THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 573, 574, 575 ... 704, 705, 706  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
20,000
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 28707
Location: At encina1's house

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:21 am    Post subject:

Pope Francis says rescinding DACA is not 'pro-life'

Quote:
Aboard the papal plane (CNN)If US President Donald Trump considers himself "pro-life," he should reconsider his decision to end a program that allows the children of undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, Pope Francis said.

"The President of the United States presents himself as pro-life and if he is a good pro-lifer, he understands that family is the cradle of life and its unity must be protected," Francis said.

The Pope's comments came during a news conference Sunday aboard the papal plane, as he returned to the Vatican after a five-day trip to Colombia. In the wide-ranging Q&A with reporters, the Pope also said history will harshly judge deniers of climate change.


Which is it, Republicans, go all in anti-immigration, or all in pro-life? According to the pope, you cannot be both. But somehow I find you will find a way to twist it.
_________________
Courage doesn't always roar.
Sometimes courage is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying...'I will try again tomorrow.'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 1623

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:45 am    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
But at the end of the day, when it came down to her and Trump, anyone who did anything other than vote for her screwed themselves and everyone else over.

DaMuleRules wrote:
Which is why I have nothing but contempt for anyone who looked at the two options and chose to do anything other than vote for Clinton.


These quotes really resonated with me.
There were approximately 232 million people who were voting-eligible in 2016.
40% didn't vote at all. Approximately 5% voted for a third party candidate. And 27% voted for Trump. So over 70% of the voting-eligible population directly or indirectly allowed Trump to be our President. Whether he wins again in 2020 or not. If the %s look similar to that. I'll have contempt for most of the US population. You can claim ignorance or niavete the first time around. But after 4 years of this, nobody has an excuse in my book.


If you didn't want Trump as President, or Hillary as President, what were your choices? You can have all the contempt you want, but it should be at the system, not the citizens forced to deal with it.
i'll say it again. the man's name was bernie sanders. he was starring everyone in the face. and most say "who? I'll go with the lady i know, even if i can't trust her."(per the polls).

That popularity contest stuff is what got us here today. and we deserve it for not voting smarter. we vote popularity, who's cute, who LOOKS the part. that type of tom foolery.

and those quotes from the other two posters is how brainwashed we are as a nation. we really believe we only have two choices. as if we really can't vote for anyone else. The only reason our choices are so few is due to the fact that we allow it as voters. we allow ourselves to be brainwashed into believing these two people were the only two legit choices. That's not true. A bunch of people made TRUMP a legit choice. let that resonate with you for a minute hilary voters. if a bunch of people could make this idiot a real candidate. You know darn well you could've done the same with other reliable candidates outside of hillary who you already knew she had a lot of haters out there. too many to mess around and possibly lose the election over. You see this guy thats been around washington for awhile where people are feeling what he's talking about. yet you choose to ignore the old man like the media did and go with hillary because what? because she's who you knew. she was the more popular of the two. and some of you are afraid of the word socialist or socialism. I'll ask this question again. how do you expect us to get from the far right side of things without going hard left? going center aint going to cut it at this point in time. to me, hillary voters fear of something more so called progressive or so called socialist is what got us trump. if the DNC and/or the voters dont tow that company line and they actually vote their hearts and minds. You just said you trusted that man bernie more than you did hillary. why on earth are you still voting for her?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 41751
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:14 am    Post subject:

20,000 wrote:
Pope Francis says rescinding DACA is not 'pro-life'

Quote:
Aboard the papal plane (CNN)If US President Donald Trump considers himself "pro-life," he should reconsider his decision to end a program that allows the children of undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, Pope Francis said.

"The President of the United States presents himself as pro-life and if he is a good pro-lifer, he understands that family is the cradle of life and its unity must be protected," Francis said.

The Pope's comments came during a news conference Sunday aboard the papal plane, as he returned to the Vatican after a five-day trip to Colombia. In the wide-ranging Q&A with reporters, the Pope also said history will harshly judge deniers of climate change.


Which is it, Republicans, go all in anti-immigration, or all in pro-life? According to the pope, you cannot be both. But somehow I find you will find a way to twist it.


I thought pro-life was saving unborn children through non-violent direct action.. I see how it can be family related but isn't that an addition to it's original intention?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 14594
Location: In a no-ship

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:26 am    Post subject:

Cory Booker trying to make amends for his shameful vote on prescription drugs earlier this year?

Quote:
Booker signs on to Sanders's 'Medicare-for-all' bill

Sen. Cory Booker is throwing his support behind a "Medicare for all" bill being introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), becoming the latest Democrat floated as a 2020 contender to back the legislation.

The New Jersey senator told NJTV News that he would sign on as a co-sponsor of the bill, which is scheduled to be rolled out on Wednesday.

"This is something thatís got to happen. ObamaCare was a first step in advancing this country, but I wonít rest until every American has a basic security that comes with having access to affordable health care," Booker told the New Jersey outlet.

