the news is sure interesting tonight, assassination attempt?

[Blmpkn]

Well...both your posts made me laugh out loud - oh wait I mean LOL.

But I can see why you quit investing your time in politics --- good choice.
//

An actual xray of mine needed after a brief moment of political discourse.



My bad guys. Exactly why I try to stay out of it.

 

[JoshT]

Forgive me, those of you die-hard R voters who live in places where the following is true but - the R party has too many whack jobs in it these days (no need to tell me about the D party, plenty of deeply unlikable people in there too). I'm sure I don't need to name names cause I think their actions and sound bites speak for themselves.

Politics has too many whack jobs in it period, both parties, all three branches, and the bureaucracy. You may think certain people are too whack to be in power, but consider the alternatives that their constituents had to pick from. I know that some of my states elected officials can be put there, but in some cases the people they were running against would have been worse. Granted, in other cases the jurisdiction was so deeply seated in a certain color, their candidate could have literally committed murder on live national television and still won.

I do have to ask are you verifying the sources of these actions and sound bytes? It is not uncommon at all for the media to take bites out of context and ascribe meaning where there is none. They are masters of projection, grasping at straws to accuse their political opposition of doing something, while ignoring that their candidates/representatives are actually doing it.

What's really sad is that I can talk about the media like that. News stations and anchors have always had bias, but in the past they reported on facts and let the viewer reach their own conclusions from that. Now they can't report on anything without injection opinion, creating a spin, or telling you what to think.

 

[pentode]

Politics has too many whack jobs in it period, both parties, all three branches, and the bureaucracy. You may think certain people are too whack to be in power, but consider the alternatives that their constituents had to pick from. I know that some of my states elected officials can be put there, but in some cases the people they were running against would have been worse. Granted, in other cases the jurisdiction was so deeply seated in a certain color, their candidate could have literally committed murder on live national television and still won.

I do have to ask are you verifying the sources of these actions and sound bytes? It is not uncommon at all for the media to take bites out of context and ascribe meaning where there is none. They are masters of projection, grasping at straws to accuse their political opposition of doing something, while ignoring that their candidates/representatives are actually doing it.

What's really sad is that I can talk about the media like that. News stations and anchors have always had bias, but in the past they reported on facts and let the viewer reach their own conclusions from that. Now they can't report on anything without injection opinion, creating a spin, or telling you what to think.

I do my best to vet all my info. I pretty much hate all the "3" big news networks in the USA, they're all virtually unwatchable for various reasons. I try to get my news from the AP and Reuters.

Totally agree about politicians, almost all of them suck. I'd be hard pressed to pick 10 of them in the western world I'd want to watch a football game with.

I see where you're from- I said I wouldn't name drop, but let's just say one of the ones I had in mind is from your state, and she tweets prolifically, so I take her at her word. I'm being sincere here and not trying to make a joke, but if she won against a democrat who was even worse, I'd love to know who that was. All this time, I've just been assuming that the vast majority of people just vote R or D without even knowing who the people were. If she got elected on substance, that's something I'd love to learn about.

 

[racsan]

All I will say is that it’s always been about the “least worse” candidate. Theres not really a good choice ,just litterly the lesser of the two evils.

 

[JoshT]

I do my best to vet all my info. I pretty much hate all the "3" big news networks in the USA, they're all virtually unwatchable for various reasons. I try to get my news from the AP and Reuters.

Totally agree about politicians, almost all of them suck. I'd be hard pressed to pick 10 of them in the western world I'd want to watch a football game with.

I see where you're from- I said I wouldn't name drop, but let's just say one of the ones I had in mind is from your state, and she tweets prolifically, so I take her at her word. I'm being sincere here and not trying to make a joke, but if she won against a democrat who was even worse, I'd love to know who that was. All this time, I've just been assuming that the vast majority of people just vote R or D without even knowing who the people were. If she got elected on substance, that's something I'd love to learn about.

Greene isn't in my district, I have no idea who she was running against. I can say that her published stance is more online with the majority of this states values than what is on the other side of the political isle.

My representative is Sanford Bishop. Though he is on the other side of the isle from what I view myself as, he is conservative leaning. I can't say that he has done bad for the state or this district, but he does follow the party line too much for my liking. I did not vote for him because he's a career politician, entered state HOR in the 70s, and has been in US HOR for the past 30 years. I am not voting for a 30+ year career politician for any office if I have other decent options. They are like underwear, they need to be be replaced occasionally no matter how comfortable they are. .

