The General Election

[Moiraine]

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11818964/trump-judge-university-mexican

 

Trump University is on trial for fraud. Whether he legally swindled large sums from vulnerable people or not, Trump's likely to be called to testify.

 

As is his way, and the way of his parroting supporters, he's reflexively gone ad hominem to try and dismiss and discredit a threat. In this case that's a federal judge, and the threat is that a trial he stands a chance of losing might go forward.

 

Leaving aside policy altogether, this November is a straightforward referendum on norms. What kind of norms would you like to see prevail? Sanity, or Turkey?

 

How nice that Trump and his campaign have nakedly made clear what it is they stand for. Let's see what you got, America.

It's Hillary that should be in prison though. Don't forget that, otherwise you'll be biased too.

 

 

We have no proof that either of them should be in prison.

[Danny Bateman]

 

With the marriage equality movement came concerns about all these same-sex non couples who get married to exploit the new laws -- or more accurately, protections. And people were going to marry toasters, dogs, and pizzas, too! (I think someone actually did marry a pizza). Where will the madness end?

Play it safe and guard against these clever exploits, or affirm basic personhood for everyone? Hm...

 

 

My apologies for the tinny audio.

 

[AFhusker]

 

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11818964/trump-judge-university-mexican

 

Trump University is on trial for fraud. Whether he legally swindled large sums from vulnerable people or not, Trump's likely to be called to testify.

 

As is his way, and the way of his parroting supporters, he's reflexively gone ad hominem to try and dismiss and discredit a threat. In this case that's a federal judge, and the threat is that a trial he stands a chance of losing might go forward.

 

Leaving aside policy altogether, this November is a straightforward referendum on norms. What kind of norms would you like to see prevail? Sanity, or Turkey?

 

How nice that Trump and his campaign have nakedly made clear what it is they stand for. Let's see what you got, America.

It's Hillary that should be in prison though. Don't forget that, otherwise you'll be biased too.

 

 

We have no proof that either of them should be in prison.

 

There is plenty showing that Hillary should have went to prison. The latest is her email issues, no they are not the same as what other people did. They didn't use their personal email for official government business. Let alone their own personal server that wasn't cleared for top secret or classified work which she also had. We all know why she did it, which is why it is illegal for every government employee, if you use your own server, then you don't fall under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) among two others which means that she was free to delete email to hide whatever she wanted to hide.

 

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law

[Danny Bateman]

 

The media hasn't "done their job" in decades, mostly because of the decimation of print journalism and the consolidation of broadcast media, where news divisions were slashed because legitimate news gathering was slow and expensive and unable to return the investment. News divisions used to be considered prestigious, and the old school media barons allowed them to be loss leaders out of noble duty. It was very elitist in its way, but it was also highly professional. Reporters and their magazines/newspapers/networks may have had their leanings, but the reporting itself had to be solid.

 

Not really sure what we have today. It's not good enough to say "there are two sides to every story" because chances are the sides aren't equal. Someone is lying slightly more than the other. A little digging and some editorial courage and you can figure it out.

 

Also, there are generally way more than two sides to every story, but somewhere along the way anything political was shoved into a binary system.

 

The Annenberg Foundation sponsors FactCheck.org. They're pretty good at objective research and apolitical mythbusting, but you're obliged to believe them even when they tell you things you don't want to hear.

All we have today is total crap on both sides. I guess CNN is the closest to the middle? I can't watch Fox or MSNBC as they are so agenda oriented that I can see why people get brainwashed by one or the other.

 

 

CNN is probably the most neutral of the major news channels, but I find that it leans left sometimes as well.

 

Your best bet for real unbiased news would be sources like Reuters or AP. News direct from the source with little ideological fluff. For a foreign perspective, BBC is also pretty dang neutral and informative.

[AFhusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow....that's a glowing endorsement.

 

Hillary is horrible so I'm voting for Trump and....hoping and praying it's not as bad as it might be.

The same can be said for those that are supporting Hillary. They are scared of what Trump might do, so they want to keep the status quo.

 

Why do people say others are scared of what Trump might do as if that somehow promulgates him for the presidency? Fear of the unknown with the most powerful political position in the world is in no way a good thing, particularly if it risks the complete destabilization of social progression and international political cooperation.

 

What social progression and political cooperation are you speaking of?

 

I believe I asked you a question, first. But, for the sake of clarification.

 

Canada's Prime Minister has taken several subtle swipes at Trump's political views while avoiding outright confrontation. David Cameron believes Trump's views of Muslims are "stupid and wrong."

 

Germany's Minister of Economy had this to say about him - "Whether Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders -- all these right-wing populists are not only a threat to peace and social cohesion, but also to economic development."

 

France's Prime Minister has also voiced concerns over Trump's political views, and then there's this gem from the Mexican president.

In an interview published by a Mexican newspaper, President Enrique Pena Nieto compared Trump's "strident expressions that seek to propose very simple solutions" to big problems to the rhetoric of the world's most notorious dictators.

"That's the way Mussolini arrived and the way Hitler arrived," Pena Nieto said.

There's no hiding from the concerns that he'll be difficult on the international scale and the very real social concerns he presents. So, again why does being "scared" of what Trump will do promulgate him as a viable presidential candidate?

 

As far as the Muslim part goes, I don't have an issue with it as they should have background checks before coming to this country. I had to wait for my wife to go through two years of crap before they allowed her into the country and she isn't Muslim nor did she even have a police record in her country. So why is it a bad thing when Muslims will be allowed to come only after passing background checks to ensure that we are not allowing radical Muslims into our country? Therefore we won't be allowing another 9/11 incident to happen like it did under Bill as they were here for five years before pulling off the attack.

 

I didn't read the article you linked but I searched it for background checks. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. Trump stated he wants Muslims banned from the country and their places of worship monitored. This is a lot different than doing background checks. People arriving here from most countries are already screened and I guarantee that those from predominantly Muslim countries were already screened more thoroughly before this was ever a conversation.

 

You have more faith in them than I do. Not to mention the Syrian refugees that Obama just wants to allow in the country without background checks. That is asking for another terrorist attack on US soil.

[AFhusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm honestly curious: for the people who think Obama has been a disaster, what exactly did he do that prevented you from your own pursuit of life, liberty and happiness?

 

The question at this point is typically "are we better off than we were 8 years ago" and the answer is yes, of course, no question about it. And with genuine collaboration and debate rather than mere obstructionism, it could have been better.

 

The things going wrong with America are many years in the making, involve the exponential growth of income disparity and have been fed by both parties.

 

But it seems pretty clear to me the last thing we need right now is a thin-skinned billionaire who wants to take America back to a time that didn't exist.

He mandated that PUBLIC SCHOOLS be forced into having gender neutral LOCKER ROOMS. While that doesn't affect me. It affects my neices, and my potential future daughters.

 

If schools don't comply then federal funding goes out the window? This has gone from absurd to just down right biased and stupid

 

Can you give us a link to this? I googled it and came up with a transgender issue where he said transgender kids should use the bathroom that matches their gender identity.

 

I'm not coming up with where he directed schools that it should just be a free for all with one big locker room with both boys and girls basketball teams changing together and using the same showers.

 

LINK

 

Locker Rooms are bathrooms. No one is requiring a check on if the person is "transgendered" or not. It's all about what they feel like they are. You know this BRB.

 

So who's going to be the ones that say..."hey you can use the bathroom, but not the locker room."?

 

So, you really view this as just one big free for all orgy in the locker rooms from now on.

 

No but there already have been issues with the bathrooms at places that are "non discriminatory".

 

There was an 8 year old girl that was strangled in the non discriminatory restroom. But because no one can question where anyone goes to the restroom we can't stop these incidents before they begin. (Cue the "her mom should have gone in with her...that's neglect" BS)

 

If you don't think there are going to be problems with the public schools being forced to do this, then you aren't as intelligent as I once thought. For the record, why does everyone defending this stuff say things like what you said above? Does it have to be an incident all the time for it to be considered ridiculous to be mandated?

 

Here's the story of the 8 year old. May 13th, 2016

 

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/trending-now/man-accused-of-choking-8yearold-girl-in-public-bathroom/281054107

 

 

People got kidnapped from and raped in bathrooms before North Carolina ever passed their law which started this story. At the moment, I fall on the side of thinking kidnappers and rapists will find a way and this probably won't exacerbate the problem.

 

I don't see why we would need to make it easier either, but you are right a law won't stop a pedophile from being a pedophile. IMO though this law is a political stunt by the administration anyway. I don't see why we need a law for a mental illness such as this. People are born as a man or a woman and if you don't like it or have identity issues, then they need to get some mental health help, not be allowed to pick which bathroom they want to use.

[QMany]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow....that's a glowing endorsement.

 

Hillary is horrible so I'm voting for Trump and....hoping and praying it's not as bad as it might be.

The same can be said for those that are supporting Hillary. They are scared of what Trump might do, so they want to keep the status quo.