[...]

The idea is also gaining traction within the Democratic Party and is emerging as a litmus test for potential 2020 presidential candidates.

In addition to Booker, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Kamala Harris (Calif.) are supporting Sanders's legislation.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/350090-booker-signs-onto-sanderss-medicare-for-all


It's great to see this thought gaining traction for 2020. Anything that could possibly be done before then will be vetoed, unfortunately.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 1623

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:36 am    Post subject:

jodeke wrote:
20,000 wrote:
Pope Francis says rescinding DACA is not 'pro-life'

Quote:
Aboard the papal plane (CNN)If US President Donald Trump considers himself "pro-life," he should reconsider his decision to end a program that allows the children of undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States, Pope Francis said.

"The President of the United States presents himself as pro-life and if he is a good pro-lifer, he understands that family is the cradle of life and its unity must be protected," Francis said.

The Pope's comments came during a news conference Sunday aboard the papal plane, as he returned to the Vatican after a five-day trip to Colombia. In the wide-ranging Q&A with reporters, the Pope also said history will harshly judge deniers of climate change.


Which is it, Republicans, go all in anti-immigration, or all in pro-life? According to the pope, you cannot be both. But somehow I find you will find a way to twist it.


I thought pro-life was saving unborn children through non-violent direct action.. I see how it can be family related but isn't that an addition to it's original intention?


here's the thing. what is it to really be pro-life? aka for LIFE. meaning what? are you just a person that wants babies to live but you dont care the conditions they live in which could end up killing them at a later date?

if you care for life. what do you do to protect it after its born? if you dont do that again. life can be lost at a later date.


its to some degree hypocritical to be pro-life only at birth and not pro-life from birth to the child is able to take of him/herself.

you're pro life at birth but you're anti-life after, due to all of the policies and govt help/assistance these kids will need a lot of times. your positions or the positions of those you vote for are against most of these kids assistance.

we already know a majority of the abortions are coming from poor would be parents. these type's of parents need a lot of govt help. Now if you dont want the govt to do the helping...Fine. You do it. and do it as good as the govt or better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 41751
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered intelligent.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:39 am    Post subject:

DuncanIdaho wrote:
Cory Booker trying to make amends for his shameful vote on prescription drugs earlier this year?

Quote:
Booker signs on to Sanders's 'Medicare-for-all' bill

Sen. Cory Booker is throwing his support behind a "Medicare for all" bill being introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), becoming the latest Democrat floated as a 2020 contender to back the legislation.

The New Jersey senator told NJTV News that he would sign on as a co-sponsor of the bill, which is scheduled to be rolled out on Wednesday.

"This is something thatís got to happen. ObamaCare was a first step in advancing this country, but I wonít rest until every American has a basic security that comes with having access to affordable health care," Booker told the New Jersey outlet.

[...]

The idea is also gaining traction within the Democratic Party and is emerging as a litmus test for potential 2020 presidential candidates.

In addition to Booker, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Kamala Harris (Calif.) are supporting Sanders's legislation.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/350090-booker-signs-onto-sanderss-medicare-for-all


It's great to see this thought gaining traction for 2020. Anything that could possibly be done before then will be vetoed, unfortunately.


That's my choice for one o the new faces needed to advance the Democrats message. I hope she and Booker don't take the Hillary, Bernie path and hurt one another.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Your prayers are always answered. Sometimes the answer is NO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 13787
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:56 am    Post subject:

Not to belabor the Bernie issue, but Bernie was never fully vetted on the national stage. Hillary held back because she didn't want to offend his voters. Trump held back because he used Bernie to cause trouble for Clinton. If Bernie had been the nominee, then the GOP and Russians would have used the same tactics on him. They would have lied, made stuff up, used his Jewish background to rile up Trump's white nationalist base, Bernie never did release taxes, Jane perhaps did some shady bank stuff, etc. People want to think Bernie would have been a slam dunk against Trump. He obviously would have been competitive, I just don't think he would have been the sure thing some people would like to believe.

And I would have voted for him without any reservation whatsoever had he been the nominee.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
focus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 1449

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 12:18 pm    Post subject:

splashmtn wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
But at the end of the day, when it came down to her and Trump, anyone who did anything other than vote for her screwed themselves and everyone else over.

DaMuleRules wrote:
Which is why I have nothing but contempt for anyone who looked at the two options and chose to do anything other than vote for Clinton.


These quotes really resonated with me.
There were approximately 232 million people who were voting-eligible in 2016.
40% didn't vote at all. Approximately 5% voted for a third party candidate. And 27% voted for Trump. So over 70% of the voting-eligible population directly or indirectly allowed Trump to be our President. Whether he wins again in 2020 or not. If the %s look similar to that. I'll have contempt for most of the US population. You can claim ignorance or niavete the first time around. But after 4 years of this, nobody has an excuse in my book.


If you didn't want Trump as President, or Hillary as President, what were your choices? You can have all the contempt you want, but it should be at the system, not the citizens forced to deal with it.
i'll say it again. the man's name was bernie sanders. he was starring everyone in the face. and most say "who? I'll go with the lady i know, even if i can't trust her."(per the polls).

That popularity contest stuff is what got us here today. and we deserve it for not voting smarter. we vote popularity, who's cute, who LOOKS the part. that type of tom foolery.

and those quotes from the other two posters is how brainwashed we are as a nation. we really believe we only have two choices. as if we really can't vote for anyone else. The only reason our choices are so few is due to the fact that we allow it as voters. we allow ourselves to be brainwashed into believing these two people were the only two legit choices. That's not true. A bunch of people made TRUMP a legit choice. let that resonate with you for a minute hilary voters. if a bunch of people could make this idiot a real candidate. You know darn well you could've done the same with other reliable candidates outside of hillary who you already knew she had a lot of haters out there. too many to mess around and possibly lose the election over. You see this guy thats been around washington for awhile where people are feeling what he's talking about. yet you choose to ignore the old man like the media did and go with hillary because what? because she's who you knew. she was the more popular of the two. and some of you are afraid of the word socialist or socialism. I'll ask this question again. how do you expect us to get from the far right side of things without going hard left? going center aint going to cut it at this point in time. to me, hillary voters fear of something more so called progressive or so called socialist is what got us trump. if the DNC and/or the voters dont tow that company line and they actually vote their hearts and minds. You just said you trusted that man bernie more than you did hillary. why on earth are you still voting for her?

Agree with a lot of this.

I do not like reducing the term to "Hillary voter", though. Well beyond her.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lucky_Shot
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 1746

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:23 pm    Post subject:

My 5 trillion dollar budget (Plus interest). I would ban govenment pensions.

27% of gdp(plus interest)
1 trillion on the education budget (expand and strengthen fin-aid)
1 trillion on ssi
.5 trillion on military
1.5 trillion on single payer healthcare
1 trillion on a infrastructure program

Or we could
spend 1.5 trillion on infrastructure/military
and redistribute the 3.5 trillion(around 20% of GDP) over the population which would
= 11k for every man woman and child per year.
_________________
Starting Lineup:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lucky_Shot
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 1746

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:24 pm    Post subject:

I think we need to create a mandatory spending trillion dollar Federal infrastructure program.

Our great grand parents created a road system on the scale of the great wall. I think its our responsibility to maintain a really good albeit a little flawed system and I don't see a better replacement for it either.
_________________
Starting Lineup:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 120936
Location: The Gold Coast

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:30 pm    Post subject:

Lucky_Shot wrote:
My 5 trillion dollar budget (Plus interest). I would ban govenment pensions.

27% of gdp(plus interest)
1 trillion on the education budget (expand and strengthen fin-aid)
1 trillion on ssi
.5 trillion on military
1.5 trillion on single payer healthcare
1 trillion on a infrastructure program

Or we could
spend 1.5 trillion on infrastructure/military
and redistribute the 3.5 trillion(around 20% of GDP) over the population which would
= 11k for every man woman and child per year.


So you wouldn't care about union support and never plan on winning another election?
_________________
#lakerclownshow
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 28529

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:31 pm    Post subject:

Thats 1 trillion more than our current budget....we can just print more money!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lucky_Shot
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 1746

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 5:43 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
Lucky_Shot wrote:
My 5 trillion dollar budget (Plus interest). I would ban govenment pensions.

27% of gdp(plus interest)
1 trillion on the education budget (expand and strengthen fin-aid)
1 trillion on ssi
.5 trillion on military
1.5 trillion on single payer healthcare
1 trillion on a infrastructure program

Or we could
spend 1.5 trillion on infrastructure/military
and redistribute the 3.5 trillion(around 20% of GDP) over the population which would
= 11k for every man woman and child per year.


So you wouldn't care about union support and never plan on winning another election?


Well in this case I would have to be a wizard to do all of this but I'm not the biggest union guy in the world.
_________________
Starting Lineup:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 16127
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:02 pm    Post subject:

splashmtn wrote:


I'll say it again. the man's name was bernie sanders. he was starring everyone in the face. and most say "who? I'll go with the lady i know, even if i can't trust her."(per the polls).

