News about Donald Trump

[Quadibloc]

I found this article shocking

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/violent_antisemitic_attacks_on_journalist_who_profiled_trumps_wife_are_a_frightening_preview_of_press_freedom_under_a_president_trump/

its source is the Guardian, known to be a bit left-wing,

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/28/julia-ioffe-journalist-melania-trump-antisemitic-abuse

However, apparently Salon.com is also on the left; I came to that article from
this one -

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/01/we_are_all_just_this_screwed_bernie_sanders_hillary_clinton_and_our_muddled_perverted_democracy/

it takes the view that Bernie Sanders is what the American people want, which I
think is a view you would have to be well on the left to share.

John Savard

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 1 May 2016 06:20:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
in<news:80f38931-d933-4307...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> I found this article shocking

> http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/violent_antisemitic_attacks_on_journalist_who_profiled_trumps_wife_are_a_frightening_preview_of_press_freedom_under_a_president_trump/

> its source is the Guardian, known to be a bit left-wing,

> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/28/julia-ioffe-journalist-melania-trump-antisemitic-abuse

The Guardian is centre-left. It’s also more reliable and
with better coverage than most English-language news
sources. And its general editorial stance is irrelevant
here.

> However, apparently Salon.com is also on the left; I came
> to that article from this one -

> http://www.salon.com/2016/05/01/we_are_all_just_this_screwed_bernie_sanders_hillary_clinton_and_our_muddled_perverted_democracy/

> it takes the view that Bernie Sanders is what the
> American people want,

No, it does not. Did you even read it?

> which I think is a view you would have to be well on the
> left to share.

You have only to be paying attention to know that a very
large number of Americans do want him. Another very large
number want Clinton. Yet another large number want Trump,
and a significant number want Cruz.

Dig a little deeper, and you’ll find that Sanders actually
has non-trivial support from some groups who are most
definitely not on the left.

And of course Sanders himself is not all that far left.
Today’s Democratic party includes a fair chunk of what
would have been moderate Republicans in my youth.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

These terms left and right you use so readily, what do they mean to you?

Discussing undefined terms is pointless.

[J. Clarke]

In article <8048846d-e0d8-4629...@googlegroups.com>,
patmp...@gmail.com says...

>
> These terms left and right you use so readily, what do they mean to you?
>
> Discussing undefined terms is pointless.

In the US the terms are fairly well understood. The left wants to
change things to be more like the Soviet Union, the right wants to
change things back to the 1950s.

[David Johnston]

I'm a little puzzled as to why you linked to the Salon column rather
than going straight to the source which actually has the deets.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:37:58 AM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>
> And of course Sanders himself is not all that far left.
> Today's Democratic party includes a fair chunk of what
> would have been moderate Republicans in my youth.

Clinton Democrats = Rockefeller Republicans
Sanders Democrats = New Dealers (which included Dwight Eisenhower)
Republicans = McCarthyites (which included Robert Kennedy)

The tribal thinking of Trump supporters is nothing new in American politics. Such people elected Andrew Jackson president on a platform of genocide. In 1856 they formed the Native American (Know Nothing) party to resist immigrants. It was somewhat successful -- they got 21% of the vote in 1856 and carried the state of Maryland -- until their violence repelled the electorate and led to collapse. Then there were the McCarthyites and the Jim Crow south.

While tribal politics is strong and enduring, it is a minority in the USA. They lose. Trump has no chance in a general election. The Republican management knows this, but they have turned their nomination over to the voters. It's out of their control. Barring an extreme event, a Democratic landslide victory is inevitable. Things will continue as they have, with big money further consolidating its control.

[David Johnston]

On 5/1/2016 10:03 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <8048846d-e0d8-4629...@googlegroups.com>,
> patmp...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> These terms left and right you use so readily, what do they mean to you?
>>
>> Discussing undefined terms is pointless.
>

> In the US the terms are fairly well understood.The left wants to
> change things to be more like the Soviet Union,the right wants to

> change things back to the 1950s.
>
>

So...not understood at all then? I mean that's a false characterization
of both sides. How many people on the American right want to bring back
Jim Crow?

[michael]

On Sun, 1 May 2016 10:38:03 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
<b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>
>And of course Sanders himself is not all that far left.

Ummmm.......No.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sun, 01 May 2016 12:01:47 -0500, michael <m...@here.com>
wrote in<news:6jdcib1oo8r8f3b93...@4ax.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

Yes. Try responding to the whole of what I said on the
subject.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 1:10:16 PM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 01 May 2016 12:01:47 -0500, michael <m...@here.com>
> wrote in<news:6jdcib1oo8r8f3b93...@4ax.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > On Sun, 1 May 2016 10:38:03 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
> > <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
> >>And of course Sanders himself is not all that far left.
>
> > Ummmm.......No.
>
> Yes. Try responding to the whole of what I said on the
> subject.
>

Good luck with that. Have fun arguing about undefined terms.

[lal_truckee]

If you think Sanders is left rather than moderate you must not pay much
attention to politics in the developed countries, outside the American
Asylum.

Haven't we beat politics to death? Isn't it time to revert to discussing
Science Fiction and Fantasy - Written?

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Sun, 1 May 2016 10:16:25 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

Far too many.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Lynn McGuire]

None that I know of whatsoever. And I live in Texas. Of course, I do
live in Fort Bend County, the most racially integrated county in the
USA. "Fort Bend County was 19 percent Asian, 24 percent Hispanic, 21
percent black and 36 percent white in 2010, according to the Kinder
Institute for Urban Research at Rice."

https://www.texastribune.org/2013/11/25/what-ethnic-diversity-looks-fort-bend-county/

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

In article <ng5gp9$lv7$1...@dont-email.me>, lal_t...@yahoo.com says...

We in the US are well aware of the crazy politics that the beginners in
Europe are coming up with. 200 years from now the whole thing will
either have collapsed into tyranny or stablized its party system.

[Lynn McGuire]

Europe will be a Caliphate way before then.

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

In article <b6mcibt8l7v972qmu...@reader80.eternal-
september.org>, l...@sff.net says...

>
> On Sun, 1 May 2016 10:16:25 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On 5/1/2016 10:03 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >> In article <8048846d-e0d8-4629...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> patmp...@gmail.com says...
> >>>
> >>> These terms left and right you use so readily, what do they mean to you?
> >>>
> >>> Discussing undefined terms is pointless.
> >>
> >> In the US the terms are fairly well understood.The left wants to
> >> change things to be more like the Soviet Union,the right wants to
> >> change things back to the 1950s.
> >
> >So...not understood at all then? I mean that's a false characterization
> >of both sides. How many people on the American right want to bring back
> >Jim Crow?
>
> Far too many.

The '50s that they want to bring back are somewhat idealized. As for the
left, a different characterization might be that they want to
institutionalize Robin Hood, only with the Sheriff of Nottingham cast as
Robin.

[J. Clarke]

In article <ng5ou2$m0a$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...

Well, that's one form of collapsing into tyranny.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:16:17 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> So...not understood at all then? I mean that's a false characterization
> of both sides. How many people on the American right want to bring back
> Jim Crow?

Left and right are directions, not destinations.

People on the left want to change things so that existing marginalized groups
are made more equal. In the past, therefore, they were active in the civil
rights movement, something everyone today agrees was just. Today, they lead in
seeking LGBT equality.

Also, they are concerned about the disparity between rich and poor even when
discrimination is not involved. They support broader trade union rights, and
are suspicious of globalization.

People on the right want their country to be strong militarily. They want it to
cohere around a core set of values and have a clear identity. They want a small
government with lower taxes.

John Savard

[patmp...@gmail.com]

That's a good start. I think that the Democratic and Republican parties are brands names that have little to do with left and right other than rapidly fading tradition. Dwight Eisenhower would be a radical leftist today.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:1tlu0r0ttopnx.d...@40tude.net:

> On Sun, 1 May 2016 06:20:46 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
> in<news:80f38931-d933-4307...@googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> I found this article shocking
>
>> http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/violent_antisemitic_attacks_on_j
>> ournalist_who_profiled_trumps_wife_are_a_frightening_preview_of_
>> press_freedom_under_a_president_trump/
>
>> its source is the Guardian, known to be a bit left-wing,
>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/28/julia-ioffe-journ
>> alist-melania-trump-antisemitic-abuse
>
> The Guardian is centre-left.

By UK standards, perhaps. By US standards, it's radical left wing
reactionary.

> It’s also more reliable and
> with better coverage than most English-language news
> sources.

Which is like saying that gasoline doesn't burn as hot as napalm.
If you cover yourself with it, you'll still burn to death.

> And its general editorial stance is irrelevant
> here.

Indeed, since everyone knows what their bias is, and they're not
capable of changing anyone's mind about anything.

>
>> However, apparently Salon.com is also on the left; I came
>> to that article from this one -
>
>> http://www.salon.com/2016/05/01/we_are_all_just_this_screwed_ber
>> nie_sanders_hillary_clinton_and_our_muddled_perverted_democracy/
>
>> it takes the view that Bernie Sanders is what the
>> American people want,
>
> No, it does not. Did you even read it?
>
>> which I think is a view you would have to be well on the
>> left to share.
>
> You have only to be paying attention to know that a very
> large number of Americans do want him. Another very large
> number want Clinton. Yet another large number want Trump,
> and a significant number want Cruz.
>
> Dig a little deeper, and you’ll find that Sanders actually
> has non-trivial support from some groups who are most
> definitely not on the left.

And if you take even a cursory look, you'll see it doesn't matter,
because he never had the slightest chance of getting the
nomination.

>
> And of course Sanders himself is not all that far left.

By UK standards, perhaps. By US standards, he's more left wing
reactionary socialist than the Guardian.

> Today’s Democratic party includes a fair chunk of what
> would have been moderate Republicans in my youth.
>

And they have about as much influence as the moderates in the
Republican party, which to say, none.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:1pojjcc4th14e
$.mzr999f057jp$.d...@40tude.net:

> On Sun, 01 May 2016 12:01:47 -0500, michael <m...@here.com>
> wrote in<news:6jdcib1oo8r8f3b93...@4ax.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> On Sun, 1 May 2016 10:38:03 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
>> <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>>>And of course Sanders himself is not all that far left.
>
>> Ummmm.......No.
>
> Yes. Try responding to the whole of what I said on the
> subject.
>

By US standards, he's about as left wing as it gets. He's openly a
socialist in a country where socialist is a bad word. Deal with it.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ng5gp9$lv7$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 5/1/16 10:01 AM, michael wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 May 2016 10:38:03 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
>> <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And of course Sanders himself is not all that far left.
>>
>> Ummmm.......No.
>>
> If you think Sanders is left rather than moderate you must not
> pay much attention to politics in the developed countries,
> outside the American Asylum.

Since Sanders isn't running for President of the rest of the world,
who gives a fuck? By US standards, Sanders is more left wing than
Obama, and that's saying something.

>
> Haven't we beat politics to death? Isn't it time to revert to
> discussing Science Fiction and Fantasy - Written?
>

Then why did you reply?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
news:8048846d-e0d8-4629...@googlegroups.com:

> These terms left and right you use so readily, what do they mean
> to you?
>
> Discussing undefined terms is pointless.
>

Discussing politics is pointless. Especially on usenet.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.318ff2c4...@news.eternal-september.org:

Or the 1850s. You know, when slavery was still legal, and the slaves
liked it that way.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote in
news:ng59tv$qk5$1...@dont-email.me:

More than you'd like to believe.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
news:4e4fe448-6377-410a...@googlegroups.com:

> I think that the Democratic and Republican
> parties are brands names that have little to do with left and
> right other than rapidly fading tradition.

That's it precisely. It's impossible to tell them apart without a
score card. Literally impossible without the (R) or (D) behind the
name. They say the same things, they do the same things, they want
the same things.

One of the reasons Trump is so popular is that he doesn't pretend
otherwise.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:38:38 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:4e4fe448-6377-410a...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > I think that the Democratic and Republican
> > parties are brands names that have little to do with left and
> > right other than rapidly fading tradition.
>
> That's it precisely. It's impossible to tell them apart without a
> score card. Literally impossible without the (R) or (D) behind the
> name. They say the same things, they do the same things, they want
> the same things.
>

Every poll says that the US population is overwhelming concerned about economic issues and about political corruption. The two parties hardly even discuss such things, except for Sanders and Trump.

The R leadership has completely lost control of their voters. Jeb Bush with overwhelming money ($100 million dollars) got 5% of the vote. I have never seen anything else remotely like it in my lifetime, such a sudden and complete loss of legitimacy.

There are some sharp differences on secondary issues of minor concern to the general public.

> One of the reasons Trump is so popular is that he doesn't pretend
> otherwise.
>

It does have a certain appeal. "Each of my opponents is backed by a billionaire." Nothing they could say.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:38:38 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:4e4fe448-6377-410a...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > I think that the Democratic and Republican
> > parties are brands names that have little to do with left and
> > right other than rapidly fading tradition.
>
> That's it precisely. It's impossible to tell them apart without a
> score card. Literally impossible without the (R) or (D) behind the
> name. They say the same things, they do the same things, they want
> the same things.
>

Not only that, they hire the same campaign consultants, who work off of the same data.

"Hope, change. McCain said the same things, he just didn't do as good of a job." -- Noam Chomsky

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-05-01, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> patmp...@gmail.com wrote in

>> These terms left and right you use so readily, what do they mean to you?
>>
>> Discussing undefined terms is pointless.
>
> Discussing politics is pointless. Especially on usenet.

Not true!

It can lead to some REALLY amusing outbursts, and/or positions that are so
mockable one can't help but do so.

And it gives you people to snarl at for being stupid.

Dave, now it's generally pointless in the sense of being able to get political
results, agreement, or change, sure. but there's so much MORE to Usenet
culture!
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
news:a845b6c9-0531-46b0...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:38:38 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
>> news:4e4fe448-6377-410a...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > I think that the Democratic and Republican
>> > parties are brands names that have little to do with left and
>> > right other than rapidly fading tradition.
>>
>> That's it precisely. It's impossible to tell them apart without
>> a score card. Literally impossible without the (R) or (D)
>> behind the name. They say the same things, they do the same
>> things, they want the same things.
>>
>
> Every poll

Is about as reliable as every other poll. At best, it's a very
vague indication of what people who are willing to have their time
wasted with cold calls are thinking at the moment.

> says that the US population is overwhelming concerned
> about economic issues and about political corruption. The two
> parties hardly even discuss such things, except for Sanders and
> Trump.

And one of them makes no sense at all, and is utterly incapable of
answering questions about how he is going to pay for his utopia
(and why should he bother, since we all know the answer anyway).

>
> The R leadership has completely lost control of their voters.

The Dems aren't in much better shape.

> Jeb Bush with overwhelming money ($100 million dollars) got 5%
> of the vote. I have never seen anything else remotely like it
> in my lifetime, such a sudden and complete loss of legitimacy.
>

There's nothing sudden about it. The only change from the last
election is that there is a candidate that is a complete outsider.

> There are some sharp differences on secondary issues of minor
> concern to the general public.

And the more both sides pound on those issues, the more popular
they make Trump. It is his very outsider-ness that makes him a
viable candidate. The "Never Trump" movement, formally organized by
his own party, was a godsend.

>
>
>> One of the reasons Trump is so popular is that he doesn't
>> pretend otherwise.
>>
>
> It does have a certain appeal. "Each of my opponents is backed
> by a billionaire."

"And I'm only backed by myself, also a billionaire."

> Nothing they could say.
>
Plenty they could, and will, say, but nothing that will make him
any less popular.

The closest thing we've ever had to Trump in a Presidential
election was Perot, who turned out to be a) crazy (though not
really as crazy as Trump), b) stupid (stupider than Trump, in many
ways), and c) weak (which Trump is not).

We've seen the outsider, populist candidate win in two governor's
races, though. Schwartzenegger and Jesse Ventura. Both of whom won
precisely because they managed to piss off their own side as much
as the other side. Both of whom then spent their entire terms
playing solitaire because their legislatures wouldn't take their
calls (though that had the advantage of forcing them to cooperate
with each other, for fear of a spite veto).

Trump's running his campaign as a reality TV show. And everything
he does makes perfect sense in that context. It's all about
ratings, and keeping those advertising revenues up. His
condemnation of the NC bathroom bill (not as evil, but just as
*stupid*) surprised a lot of people, but not me. He's the "bad
boy" contestent, that everybody loves to hate (but is the most
popular contestent), and mid-season the bad boy has to show some
redeeming quality, so that he remains popular (and eyeballs keep
tuning in for those ads!). And that couldn't have been a better
moment if he'd planned it that way: smart people listened to his
word, and found it impossible to disagree, and the rest got the
emotional appeal of a very popular opinion (is *is* a profoundly
*stupid* law).

If he gets elected (and he very well might, because Democrats who
hate Hillary - and there are many - might well vote for Trump, but
Republicans who hate Trump would vote for Satan before they vote
for Hillary, as the less of two evils), he'll either go the way of
previous outsiders, and do *nothing* for four years, or he'll
continue to keep those ratings up by doing what the public actually
wants him to do, and bullly Congress into doing the same.

The only scary part is what the public wants him to do.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
news:1faff15c-c134-4995...@googlegroups.com:

Actually, Obama's first campaign was outlined, nearly word for word,
in the last season of The West Wing.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:Bv-dnXLyU9mfC7vK...@earthlink.com:

> On 2016-05-01, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
>>> These terms left and right you use so readily, what do they
>>> mean to you?
>>>
>>> Discussing undefined terms is pointless.
>>
>> Discussing politics is pointless. Especially on usenet.
>
> Not true!

Very true.

>
> It can lead to some REALLY amusing outbursts, and/or positions
> that are so mockable one can't help but do so.

That's a purpose, but not a point.

>
> And it gives you people to snarl at for being stupid.

If nobody every mentioned politics in any way, for all of eternity,
on usenet or the rest of the internet, the number of people for me
to make fun of would not change at all.

>
> Dave, now it's generally pointless in the sense of being able to
> get political
> results, agreement, or change, sure. but there's so much MORE
> to Usenet culture!

Usenet culture is pointless, too.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:07:27 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
> > Dave, now it's generally pointless in the sense of being able to
> > get political
> > results, agreement, or change, sure. but there's so much MORE
> > to Usenet culture!
>
> Usenet culture is pointless, too.
>

Usenet culture? Revolting thought.

[Robert Bannister]

On 1/05/2016 9:20 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> I found this article shocking
>
> http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/violent_antisemitic_attacks_on_journalist_who_profiled_trumps_wife_are_a_frightening_preview_of_press_freedom_under_a_president_trump/
>
> its source is the Guardian, known to be a bit left-wing,
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/28/julia-ioffe-journalist-melania-trump-antisemitic-abuse
>

> However, apparently Salon.com is also on the left; I came to that article from
> this one -
>
> http://www.salon.com/2016/05/01/we_are_all_just_this_screwed_bernie_sanders_hillary_clinton_and_our_muddled_perverted_democracy/
>

> it takes the view that Bernie Sanders is what the American people want, which I

> think is a view you would have to be well on the left to share.
>

> John Savard
>
I don't think people in North America understand where the left is. It's
becoming like that here too: there's only right and further right.
Sanders is slightly right of centre, but nowhere close to left.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Robert Bannister]

On 2/05/2016 12:03 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <8048846d-e0d8-4629...@googlegroups.com>,
> patmp...@gmail.com says...
>>

>> These terms left and right you use so readily, what do they mean to you?
>>
>> Discussing undefined terms is pointless.
>

> In the US the terms are fairly well understood. The left wants to
> change things to be more like the Soviet Union, the right wants to

> change things back to the 1950s.
>
>

Change "Soviet Union" to Sweden and "1950s" to "1850s" and I think you'd
be about right.

[Robert Bannister]

This time, I think you're both right.

[J. Clarke]

In article <1faff15c-c134-4995...@googlegroups.com>,
patmp...@gmail.com says...

One of McCain's big problems was that he took global warming and the
IPCC seriously, thought it was an important campaign issue, and had a
plan. Obama pretty much ignored it, which turned out to be the right
strategy.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
news:1c9c4da1-b5a9-426f...@googlegroups.com:

Usenet culture is like the culture that grows inside the Tupperware
containg you've had in the back of the fridge for two years.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote in
news:donn2g...@mid.individual.net:

> On 1/05/2016 9:20 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> I found this article shocking
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/violent_antisemitic_attacks_on_j
>> ournalist_who_profiled_trumps_wife_are_a_frightening_preview_of_
>> press_freedom_under_a_president_trump/
>>
>> its source is the Guardian, known to be a bit left-wing,
>>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/28/julia-ioffe-journ
>> alist-melania-trump-antisemitic-abuse
>>
>> However, apparently Salon.com is also on the left; I came to
>> that article from this one -
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/2016/05/01/we_are_all_just_this_screwed_ber
>> nie_sanders_hillary_clinton_and_our_muddled_perverted_democracy/
>>
>> it takes the view that Bernie Sanders is what the American
>> people want, which I think is a view you would have to be well
>> on the left to share.
>>
>> John Savard
>>
> I don't think

Clearly.

> people in North America understand where the left
> is.

If you got to decide what words mean, that might be a damning
inditement. But since your opinion is worth excatly as much as
anyone else's, well, it's just point and laugh time.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:MPG.31907403a...@news.eternal-september.org:

McCain's sole problem was that he was the Republican running as a
successor to GWB. The Democrats could have run an overcooked hotdog
and it would have beaten Jesus, if Jesus was running as a
Republican, in 2008. *Nothing* else mattered.

The same effect, with polarity reversed, will help Trump this year.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:05:10 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>

> >
> > The R leadership has completely lost control of their voters.
>
> The Dems aren't in much better shape.
>

The R establishment candidates got about 15% of the vote. The D establishment candidate is getting 60%, and the loser is promising to "do everything I can to make sure a Republican doesn't get into the White House."

> > Jeb Bush with overwhelming money ($100 million dollars) got 5%
> > of the vote. I have never seen anything else remotely like it
> > in my lifetime, such a sudden and complete loss of legitimacy.
> >
> There's nothing sudden about it. The only change from the last
> election is that there is a candidate that is a complete outsider.
>

? Didn't Trump run in the last election?

>
> Trump's running his campaign as a reality TV show. And everything
> he does makes perfect sense in that context. It's all about
> ratings, and keeping those advertising revenues up. His
> condemnation of the NC bathroom bill (not as evil, but just as
> *stupid*) surprised a lot of people, but not me. He's the "bad
> boy" contestent, that everybody loves to hate (but is the most
> popular contestent), and mid-season the bad boy has to show some
> redeeming quality, so that he remains popular (and eyeballs keep
> tuning in for those ads!). And that couldn't have been a better
> moment if he'd planned it that way: smart people listened to his
> word, and found it impossible to disagree, and the rest got the
> emotional appeal of a very popular opinion (is *is* a profoundly
> *stupid* law).
>
> If he gets elected (and he very well might, because Democrats who
> hate Hillary - and there are many - might well vote for Trump, but
> Republicans who hate Trump would vote for Satan before they vote
> for Hillary, as the less of two evils), he'll either go the way of
> previous outsiders, and do *nothing* for four years, or he'll
> continue to keep those ratings up by doing what the public actually
> wants him to do, and bullly Congress into doing the same.
>

He has offended women and hispanics. That leaves him with the white male minority. Not the stuff of victory. It would be a Clinton landslide if she weren't such an unattractive candidate.

> The only scary part is what the public wants him to do.
>

Indeed.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

I was amazed that McCain did as well as he did. I still don't understand it.

[J. Clarke]

In article <72b94328-cbac-4265...@googlegroups.com>,

If you say so. The fact remains that having a plan for dealing with
global warming didn't matter, showing that nobody to speak of really
gives a crap despite all the shouting.

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:51:01 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> If you say so. The fact remains that having a plan for dealing with
> global warming didn't matter, showing that nobody to speak of really
> gives a crap despite all the shouting.

I thought that once the polar ice caps showed major damage that something would be done. I was right. They made plans for drilling for oil in the newly exposed areas.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
news:9cbc281a-a9ec-41c4...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:05:10 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>>
>
>> >
>> > The R leadership has completely lost control of their voters.
>>
>> The Dems aren't in much better shape.
>>
>
> The R establishment candidates got about 15% of the vote. The D
> establishment candidate is getting 60%, and the loser is
> promising to "do everything I can to make sure a Republican
> doesn't get into the White House."

And? You think that represents control?

>
>> > Jeb Bush with overwhelming money ($100 million dollars) got
>> > 5% of the vote. I have never seen anything else remotely
>> > like it in my lifetime, such a sudden and complete loss of
>> > legitimacy.
>> >
>> There's nothing sudden about it. The only change from the last
>> election is that there is a candidate that is a complete
>> outsider.
>>
>
> ? Didn't Trump run in the last election?

Technically. But even *he* didn't take him seriously last time.

>
>>
>> Trump's running his campaign as a reality TV show. And
>> everything he does makes perfect sense in that context. It's
>> all about ratings, and keeping those advertising revenues up.
>> His condemnation of the NC bathroom bill (not as evil, but just
>> as *stupid*) surprised a lot of people, but not me. He's the
>> "bad boy" contestent, that everybody loves to hate (but is the
>> most popular contestent), and mid-season the bad boy has to
>> show some redeeming quality, so that he remains popular (and
>> eyeballs keep tuning in for those ads!). And that couldn't have
>> been a better moment if he'd planned it that way: smart people
>> listened to his word, and found it impossible to disagree, and
>> the rest got the emotional appeal of a very popular opinion (is
>> *is* a profoundly *stupid* law).
>>
>> If he gets elected (and he very well might, because Democrats
>> who hate Hillary - and there are many - might well vote for
>> Trump, but Republicans who hate Trump would vote for Satan
>> before they vote for Hillary, as the less of two evils), he'll
>> either go the way of previous outsiders, and do *nothing* for
>> four years, or he'll continue to keep those ratings up by doing
>> what the public actually wants him to do, and bullly Congress
>> into doing the same.
>>
>
> He has offended women and hispanics.

And gotten more popular with them doing it.

> That leaves him with the
> white male minority. Not the stuff of victory. It would be a
> Clinton landslide if she weren't such an unattractive candidate.

Just keep telling yourself that.

>
>> The only scary part is what the public wants him to do.
>>
>
> Indeed.
>

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/1/2016 5:38 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:4e4fe448-6377-410a...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> I think that the Democratic and Republican
>> parties are brands names that have little to do with left and
>> right other than rapidly fading tradition.
>
> That's it precisely. It's impossible to tell them apart without a
> score card. Literally impossible without the (R) or (D) behind the
> name. They say the same things, they do the same things, they want
> the same things.
>
> One of the reasons Trump is so popular is that he doesn't pretend
> otherwise.

The D's and R's are the two sides of the war party.

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
news:72b94328-cbac-4265...@googlegroups.com:

There were a number of undercurrents, like Obama being black, and
being ultra-liberal, and having a reputation (well deserved) of
being high handed and arrogant, that all lined up on McCain's side.
And he still never had a prayer.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 7:14:37 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <1faff15c-c134-4995...@googlegroups.com>,
> patmp...@gmail.com says...

> > "Hope, change. McCain said the same things, he just didn't do as good of a job." -- Noam Chomsky

> One of McCain's big problems was that he took global warming and the
> IPCC seriously, thought it was an important campaign issue, and had a
> plan. Obama pretty much ignored it, which turned out to be the right
> strategy.

And here I thought that the election was going to be fought on terrorism - and
McCain would have won - but the stock market crashed, and John McCain decided
that was an opportunity for him to channel Herbert Hoover.

Which explained why he lost, despite America not yet being ready for a black
President. Since Democrats were saying how important it was to stop George
Bush's insane foreign policy from being continued, why they were so
self-indulgent as to have a race between a black man and a woman, rather than
supporting safe, easily electable, candidates mystified me at the time.

John Savard

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 12:45:00 AM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
> news:9cbc281a-a9ec-41c4...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:05:10 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
> > Carrying Sissy wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> >
> >> > The R leadership has completely lost control of their voters.
> >>
> >> The Dems aren't in much better shape.
> >>
> >
> > The R establishment candidates got about 15% of the vote. The D
> > establishment candidate is getting 60%, and the loser is
> > promising to "do everything I can to make sure a Republican
> > doesn't get into the White House."
>
> And? You think that represents control?

Sure.

OK.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 7:34:57 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> McCain's sole problem was that he was the Republican running as a
> successor to GWB. The Democrats could have run an overcooked hotdog
> and it would have beaten Jesus, if Jesus was running as a
> Republican, in 2008. *Nothing* else mattered.

And here I thought that John McCain was going to win - if it hadn't been for
the totally unexpected event of a stock market crash. To which he then badly
bungled his response - doing a Herbert Hoover imitation, and visibly blocking
efforts by GWB to limit the damage from the crash until his state got its share
of pork.

That should have doomed his candidacy. As it was, post-election polls showed
that, incredibly, he still had more votes than Obama among white voters - and
so only the presence of minorities in the U.S. had tilted the balance from
terrorism to the economy as the main issue.

John Savard

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in
news:ng6lri$5up$1...@dont-email.me:

The smarted thing Trump has done so far was to piss off his own
party's leadership. That took him from a joke candidate to a
contender. And they *still* didn't get it. So they started the
"never Trump" movement, and it made him even *more* popular, and
pretty well sealed up the nomination. And they *still* don't get
it.

If he's smart, once he has the nomination, he'll tone it back to
more mainstream rhetoric, and public announce, in so many words,
"Now that I've out Republicaned the Republicans, I'm going to out
Hillary Hillary." And when she gets nasty, he'll get nastier.
Except that, like any good troll, he'll piss her off and she'll
amuse him. The man has no skeletons in his closet; he wears them
on his sleeve. When you're incapable of being embarassed, you
can't lose that kind of fight.

What I'm expecting, more and more, if he wins, is for Congress to
ignore him until he starts revenge vetoing *everything* (thus
overshadowing their deep and abiding hatred of each other with a
deeper and stronger hatred of him) they pass, forcing the
Republicans and Democrats to actually cooperate to pay their own
salaries. And then he'll hold a press conference and call it
leadership.

I'm not entirely sure he'd be wrong on that, either.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:11509f23-edf7-42c8...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 7:14:37 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article
>> <1faff15c-c134-4995...@googlegroups.com>,
>> patmp...@gmail.com says...
>
>> > "Hope, change. McCain said the same things, he just didn't
>> > do as good of a job." -- Noam Chomsky
>
>> One of McCain's big problems was that he took global warming
>> and the IPCC seriously, thought it was an important campaign
>> issue, and had a plan. Obama pretty much ignored it, which
>> turned out to be the right strategy.
>
> And here I thought that the election was going to be fought on
> terrorism - and McCain would have won - but the stock market
> crashed, and John McCain decided that was an opportunity for him
> to channel Herbert Hoover.

Once again, McCain lost because he was a Republican. Nothing else
mattered.

>
> Which explained why he lost, despite America not yet being ready
> for a black President.

American was ready for a not-Republican President. That was the
*only* criteria that mattered.

> Since Democrats were saying how important
> it was to stop George Bush's insane foreign policy from being
> continued, why they were so self-indulgent as to have a race
> between a black man and a woman, rather than supporting safe,
> easily electable, candidates mystified me at the time.
>

They could have run a pile of horse shit and they'd have won. Some
would argue that's excatly what they did.

[Lynn McGuire]

Trump has offended unmarried women and 2/3rds of the hispanics. Married
women and 1/3 of the hispanics will vote for him in a heartbeat.

I am also hearing if 1/3 of the blacks will vote for Trump also.

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
news:ee5b7e72-5aab-473c...@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 12:45:00 AM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> patmp...@gmail.com wrote in
>> news:9cbc281a-a9ec-41c4...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:05:10 PM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella
>> > Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > The R leadership has completely lost control of their
>> >> > voters.
>> >>
>> >> The Dems aren't in much better shape.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The R establishment candidates got about 15% of the vote.
>> > The D establishment candidate is getting 60%, and the loser
>> > is promising to "do everything I can to make sure a
>> > Republican doesn't get into the White House."
>>
>> And? You think that represents control?
>
> Sure.

Well, there's your problem.

It'll make you feel better when Trumps secret police come for you.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:41814567-48a1-46f5...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 7:34:57 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>> McCain's sole problem was that he was the Republican running as
>> a successor to GWB. The Democrats could have run an overcooked
>> hotdog and it would have beaten Jesus, if Jesus was running as
>> a Republican, in 2008. *Nothing* else mattered.
>
> And here I thought

There's no evidence of that. Ever.

> that John McCain was going to win - if it
> hadn't been for the totally unexpected event of a stock market
> crash. To which he then badly bungled his response - doing a
> Herbert Hoover imitation, and visibly blocking efforts by GWB to
> limit the damage from the crash until his state got its share
> of pork.

Nope. He ran as a Republican. that's *all* that mattered.

>
> That should have doomed his candidacy. As it was, post-election
> polls showed that, incredibly, he still had more votes than
> Obama among white voters - and so only the presence of
> minorities in the U.S. had tilted the balance from terrorism to
> the economy as the main issue.
>

That, and Obama wasn't a Republican.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in

news:ng6mah$7ms$1...@dont-email.me:

I still maintain that more Democrats that hate HIllary (and a *lot*
of them do) will vote for Trump than Republicans who hate Trump
will vote for Hillary. I expect we'll see a lot of Republican votes
go to independant candidates (and cartoon characters - Alfred E.
Newman used to have six digits in votes every election, and Mickey
Mouse has won local elections). I don't expect to see a meaningful
percentage of them vote for Hillary.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:58:22 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> I still maintain that more Democrats that hate HIllary (and a *lot*
> of them do) will vote for Trump than Republicans who hate Trump
> will vote for Hillary.

That's interesting. I would have imagined that the people who "hate Trump"
would not consider voting for him under any circumstances, while a Democrat who
was unhappy with Hillary for some reason would still not consider voting for
Trump under almost any circumstance.

Hillary may not be everyone's cup of tea, but she is still a responsible
politician within the range of normal alternatives. Trump is utterly beyond the
pale, unimaginable and unbelievable.

John Savard

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/1/2016 5:34 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:ng5gp9$lv7$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 5/1/16 10:01 AM, michael wrote:
>>> On Sun, 1 May 2016 10:38:03 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And of course Sanders himself is not all that far left.
>>>
>>> Ummmm.......No.
>>>
>> If you think Sanders is left rather than moderate you must not
>> pay much attention to politics in the developed countries,
>> outside the American Asylum.
>
> Since Sanders isn't running for President of the rest of the world,
> who gives a fuck? By US standards, Sanders is more left wing than
> Obama, and that's saying something.
>>
>> Haven't we beat politics to death? Isn't it time to revert to
>> discussing Science Fiction and Fantasy - Written?
>>
> Then why did you reply?

I saw an estimate of the cost of Bernie's new federal programs. Four
trillion dollars. PER YEAR!

Not gonna happen.

Lynn

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 2 May 2016 08:58:56 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote
in<news:donn2g...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> I don't think people in North America understand where
> the left is. It's becoming like that here too: there's
> only right and further right. Sanders is slightly right
> of centre, but nowhere close to left.

I’d say that by German standards he’s centre-left. Then
again, between the decline of the SPD and the rise of the
AfD, it’s a bit hard to judge right now.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:61d58549-f74e-4673...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:58:22 PM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella
> Carrying Sissy wrote:
>
>> I still maintain that more Democrats that hate HIllary (and a
>> *lot* of them do) will vote for Trump than Republicans who hate
>> Trump will vote for Hillary.
>
> That's interesting. I would have imagined that the people who
> "hate Trump" would not consider voting for him under any
> circumstances, while a Democrat who was unhappy with Hillary for
> some reason would still not consider voting for Trump under
> almost any circumstance.

You clearly didn't read, or couldn't understand, what I said. I'm not
talking about people who hate their party's candidate but vote for
them anyway. I'm talking about who they will vote for instead. A Dem
who hates Hillary is far more likely to be a vote for Trump than a
Republican who hates Trump being a vote for Hillary. Almost
infinitely more likely.

>
> Hillary may not be everyone's cup of tea, but she is still a
> responsible politician within the range of normal alternatives.

She's the very stereotype of the corrupt insider.

> Trump is utterly beyond the pale, unimaginable and unbelievable.
>

He's a cartoon character. And a viable candidate for President.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in

news:ng6ngl$9d3$1...@dont-email.me:

Have seen any vidoes of him being asked how he's going to pay for
it? There have been a few. There have been none, however, of him
answering.

[J. Clarke]

In article <ng6mah$7ms$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...

Is that "hispanics who are registered voters" or "all hispanics"? The
illegals don't count.

[Scott Lurndal]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> writes:
>In article <8048846d-e0d8-4629...@googlegroups.com>,
>patmp...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> These terms left and right you use so readily, what do they mean to you?
>>
>> Discussing undefined terms is pointless.
>
>In the US the terms are fairly well understood. The left wants to
>change things to be more like the Soviet Union, the right wants to
>change things back to the 1950s.
>

Total rightwing horseshit.

[Lynn McGuire]

Hillary took in $150 million in her "foundation" from foreign donors while she was secretary of state. The USA Constitution forbids
this and calls it treason. Trump calls her "Crooked Hillary" and has vowed to prosecute her when he is in office.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/143006237056/the-trump-chess-board

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

Registered Hispanics. They are afraid of the illegals also and want the violent ones rounded up.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

Did not happen and will not happen. Too expensive against the current and future price of crude oil.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/2/2016 12:48 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2016 08:58:56 +0800, Robert Bannister
> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote
> in<news:donn2g...@mid.individual.net> in
> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> [...]
>
>> I don't think people in North America understand where
>> the left is. It's becoming like that here too: there's
>> only right and further right. Sanders is slightly right
>> of centre, but nowhere close to left.
>
> I’d say that by German standards he’s centre-left. Then
> again, between the decline of the SPD and the rise of the
> AfD, it’s a bit hard to judge right now.
>
> Brian

The USA is not Germany. We do not have a old Soviet five year planner running the place. Yet.

BTW, Germany is trying to decide if they want to be a Caliphate right now. It may be rough there in a while.

Lynn

[David Johnston]

http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c-2849

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of
numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen,
47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in
the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died
for solely in his head.



>

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 2 May 2016 14:23:48 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<l...@winsim.com> wrote in<news:ng899r$bo$4...@dont-email.me>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On 5/2/2016 12:48 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 May 2016 08:58:56 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote
>> in<news:donn2g...@mid.individual.net> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written:

>> [...]

>>> I don't think people in North America understand where
>>> the left is. It's becoming like that here too: there's
>>> only right and further right. Sanders is slightly right
>>> of centre, but nowhere close to left.
>>
>> I’d say that by German standards he’s centre-left. Then
>> again, between the decline of the SPD and the rise of the
>> AfD, it’s a bit hard to judge right now.

> The USA is not Germany.

Irrelevant, since I was responding to a comment about
global views.

> We do not have a old Soviet five year planner running the
> place.

Neither has Germany. Merkel’s pre-political background is
as a published research physicist.

> Yet.

> BTW, Germany is trying to decide if they want to be a
> Caliphate right now.

Not even remotely close to the truth.

> It may be rough there in a while.

Sounds like you share a good deal of the ignorance and
prejudices of the AfD.

[J. Clarke]

In article <ng88uv$bo$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...

Would you care to quote the exact words from the Constitution that call
this "treason"? This word gets thrown around a lot but in the US it
doesn't mean what most of the people throwing it around think it means.

[Lynn McGuire]

From
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince,
or foreign State."

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

In article <ng8nsh$rdg$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...

Which has exactly what to do with "treason"? Look farther and you will
find that the Constitution explicitly defines treason.

[Quadibloc]

Some interesting analysis of where he is popular:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/trump-s-middle-america-problem-why-the-heartland-doesn-t-love-the-donald-1.2884180

John Savard

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in

news:ng88uv$bo$1...@dont-email.me:

Can you point me to the specific section on that?

> Trump calls her "Crooked
> Hillary" and has vowed to prosecute her when he is in office.

Trump has vowed a lot of things that are not within the President's
authority.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in

news:ng8nsh$rdg$1...@dont-email.me:

Which has fuckall to do with your claim. Her foundation is legally
seperate from her, even if it has her name on it.

In short, yet another maturbatory fantasy. Not surprsingly.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.3191c086e...@news.eternal-september.org:

>> >> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/143006237056/the-trump-chess
>> >> -board
>> >>
>> >> Lynn
>>
>> From
>> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_tran
>> script.html
>>

>> "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
>> And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them,
>> shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any
>> present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever,
>> from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
>
> Which has exactly what to do with "treason"? Look farther and
> you will find that the Constitution explicitly defines treason.
>

Plus, Clinton isn't her foundation. This is, in fact, specifically
the reason corporations exist.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
news:fe7rueype5es.8...@40tude.net:

> On Mon, 2 May 2016 14:23:48 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <l...@winsim.com> wrote in<news:ng899r$bo$4...@dont-email.me>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>> On 5/2/2016 12:48 AM, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2 May 2016 08:58:56 +0800, Robert Bannister
>>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote
>>> in<news:donn2g...@mid.individual.net> in
>>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>
>>> [...]
>
>>>> I don't think people in North America understand where
>>>> the left is. It's becoming like that here too: there's
>>>> only right and further right. Sanders is slightly right
>>>> of centre, but nowhere close to left.
>>>
>>> I’d say that by German standards he’s centre-left. Then
>>> again, between the decline of the SPD and the rise of the
>>> AfD, it’s a bit hard to judge right now.
>
>> The USA is not Germany.
>
> Irrelevant, since I was responding to a comment about
> global views.

Or, at least, trying to change the subject to global views.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-05-02, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> Hillary took in $150 million in her "foundation" from foreign donors while
> she was secretary of state. The USA Constitution forbids
> this and calls it treason.

It most CERTAINLY does not; have you READ it?

III.3. spells things out explicitly:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person
shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the
same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

It does NOT say anything about "if the Enemies of the United States give one
of its Citizens Aid and Comfort, that shall be Treason". If Hillary had
contributed TO the foreigners? You might have a case ... IF any of them were
actually "enemies of the US", and the US not being at war with the entire
rest of the world right now means "foreigner" does NOT equal "enemy" for the
purposes of this document. (Parenthetical sheesh: sheesh.)

Dave, I'd say it's all in Plato, but this was something new under the sun at
the time
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-05-02, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:

> On 5/2/2016 6:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> Would you care to quote the exact words from the Constitution that call
>> this "treason"? This word gets thrown around a lot but in the US it
>> doesn't mean what most of the people throwing it around think it means.
>

> From
> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
>
> "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person
> holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
> without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument,
> Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince,
> or foreign State."

Oh, certainly. I.6.

but...

while this makes it a CRIME - the Constitution being, even today, the supreme
law of the land - it does NOT make it _treason_. Treason is VERY VERY SPECIFIC.
Almost everything that is unConstitutional? Is _not treason_.

The Founding Fathers had bitter historical experience with regimes where what
treason was could be altered at the whim of the man in supreme power, and
wisely decided that it should not be a term thrown around any time one person
wanted to defame another for whatever reason. FOLLOW THEIR LEAD PLEASE.

Dave

[David DeLaney]

On 2016-05-02, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There were a number of undercurrents, like Obama being black, and
> being ultra-liberal, and having a reputation (well deserved) of
> being high handed and arrogant, that all lined up on McCain's side.

Just checking: did you happen to view his recent address to the White House
Correspondents' Dinner? (The President gives one every year, it's a humorous
event.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA5ezR0Kh80

You might laugh once or twice.

Dave, yes, he's grey now. yes, he knows it

[Robert Carnegie]

On Tuesday, 3 May 2016 00:09:11 UTC+1, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <ng88uv$bo$1...@dont-email.me>, l...@winsim.com says...

> > Hillary took in $150 million in her "foundation" from foreign donors while she was secretary of state. The USA Constitution forbids
> > this and calls it treason.
>
> Would you care to quote the exact words from the Constitution that call
> this "treason"? This word gets thrown around a lot but in the US it
> doesn't mean what most of the people throwing it around think it means.

And by definition, treason doth never prosper. This sounds
like prospering, big time.

[Scott Lurndal]

Wow. That's got to be the stupidist thing you've said this week!

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 3:26:59 AM UTC-6, Robert Carnegie wrote:

> And by definition, treason doth never prosper.

Well, no, that isn't in the _definition_ of treason, though it's a saying...

Treason never prospers, what's the reason? If treason prospers, none dare call
it treason.

At the moment, though, Americans don't live in fear of being thrown into
re-education camps by the secret police of the Clinton dynasty, so I'd say that
no such situation is operative; the American democratic system has not been
overthrown by Hillary Clinton at this time.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

I might as well get the quote right, having Google at my elbow:

Treason does never prosper, what's the reason?
Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

(Spelling and punctuation still modernized)

In 1609, John Harington wrote this to Prince Henry, saying that this was once written by a poet.

However, the 259th epigram in his book Epigrams is a different wording of the same quote:

Treason does never prosper, what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

So both the "Why" and "For" versions are correct; the latter is of earlier date.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

On 5/3/2016 3:10 AM, David DeLaney wrote:
> On 2016-05-02, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> On 5/2/2016 6:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Would you care to quote the exact words from the Constitution that call
>>> this "treason"? This word gets thrown around a lot but in the US it
>>> doesn't mean what most of the people throwing it around think it means.
>>
>> From
>> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
>>
>> "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person
>> holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
>> without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument,
>> Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince,
>> or foreign State."
>
> Oh, certainly. I.6.
>
> but...
>
> while this makes it a CRIME -

If that is, one could prove that she's skimming from the foundation.
Which of course would be a crime even if it had no foreign contributors.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:0oydnccdOMSA9rXK...@earthlink.com:

> On 2016-05-02, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
>> On 5/2/2016 6:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> Would you care to quote the exact words from the Constitution
>>> that call this "treason"? This word gets thrown around a lot
>>> but in the US it doesn't mean what most of the people throwing
>>> it around think it means.
>>
>> From
>> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_tran
>> script.html
>>
>> "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
>> And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them,
>> shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any
>> present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever,
>> from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
>
> Oh, certainly. I.6.
>
> but...
>
> while this makes it a CRIME

Only if *she* accepted money from a foreign government. The claim is
that her *foundation* did so. The foundation is a legally dinstict
entity. That kind of disctinction is the entire purpose of
corporations.

[Kevrob]

ObColdWar: "None Dare Call It Treason" was a book by John Stormer
much beloved of the anti-communist corner of US politics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Stormer

Harington has been credited with inventing the first (possibly)
indoor flush toilet!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harington_(writer)

I knew it wasn't "John Crapper."

Kevin R

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Tue, 3 May 2016 10:53:23 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>

THOMAS Crapper. Who did not invent the flush toilet, but he was a
real person who did make some improvements to the mechanism.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[patmp...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 5:17:28 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>
> THOMAS Crapper. Who did not invent the flush toilet, but he was a
> real person who did make some improvements to the mechanism.

Water closets used to have CRAPPER cast into their iron.

[Kevrob]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 5:28:09 PM UTC-4, patmp...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 5:17:28 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> >
> > THOMAS Crapper. Who did not invent the flush toilet, but he was a
> > real person who did make some improvements to the mechanism.
>

I sit corrected, but on an office chair.

> Water closets used to have CRAPPER cast into their iron.

This I knew, that the Crapper firm was an early leader in the field.
Compare "Hoover" for vacuum cleaner, "Frigidaire" for refrigerator,
etc.

Kevin R

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> ? Didn't Trump run in the last election?
>
>Technically. But even *he* didn't take him seriously last time.

Which is part of the reason that so many people thought he was just
playing around this time, too.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Robert Woodward]

In article <XnsA5FD6D0C35F...@69.16.179.43>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> David DeLaney <davidd...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:0oydnccdOMSA9rXK...@earthlink.com:
>
> > On 2016-05-02, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> >> On 5/2/2016 6:09 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> Would you care to quote the exact words from the Constitution
> >>> that call this "treason"? This word gets thrown around a lot
> >>> but in the US it doesn't mean what most of the people throwing
> >>> it around think it means.
> >>
> >> From
> >> http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_tran
> >> script.html
> >>
> >> "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
> >> And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them,
> >> shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any
> >> present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever,
> >> from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
> >
> > Oh, certainly. I.6.
> >
> > but...
> >
> > while this makes it a CRIME
>
> Only if *she* accepted money from a foreign government. The claim is
> that her *foundation* did so. The foundation is a legally dinstict
> entity. That kind of disctinction is the entire purpose of
> corporations.

I thought it was Bill's foundation (another legal distinction).

[J. Clarke]

In article <robertaw-2ABAC9...@news.individual.net>,
robe...@drizzle.com says...

Bill's on the board, Hillary isn't, but Chelsea is listed as Vice
Chairman which in principle makes it more her foundation than his.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 3:14:15 PM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 5/1/2016 5:34 PM, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> > lal_truckee <lal_t...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:ng5gp9$lv7$1...@dont-email.me:
> >
> >> On 5/1/16 10:01 AM, michael wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 1 May 2016 10:38:03 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
> >>> <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And of course Sanders himself is not all that far left.
> >>>
> >>> Ummmm.......No.
> >>>
> >> If you think Sanders is left rather than moderate you must not
> >> pay much attention to politics in the developed countries,
> >> outside the American Asylum.
> >
> > Since Sanders isn't running for President of the rest of the world,
> > who gives a fuck? By US standards, Sanders is more left wing than
> > Obama, and that's saying something.
> >>
> >> Haven't we beat politics to death? Isn't it time to revert to
> >> discussing Science Fiction and Fantasy - Written?
> >>
> > Then why did you reply?
>
> I saw an estimate of the cost of Bernie's new federal programs. Four
> trillion dollars. PER YEAR!
>

Provide a source for that, because your reliability on these things isn't particularly inspiring...

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 5:18:10 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> Trump calls her "Crooked Hillary" and has vowed to prosecute her when he is in office.
> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/143006237056/the-trump-chess-board

Well Trump saying something about his political opposition, amazing evidence you have there.
He's also argued strongly that Obama is a muslim and wasn't eligible for president based on birth

[Peter Trei]

Trump's most recent exposition on his 10-foot pole relationship with reality is
his flat assertion that Cruz's father was seen associating with Lee Harvey
Oswald before the JFK assassination.

This is based on the appearance of an unidentified man in a grainy photo of
LHO, made in the National Enquirer.

Trump repeats it as established fact.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/03/donald-trump/donald-trumps-ridiculous-claim-linking-ted-cruzs-f/

Does Lynn swallow this one?

pt

[Quadibloc]

Here's a rather strong viewpoint on Trump:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/04/block-trump/

John Savard

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Ones I saw were more 1.8 trillion per year, AND a lot of that was
coming from repurposing EXISTING funds in the budget (which is something
around 3+ trillion now), not from new taxes. But it's a lot scarier to
scream "BERNIE WANTS TO TAX MORE THAN THE GDP!" than to say "Well, he'd
rather spend the money here on people and infrastructure than on
fighting wars overseas and such."

Whether his programs would work the way he envisions is a different
argument, and actually the problem for ANY President is whether they can
even GET their programs put into play.



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:dot5u3Fhgq7U1
@mid.individual.net:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> ? Didn't Trump run in the last election?
>>
>>Technically. But even *he* didn't take him seriously last time.
>
> Which is part of the reason that so many people thought he was just
> playing around this time, too.

I think he was, until somebody pissed him off. I'm not sure he isn't
*now*, actually.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:robertaw-2ABAC9...@news.individual.net:

A distinction without a difference, since neither of them is the
foundation. No legal misconduct (on this issue) has even bee
alleged.