Presidential Election

[jrs2]

^^

So, FLheat began this thread, and Castorvx was the first to give his opinion of issues from both sides.  And other forumers have given their opinions including myself.  Funny, b/c some of you really act like immature on this forum because you can't take other peoples' opinions without being a smart @ss about it. Typical liberal attitude.  What's ironic is people like JFW657 haven't even looked into some of this stuff before; they just like to comment on it and act like they are some kind of expert on it.  At least Castorvx and dcluley98 did some research to look into stuff and I respect that. 

JFW657's extent of research was a cuckoo clock response to my last post and a prior link to Factcheck.org stating that Trump distorts Clinton's gun stance.  So I guess all of these statements about the extent of their gun control stance have never been made by Obama and HRC then:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/06/dc-media-cover-up-actually-obama-and-hillary-have-said-they-want-to-confiscate-guns/

Many sources have discussed this over the past few years, but nobody ever bothered to look up what they actually did in Australia, a mandatory gun buyback.  It is common knowledge.

So everyone has given some reasons why they are voting the way they are, while others have thrown insults at some of those people because their opinions, even when backed up, don't mesh with their world view.

[jrs2]

OMG.  Seriously, people?  Really?

 

[metal93]

With regards to the 2nd Amendment, I feel Clinton has absolutely no respect for it and actually wants to work towards repealing it, outright banning all guns. Not just the larger weapons of war that some of the more "enthusiastic" members of gun community defend, but also down to simple handguns everyday Americans have for home defense. "Common sense gun control" is a meme Democrats have been pushing for decades, and when given an inch, they take a mile.

But you know what's the really worrying part? She feels this way about the entire Constitution. Just watch this interview below to see how she feels about our nation's founding documents - she cannot answer the simple yes or no question that George Stephanopoulos asks her, in her long-winded ramble she essentially says the amendments are subject to regulation. Even more alarming, I believe she said something in another event about restrictions to the 1st Amendment - on the implementation of vaguely-defined European "hate speech" laws, which in the foreseeable future can very likely be abused to silence and criminalize opposing viewpoints or legitimate criticisms of government or certain ideologies, which depends on which direction SCOTUS tips in.

I know Trump's no champion with the 1st Amendment either with his stance on libel laws, but he seems to fare better on most Constitutional matters. We'll see how the debates go down tonight.

 

[aent]

On 9/24/2016 at 0:58 PM, Dale said:

Johnson is sketchy as a libertarian. Weld is in no way a libertarian.

I'm curious as to what you mean by this. They may not be extreme libertarians and be pretty moderate, and believe the approach we need to take to have any possibility to get to the libertarian ideals is tempered and incremental, but they are the nominees of the libertarian party, the libertarians determined this was the best candidate to represent them and their ideals.

Just as not all republicans or democrats have exactly the same set of beliefs. Libertarians are not anarchists and generally believe the government needs to protect against the "tragedy of the commons" and property rights along with life. There are of course arguments on what needs protection and how to go about that, but that doesn't make those with different approaches any less libertarian.

10 hours ago, tennis32801 said:

Every 4 years, candidates proclaim this is the most important election ever, and every 4 years, the truly fringe voters thinks its the end of the world if their candidate is not elected. Lets be honest here, like our favorite sport teams, we don't really care who wins or loses, we just want to wake up on Nov 9 to read and comment on our team victory. I have enough faith in our constitution, our democratic system, and our voters; because unlike communist North Korea, we have the opportunity to do it all over again.

Agreed, plus this is likely the election where the votes matter the least... Clinton and Trump, historically, have very similiar ideas on what to do. Thats why I personally view this election as a great opportunity to vote for the libertarians... the choice between the main candidates don't matter, and even though there is a slim chance of a third party getting elected, if they can pull 5 or 10% of the vote, it can have a major impact on future elections. Many states have a 5% clause that allows the party to be treated equally as a "major party" if they can pull in that vote or get that percent of people to register to the party.

On 9/25/2016 at 0:06 PM, castorvx said:

I understand your point and it's well-taken. If the corruption is there, why not stymie it. 

I guess my answer here is that despite all of that, there are real things that need attention. Infrastructure and health need a lot of action right now.

