Holy crap - this has to stop!

[eagle1462010]

Seriously. This toxic partisan political culture is poisoning civil society.

What the hell is wrong with us?

The left and the right pulling hair and screeching their bumpersticker slogans and broad brush pig ignorant partisan blamegaming? What's wrong with us?

I'm no youngster. I've never seen such a dangerous ambient.

We have someone shooting at one of our few remaining bipartisan non political fun charitable events because he wants to kill a bunch of (insert political party).

The rhetoric flooding the country is poisoning us. And no one wants to take responsibility for stepping up and saying "enough already". For changing it.

Our representatives are colleagues first and foremost. Political opponents second. They recognize it. That violence against one is violence against the others and against our very institutions. Why are we unable to recognize that?

It's a damn shame that our president played such a big role in the hatred and isn't the leader we need to heal the wounds.

How would you know? You have yet to give him even at least chance. So for me your opinions are way too biased to take serious. You just want to blame. It's time to lay away the blame and try to heal a bit.

Since when we give a president that kind of tolerance? Like trial and error as we go along?
As you see this administration is very chaotic ALL by self inflicted wounds. It's not all about blaming-------- The divisive speech, him against us, the world is against him, world is falling apart ---------- attitude will only make this problem worse--Solutions are in Trump's hand.

Problem in this country no matter who is at fault the president is responsible. It's that simple.

His NEVER ending lies from campaign to his presidency to Climate Change speech to Cuba speech yesterday is full of distortion and lies. Is that supposed to be acceptable?
He has not denounce the hatred groups that are on the rise because of Trump. Is that supposed to be acceptable?
When Trump speak wrong or lies it doesn't matter it's all acceptable to his supporters. Is that supposed to be acceptable?
So people on the left should just shut up? Is that supposed to be acceptable?
Can you please answer those questions?



Let me give you an example ------------ Qatar crisis in Middle East right now is a serious problem. In Qatar we have a very large and impressive state of the art military base where US spy drones are launched with 10,000 soldiers stationed in that country. The other day Trump blasted Qatar as terrorist supporters just to make the Saudis happy-------- In his admission we are also a terrorist supporters. WHO IN THE WORLD WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT? But Trump.
Day after we just seal the sale of 36 F15 fighter jets to Qatar worth $12B. Talking about hypocritism and amateurism in view of foreign government against us.
Instead of defusing the crisis ( contradicting Tillerson ) Trump sided with the Saudis adding fuel to the problem. Guarantee you that is 100% acceptable to Trump supporters.
Guarantee you that is NOT acceptable to the left.
So tell me------ Who is responsible for that kind of disagreement? Guarantee you its not the left or the right.

So tell me ------Where I'm wrong?

and their reaction

I've seen those videos and thank you for posting. Exactly what I just said.
Is that mean that we are also a terrorist supporters? ME conflicts is very fragile, sensitive and need a careful balancing act policy not just one sided. Especially we supply arms to Qatar. Listening to Trump speech-------- How is that going to solve the problem? It did make the Saudis happy which also supports terrorism but it doesn't sound good for the Qataris.

The Entire Middle East is the Devil's Den.............they are Ruled by theology.............and the theology of Qatar alligns with Iran and Shiites...........which pisses off the Sunnis' in the other countries already mentioned...............why would Egypt be pissed........they just outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood and groups like Hamas............destroyed the Tunnels to the Sinai..........and find that Qatar is giving them money to buy more..............

Saudi Arabia is fighting in Yemen and it's border..........fighting a proxy War against Iran.......which has a friend in Qatar............while we use them in the Coalition against ISIS.................as they support the Taliban............as we fight the Taliban in Afganistan..............

as we consider Turkey part of NATO...........we supply the Kurds to fight ISIS only for them to be killed by Turkey...................

There are no good options in this dang HELL HOLE REGION.

 

[charwin95]

Just to makie the Saudi's Happy CRAP

Gulf plunged into diplomatic crisis as countries cut ties with Qatar

The Gulf has been hit by its biggest diplomatic crisis in years after Arab nations including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain cut ties with Qatar, accusing it of destabilising the region with its support for Islamist groups.

The countries said they would halt all land, air and sea traffic with Qatar, eject its diplomats and order Qatari citizens to leave the Gulf states within 14 days. Shoppers in the Qatari capital, Doha, meanwhile packed supermarkets amid fears the country, which relies on imports from its neighbours, would face food shortages after Saudi Arabia closed its sole land border.

Social media reports from Doha showed supermarket shelves empty as nervous consumers began to worry that stocks of food and water would run out. As much as 40% of Qatar’s food comes over the Saudi border.

Egypt’s foreign ministry accused Qatar of taking an “antagonist approach” towards the country and said “all attempts to stop it from supporting terrorist groups failed”. It gave the Qatari ambassador 48 hours to leave Egypt, and ordered its own chargé d’affaires in Qatar to return to Cairo within 48 hours.

SEE -------- This is exactly a good example of what I'm talking about. It's acceptable for Trump supporters but not acceptable to the left.

Making the Saudi happy. That is correct 100%.

Right now this is a crisis. Since when it's acceptable to blast a very close ally just to favor Saudis and the rest?

 

[charwin95]

It's a damn shame that our president played such a big role in the hatred and isn't the leader we need to heal the wounds.

How would you know? You have yet to give him even at least chance. So for me your opinions are way too biased to take serious. You just want to blame. It's time to lay away the blame and try to heal a bit.

Since when we give a president that kind of tolerance? Like trial and error as we go along?
As you see this administration is very chaotic ALL by self inflicted wounds. It's not all about blaming-------- The divisive speech, him against us, the world is against him, world is falling apart ---------- attitude will only make this problem worse--Solutions are in Trump's hand.

Problem in this country no matter who is at fault the president is responsible. It's that simple.

His NEVER ending lies from campaign to his presidency to Climate Change speech to Cuba speech yesterday is full of distortion and lies. Is that supposed to be acceptable?
He has not denounce the hatred groups that are on the rise because of Trump. Is that supposed to be acceptable?
When Trump speak wrong or lies it doesn't matter it's all acceptable to his supporters. Is that supposed to be acceptable?
So people on the left should just shut up? Is that supposed to be acceptable?
Can you please answer those questions?



Let me give you an example ------------ Qatar crisis in Middle East right now is a serious problem. In Qatar we have a very large and impressive state of the art military base where US spy drones are launched with 10,000 soldiers stationed in that country. The other day Trump blasted Qatar as terrorist supporters just to make the Saudis happy-------- In his admission we are also a terrorist supporters. WHO IN THE WORLD WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT? But Trump.
Day after we just seal the sale of 36 F15 fighter jets to Qatar worth $12B. Talking about hypocritism and amateurism in view of foreign government against us.
Instead of defusing the crisis ( contradicting Tillerson ) Trump sided with the Saudis adding fuel to the problem. Guarantee you that is 100% acceptable to Trump supporters.
Guarantee you that is NOT acceptable to the left.
So tell me------ Who is responsible for that kind of disagreement? Guarantee you its not the left or the right.

So tell me ------Where I'm wrong?

and their reaction

When this first came out, there was some analysis and an interview with a former SOS on how to respond. Both nations are allies and in essence this is a regional power struggle that we should stay out of. But no, Trump has to tweet without first examining the issue.

How the Hell do we stay out of it when it is our main forward Command and Control Base in the Region................................Are you suggesting removing our base from Quatar.................or our assets in the other countries instead............

This isn't just about Quatar............it is about Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Bahrain as well..................

They are pulling diplomats out and kicking their out as well.

Okay------- Then --------Why is Trump blasting Qatar?

 

[charwin95]

By hosting Hamas, Qatar is whitewashing terror | Opinion

Qatar is also Hamas’s ATM. In 2012, the former Emir of Qatar Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani traveled to Gaza and pledged $400 million to the Hamas government. After the 2014 war, Qatar pledged $1 billion over several years to a reconstruction fund for Gaza (more than any other nation). Hamas has reportedly used those funds to rebuild its network of terror tunnels.

Less than half of Qatar’s billion-dollar pledge has been paid out. But earlier this year, Haniyeh announced that Qatar’s new emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani would pay out $100 million to Hamas-controlled Gaza in 2017 alone. And when a recent feud between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority created a massive energy crisis, and sparked protests against Hamas in the Gaza strip, Qatar stepped in and provided Hamas with $12 million for fuel.

The Taliban also benefits from Qatar’s whitewashing operations. In 2013, when the Taliban decided to open up its first “embassy,” it did so in Doha. It was a convenient location because many of the Taliban’s leaders lived there already. After the government of Afghanistan protested, the “embassy” was closed—in name only.

In 2015, senior Taliban officials traveled to Doha to negotiate the prisoner swap between American Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and the notorious Taliban Five, high-level prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Today, the Taliban Five live luxuriously (but under a travel ban) in Doha. The Qataris reportedly paid for the lavish homes of Taliban leaders, and U.S. officials have even quietly met with Taliban leaders there as recently as October 2016.

So what are you trying to say bud?

 

[flacaltenn]

Sure.. We can have a 100 Image consultants and focus groups handle that. More balloons, more vetting, more control... Pretty soon, it'll be just as phony as the "niormal" conventions. There was TONS of more debate, more choices, and more solutions offered at THAT convention -- than any other that year.

We COULD I suppose go negative on the Brand Name tribes and make BIG HUGE headlines. But we decided (unfortunately) not to DO that. NEXT TIME --- all you're gonna hear from us is about the blood in the streets, the chaos, the phony news, the derilection of DUTY -- that is gonna be the "track record" for BOTH your corrupt and debased dynasty parties that need to die... Won't NEED money or a podium at the debates to make that case...

You guys are making it WAAAAAY too easy...

Thanks to you and TN, I started looking into this Libertarian Party prior to their convention. I looked at articles and write ups on the candidates, and I read your posts and I STILL got more and more confused about what it would look like. Then I watched the televised portion of the convention and it was obvious that the Party has not yet found its professional footing. I've seen town meetings a lot more together than that was. You folks don't have to be slick and shiny and bullshit driven but you do need to have your act together. I'd welcome it; at least knowing what a Libertarian government would look like would be a help. Be ready to answer those questions next time, is my advice. And if an attention whore gets on stage, don't let him strip for five minutes before anyone gets their finger out of their butt and does something about it.

Two experience 2 term governors with excellent records of governance were offered as a "mediation team". The America people refused to even consider the choices because they "could not win".. We have so much winning NOW -- that many of us believe this Republic is crumbling in the next decade. Either from INTERNAL CIVIL CONFLICT or just plain stupid ass mistakes and dereliction of leadership duties.

Johnson/Weld was polling 12 to 15% in about 10 states until Debates that we were shut out of.. Seeing as how we were on EVERY STATE BALLOT -- we should not have been excluded...

I agree. It would have helped a lot. I've voted the third party ticket plenty of times and it frustrates me too that people consider it a thrown away vote. It wouldn't be if the third party was treated equally.
Putting them on the debate schedule would have helped a lot. How does that get fixed?

The whole Congressional rules and process are mired in collusion to control power and the elected representatives under 2 banners. Voters focus on THAT "balance of power" and just trade masters when they vote for "winners".. Just having 3 votes in the Senate, maybe 10 in the House that can honestly SPEAK and VOTE and MOCK the other 2 parties without fear of retribution --- is the winning prescription. If vote margins are tight NOW -- imagine the effect of taking a dozen of those seats and giving them to leadership that will RIDICULE the senseless Dem/Rep conflict and EMPHASIS on obtaining and retaining power.

Ballot access is another key. Run those races where the Reps or Dems don't run "losing races" and disenfranchise their ENTIRE constituency... Take DOWN a bunch of senile old codgers who should have quit long ago... Put INDEPENDENT voices in enough seats to show what honesty and humility in serving was all about in the past..

I think you're probably right that the Libertarian Party will have to start local and grow upwards, getting into the House and Senate before jumping to the #1 seat. I don't recall a Libertarian running for office in Maine, at least not in my district. We are almost half Independents in Maine, though, and it would be a perfectly reasonable place to send up a trial balloon. Will we be seeing you around?

I've signed up as a policy writer and curator for a National Project Wiki.. To be used by all Libertarian candidates. We're not waiting for 2018, we're gonna start getting coverage very soon..

10 or 15 Indies in Congress would make a HUGE difference. And there are LParty candidates running in every state --- every cycle.. But due to ballot access restrictions and roadblocks, MANY states DON'T ALLOW identifications as anything BUT Rep or Dem or Indie. (most of those demand draconian amounts of petitions to dissuade getting your party identified every cycle) That's gotta change.. So I'd have to check, but maybe that's WHY you have so many Indies on the ballot in Maine.

 

[flacaltenn]

"It" won't stop. Pelosi did not last 24 hours. The radical anti-American board marxist are already leaking back to normal, despite pleading "this has to stop". They want violence in the streets. They will not stop until they get it. They will have to be obliged.

Who here wants violence?

Last civil war took 600,000 lives. It's unconscionable that we could go that route again. Besides, there's no Mason-Dixon line in the sand. What would happen? Instead of Sherman burning Atlanta we would have rednecks burning L.A.?

We won't have a civil war for one major reason: too many Americans are spineless shits more concerned about their iPhones and Beemers to pick up a weapon.

A few riots and a few mass shootings do not a Civil War make.

