PDA

View Full Version : Communist Party USA Endorses Hillary Clinton



hanger4
09-05-2016, 07:55 AM
http://peoplesworld.org/green-party-safe-state-strategy-is-neither-safe-nor-a-strategy/

Do we get to play 'guilt by association' ?? or is that verboten and just reserved for the other side ??

Ethereal
09-05-2016, 07:58 AM
Clearly these people are "communist in name only".

midcan5
09-05-2016, 07:59 AM
It's about time, I was wondering when they'd get on-board. Thanks for the info.

And this in too:

"To recap Trump’s travails since she came on: He made a condescending speech to African Americans that only magnified his cluelessness. He insisted on grandstanding in Baton Rouge, only to be told off by the governor and exclude the press anyway. As money figures were released, there was confirmation of how little of what he purportedly raised is going to his campaign (about $37 million of $80 million raised); how lavishly he spent on consultants and in payments to his own entities; and how badly his campaign and super PACs trail Hillary Clinton’s money operation. The latter fundraising troubles were not on Conway’s watch, but she did little to pave the way by downgrading expectations.


Next, the Huffington Post reports that she must treat Trump like a baby, flattering him (“she has a whole vocabulary of diplomatic words”) and keeping bad news away (“Kelly’s telling Trump what he wants to hear”). That’s horrible if true because it portrays him as crippled by his own ego and demonstrates that Trump can abide only women with whom he agrees. (“That’s the kind of woman he likes around, who can tell him the soft way — encourage him, guide him but not criticize him.”) That’s humiliating, frankly, but it certainly jibes with a narcissistic personality. If Conway really is helping Trump escape from reality, she is doing Trump, the party and the country no good. Then there were her remarks on Sunday, which were at times bizarre." https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/08/22/conway-shouldnt-have-gone-on-tv/

hanger4
09-05-2016, 08:09 AM
It's about time, I was wondering when they'd get on-board. Thanks for the info.

And this in too:

"To recap Trump’s travails since she came on: He made a condescending speech to African Americans that only magnified his cluelessness. He insisted on grandstanding in Baton Rouge, only to be told off by the governor and exclude the press anyway. As money figures were released, there was confirmation of how little of what he purportedly raised is going to his campaign (about $37 million of $80 million raised); how lavishly he spent on consultants and in payments to his own entities; and how badly his campaign and super PACs trail Hillary Clinton’s money operation. The latter fundraising troubles were not on Conway’s watch, but she did little to pave the way by downgrading expectations.


Next, the Huffington Post reports that she must treat Trump like a baby, flattering him (“she has a whole vocabulary of diplomatic words”) and keeping bad news away (“Kelly’s telling Trump what he wants to hear”). That’s horrible if true because it portrays him as crippled by his own ego and demonstrates that Trump can abide only women with whom he agrees. (“That’s the kind of woman he likes around, who can tell him the soft way — encourage him, guide him but not criticize him.”) That’s humiliating, frankly, but it certainly jibes with a narcissistic personality. If Conway really is helping Trump escape from reality, she is doing Trump, the party and the country no good. Then there were her remarks on Sunday, which were at times bizarre." https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/08/22/conway-shouldnt-have-gone-on-tv/
"And this in too:" is just diversion from the topic.

DGUtley
09-05-2016, 08:16 AM
We are doomed.

Peter1469
09-05-2016, 08:45 AM
A laughable spin. But typical for this one.
It's about time, I was wondering when they'd get on-board. Thanks for the info.

And this in too:

"To recap Trump’s travails since she came on: He made a condescending speech to African Americans that only magnified his cluelessness. He insisted on grandstanding in Baton Rouge, only to be told off by the governor and exclude the press anyway. As money figures were released, there was confirmation of how little of what he purportedly raised is going to his campaign (about $37 million of $80 million raised); how lavishly he spent on consultants and in payments to his own entities; and how badly his campaign and super PACs trail Hillary Clinton’s money operation. The latter fundraising troubles were not on Conway’s watch, but she did little to pave the way by downgrading expectations.


Next, the Huffington Post reports that she must treat Trump like a baby, flattering him (“she has a whole vocabulary of diplomatic words”) and keeping bad news away (“Kelly’s telling Trump what he wants to hear”). That’s horrible if true because it portrays him as crippled by his own ego and demonstrates that Trump can abide only women with whom he agrees. (“That’s the kind of woman he likes around, who can tell him the soft way — encourage him, guide him but not criticize him.”) That’s humiliating, frankly, but it certainly jibes with a narcissistic personality. If Conway really is helping Trump escape from reality, she is doing Trump, the party and the country no good. Then there were her remarks on Sunday, which were at times bizarre." https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/08/22/conway-shouldnt-have-gone-on-tv/

Subdermal
09-05-2016, 08:49 AM
It's about time, I was wondering when they'd get on-board. Thanks for the info. And this in too:"To recap Trump’s travails since she came on: He made a condescending speech to African Americans that only magnified his cluelessness. He insisted on grandstanding in Baton Rouge, only to be told off by the governor and exclude the press anyway. As money figures were released, there was confirmation of how little of what he purportedly raised is going to his campaign (about $37 million of $80 million raised); how lavishly he spent on consultants and in payments to his own entities; and how badly his campaign and super PACs trail Hillary Clinton’s money operation. The latter fundraising troubles were not on Conway’s watch, but she did little to pave the way by downgrading expectations.Next, the Huffington Post reports that she must treat Trump like a baby, flattering him (“she has a whole vocabulary of diplomatic words”) and keeping bad news away (“Kelly’s telling Trump what he wants to hear”). That’s horrible if true because it portrays him as crippled by his own ego and demonstrates that Trump can abide only women with whom he agrees. (“That’s the kind of woman he likes around, who can tell him the soft way — encourage him, guide him but not criticize him.”) That’s humiliating, frankly, but it certainly jibes with a narcissistic personality. If Conway really is helping Trump escape from reality, she is doing Trump, the party and the country no good. Then there were her remarks on Sunday, which were at times bizarre." https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/08/22/conway-shouldnt-have-gone-on-tv/http://www.gadgetplus.ca/images/h_top.gif

Chris
09-05-2016, 09:33 AM
Communists endorse a 0.1%er bought and paid for by corporate America.

https://s12.postimg.org/6j56wwdzh/giphy_3.gif

Dangermouse
09-05-2016, 09:55 AM
They're hardly about to back the fascist candidate.

Chris
09-05-2016, 09:57 AM
They're hardly about to back the fascist candidate.

How is Trump fascist?

maineman
09-05-2016, 10:02 AM
Precisely. Who else would they endorse? The far left fringe is not going to endorse a candidate from a party whose platform is extremely right wing.

Chris
09-05-2016, 10:05 AM
Precisely. Who else would they endorse? The far left fringe is not going to endorse a candidate from a party whose platform is extremely right wing.

Trump is running left of Clinton.

maineman
09-05-2016, 10:06 AM
Trump is running left of Clinton.we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 10:11 AM
Precisely. Who else would they endorse? The far left fringe is not going to endorse a candidate from a party whose platform is extremely right wing.

They ought to endorse the only leftist in the race: Jill Stein.

maineman
09-05-2016, 10:15 AM
They ought to endorse the only leftist in the race: Jill Stein.
Why would any organization support a candidate without any chance of victory? They might as well nominate Lenin.

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 10:21 AM
Why would any organization support a candidate without any chance of victory? They might as well nominate Lenin.

You are incorrect that there is no chance of victory.

Standing Wolf
09-05-2016, 10:22 AM
Trump is running left of Clinton.

Trump is "running" in whichever direction seems advantageous to him at the moment.

As for the Communist thing - a candidate doesn't control who endorses him or her, of course. Trump isn't responsible for anything said or done by the many White supremacist individuals and groups that have endorsed him; it's simply that their support shines a light on those of his expressed views - particularly those involving Hispanics and Muslims - that are ugly, bigoted and un-American. If the American Communist Party of the present day espouses any views that are in any way comparable to those views, please do enlighten us. Most folks live in the now, rather than the 1950s; the word "communist" doesn't carry quite the frantic emotional baggage it once did.

Chris
09-05-2016, 10:22 AM
Why would any organization support a candidate without any chance of victory? They might as well nominate Lenin.

Given no one knows who will win, why endorse anyone?

(Hint, I think you got it backwards.)

Chris
09-05-2016, 10:24 AM
Trump is "running" in whichever direction seems advantageous to him at the moment.

As for the Communist thing - a candidate doesn't control who endorses him or her, of course. Trump isn't responsible for anything said or done by the many White supremacist individuals and groups that have endorsed him; it's simply that their support shines a light on those of his expressed views - particularly those involving Hispanics and Muslims - that are ugly, bigoted and un-American. If the American Communist Party of the present day espouses any views that are in any way comparable to those views, please do enlighten us. Most folks live in the now, rather than the 1950s; the word "communist" doesn't carry quite the frantic emotional baggage it once did.


The Communist Party said they endorse Clinton not Trump.

The Xl
09-05-2016, 10:26 AM
Seems pointless and harmful to their interests. Would make sense to back Stein and help grow the green party's brand for 2020.

maineman
09-05-2016, 10:41 AM
Given no one knows who will win, why endorse anyone?

(Hint, I think you got it backwards.)if you think Stein is a viable candidate, we'll have to agree to disagree about that as well.

Chris
09-05-2016, 10:42 AM
if you think Stein is a viable candidate, we'll have to agree to disagree about that as well.

That went over your head now didn't it.

maineman
09-05-2016, 10:45 AM
You are incorrect that there is no chance of victory.put your money where your mouth is. I'll give you 500:1 odds. Stein doesn't win, you pay me $100, Stein wins, I pay you fifty grand. Is it a bet?

Standing Wolf
09-05-2016, 10:46 AM
The Communist Party said they endorse Clinton not Trump.

I don't believe I wrote anything that suggested I thought otherwise. I was saying that Trump's endorsements from the Nazis and White Power folks are no more his "fault" than Clinton's endorsements from the Communists. Isn't that the point of the thread?

maineman
09-05-2016, 10:49 AM
That went over your head now didn't it.
Not at all. It would seem as that my polite attempts at letting you know that I had no interest in engaging you in adolescent word games went over YOUR head.

Chris
09-05-2016, 10:52 AM
Not at all. It would seem as that my polite attempts at letting you know that I had no interest in engaging you in adolescent word games went over YOUR head.

Your argument was why endorse someone unless they're going to win. But you don't know who will win till November, so why endorse anyone. Either you get that or you don't. --Yes, it makes your argument absurd.

Chris
09-05-2016, 10:55 AM
I don't believe I wrote anything that suggested I thought otherwise. I was saying that Trump's endorsements from the Nazis and White Power folks are no more his "fault" than Clinton's endorsements from the Communists. Isn't that the point of the thread?

Sure sounded like you were.

maineman
09-05-2016, 10:57 AM
My argument was that it made no sense to endorse a candidate with no viable chance to win. If the subtle difference between that and your version of my argument somehow escapes you, color me about seven different shades of surprised.

Standing Wolf
09-05-2016, 11:03 AM
Sure sounded like you were.

Any national candidate with a brain in his or her head would prefer to have the endorsement of the Communist Party to getting praised and endorsed by Nazis and White Supremacists. Do I really need to detail the reasons why?

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 11:14 AM
put your money where your mouth is. I'll give you 500:1 odds. Stein doesn't win, you pay me $100, Stein wins, I pay you fifty grand. Is it a bet?

Why are you changing the terms as you go along? I never said she would win, I just said she - and any other candidate - has a chance at winning.

Chris
09-05-2016, 11:19 AM
Any national candidate with a brain in his or her head would prefer to have the endorsement of the Communist Party to getting praised and endorsed by Nazis and White Supremacists. Do I really need to detail the reasons why?

You were questioning communist support of Trump not me.

I'm the one questioned their support of a capitalist pig like Clinton.

Chris
09-05-2016, 11:20 AM
My argument was that it made no sense to endorse a candidate with no viable chance to win. If the subtle difference between that and your version of my argument somehow escapes you, color me about seven different shades of surprised.

Weird, the abortion viability argument used for political candidates.

maineman
09-05-2016, 01:18 PM
Why are you changing the terms as you go along? I never said she would win, I just said she - and any other candidate - has a chance at winning.
Stein has as much chance as a snowball in hell.... which asymptotically approaches zero chance.

maineman
09-05-2016, 01:20 PM
Weird, the abortion viability argument used for political candidates.yeah... I forgot. The word "viability" was created with the onset of the abortion debate. It had no other context before that time.

Chris
09-05-2016, 01:22 PM
yeah... I forgot. The word "viability" was created with the onset of the abortion debate. It had no other context before that time.

Think outside the box.

maineman
09-05-2016, 01:30 PM
Think outside the box.
Think. Period.

Tahuyaman
09-05-2016, 01:40 PM
Communist Party USA Endorses Hillary Clinton
They've endorsed the Democrat in every election since they stopped running their own candidate.

Chris
09-05-2016, 01:43 PM
Think. Period.

OK, please do.

Crepitus
09-05-2016, 01:51 PM
Communist Party USA Endorses Hillary Clinton


They've endorsed the Democrat in every election since they stopped running their own candidate.
Thank you.

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 01:53 PM
Stein has as much chance as a snowball in hell.... which asymptotically approaches zero chance.

Again, not true. Unless you think our system is designed to prevent third party candidates from winning...

stjames1_53
09-05-2016, 02:00 PM
Trump is "running" in whichever direction seems advantageous to him at the moment.

As for the Communist thing - a candidate doesn't control who endorses him or her, of course. Trump isn't responsible for anything said or done by the many White supremacist individuals and groups that have endorsed him; it's simply that their support shines a light on those of his expressed views - particularly those involving Hispanics and Muslims - that are ugly, bigoted and un-American. If the American Communist Party of the present day espouses any views that are in any way comparable to those views, please do enlighten us. Most folks live in the now, rather than the 1950s; the word "communist" doesn't carry quite the frantic emotional baggage it once did.

something the Chinese would be glad to hear. Would you please advise them?

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 02:14 PM
something the Chinese would be glad to hear. Would you please advise them?

The Chinese government is a mixed market economy, they really don't qualify as communist anymore.

stjames1_53
09-05-2016, 02:38 PM
The Chinese government is a mixed market economy, they really don't qualify as communist anymore.

you may downplay this, but politically speaking, China is a strong a communist nation as it has been since it began so
You are trying to switch economic socialism with political party bylines.
China is a communist nation. Period

Peter1469
09-05-2016, 02:50 PM
They're hardly about to back the fascist candidate.

Clearly you have no idea what a fascist is. :wink:

Peter1469
09-05-2016, 02:52 PM
Trump is running as a nationalist. Some of his positions are right, others left.

Hillary is running as a globalist who wants to eventually erase national borders. Some of her positions on on the right and others are on the left.

Chris
09-05-2016, 04:11 PM
you may downplay this, but politically speaking, China is a strong a communist nation as it has been since it began so
You are trying to switch economic socialism with political party bylines.
China is a communist nation. Period

Used to be. It now operates under state capitalism.

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 06:35 PM
you may downplay this, but politically speaking, China is a strong a communist nation as it has been since it began so
You are trying to switch economic socialism with political party bylines.
China is a communist nation. Period

No, it is not. It operates under a mixed market system of state capitalism.

Tahuyaman
09-05-2016, 06:42 PM
Communist Party USA Endorses Hillary Clinton


They've endorsed the Democrat in every election since they stopped running their own candidate.


Thank you.


For what?

Tahuyaman
09-05-2016, 06:45 PM
Again, not true. Unless you think our system is designed to prevent third party candidates from winning...

Gary Johnson has virtually no chance. Stein has even less of a chance than him.

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 07:14 PM
Gary Johnson has virtually no chance. Stein has even less of a chance than him.

They still have a chance, unless you believe our system makes it impossible for third parties to win.

Tahuyaman
09-05-2016, 07:19 PM
They still have a chance, unless you believe our system makes it impossible for third parties to win.

They have virtually no chance. Pick your reasons.

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 07:36 PM
They have virtually no chance. Pick your reasons.

Is it possible that, regardless of circumstance, someone not named Trump or Clinton could win?

Not LIKELY, but is it POSSIBLE?

Ravens Fan
09-05-2016, 07:39 PM
Is it possible that, regardless of circumstance, someone not named Trump or Clinton could win?

Not LIKELY, but is it POSSIBLE?

https://youtu.be/KX5jNnDMfxA

Sorry, I had to do it... :evil:

Tahuyaman
09-05-2016, 07:57 PM
Is it possible that, regardless of circumstance, someone not named Trump or Clinton could win?

Not LIKELY, but is it POSSIBLE?

It's possible that you'll get abducted by aliens too.

Subdermal
09-05-2016, 08:08 PM
Is it possible that, regardless of circumstance, someone not named Trump or Clinton could win?

Not LIKELY, but is it POSSIBLE?

Would you play the lottery if the astronomical odds of winning it would also result in irreparable and tangible harm to you?

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 08:37 PM
It's possible that you'll get abducted by aliens too.

Is that a yes?

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 08:38 PM
Would you play the lottery if the astronomical odds of winning it would also result in irreparable and tangible harm to you?

I don't play the lottery.

What is the relevance?

Subdermal
09-05-2016, 08:48 PM
I don't play the lottery.

What is the relevance?

I suspect you've already figured out the analogy.

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 09:02 PM
I suspect you've already figured out the analogy.

I'm guessing you're suggesting that voting Johnson or Stein would allow Hillary to win, which would cause irreparable harm.

Crepitus
09-05-2016, 10:02 PM
For what?

For pointing out the obvious fact that everyone else was overlooking either deliberately or accidentally.

Subdermal
09-05-2016, 10:04 PM
I'm guessing you're suggesting that voting Johnson or Stein would allow Hillary to win, which would cause irreparable harm.

:thumbsup:

And avoiding that irreparable harm with a one in a million moon shot is a really bad bet to make.

Tahuyaman
09-05-2016, 10:04 PM
Is that a yes?

It's telling you that they have as much a chance being elected as you have of being abducted by Martians.

They have no chance. None, zip, nada....

Tahuyaman
09-05-2016, 10:07 PM
For pointing out the obvious fact that everyone else was overlooking either deliberately or accidentally.

I doubt that many people actually knew that.

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 10:39 PM
:thumbsup:

And avoiding that irreparable harm with a one in a million moon shot is a really bad bet to make.

In what way would a Hillary win do irreparable harm?

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 10:40 PM
It's telling you that they have as much a chance being elected as you have of being abducted by Martians.

They have no chance. None, zip, nada....

Is it possible for them to win, under any possible circumstance?

Tahuyaman
09-05-2016, 11:02 PM
Is it possible for them to win, under any possible circumstance?


Either of them could win if they were running unopposed.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson, but I know that under any conceivable circumstances, he's not going to win.

Green Arrow
09-05-2016, 11:10 PM
Either of them could win if they were running unopposed.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson, but I know that under any conceivable circumstances, he's not going to win.

If it's possible, and it is, there is a chance. Slim, but still a chance.

Hal Jordan
09-06-2016, 12:39 AM
we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

You could do that. You'd be unbelievably wrong, but you can do that.

Hal Jordan
09-06-2016, 12:48 AM
you may downplay this, but politically speaking, China is a strong a communist nation as it has been since it began so
You are trying to switch economic socialism with political party bylines.
China is a communist nation. Period

If you believe that, you have absolutely no understanding of communism, and anything you say about communism will be ignored in the future.

Hal Jordan
09-06-2016, 12:53 AM
I'm guessing you're suggesting that voting Johnson or Stein would allow Hillary to win, which would cause irreparable harm.

I'm guessing that you're saying that Subby's position is ridiculous and unworthy of consideration.

Tahuyaman
09-06-2016, 09:03 AM
If it's possible, and it is, there is a chance. Slim, but still a chance.

Their chances make "slim" look like a step up.

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 09:20 AM
Their chances make "slim" look like a step up.

Doesn't matter. Still a chance.

Truth Detector
09-06-2016, 09:22 AM
http://peoplesworld.org/green-party-safe-state-strategy-is-neither-safe-nor-a-strategy/

Do we get to play 'guilt by association' ?? or is that verboten and just reserved for the other side ??


It's about time, I was wondering when they'd get on-board. Thanks for the info.

:rofl:

Tahuyaman
09-06-2016, 09:33 AM
Doesn't matter. Still a chance.


Think what you want, but they have no chance. None. You know this.

Captain Obvious
09-06-2016, 02:36 PM
Hillary - endorsed by thugs, communists & fascists, big oil, big pharma, lawyers, terrorists, rapists and potheads.

Murica...

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 06:46 PM
Think what you want, but they have no chance. None. You know this.

If enough people vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to give them 270 electoral votes, they would become president, would they not?

Tahuyaman
09-06-2016, 06:58 PM
If enough people vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein to give them 270 electoral votes, they would become president, would they not?


And do you think there's even a remote chance of that happening? Be honest now.

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 07:01 PM
And do you think there's even a remote chance of that happening? Be honest now.

There's always a chance. Unless people are being forced not to vote for them, there remains a chance it could happen. What if these reports about bad health for Hillary are true, and she has a stroke or extended hospitalization? What if these investigations into Trump U or the Trump Foundation find legs and Trump is actually on trial? With Johnson polling above 10% in many polls and 62% of Americans wanting him in the debates, at that point why wouldn't people vote for him? Johnson and Stein could basically take Hillary and Trump's places in that scenario.

Subdermal
09-06-2016, 07:24 PM
In what way would a Hillary win do irreparable harm?

The same way that Obama has. She is continuing his foreign policy insanity, and I believe through continued execution of said policy she will disrupt the globe and trigger a wide scope war.

Subdermal
09-06-2016, 07:26 PM
There's always a chance. Unless people are being forced not to vote for them, there remains a chance it could happen. What if these reports about bad health for Hillary are true, and she has a stroke or extended hospitalization? What if these investigations into Trump U or the Trump Foundation find legs and Trump is actually on trial? With Johnson polling above 10% in many polls and 62% of Americans wanting him in the debates, at that point why wouldn't people vote for him? Johnson and Stein could basically take Hillary and Trump's places in that scenario.

I have done the calculations. They were complicated and in depth.

They have a .00045% chance of winning.

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 07:27 PM
I have done the calculations. They were complicated and in depth.

They have a .00045% chance of winning.

Still a chance.

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 07:28 PM
The same way that Obama has. She is continuing his foreign policy insanity, and I believe through continued execution of said policy she will disrupt the globe and trigger a wide scope war.

It's a bit too early to say Obama has done irreparable harm.

I do agree though that on foreign policy, Hillary is a nightmare waiting to happen.

Subdermal
09-06-2016, 07:29 PM
It's a bit too early to say Obama has done irreparable harm.

I do agree though that on foreign policy, Hillary is a nightmare waiting to happen.

My commentary on Obama regards Hillary as an irreversible continuation of his policy - and his policy is suicide for the US.

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 07:37 PM
My commentary on Obama regards Hillary as an irreversible continuation of his policy - and his policy is suicide for the US.

I wouldn't go that far. He's had some hits and a lot of misses, but a lot of the really bad things - the rise of ISIL, the Arab Spring, Russia's encroachment in Ukraine - would have happened regardless of what he did. Short of nuking Russia and the Middle East, anyway, but that would have caused a whole new host of problems.

Hillary is less the continuation of his policies and more the continuation of every dangerous foreign policy idea that has been tried by almost every president since the end of World War II. What sets her above the rest is her absolutely batshit insane plan to basically provoke Russia into war.

Subdermal
09-06-2016, 07:42 PM
I wouldn't go that far. He's had some hits and a lot of misses, but a lot of the really bad things - the rise of ISIL, the Arab Spring, Russia's encroachment in Ukraine - would have happened regardless of what he did. Short of nuking Russia and the Middle East, anyway, but that would have caused a whole new host of problems.

Hillary is less the continuation of his policies and more the continuation of every dangerous foreign policy idea that has been tried by almost every president since the end of World War II. What sets her above the rest is her absolutely bat$#@! insane plan to basically provoke Russia into war.

Hits? Like what?

I can only take your view as apologism and an ignorance of the circumstances which would have differed should the US have kept a strong presence in Iraq - and that's without any consideration to what would have happened had we thrown our full weight and support behind the Peshmerga.

exploited
09-06-2016, 07:44 PM
My commentary on Obama regards Hillary as an irreversible continuation of his policy - and his policy is suicide for the US.

I don't really think this is the case at all.

First, because Clinton is far crazier than Obama, and is a known impulsive-interventionist. If Obama is guilty of anything, it is not being interventionist enough. Hillary is really more Republican than anything when it comes to foreign policy - she is very much convinced by the neoconservative agenda, which is why she supported intervention in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. Make no mistake, a Clinton presidency would result in a far greater number of intractable, poorly-governed wars.

Second, because Obama inherited an absolute disaster. He made many mistakes (the most grievous being the Syrian red line), but it pales in comparison to the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. That sparked more instability than the region has seen in decades. The simple truth is that American foreign policy is fundamentally broken, and cannot be even remotely fixed by any one President. The collapse of the Soviet Union has left a serious void in our ability to comprehend modern threats.

Third, because Clinton is unlikely to have the political capital to enact her agenda. Trump suffers from the same thing, I might add. Whoever wins will go into their Presidency absolutely despised by at least 40% of the population, with another 20% on the fence about hating them. I don't think this was the case with Obama - Republicans moderates (what you would call the establishment) disliked his politics, but didn't necessarily dislike the man. They gave him a shot. He largely failed, but that is because the task of managing the entire worlds affairs cannot be handled by one man.

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 07:53 PM
Hits? Like what?

Normalizing relations with Cuba and refusing to get us drawn into another military quagmire and regime change in Syria, primarily, though the latter is looking iffy.


I can only take your view as apologism and an ignorance of the circumstances which would have differed should the US have kept a strong presence in Iraq - and that's without any consideration to what would have happened had we thrown our full weight and support behind the Peshmerga.

I've studied our foreign policy and the surrounding issues extensively. It's frankly naive to suggest we should have just kept U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely, because that's what it would have taken. We're already in an economic slump and can't pay our budget as is, we can't afford to keep throwing money at endless occupation efforts.

I do agree that we should have supported the Peshmerga, though. I've been on the record for a long time saying we should have supported Kurdish independence decades ago.

decedent
09-06-2016, 07:55 PM
http://peoplesworld.org/green-party-safe-state-strategy-is-neither-safe-nor-a-strategy/

Do we get to play 'guilt by association' ?? or is that verboten and just reserved for the other side ??

With the historic success of socialist Bernie Sanders, red baiting is no longer effective as a public smear.

Subdermal
09-06-2016, 08:07 PM
I don't really think this is the case at all.

First, because Clinton is far crazier than Obama, and is a known impulsive-interventionist.

Is she going to take us in a different direction, or press harder in the same direction? Your answer will refute the claim in your first sentence.


If Obama is guilty of anything, it is not being interventionist enough.

:facepalm: He said he was withdrawing troops from Iraq; ostensibly 'honoring' the SOFA agreement - but he added troops in Afghanistan - engaged in ridiculously untenable ROEs - and utterly bolloxed Syria, which is his, and his alone.

Not being interventionist enough? WTF you talkin' about, Willis?


Hillary is really more Republican than anything when it comes to foreign policy - she is very much convinced by the neoconservative agenda, which is why she supported intervention in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.

I hate to break it to you, but tell me which party was in power for the last 5 wars again? Don't you go trying to throw this at the Right; this isn't a Left/Right thing. It's a globalist/nationalist thing - and the Globalists are the ones who want to disrupt and create chaos, through which they wish to inflict their will.


Make no mistake, a Clinton presidency would result in a far greater number of intractable, poorly-governed wars.

All of which would have happened with a continuation of Obama's policies, as Hillary's policies are identical.


Second, because Obama inherited an absolute disaster.

Wholly overstated, as only a leftist could. Obama inherited a largely stabilizing Iraq, as our presence was having the desired effect. That isn't to say that Bush didn't screw up with even agreeing to a stupid SOFA which contained predictive terms regarding an unpredictable environment, but Obama wanted to enforce it - and in so doing, abrogated every agreement our forces made with locals to protect them, and stabilize their environment.

He left a vacuum. Into that vacuum, ISIS was born.


He made many mistakes (the most grievous being the Syrian red line), but it pales in comparison to the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

That's just more leftist excuse-making. The decision to overthrow Saddam was based upon bad Intel, but even it could have been a success had we simply remained true to the original goal. My brother is on his 6th tour, and is (I think) in the mountains of Afghanistan at the moment. He was, however, in Iraq - and he saw the positive change which was on the cusp of becoming solidified. It was torn away from them all.


That sparked more instability than the region has seen in decades. The simple truth is that American foreign policy is fundamentally broken, and cannot be even remotely fixed by any one President. The collapse of the Soviet Union has left a serious void in our ability to comprehend modern threats.

The collapse of the Soviet Union did that? Explain, because - to my eyes - what has left us unable to comprehend contemporary threats are stupid leftists.


Third, because Clinton is unlikely to have the political capital to enact her agenda. Trump suffers from the same thing, I might add.

Obama enacted his just fine, so I believe your claim here is vacuous. I think you have a serious void in your ability to comprehend how the Establishment is playing you and everyone else like a fiddle, and continue to promulgate their globalist agenda.


Whoever wins will go into their Presidency absolutely despised by at least 40% of the population, with another 20% on the fence about hating them.

Is as though you are unaware of what happened - and the sentiment of 40% of our population when Obama was elected.


I don't think this was the case with Obama - Republicans moderates (what you would call the establishment) disliked his politics, but didn't necessarily dislike the man. They gave him a shot. He largely failed, but that is because the task of managing the entire worlds affairs cannot be handled by one man.

You could not be more wrong. Obama created divisions driven more deeply than any President in the last 60 years.

Subdermal
09-06-2016, 08:14 PM
Normalizing relations with Cuba and refusing to get us drawn into another military quagmire and regime change in Syria, primarily, though the latter is looking iffy.

The first is an unmitigated failure, and a big sloppy kiss to Castro in order to keep him in power. Castro was losing his grip in Cuba as a result of running out of money. Obama's move literally propped up a Communist dictator. Do you not remember the threads about the strong possibility of a coup in Cuba to overthrow him?

And you cite Syria as though it has been a success? Obama's action regarding Syria has been an unmitigated disaster, including his (alleged) involvement in gun running though Benghazi and supplying ISIS with weapons.


I've studied our foreign policy and the surrounding issues extensively. It's frankly naive to suggest we should have just kept U.S. troops in Iraq indefinitely, because that's what it would have taken.

Naive? Why? It may be far less than ideal, but it would have been necessary as a military base to quell the clear predictable mess which is the ME. Iraq is strategically directly in the middle, and militarily quite appealing as a base of operations. We have a presence to date in over 20 countries. There is, therefore, nothing naive about the suggestion. It may be interventionist, but it is not naive.


We're already in an economic slump and can't pay our budget as is, we can't afford to keep throwing money at endless occupation efforts.

This claim rings hollow. We have spent far more on things other than this. Our debt is 20 TRILLION dollars.


I do agree that we should have supported the Peshmerga, though. I've been on the record for a long time saying we should have supported Kurdish independence decades ago.

If we had done so, the claim that we would have needed a permanent presence is at minimum challengable and possibly even specious.

exploited
09-06-2016, 08:22 PM
Is she going to take us in a different direction, or press harder in the same direction? Your answer will refute the claim in your first sentence.



:facepalm: He said he was withdrawing troops from Iraq; ostensibly 'honoring' the SOFA agreement - but he added troops in Afghanistan - engaged in ridiculously untenable ROEs - and utterly bolloxed Syria, which is his, and his alone.

Not being interventionist enough? WTF you talkin' about, Willis?



I hate to break it to you, but tell me which party was in power for the last 5 wars again? Don't you go trying to throw this at the Right; this isn't a Left/Right thing. It's a globalist/nationalist thing - and the Globalists are the ones who want to disrupt and create chaos, through which they wish to inflict their will.



All of which would have happened with a continuation of Obama's policies, as Hillary's policies are identical.



Wholly overstated, as only a leftist could. Obama inherited a largely stabilizing Iraq, as our presence was having the desired effect. That isn't to say that Bush didn't screw up with even agreeing to a stupid SOFA which contained predictive terms regarding an unpredictable environment, but Obama wanted to enforce it - and in so doing, abrogated every agreement our forces made with locals to protect them, and stabilize their environment.

He left a vacuum. Into that vacuum, ISIS was born.



That's just more leftist excuse-making. The decision to overthrow Saddam was based upon bad Intel, but even it could have been a success had we simply remained true to the original goal. My brother is on his 6th tour, and is (I think) in the mountains of Afghanistan at the moment. He was, however, in Iraq - and he saw the positive change which was on the cusp of becoming solidified. It was torn away from them all.



The collapse of the Soviet Union did that? Explain, because - to my eyes - what has left us unable to comprehend contemporary threats are stupid leftists.



Obama enacted his just fine, so I believe your claim here is vacuous. I think you have a serious void in your ability to comprehend how the Establishment is playing you and everyone else like a fiddle, and continue to promulgate their globalist agenda.



Is as though you are unaware of what happened - and the sentiment of 40% of our population when Obama was elected.



You could not be more wrong. Obama created divisions driven more deeply than any President in the last 60 years.

I won't respond to this. Not because I disagree with it or anything - I haven't even read it. I'm just saying I will not respond to you breaking up my post like that. I am not here to talk to you sentence by sentence, although I would like to hear what you have to say.

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 08:23 PM
The first is an unmitigated failure, and a big sloppy kiss to Castro in order to keep him in power.

Unmitigated failure? It's been a thing for, what, a year? It hasn't been around nearly long enough to be considered a failure.


Castro was losing his grip in Cuba as a result of running out of money. Obama's move literally propped up a Communist dictator. Do you not remember the threads about the strong possibility of a coup in Cuba to overthrow him?

Strong possibility of an attempt does not mean a strong possibility of success, and anyway, how do you know the authors of the coup wouldn't be just as bad as (if not worse than) Castro? I remind you the Soviet hardliners tried a coup against Gorbachev in the waning days of the Cold War and that coup certainly would not have been to our liking.


And you cite Syria as though it has been a success?

I never said that. I said Obama was right not to commit us to another Middle East boondoggle on the level of Iraq. Which is what Syria would have been had we listened to the more insane voices in our government, like Hillary and John McCain


Obama's action regarding Syria has been an unmitigated disaster, including his (alleged) involvement in gun running though Benghazi and supplying ISIS with weapons.

Never said otherwise.


Naive? Why? It may be far less than ideal, but it would have been necessary as a military base to quell the clear predictable mess which is the ME. Iraq is strategically directly in the middle, and militarily quite appealing as a base of operations. We have a presence to date in over 20 countries. There is, therefore, nothing naive about the suggestion. It may be interventionist, but it is not naive.

The naievety is in the lack of understanding that it costs a lot of money to do that, and money is not something we have right now.

Besides, as we saw with Syria, ISIL would have taken advantage of unrest in other places. We can't afford to occupy and police every nation in the Middle East.


This claim rings hollow. We have spent far more on things other than this. Our debt is 20 TRILLION dollars.

Yes, we have, and yes, it is. Making it even larger at this stage is stupid.


If we had done so, the claim that we would have needed a permanent presence is at minimum challengable and possibly even specious.

It's not my claim, it's the claim of our military commanders in the field.

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 08:24 PM
I won't respond to this. Not because I disagree with it or anything - I haven't even read it. I'm just saying I will not respond to you breaking up my post like that. I am not here to talk to you sentence by sentence, although I would like to hear what you have to say.

It's called organization. Much easier and more efficient to respond point by point instead of just posting unbroken walls of text.

exploited
09-06-2016, 08:54 PM
It's called organization. Much easier and more efficient to respond point by point instead of just posting unbroken walls of text.

They shouldn't be unbroken, either. Paragraphs were invented for a reason - to indicate that the object has changed.

It is more organized in the sense that you can break a person's argument down into a series of disparate points, and then debate each one of them. Of course the end result is always bickering over technical matters, endless diversions, etc.

I am very confident that Subdermal can put together a coherent piece of writing that doesn't consist of bullet points.

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 09:00 PM
They shouldn't be unbroken, either. Paragraphs were invented for a reason - to indicate that the object has changed.

It is more organized in the sense that you can break a person's argument down into a series of disparate points, and then debate each one of them. Of course the end result is always bickering over technical matters, endless diversions, etc.

I am very confident that Subdermal can put together a coherent piece of writing that doesn't consist of bullet points.

I've been doing this for a lot of years, and what I've learned is that it's much more efficient doing it in the "bullet point" format because you don't have to worry about trying to figure out which section of the comment responds to which portion of the original post.

Tahuyaman
09-06-2016, 09:05 PM
There's always a chance. Unless people are being forced not to vote for them, there remains a chance it could happen. What if these reports about bad health for Hillary are true, and she has a stroke or extended hospitalization? What if these investigations into Trump U or the Trump Foundation find legs and Trump is actually on trial? With Johnson polling above 10% in many polls and 62% of Americans wanting him in the debates, at that point why wouldn't people vote for him? Johnson and Stein could basically take Hillary and Trump's places in that scenario.

No..... They have no chance.

exploited
09-06-2016, 09:05 PM
I've been doing this for a lot of years, and what I've learned is that it's much more efficient doing it in the "bullet point" format because you don't have to worry about trying to figure out which section of the comment responds to which portion of the original post.

You're a forum addict too, eh?

The idea, in my mind, isn't to prove the validity of each reason for my belief, but to prove my belief. You can't do this by viewing a piece of writing as a series of individual points - you need to view it, and write it, like an argument. At least if you want to come to any sort of conclusion in any sort of reasonable amount of time. It could be that the sum is greater than the parts, and you'd never know it.

Tahuyaman
09-06-2016, 09:06 PM
I've been doing this for a lot of years, and what I've learned is that it's much more efficient doing it in the "bullet point" format because you don't have to worry about trying to figure out which section of the comment responds to which portion of the original post.


You haven't been doing it a lot of years. Not many at all. You've said that you are in your early to mid twenties.

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 09:13 PM
You haven't been doing it a lot of years. Not many at all. You've said that you are in your early to mid twenties.

I turn 25 in 26 days. I've been arguing on forums since I was 12. That's more than a decade.

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 09:14 PM
You're a forum addict too, eh?

Absolutely...sometimes the word that comes to mind is "unfortunately" depending on the forum I'm on.


The idea, in my mind, isn't to prove the validity of each reason for my belief, but to prove my belief. You can't do this by viewing a piece of writing as a series of individual points - you need to view it, and write it, like an argument. At least if you want to come to any sort of conclusion in any sort of reasonable amount of time. It could be that the sum is greater than the parts, and you'd never know it.

Fair enough.

exploited
09-06-2016, 09:15 PM
Absolutely...sometimes the word that comes to mind is "unfortunately" depending on the forum I'm on.



Fair enough.

I see what you did there.

Tahuyaman
09-06-2016, 09:19 PM
I turn 25 in 26 days. I've been arguing on forums since I was 12. That's more than a decade.


you are still wet behind the ears. Give yourself another 15 or 20 years and you can start talking about your experience.

exploited
09-06-2016, 09:20 PM
you are still wet behind the ears. Give yourself another 15 or 20 years and you can start talking about your experience.

I've been going since 93. I was eight when I discovered my first newsgroup.

Tahuyaman
09-06-2016, 09:21 PM
Youngsters always think that they are the smartest people in the room until they get a bit older and finally realize how dumb they were.

Green Arrow
09-06-2016, 09:30 PM
Youngsters always think that they are the smartest people in the room until they get a bit older and finally realize how dumb they were.

Who said that? Point it out.

Tahuyaman
09-06-2016, 11:10 PM
Who said that? Point it out.


I said it. I was young once.

When you get older, you will realize how much you didn't know.

Hal Jordan
09-07-2016, 01:02 AM
I said it. I was young once.

When you get older, you will realize how much you didn't know.

The wise know that they can still learn from the young. As you age, you should have learned more. There are many that don't, though.

stjames1_53
09-07-2016, 05:18 AM
The wise know that they can still learn from the young. As you age, you should have learned more. There are many that don't, though.

Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and enthusiasm ....
Fight in any wars?
How many babies have you raised to adulthood?
Ever fight the IRS?
ever do pro se?
How many houses do you own?
How many of your parents have you buried?
How many people have you shot?
I get the sense that you are nothing but a community organizer type. What's your experience with that?
How many skills do you have?
What's the longest you held the same job?
as a matter of fact, are you still living at home?

Truth Detector
09-07-2016, 06:43 AM
I've been going since 93. I was eight when I discovered my first newsgroup.

:rofl:

Truth Detector
09-07-2016, 06:44 AM
Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and enthusiasm ....
Fight in any wars?
How many babies have you raised to adulthood?
Ever fight the IRS?
ever do pro se?
How many houses do you own?
How many of your parents have you buried?
How many people have you shot?
I get the sense that you are nothing but a community organizer type. What's your experience with that?
How many skills do you have?
What's the longest you held the same job?
as a matter of fact, are you still living at home?

^Spot on.

Ethereal
09-07-2016, 07:30 AM
They're hardly about to back the fascist candidate.

I thought that's what they just did. Or is there another warmongering, bailout supporting, patriot-act voting one percenter who rubs elbows with dictators and corporate executives named Hillary Clinton?

Ethereal
09-07-2016, 07:31 AM
Why would any organization support a candidate without any chance of victory? They might as well nominate Lenin.

Because it's the principled thing to do.

But principles are an alien concept to some... :laugh:

exploited
09-07-2016, 09:06 AM
:rofl:

Everything okay JLB? Hysterical laughter can sometimes suggest anxiety more than anything else.

Bo-4
09-07-2016, 09:16 AM
CPUSA is down to a few thousand members. Some history:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Communist-Party-of-the-United-States-of-America

Alt Right (counting neo-Nazis, militias, Sovereign Citizens, conspiracists, KKK, etc etc etc) number in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.

The DIFFERENCE (in terms of guilt by association) is that Hillary hasn't courted or encouraged them in any manner.

Trump has been dog whistling at the latter for MONTHS.

Tahuyaman
09-07-2016, 09:43 AM
The wise know that they can still learn from the young. As you age, you should have learned more. There are many that don't, though.

the young can not teach the experienced much of anything other than popular culture nonsense.

Green Arrow
09-07-2016, 10:21 AM
Absolutely. That's all I do, 24/7. Read People Magazine and study the lives and times of the Kardashians.

Bo-4
09-07-2016, 10:28 AM
Absolutely. That's all I do, 24/7. Read People Magazine and study the lives and times of the Kardashians.

Well then you're missing out on the latest doings of Snooki, Jwoww, and The Situation. ;-)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYkXGAHWcAAi2GB.jpg

stjames1_53
09-07-2016, 12:55 PM
Everything okay JLB? Hysterical laughter can sometimes suggest anxiety more than anything else.

is that why Hillary laughs uncontrollably? or maybe she's having mini-seizures on stage? I wonder what causes all of that....

stjames1_53
09-07-2016, 12:57 PM
CPUSA is down to a few thousand members. Some history:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Communist-Party-of-the-United-States-of-America

Alt Right (counting neo-Nazis, militias, Sovereign Citizens, conspiracists, KKK, etc etc etc) number in the tens if not hundreds of thousands.

The DIFFERENCE (in terms of guilt by association) is that Hillary hasn't courted or encouraged them in any manner.

Trump has been dog whistling at the latter for MONTHS.

really.......I suppose you've got a cite for that. I don't think he's been whistling at Hillary.....find that one hard to believe

stjames1_53
09-07-2016, 12:59 PM
Well then you're missing out on the latest doings of Snooki, Jwoww, and The Situation. ;-)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYkXGAHWcAAi2GB.jpg

jersy shores? really? how are they important to the rest of us......seems lil miss Snookie got knocked up and is still unmarried.
and you want us to believe that a bunch of kids, who often drink so much they can't stand up, make it public, rave about it...and they are important how?

Truth Detector
09-07-2016, 01:00 PM
Everything okay JLB? Hysterical laughter can sometimes suggest anxiety more than anything else.

WTF is a JLB? I am just fine; you're making me laugh with all the lunatic rantings.

nathanbforrest45
09-07-2016, 01:09 PM
How is Trump fascist?


By not understanding what the word actually means.

Subdermal
09-07-2016, 05:30 PM
How is Trump fascist?

Trump believes things. Trump believes things that they don't like.

Subdermal
09-07-2016, 05:31 PM
They ought to endorse the only leftist in the race: Jill Stein.

This just in:

Stein endorsed by Krylon.

Hal Jordan
09-07-2016, 05:34 PM
the young can not teach the experienced much of anything other than popular culture nonsense.

With that attitude, you have closed yourself off from wisdom.

Hal Jordan
09-07-2016, 05:35 PM
Trump believes things. Trump believes things that they don't like.

You have no fucking clue what Trump believes.

OGIS
09-07-2016, 05:43 PM
"And this in too:" is just diversion from the topic.

Agreed, a diversion.

What is NOT a diversion, though, is the fact that this is not really news.

NEWS FLASH! Fringe parties on both extremes generally end up voting for the main-party candidates closest to them ideologically. Note I use the word "close" rather than "identical."

None-story.

Tahuyaman
09-07-2016, 06:47 PM
With that attitude, you have closed yourself off from wisdom.

No.....

stjames1_53
09-07-2016, 07:40 PM
With that attitude, you have closed yourself off from wisdom.

as have you. So set and arrogant, and yet so young....what wisdom would you provide us, that are many times you senior, can you impart.
Which one of these categories are you more versed and wiser in:
Fight in any wars?
How many babies have you raised to adulthood?
Ever fight the IRS?
ever do pro se?
How many houses do you own?
How many of your parents have you buried?
How many people have you shot?
I get the sense that you are nothing but a community organizer type. What's your experience with that?
How many skills do you have?
What's the longest you held the same job?
as a matter of fact, are you still living at home?

Hal Jordan
09-08-2016, 12:08 AM
as have you. So set and arrogant, and yet so young....what wisdom would you provide us, that are many times you senior, can you impart.

I don't see where you get set and arrogant, when I'm the one that is willing to and has learned from those younger than I. So young? You have no clue what my age is, as I have never provided it on here.


Which one of these categories are you more versed and wiser in:
Fight in any wars?

No, I have physical issues that mean I can not serve.


How many babies have you raised to adulthood?

Never had kids of my own. My ex-wife couldn't have kids and I haven't remarried. I have helped others raise theirs, though. I know, it's not the same.


Ever fight the IRS?

Never had to.


ever do pro se?

Multiple times.


How many houses do you own?

None. Due to a number of things, I am lower income.


How many of your parents have you buried?

As my family has long lives on both sides, I haven't had to yet. I do worry about that and what will happen to my great-nephew if something does happen to them (they adopted him when he was 3).


How many people have you shot?

None. Never served, as noted above, and don't own a gun.


I get the sense that you are nothing but a community organizer type. What's your experience with that?

I don't see what would prompt that, but whatever. That was more my mom's thing, though. She fought the city and won.


How many skills do you have?

Too many to list. I've done a number of things over the years. My current focus is on accounting work.


What's the longest you held the same job?

The longest I've held a standard job was 5 years, and I've had a few of those. I've been working for myself for 6 years now, though.


as a matter of fact, are you still living at home?

Well, any place can become home. I know what you're saying, and I am living halfway across the country from my parents, and have been for the past 6 years. When I was married I lived about 30 minutes away from them, and did live there for a couple of months after the divorce.

These questions don't even scratch the surface of knowledge, though. There's far more to be learned than any person can hope to know.

stjames1_53
09-08-2016, 05:46 AM
I don't see where you get set and arrogant, when I'm the one that is willing to and has learned from those younger than I. So young? You have no clue what my age is, as I have never provided it on here.


No, I have physical issues that mean I can not serve.



Never had kids of my own. My ex-wife couldn't have kids and I haven't remarried. I have helped others raise theirs, though. I know, it's not the same.



Never had to.



Multiple times.



None. Due to a number of things, I am lower income.



As my family has long lives on both sides, I haven't had to yet. I do worry about that and what will happen to my great-nephew if something does happen to them (they adopted him when he was 3).



None. Never served, as noted above, and don't own a gun.



I don't see what would prompt that, but whatever. That was more my mom's thing, though. She fought the city and won.



Too many to list. I've done a number of things over the years. My current focus is on accounting work.



The longest I've held a standard job was 5 years, and I've had a few of those. I've been working for myself for 6 years now, though.



Well, any place can become home. I know what you're saying, and I am living halfway across the country from my parents, and have been for the past 6 years. When I was married I lived about 30 minutes away from them, and did live there for a couple of months after the divorce.

These questions don't even scratch the surface of knowledge, though. There's far more to be learned than any person can hope to know.

then you are not wiser than I. All these things I've done. I have been in 13 different countries, most of them on the other side of the Pacific.
Again, you are arrogant to say you have something to offer a person of my age, and I say you full of it.
From what you do say about yourself, you are 30 or under.
I am 63 and attending IU after getting two degrees at IVY tech. Going after my English degree and shooting for a minor in History.
You cannot impart any wisdom to me. I've seen way more than you. I have experienced more than you. I have more street smarts than you. Owning two homes doesn't make me rich. I was smart with my money. I currently rate on the bottom tier of what's left of the middle class. I saw what was coming in 2008 and planned accordingly. I do not have any credit debt, just my monthlies.
All of those things on that list is not the total of my experiences. I can honestly claim that I have more skills, most of which has been self-taught. But I was wise enough to pay attention to my elders while I was still young. I still learn from my elders. I have made many mistakes, but it's usually from me trusting folks too much.
I lost $100,000 dollars on the advise of someone younger than me in 2008. I was still smarter than he. I re-aligned what was left of my retirement and still came out smelling like a rose.
So, telling me that a younger person is wiser than I, is pure arrogance.
oh, I forgot. Married to the same woman for 42 years.

Subdermal
09-08-2016, 07:25 AM
You have no $#@!ing clue what Trump believes.

I believe I do, actually.

But let's not burrow down stupid holes; I'll adjust my comment to satisfy your rather pr1ckly and demanding demeanor:

Trump says things. Trump says things that they don't like.

exploited
09-08-2016, 07:51 AM
Age is not generally a great barometer of wisdom. I know 60 year olds who are spoiled, entitled shits, and have been their whole lives. Conversely, I know a 27 year old who was raised in an abusive home by the worst kind of alcoholics, and managed to struggle his way to an exceptional life. He has travelled more, been through more, dealt with more and accomplished more than 90% of people on this board, regardless of their age.

No, the idea that mere years provides wisdom is false. It might provide a greater pool of experiences to draw wisdom from, in general, but in no way does that insure the person really learned anything.

Green Arrow
09-08-2016, 07:59 AM
then you are not wiser than I. All these things I've done. I have been in 13 different countries, most of them on the other side of the Pacific.
Again, you are arrogant to say you have something to offer a person of my age, and I say you full of it.
From what you do say about yourself, you are 30 or under.
I am 63 and attending IU after getting two degrees at IVY tech. Going after my English degree and shooting for a minor in History.
You cannot impart any wisdom to me. I've seen way more than you. I have experienced more than you. I have more street smarts than you. Owning two homes doesn't make me rich. I was smart with my money. I currently rate on the bottom tier of what's left of the middle class. I saw what was coming in 2008 and planned accordingly. I do not have any credit debt, just my monthlies.
All of those things on that list is not the total of my experiences. I can honestly claim that I have more skills, most of which has been self-taught. But I was wise enough to pay attention to my elders while I was still young. I still learn from my elders. I have made many mistakes, but it's usually from me trusting folks too much.
I lost $100,000 dollars on the advise of someone younger than me in 2008. I was still smarter than he. I re-aligned what was left of my retirement and still came out smelling like a rose.
So, telling me that a younger person is wiser than I, is pure arrogance.
oh, I forgot. Married to the same woman for 42 years.

I know an 80 year old man who did everything on your list and more, and he supports Hillary Clinton.

Guess you have a lot yet to learn.

nathanbforrest45
09-08-2016, 08:00 AM
I know an 80 year old man who did everything on your list and more, and he supports Hillary Clinton.

Guess you have a lot yet to learn.


Senility runs rampant at that age.

Green Arrow
09-08-2016, 08:30 AM
Senility runs rampant at that age.

So there's a cutoff? At what age does growing older magically stop making you wiser than everyone else?

Tahuyaman
09-08-2016, 09:36 AM
So there's a cutoff? At what age does growing older magically stop making you wiser than everyone else?

I've known people who were in their late 80's and extremely aware and intelligent while on their death bed. Then you have someone like AZ Jim. So, obviously all elderly people don't develop true wisdom.

However, I have never met someone in their twenties who you would call "wise". It's not uncommon to find someone who is more mature than most at that age, but that's not the same thing.

Peter1469
09-08-2016, 09:40 AM
Age is not generally a great barometer of wisdom. I know 60 year olds who are spoiled, entitled shits, and have been their whole lives. Conversely, I know a 27 year old who was raised in an abusive home by the worst kind of alcoholics, and managed to struggle his way to an exceptional life. He has travelled more, been through more, dealt with more and accomplished more than 90% of people on this board, regardless of their age.

No, the idea that mere years provides wisdom is false. It might provide a greater pool of experiences to draw wisdom from, in general, but in no way does that insure the person really learned anything.

How can you conclude that?

nathanbforrest45
09-08-2016, 09:41 AM
So there's a cutoff? At what age does growing older magically stop making you wiser than everyone else?

Never trust anyone over 30

exploited
09-08-2016, 10:19 AM
How can you conclude that?

Quite easily. The majority of people here are, by definition, average. Their accomplishments are average, the challenges they face are average, and their intellect is average. In contrast, his accomplishments are way, way above average, as are the challenges he faced and his intellectual abilities. This observation isn't intended to put anyone here down, it is just statistical reality.

The sort of "vast" experience that people here are talking about is really just living a normal life. They traveled a bit, got married, had kids, maybe they worked for decades and retired. Who cares? These sorts of mundane successes aren't going to stand against a guy who lived on the streets from 14-17, after being physically and mentally abused for years, graduated high school while sleeping in dumpsters, got a college degree that he paid for himself, started and sold his first tech company for several millions, and now travels the world doing charitable work. There is literally no reason for me to believe that just because they have been alive longer, they have achieved and experienced more, and have more wisdom.

Tahuyaman
09-08-2016, 10:25 AM
How can you conclude that?


He can't.

exploited
09-08-2016, 10:31 AM
He can't.

Sure I can.

Tahuyaman
09-08-2016, 10:32 AM
You can try, but you will fail.

exploited
09-08-2016, 10:35 AM
You can try, but you will fail.

Nah. It is just statistical fact. The majority of humanity is of average intellect and experience. There are outliers who, regardless of age, outperform them in every way. There is literally no reason to believe that this forum is any different. Living a middle class life and visiting Paris and working hard and having a kid is a great thing, but it pales in comparison to the outliers, who will do all of those things PLUS have an enormous impact on the world by the time they are 30. Why should I expect more wisdom from the former than the latter?

All of this goes to show that age isn't a very good indicator of wisdom. It could just be that a person hasn't learned a damned thing in 65 years.

Peter1469
09-08-2016, 10:41 AM
Sure I can.


What is my travel record? What is my level of experience as you define it?

Tahuyaman
09-08-2016, 10:44 AM
Kids. They say the darndest things.

exploited
09-08-2016, 10:46 AM
What is my travel record? What is my level of experience as you define it?

You tell me. Why should I think that you have more wisdom than my friend?


These sorts of mundane successes aren't going to stand against a guy who lived on the streets from 14-17 (edit: while raising his younger brother on his own), after being physically and mentally abused for years, graduated high school while sleeping in dumpsters, got a college degree that he paid for himself, started and sold his first tech company for several millions, and now travels the world doing charitable work.

It is extremely narcissistic to imagine that simply living life gives you wisdom. That by virtue of age, you have some special insight into the world.

Peter1469
09-08-2016, 10:51 AM
You tell me. Why should I think that you have more wisdom than my friend?

My point was that you ought not assume....

exploited
09-08-2016, 10:52 AM
My point was that you ought not assume....

Of course I can assume. My friend is a statistical outlier. Higher intelligence, higher achievements, higher difficulty starting out. In every way, he has achieved more than the average, and in fact has achieved more than 90% of people. Why should I assume this board is any different?

It seems to me that what some older people here want is to be listened to, and viewed as wise, simply on the grounds that they are old and have achieved average things. Sorry, that isn't reasonable. Get over yourselves.

nathanbforrest45
09-08-2016, 10:53 AM
I don't know if travel is a good indicator of wisdom. Emmanuel Kant never traveled more than 70 miles from his home in Germany. I have traveled from Newcastle NSW Australia to Portsmouth NH, USA a distance of over 10,000 miles but I doubt that anyone would say I was smarter than Kant (more understandable perhaps)

exploited
09-08-2016, 10:55 AM
I don't know if travel is a good indicator of wisdom. Emmanuel Kant never traveled more than 70 miles from his home in German. I have traveled from Newcastle NSW Australia to Portsmouth NH, USA a distance of over 10,000 miles but I doubt that anyone would say I was smarter than Kant (more understandable perhaps)

Nothing is a good indicator of wisdom other than wisdom itself.

nathanbforrest45
09-08-2016, 10:57 AM
So, if your friend is smarter, runs faster, has more sex etc etc than older people that means all older people aren't as smart as younger people?

You are making a non sequitur argument here.
You don't know anything about the people on this board and your friend may or may not be "better" than we are but there is no way to emphatically make that statement.

exploited
09-08-2016, 11:09 AM
So, if your friend is smarter, runs faster, has more sex etc etc than older people that means all older people aren't as smart as younger people?

You are making a non sequitur argument here.
You don't know anything about the people on this board and your friend may or may not be "better" than we are but there is no way to emphatically make that statement.

When did I say that older people aren't as smart as younger people?

What I said is that statistical reality holds, and that it holds here. Being old doesn't mean you are wise, and there is no reason for me to expect that the people of this board are any different. Why would I listen to them and assume that they are especially wise?

Hal Jordan
09-08-2016, 11:45 AM
then you are not wiser than I. All these things I've done. I have been in 13 different countries, most of them on the other side of the Pacific.

All that says is that you and I have different life experiences.


Again, you are arrogant to say you have something to offer a person of my age, and I say you full of it.

Of course I do, and I'm sure you have things to offer me. What I am saying is that most people have something to offer, and that it is folly to reject them simply because of age. That's something I learned from my grandfather, and he was many years your senior when he passed, fought in World War 2, went through many of the things on your list (I can't speak on whether he ever had to fight the IRS or did pro se), and much, much more.


From what you do say about yourself, you are 30 or under.

Your assumption about my age is incorrect.


I am 63 and attending IU after getting two degrees at IVY tech. Going after my English degree and shooting for a minor in History.

I think going back to school is a good thing, and commend you for that. I'm doing the same thing myself for an accounting degree, working toward a CPA to get myself into a better life position. However, I'm sure you have teachers younger than you. I know that I do. You're saying they have nothing to offer, though.


You cannot impart any wisdom to me. I've seen way more than you.

You've seen different things than me.


I have experienced more than you.

You've had different experiences than me.


I have more street smarts than you.

What basis of comparison do you have for that?


Owning two homes doesn't make me rich.

Never said it did.


I was smart with my money. I currently rate on the bottom tier of what's left of the middle class. I saw what was coming in 2008 and planned accordingly. I do not have any credit debt, just my monthlies.

I don't have any credit debt either. It's commendable that you have handled that well. Many people of many ages can't.


All of those things on that list is not the total of my experiences.

I would certainly hope not.


I can honestly claim that I have more skills, most of which has been self-taught.

More skills than what? What you've mentioned here? I should certainly hope so.


But I was wise enough to pay attention to my elders while I was still young. I still learn from my elders. I have made many mistakes, but it's usually from me trusting folks too much.

As was I. When I was young, I spent far more time discussing things with my elders than around people my own age. You can't find anyone that hasn't made mistakes.


I lost $100,000 dollars on the advise of someone younger than me in 2008. I was still smarter than he. I re-aligned what was left of my retirement and still came out smelling like a rose.

That's commendable.


So, telling me that a younger person is wiser than I, is pure arrogance.

That's not what I am saying. What I've been saying is that knowledge can come from many different sources, younger or older. Shutting down those sources immediately cuts you off from knowledge. Cutting yourself off from knowledge prevents wisdom. That said, it is entirely possible that there are people younger than you that are wiser, as well as those that are older than you than are less wise. Age doesn't automatically grant wisdom, it simply has allowed more opportunities to have gained it.


oh, I forgot. Married to the same woman for 42 years.

Ouch. Seriously, though, in this day and age, that's very rare. Congrats on that.

stjames1_53
09-08-2016, 12:50 PM
All that says is that you and I have different life experiences.



Of course I do, and I'm sure you have things to offer me. What I am saying is that most people have something to offer, and that it is folly to reject them simply because of age. That's something I learned from my grandfather, and he was many years your senior when he passed, fought in World War 2, went through many of the things on your list (I can't speak on whether he ever had to fight the IRS or did pro se), and much, much more.



Your assumption about my age is incorrect.



I think going back to school is a good thing, and commend you for that. I'm doing the same thing myself for an accounting degree, working toward a CPA to get myself into a better life position. However, I'm sure you have teachers younger than you. I know that I do. You're saying they have nothing to offer, though.



You've seen different things than me.



You've had different experiences than me.



What basis of comparison do you have for that?



Never said it did.



I don't have any credit debt either. It's commendable that you have handled that well. Many people of many ages can't.



I would certainly hope not.



More skills than what? What you've mentioned here? I should certainly hope so.



As was I. When I was young, I spent far more time discussing things with my elders than around people my own age. You can't find anyone that hasn't made mistakes.



That's commendable.



That's not what I am saying. What I've been saying is that knowledge can come from many different sources, younger or older. Shutting down those sources immediately cuts you off from knowledge. Cutting yourself off from knowledge prevents wisdom. That said, it is entirely possible that there are people younger than you that are wiser, as well as those that are older than you than are less wise. Age doesn't automatically grant wisdom, it simply has allowed more opportunities to have gained it.



Ouch. Seriously, though, in this day and age, that's very rare. Congrats on that.

You have learned nothing in this conversation with me. You remain unwise.........
Bear in mind, experience is the best educator for wisdom. I have more experience than you, every facet.
BTW, CPA's are not builders, they are bean counters.
Building, in all of its forms (spiritual, physical, etc.) are a positive/productive. It takes nothing to destroy something.....

Hal Jordan
09-08-2016, 01:16 PM
You have learned nothing in this conversation with me. You remain unwise.........

You assume much. I have learned a number of things here.


Bear in mind, experience is the best educator for wisdom. I have more experience than you, every facet.

Experience is the best educator, and everyone has different experiences, and thus different lessons to impart. Your claim is impossible. As we have lived completely different lives, we have completely different experiences. I guarantee that I have facets of experience that you don't, as you have facets that I don't.


BTW, CPA's are not builders, they are bean counters.

Why the continued insulting? I compliment you, yet you seem so consumed that you can't help but try to put me down with every statement. Anyway, accounting is only one facet of me. There are many more, such as writing, construction, etc.


Building, in all of its forms (spiritual, physical, etc.) are a positive/productive. It takes nothing to destroy something.....

This is true. Why are you focused on destroying, then?

Subdermal
09-08-2016, 01:59 PM
When did I say that older people aren't as smart as younger people?

What I said is that statistical reality holds, and that it holds here. Being old doesn't mean you are wise, and there is no reason for me to expect that the people of this board are any different. Why would I listen to them and assume that they are especially wise?

The term 'older and wiser' stands in contrast to your claim here.

No, age does not automatically indicate wisdom. There are a host of factors - however - age is certainly one such factor.

As a general rule, more wisdom will be found amongst the older segment of our population than it will in the younger.

Which is why the older population is the one which votes to the Right.

exploited
09-08-2016, 02:04 PM
The term 'older and wiser' stands in contrast to your claim here.

No, age does not automatically indicate wisdom. There are a host of factors - however - age is certainly one such factor.

As a general rule, more wisdom will be found amongst the older segment of our population than it will in the younger.

Which is why the older population is the one which votes to the Right.

You never cease to amaze me.

Tahuyaman
09-08-2016, 04:16 PM
You can tell a youngster. You just can't tell them much....

Tahuyaman
09-08-2016, 04:18 PM
You never cease to amaze me.


Younger people are often amazed by that which is obvious to those with a bit of experience.

exploited
09-08-2016, 04:47 PM
The term 'older and wiser' stands in contrast to your claim here.

No, age does not automatically indicate wisdom. There are a host of factors - however - age is certainly one such factor.

As a general rule, more wisdom will be found amongst the older segment of our population than it will in the younger.

Which is why the older population is the one which votes to the Right.

It is one such factor? Okay, let's explore that. Consider the following hypotheticals:

I am a 65 year old housewife. I have never worked. I have raised a family. I have never left the country. I have never fought in a war. I have never experienced trauma, outside that which is expected from human life.

I am a 27 year old man. I sold my first business when I was 20 for a substantial amount of money. I have a family. I have traveled extensively. I fought in Iraq. I have experienced great trauma, but managed to pull myself through it.

Who could reasonably be expected to have more wisdom, and why? And if we simply switched the ages, so that the first hypothetical is a 27 year old, and the second is the 65 year old, who would you reasonably expect to have more wisdom?

Do you notice something about this process? Perhaps that the defining characteristic of wisdom is not your age, but what you have done in your life?

maineman
09-08-2016, 05:12 PM
And more than what you have done in your life, what you have learned from what you have done.

Hal Jordan
09-08-2016, 06:12 PM
And more than what you have done in your life, what you have learned from what you have done.

This is key. You could do everything there is to do, but if you don't learn from it, you're not gaining any wisdom.

Tahuyaman
09-08-2016, 07:50 PM
I don't mean to get this back on topic, but liberals / partisan Democrats love to judge a candidate by who endorses them except when that endorsement isn't convenient for their side.


But then maybe the Democrats are comfortable with that endorsement?

maineman
09-08-2016, 10:04 PM
why should democrats - or anyone else, for that matter - care? The communist party is irrelevant in America. It only has a couple of thousand members nationwide. Ever since Gus Hall ran for the last time in 1984, the CPUSA has always endorsed the democrat.

Hal Jordan
09-08-2016, 10:30 PM
why should democrats - or anyone else, for that matter - care? The communist party is irrelevant in America. It only has a couple of thousand members nationwide. Ever since Gus Hall ran for the last time in 1984, the CPUSA has always endorsed the democrat.

Why should anyone care who any group endorses?

maineman
09-08-2016, 10:37 PM
Why should anyone care who any group endorses?

beyond the members of the group, no one should.

Hal Jordan
09-08-2016, 10:43 PM
beyond the members of the group, no one should.

We seem to be in perfect agreement here, then.

Tahuyaman
09-09-2016, 08:14 PM
why should democrats - or anyone else, for that matter - care? The communist party is irrelevant in America. It only has a couple of thousand members nationwide. Ever since Gus Hall ran for the last time in 1984, the CPUSA has always endorsed the democrat.

How come that argument doesn't work when the KKK endorses a candidate?

maineman
09-09-2016, 08:48 PM
How come that argument doesn't work when the KKK endorses a candidate?

any CPUSA candidates on the ballot for the US Senate anywhere?

exploited
09-09-2016, 08:49 PM
How come that argument doesn't work when the KKK endorses a candidate?

It does work. At least if you are reasonable.

Tahuyaman
09-09-2016, 08:54 PM
How come that argument doesn't work when the KKK endorses a candidate?


any CPUSA candidates on the ballot for the US Senate anywhere?

is that your final answer?

Tahuyaman
09-09-2016, 08:56 PM
How come that argument doesn't work when the KKK endorses a candidate?


It does work. At least if you are reasonable.
it doesn't work with the Democtats / liberals here. Check out the thread about that very subject.

maineman
09-09-2016, 09:00 PM
is that your final answer?

it was a question, not an answer. see how it had one of those "question marks' at the end?? Do you have an answer?

OGIS
09-09-2016, 09:30 PM
why should democrats - or anyone else, for that matter - care? The communist party is irrelevant in America. It only has a couple of thousand members nationwide. Ever since Gus Hall ran for the last time in 1984, the CPUSA has always endorsed the democrat.

And half of them are FBI agents. With a smattering of false flag operators from the JBS.

I always wondered about old Gus. The man seemed utterly clueless.

Tahuyaman
09-10-2016, 01:56 AM
it was a question, not an answer. see how it had one of those "question marks' at the end?? Do you have an answer?


Do you always answer a question with a question?

Never mind......

Bethere
09-10-2016, 03:00 AM
I always wondered about old Gus.
Lyndon ran 8 times!

maineman
09-10-2016, 07:10 AM
Do you always answer a question with a question?

Never mind......

my answer is that I am unaware of any CPUSA candidates for US Senate on any state ballot. If you know of one or some, do tell.

Tahuyaman
09-10-2016, 10:56 AM
my answer is that I am unaware of any CPUSA candidates for US Senate on any state ballot. If you know of one or some, do tell.

You're so much of a partisan hack, you can't even handle a simple question. As if your stupid question has anything to do with it.

ill give you a mulligan.

Why doesn't you explanation on endorsements work for those who are endorsed by the KKK?