But if a lot of care isn't taken in the action, maybe its better not to take the action. Bringing it to a local level, we've recently seen how when the government failed to act on the HSR, without taking billions of tax dollars, a private company is building, IMO, a better line that is likely to better fit the needs of our community.

When the government failed to allocate the needed resources to I-4, we ended up with a private partnership where at a substantially reduced cost to tax payers, toll lanes will be installed in the median. Government investment in infrastructure discourages private and innovative investment in infrastructure. I'm definitely not saying the government shouldn't be involved in any infrastructure, but there is an important balance and rushing to approve projects without thinking about them isn't helping anyone and is quite harmful.

On healthcare, it seems most everyone on most sides agree that the ACA did not solve the vast majority of our problems (my personal experience is my premium tripling and my friends who don't have healthcare getting fined... and still don't have healthcare). It was a law passed because "healthcare needed a lot of action right now", but it did little to solve them. I think we'd be better off if the legislation passed was easy to understand for everyone involved... so for healthcare, there is lots of simple things we can do that I think all sides would agree on. I know again on a local level where I'm living now, there is a need for hospitals... however, its near impossible for anyone to build a hospital anymore between all the regulations and I've been told repeatedly by multiple hospitals, medical professionals, etc that the "Certificate of Need" for a hospital is whats causing our hospitals to be overcrowded and the emergency rooms to have long wait times. Why can't we eliminate that? There are private hospitals ready to build, but they can't because its too difficult to get that certificate, no taxpayer expense required.

 

 

[JFW657]

3 hours ago, jrs2 said:

^^

So, FLheat began this thread, and Castorvx was the first to give his opinion of issues from both sides.  And other forumers have given their opinions including myself.  Funny, b/c some of you really act like immature on this forum because you can't take other peoples' opinions without being a smart @ss about it. Typical liberal attitude.  What's ironic is people like JFW657 haven't even looked into some of this stuff before; they just like to comment on it and act like they are some kind of expert on it.  At least Castorvx and dcluley98 did some research to look into stuff and I respect that. 

JFW657's extent of research was a cuckoo clock response to my last post and a prior link to Factcheck.org stating that Trump distorts Clinton's gun stance.  So I guess all of these statements about the extent of their gun control stance have never been made by Obama and HRC then:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/06/dc-media-cover-up-actually-obama-and-hillary-have-said-they-want-to-confiscate-guns/

Many sources have discussed this over the past few years, but nobody ever bothered to look up what they actually did in Australia, a mandatory gun buyback.  It is common knowledge.

So everyone has given some reasons why they are voting the way they are, while others have thrown insults at some of those people because their opinions, even when backed up, don't mesh with their world view.

My, aren't some people sensitive? 

Better be careful walking around with that thin skin of yours. You obviously wound very easily.

Two bits of friendly advice...

1) Stop taking everything including yourself so seriously. Your respect means absolutely nothing to me.

And...

2) Try to stop playing into the stereotype...

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

 

 

[John Hargrove]

15 hours ago, jrs2 said:

^^

So, FLheat began this thread, and Castorvx was the first to give his opinion of issues from both sides.  And other forumers have given their opinions including myself.  Funny, b/c some of you really act like immature on this forum because you can't take other peoples' opinions without being a smart @ss about it. Typical liberal attitude.  What's ironic is people like JFW657 haven't even looked into some of this stuff before; they just like to comment on it and act like they are some kind of expert on it.  At least Castorvx and dcluley98 did some research to look into stuff and I respect that. 

JFW657's extent of research was a cuckoo clock response to my last post and a prior link to Factcheck.org stating that Trump distorts Clinton's gun stance.  So I guess all of these statements about the extent of their gun control stance have never been made by Obama and HRC then:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/06/dc-media-cover-up-actually-obama-and-hillary-have-said-they-want-to-confiscate-guns/

Many sources have discussed this over the past few years, but nobody ever bothered to look up what they actually did in Australia, a mandatory gun buyback.  It is common knowledge.

So everyone has given some reasons why they are voting the way they are, while others have thrown insults at some of those people because their opinions, even when backed up, don't mesh with their world view.

