GT40s.com Paddock Politics Thread

[Jeff Young]

Have you supported this President?

I've supported every President this country has elected, even though I've disagreed with them on some things (Democrats and Republicans). I can't support a racist, misogynist, xenophobe who clearly revels in not really understanding policy. I can't support a man who does not immediately reject an endorsement from the KKK. I can't support a man who thinks Putin is a good leader - because he is authoritarian and undemocractic. I can't support a man who would segregate us out by religion. I can't support a man who thinks we should clamp down on the 1st Amendment.

Maybe you can. Sounds like you are.

And no, I've not called "everyone" a racist. That's your own I don't even know what at work.

So can you now affirmatively state that you believe her treating physician and that Clinton is in excellent health for her age and medically qualified to be President? Or do you have some more wishy washy words on the subject for us?

 

[Larry L.]

Wrong.

He's saying her treating physician is not being honest, and that she obviously has symptoms of Parkinson's.

That is EXACTLY what he is saying.

No. You're CLAIMING your 'i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n' of what he said IS what he said. It isn't.

What part of, "Oh, and I am an MD and I've seen all of these diagnoses many times. Much like the man in the video, though, I'm certainly not HRC's doctor and there can be a completely benign explanation(s). She's had a lot of falls and resulting injuries for your average non-manual laborer 60's age individual and I would agree that Parkinson's is the most likely explanation that explains all. It's either that or several separate explanations/reasons...", makes you think 'j.m.' called HRC's doc a L-I-A-R...other than the fact you choose to SEE it that way?

News flash: Physicians don't always agree on the cause/treatment of a particular patient's ills. A physician holding a differing o-p-i-n-i-o-n on either does NOT equate to calling another doc a liar.

'j.m.' is more than able to defend himself if he chooses, so I don't see any reason for me to continue doing so. ('Really was no pressing reason for me to do so in the 1st place...except for the fact no one else had bothered to debunk your obviously bogus claim before I chose to do so.) So, I'm done here.

 

[Doug S.]

I'm curious to hear others' perceptions of last night's debate...if you can call it that.

IMHO there was no CLEAR winner...both were guilty of interrupting each other and trying to speak over the other one...but, having said that, I turned off the TV worrying about what might happen if Trump is elected. This isn't based on political affiliation, I don't give a damn whether they are Republicrats or Demopublicans, I want to see a thoughtful, careful demeanor and unfortunately Trump did not leave that perception as well as HC did. Neither did Trump (again, IMHO) have a good grasp on many of the topics, and when that happened he tended to rattle on in a manner approaching incoherence. He obviously was not as well prepared as HC...and his campaign staff says that will be different for the next debate.

Really, guys, I just want a POTUS who can and will do what is best for the UNITED STATES of AMERICA...it looks right now like Trump just wants what will be best for Trump.

As for the email server issue, HC has and continues to say she regrets the actions and in hindsight would not do it again...and states emphatically she assumes the responsibility for the server foul-up. Why is that so important to me? It shows a level of maturity that does not seem present in The Donald...have you ever seen him admit an error or take the blame for anything?

It was a very disappointing evening, for me just further emphasized the huge differences between the two. Our choice has to be "Which one do we really want to represent the U.S.A. on the worldwide stage...and the worldwide battle-ground against terrorism?"

I think I'd choose HC...but I'm glad I don't have to vote until the rest of the debates have been held. I'd like to see The Donald do better next time.

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Terry Oxandale]

I felt HC took a marginal victory.

With that said: I have a problem listening to someone (DT) that is limited to only a handful of adjectives to describe the entire world around them (e.g. wonderfull, great, terrible, best, worst, etc), without having the ability to articulate those statements further. On the other hand, I have yet to see a genuine HC other than statements that makes me feel that she believes the rules don't apply to her. I don't care for either, and looking more closely at a 3rd party simply so that I can vote a clear conscience.

I'm still in awe that the voters in this "greatest country in the world" have narrowed the final choice of President, down to the current two. That alone is probably the most telling of where we are headed as a country. We have little to blame the candidates on for that. It's an embarrasment.

 

[Doug S.]

I felt HC took a marginal victory.

I'm still in awe that the voters in this "greatest country in the world" have narrowed the final choice of President, down to the current two. That alone is probably the most telling of where we are headed as a country. We have little to blame the candidates on for that. It's an embarrasment.

I'd wholeheartedly agree!!!

...and we have nobody to blame except ourselves...most of the 4 candidates were "voted" on at the primary level...by the very people who are now bitching so vociferously about them, so it's not like these two bozos were shoved down our throats by some unnamed and invisible political machine (can you tell I despise PACs?).

Cheers!

Doug

 

[Steve]

Jeff, your rants on this topic, while acceptable for a much younger individual, are irrational for an adult, particularly for someone educated and intelligent. In all honesty, I would kindly suggest you seek some help. Your posts lash out in anger and are unprovoked.

As an aside, my father has a diabetic for 47 years. He hid that fact for 25 years from everyone except his endocrinologist. That list included his primary care physician, and every physician that ever saw him for a military physical or work physical. It would be very doable to hide a number of neurological illnesses from a Doctor who isn't looking very very very hard for it.

 

[Steve]

I'd wholeheartedly agree!!!

