US Presidential Candidates

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3732239/Did-murdered-DNC-staffer-leak-20-000-party-emails-Conspiracy-theories-abound-Wikileaks-steps-forward-offer-20k-mystery-death-27-year-old.html

Is this interesting to anyone? Seth Rich, the reported leaker of the DNC emails was shot dead. One more in a long list of bodies that appear to coincidentally follow our Democrat presidential candidate. Did she order it? Not likely, but dead bodies do follow her.

(see dscott8, that's an unreasonable inference in my post)

PeterZ wrote:Do pay attention. Save your indictments of Drumpf for someone who is willing to believe that Hillary isn't way worse for the country. Our choices truly suck, but Hillary is much more capable and has shown herself very willing to ignore our laws. She has also shown herself to be quite capable of getting away with ignoring the law.

Scream whatever you want about Drumpf, he has shown a lack off focus, experience and connection to execute whatever dastardly plan being ascribed to him. There are too many people like you who are willing to notice when he crosses any lines or even thinks about it. There are too many people like me who are unwilling to ignore his transgressions just like I will not ignore Hillary's. Drumpf simply can't do as much harm to the country as Hillary can.

There is where we disagree. I don't much fancy either choice, but Drumpf is far more dangerous because, as you say, he lacks focus, experience and connection. His only agenda is self-aggrandizement. Because he has no policy skills, a Drumpf administration would be a mix of his off-the-cuff gaffes and the agenda of behind-the-scenes policy wonks who would not be accountable to the public. The worst case is something he spoke of as a motive for "doing something about" Clinton -- the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. Despite the way conservatives complain of "judicial activism", a Drumpf court would be agenda-driven to reverse gains on LBGT rights, reproductive rights and freedom of the press, as well as freedom of any religion other than Christianity. The list of possibles he posted a while back all have records of siding with big business against worker's rights, environmental concerns and privacy rights.

My other major concern is Drumpf as a representative of the USA to other nations. He is used to being the big boss, and his idea of diplomacy and negotiation is beating the other party into submission. By the end of year one of a Drumpf Presidency, just about every nation on Earth will be pissed off at the USA.

Clinton is not my ideal choice for President, but she has government and diplomatic experience that Drumpf lacks and is capable of restraint. She actually has details of how she plans to accomplish policy objectives, which Drumpf does not. If she just gets us through four years without the sort of massive screw-ups that are all but guaranteed under Drumpf, that'll be enough. Maybe better choices will emerge by then (or maybe we'll have President Beyonce).

dscott8,

If we are to converse, please do not alter my comments. I find it dishonest and rude.

PeterZ wrote:No he did not incite an open invitation to violence. He called on 2nd Amendment voters to stop Hillary before she gets the authority to appoint judges to further erode the 2nd Amendment. Just as Progressives have proven in the past, they will let the progress of society determine just how much of our Constitution will remain in the future. That means that so long as Progressives control the judicial appointments, no Amendment is free from the prospect of repeal or severe restriction. Is that inherently evil, no, it is not. It does reflect that Progressives are inherently less attached to traditional American values.

You persist in ignoring the fact that regardless of his intentions, his actual words will be interpreted as a call to violence. So be it. Hear what you want to hear.

In aid of the discussion, would you care to specify what's been "eroded" from the 2nd Amendment? And how about defining "traditional American values"?

PeterZ wrote:I see nothing wrong with Drumpf's inference that Hillary will work towards that eventual repeal of the 2nd Amendment. I don't interpret his comments as a call to assassinate her. In this election cycle, it seems that Bernie and Hillary supporters are more willing to engage in violence than Drumpf supporters. So no matter how this is viewed, it appears more likely that Hillary supporters are more likely to misinterpret unclear statements and act on it.

So, making the serious argument that he is calling for assassination sounds ridiculous to me.

If you see nothing wrong with Drumpf's inference, then you've swallowed too much of the kool-aid. I previously pointed out two of the several occasions when Clinton said she supports the 2nd Amendment, and that her focus is on things like responsibility and preventing the violence. Now, the conspiracy theorists will claim that she's lying, but they'll say that no matter what she says.

PeterZ wrote:dscott8,

If we are to converse, please do not alter my comments. I find it dishonest and rude.

I have altered nothing.

dscott8 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:dscott8,

If we are to converse, please do not alter my comments. I find it dishonest and rude.

I have altered nothing.

Now you lie. Not worth discussing anything.

Copying to avoid future edits

dscott8 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:Do pay attention. Save your indictments of Drumpf for someone who is willing to believe that Hillary isn't way worse for the country. Our choices truly suck, but Hillary is much more capable and has shown herself very willing to ignore our laws. She has also shown herself to be quite capable of getting away with ignoring the law.

Scream whatever you want about Drumpf, he has shown a lack off focus, experience and connection to execute whatever dastardly plan being ascribed to him. There are too many people like you who are willing to notice when he crosses any lines or even thinks about it. There are too many people like me who are unwilling to ignore his transgressions just like I will not ignore Hillary's. Drumpf simply can't do as much harm to the country as Hillary can.

There is where we disagree. I don't much fancy either choice, but Drumpf is far more dangerous because, as you say, he lacks focus, experience and connection. His only agenda is self-aggrandizement. Because he has no policy skills, a Drumpf administration would be a mix of his off-the-cuff gaffes and the agenda of behind-the-scenes policy wonks who would not be accountable to the public. The worst case is something he spoke of as a motive for "doing something about" Clinton -- the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. Despite the way conservatives complain of "judicial activism", a Drumpf court would be agenda-driven to reverse gains on LBGT rights, reproductive rights and freedom of the press, as well as freedom of any religion other than Christianity. The list of possibles he posted a while back all have records of siding with big business against worker's rights, environmental concerns and privacy rights.

My other major concern is Drumpf as a representative of the USA to other nations. He is used to being the big boss, and his idea of diplomacy and negotiation is beating the other party into submission. By the end of year one of a Drumpf Presidency, just about every nation on Earth will be pissed off at the USA.

Clinton is not my ideal choice for President, but she has government and diplomatic experience that Drumpf lacks and is capable of restraint. She actually has details of how she plans to accomplish policy objectives, which Drumpf does not. If she just gets us through four years without the sort of massive screw-ups that are all but guaranteed under Drumpf, that'll be enough. Maybe better choices will emerge by then (or maybe we'll have President Beyonce).

PeterZ wrote:dscott8,

If we are to converse, please do not alter my comments. I find it dishonest and rude.

dscott8 wrote:I have altered nothing.

PeterZ wrote:Now you lie. Not worth discussing anything.

Show me what you claim I altered.

dscott8 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:dscott8,

If we are to converse, please do not alter my comments. I find it dishonest and rude.

dscott8 wrote:I have altered nothing.

PeterZ wrote:Now you lie. Not worth discussing anything.

Show me what you claim I altered.

Read the post above yours that I copied. Was the portion you cited as having been written by me exactly as I wrote it? No it is not. You changed some of the words I wrote. That means you are willing to change my posts to suit your prejudice. To what degree you are willing to make such alternations is still open to discussion. That you will is not.

If you are willing to misinform on small things, it is reasonable you are willing to go further.

PeterZ wrote:Read the post above yours that I copied. Was the portion you cited as having been written by me exactly as I wrote it? No it is not. You changed some of the words I wrote. That means you are willing to change my posts to suit your prejudice. To what degree you are willing to make such alternations is still open to discussion. That you will is not.

If you are willing to misinform on small things, it is reasonable you are willing to go further.

I have your original post at 12:49 PM open in two windows side by side with your copy above. Everything (with one exception addressed below) is identical with the original post (which I do not have access to edit), down to the mistake of "he has shown a lack off" instead of "he has shown a lack of".

If you object to my having John Oliver's Chrome plug-in that changes "Trump" to "Drumpf" (his original family name), if that's your entire complaint, then you are far too easily offended, especially for someone defending a candidate who makes a habit of giving his competitors derogatory nicknames like a schoolyard bully. If that's all the defense you have, then it looks like you just needed an excuse to walk away from the conversation.

#MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain