Although your posts regarding my statements are silly (and you know it).

Not at all. I'm just holding up a mirror to you in hopes of showing you something that I see.

I do find you, unlike Gary, Intellectually Stimulating.

That's unfortunate because I think Gary is quite intelligent. I don't always agree with what he says, but I do find him intellectually stimulating.

This is not the correct Forum for our back-and-forth.

Would be much more stimulating over coffee, or our favorite alcoholic beverage.

:-D I don't drink coffee or alcohol, but I get what you mean and I don't necessarily agree. That's what these forums are for.

I do find you, unlike Gary, Intellectually Stimulating.

That's unfortunate because I think Gary is quite intelligent. I don't always agree with what he says, but I do find him intellectually stimulating.

As I do you. However there are other posters here who are nothing but broken records.

---

I do find you, unlike Gary, Intellectually Stimulating.

That's unfortunate because I think Gary is quite intelligent. I don't always agree with what he says, but I do find him intellectually stimulating.

As I do you. However there are other posters here who are nothing but broken records.

You're not wrong there Gary. ;.-)

Cheers.

I do find you, unlike Gary, Intellectually Stimulating.

That's unfortunate because I think Gary is quite intelligent. I don't always agree with what he says, but I do find him intellectually stimulating.

As I do you. However there are other posters here who are nothing but broken records.

You're not wrong there Gary. ;.-)

Cheers.

Gary...

Wiggo is agreeing with you!

Aren't you concerned?

:) :) :)

BTW: Sorry to all Posters who wish to have an Intelligent Discussion regarding Dangerous Trump.

Wiggo has returned!

I wouldn't think so, it just shows we sometimes all get annoyed at people who keep playing broken records.

Wiggo is agreeing with you!

Aren't you concerned?

I'd be terrified if he didn't agree with me on many things. All human beings should agree with each other on many things.

I wouldn't think so, it just shows we sometimes all get annoyed at people who keep playing broken records.

It shows that humans are civilized, at least some of them.

---

I would make a suggestion, as I have before, that posters and their personalities are not what is under discussion here.

But I won't bother as these suggestion seem to be ignored anyway.

It might be nice for an "outsider" to see some intelligent discussion on Mr Trump. No seen much recently.

---

It might be nice for an "outsider" to see some intelligent discussion on Mr Trump. No seen much recently.

That in itself may be a reflection of the candidate.

---

I consider the following the same:

Men are (fill-in the negatives). Women are (fill-in the negatives). Whites are (fill-in the negatives). Blacks are (fill-in the negatives). Gays are (fill-in the negatives). Straights are (fill-in the negatives). Atheists are (fill-in the negatives). Christian/Jews/Hindus/Muslims/et al are (fill-in the negatives):

The above list shows the Bigotry of the accuser.

Left wingers are (fill-in the negatives). Right wingers are (fill-in the negatives).

Does that show the bigotry of the accuser as well?

Those that project their Inner Bigotry towards any group, are Evil. And should not be part of any Civil Discourse.

Correct?

Given your inner bigotry toward the extreme right, and your admitted and greater dislike for the left, I assume you are to be excluded from civil discourse then?

OzzFan...

Thank you for making my point regarding Ideologues (and their partners in Ignorance - or worse), Religious Fanatics.

According to your 'thinking':

Attacking The Right, KKK, Nazi's, etc. And their brethren in Hate: The Left, Progressives, Marxists, etc.:

Should not be part of a Civil Discourse?

OzzFan...

Hopefully, you were making a joke. Correct?

"CLYDE" wrote:

Those that project their Inner Bigotry towards any group, are Evil.

Are you protecting your inner bigotry now?

Could it be that, like many other elitist thinkers, this one believes the rules set for others don't apply to the rule setter? Might explain why this poster believes the choices of caucus and primary participants should be overturned.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

For both of them, the levels of unfavorability are so large that each should be un-Presidented.

WK in speaking with some various folks, there are Republicans who were against Trump that are now for him as the presumptive nominee. I am sure they would never ever vote for a Democrat, let alone a Clinton. My attempts to get them to consider independents such as Johnson or Stein (particularly Johnson in their cases) are met with a befuddled lack of knowledge he exists to no response.

I know a Latino that said he was for Trump about 7 months ago. About a month ago, he was against him. I did not find out why. But I know he does not like Hillary, either, and who knows whether he get swayed back into the Trump camp?

Look over your shoulder.
Be prepared.

Sorry, Bernie, i shall endeavor to speak more intelligently regarding Mf. Trump in the future.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

My statement that Trump could win is not based on belief. I have provided both anecdotal and wider evidence. And I expect my evidence to be debated. I expect to provided counter-evidence, also to be debated.

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Please oh please post about issues and not about one another.

In the interest of an attempt at free speech, moderators try to moderate posts in Politics "lightly", if at all.

Please oh please don't force us to become heavy-handed.

We don't want that. You don't want that.

Everybody play nice, or please don't play at all.

---

I could get back at the other things a little later on.

But is it not the time soon for a Presidential election to be carried out in practice by means of a general election?

Are the people on the street supposed to elect their leader, or should such a thing be carried out by either the Congress or the Senate instead.

Or perhaps it should be the Justice Department instead?