That popularity contest stuff is what got us here today. and we deserve it for not voting smarter. we vote popularity, who's cute, who LOOKS the part. that type of tom foolery.

and those quotes from the other two posters is how brainwashed we are as a nation. we really believe we only have two choices. as if we really can't vote for anyone else. The only reason our choices are so few is due to the fact that we allow it as voters. we allow ourselves to be brainwashed into believing these two people were the only two legit choices. That's not true. A bunch of people made TRUMP a legit choice. let that resonate with you for a minute hilary voters. if a bunch of people could make this idiot a real candidate. You know darn well you could've done the same with other reliable candidates outside of hillary who you already knew she had a lot of haters out there. too many to mess around and possibly lose the election over. You see this guy thats been around washington for awhile where people are feeling what he's talking about. yet you choose to ignore the old man like the media did and go with hillary because what? because she's who you knew. she was the more popular of the two. and some of you are afraid of the word socialist or socialism. I'll ask this question again. how do you expect us to get from the far right side of things without going hard left? going center aint going to cut it at this point in time. to me, hillary voters fear of something more so called progressive or so called socialist is what got us trump. if the DNC and/or the voters dont tow that company line and they actually vote their hearts and minds. You just said you trusted that man bernie more than you did hillary. why on earth are you still voting for her?


I agree going far left seems like the appropriate response to the far-right taking over the GOP. If the DNC keeps settling with centrists ideas. The GOP will keep pulling the country as a whole right of that.

But I question Bernie's ability to build a consensus. And you need that to have a successful Presidency.
But maybe that's your point (and Bernie's). Being "reasonable" is what put the Dems in their current position. The GOP doesn't want a middle ground. Compromise isn't an option for them. So as dems we need to put our feet in the ground and push for truly progressive policies (federal "living wage", universal healthcare, free college). And even though it has 0% chance of happening today. Stay there, on the far left. Keep pulling. And hopefully, one day, we'll get a chance to change the country. That's kinda what Trump's base did.
I do worry about the blow back from that type of stance. The right can live with a non-functioning government. The GOP's whole shtick is, we need less government. Cause the government sucks!!!
But on the left, we have a conscious. We want our country's institutions to work and be respected. Don't know if the Dems are in power, if they could live with a government shutdown (for example) just to hold firm for the sake of principle.

Honestly, I don't think the tangible policy difference between Bernie and Hillary was more important than keeping Trump out of the White House. But I'm not a swing state voter. So my opinion doesn't matter much.
_________________
"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 16127
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 6:12 pm    Post subject:

I know I bring up Barack alot. But I think about him when Bernie and Hillary come up.
For example, when he drafted the ACA. He initially pushed for single payer. But the pragmatist in him settled for our current system after douches like Joe Lieberman shut down single payer.
So Barack started off closer to Bernie's universal healthcare/medicare for all. But ended up closer to what Hillary's stance was when running in 2016 (albeit Hillary wanted to fix ACA and push for more coverage).
Maybe our next Presidential candidate should do the same. The voters want big change. And even though it unrealistic. It's important our candidate communicates with the base, I want the same thing too.
_________________
"The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39660
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 7:40 pm    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
splashmtn wrote:


I'll say it again. the man's name was bernie sanders. he was starring everyone in the face. and most say "who? I'll go with the lady i know, even if i can't trust her."(per the polls).

That popularity contest stuff is what got us here today. and we deserve it for not voting smarter. we vote popularity, who's cute, who LOOKS the part. that type of tom foolery.

and those quotes from the other two posters is how brainwashed we are as a nation. we really believe we only have two choices. as if we really can't vote for anyone else. The only reason our choices are so few is due to the fact that we allow it as voters. we allow ourselves to be brainwashed into believing these two people were the only two legit choices. That's not true. A bunch of people made TRUMP a legit choice. let that resonate with you for a minute hilary voters. if a bunch of people could make this idiot a real candidate. You know darn well you could've done the same with other reliable candidates outside of hillary who you already knew she had a lot of haters out there. too many to mess around and possibly lose the election over. You see this guy thats been around washington for awhile where people are feeling what he's talking about. yet you choose to ignore the old man like the media did and go with hillary because what? because she's who you knew. she was the more popular of the two. and some of you are afraid of the word socialist or socialism. I'll ask this question again. how do you expect us to get from the far right side of things without going hard left? going center aint going to cut it at this point in time. to me, hillary voters fear of something more so called progressive or so called socialist is what got us trump. if the DNC and/or the voters dont tow that company line and they actually vote their hearts and minds. You just said you trusted that man bernie more than you did hillary. why on earth are you still voting for her?


I agree going far left seems like the appropriate response to the far-right taking over the GOP. If the DNC keeps settling with centrists ideas. The GOP will keep pulling the country as a whole right of that.

But I question Bernie's ability to build a consensus. And you need that to have a successful Presidency.
But maybe that's your point (and Bernie's). Being "reasonable" is what put the Dems in their current position. The GOP doesn't want a middle ground. Compromise isn't an option for them. So as dems we need to put our feet in the ground and push for truly progressive policies (federal "living wage", universal healthcare, free college). And even though it has 0% chance of happening today. Stay there, on the far left. Keep pulling. And hopefully, one day, we'll get a chance to change the country. That's kinda what Trump's base did.
I do worry about the blow back from that type of stance. The right can live with a non-functioning government. The GOP's whole shtick is, we need less government. Cause the government sucks!!!
But on the left, we have a conscious. We want our country's institutions to work and be respected. Don't know if the Dems are in power, if they could live with a government shutdown (for example) just to hold firm for the sake of principle.

