• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Prez Candidates

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clementine_3 said:
I'll just leave this here. I giggled. OK, I burst out laughing.
Click to expand...
It IS funny.. Cuz with haircuts like theirs, any offense taken by them just becomes a Ludicrous topic. Really, how can someone pretend to be offended by something while sporting a bowl cut..?? [emoji23]
 
bcrichster said:
It IS funny.. Cuz with haircuts like theirs, any offense taken by them just becomes a Ludicrous topic. Really, how can someone pretend to be offended by something while sporting a bowl cut..?? [emoji23]
Click to expand...

artists.. have their quirks...
they are protesting .. idiots running for control of the most powerful nation / military on Earth.

and you poke at their hair cut? I see... everyone has their priorities ...

oh.. and don't get me started on Trump's head-nest!
LOL :p
 
Last edited:
dan330 said:
and you poke at their hair cut? I see... everyone has their priorities ...
Click to expand...

Agreed; And symptomatic of larger, pervasive "logic" problem(s).

Reduced to it's essence: "Nothing you say has any merit, because I personally dislike your haircut. (The one you wore in 1964)". Hardly a solid foundation for any sincere, legitimate debate.

I'm no fan of Mr. Trump, and thoroughly enjoy the ongoing comic bounty which flows from his appearance......But it is hardly the thing which primarily shapes my opinion of the man.
 
basic 101 user said:
Agreed; And symptomatic of larger, pervasive "logic" problem(s).

Reduced to it's essence: "Nothing you say has any merit, because I personally dislike your haircut. (The one you wore in 1964)". Hardly a solid foundation for any sincere, legitimate debate.

I'm no fan of Mr. Trump, and thoroughly enjoy the ongoing comic bounty which flows from his appearance......But it is hardly the thing which primarily shapes my opinion of the man.
Click to expand...


dan330 said:
artists.. have their quirks...
they are protesting .. idiots running for control of the most powerful nation / military on Earth.

and you poke at their hair cut? I see... everyone has their priorities ...

oh.. and don't get me started on Trump's head-nest!
LOL :p
Click to expand...
No intelligence intended or involved. Obviously. [emoji41] Their protest was as hilarious to me as the hairdo. No more no less. "You can't complain about being picked on if you're the one wearing something ridiculous.." - School of Hard Knocks [emoji88]
 
Ted Cruz has a golden opportunity to elevate his own status in my eyes, should he care to take it.

For someone who has branded himself as a "non- politician" maverick, boldly going his own way, why would Mr. Trump then seek out the endorsement of someone he recently repudiated and defeated? Anyone even moderately well versed in "the art of the deal" should immediately recognize a situation where there is very little potential up side, and near limitless down side. It was supremely foolish to put Mr. Cruz on the stage in the first place; Best case scenario, you receive an endorsement which is clearly of insignificant value to you. And worse case, he speaks a damning truth. Why would you hand him a microphone, in this unconventional campaign convention?

In light of the none too subtle veiled threats made by "The Donald" in the wake of Mr. Cruz's convention speech, he should consider that his political career may well have hit a roadblock. This, in spite of the fact that Ted was rather dignified, adhering loosely to the time honored adage " If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"... It is a pity , but not surprising that "The Donald" couldn't find a similar degree of class. If so ugly in victory, does anyone want to see how this man might behave if ever on the short end of a difficult geopolitical crisis or negotiation?

Ted Cruz could single handedly change the political landscape and improve the very character of government in this country for generations to come. It might not be the manner in which he intended, but he could also secure his good name in American political history, alongside the greats, for all time. I might genuinely consider following Mr. Cruz, (or his political legacy) closely in the future, if he were to say anything along the lines of:

"In light of Mr. Trump's recent remarks, thuggishly hinting at an end to my political career......comments which were made in spite of my willingness to stand up for him.....and comments which clearly illustrate what an unprincipled opportunist he is, I do truly feel that it is now time for me to speak my conscience.
Because I so deeply love, respect, and trust our system of government, and the blessings it delivers to all of us, I say the following: While I have no desire to see what might happen under a Clinton presidency over the next 4 or 8 years, I have no fear that any actions undertaken would be irrevocable, could not be later put right by men and women of good conscience. The arc of history spans generations, and our system of government is designed with that very longevity in mind.
On the other hand, I do genuinely believe that electing someone who in many ways is temperamentally unfit to serve as President would have frightening and terrible consequences for this nation. I fear that history could unfold in myriad ways which could shape this country forever, if we continue down this road. At the very least, I fear the permanent degradation of politics in general, the irreversible damage done to civil discourse, and the relentless disdain for facts, thoughtful consideration, and intelligent debate we see before us. We must with a united voice turn away from, and soundly reject the very style of leadership Mr. Trump is so generously offering to grace us with. I once again urge you all to vote your conscience."

Speaking as a very average guy, I understand the political appeal to the common man of someone claiming to also be one. For the Presidency of The United States, the standard should be significantly higher, and should be always rising.

