|
Post by men an tol on Jul 31, 2016 1:22:47 GMT -5
Yes, I too believe this of Secretary Clinton. I think you have to want to believe it to get there ... orrr watch and read an awfully lot of right wing propaganda. She isn't my favorite .. primarily because she's a professional politician, and I'd like to see a real person elected .. but there are no such candidates that could possibly win this time around. I think Trump has been a great curiosity and, to his credit, has brought in a lot of people who weren't particularly interested in elections before. The same thing happened with Reagan in the 80s. I suspect it's celebrity worship. All that aside, it's possible he could do this country a great deal of harm. More harm than with Hillary in office. I believe that's the way we have to look at it or we'll deserve what we get. Here is one that we’ll just have to disagree on. I’ve followed Secretary Clinton and her husband with increasing interest since White Water. I believe that she is one of the most coldly calculating people I’ve ever seen at the national level. Not because there haven’t been (are) others who are just as calculating but most of those have a belief in something whether I agree with it or not. I think that she believes in nothing but Hillary and power. Not what she can do with the power for some goal but simply power for Hillary. And they are getting that power, certainly the money. Leave the Presidency and these few years later they are worth an estimated 300,000,000 dollars. They don’t make any thing, they haven’t any tangible assets to sell, all they have is the selling of influence. Oh yes, others have done similar things but not so blatantly and certainly not while one of them held high office in the government. While it is best not to trust the words of political professionals, as the old saying goes you know that she is lying when her mouth is open. She is the kind of person who came out and said good things about Bernie Sanders when she knows that he is a self-declared Socialist. Something that is an anathema to the United States. Why did she do it, because she wants his supporters. Her lies build one on top of the other and have done so until the real Hillary is lost under a mountain of acting. No, you don’t have to read Republican lies about her, simply follow the news stories and check the facts yourself. Is Donald Trump any better? Well I’ve never been a supporter of his. But I find his demeaning of others not to my liking. There are others I would have preferred but these two are what we have to deal with, and no matter which one wins the election, we are facing an increasingly hostile world. We better have the best pick of the two.
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Jul 31, 2016 1:39:04 GMT -5
If you think she lies more than Trump, I think you're way off base.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 31, 2016 4:32:17 GMT -5
""""no matter which one wins the election, we are facing an increasingly hostile world""" do you mean hostile to America or in generally hostile to any one
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 31, 2016 14:23:57 GMT -5
""""no matter which one wins the election, we are facing an increasingly hostile world""" do you mean hostile to America or in generally hostile to any one I mean both. Certainly the United States does not hold the position it once had, and that should be expected, however, I believe that this body of nations is entering a major transition and there will be a repositioning of all. It is quite possible that the position of the United Nations will become less important to nearly all nations and thereby dialog between nations will be less effective. Possibly even move its headquarters to Europe. So too with NATO as I believe that there will be a jockeying of positions within it and likely some will drop out or become even more less important. Russia will likely push to establish their position in the Eastern Block and obviously in Africa with their support of Syria. Those nations with energy sources will strive to become more independent and new relationships between nations will be developed based on access to energy. At some point it is likely that a war will develop over new alinement of nations and their access to energy, food, and water. Those with energy and food will become increasingly isolationist and that will create new treaty groups based on the sharing (selling) of such resources. I anticipate a new structuring with Great Britain, Canada, Mexico, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea, forming a new and stronger alliance. For those countries with the resources (inclusive of economic position), I suspect that militaries will be rebuilt with new weapons, new parts, available manpower, coming from within each country. For example in the United States I anticipate a growth of fully ready and modernized naval fleets from the current out of date 7 to at least 9 at full strength. I suspect that the European Union will morph into a new structure with fewer nations and centered around Germany. And the current challenge of Africa immigration will be solved with such peoples returned to Africa. Economies will be more tuned to focusing on the Pacific rim nations.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 31, 2016 14:36:55 GMT -5
If you think she lies more than Trump, I think you're way off base. From past postings I will say that I am not surprised at your assertion Sysop3. Certainly I see Donald Trump as exaggerations of his positions and of the directions he states he will go. Secretary Clinton however, is a life time of lies and a record of disregarding her governmental duties when holding a position within government. She also demonstrates doing things behind closed doors and (in my opinion) she has no idea (at least doesn’t care about) following Constitutional structure to get what she wants. We may find that Donald Trump will be a version of the same thing. We may find that he is simply a very shallow person, however, there is real evidence of directions of Secretary Clinton will go, with Donald Trump it is still mostly supposition. Remember, these are the only options that we have. Following her career from White Water to today, it has been a steady stream of lies and disregarding the Constitution and her Oath of Office. I understand that you do not agree with my positions on this, but whether she is elected or not, I believe that we will all find that what I suggest will be proven to all to be true. The times we are moving into are too important to the survival of the West to allow a known liar to have control. The only thing that will protect us is if the Congress really takes control as they are supposed to do.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jul 31, 2016 15:33:26 GMT -5
The only thing that will protect us is if the Congress really takes control as they are supposed to do. Surely you aren't serious. If the Congress ever actually got around to doing anything constructive or positive, the die would be cast before they got past the squabbling and actually passed a bill to suit the need. Can't immediately imagine a more negative, crippling way to go.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 31, 2016 16:09:48 GMT -5
The only thing that will protect us is if the Congress really takes control as they are supposed to do. Surely you aren't serious. If the Congress ever actually got around to doing anything constructive or positive, the die would be cast before they got past the squabbling and actually passed a bill to suit the need. Can't immediately imagine a more negative, crippling way to go. What I am suggesting is that the Congress, The President, the Supreme Court, simply follow the Constitution and their Oath of Office. That they do not do so is our fault. That is, the fault of the people to make sure they do so.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 31, 2016 16:13:47 GMT -5
What I am suggesting is that the Congress, The President, the Supreme Court, simply follow the Constitution and their Oath of Office. That they do not do so is our fault. That is, the fault of the people to make sure they do so. Ain't that the truth. The governed get what they deserve. No more. No less. That politicians or candidates lie doesn't concern me. That's their job, to tell voters what they want to hear. I'm more concerned with executive qualities, and Trump has them. The Vagina doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jul 31, 2016 17:22:06 GMT -5
Surely you aren't serious. If the Congress ever actually got around to doing anything constructive or positive, the die would be cast before they got past the squabbling and actually passed a bill to suit the need. Can't immediately imagine a more negative, crippling way to go. What I am suggesting is that the Congress, The President, the Supreme Court, simply follow the Constitution and their Oath of Office. That they do not do so is our fault. That is, the fault of the people to make sure they do so. That isn't what you said. So, would that, from your point of view, mean going to what would amount to a one party system? The "people" electing a congress with a never ending conservative majority? That's surely what it seems to me your are saying.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jul 31, 2016 17:41:50 GMT -5
What I am suggesting is that the Congress, The President, the Supreme Court, simply follow the Constitution and their Oath of Office. That they do not do so is our fault. That is, the fault of the people to make sure they do so. Ain't that the truth. The governed get what they deserve. No more. No less. That politicians or candidates lie doesn't concern me. That's their job, to tell voters what they want to hear. I'm more concerned with executive qualities, and Trump has them. The Vagina doesn't. Give me a break, Joseph. Do you really think "we the people" deserve no better than Hillary or Trump? Personally, I don't think I .. or my family ... have done anything to deserve either of them. Your savoir faire attitude toward Trump seems particularly misplaced to me. I hope you don't have cause to regret not holding him up to higher standards.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 31, 2016 17:45:07 GMT -5
