The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

[The Raven]

It amazes me that anyone even takes that rag seriously. (HuffPo, not Ivanka LOL)

But we are the uneducated deplorables for calling them on their bullshit and calling them fake news. :/

The more I see crap like that, the more it reaffirms my choice to vote for Trump and get the entitled scum out of power, and the happier I get every time Trump tweets about fake news.
[doublepost=1496097221,1496096930][/doublepost]


I can understand the press not liking Trump for the way he treats some of them, but not liking him because he lies?? How did you feel about Hillary coming under sniper fire, LOL. They're politicians. It is their jobs to lie to the media and the public.

We don't like Hillary either, for the record, but we dislike Trump more. As BmoreBird said, he lies more.

 

[Willbacker]

The one thing that still blows my mind is there's a lot of talk of division in the country, but so many people still fly confederate flags.

Like, does history escape you?
[doublepost=1496099700,1496099407][/doublepost]On the topic of Hillary vs Trump lying, PolitiFact is a nifty little website that I enjoy using because they fact check all statements made by major politicians and rate them, while also sourcing all places that they got their facts from.

Anyway, Trump was mostly false, false, or pants on fire lying on a staggering 68% of his statements. He was pants on fire on 16%, which is pretty absurd.

Clinton was half true, mostly true, or true on 75% of her statements made. She was pants on fire on only 2% of her statements.

Politifact is a snide arrogant liberal outfit run by MSM.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

Politifact is a snide arrogant liberal outfit run by MSM.

So we're going to ignore the fact that they actually fact check and source all their claims because you don't like who runs them? They won the Pulitzer Prize.

By the way, do you know who even runs PolitiFact?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/

 

[Somerset Ravens]

We don't like Hillary either, for the record, but we dislike Trump more. As BmoreBird said, he lies more.

Hilary is much more adept at the political game than Trump. She is very good at dodging the truth.

 

[Willbacker]

So we're going to ignore the fact that they actually fact check and source all their claims because you don't like who runs them? They won the Pulitzer Prize.

By the way, do you know who even runs PolitiFact?

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politifact/

The Tampa Bay Times and Obama won the Nobel Prize.

 

[flynismo]

The one thing that still blows my mind is there's a lot of talk of division in the country, but so many people still fly confederate flags.

Like, does history escape you?
[doublepost=1496099700,1496099407][/doublepost]On the topic of Hillary vs Trump lying, PolitiFact is a nifty little website that I enjoy using because they fact check all statements made by major politicians and rate them, while also sourcing all places that they got their facts from.

Anyway, Trump was mostly false, false, or pants on fire lying on a staggering 68% of his statements. He was pants on fire on 16%, which is pretty absurd.

Clinton was half true, mostly true, or true on 75% of her statements made. She was pants on fire on only 2% of her statements.

Yeah, I have opinions about people who fly the rebel flag, but I'll keep it to myself. I don't want to hear about "division" from any of them.

I really don't care about fact checking if it is used to try to portray one person as more honest as another. Either you are honest or you are not. I do not have time or desire to attempt to figure out if someone is lying to my face.
Trump is a damn liar. So is Hillary.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

The Tampa Bay Times and Obama won the Nobel Prize.

Without using Google, did you know the Tampa Bay Times is an independent news source? I'd hardly call them mainstream media.
[doublepost=1496106307,1496106237][/doublepost]

The thing is with the scientists is that if they say climate warming is an overreaction then boom there goes their grants and all the work they actually put into it. Their whole life would be worthless.

Just curious, are you going to try to refute global warming?
[doublepost=1496106390][/doublepost]

Yeah, I have opinions about people who fly the rebel flag, but I'll keep it to myself. I don't want to hear about "division" from any of them./QUOTE]
I remember when confederate memorabilia was being pulled off the shelves and all these fake news reports were coming out about how the south wanted to abolish slavery and fake quotes from Lincoln. Seriously, did anyone take a history class?

 

[flynismo]

We don't like Hillary either, for the record, but we dislike Trump more. As BmoreBird said, he lies more.

Are you sure that is really why? I mean, it's kind of like liking one person over another because he steals a little less or doesn't commit as many murders.
I think people don't like him simply because of his personality, and his platform. Both are perfectly valid reasons. I just don't believe it is really because he is blatant about his lies.

 

[29BmoreBird22]

I think people don't like him simply because of his personality, and his platform. Both are perfectly valid reasons. I just don't believe it is really because he is blatant about his lies.

Personally, I find his lies amusing because they're usually very blatant and easy to debunk to the point that you have to wonder if he thinks before he opens his mouth.

 

[flynismo]

Hilary is much more adept at the political game than Trump. She is very good at dodging the truth.

Apparently she's great at dodging snipers too

 

[K-Dog]

As the old joke goes...
"How do you know when a politician is lieing?

His ( her ) lips are moving. "

 

[flynismo]

Personally, I find his lies amusing because they're usually very blatant and easy to debunk to the point that you have to wonder if he thinks before he opens his mouth.

Hillary's are no better. I laughed my ass off at the irony of TRUMP calling her out when she lied about her previous support of TPP, or after falsely accusing Trump of painting "such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country," Clinton made up a blatant lie about stop-and-frisk being unconstitutional and racist.

 

[flynismo]

The issue I have for the rich and wealthy business owners is that the goal of every single corporation and business is to maximize profits.

If they can make money without hiring anyone new, why would they hire someone new? If they can make even more money with the same amount of people due to tax breaks, why would they hire more people?

The only way they'll hire more people is because they think that'll lead to larger profits.

These business aren't going to go out of their ways to hire people because they can or just hand out raises and bonuses because they have more money to.

When a business hires new people, they are expecting a corresponding increase in productivity. A very general rule of thumb is that each employee should be generating income for the company that is at least 3x their salary. So if you make $1000/week, you should be generating $3000 week in revenue for the company. Employees aren't overhead, they are assets. So tax breaks can help employers afford to hire more employees; more employees = more productivity = more revenue being generated.

After rereading your comment, I just noticed the bolded part. So I wasn't telling you anything you didn't already know. But it is applicable in nearly any business; even in a tiny business, like say a family owned restaurant, where more employees won't necessarily result in more production. Having an extra employee or two for them means that they can assign less overtime hours to other employees; which not just saves the company money, but it keeps everyone happy, and hey, there's one or two people employed that weren't employed before.

 

[RavensDFan]

I want to throw out some questions and see if we can get a good debate going about some stuff.

1) We've made so much advances in technology, some may argue too much but yet in politics we still have the same old tired 2 party system. Do you guys feel the 2 party system is out of date and should have been advanced in a way by now that we should have had legit 3rd party candidates to vote for?

2) Speaking of our 2 party system, most would say this is the most divided our country has been in years(many blame the last 8 years of Obama on the fact we are so divided at this point) so shouldn't we also just get past candidates being for Republican, Democrat, Right Wing, Liberal, and trying to unify this country as those labels also divide the country down the middle.

It would take an over the top amazing 3rd party candidate to ever win enough support to be President. We have a 2 party system but it does not restrict 3rd party candidates from running. In order for a 3rd party candidate to realistically pursue the Presidency, they would have to establish a strong and long record beginning locally, through their state and then into national limelight.

Sanders is an Independent and known nationally yet he still felt the need to run for President as a Democrat.

I'm a centrist. I have voted Dem, GOP and Independent. I'd vote 3rd party if I felt the candidate best fit my views and ideals. I vote on issues for the most part and not party.

 

[jboy19]

I want to throw out some questions and see if we can get a good debate going about some stuff.

1) We've made so much advances in technology, some may argue too much but yet in politics we still have the same old tired 2 party system. Do you guys feel the 2 party system is out of date and should have been advanced in a way by now that we should have had legit 3rd party candidates to vote for?

2) Speaking of our 2 party system, most would say this is the most divided our country has been in years(many blame the last 8 years of Obama on the fact we are so divided at this point) so shouldn't we also just get past candidates being for Republican, Democrat, Right Wing, Liberal, and trying to unify this country as those labels also divide the country down the middle.

I think there is value to the two-party system in that it does, in theory, narrow elections down to two candidates. Parties effectively work when they are "platforms" for a population with a wide array of views as opposed to "tribes." In other words, the GOP traditionally has a wide ideological population of things like moderate libertarians, moral conservatives, Neoconservatives, etc.
From that population, one candidate gets nominated. Same for the Democrats who have a wide ideological base.

Theres always going to be people who are excluded because their preferred candidate lost in the nomination- and that's always been true. It's just been more pronounced recently since both parties have become more fragmented- Bernie and Hillary were extremely different candidates with extremely different platforms, same with Trump and the other GOP primary candidates. Most of the time people will compromise and vote for a candidate that they like more- and that for the most part happened in 2016.

The question is really whether that is good or not: I would argue it is because pluralities get messy. If the candidate that "wins" the election only got 30% of the vote that means that a candidate won who 70% of people voted against. Under the current Electoral system that would also mean that either one party would split and the other would win every election or every election would be decided by the House of Representatives among the top 3 electoral finishers.

The basis of politics is the ability to compromise- and I would argue that the erosion of that idea is more to blame for the divisiveness in the country than any specific person/party. The Federal Government is gridlocked because we voted it into gridlock by voting largely for politicians who are unwilling to compromise with the other side. Its generally bad when we load Congress up with Ted Cruzs and Elizabeth Warrens who view their opposing parties as "stupid" or "bigoted" instead of trying to find a compromise. The fact that people can't see value in each other's arguments is the most disturbing trend in this country.

 

[flynismo]

The fact that people can't see value in each other's arguments is the most disturbing trend in this country.

It drives me up the goddamned wall. It is exactly wrong with pretty much everything in the world today. You're racist if you want immigration laws enforced (which isn't even the correct insult to sling, it would be bigoted), you're xenophobic if you approve of Trump's travel ban (but you are reasonable for agreeing with Obama's travel ban) and on and on and on with these idiotic labels. And yes, I do place a lot of the blame on Obama for that atmosphere of labels and safe spaces and entitlement.
And no, my last sentence is not hypocritical; this atmosphere was thrust upon us, whether many of us liked it or not. It was not exactly a well thought out and procedural process that took place.

 

[Willbacker]

Without using Google, did you know the Tampa Bay Times is an independent news source? I'd hardly call them mainstream media.
[doublepost=1496106307,1496106237][/doublepost]
Just curious, are you going to try to refute global warming?
[doublepost=1496106390][/doublepost]

Since I don't read the TB Times I cant judge but the way politifact operates I find that hard to believe. On global warming I'm not sure since I don't study it but I don't buy it hook,line and sinker. Did you read the article I left?

Hillary's are no better. I laughed my ass off at the irony of TRUMP calling her out when she lied about her previous support of TPP, or after falsely accusing Trump of painting "such a dire negative picture of black communities in our country," Clinton made up a blatant lie about stop-and-frisk being unconstitutional and racist.

You're missing the best one my friend. "When they go low. We go high". They wanted to impeach Trump before the inauguration, recount votes, end the electoral college and just in general have been crybabies since. Oh yeah and Hillary disappeared in the woods to go sulk.

 

[flynismo]

They wanted to impeach Trump before the inauguration, recount votes, end the electoral college and just in general have been crybabies since. Oh yeah and Hillary disappeared in the woods to go sulk.

I think there are so many crybabies because they take their lead from her:

"According to sources cited by “The Kincannon Show” on radio, Hillary Clinton lost her composure entirely when her loss to Donald Trump became evident, “crying” so much that it was “hard to understand what she was saying.”

Klein said she even turned combative against her staff."


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/11/report-hillary-physically-violent-after-losing/#AE9ISAXkVFCrHlGT.99

 

[ThatsMyJoeTerback]

Did anyone see what Kathy Griffin did? I'm no sympathizer of Trump, but what she did was unacceptable.

 

[Rusfan]

Did anyone see what Kathy Griffin did? I'm no sympathizer of Trump, but what she did was unacceptable.

Yup and appearantely Barron (Trump's 11 year old son) thought it was real and freaked out.