the Trump Phenomenon

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Why do you assume my perspective is wrong?

Perhaps because you can't do something as morally obvious, as admitting that Hilary lies.

Spence, she flip-flopped many times on the cause of the Benghazi attack. You chalk it all up to fog of war, and conflicting reports. That may be. But boy, isn't it interesting that in every private conversation, she seemed to admit it was terrorism, and in every public statement, she relied on the video protest theory (and therefore, the attack was spontaneous and not in any way her fault).

Now, it's possible, that every time she was about to have a private conversation, she got a report saying that it was terrorism. And then just before each scheduled public statement, those same intelligence folks said to her "look, we know we just told you it was terrorism, but forget that, now we believe it was a video protest, so we want you to go with that".

That's certainly possible. But I asked you several times for some kind of timeline (who briefed her, and when) to support that notion. And you provided zip. So it appears you are accepting her explanation without any skepticism.

How fortunate for her, that every time the intelligence community told her what the cause was, it worked out in such a way that every time she made a public statement, she was reporting that she was not to blame.

We should all be so lucky.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, she flip-flopped many times on the cause of the Benghazi attack. You chalk it all up to fog of war, and conflicting reports. That may be. But boy, isn't it interesting that in every private conversation, she seemed to admit it was terrorism, and in every public statement, she relied on the video protest theory (and therefore, the attack was spontaneous and not in any way her fault).

You sure throw out a lot of "every" for someone who can't even piece together a basic timeline on their own.

[Jim in CT]

Paul S, yes, white supremcists will endorse Trump.

And Al Sharpton (who has been to the White House more times than the tour guides) will endorse Hilary. Al Sharpton has innocent blood on his hands, in at least one case his hateful, race-baiting incited a riot that led to a completely innocent Jew being stabbed to death. Google Crown Heights, Freddys Fashion Mart (where after Sharpton got the mob sufficiently crazed, someone set fire to a store rented by a Jew, I think 6 or 7 were killed).

If we are going to hold Trump responsible for everyone who endorses him, let's do the same for Obama and Hilary, correct?

Trump is an ass. But let's hold everyone to the same scrutiny. Fair enough?

[spence]

The GOP is imploding and Jim's throwing the "Freddy's Fashion Mart" card.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You sure throw out a lot of "every" for someone who can't even piece together a basic timeline on their own.

That's the best you can respond with?

You were the one, not me, who said that her flip-flopping was not self-serving deceit, but rather, her innocently responding to conflicting intelligence. Do you deny saying that?

Sure I can. In a private call to Chelsea, and in a private call to the leader of Egypt, she said it was terrorism. In between, and certainly afte, she (and her staff) said it was a video protest.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The GOP is imploding and Jim's throwing the "Freddy's Fashion Mart" card.

We're 'imploding"? We control both houses of Congress, and a large majority of governorships and state legislatures. If you call that "imploding", what do you call what's happening on your side?

Yes, Freddy's Fashion Mart. I tend to be an irrational stickler about trivial little things, such as 7 innocent people (it was 7) who were burned to death, after Sharpton worked the crowd into a racist mob. I know, i know, I shouldn't obsess over such insignificant, trivial things!

Every democratic presidential candidate of our generation is forced to kneel before Sharpton and kiss his ring. That's more than sufficient evidence to tell me that somethging is terribly, horribly amiss on your side.

[spence]

What does Al Sharpton have to do with any of this?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

What does Al Sharpton have to do with any of this?

More than any of your comments.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The GOP is imploding

I think the GOP was declared dead for a generation shortly after the election of Obama...... but then proceeded to dominate national and local elections

it's your whacked perspective

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

More than any of your comments.

You're on a roll today. Why so pithy?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What does Al Sharpton have to do with any of this?

Let's see... The liberals here are bashing Trump for the fact that David Duke endorsed him. My point, and it's valid, is that if Trump is to be criticized for getting Duke's endorsement, then we should criticize Obama as well. Because not only did Sharpton endorse Obama, he has been to the White House 100 times.

If Trump were to get elected, I doubt he would rely on David Duke for counsel on race relations. But that's exactly what Obama has done with the pig Sharpton.

Do you ever, and I mean ever, concede that conservatives have a valid point?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Why do you assume my perspective is wrong?

Quote Spence: "So I'm watching the republican front-runners on the stump this week. Primary campaign issues appear to be bottled water, spray tans, pathological dishonesty and hand size.

WTF is wrong with the GOP?" End quote.

There are more important "issues" being addressed in the Repub. primary than you portray. But reducing the campaign to your parody dismisses them to your version of nonsense.

Jim says you're better than that. What's wrong with you?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

You're on a roll today. Why so pithy?

Sometimes I use your style.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Let's see... The liberals here are bashing Trump for the fact that David Duke endorsed him. My point, and it's valid, is that if Trump is to be criticized for getting Duke's endorsement, then we should criticize Obama as well. Because not only did Sharpton endorse Obama, he has been to the White House 100 times.

If Trump were to get elected, I doubt he would rely on David Duke for counsel on race relations. But that's exactly what Obama has done with the pig Sharpton.

Do you ever, and I mean ever, concede that conservatives have a valid point?

i don't have a problem so much with the endorsement (anyone can endorse someone) as much as Trump's not disavowing it until people got on him. And then his asinine comments that he didn't know who Duke was or what white supremacy is. That either shows he is a liar or really stupid (I suspect the former).

To your point about Sharpton. He speaks out when he sees (or thinks he sees discrimination). And when he speaks, he says stupid stuff. That stupid stuff overwhelms any valid points he may have so that his message is lost. I don’t really recall he had a part of the crown heights incident but know a lot about the Tawana Brawley mess. The KKK killed 0,000s of blacks. So while not the best analogy, I can see how people can make it. I think Obama has Sharpton to the WH to pay lip service (can't wait to see comments on that one) to him and thus the Black community.

Edit - just saw on CNN a Medal of Honor ceremony honoring a Seal Team 6 member for rescuing a hostage. I'm sure you would have enjoyed watching that.

[spence]

This is really good.

https://www.facebook.com/LastWeekTon...93596/?fref=nf

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Trump did disavow Duke's support after Rubio laid into him.

I'm suprised he knew nothing about "David Duke or white supremacy or white supremacists"

Should "white supremacists" or black racists not be allowed to vote? Why should a candidate have to disavow a vote? It's going to count in the tally whether its disavowed or not. And candidates who win election don't have to, nor could they, make into law every desire of all who voted for them.

The guilt by association thing didn't sway Democrats from voting for Obama even though he was closely associated with radical anti-American, Marxist/communist people. He was actually more directly associated with those people than Trump is with so-called white supremacists.


In the Southern states that vote Tuesday, Republican candidates will face an electorate that is overwhelmingly white. In South Carolina, the only Southern state to have voted so far, 96 percent of the GOP primary electorate was white, while 6 in 10 voters in the Democratic race were black.

While the South was once a Democratic stronghold, many white conservatives who backed the party started moving toward the GOP during the civil rights movement. Trump has borrowed from the rhetoric former President Richard Nixon used during that time to appeal to working-class white voters, describing his campaign has a movement of the "silent majority."

The irony in the notion that the "Southern Strategy" was racist is that the South became less racist as the South became More Republican and less Democrat.

Trump was asked Friday by journalists how he felt about Duke's support. He said he didn't know anything about it and curtly said: "All right, I disavow, ok?"

There you have it. He disavowed Duke's support. But Duke's vote will count anyway. Happy now.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The Repub. appeal so little to blacks anything that is said about them is considering "pandering"

Tell me what the Democrats do for Black people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

i don't have a problem so much with the endorsement (anyone can endorse someone) as much as Trump's not disavowing it until people got on him. And then his asinine comments that he didn't know who Duke was or what white supremacy is. That either shows he is a liar or really stupid (I suspect the former).

To your point about Sharpton. He speaks out when he sees (or thinks he sees discrimination). And when he speaks, he says stupid stuff. That stupid stuff overwhelms any valid points he may have so that his message is lost. I don’t really recall he had a part of the crown heights incident but know a lot about the Tawana Brawley mess. The KKK killed 0,000s of blacks. So while not the best analogy, I can see how people can make it. I think Obama has Sharpton to the WH to pay lip service (can't wait to see comments on that one) to him and thus the Black community.

Edit - just saw on CNN a Medal of Honor ceremony honoring a Seal Team 6 member for rescuing a hostage. I'm sure you would have enjoyed watching that.

"i don't have a problem so much with the endorsement (anyone can endorse someone) as much as Trump's not disavowing it until people got on him. "

That's 100% fair.

"{I don’t really recall he had a part of the crown heights incident "

A car driven by white Jews in NYC was sideswiped, pushed onto the sidewalk, where it killed a young black boy. A mob appeared to be threatening the driver of the car (who cares that he got smashed into, and that's why he ended up on the sidewalk), so he was escorted out of there. Sharpton got everyone worked up about how the Jews are out to kill the blacks, and after they were foamong at the mouth, one of them walked up to the nearest white person and stabbed them to death.

