Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Ouze wrote: "why won't hillary disavow this guy???"
(she does almost immediately)
I guess a full day counts as almost immediately in politics but it's a lifetime in the Twitter-verse. I doubt this was put in front of a focus group but I wonder if the delay had more to do with deciding "should we ignore this and hope it fades away" versus "should we comment and possibly give the story legs".
Boy, you must have howled when it took Donald Trump 5 days to disavow David Duke, huh?
Please don't assume what I feel about Trump. At the time, I felt he should have disavowed Duke on the spot. Why didn't he? Hell if I know. In the end, I doubt either of these things will have any effect on a swing voters' decision in November. The news lifecycle on social media is louder than anywhere else but it is usually a lot shorter, too. I expect talk radio to have this into their roster for Wednesday but I'll be surprised if anybody is still talking about this come the weekend.
d-usa wrote: Well, I'm sure the US would never survive having a president with a physical or mental handicap.
We survived James Madison so I think we can survive either Clinton or Trump. I just wish one of these parties would give us someone who can actually be a good leader instead of these two.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 06:54:40
Prestor Jon wrote: It's not dishonest. Hillary Clinton gladly took money from the Saudi royal family...
The Saudis gave $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, back in the early 2000s, when the Foundation was first created to build Bill Clinton's presidential library. They have given almost nothing since, and gave nothing while Hillary Clinton was Sec. of State.
The Saudi's also gave the same amount to the foundation that built GHW Bush's library. That caused no contraversy, but apparently its different with Clinton because reasons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: I know Trump is low hanging fruit and I'm not suggesting we stop holding him accountable for every dumb thing that leaves his mouth, but I'd like to see someone not on the "right wing" holding Hillary to account for her stuff.
That's really falling in to the 'both sides' myth. By all means Clinton should be held to account, but the correct level of scrutiny and criticism should be relative to the scale of her mistakes and issues. When her mistakes and issues are a fraction of the size of Trump's, well then it is reasonable that criticism of Trump is far greater.
And it isn't as though there's been a shortage of effort to try and hold Clinton to account for something, anything. I don't think there will ever be another case of poor data security that gets national media attention for four years. And I cannot think of another terror attack with four US deaths that had nine congressional committees investigating over 3.5 years. The effort to delve in to any kind of Clinton scandal is there. What's lacking is the meat and veg of an actual scandal that would make a meaningful impact on her suitability for the presidency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I mean... you even stated a few months ago that 'this has legs'.
Nepotism is less a scandal and more the standard operating procedure for US politics. Did you see how many diplomatic posts during the Obama administration went to Obama fundraisers? There was a soap opera producer who was appointed as Hungarian diplomat, and McCain just grilled her. Just question after question, and the lady was just sitting there saying "I don't know anything about this please just let me go". If you've ever been in a job interview and asked a question you didn't understand, you kind of feel bad for the lady. But she was also not the only fundraiser appointed by Obama.
Bush's office was no different. Cheney's daughter and her husband were both given senior appointments (she was Deputy Assistant Sec of State, the kind of role that is meant to go to people with a life of experience in foreign affairs). Colin Powell's kid was made chairman of the FCC.
This is, of course, not good. It would be a major improvement in US governance if the practice was stamped out. But it is a very strange thing to criticise Clinton and only Clinton for.
Did I really say that had legs? I remember making that comment about the IRS scandal, because I got conned on the original right wing take on the issue (only conservative groups have been questioned). But I don't know what take on this appointment would have made me think it was a meaningful story.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 08:05:21
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
skyth wrote: So you continue to ignore my point that there is no proof that the money is intended to support terrorism?
Could it be that donating to the local churchs is so ingrained in the culture that they do that and if they didn't they would face a revolution with a worse outcome?
The whole 'funding terrorists' is a dishonest argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And quite frankly, terrirists would be supporting a Trump presidency. Predident Trump would be one of the best recruiting tools they could ask for...
No it is nothing like donating to a local church. The Saudi family/monarchy spends millions of dollars deliberately spreading Wahhabism and Salafism, building madrassas that preach it and funding the support network that creates and perpetuates Islamic terrorism around the world. It's not members of the general populace tossing a couple of bucks into the collection plate on Sundays. This is an established fact. The evidence is in the 9/11 Comission Report, it's in the background of the known terrorist leaders and clerics, we know where they're from, the schools they attended the mosques they go to, we know who paid to build the mosques and schools who pays the clerics and let's them preach openly for a fundamentalist sect that encourages violence and terrorism. It's the same system that created Osama bin Laden. Look at the leaders of the Islamic terrorist groups in North Africa, Somalia, Indonesia and the Middle East and you'll find that they're wahhabistsband Salafists who received their religious indoctrination from the schools, mosques and clerics funded by the Saudis. The monarchy is knowingly and willing funding the spread of a fundamentalist sect of Islam whose purpose is creating zealots that are violently opposed to any other form of Islam or religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists but the zealous fundamentalist ones that are, those are the Wahabbists and Salafists, that sect and terrorism are inseparable and the Saudi monarchy has been supporting them since their inception.
So totally ignore what I said and keep on regurgitating the same irrelevant thing that doesn't even address my point.
Besides, this is like complaining that Chik-fil-a donated money to Trump and they support Christian groups in Africa trying to kill homosexuals, so Trump is trying to kill homosexuals. There is no real connection between supporting terrorists and supporting Clinton. All this is is a continuation of overblown stories with little basis in reality that certain people have been trying to smear Clinton with for the last 20 some years.
No this is you choosing to ignore the fact that the Clintons are willing to take money from a monarchy that funds terrorists and their support network that creates more terrorists and terrorism. You know that terrorists are created by clerics and fundamentalists that go to areas with impoverished and disillusioned young people and radicalize them. Those clerics and the madrassas and mosques they build are funded by the Saudi monarchy. The Saudis are not people our leaders should be getting in bed with. There is already documented evidence of Hillary using her SecState position to help the Saudis after taking millions of dollars from them and evidence of Clinton staffers getting big money contracts for their businesses from the Saudis. There is more evidence and stronger evidence of the Clintons being tied to the Saudis than there is of Trump being tied to Putin.
This is not conspiracy theories or partisan smear campaigns this is factual provable connections. The same dangerous corrupting relationship that the Bushes started with the Saudis was picked up and continued by the Clintons then Bush again then Obama and now we'll have Clinton again. This is what makes Clinton a bad candidate. She's more of the same old bad politics. Clinton gives us more partisanship more polarization more obstructionism in congress more short sighted alliances more pandering more platitudes hiding problems more evasive answers and more solutions that are just spin doctoring. Clinton is more status quo with all of our current problems continuing to snowball and be ignored for the sake of political gamesmanship.
But hey she's better than a narcissistic self promoting lying bigot so we should all just ignore her glaring flaws hold our noses and vote for her because we should totally keep doing what we've been doing while expecting to get a radically different result.
And you still ignore my point and repeat the same old garbage. How nice.
Peregrine wrote: Yeah, it's kind of remarkable how bad those "biggest names" were (and still are).
Yep. As I've said a bunch of times, Cruz came second in that election. Between the two of them you have about 70% of the Republican primary vote.
Kasich/Bush/Rubio - I agree, there was a real 'who cares' factor about each of them. Maybe it's because they all had personal and campaign failings, or maybe it's because each of them was a trying to be a copy of a copy of a copy of Reagan. Whatever it was voters didn't care for it.
I think the real story though was the sheer number of crazies on the fringes. Carson is totally fething bonkers, and he still commands a real audience within the base. This tells me that the culture that's more and more the voters in the Republican party just don't care about boring stuff like effectively managing the country. It's about a sending a message about whatever stupid cause they believe in - want to prove you're a true Christian then Carson is your man, want to stick it to Muslims and political correctness then you vote Trump, if you worship at the shrine of business then you pick Fiorina. It just didn't matter that none of these people had the slightest clue about what they would actually do in government.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: But that other 11% is spent on getting people to kick puppies!
And if it wasn't, we can just make accusations that it was, which is practically the same thing.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 08:27:10
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Yeah, I remember when Drudge tried to make the "she had a TBI" thing happen a few years ago unsuccessfully, but hey, try again till it sticks, right?
I just love that it's Pharmabro Shkrelli elbowing in on the Trump bandwagon. It's only a matter of time now before Zimmerman joins Team Trump in a big way. You know it to be true.
Comments from a Harris County Commissioner aren't sitting well with some people.
Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Radack recently said some people want to get flooded so they can cash in, and he's not backing down from his comments.
Radack says this was one minute of a 90-minute community meeting in Cypress last Thursday night. However, to the audience of flood victims, it didn't go over well.
