ForumGarden

I did laugh along with her comments about trump.....it was spot on.

Wandrin;1499323 wrote: 21 years ago, Walmart sold a T-shirt that said "Someday a woman will be president". Then they suddenly yanked it from the shelves saying "the message went against their philosophy of family values". After public outcry, they began selling the shirts again. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... president/


The things you learn on this site. I dodn't realise there was an original american dennis the menace I always thought it was a typically very poor rip off of the british one - actually scottish and from dundee.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_th ... nd_Gnasher

Dennis the Menace) is a long-running comic strip in the British children's comic The Beano, published by D. C. Thomson & Co., of Dundee, Scotland. The comic stars a boy named Dennis the Menace and his Abyssinian wire-haired tripe hound Gnasher.






I saw a bit of michelle obama's speech I find this kind of thing unbelieveable

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /87604632/

Slaves that worked there were well-fed and had decent lodgings provided by the government, which stopped hiring slave labor in 1802.


Hiring!!! I like american politics you couldn't make this stuff up.

gmc;1499336 wrote:

I saw a bit of michelle obama's speech I find this kind of thing unbelieveable

Bill O'Reilly: Slaves who built White House were 'well-fed'



Hiring!!! I like american politics you couldn't make this stuff up.


Bill O'Reilly, as well as every other Fox "News" staff member will try to find something bad or wrong about anything and everything that the Obamas say. It's their whole mission in life as partisan hacks. Some of the things they say are amazingly ridiculous, but it's what they were hired to do.

Wandrin;1499342 wrote: Bill O'Reilly, as well as every other Fox "News" staff member will try to find something bad or wrong about anything and everything that the Obamas say. It's their whole mission in life as partisan hacks. Some of the things they say are amazingly ridiculous, but it's what they were hired to do.


Hear, hear. Money talks, truth walks. The Faux people are not journalists, there are few left, I think the last one was Peter Jennings.

Will Trump weasel his way out of presidential debates one-on-one? He has started with the excuses already. He accused the Democrats of trying to rig the debates by scheduling them next to NFL games. He forgot that the debate schedule was set up by an independent group over a year ago. Trump says that he got a letter from the NFL saying the schedule was ridiculous. The NFL said bull - they never sent any such letter.

What other excuses will he come up with?

Why would you say stuff that's so easily found out?

magentaflame;1499395 wrote: Why would you say stuff that's so easily found out?


Has that ever stopped him before? He'll just blame it on the "liberal media" or that he was quoted wrong or that the NFL is in collusion with Hillary or something even goofier.

magentaflame;1499395 wrote: Why would you say stuff that's so easily found out?


I find a depressingly large number of people believe the last thing they heard and can't be bothered changing their minds or checking.

gmc;1499403 wrote: I find a depressingly large number of people believe the last thing they heard and can't be bothered changing their minds or checking.


Equally depressing is that the press lets him get away with his lies. Even when they confront him with video showing him saying something, he just says they took it out of context or edited the video. And they let him change the subject. They also know that if they don't, he will have their press credentials pulled for his next event.

Wandrin

Do you really think Trump has that amount of influence over the press?

Just so the public knows he's lying - that's all that matters.

It's always been his mouth that gets him trouble - let him blow....:yh_rotfl

Patsy

Patsy, Trump has gotten a lot of news coverage just about every day since he started. The press likes it. He gives them something to talk about just about every day. Only recently have any of them begun to do any sort of fact checking. When they confront him, he denies it, blames them, and if that isn't enough he says something else outrageous or tweets something that grabs their attention and they're off and running with the new story.

When the Washington Post published something he didn't like, he had them excluded from his rallies. Until the press finds something resembling journalism to replace their current Trump media circus of "you'll never believe what he said today", I don't see the situation changing.

The part of the public most likely to vote for Trump gets almost all their news from Fox "News", which presents a very biased pro-Trump anti-Clinton stream of misinformation.

Trump gives comedians their material too.:yh_rotfl

I can see where Trump would screen the media - negative press not welcome.

and yes, Trump has excuses & justifies his mouth & actions.

We're all watching a fool.

Trump is a spoiled brat & still has tantrums. Adult tantrums where he can use his clout - power - money to get his own way. Dictate.

Perhaps Clinton should stir up some noise, it's no time to be quiet.

Michelle Obama's speech - I don't believe slaves built the White House?

it's the first I've heard this - I could be wrong?

But I can explain & justify that..:wah:

Patsy

Patsy Warnick;1499426 wrote: Trump gives comedians their material too.:yh_rotfl

I can see where Trump would screen the media - negative press not welcome.

and yes, Trump has excuses & justifies his mouth & actions.

We're all watching a fool.

Trump is a spoiled brat & still has tantrums. Adult tantrums where he can use his clout - power - money to get his own way. Dictate.

Perhaps Clinton should stir up some noise, it's no time to be quiet.

Michelle Obama's speech - I don't believe slaves built the White House?

it's the first I've heard this - I could be wrong?

But I can explain & justify that..:wah:

Patsy


Well, to be absolutely pedantic, it's not absolutely correct that Slaves built the White House. There were many Freemen employed, as well.

Many of the contractors that built a number of the Federal buildings in the day were slave owners, and used their slaves to do the work.

So yes, many of the Federal buildings in Washington DC built in the early 19th century were built utilizing slave labor.

It is an interesting footnote in the history of a country founded on the concept of equality for all.

Lars

Thank You

Pres. Obama & Michelle maybe black - I don't believe either are a ancestor of a slave?

That comment hit a nerve with me when she said it.

So, Michelle wasn't exactly correct -and child labor was also used but one doesn't want to mention that.

They all stretch the truth to their benefit.

Hillary made a lot of promises - I can't see Congress working with her.

I see a lot of smoke & back stepping.

Patsy

Patsy Warnick;1499433 wrote: Lars

Thank You

Pres. Obama & Michelle maybe black - I don't believe either are a ancestor of a slave?

That comment hit a nerve with me when she said it.

So, Michelle wasn't exactly correct -and child labor was also used but one doesn't want to mention that.

They all stretch the truth to their benefit.

Hillary made a lot of promises - I can't see Congress working with her.

I see a lot of smoke & back stepping.

Patsy


Congress needs to make a difference. Without them, it won't matter who is president. And putting some responsible people in Congress really needs to be the priority of voters, this election. If we do that, it won't matter which idiot gets the White House. Well, other than: Who do we want going to meet with the leaders of the other nations?

My point exactly Lars.

Patsy

Patsy Warnick;1499433 wrote: Pres. Obama & Michelle maybe black - I don't believe either are a ancestor of a slave?


Monument to First Lady Michelle Obama’s ancestor Melvinia Shields dedicated at Kingston church

Barack Obama's mother 'probably the descendant of a black slave'

Oh, I knew some one would look that up for me.

I am also a descendant of a black slave. Perhaps more are than we realize. My great Grandmother was the biggest black woman I'd ever seen, which made my grandfather a slave owners son. but, I am a white female.

Reminds me of Dinah Shore.

Thanks

Patsy

what do you think man

OK - let's get off the slave thing - one reason why I don't go to ancestry.com.:yh_rotfl

Question

What is this question to Trump about Russia?

I missed it on CNN

any one else hear this?

Patsy

Someone asked a question that showed that Trump doesn't have a clue. Trump said that Crimea wants to be annexed by Russia. The Russian press loved it. Crimea, not so so much.

Wandrin;1499483 wrote: Someone asked a question that showed that Trump doesn't have a clue. Trump said that Crimea wants to be annexed by Russia. The Russian press loved it. Crimea, not so so much.


What you're missing, perhaps, is that Crimea was and is predominantly ethnic Russian, not ethnic Ukrainian, and the majority of the Crimean population did in fact want to be annexed by Russia and were very grateful that the Russians took back the Crimean peninsula. During the days of the Soviet Union, Crimea was administered from Kiev. That's how the historical mix-up happened, it was very recent and purely for administrative reasons. Once the Soviet Union broke up, of course Russia wanted back the Crimean territory it had previously possessed and populated for hundreds of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_s ... ndum,_2014

In what way was Mr Trump wrong? The Crimean peninsula is famously where Russians holidayed throughout Soviet times and back into the days of the Tsars when the peninsula was Russian territory, within the borders of Russia. You'll remember that the French, with a small British and Turkish contingent to give the appearance of international support, famously fought the Russians there in the 1860s and famously lost the Crimean War. Florence Nightingale was there. So was Tolstoy. Look on a map for Sevastopol or Balaclava or Inkerman, they're in the Crimea. It was part of the Russian Homeland. The Charge of the Light Brigade. "Into the valley of death rode the Six Hundred". Lord Raglan dying of depression afterwards rather than going home to be scoffed at.

It's all properly historical. Maybe Americans failed to notice it because they were engaged in other matters at the time.

I suspect there's a more accurate description of the background at http://www.interpretermag.com/crimeas-r ... ator-says/ but the article certainly doesn't invalidate what Mr Trump said. It does make sense, in my opinion, the harking back to the glory days of full employment and loads of cash from free-spending holidaymakers.

hew resinden evil

LarsMac;1499280 wrote: He cannot stand for the Presidential office, again. I am sure that he will contribute in other ways, though.

I rather like the idea of assigning him to a seat in the Supreme Court.
I though that just applied to consecutive Presidencies. Roosevelt was in for 4 terms - or, at least, elected 4 times (he didn't survive the 4th), so there has been precedent.

what your trump idea man ,what you belive me thanks

"I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest," the Republican nominee told a town hall crowd in Columbus, Ohio. He added that he has been hearing "more and more" that the election may not be contested fairly............

FourPart;1499492 wrote: I though that just applied to consecutive Presidencies. Roosevelt was in for 4 terms - or, at least, elected 4 times (he didn't survive the 4th), so there has been precedent.There's been president, one after another, but no precedent. The 22nd amendment (1951) limits presidents to two terms. It is unlikely that that will be overturned any time soon.

If a repeal is rushed through immediately it might push that chap with the hairpiece out of contention. Not much else can.

spot;1499513 wrote: 1. If a repeal is rushed through immediately it might push that chap with the hairpiece out of contention.

2. Not much else can.1. I'm assuming that you're joking. There is no such interest and even if there were, the opposition would be enormous.

2. Barring anything out of the ordinary he will of course be in contention all the way, but he is making a fool of himself on a daily basis and is already claiming that the election is "rigged" against him, so his current position is not unlike that of a sinking ship.

Of course there will be all sorts of possibilities in the interim.

FourPart;1499492 wrote: I though that just applied to consecutive Presidencies. Roosevelt was in for 4 terms - or, at least, elected 4 times (he didn't survive the 4th), so there has been precedent.


Roosevelt's four terms was exactly why the 22nd Amendment was passed and ratified to limit any future presidents to a maximum of two terms.

It seems a bit of a shame once you manage to find a good one. We wouldn't dream of putting any such restriction on a Prime Minister.

spot;1499518 wrote: It seems a bit of a shame once you manage to find a good one. We wouldn't dream of putting any such restriction on a Prime Minister.


A Revolution was fought, and won, which of course is why we don't share your dream of a possible PM for Eternity, but, you will not force me into the role of Patriotit, though you are trying awfully hard to push the Americans on board to that position. "No More Wars" shouted down by Democrats (gasp) at their convention by loud chants of "USA", is more to my liking. Btw, since when do you show favor for President Obama?

This just tickled my funny bone.

AnneBoleyn;1499554 wrote: A Revolution was fought, and won, which of course is why we don't share your dream of a possible PM for Eternity


We only ever had one Prime Minister who served a longer term than FDR, and he (Robert Walpole) had been out of office thirty years before your Revolution. We make it legal for them to stay in office indefinitely but then we turf them out in pretty short order. We've had more Prime Ministers since then than you've had Presidents, and two of them were women.

Lots of countries have had women to lead their governments, including Muslim & Hindu. I said, "Stop trying to force me into the role of Patriotit of the USA", it ain't gonna work bro. I see all things clearly, good, bad, ugly & beautiful.

