This woman might have been the president

[JohnsonJones]

5 hours ago, anatess2 said:

If Joan Rivers is to be believed, with the rise of the popularity of transgenders winning... Michelle just might be President 2024! 

 

That seems like a pretty mean thing to say.  It's also a pretty mean thing to imply about someone's wife.

One may say things about the United States Presidents, but we should be more careful when we talk about their families.  When implying basically horrendous things about a family member, and something we know is basically untrue, it seems very mean to simply say insults like that.

Some of her statements may have caused (even those who are more liberal) many to scratch their heads in disbelief that an American citizen would say them, but she wasn't the one being elected and basically was, just like Melania Trump is, or Nancy Reagan, or any of the other first ladies (and even Hillary Clinton at the time her husband was President) were along for the ride, making the best of the situation and trying to fulfill the role expected of them (take up an issue...etc...whether they know what they are doing with it or not) by everyone else simply because they happen to be married to the President of the United States of America.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That seems like a pretty mean thing to say. 

JJ, you are forgetting a fundamental rule of politics. Jokes about politicians I agree with are horrific, cruel, and even sinful. Jokes about politicians I disagree with are hilariously funny and you are a thin skinned snowflake if you don't laugh at them. 
 

Edited December 18, 2018 by MormonGator

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, MormonGator said:

JJ, you are forgetting a fundamental rule of politics. Jokes about candidates I agree with are horrific, cruel, and even sinful. Jokes about candidates I disagree with are hilariously funny and you are a thin skinned snowflake if you don't laugh at them. 

Ah, maybe.  I very much dislike Trump, but I think people mocking his wife and his son should think more carefully of their statements and comments.  In many instances family should be off limits for jokes like the ones they make today.  I feel as if these types of jokes at the expense of politicians families have been getting worse and worse since Obama was elected, and it set a precedent where today they make horrible jokes about the children even.

There was a time when the President could be mocked as mercilessly as one wanted, but their family was typically off limits. 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Ah, maybe.

I was kidding bud. My point is 100% accurate though. Everyone turns into a sniveling baby/fountain of rage when their own political views are mocked, but everyone loves to point and laugh at the other side then complain about "snowflakes" when someone gets offended. 

Edited December 18, 2018 by MormonGator

[prisonchaplain]

HRC related to a very young female who lost to a male. The girl was probably excited that somebody famous wrote her. We do this all the time--relate the tragedies of others to our own experiences. It does not have to be narcissist.

Still, the whole boys against girls thing is stupid--especially when educated adults play. And yeah, it came across as somewhat self-promoting. However, if I am going to criticize HRC it won't be for writing a conciliatory note to an 8-year old.

[JohnsonJones]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I was kidding bud. My point is 100% accurate though. Everyone turns into a sniveling baby when their own political views are mocked, but everyone loves to point and laugh at the other side then complain about "snowflakes" when someone gets offended. 

Today, perhaps some irony is acceptable, but simply ragging on a family member like calling them abusive names...that's not cool in my book.  I can understand some of the jokes out there, especially if it pertains to what the individual says or does, but simply just calling them horrible things that have no validity in reality, things you know would be very hurtful in real life...I don't think that's all that cool.

Melania Trump recently expressed a little anger in how the media has mocked or made fun of her son, and I actually agree.  I may not like Trump at all, but there are some forms of humor that is simply is abusive.

For many who are married to an identity of being a Democrat or Republican party I agree, they love it when someone mocks the other side and get riled up about how when someone mocks theirs. 

I take a more positive outlook towards the American people though.  I think that the above are just very LOUD in their expressions.  I feel (and I could be very wrong) that a majority may laugh at a political leader or be upset in the same way, but when it turns really nasty on that politician's family, their stomach churns and they feel that one side or the other has gone a step too far.  I think it pertains much to their wives who get mocked, and even MORESO if the media mocks children.  We still have a soft spot for women and children as Americans (though if a woman ever gets to be president I suppose we will see if that could ever be extended to a First Husband/Man), and so I would think there is a silent majority that simply does not feel comfortable making fun of the President's family for no other reason than to be nasty.

Now, in regards to their political items they are trying to do (such as Hillary's healthcare plan, Michelle's Lunchcare plan, and Melania's anti-bullying campaign) perhaps there is more leeway and understanding, but being nasty just to be nasty...

I think, or at least hope, that a silent majority of Americans still have the decency to say...that's not right.

Of course, the extremes will always do thus, but I think (or hope) that the general American feels decency is still the order of the day in regards to women and children.

Edited December 18, 2018 by JohnsonJones
grammar

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think, or at least hope, that a silent majority of Americans still have the decency to say...that's not right.

Good luck with that. 

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Ah, maybe.  I very much dislike Trump, but I think people mocking his wife and his son should think more carefully of their statements and comments.  In many instances family should be off limits for jokes like the ones they make today.  I feel as if these types of jokes at the expense of politicians families have been getting worse and worse since Obama was elected, and it set a precedent where today they make horrible jokes about the children even.

There was a time when the President could be mocked as mercilessly as one wanted, but their family was typically off limits. 

Just so you know, Batrack Obama being gay and Michelle being transgender is not a joke.  It’s a conspiracy theory complete with evidence as conspiracy theories go.  It’s a 4chan thing.  It started when that guy, can’t remember his mame now, went public about having sexual relations with Barrack Obama in a limousine while Obama was Senator and gained steam when Obama said in a speech “Michael and I”, went rocket fuel when several images of Michelle were compiled with an unexplainable bulge, and supernova’d with Joan Rivers’ comment and her death a few days later.

More stuff surfaced as the conspiracy theory circulated the dark web like a picture of the Obama girls looking like the doctor who delivered them, etc etc.  It became even bigger when the media tried to squash it because that’s what 4chan does.  It notches a trophy on their belt when important people responds to them.

Edited December 18, 2018 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Just so you know, Batrack Obama being gay and Michelle being transgender . . . 

 

 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Got it.  That is great!  Honestly, i don't quite understand how someone could dislike them so much after having read about their lives.  However,  i will read Clinton Cash.  Maybe then i will understand how, even if i don't feel that way myself.

I will be very surprised if you're able to get through those books without skipping over many pages.

No explanation.  Just let me know if you were actually able to do it.  I'd be very interested.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

One may say things about the United States Presidents, but we should be more careful when we talk about their families.  When implying basically horrendous things about a family member, and something we know is basically untrue, it seems very mean to simply say insults like that.

11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 I very much dislike Trump, but I think people mocking his wife and his son should think more carefully of their statements and comments. 

My position is a bit different:  When people joke about those in public life, that is one thing.  But when they LIE about ANYONE, that is another.

At first, I assumed Anatess was joking about the transgender thing.  I thought it was funny.  But now that she's come out and said it's documented, uhhh, NO.

With Trump, I see a LOT of jokes about him and his family.  And I laugh at those too.  But there are a LOT of lies out there about Trump and Melania, and...  That is what I object to.

No, Michelle is not a transgendered person.  Barak is not gay.  He's just a girly-man.

 

[Lost Boy]

On 12/16/2018 at 2:15 AM, Vort said:

Unbelievable. I don't know if it's scarier how narrowly we dodged this bullet or how willing the US citizenry were (and are) to elect such an unabashed narcissist.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-writes-letter-to-girl-8-who-ran-for-class-president-against-boy-and-lost

We dodged a bullet by stepping in front of a freight train.  Way to go us....

 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

Ah, Politics, the secular religion of our time. Everyone should know by now that you never discuss or mock, Religion, politics or Star (fill in the Verb), e.g. Wars, Trek, Gate etc.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Ah, Politics, the secular religion of our time. Everyone should know by now that you never discuss or mock, Religion, politics or Star (fill in the Verb), e.g. Wars, Trek, Gate etc.

Verb?

[Colirio]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Verb?

Maybe he means the expletive of your choice? 

 

Star }@$%*+!! Wars!!! 

[Vort]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Verb?

A verb can be whatever you want it to be. We enlightened folk are not constrained by traditional grammaticanormative ideas of word usage.

[lostinwater]

So i listened to Clinton Cash.

My feelings:

People tried to influenced Hilary through The Clinton Foundation by donating to it.  Hilary said it didn't influence them.  The foundation seems to have been largely run by Bill and marketed by Chelsea while Hilary was Secretary of State.  Honestly, i don't know how someone can donate millions to a foundation you are tied to without it influencing you.  At least i know i couldn't.  The Clintons don't benefit from the money that comes into the foundation, or take salaries from it.  Bill made a lot of money from speeches - and people tried to influence Hilary by paying Bill way too much money to give speeches about the foundation.  

And with none of this did anyone seem to care all that much about where the donations (or payments for speeches) came from.  There were big time conflict of interests with Hilary being Secretary of State and her family having the Clinton Foundation.  They should have shut it down while she was secretary of state.  All the foreign leaders poured money into it to try and influence her.  How much did they succeed?  Who knows.  It seems like Obama had concerns about it's presence, but couldn't do much, because it being there wasn't illegal.

The Clinton Foundation has done a lot of good, but has consumed an enormous amount of money in doing so.  Not very efficient at all.

The whole Clinton family is deeply enmeshed in the Washington political scene.  It's beneficial to know them and be on good terms with them for all the same reasons why it's beneficial to be on good terms with just about anyone in a position with a lot of power.  You know the people in charge, you have a higher statistical likelihood of getting government contracts.  i suspect there is a tremendous amount of graft governing who gets these contracts.

Did they do unethical things?  i think almost definitely.  Which ones of the litany outlined in the book, and in what form?  Hard to say.  The evidence is circumstantial, but there is a lot of it.  Did they do things that aren't common in Washington DC politics?  Probably not.  But what they did do is still wrong.  i'll repeat that - what they did do that was wrong is wrong.  W-R-O-N-G.

My Takeaways:

- Don't donate to the Clinton Foundation (i hope everyone already knew this)

- If you have to vote for Trump or Hilary, go for Hilary...  (but pray for someone better than both of them)

- i need to have a bit more compassion towards people whom i disagree with, and realize that if i feel anything other than conflicted about a person in politics, i'm likely being blinded by my own biases.

Edited December 19, 2018 by lostinwater

[anatess2]

8 hours ago, lostinwater said:

- If you have to vote for Trump or Hilary, go for Hilary...  (but pray for someone better than both of them)

This might be sarcastic with that smiley... I can't tell.

If Hilary can kill a head of state and send Libya into deep chaos resulting in the death of the ambassador and then pin that death to a civilian with a youTube video causing him to end up in jail and then bleach bit her server to wipe out all evidence and then face a hearing saying, "What difference now does it make?" and you vote for her as President of your country?  You deserve to be wiped out by Russia and China.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This might be sarcastic with that smiley... I can't tell.

If Hilary can kill a head of state and send Libya into deep chaos resulting in the death of the ambassador and then pin that death to a civilian with a youTube video causing him to end up in jail and then bleach bit her server to wipe out all evidence and then face a hearing saying, "What difference now does it make?" and you vote for her as President of your country?  You deserve to be wiped out by Russia and China.

She was a bit of a warhawk, I don't think we'd have been wiped out by Russia or China. 

She was forced to be a lot more liberal due to the demands of her party.  If the composition of Congress stayed the same as it was after the last election, if she had been elected I think she would have had to look at compromise to get many of those demands passed.

In some areas she was more conservative than her husband.  She, ironically, at one point was probably more conservative than Trump (but then Obama came to office and Trump got somewhat more conservative in his ideas).

I think a major problem in regards to Hillary Clinton and the election was twofold. 

First, for the most part the nation does a 180 degree every 4-8 years in it's executive political slant.  This means that it's almost a guarantee that the party that has had a president in place for the past 8 years will most likely LOSE the next presidential election.  Hence...bad timing on her part.

Secondly, the Democrat Party did NOT listen to it's base and offered very few options.  There were only two major choices (the exact opposite of the Republican field at first).  There should have been at least three to five candidates in the running at first.  What you saw was more of a backlash, even in her own party.  People chose the other choice, sometimes just because they did not want to pick Hillary Clinton.  If it were not for the Superdelegates I do not think she would have won the nomination.  It was because the Democrat Party was able to ignore the voice of it's base to select a candidate that the normal individual who was a democrat did not want that she got selected.  If she had gotten most of those on board with the Democrat agenda I think she would have done better in the election.  She may not have won still (or she may have, but she still has the first problem at winning I stated above), but I think it would have been closer in the electoral college.

[anatess2]

37 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

She was a bit of a warhawk, I don't think we'd have been wiped out by Russia or China. 

She was forced to be a lot more liberal due to the demands of her party.  If the composition of Congress stayed the same as it was after the last election, if she had been elected I think she would have had to look at compromise to get many of those demands passed.

In some areas she was more conservative than her husband.  She, ironically, at one point was probably more conservative than Trump (but then Obama came to office and Trump got somewhat more conservative in his ideas).

I think a major problem in regards to Hillary Clinton and the election was twofold. 

First, for the most part the nation does a 180 degree every 4-8 years in it's executive political slant.  This means that it's almost a guarantee that the party that has had a president in place for the past 8 years will most likely LOSE the next presidential election.  Hence...bad timing on her part.

Secondly, the Democrat Party did NOT listen to it's base and offered very few options.  There were only two major choices (the exact opposite of the Republican field at first).  There should have been at least three to five candidates in the running at first.  What you saw was more of a backlash, even in her own party.  People chose the other choice, sometimes just because they did not want to pick Hillary Clinton.  If it were not for the Superdelegates I do not think she would have won the nomination.  It was because the Democrat Party was able to ignore the voice of it's base to select a candidate that the normal individual who was a democrat did not want that she got selected.  If she had gotten most of those on board with the Democrat agenda I think she would have done better in the election.  She may not have won still (or she may have, but she still has the first problem at winning I stated above), but I think it would have been closer in the electoral college.

You are working under the assumption that Hillary's interest in the Presidency has anything to do with fulfilling agendas for her party or the American people.  The Clintons were selling intel to China and Uranium to Russia.  Hillary is practically a China/Russia puppet by 2016.  The Philippines saw that the 2016 elections was going to be a coronation and therefore decided to distance ourselves from the US and prepared to make alliances to fly under the radar of China and Russia.  We thank God everyday that American voters got Trump to put a wrench in that entire disaster.

The Democrat Party did not have a real primary.  If it had, Joe Biden would be on it and he would win fair and square.  The DNC was broke.  Hillary injected her ill-gotten wealth into the DNC and made them kowtow to her whims.  They set up the primary for a Hillary victory that would make her look good for the general elections becoming the "voice of reason" under the backdrop of "Crazy Bernie" but they underestimated the craziness of the progressive millenials and the unlikeability of Hillary that keeps on seeping through their careful image-building.

 

 

[Guest Godless]

On 12/17/2018 at 9:42 PM, anatess2 said:

Just so you know, Batrack Obama being gay and Michelle being transgender is not a joke.  It’s a conspiracy theory complete with evidence as conspiracy theories go.  It’s a 4chan thing.  It started when that guy, can’t remember his mame now, went public about having sexual relations with Barrack Obama in a limousine while Obama was Senator and gained steam when Obama said in a speech “Michael and I”, went rocket fuel when several images of Michelle were compiled with an unexplainable bulge, and supernova’d with Joan Rivers’ comment and her death a few days later.

More stuff surfaced as the conspiracy theory circulated the dark web like a picture of the Obama girls looking like the doctor who delivered them, etc etc.  It became even bigger when the media tried to squash it because that’s what 4chan does.  It notches a trophy on their belt when important people responds to them.

People have "evidence" that 9/11 was an inside job and that the Sandy Hook massacre was faked. Doesn't make them any less offensive and inappropriate. 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

People have "evidence" that 9/11 was an inside job and that the Sandy Hook massacre was faked. Doesn't make them any less offensive and inappropriate. 

Still makes them conspiracy theories and not jokes as was my point.