Well for starters, speech and expression are gonna get shut down. Town Halls??? Impossible.. Political figures giving graduation speeches? Not gonna happen. Folks are gonna turn off the annoying noise and make their own.

The NEW Social Media is gonna be "filtered" for news and hate speech. Creating further polarization and isolation. And with no 3rd estate having any credibility left --- the polarization is just gonna broach violence. There's nothing to moderate the anger and frustration over political POWER.

This ain't about policy. It ain't about solving problems. It's ALL about struggle to CONTROL the power that the Feds TAKEN from the Constitution to micromanage EVERY ASPECT of people's lives. Nothing to do with money. Because 1/2 the lobbyists in D.C. would pack up and leave tomorrow if every congress critter didn't TAKE the power to make SOME companies win and others lose. Lobbying is a defensive art. Not an offensive art. You take away the ability to favor ONE company over ANOTHER and the money and the power and the LOBBYISTS -- simply disappear.... Neither party Dem or Rep will do that. Because that's the PRIZE for "WINNING"...

I want to interject something...on social media. It's already filtered by algorithm's that what you what they think you want creating millions of safe spaces.

I'm doing a lot of thinking about the roll of media here.

We have laws that require products be what they are labeled. You can no longer adulterate flour with plaster of Paris. We laws against libel and slander. I have no problem with private entities trying to weed out fake news from their news feeds ...

Oh I definitely do have a problem with the filtering of fake news.. MAYBE not the filtering of bad content that can be clearly identified as "threats".. But at this point, and seeing what I see daily on USMB, I would have to put CNN, NYTimes, and WashPo in the "fake news" bin often.. And no "factchecker" would ever spin me otherwise.

That's NOT an "automated" judgement for machines to make right now.. That's ASKING for human bias to be disguised as "fact-checking"....

 

[flacaltenn]

Who here wants violence?

Last civil war took 600,000 lives. It's unconscionable that we could go that route again. Besides, there's no Mason-Dixon line in the sand. What would happen? Instead of Sherman burning Atlanta we would have rednecks burning L.A.?

We won't have a civil war for one major reason: too many Americans are spineless shits more concerned about their iPhones and Beemers to pick up a weapon.

A few riots and a few mass shootings do not a Civil War make.

Well for starters, speech and expression are gonna get shut down. Town Halls??? Impossible.. Political figures giving graduation speeches? Not gonna happen. Folks are gonna turn off the annoying noise and make their own.

The NEW Social Media is gonna be "filtered" for news and hate speech. Creating further polarization and isolation. And with no 3rd estate having any credibility left --- the polarization is just gonna broach violence. There's nothing to moderate the anger and frustration over political POWER.

This ain't about policy. It ain't about solving problems. It's ALL about struggle to CONTROL the power that the Feds TAKEN from the Constitution to micromanage EVERY ASPECT of people's lives. Nothing to do with money. Because 1/2 the lobbyists in D.C. would pack up and leave tomorrow if every congress critter didn't TAKE the power to make SOME companies win and others lose. Lobbying is a defensive art. Not an offensive art. You take away the ability to favor ONE company over ANOTHER and the money and the power and the LOBBYISTS -- simply disappear.... Neither party Dem or Rep will do that. Because that's the PRIZE for "WINNING"...

I want to interject something...on social media. It's already filtered by algorithm's that what you what they think you want creating millions of safe spaces.

I'm doing a lot of thinking about the roll of media here.

We have laws that require products be what they are labeled. You can no longer adulterate flour with plaster of Paris. We laws against libel and slander. I have no problem with private entities trying to weed out fake news from their news feeds ...

I use Google as a search engine. I don't have an FB account or a news feed or anything else, just USMB and going to links from here. I occasionally google a topic raised here just to see if it's true. So would Google have an idea of what I want to hear? That's pretty messed up, but one day when I requested pics of a snarling dog, I was getting cute puppies, mostly. Do people not take pictures of snarling dogs (I wouldn't, I'd be running the other way) but it did seem weird. Does Google know (or think they know) I'm all sweetness and light and don't really want to see snarling dogs?

Yep.. That's why you have sample broadly to even KNOW that dogs snarl.. It's not just "Fake" news. It's embargoed news and stories that certain outlets just won't print.. THAT'S the bigger problem you just put your paws on..

 

[Pogo]

Yeah the whole problem with reforming the Electoral College system is that it only seems to come up every four years because that's the only time it's in operation.

No, it doesn't come up every four years, it comes up when Democrats lose an election because the are not graceful losers and have been brainwashed by their leaders they've been cheated somehow.

EVERY FOUR YEARS we have this discussion ---- whether you're actually listening to it or not is irrelevant.

It arises on that timetable because every four years is exactly when the Electoral College is at all relevant --- the six-week period between a Presidential election and the formal EC vote. The rest of the time --- it doesn't exist.

Again, whether you're paying attention at any particular quadrennial six-week discussion period based on whether or not it serves the interest of Numero Uno has no bearing whatsoever on the existence OF that discussion. This tired old "if I never heard of it, it doesn't exist" mentality is amusing but impotent.

 

[flacaltenn]

There are a few problems with a third party.

One is that many of us vote to keep the opposing party out less than to get our person in. Trump was not my choice, but it was either vote for him or Hillary may get in. So yes, voting a third party (not that there is one I like) would have helped usher Bill and Hillary back into the White House, and there was just too much at stake given the Supreme Court vacancy.

But even if by some miracle a third party candidate would get in, he or she would not be able to accomplish anything. They would be a political outsider and the other two parties would never let them get their agendas passed. Trump is an outsider, but he at least belongs to the Republican party, and look how hard of a time his own party members are giving him!

Which is what happened with GHW Bush in 1992 and Gore in 2000. After this debacle (for Hillary!) maybe Congress will finally take a serious look at election reform. Specifically to all people to rank their choices versus only picking one and letting winner take all.

Still, I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil and will always vote my conscience from now on.

Maine voted in ranked choice voting in 2016. The powers that be are saying some piece of it violates the State Constitution. I don't think they like the idea much, which makes me like it even more.

Maine also splits its electoral vote by Congressional district, which makes it at least partially independent of the Electoral College's effect of paving over the voices of those in the state who vote outside of the majority. Unfortunately only one other state does that. In all other states the votes of those who vote outside of the majority are effectively cancelled --- which means there's no reason for anyone to vote in the first place because it's not going to make a damn bit of difference. With that going on it's a small miracle that even a shabby 55% of the electorate bothers to vote (that's what it was in 2016 -- 45% of us said, "what's the point?"

When we have millions upon millions of votes being cancelled simply because voters 400 miles away went another direction, that's state mob rule. And if the state in question is already known to tilt "red" or tilt "blue", the only reason to vote is to make a tiny tiny statement against the system by casting a third party vote --- which by definition of that state already being locked in means that 3P vote is going nowhere anyway.

