• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,943
Points
51
The media (Fox - Hannity I believe) is also saying this poor 17 yo kid is the only one trying to maintain order during these uncontrolled riots. WTF media, you can't have it both ways. Yes, the media is and always has been a problem with setting their own agenda and viewpoint, but I'm just saying we can't go analyzing each incident to death and then discount it as not part of the bigger problem. I'm not saying anyone is innocent or guilty, that's what the courts are for. I mean half the examples I can point and say you're walking away from the police when they're telling you to stop, but at what point do we figure out that lethal force is used all too often, especially on black people. When do we stop making excuses and vote for some change.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,943
Points
51
Being the sarcastic @ss that I am, we voted for change in 2016 and look what that got us. I know I'm calling for change, but sometimes change sucks. How about we just elect someone who will do the right thing or maybe just have a few morals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JNA

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
I feel like voting for change isn't the solution. We should vote for policy.

The Republicans have the same policy document they had in 2016, which was a HUGE mistake. An entire party stated that their priorities are the same as 4 years ago.

The Democrats really need to push that they have policy positions.

I miss the days where we just argued about policy positions, instead of insulting each other and calling them names.

Jim Gaffigan stating that he thought people should vote for the person you would be proud to tell you grandkids you voted for is apt. Maybe I liked having "insiders" in the White House who understood decorum and history. Who didn't break every rule because they could. And took the most important position in the world seriously. Not every decision has to be political. Not every motive has to be questioned. Not every battle has to be won.

Statesmen. We need John McCain and Joe Lieberman being friends beyond their political differences. We need conversations that deal in specific policy and solutions not personal attacks.

It is hard to remember what I felt in 2008 in terms of voting "change"". 2012 certainly didn't feel like 2020 though, that much I can say.
 

MD Planner

Cyburbian
Messages
2,491
Points
37
I feel like voting for change isn't the solution. We should vote for policy.

The Republicans have the same policy document they had in 2016, which was a HUGE mistake. An entire party stated that their priorities are the same as 4 years ago.
Maybe, maybe not. That platform got the president elected in 2016 and probably will again. The Democratic Party is as fractured as the Republican party and ha done a great job of pushing many moderates into a state of "who gives a shit anymore". So I guess we will see how huge a mistake it is.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
Maybe, maybe not. That platform got the president elected in 2016 and probably will again. The Democratic Party is as fractured as the Republican party and ha done a great job of pushing many moderates into a state of "who gives a shit anymore". So I guess we will see how huge a mistake it is.
I think that any party that thinks that staying the same is winning proposition is going to lose at some point. The republicans are seeing that already with young voters completely turned off by most of their policy positions.

Trump won because Clinton was terrible, not because people believed in Trump per se. I think moderates voted for Trump because he was selling some idea that maybe he wouldn't keep the status quo. He also got a lot of voters by saying really terrible things that those voters are happy he brought to light...immigration, etc.

I agree with you about the Democrats though, as they are fractured, but Biden at least put out a list of policy goals. He was clear on the future of the country and what he thinks should be done. That is what all other politicians and parties have done in the past. Why Trump / the complicit Republican Party think that things were so great in 2016 that nothing needs to change is beyond me.

I mean I am not aware of anyone who thinks the last 4 years were great. Maybe not the end of the world, but they certainly weren't transformational. Why wouldn't we want different / updated / more forward thinking policies 4 years later? We have 4 years worth of data and information.

Status quo is what people were trying to get away from in their Trump vote. Trump just promised the status quo. I think that is a HUGE mistake.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
Statesmen. We need John McCain and Joe Lieberman being friends beyond their political differences. We need conversations that deal in specific policy and solutions not personal attacks.
When Hink is right, I have to agree with him and this is one of those cases. Unfortunately, there are no real Statesmen (or Stateswomen) left in DC politics as the two political fractions have become so powerful, people are forced to run with a predetermined agenda or they become ostracized and have zero influence or power to really accomplish much of anything.

The sad part is people are screaming and begging for the right candidate to support but we are all to often being forced to vote against someone instead of for someone. Alternatively, I think there are way to many people who just feed the political machine and just vote straight party ticket because that is what they feel will best fit their political positions. If someone has read up and researched all the candidates and they just all happen to have an R or D by their name, then that is fine, but that is rarely case case.

If we found someone who is truly middle of the road that wanted to work with both sides, they would never get elected because the primaries would eliminate them.

Would you vote for someone who was really middle of the road but the letter behind their name wasn't what you associate with? I would.
 

arcplans

As Featured in "High Times"
Messages
6,656
Points
32
My spies have informed me the attendees of the Kenosha Safety Roundtable...
IMG_0234.JPG
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
25,777
Points
61
Somebody explain to this old boomer who those cartoon characters are ?
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,943
Points
51
Every villain ever. Now get off my lawn.

The problem with politics is that a person like Hink should be running things. You know, a normal person with real world views. I know I'm casting a lot of ideal characteristics on Hink, but you get the idea. The problem is when someone like Hink runs both parties squash it because he doesn't follow their ideology and actually thinks for himself. I know Hink and thinking in the same sentence, stop laughing at Hink. It's just hard to get true independent people into office. Down with the two party system and up with the proletariat, I mean Hink.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
Every villain ever. Now get off my lawn.

The problem with politics is that a person like Hink should be running things. You know, a normal person with real world views. I know I'm casting a lot of ideal characteristics on Hink, but you get the idea. The problem is when someone like Hink runs both parties squash it because he doesn't follow their ideology and actually thinks for himself. I know Hink and thinking in the same sentence, stop laughing at Hink. It's just hard to get true independent people into office. Down with the two party system and up with the proletariat, I mean Hink.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
My spies have informed me the attendees of the Kenosha Safety Roundtable...
View attachment 48966
Now come on, Dr. Heinz Doofensmirtz is really just misunderstood. He just wanted to create an inator that would help him get a little recognition. Isn't that what we all really want anyways? Sure, he pushes the EVIL tag but in the end, he is just trying to find his place in the Tri-State Area.

(In the Phineas and Ferb movie, there is an obscure reference to my home town in a song. I actually stopped the movie while the kids protested just so I could go back and see if I had heard that right)


On Topic,
There are a bunch of gyms that opened today because of a loophole in one of the Governor's orders. So today the Governor said that they could open on Friday with restrictions. BUT... almost everything else stays the same. Overall, I think he is trying to back-peddle on a few things because it is an election year and while there are a lot of good details in the orders, a few of them go too far. Others are in place but have exceptions because of lobbyists. For example, you can go to a microbrewery... but you can't go to a bar.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
13,132
Points
54
You can go to the microbrewery and sit at the tables however.

This county is all over the place, but it is mainly red. The mentality of the people in this county show it.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,943
Points
51
Same here.. but they have to serve food. And I have seen some creative things as to what "food" is.
Yep, the ones here are selling popcorn and general bar snacks as "restaurant food".

Does Cobra Commander get no respect?
 

Veloise

Cyburbian
Messages
5,803
Points
32
I think that any party that thinks that staying the same is winning proposition is going to lose at some point. The republicans are seeing that already with young voters completely turned off by most of their policy positions.

Trump won because Clinton was terrible, not because people believed in Trump per se. I think moderates voted for Trump because he was selling some idea that maybe he wouldn't keep the status quo. He also got a lot of voters by saying really terrible things that those voters are happy he brought to light...immigration, etc.
...
Actually ... you can look this up just as easily as I can. HRC was the most qualified person to ever run for the office.
Three critical states flipped at the last moment on election night. IIRC the numbers were something like 10,000 votes in each critical precinct.
Throw in Russian interference, the troll farms overseas promoting stupid false garbage (Comet pizza just to get started), and the open threats from T supporters.

If the 3M members of the Pantsuit Nation group had coalesced and come out two weeks earlier, we wouldn't be in this mess.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
Actually ... you can look this up just as easily as I can. HRC was the most "qualified" person to ever run for the office.
I understand the concept, but the reality was she was a flawed and really poor candidate for a lot of reasons. I believe she was thrust on the Democrats because it was her turn, not because she was the most likely to win.

Hillary had more baggage than any candidate prior, so her qualifications went both ways. She was also extremely unpopular on both the democratic and republican side which is also very hard to overcome. She was really bad at dealing with Bernie and the more "socialist" ;) side of the democratic party. She talked over people, particularly those in the midwest states... Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin...and told people what to feel or disregarded a lot of the concerns of those states as not rational.

Bernie was the better candidate if we are only going on qualifications. But the fact that it was Bernie v. Clinton tells you a lot about the stable the D's had.

My point was that the Democrats picked a flawed candidate, because it was her turn, assuming that they could beat Trump just because. I don't know any moderates who liked Hillary. Most of those people I know voted for Trump in the midwest. Which is exactly why she lost.

Interestingly enough, it could be why Joe could win. Because he seems to, at least on the face, understand and listen to midwesterners. That will be key to whether he wins or not. Not if he can jump the furthest to the left, like it seems Trump wants you to believe.
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,390
Points
37
My point was that the Democrats picked a flawed candidate, because it was her turn, assuming that they could beat Trump just because.
Clinton also ran the worst campaign of any major party Presidential candidate in my lifetime, which didn't help...
 

arcplans

As Featured in "High Times"
Messages
6,656
Points
32
I understand the concept, but the reality was she was a flawed and really poor candidate for a lot of reasons. I believe she was thrust on the Democrats because it was her turn, not because she was the most likely to win.
I have not voted for an "R" in a presidential election since 2000 and GWB. I had 0 enthusiasm for HRC. The primary was telling on swing states as folks voted for Trump now voted for a "D", probably because it was 1) clinton and 2) a woman.

With that said, I honestly believe the Donald has a very good chance of re-election with all that has gone on during the summer has rhetoric of fear that "those people" will invade the suburbs and rural america.
 

MD Planner

Cyburbian
Messages
2,491
Points
37
Oh, Trump's getting re-elected. Yes there's an awful lot of noise that would tell you otherwise but the reality is that's still a small number of people in the grand scheme of things. There are tons of people who find him utterly distasteful but they will hold their nose and vote for him. I don't think enough of the posters here understand how turned off a lot of "middle of the road" voters are with the far-left thought police and policies that are being put forth.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
Oh, Trump's getting re-elected. Yes there's an awful lot of noise that would tell you otherwise but the reality is that's still a small number of people in the grand scheme of things. There are tons of people who find him utterly distasteful but they will hold their nose and vote for him. I don't think enough of the posters here understand how turned off a lot of "middle of the road" voters are with the far-left thought police and policies that are being put forth.
I don't know that you are wrong, but as a middle-of-the-road voter, I certainly think 2016 is different from 2020.

I agree that the #cancelculture issues and the protesting turning into rioting are flashpoints. I also know a lot of people who are disgusted by the coronavirus and how it is attacking our world. And how the media favors the left. And lots of conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo.

I have talked to a lot of middle-of-the-road Ohioans and feel different than 2016, where there was much more Clinton is terrible talk. Trump may win, but his pathway is MUCH smaller than 2016 and he barely won then. I think his uphill climb could have been achievable if the pandemic wasn't happening. With COVID and his absolutely disgraceful response to it, he is in for a battle.

With all that said, I think there is a portion of people who will vote for Trump even though they wouldn't say it, because they would be attacked by friends and family. That small percentage will make this race much closer.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
I don't know that you are wrong, but as a middle-of-the-road voter, I certainly think 2016 is different from 2020.
You mean this 2016 election where a billionaire egomaniac reality show host ended the career of a political dynasty despite every indication that he had ZERO chance and many questioned if it was a publicity stunt...

**** disclaimer, I do not agree with the commentary at the end of the video.

What is real is unless people really get out and vote, take this election more serious then they have ever taken anything, and made a real deliberate effort to get all of their like minded friends, neighbors, and family out there to vote, there is a real chance that Trump will win again in 2020. Joe Biden is not all that much better than Hillary Clinton. While I think she was hated more, I really think that this will be scary close.
 
Last edited:

MD Planner

Cyburbian
Messages
2,491
Points
37
There may be a saving grace to COVID-19 after all if it means some families won't get together as much at Thanksgiving. Think about it. A few weeks after the election, everybody together. Many tables could turn into a powder keg.
 

luckless pedestrian

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
12,450
Points
54
what is laughable is when Trump calls Biden a radical - as in, really, have you met Joe Biden - even Joe joked about that about himself

what I like about Joe is he does have some humility, I do think other countries' leaders like him (and some may say, who cares, but we have to care - if COVID teaches us anything, this is a small planet) and honestly, he's likely not going to anything radical at all - he's likely going to spend 4 years trying to get people to get along and not have civil unrest, and hopefully bleach out the white house of the swamp the Trump brought in there

If I was queen and could tell him what to do, I would

  • Put back the EPA clean water/air regs - even industry CEO's were like really, we actually don't mind these regs
  • Shut down all the BS opening up federal lands/waters stuff to drilling and stuff
  • Beef up the Land & Water Fund - if we learned anything from COVID we also learned that access to parks is healthy
  • Get the post office running again
  • Help unemployment numbers by bringing back the WPA to fix the roads, bridges, install fiber cable or whatever, national parks too
  • Appoint pertinent professionals for positions like EPA, HUD, Interior, HHS, Homeland Security, FEMA, CDC and not the candidates for President that didn't get the nomination - if they are truly qualified, fine, but finding them something to do just for the sake of sorry I won is ridiculous
  • Though I would appoint Elizabeth Warren to something bank-related as that is her schtick
  • Re-populate the Ethics office, again, with professionals in the field
  • Create a Cabinet position focused on Civil Rights - like someone who looks at the federal policies in all departments to ensure they are inclusive and not so flippin white - someone to go in and investigate police brutality claims as well, maybe in the FBI
  • Hyper-fund the old community policing program - right before 9/11 happened, it was actually working and things were getting better and then we got justifiably-at-the-time paranoid after 9/11, and militarized our police force at state/local levels with the Homeland Security grant. In the beginning, those grants were a lot of fun, shopping for all kinds of crap (I helped pick out a killer boat) but now the local police look like ICE and that's just not right. So now we need to step back and get the police officers out of their cars/tanks and back into the neighborhoods they are serving, on foot, in and out of uniform - instead of defund the police, I would rather fund them more to train them on de-escalating situations (every video I see of police brutality shows an officer(s) in complete panic - this is unacceptable, they need to be the adult in the room)
  • Give the Justice Department an enema and clear it out and start over - that place is nasty
  • I don't know what to do about healthcare but for now, put back or increase funding for ACA - my eldest is now off our plan as she is 27 and she went on ACA and the income brackets and the plan costs are staggering

I am sure I have others but this is an initial list
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
13,132
Points
54
" August 1963 was nearly the same as August 2020 for black people.
The only difference is that in 1963 the US had a president who was trying to unite the country. "

History lesson from my older brother.

Yes there have been many advances and certainly some things have opened up to all races that were not even thought about in 1963. Jim Crow laws have been taken down. However there are so many things that were fought for in the 60's that are still a threat.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,943
Points
51
I just keep wondering why people voted for this guy. Everyone just held their nose and voted because they just can't vote dem. Them dems will take everything you have and give it to the scary people. If everyone would stop and think about it, when has that happened? R in office, taxes go up. D in office, taxes go up. Nothing really changes. I'm not saying Hillary was perfect, but at least she wasn't going to say the quiet part out loud. Constantly. I guess I keep wishing people would look at the man/woman. Look at their morals and ethics. Then if they pass that, look at their policies. I might disagree with the policy, but if you're an upright kind of person I can at least listen to what you have to say.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
13,132
Points
54
tRUMP just came to my state and told voters to vote twice to test the system. The ironic part of this is that people were indicted in voter fraud in the 2018 elections for a Republican candidate. This was from campaign workers telling people to sign their ballot and they would return them as a favor.




 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
I would just like to have a President who doesn't call people out by name for political things he doesn't like.
Governors Andrew Cuomo of New York has the worst record on death and China Virus. 11,000 people alone died in Nursing Homes because of his incompetence!

To me, if you were being Presidential, the Tweet would look like this:
NOTHING TO SEE HERE BECAUSE YOU SHOULDN'T BE TWEETING ABOUT THIS STUFF
 

Linda_D

Cyburbian
Messages
1,746
Points
20
FWIW, he didn't cross the state lines with the gun, it was borrowed from someone he knew in Wisconsin. Technically, it never crossed any state borders. In Wisconsin, it is illegal for him to carry that type of gun under the age of 18. I think the self defense argument is fairly weak.

Your post just further hammers down the point that mainstream media (print, tv, social) is the bane of society. We are innocent until proven guilty, with the exception being unless the media has determined that you're guilty.
That has ALWAYS been the case, however, going back to the beginning of the republic. Newspaper reporters/publishers were always ready and willing to convict anybody questioned or arrested for any crime, and the more sensational and lurid, the better.

It has ALWAYS been the case that "the media" has been politically biased, too, even when "the media" consisted of weekly newspapers except for dailies in the biggest cities. It's the problem with having a "free press" -- "the media" is free to interpret news through the lens of its particular political perspective. Thomas Jefferson was continually attacked for keeping a black mistress and Abraham Lincoln was repeatedly portrayed as an ape. In 1898 newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst, was instrumental in pushing the US toward war with Spain with his "yellow journalism". OTOH, lynchings of Blacks were rarely reported except in Black newspapers.

I think that too many people misinterpret the supposedly "fair news" reporting during the Cold War Era as being "apolitical" but in fact it was every bit as political except in a different way. National news outlets in the 1950s-1980s simply didn't print/broadcast news that was critical of the US government officials or actions, most notably with US foreign military actions such as in SE Asia, because they were afraid of being called "communist sympathizers".

For most of the 20th century, the POTUS was held above media scrutiny except on the very narrow grounds of his public policies. Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke after he returned from Versailles, and his wife and trusted members of the his administration essentially ran the country for the rest of his term. The press was complicit in keeping FDR's paralysis largely unseen by the American public, but more seriously, keeping the knowledge of his deteriorating health out of the news in the 1944 election. At the height of the Cold War, newspapers and radio/tv never printed/broadcast anything about JFK's womanizing, including bringing prostitutes who could have possibly been Soviet agents in the White House.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
That has ALWAYS been the case, however, going back to the beginning of the republic. Newspaper reporters/publishers were always ready and willing to convict anybody questioned or arrested for any crime, and the more sensational and lurid, the better.

It has ALWAYS been the case that "the media" has been politically biased, too, even when "the media" consisted of weekly newspapers except for dailies in the biggest cities. It's the problem with having a "free press" -- "the media" is free to interpret news through the lens of its particular political perspective. Thomas Jefferson was continually attacked for keeping a black mistress and Abraham Lincoln was repeatedly portrayed as an ape. In 1898 newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst, was instrumental in pushing the US toward war with Spain with his "yellow journalism". OTOH, lynchings of Blacks were rarely reported except in Black newspapers.

I think that too many people misinterpret the supposedly "fair news" reporting during the Cold War Era as being "apolitical" but in fact it was every bit as political except in a different way. National news outlets in the 1950s-1980s simply didn't print/broadcast news that was critical of the US government officials or actions, most notably with US foreign military actions such as in SE Asia, because they were afraid of being called "communist sympathizers".

For most of the 20th century, the POTUS was held above media scrutiny except on the very narrow grounds of his public policies. Woodrow Wilson was incapacitated by a stroke after he returned from Versailles, and his wife and trusted members of the his administration essentially ran the country for the rest of his term. The press was complicit in keeping FDR's paralysis largely unseen by the American public, but more seriously, keeping the knowledge of his deteriorating health out of the news in the 1944 election. At the height of the Cold War, newspapers and radio/tv never printed/broadcast anything about JFK's womanizing, including bringing prostitutes who could have possibly been Soviet agents in the White House.
You are 100% correct, but with today's technology the volume and speed of information far exceeds what was possible at any other time in history. Some, such as Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, use this with their Federalist Papers, Ben Franklin did this with multiple publications, but all of those took time to write and publish. Today, anyone can make any comment and thanks to the internet it is almost instant distribution.

I also think there was societal differences and people were held a bit more accountable for their actions by individuals or society as a whole. Today major news networks only provide the information that they need to in an effort to maximize the shock factor and spark anger because they know that is what jacks up their ratings.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
13,132
Points
54
^^^and that's why you should read from multiple sources from different view points.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
The media, They want dirty laundry!
I think it is worse than that. I was hoping that the Nick Sandmann lawsuits would result in some change, but they didn't. Sure, the kid was a jerk, but because of the media, he and his family received death threats.
 

Veloise

Cyburbian
Messages
5,803
Points
32
I understand the concept, but the reality was she was a flawed and really poor candidate for a lot of reasons. I believe she was thrust on the Democrats because it was her turn, not because she was the most likely to win.

Hillary had more baggage than any candidate prior, so her qualifications went both ways. She was also extremely unpopular on both the democratic and republican side which is also very hard to overcome. She was really bad at dealing with Bernie and the more "socialist" ;) side of the democratic party. She talked over people, particularly those in the midwest states... Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin...and told people what to feel or disregarded a lot of the concerns of those states as not rational.

Bernie was the better candidate if we are only going on qualifications. But the fact that it was Bernie v. Clinton tells you a lot about the stable the D's had.

My point was that the Democrats picked a flawed candidate, because it was her turn, assuming that they could beat Trump just because. I don't know any moderates who liked Hillary. Most of those people I know voted for Trump in the midwest. Which is exactly why she lost.

Interestingly enough, it could be why Joe could win. Because he seems to, at least on the face, understand and listen to midwesterners. That will be key to whether he wins or not. Not if he can jump the furthest to the left, like it seems Trump wants you to believe.
Loads of links; there are many more. The Hillary haters started early. Keep in mind how this works.
Keep in mind that in the 1990s we had Clarence Thomas situations being normal in the workplace. (One of the reasons I left a dream job in 1986 was a co-worker pulling similar shit on me, and I knew it would not be addressed by "HR" which was one old dude in charge of our ten-person staff.)

BBC
The Atlantic

THE HUNTING OF HILLARY The Forty-Year Campaign to Destroy Hillary Clinton
The Hunting of Hillary traces how an entire industry of hate, lies, and fear was created to persecute Hillary Clinton for decades and profit from it.

In The Hunting of Hillary, Pulitzer prize winning political reporter Michael D’Antonio details the years of lies and insults heaped upon Hillary Clinton as she pursued a life devoted to politics and policy. The worst took the form of sexism and misogyny, much of it barely disguised.

A pioneer for women, Clinton was burdened in ways no man ever was. Defined by a right-wing conspiracy, she couldn’t declare what was happening lest she be cast as weak and whiny. Nevertheless, she persisted and wouldn't let them define her. As The Hunting of Hillary makes clear, her achievements have been all the more remarkable for the unique opposition she encountered. The 2016 presidential election can only be understood in the context of the primal and primitive response of those who just couldn’t imagine that a woman might lead.

For those who seek to understand the experience of the most accomplished woman in American politics, The Hunting of Hillary offers insight. For those who recognized what happened to her, it offers affirmation. And for those who hope to carry Clinton’s work into the future, it offers inspiration and instruction.
 
Last edited:

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
25,777
Points
61
Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’


Trump knows how to piss off Marines -
Trump referred to the more than 1,800 marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.
Belleau Wood is a consequential battle in American history, and the ground on which it was fought is venerated by the Marine Corps.
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,390
Points
37
Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’


Trump knows how to piss off Marines -
Aside from the quote from Mattis, there isn't a single named source anywhere in that article. That's not a defense of the individual that is the main subject of this article, that's more a commentary of the state of "journalism" these days.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
What will it take for Joe Biden to win. Serious question. What does he need to do to convince the American people that he should be in the White House.

We all know that Trump is his own worst enemy and Joe Biden's history paints him as "Creepy Uncle Joe". I have serious troubles supporting someone like that. So I ask you, why should an independent, pro-life supporting, fiscal conservative, socially moderate person who believe that the person in the WH should show respect to EVERYONE and bring people together, support Joe Biden instead of just voting for a 3rd party candidate again?
Why should someone who is sick and tired of the political establishment vote for Joe Biden?
Why should someone who supports one's rights to protect themselves with a firearm vote for Joe Biden?

As I noted there is ZERO chance that I am going to support Trump this fall. But as we saw in 2016, it does not matter what the poles say, people a fed up and they are sick and tired of the past tends of DC. That has not changed. I have a family member who hates Trump... but the one thing they hate more than Trump is DC politics and they think that another 4 years of Trump will cause so much damage that it will require a federal restart button in which we might finally have an opportunity for a better future, so she will be voting for Trump. I am not in that ball park but I think that there are more out there than we are willing to admit.

On the day after the election, I need to feel good about the person I voted for and I have yet to see that side of Biden.
 

Veloise

Cyburbian
Messages
5,803
Points
32
Aside from the quote from Mattis, there isn't a single named source anywhere in that article. That's not a defense of the individual that is the main subject of this article, that's more a commentary of the state of "journalism" these days.
There are four sources, all unnamed due to career and life reasons.

How long did Mark Felt stay cloaked? (31 years per Wikipedia)
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,390
Points
37
There are four sources, all unnamed due to poor "journalism".
Fixed that for you. :cool:

FWIW, the AP followed up the lazily written Atlantic article with a piece, that while it also doesn't name sources, is much better written as far as explaining the sources. And, there is no comparison here to Watergate.

 
Last edited:

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,483
Points
41
Does anyone doubt - even for just a second - that Trump said these awful things? I guess what troubles me more is that these sources didn't immediately come forward openly and honestly to tell Americans what a piece of excrement occupies the most powerful office in the country.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
Does anyone doubt - even for just a second - that Trump said these awful things? I guess what troubles me more is that these sources didn't immediately come forward openly and honestly to tell Americans what a piece of excrement occupies the most powerful office in the country.
This is a pattern, which clearly is more likely that he actually said it than not.

I think if Trump loses we will see even more of this stuff come out. So many people are scared of him, that they won't go public... until he has no power. Than sources won't be anonymous. Although these things are pretty consistent with the 10,000 books that are not anonymous and have been written about him... why would this surprise anyone?
 

WSU MUP Student

Cyburbian
Messages
10,575
Points
46
Fixed that for you. :cool:

FWIW, the AP followed up the lazily written Atlantic article with a piece, that while it also doesn't name sources, is much better written as far as explaining the sources. And, there is no comparison here to Watergate.

The AP, NYT, Washington Post, and some other outlet have corroborated the incident as reported by the Atlantic using the same and their sources. Trump and his administration have shown a past pattern of lying and he has made other public comments disparaging servicemembers.

Trump has demonstrated over and over again that he doesn't understand or appreciate the sacrifices servicemembers make.

This veteran has seen no reason to disbelieve the story as originally reported in The Atlantic.

Trump is an absolute turd person and this is just another piece of evidence.
 
Top