BRIGGS wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Trumps urban renewal speech in NC today. I really hope African Americans finally get it. They get "used" by Clinton's for a vote while the other candidate has consistently said he wants to rebuild inner cities.

The second you vote for Hillary--you will not see her in your corner again--shes done. Use your brains--vote Trump or at a minimum go independent=--dont vote for Hillary

The MFer is a HUGE real estate developer. If he really gave a damn about rebuilding the inner city to help black folks he kinda already had a job that is better suited for it than the presidency. Why was he so busy courting Money Making Manhattan and bankrupting Atlantic City casinos — that he'd shoo black dealers off the floor if he was giving a whale a tour — if he really gave a damn about us?

I believe he would help the inner cities--I DO NOT NO WAY beliueve Hillary will do sht. Simple as that. P Diddy was very smart when he reasoned that the AA could deal with Trump. Trump is NOT the white establishment figure--you go it hes a developer a builder and a job creator. What will Hillary do for you--ZERO.

Diddy and Trump, sure they are pals. Probably swapped information on textile sweatshops for their vanity labels.

holfresh wrote:White Supremacist groups in the US numbered at 76 pre-Trump and now at 190 post Trump candidacy..Questions?

What is a white supremacist?-- there are racist in every group. Who cares. Michael Moore had it right--people who follow Trump aren't racists. They just understand that people who are in charge are good at getting theirs and fcking everyone else. My wife is a nurse and the first hand knowledge I have about illegal immigrants using our health care is very troubling to say the least. It's a horrible situation and people dont get it. I worked in the financial industry for 12 years. I know the deal and thye dont like ANY type of change and why would they--thats why they PAY up to Hillary--shes the figurehead--thats it...--believe me Hillary Clinton is a F racist. Shes called black people super predators. You want to know racists--go throw a mic in her home.

Trump would be good for American Hispanics Chinese and AA--I think the Chinese get it. Not sure about the other two groups. They think a Trump vote is supporting racism--and I do not believe that. Who will do more for them--I think Trump. NO creed should vote 90-10 thats too many followers not enough leaders.

BRIGGS wrote:

holfresh wrote:White Supremacist groups in the US numbered at 76 pre-Trump and now at 190 post Trump candidacy..Questions?

What is a white supremacist?-- there are racist in every group. Who cares. Michael Moore had it right--people who follow Trump aren't racists. They just understand that people who are in charge are good at getting theirs and fcking everyone else. My wife is a nurse and the first hand knowledge I have about illegal immigrants using our health care is very troubling to say the least. It's a horrible situation and people dont get it. I worked in the financial industry for 12 years. I know the deal and thye dont like ANY type of change and why would they--thats why they PAY up to Hillary--shes the figurehead--thats it...--believe me Hillary Clinton is a F racist. Shes called black people super predators. You want to know racists--go throw a mic in her home.

Trump would be good for American Hispanics Chinese and AA--I think the Chinese get it. Not sure about the other two groups. They think a Trump vote is supporting racism--and I do not believe that. Who will do more for them--I think Trump. NO creed should vote 90-10 thats too many followers not enough leaders.

Hahaha... you "think the Chinese get it"? Would love to know how you figure that.

FYI: "AA"s are not a "creed".

holfresh wrote:Obamacare has cut the African American uninsured rate by more than 50% since implementation..Trump says he will repeal it..Hillary said she will expand it..Questions?

I have one: BRIGGS says Obama is a nice guy who has done NOTHING especially for African Americans, so how does he ignore what you wrote here so he can keep believing that?

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:Obamacare has cut the African American uninsured rate by more than 50% since implementation..Trump says he will repeal it..Hillary said she will expand it..Questions?

Sure. I have one.

Do people understand Presidents can't "help inner cities", or repeal or expand the Affordable Care Act?

Wasn't Obama responsible for getting congress to write the plan for Obamacare?..If Trump has a republican house and senate then he surely can repeal it...

Of course, but to suggest Congress is going to fall in line with a Trump agenda in the same way the Democratic congress did during Obama's first two years is something of a leap of logic.

It is also very hard to repeal laws strictly from a parlimentary sense, and it'd be politically difficult to do it even with those workarounds...

Most saavy people are very skeptical of the prospect of congress leaving the millions of people who actually like the ACA high and dry.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-hard-repeal-obamacare-433590

The Republican Congress voted to repeal all or part of Obamacare 62 times thus far while Obama was in the White House...62 times...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/groundhog-day-republicans-vote-repeal-obamacare

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:Obamacare has cut the African American uninsured rate by more than 50% since implementation..Trump says he will repeal it..Hillary said she will expand it..Questions?

Sure. I have one.

Do people understand Presidents can't "help inner cities", or repeal or expand the Affordable Care Act?

Wasn't Obama responsible for getting congress to write the plan for Obamacare?..If Trump has a republican house and senate then he surely can repeal it...

Of course, but to suggest Congress is going to fall in line with a Trump agenda in the same way the Democratic congress did during Obama's first two years is something of a leap of logic.

It is also very hard to repeal laws strictly from a parlimentary sense, and it'd be politically difficult to do it even with those workarounds...

Most saavy people are very skeptical of the prospect of congress leaving the millions of people who actually like the ACA high and dry.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-hard-repeal-obamacare-433590

The Republican Congress voted to repeal all or part of Obamacare 62 times thus far while Obama was in the White House...62 times...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/groundhog-day-republicans-vote-repeal-obamacare

They were all meaningless votes. Every time congress voted they knew Obama would veto and they didn't have the votes for override.

It was purely for political show. Not one of those 62 times did any member of congress believe their vote would lead to its repeal.

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

holfresh wrote:Obamacare has cut the African American uninsured rate by more than 50% since implementation..Trump says he will repeal it..Hillary said she will expand it..Questions?

Sure. I have one.

Do people understand Presidents can't "help inner cities", or repeal or expand the Affordable Care Act?

Wasn't Obama responsible for getting congress to write the plan for Obamacare?..If Trump has a republican house and senate then he surely can repeal it...

Of course, but to suggest Congress is going to fall in line with a Trump agenda in the same way the Democratic congress did during Obama's first two years is something of a leap of logic.

It is also very hard to repeal laws strictly from a parlimentary sense, and it'd be politically difficult to do it even with those workarounds...

Most saavy people are very skeptical of the prospect of congress leaving the millions of people who actually like the ACA high and dry.

http://www.newsweek.com/how-hard-repeal-obamacare-433590

The Republican Congress voted to repeal all or part of Obamacare 62 times thus far while Obama was in the White House...62 times...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/groundhog-day-republicans-vote-repeal-obamacare

They were all meaningless votes. Every time congress voted they knew Obama would veto and they didn't have the votes for override.

It was purely for political show. Not one of those 62 times did any member of congress believe their vote would lead to its repeal.

They didn't have the votes in the Senate...So you are saying they wouldn't make that vote with President Trump???..That's your call?????

A Republican senate would allow the bill to be filibustered by Democrats (they won't have 60 votes under any circumstances).

That way Republican Congress can enjoy political purity and the capital of saying they voted for repeal, but they were blocked by those damn obstructionist Democrats who are holding up legislation.

It's win/win for them. They get to repeal it without actually taking away a law people benefit from but may not even realize it.

The fallout of repealing it will become real.

Right now public opinion is against it, but most people don't understand it.

Opposing it but not actually repealing is the political sweetspot for the GOP.

BRIGGS wrote:58% of African Americans in this country under the age of 24 unemployed.. FIFTY EIGHT %

If you're an AA parent--you want to END illegal immigration and have jobs for AMERICAN youth. Good jobs that will rise in pay and create opportunities.

Who can deny this fact????

Bonn1997 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:58% of African Americans in this country under the age of 24 unemployed.. FIFTY EIGHT %

If you're an AA parent--you want to END illegal immigration and have jobs for AMERICAN youth. Good jobs that will rise in pay and create opportunities.

Who can deny this fact????

DEBUNKED! Trump is including people not looking for work, which is never included in unemployment data. He's counting people in college, stay at home parents, etc. as unemployed. Guess what - there's a 100% unemployment rate among full time stay at home parents!

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-misleadingly-puts-black-youth-unemployment-r/

Whats debunked Bonn--millions of Americans dont have jobs because Illegal Immigrants have them!!

The idea that the unemployment rate (by any sensible definition of the term) is 58% in that demographic is what's debunked.

http://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2010/african_american_history/images/figure07_unemployment_rate.gif

Knickoftime wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:I like how you give me homework when you don't answer the questions except to say the source was invalid. Yet, another distraction. his article is sourced a lot.

I promised to return to the topic and here I am. No distraction. Just a pause... not sure why taking a breath to be better informed is problematic.

The NY Times piece was journalism (ironic, given how they'r the pocket of the Clinton campaign). The other two pieces were OP/EDs. I didn't want to have to filter through the conclusions and fill-in-the-blanks of the Huffington Post piece (ironically, another source in the tank of the left wing MSM).

So okay, back to the topic at hand rather than the pointless rhetorical point scoring.

The relative info that I get from this article is the connection between Podesta, the selling of Uranium to Russia, HRC, WJC Clinton and donations to the Clinton Foundation based on favors done while she was SOS.

The article is about Podesta and the Clintons and the Foundation making money on selling Uranium to a Russia based company. If you are inferring...

What I get from the articles is the inference that the events detailed in the articles are all inter-connected and in fact quid pro quo. The HP piece is pretty clear (but confidently) it is assuming the connection, with the thesis that Clinton agreeing with the intelligence community that Russia is behind the hack is evidence she is trying to cover up the inference he makes, which is dubious logic.

The piece is frankly tough to read if you have any knowledge of journalistic standards.

The Times details the details in far greater, clearer fashion with less editorializing but stops short of drawing conclusions.

That is my take on the articles I was glad to read in order to have a more informed conversation with you.

Do we differ in our takes so far to any significant degree?

Do we yet know the finding of the DOJ-FBI investigation ad reported in the third August piece?

If you're asking me to draw a conclusive as to what did or did not happen, i don't think by now you'll be surprised I remain agnostic. Obviously the FBI and DOJ believe there is enough there to warrant investigating. I wouldn't second guess them.

I can tell you this now, if they do find impropriety or illegal activity, nothing I read just now has convinced me they'll have reached a wrong conclusion.

Similarly, however, I don't think you'll be surprised I'm not going to preemptively reach a conclusion in the other direction sans an investigation based on 3 press articles.

If you've convinced something happened based on the same articles I just read and preemptively reject any conclusion reached by the FBI-DoJ not your own, you and I are going to have little common frame of reference on the topic.

The only way I can explain that in my life my professional life I have come to think and process like the Times reported.

You're free to criticize that as you like.

In my view, they are equally dangerous. He is not POTUS material. She is disqualified to because, at the very least, she had an unsecured email server in her bathroom at home and on that server, classified info was stored. Anybody that classically stupid or arrogant, should not be POTUS.

As I say, binary choice.

As for me, I'll take the candidate who demonstrates the intellectual and temperamental capacity to learn from a bad mistake and whose motivations to be a public servant are clear and documented, as opposed to the candidate who has made it clear she or he is incapable or unwilling to second-guess themselves, to acknowledge and correct mistakes, and whose primary motivating force is nakedly a sense of self.

I'm confident you'll immediately recognize whom I'm referring to, respectively, by those descriptions alone.

Did I get my homework in on time?

I'm certain I spent more time reading the Times article and writing this response than you did finding it. Unless you hadn't already the Times piece, in which case I think I simply helped us both become better informed and better versed in the topic.

So be snarky all you like, I think that's a good thing.

Its called having a little fun. I had to read the article too and you know with my reading level that took time! (another joke...)

Thanks for a well written response. I understand your binary choice well. HE is an idiot. She is the only rational option, as you see it. IMO, She has made many bad mistakes and shows a propensity for them. She is driven by power and money and has poor ethics. They are both older and probably not going to change much. As I have said, we should have better choices but we don't.

I will not vote for either, however when the winner is inaugurated, I will give them my support while watching closely.

Will you acknowledge and support a Trump win?