DrAlphaeus wrote:guns, I don't get what questioning someone's birthplace has to do with questioning that person's religion and ideology.

Obama's citizenship is a simple fact that Trump said he didn't believe. Simply put, Trump accused Obama of a grand conspiracy against the US stretching from Nairobi to Honolulu.

Now he's thinks Obama is an American after the damage he caused to Obama's reputation in some circles was already done.

What was Trump's motive? I dunno. Why did the boy cry wolf? Attention, I guess.

Not only was it damage to Obama, it was damage to America, and the Republicans who needed to curry-favor with that same base of voters - the utterly disgusting amongst us - are certainly complicit in this one action as well as demeaning further political bars that are getting lowered by the day.

Trump's rise, his political career was started on this Birtherism lie and the demeaning of what should be a high standard of American values. Let that sink in.

Welpee wrote:

fishmike wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:This radical administration and their most stonch supportors like to accuse of fear mongering and say things like more Americans were killed by sharks this year than domestic terrorism.

However I am glad to to see Hillary starting to choose her words more wisely when it comes to things like a better getting system so we know who we are allowing in.

Shows me she has some common sense unlike Obama who regurgitates the same nonsense aced each incident leaving me to question his true beliefs and who's side he's actually on.

Just realized something that I was going back and forth on with Dr. Alphaeus and another poster in regards to the Trump birther thing. I was under the impression that it had to do with questioning Obamas religious and ideological beliefs. It didn't make sense to me that anyone would want a President removed because of the color of his skin in 2016. That's why I said I thought Trump didn't really believe what he was saying but was making the point that President Obama protects everyone but his own American people.

Maybe I am wrong about what exactly Trumps motives were at the time. I don't know you tell me. Those guys took it as me supporting Trumps racism towards a black President when that was the furthest thing from my mind and I would like to think Trumps as well. This is why I didn't understand what Doc was asking me. Now I got it.

There is no religious test for office, first off.

Obama got in trouble for his fiery Christian pastor. Then people are obsessed with his Arabic middle name and living abroad, he's a crypto-Muslim. He's a half black guy with a Muslim name born in the one US state that has never had a white majority — Hawai'i — and lived in a majority Islamic state Indonesia.

Obama is the "Other"... "Not Us". Race, religion, non-mainland, and people are freaking out. To me, he's pretty centrist, and techno-corporate.

Many people perceive he is not American enough. Are you one? Because he read a book by Alinsky? What time is your book burning party?

I don't use "racist" because I know that just ends the conversation. But ask yourself why someone would actually think he's on the side of Islamic terrorists instead of his own people? It's an outrageous accusation. Defend it.

Just a gut feeling I have.
Everyone is free to disagree.

So your gut says that Obama is on the side of the terrorists and an enemy of the American people?

Whats Obama's middle name? I mean if the shoe fits... Do folks really need more evidence? Sheesh!

What's Trump's middle name? John. So I guess he should be associated with serial killer John Wayne Gacy? Do folks really need more evidence? Sheesh?

I think he was being sarcastic

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, there are reports now that George H W Bush is supporting Hillary!

She is more conservative than he is.

Bush's really have never shown to be "conservative", they tow the party line.
George H. and even W. really never shown a core conservative line.

Im thinking for him to endorse Hilary is really calling out Trump the piece of shyt he is.
Don't forget, George H. and Bill Clinton relationship is very tight for many years. I thought for years George handed him the election and basically got to hand pick his successor.
Did Al Gore when W. was anointed a planned event? Did Gore not go along with the script?
Who knows, but George and Bill are as thick as thieves so its no surprise she gets a Bush endorsement. W. has a book about his paintings coming out. He is a far simple man.

Bill will a hand in a Hilary presidency. Is that a good thing? Maybe if the Republicans didn't have a clown running there would be a viable choice. I'll take "BillAry" over Donald and Melania.
Where is Melania? OUt campaigning? Or locked up as not to further embarrass her self?

True. Bill behind the scenes worries me as much as Hillary as president. If she ran openly as a conservative Democrat (which she is) her candidacy might be easier for me to handle. Its when she calls herself a progressive, that I have to change the channel.

