General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

PLEASE....this is just a friendly discussion about the state of our elections, and please try to be civil if you have a point to make.



To me, it's mind-boggling how much our educational system has failed us if youthful votes don't understand what "socialism" is. Or perhaps worse, is that they do understand, and still prefer that over a desperate liar who will say anything to get elected! Bernie is up +11 over Hillary in the latest polls.

I predict only more surprises in New Hampshire on the other side, too. People were handing Rubio second place last week, and Trump winning by double-digits. I wouldn't bet on that either.

Haven't watched even one debate yet. I usually wait for the clips and pundits the next day because, from what I can see, that's where everyone is getting their opinions. The media anointed Hillary, but it's not working out that way. They tried to anoint Rubio but it's not working out that way either. Seems the only way that Trump will lose is if the media anoints him next, or he continues to berate others in debate.

I liked Cruz until he won in Iowa and opened his mouth to let a boatload of arrogance drip out. I think that attitude is going to kill him if he doesn't correct it post-haste. I still would rather see him win, if only to shut down the wheels of a tyrannical government, but he is becoming more smug. Those who support him will bolt if that doesn't change.

The reasons people say he can't win (doesn't get along with anyone in the Senate, the media hates him, the Washington & GOP establishment hates him, etc) are EXACTLY the qualifications I'm looking for in a candidate. But I don't like anyone who uses ridicule to satisfy their audience. This week, he has completely disappeared from media. Not a mention on FOX News or CNN this week. Evidently that's their latest strategy to shut him down. Problem is that you see more of the other candidates...which helps Kasich the most.

Gotta admit that Kasich, or even Jeb, is starting to look like the most reasonable candidate now. It's still a long race but a win in NH by Cruz will upset...well...everybody! That makes me smile.


Opinions?

NH is just one little state. Trump and Sanders will probably win it but it's not that important. Hillary's strong states will be in the south. But yes young people favor Sanders; Dems over 40 prefer Hillary.

I heard a very interesting statistic a few days ago that every President we've had, won their primaries in either Iowa or NH or both.

In other words, no one who doesn't win at least one of those has ever become President.

Can you say "President Cruz"?



Do you think Bloomberg will jump in if Hillary doesn't start showing up better? Biden? Seems like the DNC is almost in panic mode.

.

what jimmie said basically, as they move back into more evangelical state primaries the going will be getting tougher for Bern and maybe Trump, definitely harder for Bern though

Although Cruz would be slightly preferable over Trump.

It surprises me you would say that.

DNC panic mode? I think that's an exaggeration. If for some reason Sanders does well in the next few primaries and Hillary doesn't, the party will coalesce around him. Nationally she still has a slight edge over him. Biden is a nonstarter, Bloomberg too.

You think they will allow him to be their national candidate? Really?

His position of giving away the candy store will resonate with the working poor, which is more than 48% now under another four years of Obama. That would spell the end of our economy because every major corporation and investor would simply leave for Europe or Belize.

I think this (long) article sums up why a majority of Americans will no longer trust the Establishment (of either side)

At least, I hope not. Guess we'll see....




Would the Founders be considered "domestic extremists" today?
John Whitehead - The Rutherford Institute


Not only has free speech become a four-letter word—profane, obscene, uncouth, not to be uttered in so-called public places—but in more and more cases, the government deems free speech to be downright dangerous and in some instances illegal.

The U.S. government has become particularly intolerant of speech that challenges the government’s power, reveals the government’s corruption, exposes the government’s lies, and encourages the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

Indeed, there is a long and growing list of the kinds of speech that the government considers dangerous enough to red flag and subject to censorship, surveillance, investigation and prosecution: hate speech, bullying speech, intolerant speech, conspiratorial speech, treasonous speech, threatening speech, incendiary speech, inflammatory speech, radical speech, anti-government speech, right-wing speech, extremist speech, etc.

Yet by allowing the government to whittle away at cherished First Amendment freedoms—which form the backbone of the Bill of Rights—we have evolved into a society that would not only be abhorrent to the founders of this country but would be hostile to the words they used to birth this nation.

Don’t believe me?

