah I can dig it man down with the establishment groovy. Make love not war. Lets all eat some granola and be friends.
              Funny that you should say that. I of course, lived in that hippy era, but being a southern farm boy, raised up in a Baptist church, with traditional values, the same values of my parents and grand parents, well, I just did not fit in. So, I never grew my hair long, I never got into the hippy movement. I enlisted in the military, did my time, went to college, worked for a big corporation, upper management, and then got sick of it, and went back to my roots, working with my hands, creating my own small manufacturing business and was successful, sold it, no sons, and retired earlier rather than later. I only got really interested in politics when I saw what Reagan did, or started, with our economy. Carried on by Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. It went against what had created our huge middle class, and went in the opposite direction, a total change in economic philosophy. Which, not that many people even noticed, and still do not realize even today.

              So, I watched as these changes started to devastate my area, my state, and all across this nation, people like me, common people, non elites. I watched all this, and only a village idiot would not be able to see clearly what was going on. I have talked about the minute details of all this, at length since my time here, and I know I am absolutely correct in my observation and conclusions. I even predicted this election cycle, these grassroots movements, while no one else, including you and redrover had a clue.

              I trust my own judgment for it made me very successful, and when I was absolutely right, along with Perot about what free trade would create, for the common man, while you two were wrong, clearly, the lack of judgment on both of your parts, make you hardly worthy of paying attention to. I see people like Clinton here, but hardly for the same reason that she is what she is.

              If this makes me a love bead wearing hippy, listening to grateful dead records, (only like one of their songs) then clearly, you guys should both vote for Clinton. For you do not know what she is, nor what I am . LOL. But, I do know what the both of you are. Deadheads. And I say that in a very amiable manner, with some chuckling to myself. So, not meant as hateful in any manner. I probably like you two more than the people you actually know.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #37
                The debates featured an excellent actor, Hillary, and a very bad one, trump. So, Hillary put on the better show, and no doubt she is much better at memorizing her script, than trump, who probably hates memorizing anything.

                The way that I see it, is that trump really has nothing to lose here, since he is fighting the establishment, which both sanders and trump supporters are fed up with, and even angry about. And given this, in the next debate, since his weaknesses, have mostly been addressed in this first one, he should go out and put Hillary on the defensive, as she did him, in this next debate, and go after her on her personal integrity and judgment like a coon hound going after a coon. That will work better, IMO, showing what she is, than any policy issue. If voters really cared about policy, we would not be in the mess we are in today, in all areas, fiscally, economically, militarily, and so on. There is more than enough crap on Hillary to use against her, in a personal way, as she did, and Holt did towards trump. Trump should just pull up what Obama said about in his primary run against her. And cite Obama as saying it first.

                Trump is even better than Clinton in pulling these personal attacks. He is good at it, and can do it with some mirth, and I hope he does this in the next debate. For she sure as hell will. She of course will pull the "shooting from behind the cross" deal, but that is ok too. That is to be expected, and might not work at all.

                He has to keep the attention on how her experience never helped her judgment. A half ass experienced mechanic is not someone I hire to work on my car. Lots of people have experience. But that does not create judgment. If you have much experience but horrible judgment, then it is worse because you cannot learn from experience.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                  The debates featured an excellent actor, Hillary, and a very bad one, trump. So, Hillary put on the better show, and no doubt she is much better at memorizing her script, than trump, who probably hates memorizing anything.

                  The way that I see it, is that trump really has nothing to lose here, since he is fighting the establishment, which both sanders and trump supporters are fed up with, and even angry about. And given this, in the next debate, since his weaknesses, have mostly been addressed in this first one, he should go out and put Hillary on the defensive, as she did him, in this next debate, and go after her on her personal integrity and judgment like a coon hound going after a coon. That will work better, IMO, showing what she is, than any policy issue. If voters really cared about policy, we would not be in the mess we are in today, in all areas, fiscally, economically, militarily, and so on. There is more than enough crap on Hillary to use against her, in a personal way, as she did, and Holt did towards trump. Trump should just pull up what Obama said about in his primary run against her. And cite Obama as saying it first.

                  Trump is even better than Clinton in pulling these personal attacks. He is good at it, and can do it with some mirth, and I hope he does this in the next debate. For she sure as hell will. She of course will pull the "shooting from behind the cross" deal, but that is ok too. That is to be expected, and might not work at all.

                  He has to keep the attention on how her experience never helped her judgment. A half ass experienced mechanic is not someone I hire to work on my car. Lots of people have experience. But that does not create judgment. If you have much experience but horrible judgment, then it is worse because you cannot learn from experience.
                  Here we go again the hated establishment. Yeah I guess the creation of a dictatorship should take care of that then we'll have Don Jr. groomed to take over just like in North Korea. I guess I would hate the establishment too if it forced me to live in Mississippi refusing to give a visa to migrate to one of the civilized states.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by redrover View Post

                    Here we go again the hated establishment. Yeah I guess the creation of a dictatorship should take care of that then we'll have Don Jr. groomed to take over just like in North Korea. I guess I would hate the establishment too if it forced me to live in Mississippi refusing to give a visa to migrate to one of the civilized states.
                    You couldn't pay the people in Mississippi to move to New York.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                      You couldn't pay the people in Mississippi to move to New York.
                      You are probably right we don't have many jobs for cotton pickers and we have a lot of uppity blacks who don't know there place the way they do in Missisippi.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                        LOL. You simply have no clue of what I have actually said, if you can tie me with the current establishment. In fact, the only way you or anyone could ever say this is from utter ignorance of what I have said, consistently since day one. I have never changed on these core issues.

                        I smell a Cruz supporter? LOL Or would that be a Bush supporter? See, I really do not know, since you post so little, and I am too lazy to spend the time to research your ideology.

                        I happen to think that I am the most objective person that I know. For I am not a dem or a repub, for neither one of those has the ability to be even close to objectivity. It is like being a Baptist or an atheist. You will not find an objective mind in either of those groups either. These groups one belongs to precludes objectivity. That is the objective view. For there is much truth in it. For neither one in totality are grounded in truth, but upon beliefs influenced not by rationality, logic, reason, but emotions and personal values given by other people, in large part. Conditioning, with some personal quirks thrown in.
                        Wow BD, you really misread my post.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post

                          Wow BD, you really misread my post.
                          Apparently so, if my reply seems off base. But I wrote several posts in a row, and my posts are always never brief, and I am tired of posting on this subject right now. LOL. But, apologize for accusations not warranted. Now let me get back to my grateful dead record, put on my love beads, pull out the bong, and break the laws. So redrover will be happy. LOL. But, I did commit fornication with several of those free love hippy chicks back in the day. And that is as close as I ever got to being a hippy. I bet they are as old and wrinkled as I am these days, if they survived the drugs. Oh, those words were not to you, but redrover I think, or was it RDK? I get the modern liberals as opposed to genuine liberals confused. These modern liberals do not give one twit about working people. I think, they think, they are just too far beneath them. As Billary does, although they do put on a good act when around them. For their votes, especially if their skin is chocolate colored. Chocolate people have been such great marks for the confidence men in the democratic party. They play em' like a well worn beer joint fiddle. And the chocolate folks, having dancing in their souls, dance for them. As they did long ago before other white rulers enjoyed their enjoyable dancing. Watusi? Anyone?

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                            Apparently so, if my reply seems off base. But I wrote several posts in a row, and my posts are always never brief, and I am tired of posting on this subject right now. LOL. But, apologize for accusations not warranted. Now let me get back to my grateful dead record, put on my love beads, pull out the bong, and break the laws. So redrover will be happy. LOL. But, I did commit fornication with several of those free love hippy chicks back in the day. And that is as close as I ever got to being a hippy. I bet they are as old and wrinkled as I am these days, if they survived the drugs. Oh, those words were not to you, but redrover I think, or was it RDK? I get the modern liberals as opposed to genuine liberals confused. These modern liberals do not give one twit about working people. I think, they think, they are just too far beneath them. As Billary does, although they do put on a good act when around them. For their votes, especially if their skin is chocolate colored. Chocolate people have been such great marks for the confidence men in the democratic party. They play em' like a well worn beer joint fiddle. And the chocolate folks, having dancing in their souls, dance for them. As they did long ago before other white rulers enjoyed their enjoyable dancing. Watusi? Anyone?
                            I was a union man and never crossed a picket line in my life. Where goes Trump stand on unions? You know unions Joe Hill Woody Guthrie.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              I was a union man and never crossed a picket line in my life. Where goes Trump stand on unions? You know unions Joe Hill Woody Guthrie.
                              Unions became obsolete with labor laws.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                                Unions became obsolete with labor laws.
                                The service sector needs unions now. For we have a service sector economy, whereas in the past, the service sector was staffed by school kids, part timers, or adults using it as a stop gap job until they could get hired on with living wages in a factory.. I know several people long ago that did that, so it is factual.

                                The labor laws do not dictate that service sector workers earn living wages. Until they do, we need unions. With the service sector, we are at where we once was with factory workers. Who were not being paid enough to live on. Unions helped to change that. No doubt, one reason MNCs offshored to slave labor was to get out from under paying their workers enough to live on. It really is a bummer to have to pay your worker enough to have a roof over their heads, pay their utilities, and feed their families. Taxpayers are now subsidizing the service sector, in our service sector economy, so these businesses do not have to pay their workers enough to live on. Which is ludicrous, absurd, and immoral. No civilized society should ever put up with it. There is no natural law that dictates a less than high skilled job should pay starvation wages. I can remember when this was not the case. Then, business models changed, and taxpayers started subsidizing this more profitable business model. That is the reality here.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X