Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(07-09-2016, 09:11 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: (07-09-2016, 05:26 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: "Property is theft." That's at least as valid a statement as yours: "taxes are theft"
I'm no Marxist, but I do prefer the mixed economy to the libertarian one.
Not really. Property that is not stolen/taken is acquired with consent. Taxation is acquired with or without ones consent. There was a time when a group of people largely comprised with folks who 8th grade educations, no TV's, no internet trusted big government. A time when information communications and data was limited. We're not there anymore. We have advanced. Why do you keep talking as if we still are those folks? You will only find people with an 8th grade education in down trodden areas like the hood, areas that turn out large numbers of clueless air heads or the backwoods. I assume that you're not an American Indian that I would accept as a valid beef relating to them. Other than that, we are all bound to the same rule that we either accept or reject and move away. I do not see a Civil War ending in your favor. I do not see Abe Lincoln showing up anytime soon. I see you ending the same as the South without the Constitutional rights being recognized and reinstated afterwards. I suggest you education system who is responsible for the education of the blacks we are seeing on TV that their students look like complete idiots who don't understand anything other than 3rd world mob rule, social darwin, barbarianism stuff that your accusing us as being.
You talk like a prophet, about what you "see." Well, I am a prophet, and my prophecies tend to come true. I have an actual record. And I can close my eyes and see, too. And I can see a better day 
8th grade graduates are probably well distributed throughout the political spectrum. As usual you've lost your way again in your rhetoric. Taxation is part of that rule we must accept or move away (or move to jail). I won't defend "property is theft," but taxation is necessary lest we not have laws and go back to barbarism. I have seen a possible civil war coming for the 2020s since the 1970s. It seems it's coming closer. We could avoid it, but the deadlock will have to be broken somehow. The stalemate cannot continue indefinitely.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
07-13-2016, 03:56 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2016, 01:43 PM by Eric the Green.)
I talk a lot like a Hillary booster, and have posted videos with Hillary, but I am still considering voting for whom I voted for last time, and she's a very good, polished and charming candidate. And her horoscope score beats others; even Bernie Sanders. So we can't ignore Jill Stein.
She makes some good points about Hillary, but I'm not sure what the truth is, and she also exaggerates her accusations. And if she actually thinks the civil war in Syria is an American plot, then I won't vote for her. I know she's against supporting the rebels; that's bad enough, but not a deal-breaker considering her other policies are correct overall.
A vote for Stein makes more sense in a strong blue or red state. A vote for the "lesser evil" in swing states is the right thing to do in my opinion, because the "lesser evil" is the American people themselves who voted for Bush in 2004 and Republicans in 2010 and 2014; they can't be trusted any more than the "lesser evil" politicians.
Posts: 75
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2016
Libertarianism is an adolescent wet dream......and nothing more.
There was never any good old days
They are today, they are tomorrow
It's a stupid thing we say
Cursing tomorrow with sorrow
-- Eugene Hutz
Posts: 4,336
Threads: 7
Joined: Jul 2016
07-14-2016, 11:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2016, 11:36 AM by David Horn.
Edit Reason: Messy
)
(07-06-2016, 01:12 PM)radind Wrote: Which is more secure is not relevant to current US policies on the handling of classified information. My concern is that Clinton was not treated as anyone else in the government would have been treated. Looks like special treatment to me.
There may be other cases, but I have never heard of any involving Top Secret/Special Access Program information where no action was taken.
I agree. Hillary has monumental bad judgement when it impacts her privacy, and this fell far enough from the tree to be actionable. On the other hand, we don't actually know what was compromised, so it may be trivial. When I held the clearance to see the stuff, we had plenty of TS/SCI material that was classified for no apparent reason ... or more often, to prevent embarrassment. For reference, I saw most of the traffic from the Pueblo incident. If it touched that topic it got the full treatment.
Intelligence is not knowledge and knowledge is not wisdom, but they all play well together.
Posts: 198
Threads: 2
Joined: May 2016
(07-14-2016, 11:33 AM)David Horn Wrote: (07-06-2016, 01:12 PM)radind Wrote: Which is more secure is not relevant to current US policies on the handling of classified information. My concern is that Clinton was not treated as anyone else in the government would have been treated. Looks like special treatment to me.
There may be other cases, but I have never heard of any involving Top Secret/Special Access Program information where no action was taken.
I agree. Hillary has monumental bad judgement when it impacts her privacy, and this fell far enough from the tree to be actionable. On the other hand, we don't actually know what was compromised, so it may be trivial. When I held the clearance to see the stuff, we had plenty of TS/SCI material that was classified for no apparent reason ... or more often, to prevent embarrassment. For reference, I saw most of the traffic from the Pueblo incident. If it touched that topic it got the full treatment.
It looks like Clinton was doing what her predecessors did. But being Clinton, her opponents smelled blood and attacked.
Quote:ABC News detailed a final State Department investigation which concluded that past secretaries of state, including Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice's immediate staff, "handled classified material on unclassified email systems." The findings come as the FBI investigates a private email server used by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state.
For months, conservative media figures have attacked Clinton, baselessly accusing her of wrongdoing for receiving State Department emails on her private email account while secretary of state. On February 4, reports emerged that Colin Powell and aides to Condoleezza Rice also used private email accounts when they served under former President George W. Bush, and some of their emails similarly contained information that was retroactively classified.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/...ate/209044
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
07-14-2016, 05:38 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-14-2016, 05:47 PM by Drakus79.)
(07-11-2016, 02:13 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: (07-09-2016, 03:43 PM)Webmaster Wrote: Guys could you discuss the issues without talking about killing each other?
Sure.
1. Crony capitalism is bad. It's oligarchy upheld by the force of the state.
2. Anarcho syndicalism is good. We have this already in the form of credit unions and public utilities. I have both. 
3. Private property per say isn't bad. Folks should have title to such things as their houses and vehicles. I'd ditch property taxes since they negate the ownership of the above. Now, you rent your house from taxing authorities.
4. Public sector overreach is bad.
a. Civil asset forfeiture is legalized robbery and it's robbery because assets are taken by force. Thus civil asset forfeiture is evil. Public entities that have cops that do that are actually Pig Sties. Those cops are indeed pigs. Cops that do not rob people or trash their civil rights are professionals. Oklahoma is working to get rid of its Pig Sties.
b. Spying on people is bad. The NSA,CIA.FBI,DEA etc. need to be abolished.
c. Government agencies that support crony capitalism should be abolished. Those are the Federal Reserve,Fannie Mae,Freddie Mac, and Sally Mae also need to be abolished.
---
Of utmost service - Rags
Of the four remaining major presidential candidates, whose platform is closest to this? Gary Johnson.
Posts: 604
Threads: 68
Joined: May 2016
We have one far-right extremist independent candidate - Gary Johnson, and one far-left extremist independent candidate - Jill Stein.
What is missing - and needed - is a moderate independent candidate, who could be the new John Bell; and Angus King is just the thing. As a true independent - not an ersatz independent like Bernie Sanders - whose Senate seat is not up for re-election this year, King would neither burn any bridges nor risk anything by running.
So run, Angus, run. Hopefully the Reform Party will offer him their line.
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation" - Justice David Brewer, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(07-17-2016, 04:39 PM)Anthony 58 Wrote: We have one far-right extremist independent candidate - Gary Johnson, and one far-left extremist independent candidate - Jill Stein.
What is missing - and needed - is a moderate independent candidate, who could be the new John Bell; and Angus King is just the thing. As a true independent - not an ersatz independent like Bernie Sanders - whose Senate seat is not up for re-election this year, King would neither burn any bridges nor risk anything by running.
So run, Angus, run. Hopefully the Reform Party will offer him their line.
He's already endorsed Hillary.
Posts: 604
Threads: 68
Joined: May 2016
He can't change his mind?
And could it be that American politics is about to take on a resemblance to the politics of Northern Ireland on the immediate eve of the 1998 Good Friday accord? From "left" to "right," that system featured a "radical" nationalist or "republican" (small "r") party (Sinn Fein) a more moderate nationalist party (the Social Democratic and Labor Party), a moderate unionist party (the Ulster Unionist Party) and a far-right "loyalist" party (the Democratic Unionists, headed by the fiery Rev. Ian Paisley). In the middle stood the Alliance Party, which defiantly rejected any identification with either Protestants or Catholics, and sought to transcend that paradigm.
America already has four of these corresponding spots covered - the far left by Jill Stein, the center-left by Hillary, the center-right by Donald Trump (who is actually reminiscent of the small Progressive Unionist Party in Ulster) and the far right by Gary Johnson. All that is needed is for us to have an Alliance Party clone - and then we would have our first realistic five-way battle for the White House in history (1860 and 1948 were four-way affairs).
"These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation" - Justice David Brewer, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
07-18-2016, 10:04 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2016, 10:24 AM by Eric the Green.)
(07-18-2016, 09:16 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote: He can't change his mind?
Quite unlikely. He has indicated no interest in running, at a time when a campaign should have been begun long ago.
I haven't looked at his chart though.
OK, I looked at it, and according to my system, based mostly on which aspects are actually in the charts of all winning and losing US presidential candidates in history (very slightly-modified by astrological theory), Mr. Angus King has no chance, having only a 5-10 score.
Quote:And could it be that American politics is about to take on a resemblance to the politics of Northern Ireland on the immediate eve of the 1998 Good Friday accord? From "left" to "right," that system featured a "radical" nationalist or "republican" (small "r") party (Sinn Fein) a more moderate nationalist party (the Social Democratic and Labor Party), a moderate unionist party (the Ulster Unionist Party) and a far-right "loyalist" party (the Democratic Unionists, headed by the fiery Rev. Ian Paisley). In the middle stood the Alliance Party, which defiantly rejected any identification with either Protestants or Catholics, and sought to transcend that paradigm.
America already has four of these corresponding spots covered - the far left by Jill Stein, the center-left by Hillary, the center-right by Donald Trump (who is actually reminiscent of the small Progressive Unionist Party in Ulster) and the far right by Gary Johnson. All that is needed is for us to have an Alliance Party clone - and then we would have our first realistic five-way battle for the White House in history (1860 and 1948 were four-way affairs).
Jill Stein is not a nationalist, so, no to your theory, although your 4 general categories are correct.
Trump wants to keep some parts of the New Deal (unlike the far-right such as Paul Ryan), but not the Great Society. Nor does he want any advancement on the New Deal. For the rest, he wants neo-liberal trickle-down economics to the max. Massive tax cuts for the rich, massive debt, and reduced regulation with a smaller safety-net. Supply-side Reaganomics combined with trade wars. Plus xenophobia, "law and order," "second amendment," and an ambiguous and thoughtless foreign policy combining war crimes and a huge military with signals of non-intervention, disloyalty and irresponsibility toward allies, and a temperament of brawling and insults.
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
Something on topic for once. This election can go anywhere at this point. Most likely case is Clinton wins, Trump comes in second, Johnson third and Stein fourth. Still, it's possible that Trump could win if he manages to perform well in the debates.
But here are other interesting possibilities:
1. Johnson makes it to the debates and wins enough states so as to prevent an electoral majority. In this case, the 12th amendment comes into play and Congress decides who is president. Clinton will still probably have the most electoral votes and will still probably be elected, but it's not certain, especially in a Republican controlled Congress.
2. Johnson and Jill Stein both make it to the debates and draw enough electoral votes away from the major candidates so as to prevent a majority. Once again the 12th amendment comes into play and Congress decides who becomes president, but this time Clinton doesn't have the most votes. I have a feeling Gridlock will ensue, and whoever is speaker of the house at the time may wind up president for a time (it could be Paul Ryan, or it could be his opponent).
3. Trump "goes too far" and is removed as a possible candidate before the election (maybe he is paid off and drops out on his own, or he simply loses nearly all of his support and his candidacy becomes irrelevent). Rather than put up another candidate the Republicans split and either get behind Johnson or Clinton. Clinton still wins, but Johnson wins a huge number of states and the Libertarians effectively becomes a new second party opposite the Democratic Party. This assumes the Republicans don't put up a replacement candidate in the last minute, something they may or may not do.
4. Clinton is removed from the election. This could happen as a result of an indictment (wikileaks releases proof of criminial activity, or she drops out for some other reason). Now the vote is split between Stein, Trump and Johnson. This puts Stein at a much bigger advantage since she would probably absorb a majority of the Democratic vote. Some of the Democratic vote would go to Johnson, but she will get the lion share. Jill Stein has a good chance of beating Trump in this scenario making the Green Party the new major Party opposite the Republican Party. Again, this is assuming the Dems don't put up another replacement candidate at the last minute.
5. Both Clinton AND Trump are removed from the Election. Now the race is primarily between Johnson and Stein. I think, in this scenario, Johnson is more likely to win. This seems to be the least likely scenario but it would be the best scenario, IMO. Both establishment parties are replaced by the Green and Libertarian Parties.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
08-13-2016, 05:29 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-13-2016, 05:38 PM by Eric the Green.)
1&2. If Hillary Clinton does not reach 270, she has NO chance in the Republican congress. Trump is elected.
3. Possible, but will depend on Trump's decision; the RNC can't remove him. But they would put up another candidate; mostly likely Pence. By my cosmic calculations, however, they have no likely candidate who can beat Hillary, besides Marco Rubio who is running for Senate.
4. Clinton has been cleared; no chance of her being removed. If she had to drop out, however, Kaine would take over as the candidate. Trump's chances would improve. I think Kaine would win however, but the chances of a 269-269 Republican victory in the House would rise.
5. I agree, those would be two better parties. Johnson would be more likely to win. The Greens would take over later, because Johnson offers only the same old business-friendly trickle-down policies for a country mired in inequality and decline; not to mention potential climate armageddon. Very unlikely scenario, less than .00001% chance of it happening. The two major parties are still there and can put up replacement candidates.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
According to my cosmic calculations, if Jesus Christ returned and ran as a write in candidate he could defeat both Hillary and The Donald.
Unfortunately, he won't run until the Israelis take over Temple Mount, raze the Dome of the Rock, and rebuild the Temple. The Israelis are also such sticklers for tradition they'll likely want to rebuild the Temple right, historically accurate, so construction won't be complete in time for the upcoming US elections.
Oh? What? This post is in the wrong place? Cosmic calculations belong in the Astrology forum?
But it does seem more likely than so many other ridiculous suggestions on this thread for how third party candidates might win. Jesus Christ has the name recognition and favorability poll numbers to pull it off. Well, there is the sex scandal involving Mary Magdalene, but in modern times he could likely shake that off.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 3,956
Threads: 11
Joined: May 2016
(08-14-2016, 08:25 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: According to my cosmic calculations, if Jesus Christ returned and ran as a write in candidate he could defeat both Hillary and The Donald...
Nitpick. Does anyone know how to get a copy of his long form birth certificate?
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
08-15-2016, 03:12 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-15-2016, 03:32 PM by Eric the Green.)
(08-15-2016, 09:48 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: (08-14-2016, 08:25 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: According to my cosmic calculations, if Jesus Christ returned and ran as a write in candidate he could defeat both Hillary and The Donald...
Nitpick. Does anyone know how to get a copy of his long form birth certificate?
No, but speaking of cosmic calculations, several proposed horoscopes have been cast. Maybe I should do my usual analysis and see how he would fare.... stay tuned....
My choice has been Feb.25, 6 BC. But that only gives him a score of 7-4; one less positive point than Donald Trump. So, I guess, if that birthdate is correct, no, even Donald might beat him! But then again, that's no wonder. Jesus was a very unworldly chap. He excelled at getting the authorities to string him up. Instead of just sticking his foot in his mouth, he got nails stuck in his hands!
An alternate chart for Mar 1, 7 BC has an even lower score, 9-9. If THAT chart is correct, even Hillary could beat Jesus!
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
08-15-2016, 04:54 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-16-2016, 01:15 PM by Eric the Green.)
(08-13-2016, 05:29 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: ..
5. I agree, those would be two better parties. Johnson would be more likely to win. The Greens would take over later, because Johnson offers only the same old business-friendly trickle-down policies for a country mired in inequality and decline; not to mention potential climate armageddon. Very unlikely scenario, less than .00001% chance of it happening. The two major parties are still there and can put up replacement candidates.
I have to admit, maybe #5 has a bit better chance than .00001%, since the Republicans might not be able to replace Trump if he quits. There are ballot deadlines. So It might turn out to be a 3-way race: Hillary vs. Johnson vs. Stein. I wonder how that would work out! Plus there's that other independent guy; He's a Republican, but officially an Independent. So that's Hillary vs. McMullin vs. Johnson vs. Stein. Under #5, if neither Hillary nor Trump can run and they both cannot be replaced, that would be McMullin vs Johnson vs Stein.
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
08-15-2016, 10:01 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-15-2016, 10:02 PM by Drakus79.)
McMullin isn't even mentioned in the polls so I doubt he will be of any significance. You can lump him in with all the other third party candidates that will be at the kids table debate. Johnson's going to be a significant factor though. Stein will be too, but to a lesser extent.
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
But if Trump drops out, that's why I mentioned McMullin. He could be a factor then, if the Republicans are unable to replace Trump on a lot of state ballots.
Posts: 39
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2016
Full list of candidates. But I guess it's not full because I didn't see McMullin on it:
http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm
Posts: 10,013
Threads: 103
Joined: May 2016
(08-15-2016, 10:18 PM)Drakus79 Wrote: Full list of candidates. But I guess it's not full because I didn't see McMullin on it:
http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm
Yes, he's there. So is William Wallace! I didn't know 13th century candidates could run!
|
