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

Prediction...

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

  • Prediction...

    First, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the USA is no longer a democratic constitutional republic, but an oligarchy, which is fascism. And that means that either Clinton on the democratic side and Bush on the GOP side would be the most obvious choice for President.

    This means that on the GOP side, the convention will be brokered, with Bush being chosen, perhaps with Cruz or Rubio, being VP. And if this is what happens, old BD was right all along, and many of the other people here were deluded, and the victims of a ruse. I do not want to be right, understand that, and would be happy as hell if the non oligarch candidates, sanders and trump run against each other.

    So the question is, will you then concede you are the victims of a delusion, and were fooled by a ruse? And would this be significant enough to change your beliefs when it comes to the GOP or the Dem. Party, enough so you vote against them both in the next election, by going 3rd party, for you would have nothing to lose if such a vote put in the party you have never voted for?


  • #2
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
    First, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the USA is no longer a democratic constitutional republic, but an oligarchy, which is fascism. And that means that either Clinton on the democratic side and Bush on the GOP side would be the most obvious choice for President.

    This means that on the GOP side, the convention will be brokered, with Bush being chosen, perhaps with Cruz or Rubio, being VP. And if this is what happens, old BD was right all along, and many of the other people here were deluded, and the victims of a ruse. I do not want to be right, understand that, and would be happy as hell if the non oligarch candidates, sanders and trump run against each other.

    So the question is, will you then concede you are the victims of a delusion, and were fooled by a ruse? And would this be significant enough to change your beliefs when it comes to the GOP or the Dem. Party, enough so you vote against them both in the next election, by going 3rd party, for you would have nothing to lose if such a vote put in the party you have never voted for?

    I have already stated, I will not vote for another establishment Republican.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
      First, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the USA is no longer a democratic constitutional republic, but an oligarchy, which is fascism. And that means that either Clinton on the democratic side and Bush on the GOP side would be the most obvious choice for President.

      This means that on the GOP side, the convention will be brokered, with Bush being chosen, perhaps with Cruz or Rubio, being VP. And if this is what happens, old BD was right all along, and many of the other people here were deluded, and the victims of a ruse. I do not want to be right, understand that, and would be happy as hell if the non oligarch candidates, sanders and trump run against each other.

      So the question is, will you then concede you are the victims of a delusion, and were fooled by a ruse? And would this be significant enough to change your beliefs when it comes to the GOP or the Dem. Party, enough so you vote against them both in the next election, by going 3rd party, for you would have nothing to lose if such a vote put in the party you have never voted for?
      You are correct; "... the USA is no longer a democratic constitutional republic, but an oligarchy, which is fascism."

      It's our own fault for allowing, even encouraging it.

      I hope as much as you that your prediction proves wrong.

      But I'm not confident that it will.

      As for a 3rd party having any chance against the entrenched corruption - from media all the way through to govt. ... again, I'm not confident in the possibility. Criminals don't give up power unless they're forced to. No, I'm not promoting violent revolution, just pointing out the nature of this beast.


      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
      I have already stated, I will not vote for another establishment Republican.
      Nor will I.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        I've never voted for a party, I've voted. for the best (or least damaging) person.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          I'm not sure whether the USA is an oligarchy, fascist police state, or run by corporations looking to expand their margins or something in between. It exhibits aspects of all three, as well as some tribal elements reminiscent of the Holy Roman Empire where each municipality has a greater degree of difference between them than say, Glascow or London, Dublin or Cork, Perth or Melbourne. The USA also has people living in the same communities who are radically different; black lives matter believers living side by side with people who think protesting police violence, or civil disobedience in general, is akin to terrorism. This isn't necessarily unexpected or a bad thing. Only when it creates political gridlock is it a cause for concern.

          Then there are the rest of the people, the 1/3 of people who don't vote, don't care about politics, don't know who their representative is, or have the vaguest idea where Glascow, Cork, or Melbourne are on a map.

          In any event, the USA is the oldest continuous modern democracy that humans have ever produced and the most powerful nation on Earth by a statistically incomprehensible margin, so I disagree with the notion that the next President/Party in power will not give me something to lose if elected. ​The next President could respond to a North Korean nuclear test with a nuclear strike if their leader insulted them personally, or if god told him so, or if opinion polls told them so. I also reject the notion that I was fooled by a ruse. I was against Bill Clinton's overuse of executive power as much as Dubya's.

          Unfortunately, because of my belief that the next election matters for both world peace and the global economy, I have to say I prefer Hillary to Trump, Cruz, Carson, Rubio, or Bush III. It's not a done deal though, Sanders could still pull off something great if his ground game is as good as some believe it is.

          If the US had Australia's STV system, which is worth consideration in my opinion, I would vote Sanders, Clinton, and then Rubio. Rubio seems honest enough, although I worry about how much religion would influence his policies.



          Also, I see Trump as the establishment candidate for corporate sponsored America, Cruz as the establishment candidate for the religious zealots, and Hillary as the establishment candidate for 90's based corporate focus groups. The only non-establishment candidates in this thing are Carson, Paul, and Sanders. Sorry, but Rubio still supports every talking point from the Koch, Norquist, etc field...

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post
            I'm not sure whether the USA is an oligarchy, fascist police state, or run by corporations looking to expand their margins or something in between. It exhibits aspects of all three, as well as some tribal elements reminiscent of the Holy Roman Empire where each municipality has a greater degree of difference between them than say, Glascow or London, Dublin or Cork, Perth or Melbourne. The USA also has people living in the same communities who are radically different; black lives matter believers living side by side with people who think protesting police violence, or civil disobedience in general, is akin to terrorism. This isn't necessarily unexpected or a bad thing. Only when it creates political gridlock is it a cause for concern.

            Then there are the rest of the people, the 1/3 of people who don't vote, don't care about politics, don't know who their representative is, or have the vaguest idea where Glascow, Cork, or Melbourne are on a map.

            In any event, the USA is the oldest continuous modern democracy that humans have ever produced and the most powerful nation on Earth by a statistically incomprehensible margin, so I disagree with the notion that the next President/Party in power will not give me something to lose if elected. ​The next President could respond to a North Korean nuclear test with a nuclear strike if their leader insulted them personally, or if god told him so, or if opinion polls told them so. I also reject the notion that I was fooled by a ruse. I was against Bill Clinton's overuse of executive power as much as Dubya's.

            Unfortunately, because of my belief that the next election matters for both world peace and the global economy, I have to say I prefer Hillary to Trump, Cruz, Carson, Rubio, or Bush III. It's not a done deal though, Sanders could still pull off something great if his ground game is as good as some believe it is.

            If the US had Australia's STV system, which is worth consideration in my opinion, I would vote Sanders, Clinton, and then Rubio. Rubio seems honest enough, although I worry about how much religion would influence his policies.



            Also, I see Trump as the establishment candidate for corporate sponsored America, Cruz as the establishment candidate for the religious zealots, and Hillary as the establishment candidate for 90's based corporate focus groups. The only non-establishment candidates in this thing are Carson, Paul, and Sanders. Sorry, but Rubio still supports every talking point from the Koch, Norquist, etc field...

            Personally, I can't see how anyone could actually consider Clinton. She is totally and horribly corrupt. I believe the most important quality in a world leader is moral values and Hillary and Bill have absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, none. I would vote for any of the other candidates before Hillary.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
              Personally, I can't see how anyone could actually consider Clinton. She is totally and horribly corrupt. I believe the most important quality in a world leader is moral values and Hillary and Bill have absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, none. I would vote for any of the other candidates before Hillary.
              Any other person would be in jail for the crimes Hillary is guilty of.

              Not Hilary. No, she gets to campaign for 'president.' ... it's bizarre watching her campaign, when she's not lying, her head is bobbing up and down like a bobble head - which makes me think she may have some real health issues. I highly doubt she has any chance to end up as the president whatever the case. She's just too hard to believe, respect or like.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                Personally, I can't see how anyone could actually consider Clinton. She is totally and horribly corrupt. I believe the most important quality in a world leader is moral values and Hillary and Bill have absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, none. I would vote for any of the other candidates before Hillary.

                The question was whether I would go for a 3rd party candidate if it was Clinton vs Trump, Cruz, or any other GOP candidate. Clinton's consistent proximity to controversy worries me, as does having Bill in the White House with her, but I would still rather her than any GOP candidate and therefor wouldn't want to throw my vote away in a protest vote.

                Clinton may be corrupt, but so is Trump. Just look how many times he has been investigated, involved in lawsuits, and his list of scandals. Cruz's statements on religion and his blind hatred of all things Democrat make him a very poor choice IMO. Rubio seems on the level, I'm just against his policies of cutting social spending while increasing military spending and cutting taxes for the wealthy. I would go for Hillary ahead of all of them. Although its too early to count Sanders out just yet.


                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                Any other person would be in jail for the crimes Hillary is guilty of.

                Not Hilary. No, she gets to campaign for 'president.' ... it's bizarre watching her campaign, when she's not lying, her head is bobbing up and down like a bobble head - which makes me think she may have some real health issues. I highly doubt she has any chance to end up as the president whatever the case. She's just too hard to believe, respect or like.

                So what is the big lie that she is guilty of? Deleting her emails? She mishandled Benghazi and she has said as much. What crimes? Mishandling classified information happens on a daily basis in Washington since everything gets classified these days.

                Mental health issues, give me a break, Trump is an egotistical maniac who insults and name calls anyone he disagrees with.

                Cruz thinks he can talk to god and people get sick because they don't pray.

                Carson thinks the Pyramids were build as grain storage and has violent tendencies.

                Bush is a Bush... nothing further needs to be said there.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by .3dontVoteParty View Post
                  So what is the big lie that she is guilty of? Deleting her emails? She mishandled Benghazi and she has said as much. What crimes? Mishandling classified information happens on a daily basis in Washington since everything gets classified these days.

                  Mental health issues, give me a break, Trump is an egotistical maniac who insults and name calls anyone he disagrees with.

                  Cruz thinks he can talk to god and people get sick because they don't pray.

                  Carson thinks the Pyramids were build as grain storage and has violent tendencies.

                  Bush is a Bush... nothing further needs to be said there.
                  Sounds like you think you know ... everything. I'm very happy you've got it all figured out - for now.

                  You're clearly still gathering information. Be careful when you read is all I can advise. For example I said; "...when she's not lying, her head is bobbing up and down like a bobble head - which makes me think she may have some real health issues."

                  Nothing in there about mental health.... but that certainly is something to consider with the Clintons !

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post


                    Personally, I can't see how anyone could actually consider Clinton. She is totally and horribly corrupt. I believe the most important quality in a world leader is moral values and Hillary and Bill have absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, none. I would vote for any of the other candidates before Hillary.
                    I keep asking myself, WHY would any democrat, unless they are in the upper 1 percent, vote for this corporate, banking cabal owned Clinton? I cannot comprehend it, if they are actually progressives, in the way most democratic voters once were. She is a big money candidate, who will never represent the economic interests of any average American. She is a GOP lite, for that is where Clinton, Bill, moved the democratic party in the 90s. But why the voters, working people, moved right is incomprehensible. The real answer is probably because all of these people who would vote for Clinton have no clue what Hilary actually is. OWNED by the elites, just like the GOP is.

                    If it comes down between clinton and trump, trump will get my vote. For he is attacking free trade and illegal immigration, and perhaps even HB1 visas, if he remains consistent. And he is anti GOP, which is a party of the oligarchs. All of these so called conservatives running for president, are certainly enablers of the oligarchy. So they are not conservatives at all, but neoliberals, who call themselves conservative. A real conservative would never have allowed the offshoring of our industry, which is what makes any nation powerful. So these so called conservatives have duped the conservative voter, and fed them a long lasting ruse, whether its cruz or Rubio.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                      I keep asking myself, WHY would any democrat, unless they are in the upper 1 percent, vote for this corporate, banking cabal owned Clinton? I cannot comprehend it, if they are actually progressives, in the way most democratic voters once were. She is a big money candidate, who will never represent the economic interests of any average American. She is a GOP lite, for that is where Clinton, Bill, moved the democratic party in the 90s. But why the voters, working people, moved right is incomprehensible. The real answer is probably because all of these people who would vote for Clinton have no clue what Hilary actually is. OWNED by the elites, just like the GOP is.

                      If it comes down between clinton and trump, trump will get my vote. For he is attacking free trade and illegal immigration, and perhaps even HB1 visas, if he remains consistent. And he is anti GOP, which is a party of the oligarchs. All of these so called conservatives running for president, are certainly enablers of the oligarchy. So they are not conservatives at all, but neoliberals, who call themselves conservative. A real conservative would never have allowed the offshoring of our industry, which is what makes any nation powerful. So these so called conservatives have duped the conservative voter, and fed them a long lasting ruse, whether its cruz or Rubio.

                      I'm trying to explain it. I personally can't fathom how anyone would vote for Trump. His rhetoric alone is enough to disqualify him to be commander-in-chief.

                      I'll just make some quick points and leave it at that. Both Trump and Clinton are big money candidates. Trump is a billionaire, and just look how he made his money. Casinos, Real Estate, and Reality TV. He has big business ingrained in his soul. He supported the bailouts. He consistently gave money to big government candidates. He took advantage of tax loopholes and declared bankruptcy 4 times. On the big money issue I think Clinton and Trump are tied.

                      Hillary may be GOP lite, as I think she governs by polling data, but so does Trump. He used to be pro-choice, pro-gun control, thought gay rights was a state issue, and marijuana was a states issue. His economic plan is basically Bernie's plan. Give me all your money, simplify the tax code, and raise tariffs. Although his darling loopholes to close are ones that would benefit the wealthy the most (death tax, capital gains, interest carried, etc...) He used to favor single payer health care, rather strongly too. He favors student loan forgiveness. On foreign policy, although every single American and indeed citizen of the world favors bomb bomb bombing ISIS and then bombing them again, he also says let Russia sort it out, and the US shouldn't do anything about Ukraine. He also supports cutting defense spending, which mathematically will have to come eventually.

                      Really the main differences between Trump and Hillary are on immigration and civil rights. If this election is to be a referendum on immigration and civil rights, I think it shows where the US is as a nation. Wars, shrinking labor force, shrinking middle class, kids who will be worse off than their parents, and the US focuses on keeping poor people out? I don't think the US is there yet, which is precisely why Trump, Cruz, and to a lesser extent Rubio poll so poorly in Virginia and Ohio. In every general election poll that's been conducted there Trump and Cruz are beaten by Hillary OR Sanders by 10+ points and Rubio is also consistently behind other GOP candidates. If Trump or Cruz get the nomination, I think Virginia is a lock for Democrats and then they would only need to pick off one of the other swing states to win the White House. They're both too divisive.

                      So again, why anyone would consider Trump commander-in-chief material or the smart pick to defeat Hillary is beyond me. I would love to hear anyone's explanation.

                      I'm also not sure why Rubio would be considered an establishment Republican? I hope he doesn't get the nomination because he would be the Republican's best bet to win the general election. He polls poorly in Virginia, but out of the other candidates (Ultra-establishment Bush, not sure what his qualification is Carson, or 'the others') , he's the best pick. Similar dynamics in Ohio, but within the margin of error. He might even pick off Pennsylvania, although it's a long shot. And he would really help drive the Hispanic vote out in the west and Florida. I'd say he's right down the line tea-party except on immigration. But the GOP held House could hijack him for their purposes and I don't think he'd block anything. Rubio doesn't have any of the balanced budget ideas like raising taxes on the wealthy or closing loopholes that the country needs, but he was opposed to the bailout of the big banks. I gotta give him credit for that. And I'd just look forward to all the Poland Spring commercials that would get made. Wow, I can't believe I'm here advocating for Rubio.

                      I actually wouldn't mind if the election was about real issues, not Trump/Cruz/Clinton talking points on things that don't really matter. I think it's interesting how in all the swing state general election polling Rubio does better than Trump/Cruz, and Sanders does better than Hillary. Sanders beat Trump by 13 points in Iowa in one poll. Hillary can't match that, at least not in swing states. I know she has ties to the establishment, but Trump would be far worse for the country. If it wasn't for all his rhetoric I might support him too, but insulting minorities and generally insulting everyone, I think is not presidential. You can't call for banning Muslims from even travelling to the US and call yourself the leader of the free world.

                      For me it's Sanders or bust. Clinton would be the lesser of two evils but nothing would change with the way Congress works and how Republicans hate her.

                      So much for quick points.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Yeah, I think we agree more than disagree. And for me its Sanders too, although if Clinton wins the primary, and Trump also does, I would have to vote for Trump, but because of this....

                        It’s tempting to think that Wall Street would like the idea of a President Trump. He is, after all, a businessman.
                        But his pugnacious economic policies would be a dramatic challenge to the Wall Street economic consensus that has ruled U.S. politics since at least the 1980s. In many ways, his proposals are even more outside the economic orthodoxy taught at business schools than Sanders’. (For instance, in modern orthodoxy all tariffs are anathema. Few today understand how tariffs helped transform America’s economy in the Victorian era
                        For myself, I really don't give a damn about social issues, only economic and trade issues, given that I am an old FDR progressive. And Clinton is a free trading, banking cabal, wall street globalist, and that insanity is destroying this country of average people. But as everyone knows here, I have been ranting about this insane economic model since day one. I am obsessed with it, but only because it is destroying my country, and hurting my class of people. So I have no time for social issues. When you are up to your arse in gators, one must not forget the goal was to drain the swamp.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                          First, I think the evidence is overwhelming that the USA is no longer a democratic constitutional republic, but an oligarchy, which is fascism. And that means that either Clinton on the democratic side and Bush on the GOP side would be the most obvious choice for President.

                          This means that on the GOP side, the convention will be brokered, with Bush being chosen, perhaps with Cruz or Rubio, being VP. And if this is what happens, old BD was right all along, and many of the other people here were deluded, and the victims of a ruse. I do not want to be right, understand that, and would be happy as hell if the non oligarch candidates, sanders and trump run against each other.

                          So the question is, will you then concede you are the victims of a delusion, and were fooled by a ruse? And would this be significant enough to change your beliefs when it comes to the GOP or the Dem. Party, enough so you vote against them both in the next election, by going 3rd party, for you would have nothing to lose if such a vote put in the party you have never voted for?
                          If Hillary or Bush become president I will not wear egg on my face as I am well aware of the corruption in Washington and though I hope, pray, and think the citizens have woke up and will not let it happen, I'm not confident enough to believe enough citizens have come out of their coma to guarantee a non establishment candidate and fight back against the corruption.

                          However, I will say this:

                          I am 89% confident that Cruz is who I believe him to be. The 10% of doubt comes from knowing you can't trust anyone 100%, (except for perhaps a few who are close to you). And the 1% doubt I have is in Cruz, (because I still have some unanswered questions.

                          My desires come from my own beliefs opposed to my beliefs coming from Cruz's desires. So you'll have to trust me on this one.

                          If Cruz becomes president or is granted an executive position and does not turn out to be the person that I am 89% sure he is. I will concede that I am the victim of, (not delusion), but illusion, and I was fooled by a ruse.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                            Yeah, I think we agree more than disagree. And for me its Sanders too, although if Clinton wins the primary, and Trump also does, I would have to vote for Trump, but because of this....



                            For myself, I really don't give a damn about social issues, only economic and trade issues, given that I am an old FDR progressive. And Clinton is a free trading, banking cabal, wall street globalist, and that insanity is destroying this country of average people. But as everyone knows here, I have been ranting about this insane economic model since day one. I am obsessed with it, but only because it is destroying my country, and hurting my class of people. So I have no time for social issues. When you are up to your arse in gators, one must not forget the goal was to drain the swamp.
                            I am in agreement with you that the foreign trade we engage is destroying our country. Where we differ is whether free trade ever had a place and does it have a place now. We have to consider or the export workers that will loose jobs if we slam down free trade by law.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by msc View Post
                              I am in agreement with you that the foreign trade we engage is destroying our country. Where we differ is whether free trade ever had a place and does it have a place now. We have to consider or the export workers that will loose jobs if we slam down free trade by law.
                              If we added back the millions of jobs, living wage jobs lost by offshoring (this is not free trade) and deducted the jobs that are involved in exports, we would have a net gain of jobs, in favor of my argument. And we should never forget that every nation that we indulge in free trade with, makes us run trade deficets. This does not help the average working guy,

                              The only sane model, is the same model we had, beginning with Washington, that ran until Reagan. You protect your own industry, and standard of living of your own people, by tariffs which take care of the different in wages between the US and a nation which has dirt poor people being exploited for their labor. This served the world, for hundreds of years, that is, the people in each nation. But it did not serve the elites, for they cannot max out profits, if you have a nation employing its people with living wages. This is just the fact, and the last 35 years prove this fact. We were sold a bill of goods, that said globalization would cause all boats to rise, increase American worker prosperity, expand the middle, when common sense, as Perot laid out, said the contrary. Perot was right, and the neoliberals in the GOP and Dem party were utterly wrong, which they knew already, but just did not care.

                              China is now trying to move towards making what they consume, instead of being an export dependent economy. They are following the model we used to have, which has proven, while not to be perfect, will always benefit any nation's working people optimally. We already know which model gives the greatest prosperity and employment, reducing poverty numbers, for we used it for our entire history until Reagan came into office.. We now can see what the misnomer of free trade, for it isn't free trade, its a tool to offshore jobs for great profits of our elites. Free trade only works when the nation you are trading with, has the basic same costs as you do. To free trade with a nation that our corporations move to, in order to get cheap labor, is not what free trade used to be. If you want to gut out a nation, and impoverish her people, the current free trade will do that, magnificently, and has. I really do not think, given the current state of the US, which will only get worse, can be used to justify what we call free trade. In fact, it screams to stop the insanity, before we socially implode from the inability of too many americans to thrive and survive by their work.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X