Regarding the liberal attitude thing, I'd be careful with that. I used to say things like that a lot. But I've met conservatives and liberals who are equally ignorant in equal numbers. Having lived in both California and Florida I can safely say that ignorance and towing the party line is a human trait, not a conservative or liberal one.

How did you feel about the debate?

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, castorvx said:

Regarding the liberal attitude thing, I'd be careful with that. I used to say things like that a lot. But I've met conservatives and liberals who are equally ignorant in equal numbers. Having lived in both California and Florida I can safely say that ignorance and towing the party line is a human trait, not a conservative or liberal one.

How did you feel about the debate?

The farther out towards BOTH extreme ends of the spectrum is where you find the loonies and goofballs.

And each is as unreasonable as the other.

[jrs2]

2 hours ago, castorvx said:

Regarding the liberal attitude thing, I'd be careful with that. I used to say things like that a lot. But I've met conservatives and liberals who are equally ignorant in equal numbers. Having lived in both California and Florida I can safely say that ignorance and towing the party line is a human trait, not a conservative or liberal one.

How did you feel about the debate?

I'll reply to you b/c I actually respect you because of your posts.  You are 100% right about that.

The debate:  HRC is good.  much like Jeb Bush at talking.  I'm not going to slam her because she can talk.  Well rehearsed as she should be.  Trump is too rough around the edges b/c he's not a politician.  Lester Holt never challenged HRC about things he should have, but brought up Trump's tax returns and the birther non-issue.  It was rigged.  Holt could've asked HRC about fitness to lead and public trust in light of (current events which we all know).  He didn't.  It would have made her sweat or probably have another seizure.  It was slanted towards HRC in that regard.  Also, Trump didn't retort a couple of times after her rambles on past events b/c I think he didn't know whether she was bullcrapting or not.  But her stunt about the fact-checking at the onset was a poker bluff move to put it out there and  insinuate that Trump would bullcrap about her during the debate; planting the seed.  Clever.

[jrs2]

Another observation.  Post debate.  CNN playing of the race card at every turn.  The birther issue.  So, you're telling me, when a presidential candidate who nobody knows much about is running in the primaries, and his father is from another country, and there is a question as to where he was born, all the sudden, just because he's African American, it's racist to question his place of birth?  No-one knew who he was in 04 when he made his speech.  And it started with HRC's campaign or people close to her/her campaign per Obama's own people in articles they looked up during the post debate analysis.  They even did this birther analysis against McKinley ala possible Canadian birth.  Even so, the CNN analysts still want it to be perceived as racist so that people watching will think its racist, thus trying to make this label stick.  Its sickening.

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, jrs2 said:

Another observation.  Post debate.  CNN playing of the race card at every turn.  The birther issue.  So, you're telling me, when a presidential candidate who nobody knows much about is running in the primaries, and his father is from another country, and there is a question as to where he was born, all the sudden, just because he's African American, it's racist to question his place of birth?  No-one knew who he was in 04 when he made his speech.  And it started with HRC's campaign or people close to her/her campaign per Obama's own people in articles they looked up during the post debate analysis.  They even did this birther analysis against McKinley ala possible Canadian birth.  Even so, the CNN analysts still want it to be perceived as racist so that people watching will think its racist, thus trying to make this label stick.  Its sickening.

Obama released his birth certificate in 2008. There was plenty of other more than adequate evidence as to his citizenship as well.

From FactCheck.org:

Obama said that his campaign had already released his birth certificate in 2008. And, in fact, FactCheck.org staffers handled, examined and photographed the "certification of live birth." That short-form document is what Hawaii releases to citizens who request a copy of their birth certificate, and we confirmed that it meets legal requirements for proving citizenship and obtaining a passport. We concluded: "Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said."

If that wasn’t enough, Hawaii newspapers had run birth announcements in August 1961, shortly after Obama’s birth.

And on top of that, Chiyome Fukino, the then-director of Hawaii’s Department of Health, released a statement in 2008, saying she had seen the original birth certificate on file verifying that Obama was born in Hawaii. Fukino released a second statement in 2009, saying that Obama "is a natural-born American citizen."

