Page 24 of 200 FirstFirst ... 14212223242526273474124 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 2998

Thread: Trump: Illusion, Mist and Bought?

  1. #346
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,240
    Thanks
    88,437
    Thanked 80,968 Times in 20,254 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by ERK View Post
    eh- my links did not work.
    Quote Originally posted by ERK View Post
    Twas a youtube
    Ah, in that case, I understand. It's highly annoying when you've found or bookmarked some video and then two days later, they've either taken it down or their account was suspended over copyrights or something as silly as that.

    If it's important enough, then you can try using the same search parameters again to see whether somebody else has also uploaded a copy of that particular video, or maybe you can find it at Vimeo or DailyMotion?

    Just a thought.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    bsbray (18th September 2016), Cearna (18th September 2016), Dreamtimer (18th September 2016), Elen (18th September 2016), modwiz (17th September 2016)

  3. #347
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    15th March 2015
    Posts
    328
    Thanks
    949
    Thanked 1,583 Times in 325 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    Ah, in that case, I understand. It's highly annoying when you've found or bookmarked some video and then two days later, they've either taken it down or their account was suspended over copyrights or something as silly as that.

    If it's important enough, then you can try using the same search parameters again to see whether somebody else has also uploaded a copy of that particular video, or maybe you can find it at Vimeo or DailyMotion?

    Just a thought.
    Appears to have been taken down, another in depth look at Hillary from journalist Abby Martin.

  4. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ERK For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (18th September 2016), bsbray (18th September 2016), Dreamtimer (18th September 2016), Elen (18th September 2016), modwiz (18th September 2016)

  5. #348
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    It isn't this one is it?


  6. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (18th September 2016), Cearna (18th September 2016), Dreamtimer (18th September 2016), Elen (18th September 2016), ERK (18th September 2016), jimmer (18th September 2016), modwiz (18th September 2016)

  7. #349
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    15th March 2015
    Posts
    328
    Thanks
    949
    Thanked 1,583 Times in 325 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    It isn't this one is it?

    Yes!

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to ERK For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (18th September 2016), bsbray (18th September 2016), Cearna (18th September 2016), Dreamtimer (18th September 2016), Elen (18th September 2016), modwiz (18th September 2016)

  9. #350
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    20,240
    Thanks
    88,437
    Thanked 80,968 Times in 20,254 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by ERK View Post
    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    It isn't this one is it?

    [video snipped for reasons of bandwidth]
    Yes!
    That video was posted here on the forum in a dedicated documentary thread (by myself) in April 2016. Abby Martin is a hell of an investigative journalist. I don't know of anyone in the mainstream media who would be even only 10% as sincere and dedicated as she is.

    Returning back to the actual political debate, I'd say that between the information presented in this video and the hypothesis — which, with my background training in the paramedical field, I support — that Hillary Clinton would be afflicted with Parkinson's disease, the Acronymian people will be in grave trouble if ever she makes it back into the White House. Most people afflicted with Parkinson's also develop dementia over time, and she's already a coldblooded psychopath, so who knows where that's going to end?
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    bsbray (18th September 2016), Cearna (18th September 2016), Dreamtimer (18th September 2016), Elen (18th September 2016), ERK (18th September 2016), jimmer (18th September 2016), modwiz (18th September 2016)

  11. #351
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    She's already losing in the polls anyway.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAyLLx81h0w



    Another email leak just came out and was reported in MSM on the 14th, and this one proves Obama giving ambassador positions to the highest DNC donors, and they even use the term "pay for play" in the emails. The DNC is trying to shift blame by saying that they were attacked by Russian hackers attempting to influence the US elections. People aren't buying it anymore.

    Alex Jones may be a controversial figure but I think he nailed it when he said that the media is falling on its own sword for Hillary. They'll go down swinging for her to the end, but they've destroyed their credibility in the process. There was a recent study that found that Americans' trust in the major media was at a historic low today, around 30% nationally, less than 10% for Republicans and I think around 40-50'ish for Democrats, with independents in between but closer to the Republican numbers.

