+- Bring4th (https://www.bring4th.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Bring4th Community (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=16)
+--- Forum: Olio (https://www.bring4th.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance (/showthread.php?tid=13473)
Pages:
1
2
The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - Diana - 10-29-2016
![[Image: bringthfbpresidentialcandidateguidejpg.jpg]](http://www.bring4th.org/photos/d/diana/bringthfbpresidentialcandidateguidejpg.jpg)
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - isis - 10-29-2016
![[Image: stein-oreilly.jpg?1384968217]](https://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/system/images/photo_albums/jill-stein-memes/large/stein-oreilly.jpg?1384968217)
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - BlatzAdict - 10-29-2016
(10-29-2016, 01:18 PM)Diana Wrote:
when they advertise she's got 3 percent. i wonder where they get the polls from
argh.. make sure to check out needtoknow.news
lots of stuff on the election this week.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - Diana - 10-29-2016
Polls are not reliable sources of information for many reasons.
I don't think it matters what the chances are of a candidate winning, or even whether or not the whole political arena is a rigged game (which I think it ultimately is). I think it's important to have a voice, however that voice is heard, and to vote—if anyone votes—out of love, or agreement, not out of fear that "the other" candidate will win.
I don't subscribe to the whole wanderer/visitor/observer here just taking up space. I also don't want to obstruct free will. So somewhere in-between I see that I have some responsibility here to participate in a venue I assume I chose—3D earth. In that regard, I feel it's responsible to add my voice for the change I would like to see, whether or not it has a direct consequence in this corrupt, and becoming more corrupted, political arena.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - Nía - 10-29-2016
Quo Wrote:We suggest the continuing of all conscious entities to bring enlightenment to those about them, to move forward one step at a time as is possible, to spread the words to those who have ears to hear and hearts to understand, and to be unceasing in the efforts of this grand and glorious quest. Perhaps that which is impossible shall become the impossible dream fulfilled.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - BlatzAdict - 10-29-2016
Polls definitely aren't reliable, I was just thinking about the people that believe in them. lol
I just want 100 percent STO harvest. There I said it.
I know I'm being unreasonable.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - ScottK - 10-29-2016
(10-29-2016, 02:09 PM)Diana Wrote: I don't subscribe to the whole wanderer/visitor/observer here just taking up space. I also don't want to obstruct free will. So somewhere in-between I see that I have some responsibility here to participate in a venue I assume I chose—3D earth. In that regard, I feel it's responsible to add my voice for the change I would like to see, whether or not it has a direct consequence in this corrupt, and becoming more corrupted, political arena.
I'll chime in to muddy the waters a bit
I totally, 100% agree with your first sentence quoted here.
I do appreciate your your stance on Jill Stein, but I also would like to say that by just performing the act of voting, you implicitly give your consent to being governed by a top-down, authoritarian government. Speaking for myself, I do not consent, and I will not vote.
And just as an aside, if I was a sign maker, I would put up a sign which says "A vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil" - I know you agree with that
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - isis - 10-29-2016
(10-29-2016, 07:28 PM)ScottK Wrote: I do appreciate your your stance on Jill Stein, but I also would like to say that by just performing the act of voting, you implicitly give your consent to being governed by a top-down, authoritarian government. Speaking for myself, I do not consent, and I will not vote.
same here. i've never voted (for president).
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - herald - 10-29-2016
“100 percent harvest”…why not? Over time, every soul finds is way to The Creator Oneness.
Ra @ 82.12 ...A very great deal of creation was manifested without the use of the concepts involved in consciousness, as you know it. The creation itself is a form of consciousness which is unified, the Logos being the one great heart of creation. The process of evolution through this period, which may be seen to be timeless, is most valuable to take into consideration, for it is against the background of this essential unity of the fabric of creation that we find the ultimate development of the Logoi which chose to use that portion of the harvested consciousness of the Creator to move forward with the process of knowledge of self. As it had been found to be efficient to use the various densities, which are fixed in each octave, in order to create conditions in which self-conscious sub-Logoi could exist, this was carried out throughout the growing flower-strewn field, as your simile suggests, of the one infinite creation.
As to the OP, I have to say, I googled “FULL EMPLOYMENT”, like… who would stand against it?
It is a term used by democrats in the forties, to say
the other candidates don’t support it is just ridiculous.
Minimum Wage?… The President can only make suggestions, how about $20 or $25?
Medicare-for-all? That was Hillary Rodham Clinton’s idea. Sorry.
We saw how that turned out.
Free Higher Education? Of course!
No debts for anyone! hip-hip hooray!
…and free pot too!
No fracking either? We can all walk to work, or… ride on our . . .
FREE PONIES FOR EVERYONE!!!
We’ll write the best Presidential Order ever.
Congress can just try to stop us with their House Majority.
We can just tell congress (power of the purse)
to ”Stop overblowing that fat ole Pentagon”.
Then, Blah blah blah… we can override states rights, and dis Isreal and the banks.
HA HA HA!
ok lemmesee here…
No Fly Zone. Yeah, Do you think this means
that with HRC The United States would not continue to cooperate with Russia
as we have been since even the Bush Administration?
Before you back Stein, keep in mind,
that if just 500 Floridiots who voted for Nader instead of Vice President Albert Gore-
had just one milligram more reason to assert itself over
their own self-righteousness, perhaps this:
![[Image: shock-and-awe.jpg]](https://murph521.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/shock-and-awe.jpg)
would not have happened.
Al Gore's famous speech against the invasion of Iraq in 2002. Pdf fornat/ url
[font=Arial]Ra: ...There are those whose lessons are more random due to their present inability to comprehend the nature and mechanism of the evolution of mind, body, and spirit. Of these we may say that the process is guarded by those who never cease their watchful expectation of being of service. There is no entity without help, either through self-awareness of the unity of creation or through guardians of the self which protect the less sophisticated mind/body/spirit from any permanent separation from unity while the lessons of your density continue.
@ 50.5[/font]
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - Nía - 10-30-2016
- November 6: Lifting the US Election ~ World Synchronized Meditation
November 6th ~ 7PM NY Time, thousands of people will stop for 15 minutes and focus their energy on the US presidential election, asking that the highest good be done for all humanity. James Twyman will be at the Celebrate Your Life expo in Scottsdale and you're invited to join him there, or simply participate from wherever you are. We are not endorsing any candidate, only asking people to focus on love overcoming fear in this election.
- November 8: Elevate the Vote ~ Synchronized Meditation Flashmobs at US Polling Stations
Elevate The Vote, UNIFY’s election campaign focused on elevating the vote, the election, the nation, and the world. As we witness tensions rising amidst communities all over the United States and abroad, we are hopeful and inspired that 8,031 people have signed up from around the world to meditate on November 8th, 3 PM PST, 6 PM EST! Our goal is 25,000 in over 1,000 locations - and our dream is 100,000. If each of us invite 10 friends to join, we can have 80,310 people meditating at the same time, with the same vision. View the Global Election Meditation map and add yourself here.
P.S. Wearing something like this might help people understand: Meditating for Peace.
- November 8:
Aaron Wrote:In this case, saying no with compassion means going out to vote.
Or, as political science puts it: No vote is always a vote for the strongest candidate.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - rva_jeremy - 10-31-2016
(10-29-2016, 07:28 PM)ScottK Wrote: I do appreciate your your stance on Jill Stein, but I also would like to say that by just performing the act of voting, you implicitly give your consent to being governed by a top-down, authoritarian government.
I've never felt like, by voting, I give any explicit or implicit consent to be governed by anybody. Why do you feel like voting effects that, Scott? It'd be one thing if, by not voting, you opted out of being governed. But I don't think it works that way: they're gonna do what they want regardless of whether you took part in their little ritual.
For the record, I think voting is a nearly meaningless civic religious ritual that has nothing to do with how power is actually directed. But that means I think it's just as silly to place emphasis on not voting as it is to place emphasis on voting. The vote is not important enough to make a big deal of one way or the other. I've voted in every election I've been able to, but will probably sit this one out or concentrate on down ballot candidates. We have an especially bad set of choices this year and there's no point agonizing over it, though I might come around to voting for Stein just because she's the only one of the four who's a halfway decent candidate and she needs the vote for ballot access reasons more than the others.
I do, however, wrestle with the notion that voting probably has some significance as a mass consciousness event. But that's not the type of significance you're talking about, I think.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - herald - 11-01-2016
.
![[Image: inline_ballet.jpg]](https://s.yimg.com/dh/ap/default/160311/inline_ballet.jpg)
.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good.
We know from The Material that the Orion alliance is influencing our world affairs. They have the ability to entice those who are open to their methods of seeking self-service. We are told that their preference is to work with entities who are already seeking this path or are on the fence.
Those they wish to affect who are of the positive polarity, they must attack with negative greetings. I demonstrate in the thread “Amateur Conspiracy Theorizing” that this was done on a similar “Washington power couple”, namely the Roosevelts. in the 1940’s.
Do people in this thread actually believe that that they personally could withstand 30 years of public service, with a spouse also in public service, trying to “serve others” and have less mud on them than HRC?
If so, go ahead and cast your stone at her.
Otherwise, get in line and do the one proactive thing your government depends upon to be in part representative of your citizenship.
.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - Diana - 11-01-2016
Just so everyone is clear here, I'm not "backing Stein."
That is not to say that I don't agree with the Green Party's stance on the issues.
I provided this "at a glance" just for ease of looking at the issues. Many people don't really look because they are already enmeshed with a party or an idea. For instance, a friend of mine is a self-professed Democrat, and yet she abhors fracking, but she is a staunch Clinton advocate. When I told her about the fracking, she was taken aback after being very aggressive in her support of Clinton to me.
As for how much a vote counts, or what it counts for, this is my working theory:
I think the powers-that-be (and I use this term loosely and by no means point it at merely at corporations) have the ability to guide things the way they want them to go for their own reasons (which may include an illusion they are "helping" the ignorant masses). It follows (in my estimation) that a US presidential vote would be something used for many reasons, but not for actually electing who the public votes for. For one, the vote can compile statistics.
Since the 50's and computers, we have had the ability to compile complex systems of data, and that data includes reactions when certain stimuli is put out (fear, trends, information, corruption, 911, etc.). An event happens and data is compiled analyzing the reactions to that event, for instance.
Regarding the US presidential election, data may be compiled for many reasons. When Gore lost the vote, and everyone suspected it was corrupted, data may have been compiled as to how mush corruption the public would take before really rebelling. This is just a possible—linear and simple—scenario.
So, in my opinion, this is why a vote counts. If you don't vote, it's like not making a choice. People operate unconsciously all the time and don't consciously choose and yet they are affected by their choice not to choose. Not voting does not send a message that you protest against a corrupt system; it sends the message (which is compiled as data) that you don't participate for whatever reason and that you aren't a voice for change, rather you are a voice for possible apathy. The more people who vote here, suggests that more people care what the government is doing, so the powers-that-be may adjust how much control they estimate they can get away with.
I am not saying that those who choose not to vote are wrong. I'm just saying why I do vote.
Regarding Hilary Clinton and the alleged idea that a lifetime of public service is proof that she is serving the good. There are many scenarios that could fit that life decision. If Hilary Clinton had integrity, some of the allegations against her would not be there. For instance, she would not have accepted super pacs. The idea that one has to work within a corrupt system and comply with it's parameters has not worked yet for the good of all, and in my opinion it never will work to affect change. Taking a stance outside of the corruption may not work immediately, but it plants seeds and creates a place for people to stretch beyond the limiting and corrupt two-party system, rather than feeling trapped into voting for the lesser of two evils.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - herald - 11-01-2016
.
There is ample evidence that the 2000 Presidential election was stolen from Salon.com
There is even more evidence that the 2004 election was fraudulent Common Dreams.org
There are 2 "l"s in Hillary.
Public service does not equal goodness, but avoiding it keeps one from getting too much mud on them.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - rva_jeremy - 11-01-2016
(11-01-2016, 11:54 AM)Diana Wrote: Not voting does not send a message that you protest against a corrupt system; it sends the message (which is compiled as data) that you don't participate for whatever reason and that you aren't a voice for change, rather you are a voice for possible apathy. The more people who vote here, suggests that more people care what the government is doing, so the powers-that-be may adjust how much control they estimate they can get away with.
I can't speak to what voting data is actually used for, but even if your theory is correct, Diana, it still means that a single vote has at best a very oblique and indirect effect on the actual actions and policies of the government. I tend to wonder whether it's even worth the time, when I could be spending that time and energy on things that have a greater chance to yield impact.
For what it's worth, I think one of the biggest problems with elections is that they convince people that they've actually done something worthwhile politically, and that once a vote is cast their job is completed. Ultimately, getting out there and building the kind of world you want to see is what matters. It's what the politicians and their backers are doing. Unfortunately, too many people think that if they simply cast a vote, they've done their duty. The reality is that politics is not something that happens on one day in November every four years -- it's happening all the time in how you relate to others.
The Industrial Workers of the World, a radical union that was largely responsible for our 5 day work week and 8 hour work day, have a saying: "forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old". This means not competing in the game to control the levers of power at the top inside of the current (dare I say rigged) system, but instead building new levers and new structures of power in a bottom-up manner. I do think too many people are so invested in a game that they have astronomically little influence in that they neglect the much greater influence they have at the local or even neighborhood level, where politics has the ability to not simply be a horse race of policy wonks and B-list celebrities but can be transformational in how people think about themselves and relate to each other.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - Night Owl - 11-01-2016
In canada, two elections ago, I read the GRC found out the results were falsified. The result were in fact quite strange compared to the polls results. Somehow nobody did anything about it and the information stayed low profile. No opposition party never mentioned anything about it. That government was very conservative in the ways they kept information from the public. How do they obtain people's trust in this system at this point is beyond me.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - ScottK - 11-01-2016
(10-31-2016, 03:09 PM)jeremy6d Wrote:(10-29-2016, 07:28 PM)ScottK Wrote: I do appreciate your your stance on Jill Stein, but I also would like to say that by just performing the act of voting, you implicitly give your consent to being governed by a top-down, authoritarian government.
I've never felt like, by voting, I give any explicit or implicit consent to be governed by anybody. Why do you feel like voting effects that, Scott? It'd be one thing if, by not voting, you opted out of being governed. But I don't think it works that way: they're gonna do what they want regardless of whether you took part in their little ritual.
For the record, I think voting is a nearly meaningless civic religious ritual that has nothing to do with how power is actually directed. But that means I think it's just as silly to place emphasis on not voting as it is to place emphasis on voting. The vote is not important enough to make a big deal of one way or the other. I've voted in every election I've been able to, but will probably sit this one out or concentrate on down ballot candidates. We have an especially bad set of choices this year and there's no point agonizing over it, though I might come around to voting for Stein just because she's the only one of the four who's a halfway decent candidate and she needs the vote for ballot access reasons more than the others.
I do, however, wrestle with the notion that voting probably has some significance as a mass consciousness event. But that's not the type of significance you're talking about, I think.
I agree that in practice, your vote barely matters, but it still could be the deciding vote.
But consider, if you vote, you have taken an action which makes you a participant in the process of building and maintaining the government.
Further, the Cabal securitizes people through contracts - unlawful contracts without full disclosure, but contracts nonetheless, which only the very few have contested properly. The reason they have to do this is to, very simplistically, securitize the national debt. You have to be able to service debt if you take out debt - governments use future tax revenue of "persons" and "taxpayers" as security for debt. (As an aside, I'm not sure the word "taxpayer" ever existed before the IRS code came into being, and I'm not sure anybody ever defined that "word" - lawyers love twisting words and creating ambiguity)
The Birth Certificate is the government's certificate of title over you. Social Security is another layer that your parents generally consent to on your behalf. And voter registration is another big one.
So you, my friend Jeremy, are merely a financial security instrument as am I. Until you understand why, you don't understand the nature of the problem.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - ScottK - 11-01-2016
(11-01-2016, 11:54 AM)Diana Wrote: Not voting does not send a message that you protest against a corrupt system; it sends the message (which is compiled as data) that you don't participate for whatever reason and that you aren't a voice for change, rather you are a voice for possible apathy. The more people who vote here, suggests that more people care what the government is doing, so the powers-that-be may adjust how much control they estimate they can get away with.
The United States of America corporate entity ( http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=0454 ) is currently bankrupt and insolvent with both national debt of approx 20 trillion dollars and unfunded liabilities such as medicare, social security, etc of over 100 trillion dollars. I just don't think it's gonna survive for too much longer, but that's just me.
Change will come when this mess just dies of natural causes.
Meanwhile, I do not consent to be governed by it.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - rva_jeremy - 11-02-2016
(11-01-2016, 10:56 PM)ScottK Wrote: But consider, if you vote, you have taken an action which makes you a participant in the process of building and maintaining the government.
Why is the act of voting different than other ways in which I participate in government, say by paying taxes, using the sidewalks, holding a passport, etc.?
(11-01-2016, 10:56 PM)ScottK Wrote: Further, the Cabal securitizes people through contracts - unlawful contracts without full disclosure, but contracts nonetheless, which only the very few have contested properly. The reason they have to do this is to, very simplistically, securitize the national debt. You have to be able to service debt if you take out debt - governments use future tax revenue of "persons" and "taxpayers" as security for debt. (As an aside, I'm not sure the word "taxpayer" ever existed before the IRS code came into being, and I'm not sure anybody ever defined that "word" - lawyers love twisting words and creating ambiguity)
The Birth Certificate is the government's certificate of title over you. Social Security is another layer that your parents generally consent to on your behalf. And voter registration is another big one.
So you, my friend Jeremy, are merely a financial security instrument as am I. Until you understand why, you don't understand the nature of the problem.
I'm familiar with this approach, actually, and there's much to recommend as well as dispute there, but this doesn't seem to have another to do with voting. Like I said before, if the theory you articulate is true, are you saying that by not voting you materially change your status as "security"? Also, since voting is secret, we're talking about being registered to vote, not the act of actually casting a vote, right?
I appreciate your response, Scott! I tend to regard contracts entered into by the USG as about as valid as those entered into by the mafia, so while the theory doesn't really appeal to me, I appreciate that you've attempted to make a coherent case for me.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - ScottK - 11-04-2016
(11-02-2016, 11:42 AM)jeremy6d Wrote:(11-01-2016, 10:56 PM)ScottK Wrote: But consider, if you vote, you have taken an action which makes you a participant in the process of building and maintaining the government.
Why is the act of voting different than other ways in which I participate in government, say by paying taxes, using the sidewalks, holding a passport, etc.?
All interactions are different. As far as I know, there is no contract associated with using the sidewalks. The government has not mandated "walking licenses" yet, and I do mean YET
I'm not sure about passports - they are used a little differently than the drivers license, and are probably better from a contracting perspective.
Filing a tax return is effectively you entering into a contract where *you* consent to being a "taxpayer" even though such a word is not defined in the code, and you agree under penalty of perjury that everything is true and you will pay them the amount of money you specify on the tax return. Of course, you get nothing back from entering into the contract. The dumbest thing anyone could ever do is file an incorrect tax return, since you opt yourself in to penalties for lying.
The elite consider paying taxes to be optional though:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-14/blast-past-harry-reid-claimed-income-taxes-are-voluntary
Of course, just to hold a job or run a business, there is a big spaghetti pile of contracts associated with that, too.
It's basically a system where the negative elite laugh at the people for entering into a BS contract where they pay the taxes in the first place since it was optional and a deception, but then they also have their legion of enforcers provoking red ray response because of all the other garbage you'd have to wade through to clean it up.
This is a wide ranging subject that one cannot do justice to in an internet posting.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - ScottK - 11-04-2016
(11-02-2016, 11:42 AM)jeremy6d Wrote: I'm familiar with this approach, actually, and there's much to recommend as well as dispute there, but this doesn't seem to have another to do with voting. Like I said before, if the theory you articulate is true, are you saying that by not voting you materially change your status as "security"? Also, since voting is secret, we're talking about being registered to vote, not the act of actually casting a vote, right?
I appreciate your response, Scott! I tend to regard contracts entered into by the USG as about as valid as those entered into by the mafia, so while the theory doesn't really appeal to me, I appreciate that you've attempted to make a coherent case for me.
If you don't vote for three years (by my middle-aged recollection), your registration goes inactive and the contract goes away. You can check with your county to determine this for sure (whether it went inactive). This is only one of the contracts that makes you a security instrument, but I'll gladly take getting one of them removed.
Yes they are like making contracts with the mafia, or selling your soul to the devil, so to speak. The creation tends to honor "consent" though, whether such consent was deceptive or not. Further, I would say that being a minion in a fourth density negative society is all about willful denial. Just sayin'...
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - JerryF - 11-04-2016
Thanks, Diana, for posting the candidate comparison table.
Voting and politics definitely offer a challenge to “see the love in the moment.”
I like the concept of proportional representation in legislatures based on the percentage of votes received by each party instead of the American winner-take-all system of voting. The proportional system theoretically gives a voice in government to minority viewpoints and aids in forming alternative coalitions.
A few years ago I took an online course on democracy (Democratic Development) through Coursera. At the online class forum a few of us expressed our belief that despite the cosmetic differences and squabbles between the Democratic and Republican parties, the U.S. is essentially a one-party state.
Four policies that both branches of the party agree on:
1. Continual warfare (including promoting war by arming Saudi Arabia, Israel, and rebels)
2. Trash the Constitution
3. Protect the autonomy of global corporations
4. Protect the federal reserve banking system
An individual’s fulfillment and happiness in life are dependent mainly on their daily personal choices, not on the decrees of distant politicians.
“Our democracy is but a name. We vote? What does that mean? It means that we choose between two bodies of real, though not avowed, autocrats. We choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.” (Helen Keller)
Jerry
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - Diana - 11-04-2016
I actually think the whole political system and everything about it (among other systems) needs to change. I have the tendency to look very far ahead (from a corrupt and suffering world to an enlightened one). But in doing so, I can lay out an imaginary trajectory and look at the direction I might take to hold my own path in place, and in doing so, a result is to contribute to the general path of this collective existence.
I try to strike a balance between wishing things were different and not obstructing free will. I must admit to a certain amount of detachment from the drama here. What I don't want to do is complain about something while not trying to raise my own vibration of negative response. The (US) government is corrupted. In order to stay on my chosen path, it feels better to me to put my voice into a vote (even though I have no illusions that it actually counts to elect someone—and I explained previously in what way I do think it counts), rather than just rail against an unfair system. The bottom line is not about the drama here, rather is about staying in higher consciousness. So while I am no activist, ignoring the situation entirely is not a good choice for me. For instance, there are some things about the government which are very difficult to ignore and not have negative feelings about: taxes; war.