Conduct your own experiment into the government’s tolerance of speech that challenges its authority, and see for yourself.

Stand on a street corner—or in a courtroom, at a city council meeting or on a university campus—and recite some of the rhetoric used by the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Paine without referencing them as the authors.

For that matter, just try reciting the Declaration of Independence, which rejects tyranny, establishes Americans as sovereign beings, recognizes God as a Supreme power, portrays the government as evil, and provides a detailed laundry list of abuses that are as relevant today as they were 240 years ago.

My guess is that you won’t last long before you get thrown out, shut up, threatened with arrest or at the very least accused of being a radical, a troublemaker, a sovereign citizen, a conspiratorialist or an extremist.

Try suggesting, as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin did, that Americans should not only take up arms but be prepared to shed blood in order to protect their liberties, and you might find yourself placed on a terrorist watch list and vulnerable to being rounded up by government agents.

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Observed Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

Better yet, try suggesting as Thomas Paine, Marquis De Lafayette, and Patrick Henry did that Americans should, if necessary, defend themselves against the government if it violates their rights, and you will be labeled a domestic extremist.

“It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government,” insisted Paine. “When the government violates the people’s rights,” Lafayette warned, “insurrection is, for the people and for each portion of the people, the most sacred of the rights and the most indispensable of duties.” And who could forget Patrick Henry with his ultimatum: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

--------------------------------

Then again, perhaps you don’t need to test the limits of free speech for yourself. One such test is playing out before our very eyes in Portland, Oregon, where radio “shock jock” Pete Santilli, a new media journalist who broadcasts his news reports over YouTube and streaming internet radio, is sitting in jail.

Santilli, notorious for his controversial topics, vocal outrage over government abuses, and inflammatory rhetoric, is not what anyone would consider an objective reporter. His radio show, aptly titled “Telling You the Truth…Whether You Like It or Not,” makes it clear that Santilli has a viewpoint (namely, that the government has overstepped its bounds), and he has no qualms about sharing it with his listeners.

It was that viewpoint that landed Santilli in jail.

Long a thorn in the side of the FBI, Santilli was arrested in January 2016 by the FBI following its ambush and arrest of armed protesters who had carried out an act of civil disobedience by occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Burns, Oregon. Santilli was charged, along with the armed resistors, with conspiracy to impede federal officers from discharging their duties by use of force, intimidation, or threats—the same charge being levied against those who occupied the refuge—which carries a maximum sentence of six years in prison.

Notably, Santilli is the only journalist among those covering the occupation to be charged with conspiracy, despite the fact that he did not participate in the takeover of the refuge, nor did he ever spend a night on the grounds of the refuge, nor did he ever represent himself as anything but a journalist covering the occupation.

Of course, the government doesn’t actually believe that 50-year-old Santilli is an accomplice to any criminal activity.

Read between the lines and you’ll find that what the government is really accusing Santilli of is employing dangerous speech. As court documents indicate, the government is prosecuting Santilli solely as a reporter of information. In other words, they’re making an example of him, which is consistent with the government’s ongoing efforts to intimidate members of the media who portray the government in a less than favorable light.

This is not a new tactic.

During the protests in Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore, Maryland, numerous journalists were arrested while covering the regions’ civil unrest and the conditions that spawned that unrest. These attempts to muzzle the press were clearly concerted, top-down efforts to restrict the fundamental First Amendment rights of the public and the press.

The message is clear: whether a journalist is acting alone or is affiliated with an established news source, the government has no qualms about subjecting them to harassment, arrest, jail time and trumped up charges if doing so will discourage others from openly opposing or exposing the government.

You see, the powers-that-be understand that if the government can control speech, it controls thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

This is how freedom rises or falls.

There have always been those willing to speak their minds despite the consequences. Where freedom hangs in the balance is when “we the people” are called on to stand with or against individuals who actually exercise their rights and, in the process, push the envelope far enough to get called out on the carpet for it.

Do we negotiate the Constitution, or do we embrace it, no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel, no matter how hateful or ugly it gets, and no matter how much we may dislike its flag-bearers?

