Displaying 1 - 10 of 5049 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Aug 12, 2017 09:49 AM
    Last: 10hr
    456

    I am not arguing the white supremacist leanings of Donald Trump. I am just casting doubt that people are reading too much into specific hand gestures. The one above I have used many times in making presentations at my old company. It means "okay". Okay?

    Does that make me a white supremacist? Trump uses lots of different hand gestures...73 total according to Bloomberg. Is each one some kind of code to his base? Naw...only for conspiracy theorists.

    I also understand that in other cultures the so called white supremacist gesture above has a more vulgar meaning, and I was cautioned not to use it when I was overseas.

    Of course you can believe what you want to believe, and I'm not going to pile on that one. Others here can if they like.

  • Aug 12, 2017 09:49 AM
    Last: 10hr
    456
    Sorry Dutch but I'm not into all this conspiracy stuff about Trump's hand gesture as a code for affiliation with the white suprematists or the secret society Illuminati as some have suggested. Trump has some 73 hand gestures that he frequently uses in somewhat random fashion, but much the way he speaks in fragmented sentences, I doubt that there is anything that suggests "secret code" to his supporters. He's not that smart. I think this conspiracy stuff gets way out of hand. Let's stick with facts.
  • Jul 03, 2017 01:37 PM
    Last: 15m
    574

    Yes data mining has many forms. In the 2016 election Trump surrogates used Cambridge Analytica to mine such things as Facebook likes to develop "psychographic profiles" on people to know how they were going to vote even before they declared their intentions. From that data they were able to make ads targeting specific demographics in specific areas...much more cost effective than blanket TV ads. The effectiveness of this approach is being debated, but the data mining is real.

    The Trump administration request for data on anyone of the 1.3 million people who visited the Dreamhost site is really pushing into the legalities of the First Amendment. It is difficult to know how the Supreme Court might rule in this matter if the challenge reaches them. Assuming it affirms the right, it will set a dangerous precedent...Big Brother will really be watching you...legally.

  • Aug 12, 2017 09:49 AM
    Last: 10hr
    456

    "No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin or his background or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite." -- Barack Obama tweet quoting Nelson Mandela

    Obama's tweet above is a quote from Nelson Mandela's 1994 autobiography "Long Walk to Freedom".

    It is also has the record for the most likes ever.

    True leaders know how to respond appropriately. This is Barack Obama's gift to America.

  • Jul 30, 2017 06:42 PM
    Last: 13hr
    393

    Yes, I can appreciate that North Korea broke its promises. But what do you see is an alternative? Military action? Or diplomacy picking up from the Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama administrations (until the death of Kim Jong Il). None of these presidents engaged in the saber rattling that is now a hallmark of the Trump administration.

    If their respective administration's efforts to stop the North Koreans from developing a nuclear weapon are all seen as failures, then with 20:20 hindsight what would you have advocated then versus now? Bomb the shit out of them?

  • Jul 30, 2017 06:42 PM
    Last: 13hr
    393

    August 10, 2017: Former President Jimmy Carter releases statement on North Korea

    Somehow I missed Jimmy Carter's statement on North Korea. I think it shows a man of real wisdom. I have copied his statement in its entirety below. When Republicans talk about taking our country back, wouldn't it be nice to go back to the Jimmy Carter era. Carter only served one term but he kept us out of war.

    Maybe Trump should send Carter to NK to negotiate. Ha!

    ATLANTA - Former United States President Jimmy Carter released a statement Thursday after the recent comments made back and forth between United States officials and North Korea.

    Here is the statement:

    "The harsh rhetoric from Washington and Pyongyang during recent months has exacerbated an already confrontational relationship between our countries, and has probably eliminated any chance of good faith peace talks between the United States and North Korea. In addition to restraining the warlike rhetoric, our leaders need to encourage talks between North Korea and other countries, especially China and Russia. The recent UN Security Council unanimous vote for new sanctions suggests that these countries could help. In all cases, a nuclear exchange must be avoided. All parties must assure North Koreans they we will forego any military action against them if North Korea remains peaceful.

    "I have visited North Korea three times, and have spent more than 20 hours in discussions with their political leaders regarding important issues that affect U.S.-DPRK relations.

    "In June 1994, I met with Kim Il Sung in a time of crisis, when he agreed to put all their nuclear programs under strict supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency and to seek mutual agreement with the United States on a permanent peace treaty, to have summit talks with the president of South Korea, to expedite the recovery of the remains of American service personnel buried in his country, and to take other steps to ease tension on the peninsula. Kim Il Sung died shortly after my visit, and his successor, Kim Jong Il, notified me and leaders in Washington that he would honor the promises made by his father. These obligations were later confirmed officially in negotiations in Geneva by Robert Gallucci and other representatives of the Clinton administration.

    "I returned to Pyongyang in August 2010, at the invitation of North Korean leaders, to bring home Aijalon Gomes, an American who had been detained there. My last visit to North Korea was in May 2011 when I led a delegation of Elders (former presidents of Ireland and Finland and former prime minister of Norway) to assure the delivery of donated food directly to needy people.

    "During all these visits, the North Koreans emphasized that they wanted peaceful relations with the United States and their neighbors, but were convinced that we planned a preemptive military strike against their country. They wanted a peace treaty (especially with America) to replace the ceasefire agreement that had existed since the end of the Korean War in 1953, and to end the economic sanctions that had been very damaging to them during that long interim period. They have made it clear to me and others that their first priority is to assure that their military capability is capable of destroying a large part of Seoul and of responding strongly in other ways to any American attack. The influence of China in Pyongyang seems to be greatly reduced since Kim Jong Un became the North Korean leader in December 2011.

    "A commitment to peace by the United States and North Korea is crucial. When this confrontational crisis is ended, the United States should be prepared to consummate a permanent treaty to replace the ceasefire of 1953. The United States should make this clear, to North Koreans and to our allies."

  • Aug 12, 2017 09:49 AM
    Last: 10hr
    456
    TJ Wrote: Schmidt, You're usually a voice of reason but I disagree on this one. Small children like to challenge their boundaries and it's acceptance of their (Nazi like thugs) pushing the envelope that grows into non whites being challenged on buses, in restaurants, at airports, etc.. A greater lack of social acceptance is what adults should demand.

    TJ -- There's a difference between a confrontation in a restaurant, bus or train (like in Portland). Those are happenings....not planned. People that are targeted in those situations have no choice but to use their best wits to stop an ugly situation. Sometimes it doesn't work out. The victims of the Portland train stabbings did the right thing even though it cost two of them their lives.

    The Alt-right march in Charlottesville was planned for weeks. It had all the makings of something that was destined to get ugly. The marchers came ready to fight a liberal. Many did not wear street clothes but came in military attire.

    However, what if they marched and no one was there to watch them? Would they have claimed victory? Perhaps. But what they really wanted was confrontation. A street fight. I would not have given them that opportunity. You don't confront people who are angry...a mob scene. You're not going to change their minds...never. So what's the point in provoking them?

  • Aug 12, 2017 09:49 AM
    Last: 10hr
    456

    I'm not going to defend JC, and in any case all the discussion of a permit or no permit misses the bigger point. I saw all the photos and videos of the alt-right marchers some dressed up in military garb. They seemed like a fanatical bunch, and if everyone would have just left them alone with their silly march, then public opinion would not have been kind to them.

    I appreciate that the anti-Nazi's have also have a right to voice their opinions, but I personally would never confront an angry mob face to face any more than I would confront another driver full of road rage. Or a bunch of hooligans after a soccer match in which their team lost. When you have a mob of angry people marching, my view is to leave them march and work off their anger. Confronting them just stokes their anger more. Mob rule invites all kinds of bad outcomes.

    It was a situation that common sense for me would have said "stay away".

  • Jul 03, 2017 01:37 PM
    Last: 15m
    574
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    I care about Democratic voter turnout. I don't care if a republican ever voted again. If higher Democratic voter turnout is desired then give them something to vote for. Simple as that. Trump gave them what they wanted to hear and he got elected. Give people something to vote for and they will vote.

    Trump did give them something to vote for. He promised better health care for everyone and at a lower cost. Hillary could not compete with that. Trump promised to bring back the coal mining jobs. Hillary could not compete with that. Trump promised to reopen old inefficient factories in the rust belt. Hillary offered them other opportunities.

    Bernie promised single payer Medicare for all. Hillary could not offer that because she knew the reality of the make-up of Congress.

    Bernie promised free college education for everyone. Hillary did her homework and in her honesty couldn't compete with that. All she could offer is more affordable college.

    20 million students owing trillions of dollars in college debt shows Democratic politicians don't care about people.

    Democratic politicians do care about the people and have tried every way to reduce the impact of college tuition. It's funny that you never mention Republican obstructionism of Obama's proposals for something as simple as free community college. He couldn't get that past the Republicans so how would Bernie's promises for "free stuff" fare any better or Jill Stein's promise to wipe out all college debt? It has a certain sexy appeal for young people, but it would never have the votes. either in Congress or by the majority of the American people once they knew what it would cost them.

    "Over the last 40 years, voter turnout has been steadily declining in the established democracies.[1] This trend has been significant in the United States, Western Europe, Japan and Latin America. It has been a matter of concern and controversy among political scientists for several decades. During this same period, other forms of political participation have also declined, such as voluntary participation in political parties and the attendance of observers at town meeting

    At the same time, some forms of participation have increased. People have become far more likely to participate in boycotts, demonstrations, and to donate to political campaigns.

    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout"

    Maybe if the candidates for office were honest in what they can deliver there would be more participation. Cynicism builds when wild campaign promises like those of Bernie, Jill and The Donald are made, but are never going to get past the reality of our elected members of Congress. Even President Obama was subject to harsh criticism (the "Obama promised" folks) when Republicans obstructed (sabotaged) much of his planned agenda.

    Progressive CNN commentator Van Jones censures Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton as well as the Democratic National Committee for their 2016 loss against Donald Trump, complaining that they have wasted a billion dollars in the process.

    Another diversion? I don't see what point you are making. There are lots of progressives blaming Hillary for the loss. "If only we had nominated Bernie we would have won" is a fantasy tail that many Bernie progressives cling to. If you do Google searches you'll find many more Bernie people all piling on Hillary. It's what they do to shirk the responsibility that they themselves played a role in Hillary's loss...some of them voting for Trump out of hate for Hillary.

  • Jul 03, 2017 01:37 PM
    Last: 15m
    574
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Hospitals Lobby Hard for Medicaid Expansion

    That was 4 years ago and here is the outcome:

    "the number of deaths attributable to the lack of Medicaid expansion in opt-out states at between 7,115 and 17,104."

    You are aware that the Supreme Court ruled four years ago that states could opt out of Medicaid expansion. So after that ruling, efforts to expand Medicaid are on a state by state basis. There is no lobbying anymore at the federal level because SCOTUS has set in stone the law in that regard.

    The states that chose to opt out of Medicaid expansion, are largely Republican controlled. Democrats in many of those states have pushed hard for Medicaid expansion but when the Republicans are in control, they say "no". That's partly due to the fact that they despise anything with Obama's name on it, but also philosophically they just don't like the intrusion of the federal government into their daily lives.

    The number of deaths that you cite above can be attributable to the Republican controlled state legislatures and governors who chose to deny healthcare to their citizens.