Don't pay attention to news, facts, details, points, counter-points or anything. I'm 100% American! I'm so American my sperm look like little bald eagles. I'll prove it to you!
Clinton vs Trump, Trump vs Clinton
- Thread starter Eventhorizon
- Start date
Don't pay attention to news, facts, details, points, counter-points or anything. I'm 100% American! I'm so American my sperm look like little bald eagles. I'll prove it to you!
- Dec 29, 2009
- 5,536
- 22,537
- 3,498
- MBTI
- INFJ
Milky don't even worry about it. I've contacted my people. We can make this "all go away" no one needs to know right ? Besides who reads this website anyway. If it's a problem we'll deal with it..
I think differently. First of all, they wouldn't have found it the first time because she was allowed to just go through and send in her own evidence and she wiped the rest (not with a cloth). In any case, I don't see why Comey would break protocol and send this letter to Congress 11 days before an election and get a warrant to look for more now if he knew he wouldn't find shit. What sense does that make? He knew what a shit storm this would cause him. What is more likely is that what he knows so far is enough for him to send the letter because she's fucked, and now he's fucked if he does nothing. If he said nothing it would look like he was covering for her, again.
Now we have Reid literally saying that the FBI and Trump are colluding with the Russians to tamper with the elections. The big red scare. So, voter fraud doesn't exist but the Russians can tamper with our elections. I think all of us are finding some common ground, we just don't realize it yet.
I think she's toast. I could be wrong obviously but personally, I think she's done. I don't think she can recover from this or find anyone to save her this time. I think that what is coming from this will damn her completely.
Yeah, it's true I think. It's the first time I thought Trump might actually win. I am pretty anti-Clinton. I don't even know what to think about Trump, but it's totally surreal to me that he just might win. He is so monumentally unpresidential.
I think he'll do just fine. He'll have four years of media bashing but it's better than a woman who blames Russia for everything that goes wrong in her life. How is she supposed to talk to Russia now? Jesus, she's blamed them for everything. She's burned just about every bridge with everyone who doesn't support ISIS lol.
She stinks so badly, it's true. She's so repugnant to me that I am not voting for her. I have no idea what it will be like to have a reality TV star as president. I don't really have any predictions. I have kind of an agnostic curiosity about the whole thing at this point.
Last edited:
- Dec 29, 2009
- 5,536
- 22,537
- 3,498
- MBTI
- INFJ
Just looking at numbers...
650,000 emails is a lot. It's huge. I'm not privy to any inside info, but it's surely way too many for just one assistant to send, to my mind. Way too many.
@CindyLou I'm sorry if you think the Russia thing is nothing. I'd invite you to look back at my post on the head of MI5 recent unprecedented, public interview about Russian cyber activities. In no way do I blame or suggest Trump has had anything to do with any of that. Except perhaps that's he's dismissed a very real threat far too lightly.
The Russians have already taken a large slice of Ukraine. They will have a puppet style hold over Syria soon. None of that is his fault either. But dismissing their actions as no problem ? I wish that was true. Putin is a psychopath in my view. Anyone who stands in his way domestically, goes missing or ends up dead.
The whole question of Clinton's emails needs resolution. But the head of MI5 is not some out of touch left winger. He's old school rich, tough, right wing conservative British. Pre Brexit I'd have never given much credence to the impact of Russian cyber activities. Now I'm far more aware/worried.
There's little doubt in my mind the Russians financed, and played a key role in the Brexit campaign. Every one of the UKs former prime minister's publicly campaigned for remaining in the EU. Labour and conservative. It wasn't enough. The result has destabilized any western resistance in Europe. Britain (aside from maybe France) is pretty much the only credible military force in Europe. Suddenly we're no longer in the EU and in a crisis.
I think there's every reason to look closely, at their possible, or even probable involvement in how your election happens. For whichever candidate. Their intentions and activities should no longer be ignored or underestimated in any country that wants to hold onto their democracy. A great deal of material wiki leaks published initially was posted on a website called DC leaks.
"Research from US cybersecurity company ThreatConnect shows that the website's name was registered on a small section of an internet company in Romania called THC Servers.
The service has only been used to register a few hundred other websites. Among them are several sites that ThreatConnect claims have been used by hackers in Russia in other campaigns."
http://www.channel4.com/news/russian-hackers-linked-to-democrat-stolen-emails
Channel 4 news is the most objective, investigatory news source in the UK. They ran this piece yesterday. Under Putin I think the Russians have a highly aggressive, expansionist leader, willing to take enormous risks, and play games with the West in ways we've not seen since the 80s.
650,000 emails is a lot. It's huge. I'm not privy to any inside info, but it's surely way too many for just one assistant to send, to my mind. Way too many.
@CindyLou I'm sorry if you think the Russia thing is nothing. I'd invite you to look back at my post on the head of MI5 recent unprecedented, public interview about Russian cyber activities. In no way do I blame or suggest Trump has had anything to do with any of that. Except perhaps that's he's dismissed a very real threat far too lightly.
The Russians have already taken a large slice of Ukraine. They will have a puppet style hold over Syria soon. None of that is his fault either. But dismissing their actions as no problem ? I wish that was true. Putin is a psychopath in my view. Anyone who stands in his way domestically, goes missing or ends up dead.
The whole question of Clinton's emails needs resolution. But the head of MI5 is not some out of touch left winger. He's old school rich, tough, right wing conservative British. Pre Brexit I'd have never given much credence to the impact of Russian cyber activities. Now I'm far more aware/worried.
There's little doubt in my mind the Russians financed, and played a key role in the Brexit campaign. Every one of the UKs former prime minister's publicly campaigned for remaining in the EU. Labour and conservative. It wasn't enough. The result has destabilized any western resistance in Europe. Britain (aside from maybe France) is pretty much the only credible military force in Europe. Suddenly we're no longer in the EU and in a crisis.
I think there's every reason to look closely, at their possible, or even probable involvement in how your election happens. For whichever candidate. Their intentions and activities should no longer be ignored or underestimated in any country that wants to hold onto their democracy. A great deal of material wiki leaks published initially was posted on a website called DC leaks.
"Research from US cybersecurity company ThreatConnect shows that the website's name was registered on a small section of an internet company in Romania called THC Servers.
The service has only been used to register a few hundred other websites. Among them are several sites that ThreatConnect claims have been used by hackers in Russia in other campaigns."
http://www.channel4.com/news/russian-hackers-linked-to-democrat-stolen-emails
Channel 4 news is the most objective, investigatory news source in the UK. They ran this piece yesterday. Under Putin I think the Russians have a highly aggressive, expansionist leader, willing to take enormous risks, and play games with the West in ways we've not seen since the 80s.
"No matter how crazy this election seems, it is less crazy than the condition of our country."
~Peter Thiel (the guy who bankrolled Hulk Hogans successful lawsuit against Gawker over Hogan's sex tape...because we all want to see a Hulk Hogan sex take?).
~Peter Thiel (the guy who bankrolled Hulk Hogans successful lawsuit against Gawker over Hogan's sex tape...because we all want to see a Hulk Hogan sex take?).
D
Deleted member 10171
......and I thought I was the only one who experienced such an adverse reaction to Clinton. I would also add haughty and brazen - that's purely my intuitive observation having watched and listened to debates, interviews, and speeches from a variety of news channels (all in the aid of personal research).
Trump - not perfect, big ego, issues with foot and mouth but for me he's the underdog, has a demeanour that is pliable, genuinely cares about America and is in my opinion the only trustworthy (as you can get) candidate out of the two.
Personal message to Trump - Please make America great again so I can come and visit.
Best advice when betting on a horse race...take the bet on the $2 nag and save money...don't bet all your money on the first time runner as he will loose his stride from the excitement in the second turn and all will be lost.
...or, just because the checkbook still has checks doesn't mean you should keep writing from an account that's empty.
...or, just because the checkbook still has checks doesn't mean you should keep writing from an account that's empty.
The small bit of information released to the public is enough. A nongoverment secured server of which all of her email passed through, classified and non-classified. That right there alone is enough. We can end right there. But then countless other instance where people without security clearance had access to those emails. Like I said, its not a question.
I know! The reaction people have to HRC is unprecedented. People are simply revolted by her. She might be smarter, she might be better qualified...but the stink factor just never goes away. I live in what is probably the Democratic bastion of the US, and even long-time, die-hard card-carrying democrats here are not proud of their voting choice. Very few HRC signs or placards here. Take a ride a few miles south (more "working class area"), and the Trump support is everywhere. You could say that even the most staunch democrats are slinking around due to the stench. The ironic thing about Trump is that, as you say, he is thought of as the underdog. That a multi-billionaire is ever thought of as an underdog illustrates just how insane this election is and what crazy times it is an expression of.......and I thought I was the only one who experienced such an adverse reaction to Clinton. I would also add haughty and brazen - that's purely my intuitive observation having watched and listened to debates, interviews, and speeches from a variety of news channels (all in the aid of personal research).
Trump - not perfect, big ego, issues with foot and mouth but for me he's the underdog, has a demeanour that is pliable, genuinely cares about America and is in my opinion the only trustworthy (as you can get) candidate out of the two.
Personal message to Trump - Please make America great again so I can come and visit.
So now you and the rest are upset?
I how you feel about Wikipedia...but there are plenty of sources out there to support this factual info.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
22 Million emails.
Where was your faux moral high ground then?
Im not sure where people get the idea Trump or Hillary fit into a "smart" category. Im not impressed with how Trump talks, Im not impressed with how Hillary talks. I think Hillary is a social genius, she has figured out how to manipulate and lie to people, get them to put themselves at risk for her etc... but that doesn't mean she is smart. It just means she has the mindset of a psychopath. Trump...I never really listened to him until he ran for President and I can say he needs a filter... a really big filter.
I imagine being stuck on a desert island... maybe we crash landed or whatever. Theres a group of people 5 - 10 whatever and Hillary is one. I envision her to being designated as having an unimportant role in anything that takes place there. Maybe shes tasked with cleaning up peoples waste or jumping off a cliff just to see if it can be done. I think though realistically it wouldnt take long for her to be banished.
I imagine being stuck on a desert island... maybe we crash landed or whatever. Theres a group of people 5 - 10 whatever and Hillary is one. I envision her to being designated as having an unimportant role in anything that takes place there. Maybe shes tasked with cleaning up peoples waste or jumping off a cliff just to see if it can be done. I think though realistically it wouldnt take long for her to be banished.
This presidential race is the low-water mark of American journalism
By Michael Goodwin November 1, 2016
In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned America about the “unwarranted influence” of a “military-industrial complex.” Were he speaking today, Ike might be warning about a media-political complex.
And for the same reason — the dangers to democracy and liberty of “the disastrous rise of misplaced power.”
However it ends, the 2016 presidential race will mark the low-water mark of journalism that is worthy of the First Amendment. Never before have so many media organizations, old and new, abandoned all pretense of fairness to take sides and try to pick a president.
Their cozy confederacy with the incumbent political faction is largely in opposition to public will. Although polls show a tight race for the White House, studies find staggeringly lopsided coverage, with Donald Trump getting far more negative coverage than Hillary Clinton.
A survey covering 12 weeks of the campaign after the summer conventions found that 91 percent of Trump coverage on the three largest broadcast networks was “hostile.” The Media Research Center also found that much of the focus was on Trump’s personal life, while the networks downplayed investigations into Clinton’s emails and her family foundation.
Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have irrefutable evidence that none of this is based on journalism standards. Rather, it reflects the incestuous relationship between liberal members of elite media organizations and the Democratic Party. The alliance mocks any claims that the media are independent.
John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was caught fielding flattering comments from reporters and columnists and guiding coverage. One Politico reporter, Glenn Thrush, sent Podesta a story to review before it was published, calling himself a “hack” and pleading, “Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this.”
CNN proved that its nickname, the Clinton News Network, is deserved. Only after WikiLeaks showed that Democratic Party honcho Donna Brazile, a paid commentator, twice gave Clinton debate questions in advance did the network sever its ties with her.
Tellingly, Clinton never rejected the insider advantage against rival Bernie Sanders, nor seemed surprised by it. And CNN still shows no curiosity about whether anyone else participated in the scam.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that playing favorites, while pretending to be neutral, is business-as-usual. The only difference is that WikiLeaks exposed the ugly truth. Much of the media world has long tilted left, but this year, the bias became open and notorious war because the liberal bell cow decided that Trump was not deserving of basic fairness.
When the New York Times crossed the Rubicon by allowing reporters to express their opinions in so-called news stories, the floodgates opened across the country as imitators followed suit.
The decision by editor Dean Baquet to dismantle the standards of the Times to try to elect Clinton will not be easy to reverse after the campaign. The standards were developed over decades to build public trust, and removing them elevates the editor’s bias to policy.
As such, the decision establishes a political litmus test for hiring, and new employees likely will be expected to echo the party line in their “reporting.” Let’s see how many conservatives or even moderates get promoted, and whether religiously observant employees feel discriminated against.
This “disastrous rise of misplaced power” is visible each and every day as the Times’ front-page headlines read like editorials in slamming Trump and boosting Clinton. Tuesday’s was a classic, with the top story accusing Trump of a “tax dodge” 30 years ago.
Beneath it, a separate story continues the paper’s assault on FBI Director James Comey for reopening the Clinton email investigation. “Comey’s Maneuver Recalls Hoover’s F.B.I., Fairly or Not” blares a headline.
If it’s not fair, why write it? The paper included an editorial blasting Comey and an op-ed that carries the headline, “The Long Shadow of J. Edgar Hoover.” News and opinion blur into each other, page after page, all with the same slant.
All this stands in sad contrast to the legacy of the great A.M. Rosenthal, the top news editor who led the Times to the journalistic mountaintop. As I have noted, Abe was zealous about keeping reporters’ and editors’ political bias out of the news pages, saying he wanted his epitaph to read, “He kept the paper straight.”
I always assumed that was a joke, but, after I mentioned it in a recent column, his widow, Shirley Lord Rosenthal, set me straight. Those words are indeed etched on the footstone of his Westchester gravesite, she said, and sent along the photo to prove it. Wow.
Abe’s dedication to fairness was a key ingredient in making the Times special, and now we know it was eternal. By abandoning fairness and promoting bias, his successors are doomed to stand in his shadow.
By Michael Goodwin November 1, 2016
In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned America about the “unwarranted influence” of a “military-industrial complex.” Were he speaking today, Ike might be warning about a media-political complex.
And for the same reason — the dangers to democracy and liberty of “the disastrous rise of misplaced power.”
However it ends, the 2016 presidential race will mark the low-water mark of journalism that is worthy of the First Amendment. Never before have so many media organizations, old and new, abandoned all pretense of fairness to take sides and try to pick a president.
Their cozy confederacy with the incumbent political faction is largely in opposition to public will. Although polls show a tight race for the White House, studies find staggeringly lopsided coverage, with Donald Trump getting far more negative coverage than Hillary Clinton.
A survey covering 12 weeks of the campaign after the summer conventions found that 91 percent of Trump coverage on the three largest broadcast networks was “hostile.” The Media Research Center also found that much of the focus was on Trump’s personal life, while the networks downplayed investigations into Clinton’s emails and her family foundation.
Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have irrefutable evidence that none of this is based on journalism standards. Rather, it reflects the incestuous relationship between liberal members of elite media organizations and the Democratic Party. The alliance mocks any claims that the media are independent.
John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, was caught fielding flattering comments from reporters and columnists and guiding coverage. One Politico reporter, Glenn Thrush, sent Podesta a story to review before it was published, calling himself a “hack” and pleading, “Please don’t share or tell anyone I did this.”
CNN proved that its nickname, the Clinton News Network, is deserved. Only after WikiLeaks showed that Democratic Party honcho Donna Brazile, a paid commentator, twice gave Clinton debate questions in advance did the network sever its ties with her.
Tellingly, Clinton never rejected the insider advantage against rival Bernie Sanders, nor seemed surprised by it. And CNN still shows no curiosity about whether anyone else participated in the scam.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that playing favorites, while pretending to be neutral, is business-as-usual. The only difference is that WikiLeaks exposed the ugly truth. Much of the media world has long tilted left, but this year, the bias became open and notorious war because the liberal bell cow decided that Trump was not deserving of basic fairness.
When the New York Times crossed the Rubicon by allowing reporters to express their opinions in so-called news stories, the floodgates opened across the country as imitators followed suit.
The decision by editor Dean Baquet to dismantle the standards of the Times to try to elect Clinton will not be easy to reverse after the campaign. The standards were developed over decades to build public trust, and removing them elevates the editor’s bias to policy.
As such, the decision establishes a political litmus test for hiring, and new employees likely will be expected to echo the party line in their “reporting.” Let’s see how many conservatives or even moderates get promoted, and whether religiously observant employees feel discriminated against.
This “disastrous rise of misplaced power” is visible each and every day as the Times’ front-page headlines read like editorials in slamming Trump and boosting Clinton. Tuesday’s was a classic, with the top story accusing Trump of a “tax dodge” 30 years ago.
Beneath it, a separate story continues the paper’s assault on FBI Director James Comey for reopening the Clinton email investigation. “Comey’s Maneuver Recalls Hoover’s F.B.I., Fairly or Not” blares a headline.
If it’s not fair, why write it? The paper included an editorial blasting Comey and an op-ed that carries the headline, “The Long Shadow of J. Edgar Hoover.” News and opinion blur into each other, page after page, all with the same slant.
All this stands in sad contrast to the legacy of the great A.M. Rosenthal, the top news editor who led the Times to the journalistic mountaintop. As I have noted, Abe was zealous about keeping reporters’ and editors’ political bias out of the news pages, saying he wanted his epitaph to read, “He kept the paper straight.”
I always assumed that was a joke, but, after I mentioned it in a recent column, his widow, Shirley Lord Rosenthal, set me straight. Those words are indeed etched on the footstone of his Westchester gravesite, she said, and sent along the photo to prove it. Wow.
Abe’s dedication to fairness was a key ingredient in making the Times special, and now we know it was eternal. By abandoning fairness and promoting bias, his successors are doomed to stand in his shadow.
Donald Trump Voters, Just Hear Me Out
Thomas L. Friedman NOV. 2, 2016
This is my last column until after the election, so I’d like to address the people least likely to read it: Donald Trump voters. Who knows? Maybe I’ll get lucky and a few of them will buy fish wrapped in this column, and they’ll accidentally peruse it! Desperate times call for desperate measures.
While I’ve opposed the Trump candidacy from the start, I’ve never disparaged Trump voters. Some are friends and neighbors; they’re all fellow Americans. We should take their concerns seriously. But we should also demand that they be serious, that they draw distinctions between these two presidential candidates.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is a flawed leader — but in the way so many presidents were. We know her flaws: She has a weakness for secrecy, occasionally fudges truths, has fawning aides and a husband who lacks discipline when it comes to moneymaking and women. But she is not indecent, and that is an important distinction. And she’s studious, has sought out people of substance on every issue and has taken the job of running for president seriously.
Trump is not only a flawed politician, he’s an indecent human being. He’s boasted of assaulting women — prompting 11 to come forward to testify that he did just that to them; his defense is that he could not have assaulted these women because they weren’t pretty enough.
He’s created a university that was charged with defrauding its students. He’s been charged with discriminating against racial minorities in his rental properties. He’s stiffed countless vendors, from piano sellers to major contractors. He’s refused to disclose his tax returns because they likely reveal that he’s paid no federal taxes for years, is in bed with dodgy financiers and doesn’t give like he says to charity.
He’s compared the sacrifice of parents of a soldier killed in Iraq to his “sacrifice” of building tall buildings. He’s vowed, if elected, to prosecute his campaign rival.
We have never seen such behaviors in a presidential candidate.
At the same time, Trump has shown no ability to talk about any policy issue with any depth. Harlan Coben’s debate-night tweet last month had it right: “On Aleppo he sounds like a fifth grader giving a book report on a book he never read.”
I understand why many Trump supporters have lost faith in Washington and want to just “shake things up.” When you shake things up with a studied plan and a clear idea of where you want to get to, you can open new futures. But when you shake things up, guided by one-liners and no moral compass, you can cause enormous instability and systemic vertigo.
But there is an even more important reason Trump supporters, particularly less-educated white males, should be wary of his bluster: His policies won’t help them. Trump promises to bring their jobs back. But most of their jobs didn’t go to a Mexican. They went to a microchip.
The idea that large numbers of manual factory jobs can be returned to America if we put up a wall with Mexico or renegotiate our trade deals is a fantasy. Trump ignores the fact that manufacturing is still by far the largest sector of the U.S. economy. Indeed, our factories now produce twice what they did in 1984 — but with one-third fewer workers.
Trump can’t change that. Machines and software will keep devouring, and spawning, more work of all kinds. Did you hear that IBM’s cognitive computer, Watson, helped to create a pop song, “Not Easy,” with the Grammy-winning producer Alex da Kid? The song was released on Oct. 21, IBM noted, and within 48 hours it climbed to No. 4 on iTunes’s Hot Tracks.
No one knows for certain how we deal with this new race with and against machines, but I can assure you it’s not Trump’s way — build walls, restrict trade, give huge tax cuts to the rich. The best jobs in the future are going to be what I call “STEMpathy jobs — jobs that blend STEM skills (science, technology, engineering, math) with human empathy. We don’t know what many of them will look like yet.
The smartest thing we can do now is to keep our economy as open and flexible as possible — to get the change signals first and be able to quickly adapt; create the opportunity for every American to engage in lifelong learning, because whatever jobs emerge will require more knowledge; make sure that learning stresses as much of the humanities and human interactive skills as hard sciences; make sure we have an immigration policy that continues to attract the world’s most imaginative risk-takers; and strengthen our safety nets, because this era will leave more people behind.
This is the only true path to American greatness in the 21st century. Trump wants to make America great in ways that are just not available anymore. “What do we have to lose” by trying his way? Trump asks. The answer is: everything that actually makes us great. When the world gets this fast, small errors in navigation have huge consequences.
While Clinton has failed to inspire, her instincts and ideas will keep us hewing to basically the right course. And however great her flaws, she is still in the zone of human decency. Trump is not.
We can never be great as a country with a president with the warped values of Donald Trump. I pray that in the end at least some Trump voters, my fellow Americans, will see that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/opinion/donald-trump-voters-just-hear-me-out.html?_r=0
Thomas L. Friedman NOV. 2, 2016
This is my last column until after the election, so I’d like to address the people least likely to read it: Donald Trump voters. Who knows? Maybe I’ll get lucky and a few of them will buy fish wrapped in this column, and they’ll accidentally peruse it! Desperate times call for desperate measures.
While I’ve opposed the Trump candidacy from the start, I’ve never disparaged Trump voters. Some are friends and neighbors; they’re all fellow Americans. We should take their concerns seriously. But we should also demand that they be serious, that they draw distinctions between these two presidential candidates.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is a flawed leader — but in the way so many presidents were. We know her flaws: She has a weakness for secrecy, occasionally fudges truths, has fawning aides and a husband who lacks discipline when it comes to moneymaking and women. But she is not indecent, and that is an important distinction. And she’s studious, has sought out people of substance on every issue and has taken the job of running for president seriously.
Trump is not only a flawed politician, he’s an indecent human being. He’s boasted of assaulting women — prompting 11 to come forward to testify that he did just that to them; his defense is that he could not have assaulted these women because they weren’t pretty enough.
He’s created a university that was charged with defrauding its students. He’s been charged with discriminating against racial minorities in his rental properties. He’s stiffed countless vendors, from piano sellers to major contractors. He’s refused to disclose his tax returns because they likely reveal that he’s paid no federal taxes for years, is in bed with dodgy financiers and doesn’t give like he says to charity.
He’s compared the sacrifice of parents of a soldier killed in Iraq to his “sacrifice” of building tall buildings. He’s vowed, if elected, to prosecute his campaign rival.
We have never seen such behaviors in a presidential candidate.
At the same time, Trump has shown no ability to talk about any policy issue with any depth. Harlan Coben’s debate-night tweet last month had it right: “On Aleppo he sounds like a fifth grader giving a book report on a book he never read.”
I understand why many Trump supporters have lost faith in Washington and want to just “shake things up.” When you shake things up with a studied plan and a clear idea of where you want to get to, you can open new futures. But when you shake things up, guided by one-liners and no moral compass, you can cause enormous instability and systemic vertigo.
But there is an even more important reason Trump supporters, particularly less-educated white males, should be wary of his bluster: His policies won’t help them. Trump promises to bring their jobs back. But most of their jobs didn’t go to a Mexican. They went to a microchip.
The idea that large numbers of manual factory jobs can be returned to America if we put up a wall with Mexico or renegotiate our trade deals is a fantasy. Trump ignores the fact that manufacturing is still by far the largest sector of the U.S. economy. Indeed, our factories now produce twice what they did in 1984 — but with one-third fewer workers.
Trump can’t change that. Machines and software will keep devouring, and spawning, more work of all kinds. Did you hear that IBM’s cognitive computer, Watson, helped to create a pop song, “Not Easy,” with the Grammy-winning producer Alex da Kid? The song was released on Oct. 21, IBM noted, and within 48 hours it climbed to No. 4 on iTunes’s Hot Tracks.
No one knows for certain how we deal with this new race with and against machines, but I can assure you it’s not Trump’s way — build walls, restrict trade, give huge tax cuts to the rich. The best jobs in the future are going to be what I call “STEMpathy jobs — jobs that blend STEM skills (science, technology, engineering, math) with human empathy. We don’t know what many of them will look like yet.
The smartest thing we can do now is to keep our economy as open and flexible as possible — to get the change signals first and be able to quickly adapt; create the opportunity for every American to engage in lifelong learning, because whatever jobs emerge will require more knowledge; make sure that learning stresses as much of the humanities and human interactive skills as hard sciences; make sure we have an immigration policy that continues to attract the world’s most imaginative risk-takers; and strengthen our safety nets, because this era will leave more people behind.
This is the only true path to American greatness in the 21st century. Trump wants to make America great in ways that are just not available anymore. “What do we have to lose” by trying his way? Trump asks. The answer is: everything that actually makes us great. When the world gets this fast, small errors in navigation have huge consequences.
While Clinton has failed to inspire, her instincts and ideas will keep us hewing to basically the right course. And however great her flaws, she is still in the zone of human decency. Trump is not.
We can never be great as a country with a president with the warped values of Donald Trump. I pray that in the end at least some Trump voters, my fellow Americans, will see that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/opinion/donald-trump-voters-just-hear-me-out.html?_r=0
Talking of decency is so very bourgeois, and and worse, totally nebulous. So Trump bragged of "grabbing women by the pussy," yup he did! And surprise, surprise, Trump University Online is not a real, 4 year university. And some women came out of the woodwork to say he is a sex pest.Then we have Hillary, who attacked, maligned and denied the serial victims of her predator husband's harassment, rape (and probably pedophilia). How she is decent? Pathological levels of lying and smugness? And what has been so serious about her election run? How many press conferences has she given? If anything, her campaign has actually been woefully unserious! She considers herself a complete shoe-in. She feels it is "her turn." Her level of entitlement to the office of president has been nothing short of amazing. She doesn't seem to have taken into account that she might be held responsible for what were, at the very least, stupid and careless mistakes regarding national security. Outright lying to the families of Benghazi victims was no problem for her. Her past lies, tantrums and gross improprieties are obviously negligible considerations to her! She is not bothered by them in the least, and has accordingly made no serious attempts to rehabilitate her image, short of imitating Trump's hairstyle. And the hairstyle change came pretty late in the game too. The hideous pant suits continue to be a problem. As to surrounding herself with "people of substance"? Huma Abedein, who likes to tour around with her wearing matching outfits, how "substantial' is she? Past career working for a radical Muslim publication, check. Brother high up in the Muslim Brotherhood, check. And given the current FBI probe, Abedin clearly has the same disregard for national security and rules as does her boss. As Rita Mae Brown said "Morals are private, decency is public." So HRC is better in her public presentation as a "decent" human being? I can't fathom how such a notion is conceived. And Certainly her private morals (bribing all of Wall Street, her shady foundation, White Water etc etc) are no better. I don't really care for or about Trump, but any attempt to say she is somehow on a moral high-ground, or even publicly more "decent," is truly farcical to me.
Last edited:
@PintoBean
Okay, one at a time:
Talking of decency is so very bourgeois, and and worse, totally nebulous. So Trump bragged of "grabbing women by the pussy," yup he did!...And some women came out of the woodwork to say he is a sex pest...
You mean a sexual predator.
And surprise, surprise, Trump University Online is not a real, 4 year university!
So you agree that he is a con artist. It was set up to intentionally scam people out of their hard earned money. I do not think any one of those people thought it was a 4 year university. But they paid for a product that wasn't delivered on. And it was set up to work that way. He preyed on elderly and uneducated people that didn't know any better and they bought into his lies (sound familiar?) I'm sure he even had his people use the line "what do you have to lose?" Everything. They had everything to lose and he knew that but didn't care. He is souless.
But let's go ahead and make that douchebag our president. Fuck that and no thank you!
Then we have Hillary, who attacked, maligned and denied the serial victims of her predator husband's harassment, rape (and probably pedophilia).
Really? She was a victim just as much as those women were. Put yourself in that position. She said that the accusations against her husband were false because he told her that they were false. She loved her husband and she believed in him. No one was more blindside than she was when she found out that he was guilty of it all. They decided to stay together and work on their marital issues like real people and she shouldn't be judged for that. She was sucker punched in the worst way by the person she loved and trusted in front of the whole world. Take a step back and think about that. No one was at fault in that situation but Bill Clinton. And he is not running for President this time around.
As for "probably" pedophilia? Who knows? But if it's true, I'm sure Trump was "probably" right there with him.
How she is decent? Pathological levels of lying and smugness? And what has been so serious about her election run? How many press conferences has she given? If anything, her campaign has actually been woefully unserious!
Now let's rewrite that:
How is he decent? Pathological levels of lying and smugness? And what has been so serious about his election run? How many press conferences has he given? If anything, his campaign has actually been woefully unserious!
Because, let's face it. Trump's press coverage is nothing more than a ridiculous circus side show. He is a press whore because he loves the attention and is too narcissistic to admit that he looks and acts like a f'ing idiot. The only thing the public can learn from him answering questions is what a "lossserrr!" (Trump quote) he is.
She doesn't like press conferences. She should do them but isn't that her call? It doesn't disqualify her for anything.
She considers herself a complete shoe-in. She feels it is "her turn." Her level of entitlement to the office of president has been nothing short of amazing.
Just because she is confident doesn't mean she takes any of it for granted. Unless she has said it herself, what you have wrote is clearly a biased opinion.
She doesn't seem to have taken into account that she might be held responsible for what were, at the very least, stupid and careless mistakes regarding national security.
Agreed. She made mistakes. She has taken it into account. She apologized and that is not enough for some people. And that is okay. But why should that prevent her from running for the Presidency? At the end of the day, she has not been charged with anything illegal. If that changes, then it changes things. But until then...
Outright lying to the families of Benghazi victims was no problem for her.
I call bullshit on this one. I think people (the Smiths') were grieving while trying to understand why and words were inaccurately linked together. I could be wrong but the Smiths' were so adamant that Clinton and everyone they came in contact with in the administration pinned this on a video. Yet, only one other parent said that Clinton (no one in the admin) was the only one to mention the video and all the others (parents/families) said it wasn't mentioned at all. That doesn't even make any sense. They were the only family that was having info about the video being shoved down their throats? If this were true then they would have done this with all the families, not just one. It does not add up.
Plus, the Smiths' said themselves that they were convinced Obama killed their son after watching the reporting done by FOX News. Surprise! Surprise!
No surprise.
Fox News has a way of feeding people bullshit until they believe it. I wouldn't be surprised if watching that news channel affected their memories of what was said that day.
Her past lies, tantrums and gross improprieties are obviously negligible considerations to her!
Eh. Again. Opinion.
is not bothered them by them in the least, and has accordingly made no serious attempts to rehabilitate her image, short of imitating Trump's hairstyle.
Why can't you accept all of her perceived shortcomings like you accept Trumps? And imitating his hair? That was a low blow, PB (just like his feathered patch...a low blow...)
And the hairstyle change came pretty late in the game too. The hideous pant suits continue to be a problem.
Her hair is hardly a conversation piece. But Trumps? That shit is hysterical. And who cares about her clothing? I see nothing wrong with her pantsuits. Would you rather her wear dresses and serve tea to the crowd? I don't get that. But whatever.
As to surrounding herself with "people of substance?" Huma Abedein, who likes to tour around with her wearing matching outfits, how "substantial' is she? Past career working for a radical Muslim publication, check. Brother high up in the Muslim Brotherhood, check. And given the current FBI probe, Abedin clearly has the same disregard for national security and rules as does her boss.
Again, who cares what they wear and if they match? I didn't even notice this detail to tell you the truth because frankly, why would I? And she is somehow not a "person of substance" because she is a Muslim? Way to profile. And we haven't even been given enough information about the current FBI probe for you or anyone to make such assumptions. Oh, but I forgot. She knows Clinton ( and she's a Muslim!!! Run!)
As Rita Mae Brown said "Morals are private, decency is public." So HRC is better in her public presentation as a "decent" human being? I can't fathom how such a notion is conceived.
She is not perfect. As I am not perfect. As you are not perfect. As nobody is perfect. We are all human.
Except for Trump. And when you compare the two, she wins in the decency department hands-down.
And Certainly her private morals (bribing all of Wall Street, her shady foundation, White Water etc etc) are no better.
She was bribing all of Wall Street? Her foundation is shady? Where is all the SOLID proof to lock her up for good? Until then...
I don't really care for or about Trump, but any attempt to say she is somehow on a moral high-ground, or even publicly more "decent," is truly farcical to me.
But yet you will vote for him. Honestly, I find it insulting that he was even allowed to stand on a stage with her. You may not like her and all of her perceived faults, but she has the brains and temperment to run our country. And I would trust her over him any day. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Okay, one at a time:
Talking of decency is so very bourgeois, and and worse, totally nebulous. So Trump bragged of "grabbing women by the pussy," yup he did!...And some women came out of the woodwork to say he is a sex pest...
You mean a sexual predator.
And surprise, surprise, Trump University Online is not a real, 4 year university!
So you agree that he is a con artist. It was set up to intentionally scam people out of their hard earned money. I do not think any one of those people thought it was a 4 year university. But they paid for a product that wasn't delivered on. And it was set up to work that way. He preyed on elderly and uneducated people that didn't know any better and they bought into his lies (sound familiar?) I'm sure he even had his people use the line "what do you have to lose?" Everything. They had everything to lose and he knew that but didn't care. He is souless.
But let's go ahead and make that douchebag our president. Fuck that and no thank you!
Then we have Hillary, who attacked, maligned and denied the serial victims of her predator husband's harassment, rape (and probably pedophilia).
Really? She was a victim just as much as those women were. Put yourself in that position. She said that the accusations against her husband were false because he told her that they were false. She loved her husband and she believed in him. No one was more blindside than she was when she found out that he was guilty of it all. They decided to stay together and work on their marital issues like real people and she shouldn't be judged for that. She was sucker punched in the worst way by the person she loved and trusted in front of the whole world. Take a step back and think about that. No one was at fault in that situation but Bill Clinton. And he is not running for President this time around.
As for "probably" pedophilia? Who knows? But if it's true, I'm sure Trump was "probably" right there with him.
How she is decent? Pathological levels of lying and smugness? And what has been so serious about her election run? How many press conferences has she given? If anything, her campaign has actually been woefully unserious!
Now let's rewrite that:
How is he decent? Pathological levels of lying and smugness? And what has been so serious about his election run? How many press conferences has he given? If anything, his campaign has actually been woefully unserious!
Because, let's face it. Trump's press coverage is nothing more than a ridiculous circus side show. He is a press whore because he loves the attention and is too narcissistic to admit that he looks and acts like a f'ing idiot. The only thing the public can learn from him answering questions is what a "lossserrr!" (Trump quote) he is.
She doesn't like press conferences. She should do them but isn't that her call? It doesn't disqualify her for anything.
She considers herself a complete shoe-in. She feels it is "her turn." Her level of entitlement to the office of president has been nothing short of amazing.
Just because she is confident doesn't mean she takes any of it for granted. Unless she has said it herself, what you have wrote is clearly a biased opinion.
She doesn't seem to have taken into account that she might be held responsible for what were, at the very least, stupid and careless mistakes regarding national security.
Agreed. She made mistakes. She has taken it into account. She apologized and that is not enough for some people. And that is okay. But why should that prevent her from running for the Presidency? At the end of the day, she has not been charged with anything illegal. If that changes, then it changes things. But until then...
Outright lying to the families of Benghazi victims was no problem for her.
I call bullshit on this one. I think people (the Smiths') were grieving while trying to understand why and words were inaccurately linked together. I could be wrong but the Smiths' were so adamant that Clinton and everyone they came in contact with in the administration pinned this on a video. Yet, only one other parent said that Clinton (no one in the admin) was the only one to mention the video and all the others (parents/families) said it wasn't mentioned at all. That doesn't even make any sense. They were the only family that was having info about the video being shoved down their throats? If this were true then they would have done this with all the families, not just one. It does not add up.
Plus, the Smiths' said themselves that they were convinced Obama killed their son after watching the reporting done by FOX News. Surprise! Surprise!
No surprise.
Fox News has a way of feeding people bullshit until they believe it. I wouldn't be surprised if watching that news channel affected their memories of what was said that day.
Her past lies, tantrums and gross improprieties are obviously negligible considerations to her!
Eh. Again. Opinion.
is not bothered them by them in the least, and has accordingly made no serious attempts to rehabilitate her image, short of imitating Trump's hairstyle.
Why can't you accept all of her perceived shortcomings like you accept Trumps? And imitating his hair? That was a low blow, PB (just like his feathered patch...a low blow...)
And the hairstyle change came pretty late in the game too. The hideous pant suits continue to be a problem.
Her hair is hardly a conversation piece. But Trumps? That shit is hysterical. And who cares about her clothing? I see nothing wrong with her pantsuits. Would you rather her wear dresses and serve tea to the crowd? I don't get that. But whatever.
As to surrounding herself with "people of substance?" Huma Abedein, who likes to tour around with her wearing matching outfits, how "substantial' is she? Past career working for a radical Muslim publication, check. Brother high up in the Muslim Brotherhood, check. And given the current FBI probe, Abedin clearly has the same disregard for national security and rules as does her boss.
Again, who cares what they wear and if they match? I didn't even notice this detail to tell you the truth because frankly, why would I? And she is somehow not a "person of substance" because she is a Muslim? Way to profile. And we haven't even been given enough information about the current FBI probe for you or anyone to make such assumptions. Oh, but I forgot. She knows Clinton ( and she's a Muslim!!! Run!)
As Rita Mae Brown said "Morals are private, decency is public." So HRC is better in her public presentation as a "decent" human being? I can't fathom how such a notion is conceived.
She is not perfect. As I am not perfect. As you are not perfect. As nobody is perfect. We are all human.
Except for Trump. And when you compare the two, she wins in the decency department hands-down.
And Certainly her private morals (bribing all of Wall Street, her shady foundation, White Water etc etc) are no better.
She was bribing all of Wall Street? Her foundation is shady? Where is all the SOLID proof to lock her up for good? Until then...
I don't really care for or about Trump, but any attempt to say she is somehow on a moral high-ground, or even publicly more "decent," is truly farcical to me.
But yet you will vote for him. Honestly, I find it insulting that he was even allowed to stand on a stage with her. You may not like her and all of her perceived faults, but she has the brains and temperment to run our country. And I would trust her over him any day. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Last edited:
