What would it take for Trump to win?

[Peter McLennan]

Pretty much my thoughts. I've no idea what the truth is, only that it isn't what we are told.

+1

The only story more preposterous than "They did it on purpose" is the one they tried to tell us was the truth.

[Peter McLennan]

For my overseas friends, who think we are going nuts 

    Well found, Slobodan.

[shotupdave]

That might (or not) be true. However, it implies that the previous administrations were oh, so skilled in diplomacy and consensus... just look where the world is now, after all those glorious skills were so efficiently used. The last eight years of the "skilled" administration left the world in a terrible shape.

who created the problem for this administration? hmmmm. that would be the gop.

look around the world, obama is more highly looked upon than bush, cheney and trump!

next time instead of using a stupid meme try using facts

[BernardLanguillier]

Operation Northwoods

Here you are proposing an explanation about what may have happened on 9/11, which I am NOT attempting to do. How would I know?

But if you want to go there, there are legitimate historical precedents of people in power deciding to sacrifice some of their own people for what they think is the greater good. And it may have made sense from an ethical standpoint if the definition of the greater good is the right one in terms of being shared with a large majority of an educated population and aligned with a reasonnable common ground of humanitarian values.

When you think of it, it is exactly the dilemma of the president deciding to shoot down a hijacked plane with 300 people on board instead of letting it crash on a city and risking to kill 10,000 people. In this case the probability that 10,000 people would actually die is very high and most citizens would agree that there is no other choices. It would probably be an ethical decision according to the classical definition of the term that assesses causality, knowledge and choice. You know you decision will cause the death of 300 people, but you don't have any other choice. So in this case, killing 300 people purposedely is the the right decision to take. Not a story I would tell my kids obviously, but this is the world we live in and grown up sometimes have to make tough decisions, at least some people who put themselves in mission critical jobs such as presidents of large countries. There are many examples at smaller scale and letting a trekking companion die to save the rest of the group may be easier to relate to and is the exact same story. As the series 24 has gotten us accustomed to, sometimes you've got to do what you've got to do.

Anyway, this is ground for interesting debate, but this debate isn't let to happen because of what has become the sacred nature of 9/11, starting with my point which is figuring out what really happened on that day. Why would an independent investigation be an issue if the official story is a faithful description of what truly happened?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Peter McLennan]

And the amount of countries I lived, worked, and visited makes me a bit better authority on the world events and its people than someone who never ventured outside of his county, let alone country.

Agreed.  GWB, before he took office, never held a passport.  Look where that got us.  Trump, while apparently in possession of a passport, seems lacking in skills other than knowing where to put his carry-on luggage. 

Blaming Obama for not being 100% effective in cleaning up the incredible mess left behind by GWB seems a little off the mark for me.  The fact that America recovered at all after that insult is testimony to the skills, tenacity and resilience of both Obama and Americans.

[shotupdave]

was there a report saying what happened?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That might (or not) be true.

Indeed.

However, it implies that the previous administrations were oh, so skilled in diplomacy and consensus...

Not really, it doesn't imply that. However, does it promise any improvement (looking forward, towards improvement, if any) ??? Honestly?

And did the (John Boehner (R)) policies to oppose any (even if sensible) proposal by the (current) administration have anything to do with the lack of success of the (current) administration ?????? Or for responsible leadership, to name a not unimportant task for a 'publicly elected' functionary of the opposition?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

Cheers,
Bart

[shotupdave]

Indeed.

Not really, it doesn't imply that. However, does it promise any improvement (looking forward, towards improvement, if any) Honestly?

And did the (John Boehner (R)) policies to oppose any (even if sensible) proposal by the (current) administration have anything to do with the lack of success of the (current) administration Or for responsible leadership, to name a not unimportant task for a 'publicly elected' functionary of the opposition?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

Cheers,
Bart

Do you know how this government works?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Bart, this administration had two years of absolute majority.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Do you know how this government works?

Wow, the whole post, albeit short, without a typo!?

[shotupdave]

Bart, this administration had two years of absolute majority.

After this I am just going to ignore you. Yoo and your comments are worthless.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

they did not have a super majority do you actually have a real fact in your head?  You have been wrong bout just about everything, can you actually ewalk and talk at the same time?

There you go... shutupdave, Mr. no-ad hominem.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Do you know how this government works?

Hi,

I'm afraid that I might do understand a bit (not much different from other governments, but at a larger scale and somewhat different motivations, and with more global impact), which makes it even more scary.

Cheers,
Bart

[shotupdave]

There you go... shutupdave, Mr. no-ad hominem.

you make comments that are false and then you get upset, when i call you out on it. You make a comment about me and not adressing the subject at hand. And you accuse me of an ad hom?

there is nothing when i point out your mistakes and my opinion of you. An ad hom fallacy is improper, like trump going after someone's personal looks or where their family is from.

So far, you make nothing but grand assertions, but when it comes to actual facts, you bring an empty sack.

I can count about theree logical fallacies in your statements.

[shotupdave]

Hi,

I'm afraid that I might do understand a bit (not much different from other governments, but at a larger scale and somewhat different motivations, and with more global impact), which makes it even more scary.

Cheers,
Bart

So for our current president to create a policy that will take money, a jobs bill that will take money or any other action. How can his policies be an sucess or failure if they can't be put into place if congress does not pass the bills. Even ones they supported before he came into office.

the gop planned on not allowing him to pass anything he wanted to do

On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration.

“The room was filled. It was a who’s who of ranking members who had at one point been committee chairmen, or in the majority, who now wondered out loud whether they were in the permanent minority,” Frank Luntz, who organized the event, told FRONTLINE.

Among them were Senate power brokers Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn, and conservative congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan.

After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything. The new president had no idea what the Republicans were planning.

Also on 9/11, you are saying the report was wrong, what form of education do you have to challenge that report

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

you makke comments that are false and then you get upset, when i call you out on it. You make a comment about me and not adressing the subject at hand. And you accuse me of an ad hom?

there is nothing when i point out your mistakes and my opinion of you. An ad hom fallacy is improper, like trump going after someone personal looks or where their family is from.

So far, you make nothing but grand assertions, but when it comes to actual facts, you bring an empty sack.

I can count about theree logical fallacies in your statements.

Judging by your writing skills, you sound more and more like a Trump supporter (at least by your own characterization of them)

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So for our current president to create a policy that will take money, a jobs bill that will take money or any other action. How can his policies be an sucess or failure if they can't be put into place if congress does not pass the bills. Even ones they supported before he came into office.

Which is part of my point, how could he?

the gop planned on not allowing him to pass anything he wanted to do

So much is obvious ...

On the night of Barack Obama’s inauguration, a group of top GOP luminaries quietly gathered in a Washington steakhouse to lick their wounds and ultimately create the outline of a plan for how to deal with the incoming administration.

I wasn't present , so I wouldn't know from personal experience. However, it would seem like a good storyline for "House of Cards", season 3 (or 4?).

“The room was filled. It was a who’s who of ranking members who had at one point been committee chairmen, or in the majority, who now wondered out loud whether they were in the permanent minority,” Frank Luntz, who organized the event, told FRONTLINE.

Among them were Senate power brokers Jim DeMint, Jon Kyl and Tom Coburn, and conservative congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan.

After three hours of strategizing, they decided they needed to fight Obama on everything. The new president had no idea what the Republicans were planning.

Again, I wasn't present, but the disruptive tactics seem to be understood, internationally at least ...

Cheers,
Bart

[David Sutton]

Did you look up 'ground effect'?

Yes. I don't get the connection. On all flights I've been on over the last years, the landing approach speed has bee around 180 to 210 mph. So?

[David Sutton]

Here you are proposing an explanation about what may have happened on 9/11, which I am NOT attempting to do. How would I know?

But if you want to go there, there are legitimate historical precedents of people in power deciding to sacrifice some of their own people for what they think is the greater good. And it may have made sense from an ethical standpoint if the definition of the greater good is the right one in terms of being shared with a large majority of an educated population and aligned with a reasonnable common ground of humanitarian values.

When you think of it, it is exactly the dilemma of the president deciding to shoot down a hijacked plane with 300 people on board instead of letting it crash on a city and risking to kill 10,000 people. In this case the probability that 10,000 people would actually die is very high and most citizens would agree that there no other choices. It would probably be an ethical decision according to the classical definition of the term that assesses causality, knowledge and choice. You know you decision will cause the death of 300 people, but you don't have any other choice. So in this case, killing 300 people purposedely is the the right decision to take. Not a story I would tell my kids obviously, but this is the world we live in and grown up sometimes have to make tough decisions, at least some people who put themselves in mission critical jobs such as presidents of large countries. There are many examples at smaller scale and letting a trekking companion die to save the rest of the group may be easier to relate to and is the exact same story. As the series 24 has gotten us accustomed to, sometimes you've got to do what you've got to do.

Anyway, this is ground for interesting debate, but this debate isn't let to happen because of what has become the sacred nature of 9/11, starting with my point which is figuring out what really happened on that day. Why would an independent investigation be an issue if the official story is a faithful description of what truly happened?

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, I agree that there are always unanswered questions about events like these, and the attacks on the US on this occasion are no different, especially the involvement of Saudi Arabia. All I am saying is that contrary the conspiracy buffs, the Pentagon was certainly not hit by a missile, and the Twin Towers were certainly not brought down by demolition charges.
Let me look briefly at the latter.
There is no such thing as a silent explosive that gives off no light. When the 11 story Radio House building was brought down in Christchurch after it had been damaged in the earthquake, the entire building lit up and you could hear the bang from the other side of the city. See my photos below.
The world's press had their cameras and microphones running on that day and none recorded a flash and a bang. Remember an analysis of a news recording from on the ground had enough detail in the soundtrack to calculate the rate of fall of the core of the building.
The only person I have been able to find who claimed to have heard a bang was a police officer, who also claims that hundreds of people in the US are kidnapped each year by witch's covens. I'll go with the sound analysis I think.
The thing I find hard to understand is that there are people who use the deaths of innocent people to push their own weird agendas. After the Twin Towers attack I looked up the discussions by the main conspiracy theory authors on the websites where they hung out. They were foul mouthed ratbags as far as I could make out. I have no idea what their motivation is and was.
There are more pressing issues to put our energy into.
David

[shotupdave]

is right even for them to do this?

is it right for them to stop support of a bill that they once supported just because they do not like the president. And knowing that not supporting this bill can and would hurt people on their own congressional districts or states.

The GOP blocked job bills to help disabled vets that they help create, is that right?


Today the 2016 GOP  convention came out

here are some of the crazy points they want to implement


declare coal as a clean energy source - even though just about every person in climate sciences has declared coal as one of the dirtiest sources of fuel

declare porn as a public health crisis - the watching of porn is actually a right given under the 1st amendment and they can't regulate that

they ask for law makers to use the bible as a source to create laws that follows god's laws. another violation of the constitution. They are trying to create a theocracy

they want the bible to be taught in school, another violation. it can be taught in a comparative religous course but other religions mus the given the same amount of study

remove the rights of gays to marry

every four years the GOP is moving more and more to the right. And only the fringe right wingers are supporting this