US Politics

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

So because the White House was wrong, they shouldnt care?  Oh wait, no I get it.  Trumpers only care when its about him losing, not winning.

and vice versa it appears when it comes to the DNC.  If Russia had tampered to allow Hillary to win, the media would be keeping a complete clamp on the whole story.  Just like the media isn't reporting on the voting irregularities in Michigan and Wisconsin that show Hillary received thousands of votes that don't exist.  If it was the other way around, there would be marching and riots in the streets.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/

http://alexanderhiggins.com/5138-fraud-votes-unexplained-as-hillary-clinton-loses-wisconsin-recount/

[kelownabomberfan]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Weird.  I thought this administration was "of the people"?  Trump's the blue colour candidate.

I thought he was the orange colour candidate.

[kelownabomberfan]

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/14/trump-rally-punch-sentencing-orig-vstop-dlewis.cnn

Here's a story that was very ugly during the election and got a lot of air-play, mostly because it made Donald Trump supporters look so bad, so of course it went all over the world just to "prove" what bigots and racists Donald Trump supporters are.  If I had blinked while watching CNN this morning I would have missed the happy ending to this story, which of course is getting no air play anywhere (why would it? It's a good story with zero political capital for the DNC).  The man who hit the other man in the head at the DT rally apologized for his behavior, and they hugged it out and agreed to work together to heal the country.  Isn't that what everyone in the US should be doing right now?  If these two can put their differences behind them, can't everyone?

 

[The Unknown Poster]

 

[Jacquie]

12 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

 

 

Because Mitch McConnell and other Republicans claimed acting on the information that late in the campaign would be "partisan politics" and wouldn't let the White House act on it.

Edited December 16, 2016 by Jacquie

[kelownabomberfan]

4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 

LOL - vote their conscience?  Seriously?  Imagine if the Electoral College had decided to "vote their conscience" and prevent an Obama presidency in 2008??

[Jacquie]

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

LOL - vote their conscience?  Seriously?  Imagine if the Electoral College had decided to "vote their conscience" and prevent an Obama presidency in 2008??

More stirring the pot, KBF. Please enlighten us as to what reason the Republican members of the Electoral College would have had for blocking Obama's presidency other than racism? 

[The Unknown Poster]

9 hours ago, Jacquie said:

More stirring the pot, KBF. Please enlighten us as to what reason the Republican members of the Electoral College would have had for blocking Obama's presidency other than racism? 

 

I detest this movement to have the Electoral College change their votes for a couple of reasons.  First, it comes across as sour grapes.  Trump won.  Secondly, it wont be successful anyway so its poor PR.

However, there *is* some merit to the idea behind it.  I think it was Hamilton (might be quoted in that article) that explained the role of the College to be the last roadblock preventing an unqualified person from becoming President.  In that respect, the "idea" of this is relevant.  Coupled with the fact that Hilary won the popular vote by almost 3 million (far more than then Bush/Gore dispute) and the Russia hacking investigation.  It paints a picture worth exploring.

But the Electoral College wont give Hilary the election.  So even if enough voters switched their vote, you end up with someone virtually no one voted for as President.  And that's even worse.

Plus, here's the thing about the Russia hacking and why the White House and CNN etc initially made fun of Trump's silly "rigged election" stuff.  The issue isnt that Russia somehow hacked voting machines, its that they orchestrated a wide spread hacking project designed to elicit information they could use to *influence* the election.  The idea is they had dirt on Trump too, but didnt use it.  But the "dirt" on Hilary isnt dirt so much as just private things they released.  So it's still her...her party etc.  What the FBI did is worse because it was completely manufactured.  That guy should be tossed in jail for what he did.

[kelownabomberfan]

9 hours ago, Jacquie said:

More stirring the pot, KBF. Please enlighten us as to what reason the Republican members of the Electoral College would have had for blocking Obama's presidency other than racism? 

Jacquie - why is this "stirring the pot"?  I am just trying to point out what I think is a terrible double-standard.  I feel that the same factors that apply to Trump also apply to Obama, in that there are a lot of extremely bitter people out there who don't want Trump to be president, as there were a lot that didn't want Obama to be president. That being said, it only appears "ok" to challenge Trump with the EC, and not Obama, even though both candidates soundly defeated their opponents. I don't know why you are playing the race card, and that troubles me deeply that you would even go there.

TUP said it best here:

Quote

 I think it was Hamilton (might be quoted in that article) that explained the role of the College to be the last roadblock preventing an unqualified person from becoming President

In my view Obama was extremely unqualified to be president.  So other than pettiness and spite, there exists the same reasoning as to why Obama would have been blocked at the Electoral College level as Trump.  We can agree to disagree on that one (and I know we will).  I just think that if there had been any grand-standing or use of the EC to try and block Obama due to his inexperience and the fact he was unqualified, the Democrats and their legions of PC followers would have gone extremely ape-poop, and while jumping to the race card would have been one angle, I think the big one would have been respect for democracy and respecting the will of the American people.  Somehow, if a Democrat wins, and anyone challenges it, they are "an enemy of democracy", while if its a Republican, it's totally cool and even "healthy".  I see that as a horrible double-standard.  Much like how Trump was pilloried for making fun of people with disabilities (and rightly so, that was awful and he should have been criticized) This Hour has 22 Minutes was able to make fun of Kellie Leitch's speech impediment without any sort of out-cry.  I don't agree with the actions of either, though it appears that only one side gets called out on it.

 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

22 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

and vice versa it appears when it comes to the DNC.  If Russia had tampered to allow Hillary to win, the media would be keeping a complete clamp on the whole story.  Just like the media isn't reporting on the voting irregularities in Michigan and Wisconsin that show Hillary received thousands of votes that don't exist.  If it was the other way around, there would be marching and riots in the streets.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/

http://alexanderhiggins.com/5138-fraud-votes-unexplained-as-hillary-clinton-loses-wisconsin-recount/

Not really understanding your point here. You claim media isn't reporting on the voting irregularities, yet post links to the media reporting on voting irregularities. 

22 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/12/14/trump-rally-punch-sentencing-orig-vstop-dlewis.cnn

Here's a story that was very ugly during the election and got a lot of air-play, mostly because it made Donald Trump supporters look so bad, so of course it went all over the world just to "prove" what bigots and racists Donald Trump supporters are.  If I had blinked while watching CNN this morning I would have missed the happy ending to this story, which of course is getting no air play anywhere (why would it? It's a good story with zero political capital for the DNC).  The man who hit the other man in the head at the DT rally apologized for his behavior, and they hugged it out and agreed to work together to heal the country.  Isn't that what everyone in the US should be doing right now?  If these two can put their differences behind them, can't everyone?

 

I think it has less "legs" because it is now passe news... the election is done and this is all just tying up loose ends. If this would have happened before Nov. 8th - there would be a ****-load of coverage on this, I assure you.

 

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

In my view Obama was extremely unqualified to be president.  So other than pettiness and spite, there exists the same reasoning as to why Obama would have been blocked at the Electoral College level as Trump.  We can agree to disagree on that one (and I know we will).  I just think that if there had been any grand-standing or use of the EC to try and block Obama due to his inexperience and the fact he was unqualified, the Democrats and their legions of PC followers would have gone extremely ape-poop, and while jumping to the race card would have been one angle, I think the big one would have been respect for democracy and respecting the will of the American people.  Somehow, if a Democrat wins, and anyone challenges it, they are "an enemy of democracy", while if its a Republican, it's totally cool and even "healthy".  I see that as a horrible double-standard.  Much like how Trump was pilloried for making fun of people with disabilities (and rightly so, that was awful and he should have been criticized) This Hour has 22 Minutes was able to make fun of Kellie Leitch's speech impediment without any sort of out-cry.  I don't agree with the actions of either, though it appears that only one side gets called out on it.

 

Outrage from the Progressives over the grandstanding or use of the EC to try and block Obama would totally be expected. It's "their" Guy, just like the opposite would hold true:

Quote

I just think that if there had been any grand-standing or use of the EC to try and block Trumpdue to his inexperience and the fact he was unqualified, the Republicans and their legions of regressive followers would have gone extremely ape-poop, and while jumping to the race card would have been one angle, I think the big one would have been respect for democracy and respecting the will of the American people.  Somehow, if a Republican wins, and anyone challenges it, they are "an enemy of democracy", while if its a Democrat, it's totally cool and even "healthy".  I see that as a horrible double-standard. 

See, it all depends on where you sit politically. To be fair- in both examples (as ****** up of a control function the EC is) if the EC chooses "to vote their conscience" it is totally democratic and is EXACTLY how the EC was intended. 

 

As for the Kellie Leitch's speech impediment and comparin git to Trump making fun of Serge Kovaleski's disability... Not sure if trolling here,but here we go... One can not compare the two. That is just stupid.

This Hour Has 22 Minutes is by definition: "a weekly Canadian television comedy that airs on CBC Television. Launched in 1993 during Canada's 35th general election, the show focuses on Canadian politics, combining news parody, sketch comedy and satirical editorials. Originally featuring Cathy Jones, Rick Mercer, Greg Thomey and Mary Walsh, the series featured satirical sketches of the weekly news and Canadian political events. The show's format is a mock news program, intercut with comic sketches, parody commercials and humorous interviews of public figures."

 

On the Other Hand Donald J. Trump was running for his National Political Party's Nomination to run for the U.S. Presidency- agueably the most powerful and influential position in the entire world...

 

Let's go over that again if anyone has missed out on my nuanced take here...

22 Minutes: Comedy Show / Donald Trump: Running for POTUS. one of these is expected to make fun of people, one is expected to elevate and help people. One is (or should be) clearly held to a higher degree of standards. 

 

Edited December 16, 2016 by wanna-b-fanboy

[kelownabomberfan]

14 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

 

22 Minutes: Comedy Show / Donald Trump: Running for POTUS. one of these is expected to make fun of people, one is expected to elevate and help people. One is (or should be) clearly held to a higher degree of standards. 

 

Agree to disagree.  22 Minutes is a taxpayer-funded Canadian show.  If the leader of the Green Party was someone with a speech impediment or a disability and some right-wing site like the Rebel made fun of that disability, there would howling to beat the band about the horrible right-wing.  I don't think that this Hour should get a pass because they choose to make fun of someone the Left doesn't like.  They should be held to the same standard, and that video is offensive.

[sweep the leg]

Comparing Trump's lack of experience to Obama is nonsense. Obama was a US senator with a law degree. Also nonsense is the comparison of a candidate for POTUS to a comedy show. As stated in the post above, who needs to hold the higher standard should be obvious. The fact that it's not for a lot of people is troubling.

 

[kelownabomberfan]

15 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

Comparing Trump's lack of experience to Obama is nonsense.

 

I agree.  They aren't really comparative in terms of backgrounds and business experience, but in terms of experience in politics, pretty similar. Trump is far more experienced than Obama, on many issues, especially when it comes to actually being in the real world and running actual enterprises with thousands of employees.  Obama had none of this experience when he won the presidency, and yet he was handed the keys to the biggest business on earth, and no one was saying the EC should vote against his nomination.  In fact, they would have been viciously attacked if they'd even suggested it.  Both Trump and Obama brought different kinds of views and strengths and weaknesses to the office, as both come from extremely different backgrounds.  I honestly think that continuing to under-estimate Trump is a mistake, and I find the fact that its so easy for people to do this troubling. But as I've said before, I'm willing to wait and see how things go before drawing final judgement.

Quote

Also nonsense is the comparison of a candidate for POTUS to a comedy show

So you are ok with making fun of someone's disability, as long as its done on a "comedy show" (and a government funded one at that)?  I'm curious as to why that is.

Edited December 16, 2016 by kelownabomberfan

[sweep the leg]

5 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

 but in terms of experience in politics, pretty similar.

Lol, ok...

5 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

 

So you are ok with making fun of someone's disability, as long as its done on a "comedy show" (and a government funded one at that)?  I'm curious as to why that is.

Generally not, no.

Do you really believe that the PEOTUS doesn't have a higher standard to keep than a comedian? Or that arguing, "yeah, well they do it too" is a good argument?

[kelownabomberfan]

5 minutes ago, sweep the leg said:

 

Generally not, no.

Do you really believe that the PEOTUS doesn't have a higher standard to keep than a comedian? Or that arguing, "yeah, well they do it too" is a good argument?

I think both are wrong.  And this wasn't "a comedian", this was a TV show, broadcast on our public, taxpayer-funded broadcaster.  I don't think that they are equal, but I also don't think that it was right to make fun of Kellie Leitch's disability, and have no one complain (that I know of).  If people have complained, then I take that comment back.

[Jacquie]

2 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Jacquie - why is this "stirring the pot"?  I am just trying to point out what I think is a terrible double-standard.  I feel that the same factors that apply to Trump also apply to Obama, in that there are a lot of extremely bitter people out there who don't want Trump to be president, as there were a lot that didn't want Obama to be president. That being said, it only appears "ok" to challenge Trump with the EC, and not Obama, even though both candidates soundly defeated their opponents. I don't know why you are playing the race card, and that troubles me deeply that you would even go there.

Obama won the popular vote, Trump did not. There is no evidence of a foreign government trying to affect the outcome of elections when Obama ran while there is strong evidence there has been with Trump. Obama released his tax returns, liquidated his assets and put the money in accounts that would not have any type of conflict of interest for him (ie college funds, bonds, etc) while Trump has numerous instances of conflicts of interest as he will continue to profit from his companies dealings in the US and foreign countries and still hasn't released any tax returns. Obama was not under investigation for fraud before and during the election nor has he had any legal problems administering a charitable trust while Trump has. Obama campaigned on inclusion and coming together as a country while Trump played to the fears of white people while threatening minorities throughout his campaign. 

I can't believe that you actually believe race did not play a part in the dislike for Obama considering some of the horribly racist things that have been said about him and his family. 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

30 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I think both are wrong.  And this wasn't "a comedian", this was a TV show, broadcast on our public, taxpayer-funded broadcaster.  I don't think that they are equal, but I also don't think that it was right to make fun of Kellie Leitch's disability, and have no one complain (that I know of).  If people have complained, then I take that comment back.

Kelly Leitch does not have a disability... Serge Kovaleski has arthrogryposis.

KL was mocked by a political satirical show. SK was mocked by the PEOTUS.

 

Anyone equating the the two even remotely are just ignorant and frankly, stupid.  

 

Also, the lack of complaints about the 22 minute bit probably lies in the universally accepted notion that in political satire... *GASP* political figures are parodied...  So, you should take that comment back.

[kelownabomberfan]

28 minutes ago, Jacquie said:

Obama won the popular vote, Trump did not.

To me this is a red herring.  The popular vote is as relevant to the US election as the number of shots in a hockey game.  By these same metrics, the Florida Panthers beat the Jets last night, even though the Jets scored more goals.  Trump had a smarter, better team working for him.  And they game-planned a great strategy.  If the goal had been to win the popular vote, then Trump's team would have devised a different strategy.  It's not really fair after the fact to point out these kinds of red herrings when they aren't really relevant to who gets to be president, and so are ignored as metrics by those focused on what they have to do to win the actual presidency.

There is no evidence of a foreign government trying to affect the outcome of elections when Obama ran while there is strong evidence there has been with Trump.

So foreign governments somehow made Hillary not bother to do campaign stops in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan?  I don't buy that.  This seems to be a cop-out to me.  And how does anyone know that foreign governments didn't influence Obama's election?  Did anyone even look?  Probably not, as there wasn't a giant hue and out-cry for anyone to investigate.  It seems to me that everyone that hates Trump is just grasping at whatever they can to try and find a way to justify ignoring democracy.  And it seems rather hypocritical to me.  Another poster mentioned all of the different things that have been blamed for Trump's victory, be it rednecks, vote rigging and now Russians.  No one seems to be pointing the finger at the true culprit here, which is the DNC.  They ran a terrible campaign and they were totally out-foxed.

Obama released his tax returns, liquidated his assets and put the money in accounts that would not have any type of conflict of interest for him (ie college funds, bonds, etc) while Trump has numerous instances of conflicts of interest as he will continue to profit from his companies dealings in the US and foreign countries and still hasn't released any tax returns.

OK fair enough, but this goes to my point about trying to compare Obama to Trump, and how diverse their backgrounds are.  It no doubt wasn't very hard for Obama to "liquidate his assets" as he probably didn't have much to begin with.  I believe that he still held on to his house in Chicago, though he apparently didn't visit it much.  Of course Trump is going to have conflicts, this situation is unprecedented, and I don't think it's fair to blame him completely for this.  In the future, should billionaires be restricted from running for public office?  I am asking the question seriously.  Is there any way for someone with billions of dollars of assets to not be in conflict if they win public office?  It seems that only people like Obama are actually fit to run, people who never really had much for jobs or wealth before winning office.  Otherwise, they are in conflict.

As for releasing tax returns, I agree that Trump should do this, though not sure what would come of it, other than he would have millions of angry Democrats combing through them and inventing fake news stories about what they say.

Obama was not under investigation for fraud before and during the election nor has he had any legal problems administering a charitable trust while Trump has.

OK, so this is a reason to have the EC vote against him?  Has Trump been convicted?  Just curious.  If so, then I would agree with you.

Obama campaigned on inclusion and coming together as a country while Trump played to the fears of white people while threatening minorities throughout his campaign. 

While we totally disagree on this I will leave it at this - Obama may have campaigned on inclusion (did he really?) but he did not achieve this goal.  In fact, he made the USA even more fractured than when he started.  He may not have wanted this, but that's his legacy.  In short, what he was doing was not working.  I don't believe that Trump is this bigot that some portray, and I am interested in his ability to unite the US.  I was heartened by the CNN video yesterday of the two men hugging and agreeing to work together to heal the country.  If more instances like that occur, then that's a step in the right direction.

I can't believe that you actually believe race did not play a part in the dislike for Obama considering some of the horribly racist things that have been said about him and his family. 

I was not aware of these horribly racist things, but I guess my issue was that I didn't even think of it (honestly) and my whole issue was the disrespect for democracy being demonstrated by the DNC supporters, as I find their stance horribly hypocritical.  It's too bad it came up at all is my comment, as that was not the direction I was going, or thinking of going.

 

[kelownabomberfan]

7 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Kelly Leitch does not have a disability... 

She doesn't?  So she actually sounds like that?  I didn't know that.  Let's compare:

OK, so you are saying that they aren't exaggerating her speech impediment? 

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

12 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

She doesn't?  So she actually sounds like that?  I didn't know that.  Let's compare:

OK, so you are saying that they aren't exaggerating her speech impediment? 

That is not what is being argued. Stay on point. 

[kelownabomberfan]

7 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

That is not what is being argued. Stay on point. 

What is being argued?  What is the point?

[sweep the leg]

16 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

That is not what is being argued. Stay on point. 

It's the Trump surrogate argument; hear something bad about Trump, yell "SQUIRREL!!", and hope everybody shifts their focus to that instead of the original topic.

And holy crap, is her very slight speech impediment considered a disability?

Edited December 16, 2016 by sweep the leg

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

1 hour ago, kelownabomberfan said:

 I also don't think that it was right to make fun of Kellie Leitch's disability, and have no one complain (that I know of).

Man! Stop shoving your PC guilt down my throat man! Take your Social Justice Warrior routine down to the hippy commune!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jacquie]

From the Washington Post:

Quote

 

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. are in agreement with a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency, according to U.S. officials. 

Comey’s support for the CIA’s conclusion reflects the fact that the leaders of the three agencies have always been in agreement on Russian intentions, officals said, contrary to suggestions by some lawmakers that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.

...

CIA and FBI officials do not think Russia had a “single purpose” by intervening during the presidential campaign. In addition to helping Trump, intelligence officials have told lawmakers that Moscow’s other goal included undermining confidence in the U.S. electoral system.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-backs-cia-view-that-russia-intervened-to-help-trump-win-election/2016/12/16/05b42c0e-c3bf-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.9bd998a9bf54

 

[kelownabomberfan]