I place little bearing on social media posts. Generally speaking they are too brief to convey any meaning or depth, and are easily taken out of context. It would be better if politicians on both sides of the isle would refrain from using it for more than making announcements, but that's not likely to happen.

 

[pentode]

Oh, and I'll just agree with the initial sentiment of this thread and add I think we can all agree that trying to assassinate politicians we don't like is NOT the American way. That's banana republic crap.

We vote people into office.

 

[pentode]

Greene isn't in my district, I have no idea who she was running against. I can say that her published stance is more online with the majority of this states values than what is on the other side of the political isle.

My representative is Sanford Bishop. Though he is on the other side of the isle from what I view myself as, he is conservative leaning. I can't say that he has done bad for the state or this district, but he does follow the party line too much for my liking. I did not vote for him because he's a career politician, entered state HOR in the 70s, and has been in US HOR for the past 30 years. I am not voting for a 30+ year career politician for any office if I have other decent options. They are like underwear, they need to be be replaced occasionally no matter how comfortable they are. .

I place little bearing on social media posts. Generally speaking they are too brief to convey any meaning or depth, and are easily taken out of context. It would be better if politicians on both sides of the isle would refrain from using it for more than making announcements, but that's not likely to happen.

Thanks for that. Totally agree that career politicians should be very discouraged or outright banned. There's a reason they want to stick with it forever. The ancient Greeks were compelled to be in government just like we are jury duty, and they tried just as hard to avoid it as most people seem to in the US. Also agree that twitter is a cesspool they should stay away from.

I looked up Sanford Bishop... Eagle scout and an Army vet (during Vietnam). If I were really torn about who to vote for in that district, those would sway me.

 

[bobbywalter]

well. that is the problem.

 

[JoshT]

I looked up Sanford Bishop... Eagle scout and an Army vet (during Vietnam). If I were really torn about who to vote for in that district, those would sway me.

I'm an Eagle Scout. I know personally Eagle Scouts that have followed all different walks in life. Every thing from heading national not for profits based out of Washington DC to sitting in prison for murder and hate crimes. Both of those examples were from the same troop and scout master, but at different times so the scout's paths never really crossed.

I know plenty of people that were in the army. Pretty similar story, and I'll leave it at that.

Neither are enough to pull my vote. Maybe influence it slightly if the candidates were the same in all other aspects, but that rarely ever happens.

 

[pentode]

I'm an Eagle Scout. I know personally Eagle Scouts that have followed all different walks in life. Every thing from heading national not for profits based out of Washington DC to sitting in prison for murder and hate crimes. Both of those examples were from the same troop and scout master, but at different times so the scout's paths never really crossed.

I know plenty of people that were in the army. Pretty similar story, and I'll leave it at that.

Neither are enough to pull my vote. Maybe influence it slightly if the candidates were the same in all other aspects, but that rarely ever happens.

Point well taken. I guess at the heart of the matter is personal character (I mean assuming you can trust someone to do what they say they're going to do, and almost all of them lie and/or overpromise all the time), and that's a hard thing to gauge from a CV or a website or social media. Realistically you probably have to know the person for a while, and that's obviously impossible for 99.9% of voters.

Houston, I think we have a problem.

 

[pentode]

but he does follow the party line too much for my liking.

You nailed it there.

Hopefully you all will forgive me if I'm dragging this out, but I've had a few cold ones, took a shower and thinking about these old-time republicans (it goes both ways) and what's changed, and I realized I could tie a bow on it, at least for my part of this two-party angle.

The reason the 2 party deal has broken down is because nobody on either side feels free to vote their conscience, ever In the last 10-15 years). Both sides have basically become cults. Sure, most politicians are going to vote along party lines almost all the time, but if they can _never_ vote against the party, that's where 2 parties stop working. Every election, there's constant talk about gerrymandering... because there's virtually no chance anyone will ever vote against the party, this is what's left to manipulate your way to a "win".

Is there an official signal online to indicate you're drunk-posting? Should I start these posts with a or a ?

Mea culpa.

 

[97RangerXLT]

Third party and useless candidates in general...

Here is something that I have noticed over the past 30+ years and each election cycle it is getting worse. Basically the news media along with the opposing candidates sling so much *sh!t* at each other AND drag their families and their families members into a crap grinder that is so horrible that it tears the families apart. Here in Indiana, we had a fairly decent governor that was asked to run for pres or vice pres in 2012 or 2016 (cant remember which) and he turned it down because he didn't want his family drug into the mud slinging. And I agree with him. He would have made an excellent commander in chief as well. I think even Ted Cruz did not want to join in for the same reason. (not that Cruz would have been great, but definitely better than what is presented to us)

along with both parties of the two party system giving us garbage candidates for the highest seat of power in the US, it is not worth it to the decent candidates to have their families lives ruined by a crappy news media and low blows by the oposing candidates.