PS--thx, tude, meant to watch that but forgot. Wish that worked in your house. Who knows?

spot;1499518 wrote: It seems a bit of a shame once you manage to find a good one....If you're referring to the current prez, I voted for him twice, he has been an average president, very unlikely to merit a third term if it were possible.

The Clinton administration was the best in my lifetime post-FDR. A Hillary presidency will return us to those days of monetary and social bliss. Hillary continues to trump (sorry, I couldn't resist that) her opponent day by day. The most recent figures I've seen are Clinton 55% - Trump 38%.

I can't WAIT for the debates! Ennybuddy wanna bet that Trump won't even show up?

Mark Aspam;1499562 wrote:

I can't WAIT for the debates! Ennybuddy wanna bet that Trump won't even show up?


That would be a suckers bet. I think he will try to control the terms, venue, host, etc. and pack the crowd with his supporters and then come up with one ridiculous excuse after another to skip out.

Trump will most definitely show for the Debates.

This is the time for his mouth to shine.:yh_rotfl

oh, yes, show time.

Patsy

posted by larsmac

Well, to be absolutely pedantic, it's not absolutely correct that Slaves built the White House. There were many Freemen employed, as well.

Many of the contractors that built a number of the Federal buildings in the day were slave owners, and used their slaves to do the work.

So yes, many of the Federal buildings in Washington DC built in the early 19th century were built utilizing slave labor.




That's a bit like saying

to be pedantic it's not absolutely correct to say that only slaves worked on the cotton plantations there were many freemen employed as well as outside contractors and were it not for the capital investment of the plantation owners and the ship owners to put in the infrastructure to export the cotton the slaves would not have been employed at all or as well fed and housed as they were. Indeed had they not been brought here from africa as slaves their descendants would not be benefiting from being american citizens.

I saw a bit of bill o'reilly it was like well yes slaves built the white house but white guys gave them the tools otherwise they wouldn't have been able to.

I know you don't actually hold these kind of views.

gmc;1499567 wrote: posted by larsmac



That's a bit like saying

to be pedantic it's not absolutely correct to say that only slaves worked on the cotton plantations there were many freemen employed as well as outside contractors and were it not for the capital investment of the plantation owners and the ship owners to put in the infrastructure to export the cotton the slaves would not have been employed at all or as well fed and housed as they were. Indeed had they not been brought here from africa as slaves their descendants would not be benefiting from being american citizens.

I saw a bit of bill o'reilly it was like well yes slaves built the white house but white guys gave them the tools otherwise they wouldn't have been able to.

I know you don't actually hold these kind of views.


The views I hold are basically that, yes, slavery is wrong. Slavery has been a part of human existence for probably as long as there has been human existence. At least as long as agriculture has been a part of it. Serfdom of the feudal age was not much removed from slavery. And now, there are millions of people who still live in some form a of slavery.

By today's standards, slavery is a despicable way to treat fellow human beings. Having said that, I think that to discuss historical aspects of slavery without considering the historical context is counterproductive.

To be clear, I get what Mrs Obama was trying to say in her speech. And that fact that the White House was "Built by slaves" was only a setup for the point she was making. All of the silly discussion from Pundidiots like O'Reilly were a sad attempt to detract from what she had to say.

Patsy Warnick;1499566 wrote: Trump will most definitely show for the Debates.Well, I don't think so, and we discussed this once before on this thread. There will be tough questions from the panel, Hillary will be up on everything, as would be expected given her experience.

Trump won't have a clue and will simply start bloviating nonsense and meaningless accusations. He will NOT look good to the majority of the viewers.

That's why I think there's a good chance that he will wimp out on the debates. But we shall see, the debates are scheduled for September 26th and October 9th, with a vice-presidential debate intervening.

Mark

Trump may not have a clue on different issues - you have to remember his EGO.

His Ego dominates his personality. Trump will show up & he'll be as ready as he can possibly be. informative answers - probably not and with Hillary's experience - he'll be up against a brick wall.:-5

Bring the popcorn - These debates will be the best ever.

Mark - I'm sure we'll get a few good laughs out of it.

Looking forward to the debates like a kid on C'Mas morning..:wah:

Patsy

I've always found that placing the restrictions on who can stand for President to be somewhat undemocratic. If the People want to vote for a President to remain in office for a 3rd, 4th or more terms, then why shouldn't they. Similarly, if they want to vote for someone born outside of the country, then why shouldn't they? That's what democracy is all about. It's much like the current situation in the U.K. A minority of those in positions of power have been doing their damnedest to stop Jeremy Corbyn from being able to stand for election as Leader of the Labour Party, when he clearly has the vast majority of support. Now, if a President were to try to outlaw voting once he/she were in office that, of course, would be a different matter.

Will Trump drop out before the election? Before the debates?

FourPart;1499600 wrote: 1. I've always found that placing the restrictions on who can stand for President to be somewhat undemocratic.

2. If the People want to vote for a President to remain in office for a 3rd, 4th or more terms, then why shouldn't they. Similarly, if they want to vote for someone born outside of the country, then why shouldn't they?

3. Now, if a President were to try to outlaw voting once he/she were in office that, of course, would be a different matter.1. Well, the limit is two terms, apart from that, anyone meeting the regulations - age, birth place, etc. can run, and lots of minor party candidates and even individuals run every four years. The public rarely cares about them, though there have been some exceptions, but they are eligible.

2. Because the rules don't permit that. Those particular rules are not likely to change any time soon, as most of us pretty much like them the way they are.

3. Indeed, but that would be impossible aside from somehow completely usurping the presidency, which is also not likely to happen any time soon.

Wandrin;1499609 wrote: Will Trump drop out before the election? Before the debates?Both of those are possible but not likely.

Wandrin;1499609 wrote: Will Trump drop out before the election? Before the debates?


I really don't see him as the type to drop out. If he does, it will be because it becomes obvious that he will lose the election, and he will just walk away, rather than be a 'loser'

However, should he drop, I got this from Robert Reich, former Sec of Labor, now political commentator:

Rule 9 of the Republican National Committee rules, entitled "Filling Vacancies in Nominations" (see below) stipulates that if the party's presidential or vice presidential candidate leaves the ticket for whatever reason, the hole may be filled either (1) by a reconvening of the national convention or (2) by the Republican National Committee itself. (The vice presidential nominee is given no preferential consideration, if the presidential candidate withdraws.)

If the RNC fills the vacancy, members representing a given state are entitled to cast the same number of votes as that state was entitled to at the convention. If the RNC members from any state are not in agreement about casting of their votes, the votes of that state are divided equally among members of the RNC voting.

Finally, no candidate may be chosen to fill a vacancy except by receiving a majority of the votes entitled to be cast in the RNC election.

That means if the Donald withdraws or disappears, the Republican candidate probably won’t be Mike Spence. I’d put odds on Paul Ryan or Ted Cruz.


Of course, Donald will likely not drop out in time to give the RNC such options.

LarsMac;1499624 wrote: I really don't see him as the type to drop out. If he does, it will be because it becomes obvious that he will lose the election, and he will just walk away, rather than be a 'loser'

However, should he drop, I got this from Robert Reich, former Sec of Labor, now political commentator:



Of course, Donald will not likely drop out in time to give the RNC such options.


It never occurred to me he might drop out. Seems to me my initial thought of him entering the race was all about ego proved true.

Lately, he spends more time for perceived insults attacking Republicans than Hillary.

Somebody should give that boy some meds.

Thanks Lars for the rule should in time he takes some meds.

Is it possible that Trump is becoming senile? He is 70 & I'm definitely not being ageist in asking the question.

AnneBoleyn;1499631 wrote: He is 70


So is Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton is a lot slower thinking on the fly than Mr Trump. Distressingly so, it's been said.





eta: 16 months separates them, now I've been and checked. You think senility distinguishes a period of 16 months? I'd be surprised if it's a statistically significant gap.

If Hillary Clinton becomes President she'll be the oldest to take office in the 228 years the Presidency has existed, with the single exception of Ronald Reagan. Were it me I'd quietly take senility off the agenda.