...and we have nobody to blame except ourselves...most of the 4 candidates were "voted" on at the primary level...by the very people who are now bitching so vociferously about them, so it's not like these two bozos were shoved down our throats by some unnamed and invisible political machine (can you tell I despise PACs?).

Cheers!

Doug

I share your distaste of PACs, although I think they have played little role in the Presidential circus this time around. While Trump was "voted" on at the primary level, the same can't quite be said for HC. The email hack has made it clear the DNC stacked the cards against Bernie and the superdelegate system (which the RNC lacks) nearly insures a chosen insider gets the nomination. In fact, the history of the primaries from the 60's through the 80's would indicate that's exactly why the DNC has superdelegates.

 

[Larry L.]

I share your distaste of PACs, although I think they have played little role in the Presidential circus this time around. While Trump was "voted" on at the primary level, the same can't quite be said for HC. The email hack has made it clear the DNC stacked the cards against Bernie and the superdelegate system (which the RNC lacks) nearly insures a chosen insider gets the nomination. In fact, the history of the primaries from the 60's through the 80's would indicate that's exactly why the DNC has superdelegates.

Spot on. Especially your last point.

 

[Justin]

There's some very angry people on this thread. I found this very interesting. I thought I'd share.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?st...dio.roy.masters/videos/1129637240407798/&_rdr

 

[Mike]

Larry meets Jeff Young ha

 

[Larry L.]

I'm curious to hear others' perceptions of last night's debate...if you can call it that.

IMHO there was no CLEAR winner...both were guilty of interrupting each other and trying to speak over the other one...but, having said that, I turned off the TV worrying about what might happen if Trump is elected. This isn't based on political affiliation, I don't give a damn whether they are Republicrats or Demopublicans, I want to see a thoughtful, careful demeanor and unfortunately Trump did not leave that perception as well as HC did. Neither did Trump (again, IMHO) have a good grasp on many of the topics, and when that happened he tended to rattle on in a manner approaching incoherence. He obviously was not as well prepared as HC...and his campaign staff says that will be different for the next debate.

Really, guys, I just want a POTUS who can and will do what is best for the UNITED STATES of AMERICA...it looks right now like Trump just wants what will be best for Trump.

As for the email server issue, HC has and continues to say she regrets the actions and in hindsight would not do it again...and states emphatically she assumes the responsibility for the server foul-up. Why is that so important to me? It shows a level of maturity that does not seem present in The Donald...have you ever seen him admit an error or take the blame for anything?

It was a very disappointing evening, for me just further emphasized the huge differences between the two. Our choice has to be "Which one do we really want to represent the U.S.A. on the worldwide stage...and the worldwide battle-ground against terrorism?"

I think I'd choose HC...but I'm glad I don't have to vote until the rest of the debates have been held. I'd like to see The Donald do better next time.

Cheers!

Doug

What ticks me off is the fact that, instead of debating ways to confront/solve problems like the nat'l debt, the nation's unfunded liabilities, ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism in general, lousy economic growth/unemployment/job creation levels, the nation's crumbling infrastructure, out-of-control illegal immigration, the war zones in places like Chicago & Detroit, the threats posed by Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea and a host of other truly p-r-e-s-s-i-n-g issues...what do the candidates address instead? Real or imagined 'offensive' comments made about whomever in the recent past - or even 25-30 years ago - and a laundry list of other inconsequential garbage that doesn't address, change, improve, solve or even make a dent in any of the former.

Hopefully, the upcoming V.P. debate will shed some light...

"Beam me up." (Rep. J. Traficant)

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Now this is funny!

 

[John]

Saw this bumper sticker recently: :thumbsup:

 

[Larry L.]

Saw this bumper sticker recently: :thumbsup:

Two days ago I saw one that said, "NOBODY for President".

 

[Terry Oxandale]

What ticks me off is the fact that, instead of debating ways to confront/solve problems like the nat'l debt, the nation's unfunded liabilities, ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism in general, lousy economic growth/unemployment/job creation levels, the nation's crumbling infrastructure, out-of-control illegal immigration, the war zones in places like Chicago & Detroit, the threats posed by Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea and a host of other truly p-r-e-s-s-i-n-g issues...what do the candidates address instead? Real or imagined 'offensive' comments made about whomever in the recent past - or even 25-30 years ago - and a laundry list of other inconsequential garbage that doesn't address, change, improve, solve or even make a dent in any of the former.

Hopefully, the upcoming V.P. debate will shed some light...

"Beam me up." (Rep. J. Traficant)

Couldn't agree more. But even if they did talk/debate about it, typically that's the most energy you'll see devoted to those issues for the next four years.

 

[Ian Anderson]

'Nuff said

 

[Larry L.]

'Nuff said

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

'No truer words... :lipsrsealed:

 

[David Morton]

If Trump succeeds and becomes President and then someone shoots him dead, (stranger things happen in the U.S.A.) will the U.S.A. call another election or go through four years of 'nowhere man' ?

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

If Trump succeeds and becomes President and then someone shoots him dead, (stranger things happen in the U.S.A.) will the U.S.A. call another election or go through four years of 'nowhere man' ?

I think the Vice President takes the reins. I don't know who Trump has nominated for that role.

 

[David Morton]

My point Pete.
Nowhere man.
They were on TV twp nights ago and neither were worthy of the job.
Trump and Clinton - Oh dear. How sad.