Just something off the top of my head, scribbled on a cocktail napkin. It really is just that easy to do the right thing, Ted. Buy me the beer, and you can keep the napkin.
 
bush.jpg
 
you cant make sense of the Trump supporters...
goes against common sense

I am just hoping it is temporary insanity .. and it dissipates before Nov
 
a wall around a convention center.. is the same as a wall along miles and miles and miles of border...
is the same thing?

that is like flying around the earth is the same as ... flying to the moon.
 
Crowd control measures are common and prudent, and taken at all kinds of events. Regardless of party or who is participating.
They are temporary, for a specific purpose, and in response to easily anticipated, momentary, dramatic increases in local population density.
Comparison to a permanent, inflexible structure, one which is engineered to mindlessly restrict an entire population, and in so doing extend an enormous symbolic middle finger to the rest of the world......is silly.
Pointing to an entire group of people on the "wrong" side of a proposed wall, and characterizing them as "intruding terrorists, rapists, and murderers", is silly.

Pointing to standard operating procedure, suggesting it is unique to one side, and misrepresenting its intent in order to prove a "point" is silly.

Articles like the one above are transparent appeals to emotion over logic. They are silly.

Being so easily manipulated by such articles and related political tactics.....Places one at risk of being perceived by many as silly.

P.S.
Not silly, on the other hand, is worrying that one's event might be the target of the sort of thugs which seem so attracted to the ugly message sent by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The kind of people who are already here, and far more frightening to me than the ones south of the border.
 
Last edited:
Democrats in disarray on eve of convention to nominate Clinton

The head of the Democratic Party resigned on Sunday amid a furor over embarrassing leaked emails, hoping to head off a growing rebellion by Bernie Sanders supporters on the eve of the convention to nominate Hillary Clinton for the White House.

Lingering bitterness from the heated primary campaign between Clinton and Sanders erupted after more than 19,000 Democratic National Committee emails, leaked on Friday, confirmed Sanders' frequent charge that the party played favorites in the race.

In a statement, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said the best way for the party to accomplish its goal of putting Clinton in the White House was for her to step aside. Sanders had demanded earlier in the day that Wasserman Schultz resign.

The furor was a blow to a party keen on projecting stability in contrast to the volatility of Republican candidate Donald Trump, who was formally nominated at a raucous convention in Cleveland last week.​
 
basic 101 user said:
Crowd control measures are common and prudent, and taken at all kinds of events. Regardless of party or who is participating.
They are temporary, for a specific purpose, and in response to easily anticipated, momentary, dramatic increases in local population density.
Comparison to a permanent, inflexible structure, one which is engineered to mindlessly restrict an entire population, and in so doing extend an enormous symbolic middle finger to the rest of the world......is silly.
Pointing to an entire group of people on the "wrong" side of a proposed wall, and characterizing them as "intruding terrorists, rapists, and murderers", is silly.

Pointing to standard operating procedure, suggesting it is unique to one side, and misrepresenting its intent in order to prove a "point" is silly.

Articles like the one above are transparent appeals to emotion over logic. They are silly.

Being so easily manipulated by such articles and related political tactics.....Places one at risk of being perceived by many as silly.

P.S.
Not silly, on the other hand, is worrying that one's event might be the target of the sort of thugs which seem so attracted to the ugly message sent by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The kind of people who are already here, and far more frightening to me than the ones south of the border.
Click to expand...
It basically boils down to their elitist mentality of "it's wrong for you to do that, but WE can.. Watch"
 
you are ok to have guns to protect... but a temporary wall is too much???

trump can have a nutty hair do that never changes.... but his critics cant have a nutty do that was popular in the distant past?

well.. I think there is a pattern here... and I understand why basic reasoning / debate is never going to work....
 
Missing Topic From DNC Day One: ISIS

Over 60 speeches were made Monday night at the Democratic National Convention, yet one key topic was MIA: the rise of ISIS.

The Republican National Committee pointed out the unforgivable omission on Twitter.

With the devastating amount of terror attacks authored by ISIS in recent months, you would think the Democrats would at least address it and how they plan to confront and combat the terror cell.​
 
that does seem like a big ... side step of a very important topic.

what did Trump say about it? with any details? or just some 4-6 word slogan???
 
^^^^^^^^^
I think he said "Trust me". Quite a lot, in fact.

When someone says "trust me" that much.......I trust them less.
When someone says "believe me" that much.....I believe them less.
When someone says "I know" that much......I begin to suspect they might not.

All of the above statements reveal a certain weakness of logic on my part, an over reliance upon instinct rather than fact. Recognizing and acknowledging my own failings, further investigation should be undertaken, and clear patterns begin to emerge; Instincts often do arise with good reason, and serve a valuable function.
When someone talks that much, offers so few specifics, and has a well documented past record which suggests they can't be trusted, shouldn't be believed, and often don't know.....They should be rejected from politics, regardless of which side of the aisle they come from, how much superficial personal appeal they have. Reality TV is the more appropriate environment for such an individual, where they are more likely to damage only the culture, not the entirety of human civilization.

The DNC is a 4 day event. There are many, many serious issues facing this country to be discussed. If the single issue which I personally assign the highest priority to is not addressed on the first of four days, I neither conclude that it is a deliberate omission, nor that the matter will never be addressed at any point in the future.
I could easily cherry pick any one of a host of serious problems, and use it to make some similar "point", but I would feel silly doing so. I believe that law officers should not be dying in the street, and it disappoints me that it was not the first issue addressed at the DNC. Shall I conclude that my concern is completely irrelevant to the entire group? Do you want to be the one to stand up and tell me I'm all wet, my priorities are out of whack? Would you next accuse me of politicizing a recent tragedy, twisting it for my own selfish purposes?
For an individual to arrive at questionable conclusions on their own, is reasonable and forgivable. For the RNC to have kindly "pointed out the unforgivable omission" is.......Unforgivable. To reliably employ such flawed reasoning, and use it to mischaracterize another's (unfinished) actions as "unforgivable"... Is unforgivable. And it speaks to business as usual, unsophisticated but sadly effective political tactics, and a clear understanding of a significant portion of their target audience.

There are 4 quarters in a game; I'll generally watch at least two of them before I'm completely certain I have the rest of it all figured out.
 
That which follows is offered with as much sincerity as I am capable of, and without attitude intended; In a largely toneless environment such as this, I feel it's important to say so.

A significant flaw in my recent post was brought to my attention, and while personally embarrassing, I am grateful to receive the information, for the manner in which it was delivered, and as ever, the opportunity and impetus to grow.
I will readily acknowledge an error, and it is not lost on me that this is one of a fundamental nature.

The details, and remainder of what I might like to say on the matter are of significantly lesser importance compared to the above, they should and must wait for another time. The acknowledgement of error ought to come first, without equivocation, and without excess delay.
That said, and reverting to form:

There are finer points to express on the matter; Some thoughts only nascent, and I can only speculate about how they might be received by those with views which differ from mine. Initial coarse thoughts, briefly:
1) The error does not really negate the remainder of the argument, nor does anything else offered to date. A reaction does not constitute a rebuttal. And it could be seen as a diversionary tactic.
2)The error could be easily and entirely remedied with any one of several possible, very, very small alterations to language or punctuation; Perhaps even without alteration, requiring simply an explanation of inelegant and ambiguous language on my part.
3)If I find the time to investigate yet further, I would still hope to find redemption; I suspect it will not be there to discover, that I did indeed put a foot wrong; If and when I fail, I will readily say so, but reserve the right to research further, consider more than a single source.
4)While obviously still thinking about it, I am for the most part comfortable with the matter, and unfortunately, not confident that any further discussion would serve to much sway those who feel differently than I. Those who would tend to agree with me already, likely require no further convincing. So, nothing more need be said. But none should, or likely will doubt either willingness or ability to do so.

Attitude back to "off" momentarily...
To any still reading, thank you; And thank you for involving your self in the discussion, in whatever capacity.

Attitude back on.
 
basic 101 user said:
That which follows is offered with as much sincerity as I am capable of, and without attitude intended; In a largely toneless environment such as this, I feel it's important to say so.

A significant flaw in my recent post was brought to my attention, and while personally embarrassing, I am grateful to receive the information, for the manner in which it was delivered, and as ever, the opportunity and impetus to grow.
I will readily acknowledge an error, and it is not lost on me that this is one of a fundamental nature.

The details, and remainder of what I might like to say on the matter are of significantly lesser importance compared to the above, they should and must wait for another time. The acknowledgement of error ought to come first, without equivocation, and without excess delay.
That said, and reverting to form:

There are finer points to express on the matter; Some thoughts only nascent, and I can only speculate about how they might be received by those with views which differ from mine. Initial coarse thoughts, briefly:
1) The error does not really negate the remainder of the argument, nor does anything else offered to date. A reaction does not constitute a rebuttal. And it could be seen as a diversionary tactic.
2)The error could be easily and entirely remedied with any one of several possible, very, very small alterations to language or punctuation; Perhaps even without alteration, requiring simply an explanation of inelegant and ambiguous language on my part.
3)If I find the time to investigate yet further, I would still hope to find redemption; I suspect it will not be there to discover, that I did indeed put a foot wrong; If and when I fail, I will readily say so, but reserve the right to research further, consider more than a single source.
4)While obviously still thinking about it, I am for the most part comfortable with the matter, and unfortunately, not confident that any further discussion would serve to much sway those who feel differently than I. Those who would tend to agree with me already, likely require no further convincing. So, nothing more need be said. But none should, or likely will doubt either willingness or ability to do so.

Attitude back to "off" momentarily...
To any still reading, thank you; And thank you for involving your self in the discussion, in whatever capacity.

Attitude back on.
Click to expand...

Are you a lawyer? The above sounds like some kind of legal document. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom