Yet another Trumpity Lie: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/05/25/donald-trump-accuses-elizabeth-warren-making-quick-profits-flipping-houses/d9Pelzba0hj00R8kcKf45H/story.html...

jelun

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/05/25/donald-trump-accuses-elizabeth-warren-making-quick-profits-flipping-houses/d9Pelzba0hj00R8kcKf45H/story.html

Fluffy

jelun wrote:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/05/25/donald-trump-accuses-elizabeth-warren-making-quick-profits-flipping-houses/d9Pelzba0hj00R8kcKf45H/story.html

Oh I read this article earlier. Trump is such a prevaricator.

jelun

Fluffy wrote:

Oh I read this article earlier. Trump is such a prevaricator.

His system is falling apart.
The "establishment" that is touting respect for the voters REALLY need to crunch their numbers and figure out how few people actually voted for this crooked, lying, bigoted, creep.
And THEN they should dump him.
LOL, they would be better off not running anyone at the rate he is going.

Fluffy

jelun wrote:

His system is falling apart.
The "establishment" that is touting respect for the voters REALLY need to crunch their numbers and figure out how few people actually voted for this crooked, lying, bigoted, creep.
And THEN they should dump him.
LOL, they would be better off not running anyone at the rate he is going.

Oh I don't know about that. My best guess is he will win. There are too many examples of people just like him being elected to office not only in this country but throughout the world.

jelun

Fluffy wrote:

Oh I don't know about that. My best guess is he will win. There are too many examples of people just like him being elected to office not only in this country but throughout the world.

People are around for the entertainment.
August to November is a long, long time.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Fluffy wrote:

Oh I don't know about that. My best guess is he will win. There are too many examples of people just like him being elected to office not only in this country but throughout the world.

Some lies are preferred by one voting block and some lies are preferred by another voting block.

I'm going to write my vote in....and vote for neither of them. I suggest you do the same. At least you won't be wasting your time.

jelun

Dummy Boy wrote:

Some lies are preferred by one voting block and some lies are preferred by another voting block.

I'm going to write my vote in....and vote for neither of them. I suggest you do the same. At least you won't be wasting your time.

Voting is never a waste of time.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

jelun wrote:

Voting is never a waste of time.

I didn't say voting was a waste of time, but voting for the best of the worst, IS a waste of time. Vote for the candidate that actually will do the right thing for the most people. And if the requires ignoring the candidate buffet process, so be it.

Fluffy

Dummy Boy wrote:

I didn't say voting was a waste of time, but voting for the best of the worst, IS a waste of time. Vote for the candidate that actually will do the right thing for the most people. And if the requires ignoring the candidate buffet process, so be it.

You sound hopelessly idealistic. There is not one magic candidate that will do all for everyone. Haven't you ever worked in a corporation? What? You quit participating if you don't get everything you want? You wouldn't last long.

jelun

Dummy Boy wrote:

I didn't say voting was a waste of time, but voting for the best of the worst, IS a waste of time. Vote for the candidate that actually will do the right thing for the most people. And if the requires ignoring the candidate buffet process, so be it.

Voting for someone who will never hold office is not voting for the person who will do the right thing since they will do nothing for any people in office.

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

Fluffy wrote:

You sound hopelessly idealistic. There is not one magic candidate that will do all for everyone. Haven't you ever worked in a corporation? What? You quit participating if you don't get everything you want? You wouldn't last long.

Sounds principled to me. Voting for candidates you don't really like or believe in in the name of doing your civic-duty is a cop-out. What do you think is going to change then? All your doing is supporting corruption and the status quo. You can still participate and be active and not support the "lesser-of-two-evils" non-choice. If more people had the nerve to actually back-up their ideals with action, we'd be alot better off.

jelun

J Anthony wrote:

Sounds principled to me. Voting for candidates you don't really like or believe in in the name of doing your civic-duty is a cop-out. What do you think is going to change then? All your doing is supporting corruption and the status quo. You can still participate and be active and not support the "lesser-of-two-evils" non-choice. If more people had the nerve to actually back-up their ideals with action, we'd be alot better off.

What corruption?
I keep asking this question, nobody gives anything but semi-answers that are unproven.
So you are suggesting that people subvert a candidate because a global initiative takes money from global sources because some Koch brother tells you it is underhanded? Or even because a person bought into an idea that Donald Trump would really share his secrets to success?
Do we really think that Jill Stein is squeaky clean? And again, I will note that she isn't on the ballot on all 50 states. So how does that square with taking a valid action?
Gary Johnson? Meh.

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

jelun wrote:

What corruption? br I keep asking this question, ... (show quote)

Peddling your government influence in order to enrich yourself is considered corruption, or at least it used to be. Intervening in other sovereign country's affairs and helping to overthrow their governments for the sake of corporate interests is also considered corruption. Do you know nothing of Hillary's influence in Syria, Ukraine, Libya, or Honduras as Secretary of State? Or are you just choosing not to see? All failed states now, thanks in no small part to Hillary's State Dept. Is she solely to blame? Of course not, this has been the gist of our government's foreign policy for decades. Does she bear some responsibility? No doubt about it.
None of them are squeaky-clean, to be sure. You lay down with dogs you're bound to get some fleas. But the country would be better of supporting people who are less-connected to our current establishment, not fully embedded within it. But I guess people prefer the devil-they-know as opposed to the chance of real change, wherever it may come from.

jelun

J Anthony wrote:

Peddling your government influence in order to enr... (show quote)

I think what I hear you saying is that you are allowing our government officials do what they think they need to in order to keep us safe and not take any responsibility for that ourselves. In addition it is improper for those who have held a high level government job to be elected POTUS, it should be someone who can claim greater distance from those dirty choices.

I don't see that Hillary had a state department, she ran it for four years for US.
And while I recognize the allegations about disasters in foreign policy, I am not sure what would have been done differently with anyone else in charge.
I am willing to listen, though.

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

jelun wrote:

I think what I hear you saying is that you are all... (show quote)

I never implied that individuals should not take responsibility themselves, quite the contrary. Part of that responsibility entails not giving power to or supporting those who would only use it for their own self-interest and to perpetuate a blatantly rotten status quo. A real democracy, however messy at times, would call for more responsibility and more active participation in our own governance, which is supposedly what America is all about. But I think first people have to be willing and able to go a little deeper into things, and deal with the root-causes of relevant issues. The two front-runners are not even close to doing this.