Debates and platform doctrine should all focus on what their candidates are going to do to *fix* issues. NOT what the other side did to mess it all up. We all know that. State the problem. then state the solution you have to fix it. IE Health Care: Problem, cost of healthcare is prohibitively expensive and hard to get. Solution from one side: tax the rich, open up a single payer platform, and eliminate big insurance and pharma and let the govt take care of you. Another side might say: bring down the amount of malpractice suits, get meds from Canada/ Mexico if they are cheaper, force insurance to listen to the patients physician/ medical team on what they have come to agree that the patient needs. AND the insurance companies MUST abide by that decision and cover it.

well the answer may be a combination of the ideas presented by the candidates or none of the above, but at least the debates and the campaign issues will be based on what they can do for us and not how bad the other guy is and how bad the family is.

AJ

 

[Jim Oaks]

I think the U.S. I'd going to shit, and I blame:

Media
Social media
Politicians
Shitty human beings

The media divides people. I miss the days when they just shared both sides of the story and we're unbiased (Fairness Doctrine).

Social media really divides and stirs hate. It's sick the things I see people posting about this assassination attempt. One person justified this because Trump was convicted but hasn't been sentenced. He hid payments to Cohen as reimbursement for payments he made to Stormy Daniels (she should have been charged with extortion). Yet, that person must think that's grounds to assassinate someone.

This isn't a Liberal or Conservative issue for me. My issue is that the Secret Service failed to do their job. If I was assessing the area for a place someone could take a shot from, I would have been watching that roof. The police didn't see the shooter go up there, but witnesses did. The whole shit show looks like he was being guarded by mall security. What's the point in a President having secret service protection for life if the secret service is going to let someone climb up on a big ass open roof and take shots at them??

Someone was murdered yesterday because of the secret service.

There needs to be a shake up and house cleaning of the secret service.

I wish the witness would identify the police officer that he told about the guy going up on the roof with a gun. That officer should be charged with dereliction.

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I think the U.S. I'd going to shit, and I blame:

Media
Social media
Politicians
Shitty human beings

The media divides people. I miss the days when they just shared both sides of the story and we're unbiased (Fairness Doctrine).

Social media really divides and stirs hate. It's sick the things I see people posting about this assassination attempt. One person justified this because Trump was convicted but hasn't been sentenced. He hid payments to Cohen as reimbursement for payments he made to Stormy Daniels (she should have been charged with extortion). Yet, that person must think that's grounds to assassinate someone.

This isn't a Liberal or Conservative issue for me. My issue is that the Secret Service failed to do their job. If I was assessing the area for a place someone could take a shot from, I would have been watching that roof. The police didn't see the shooter go up there, but witnesses did. The whole shit show looks like he was being guarded by mall security. What's the point in a President having secret service protection for life if the secret service is going to let someone climb up on a big ass open roof and take shots at them??

Someone was murdered yesterday because of the secret service.

There needs to be a shake up and house cleaning of the secret service.

I wish the witness would identify the police officer that he told about the guy going up on the roof with a gun. That officer should be charged with dereliction.

In regards to the police officer that "retreated"....i heard on the radio just a bit ago someone who was supposdly there when that happend, and i guess there was no access (as in, ladder or steps) to the roof.

The cop that engaged the suspect actually stood on another cops shoulders and when he poked his head over the roof the kid pointed his gun at the cop, the cop ducked and went to grab his gun (why it wasnt drawn already wasnt stated) and he fell off the other officers shoulders.

It was during that the kid fired at trump.

Speculation here...but that cop engaging the suspect may very well have thrown the kids aim off enough to save trumps life.

RIP to the volunteer fireman who died.

Im a republican...yes ill say it. Ive never been a massive trump fan as i dont agree with his general demeanor...but alot of issues i agree with him on.

But the bottom line here is violence is wrong. This event is either going to make things worse, or make things better.

But with the "adolf trump" rhetoric, the "danger to democracy" BS, etc it was only a matter of time before someone tried to play hero.

 

[Jim Oaks]

Secret Service identified rooftop security risk before Trump rally shooting

Two sources told NBC News that the Secret Service flagged a building near the rally site as a security concern. Investigators will be scrutinizing how a gunman was allowed to scale it.

www.nbcnews.com