Donald Trump just took a big dip in a major poll

by Original Quill Fri Jun 10, 2016 7:09 pm

Yahoo Politics wrote:Donald Trump just took a nosedive in the latest Fox News poll.

Released on Thursday, Trump dropped six points from his position in last month's Fox poll. In May, Trump held a 45% to 42% lead over the now presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton.

But this month, Trump found himself trailing Clinton by a 42% to 39% spread.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee lost three points with self-identified Republicans and a whopping 11 points with independents.

The poll surveyed 1,004 registered voters from June 5 to 8. The margin of error was plus or minus 3 points.

The results coincide with what's been a less-than-stellar week for Trump. He's been caught up in his latest self-inflicted firestorm — this time relating to attacks he's launched at a federal judge over his Mexican heritage.

The Manhattan billionaire said that US District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel cannot fairly preside over a civil case involving his now defunct for-profit real-estate school, Trump University, because he is of Mexican descent and Trump will be "building a wall" along the US-Mexico border if elected in the fall. Curiel is from Indiana.

Republicans from all sides of the party have publicly condemned the remarks and demanded that Trump change his tone. In a Tuesday-afternoon statement, Trump took a step back from the attacks but did not apologize. He made no mention of his attacks against the judge in his prepared post-primary speech later that night.

by eddie Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:06 pm

It was always a foregone conclusion that Hilary Climton would win.
Why is anyone surprised?

by Original Quill Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:45 pm

The surprise...the phenomenon we are all looking at...is that Donald Trump has survived this long. The only question is, when will it happen?

Perceptive observers are watching the bigger question: what does it all mean? Clearly there is massive dissatisfaction, but no willingness to change among Republicans. Conservatives say more conservatism; racists say no more black presidents or Hispanic residents; the wealthy say no taxes while white-supremacists say more guns.

Only the Democrats and liberals seem to be holding it together. You don't suppose...

by Andy Sun Jun 12, 2016 9:55 am

To all our American friends, in God's name keep Trump OUT.
He will have his fat finger on the nuclear trigger and it is aimed in our direction.
My preferred option is for a deranged ( or sensible) whack job to assassinate him before the election.
He is the catalyst for WW3, and cannot be allowed to have that power.
Clinton was correct that he is not mentally stable enough to weild such authority.
It only happens in the world of Sci-fi and James Bond.

by eddie Sun Jun 12, 2016 10:21 am

There is a huge rumour doing the internet that Clinton is about to get lambasted over something very very naughty.

For me, it's the devil and the deep blue sea and if I were American I'd vote for neither of them.

Anyone remember Bill Clinton? He was pure nastiness.
What makes you think his wife is any better?
And trump. Evil personified.

by Andy Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:43 am

Ha Clinton.
So good ,women gave him a kneeling ovation!

by 'Wolfie Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:51 am

AND everybody knows how factual, reliable and consistent all of those wild 'rumours' and predictions across the Internet are !!!

ONE ONLY has to look at a lot of that crazy "evidence" that Tommy, Stormee and Dodge often drag up to defend and bolster their positions..

IT was probably one of Trump's publicists who started the latest rumours in the first place . Razz

by Andy Sun Jun 12, 2016 12:26 pm

Stormee and and Tommy are Trump's love children. The spawns of the devil.

by Miffs2 Sun Jun 12, 2016 3:13 pm

There has been rumours flying around about Hillary Clinton for years. Nothing ever proven.

by Original Quill Sun Jun 12, 2016 4:30 pm

I agree Nems. The only problem with the Clinton's was Bill's philandering. He was a pretty good president, who left the US treasury with about $260-billion in it. By way of comparison, Republicans GWB/Cheney left the US treasury with a deficit of $17-trillion. So much for conservative thriftiness and responsibility.

Hillary is no problem. The Republicans are in a lot of trouble. People are angry about the Republican McConnell-Boehner doctrine (work against the US interest as long as a black president is in office), which has had the effect of trashing the US, with equal parts conservative and liberal. We can't build back the infrastructure, but then we can't fight ISIS either, because Congress won't act.

The question is how to marry voter hostility toward the Republican McConnell-Boehner doctrine with other traditional conservative values. Trump is a non-partisan insulter--this time it's Mexicans, next time its veterans. He has gotten this far because he is an outsider willing to cast aspersions on a black president. But, he also won't start a war, and he applauds Russians--crossing two important Republican values.

So, particularly now that the field has opened to the general electorate (ie, not just the primaries), Trump is beginning to feel like not the answer. His poll numbers, I believe, are reflecting that sentiment.

by Cass Sun Jun 12, 2016 5:37 pm

President Clinton's morals and ethics were to me, disgusting, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he was a very successful President. I did get pissed with him when he lied and he should have been up front about it.

The rumors around Hillary are just that, rumors.

More and more I am really disliking living in the age of 24/7 social media because most of it is wrong, downright lies meant to hurt somebody. What a nice way to live Rolling Eyes

by Ben Reilly Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:02 pm

Here are two good questions:

1) Shouldn't the President of the United States listen to criticism?

2) Can you see Trump doing that?

by Original Quill Sun Jun 12, 2016 7:35 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:Here are two good questions:

1) Shouldn't the President of the United States listen to criticism?

2) Can you see Trump doing that?

Well frankly, to hear insider Republicans--for example, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell--Trump has agreed to quiet it down after sit-down meetings with them.

The real problem is, Will he have the same draw if he isn't outrageous? Iconoclasm appears to be the order of the day among die-hard Trump supporters. They don't really care what he is saying, as long as he is tearing down the icons of American politics.

As we move into the general election cycle this will all probably wash away. The general population of voters just want to flush him like an ambrosial turd before dinner is over.

by eddie Sun Jun 12, 2016 10:51 pm

Miffs2 wrote:There has been rumours flying around about Hillary Clinton for years. Nothing ever proven.

No there's something big coming, apparently.

by Andy Sun Jun 12, 2016 11:16 pm

eddie wrote:
Miffs2 wrote:There has been rumours flying around about Hillary Clinton for years. Nothing ever proven.

No there's something big coming, apparently.

Bill's c*ck , straight into Monica's mouth again?

by eddie Mon Jun 13, 2016 12:32 am

Handy Andy wrote:
eddie wrote:
Miffs2 wrote:There has been rumours flying around about Hillary Clinton for years. Nothing ever proven.

No there's something big coming, apparently.

Bill's c*ck , straight into Monica's mouth again?

Hahahahah spot on I reckon

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 13, 2016 3:52 pm

There's always "something big coming" when it comes to prominent liberal figures. That's how the American right operates, they always have a "bombshell tape" or a "video that reveals the truth" that somehow never seems to materialize.

These bombshell tapes are probably, of course, being confiscated by the globalists, bankers, lizard people or whichever other code word for Jews you prefer Laughing

by eddie Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:05 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:There's always "something big coming" when it comes to prominent liberal figures. That's how the American right operates, they always have a "bombshell tape" or a "video that reveals the truth" that somehow never seems to materialize.

These bombshell tapes are probably, of course, being confiscated by the globalists, bankers, lizard people or whichever other code word for Jews you prefer

I've always called them bomblewonkas.

by Original Quill Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:13 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:There's always "something big coming" when it comes to prominent liberal figures. That's how the American right operates, they always have a "bombshell tape" or a "video that reveals the truth" that somehow never seems to materialize.

These bombshell tapes are probably, of course, being confiscated by the globalists, bankers, lizard people or whichever other code word for Jews you prefer

I was thinking the same thing. Only, I'm so out of breath I'm saying to myself, why bother? Republicans have always bragged about something coming just 'round the bend, and it inevitably turns out to be only self-confirming trash to support self-confirming trash. Argument by lifting by your own bootstraps.

If you're not Republican or conservative, you don't even see the point. You're sure not going to get excited with more evidence to support the non-point 'that's coming'. Benghazi? Ho-hum, another battle in the war we started. During the George W. Bush period, there were 13 attacks on various embassies and consulates around the world. Sixty people died. In Karachi, there was a death of one of our diplomats, You see? How am I supposed to get excited when the only thing different is the party?

Emails? The State Department investigation concluded that past secretaries of state, including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice's immediate staff, "handled classified material on unclassified email systems." You see? Again, how am I supposed to get excited when the only thing different is the governing party?

Something big coming? The only thing big coming from the right is another massive lie. Republicans and conservatives have to lie in order to create distractions. From what? Why from the fact that they are incessantly working to rip off the people. More oil. Lucrative contracts for tanks and bombs...to kill babies, in a war that makes money only for the massive military/industrial complex. Shut down regulators so there can't be any forewarning of a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Oppose a national healthcare system so the medical and pharma industries can continue to truck and barter over our lives. ...the beat goes on.

Something big indeed...pfffttt. Rolling Eyes

by Ben Reilly Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:16 pm

More on the emails -- remember when the Bush White House "lost" as many as 22 million e-mails?

Donald Trump just took a big dip in a major poll 2396444674

by Original Quill Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:23 pm

Full story follows:

Pensito Review wrote:Flashback: Rove Erases 22 Million White House Emails on Private Server at Height of U.S. Attorney Scandal – Media Yawns
JON PONDER

Now that they’ve taken control of Congress, Republicans are wielding power much the same way they did in the Clinton era and for the six years afterward when they controlled the White House and Congress under George W. Bush: ineptly — ex. 1, 2, 3, etc.

Then as now, it’s clear that the only thing Republicans do very well is inflame the media with bogus scandals — which is a handy way to distract attention from their ineptitude. They are doing this with their usual aplomb, and considerable success, in the matter of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private server to send emails.

Clinton has said she deleted about 50,000 emails that dealt with personal matters, citing her daughter’s wedding and her mother’s funeral as examples. All the correspondence pertaining to official business was turned over to and archived by State. The deletion of the emails, though perfectly legal, has excited House Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner, who has announced plans to deploy House committees to investigate what might aptly be called Servergate.

Never mind that former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a Republican, has said he used a system similar to Clinton’s — and never mind that in 2007 Karl Rove deleted 22 million emails from a private server in the Bush White House — a matter about which the Beltway media said little and Republicans in Congress, like Rep. John Boehner, said nothing.

Here is a brief refresher on the White House email scandal:

Not long after George W. Bush assumed the presidency in 2001, Rove, his top political aide, set up a private email server for use in the White House. The stated purpose of the system — the primary domain name on which was gwb43.com — was that it would be used exclusively for the sort of political correspondence that Bush and Rove were not permitted to do on the taxpayer’s dime.

Seven years later, Bush and Rove were embroiled in two competing scandals — the Valerie Plame scandal, in which operatives for Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, including Rove and Scooter Libby, were accused of unmasking Valerie Plame, a CIA specialist in the black market for weapons of mass destruction, for purely partisan reasons, and the U.S. Attorney purge, in which Rove’s political operation in the White House was accused of ordering Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to purge eight U.S. attorneys who were qualified prosecutors and replace them with political hacks with little or no prosecutorial experience.

Rove escaped prosecution in the Libby case, but Libby was convicted (Bush quickly commuted the sentence) on March 6, 2007, at the same time Bush and Rove were under fire for purging the U.S. attorneys. During the investigation, it came to light that Rove’s server had been used to send official, non-political emails — correspondence that was required by law to be preserved under the Presidential Records Act.

On April 12, 2007, Rove’s operation admitted that it had deleted at least 5 million emails from the server. In December 2009, technicians who had examined the server reported that the number of emails that had been deleted was far greater — 22 million.

What was in the emails? No one will ever know. It’s likely as not that there was incriminating evidence in the correspondence that tied Rove and others to the treasonous exposure of Agent Plame (which, at a minimum, was a violation of government security), the U.S. attorneys’ purge and perhaps other scandals, including the inquiry into charges that Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff had used his entre with others in the GOP to bribe government officials. Abramoff was in prison serving the first year of his sentence when the email scandal broke.

But what sort of evidence might have been lost in the 50,000 emails Hillary Clinton deleted? The insinuation from Republicans is that something dispositive about the Benghazi scandal might have been erased. It’s hard to guess what that might have been. What the GOP seems to be looking for in its eight investigations into Benghazi, so far, is a stand-down order issued by the State Department or the White House to the military that left the Benghazi consulate vulnerable to the attack that ensued. These Republicans know, of course, that the Secretary of State doesn’t have the authority to issue orders to the military.

Given that, there’s no question that the coverage of the Clinton email “scandal” is out of scale, but how does the incessant media coverage today stack up against the scandal seven years ago when Rove’s political operation in the White House erased 22 million emails many of which likely included evidence of serious crimes?

Last week, the fact-checking organization Politifact, which tends to skew to the right, compared coverage of the two scandals. Here’s it’s verdict:

We did a search through Lexis-Nexis, a research service that tracks news articles and transcripts, between March and May 2007. We found more than 125 transcripts from the major cable networks and National Public Radio that include “Republican National Committee” and “email” within 10 words of each other.

The Lexis-Nexis search also yielded more than 200 related newspaper articles across the country within the same time frame.

Let’s compare that to coverage of the Clinton controversy.

Since the story broke March 3, 2015 — two weeks ago — we found 204 cable and public radio transcripts that include “Clinton” and “email.” We also found 1,700 newspaper articles across the country.

That’s several times as many articles and transcripts about Clinton than there were about the Bush email controversy in a quarter of the time. It’s a rough measurement, but clearly there has been more media attention on Clinton’s use of private email than that of the White House staffers.

Even so, Politifact rated the claim that coverage of Clinton’s email deletions is out of scale compared with coverage of Rove’s in 2007 is “mostly false.”

Wait. What?

In the Rove scandal, there were 125 broadcast reports and 200 newspaper articles over three months about the millions of deleted emails. Today, in just two weeks there have been 200 broadcast reports and 1,700 newspaper articles about the 50,000 deleted emails.

And yet Politifact finds the assertion that there’s been more coverage of Clinton than there was of Rove to be “mostly false.” How did they do that?

Simple. Politifact keyed its verdict to a Fox pundit’s hyperbolic statement there was “zero coverage” of Rove’s scandal when it broke. So, yeah, it’s “mostly false” that there was “zero coverage.”

Republicans’ objective in using its lapdogs in the “liberal media” to exaggerate the Clinton emails controversy is to damage her image in advance of her run for the presidency. Polls show that their strategy is working — while Hillary Clinton remains the odds-on favorite among Democratic voters, her approval rating has slipped among all voters in polls released since the email deletions came to light.

At least Republicans are good at something.

And that would be...lying.

by eddie Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:36 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:More on the emails -- remember when the Bush White House "lost" as many as 22 million e-mails?

So this was a "something big" that happened then? Wink

by Original Quill Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:34 pm

eddie wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:More on the emails -- remember when the Bush White House "lost" as many as 22 million e-mails?

So this was a "something big" that happened then?

Except as the article I posted pointed out, the 'media yawned'.

The difference is that the Democrats don't even deal in such fictional drama. If Karl Rove wants to use a private server for his emails, or if he wants to delete emails, Democrats don't make an issue of it. (Its only an issue here and now as an example of the difference between the parties.) You'll notice that the email criticism is without a single incident of harm; Republicans have not found one email sent by HRC that is a violation of the Espionage Act...even accidentally. So the Democrats don't build the huge, specious issues, with congressional hearings, and speeches, to tell the lie over and over so that it is eventually entertained, if not exactly believed. They deal in the public interest, and not irrelevancies.

Lie-making is an enterprise that only Republicans must engage. That is because Republicans must deflect the people's vision--Look over there, not over here! They don't want the people to see that Republicans are working against the interests of the people. That is why you observe Republicans so consumed by investigations, spin and...well, face it, plain old lies.

by eddie Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:39 pm

You keep saying that about the right Quill, but our country was led by two lefties, Blair and Brown and they were bent and crooked as they come.

by Guest Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:41 pm

eddie wrote:You keep saying that about the right Quill, but our country was led by two lefties, Blair and Brown and they were bent and crooked as they come.

This is the mindset of a regressive

Its not okay to claim and rightly so to claim groups people classed as races are inferior

Its not ok to claim religious people are inferior

Its okay for the regressive to claim people with political beliefs, which can change left to right are inferior

In each case its a belief people have, 2 is fine for the regressive to defend against, the other they argue as if racist

by Original Quill Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:42 pm

eddie wrote:You keep saying that about the right Quill, but our country was led by two lefties, Blair and Brown and they were bent and crooked as they come.

Brown was after the smoke. Blair was an anomaly, which I attribute to British diffidence. Blair couldn't wait to be the puppy-dog in Bush's lap.

I'm still mad at the Brits for that one. We liberals have a common purpose to beat back the selfishness of conservatives. Blair let us down.

by eddie Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:43 pm

Paul Ettinger wrote:
eddie wrote:You keep saying that about the right Quill, but our country was led by two lefties, Blair and Brown and they were bent and crooked as they come.

This is the mindset of a regressive

Its not okay to claim and rightly so to claim groups people classed as races are inferior

Its not ok to claim religious people are inferior

Its okay for the regressive to claim people with political beliefs, which can change left to right are inferior

In each case its a belief people have, 2 is fine for the regressive to defend against, the other they argue as if racist

Was that post aimed at me? scratch

by Original Quill Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:45 pm

didge wrote:Its okay for the regressive to claim people with political beliefs, which can change left to right are inferior

Political beliefs are self-selecting and self-identifying. Blacks are called inferior by other people's voices.

Even you should be able to figure that one out. Didge...put one block on top of the block next to it. Repeat as necessary. That is how you construct a theory. Also, how you understand one.

by Original Quill Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:48 pm

eddie wrote:Was that post aimed at me?

No, it's already been taken care of.

by Guest Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:51 pm

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:Its okay for the regressive to claim people with political beliefs, which can change left to right are inferior

Political beliefs are self-selecting and self-identifying. Blacks are called inferior by other people's voices.

Even you should be able to figure that one out. Didge...put one block on top of the block next to it. Repeat as necessary. That is how you construct a theory. Also, how you understand one.

Religious beliefs are not people and yet its against the law to discriminate against a religious person for their belief.

So again you have just proven you are a political bigot and discriminate like a racist doies

by Original Quill Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:43 pm

Paul Ettinger wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Political beliefs are self-selecting and self-identifying. Blacks are called inferior by other people's voices.

Even you should be able to figure that one out. Didge...put one block on top of the block next to it. Repeat as necessary. That is how you construct a theory. Also, how you understand one.

Religious beliefs are not people and yet its against the law to discriminate against a religious person for their belief.

So again you have just proven you are a political bigot and discriminate like a racist doies

You build a theory by placing one block on the other. You understand a theory by reverse-engineering the process. Galileo discovered the method and called it the resolutive-composite method. Every buck private recruit in the Army learns it when he is taught to assemble and disassemble his rifle.

When you disassemble the theory make sure you keep all equivalencies together, and separated from other components. Eg, all screws together; all straps together; all slides together, etc. OK?

Now when you mix them indiscriminately, you confuse things like ideas and the people who believe them. Don't do that. Don't confuse rednecks for racism: rednecks are people who hold racist beliefs and racist beliefs are what rednecks hold.

didge wrote:Religious beliefs are not people and yet its against the law to discriminate against a religious person for their belief.

The key is "...for their belief." What you have just done is confuse the beliefs with the holder of the beliefs. People hold beliefs; they are not synonymous with the beliefs. People are not bad; some beliefs are bad. Eg., people=good; censorship=bad. Hence, laws that tend to prohibit any religious beliefs are bad under the First Amendment. Holders of those beliefs are thereby protected.

Differentiate between the beliefs and the person whose belief it is.

by Guest Mon Jun 13, 2016 10:45 pm

1) Gibberish failing to understanding you are prejudiced and are so to those politically RW
That is no different to discrminating and being prejudiced towards people with religious beliefs.

2) Repeat first point

3) Repeat first and second point

by Original Quill Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:29 am

didge wrote:Its okay for the regressive to claim people with political beliefs, which can change left to right are inferior

I gather you are talking about the frequent claim that RW'ers are inferior in rationality. It's not that they are inferior. They are lazy, which is inferior.

Think about what a conservative means. To conserve is to stay the same, to not put forth any effort, to neglect needs and become dormant. Without activity, muscles atrophy. The same with the brain...without exercise one loses the ability to reason. Ergo, to be a conservative is to be neglectful, slothful and ultimately lose the ability to use the mind. If they have any vaiues, they revolve around selfishness and Smithsonian theories.

The opposite is true for liberals. Liberals are unselfishly mindful of the needs of others in society, energetic and dedicated, constantly exercising their minds to think up new inventions and means to make life better. And because they exercise their minds, they are sharper mentally in all areas.

Now these are just facts. The old saying is, you snooze you lose. It is in that sense that I say one moving from LW to RW is inferior...but it's a self-made inferiority. Conservatives are grown lethargic and inactive. That person has grown lazy and developed slothful habits.

Granted they are simple facts, ones that explain RW and LW rather well; but they are no more complex than observing that a dog that hasn't eaten lately tends to be hungry. A mind that doesn't exercise thought tends to be stupid.

So I'm not talking about status or genetic stupidity. When I see a conservative I see a person who has chosen the easy road, and views selfishness as his standard. He wants to get from point A to point B with minimal effort, and opts to cheat others as the easier path. He has limited his own horizons...made choices...so that it's not at all a biological sentence, as is race and racism.

by Guest Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:34 am

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:Its okay for the regressive to claim people with political beliefs, which can change left to right are inferior

I gather you are talking about the frequent claim that RW'ers are inferior in rationality. It's not that they are inferior. They are lazy, which is inferior.

Think about what a conservative means. To conserve is to stay the same, to not put forth any effort, to neglect needs and become dormant. Without activity, muscles atrophy. The same with the brain...without exercise one loses the ability to reason. Ergo, to be a conservative is to be neglectful, slothful and ultimately lose the ability to use the mind. If they have any vaiues, they revolve around selfishness and Smithsonian theories.

The opposite is true for liberals. They are unselfishly mindful of the needs of others in society, energetic and dedicated, and because they exercise their minds, they are sharper mentally.

Now these are just facts. The old saying is, you snooze you lose. It is in that sense that I say one moving from LW to RW is inferior...it's a self-made inferiority. That person has grown lazy and developed slothful habits.

Granted they are facts that explain RW and LW rather well; but they are no more complex than observing that a dog that hasn't eaten lately tends to be hungry. A mind that doesn't exercise thought tends to be stupid.

No iam talking about the methodology you use is no bettet than racistas and homophobes how you sterotype.
Sterotypes are born from a prejudice against people and in your case its people right wing as a group.
RW politics is a belief system, not a religious belief, but a set of ideals, which vary greatly between people.
You claim you are liberal, but you contradict liberal values, but that is geuine criticism, that is not saying all Liberals are hypocrites, as you would state against RW people. Not only that people change their views and if a person is protected from discrimination because of their beliefs, as we all have equality under ther law. Then you show the worst double standards for attacking them for their beliefs. Unless of course you rightly believe its acceptable to be critical of beleifs, which then makes your views to me on islam hypocritical. Its not people that are being criticized but beliefs, but you are prejudiced of people due to their beliefs, which is no better than racist, homophobes etc you argue the same on their persepctive ignorant points

by Original Quill Tue Jun 14, 2016 5:55 am

didge wrote:Sterotypes are born from a prejudice against people and in your case its people right wing as a group.

By definition, RW'ers bring their fate and environment down upon themselves. If I wanted to, I couldn't change that. As I said, these are choices they made for themselves.

The only prejudice I have is not a pre-judgment, but a condemnation that their selfishness (their values) brings upon others. I've often said I would just like to round them up and put them in a big pen in the middle of Brazil or somewhere. Then they would be out of the way. I don't wish any ill-will toward them; I just want them out of the way.

As long as they are around here, they take up all the resources and give nothing back. Bernie Sanders made the case quite well: "...even the top 1% have incomes substantially higher than the rest of those in the top 10%. In 2012, the top 1% had an average income of £259,917 and the top 0.1% had an average income of £941,582." So selfishness works, but it destroys quality of life for everyone.

by Guest Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:00 am

Original Quill wrote:
didge wrote:Sterotypes are born from a prejudice against people and in your case its people right wing as a group.

By definition, RW'ers bring their fate and environment down upon themselves. If I wanted to, I couldn't change that. As I said, these are choices they made for themselves.

The only prejudice I have is not a pre-judgment, but a condemnation that their selfishness (their value) brings upon others. I've often said I would just like to round them up and put them in a big pen in the middle of Brazil or somewhere. Then they would be out of the way. I don't wish any ill-will toward them; I just want them out of the way.

As long as they are around here, they take up all the resources and give nothing back. Bernie Sanders made the case quite well: "...even the top 1% have incomes substantially higher than the rest of those in the top 10%. In 2012, the top 1% had an average income of £259,917 and the top 0.1% had an average income of £941,582." So selfishness works, but it destroys quality of life for everyone.

See you are doing it again, you do not speak of RW politics, but RW people.
So if its choice of which religion is a choice and believedf off absolute morals. Where instead people like myself reason morals, then you have no cause to speak out against my critical views, and again proves you have the worst double standards.
Again its beliefs i am critical of and where you are collectivelly prejudiced against a group of people because of their RW beliefs.
If you did that in a position of work and discriminated against them. You would be breaking the law.
I have come to see actually the most dangerous and damaging political system is the left and again in American history it was RW politicians than in the main brought about progression.
We see left wing politics never woks in practice as generally those who claim to practice these beliefs, generally contradict.
That does not mean I can discrminate against them and have to treat them equally under the law
The very thing you seem to struggle with.
What is worse is again you simply have zero understanding of psychology

by SEXY MAMA Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:44 am

The moron is going to win it there is no doubt about that now!

by eddie Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:00 am

SEXY MAMA wrote:The moron is going to win it there is no doubt about that now!

Why do you think that?

by SEXY MAMA Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:02 pm

eddie wrote:
SEXY MAMA wrote:The moron is going to win it there is no doubt about that now!

Why do you think that?

I believe the Orlando shooting will give him the votes

by Original Quill Tue Jun 14, 2016 6:49 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:
eddie wrote:

Why do you think that?

I believe the Orlando shooting will give him the votes

I really doubt it, SM. He's been a novelty toy over on the RW side. But now that he's gotten into the deeper waters of the general election, the novelty has worn off.

by eddie Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:51 pm

SEXY MAMA wrote:
eddie wrote:
SEXY MAMA wrote:The moron is going to win it there is no doubt about that now!

Why do you think that?

I believe the Orlando shooting will give him the votes

Yes that's what I thought you'd say. I've been reading a few bits here and there, like that, this morning.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:15 pm

According to an ABC poll released today, Donald Trump has hit a new high, historically, for unpopularity in a presidential race.

His unpopularity has hit 70% with the entire US electorate. In addition, people who say they would never vote for him under any circumstances has hit 55%. That means that more than half of all Americans will never support him.

by Syl Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:24 pm

Can you explain why such a joke was ever taken seriously by so many Americans in the first place?
We have had our fair share of comedians vying for power.....but none so blatantly ridiculous at best dangerous at worse as him.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:38 pm

Syl wrote:Can you explain why such a joke was ever taken seriously by so many Americans in the first place?
We have had our fair share of comedians vying for power.....but none so blatantly ridiculous at best dangerous at worse as him.

Well, over the past week I have been posting on precisely that subject. But people don't have the patience to read essays...they are accustomed to two-line posts. So, as I suspect, they don't get read.

Republicans are the focus. Up to now we have only been dealing with the Republican voter base (the primaries are party-related), and the Democratic side is consumed with the Clinton/Sanders competition, which is not nearly so historically significant.

Most people don't watch the upper-currents of politics, so it's no surprise that no one was looking when GWB/Cheney changed the face of America by initiating a war, championing kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder...and telling lies to do it. Few caught the fact that the American public was appalled to learn that, yes Virginia, the good guys have turned into Germany, circa 1932. So all of this upper-current happened silently. Besides, it was the longest war in America's history, and cost $17-trillion.

The problem is, the average American is not a political theorist. They know they didn't like something, but they didn't know why. So...how do you merge this new information with the old sayings and beliefs...liberals are all pussies, spendthrifts, war settles all things for good, and if they don't do what America says, goddammit we'll bomb them into submission (which is looked upon as the same as truth). These were earth-shaking things, but we weren't looking (well, I was, but others??).

There is a spill-over to the Democratic side; we learned that, indeed, hard work and diligent habits do not pay off in rewards...inherit wealth and use power, if you want pay-offs. But that was a separate issue.

The first inkling we had of Republican trouble in paradise was when the House Whip leader, Eric Cantor (R-Va), was dis-elected in the primary!! A leader in the majority party of the House of Represented was ignobly kicked out...absolutely unheard of!

The next thing we knew, there were 17-candidates to be the Republican nominee for president, with as many opinions about what's wrong. Now Republicans are our Tories, so they are not very analytical anyway. So you can expect that whatever happens, it's going to be rather jagged and wrinkly.

The general public correctly noted that the Republican Congress had made an issue of a black president, and resolved not to go to work as long as he was in office--affectionately called the Boehner-McConnell doctrine, after the Republican leaders in Congress. They devised something called a sequester, wherein they would sequester funds going into public works and social programs, in order to keep taxes from going up (typical Republican wish list item).

Enter the notion that this Congress, which is clearly Republican, was working against the well-being of the American nation. These were the established politicians, who were Republicans. The Republican voter settled on the notion that the problem was the 'established' politicians, and not the Republican side of the equation.

So keep in mind, we are talking about the Republican side of the equation only. And, so a non-Washingtonian had an immediate advantage. This swept away all of the politicians, and left this billionaire TV reality show star, and a goofus Doctor who was hawking his ideas on some sort of lecture show.

So the Republicans, utterly shocked at what GWB/Cheney could turn the US into, seeing racist members of Congress swear inactivity in government as long as there was a black president, disgusted with the whole mess...have nominated this strange creature who seemed to epitomize RW economic values (wealth), and combine ambivalence toward warfare, and bombastic/ iconoclastic rhetoric, particularly regarding pc subjects, including anti-female, anti-Muslim, anti-black, anti-veteran, anti-Hispanic, anti-disabled, with no pro-anything, for the office of President of the US.

There are deeper causes to the demise of the Republican Party, as well. But you only asked about the debacle of the Republican nominee.

by Syl Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:48 pm

I was away for a few days so haven't read a lot of what's been said...thanks for replying in detail Quill....I will read and take note. x

by Ben Reilly Wed Jun 15, 2016 7:56 pm

If the Republican base was a band of survivors in a zombie apocalypse flick, what's happening now would be the scene where they run out of ammunition and start throwing things at the zombies. Donald Trump is the frying pan -- it's not going to work, but the only other option is to die ...

by eddie Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:42 pm

Can I just say, to be fair Quill, I like your posts mostly but when they are about US politics I can't read past "all republicans do this and are liars and they smell of mould.."

When you think like that you have already closed your mind to opinion, other facts to consider and any chance of learning anything.

Come on! You know all this yet..?

by Original Quill Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:30 pm

eddie wrote:Can I just say, to be fair Quill, I like your posts mostly but when they are about US politics I can't read past "all republicans do this and are liars and they smell of mould.."

When you think like that you have already closed your mind to opinion, other facts to consider and any chance of learning anything.

Come on! You know all this yet..?

One of the things that makes me relevant is I don't try to 'intellectualize' my writing about US politics. That is, I don't try to remove myself, and write as if I'm discussing 17th-century England...although I did a lot of that when I was researching my dissertation.

I try to relate my subject to common, every day events. You should appreciate that I don't accept platitudes. I jump right in with saying that they all do it is bullshit. I'm unafraid to tackle the relevant...that the two different parties in the US are not the same; one views politics as service to the people; the other view politics as an opportunity for selfishness. I am unapologetic when I say, the parties are not just different brands, but different entities, with different goals.

I'm not afraid to talk about the here and now politics, in abstract terms of political theory. You are uncomfortable with that seeming anomaly. You expect highbrows to stay high, and not to step down and talk straight shit. But when I say one side is bad, I'm saying they are fookin' bad!

Contemporary politics relate back to two general kinds of political theories: (1) the theories of 17th-century England, John Locke and Adam Smith; and (2) the theories of predominately 18th- and 19th-century social theory, from Jean Jacques Rousseau to British economist John Maynard Keynes (20th-century). The theories of Locke and Smith were built around the shopkeeping society of Britain in the 1700's, built as they were upon acquisitiveness and property. The theories of Rousseau, and evolving down to Marx and Engels, were built upon the recognition that man is a social animal--a herd--and lives and produces together with others around him.

Acquisitiveness and property eventually distilled down to political motives of selfishness. Social theory eventually distilled down to political motives of problem solving, with a mind particularly of helping all members of the within social group. So, here we are: Tories vs. Labour/Liberal; or, Republican vs. Democrat; no matter how you cut it, it is down to selfishness vs. social cooperation.

Who am I to bullshit you? Bring it down to street level. In my view, selfishness as a political motive is no longer timely. The order of the day--and for the past century and a half--is cooperation and problem-solving for the whole of us, not just one of us. Yeah...I'm going to diss Republicans. I dislike selfishness. I'm not here to be fair, but honest. I think the world today needs cooperation and mutual concern for others. I'm not just some academic in the sky. I want to live and breathe down here with the common folk. If I happen to bring a little more academic thinking with me, it's my right.

Don't have pie-in-the-sky expectations about my theories, and you won't have false notions of what I'm supposed to look like.

by eddie Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:37 pm

I don't disagree with anyhing you've said and I've no idea why you're assuming what I'm thinking about you?

What I'm saying is when you start off with an opinion whereby you lump all types of people into a group - a group that seemingly holds only negative traits - then there's little point in engaging any further with you.

If that's your way, then fine, but it feels very closed off.

by Original Quill Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:52 pm

eddie wrote:I don't disagree with anyhing you've said and I've no idea why you're assuming what I'm thinking about you?

What I'm saying is when you start off with an opinion whereby you lump all types of people into a group - a group that seemingly holds only negative traits - then there's little point in engaging any further with you.

If that's your way, then fine, but it feels very closed off.

I distill things down to their essentials. Because that is the effect of their ideologies. Republicans work for special interests, believing that selfishness is somehow the 'right ordering' of society.. Democrats work for the common weal, believing that social organization is the 'right ordering' of society.

If you don't "lump...people into a group" you don't get anything done. Let the poets espouse the righteousness and fullness of human existence, I've got things to accomplish.

by Sponsored content