The long-form version that the president released today has a few additional details, beyond what the short-form includes. It says he was born at Kapi’olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, just as the president has said. And it lists his mother’s birthplace as Wichita, Kansas, and his father’s as Kenya, East Africa. The certificate is also signed by Obama’s mother and an attending physician.

 

But in spite of all the existing evidence to the contrary, Dump continued to relentlessly propagate and promote the falsehood FOR YEARS afterward.

 

So please, forgive people if, given that the same treatment was never afforded to Obama's white predecessors for over 100 years... (McKinley???? Come on. That's stretching things a bit)... they might feel that the birther idiocy smacks a bit too coincidentally of racism.

 

And you of all people, being the guy who earlier in this very thread commented that only fools believe in coincidence, should understand that.

 

 

 

[dcluley98]

I don't like either one of them, but I think Hillary "won" the debate as far as debate terms go.  As far as changing people's minds or swinging on the fence voters their way, I doubt either won or lost much.  They pretty much came across just as everybody expected, Trump a self important, brash, inexperienced, insulting blowhard; Hillary, a smarmy, pandering, slimey politician.  I don't want to vote for either one of them, and they aren't making it any easier to pick.

[jrs2]

^^

but those reasons that you pointed to, were not relied upon at all by CNN in making their point.  CNN's theme was a basic accusation of racism just based on the general proposition that it was even done in the first place against the first African American presidential candidate/ president... which goes to my point.  

[dcluley98]

I agree with you somewhat on the lack of moderation.  Lester Holt was a joke.  He had absolutely no control over the debate and was clearly quite one sided in asking questions that were against Trump's weak spots.  The Stop and Frisk and Racism points being a couple of them.  The fact that he happens to be african american doesn't mean he should insert loaded questions into the debate to appease his own personal agenda or beliefs.  That was some of the worst "moderation" I have seen in my life and added to the circus feel of the whole thing.

That being said, it wasn't all the moderator's fault that Hillary did a better job.  She was clearly more prepared on relevant issues and has found a way to take subtle jabs at Trump and let him dig his own hole.  Kinda reminded me of Floyd Mayweather vs Manny Pacquiao.  Hillary has the skill and can just sit back jabbing and scoring points while she lets Trump rush in all loud and say dumb stuff.  Trump may look and sound like he is doing something of substance at first, but over the long run, the mistakes add up, and when you go look at the scorecard, it's clear who won.    

[JFW657]

49 minutes ago, jrs2 said:

^^

but those reasons that you pointed to, were not relied upon at all by CNN in making their point.  CNN's theme was a basic accusation of racism just based on the general proposition that it was even done in the first place against the first African American presidential candidate/ president... which goes to my point.  

I disagree. Bringing up the question of Obama's birth is a totally, 100% legitimate question for one who wants to be the President. But once that question is satisfactorily answered, that should be the end of it.

Hammering on it relentlessly for 8 years... IN SPITE OF all the evidence that supports Obama's claim to be a natural born citizen, strongly stinks of ulterior motive. Given that Obama "just happens" to be black and no other white President in modern history had been subjected to the same kind of smear campaign, there are only a few conclusions that rational people can arrive at. Given also the kinds misogynistic and religiously bigoted comments that Trump is known for, racism is not that big of a stretch.

 

 

[aent]

20 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

I disagree. Bringing up the question of Obama's birth is a totally, 100% legitimate question for one who wants to be the President. 

On the other hand, hammering on it relentlessly for 8 years... IN SPITE OF all the evidence that supports Obama's claim to be a natural born citizen, strongly stinks of ulterior motive. Given that Obama "just happens" to be black and no other white President in modern history had been subjected to the same kind of smear campaign, there are only a few conclusions that rational people can arrive at. Given also the kinds misogynistic and religiously bigoted comments that Trump is known for, racism is not that big of a stretch.

 

 

But we all know how much hammering Bush had, comparing him to monkeys and whatnot, and Clinton, so much that the organization "Move On" was created to try to push people "past" his scandal, so at least in the last 20 years... every president has been subjected to major smear campaigns on both sides. TBH, the last year or 2 has been pretty quiet or smearing of Obama... definitely less then Bush and Clinton's last 2 years. Those who run the smear campaigns gave up on him as they realized it was rather pointless and Clinton's campaign perhaps is less impacted by Obama then, say, McCain by Bush, who just about everyone believed had no chance before he started because of the R next to his name.

[John Hargrove]

40 minutes ago, aent said:

But we all know how much hammering Bush had, comparing him to monkeys and whatnot, and Clinton, so much that the organization "Move On" was created to try to push people "past" his scandal, so at least in the last 20 years... every president has been subjected to major smear campaigns on both sides. TBH, the last year or 2 has been pretty quiet or smearing of Obama... definitely less then Bush and Clinton's last 2 years. Those who run the smear campaigns gave up on him as they realized it was rather pointless and Clinton's campaign perhaps is less impacted by Obama then, say, McCain by Bush, who just about everyone believed had no chance before he started because of the R next to his name.

Bush in his final year vs Obama in his final year face very different economic situations, so it's not surprising that W would carry more baggage. It's easy to forget that at this point in 2008, we were losing hundreds of thousands of jobs per month to the recession. It was a terrible time to be an incumbent anything.

 

[JFW657]

1 hour ago, aent said:

But we all know how much hammering Bush had, comparing him to monkeys and whatnot, and Clinton, so much that the organization "Move On" was created to try to push people "past" his scandal, so at least in the last 20 years... every president has been subjected to major smear campaigns on both sides. TBH, the last year or 2 has been pretty quiet or smearing of Obama... definitely less then Bush and Clinton's last 2 years. Those who run the smear campaigns gave up on him as they realized it was rather pointless and Clinton's campaign perhaps is less impacted by Obama then, say, McCain by Bush, who just about everyone believed had no chance before he started because of the R next to his name.

 

1 hour ago, aent said:

Double quote. 

But it can easily be said that the hammering Bush and Bill Clinton received, were brought about by their own actions. Certainly Clinton's were with Lewinski and Bush with Iraq.

What we are talking about HERE... is the hammering Obama got over the FALSE notion that he was not even born in America. Totally different thing. Obama did nothing to bring the birther hammering on himself, other than being born, so the comparisons to Clinton and Bush do not apply in the context of this particular subject, which is the underlying reason for the birther controversy.

Had Obama steadfastly refused to release his birth certificate in the same way Trump is refusing to release his tax returns, then I would say the birthers had a legitimate reason to keep the subject alive. But he released a copy early on, that met all legal requirements and still, the birthers, led by Trump, tried to de-legitimize his very citizenship.

The ultimate insult, reserved especially for the first black President, who was "uppity" enough to think he was good enough to hold that office, like his white predecessors.

 

 

[jack]

Could we all agree/ hope that whom ever wins, the separation of powers will (hopefully) limit half or more of what they promise? Congress and the bureaucrats really run the country anyway. 

 

Everybody Sucks 2016! 

[jrs2]

^^

Birther issue:  As for hammering on it relentlessly for 8 years, define what that means.  I did a google search for past articles since 2011 when the full version of the birth certificate was released, to see if Trump was out making statements against its validity.  He didn't.  There are 2012, 2013, 2015,2016 articles about Trump referencing the past events of the 2008 political cycle leading up to 2011 that Trump discussed in interviews when asked about it.  The Post talks about 2014 tweets on the subject but nowhere does he state he felt the 2011 full birth certificate was fake. And tweeting in 2012 that an "extremely credible source" felt it was isn't the same thing. Last I checked, there was no gag order on the subject.  He has said repeatedly he was proud of what he did and he was the only person who was able to do it, referencing the fact that he relentlessness between 2008 and 2011 got Obama to finally produce the full certificate.  it took 3 friggin' years for the most powerful man in the world to get that document.

And it doesn't mean he's a racist or took his stance based on race; Obama could have been a white liberal candidate who's father was British or South African or Australian with pregnant mother bouncing between Hawaii and those places late term.  But lets face it, Barack Hussein Obama was an anomaly when he rose to political power.  A community organizer; barely a two year senator; sketchy references to whether he was American or a foreign student, his associations with America haters like that reverend and Bill Ayers- all this stuff really made people call into question just who this guy was.  ACORN and the scandal post 08 election.  And the circumstances of where his mom actually was when she gave birth to him; and the fact that his mom's coincidental death when he went to visit her.  Or, on a later note, the death of the State Health Inspector in 2013 who verified the authenticity of the birth certificate.  Trump tweeted about it of course.

Seriously, racisim?  with all of this stuff surrounding him to boot?  Placards making him look like some militarista; the Pepsi swoosh logo; and that creepy propaganda kid video (this is the same type of stuff dictators and communists would do).  Extremely unconventional person.  Never saw it with W; Clinton; HW; Reagan; Carter; forget Ford; Nixon; JFK; Eisenhower; and so on.  And Democrats and minorities still cling to the race card on this.  I wouldn't have accused him of being born in another country; I would have accused him of being born on another planet.

√

 

 

Also, talking about a racial move, Colin Powell threw McCain to the curb and endorsed Obama specifically because he was black.  Or is racism only one-sided?

[JFW657]

7 hours ago, jrs2 said:

^^

1) Birther issue:  As for hammering on it relentlessly for 8 years, define what that means.  I did a google search for past articles since 2011 when the full version of the birth certificate was released, to see if Trump was out making statements against its validity.  He didn't.  There are 2012, 2013, 2015,2016 articles about Trump referencing the past events of the 2008 political cycle leading up to 2011 that Trump discussed in interviews when asked about it.  The Post talks about 2014 tweets on the subject but nowhere does he state he felt the 2011 full birth certificate was fake. And tweeting in 2012 that an "extremely credible source" felt it was isn't the same thing. Last I checked, there was no gag order on the subject.  He has said repeatedly he was proud of what he did and he was the only person who was able to do it, referencing the fact that he relentlessness between 2008 and 2011 got Obama to finally produce the full certificate.  it took 3 friggin' years for the most powerful man in the world to get that document.

2) And it doesn't mean he's a racist or took his stance based on race; Obama could have been a white liberal candidate who's father was British or South African or Australian with pregnant mother bouncing between Hawaii and those places late term.  But lets face it, Barack Hussein Obama was an anomaly when he rose to political power.  A community organizer; barely a two year senator; sketchy references to whether he was American or a foreign student, his associations with America haters like that reverend and Bill Ayers- all this stuff really made people call into question just who this guy was.  ACORN and the scandal post 08 election.  And the circumstances of where his mom actually was when she gave birth to him; and the fact that his mom's coincidental death when he went to visit her.  Or, on a later note, the death of the State Health Inspector in 2013 who verified the authenticity of the birth certificate.  Trump tweeted about it of course.

3) Seriously, racisim?  with all of this stuff surrounding him to boot?  Placards making him look like some militarista; the Pepsi swoosh logo; and that creepy propaganda kid video (this is the same type of stuff dictators and communists would do).  Extremely unconventional person.  Never saw it with W; Clinton; HW; Reagan; Carter; forget Ford; Nixon; JFK; Eisenhower; and so on.  And Democrats and minorities still cling to the race card on this.  I wouldn't have accused him of being born in another country; I would have accused him of being born on another planet.

√

4) Also, talking about a racial move, Colin Powell threw McCain to the curb and endorsed Obama specifically because he was black.  Or is racism only one-sided?

1) As I explained already, the birth certificate Obama released in 2008 was perfectly 100% legal and legitimate. It was verified by the Hawaiian State Health Inspector. The reason the short form version was originally released to begin with, was because that was the state's official policy. That is the version they released as a matter of standard practice when someone requested a copy. PolitiFact examined it and also verified its authenticity. The matter should have been over then and there, but Trump continued to exploit the issue for his own publicity and political agenda, by hammering on it for the next five years. 

You can make all the flimsy excuses for Trump that you want to, but most people see it for what it is and all the excuses in the world it will not change the facts. Trump was the head birther for five years and only reneged on it recently out of political expediency.

2) More excuses and conspiracy theories. I give no more credence to Obama conspiracy theories than I give to Perot conspiracy theories.

3) All of that stuff was created by other people. The placards were designed by a commercial artist. The singing kids were a class project at a NJ public school. Obama had nothing to do with them. Transferring the responsibility for that stuff to Obama sounds to me like another flimsy excuse. This time, to justify the right's larger agenda of engendering mistrust of Obama.

4) Powell gave other reasons for supporting Obama, such as the GOP becoming too far to the extreme right and too intolerant, Bush's failed economy, Romney's foreign policy, etc. Claiming that he only endorsed Obama because he's black is nothing more than parroting the likes of bigots like Rush Limbo who also claimed that.

ABC News - Colin Powell endorses Obama

As for what defines hammering on the issue and to address your other downplaying and denials about Trump's history of promoting birther lies - from the Los Angeles Times (beginning in 2011):

Quote

 

Spring 2011: Trump joins the movement

Three years later, Trump began pushing the issue in television interviews as he was considering whether to run for president in 2012.

“I have some real doubts,” Trump told the “Today” show. He claimed to have sent his own investigators to Hawaii, where Obama was born. "I have people that actually have been studying it and they cannot believe what they're finding."

Trump raised another falsehood in an interview with "Good Morning America," suggesting Obama was trying to conceal his religion by withholding his birth certificate. “Maybe it says he's a Muslim,” he said. Obama is Christian.

April 2011: Obama releases his long-form birth certificate

After weeks of Trump stirring the pot, the president called a White House news conference to release his long-form birth certificate. Obama called the issue a distraction pushed by “carnival barkers,” an implicit dig at Trump.

In response, Trump bragged about forcing Obama to release the document. He said he was "very proud” of himself and the birth certificate would have to be examined to ensure it was authentic.

Obama got the last word in this chapter.  

At the White House correspondents dinner, in front of high-ranking lawmakers, top journalists, powerful Washington insiders and Trump himself, Obama skewered him.

"Now he can get back to focusing on the issues that matter,” Obama said while the New York businessman sat in the audience, unsmiling. “Like, did we fake the moon landing? What really happened at Roswell? And where are Biggie and Tupac?" 

2012: Trump presses birther issue during election

Trump’s campaign claimed in a statement on Thursday evening that he “brought closure” to the issue in 2011 when Obama released his birth certificate. But it’s clear that Trump didn’t consider the matter to be settled while Obama was running for reelection.

Trump even encouraged Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential nominee, to press the issue during a debate. In his tweet, Trump cites a promotional booklet for Obama’s autobiography that inaccurately says he was born outside the U.S.

2013: Trump keeps the falsehood alive

Trump continued to spread conspiracy theories about the birth certificate the year after Obama was reelected, suggesting the death of a Hawaiian official was somehow related to a cover-up of the president’s true origins. 

In an interview with ABC News, Trump said the issue “made me very popular.” Pressed to acknowledge that Obama was born in the United States, he said, “I’m saying I don’t know. Nobody knows.”

2015: Trump launches presidential campaign 

Trump announced in June 2015 that he would run for president as a Republican. A month later, he renewed his doubts about Obama’s birthplace. "I don't know. I really don't know," he said during a CNN interview.

Early 2016: Trump dodges birther questions

As he began to inch closer to the GOP nomination, Trump started to shy away from the issue. 

“Who cares right now? We’re talking about something else, OK?” he told CNN. “I have my own theory on Obama. Someday I will write a book.”

Summer 2016: Trump’s campaign starts to say he’s changed his belief

In recent weeks, top members of Trump’s campaign began trying to walk back the nominee’s statements. His running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, said he knew Obama was born a citizen. His campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, said last week that Trump believes Obama was born in the U.S., and a statement from a senior communications aide late Thursday asserted the same.

But none of those comments came from Trump himself, who declined to answer questions on the topic as recently as Wednesday in an interview with the Washington Post.

September 2016: Trump acknowledges the truth about Obama

Five years after he began doing television interviews about Obama’s birth certificate, Trump declared at his new hotel in Washington that the president was born in the United States. Trump did not apologize, nor did he explain why he changed his mind.

At the same time, he claimed it was Hillary Clinton, his Democratic opponent who ran against Obama in the 2008 primary, who originally raised questions about the president’s birth. There’s no evidence of that.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-birther-timeline-20160916-snap-htmlstory.html

[nite owℓ]

John McCain wasn't exactly born on US soil, but I never once heard anyone question his citizenship all throughout his campaign...

Glenn Beck claimed Obama had a deep seated hatred for white people - despite Obama being half white himself.

A large number of people STILL believe Obama is a secret Muslim despite him identifying as Christian.

But it's not about racism or prejudice, right?

[jrs2]

16 hours ago, nite owℓ said:

John McCain wasn't exactly born on US soil, but I never once heard anyone question his citizenship all throughout his campaign...

Glenn Beck claimed Obama had a deep seated hatred for white people - despite Obama being half white himself.

A large number of people STILL believe Obama is a secret Muslim despite him identifying as Christian.

But it's not about racism or prejudice, right?

It's not racist.  It's called politics, and just because he's a minority (Half) doesn't give him a pass.  Republicans tried to destroy Trump, a white guy, but did they try to destroy Dr. Ben Carson, who is FULL black by questioning his citizenship?  Obviously not. 

Prejudice: And if it's because he has an Arabic/ Arabic-sounding name, tough, because Islamic extremists who have attacked us and other countries around the world and still do, are Arabic.  And for 2007-08, so close in time to 9-11, I would say it was reasonable for all the reasons I pointed to in my prior post, to scrutinize him the way they did.  Did they accuse Bill Clinton of being a Muslim?  No. 

You've got a bird, with webbed feet, that's got a bill, and it quacks, and you complain when someone calls it a duck. 

Secret Muslim?  Don't know, but he and HRC energized ISIS in Libya; made excuses for Arabic attackers (ISIS) (for two weeks) in Benghazi and allowed four Americans to die as a result.  "Quack."  He bows to a foreign Islamic head of state, Saudi Arabia.  "Quack."  All the drama with Israel since he took office, an ally whom the Muslim world wants to see destroyed.   "Quack."  The horrible Iran deal.  "Quack."  There's just so much.  At the least he's a panderer, and that DeSouza book from a few years ago predicted it right on his strategy to strengthen the Middle East.  And extremists are everywhere now and they are energizing sleeper cells in the US.  And then he has the audacity to bring up gun control.  Oh, ok.

McCain was born on a Navy base; father was Navy.  No issue.

Powell:  I know about the other reasons given.  But I also remember when he said he was voting for him b/c it would be good for the country/ historic/ etc.  Which is fine.  The Bill Ayers affiliation argument that Powell complained about (against McCain) was an unrealistic stance to take; that was a legitimate concern for any president, and you don't get a pass just b/c you are a minority.  They scrutinized W b/c Duke gave money to his campaign or something and the media had a field day and tried to make the label stick.

If you are so concerned about racism, then what about Dr. Ben Carson- oh yeah, the media tried to destroy him b/c although he was black, he was a Conservative Republican and seen as a major threat to the Democratic Party voter base. Did we forget about that already? 

It's politics.

 

[Dale]

Breaking: CNN has just declared Hillary Clinton the winner of the second debate on Oct. 9th.

Millions of Americans googled 'Aleppo' so they could ridicule Gary Johnson for not knowing where it is.

[JFW657]

46 minutes ago, Dale said:

Breaking: CNN has just declared Hillary Clinton the winner of the second debate on Oct. 9th.

Millions of Americans googled 'Aleppo' so they could ridicule Gary Johnson for not knowing where it is.

Re: Hillary - Not unreasonable, given what a dufus Trump is and how handily she mopped the floor with him in the first one. Or more specifically, with that thing on his head.

Re: Johnson - He didn't just not know where Aleppo is, he didn't know what it is, either.

[Dale]

30 minutes ago, JFW657 said:

Re: Hillary - Not unreasonable, given what a dufus Trump is and how handily she mopped the floor with him in the first one. Or more specifically, with that thing on his head.

Re: Johnson - He didn't just not know where Aleppo is, he didn't know what it is, either.

Given our 'spectacular' success in Syria, the Syrians might have prayed for a president who didn't know where it was.