What we’re dealing with today is a government that wants to suppress dangerous words—words about its warring empire, words about its land grabs, words about its militarized police, words about its killing, its poisoning and its corruption—in order to keep its lies going.

What we are witnessing is a nation undergoing a nervous breakdown over this growing tension between our increasingly untenable reality and the lies being perpetrated by a government that has grown too power-hungry, egotistical, militaristic and disconnected from its revolutionary birthright.

The only therapy is the truth and nothing but the truth.

Otherwise, there will be no more First Amendment. There will be no more Bill of Rights. And there will be no more freedom in America as we have known it.

After the ridiculously close squeaker in the Iowa caucuses, the state’s Democratic Party said it couldn’t release the raw vote totals for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

That simply isn’t how they do business, party officials insisted.

Even after they audited the results this week, Iowa Democratic officials would say only that Clinton won 49.84 percent of the vote and Sanders 49.59 percent, reducing her margin slightly to a quarter of a point.

Sanders has called for the raw vote totals to be released. The state party says that’s not the way it conducts the caucuses. And the press has pretty much let the matter drop.

But it turns out that hasn’t been the practice in past elections. Here are the raw vote totals for Iowa’s 2008 Democratic caucus:

Barack Obama, 93, 952.

John Edwards, 74,377.

Hillary Clinton, 73,663.

Joe Biden 2,328.

It’s not a secret document. It’s available on CNN’s website.

Iowa Democratic Chairman Andrea McGuire wrote in the Des Moines Register that the raw vote totals are irrelevant. “These are not contests of popular raw votes—nor do we think they should be,” McGuire said. “Asking for raw vote totals demonstrates a misunderstanding of our process.”

But if it wasn’t a problem eight years ago, why is it such a big deal now? A spokesman for the Iowa party maintains it did not release the raw totals in 2008 and that the figures reported by CNN are probably based on journalistic estimates.

"Candidates are competing for delegates in the Iowa Democratic Precinct caucuses, which is why we report the statewide delegate equivalents won by each candidate," the spokesman said.

Which raises the question: Why would the party put the media in the position of having to do their own calculations?

Obviously the raw vote makes little difference in terms of delegates. But if Clinton, as expected, loses New Hampshire, and it turns out Sanders got more votes in Iowa, that would be a double blow psychologically—and give the Vermont senator bragging rights in the first two contests.

It’s hard to avoid the suspicion that the state party establishment is trying to protect Hillary.

Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that McGuire, an Iowa co-chairman of Clinton’s 2008 campaign, drives a Buick with the license plate HRC2016.

Trump admitted on national television during a press conference that he received his business 'startup' capitol from CHINESE investors!! He has no one to answer to?? You mean the same people we owe TRILLIONS of dollars to?? You mean the same people who are being backed by the Monster?? The same people who have hacked 8 million government computers last year and the computers of many of the largest corporations in this country??
Don't be deceived by this man.

I'm not a fan. I do like that he's so non politically correct that he can talk about the issues no one else wanted to bring up, and then they all have to respond. So, in that respect, it has been good to have him around but he will fade as people see more of his bullying.

Regarding the Chinese: at least he's honest about it. The Clinton's got all their money to launch Bill from selling our secrets to the Chinese, making them the juggernaut that they are today.

2.) Where did Barak Obama come from??

The Black Lagoon.

4.) Does your vote and my vote really count in a general election??

Not as much as in the primaries. That's why the Establishment is nervous about how their candidates are being dismissed (for now)

Am I psychotic?

Yes, and you walked right into that one!

my werios sense that this thread is going south and not in a good way. i would vote for bernie if he gave me free wives!!! all bernie wants to give me is housing cars healthcare, food , phones internet, but i want a wives dammit what good is embracing the muslim culture if the government isn't going to give me 5 free smoking hot wives to f**k. I want 5 jenna hazes now damitt!!

Whoa....

1. Bernie 60%
2. Clinton 39%


No real surprises on the other side except Bush's name appears:

Trump 35%
Kasich 16%
Cruz / Bush / Rubio all at 11%

Good thread Ted. Thanks for some logic and thought.