Whether designed to or not the 'winner take all' aspect of the EC system ensures that no third party may ever challenge the Duopoly, which is why we've been stuck with it for a century and a half. I don't know why we all can't see that.

As someone described above a voter may detest candidate A but detest candidate B even more, leading them to vote for A solely to block B like a giant game of tic tac toe. That's not a good reason to vote for A but the Duopoly knows this and it completely removes their burden of running competent candidates and the whole thing becomes nothing more than a giant horse race the Duopoly wins every time.

And every four years we figure this out, and every four yeas we do nothing about it, and the next time around we do the same thing, expecting different results.

Fifty-five percent participation. That's atrocious. We shouldn't lie back and accept that.

Many months ago, I conversed with a poster here who went into great specifics about a movement to abolish the E.C. It is a real "thing," although it isn't getting much "airtime" anywhere. There's a petition and such.
The "tiny statement made by a 3P vote" is what got us that miserable Governor Paul LePage, most say; it is the reason the majority of voters now want ranked choice voting. The Independent Elliot Cutler got a significant % of votes that most likely would have gone to the Democrat. Why tf we gave LePage a second term is anyone's guess, but I believe it has something to do with a very weak Democratic candidate and the fact that LePage was less combative and irrational in his first term; the devil you know....
As LePage himself says, he was Trump before Trump was Trump. And it's true, but people didn't learn from our mistake.

Yeah the whole problem with reforming the Electoral College system is that it only seems to come up every four years because that's the only time it's in operation. By then it's too late and we scratch our heads and go "why didn't we fix this before?" and we squawk about it and then do nothing. Four years later we do it all over again.

I dunno what it takes to fix that. I guess we'd have to elect a president who squeaked out an EC majority and then demonstrated what a disaster that choice was. That would serve as a daily reminder of how a demagogue could manipulate the system.

Hmmm....

The E.C. is far more democratic than the Representation in the Senate. Gonna "fix" that also? With one party states like California, where they're trying to LOCK UP the entire Democratic Process with hokey and devious election laws, The E.C. becomes FAR more important.

The E.C. is not the issue. NO one is winning races by huge margins. And the margins are gonna become FAR more complex as the party faithful numbers continue to fall. Neither Trump NOR Clinton got more favorable votes than the totals cast against them. UNLESS you're a closed minded drone that doesn't count ALL of votes cast against each candidate individually....

 

[OldLady]

Thanks to you and TN, I started looking into this Libertarian Party prior to their convention. I looked at articles and write ups on the candidates, and I read your posts and I STILL got more and more confused about what it would look like. Then I watched the televised portion of the convention and it was obvious that the Party has not yet found its professional footing. I've seen town meetings a lot more together than that was. You folks don't have to be slick and shiny and bullshit driven but you do need to have your act together. I'd welcome it; at least knowing what a Libertarian government would look like would be a help. Be ready to answer those questions next time, is my advice. And if an attention whore gets on stage, don't let him strip for five minutes before anyone gets their finger out of their butt and does something about it.

Two experience 2 term governors with excellent records of governance were offered as a "mediation team". The America people refused to even consider the choices because they "could not win".. We have so much winning NOW -- that many of us believe this Republic is crumbling in the next decade. Either from INTERNAL CIVIL CONFLICT or just plain stupid ass mistakes and dereliction of leadership duties.

Johnson/Weld was polling 12 to 15% in about 10 states until Debates that we were shut out of.. Seeing as how we were on EVERY STATE BALLOT -- we should not have been excluded...

I agree. It would have helped a lot. I've voted the third party ticket plenty of times and it frustrates me too that people consider it a thrown away vote. It wouldn't be if the third party was treated equally.
Putting them on the debate schedule would have helped a lot. How does that get fixed?

The whole Congressional rules and process are mired in collusion to control power and the elected representatives under 2 banners. Voters focus on THAT "balance of power" and just trade masters when they vote for "winners".. Just having 3 votes in the Senate, maybe 10 in the House that can honestly SPEAK and VOTE and MOCK the other 2 parties without fear of retribution --- is the winning prescription. If vote margins are tight NOW -- imagine the effect of taking a dozen of those seats and giving them to leadership that will RIDICULE the senseless Dem/Rep conflict and EMPHASIS on obtaining and retaining power.

Ballot access is another key. Run those races where the Reps or Dems don't run "losing races" and disenfranchise their ENTIRE constituency... Take DOWN a bunch of senile old codgers who should have quit long ago... Put INDEPENDENT voices in enough seats to show what honesty and humility in serving was all about in the past..

I think you're probably right that the Libertarian Party will have to start local and grow upwards, getting into the House and Senate before jumping to the #1 seat. I don't recall a Libertarian running for office in Maine, at least not in my district. We are almost half Independents in Maine, though, and it would be a perfectly reasonable place to send up a trial balloon. Will we be seeing you around?

I've signed up as a policy writer and curator for a National Project Wiki.. To be used by all Libertarian candidates. We're not waiting for 2018, we're gonna start getting coverage very soon..

10 or 15 Indies in Congress would make a HUGE difference. And there are LParty candidates running in every state --- every cycle.. But due to ballot access restrictions and roadblocks, MANY states DON'T ALLOW identifications as anything BUT Rep or Dem or Indie. That's gotta change.. So I'd have to check, but maybe that's WHY you have so many Indies on the ballot in Maine.

Cool beans! When it's up, let us know. Gary Johnson got 5% of the vote in Maine; he was on the ballot.

 

[flacaltenn]

Two experience 2 term governors with excellent records of governance were offered as a "mediation team". The America people refused to even consider the choices because they "could not win".. We have so much winning NOW -- that many of us believe this Republic is crumbling in the next decade. Either from INTERNAL CIVIL CONFLICT or just plain stupid ass mistakes and dereliction of leadership duties.

Johnson/Weld was polling 12 to 15% in about 10 states until Debates that we were shut out of.. Seeing as how we were on EVERY STATE BALLOT -- we should not have been excluded...

I agree. It would have helped a lot. I've voted the third party ticket plenty of times and it frustrates me too that people consider it a thrown away vote. It wouldn't be if the third party was treated equally.
Putting them on the debate schedule would have helped a lot. How does that get fixed?

The whole Congressional rules and process are mired in collusion to control power and the elected representatives under 2 banners. Voters focus on THAT "balance of power" and just trade masters when they vote for "winners".. Just having 3 votes in the Senate, maybe 10 in the House that can honestly SPEAK and VOTE and MOCK the other 2 parties without fear of retribution --- is the winning prescription. If vote margins are tight NOW -- imagine the effect of taking a dozen of those seats and giving them to leadership that will RIDICULE the senseless Dem/Rep conflict and EMPHASIS on obtaining and retaining power.

Ballot access is another key. Run those races where the Reps or Dems don't run "losing races" and disenfranchise their ENTIRE constituency... Take DOWN a bunch of senile old codgers who should have quit long ago... Put INDEPENDENT voices in enough seats to show what honesty and humility in serving was all about in the past..

I think you're probably right that the Libertarian Party will have to start local and grow upwards, getting into the House and Senate before jumping to the #1 seat. I don't recall a Libertarian running for office in Maine, at least not in my district. We are almost half Independents in Maine, though, and it would be a perfectly reasonable place to send up a trial balloon. Will we be seeing you around?

I've signed up as a policy writer and curator for a National Project Wiki.. To be used by all Libertarian candidates. We're not waiting for 2018, we're gonna start getting coverage very soon..

10 or 15 Indies in Congress would make a HUGE difference. And there are LParty candidates running in every state --- every cycle.. But due to ballot access restrictions and roadblocks, MANY states DON'T ALLOW identifications as anything BUT Rep or Dem or Indie. That's gotta change.. So I'd have to check, but maybe that's WHY you have so many Indies on the ballot in Maine.

Cool beans! When it's up, let us know. Gary Johnson got 5% of the vote in Maine; he was on the ballot.

The wiki itself is a private one. BUT --- you'll see a DRAMATIC increase in the quality and quantity of well-thought "alternative political problem-solving". People are gonna be amazed at how little actual work and ingenuity comes out of the Dem/Rep positions on things important to them. There are MANY more ways to fix stuff than EVER make it to "public discussion". So much the people aren't even aware of because of the "dug-in" positions taken by the Repubs and Dems.

I wrote a piece on Ferguson as a draft that's in the USMB Gary Johnson forum, that got polished and disseminated widely. All of the noise that you heard about Ferguson --- for instance -- are NOTHING like the media or political portrayal of it's REAL problems. And with messages and solutions LIKE THAT -- we won't have to pander to get support from oppressed communities. They'll UNDERSTAND what they need to do FIX things..

 

[OldLady]

Maine voted in ranked choice voting in 2016. The powers that be are saying some piece of it violates the State Constitution. I don't think they like the idea much, which makes me like it even more.

Maine also splits its electoral vote by Congressional district, which makes it at least partially independent of the Electoral College's effect of paving over the voices of those in the state who vote outside of the majority. Unfortunately only one other state does that. In all other states the votes of those who vote outside of the majority are effectively cancelled --- which means there's no reason for anyone to vote in the first place because it's not going to make a damn bit of difference. With that going on it's a small miracle that even a shabby 55% of the electorate bothers to vote (that's what it was in 2016 -- 45% of us said, "what's the point?"

When we have millions upon millions of votes being cancelled simply because voters 400 miles away went another direction, that's state mob rule. And if the state in question is already known to tilt "red" or tilt "blue", the only reason to vote is to make a tiny tiny statement against the system by casting a third party vote --- which by definition of that state already being locked in means that 3P vote is going nowhere anyway.

Whether designed to or not the 'winner take all' aspect of the EC system ensures that no third party may ever challenge the Duopoly, which is why we've been stuck with it for a century and a half. I don't know why we all can't see that.

As someone described above a voter may detest candidate A but detest candidate B even more, leading them to vote for A solely to block B like a giant game of tic tac toe. That's not a good reason to vote for A but the Duopoly knows this and it completely removes their burden of running competent candidates and the whole thing becomes nothing more than a giant horse race the Duopoly wins every time.

And every four years we figure this out, and every four yeas we do nothing about it, and the next time around we do the same thing, expecting different results.

Fifty-five percent participation. That's atrocious. We shouldn't lie back and accept that.

Many months ago, I conversed with a poster here who went into great specifics about a movement to abolish the E.C. It is a real "thing," although it isn't getting much "airtime" anywhere. There's a petition and such.
The "tiny statement made by a 3P vote" is what got us that miserable Governor Paul LePage, most say; it is the reason the majority of voters now want ranked choice voting. The Independent Elliot Cutler got a significant % of votes that most likely would have gone to the Democrat. Why tf we gave LePage a second term is anyone's guess, but I believe it has something to do with a very weak Democratic candidate and the fact that LePage was less combative and irrational in his first term; the devil you know....
As LePage himself says, he was Trump before Trump was Trump. And it's true, but people didn't learn from our mistake.

Yeah the whole problem with reforming the Electoral College system is that it only seems to come up every four years because that's the only time it's in operation. By then it's too late and we scratch our heads and go "why didn't we fix this before?" and we squawk about it and then do nothing. Four years later we do it all over again.

I dunno what it takes to fix that. I guess we'd have to elect a president who squeaked out an EC majority and then demonstrated what a disaster that choice was. That would serve as a daily reminder of how a demagogue could manipulate the system.

Hmmm....

The E.C. is far more democratic than the Representation in the Senate. Gonna "fix" that also? With one party states like California, where they're trying to LOCK UP the entire Democratic Process with hokey and devious election laws, The E.C. becomes FAR more important.

The E.C. is not the issue. NO one is winning races by huge margins. And the margins are gonna become FAR more complex as the party faithful numbers continue to fall. Neither Trump NOR Clinton got more favorable votes than the totals cast against them. UNLESS you're a closed minded drone that doesn't count ALL of votes cast against each candidate individually....

.
My you're a cantankerous fuck these last 24 hours aintchya.

If you'd care to put that post into English we can take it from there. If you're just here to score points --- piss off.

He IS. I thought at first he was drunk, but no change overnight, so probably not.

 

[WillowTree]

Thanks to you and TN, I started looking into this Libertarian Party prior to their convention. I looked at articles and write ups on the candidates, and I read your posts and I STILL got more and more confused about what it would look like. Then I watched the televised portion of the convention and it was obvious that the Party has not yet found its professional footing. I've seen town meetings a lot more together than that was. You folks don't have to be slick and shiny and bullshit driven but you do need to have your act together. I'd welcome it; at least knowing what a Libertarian government would look like would be a help. Be ready to answer those questions next time, is my advice. And if an attention whore gets on stage, don't let him strip for five minutes before anyone gets their finger out of their butt and does something about it.

Two experience 2 term governors with excellent records of governance were offered as a "mediation team". The America people refused to even consider the choices because they "could not win".. We have so much winning NOW -- that many of us believe this Republic is crumbling in the next decade. Either from INTERNAL CIVIL CONFLICT or just plain stupid ass mistakes and dereliction of leadership duties.

Johnson/Weld was polling 12 to 15% in about 10 states until Debates that we were shut out of.. Seeing as how we were on EVERY STATE BALLOT -- we should not have been excluded...

