Hillary For Prez!

[technomage]

Oh, are you gonna get an argument from folks on this forum who were military types or weapon designers (me).

Ah, we can discuss that separately, if you like. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm holding a gun to defend myself, my family, or my property, the person I aim at is gonna darn well know he or she has been assaulted!

We must face that there will be different understandings of an issue, & the word "lie" doesn't help things.

I'm not accusing _you_ of lying. But I will gladly accuse the NRA of doing so when they do.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not accusing _you_ of lying. But I will gladly accuse the NRA of doing so when they do.

Still, some beliefs are best kept to oneself. Otherwise the thread will be about Democratic liars, Republican
liars, gun grabbing liars, NRA liars, "progressive" liars, Hillary the liar, etc, etc. We don't want that.

 

[tytlyf]

See, this is what I mean about checking your facts.

Obama has no problems with gun ownership. He does advocate banning manufacture of certain classes of guns as "assault rifles" (a position that I view as stupid), but he's not advocating taking away anyone's legally owned gun, no matter what class it is.

Yet here comes folks like the NRA who say "He's a gun-grabber." Folks, that's a _lie_ on the part of the NRA: a false accusation. Yet some people believe it as if it were true.

Why are people so willing to believe lies?

Propaganda is powerful. Here's Wayne LaPierre at CPAC panic mongering. People believe it and will go out and buy more guns. Hence satisfying the gun manufacturers = $$. The NRA used to be an organization that promoted gun safety, now it's a political tool for republicans.

One of the first rules of propaganda is to use fear. When a person is fearful, they can't think rationally. When they can't think rationally, they'll believe anything.

[youtube]SWDjA6xka64[/youtube]

 

[Revoltingest]

That's nice, Tytlyf, but how do you feel about Hillary as prez?

 

[technomage]

Still, some beliefs are best kept to oneself. Otherwise the thread will be about Democratic liars, Republican
liars, gun grabbing liars, NRA liars, "progressive" liars, Hillary the liar, etc, etc. We don't want that.

It's important to expose the lies as lies so as to be able to sift the stories that are going around, discard the lies, and discern the truth.

And I'm not saying "The NRA told a lie, therefore I reject everything the NRA says." Heck, if I took that view, I couldn't vote for anyone!

 

[Revoltingest]

It's important to expose the lies as lies so as to be able to sift the stories that are going around, discard the lies, and discern the truth.

And I'm not saying "The NRA told a lie, therefore I reject everything the NRA says." Heck, if I took that view, I couldn't vote for anyone!

A deeper problem is that the accusation of "lie" is often hollow, lacking in any evidence that
there's the intention to deceive. This itself is deceptive, which could be called a....you know.
Let's not go there.

 

[tytlyf]

That's nice, Tytlyf, but how do you feel about Hillary as prez?

You know how I feel. After all, I did start a thread prior to this on Hillary/Warren 2016.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/north-american-politics/157110-clinton-warren-2016-a.html

I think it's time for Hillary and she has the experience. She'll run (biden won't) and give republicans a real headache. In the end, the republicans will push Scott Walker for President and the republican voters will follow suit. Mostly based on what the GOP establishment wants (Kochs). We saw this demonstrated in the 2012 election with the multiple different republican candidates that lead the polls. From Trump, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, etc, each was a leading nominee. It just shows how powerful the media on the right is at determining who their nominee will be.

 

[technomage]

A deeper problem is that the accusation of "lie" is often hollow, lacking in any evidence that
there's the intention to deceive. This itself is deceptive, which could be called a....you know.
Let's not go there.

I have the evidence to back this particular claim. At the same time, this is your thread, so I'll behave.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's try a different direction.....most of us at RF share some goals:
- Less money spent on wars.
- Less crony capitalism.
- Economic recovery.
- Less domestic spying.
- Better & more efficient health care.
- Strong civil liberties.
- Transparency in government.
- Better education & training of workers.
- Secure borders.
- Less terrorism.
- More things I didn't think of.
Does anyone think Hillary would be more likely to achieve these things than other Dems....or even Pubs.....or...or?

 

[technomage]

I think it's time for Hillary and she has the experience.

Perhaps. However, I don't think Warren will take the VP slot.

In the end, the republicans will push Scott Walker for President and the republican voters will follow suit.

I doubt Warren will survive all the way to the primary. Cruz, Rubio, Paul, and Ryan look like the top contenders. Warren may run, but like Christie, he's got too much baggage.

 

[esmith]

I think it's time for Hillary and she has the experience. She'll run (biden won't) and give republicans a real headache. In the end, the republicans will push Scott Walker for President and the republican voters will follow suit. Mostly based on what the GOP establishment wants (Kochs). We saw this demonstrated in the 2012 election with the multiple different republican candidates that lead the polls. From Trump, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann, etc, each was a leading nominee. It just shows how powerful the media on the right is at determining who their nominee will be.

I think it is about time to burst your bubble tytlyf. Unions are the biggest contributors to elections and about 99% of there money goes to Democrats.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

and individual contributors:
Top Individual Contributors | OpenSecrets

Now here is the data on the Koch brothers:
Charts: How Much Have the Kochs Spent on the 2012 Election? | Mother Jones

Let see the brothers contributed,out of their own pocket $411,000 and Soros $1,049,100. Hmmm maybe you better rethink your obvious error.

 

[tytlyf]

I think it is about time to burst your bubble tytlyf. Unions are the biggest contributors to elections and about 99% of there money goes to Democrats.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topcontribs.php

and individual contributors:
Top Individual Contributors | OpenSecrets

Now here is the data on the Koch brothers:
Charts: How Much Have the Kochs Spent on the 2012 Election? | Mother Jones

Let see the brothers contributed,out of their own pocket $411,000 and Soros $1,049,100. Hmmm maybe you better rethink your obvious error.

But you don't have any dirt on Soros and his donations to "Dark money" organizations. What I mean is what is the mission behind the organization he donated to?
Sure your link showed that the Kochs spent 411k, but you fail to include their dark money groups etc which appears to be close to 60 million.
Not my fault your party is run by big oil.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't trust that David Koch anyway.....he's pro-gay marriage, you know.
And as Esmith pointed out, he's a cheapskate...outdone even by Soros!

 

[technomage]

I don't trust that David Koch anyway.....he's pro-gay marriage, you know.

Bah. You just haven't found the right man.

 

[Revoltingest]

Bah. You just haven't found the right man.

How do you know, toots!?

 

[technomage]

How do you know, toots!?

Sorry, dear, I'm already taken. :flirt:

 

[metis]

Generally speaking, I like Hillary. To me, the burning question is who are the Republicans likely to nominate as it again seems they're on a path of self-destruction.

 

[Knight of Albion]

Having had a black President it feels like the roll of Destiny that a woman President is inevitable.
Hillary certainly knows her way around the world of politics. She has performed credibly on the international stage and is a respected figure in Europe.
With the Republicans lacking a political heavyweight, if she can convince the American public that she can lift the economy and create jobs, I certainly wouldn't bet against her.

 

[technomage]

Having had a black President it feels like the roll of Destiny that a woman President is inevitable.
Hillary certainly knows her way around the world of politics. She has performed credibly on the international stage and is a respected figure in Europe.
With the Republicans lacking a political heavyweight, if she can convince the American public that she can lift the economy and create jobs, I certainly wouldn't bet against her.

I have to admit, I look forward to the day when the race or gender of the candidate is not an issue.

 

[freethinker44]

Not quite everyone.
There are 3rd parties & other extremists.
I'll vote for one of those.

That's very true. I'd love for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders to run. For Clinton, it depends on who she is running against whether or not I'd vote for her.