When I am able, I try to vote for local propositions as well. For instance, I voted to allow gay marriage in Arizona.
If there was no candidate at all outside of the two-party iron-clad system who lined up with my general feelings on the issues I would write in Mickey Mouse if I had to, which I was ready to do this time. At least I will have taken action that carried the vibration of non-acceptance of the way things are now.
So for me, it's really about me and what I "put out there" to the whole. There is, for me, a niggling feeling when I have negative feelings about something and continue to harbor them (taxes; war). I have this issue with cruelty to animals. A couple of years ago I think it was Icaro, and Aion who came up with the visualization for miserable horses—to imagine a tree and a foal with them. This was a great idea for me because I was putting out such sad and sometimes hateful (at humans who treat animals this way) vibes, but after I had this visualization to replace that reaction in me I was able to transform those negative feelings. I do it to this day. Indirectly and infinitesimally I will have affected the horses' plight I do hope, but the main idea was to transmute what I was putting out there.
As an aside regarding miserable horses, I did contact the sheriff's office to see what could be done. It was disappointing to discover that the law provides almost no protection. Owners aren't required to have shade (even in the Arizona desert), give them any exercise (some don't ride them ever, the horses just stand in dirt all day hanging their heads), or even enough space for them to move around—only that they get adequate calories to survive.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - ScottK - 11-04-2016
(11-04-2016, 01:43 PM)Diana Wrote: I try to strike a balance between wishing things were different and not obstructing free will.
This is actually what those at the highest levels (above the negative elite families) have to wrestle with, from my understanding. Given this free will business, you could never have anyone come in and make the world better all at once. Real solutions will be bottom-up rather than top-down.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - Nía - 11-05-2016
A third prayer/meditation event concerning the elections:
- November 5: Prayers for the USA ~ Awakening the Heart and Soul of America
Saturday, Nov. 5th, 12PM Pacific US (PST)
Join us for a webinar featuring James Twyman, Rev. Wendy Craig-Purcell, Grandmother Silverstar and others as we energetically prepare for the US general election. Come add your intentions and prayers for a conscious evolution next week. This event is sponsored by the World Peace Prayer Society. To register for the free webinar CLICK HERE.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - herald - 11-05-2016
.
![[Image: horse-in-sun.jpg]](https://amazinganimalphotos.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/horse-in-sun.jpg)
I am saddened by the level of discourse on this topic. I think that in almost all cases in this country the democrat is the more benevolent candidate, and it is an honor/duty
to be an informed voter in The United States of America.
The “chart” above is an unfair comparison, as I pointed out, between the platform of a major party candidate and the alternates (fringe). No one addressed this point.
We talked about our dissatisfaction with our government, and even our wish to not be associated with it. I call this fantasizing,
however, I am not a journalist. I am willing to take time to consider the possibility that I could be wrong. I wouldn’t consider posting
on this subject if I had not seriously researched the issues from both sides. One look, for example, just at information
on Arizona republican’s stances on animal protection would give me the shudders, and I’m not even a “furryhugger”.
Its not just Arizona, and it’s not just animal rights.
Tom Delay former republican speaker of the House, admittedly, got into Texas politics for one reason: to stop anti-pesticide legislation from passing.
He avoided all kinds of mud-slinging because he only used his power for this one issue in the legislature. (but that doesn’t mean that ”Hot Tub Tom”
didn’t enjoy his position of authority). We can only make assumptions as to why he was also called “The Hammer”, surely though, it was not because
of the famous song about helping humankind - that song was written and performed by flaming liberals.
Anyways, he used a supercomputer to create a version of republican Gerrymandering that Jackson Pollock himself would have to respect.
Then he, oh yeah… got busted for pedophila. Oops! my bad -that was the other republican speaker, well it was fraud or something.
But “what about Pelosi she’s just as bad, right?"
Yes, Grima, she is evil, if you hate these laws she championed…
Energy legislation which raised vehicle fuel efficiency standards and provided incentives for renewable energy (the US is by far the worst). Promoted high‐tech jobs, expanded math and science education, research and innovation. Provided economic aid to 130 million American middle class families during difficult (Bush) times. Largest expansion of college aid in six decades, cutting loan rates in half and increasing Pell Grants. First minimum wage increase in 10 years. Ethics reform. Many other valuable works of bipartisan legislation were vetoed by George Bush - so, I won’t bore you.
Lets move onto the accomplishments of the Boehner House: (Did you blink?)
Politics is an area of discussion that reveals how much an individual is able to empathize with their fellow citizens, and especially the least among them.
So I find it a waste throw away one's opportunity to voice opinion on:
Animal rights, teachers rights, minority rights, women’s rights, children rights, disabled persons rights, workers rights, students rights, immigrants rights, citizens rights, etc.
but not voting is in no way a “vote for the stronger candidate” it is a vote for apathy and defeat.
This time it is about the Supreme Court. The weakest branch of our democracy. In this case, the self-serving republicans would rather destroy the football than allow points to go up on the side of the democrats.
Fun fact: most Americans are democrats by far, but because republican Gerrymandering the House of Reps. is easy to win - and voter suppression is very big here in the U.S. Plus,Two Dakotas get four Senators and California gets two, like that’s fair.
Anyways, where were we ? Oh yeah, the republican darling “Citizens United” for endless campaign donations: Guaranteed for life!
Boo Hoo! she did the thing with the email… (meanwhile archangel Trump with his armor of private life is about to set human rights back 50 years if the Russian Hackers have anything to say about it).
What kind of justice would you wish upon a future America?... Just in case this abstinence approach doesn't work out.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - Diana - 11-05-2016
(11-05-2016, 01:02 PM)herald Wrote: The “chart” above is an unfair comparison, as I pointed out, between the platform of a major party candidate and the alternates (fringe). No one addressed this point.
Fair enough. I posted it for quick information for those who do not research the election. And, though it may not seem fair because it's so simple, isn't this at the heart of "politics"—complicating, distracting, qualifying and justification that muddies the whole business?
From what you have written is it fair to say you are inclined toward the democratic party and support Hillary Clinton?
If so, and since you seem very informed, why do you support her?
I have democratic friends and know what they say, but I would like to hear your perspective.
Voting is Tuesday.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - herald - 11-05-2016
.
Diana,
I appreciate that you can overlook the sarcasm in my posts.
I always am happy to say what I think, and try to be succinct.
8 Reasons to vote for Secretary Clinton:
To communicate with otherselves in our social complex called the USA that:
We stand for electing a woman to be our spokesperson as our country shamefully lags behind in electing females to national offices.
We stand for the health and welfare of our children.
We demand a decent living wage and basic health insurance that is not dependent on corporations to dole about to privileged employees.
We stand for the rights of people who love each other and are committed to their earthly co-existance to have the same basic rights as heterosexual married couples.
We will tirelessly and courageously pursue all diplomatic strategies towards peace with our adversaries and never use our nuclear threat in a flippant or bellicose manner.
We will tell the word that the USA can hold together this great gift of democracy with a proper Supreme Court that would never allow women or their health providers to be to be punished for making an unpopular reproductive decision.
We might possibly begin the process of repairing our broken financial system. (Trump is only Trump, the elephant he is riding is much bigger than he even appears to be, Clinton is kicking alongside Sanders, Warren, etc.).
If a Republican picks the next Supreme Court Justice, Gerrymandering and vote buying might as well be carved into the floor of the Capitol -if you know what i mean…
Thanks for the question.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - Diana - 11-05-2016
Just some counterpoints below. I'm not trying to argue, rather, I'm just discussing and I don't pretend to be an expert on the issues.
(11-05-2016, 03:50 PM)herald Wrote: 8 Reasons to vote for Secretary Clinton:
To communicate with otherselves in our social complex called the USA that:
We stand for electing a woman to be our spokesperson and that our country shamefully lags behind in electing females to national offices.
While this is a good reason to "break the glass ceiling" in general, and I agree this kind of change is important, it is not a reason to elect Clinton specifically.
(11-05-2016, 03:50 PM)herald Wrote: We stand for the health and welfare of our children.
Could you elaborate on what that means from Clinton's point of view? I'm not sure what you refer to.
(11-05-2016, 03:50 PM)herald Wrote: We demand a decent living wage and basic health insurance that is not dependent on a corporations to dole about to privileged employees.
As far as I can tell Obamacare (or whatever the official term is) is not benefitting the public. I can see where it is benefitting the medical system and insurance companies.
Living wage is complicated in my opinion. It involves a global perspective and many layers of concern. I don't really have a solid opinion on that because I don't have any idea how to take even a first step toward respect for all workers and business owners. I do like the idea of an EOC (Employee Owned Company). There is polarization between employers and employees and therein lies misunderstanding. Employees often think "the boss" is their enemy and making all the money. While this is sometimes true (the money, not the enemy), it is often the business owner making sacrifices. Part of that is because it's so expensive just to have a business with taxes and licenses, etc. It's a fallacy that America is for small business.
(11-05-2016, 03:50 PM)herald Wrote: We stand for the rights of people who love each other and are committed to their earthly co-existance to have the same basic rights as heterosexual married couples.
What about Clinton's previous views on same-sex marriage? Was she just trying to placate the Christian right? f so,
Quote:Clinton came out in support of same-sex marriage in 2013 after more than a decade of opposing it. But her views are particularly in the spotlight now that she is a presidential candidate.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/
(11-05-2016, 03:50 PM)herald Wrote: We will tirelessly and courageously pursue all diplomatic strategies towards peace with our adversaries and never use our nuclear threat in a flippant or bellicose manner.
That seems like a candle in the wind to me. I'd like to think it was true, but why do we use a nuclear threat at all to begin with? Why aren't we spending money on defense instead of offense. One does not equal the other. I don't believe we aren't tech-savvy enough to come up with a defense against attack other than the ridiculous way we have handled it in the last century, and for that matter, going back millennia.
(11-05-2016, 03:50 PM)herald Wrote: We will tell the word that the USA can hold together this great gift of democracy with a proper Supreme Court that would never allow women or their health providers to be to be punished for making an unpopular reproductive decision.
The whole "health" industry—which is to say allopathic medicine, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies—exploits people unendingly. Let's start with that.
As far as abortion goes, I don't champion or not champion it. It's simply too far out of my paradigm to think what to do about it as it stands presently. The sentiment behind the Supreme Court getting involved, however, is worth discussing. It could be said to be the same sort of slavery Catholicism imposes on people that they can't use contraception. So to think that decision could be overturned is nonproductive and I think religion-based.
I would like to see more respect for all life—including the planet and all creatures on it. That we still have a death penalty is mind-blowing to me. As far as abortion, if we could just evolve as a species we wouldn't be in this quagmire of having to legislate things like freedom of choice for a woman and whether or not abortion is ethical and what stages it is.
(11-05-2016, 03:50 PM)herald Wrote: We might possibly begin the process of repairing our broken financial system. (Trump is only Trump, the elephant he is riding is much bigger than he even appears to be, Clinton is kicking alongside Sanders, Warren, etc.).
I seriously doubt that anyone in our current political system will be able to do that without full-on demand from the public, or until we evolve as a species.
Full-on demand would have to be action-oriented and not just complaining to the TV.(11-05-2016, 03:50 PM)herald Wrote: If a Republican picks the next Supreme Court Justice, Gerrymandering and vote buying might as well be carved into the floor of the Capitol -if you know what i mean…
I just don't understand how gerrymandering is gotten away with in the first place.
The whole US political system operates off of vote-buying. That's one reason I like the Green Party because they don't take lobbyist's money or super pacs.
We could start by not allowing hundreds of millions to be spent on campaigns.
Clinton so far: $1.3 BILLION!! spent on her campaign
Trump so far: $795 MILLION spent on his campaign
source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/campaign-finance/
I would love to take over $2 BILLION and use it to feed people who are starving for instance, rather than use it for advertising and marketing political candidates.
And a president should not be allowed 2 terms. The last year of the first 4 are spent on campaigning—how stupid is that? But to go over all the ridiculous details of our current corrupt political system is moot.
The system doesn't work. And I think a first baby step is to stop buying into the 2-party system.
RE: The presidential candidates on the issues at a glance - herald - 11-05-2016
Okay, lets break it down
Clinton = possible/probable female prez. Stein, not so much.
Clinton’s work for the welfare of children is literally too elaborate try starting with Children’s Defense Fund.
Obamacare is a misleading meme. The republican congress let Insurance company lobbyists take two years to write that bill - that was not Obama’s plan at all. The only reason he didn’t veto it is because more than half of all bankruptcies were occurring because of health care costs.
No, Hillary’s plan was Medicare For All, long before anyone on this forum ever heard of Bernie Sanders. Smart countries don’t make small business pay for health insurance.
Yes, placate, but the average American at the time… and see how she moves progressively. The movement must also be with the people. Don has placated to the controlling side.
Don is the candidate who says he doesn’t care if other countries get nuclear weapons. In his own words, he “loves war”. Clinton is the real negotiator, he is the cheater, there are 1200 lawsuits against him.
Of course baby steps, such as the ones outlined by senators Warren and Sanders. Green party is good for Europe, but here, too many people miss the point that the corporate powers manipulate the US by buying a handful of Gerrymandered congressional seats and forcing the polite rules of 60 Senate votes to pass a bill.
We need the least damaged party to stand up and say "that's enough". We might have a chance. Every vote shows the Party of Control that we want to re-humanize America and enjoy some of the freedoms that other first world countries have long secured. Then we can go “green” or “socialist” or whatever else. Check out the film “Where to Invade Next".