I'm endorsing Donald Trump, because I can't put my life in Hillary's hands

Hummm...only 5%.

You do realize that 82.4% of all statistics are made up right on the spot...right?

I am the ultimate iconoclast. I'm used to being outside the box.

On a continuum with "very liberal" at 1 and "very conservative" at 10...I can be found at position "P."

Oh, and I did not say she would make a "great" president. I said she would make a FINE president.

I expect that a plurality of the voters in November will give her the opportunity to prove herself.

 

That's it??? one point, which by the way we have no idea in what context it was taken out of. What does her opponent bring to the table?

 

I gave you the ENTIRE context of the interview. They basically asked the hypothetical question and like good ole-fashioned Hillary, she went straight for the jugular. That's her foreign policy, that's her MO. And that's what solidified me into Barack Obama way back into 2008.

Trump isn't perfect, hell, he isn't even good. But he's not Hillary Clinton. Which is why he has the slight edge. I might pin my hopes around the people next to Donald to keep him from blowing us up, while I know Hillary WILL if given the chance.

 

I don't see any link; how about posting one.

 

[video=youtube;I6dIOriwxd8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6dIOriwxd8[/video]

I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you, in fact I think I actually did her a little favor by softening her actual words.

 

I hardly know where to begin.

You never heard of Charles Lindberg?????????????

Seriously???????

Sorry, but that just blows my mind

 

Yeah, there was a lot to cover in US History and he might have occupied all of ONE page in our textbooks. I wasn't too interested or quized on him or bothered to care. There are MANY historical figures in US history. Harriet Tubman for instance is a far more impactful figure. There were many demonstrators in WW2, both for and not for intervention.

Like I told your friend there, I think whether I had knowledge of this fringe man or not is inconsequential to modern day politics. And as I proved through the wikipedia page, your characterization of him was misleading at the very least. The dude was a martyr of his own cause and essentially served the US Army for free.

But what I do find interesting, and what's a far more important parallel is how for a country that supposedly espouses freedom of speech, there's always been this anti-free speech movement in America whenever said views end up being controversial or hurting someone's sensibilities. So how much for this freedom are we really for? That's a more interesting discussion.

 

Again ... while I do not know what folks using the term "progressives" are referring to, it certainly does not mean Fascism ?

There is no significant group on the left, that I know of, who are promoting Fascism.

Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

What I am saying is that we need to be far more specific. When I talk about Red and Blue, how they are both moving towards a more totalitarian police and nanny State ... I state specifically what I mean.

Throwing around terms like Fascism, Communism, Socialism incorrectly does absolutely no good.

How many times did we hear folks calling Sanders a Communist ? This type of black and white thinking has no basis in reality.

Sanders did not want a Totalitarian State to control all resources and means of production.

Conversely, the idea that unrestrained capitalism is the be all/end all, is demonstrable nonsense.

Extreme Socialism (Communism) and Extreme Capitalism meet at the far end of the spectrum. In both cases you have a small number of people controlling all (or most) resources and means of production.

Our system is somehow managing to combine/gravitate to the worst of both extremes in what I refer to as an Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster.

We have a Fusion of massive Bureaucracy with massive Oligopolies. Price fixing and anti competitive practices are rampant. Have you had a look at your tax bill lately. Back in the 50's the worker/corp tax split was 50/50. This makes sense. I like having roads, infrastructure, Police and so on. McDonalds needs these things in order to operate as well.

Now the split is 80/20. Not sure about you but I am not real happy about paying McDonald's share of the tax bill.

Every time a tax or regulation is being created or under review, the Oligopoly has a seat at the table (and they should have a seat). The problem is that the person who is supposed to represent the interest of the worker is often in the pocket of or influenced by the Oligopoly.

It is not like the Oligopoly wins ever table but, over time, table after table, the rule of the game get skewed towards the Oligopoly.

Why is it that we pay more for healthcare than any other first world nation (all who have universal healthcare) but we have no universal healthcare ? These other countries have massively bloated and disgusting and massively inefficient healthcare bureaucracies.

Yet ... somehow they deliver more for less money than our quazi privately run system. How is this possible. These private companies are many times more efficient. How can our system cost more but deliver less .. ?? It's called price fixing and anti competitive practices ... that's why.

You go to the store and buy a loaf of bread for 3 dollars. The farmer is getting 3 cents. Where does the rest of the money go ?

I used to work in the chemical industry (in sales). Was 9 or 10 different companies vying for the interest of good sales people (competition). When I sold something I got paid good money. Now in the sector there are two companies (massive publicly traded monsters). These companies squeeze every penny out of the salesperson and they can because they know you have only one other choice and they do the same thing. ... downward pressure on wages. Finance would actually attend courses on how to screw the salesforce (I am not joking). This kind of thing can not happen when there is real competition in fair and free markets.