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (18th September 2016), Cearna (18th September 2016), Dreamtimer (18th September 2016), Elen (18th September 2016), ERK (18th September 2016), jimmer (18th September 2016), JRS (21st September 2016), modwiz (18th September 2016)

  13. #352
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    14,610
    Thanks
    70,673
    Thanked 62,025 Times in 14,520 Posts
    bsbray, I'm very familiar with the states rights and constitutional values of conservatives. Can you shed a little light on the trend of wanting to get rid of many of the later amendments to the constitution?

    Also, I lost a lot of faith in conservatives and their states rights positions after the suspension of the Florida state constitution and the appointing of Bush to his second term. This is so far removed from conservative, or any American values, it's mind blowing. Even the Supreme Court was so leery of their decision they said it shouldn't be used as precedent. Just imagine for a moment that the Democrats had their guy appointed. I think we'd already have had a revolution. There seems to be a deep seated double standard.

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (18th September 2016), bsbray (18th September 2016), Cearna (21st September 2016), Elen (18th September 2016), jimmer (18th September 2016), modwiz (20th September 2016)

  15. #353
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Rockies Foothills
    Posts
    4,982
    Thanks
    9,075
    Thanked 18,116 Times in 3,777 Posts
    I couldn't have said it better myself, LTV:

    “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

    Fairwell, sweet unknown (and don't let a sasquatch bite ya on the way out)

    Now, how's about that revolution we've been hearing so much about:

    https://vimeo.com/181056817

    Want to watch my video making skills improve before your very eyes? (with lots of help from a friend)

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQC...WROfVUw/videos

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to jimmer For This Useful Post:

    bsbray (18th September 2016), Cearna (21st September 2016), Dreamtimer (19th September 2016), Elen (18th September 2016), modwiz (20th September 2016)

  17. #354
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    bsbray, I'm very familiar with the states rights and constitutional values of conservatives. Can you shed a little light on the trend of wanting to get rid of many of the later amendments to the constitution?
    I'm not sure what you mean. There is a difference between federal statutory law (like Obamacare), bureaucratic regulations from executive agencies (like the FDA's regulation of food and drugs, the DEA's scheduling of illegal drugs, etc.), and actual amendments to the Constitution itself. There are also executive orders that are issued by the president but these are controversial because the Constitution does not really provide for them and yet there is a long tradition of them going back at least to Thomas Jefferson, who bought the Louisiana Purchase through executive order. Jefferson then worried for years that he had set an unconstitutional precedent even though Congress had been pushing him to buy it and supported him fully.

    The only amendment that I know of that is still controversial and has people calling for its repeal, is the 16th which authorized the federal income tax. The rest aren't that controversial and seem like pretty reasonable laws. Amendments take two thirds of congressional support to pass instead of a simple majority and they are clearly binding upon all states whereas the states often challenge statutory laws like Obamacare. I think amendments also must be ratified by individual states. It's a much more involved process than just passing a statutory law.

    Also, I lost a lot of faith in conservatives and their states rights positions after the suspension of the Florida state constitution and the appointing of Bush to his second term.
    Are you talking about his first election in 2000 where the US Supreme Court blocked a recount in Florida? If so then that was the federal US Supreme Court that made that decision, not the Supreme Court of Florida. Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean and maybe you can update me on what I missed.

    The "neo-conservatives" or "neo-cons" of the Bush administration were not really conservative in the traditional sense. There was some controversy about that at the time because they wanted an immense amount of government spending and expansion just like the Democrats did. Bush I was also talking openly about a "New World Order" and all this kind of nonsense, and lots of craziness was going on under Reagan too, even though he was probably the most conservative of the three. So it's been a while since we've had a truly conservative president.

    Sovereignty is supposed to be divided between the federal and state governments so that they can challenge each other. Some founders were pro-federal powers (Federalists), some were pro-states' rights (Democrat-Republicans), and others saw the benefit in letting the states and federal government challenge and argue with each other. I think it's healthy that there is a division of powers and that it's ambiguous as to who exactly has jurisdiction in a specific matter according to the Constitution. Sometimes states have stepped up and prevented federal corruption, like in the 1790's under Adams' administration when he made it a federal crime to criticize the government (imagine that), and other times the federal government has stepped in to end things like slavery and voter fraud in the individual states. Today you also see states legalizing marijuana despite it being illegal federally, which is another form of exerting state sovereignty as per the 10th amendment. The feds and states still argue a lot about this stuff to this day. It's part of the whole "checks and balances" thing.
    Last edited by bsbray, 18th September 2016 at 20:38.

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (18th September 2016), Dreamtimer (19th September 2016), Elen (19th September 2016), ERK (19th September 2016), jimmer (18th September 2016), modwiz (20th September 2016)

  19. #355
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    14,610
    Thanks
    70,673
    Thanked 62,025 Times in 14,520 Posts
    Good answer, bsbray. Thanks. There are those who would like to get rid of the amendment that guarantees citizenship at birth. And I've heard about others, but I guess you haven't.

    The Wikipedia article is interesting and the Bush v. Gore affair was rather messy. Where was the outrage at the Federal Government stepping in and suspending the state constitution? Did it exist in the conservative community? Was there concern over the conflicts of interest with Scalia and Thomas?

    I've noticed that Fivethirtyeight is showing the current race very close at this point.

    For years my brother would say to me, "You can't vote for flip-floppers. You don't know where they stand." And now he's preparing to vote for one of the biggest flip-floppers in our history.

    Where's the integrity?

  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (19th September 2016), bsbray (19th September 2016), Cearna (21st September 2016), Elen (19th September 2016), modwiz (20th September 2016)

  21. #356
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    Good answer, bsbray. Thanks. There are those who would like to get rid of the amendment that guarantees citizenship at birth. And I've heard about others, but I guess you haven't.
    Ah, you're talking about the "anchor baby" issue. Immigrants cross into the US illegally and then have a baby, automatically a US citizen, and then use that baby as a means for staying legally and even being paid government benefits. It's a way of circumventing the immigration system and that's why it's an issue. These illegals also vote (illegally) in states like California, for Democrats, because Democrats vote to give them more welfare money and they know it. It's a corrupt way of buying illegal votes basically.

    I can't think of any major country today that just lets whoever cross its borders whenever, without any sort of regulation or control. There are lots of reasons why that is a bad idea, starting with the fact that people who are not even US citizens are voting in state and national elections in California when they have no idea how our government even works. I'd like to know where else in the world someone who is not a citizen can just waltz in and start voting and demanding government benefits (from taxpayers), illegally, and little to nothing is done about it.

    What do you think about this?:

    Illegal Immigrants Get More Welfare Than American Families

    The households of illegal immigrants receive an average of about $1,000 more annually in federal welfare benefits than do the households of non-immigrant recipients, a new analysis finds.

    According to the immigration control advocacy group, Center for Immigration Studies, which breaks down federal cost data from 2012, the welfare payout to likely illegal immigrant households averages $5,692 yearly, compared with the average $4,431 welfare payout to non-immigrant households collecting the benefit.

    The CIS analysis study points out illegal immigrants are barred from directly receiving welfare, but may obtain it through their U.S.-born children.
    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ill.../09/id/727875/


    I would certainly not be opposed to laws aimed at preventing this kind of abuse of the system.


    The Wikipedia article is interesting and the Bush v. Gore affair was rather messy. Where was the outrage at the Federal Government stepping in and suspending the state constitution? Did it exist in the conservative community? Was there concern over the conflicts of interest with Scalia and Thomas?
    Unless the MSM shows everyone the outrage then I guess most people would just assume none exists. It's like that old philosophical question about a tree falling in the woods while no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound? In this case I guess it would be, if there is outrage and the media has a total black-out on it, does it exist? This is why letting a bunch of crooks control the media is so dangerous.

    The neo-cons that stole the 2000 election (not that Gore would have been any better anyway) were doing a lot worse than having the US Supreme Court step in on their behalf. There was rampant voter fraud that was never given attention in the MSM. One voting district in Ohio had about 20,000 registered voters and produced something like 80,000 votes. Some counties in Florida came back almost 100% for Bush, which is impossible.


    This guy testifies to being involved in designing the programs to rig the 2000 election:


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxGGnmRQAs



    Notice that guy says that his program would "flip the vote 51/49." When we had what was supposedly two of the closest popular elections in US history in a row and they kept coming out 51/49 or even down to just a few tens of thousands of votes, that should already be setting off red flags. Out of a country this diverse of 300+ million I don't think there are very good odds of that happening so consistently. It's too much of a coincidence, and that guy above confirms that it's fraud.


    The same thing has already happened earlier this year with the Democratic primaries. There are lots of videos online of hearings looking into primary rigging in favor of Hillary against Bernie, like this one:


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESyXvGLMIS0



    Despite all this, the Democrats never called foul on election fraud in 2000 either. Gore didn't even argue much about the SC decision. They have been working together and serving the same interests for a long time. They just have different means of destroying our government. Trump is the only presidential candidate in modern history who has been going around talking about voter fraud and saying we need to keep a careful watch on what is happening at the polls. That says to me that any vote rigging would not likely be in his favor and he knows it.


    For years my brother would say to me, "You can't vote for flip-floppers. You don't know where they stand." And now he's preparing to vote for one of the biggest flip-floppers in our history.
    That "flip-flopper" thing came about during the Bush vs. Kerry campaign. I always thought it was a stupid insult, as if politicians aren't allowed to change their minds about things and must follow the same failed policies regardless of their disastrous consequences. I guess no one back then thought too much about that. You can almost feel what I'm going to say next coming, can't you? Trump was accused of being a flip-flopper and said exactly what I have always thought about it, that it's completely stupid to cling to failed policies and it's good to be open to a change of opinion. Some people think that makes him dangerous, as if changes of opinion are inherently dangerous, but I think it makes him more human and less of a robot.

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (19th September 2016), Dreamtimer (19th September 2016), Elen (19th September 2016), ERK (19th September 2016), modwiz (20th September 2016), Wind (20th September 2016)

  23. #357
    Retired Member United States
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    14,610
    Thanks
    70,673
    Thanked 62,025 Times in 14,520 Posts
    bsbary, the outrage I failed to see was among the conservatives I personally know and observed. I definitely am not taking the nation's temperature based on what the MSM reports.

    There's a long term pattern of double standards. Newt Gingrich would say, time and again, don't talk to the media. Don't debate with the democrats. Ann Coulter wrote a book called How to Talk to a Liberal, If You Must. She's capitalizing on this idea, makes a lot of money, and is quite popular.

    And I keep hearing conservatives complaining about how the democrats won't dialogue with them. They want it both ways.

    The immigration issue is a serious one, no doubt. Getting rid of our amendments isn't a solution.

    I'm sure you recall this statement by Sandra Day O'Connor along the lines of, "The Republican party has a serious problem. For the first time in the history of our country they're trying to amend the constitution to restrict rights. We've always amended the constitution to expand rights."

    It was the Defense of Marriage Act. And it was found unconstitutional.

    Even the voter fraud issue. It's more than just people voting who shouldn't. There are machine issues, votes being thrown out, polling places not opening or having a fraction of the needed machines and more. But the thing conservatives want is ID. Another restriction that's not in the constitution.

    There's a pattern. Republicans see a real problem, but come up with solutions that restrict or take away rights.

    When people say that those aren't really conservatives, it evades the concern at hand.

    I've become so frustrated at this that I coined a term: 'republexcuse' And the number one, two and three republexcuses are the liberals, the democrats, or an evasion like, "Well I'm a libertarian."