Yes, believe it or not, there should or ought to be a difference between an attorney of sorts and something else, but most likely we are not supposed to know or believe in such a thing.

As usual, we should be well aware that it always blows at the top, regardless of who you happen to be.

In the world of computers and technology...

Here I would make a difference between possible people by means of being either figures, personalities, or maybe something else.

You know, Donald Trump is currently a Presidential candidate by means of possibly being elected as being such if he receives a majority vote by the people who are able to select or make a choice between the different candidates.

First it becomes a question about whether or not "Joker" at any time could become President of the United States.

Or maybe it perhaps could rather be Arnold Schwarzenegger instead.

Or even an idiot or fool, for that matter.

Right now, who are supposed to be such a thing among the major candidates?

Honestly, if I am not wrong, the current battle appears to be right now to be between Mrs. Clinton and Donald Trump.

Neither of these two are wimps in any way, but for now, none of them are yet Commander in Chief.

If you happen to be a politician, you could be in charge of an e-mail system or another system being meant for information or communication purposes.

Here such things like encryption and the like should not be forgotten, in the same way as those things happening in the shadows should not be forgotten as well.

For the sake of the pure technical handling or management, including possible maintenance as well, such a thing is typically or often left to a Systems Administrator in order to handle or be dealing with such a thing.

One thing is hidden recording of verbal or voice communications, whether or not such a thing is being done by means of chatting in a room, or speaking with other by means of the telephone.

In no doubt, you are never supposed to completely rely on technological products, including computers and networks.

They easily could break.

The Justice System, including the FBI is not supposed to make any difference between certain politicians and the man in the street.

If a possible crime is being carried out, justice should be carried out and the culprit or perpetrator next being sentenced.

Mrs. Clinton is a Democrat. Still she is at times supposed to be giving the orders or tell certain people what to do and not to do.

Therefore, this current battle right now appears to be between the Joker and the Commander in Chief.

Yes, so sad, but most likely true as well.

From history we generally or typically are supposed to know the difference between the doves and the hawks and where each of these are supposed to belong.

In the end innocence becomes the loser in this ever lasting battle.

Here's something for Sunday afternoon reading:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/11/george-saunders-goes-to-trump-rallies

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Here's something for Sunday afternoon reading:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/11/george-saunders-goes-to-trump-rallies

Hum, Borg collective comes to mind. Or the leftist ideal, a union.
Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, the wall's gotta be built!

---

bluestar,

Good, well reasoned post.

Therefore, this current battle right now appears to be between the Joker and the Commander in Chief.

The problem is that BOTH of the major candidates are 'Jokers' this time around. There are other candidates running, such as Johnson from the Libertarian Party (I will likely vote for him). But, Politics in the USA have conditioned the People into believing that a vote for someone from a '3rd party' is a wasted vote. However if we are EVER going to break the two-party monopoly on US Politics, now is the perfect time to do it.

I don't think that very many people will have a problem with terming Trump as a Joker. One needs only look at his entertainment enterprises. His stint on TV in that show (what was it called? I never watched it...) where his catchphrase was "You're Fired!"... Add to that his re-occuring role on WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) shows... Bogus Comedy. He is the person many in the USA just LOVE to HATE. Trump is a Joker as in clown. A very dangerous, poisonous clown, but still a clown.

The other hand... Clinton. Clinton is a Joker as in 'thug from a Batman movie'.

It happens over and over. She does something wrong, people get hurt/killed, she gets off from being prosecuted. It is like she has a permanent 'get out of jail free' card. Remember Al Capone. They didn't get him on ANY of his gangster crimes. They finally got him on a charge of tax evasion, since he failed to declare his income from his criminal enterprises as income on his income tax return(s).

The question is what are her 'tax returns' going to be? She has, so far, been the Teflon Doña. Just what the heck is it going to take before something 'sticks'?

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

She has, so far, been the Teflon Doña.

She took lessons from Reagan!

---

I don't like Donald Trump.

He is a bully, he's used to getting his way. He's a successful businessman due to his advisors and analysts not any special personal talent other than listening to those advisors.

Gary Johnson is closer to my belief set than either 'major' candidate, but does he have a realistic chance to win? As of now I don't believe that's possible and so, also as of now, I will vote for Trump.

Allowing another Clinton regime to gain control of the White House will finish the job of morally bankrupting our country. To allow someone of Hillary's mentality to control the IRS, FBI, DOJ and Treasury scares me to death(as it does a lot of people, hence Trump's base).

The litany of offenses recited by Director Comey, and her blatant lies regarding almost everything demonstrate a person who could be termed a sociopath with no regard for anyone but herself.

My question for Hillary supporters is "Why do you believe she's telling YOU the truth?"

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Gary Johnson is closer to my belief set than either 'major' candidate, but does he have a realistic chance to win? As of now I don't believe that's possible and so, also as of now, I will vote for Trump.

Unless and until you put all your marbles in Gary Johnson's basket and vote for him, you insure Hillary a win.

My question for Hillary supporters is "Why do you believe she's telling YOU the truth?"

The question is why do you think they care if anything is the truth. Drumpf supporters don't seem to....

---

Is all this Trump and Brexit support a failure to understand globalisation.
FT - The revenge of globalisation’s losers

Is all this Trump and Brexit support a failure to understand globalisation.
FT - The revenge of globalisation’s losers

Paywall

---