Nixon did some progressive things in office, maybe more substantial than Bill Clinton, but no one would suggest that he was a progressive. Bill and Hillary Clinton have done very little to earn that label.
.

What can a president really do to enact change? Obama had 2 years where he had both houses until the tea party came in and did everything to make him look bad.
At this juncture we have a choice. Hilary is a gangster like most politicians and a women which is giving her big problems. Trump is a pure sociopath business man who only motivation is the accumulation of pleasure, money and power. A man who has flipped on most things I have now idea where he stands. I am disturbed by the apathy by the American public to his indiscretions where Hilary's have been blown out of proportion.
So I vote without enthusiasm not for Hilary, but to prevent a man I see not fit to represent and uphold the constitution that is the greatest document in the history of mankind to govern a nation. Its execution is not perfect but it is worth defending. This is my patriotic duty to honor all those who fought for our freedoms and many died for those basic rights.

Trump is motivated to be president for his selfish reasons which is why he has no dignity and is shamelessly pandering to the public.

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

fishmike wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:This radical administration and their most stonch supportors like to accuse of fear mongering and say things like more Americans were killed by sharks this year than domestic terrorism.

However I am glad to to see Hillary starting to choose her words more wisely when it comes to things like a better getting system so we know who we are allowing in.

Shows me she has some common sense unlike Obama who regurgitates the same nonsense aced each incident leaving me to question his true beliefs and who's side he's actually on.

Just realized something that I was going back and forth on with Dr. Alphaeus and another poster in regards to the Trump birther thing. I was under the impression that it had to do with questioning Obamas religious and ideological beliefs. It didn't make sense to me that anyone would want a President removed because of the color of his skin in 2016. That's why I said I thought Trump didn't really believe what he was saying but was making the point that President Obama protects everyone but his own American people.

Maybe I am wrong about what exactly Trumps motives were at the time. I don't know you tell me. Those guys took it as me supporting Trumps racism towards a black President when that was the furthest thing from my mind and I would like to think Trumps as well. This is why I didn't understand what Doc was asking me. Now I got it.

There is no religious test for office, first off.

Obama got in trouble for his fiery Christian pastor. Then people are obsessed with his Arabic middle name and living abroad, he's a crypto-Muslim. He's a half black guy with a Muslim name born in the one US state that has never had a white majority — Hawai'i — and lived in a majority Islamic state Indonesia.

Obama is the "Other"... "Not Us". Race, religion, non-mainland, and people are freaking out. To me, he's pretty centrist, and techno-corporate.

Many people perceive he is not American enough. Are you one? Because he read a book by Alinsky? What time is your book burning party?

I don't use "racist" because I know that just ends the conversation. But ask yourself why someone would actually think he's on the side of Islamic terrorists instead of his own people? It's an outrageous accusation. Defend it.

Just a gut feeling I have.
Everyone is free to disagree.

So your gut says that Obama is on the side of the terrorists and an enemy of the American people?

Whats Obama's middle name? I mean if the shoe fits... Do folks really need more evidence? Sheesh!

What's Trump's middle name? John. So I guess he should be associated with serial killer John Wayne Gacy? Do folks really need more evidence? Sheesh?

I think he was being sarcastic

My bad, hard to tell these days.

Politics in this country are tough to stomach. As you can see from this thread most are really not interested in the truth or reality. Elections are won and lost on feelings and 1 or 2 issues that are important to people. What is worse is the direct relationship between money spent and who wins. Didn't Obama crush McCain when it came to raising money? Sure.. some folks are informed and do research, but most "people" pick a candidate first based on their party affiliation and second how they "feel" about him. Guns "feels" like Trump is the best choice, Briggs "feels" like Trump is the best choice, but neither can provide anything but rhetoric and mud as to why that is the case.

Alinsky's last book was called Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. It's been described as Machiavelli's The Prince for the Have Nots.

Here they are:

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Hmm... not as Satanic as I thought! In fact, it seems like Trump instinctively used these rules to get where he is. The Tea Party explicitly used these rules themselves until they wrote their own Rules for Patriots.