Honestly, I don't think the tangible policy difference between Bernie and Hillary was more important than keeping Trump out of the White House. But I'm not a swing state voter. So my opinion doesn't matter much.


Which is why postnpivot's comment that realizing that the election comes down to either Candidate A or Candidate B means one is "brainwashed" is inaccurate and dangerously out of touch with reality of our current political system.

I'd love to have a viable third party in our system. But as several recent elections have demonstrated, we aren't there yet. Such a possibility requires many cycles of grassroots efforts to build such a viable party. Such party members need to grow within the system from the lowest levels of representation to build a cohesive and consistent base. Picking the Pirot/Nader/Stein flavor of the summer in October is a pointless endeavor that serves nothing other than to satisfy one's personal arrogance - "I'm making a statement" or "I'm much more concerned with my own agenda that to help make sure the country stays on a decent track". Throwing away one's vote accomplishes nothing and it certainly doesn't advance the viability for the existence of a third party.

This past election we were not faced with two equally abysmal choices cut from the same cloth. Quite the opposite. Never has there been a more disparate choice of candidates. One represented the absolute worst of this country across the board from corporate corruption to the seamy underbelly of racism and entered with no ability to be a viable President on any level from experience to decorum or wisdom. The other was an experienced and qualified public servant who as the last couple of years demonstrated was more than poised and confident enough to standup to and navigate the worst stress and obstructionism that could be thrown at her. And, the whole "draining the swamp" fantasy that Trump sold to the naive was exactly the opposite of the reality.

There's nothing about realizing what was at stake in this election in regards to the realities of its outcome and the ramifications of what those are that has anything to do with being "brainwashed". Quite the opposite. The mindless fantasy existed with those that ignored the implications of wasting their vote this time around.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 79082
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:06 pm    Post subject:

venturalakersfan wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
But at the end of the day, when it came down to her and Trump, anyone who did anything other than vote for her screwed themselves and everyone else over.

DaMuleRules wrote:
Which is why I have nothing but contempt for anyone who looked at the two options and chose to do anything other than vote for Clinton.


These quotes really resonated with me.
There were approximately 232 million people who were voting-eligible in 2016.
40% didn't vote at all. Approximately 5% voted for a third party candidate. And 27% voted for Trump. So over 70% of the voting-eligible population directly or indirectly allowed Trump to be our President. Whether he wins again in 2020 or not. If the %s look similar to that. I'll have contempt for most of the US population. You can claim ignorance or niavete the first time around. But after 4 years of this, nobody has an excuse in my book.


If you didn't want Trump as President, or Hillary as President, what were your choices? You can have all the contempt you want, but it should be at the system, not the citizens forced to deal with it.


It is fine to want neither, but the facts were that it was going to be one of them, and one of them was by any credible measure ridiculously worse than the other. It's like being forced to choose between being beaten and being killed, and knowing that if you choose neither you get killed.
_________________
Tolerance is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 39660
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 8:24 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
kikanga wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
But at the end of the day, when it came down to her and Trump, anyone who did anything other than vote for her screwed themselves and everyone else over.

DaMuleRules wrote:
Which is why I have nothing but contempt for anyone who looked at the two options and chose to do anything other than vote for Clinton.


These quotes really resonated with me.
There were approximately 232 million people who were voting-eligible in 2016.
40% didn't vote at all. Approximately 5% voted for a third party candidate. And 27% voted for Trump. So over 70% of the voting-eligible population directly or indirectly allowed Trump to be our President. Whether he wins again in 2020 or not. If the %s look similar to that. I'll have contempt for most of the US population. You can claim ignorance or niavete the first time around. But after 4 years of this, nobody has an excuse in my book.


If you didn't want Trump as President, or Hillary as President, what were your choices? You can have all the contempt you want, but it should be at the system, not the citizens forced to deal with it.


It is fine to want neither, but the facts were that it was going to be one of them, and one of them was by any credible measure ridiculously worse than the other. It's like being forced to choose between being beaten and being killed, and knowing that if you choose neither you get killed.


Actually, it's more like being offerered the choice between watching your friends, family and others being beaten or killed and being fine with all of it because you wanted to satisfy your own personal agenda.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
Heís something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built thatís all for show goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilt
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 9111

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:07 pm    Post subject:

Corey Booker officially backs single-payer.

Harris-Booker 2020? Booker-Harris 2020?
_________________
°Hala Madrid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ringfinger
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 18847

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 9:28 pm    Post subject:

To the credit of non-Hilary dem voters (I voted Hilary btw), I don't think anyone thought Trump had a chance in hell at the time of the actual voting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Lucky_Shot
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Jan 2016
Posts: 1746

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 10:43 pm    Post subject:

Wilt wrote:
Corey Booker officially backs single-payer.