"I had about 3 to 4 inches in my house," said Terry Montgomery, who said cleaning up his Memorial area home after it flooded in 2009 was anything but easy.
"We had to move out for about three months so they could rebuild it," he said.
After hearing what Radack said at a recent community meeting, "We obviously didn't enjoy flooding," Montgomery said.
"Frankly, over the years, and the many years I've been doing this... they frankly enjoy floods. They'd like to see a flood about every 7 years, because they want new cars, they want their homes redone," Radack said at the meeting.
"I know flooding is tragic, I've dealt with it for more than two decades," he told KHOU 11 News when he sat down for an interview.
Radack says he was talking about fraud and telling the truth.
"There are people who take advantage of FEMA money and then there are people who tragically need the FEMA money, but they don't have the insurance," Radack said.
"That's not the way it is for most people," said Cynthia Neely, who is a board member with Residents Against Flooding.
She recorded the video at the meeting.
"A leader should not talk like that to people who are hurting," Neely said.
People like Montgomery, who, after all these years, are interested not just in talk, but in action.
"We don't like our properties being the retention area for the neighborhood," Montgomery said.
Radack says in the last year, he's had less than a dozen calls on flooding. He was surprised this was getting so much attention but says he welcomes the discussion.
..welll it's a bold strategy.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
d-usa wrote: It's always amazing how the people that argue on this very forum that the reason we have the 2nd is to stop tyrants are now able to argue that "there is a way to stop an elected president from appointing liberal judges, the 2nd" doesn't mean what they have been arguing.
Remember, openly talking about killing politicians you don't like gets you in trouble with the police. You have to be polite and classy and only offer the vaguest hints about the subject, it's just crude and tasteless to hint too strongly about what that survival bunker full of AR-15s is meant to be used for. It's the difference between a light flirty kiss* and dropping your pants in public and yelling "COME AND GET IT".
*With your AR-15 if you want, we won't judge.
Actually its highly legal except for certain exemptions-mostly concerning the President. If I say Governor Bob should be wacked the Bill of Rights says the PoPo can F off. Otherwise it typically requires the usual-is it immediate, specific, and the person has the ability?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: I remember someone saying that there really weren't any Hillary supporters posting in this thread yet it seems many people are posting exclusively anti-Trump posts. Except for myself, Whembly, and one or two others, it is rare to see an anti-Hillary post.
I know a great many people love dog piling on Whembly but can we have some discussion about qualifications and failings of some other candidate in the race that isn't Trump? Just for a couple of pages or so?
I'm asking for too much, aren't I?
Hey I've posted anti everything. This is a lefty forum with some true believers. Thats ok. I'm voting for the Toker. I'm just waiting for my absentee ballot and I can lord it over you lazy bones type peoples.
Christ, there really are people who would defend Trump calling for people to use guns to oppose Hillary if he loses the election.
I guess Trump was right when he said he could should someone and he'd still have support. Good luck America.
Not seeing anyone defending that. Frankly I think thats more likely if Trump wins.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 11:31:36
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Breotan wrote: I remember someone saying that there really weren't any Hillary supporters posting in this thread yet it seems many people are posting exclusively anti-Trump posts. Except for myself, Whembly, and one or two others, it is rare to see an anti-Hillary post.
I know a great many people love dog piling on Whembly but can we have some discussion about qualifications and failings of some other candidate in the race that isn't Trump? Just for a couple of pages or so?
I'm asking for too much, aren't I?
Hey I've posted anti everything. This is a lefty forum with some true believers. Thats ok. I'm voting for the Toker. I'm just waiting for my absentee ballot and I can lord it over you lazy bones type peoples.
Johnson 2016, it'll be a High High!
Issues of Johnson's sobriety aside, I certainly hope he makes the debates. There is already talk that he could very well win Utah.
I think there's a serious hunger for a third option as Republicans wake up to the hangover of the primaries and their leadership begin to bail on Trump. My guess is the Libertarians could pull down 15+% of the popular vote, if they can get into the debates, that is.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 12:32:54
Ouze wrote: Everyone that's not a neocon is a leftie, I guess.
"You're all leftist nattering nabobs to me"
-Dick "Baby Face" Nixon
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
d-usa wrote: Well, I'm sure the US would never survive having a president with a physical or mental handicap.
