Debate night - Thursday Aug. 6, 2015

Pete

Repete
But, this is the same government which had the IRS take away tax exempt status from political opposition groups. And we trust them to monitor phone calls and emails?
Correction, this is the same ADMINISTRATION which had the IRS take away tax exempt status from political opposition groups. I do not condemn all government actions base don the grotesque misdeeds of the Obama administration.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Correction, this is the same ADMINISTRATION which had the IRS take away tax exempt status from political opposition groups. I do not condemn all government actions base don the grotesque misdeeds of the Obama administration.
The disturbing part is that Obama was actually able to get an agency to do his bidding this way. What other agencies would be willing to be used as a tool to go after political enemies: NSA, CIA, DHS, the military?
 

DipStick

Keep Calm and Don't Care!
Correction, this is the same ADMINISTRATION which had the IRS take away tax exempt status from political opposition groups. I do not condemn all government actions base don the grotesque misdeeds of the Obama administration.
It's happened under other administrations, though certainly not on this scale.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-targeted-naacp-in-2004-91284.html

Either way, it's just too broad. We already have secret courts which act as a rubber stamp for federal intelligence agencies. And yet they need to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? Why? It's a perfectly legitimate question.

What happens when the next attack happens and it wasn't prevented? Do we decide the government needs even more power? Maybe let the government install programs on computers designed to monitor all our activity in real-time?
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
I appreciate you trying to make my life easier by discussing my views, but I think I'm more than capable enough to do so all on my own. Especially when you're virtually 100% inaccurate on my views.

I'll ask you again, is there anyone that represents your thoughts 100%? Knowing the answer to that is "no", I'd say 100% of the people you vote for, then, are not going to fully represent your values. You really have three choices:
  1. don't vote, which sends a message to politicians to not change
  2. vote for a person who certainly will not win, which may (over many election cycles) send a message to change eventually
  3. vote for a person who - of the choices provided - most closely represents your views.
Personally, I choose option 3. Option 2 is incredibly superior to Option 1, in my opinion.

I have voted for (R) and (D), so your characterization of my views is inaccurate, as usual, on all fronts.
See, you think you are choosing option 3, but you aren't. I am. I vote for the person who most closely represents my views. You claim you would only do that if the person 'has a chance of winning'. Thats not the same thing, nor is it honest as we both know an R hasn't had a chance to win the presidential election in MD in numerous cycles.

Which D's have you voted for in presidential elections?
 

DipStick

Keep Calm and Don't Care!
The disturbing part is that Obama was actually able to get an agency to do his bidding this way. What other agencies would be willing to be used as a tool to go after political enemies: NSA, CIA, DHS, the military?
Exactly. And who's to say the next Republican wouldn't be corrupt? I mean, I don't trust Senator Cruz for a second.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The disturbing part is that Obama was actually able to get an agency to do his bidding this way. What other agencies would be willing to be used as a tool to go after political enemies: NSA, CIA, DHS, the military?
As a prior military member, I would remove them from the list. However, based on what is happening, I would say Yes, Yes, and Yes to the first three on your list. I'd add the EPA to the list.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member

This_person

Well-Known Member
See, you think you are choosing option 3, but you aren't. I am. I vote for the person who most closely represents my views. You claim you would only do that if the person 'has a chance of winning'. Thats not the same thing, nor is it honest as we both know an R hasn't had a chance to win the presidential election in MD in numerous cycles.

Which D's have you voted for in presidential elections?
You're distorting option 3 to become option 2, and then claiming I think I'm doing 3. The fact is, I'm doing 3 and you're doing 2.

I have no intention of sharing my votes here. That's a personal and private thing. Certainly you will distort that answer to be "so, you really didn't", but that's your bag of dead cats, not mine.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I disagree with this statement. Do you have a reference? Even if you do I doubt it is accurate. While 70% "may" identify as Christian they would not use it as a basis for selecting a candidate. Hell Clinton is going to claim herself as a Christian while she supports partial birth abortions and ripping out 10 Commandment statues in court houses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356

I absolutely agree not all Christians are from the 'right'. Many - like Pelosi - stand against what their faith (Catholic) demands. My point was... I don't think Kelly's 'God' question was meant to weed out only the 'religious right'; although I do still need to hear the question and to whom it was directed.

My other point was that this so-called 'religious right' is a small population. Accord to the Pew link I provided, Evangelicals still make a larger population than those not affiliated with any religion. Questions about God and religion are absolutely relevant to a very large portion of our population. So, LibertyTyranny can complain about it all day long, but that can't marginalize the importance it holds to MOST Americans.
 

DipStick

Keep Calm and Don't Care!
That's interesting....why don't you? I'm not a big Cruz fan but I've never gotten the sense that he was involved in any form of corruption.
He comes off very, what's the word, McCarthy'ist. I mean, he just comes off as the type who would get elected and persecute political enemies. That's just the impression I get of the guy. Maybe it has to do with the fact that he looks like Senator McCarthy. :lol:
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
You're distorting option 3 to become option 2, and then claiming I think I'm doing 3. The fact is, I'm doing 3 and you're doing 2.

I have no intention of sharing my votes here. That's a personal and private thing. Certainly you will distort that answer to be "so, you really didn't", but that's your bag of dead cats, not mine.
There is nothing to distort, just a claim you made that you can't back up. People can infer from that what they may.

As for your options...
I appreciate you trying to make my life easier by discussing my views, but I think I'm more than capable enough to do so all on my own. Especially when you're virtually 100% inaccurate on my views.

I'll ask you again, is there anyone that represents your thoughts 100%? Knowing the answer to that is "no", I'd say 100% of the people you vote for, then, are not going to fully represent your values. You really have three choices:
  1. don't vote, which sends a message to politicians to not change
  2. vote for a person who certainly will not win, which may (over many election cycles) send a message to change eventually
  3. vote for a person who - of the choices provided - most closely represents your views.
Personally, I choose option 3. Option 2 is incredibly superior to Option 1, in my opinion.

I have voted for (R) and (D), so your characterization of my views is inaccurate, as usual, on all fronts.
the ballot had more than just the R and the D in the last presidential election. So your option three included the guy I voted for. You artificially limited the field further so you could justify voting for Romney, the guy the republican party chose for you.... that's option 4
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
That's just the impression I get of the guy. Maybe it has to do with the fact that he looks like Senator McCarthy. :lol:
LOL..I won't deny that.

But I do think he's extremely intelligent and very quick on his rhetorical feet. McCarthy was a boorish oaf and a slobbering demagogue. Nothing "finesse" there. Kinda like the Donald in some respects.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
vox.com

^^^first time I have seen opinion pieces from this site (that I know of)

Anyway....


Donald Trump had the best policy idea of anyone in last night's debate


http://www.vox.com/2015/8/7/9116127/donald-trump-insurance-regulation


^ there are many other opinion pieces beyond this.
I think that article gives Trump WAY too much credit.

Trump said a few sentences but offered no substance. This piece essentially takes those quotes and tailors the argument around assumptions on where the quotes came from.

I agree with some of it, but Trumps tiny amount of quotes on the subject were surely not enough to come up with that article. If the author had pulled from Trump's past discussions of the subject, that's one thing, but that didn't happen.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
There is nothing to distort, just a claim you made that you can't back up. People can infer from that what they may.
Certainly, people always have the right to be wrong. Not sure how I "can't back up" what my own choice is, but - again - your issue, not mine.
As for your options...


the ballot had more than just the R and the D in the last presidential election. So your option three included the guy I voted for. You artificially limited the field further so you could justify voting for Romney, the guy the republican party chose for you.... that's option 4
Okay, you chose Option 3, knowing that the person for whom you voted not only would not win MD but would certainly not even be noticed overall in the national polling/vote. Given the second half of that statement, I'd call it option 2 (because it fits that category) and not 3, but you certainly can choose to call it 3.

Either way, you voted. My whole point to Psy was that, given the choice of voting or not voting (option 1, or any other option), NOT voting is always the worst option. Do you disagree with my overall point, or did you just feel the need to establish exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, because (after all) you know?
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Trumps tiny amount of quotes on the subject were surely not enough to come up with that article. If the author had pulled from Trump's past discussions of the subject, that's one thing, but that didn't happen.
Yglesias' picture is in the dictionary next to the term "thin gruel". His work is always that thin.
 
Top