Debate Now The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath

[Foxfyre]

I checked Cruz, Trump, and Kasich on the poll choices as any of the three I think would be vastly superior to Clinton or Sanders. So would Rubio but I don't see Rubio as a viable candidate any more. When he allowed Trump to dictate how he would run his campaign, with very poor results I might add, I had to agree with those who say the kid has potential, but he's not ready.

Interesting....on the dimension I most value, integrity, I place Mr. Sanders ahead of the rest by a large margin. For example, in the news interviews of the candidates and/or the candidates' key campaign personnel I watches yesterday (all on the same network), only Mr. Sanders provided direct replies to the questions they were all asked. Without exception, the rest of them responded to the question by

1. attacking another candidate (or their supporters) or at least identifying something they perceived as being wrong with someone else's campaign or supporters, (2)
2. identifying something they aim to do that had nothing to do with the question they were asked,
3. comparing/contrasting their ideas and actions (or those of their supporters) with those of another candidate, but still not answering the question asked, or
4. offering what I call the "lemming defense:" others have done X, so I can too.

That last option strikes me as the most pathetic. Who among us has not said to our kids, "If the rest of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do that too? What others do has nothing to do with what you do or should do."?

Mr. Sanders, on the other hand, answered the question directly and then explained the reasons for his answer. There is no better way to respond to inquiries. I truly don't understand why anyone willingly abides permitting candidates to provide a less clear and candid response and, given such blurry replies, acquiesces to voting for them with the aim of and knowledge that doing so entrusts a prevaricator to be one's President.

Not having seen the same interviews, I can't comment. Sometimes such things are in the eyes of the beholder, most especially related to the candidate we most favor. I do know that I like and respect Bernie Sanders as much as anybody running on either side of the aisle, but I would prefer Clinton to Sanders as president if a Republican does not win. When I take one of those detailed 'who is your candidate?' tests, I am in agreement with Sanders about 3% of the time. Hillary gets up to 9 or 10% with me. Sanders is so pro bigger and bigger government and more government control of everything, and so anti-capitalism and individual liberties that I can find little common ground with him.

I am not interested at all in how well they answer questions, most especially leading or 'gotcha' questions. I am interested in their track record and core beliefs on things the President will be responsible for. Integrity is important, but misdirected integrity isn't a commendable attribute in a President.

I wonder why you didn't vote for Sanders as a choice for President in the poll up there?

 

[OldLady]

I'm waiting to see who runs in the general election before making a choice.

From the beginning, I've been really dismayed, disappointed and concerned about the state of political discourse in this election. Like much of the discourse on this board, it is unnecessarily rude and inflammatory and actually says very little. Millions of people are saying that; nothing new there. What concerns me is, this is apparently what we have become and what we find acceptable.

Standing back and looking at all of this from a bit of distance, what seems to be manifesting is a "trickle down" of Twitter and reality television where the rules for our society in general have changed. On social media it is easy to throw insults at each other from the safety of our keyboard or phone. It is easy to find folks of like mind and websites that lean toward our beliefs, allowing us to live in a self-promoting echo chamber of ideas we agree with. No reality need disrupt the pleasantness of our created world views.

In my day, that was called 'brain washed.' Now people are freely chosing it, and delighting in building hoardes of imaginary enemies to 'war' with, who don't agree with their views. In this old lady's mind, it is foolishness in the extreme, but I'm just called a liberal (um, lots worse than that but we're being polite here) if ever I try to holler through that artificial membrane of jargon to the thinking human being that is hopefully in there somewhere. The hateful traits piled on anyone who espouses a view from the opposition's camp are totally ridiculous, and it goes both ways.

The heated arguments between protesters and supporters at Trump rallies are just a reflection of what happens here on social media, but in the flesh. Protesters are 'trolling' and trying to shut down Trump supporters' freedom to express themselves. That is wrong, but his supporters are letting themselves get sucked in by reacting and retaliating, and for some reason Trump is gleefully encouraging it. That's wrong, too, at least in my (outdated) rulebook.

I hope no one gets hurt, but more than the outcome of the election, I am worried about the state of our discourse and our ability to stand as one people. Our future depends on our ability to stand by majority decisions and work within the peaceful framework of our laws. And live with each other.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm waiting to see who runs in the general election before making a choice.

From the beginning, I've been really dismayed, disappointed and concerned about the state of political discourse in this election. Like much of the discourse on this board, it is unnecessarily rude and inflammatory and actually says very little. Millions of people are saying that; nothing new there. What concerns me is, this is apparently what we have become and what we find acceptable.

Standing back and looking at all of this from a bit of distance, what seems to be manifesting is a "trickle down" of Twitter and reality television where the rules for our society in general have changed. On social media it is easy to throw insults at each other from the safety of our keyboard or phone. It is easy to find folks of like mind and websites that lean toward our beliefs, allowing us to live in a self-promoting echo chamber of ideas we agree with. No reality need disrupt the pleasantness of our created world views.

In my day, that was called 'brain washed.' Now people are freely chosing it, and delighting in building hoardes of imaginary enemies to 'war' with, who don't agree with their views. In this old lady's mind, it is foolishness in the extreme, but I'm just called a liberal (um, lots worse than that but we're being polite here) if ever I try to holler through that artificial membrane of jargon to the thinking human being that is hopefully in there somewhere. The hateful traits piled on anyone who espouses a view from the opposition's camp are totally ridiculous, and it goes both ways.

The heated arguments between protesters and supporters at Trump rallies are just a reflection of what happens here on social media, but in the flesh. Protesters are 'trolling' and trying to shut down Trump supporters' freedom to express themselves. That is wrong, but his supporters are letting themselves get sucked in by reacting and retaliating, and for some reason Trump is gleefully encouraging it. That's wrong, too, at least in my (outdated) rulebook.

I hope no one gets hurt, but more than the outcome of the election, I am worried about the state of our discourse and our ability to stand as one people. Our future depends on our ability to stand by majority decisions and work within the peaceful framework of our laws. And live with each other.

Yes, there are going to be arguments between those who show up at a rally determined to disrupt it and prevent the speaker from being heard. So who is to blame for that? The speaker? Those who go to hear the speaker? Or those determined to prevent the speaker and his audience from exercising their constitutionally protected right to speak and to hear somebody speak?

 

[OldLady]

I'm waiting to see who runs in the general election before making a choice.

From the beginning, I've been really dismayed, disappointed and concerned about the state of political discourse in this election. Like much of the discourse on this board, it is unnecessarily rude and inflammatory and actually says very little. Millions of people are saying that; nothing new there. What concerns me is, this is apparently what we have become and what we find acceptable.

Standing back and looking at all of this from a bit of distance, what seems to be manifesting is a "trickle down" of Twitter and reality television where the rules for our society in general have changed. On social media it is easy to throw insults at each other from the safety of our keyboard or phone. It is easy to find folks of like mind and websites that lean toward our beliefs, allowing us to live in a self-promoting echo chamber of ideas we agree with. No reality need disrupt the pleasantness of our created world views.

In my day, that was called 'brain washed.' Now people are freely chosing it, and delighting in building hoardes of imaginary enemies to 'war' with, who don't agree with their views. In this old lady's mind, it is foolishness in the extreme, but I'm just called a liberal (um, lots worse than that but we're being polite here) if ever I try to holler through that artificial membrane of jargon to the thinking human being that is hopefully in there somewhere. The hateful traits piled on anyone who espouses a view from the opposition's camp are totally ridiculous, and it goes both ways.

The heated arguments between protesters and supporters at Trump rallies are just a reflection of what happens here on social media, but in the flesh. Protesters are 'trolling' and trying to shut down Trump supporters' freedom to express themselves. That is wrong, but his supporters are letting themselves get sucked in by reacting and retaliating, and for some reason Trump is gleefully encouraging it. That's wrong, too, at least in my (outdated) rulebook.

I hope no one gets hurt, but more than the outcome of the election, I am worried about the state of our discourse and our ability to stand as one people. Our future depends on our ability to stand by majority decisions and work within the peaceful framework of our laws. And live with each other.

Yes, there are going to be arguments between those who show up at a rally determined to disrupt it and prevent the speaker from being heard. So who is to blame for that? The speaker? Those who go to hear the speaker? Or those determined to prevent the speaker and his audience from exercising their constitutionally protected right to speak and to hear somebody speak?

They all own some responsibility, IMO. But that's a different thread, isn't it? The recent problem with protesters at Trump rallies is just an example.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm waiting to see who runs in the general election before making a choice.

From the beginning, I've been really dismayed, disappointed and concerned about the state of political discourse in this election. Like much of the discourse on this board, it is unnecessarily rude and inflammatory and actually says very little. Millions of people are saying that; nothing new there. What concerns me is, this is apparently what we have become and what we find acceptable.

Standing back and looking at all of this from a bit of distance, what seems to be manifesting is a "trickle down" of Twitter and reality television where the rules for our society in general have changed. On social media it is easy to throw insults at each other from the safety of our keyboard or phone. It is easy to find folks of like mind and websites that lean toward our beliefs, allowing us to live in a self-promoting echo chamber of ideas we agree with. No reality need disrupt the pleasantness of our created world views.

In my day, that was called 'brain washed.' Now people are freely chosing it, and delighting in building hoardes of imaginary enemies to 'war' with, who don't agree with their views. In this old lady's mind, it is foolishness in the extreme, but I'm just called a liberal (um, lots worse than that but we're being polite here) if ever I try to holler through that artificial membrane of jargon to the thinking human being that is hopefully in there somewhere. The hateful traits piled on anyone who espouses a view from the opposition's camp are totally ridiculous, and it goes both ways.

The heated arguments between protesters and supporters at Trump rallies are just a reflection of what happens here on social media, but in the flesh. Protesters are 'trolling' and trying to shut down Trump supporters' freedom to express themselves. That is wrong, but his supporters are letting themselves get sucked in by reacting and retaliating, and for some reason Trump is gleefully encouraging it. That's wrong, too, at least in my (outdated) rulebook.

I hope no one gets hurt, but more than the outcome of the election, I am worried about the state of our discourse and our ability to stand as one people. Our future depends on our ability to stand by majority decisions and work within the peaceful framework of our laws. And live with each other.

Yes, there are going to be arguments between those who show up at a rally determined to disrupt it and prevent the speaker from being heard. So who is to blame for that? The speaker? Those who go to hear the speaker? Or those determined to prevent the speaker and his audience from exercising their constitutionally protected right to speak and to hear somebody speak?

They all own some responsibility, IMO. But that's a different thread, isn't it? The recent problem with protesters at Trump rallies is just an example.

Could you explain more about what you mean by all owning some responsibility? And this thread is of a very general scope of the entire election cycle and process. So your comment is absolutely on topic.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm waiting to see who runs in the general election before making a choice.

From the beginning, I've been really dismayed, disappointed and concerned about the state of political discourse in this election. Like much of the discourse on this board, it is unnecessarily rude and inflammatory and actually says very little. Millions of people are saying that; nothing new there. What concerns me is, this is apparently what we have become and what we find acceptable.

Standing back and looking at all of this from a bit of distance, what seems to be manifesting is a "trickle down" of Twitter and reality television where the rules for our society in general have changed. On social media it is easy to throw insults at each other from the safety of our keyboard or phone. It is easy to find folks of like mind and websites that lean toward our beliefs, allowing us to live in a self-promoting echo chamber of ideas we agree with. No reality need disrupt the pleasantness of our created world views.

In my day, that was called 'brain washed.' Now people are freely chosing it, and delighting in building hoardes of imaginary enemies to 'war' with, who don't agree with their views. In this old lady's mind, it is foolishness in the extreme, but I'm just called a liberal (um, lots worse than that but we're being polite here) if ever I try to holler through that artificial membrane of jargon to the thinking human being that is hopefully in there somewhere. The hateful traits piled on anyone who espouses a view from the opposition's camp are totally ridiculous, and it goes both ways.

The heated arguments between protesters and supporters at Trump rallies are just a reflection of what happens here on social media, but in the flesh. Protesters are 'trolling' and trying to shut down Trump supporters' freedom to express themselves. That is wrong, but his supporters are letting themselves get sucked in by reacting and retaliating, and for some reason Trump is gleefully encouraging it. That's wrong, too, at least in my (outdated) rulebook.

I hope no one gets hurt, but more than the outcome of the election, I am worried about the state of our discourse and our ability to stand as one people. Our future depends on our ability to stand by majority decisions and work within the peaceful framework of our laws. And live with each other.

I missed this post earlier. Very well expressed.

How uncivil have Trump supporters been at those rallies? I can honestly say that if somebody was around me trying to disrupt the rally and making it impossible for me to hear the speaker, I would definitely tell that person off. If that person shoved me, I would shove back. So who is to blame? The person trying to deny another their constitutional right? Or the one defending it?

We don't see hordes of conservatives trying to infiltrate and disrupt Sanders and Clinton rallies even though their rhetoric is at times just as inflammatory as Trumps. The difference is that they are politically correct and he often is not. (That's one of the things I have most appreciated about him as I am militantly anti-political correctness.) And yet you will find me normally quite gentle, non combative, and considerate of others. But I don't fault those who don't meekly accept a bunch of bullies and thugs intentionally trying to deny thousands of people the right to hear somebody they peacefully and lawfully came to hear.

I am angry with the left who does this and then blames Trump for the bad behavior of the disruptors. I am deeply frustrated and disgusted with the conservative side who uses it to also accuse Trump.

I wonder if there is such a thing as an election conducted honestly and without such blatant hypocrisy?

 

[320 Years of History]

I checked Cruz, Trump, and Kasich on the poll choices as any of the three I think would be vastly superior to Clinton or Sanders. So would Rubio but I don't see Rubio as a viable candidate any more. When he allowed Trump to dictate how he would run his campaign, with very poor results I might add, I had to agree with those who say the kid has potential, but he's not ready.

Interesting....on the dimension I most value, integrity, I place Mr. Sanders ahead of the rest by a large margin. For example, in the news interviews of the candidates and/or the candidates' key campaign personnel I watches yesterday (all on the same network), only Mr. Sanders provided direct replies to the questions they were all asked. Without exception, the rest of them responded to the question by

1. attacking another candidate (or their supporters) or at least identifying something they perceived as being wrong with someone else's campaign or supporters, (2)
2. identifying something they aim to do that had nothing to do with the question they were asked,
3. comparing/contrasting their ideas and actions (or those of their supporters) with those of another candidate, but still not answering the question asked, or
4. offering what I call the "lemming defense:" others have done X, so I can too.

That last option strikes me as the most pathetic. Who among us has not said to our kids, "If the rest of your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do that too? What others do has nothing to do with what you do or should do."?

Mr. Sanders, on the other hand, answered the question directly and then explained the reasons for his answer. There is no better way to respond to inquiries. I truly don't understand why anyone willingly abides permitting candidates to provide a less clear and candid response and, given such blurry replies, acquiesces to voting for them with the aim of and knowledge that doing so entrusts a prevaricator to be one's President.

Not having seen the same interviews, I can't comment. Sometimes such things are in the eyes of the beholder, most especially related to the candidate we most favor. I do know that I like and respect Bernie Sanders as much as anybody running on either side of the aisle, but I would prefer Clinton to Sanders as president if a Republican does not win. When I take one of those detailed 'who is your candidate?' tests, I am in agreement with Sanders about 3% of the time. Hillary gets up to 9 or 10% with me. Sanders is so pro bigger and bigger government and more government control of everything, and so anti-capitalism and individual liberties that I can find little common ground with him.

I am not interested at all in how well they answer questions, most especially leading or 'gotcha' questions. I am interested in their track record and core beliefs on things the President will be responsible for. Integrity is important, but misdirected integrity isn't a commendable attribute in a President.

I wonder why you didn't vote for Sanders as a choice for President in the poll up there?

Blue:
I took the "test" at isidewith.com and it shows me as favoring Mr. Sanders equally with Mrs. Clinton, and Mr. Trump after them. I favor Sanders over Mrs. Clinton -- but I'm not committed to doing so -- and would prefer that Mr. Trump clean up his act to the point that I believe he has as much integrity as I see Mr. Sanders having, in which case I'd vote for him over Mr. Sanders or Mrs. Clinton.

That said, as far as I'm concerned, Mr. Trump has real integrity, trust and tone shortcomings that I cannot, as they stand, in good conscience vote for him. I wanted to vote for him the instant he announced his candidacy, for as a senior management consulting executive, I think I know how he'd approach problem solving and change and I like the premise of "straight talk," and that he need not be beholden to big monied interests and lobbies. But the abundance of inconsistencies, non-answers, vile attacks, etc. he's spewed over the past months are wholly inconsistent with how I see those values displayed.

For example, on the matter of immigration, I would expect something like this:

The U.S. has a moral obligation to open its arms to refugees from war torn regions; however, it must also strive to keep terrorist sympathizers and members from doing so. That obligation is the same regardless of the place from which would be immigrants hail or the terrorist interest they may support. The way to do achieve both ends is to increase the nature and extent of scrutiny applied to all applicants for admission into the U.S., be it for residency, business or vacation purposes that they want to come here. Once the specter of terrorism has been sufficiently conquered, even if not eradicated, we can consider relaxing the levels of scrutiny. For now, however, we should increase them.
​

But what did Mr. Trump say? He said "ban all Muslims;" moreover, he's allowed that "slogan" to become one of the "Trump mantras." He's allowed it to persist as the way his view on the matter is portrayed. (As far as I know, he has not unequivocally said something akin to, "I am not advocating a ban on all Muslims' entering the U.S.") Well, unlike the articulation of the approach I suggested, "ban all Muslims" simply isn't consistent with how I interpret or apply American values. Most, maybe all, incidents of domestic terrorism were perpetrated by Protestants. We aren't trying to ban all Protestants are we? We aren't seeking domestic limits on Protestants' travel about the country, or proximity to, say, abortion clinics, or limits on Protestants' access to guns are we? Of course not, and I wouldn't support doing so. The thing is that my principles that disallow me from supporting such ideas also disallow me from doing it to anyone else because of their faith.

I know as much about Islam as I do about a small handful of Protestant faiths, and what I know is that there is nothing intrinsically harmful about Islam just as there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being, say, Episcopalian. Neither system encourages or commands one to terrorism. (FWIW, I was raised as a Roman Catholic, but as far as I'm concerned today, I'm not a Roman Catholic. Rome may think I am, but Rome best not hold its breath waiting for me to act like I am. LOL )

Red:
The remarks above explain in part why I chose "undecided" in your poll. There is another reason.

I didn't choose him in your poll because I really don't like his foreign trade stance one bit. If there were any single policy-related area that matters most to me, it's the extent to which a candidate is willing to allow the laws of supply and demand "do their thing," as it were. I very strongly disapprove of governments or corporations acting to directly control scarcity and choice, that is, what, where, and when producers opt to create and what, how much, where, or when consumers opt to or can demand it. I think that for the overwhelming majority of consumer and industrial goods, the profit motive is more than adequate for doing that. The idea that I would use national resources -- time, money, thought, etc. -- to do what is done very well by the profit motive is anathema to me. I'm not as laissez faire re: the supply and demand of labor, but I am very much so re: land, goods, services and capital.

Mr. Sanders rebukes and aims to defy almost everything that economists have shown to be the way supply and demand interact to drive the rational behavior of informed suppliers and demanders. I don't know if he does so from ignorance or for ethical reasons, and he has not made it clear which it is. I'm simply unwilling to commit to a candidate of whom I have that opinion until it I must. As a registered independent, I cannot vote in D.C.'s primaries, so I don't have to decide until November.

 

[OldLady]

I'm waiting to see who runs in the general election before making a choice.

From the beginning, I've been really dismayed, disappointed and concerned about the state of political discourse in this election. Like much of the discourse on this board, it is unnecessarily rude and inflammatory and actually says very little. Millions of people are saying that; nothing new there. What concerns me is, this is apparently what we have become and what we find acceptable.

Standing back and looking at all of this from a bit of distance, what seems to be manifesting is a "trickle down" of Twitter and reality television where the rules for our society in general have changed. On social media it is easy to throw insults at each other from the safety of our keyboard or phone. It is easy to find folks of like mind and websites that lean toward our beliefs, allowing us to live in a self-promoting echo chamber of ideas we agree with. No reality need disrupt the pleasantness of our created world views.

In my day, that was called 'brain washed.' Now people are freely chosing it, and delighting in building hoardes of imaginary enemies to 'war' with, who don't agree with their views. In this old lady's mind, it is foolishness in the extreme, but I'm just called a liberal (um, lots worse than that but we're being polite here) if ever I try to holler through that artificial membrane of jargon to the thinking human being that is hopefully in there somewhere. The hateful traits piled on anyone who espouses a view from the opposition's camp are totally ridiculous, and it goes both ways.

The heated arguments between protesters and supporters at Trump rallies are just a reflection of what happens here on social media, but in the flesh. Protesters are 'trolling' and trying to shut down Trump supporters' freedom to express themselves. That is wrong, but his supporters are letting themselves get sucked in by reacting and retaliating, and for some reason Trump is gleefully encouraging it. That's wrong, too, at least in my (outdated) rulebook.

I hope no one gets hurt, but more than the outcome of the election, I am worried about the state of our discourse and our ability to stand as one people. Our future depends on our ability to stand by majority decisions and work within the peaceful framework of our laws. And live with each other.

I missed this post earlier. Very well expressed.

How uncivil have Trump supporters been at those rallies? I can honestly say that if somebody was around me trying to disrupt the rally and making it impossible for me to hear the speaker, I would definitely tell that person off. If that person shoved me, I would shove back. So who is to blame? The person trying to deny another their constitutional right? Or the one defending it?

We don't see hordes of conservatives trying to infiltrate and disrupt Sanders and Clinton rallies even though their rhetoric is at times just as inflammatory as Trumps. The difference is that they are politically correct and he often is not. (That's one of the things I have most appreciated about him as I am militantly anti-political correctness.) And yet you will find me normally quite gentle, non combative, and considerate of others. But I don't fault those who don't meekly accept a bunch of bullies and thugs intentionally trying to deny thousands of people the right to hear somebody they peacefully and lawfully came to hear.

I am angry with the left who does this and then blames Trump for the bad behavior of the disruptors. I am deeply frustrated and disgusted with the conservative side who uses it to also accuse Trump.

I wonder if there is such a thing as an election conducted honestly and without such blatant hypocrisy?

When I posted here yesterday I had already posted on several threads what I thought about the protesters, Trump's attitude and the supporters' reactions. I'm feeling repetitive here, but in summary--I advocate that all the candidates (particularly Sanders) give those protestors a good old fashioned ass-chewing (pardon my French). It is no one's 'right' to shut down another's freedom of speech. (2) There has been time after time that Trump has made comments encouraging the stance that a punch in the face was the 'thing to do,' and offering to pay their legal fees, so in my book, he is not off the hook. (3) The supporters who don't sit down and keep their hands to themselves when a protestor starts mouthing off are responsible as well. There is plenty of security and police at Trump rallies. Trump stops his speech so the fans don't miss anything, so there is no reason why his supporters need to get involved. They are in the flesh trolls. Ignore them.

'Politically correct' has a certain value, you know, in striving to be polite and respectful of others. I am as exasperated as anyone at the extremes it is sometimes taken to. However, being against political correctness is a stance that worries me, in that it can also be taken to extremes and some people use it as an excuse to be rude and hateful. See my first post regarding my concerns there.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm waiting to see who runs in the general election before making a choice.

From the beginning, I've been really dismayed, disappointed and concerned about the state of political discourse in this election. Like much of the discourse on this board, it is unnecessarily rude and inflammatory and actually says very little. Millions of people are saying that; nothing new there. What concerns me is, this is apparently what we have become and what we find acceptable.

Standing back and looking at all of this from a bit of distance, what seems to be manifesting is a "trickle down" of Twitter and reality television where the rules for our society in general have changed. On social media it is easy to throw insults at each other from the safety of our keyboard or phone. It is easy to find folks of like mind and websites that lean toward our beliefs, allowing us to live in a self-promoting echo chamber of ideas we agree with. No reality need disrupt the pleasantness of our created world views.

In my day, that was called 'brain washed.' Now people are freely chosing it, and delighting in building hoardes of imaginary enemies to 'war' with, who don't agree with their views. In this old lady's mind, it is foolishness in the extreme, but I'm just called a liberal (um, lots worse than that but we're being polite here) if ever I try to holler through that artificial membrane of jargon to the thinking human being that is hopefully in there somewhere. The hateful traits piled on anyone who espouses a view from the opposition's camp are totally ridiculous, and it goes both ways.

The heated arguments between protesters and supporters at Trump rallies are just a reflection of what happens here on social media, but in the flesh. Protesters are 'trolling' and trying to shut down Trump supporters' freedom to express themselves. That is wrong, but his supporters are letting themselves get sucked in by reacting and retaliating, and for some reason Trump is gleefully encouraging it. That's wrong, too, at least in my (outdated) rulebook.

I hope no one gets hurt, but more than the outcome of the election, I am worried about the state of our discourse and our ability to stand as one people. Our future depends on our ability to stand by majority decisions and work within the peaceful framework of our laws. And live with each other.

I missed this post earlier. Very well expressed.

How uncivil have Trump supporters been at those rallies? I can honestly say that if somebody was around me trying to disrupt the rally and making it impossible for me to hear the speaker, I would definitely tell that person off. If that person shoved me, I would shove back. So who is to blame? The person trying to deny another their constitutional right? Or the one defending it?

We don't see hordes of conservatives trying to infiltrate and disrupt Sanders and Clinton rallies even though their rhetoric is at times just as inflammatory as Trumps. The difference is that they are politically correct and he often is not. (That's one of the things I have most appreciated about him as I am militantly anti-political correctness.) And yet you will find me normally quite gentle, non combative, and considerate of others. But I don't fault those who don't meekly accept a bunch of bullies and thugs intentionally trying to deny thousands of people the right to hear somebody they peacefully and lawfully came to hear.

I am angry with the left who does this and then blames Trump for the bad behavior of the disruptors. I am deeply frustrated and disgusted with the conservative side who uses it to also accuse Trump.

I wonder if there is such a thing as an election conducted honestly and without such blatant hypocrisy?

When I posted here yesterday I had already posted on several threads what I thought about the protesters, Trump's attitude and the supporters' reactions. I'm feeling repetitive here, but in summary--I advocate that all the candidates (particularly Sanders) give those protestors a good old fashioned ass-chewing (pardon my French). It is no one's 'right' to shut down another's freedom of speech. (2) There has been time after time that Trump has made comments encouraging the stance that a punch in the face was the 'thing to do,' and offering to pay their legal fees, so in my book, he is not off the hook. (3) The supporters who don't sit down and keep their hands to themselves when a protestor starts mouthing off are responsible as well. There is plenty of security and police at Trump rallies. Trump stops his speech so the fans don't miss anything, so there is no reason why his supporters need to get involved. They are in the flesh trolls. Ignore them.

'Politically correct' has a certain value, you know, in striving to be polite and respectful of others. I am as exasperated as anyone at the extremes it is sometimes taken to. However, being against political correctness is a stance that worries me, in that it can also be taken to extremes and some people use it as an excuse to be rude and hateful. See my first post regarding my concerns there.

Political correctness is in no sense politeness or respect for others. It is a demand that others will be required to use specific terms, language, and express things in a specific way or the 'sinner' will be punished. It is a demand that others must agree with and express a specific point of view or the 'sinner' will be punished.

So when the Donald, angry at the insensitivity and unpoliteness of another, makes an impulsive snarky remark, I wish he had expressed it differently as I do when anybody loses his/her temper and says something snarky, but I don't get too excited about it either. Most especially when the media and then Twitter and Facebook and every message board in the country picks up on the term 'sucker punched' and repeats it over and over and over until those who don't think it through think that is what Trump was condoning. We don't know if it was a 'sucker punch' because the cameras don't show what the disruptive person was doing or saying at the time. For sure it was a relatively mild incident. Nobody got hurt. There was no blood. No bruises. If it had happened at any other time, it would have been shrugged off as no big deal.

But the media sure isn't reporting over and over and over that mean spirited groups are organized and determined to disrupt Donald Trump rallies. You don't see that tweeted and posted on Facebook and shown on headlines or dozens and dozens of message board threads do you.

Should Trump have said the impulsive line about maybe paying the guys legal fees? Of course not. On retrospect he most likely would not have done that. But was he inciting violence? I just can't see it that way.

I DO see Moveon.org and any other group organizing efforts to shut up, shut down, and disrupt as much as possible any Donald Trump event. THOSE are the people inciting violence. And THOSE are the people who should be blamed. Not Donald Trump.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Posters, hand signs, yard signs, bullying, compliments, criticism, slurs, lies, insults, truth, slams, protests, digging up histories, dirty tricks, spin doctors, media distortions, robo calls, jammed e-mail boxes, endless ads on radio and television, optimism, nobility, and so many debates that they all start running together after awhile. . .

Yes it is election time in America once again.

This thread is devoted to anything and everything related to the current election cycle though comparisons to previous elections can be made. Impressions, fears, thoughts, convictions, anger, outrage, approval, who should win, who should be the veep choice, who should be in the cabinet, etc. It is all fair game within the rules for the thread.

Rules for this thread:

1. Zone One rules apply so keep it civil. To refresh your memory:
"Zone 1": . . .Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics."

2. Members must provide a brief summary of what any posted links will say and, as necessary, the OP will rule on what definitions apply for this thread only.

3. Reasonable friendly banter that doesn't derail the thread can be allowed, but otherwise please stay on topic.

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

1. Hopeful that Bernie can win. Fearful a Republican does, especially Cruz or Trump. Angry that the Democrats have pretty much already allocated the super delegates which influence the primary process in their party to favor the establishment candidate. Frustrated that the democratic process has been distorted to elect those who run the best campaigns, are the most electable and not those who would administer and govern best: a person who is a brilliant executive, who is a genius at political administration, who can untangle the governing process isn't necessarily good at public speaking, debates, media management, or running a campaign. What's more important governing or campaigning? That's also my answer to question 2.

2. See # 1.

3. At the moment I lean toward Sanders, but only if he wins the nomination (by some miracle) will I vote for him. I don't vote Democrat or Republican unless those are my only choices or they are IMO the best candidates. Most likely in November I will vote for an Independent candidate. The two party system has its pros and cons, but I think the cons outweigh the pros and want more political parties to take power making our system more parliamentary. That way more points of view are represented in government.

This election cycle really demonstrates one of the reasons why I feel that way: Hillary represents the Democratic status quo while Sanders is a true reformer. Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich represent the Republican status quo while Trump upsets the balance of the GOP establishment political process.

Trump will not make a good POTUS, but no other candidate can upset the primary process on the Right. Bernie had to change his I to a D to try and influence the Democrats instead of running as an Independent. If we had other parties, voters would have more choices and that would most likely result in better choices.

 

[Foxfyre]

Posters, hand signs, yard signs, bullying, compliments, criticism, slurs, lies, insults, truth, slams, protests, digging up histories, dirty tricks, spin doctors, media distortions, robo calls, jammed e-mail boxes, endless ads on radio and television, optimism, nobility, and so many debates that they all start running together after awhile. . .

Yes it is election time in America once again.

This thread is devoted to anything and everything related to the current election cycle though comparisons to previous elections can be made. Impressions, fears, thoughts, convictions, anger, outrage, approval, who should win, who should be the veep choice, who should be in the cabinet, etc. It is all fair game within the rules for the thread.

Rules for this thread:

1. Zone One rules apply so keep it civil. To refresh your memory:
"Zone 1": . . .Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics."

2. Members must provide a brief summary of what any posted links will say and, as necessary, the OP will rule on what definitions apply for this thread only.

3. Reasonable friendly banter that doesn't derail the thread can be allowed, but otherwise please stay on topic.

Questions to be answered:

1. How are you feeling about the current election cycle? Hopeful? Fearful? Angry? Frustrated? Good? Why?

2. In your opinion, can the USA elect the right person to be President in November?

3. What are your primary interests in who gets elected? Why?

Note that the straw poll allows members to change their vote if they change their mind.

1. Hopeful that Bernie can win. Fearful a Republican does, especially Cruz or Trump. Angry that the Democrats have pretty much already allocated the super delegates which influence the primary process in their party to favor the establishment candidate. Frustrated that the democratic process has been distorted to elect those who run the best campaigns, are the most electable and not those who would administer and govern best: a person who is a brilliant executive, who is a genius at political administration, who can untangle the governing process isn't necessarily good at public speaking, debates, media management, or running a campaign. What's more important governing or campaigning? That's also my answer to question 2.

2. See # 1.

3. At the moment I lean toward Sanders, but only if he wins the nomination (by some miracle) will I vote for him. I don't vote Democrat or Republican unless those are my only choices or they are IMO the best candidates. Most likely in November I will vote for an Independent candidate. The two party system has its pros and cons, but I think the cons outweigh the pros and want more political parties to take power making our system more parliamentary. That way more points of view are represented in government.

This election cycle really demonstrates one of the reasons why I feel that way: Hillary represents the Democratic status quo while Sanders is a true reformer. Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich represent the Republican status quo while Trump upsets the balance of the GOP establishment political process.

Trump will not make a good POTUS, but no other candidate can upset the primary process on the Right. Bernie had to change his I to a D to try and influence the Democrats instead of running as an Independent. If we had other parties, voters would have more choices and that would most likely result in better choices.

Mostly because IMO both the Republicans and Democrats have formed themselves into a permanent political class that serve only their own ambitions to increase their personal power, prestige, influence, and wealth, I too wish there were other viable parties.

I have no clue whether Trump would or would not make a good POTUS. He is such an unknown quantity and completely untried and all we have to go on is his track record and private accomplishments. He does bring management experience and a skill set that nobody else has.

On the other hand, Sanders has a track record that makes me admire him as a man of principle and conviction and I like him very much. Unfortunately that track record also reveals a man whose principles and convictions are so contrary to the Constitution and the spirit of individual liberty, responsibility, accountablility that I think he would be the most dangerous and destructive of all the candidates running. The only thing that would keep him in check would be a GOP controlled Congress, but that is in no way guaranteed. I shudder to think what sort of SCOTUS nominees Sanders would make.

So while my money is still on what I think are better choices than Trump and I hope he is not the nominee, I would easily vote for Trump over Sanders.

 

[longknife]

2016 will go down as the year millions of angry, frustrated Americans got off their duffs to try to make a change to the political atmosphere of this nation.

They are seeking anyone to represent THEM and not the special interests and their own political advancement.

The massive increase in GOP registration and voting will carry into November and will bring more non-establishment politicians into office at all levels.

 

[Foxfyre]

2016 will go down as the year millions of angry, frustrated Americans got off their duffs to try to make a change to the political atmosphere of this nation.

They are seeking anyone to represent THEM and not the special interests and their own political advancement.

The massive increase in GOP registration and voting will carry into November and will bring more non-establishment politicians into office at all levels.

So do you see this as a good thing?

 

[longknife]

2016 will go down as the year millions of angry, frustrated Americans got off their duffs to try to make a change to the political atmosphere of this nation.

They are seeking anyone to represent THEM and not the special interests and their own political advancement.

The massive increase in GOP registration and voting will carry into November and will bring more non-establishment politicians into office at all levels.

So do you see this as a good thing?

I most certainly do. People are supposed to do their duty and VOTE. Sad that it takes 7 years of a socialist slug to get them to do so.

 

[OldLady]

Political correctness is in no sense politeness or respect for others. It is a demand that others will be required to use specific terms, language, and express things in a specific way or the 'sinner' will be punished. It is a demand that others must agree with and express a specific point of view or the 'sinner' will be punished.

Why are there demands that people express things in a certain way? Why some language and not other language? At heart, it is an attempt not to offend. What 'punishment' are you talking about? What is it you would like to say that isn't allowed and what punishment have you suffered because of it?

It seems to me you should look into the Trump/protester thing a little more. The protesters are in the wrong, but some of Trump's minions, led by Trump himself, are making the rallies a place ripe for arguments and fisticuffs. There are plenty of examples. A few posters here are even suggesting bringing their guns. Sure, if a protester swings first, punch back. However, no one's seen that inside, yet. The protesters are being VERY obnoxious, 'cruisin' for a bruisin,' as they say, but they are being careful not to take the first swing. Outside, I believe that might be another matter.

 

[Foxfyre]

2016 will go down as the year millions of angry, frustrated Americans got off their duffs to try to make a change to the political atmosphere of this nation.

They are seeking anyone to represent THEM and not the special interests and their own political advancement.

The massive increase in GOP registration and voting will carry into November and will bring more non-establishment politicians into office at all levels.

So do you see this as a good thing?

I most certainly do. People are supposed to do their duty and VOTE. Sad that it takes 7 years of a socialist slug to get them to do so.

Okay, just checking.

I agree that the current administration, but also the Congress on both sides of the aisle have generated so much disgust and contempt among the electorate they are willing to elect almost anybody else. I haven't ever witnessed anything like it. The closest thing to it was the public backlash against a ineffective and incompetent Jimmy Carter in 1980, but even that didn't rival this. Probably because Carter was otherwise pretty lovable and the people weren't as angry with Congress in general. It is the only rationale I can come up with for the strong support for the Donald and in some respect Ted Cruz, because both are so viciously opposed by the permanent political class and establishment in Washington and their surrogate media.

 

[320 Years of History]

2016 will go down as the year millions of angry, frustrated Americans got off their duffs to try to make a change to the political atmosphere of this nation.

They are seeking anyone to represent THEM and not the special interests and their own political advancement.

The massive increase in GOP registration and voting will carry into November and will bring more non-establishment politicians into office at all levels.

At the heart of the so-called "American Way" or "American Spirit" is the basic belief that through hard, rigorous, and honest work one can achieve and find success. Most Americans understand that when it comes to physically toiling. As applied to information gathering, to thinking and analyzing that information, and arriving at conclusions, they are far less willing to work nearly as hard. Yet equally committed hard intellectual work is exactly what one must do to achieve beyond the level of one's (ostensible or actual) peers. It's also what one must do to accurately recognize BS when one sees/hears it.

None of us need be beholden to special interests if most of us worked as hard mentally as we are willing to do physically. Were most folks to become as well informed and well developed intellectually as they are willing to be to perform physical tasks, they'd know when the "line" they are given by the special interests, and the politicians in their pockets, does and does not hold water.

Unfortunately, most folks don't mentally develop themselves anywhere near that extent, preferring instead to let others do the mental "heavy lifting" for them. Tsk, tsk, tsk. And that's just fine with the folks who are able and willing to do the mental heavy lifting. The result is the political climate we observe today.

That's not to say that things have ever been so very different as go the two dimensions I've noted in this post. It's to say that it's not ever going to be different unless and until the majority of the electorate becomes "smarter (better informed) than the average bear, Booboo."

 

[320 Years of History]

Political correctness is in no sense politeness or respect for others. It is a demand that others will be required to use specific terms, language, and express things in a specific way or the 'sinner' will be punished. It is a demand that others must agree with and express a specific point of view or the 'sinner' will be punished.

Why are there demands that people express things in a certain way? Why some language and not other language? At heart, it is an attempt not to offend. What 'punishment' are you talking about? What is it you would like to say that isn't allowed and what punishment have you suffered because of it?

It seems to me you should look into the Trump/protester thing a little more. The protesters are in the wrong, but some of Trump's minions, led by Trump himself, are making the rallies a place ripe for arguments and fisticuffs. There are plenty of examples. A few posters here are even suggesting bringing their guns. Sure, if a protester swings first, punch back. However, no one's seen that inside, yet. The protesters are being VERY obnoxious, 'cruisin' for a bruisin,' as they say, but they are being careful not to take the first swing. Outside, I believe that might be another matter.

Red:
I think you are being far too kind in your assessment. I believe far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.

• Political Correctness
• Case Study: GEICO Caveman: A Contemporary Tale of Mediated Otherness and Political Correctness

 

[OldLady]

Political correctness is in no sense politeness or respect for others. It is a demand that others will be required to use specific terms, language, and express things in a specific way or the 'sinner' will be punished. It is a demand that others must agree with and express a specific point of view or the 'sinner' will be punished.

Why are there demands that people express things in a certain way? Why some language and not other language? At heart, it is an attempt not to offend. What 'punishment' are you talking about? What is it you would like to say that isn't allowed and what punishment have you suffered because of it?

It seems to me you should look into the Trump/protester thing a little more. The protesters are in the wrong, but some of Trump's minions, led by Trump himself, are making the rallies a place ripe for arguments and fisticuffs. There are plenty of examples. A few posters here are even suggesting bringing their guns. Sure, if a protester swings first, punch back. However, no one's seen that inside, yet. The protesters are being VERY obnoxious, 'cruisin' for a bruisin,' as they say, but they are being careful not to take the first swing. Outside, I believe that might be another matter.

Red:
I think you are being far too kind in your assessment. I believe far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.

• Political Correctness
• Case Study: GEICO Caveman: A Contemporary Tale of Mediated Otherness and Political Correctness

far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.
How so? I looked at the studies you linked, and they seem to talk about how PC affects honest discourse. I don't disagree. But "nefarious" aims? How was the original aim of discouraging racist speech (for example) evil or immoral?

 

[Foxfyre]

Political correctness is in no sense politeness or respect for others. It is a demand that others will be required to use specific terms, language, and express things in a specific way or the 'sinner' will be punished. It is a demand that others must agree with and express a specific point of view or the 'sinner' will be punished.

Why are there demands that people express things in a certain way? Why some language and not other language? At heart, it is an attempt not to offend. What 'punishment' are you talking about? What is it you would like to say that isn't allowed and what punishment have you suffered because of it?

It seems to me you should look into the Trump/protester thing a little more. The protesters are in the wrong, but some of Trump's minions, led by Trump himself, are making the rallies a place ripe for arguments and fisticuffs. There are plenty of examples. A few posters here are even suggesting bringing their guns. Sure, if a protester swings first, punch back. However, no one's seen that inside, yet. The protesters are being VERY obnoxious, 'cruisin' for a bruisin,' as they say, but they are being careful not to take the first swing. Outside, I believe that might be another matter.

Red:
I think you are being far too kind in your assessment. I believe far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.

• Political Correctness
• Case Study: GEICO Caveman: A Contemporary Tale of Mediated Otherness and Political Correctness

far more nefarious aims underpin most folks' use of PC terms and tactics.
How so? I looked at the studies you linked, and they seem to talk about how PC affects honest discourse. I don't disagree. But "nefarious" aims? How was the original aim of discouraging racist speech (for example) evil or immoral?

The intent was probably not 'immoral' or poorly intended, but the effect, IMO, has been. When we are forced to use specific politically correct words to define people and are required via politically correctness to be 'sensitive' to the sensibilities of a specific race of people, we are essentially forbidden to be colorblind and treat everybody the same regardless of their skin color, or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, or whatever. We are not allowed to consider skin color as of no more consequence than eye color or hair color and we are not allowed to treat others as our equals to be addressed and treated as we treat any others around us. We are forced to see whole groups of people as different, fragile, incapable of functioning without such protections. IMO, this has done more to keep racism, sexism, and all the other 'isms alive and well which of course suits those very well who NEED to keep racism, sexism alive and well to keep themselves in power.

IMO common sense people, perhaps without really analyzing it, see it for what it is. And find say a Donald Trump who doesn't care about and refuses to follow the political correctness dictates as a true pioneer, leader, and straight shooter in an increasingly hostile social climate. I honestly do think that is a huge part of his appeal. And the more the political correctness crowd attacks him for it, the more those who hate political correctness appreciate him, and his poll numbers go up.

And no, hating political correctness is not the same thing as racist. In most cases it is hating the racism that political correctness demands.

And don't think Donald Trump doesn't know that.