We survived James Madison so I think we can survive either Clinton or Trump. I just wish one of these parties would give us someone who can actually be a good leader instead of these two.
Don't forget FDR. But, i am reminded of a line from the movie The American President: "if there were a tv in every household 50 years ago, this country does not elect a man in a wheelchair." (Not an exact quote)
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
skyth wrote: So you continue to ignore my point that there is no proof that the money is intended to support terrorism?
Could it be that donating to the local churchs is so ingrained in the culture that they do that and if they didn't they would face a revolution with a worse outcome?
The whole 'funding terrorists' is a dishonest argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And quite frankly, terrirists would be supporting a Trump presidency. Predident Trump would be one of the best recruiting tools they could ask for...
No it is nothing like donating to a local church. The Saudi family/monarchy spends millions of dollars deliberately spreading Wahhabism and Salafism, building madrassas that preach it and funding the support network that creates and perpetuates Islamic terrorism around the world. It's not members of the general populace tossing a couple of bucks into the collection plate on Sundays. This is an established fact. The evidence is in the 9/11 Comission Report, it's in the background of the known terrorist leaders and clerics, we know where they're from, the schools they attended the mosques they go to, we know who paid to build the mosques and schools who pays the clerics and let's them preach openly for a fundamentalist sect that encourages violence and terrorism. It's the same system that created Osama bin Laden. Look at the leaders of the Islamic terrorist groups in North Africa, Somalia, Indonesia and the Middle East and you'll find that they're wahhabistsband Salafists who received their religious indoctrination from the schools, mosques and clerics funded by the Saudis. The monarchy is knowingly and willing funding the spread of a fundamentalist sect of Islam whose purpose is creating zealots that are violently opposed to any other form of Islam or religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists but the zealous fundamentalist ones that are, those are the Wahabbists and Salafists, that sect and terrorism are inseparable and the Saudi monarchy has been supporting them since their inception.
So totally ignore what I said and keep on regurgitating the same irrelevant thing that doesn't even address my point.
Besides, this is like complaining that Chik-fil-a donated money to Trump and they support Christian groups in Africa trying to kill homosexuals, so Trump is trying to kill homosexuals. There is no real connection between supporting terrorists and supporting Clinton. All this is is a continuation of overblown stories with little basis in reality that certain people have been trying to smear Clinton with for the last 20 some years.
No this is you choosing to ignore the fact that the Clintons are willing to take money from a monarchy that funds terrorists and their support network that creates more terrorists and terrorism. You know that terrorists are created by clerics and fundamentalists that go to areas with impoverished and disillusioned young people and radicalize them. Those clerics and the madrassas and mosques they build are funded by the Saudi monarchy. The Saudis are not people our leaders should be getting in bed with. There is already documented evidence of Hillary using her SecState position to help the Saudis after taking millions of dollars from them and evidence of Clinton staffers getting big money contracts for their businesses from the Saudis. There is more evidence and stronger evidence of the Clintons being tied to the Saudis than there is of Trump being tied to Putin.
This is not conspiracy theories or partisan smear campaigns this is factual provable connections. The same dangerous corrupting relationship that the Bushes started with the Saudis was picked up and continued by the Clintons then Bush again then Obama and now we'll have Clinton again. This is what makes Clinton a bad candidate. She's more of the same old bad politics. Clinton gives us more partisanship more polarization more obstructionism in congress more short sighted alliances more pandering more platitudes hiding problems more evasive answers and more solutions that are just spin doctoring. Clinton is more status quo with all of our current problems continuing to snowball and be ignored for the sake of political gamesmanship.
But hey she's better than a narcissistic self promoting lying bigot so we should all just ignore her glaring flaws hold our noses and vote for her because we should totally keep doing what we've been doing while expecting to get a radically different result.
And you still ignore my point and repeat the same old garbage. How nice.
Your "point" is blatantly false. The KSA monarchy knowingly and willingly supports Islamic terrorism. They deliberately propagate the same fundamentalist sect that we spend millions of dollars and thousands of lives fighting against. No politician should be taking money from the Saudi monarchy for any reason. It's not like Clinton was ignorant of what has been going on. She was a sitting senator from NY when the 9/11 commission report was done, it's not like she couldn't see the redacted pages that Obama released this year. It's not like she didn't understand the situation when Bill was president and was trying to kill Osama bin Laden. It's not like there's isn't ample evidence of Hillary showing KSA favoritism in a quid pro quo fashion as SecState after taking millions of dollars from the monarchy for their foundation. I can't understand why you are so unconcerned with Clinton continuing the same failed alliances and foreign policy that has directly led harm befalling our country and the world.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's not dishonest. Hillary Clinton gladly took money from the Saudi royal family...
The Saudis gave $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, back in the early 2000s, when the Foundation was first created to build Bill Clinton's presidential library. They have given almost nothing since, and gave nothing while Hillary Clinton was Sec. of State.
The Saudi's also gave the same amount to the foundation that built GHW Bush's library. That caused no contraversy, but apparently its different with Clinton because reasons
Yes, the Clintons took money from the Saudi royal family even after they knew of the monarchy's ties to the same Wahhabist and Salafist networks that actively support and create terrorism. It's not like Bill didn't know Osama bin Laden's background or where he came from, he was targeting ObL back when he was PotUS in the 90s. It's not like Hillary didn't know about the Saudi connection to the 9/11 attacks when she was a sitting senator for the state of NY. It's not like the Clintons and the Democrats never attacked the Bush administration or the GOP for their close ties to KSA and how it affected our energy policies and foreign policy in the ME. It's not like the problems with KSA and terrorism are new, they've been funding fundamentalism with oil money for decades.
I stated in my post that the Bush family started our short sighted relationship with KSA, I've never condoned our cozy relationship with KSA and other oppressive regimes in the ME. I don't think anyone could argue that either Bush41 or Bush43 practiced good foreign policy in the ME, there's decades of mismanagement of our foreign policy in the ME that has done nothing but come back to haunt us with unintended consequences and increased instability. There has been a lot of controversy over the ties between the Bush family and KSA, it just still doesn't get the level of MSM reporting that it should but these days none of the important issues do.
skyth wrote: So you continue to ignore my point that there is no proof that the money is intended to support terrorism?
Could it be that donating to the local churchs is so ingrained in the culture that they do that and if they didn't they would face a revolution with a worse outcome?
The whole 'funding terrorists' is a dishonest argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And quite frankly, terrirists would be supporting a Trump presidency. Predident Trump would be one of the best recruiting tools they could ask for...
No it is nothing like donating to a local church. The Saudi family/monarchy spends millions of dollars deliberately spreading Wahhabism and Salafism, building madrassas that preach it and funding the support network that creates and perpetuates Islamic terrorism around the world. It's not members of the general populace tossing a couple of bucks into the collection plate on Sundays. This is an established fact. The evidence is in the 9/11 Comission Report, it's in the background of the known terrorist leaders and clerics, we know where they're from, the schools they attended the mosques they go to, we know who paid to build the mosques and schools who pays the clerics and let's them preach openly for a fundamentalist sect that encourages violence and terrorism. It's the same system that created Osama bin Laden. Look at the leaders of the Islamic terrorist groups in North Africa, Somalia, Indonesia and the Middle East and you'll find that they're wahhabistsband Salafists who received their religious indoctrination from the schools, mosques and clerics funded by the Saudis. The monarchy is knowingly and willing funding the spread of a fundamentalist sect of Islam whose purpose is creating zealots that are violently opposed to any other form of Islam or religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists but the zealous fundamentalist ones that are, those are the Wahabbists and Salafists, that sect and terrorism are inseparable and the Saudi monarchy has been supporting them since their inception.
So totally ignore what I said and keep on regurgitating the same irrelevant thing that doesn't even address my point.
Besides, this is like complaining that Chik-fil-a donated money to Trump and they support Christian groups in Africa trying to kill homosexuals, so Trump is trying to kill homosexuals. There is no real connection between supporting terrorists and supporting Clinton. All this is is a continuation of overblown stories with little basis in reality that certain people have been trying to smear Clinton with for the last 20 some years.
No this is you choosing to ignore the fact that the Clintons are willing to take money from a monarchy that funds terrorists and their support network that creates more terrorists and terrorism. You know that terrorists are created by clerics and fundamentalists that go to areas with impoverished and disillusioned young people and radicalize them. Those clerics and the madrassas and mosques they build are funded by the Saudi monarchy. The Saudis are not people our leaders should be getting in bed with. There is already documented evidence of Hillary using her SecState position to help the Saudis after taking millions of dollars from them and evidence of Clinton staffers getting big money contracts for their businesses from the Saudis. There is more evidence and stronger evidence of the Clintons being tied to the Saudis than there is of Trump being tied to Putin.
This is not conspiracy theories or partisan smear campaigns this is factual provable connections. The same dangerous corrupting relationship that the Bushes started with the Saudis was picked up and continued by the Clintons then Bush again then Obama and now we'll have Clinton again. This is what makes Clinton a bad candidate. She's more of the same old bad politics. Clinton gives us more partisanship more polarization more obstructionism in congress more short sighted alliances more pandering more platitudes hiding problems more evasive answers and more solutions that are just spin doctoring. Clinton is more status quo with all of our current problems continuing to snowball and be ignored for the sake of political gamesmanship.
But hey she's better than a narcissistic self promoting lying bigot so we should all just ignore her glaring flaws hold our noses and vote for her because we should totally keep doing what we've been doing while expecting to get a radically different result.
Roberts and SCotUS made political corruption more prevalent and insidious with their decision in McCutcheon v FEC than the Clintons could ever do. How SCotUS could rule that massive political donations don't purchase corrupting influence on politicians and elections that undermines our democratic process is beyond me.
It's probably already been covered, but I awake to headlines of Trump calling for Clinton to be assassinated...
Is that not insurrection?
If I were Clinton, I'd be calling on the northern states to provide 75,000 volunteers to protect federal judges...
I've been looking for a historical comparison to this election and IMO it has to be 1964 - LBJ Vs. Goldwater.
In your heart you know he's right, in your guts you know he's nuts...
I fully expect Trump to win the old Confederate states, but I think the vast majority of voters are going to say, yeah Clinton, they'll probably be a scandal or two, and a few cruise missiles lobbed at the Middle East, but we can handle that, but Trump...
Hell no...
I can cheerfully predict a Clinton landslide in November that will be off the charts...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I fully expect Trump to win the old Confederate states
Not so fast. Iirc, Obama flipped Virginia and North Carolina from red to blue, and these states are very much in play for Clinton. And some polls have her close or leading in Georgia, which is very much in play for the Democrats this cycle.
And I believe Clinton is leading Florida as well, but that state of confusion is always anyone's guess.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/10 14:18:48
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's probably already been covered, but I awake to headlines of Trump calling for Clinton to be assassinated...
Is that not insurrection?
If I were Clinton, I'd be calling on the northern states to provide 75,000 volunteers to protect federal judges...
I've been looking for a historical comparison to this election and IMO it has to be 1964 - LBJ Vs. Goldwater.
In your heart you know he's right, in your guts you know he's nuts...
I fully expect Trump to win the old Confederate states, but I think the vast majority of voters are going to say, yeah Clinton, they'll probably be a scandal or two, and a few cruise missiles lobbed at the Middle East, but we can handle that, but Trump...
Hell no...
I can cheerfully predict a Clinton landslide in November that will be off the charts...
Trump won't win all of the old Confederate states. He definitely won't win Virginia and he's polling behind Clinton in Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina.
Ouze wrote: Everyone that's not a neocon is a leftie, I guess.
This is a thing. Conservatives have moved so far right, anything approaching the middle is Socialism and maybe Communism. Probably Communism. Any criticism is a sure sign of liberal bias. Even if you try to point out that such demand for ideological "purity" is ultimately self-defeating and isolating conservatives as extremists. It is hugely frustrating.
Things that will get you labeled as a liberal:
-Advocating religious tolerance for anything other than Christianity
-Pointing out that Christianity is not a persecuted group in the US
-Advocating any kind of government benefits (including VA)
-Advocating any kind of progressive tax that might require the upper echelons to pay more
-Stating that labor unions are not inherently evil
-Stating that corporations are not inherently good
-Having reservations about military expansionism
-Any kind of support for LGBT equality
-Any kind of concern over racism other than "reverse racism"
I fully expect Trump to win the old Confederate states
Not so fast. Iirc, Obama flipped Virginia and North Carolina from red to blue, and these states are very much in play for Clinton. And some polls have her close or leading in Georgia, which is very much in play for the Democrats this cycle.
And I believe Clinton is leading Florida as well, but that state of confusion is always anyone's guess.
NC really hasn't flipped. The only Democrat to win NC since 1980 was Obama in 2008 but then Romeny won the state in 2012.
Ouze wrote: Everyone that's not a neocon is a leftie, I guess.
This is a thing. Conservatives have moved so far right, anything approaching the middle is Socialism and maybe Communism. Probably Communism. Any criticism is a sure sign of liberal bias. Even if you try to point out that such demand for ideological "purity" is ultimately self-defeating and isolating conservatives as extremists. It is hugely frustrating.
Things that will get you labeled as a liberal:
-Advocating religious tolerance for anything other than Christianity
-Pointing out that Christianity is not a persecuted group in the US
-Advocating any kind of government benefits (including VA)
-Advocating any kind of progressive tax that might require the upper echelons to pay more
-Stating that labor unions are not inherently evil
-Stating that corporations are not inherently good
-Having reservations about military expansionism
-Any kind of support for LGBT equality
-Any kind of concern over racism other than "reverse racism"
Or say anything other than "hoax" when talking about climate change.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's not dishonest. Hillary Clinton gladly took money from the Saudi royal family...
whembly wrote: I mean... you even stated a few months ago that 'this has legs'.
Nepotism is less a scandal and more the standard operating procedure for US politics. Did you see how many diplomatic posts during the Obama administration went to Obama fundraisers? There was a soap opera producer who was appointed as Hungarian diplomat, and McCain just grilled her. Just question after question, and the lady was just sitting there saying "I don't know anything about this please just let me go". If you've ever been in a job interview and asked a question you didn't understand, you kind of feel bad for the lady. But she was also not the only fundraiser appointed by Obama.
Bush's office was no different. Cheney's daughter and her husband were both given senior appointments (she was Deputy Assistant Sec of State, the kind of role that is meant to go to people with a life of experience in foreign affairs). Colin Powell's kid was made chairman of the FCC.
This is, of course, not good. It would be a major improvement in US governance if the practice was stamped out. But it is a very strange thing to criticise Clinton and only Clinton for.
Did I really say that had legs? I remember making that comment about the IRS scandal, because I got conned on the original right wing take on the issue (only conservative groups have been questioned). But I don't know what take on this appointment would have made me think it was a meaningful story.
You didn't care for the IRS scandal at all... but, yes you said the Clinton foundation ordeal has "legs".
Dig deeper seb and check out this guy's investigation(he's the wallstreet analyst who blew the whistle on General Electric before its stock crashed in 2008):
Overall I consider the Clinton Foundation to be a charity fraud network. I base this conclusion on my review of extensive data about its operations including the activities of the Clinton family and their friends in Haiti, a nation that has suffered many disasters, both natural and manmade.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's probably already been covered, but I awake to headlines of Trump calling for Clinton to be assassinated...
The truth is, when he said "he meant for them to mobilize and vote", I believe him. I think he meant the people to whom the second amendment is important are generally republican, consistently get out and vote, and can mobilize strongly around a cause. I don't think it was the dog whistle it's getting described as. Just my 2 cents.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Ouze wrote: Everyone that's not a neocon is a leftie, I guess.
This is a thing. Conservatives have moved so far right, anything approaching the middle is Socialism and maybe Communism. Probably Communism. Any criticism is a sure sign of liberal bias. Even if you try to point out that such demand for ideological "purity" is ultimately self-defeating and isolating conservatives as extremists. It is hugely frustrating.
Things that will get you labeled as a liberal:
-Advocating religious tolerance for anything other than Christianity
-Pointing out that Christianity is not a persecuted group in the US
-Advocating any kind of government benefits (including VA)
-Advocating any kind of progressive tax that might require the upper echelons to pay more
-Stating that labor unions are not inherently evil
-Stating that corporations are not inherently good
-Having reservations about military expansionism
-Any kind of support for LGBT equality
-Any kind of concern over racism other than "reverse racism"
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: It's probably already been covered, but I awake to headlines of Trump calling for Clinton to be assassinated...
The truth is, when he said "he meant for them to mobilize and vote", I believe him. I think he meant the people to whom the second amendment is important are generally republican, consistently get out and vote, and can mobilize strongly around a cause. I don't think it was the dog whistle it's getting described as. Just my 2 cents.
That doesn't really work when he was talking about how only the 2nd amendment people could stop her appointing judges though. Her appointing judges relies on her already being in office.
Unless he is proposing that the 2A voters get republicans into congress and then block any appointees for the next four years, which is possible but also goddamn idiotic.
Mind you, we'll see whether the republicans in the house go back on their "It's up to the next president to decide" rhetoric when they lose.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/10 14:44:15
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