What I am suggesting is that the Congress, The President, the Supreme Court, simply follow the Constitution and their Oath of Office. That they do not do so is our fault. That is, the fault of the people to make sure they do so. Ain't that the truth. The governed get what they deserve. No more. No less. That politicians or candidates lie doesn't concern me. That's their job, to tell voters what they want to hear. I'm more concerned with executive qualities, and Trump has them. The Vagina doesn't. Joseph, you have a way with words!!! I realize that I am over stating here, but it seems that many people are wrapped up in supporting a political party and disregarding whether candidates support the Constitution or not. Supporting the Constitution is a basic foundation for being able to apply management skills. Those who lie as a basic part of their persona are not supportive of the Constitution. However, it appears to me that this Presidential election cycle there is a larger than ever set of voters who do not care about the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 31, 2016 17:56:24 GMT -5
What I am suggesting is that the Congress, The President, the Supreme Court, simply follow the Constitution and their Oath of Office. That they do not do so is our fault. That is, the fault of the people to make sure they do so. That isn't what you said. So, would that, from your point of view, mean going to what would amount to a one party system? The "people" electing a congress with a never ending conservative majority? That's surely what it seems to me your are saying. Beth, that is not what I’m saying at all. Looking at this as conservatives or liberals, may have been something significant in the past, but not now. Following the Constitution is the foundation of doing what has to be done, to not follow the Constitution is to not adhere to their Oath of Office and that lack of adherence is a lie as to that sacred promise. To make it clear, this is not a Conservative thing nor is it meant to be a Conservative thing. Following the Constitution is a standalone concept without political party concepts. Either the candidates support the Constitution or they don’t. The President is not a dictator. His functions are defined within the Constitution. The Congress defines the policy and acts of the country and provides the funding. The President follows and enacts those Congressional enactments. When the Congress falls down on its job, then the country suffers.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jul 31, 2016 18:46:33 GMT -5
The only thing that will protect us is if the Congress really takes control as they are supposed to do. You said this (above). That's what I was referring to .. assuming you meant what you typed. For Congress to "take control", they would need to be in agreement ... aka, of the same mind. To me that means all of the same party (whether Democrat or Republican) OR very flexible. Since many in Congress do not seem to be able to work well with others unless things go their way, "taking control" seems rather ominous to me ... especially coming from a strict Constitutionalist.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 31, 2016 19:32:24 GMT -5
You said this (above). That's what I was referring to .. assuming you meant what you typed. For Congress to "take control", they would need to be in agreement ... aka, of the same mind. To me that means all of the same party (whether Democrat or Republican) OR very flexible. Since many in Congress do not seem to be able to work well with others unless things go their way, "taking control" seems rather ominous to me ... especially coming from a strict Constitutionalist. In fact, Beth it means just the opposite. For this I refer you to James Madison as he wrote throughout the Federalist Papers that unity of view was not good. We are all aware that he was one of the strongest supporters for the Constitution of the United States. He also, along with others believe in a Republic, however, he knew two other things, one was that in the past all Republics eventually (sooner or later) failed and two, this concept of a Republic worked best in smaller nations because they required a societal homogenous environment, much as you are suggesting. That is, a people who have the same view of life, the same religion, the same ethical and moral view, which would result in a virtuous people and virtuous elected members of government. But then he also knew that the larger the nation then the less likely that was to occur. In fact, time has proven him right. However, he presents the case that in large republics there is strength due to faction, not a homogenous unit. In fact, many factions, each competing against the other and keeping a single political unit from gaining total control. So, James Madison saw our government working with contention of one group against another. I believe his views trump (no pun intended) all of us. In this context, unity is not gained by political concepts but by following the Constitution.
|
|
josephdphillips
Global Facilitator
January 2015 Member of the Month
Posts: 3,494
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jul 31, 2016 19:33:30 GMT -5
there is a larger than ever set of voters who do not care about the Constitution. I can't think of a time when the voters cared about the Constitution, Randy. As a matter of fact, the most popular president in U.S. history, Ronald Reagan, was elected twice because he asked the simple question "Are you better off now than four years ago?" That's an appeal to self-interest, not to constitutional fidelity. Trump's going to be president of the United States because of his personal charisma and background. That's enough, and that's fine with me.
|
|