Harris-Booker 2020? Booker-Harris 2020?


I would want a democrat business owner or ceo to go against trump to counter his business resume. A Warren Buffet or Mark Cuban type would be ideal but a persuasive Democrat with a really nice business background can win.

This kind of move would win the independent vote and probably the election
_________________
Starting Lineup:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 1623

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:36 pm    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
Not to belabor the Bernie issue, but Bernie was never fully vetted on the national stage. Hillary held back because she didn't want to offend his voters. Trump held back because he used Bernie to cause trouble for Clinton. If Bernie had been the nominee, then the GOP and Russians would have used the same tactics on him. They would have lied, made stuff up, used his Jewish background to rile up Trump's white nationalist base, Bernie never did release taxes, Jane perhaps did some shady bank stuff, etc. People want to think Bernie would have been a slam dunk against Trump. He obviously would have been competitive, I just don't think he would have been the sure thing some people would like to believe.

And I would have voted for him without any reservation whatsoever had he been the nominee.

lets assume all of this is true. What else besides the jane stuff do we have on BERNIE? not jane. but Bernie. and i know jane is basically bernie because thats his wife. and he admitted she handles their finances. I was just asking. have you heard of anything muddy? I havent.

the only mud aside from the jane thing which sounds suspect. I dont know of anything else. All you would've heard is "he's crazee...those are not real policies...he can't deliver on that stuff."

while hillary and trump promise similar pitches to their voters.

and lets remember Hillary and Bill went all in on obama the first time around. all in. and how did that turn out for our girl Hillary?

Lets say we give him the jane situation

Hillary gets every situation since Bill was in office because thats how people see her good and bad. So any issue you could think of belonging to bill is hers and any issue she had is also hers since she was in washington the entire time just about. then anything they found shady about her philanthropy stuff. the emails, benghazi, etc

Trump = slum lord, racist, sexist, a hole.


if someone were to poll you on all of those 3 knowing all 3 of their supposed negative issues. and the poll said "Which one of these 3 candidates is the most trustworthy?"

Who do you think would win the trustworthy competition? We all know Bernie would still win. Because for 1 it doesnt seem like he's a worldclass Ahole like trump, he doesnt SEEM like a racist, nor a sexist. He could be all of those but he doesnt SEEM like one. So he's already better than trump.

Then we go to hillary with a mountain of negative stuff. bernie can't compete with all of hillary's negative stuff legit or not. its just too much for too long. so bernie would be her out too. this is exactly what happened when they polled people. know they didnt know about the jane thing. But even if they did. it would not have made hillary nor trump any more trustworthy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 1623

PostPosted: Mon Sep 11, 2017 11:37 pm    Post subject:

Lucky_Shot wrote:
Wilt wrote:
Corey Booker officially backs single-payer.

Harris-Booker 2020? Booker-Harris 2020?


I would want a democrat business owner or ceo to go against trump to counter his business resume. A Warren Buffet or Mark Cuban type would be ideal but a persuasive Democrat with a really nice business background can win.

This kind of move would win the independent vote and probably the election
you dont want that. we tried that with this guy. I need people to realize, business people for the most part are not made to be president. The US is not a for profit corporation. If you want to make an analogy its more of Non-Profit in how it works. You dont run a Non profit just like you run a for profit. sure there are some things that are alike but there are things that are completely opposing views.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
splashmtn
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 1623

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 12:24 am    Post subject:

kikanga wrote:
splashmtn wrote:


I'll say it again. the man's name was bernie sanders. he was starring everyone in the face. and most say "who? I'll go with the lady i know, even if i can't trust her."(per the polls).

That popularity contest stuff is what got us here today. and we deserve it for not voting smarter. we vote popularity, who's cute, who LOOKS the part. that type of tom foolery.

and those quotes from the other two posters is how brainwashed we are as a nation. we really believe we only have two choices. as if we really can't vote for anyone else. The only reason our choices are so few is due to the fact that we allow it as voters. we allow ourselves to be brainwashed into believing these two people were the only two legit choices. That's not true. A bunch of people made TRUMP a legit choice. let that resonate with you for a minute hilary voters. if a bunch of people could make this idiot a real candidate. You know darn well you could've done the same with other reliable candidates outside of hillary who you already knew she had a lot of haters out there. too many to mess around and possibly lose the election over. You see this guy thats been around washington for awhile where people are feeling what he's talking about. yet you choose to ignore the old man like the media did and go with hillary because what? because she's who you knew. she was the more popular of the two. and some of you are afraid of the word socialist or socialism. I'll ask this question again. how do you expect us to get from the far right side of things without going hard left? going center aint going to cut it at this point in time. to me, hillary voters fear of something more so called progressive or so called socialist is what got us trump. if the DNC and/or the voters dont tow that company line and they actually vote their hearts and minds. You just said you trusted that man bernie more than you did hillary. why on earth are you still voting for her?