Why do people say others are scared of what Trump might do as if that somehow promulgates him for the presidency? Fear of the unknown with the most powerful political position in the world is in no way a good thing, particularly if it risks the complete destabilization of social progression and international political cooperation.

What social progression and political cooperation are you speaking of?

I believe I asked you a question, first. But, for the sake of clarification.

 

Canada's Prime Minister has taken several subtle swipes at Trump's political views while avoiding outright confrontation. David Cameron believes Trump's views of Muslims are "stupid and wrong."

 

Germany's Minister of Economy had this to say about him - "Whether Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders -- all these right-wing populists are not only a threat to peace and social cohesion, but also to economic development."

 

France's Prime Minister has also voiced concerns over Trump's political views, and then there's this gem from the Mexican president.

In an interview published by a Mexican newspaper, President Enrique Pena Nieto compared Trump's "strident expressions that seek to propose very simple solutions" to big problems to the rhetoric of the world's most notorious dictators.

"That's the way Mussolini arrived and the way Hitler arrived," Pena Nieto said.

There's no hiding from the concerns that he'll be difficult on the international scale and the very real social concerns he presents. So, again why does being "scared" of what Trump will do promulgate him as a viable presidential candidate?

As far as the Muslim part goes, I don't have an issue with it as they should have background checks before coming to this country. I had to wait for my wife to go through two years of crap before they allowed her into the country and she isn't Muslim nor did she even have a police record in her country. So why is it a bad thing when Muslims will be allowed to come only after passing background checks to ensure that we are not allowing radical Muslims into our country? Therefore we won't be allowing another 9/11 incident to happen like it did under Bill as they were here for five years before pulling off the attack.

I didn't read the article you linked but I searched it for background checks. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. Trump stated he wants Muslims banned from the country and their places of worship monitored. This is a lot different than doing background checks. People arriving here from most countries are already screened and I guarantee that those from predominantly Muslim countries were already screened more thoroughly before this was ever a conversation.

You have more faith in them than I do. Not to mention the Syrian refugees that Obama just wants to allow in the country without background checks. That is asking for another terrorist attack on US soil.

"In a series of tense exchanges with Republicans at a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said a significant and robust vetting process for the refugees would identify any security threats.

 

That process will include not only searches of domestic and foreign intelligence databases for information on possible terrorist threats, she said, but also interviews with all applicants, as well as fingerprinting and biometric testing. The White House said the refugees would be subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States. "

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/us/politics/white-house-affirms-syrian-refugee-plan-despite-paris-attacks.html

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow....that's a glowing endorsement.

 

Hillary is horrible so I'm voting for Trump and....hoping and praying it's not as bad as it might be.

The same can be said for those that are supporting Hillary. They are scared of what Trump might do, so they want to keep the status quo.

 

Why do people say others are scared of what Trump might do as if that somehow promulgates him for the presidency? Fear of the unknown with the most powerful political position in the world is in no way a good thing, particularly if it risks the complete destabilization of social progression and international political cooperation.

 

What social progression and political cooperation are you speaking of?

 

I believe I asked you a question, first. But, for the sake of clarification.

 

Canada's Prime Minister has taken several subtle swipes at Trump's political views while avoiding outright confrontation. David Cameron believes Trump's views of Muslims are "stupid and wrong."

 

Germany's Minister of Economy had this to say about him - "Whether Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders -- all these right-wing populists are not only a threat to peace and social cohesion, but also to economic development."

 

France's Prime Minister has also voiced concerns over Trump's political views, and then there's this gem from the Mexican president.

In an interview published by a Mexican newspaper, President Enrique Pena Nieto compared Trump's "strident expressions that seek to propose very simple solutions" to big problems to the rhetoric of the world's most notorious dictators.

"That's the way Mussolini arrived and the way Hitler arrived," Pena Nieto said.

There's no hiding from the concerns that he'll be difficult on the international scale and the very real social concerns he presents. So, again why does being "scared" of what Trump will do promulgate him as a viable presidential candidate?

 

As far as the Muslim part goes, I don't have an issue with it as they should have background checks before coming to this country. I had to wait for my wife to go through two years of crap before they allowed her into the country and she isn't Muslim nor did she even have a police record in her country. So why is it a bad thing when Muslims will be allowed to come only after passing background checks to ensure that we are not allowing radical Muslims into our country? Therefore we won't be allowing another 9/11 incident to happen like it did under Bill as they were here for five years before pulling off the attack.

 

I didn't read the article you linked but I searched it for background checks. I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. Trump stated he wants Muslims banned from the country and their places of worship monitored. This is a lot different than doing background checks. People arriving here from most countries are already screened and I guarantee that those from predominantly Muslim countries were already screened more thoroughly before this was ever a conversation.

 

You have more faith in them than I do. Not to mention the Syrian refugees that Obama just wants to allow in the country without background checks. That is asking for another terrorist attack on US soil.

 

 

Please provide evidence of this.

 

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/19/politifact-sheet-5-questions-about-syrian-refugees/

 

Or read the above and tell me how they're wrong.

[HuskerNation1]

Should this thread have a new title "The General Election Thread by MSNBC?"

 

I realize that Hillary has not officially clinched the Dem nomination, but in looking at this thread, 90% appears to be about bashing Trump. I am not in love with the guy by any means and realize he is entertaining, but I actually find it amazing that, after the bloodbath we saw on the GOP side, it appears the Dems are even more divided.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/05/30/democrats-civil-war-is-only-just-getting-started/

 

I don't like either candidate to be honest, but I think this election is fascinating in the sense that what we normally expect to happen likely will not, some states we didn't think could be flipped may turn, etc...

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

Sorry, Shark, but I'm still having a hard time figuring out how people who claim to hate Big Government, Big Spending, and ill-conceived Social Engineering would line up behind the man who wants to build a 2,000 mile wall on the Mexican border.

 

How exactly does a wall on the southern border have anything to do with big government? It's supporting nationalism, nothing more. People like me who oppose big government support Trump because of his ideas to cut many of the over-reaching aspects of our government, and as a former educator who has seen how our educational system works first-hand, he is going to get rid of arbitrary testing and bring educational decisions to the state and local levels, which is how it SHOULD be.

Building a 2,000 mile wall on the Mexican Border would be a massive undertaking by the federal government, not merely the construction but the maintenance and administration, and regardless of what Trump says in his stump speech, the cost would be footed by the American taxpayer. The purpose of the wall is the very definition of federal government over-reach, a wildly expensive and inefficient response to an issue way down the list of what America needs most at this time.

 

It's a fact that the federal government has ballooned under Republican administrations despite their "small government" claims, and Trump sounds no different. Under the guise of patriotism, they are huge spenders, social engineers and wealth redistributors, merely funneling taxpayer money to their own colleagues, donors and agenda.

 

Now who is this "former educator" you're speaking about, who has seen our education system first-hand? Did you mean you, or Trump?

Me. I just retired (resigned).

[mrandyk]

Should this thread have a new title "The General Election Thread by MSNBC?"

 

I realize that Hillary has not officially clinched the Dem nomination, but in looking at this thread, 90% appears to be about bashing Trump. I am not in love with the guy by any means and realize he is entertaining, but I actually find it amazing that, after the bloodbath we saw on the GOP side, it appears the Dems are even more divided.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/05/30/democrats-civil-war-is-only-just-getting-started/

 

I don't like either candidate to be honest, but I think this election is fascinating in the sense that what we normally expect to happen likely will not, some states we didn't think could be flipped may turn, etc...

It's easy to see where a group may be divided when two reasonable candidates are still on the table. The Republicans have had nothing to do but come to terms with their situation for a while now.

[Danny Bateman]

Congrats on your retirement, Shark. Hope you're spending your free time doing something you find enjoyable.

 

Since we've seen plenty of scrutiny of Clinton on the emails thing (deservedly so), here's a pretty fair defense of here I found tonight. Now, this guy is a lawyer who advised Bill, but he also served under Bush. He graduated from Yale and contributes content all across the ideological gamut from HuffPo to FoxNews. He's a pretty reputable source, IMO. I don't think it's just some cheeky Clinton shill trying to pull a fast one on you.

 

She undoubtedly exercised poor judgment in not clearing this server explicitly with anyone. But the funny thing this article points out is that it was likely MORE secure than the State Department servers themselves. There's no evidence her server was hacked, but we KNOW the State Dept ones have been. So the whole "jeopardized national security" thing doesn't really hold a whole lot of water. That's a rather scathing review of government cybersecurity as a whole, IMO.

 

I'll shut up now and let you reach your own conclusions.

[Moiraine]

Ugh. I just NOW read the stuff he said about the drought.

 

It makes me really sad/angry for all the scientists out there that some buffoon can convince millions of something he knows nothing about with a few one-liners after they've done years of research on it. I don't understand this glorification of ignorance, when it started or how. And I'm not even talking about the drought here. Any 10 year old understands how that works, but Trump doesn't.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

Wow....that's a glowing endorsement.