Look up the incident at Freddys.. 7 innnocent pepole burned alive.

Look, I'm not saying Sharpton is the moral equivalent of the Klan. But he's got innocent blood on his hands, stemming from racial hatred. And every single Democratic candidate feels the need to suck up to him, and Obama calls him into the White House all the time. That should be disturbing to anyone.

"I think Obama has Sharpton to the WH to pay lip service (can't wait to see comments on that one) to him and thus the Black community"

It's cowardly. You can respect blacks by inviting someone else to teh White House, anyone else. By inviting him constantky, Obama is legitimizing Sharpton. He doesn't deserve legitimacy, he deserves to ba called out for what he is. That's what leadership is.

"just saw on CNN a Medal of Honor ceremony honoring a Seal Team 6 member for rescuing a hostage. I'm sure you would have enjoyed watching that"

Thanks! I read about it this AM, I didn't know it was SEAL team 6, I knew it was a Seal. I hope th edoctor they saved goes on to live a rich, fulfilling life. One SEAL was killed in that raid. You don't hear about hand-to-hand combat every day in modern warfare...Awful stuff.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

Tell me what the Democrats do for Black people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They cripple them for life, a form of cultural genocide, by destroying their desire to succeed, and getting them addicted to welfare. I htink it was Lyndon Johnson who said "if we give these 'people' (he used the n-word) some free stuff, they'll vote for us for a hundred years. "

I cannot help but wonder if Democrats do this deliberately. The evidence of cultural destruction is so overwhelming, I don't see how any well-meaning person could fail to acknowledge it, unless the cultural destruction is actually the goal.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

Tell me what the Democrats do for Black people.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They show some compassion for those that need a helping hand.

How is that?

What do Repub. do for Black people?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They show some compassion for those that need a helping hand.

How is that?

What do Repub. do for Black people?

Let's see...they ended slavery...then, they ended segregation...we would prefer to see black babies being born to seeing them slaughtered by the thousands...today, they want to help black people improve themselves, rather than expecting them to merely postpone death while living on $500 a month.

Here's what I don't get. Bill Clinton is a hero to blacks. Am I the only one who remembers what he actually did? He kicked millions of them off welfare. They didn't starve, they went back to work. Which, if you are able to work, is what you need.

Paul, it looks to me, that what the Dems do, is pat blacks on the head (no matter what they do) and say "there, there, it's not your fault".

Republicans (as a group) have no problem helping blacks. The difference, is that conservatives seem to get the idea, that sometimes saying "no" is the best answer, and that tough love is still love.

Oh, the other thing that Dems do, is (1) ruin urban schools, and then (2) deny black parents the ability to choose to send their kids to schools that actually work.

Which is funny, because don't liberals pride themselves as being "pro-choice"? I'm fairly certain I heard that somewhere. Apparently, not when it comes to being able to choose a better school for their kids.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They show some compassion for those that need a helping hand.

How is that?

What do Repub. do for Black people?

And if you think your side has a monopoly on that compassion, please look up a study called "Who Really Cares", which showed that conservatives are actually slightly more charitable than liberals, despite earning less money on average. Interesting. If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe the New York Times, not always known for having a conservative bias...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...stof.html?_r=0

[PaulS]

We've discussed this many times. Take out giving to churches and the #s are very close. My largest charity is to my church.

[DZ]

I find this election cycle fascinating. The sheer numbers of people voting for Trump and other GOP candidates in the primaries has dwarfed the turnout numbers in the DEM primaries. Most presidential elections are won by the party who can attract most of independent voters AND in no small part, the numbers of what I call uneducated/uninformed voters. The Dems have had a monopoly on these uninformed/uneducated voters for the last two presidential elections. Trump has turned that portion of the electorate around and managed to get the vote out for the GOP.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

We've discussed this many times. Take out giving to churches and the #s are very close. My largest charity is to my church.

Agreed, it's very close, even with churches. I wasn't saying that conservatives are far more generous than liberals, so your pointing out the fact about churches, in no way responds to what I said.

YOU were the one who made th ecomment that democrats show compassion, implying to me, that you don't feel that conservatives share that compassion. That's demonstrably false. Unless I missed what you meant when you said this:

"They (Democrats) show some compassion for those that need a helping hand.

How is that?

What do Repub. do for Black people? "



The liberal policies that have been born out of that compassion, have been an abject disaster for blacks. Look at the urban areas that democrats have controled unilaterally for 40 years. Are they better, or worse, after 40 years of liberal rule, Paul?

If I asked you, or Spence, or Rockhound this question, how would you respond? Here's the question - please tell me what evidence there is, other than popular perception, that liberals care more about blacks than conservatives do? Seriously, how would you respond to that?

[buckman]

They can't Jim . It's a myth , like affordable health care .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They show some compassion for those that need a helping hand.

How is that?

What do Repub. do for Black people?

For government, law, to be dispensed equally, it must be dispassionate. Compassion is a fellow feeling of people for other people. Dispassionate government is not "other" in relation to a free people. It is, at least it's supposed to be in our system, The People. The government doing things for people is people doing it for themselves. That is not compassion. That is self-reliance.

True compassion, person to person, is not a guaranteed, permanent relationship. True compassion does not reduce the beneficiary to dependence.

When government acts, as it does in dictatorial or tyrannical systems, as a separate person in relation to other persons (outside the government), those other persons are no longer beneficiaries of the kindness of other persons, on whom they cannot permanently depend. Instead, they are reduced to dependents. And when government has the power to reduce the people to the status of dependents, it derives and maintains its power as a dictator or as a ruling class of people who dole out favors (contrived compassion) to those who choose to depend on it and withholds favors from those who oppose it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If I asked you, or Spence, or Rockhound this question, how would you respond? Here's the question - please tell me what evidence there is, other than popular perception, that liberals care more about blacks than conservatives do? Seriously, how would you respond to that?

I can't answer for them but the policies of the 2 parties differs greatly. The Rep. always blame the problems of blacks and the poor as being no fault of anyone but themselves and say "look at so and so. They picked themselves up from a terrrible beginning and made a success of themselves. Why can't Blacks do it". The Dems. try to help those people by funding pre-k, headstart and other social service orgs. Tough to become a success if you're going to school w/an empty stomach, dirty clothes and you haven't been read to the night before.

Studies have shown that someone raised in poverty has very little chance these days of raising out of the economic class they were born to.

I used the word compassion and you attached a link to a story about giving. Certainly you can have compassion w/o giving $ (volunteering) but a lot depends on $. People aren't going to give $ for someone else to get food stamps or fund a pre K.

Waiting for Buckman to respond. Maybe he can tell me a little about the pandering?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by buckman

They can't Jim . It's a myth , like affordable health care .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But medical inflation have been decreasing recently.

Maybe the Reps. will let Medicare negotiate drugs prices directly with drug manufacturer just as the insurance companies do. You're right is not affordable but that has been a many decades long issue.

New data released today by the Kaiser Family Foundation show that premium growth in employer-sponsored coverage remained slow in 2015, extending the recent streak of unusually slow growth. Taken together with estimates of current trends in Medicare spending released this summer, these data suggest that underlying growth in per-enrollee health care costs remains low, even as the dramatic expansion in coverage since early 2014 drives a temporary uptick in the growth of aggregate health care spending.



1. Premiums in employer-based coverage continued to grow slowly in 2015. The new Kaiser survey finds that the average premium for employer-based family coverage grew 4.2 percent in 2015. While slightly faster than the record-tying 3 percent rate recorded in 2014, this reading for 2015 continues the recent pattern of unusually slow growth; the last four years account for four of the five lowest growth rates since the survey began in 1999. The Kaiser estimates corroborate earlier estimates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employer Cost Index that showed that slow growth in employers’ health benefit costs continued into 2015, as well as results from a national survey released last week by the consulting firm Mercer, which found that employers have seen slow growth persist through 2015 and expect it to continue into 2016.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

They show some compassion for those that need a helping hand.

How is that?

What do Repub. do for Black people?

For government, law, to be dispensed equally, it must be dispassionate. Compassion is a fellow feeling of people for other people. Dispassionate government is not "other" in relation to a free people. It is, at least it's supposed to be in our system, The People. The government doing things for people is people doing it for themselves. That is not compassion. That is self-reliance.

True compassion, person to person, is not a guaranteed, permanent relationship. True compassion does not reduce the beneficiary to dependence.

When government acts, as it does in dictatorial or tyrannical systems, as a separate person in relation to other persons (outside the government), those other persons are no longer beneficiaries of the kindness of other persons, on whom they cannot permanently depend. Instead, they are reduced to dependents. And when government has the power to reduce the people to the status of dependents, it derives and maintains its power as a dictator or as a ruling class of people who dole out favors (contrived compassion) to those who choose to depend on it and withholds favors from those who oppose it.