I agree going far left seems like the appropriate response to the far-right taking over the GOP. If the DNC keeps settling with centrists ideas. The GOP will keep pulling the country as a whole right of that.

But I question Bernie's ability to build a consensus. And you need that to have a successful Presidency.
But maybe that's your point (and Bernie's). Being "reasonable" is what put the Dems in their current position. The GOP doesn't want a middle ground. Compromise isn't an option for them. So as dems we need to put our feet in the ground and push for truly progressive policies (federal "living wage", universal healthcare, free college). And even though it has 0% chance of happening today. Stay there, on the far left. Keep pulling. And hopefully, one day, we'll get a chance to change the country. That's kinda what Trump's base did.
I do worry about the blow back from that type of stance. The right can live with a non-functioning government. The GOP's whole shtick is, we need less government. Cause the government sucks!!!
But on the left, we have a conscious. We want our country's institutions to work and be respected. Don't know if the Dems are in power, if they could live with a government shutdown (for example) just to hold firm for the sake of principle.

Honestly, I don't think the tangible policy difference between Bernie and Hillary was more important than keeping Trump out of the White House. But I'm not a swing state voter. So my opinion doesn't matter much.


See K, this is the issue...Fear. What are we so darn afraid of on the left?

You stated, "I do worry about the blow back from that type of stance." referring to a hard left stance. What Blow back?

You have a GOP that is ran by talk radio/fox news cooks. by way of brainwashing their voting base.


Fox news/ right wing radio cook tells GOP voter A, B, C, 1, 2, 3

GOP voter tells GOP politician "you better do A,B,C, 1,2,3 or else we will vote this new guy in that will do it for us."

now mind you, ABC nor 123 will do anything to assist said GOP voters. doesnt matter. Radio shock jocks and fox news said it was so. so it is so.


^^^Thats what we are dealing with in our white house. which is why I could've cared less who on the GOP side got in. it would've been horrible either way just more hidden.

Do you realize there are two main culprits to the mess we are in now.

#1 is income inequality.

#2 is automation/global economy.


#1..The havs have been stealing from the havenots. They've changed rules and done things to make it legal to do so. They have our money. Therefore they are going to need to give some of that money back and some aint a few pennies either. if you're too afraid to go up against the elite. Then you are saying you're willing to give even more of your income to the ultra haves. and keep giving it up until you dont have anything left because you refuse to fight for what is rightfully yours.

Income inequality is the main reason the alt-right, white nationalists, racists are so loud and proud right now. Because the broke ones(which is the majority of them) dont have anything else to do with their lives. a bunch of poor whites running around dying from drug overdoses because the haves have taken their share too. This does not absolve them of being racists. because they were racists before it happened this way and they would be racists even if they one the lottery. my point is, they wouldnt be out there rallying like crazy and popping off at the mouth every where you turn like they are right now. due to the fact that most of them would be at work making a decent living, hanging with their family on their off time having fun.

Aint no fun when you're broke. unless you can find someone or something else to take it out on.

#2.. we're not about to stop the global economy. that can of worms is open and it wont be closed. So yes its possible for other people in other countries making a ton less to do some of the same stuff we use to do in the states.But that isnt the scary part. the scary part is automation/A.i. things of that nature. It's moving so rapidly to the point where a lot of us could easily be out of jobs right now. and I'm not just talking blue collar factory jobs. I'm talking office gigs. This is something we need to tackle asap. lets not wait until its too late to tackle the "so what are we going to do when computers can do pretty much everything and there is nothing for us to do workwise? how will we survive? where will we get money from? will we even need money at that point?

Quote:
http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/165716/bad-income-inequality.aspx
One interpretation of the Pareto Principle, which suggests that 20% of the people own 80% of the wealth, is that there's no point in being angry about that inequality. Maybe the 20% is doing better than you because they went to college and you didn't -- but that's not hurting you.

Dr. Deaton: I agree with the Pareto Principle, but you can be hurt by that kind of inequality, and that can happen in many different ways. If a bunch of people get extremely rich but nothing happens to your income, that's OK. But if they use their wealth to start buying the government, for instance, then it's not OK, because you don't get your share in the democracy anymore.

I'll give you an example from the U.S. right now. If you're a drug manufacturer and you come up with a blockbuster drug that does very well, eventually the patent runs out. Your business could let the patent run out and let the generics manufacture that drug, which is what's supposed to happen. But your company could also spend a lot of money lobbying Congress to get an extension of your patent. That's an example of blocking equality, and it hurts people. And economists have been very weak on that.

Like everyone, we economists specialize in what we do. So economists think we're the gods of income; we tend to think about well-being in terms of income, and we don't worry too much about the other things that contribute to well-being, such as health, education, or participating in a democratic society. But not having access to an important medicine doesn't show up as a share of GDP.

When we think about well-being, we can't just think about wealth. That's one of the things we've learned from the Gallup World Poll -- how important many other elements are to a person's satisfaction with his life.

The bolded is why I can no longer vote for corporate dems per se(i.e. hillary). Hillary will not fight that kind of lobbying.This is why when she spoke of change she spoke of super slow methodical change at a snails pace only. thats because she believes you can't force the hand of the ultra rich(lobbyists/Corporation owners, exec boards, ceos, hedge funds, etc. ) Remember she was giving multiple speeches for a ton of money to these types.


Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-us-income-inequality-is-bad-20141024-column.html

But the real victims of the trend are in the middle class. Saez and Zucman show that the wealth share of the bottom 90% grew from the 1920s through the mid-1980s, from 15% to 36%. Mostly the gain was due to the growth of pensions and of homeownership. Since the mid-1980s, however, middle-class wealth has evaporated, falling to 23% in 2012, about the same level as 1940.

The authors blame sharply rising indebtedness; of course, the collapse of stock values and home prices in recent years has destroyed a huge volume of middle-class wealth. The top 1% have been able to recover much of that wealth, but the bottom 90% have continued to fall. They've continued to be dependent on housing and pensions, both of which have continued to be very shaky legs of a tottering stool.

Wealth inequality is also an artifact of income inequality; the two trends work together to magnify the former. As the bottom 90% struggle to make ends meet on stagnant incomes, they're unable to accumulate savings. "Today, the top 1% save about 35% of their income," the authors write, "while bottom 90% families save about zero."


Strong measures will be needed to reverse this otherwise inexorable trend, they write. "Ten or twenty years from now, all the gains in wealth democratization achieved during the New Deal and the post-war decades could be lost. While the rich would be extremely rich, ordinary families would own next to nothing, with debts almost as high as their assets."

Strong measures is bernie speak not hillary talk.


http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/13/news/economy/clinton-sanders-income-inequality/index.html

How Clinton and Sanders would tackle income inequality
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 13787
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:29 am    Post subject:

splashmtn wrote:
ChefLinda wrote:
Not to belabor the Bernie issue, but Bernie was never fully vetted on the national stage. Hillary held back because she didn't want to offend his voters. Trump held back because he used Bernie to cause trouble for Clinton. If Bernie had been the nominee, then the GOP and Russians would have used the same tactics on him. They would have lied, made stuff up, used his Jewish background to rile up Trump's white nationalist base, Bernie never did release taxes, Jane perhaps did some shady bank stuff, etc. People want to think Bernie would have been a slam dunk against Trump. He obviously would have been competitive, I just don't think he would have been the sure thing some people would like to believe.

And I would have voted for him without any reservation whatsoever had he been the nominee.

lets assume all of this is true. What else besides the jane stuff do we have on BERNIE? not jane. but Bernie. and i know jane is basically bernie because thats his wife. and he admitted she handles their finances. I was just asking. have you heard of anything muddy? I havent.

the only mud aside from the jane thing which sounds suspect. I dont know of anything else. All you would've heard is "he's crazee...those are not real policies...he can't deliver on that stuff."

while hillary and trump promise similar pitches to their voters.

and lets remember Hillary and Bill went all in on obama the first time around. all in. and how did that turn out for our girl Hillary?

Lets say we give him the jane situation

Hillary gets every situation since Bill was in office because thats how people see her good and bad. So any issue you could think of belonging to bill is hers and any issue she had is also hers since she was in washington the entire time just about. then anything they found shady about her philanthropy stuff. the emails, benghazi, etc

Trump = slum lord, racist, sexist, a hole.


if someone were to poll you on all of those 3 knowing all 3 of their supposed negative issues. and the poll said "Which one of these 3 candidates is the most trustworthy?"

Who do you think would win the trustworthy competition? We all know Bernie would still win. Because for 1 it doesnt seem like he's a worldclass Ahole like trump, he doesnt SEEM like a racist, nor a sexist. He could be all of those but he doesnt SEEM like one. So he's already better than trump.

Then we go to hillary with a mountain of negative stuff. bernie can't compete with all of hillary's negative stuff legit or not. its just too much for too long. so bernie would be her out too. this is exactly what happened when they polled people. know they didnt know about the jane thing. But even if they did. it would not have made hillary nor trump any more trustworthy.


Actually, there is plenty of negative stuff on Bernie. I just don't think it serves a purpose posting it all here. You can google it if you're so inclined.

Also, there's no guarantee black women (who are the most reliable majority of the Democratic base as it exists at the moment) would have voted for Bernie in the numbers they voted for Hillary.

That's all I got. Not really interested in this hypothetical beyond what's already been discussed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 573, 574, 575 ... 704, 705, 706  Next
Page 574 of 706
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2010 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB