Trust

[Bravus]

​And on what evidence is your distrust of them greater than your distrust of Hillary. 

​I didn't say I distrust any of them. I trust them to do bad stuff. On what basis? Their published platforms and stump speeches. Their actual policies. 

[joeb]

Not sure what the point of this is really.  Trust is one part of the range of factors to consider.  I assume the premise is that one would or should only vote for who they trust.  Not a bad idea, really.  But trust about what in particular.  So many on the right hated Bill and would refer to his sexual misconduct and say that made him unfit and untrustworthy to be president.  Well I wouldn't say that sexual trustworthiness or lack thereof is much of an indicator of competency, intelligence, wisdom, experience or trustworthiness in many of the other areas necessary to be an effective president, such as grasp of the economic policy, foreign affairs, domestic policies, etc.  If he was running to be my son-in-law, the sexual thing would be a big factor.  But not really for president.

 

As for Hilary, face the partisan reality.  Nothing she can do - ever - will make you and most on the right trust her or even want to trust her.  Nothing.  That has been the case with Obama.  It really hasn't mattered what he does or says.  You all just don't like him and do not want to trust him.  So we get the broad brush declarations that he is a liar, that he is corrupt... yada, yada, yada.  No need for evidence.  No need for proof.   Because it wouldn't matter one way or the other.  Nay hint of speculative conjecture is all the proof some want or need.  And if there is no evidence the belief is  that he is hiding the truth, hiding the evidence, engaging in a vast coverup.  If an investigation/report concludes he is not lying or corrupt, the investigation/ report is based or faulty or whatever.  If there is proof positive in favor of him, that won't be believed because that is just more of the lies and corruption.  And the same will be the case about Hilary.  

 

At some point not being able to trust someone may not be their problem.  It may be that the problem lies in the heart of the one unable to trust. 

 

​Really?  Obama hasn't been caught lying repeatedly?  Over and over again.  Something like 88 times in front of the US people, in front of the news cameras with the you can keep your doctor lie?  He lied about that alone for several years.  No evidence?  That's a flat out lie.

[joeb]

​I didn't say I distrust any of them. I trust them to do bad stuff. On what basis? Their published platforms and stump speeches. Their actual policies. 

​And what policies have they put forth that make them untrustworthy to you? 

[bonnie]

​Bonnie,

I understand what you're saying, but I include all of that under immoral behavior.  Lying, deceit, etc... is immoral.

​Some may consider serial sexual predator inflammatory but I did not use that lightly. My family was involved in a very traumatic situation that involved  a pastor. The same rationale was used to not really condone but you know "he was doing some good things" He went unrestrained for three decades doing some good things while destroying families. We were at least somewhat gratified to have a judge from the bench declare this man a serial sexual predator. Having the instincts to know which women would be willing or vulnerable to his advances

 So I guess I don't see it as to much of a surprise that other SDA's feel much the same about Bill Clinton. After all it was only sex not a missile.

Of course common sense says that a pair that would go to the length of the Clintons to protect Bill and his penis could be trusted in other area's

Edited May 31, 2015 by bonnie

[joeb]

​Some may consider serial sexual predator inflammatory but I did not use that lightly. My family was involved in a very traumatic situation that involved  a pastor. The same rationale was used to not really condone but you know "he was doing some good things" He went unrestrained for three decades doing some good things while destroying families. We were at least somewhat gratified to have a judge from the bench declare this man a serial sexual predator. Having the instincts to know which women would be willing or vulnerable to his advances.  So I guess I don't see it as to much of a surprise that other SDA's feel much the same about Bill Clinton. After all it was only sex not a missile.

​Ironic isn't it that the missile allegations are based on half-truths seen through the lens of fierce ideological lenses?  And it's also ironic that they condemn those missiles that Bush used, but are very silent on the ones Clinton sent and Obama sends....

Edited May 31, 2015 by joeb

[bonnie]

​Ironic isn't it that the missile allegations are based on half-truths seen through the lens of fierce ideological lenses?  And it's also ironic that they condemn those missiles that Bush used, but are very silent on the ones Clinton sent and Obama sends....

​You surely can't be talking about the missiles ordered with Monica under the desk are you? That aspirin factory probably didn't count

[bonnie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Shifa_pharmaceutical_factory

 

Interesting read on the bombing of the factory. Far less to go on that WMD in Iraq,where most everyone believed Saddam was a real risk with WMD.Could "wag the dog" be true with a man of this sterling character. Nah

[Bravus]

On the contrary, if you are paying attention *at all* you know I abhor Obama's drone strikes and speak out about them at every opportunity. Dead or maimed is dead or maimed, regardless of party, and I'm against it no matter who does it. I'm utterly consistent in that. 

[joeb]

On the contrary, if you are paying attention *at all* you know I abhor Obama's drone strikes and speak out about them at every opportunity. Dead or maimed is dead or maimed, regardless of party, and I'm against it no matter who does it. I'm utterly consistent in that. 

​Bravus,

I know you're much more honest than most about your stances, and in your stances.  I appreciate that.  I'm talking liberals/progressives in general. 

[Bravus]

​And what policies have they put forth that make them untrustworthy to you? 

​I've repeatedly said that I trust them, and I mean it. I could say that I don't trust them to deliver on their policies, but I do. I believe they're telling the truth.

The thing is, I consider their policies to be terrible things for the country. Further pulling up the ladder that allowed them to get to their exalted and comfortable positions behind them, trapping people in poverty and blaming the victims for their own poverty, more wars, more military spending, more attacks on the vulnerable of all kinds.

It's possible that, given you vote for them and advocate for them, you consider all of these policies to be Good Things. You would probably describe the same policies using different words, of course.

I'm saying I do trust them to do what they say they will: but that what they say they will do is terrible.

[joeb]

​I've repeatedly said that I trust them, and I mean it. I could say that I don't trust them to deliver on their policies, but I do. I believe they're telling the truth.

The thing is, I consider their policies to be terrible things for the country. Further pulling up the ladder that allowed them to get to their exalted and comfortable positions behind them, trapping people in poverty and blaming the victims for their own poverty, more wars, more military spending, more attacks on the vulnerable of all kinds.

It's possible that, given you vote for them and advocate for them, you consider all of these policies to be Good Things. You would probably describe the same policies using different words, of course.

I'm saying I do trust them to do what they say they will: but that what they say they will do is terrible.

What I was asking you was which specific policies you disagreed with.  If you think they will do harm then you don't trust them.  At least I don't trust people I think will do harm. 

[joeb]

Just as an fyi, since 2009 the median family income has dropped for the first time in history during an economic recovery.  That means most of what is trumpeted by the Obama administration is a lie.   Add to that the increase in health care costs after Obama promised a drop of $2500 a year.  Many families, and single people, are now paying much more for health care as the deductibles have risen dramatically.  Add to that the increase in taxes that will have to be paid for any subsidies paid for by the government, and you have a dramatic drop in finances for the average family. 

http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Real-Incomes-Five-Years-After-the-Great-Recession-Part-2.php

There are almost 20 milllion more people on food stamps than when Obama became president.  And, they have changed how the unemployment rate has been figured a few times.  Each time they do the unemployment rate drops, even though nothing else has changed.  And, the labor participation rate is the lowest it's been in more than 50 years along with high numbers of chronically unemployed people.  It's something like close to 40 million people who have been unemployed for more 18 months and all those people are not counted in the government's unemployment rate for once your unemployment benefits run out as far as the government is concerned you are no longer unemployed.  So, whatever the Obama administration says the unemployment rate is add about 10% for the real unemployment rate.  Oh, and people working part time jobs were historically never counted as employed.  Now they are.

More government regulation equals fewer jobs for the money businesses have to spend on compliance the less money they have to spend on other things, such as labor.  The Obama administration has added 10's of thousands of pages of  regulation on businesses.  Obamacare has also affected both the number of hours people work as well as the wage they are paid.  At one point about a year or so ago something like 95% of the jobs being created were part time jobs. 

So,who is trapping people in poverty?  It's not the Republicans, it's Obama and the Democrats. 

Socialism, which is centralized government control of the economy, never works.  This is what Obama is doing.  His goal is government control of everything.  Obamacare alone put 18% of our economy under government control  This is why you see the steady decline in the economic numbers that really count, right where people live. 

Edited June 4, 2015 by joeb

[Bravus]

The thing is, I consider their policies to be terrible things for the country. Further pulling up the ladder that allowed them to get to their exalted and comfortable positions

 behind them

, trapping people in poverty and blaming the victims for their own poverty, more wars, more military spending, more attacks on the vulnerable of all kinds.

​Already posted it.

[joeb]

​Already posted it.

​Where did you post of specific policies that you believe are harmful.  I've seen the the above blanket condemnation but no specific list of policies.  The reason I ask is because I'd like to see your thinking that leads you to your conclusions. 

[Bravus]

Now you're just being vexatious. I have a busy life and work very hard, I'm not going to spend hours going out trawling the web sites and public pronouncements of the dozen or so Republican candidates and summarising the vast reams of information here.

Are you asserting that my brief summary is inaccurate? If so, feel free to bring the evidence yourself: I'm not going to put in the hours.

If you want to decide I've withdrawn from the field and that means you've 'won' by default, I'm OK with that.

[joeb]

Now you're just being vexatious. I have a busy life and work very hard, I'm not going to spend hours going out trawling the web sites and public pronouncements of the dozen or so Republican candidates and summarising the vast reams of information here.

Are you asserting that my brief summary is inaccurate? If so, feel free to bring the evidence yourself: I'm not going to put in the hours.

If you want to decide I've withdrawn from the field and that means you've 'won' by default, I'm OK with that.

​I guess if you can't take me at my word there isn't much ground on which to interact with you.  By that I mean you won't believe anything I say anyway.

[Bravus]

The point is that you haven't *made* a claim about which I could take you at your word!

Are you claiming that my characterisation of the positions of the Republican candidates is inaccurate?

If so, it shouldn't be all that hard to find an example of one of their policies that falsifies that claim.

And anyone who has been watching my posts on this forum - been posting here over a decade - knows that if my position on something is falsified with evidence I withdraw the claim and apologise.

[joeb]

The point is that you haven't *made* a claim about which I could take you at your word!

Are you claiming that my characterisation of the positions of the Republican candidates is inaccurate?

If so, it shouldn't be all that hard to find an example of one of their policies that falsifies that claim.

And anyone who has been watching my posts on this forum - been posting here over a decade - knows that if my position on something is falsified with evidence I withdraw the claim and apologise.

​My point is that I said I wanted to understand your thinking.  Your response was such that it's obvious you didn't take me at my word.