Not saying Trump is a student of Alinsky. Just wondering if I had put this list up and said it was from The Art of the Deal, if guns would have even known the difference.

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:Wow, there are reports now that George H W Bush is supporting Hillary!

She is more conservative than he is.

Bush's really have never shown to be "conservative", they tow the party line.
George H. and even W. really never shown a core conservative line.

Im thinking for him to endorse Hilary is really calling out Trump the piece of shyt he is.
Don't forget, George H. and Bill Clinton relationship is very tight for many years. I thought for years George handed him the election and basically got to hand pick his successor.
Did Al Gore when W. was anointed a planned event? Did Gore not go along with the script?
Who knows, but George and Bill are as thick as thieves so its no surprise she gets a Bush endorsement. W. has a book about his paintings coming out. He is a far simple man.

Bill will a hand in a Hilary presidency. Is that a good thing? Maybe if the Republicans didn't have a clown running there would be a viable choice. I'll take "BillAry" over Donald and Melania.
Where is Melania? OUt campaigning? Or locked up as not to further embarrass her self?

True. Bill behind the scenes worries me as much as Hillary as president. If she ran openly as a conservative Democrat (which she is) her candidacy might be easier for me to handle. Its when she calls herself a progressive, that I have to change the channel.

Nixon did some progressive things in office, maybe more substantial than Bill Clinton, but no one would suggest that he was a progressive. Bill and Hillary Clinton have done very little to earn that label.
.

What can a president really do to enact change? Obama had 2 years where he had both houses until the tea party came in and did everything to make him look bad.
At this juncture we have a choice. Hilary is a gangster like most politicians and a women which is giving her big problems. Trump is a pure sociopath business man who only motivation is the accumulation of pleasure, money and power. A man who has flipped on most things I have now idea where he stands. I am disturbed by the apathy by the American public to his indiscretions where Hilary's have been blown out of proportion.
So I vote without enthusiasm not for Hilary, but to prevent a man I see not fit to represent and uphold the constitution that is the greatest document in the history of mankind to govern a nation. Its execution is not perfect but it is worth defending. This is my patriotic duty to honor all those who fought for our freedoms and many died for those basic rights.

Trump is motivated to be president for his selfish reasons which is why he has no dignity and is shamelessly pandering to the public.

You are assuming that Obama wanted to do anything but promote largely conservative policies while in office. His biggest hero by his own admission is Ronald Reagan. Obamacare was a Heritage foundation proposal from the 1990s.

Obama enacted very harsh austerity measures on govt workers. They talk about Obama and big govt, but he laid off more govt employees than any other president, maybe ever. This hurt the recovery.

He stocked a commission on "entitlements" with politicians and executives who wanted to gut social security and medicare. Guess what kind of a plan they came up with? Democrats and even some republicans pushed back hard.

He extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the great depression, people who were much more able to bear the added expense in a time when tens of millions of people were losing their jobs, their homes.

Obama made a deal with the pharmaceutical industry to prevent the govt from negotiating drug prices which keep pharmaceutical drugs the most expensive in the world in spite of the fact that we create most of them here, often with govt subsidies.

He has prosecuted more reporters and whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. People talk about how he is a secret Muslim, but Im curious to hear what kind of Muslim they think he is that would regularly bomb 7 Muslim countries, more than any other president?

You ask what a president can do? A lot when he sets his mind to it. FDR was facing a military coup engineered by the heads of some of America's largest corporations because of his anti-poverty programs. He told them that he "welcomed their hatred". Theodore Roosevelt was a trust buster. It all depends on how much you believe in what you say you represent.

Obama sold himself as a progressive, but he pushed mostly conservative policies. The only reason he didnt push through more of them was because the republicans didnt want to work with him on anything because he was black, not because their views were so divergent from his.

I understand the concern with Trump and I share it. Just dont believe any of us should believe that we will be less likely to get into more foreign entanglements with Hillary. She has an actual track record of militarism, unlike Trump. Dont believe either candidate should be taken lightly.

DrAlphaeus wrote:I will thank guns for making me look up Saul Alinsky since I mistakenly conflate him with the other favorite boogeyman Bill Ayers.

Alinsky's last book was called Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. It's been described as Machiavelli's The Prince for the Have Nots.

Here they are:

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.
4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.
5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.
11. “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.
13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Hmm... not as Satanic as I thought! In fact, it seems like Trump instinctively used these rules to get where he is. The Tea Party explicitly used these rules themselves until they wrote their own Rules for Patriots.

Not saying Trump is a student of Alinsky. Just wondering if I had put this list up and said it was from The Art of the Deal, if guns would have even known the difference.

Welpee wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Welpee wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

fishmike wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:This radical administration and their most stonch supportors like to accuse of fear mongering and say things like more Americans were killed by sharks this year than domestic terrorism.

However I am glad to to see Hillary starting to choose her words more wisely when it comes to things like a better getting system so we know who we are allowing in.

Shows me she has some common sense unlike Obama who regurgitates the same nonsense aced each incident leaving me to question his true beliefs and who's side he's actually on.

Just realized something that I was going back and forth on with Dr. Alphaeus and another poster in regards to the Trump birther thing. I was under the impression that it had to do with questioning Obamas religious and ideological beliefs. It didn't make sense to me that anyone would want a President removed because of the color of his skin in 2016. That's why I said I thought Trump didn't really believe what he was saying but was making the point that President Obama protects everyone but his own American people.

Maybe I am wrong about what exactly Trumps motives were at the time. I don't know you tell me. Those guys took it as me supporting Trumps racism towards a black President when that was the furthest thing from my mind and I would like to think Trumps as well. This is why I didn't understand what Doc was asking me. Now I got it.

There is no religious test for office, first off.

Obama got in trouble for his fiery Christian pastor. Then people are obsessed with his Arabic middle name and living abroad, he's a crypto-Muslim. He's a half black guy with a Muslim name born in the one US state that has never had a white majority — Hawai'i — and lived in a majority Islamic state Indonesia.

Obama is the "Other"... "Not Us". Race, religion, non-mainland, and people are freaking out. To me, he's pretty centrist, and techno-corporate.

Many people perceive he is not American enough. Are you one? Because he read a book by Alinsky? What time is your book burning party?

I don't use "racist" because I know that just ends the conversation. But ask yourself why someone would actually think he's on the side of Islamic terrorists instead of his own people? It's an outrageous accusation. Defend it.

Just a gut feeling I have.
Everyone is free to disagree.

So your gut says that Obama is on the side of the terrorists and an enemy of the American people?

Whats Obama's middle name? I mean if the shoe fits... Do folks really need more evidence? Sheesh!

What's Trump's middle name? John. So I guess he should be associated with serial killer John Wayne Gacy? Do folks really need more evidence? Sheesh?

I think he was being sarcastic

My bad, hard to tell these days.

Whats messed up is you think Trump might be a killer. I just thought he loved hookers. Sheesh!

Politics in this country are tough to stomach. As you can see from this thread most are really not interested in the truth or reality. Elections are won and lost on feelings and 1 or 2 issues that are important to people. What is worse is the direct relationship between money spent and who wins. Didn't Obama crush McCain when it came to raising money? Sure.. some folks are informed and do research, but most "people" pick a candidate first based on their party affiliation and second how they "feel" about him. Guns "feels" like Trump is the best choice, Briggs "feels" like Trump is the best choice, but neither can provide anything but rhetoric and mud as to why that is the case.

I found a website that lists about 60+ national issues and indicated where all of the candidate stood on them. After eliminating a couple I didn't care or knew enough about, I agreed with Hillary on like 40+ issues, Jill Stein came in second (though she is totally unqualified to be president), I agreed with Gary Johnson on about 30 issues and Trump came up last with like 18 issues. That was an eye opener for me since I'm not a fan of Hillary. Putting personality aside, the choice is clear for me. I hope more people go through this exercise, particularly millennials.

Can you share that site? I would love to see it.

http://2016election.procon.org/view.source-summary-chart.php

thanks.

DrAlphaeus wrote:meloshouldgo: are you not voting for president or not voting at all? There are other races down-ballot... every year...

Sorry, not voting for President. Or may write in Bernie just to make a point.