• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Linda_D said:
Plain and simple, if the police in many municipalities treated whites the way they regularly treat blacks, the officers, the police administrators, and the city administrators would not only be in out of their jobs, a bunch of them would likely be in jail. OTOH, in many municipalities, there have been real efforts to treat all residents with respect, avoid racial profiling, integrate minorities not only into the police department but also into the political power structure, and these communities generally have had much less conflict between minority communities and the police than others. Of course, those places don't make headlines.
Click to expand...

I agree and the cop friends that I am friends with will treat someone based on that person's actions. Not their skin color. One who is a cop in Flint told me that when he stated years ago, it wasn't that way, and there are still a few older guys, but for the most part, they have been able to show the community that they are there to serve and protect regardless of the color of their skin.

On a presidential point of view, do you think that Obama and Clinton have been trying to implement Saul Alinsky's ideas?
 
Mastiff said:
My point is that if you elect a narcissist to the highest office in this country, you've created a very dangerous situation. Yeah, let's give the nuclear codes to a thin skinned prick who lashes out at the smallest slight... that's a brilliant idea. :r:
Click to expand...

^^^
michaelskis said:
I sure the heck hope you are pointing that "You've" finger at someone else. I agree with your point and will add that Hillary is no better. Yes, she has thicker skin (just look at how she was treated by Slick Willy) but I doubt that Trump will be able to anything. There is no way the joint chiefs will allow him to use that level of power. Clinton Machine is manipulative enough to actually cause harm to the future of this country. Just look at all the people who have opposed their rise to power that have ended up dead. I am not positive that the DNC intern who was shot last week wasn't the leak for the e-mails. They say he was the victim of a robbery, but last I check, if someone is going to rob you, they take stuff. The shooters didn't take anything.
Click to expand...

In what universe is Hillary Clinton "no better" than a demented, ignorant narcissist when it comes to having the power to launch a nuclear attack? Do you really think that Trump would listen to the Joint Chiefs? After all, as POTUS, he'd be "the boss". The only way the JCs would stop him would be by a coup d'etat. You don't think that would "cause harm to the future of this country" ... not to mention the US in the here and now? Sorry, but I don't want to have to choose between nuclear war and the end of the US Constitution. You've obviously been wallowing in the Right Wing conspiracy theory muck for too long to think straight on that one.
 
As far as voter fraud risk goes and ID issues, I really wish we would study Estonia. Estonia is this great little incubator of technological solutions to many of these issues. They basically created a uniform ID card that does everything, including cloud-based voting. I actually talked to a guy there when we were on vacation--he talked about how much it simplified everyone's lives. Really neat stuff if you care to research it. The U.S. is obviously different (much different scale and higher volumes of immigration that can pose difficulties in getting people into the system).

I'm not going to ask anti-Trump people to vote for Hillary--just don't vote for Trump. Go vote for Johnson (as a protest vote or because you agree with his positions--I don't care). Just don't vote for Trump.
 
Linda_D said:
In what universe is Hillary Clinton "no better" than a demented, ignorant narcissist when it comes to having the power to launch a nuclear attack? Do you really think that Trump would listen to the Joint Chiefs? After all, as POTUS, he'd be "the boss". The only way the JCs would stop him would be by a coup d'etat. You don't think that would "cause harm to the future of this country" ... not to mention the US in the here and now? Sorry, but I don't want to have to choose between nuclear war and the end of the US Constitution. You've obviously been wallowing in the Right Wing conspiracy theory muck for too long to think straight on that one.
Click to expand...

With Trump, I don't think that anyone would hesitate to stand up and stay he is crazy being that the GOP (and most people) are against him. LINK I don't think it would cause harm to anyone other than Trump's ego.

Clinton is a pretender, she has an image of compassion and sympathy for the middle and lower class, when it is evident that she will only continue to get laws passed that benefit Wall Street. What makes her more dangerious is that people will be willing to do along with her Alinski like actions because they don't think that she is crazy. Clinton has done some horrible things and I really hope that people are willing to read up on her history going back to her college years and all the personal friends that have been found dead.

The only saving grace with Trump is he shows his cards and he will not be able to get anything done if he is elected president.

Suburb Repairman said:
I'm not going to ask anti-Trump people to vote for Hillary--just don't vote for Trump. Go vote for Johnson (as a protest vote or because you agree with his positions--I don't care). Just don't vote for Trump.
Click to expand...

I am the same way... Anyone but Trump or Clinton.
 
Trump once again proves he only cares about ratings this year with his claim that the debate is up against a couple football games.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
I'm not going to ask anti-Trump people to vote for Hillary--just don't vote for Trump. Go vote for Johnson (as a protest vote or because you agree with his positions--I don't care). Just don't vote for Trump.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I'm more disappointed in the GOP for allowing the rise of Trump or if I am more disappointed for Joe Biden that his situation was such that he couldn't make a run at it this time. I think Biden would have beaten Hillary in the primaries, and would easily dispatch of Trump in the general. Hopefully the GOP gets their act together at the national level and comes up with a viable candidate in 2020 to oppose President Clinton II.
 
The Don had a very contradictory interview this weekend. If you read some of his answers, they not only contradict themselves, but do it in the same sentence (fragment) & makes no sense.

http://gawker.com/watch-the-best-parts-of-donald-trumps-insane-interview-1784619097


Also we learn from this weekend that:
Roger Stone, longtime Don's advisor & friend say Khizr Khan is a "Muslim Brotherhood plant sent here to help Hillary."
Corey Lenendowski (you know The Don's former campaign thug) said Khizr Kahn's son would still be alive if The Don was president.
Paul Manafort, The Don's present campaign manger, used to be an advisor for Ukraine's former President Yanukovych, who is now a "guest" of Putin.
The Don received a $150,000 grant directed to help affected small businesses after 9/11. The Don's building was not near the WTC site and did not suffer damage, but he still got the grant. Illegal? Maybe but he applied and received. Unethical? Yes.
 
This is too much -

Donald Trump ‘sacrificed’ his first two marriages because he’s a job creator
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/sc...irst-two-marriages-because-hes-a-job-creator/

Beyond the pale

======================================================================================================================

I applaud the VFW

“will not tolerate anyone berating a Gold Star family member for exercising his or her right of speech or expression.”

added that “there are certain sacrosanct subjects that no amount of wordsmithing can repair once crossed.”
Click to expand...
http://www.vfw.org/News-and-Events/Articles/2016-Articles/VFW-Supports-Gold-Star-Families/
 
michaelskis said:
Clinton has done some horrible things and I really hope that people are willing to read up on her history going back to her college years and all the personal friends that have been found dead.
Click to expand...
What "horrible" things has she done? I confess the way that sentence reads it almost sounds like you're referencing some sort of tin foil conspiracy theory....1. Clinton had personal friends that were found dead from various causes. 2. Clinton is a wicked person IMO 3. ergo, Clinton must have killed them (or had other people do it and make it look like an 'accident'). And most important of all...you can't prove she didn't!

Please tell us you have not sunk to that level of critical thought. :facepalm:

images
 
Maister said:
What "horrible" things has she done? I confess the way that sentence reads it almost sounds like you're referencing some sort of tin foil conspiracy theory....1. Clinton had personal friends that were found dead from various causes. 2. Clinton is a wicked person IMO 3. ergo, Clinton must have killed them (or had other people do it and make it look like an 'accident'). And most important of all...you can't prove she didn't!

Please tell us you have not sunk to that level of critical thought. :facepalm:

images
Click to expand...


1) Worked with the DNC to rig the primaries so that Bernie never had a chance. (Which I find funny because the FBI is investing the Russians for stealing e-mails that indicate that the DNC violated election laws...)
2) Claimed that Bengazi was because of a video and not terrorism
3) Classified e-mails on her personal server. (others have been sent to prison for less)
4) Attempts on getting two black panther members acquitted on technicalities
5) Lied about being under sniper fire in bosnia
6) Said she was turned down for the Marines in 1975 (but they have no record of her ever applying)
7) Said that she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary... but he did not become famous until she was 6.
8) Approved $165 billion worth of commerical arms sales to 20 nations (some who hate us) but all have donated huge sums of money to the Clinton Foundation.
9) Has been connected to 45 people who have been murdered (or suspicious accident or suicide) all of which are alleged to have had information damaging to either her or Bill.


As a matter of procedure, Trump has done horrible things too.
1) Failed to pay millions (if not more) in contracts to architects and builders
2) Possible corruption and bribes regarding rezonings in New York
3) Had 5 children with 3 different wifes
4) Repeated investigations by the FBI
5) 60% of the speeches that he gives...
6) Investigated for tax fraud
7) Went bankrupt after shifting assets into protected shelters to clear debts

I just don't see how anyone can vote for either of them.
 
Just imagine HRC telling the mother of the Benghazi attack that was at the RNC to stop attacking her, and tweeting out articles linking the mother to terrorists, etc. I can’t really picture it because it’s too incredibly stupid.

If HRC said half the things The Don has, the congressional republicans, FauxNews and the lot would be shitting all over themselves to get to a microphone for endless ranting.

Now The Don is saying the entire election is rigged (he said it about the primaries too) and if he isn't elected president, he'll sue and there will be bloody protest in the streets. But think about history please, both Gore (Florida) & Kerry (Ohio) had legitimate grounds to pursue legal action, but both decided it was far better for the nation to concede than drag it through the courts (& potentially without a president for 3 or 4 months). That's scary to say that the democrats have more decorum and national pride than The Don.








I can't think of which is better, calling him The Don (as in gangster mobster boss overload) or a Hairy Cheeto.
 
Planit said:
Just imagine HRC telling the mother of the Benghazi attack that was at the RNC to stop attacking her, and tweeting out articles linking the mother to terrorists, etc. I can’t really picture it because it’s too incredibly stupid.
.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh what she said about the mother of a Benghazi victim was not too far off. Not as bad as Trump, she is still along similar lines...

(LINK)



Another Cyburbian pointed out on FB that instead of saying bad stuff about the candidates we don't like, we should stay good things about those that we do like...

To which I would say... 3rd Party Candidates are not Trump or Clinton!
 
this link may help explain the challenge to get a voter ID by some:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...ta_voter_id_law_blocked_by_federal_judge.html


BTW - federal judge just blocked the voter ID law in North Dakota right after it was done in North Carolina. Mississippi 'religious freedom' bill was blocked as well, which is on the heels of a few other states getting their hands slapped. This should be a message...the ultra-conservative constitutional laws which were shoved through the state legislators are unconstitutional. Thanks for wasting taxpayer money to run these bad laws through & the legal bills (that can't) defend them.
 
michaelskis said:
Ahhhh what she said about the mother of a Benghazi victim was not too far off. Not as bad as Trump, she is still along similar lines...

(LINK)
Click to expand...

I don't think that is remotely the same, other than addressing the parent of a victim. She's basically making a statement that the information that was shared is incorrect. Not saying that the mother is a secret terrorist working in collusion with Trump. Big difference.


I'm going to out myself here. I actually think a lot of the fuss over Hillary has been overblown. While there are legitimate concerns, and of course I mourn with everyone else for the lost lives at Benghazi, I don't think they are outside the scope of the damage that most people who hold that position would cause. The email situation was dumb, but I can honestly look past that if that's the only thing I truly take issue with. While I don't personally support all of her policies, I support enough of them that I can honestly say I am voting FOR her and not against Trump.


I obviously can't support Trump, and I don't support the platforms of the third party candidates.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gtpeach said:
michaelskis said:
Ahhhh what she said about the mother of a Benghazi victim was not too far off. Not as bad as Trump, she is still along similar lines...

(LINK)
Click to expand...

I don't think that is remotely the same, other than addressing the parent of a victim. She's basically making a statement that the information that was shared is incorrect. Not saying that the mother is a secret terrorist working in collusion with Trump. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Trump said the following:
Furry Meatloaf said:
"Who wrote that? Did Hillary's script writers write it?"

"I think I've made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard,"

"I'd like to hear his wife say something"
Click to expand...

Trump is a jerk and his words were wrong. But it does not make Hillary's words right. Especially when the mother was correct and Hillary called her a liar.
 
What is up with DT &

the Purple Heart ?
it's an act of stolen valor
Click to expand...
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...epts-a-purple-heart-amid-veteran-controversy/

the crying baby ?
"Actually I was only kidding," he said. "You can get the baby out of here."
Click to expand...

sexual harassment - victim blaming ?
"find another career or find another company" if harassed.
Click to expand...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...en-gretchen-kelly-greta-news-column/87915454/


==================================


Saw a commercial for Dr Jill Stein - Green Party
 
Last edited:
Regarding Trump and the Purple Heart the article JNA linked to in the Seattle Times had this quote:

John Bircher, the national spokesman for the Military Order of the Purple Hearts, told The Associated Press that anyone who receives the Purple Heart, a medal that honors servicemen and women injured or killed in battle, is technically entitled to give it away should they choose. However, he added, "for someone to have a Purple Heart, it's an act of stolen valor. No one who isn't entitled to the Purple Heart valor should have one," he said.
Click to expand...

As much as I dislike Trump, this is incorrect on a couple levels. It is not an act of "stolen valor" for somebody to have a Purple Heart, whether or not they earned it. It only becomes an act of stolen valor if Trump were to claim that he personally earned the Purple Heart and he were using that claim for financial gain.

Under the spokesman's reasoning, my wife and I are in violation of the Stolen Valor act because we have four Purple Hearts at our house - my wife's grandfather's from WWII, two from her father from Vietnam, and one from my father for Korea... all displayed in shadowboxes in our den. :r:

In the end, IMO, the correct response for Trump would have been to refuse the serviceman's Purple Heart saying something like, "It was your sacrifice, I want you to keep it yada yada yada..."
 
the bad getting worse

Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson questioned whether the candidate owed an apology to the parents of fallen soldier Humayun Khan and seemingly blamed President Obama and Hillary Clinton for his death, which occurred in 2004 under President Bush.

"It was under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that changed the rules of engagement that probably cost his life," said Pierson, apparently referencing the more restrictive rules of engagement adopted by the U.S. military in Afghanistan in 2009. (Khan was killed by a car bomb in Iraq in 2004.)

"So I don't understand," Pierson continued, "why it's so hard to understand why Donald Trump was confused about why he was being held responsible for something he had nothing to do with while Hillary Clinton had everything to do with."


:-c:-o:lmao::facepalm:
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Regarding Trump and the Purple Heart the article JNA linked to in the Seattle Times had this quote:



As much as I dislike Trump, this is incorrect on a couple levels. It is not an act of "stolen valor" for somebody to have a Purple Heart, whether or not they earned it. It only becomes an act of stolen valor if Trump were to claim that he personally earned the Purple Heart and he were using that claim for financial gain.

Under the spokesman's reasoning, my wife and I are in violation of the Stolen Valor act because we have four Purple Hearts at our house - my wife's grandfather's from WWII, two from her father from Vietnam, and one from my father for Korea... all displayed in shadowboxes in our den. :r:

In the end, IMO, the correct response for Trump would have been to refuse the serviceman's Purple Heart saying something like, "It was your sacrifice, I want you to keep it yada yada yada..."
Click to expand...

calling it stolen valor is a wild stretch, but I agree that he should have refused it.

I guess my dad is stealing valor as well since he carries my grandpa's purple heart in his pocket damn near everyday and has done so my entire life (my grandpa died shortly after my birth from long-term health complications related to WWII chemical exposure).
 
Suburb Repairman said:
calling it stolen valor is a wild stretch, but I agree that he should have refused it.

I guess my dad is stealing valor as well since he carries my grandpa's purple heart in his pocket damn near everyday and has done so my entire life (my grandpa died shortly after my birth from long-term health complications related to WWII chemical exposure).
Click to expand...

Agreed, you never accept another soldier's purple heart unless it's family or a really close friend and you intend to honor it. You also never say the words, "I always wanted a purple heart". Nobody wants one of those things. Not for what you need to do to earn one. My friends dad has 3. All his. He'll tell you what it took to earn them and I don't want to go through even half that.
 
michaelskis said:
That is the biggest piece of garbage that I have seen in a long time. The one thing in her list that she did not include is the lives of unborn children. It would be like me saying "I am pro-choice, because I think that when the child reaches a competent age to make a major decision, then it can decide if it should be aborted or not.
Click to expand...

How is it garbage? The author recognizes that Hillary is pro-choice when it comes to abortion. She's pointing out that for her, being pro-life means more than being against abortion. And based on the other issues that she considers should be encompassed in pro-life platforms, she is more in line with Hillary this election cycle.

I actually agree with a lot of her logic, personally. I am personally opposed to abortion, but unless the Republican party embraces a holistic approach to reducing the need for abortion, that's not going to be the issue that I vote on. We've seen abortion rates decrease under Obama, a lot of which is attributed to better access to birth control. Considering that it stagnated under G. W. Bush, there could be a case to be made that voting for Democratic candidates is actually the more pro-life choice. ;)
 
Looks like Trump has pushed the self destruct button on his campaign. There is absolutely no way these gaffes aren't coming on purpose. The great "Trump for Hilary" conspiracy may be true after all!

Trump has messed it all up though. If I were him I would have hand picked my own VP who I wanted to be President after I resigned right after my inauguration. That's a super villain thing to do, but instead he's just made himself look even more like an idiot.
 
True, I'm over dramatizing here, but what political statement doesn't. If Texas (I'm just picking on them today) spent just a fraction of its time, effort, and money to support protection and provide access to basic birth controls (and stop preaching abstinence - drama part) instead of trying to shut down abortion clinics it would have dramatically lowered its abortion rates and actually provided health care to women. Imagine actually working for your people.

Personally I don't think abortion is a government issue. I think it's a personal issue between you and your god/family/doctor. Gubmint can keep it's ideas out religious beliefs on life out of my life (granted that also means you accept the courts definition of life which many people don't)

Oh, and please stop killing the doctors. That really isn't very pro life of you. Always a crazy on every side. :not:
 
gtpeach said:
How is it garbage? The author recognizes that Hillary is pro-choice when it comes to abortion. She's pointing out that for her, being pro-life means more than being against abortion. And based on the other issues that she considers should be encompassed in pro-life platforms, she is more in line with Hillary this election cycle.

I actually agree with a lot of her logic, personally. I am personally opposed to abortion, but unless the Republican party embraces a holistic approach to reducing the need for abortion, that's not going to be the issue that I vote on. We've seen abortion rates decrease under Obama, a lot of which is attributed to better access to birth control. Considering that it stagnated under G. W. Bush, there could be a case to be made that voting for Democratic candidates is actually the more pro-life choice. ;)
Click to expand...

Um, no. The author skirted the foundational concept of being pro-life and tried to justify something that it is not.

As for statistics, in the book Freakonomics, the author also pointed out that if you wanted to reduce traffic accidents, put a massive spike in the center of the steering wheel. It will result in a cultural paradigm shift of people driving safer. He also explained that safety features in cars have resulted in a false sense of protection. While it may be protection against death, it is not a protection against the foundational cause, the accident.

And before the pro-choice people go off on the 'well it's the woman's body, it should be her choice." No, that is crap. It is not the woman's body. If it was the woman's body, she would be the one dieing from the abortion.
 
gtpeach said:
. . . but unless the Republican party embraces a holistic approach to reducing the need for abortion, that's not going to be the issue that I vote on. . .
Click to expand...


Exactly. I've never, ever weighed in on this topic before but for me this is the crux of it. I think reasonable people on both sides of the issue can agree that abortion is certainly not a desirable thing for many reasons. But taking the mystery, the stigma, the general uptightness this country has with sex in general out of the equation would be a good first step in eliminating the need for abortions in the first place. ALL sides should come together and work toward the goal of keeping the number of abortions to an absolute minimum. Of course it would also help if the party who generally opposes abortion actually gave a shit about those children AFTER they're born.

And I'll put this out there too which I'm sure I'll get flamed for but if you're pro-life but you say abortion is acceptable in cases of rape or incest you're a hypocrite in my mind. You're either pro-life or you're not. I don't see how you decide what's ok and what's not. I'd have much more respect for that position if you said "no abortion ever."
 
Maister said:
If only I had a nickel for.......

On second thought. Never mind.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain I've said that before in this very same thread! But this time really seems to have sealed the deal. When you have high level GOP folks endorsing Hillary, who is basically their Lex Luthor or Joker, things have hit the fan.
 
MD Planner said:
reasonable people on both sides
Click to expand...

I think this is what most political issues come down to. Getting both sides to sit down and discuss the topic rationally without rhetoric and bombastic statements of how this will ruin everything. It's that whole lost art of compromise and realizing that not everyone in this great country thinks that same way I do.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ua13_gYQn0

So now she tells the truth.


MD Planner said:
Exactly. I've never, ever weighed in on this topic before but for me this is the crux of it. I think reasonable people on both sides of the issue can agree that abortion is certainly not a desirable thing for many reasons. But taking the mystery, the stigma, the general uptightness this country has with sex in general out of the equation would be a good first step in eliminating the need for abortions in the first place. ALL sides should come together and work toward the goal of keeping the number of abortions to an absolute minimum. Of course it would also help if the party who generally opposes abortion actually gave a shit about those children AFTER they're born.

And I'll put this out there too which I'm sure I'll get flamed for but if you're pro-life but you say abortion is acceptable in cases of rape or incest you're a hypocrite in my mind. You're either pro-life or you're not. I don't see how you decide what's ok and what's not. I'd have much more respect for that position if you said "no abortion ever."
Click to expand...

There is never an acceptable abortion. As Dr. Seuss said in Horton Hears a Who, "A person is a person, no matter how small." The life may have been created out of a horrible situation, but it is still a life none the less. However, less than 1% is the result of rape or insest (Link)

You are correct about the GOP, but BOTH parties are to blame. There are real world fixes to the welfare system to protect children, provide them quality care and education. But neither party is really interested in fixing the abuses of the system. The democrats want to be drug dealers and get parents hooked on the system so they can control them while the GOP wants to turn their backs. To blame one and not the other is being a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
michaelskis said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ua13_gYQn0

So now she tells the truth.




There is never an acceptable abortion. As Dr. Seuss said in Horton Hears a Who, "A person is a person, no matter how small." The life may have been created out of a horrible situation, but it is still a life none the less. However, less than 1% is the result of rape or insest (Link)
Click to expand...

From an anti-abortion perspective, I would argue that you can make a case for an acceptable abortion if the mother's life is truly at serious risk. It's a matter of choosing which life needs to be protected more.
 
Gotta love Kansas. Our congressman just lost his primary to another republican. It happens. The good part, superpacs are all to blame. The system was rigged! That's right, a republican going off about superpacs. Did I mention he was supported by the Koch machine? and it couldn't be that people are mad he was kicked of the agricultural committee?
 
dvdneal said:
Gotta love Kansas. Our congressman just lost his primary to another republican. It happens. The good part, superpacs are all to blame. The system was rigged! That's right, a republican going off about superpacs. Did I mention he was supported by the Koch machine? and it couldn't be that people are mad he was kicked of the agricultural committee?
Click to expand...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/backlash...1-conservative-lawmakers-095627942.html?nhp=1

Could moderates be making a comeback?
 
Back
Top