If I was paid that extra money I would spend it in the local economy almost immediately. Instead, that money goes into the pocket of some nameless faceless shareholder that likely does not even live in the country never mind spend that money in the local economy.

Now I hear Dow and Dupont are merging. This should never be allowed.

When you go to Exxon to put gas in your vehicle .. the guy pumping the gas does not get a penny from the gas sales .. he gets the chips and the gum. If he got money from the gas he would spend in the local economy. ... instead ... nameless faceless shareholder.

I could go on and on listing hundreds of examples ... each time a little cream is skimmed off of the top. Now all we have left is skim milk.

What was the promise of the "Industrial Revolution" ? More stuff can be produced with less labor. Great !! We should all have more stuff and be working less.

WTF went wrong ? Productivity has increased year over year for over 100 years pretty much. Why am I not working only 10 hours a week and making double ?

Machines are already doing much of the work that humans used to do and are moving fast towards a time when machines are doing an even larger percentage of the work. Question - 100 years from now when there is very little work for humans to do .. what are we going to do with all of the out of work people ?

There is not some "Cabal" or Star Chamber. (and even if there was there will always be some group at the top running the show - the universe hates a vacuum). There is manipulation but in general the system operates quite efficiently without manipulation. It operates primarily on the basis of self interest and greed.

Make it to congress and insider trading is legal. One (or one's buddy) can sit on a committee giving ABC company a contract and then invest in that company prior to the news hitting the street. This is a licence to print money. "I want in on that game"
.
Sure every once in awhile you get a lone voice calling out this practice. Everyone quickly points to this person and says "LOOK LOOK" we have freedom of speech". That voice is then quickly drowned out the cacophony on the take. Can you blame them ? I certainly would not be the one to say anything. Self Interest and Greed.

I chuckled when hearing about Clinton "Pay for Play". How do these folks think our system operates ... the entire system. It is a pay for play system.

We hear retired generals on CNN/FOX/MSNBC touting the benefits of war and working hard to keep the "fear factor" high. Journalistic integrity requires that the commentator mention -- BTW -- General So and So is a paid lobbyist for XYZ corp (and thus has a clear conflict of interest) .... Somehow they manage to forget to mention such "trivial" details. The next day they are doing everything in their power to further ramp up the fear factor.

The Bureaucracy Pentagon, NSA, Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, on and on ... all have a vested interest in creating and promoting fear.

"Our Security is at Risk from Terrorists" yet somehow it not News that Obama (in conjunction with Saud, Turkey and others) has been, right from the beginning, arming and funding Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, Salafi, ISIS and various other groups of the same ilk to fight a proxy war in Syria.

Riddle me that one and then try and tell me with a straight fact that our mainstream media (left, right, center) is not a propaganda machine as bad if not worse than Russia.

 

This is what she says...


There have been numerous attacks since then, including one where 14 Americans were murdered by two muslims at a public agency Christmas party. 6 miles away from where I was.

She hasn't amended her statement.

 

Excellent post.
Your avatar says "they hate us 'cause they ain't us".....I'd argue that they hate us (Trump said "Islam hates us") because Allah hates us:
"Allah condemns non-Muslims to Hell based merely on their unbelief, while believers are rewarded with the finest earthly comforts in the hereafter, including never-ending food, wine and sex (56:12-40).

Much of the Quran is devoted to distinguishing Muslims from non-Muslims and impugning the latter. Among other things, non-Muslims are said to be diseased (2:10), perverse (2:99), stupid (2:171) and deceitful (3:73).

The first sura of the Quran is a short prayer that is repeated by devout Muslims each day and ends with these words:
Keep us on the right path. The path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors. Not (the path) of those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down, nor of those who go astray. (1:6-7)"

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/quran-hate.aspx

 

True. Its a war-like religion that follows a war lord, with a strong historical precedence.

 

It's a very clear indication that you know very little about the history of this country.

Charles Lindberg was one of the major figures of the first half of the Twentieth Century, and was known all over the world (which was one of the reason the Nazi's courted him).

I am not interested in your dismissals of him as a "fringe man". You're just making a point of being deliberately and defiantly ignorant.

It's also a demonstration of your extremely narrow world view.

And that worries me. Deliberate ignorance is divisive and destructive. It has no place in an intelligent political discussion.

Donald Trump's message echoes the flat earth nativisim of people like William Borah, Lindberg, Buchanan and his bigotry is right out of Father Couglin.

He appeals to the worst instincts in people.

The President said over the weekend, that both hope and fear are on the ballot.

Trump is the standard bearer for fear. His remarks in Florida yesterday dripped of the worst kind of fear mongering, appeals to ignorance and bigotry.

Those are not American values. And they are not values that I would even consider embracing.

It's not a coincidence that their chief desciple today is an opportunistic charletan. That's about the kindest thing I can say about Donald Trump. I can say a lot of things about him, but those are the kindest words.

 

You know Tom, I held you in higher regards than this. But that's my fault. I'll hold you to the same values that I hold today's Liberal Party: Manipulative, dishonest and vague enough to be obscure. As an example, you continue to blast me for having this "narrow" viewpoint, but you claim Lindbergh was this HUGE influence that the Nazis courted him.

I gave you freaking Wikipedia, the lowest bar possibly imaginable and they didn't even make so much as a reference to the Nazis "courting him" other than to say he was suspected of Fascist sympathies. Which were NEVER proven. So now the burden is on YOU, not me, to establish this charge.(A charge that didn't even so much as land him a single day in jail)

Until and when you can establish this charge, I strongly recommend in the strongest possible political terms to drop this subject. It's not even relevant. Can you even find any public educational institution today that in its curriculum is going "Hey, I'm going to teach you about Charles Lindbergh today". I learned about Dr. Ben Franklin as one of the instrumental founders of our government, though he wasn't a politician.

I remember the story surrounding the start of the revolutionary war: "Don't fire until fired upon". I've learned everything from Martin Luther King JR to Operation Normandy. But in my history classes, the name Charles Lindbergh never came up. Ever. At all. I know about Napoleon Bontaparte, and a reason that the purchase of Louisiana was possible because Bontaparte had both lost Haiti and also found no use in it as a colony.

I can frankly say to you, that I learned more meaningful, impactful things in history than the political relevance(if any) of Charles Lindbergh. So now you must decide where you find your political importance in 2016. Has anyone, other than yourself found it worth while to make mention of Charles Lindbergh?

Not so much as a single modern day mention.

Not a far-right site to be sure, so go ahead and click on it.

I'm not going to spend anymore time on this lowest common denominator topic. Any further participation is just humiliating yourself, not me.

You go onto to the "rallying" cries about how Donald Trump inspires the "worst" of people and that hope/fear are on the ballot.(Since Hillary feels free to insult and HAS been insulting people as far as six months ago calling Republicans terrorists, I'll feel free to insult her here.)

Hillary Clinton is the worst, most underqualified candidate to ever try and assume the Oval Office. Her hatred for any American who may oppose her on anything, has been made abundantly clear to the point of such malice against Republicans that she claimed they weren't interested on serious issues, a claim that poltifact themselves had to debunk!

Hillary's Corruption is so on display, you don't even deny it. Instead, you want to attack Trump for being so deplorable it makes such an dishonorable woman as Hillary Clinton qualified to be president. I'll tell Hillary this: I'd rather be deplorable than dishonorable. She disqualified herself with her reckless handling of national security, and we cannot give someone of such low honor any title deserving of the highest office of this country.

But what about Trump's "remarks" were of the so-called "worst kind of fear mongering, appeals to ignorance and bigotry"? It might surprise you that only Left-wing circle jerkers believe this. Because you can't quantify it, you didn't even quantify it in this post.

Hillary's indifference towards our national security, and her pathetic statements(aligned with the disgraced president) which suggest "We know all Muslims are peace loving" give ISIS a shield. Literally, we know from San Berninardo that "politically correct" fear prevented a concerned citizenry from being able to report those terrorist acts before they happened.

So you tell me, who is better prepared to protect our country? We had 8 years of Hillary's defense, as the president's doctrine. It's clear he's unable to keep us safe. And Hillary is even more unable. You have to quantify two things today: Your claims of Lindbergh's "fascist allegiance" and Trump's remarks. Let's see if you even bother attempting. You MUST quantify them, or don't reply. That's the standard I'm holding you to. And you'll note: I actually gave links.

 

WRONG! You still can't debate facts without name calling, just like the media. THAT'S ONE REASON Trump is winning. Trump is the anti-establishment, Clinton is the establishment and more people want change than to continue corruption and status quo. In fact, 70-percent of people think the country is going in the wrong direction.

Steve

 

For me, he's more of a liberal than Clinton and the Democrats. So I'm right with you, for that reason and others.

 

Facts? What facts?

Your response contained no facts.

Trump does pander to bigots. That's no secret.

His speech yesterday dripped with fearmongering and Islamophobia, That's a fact.

That you embrace these negatives does not change that.

 

He speaks to a global trend of rising tribalism/nationalism, not bigotry. This trend is the consequence of meddling with the Middle East with no plan for stabilization and giving a situation that leads to mass migration.

 

Ahhh, now I understand. You have no clue what facts are, that explains everything including your inability to debate without resorting to name calling your opposition.

Steve

 

Trump is doing well because a lot of not too well informed or worldly people think he is the anti establishment.

In reality, he's the biggest wannabe on earth. He will sell the Presidency and himself for even a modicum of respect.

Only a fool would even suggest that Trump, a man with a long list of bombastic lies, crooked business dealings, ex wives, lawsuits, unpaid bills and jilted investors would be anything less than the most corrupt man ever to get anywhere near the White HOuse.

Donald Trump does not care about you. He is not a patriot. He doesn't care about the people at his rallies, and he has no intention of doing anything for them. He cares about seeing himself on TV and being the center of attention.

Of course, you're going to come back with the same idiotic rants about name calling and facts.

It's easy to document all these facts. Evidence is overwhelming.

Donald Trump is a loser, and always has been. And the country will pay a very heavy price in the long run if a man that weak, vulgar, and venal becomes President.

 

Egypt too. She tried to keep the muslim brotherhood in power

 

Thank you for confirming my response to your post. You offered no facts.

And you are not debating.

 

There's too many international incidents over these last 8 years to mention. The point is, she isn't qualified to return to her Senate seat, let alone the office of the presidency.

 

If you're going to try and assert some intellectual superiority by bragging about the fact that you never heard of one of the most famous Americans of the Twentieth Century by citing and twisting something you just read on Wikipedia, you can stop right now.

You're not only insulting my intelligence, you're demonstrating your own belligerant ignorance.

As for this:

Really?

Let's see. Hillary Clinton has been in public life all of her life. She is not a tabloid celebrity, she is a policy wonk.

Before you were born, she was working on issues.

She spent eight years as First Lady, and championed several causes.

She served in the US Senate (longer than either of the two GOP Senators who ran for President in this cycle did).

She was Secretary of State.

She and her husband built a foundation that does charitable and relief work all over the world. Not only does that foundation enhance American prestige, but it is a built in network of people that the President can reach out to to solve problems and lead.

I can think of no President, or presidential candidate in the history of this country who brought that much to the table.

This is in sharp contrast to her opponant, who has never even run for Alderman in New York City, who sits on no Foundation boards, who has never given substantially to any charity, who has never done any useful public services, and whose only business experience is running the family business his father built (daddy had to bail him out when he almost wrecked that).

 

You don't and won't understand that facts are backed up information, not opinions. The "70-percent of people who believe the country is going in the wrong direction" is an important fact. Even worse is you can only parrot the liberally biased media which is highly 'fact challenged' but the harsh reality is they are lying to you. In a generous way, it's called democrat propaganda.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._of_america/right_direction_wrong_track_sep19

Steve

 

I asked you to quantify your claims, and I knew you wouldn't. I'm not having this debate. It literally infuriates me that the so-called "intellectual" party, as well as the so-called party on tolerance is neither intellectual nor tolerant.

And no, I'm not bragging about anything, nor did I twist anything. I laid it RIGHT out there, as I always do and you're unable to even so much as substantiate a claim that came out of your open fanged mouth. What I said was that the lowest possible source of information, Wikipedia outright refuted your assertion.

I gave you a more quantified link in that post, that completely obliterated the assertion. I'm not going to further entertain your diatribes and consider them a "debating" point. If you want to have a debate, you need to raise yourself up to that level.

And not the level that would like to claim the guy "As the most famous 20th century person" while defaming him in the same name to try and trash Donald Trump. If you want to attack Trump, attack Trump.

Now let's talk about Hillary Clinton. You basically summarized that for many years, Hillary Clinton has had a privileged soapbox. Because ANYONE can champion issues. Literally ANYONE. I'm championing improving our health care system from the complete and utter disaster that was the 2009 Democratic Congress. For which, I'm a proud deplorable.

Indeed, you cite not a single thing she can actually be accredited for. I'll cite one thing for her: CHIP. Way to go. And hey, I guess I have a soft spot for her championing children's rights, but that's a slippery slope that has to be balanced between legitimate rights and not just a way for children to go renegade on their parents and actually putting themselves in danger.

But overall, Hillary's efforts(such as they are) have been utterly insignificant in the grand scheme of things. And your post bares that out, since the Clinton Foundation is the most corrupt thing in American politics today. I already touched on her "dead broke" comment and how she now has 10 million dollars, again from opening her mouth and crony favors.

She's the female Richard Nixon, and your standard bearer. If this election is between being deplorable or disgraceful, I'd rather be deplorable. Hillary is a disgrace and has disgraced our country.