I agree. It would have helped a lot. I've voted the third party ticket plenty of times and it frustrates me too that people consider it a thrown away vote. It wouldn't be if the third party was treated equally.
Putting them on the debate schedule would have helped a lot. How does that get fixed?

The whole Congressional rules and process are mired in collusion to control power and the elected representatives under 2 banners. Voters focus on THAT "balance of power" and just trade masters when they vote for "winners".. Just having 3 votes in the Senate, maybe 10 in the House that can honestly SPEAK and VOTE and MOCK the other 2 parties without fear of retribution --- is the winning prescription. If vote margins are tight NOW -- imagine the effect of taking a dozen of those seats and giving them to leadership that will RIDICULE the senseless Dem/Rep conflict and EMPHASIS on obtaining and retaining power.

Ballot access is another key. Run those races where the Reps or Dems don't run "losing races" and disenfranchise their ENTIRE constituency... Take DOWN a bunch of senile old codgers who should have quit long ago... Put INDEPENDENT voices in enough seats to show what honesty and humility in serving was all about in the past..

I think you're probably right that the Libertarian Party will have to start local and grow upwards, getting into the House and Senate before jumping to the #1 seat. I don't recall a Libertarian running for office in Maine, at least not in my district. We are almost half Independents in Maine, though, and it would be a perfectly reasonable place to send up a trial balloon. Will we be seeing you around?

I've signed up as a policy writer and curator for a National Project Wiki.. To be used by all Libertarian candidates. We're not waiting for 2018, we're gonna start getting coverage very soon..

10 or 15 Indies in Congress would make a HUGE difference. And there are LParty candidates running in every state --- every cycle.. But due to ballot access restrictions and roadblocks, MANY states DON'T ALLOW identifications as anything BUT Rep or Dem or Indie. (most of those demand draconian amounts of petitions to dissuade getting your party identified every cycle) That's gotta change.. So I'd have to check, but maybe that's WHY you have so many Indies on the ballot in Maine.

From my humble observations most of the so called independents caucus with the democrats!

 

[flacaltenn]

Maine voted in ranked choice voting in 2016. The powers that be are saying some piece of it violates the State Constitution. I don't think they like the idea much, which makes me like it even more.

Maine also splits its electoral vote by Congressional district, which makes it at least partially independent of the Electoral College's effect of paving over the voices of those in the state who vote outside of the majority. Unfortunately only one other state does that. In all other states the votes of those who vote outside of the majority are effectively cancelled --- which means there's no reason for anyone to vote in the first place because it's not going to make a damn bit of difference. With that going on it's a small miracle that even a shabby 55% of the electorate bothers to vote (that's what it was in 2016 -- 45% of us said, "what's the point?"

When we have millions upon millions of votes being cancelled simply because voters 400 miles away went another direction, that's state mob rule. And if the state in question is already known to tilt "red" or tilt "blue", the only reason to vote is to make a tiny tiny statement against the system by casting a third party vote --- which by definition of that state already being locked in means that 3P vote is going nowhere anyway.

Whether designed to or not the 'winner take all' aspect of the EC system ensures that no third party may ever challenge the Duopoly, which is why we've been stuck with it for a century and a half. I don't know why we all can't see that.

As someone described above a voter may detest candidate A but detest candidate B even more, leading them to vote for A solely to block B like a giant game of tic tac toe. That's not a good reason to vote for A but the Duopoly knows this and it completely removes their burden of running competent candidates and the whole thing becomes nothing more than a giant horse race the Duopoly wins every time.

And every four years we figure this out, and every four yeas we do nothing about it, and the next time around we do the same thing, expecting different results.

Fifty-five percent participation. That's atrocious. We shouldn't lie back and accept that.

Many months ago, I conversed with a poster here who went into great specifics about a movement to abolish the E.C. It is a real "thing," although it isn't getting much "airtime" anywhere. There's a petition and such.
The "tiny statement made by a 3P vote" is what got us that miserable Governor Paul LePage, most say; it is the reason the majority of voters now want ranked choice voting. The Independent Elliot Cutler got a significant % of votes that most likely would have gone to the Democrat. Why tf we gave LePage a second term is anyone's guess, but I believe it has something to do with a very weak Democratic candidate and the fact that LePage was less combative and irrational in his first term; the devil you know....
As LePage himself says, he was Trump before Trump was Trump. And it's true, but people didn't learn from our mistake.

Yeah the whole problem with reforming the Electoral College system is that it only seems to come up every four years because that's the only time it's in operation. By then it's too late and we scratch our heads and go "why didn't we fix this before?" and we squawk about it and then do nothing. Four years later we do it all over again.

I dunno what it takes to fix that. I guess we'd have to elect a president who squeaked out an EC majority and then demonstrated what a disaster that choice was. That would serve as a daily reminder of how a demagogue could manipulate the system.

Hmmm....

The E.C. is far more democratic than the Representation in the Senate. Gonna "fix" that also? With one party states like California, where they're trying to LOCK UP the entire Democratic Process with hokey and devious election laws, The E.C. becomes FAR more important.

The E.C. is not the issue. NO one is winning races by huge margins. And the margins are gonna become FAR more complex as the party faithful numbers continue to fall. Neither Trump NOR Clinton got more favorable votes than the totals cast against them. UNLESS you're a closed minded drone that doesn't count ALL of votes cast against each candidate individually....

.
My you're a cantankerous fuck these last 24 hours aintchya.

If you'd care to put that post into English we can take it from there. If you're just here to score points --- piss off.

A bit personal isn't all that Pogo? Give me a sentence you didn't understand and I'll "unfuck it" for you...

 

[Pogo]

Maine also splits its electoral vote by Congressional district, which makes it at least partially independent of the Electoral College's effect of paving over the voices of those in the state who vote outside of the majority. Unfortunately only one other state does that. In all other states the votes of those who vote outside of the majority are effectively cancelled --- which means there's no reason for anyone to vote in the first place because it's not going to make a damn bit of difference. With that going on it's a small miracle that even a shabby 55% of the electorate bothers to vote (that's what it was in 2016 -- 45% of us said, "what's the point?"

When we have millions upon millions of votes being cancelled simply because voters 400 miles away went another direction, that's state mob rule. And if the state in question is already known to tilt "red" or tilt "blue", the only reason to vote is to make a tiny tiny statement against the system by casting a third party vote --- which by definition of that state already being locked in means that 3P vote is going nowhere anyway.

Whether designed to or not the 'winner take all' aspect of the EC system ensures that no third party may ever challenge the Duopoly, which is why we've been stuck with it for a century and a half. I don't know why we all can't see that.

As someone described above a voter may detest candidate A but detest candidate B even more, leading them to vote for A solely to block B like a giant game of tic tac toe. That's not a good reason to vote for A but the Duopoly knows this and it completely removes their burden of running competent candidates and the whole thing becomes nothing more than a giant horse race the Duopoly wins every time.

And every four years we figure this out, and every four yeas we do nothing about it, and the next time around we do the same thing, expecting different results.

Fifty-five percent participation. That's atrocious. We shouldn't lie back and accept that.

Many months ago, I conversed with a poster here who went into great specifics about a movement to abolish the E.C. It is a real "thing," although it isn't getting much "airtime" anywhere. There's a petition and such.
The "tiny statement made by a 3P vote" is what got us that miserable Governor Paul LePage, most say; it is the reason the majority of voters now want ranked choice voting. The Independent Elliot Cutler got a significant % of votes that most likely would have gone to the Democrat. Why tf we gave LePage a second term is anyone's guess, but I believe it has something to do with a very weak Democratic candidate and the fact that LePage was less combative and irrational in his first term; the devil you know....
As LePage himself says, he was Trump before Trump was Trump. And it's true, but people didn't learn from our mistake.

Yeah the whole problem with reforming the Electoral College system is that it only seems to come up every four years because that's the only time it's in operation. By then it's too late and we scratch our heads and go "why didn't we fix this before?" and we squawk about it and then do nothing. Four years later we do it all over again.

I dunno what it takes to fix that. I guess we'd have to elect a president who squeaked out an EC majority and then demonstrated what a disaster that choice was. That would serve as a daily reminder of how a demagogue could manipulate the system.

Hmmm....

The E.C. is far more democratic than the Representation in the Senate. Gonna "fix" that also? With one party states like California, where they're trying to LOCK UP the entire Democratic Process with hokey and devious election laws, The E.C. becomes FAR more important.

The E.C. is not the issue. NO one is winning races by huge margins. And the margins are gonna become FAR more complex as the party faithful numbers continue to fall. Neither Trump NOR Clinton got more favorable votes than the totals cast against them. UNLESS you're a closed minded drone that doesn't count ALL of votes cast against each candidate individually....

.
My you're a cantankerous fuck these last 24 hours aintchya.

If you'd care to put that post into English we can take it from there. If you're just here to score points --- piss off.

A bit personal isn't all that Pogo? Give me a sentence you didn't understand and I'll "unfuck it" for you...

"A bit personal"? Excuse me, dd you just say "a bit personal" after the way you lied you ass off about me yesterday? And still haven't come up with any justification threof, A BIT PERSONAL??



Go sleep it off, Nutbag.

 

[flacaltenn]

Two experience 2 term governors with excellent records of governance were offered as a "mediation team". The America people refused to even consider the choices because they "could not win".. We have so much winning NOW -- that many of us believe this Republic is crumbling in the next decade. Either from INTERNAL CIVIL CONFLICT or just plain stupid ass mistakes and dereliction of leadership duties.

Johnson/Weld was polling 12 to 15% in about 10 states until Debates that we were shut out of.. Seeing as how we were on EVERY STATE BALLOT -- we should not have been excluded...

I agree. It would have helped a lot. I've voted the third party ticket plenty of times and it frustrates me too that people consider it a thrown away vote. It wouldn't be if the third party was treated equally.
Putting them on the debate schedule would have helped a lot. How does that get fixed?

The whole Congressional rules and process are mired in collusion to control power and the elected representatives under 2 banners. Voters focus on THAT "balance of power" and just trade masters when they vote for "winners".. Just having 3 votes in the Senate, maybe 10 in the House that can honestly SPEAK and VOTE and MOCK the other 2 parties without fear of retribution --- is the winning prescription. If vote margins are tight NOW -- imagine the effect of taking a dozen of those seats and giving them to leadership that will RIDICULE the senseless Dem/Rep conflict and EMPHASIS on obtaining and retaining power.

Ballot access is another key. Run those races where the Reps or Dems don't run "losing races" and disenfranchise their ENTIRE constituency... Take DOWN a bunch of senile old codgers who should have quit long ago... Put INDEPENDENT voices in enough seats to show what honesty and humility in serving was all about in the past..

I think you're probably right that the Libertarian Party will have to start local and grow upwards, getting into the House and Senate before jumping to the #1 seat. I don't recall a Libertarian running for office in Maine, at least not in my district. We are almost half Independents in Maine, though, and it would be a perfectly reasonable place to send up a trial balloon. Will we be seeing you around?

I've signed up as a policy writer and curator for a National Project Wiki.. To be used by all Libertarian candidates. We're not waiting for 2018, we're gonna start getting coverage very soon..

10 or 15 Indies in Congress would make a HUGE difference. And there are LParty candidates running in every state --- every cycle.. But due to ballot access restrictions and roadblocks, MANY states DON'T ALLOW identifications as anything BUT Rep or Dem or Indie. (most of those demand draconian amounts of petitions to dissuade getting your party identified every cycle) That's gotta change.. So I'd have to check, but maybe that's WHY you have so many Indies on the ballot in Maine.

From my humble observations most of the so called independents caucus with the democrats!

There's literally 2 or 3. So -- maybe that's true. BUT -- you had guys like Ron Paul in the House for 20 years that were MORE Libertarian than I am. And a "Liberty Caucus" of (IIRC) 30 or 40 members who are ALL in their hearts -- at least "small l" libertarian. Even had a Libertarian Rep in the House for 4 or 6 months last year when he BAILED from the GOP and announced he would not be running for re-election. Declared with the LParty..

In fact, all the libertarians are the SURVIVORS at Fox News. You have Greg Gutfeld, Kat Timpf, Stossel, Kennedy, to some extent Cavuto --- ALL libertarian. We're good at policy.. We SUCK at campaigning. That's gonna get fixed...

 

[OldLady]

Two experience 2 term governors with excellent records of governance were offered as a "mediation team". The America people refused to even consider the choices because they "could not win".. We have so much winning NOW -- that many of us believe this Republic is crumbling in the next decade. Either from INTERNAL CIVIL CONFLICT or just plain stupid ass mistakes and dereliction of leadership duties.

Johnson/Weld was polling 12 to 15% in about 10 states until Debates that we were shut out of.. Seeing as how we were on EVERY STATE BALLOT -- we should not have been excluded...

I agree. It would have helped a lot. I've voted the third party ticket plenty of times and it frustrates me too that people consider it a thrown away vote. It wouldn't be if the third party was treated equally.
Putting them on the debate schedule would have helped a lot. How does that get fixed?

The whole Congressional rules and process are mired in collusion to control power and the elected representatives under 2 banners. Voters focus on THAT "balance of power" and just trade masters when they vote for "winners".. Just having 3 votes in the Senate, maybe 10 in the House that can honestly SPEAK and VOTE and MOCK the other 2 parties without fear of retribution --- is the winning prescription. If vote margins are tight NOW -- imagine the effect of taking a dozen of those seats and giving them to leadership that will RIDICULE the senseless Dem/Rep conflict and EMPHASIS on obtaining and retaining power.

Ballot access is another key. Run those races where the Reps or Dems don't run "losing races" and disenfranchise their ENTIRE constituency... Take DOWN a bunch of senile old codgers who should have quit long ago... Put INDEPENDENT voices in enough seats to show what honesty and humility in serving was all about in the past..

I think you're probably right that the Libertarian Party will have to start local and grow upwards, getting into the House and Senate before jumping to the #1 seat. I don't recall a Libertarian running for office in Maine, at least not in my district. We are almost half Independents in Maine, though, and it would be a perfectly reasonable place to send up a trial balloon. Will we be seeing you around?

I've signed up as a policy writer and curator for a National Project Wiki.. To be used by all Libertarian candidates. We're not waiting for 2018, we're gonna start getting coverage very soon..

10 or 15 Indies in Congress would make a HUGE difference. And there are LParty candidates running in every state --- every cycle.. But due to ballot access restrictions and roadblocks, MANY states DON'T ALLOW identifications as anything BUT Rep or Dem or Indie. (most of those demand draconian amounts of petitions to dissuade getting your party identified every cycle) That's gotta change.. So I'd have to check, but maybe that's WHY you have so many Indies on the ballot in Maine.

From my humble observations most of the so called independents caucus with the democrats!

If you're talking about Independent voters, I've heard the opposite. Maybe it depends on where you live. As for Independent pols, you could be right. REAL Independent voters vote for who they like, and frig the party.

 

[francoHFW]

Libertarians are Dems who believe the GOP propaganda/character assassination/Pubcrappe. No, Hillary Obama Soros Lerner etc etc aren't going to be locked up- They didn't do anything wrong, dupes. No, Dems aren't for big gov't, just smart gov't- they aren't for raising taxes on you, just on the bloated rich from the last 35 years. Or any of the other crap the New BS GOP goes on about. See sig.

 

[eagle1462010]

Just to makie the Saudi's Happy CRAP

Gulf plunged into diplomatic crisis as countries cut ties with Qatar

The Gulf has been hit by its biggest diplomatic crisis in years after Arab nations including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain cut ties with Qatar, accusing it of destabilising the region with its support for Islamist groups.

The countries said they would halt all land, air and sea traffic with Qatar, eject its diplomats and order Qatari citizens to leave the Gulf states within 14 days. Shoppers in the Qatari capital, Doha, meanwhile packed supermarkets amid fears the country, which relies on imports from its neighbours, would face food shortages after Saudi Arabia closed its sole land border.

Social media reports from Doha showed supermarket shelves empty as nervous consumers began to worry that stocks of food and water would run out. As much as 40% of Qatar’s food comes over the Saudi border.

Egypt’s foreign ministry accused Qatar of taking an “antagonist approach” towards the country and said “all attempts to stop it from supporting terrorist groups failed”. It gave the Qatari ambassador 48 hours to leave Egypt, and ordered its own chargé d’affaires in Qatar to return to Cairo within 48 hours.

SEE -------- This is exactly a good example of what I'm talking about. It's acceptable for Trump supporters but not acceptable to the left.

Making the Saudi happy. That is correct 100%.

Right now this is a crisis. Since when it's acceptable to blast a very close ally just to favor Saudis and the rest?

Which part of it don't you get when deciding partners in a War.................I just pointed out that Qatar backs Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood............and also the dang Taliban who happens to be fighting our forces in Afghanistan..........................

How the hell do you know that Trump isn't calling all of them to the dang floor......................

I would remind you that the other countries are in the fight against ISIS as well...................Egypt OUTLAWED the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas there.........why the hell would we choose Qatar over Egypt then....................Oh.....we have a base there...............we can freaking move it.........

There are no good choices over there..................But I'll take 4 allies in the fight over 1..............or NONE if all of them decide to continue funding terrorism.

 

[eagle1462010]

How would you know? You have yet to give him even at least chance. So for me your opinions are way too biased to take serious. You just want to blame. It's time to lay away the blame and try to heal a bit.

Since when we give a president that kind of tolerance? Like trial and error as we go along?
As you see this administration is very chaotic ALL by self inflicted wounds. It's not all about blaming-------- The divisive speech, him against us, the world is against him, world is falling apart ---------- attitude will only make this problem worse--Solutions are in Trump's hand.

Problem in this country no matter who is at fault the president is responsible. It's that simple.

His NEVER ending lies from campaign to his presidency to Climate Change speech to Cuba speech yesterday is full of distortion and lies. Is that supposed to be acceptable?
He has not denounce the hatred groups that are on the rise because of Trump. Is that supposed to be acceptable?
When Trump speak wrong or lies it doesn't matter it's all acceptable to his supporters. Is that supposed to be acceptable?
So people on the left should just shut up? Is that supposed to be acceptable?
Can you please answer those questions?



Let me give you an example ------------ Qatar crisis in Middle East right now is a serious problem. In Qatar we have a very large and impressive state of the art military base where US spy drones are launched with 10,000 soldiers stationed in that country. The other day Trump blasted Qatar as terrorist supporters just to make the Saudis happy-------- In his admission we are also a terrorist supporters. WHO IN THE WORLD WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT? But Trump.
Day after we just seal the sale of 36 F15 fighter jets to Qatar worth $12B. Talking about hypocritism and amateurism in view of foreign government against us.
Instead of defusing the crisis ( contradicting Tillerson ) Trump sided with the Saudis adding fuel to the problem. Guarantee you that is 100% acceptable to Trump supporters.
Guarantee you that is NOT acceptable to the left.
So tell me------ Who is responsible for that kind of disagreement? Guarantee you its not the left or the right.

So tell me ------Where I'm wrong?

and their reaction

When this first came out, there was some analysis and an interview with a former SOS on how to respond. Both nations are allies and in essence this is a regional power struggle that we should stay out of. But no, Trump has to tweet without first examining the issue.

How the Hell do we stay out of it when it is our main forward Command and Control Base in the Region................................Are you suggesting removing our base from Quatar.................or our assets in the other countries instead............

This isn't just about Quatar............it is about Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and Bahrain as well..................

They are pulling diplomats out and kicking their out as well.

Okay------- Then --------Why is Trump blasting Qatar?

To hard for you to see..........hmmm...........He wants them to knock it off in the same way he has been hitting Turkey to knock it off attacking the Kurds..............

He is trying to get them to stop supporting TERRORIST GROUPS...........and not just them................the others to.

For so long, many have been demanding that someone call the middle eastern countries to the floor for supporting terrorism............When someone finally tries to do so you slam him for it..........

typical