 

Hillary is horrible so I'm voting for Trump and....hoping and praying it's not as bad as it might be.

The same can be said for those that are supporting Hillary. They are scared of what Trump might do, so they want to keep the status quo.

 

Why do people say others are scared of what Trump might do as if that somehow promulgates him for the presidency? Fear of the unknown with the most powerful political position in the world is in no way a good thing, particularly if it risks the complete destabilization of social progression and international political cooperation.

 

What social progression and political cooperation are you speaking of?

 

I believe I asked you a question, first. But, for the sake of clarification.

 

Canada's Prime Minister has taken several subtle swipes at Trump's political views while avoiding outright confrontation. David Cameron believes Trump's views of Muslims are "stupid and wrong."

 

Germany's Minister of Economy had this to say about him - "Whether Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen or Geert Wilders -- all these right-wing populists are not only a threat to peace and social cohesion, but also to economic development."

 

France's Prime Minister has also voiced concerns over Trump's political views, and then there's this gem from the Mexican president.

In an interview published by a Mexican newspaper, President Enrique Pena Nieto compared Trump's "strident expressions that seek to propose very simple solutions" to big problems to the rhetoric of the world's most notorious dictators.

"That's the way Mussolini arrived and the way Hitler arrived," Pena Nieto said.

There's no hiding from the concerns that he'll be difficult on the international scale and the very real social concerns he presents. So, again why does being "scared" of what Trump will do promulgate him as a viable presidential candidate?

 

As far as the Muslim part goes, I don't have an issue with it as they should have background checks before coming to this country. I had to wait for my wife to go through two years of crap before they allowed her into the country and she isn't Muslim nor did she even have a police record in her country. So why is it a bad thing when Muslims will be allowed to come only after passing background checks to ensure that we are not allowing radical Muslims into our country? Therefore we won't be allowing another 9/11 incident to happen like it did under Bill as they were here for five years before pulling off the attack.

 

They are scared of the economic part because the trade deals will be reworked and therefore they won't be making the $$$$ off of us as our failed trade agreements such as NAFTA/CAFTA/TPP have done nothing but send our jobs overseas and allow other countries and the companies to get even fatter due to having to pay low wages vs what they will have to pay here. Not to mention they don't have to pay Tariffs or taxes as long as their HQ's are in the US.

 

France? They are useless and what they think doesn't mean anything to me. Europe as a whole needs to wake up when it comes to radical Muslims as they are seeing firsthand what happens with no background checks.

 

Of course the Mexican president is against it as we are allowing them to keep on taking our money and not making them pay it back, not to mention NAFTA allowed our factories to go into Mexico. Put the wall on top of it, then Mexico has every reason to want to put a Democrat into office so they will keep the status quo.

 

I don't like a lot of what Trump says or how he says it. The statement about having us go kill wives and children of known terrorists is one of the worst things I have ever heard a politician say. I understand the sediment behind it and I agree that we have been fighting the war on terror with one arm tied behind our backs due to political correctness that has ruined this country. Am I for what he said, hell no, but I am also not for what the current administration is doing by trying to close GITMO and freeing known terrorists to go back into the fight to kill Americans. Or putting them in a jail in the US where they would eventually be freed due to a legal loophole. They are POW's and need to be treated as such.

 

What social concerns are you worried about?

 

Socially, several. But in particular, what kind of a message will it send if we start isolating and segregating Muslim Americans? It is an inevitable consequence of targeting them for background checks and monitoring their places of worship. However, I doubt that will ever actually happen, like many of the things Trump proclaims will.

 

As far as trade deal goes, you'll find a ton people who say Trump's plan won't work, and then you'll find people that say it will. What we do know is that, constitutionally, the president is severely limited when it comes to trade policy. The significant majority of the power lays with Congress and the likelihood anyone would impose any indefinite measure, like his proposed 45 percent tariff on China, is minimal. Like a lot of things Trump says he's going to do, it doesn't make sense politically or realistically.

 

France - you should care. It's easy to be the generic taxpayer you are (I don't mean that to be offensive) and say "who cares about France!!!" - but, that too is silly and unrealistic. Furthermore, there are a lot of things France does better than the U.S. and things we could model from them.

 

And then there's the wall which, again, is absurd. It's never going to happen.

[Saunders]

 

"I was expecting you to send me more money, but you didn't..."

 

I mean, clearly she needs more money to combat the billionaire right? Oh wait. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trumps-campaign-dwarfed-by-clintons-223438