    I don't know if Trump has double standards. I don't know if he has standards. He seems to be very skilled at handling corporate bankruptcies. It's probably a talent we'll need.

  24. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (20th September 2016), bsbray (20th September 2016), Elen (20th September 2016), modwiz (20th September 2016)

  25. #358
    Senior Member Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Nestled in Appalachia
    Posts
    6,720
    Thanks
    40,125
    Thanked 41,242 Times in 6,698 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by jimmer View Post
    I couldn't have said it better myself, LTV:

    “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

    Fairwell, sweet unknown (and don't let a sasquatch bite ya on the way out)

    Now, how's about that revolution we've been hearing so much about:

    https://vimeo.com/181056817

    Want to watch my video making skills improve before your very eyes? (with lots of help from a friend)

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQC...WROfVUw/videos
    I watched both videos and enjoyed them. Fail to the chief was funny.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (20th September 2016), bsbray (20th September 2016), Dreamtimer (21st September 2016)

  27. #359
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Dreamtimer View Post
    bsbary, the outrage I failed to see was among the conservatives I personally know and observed. I definitely am not taking the nation's temperature based on what the MSM reports.
    Well then they probably didn't care because it was Bush that won. I don't remember seeing much outrage out of anybody and I wasn't personally paying much attention back then anyway, since I generally took for granted whatever the media/government was saying until after 9/11.

    There's a long term pattern of double standards. Newt Gingrich would say, time and again, don't talk to the media. Don't debate with the democrats. Ann Coulter wrote a book called How to Talk to a Liberal, If You Must. She's capitalizing on this idea, makes a lot of money, and is quite popular.

    And I keep hearing conservatives complaining about how the democrats won't dialogue with them. They want it both ways.
    I'm not sure what double-standard you mean. I don't personally associate myself with the Republican party today. Both parties have been run by globalists and the people who killed Kennedy for a good while.

    I tend to look at things on an issue-by-issue basis and I consider myself conservative in the traditional sense, not by measuring myself and lumping myself in with the politicians you see in Congress today. I'm against the Patriot Act, I was against the war in Iraq, I'm against Obamacare, I'm against having the weakest immigration enforcement of any major nation on Earth and I'm against people voting solely upon party lines.

    The immigration issue is a serious one, no doubt. Getting rid of our amendments isn't a solution.
    You're right. All Obama would have to do is issue an executive order forbidding welfare money to be given to families who are in the US illegally, or any number of things along those lines. Instead of giving them $6,000 a year they could just take that same money and pay for fingerprinting and a train ride back across the border, and throw in a pamphlet that explains our immigration process and how to enter the US and even become a citizen the legal way, as Mexican friends of mine had to do. Obviously this isn't happening because one party in particular is dragging its feet and is trying to stir up righteous indignation even over the term "illegal immigrant."

    If every time some executive order like that were challenged by the courts on the basis that welfare can't be discriminately denied to certain US citizens (ie the "anchor babies"), regardless of the reality of the situation (ie illegal immigrants coming over and popping out a baby just for the sole purpose of "anchoring" themselves and then getting free money on top of it), then it might be considered that amending the Constitution is the only way to stop having the courts object to denying free money to the illegal immigrants. The wording wouldn't have to be some sweeping disenfranchizement, but just some very specific wording about how if one or two people enter the US illegally and then have a baby, that baby will not be considered a US citizen until the parents are in the country legally, and the family won't be eligible for welfare money on its account until then, either. Do you think that would be unreasonable?

    It was the Defense of Marriage Act. And it was found unconstitutional.
    Well I'm all for gay rights so you're preaching to the choir on that one.

    Even the voter fraud issue. It's more than just people voting who shouldn't. There are machine issues, votes being thrown out, polling places not opening or having a fraction of the needed machines and more. But the thing conservatives want is ID. Another restriction that's not in the constitution.
    In the past, when people still had outhouses and lived on what they grew, and had little to no cash money, requiring a cheap government ID might disqualify large sections of the population from voting. But in 2016, I'd say that 99.9% of people who are voting, if they don't have a driver's license, at least have one of those $10 government ID cards. Far more concerning is the fact that people who aren't even citizens are voting in our elections. Simply requiring an ID would stop that. You are balancing two problems: preventing a very, very small number of people who don't have IDs from voting, or allowing an increasing number of illegal immigrants to vote and influence our elections and government. Is there a better solution that you've thought of besides requiring an ID to vote?

    When people say that those aren't really conservatives, it evades the concern at hand.
    I don't think it does, because you could call yourself a liberal or Democrat but I bet you wouldn't want to be made to answer for all of Hillary's policies, would you?

    Political ideas and parties should be defined popularly, or even better, individually, instead of being handed down from politicians. If our politicians are the ones telling us how to feel on issues then something is wrong with the system, because there's no room for alternative thought.

    I don't know if Trump has double standards. I don't know if he has standards. He seems to be very skilled at handling corporate bankruptcies. It's probably a talent we'll need.
    That's what I'm thinking too.

  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (20th September 2016), Dreamtimer (21st September 2016), ERK (20th September 2016), modwiz (20th September 2016)

  29. #360
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    Speaking of gay rights, Trump is just about single-handedly rewriting the Republican party's stance on gay rights anyway, judging by the way he gave a gay man a slot to talk about relevant issues at the Republican National Convention (Peter Thiel), and then gave a speech himself saying he was going to protect the "LGBTQ" community against foreign ideologies, ie radical Islam.

    If you listen to the way he gave that speech, it looks like he was going to try to use Republicans' distaste for radical Islam to make them sympathize with the gay community, as if he were not expecting a particularly positive response on that. But he did get a positive response from the crowd, and made an unscripted comment that he was glad that people were cheering for what he had just said. It probably sounds corny but there was another woman who was interviewed after the RNC was over, who said she had been anti-Trump before the convention but said she actually started crying when the above happened because she was so glad to finally see positive responses to gay rights within the Republican party. I think a lot of people had a sigh of relief on that one. I was one of them.

    CBS actually did a pretty fair job of covering it when it happened, even though it sounds like someone is popping popcorn in the same room where they're talking. I'm guessing the corporate heads hadn't had enough time to pass down a talking point response to Trump's platform yet.


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSVLpzGseXw



    I want to say too that the "neo-con" thing was a legitimately "new" movement, seemingly just among wealthy and influential warhawks, that represented Bush's presidency from 2001 to 2008. "Neo" is Greek for "new." "New conservative" is a contradiction in terms. Conservatism means wanting to conserve what is already there over wanting radical change. Sometimes change is necessary, but if everyone were clear as to what specific kinds of change the globalists want to impose upon us today, the idea of preserving things as they currently are would suddenly seem like a much better option than before. Globalists would gut this country for the sake of an international order of oligarchs, and if given the opportunity this is exactly what they will do. Globalism spans across party lines.

    And really there are legitimate splits within parties too. We've had presidential elections before, like Taft vs. Roosevelt vs. Wilson in 1912, where the Republican ticket basically split in two because of major policy differences within it. Today, the Bush faction of the Republican party is totally alienated from Trump's campaign. I'm still convinced that this was "supposed" to be another Bush vs. Clinton election until Jeb was humiliated. On the other side, Bernie's supporters are disgusted with Hillary because she only works for Wall Street and they know it. From what has happened this election season both major political parties are facing serious reform or disintegration. The Libertarian and Green parties are also legitimately distinct parties but I don't necessarily agree with what either of them say either. I would be more likely to lean Libertarian, even moreso than Republican if it weren't Trump running this season, but I don't think there is any one candidate who any of us are 100% in agreement with at all times.

  30. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (20th September 2016), ERK (20th September 2016), modwiz (20th September 2016), Wind (21st September 2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •