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.

 sebster wrote:

I think the comparison to Hillary Clinton's own email scandal is quite telling.

It's also instructive, for certain elements of the electorate. One of the arguments I see floated amounts to "Hillary couldn't satisfy Bill, how can she run a country." Which is blatantly sexist, but also plays into traditional marriage roles, and the notion that monogamy is ideal.

Whereas the real truth is that Bill's libido was so rampant he shagged Hillary into the ground then sent looking for more conquests. The sheer force of his animal spirits is what made him a good president.

It's funny how such a big deal is made about Bill Clinton's activities, when they're nothing compared to the stories about LBJ.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It's funny how such a big deal is made about Bill Clinton's activities, when they're nothing compared to the stories about LBJ.

Dick whip McGee? Yeah, if even half the stories are true he puts Bill to shame; Weiner too.

 dogma wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It's funny how such a big deal is made about Bill Clinton's activities, when they're nothing compared to the stories about LBJ.

Dick whip McGee? Yeah, if even half the stories are true he puts Bill to shame; Weiner too.

What about Kennedy? Didn't he get jiggy with Marilyn Monroe?

Lets just say LBJ was well known for flashing what he had in his pants, and peeing in public. Some of our former presidents have actually been quite crazy XD

https://medium.com/@wilw/that-clinton-scandal-the-press-desperately-wants-exists-but-its-actually-about-trump-6d4291edc324?tse_id=INF_655e7bb0736911e690605f8c08864990#.cv8lbqe2l

Trump doing the 'same' thing that the Clinton Foundation is accused of but very blatant...but funny how you don't hear about it.

 skyth wrote:
https://medium.com/@wilw/that-clinton-scandal-the-press-desperately-wants-exists-but-its-actually-about-trump-6d4291edc324?tse_id=INF_655e7bb0736911e690605f8c08864990#.cv8lbqe2l

Trump doing the 'same' thing that the Clinton Foundation is accused of but very blatant...but funny how you don't hear about it.

Wesley Crusher gets it spot on, here.

He redeems himself little by little everyday

If I understand the concept, the "meeja" is pounding on Clinton while failing to cover more obviously worse stories about Trump because Trump is such a thoroughly dismal candidate anyway that to tell the whole truth about him would completely ruin the "two horse race" narrative the "meeja" want for the election.

I don't buy it, myself. The stuff Trump has come up with so far, without this bribe case, has thoroughly exposed him as a vomitous mass, and hasn't done anything to affect his core support, who clearly will lap up the most blatant contradictions and lies he says providing they are anti-Mexican, etc.

Furthermore, the "meeja" is thoroughly liberal dominated. Why would they cover up these allegations when they could kick Trump into touch straight away? (Excepting my previous point, of course.)

 skyth wrote:
https://medium.com/@wilw/that-clinton-scandal-the-press-desperately-wants-exists-but-its-actually-about-trump-6d4291edc324?tse_id=INF_655e7bb0736911e690605f8c08864990#.cv8lbqe2l

Trump doing the 'same' thing that the Clinton Foundation is accused of but very blatant...but funny how you don't hear about it.

So, if you're saying this is "bad"...

Then, Clinton also did a "bad" thing.

Vote for Johnson/Stein/McMullin then!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If I understand the concept, the "meeja" is pounding on Clinton while failing to cover more obviously worse stories about Trump because Trump is such a thoroughly dismal candidate anyway that to tell the whole truth about him would completely ruin the "two horse race" narrative the "meeja" want for the election.

I don't buy it, myself. The stuff Trump has come up with so far, without this bribe case, has thoroughly exposed him as a vomitous mass, and hasn't done anything to affect his core support, who clearly will lap up the most blatant contradictions and lies he says providing they are anti-Mexican, etc.

Furthermore, the "meeja" is thoroughly liberal dominated. Why would they cover up these allegations when they could kick Trump into touch straight away? (Excepting my previous point, of course.)

Um... Trump has been getting hammered here.

Everytime he opens his mouth, vomit spews.

Yes, the old guard media is covering Clinton's problems too... but, much of it is over "Republican over reach" or "but, the other guys did it too!!".

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
https://medium.com/@wilw/that-clinton-scandal-the-press-desperately-wants-exists-but-its-actually-about-trump-6d4291edc324?tse_id=INF_655e7bb0736911e690605f8c08864990#.cv8lbqe2l

Trump doing the 'same' thing that the Clinton Foundation is accused of but very blatant...but funny how you don't hear about it.

So, if you're saying this is "bad"...

Then, Clinton also did a "bad" thing.

Vote for Johnson/Stein/McMullin then!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If I understand the concept, the "meeja" is pounding on Clinton while failing to cover more obviously worse stories about Trump because Trump is such a thoroughly dismal candidate anyway that to tell the whole truth about him would completely ruin the "two horse race" narrative the "meeja" want for the election.

I don't buy it, myself. The stuff Trump has come up with so far, without this bribe case, has thoroughly exposed him as a vomitous mass, and hasn't done anything to affect his core support, who clearly will lap up the most blatant contradictions and lies he says providing they are anti-Mexican, etc.

Furthermore, the "meeja" is thoroughly liberal dominated. Why would they cover up these allegations when they could kick Trump into touch straight away? (Excepting my previous point, of course.)

Um... Trump has been getting hammered here.

Everytime he opens his mouth, vomit spews.

Yes, the old guard media is covering Clinton's problems too... but, much of it is over "Republican over reach" or "but, the other guys did it too!!".

"same" ≠ same

I'm going for Stein. There's no way she'll be able to accomplish half of her ideas, but moving only partially towards all of them would improve the country considerably more than completely achieving her objectives anyways. I appreciate that Johnson has a higher chance of hitting 15% on the polls, but the whole point of third party is not having to vote for anyone but the person you think will do the most good for the country. Adding Libertarians to the debate will improve it, true (I half expect to hear Trump tell Clinton to go back to Mexico, or you're fired)- but I disagree with most of their platform.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I'm going for Stein. There's no way she'll be able to accomplish half of her ideas, but moving only partially towards all of them would improve the country considerably more than completely achieving her objectives anyways. I appreciate that Johnson has a higher chance of hitting 15% on the polls, but the whole point of third party is not having to vote for anyone but the person you think will do the most good for the country. Adding Libertarians to the debate will improve it, true (I half expect to hear Trump tell Clinton to go back to Mexico, or you're fired)- but I disagree with most of their platform.

Ah yes Jill "Lets ban 20 percent of our energy output and ban GMOs sending us back to the times of famine and starvation" Stein

Oh, quite true, some of her policies are unrealistic if realized fully. But attempting those things would lead to us reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and tighter restrictions on GMOs.

I'm far more interested in her ideas for reforming campaign finance and proportional representation of voters. That would have a lasting and beneficial effect on politics.

Much like President Obama's push for universal healthcare created Obamacare.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I'm going for Stein. There's no way she'll be able to accomplish half of her ideas, but moving only partially towards all of them would improve the country considerably more than completely achieving her objectives anyways. I appreciate that Johnson has a higher chance of hitting 15% on the polls, but the whole point of third party is not having to vote for anyone but the person you think will do the most good for the country. Adding Libertarians to the debate will improve it, true (I half expect to hear Trump tell Clinton to go back to Mexico, or you're fired)- but I disagree with most of their platform.

Ah yes Jill "Lets ban 20 percent of our energy output and ban GMOs sending us back to the times of famine and starvation" Stein

I find anti-GMO so baffling;



That's (left) what corn looked like before domesticization. Humans have been engaging in genetic engineer for thousands of years. Where else would we achieve such wonderful variety of stubby legged long bodied and floppy eared dogs?

No idea where this thought that GMO is evil and must be stopped comes from. if there's any problem with it, it's the stupid application of IP laws to genetics.

 LordofHats wrote:


I find anti-GMO so baffling;



That's (left) what corn looked like before domesticization. Humans have been engaging in genetic engineer for thousands of years. Where else would we achieve such wonderful variety of stubby legged long bodied and floppy eared dogs?

No idea where this thought that GMO is evil and must be stopped comes from. if there's any problem with it, it's the stupid application of IP laws to genetics.

Because if it is being done in a very precise and controlled way then obviously it is bad for you!

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I'm going for Stein. There's no way she'll be able to accomplish half of her ideas, but moving only partially towards all of them would improve the country considerably more than completely achieving her objectives anyways. I appreciate that Johnson has a higher chance of hitting 15% on the polls, but the whole point of third party is not having to vote for anyone but the person you think will do the most good for the country. Adding Libertarians to the debate will improve it, true (I half expect to hear Trump tell Clinton to go back to Mexico, or you're fired)- but I disagree with most of their platform.

Ah yes Jill "Lets ban 20 percent of our energy output and ban GMOs sending us back to the times of famine and starvation" Stein

I find anti-GMO so baffling;



That's (left) what corn looked like before domesticization. Humans have been engaging in genetic engineer for thousands of years. Where else would we achieve such wonderful variety of stubby legged long bodied and floppy eared dogs?

No idea where this thought that GMO is evil and must be stopped comes from. if there's any problem with it, it's the stupid application of IP laws to genetics.

Agreed. GMO is a good thing. But it induces panic when in people because it isn't 'natural'. I just like to remind people that snake venom is all natural

It's also the knee-jerk reaction against 'chemicals'. Regardless of what the chemicals are. I think the anti-GMO, anti-vaxxers and anti-chemical crowd are basically going off the same basis...That unnatural is bad. Which isn't necessarily true.

 skyth wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I'm going for Stein. There's no way she'll be able to accomplish half of her ideas, but moving only partially towards all of them would improve the country considerably more than completely achieving her objectives anyways. I appreciate that Johnson has a higher chance of hitting 15% on the polls, but the whole point of third party is not having to vote for anyone but the person you think will do the most good for the country. Adding Libertarians to the debate will improve it, true (I half expect to hear Trump tell Clinton to go back to Mexico, or you're fired)- but I disagree with most of their platform.

Ah yes Jill "Lets ban 20 percent of our energy output and ban GMOs sending us back to the times of famine and starvation" Stein

I find anti-GMO so baffling;



That's (left) what corn looked like before domesticization. Humans have been engaging in genetic engineer for thousands of years. Where else would we achieve such wonderful variety of stubby legged long bodied and floppy eared dogs?

No idea where this thought that GMO is evil and must be stopped comes from. if there's any problem with it, it's the stupid application of IP laws to genetics.

Agreed. GMO is a good thing. But it induces panic when in people because it isn't 'natural'. I just like to remind people that snake venom is all natural

It's also the knee-jerk reaction against 'chemicals'. Regardless of what the chemicals are. I think the anti-GMO, anti-vaxxers and anti-chemical crowd are basically going off the same basis...That unnatural is bad. Which isn't necessarily true.

They better stop drinking water then

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 skyth wrote:
https://medium.com/@wilw/that-clinton-scandal-the-press-desperately-wants-exists-but-its-actually-about-trump-6d4291edc324?tse_id=INF_655e7bb0736911e690605f8c08864990#.cv8lbqe2l

Trump doing the 'same' thing that the Clinton Foundation is accused of but very blatant...but funny how you don't hear about it.

So, if you're saying this is "bad"...

Then, Clinton also did a "bad" thing.

Vote for Johnson/Stein/McMullin then!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If I understand the concept, the "meeja" is pounding on Clinton while failing to cover more obviously worse stories about Trump because Trump is such a thoroughly dismal candidate anyway that to tell the whole truth about him would completely ruin the "two horse race" narrative the "meeja" want for the election.

I don't buy it, myself. The stuff Trump has come up with so far, without this bribe case, has thoroughly exposed him as a vomitous mass, and hasn't done anything to affect his core support, who clearly will lap up the most blatant contradictions and lies he says providing they are anti-Mexican, etc.

Furthermore, the "meeja" is thoroughly liberal dominated. Why would they cover up these allegations when they could kick Trump into touch straight away? (Excepting my previous point, of course.)

Um... Trump has been getting hammered here.

Everytime he opens his mouth, vomit spews.

Yes, the old guard media is covering Clinton's problems too... but, much of it is over "Republican over reach" or "but, the other guys did it too!!".

"same" ≠ same

Exactly. Plus accused of doing and blatantly doing are two different things as well.

And the media is NOT in any way, shape, or form 'Liberal'.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Oh, quite true, some of her policies are unrealistic if realized fully. But attempting those things would lead to us reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, and tighter restrictions on GMOs.

I'm far more interested in her ideas for reforming campaign finance and proportional representation of voters. That would have a lasting and beneficial effect on politics.

Much like President Obama's push for universal healthcare created Obamacare.

Those two alone make her unfit to be a leader of any kind

 LordofHats wrote:
Where else would we achieve such wonderful variety of stubby legged long bodied and floppy eared dogs?

You've missed the mark. If one wishes to look towards genetic absurdity, one need only gaze upon the Pug. This is a dog which only exists because people with power decided that it's ridiculousness, and subsequent suffering, was adorable.

It is like a munchkin cat, but widely legitimized.

 LordofHats wrote:
No idea where this thought that GMO is evil and must be stopped comes from.

A mixture of the natural foods movement, local foods movement, institutional ignorance, and libertarianism.

I hate at least two of those things!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't buy it, myself. The stuff Trump has come up with so far, without this bribe case, has thoroughly exposed him as a vomitous mass, and hasn't done anything to affect his core support, who clearly will lap up the most blatant contradictions and lies he says providing they are anti-Mexican, etc.

They're not trying to make it a close race. They're trying to make exciting stories. There's nothing very exciting in a story about Trump bribing his way out of charges over Trump University, even if its true. There is something very exciting about finally finding a scam within the Clinton Foundation, even if it isn't true.

Furthermore, the "meeja" is thoroughly liberal dominated.

Well that's certainly something people say all of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So, if you're saying this is "bad"...

Then, Clinton also did a "bad" thing.

There it is, you've done it again. Clinton was accused of a bad thing, and you assumed it was true and then it turned out it wasn't.

This is different to Trump, who actually did a bad thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I'm going for Stein. There's no way she'll be able to accomplish half of her ideas, but moving only partially towards all of them would improve the country considerably more than completely achieving her objectives anyways. I appreciate that Johnson has a higher chance of hitting 15% on the polls, but the whole point of third party is not having to vote for anyone but the person you think will do the most good for the country. Adding Libertarians to the debate will improve it, true (I half expect to hear Trump tell Clinton to go back to Mexico, or you're fired)- but I disagree with most of their platform.

I've made a big deal in the past about the Libertarians being totally incapable of the basic administration of the country. To their credit they've improved a lot in 4 years.

Meanwhile, I think the Greens have gotten bad enough that I think they're incapable of the basic administration of a daycare centre.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
You've missed the mark. If one wishes to look towards genetic absurdity, one need only gaze upon the Pug. This is a dog which only exists because people with power decided that it's ridiculousness, and subsequent suffering, was adorable.

Yeah, when making the case for the positives of genetic manipulation it's probably best to steer clear of dogs. We haven't been anywhere near as responsible or humane with dog breeds as we ought to have been, and we are now only just starting to talk about actually doing it in a more humane way.

I find breeding animals for utility to make a lot more sense than breeding one for absurd looks. I mean, if you live in a cold, wet environment and need a hunting dog, then YES breed a dog with a fluffy, waterproof coat that has good vision and stamina.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
So, if you're saying this is "bad"...

Then, Clinton also did a "bad" thing.

There it is, you've done it again. Clinton was accused of a bad thing, and you assumed it was true and then it turned out it wasn't.

This is different to Trump, who actually did a bad thing.

Oh c'mon Seb.

Trump donated to political operatives, after these operatives refuses to prosecute his inane University scheme is believable. (which I do find deplorable)

Yet, somehow, you disregard the possibility that the Clinton Foundation was a "gatekeeper" for government access???

It's like, you'd rationalize any possible malfeasance the Clinton's may have done just to make you "feel better"... yet, any opponent to the Clintons are assumed the worst-of-the-worst?

Do I have that right?

And I'm the political hack here on this board?!?!

Frankly, I'm amused about all this energy spent to defend the Clintons... as if, there's a fear she'd lose so you'd better support her in any way.

Which is wholly ironic as I'd wager massively that Clinton will not only win... but, she'll win big.

When we vote this November, people'd be like "man, Clinton sucks balls... HOLY.WTF.TRUMP.IS.STILL.HERE!!!" <furiously pulling the lever for HRC>.

 whembly wrote:
Oh c'mon Seb.

Trump donated to political operatives, after these operatives refuses to prosecute his inane University scheme is believable. (which I do find deplorable)

Cool, but you still minimise TU as 'inane'. It was a criminal fraud that preyed on the most financially vulnerable.

Yet, somehow, you disregard the possibility that the Clinton Foundation was a "gatekeeper" for government access???

Nope, I don't disregard the possibility. I am simply pointing out the difference between one thing being a 'possibility' and another thing actually being a proven, established thing. That makes them different.

It's like, you'd rationalize any possible malfeasance the Clinton's may have done just to make you "feel better"... yet, any opponent to the Clintons are assumed the worst-of-the-worst?

I make an effort to see the actual evidence roll in. I'm not going to say I succeed every time, because I don't. But at least the effort is there, and that puts me a long way ahead of anyone trading in the 'people have suggested there could be potential for an investigation in to some kind of Clinton thing... therefore it's a scandal and let's all just conclude she's guilty of the thing that might possibly be true.

And I'm the political hack here on this board?!?!

We're all political hacks. That's pretty much what this thread is.

Frankly, I'm amused about all this energy spent to defend the Clintons... as if, there's a fear she'd lose so you'd better support her in any way.

This so very 2000. Gore was certain to win because his opponent was an idiot running on transparently stupid lies, so you don't need to defend him against the allegations (that weren't true). And then you know, look what happened.

Which is wholly ironic as I'd wager massively that Clinton will not only win... but, she'll win big.

You know I'm not a betting man. I told you last time we bet that I waited until the result was known, but people didn't know it yet. This time around, funnily enough, I think things are a lot more uncertain that you do.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Oh c'mon Seb.

Trump donated to political operatives, after these operatives refuses to prosecute his inane University scheme is believable. (which I do find deplorable)

Cool, but you still minimise TU as 'inane'. It was a criminal fraud that preyed on the most financially vulnerable.

I'm not trying to minimize it... when I read up on it, that was point when I knew I was never going to vote for Trump.

Well... it was that, and Trumps perpetual complaints of the judge presiding that case.

Yet, somehow, you disregard the possibility that the Clinton Foundation was a "gatekeeper" for government access???

Nope, I don't disregard the possibility. I am simply pointing out the difference between one thing being a 'possibility' and another thing actually being a proven, established thing. That makes them different.

Okay. Fair enough.

Here's the thing.

The Clintons (Bill?) is on record saying that they'll refuse to accept foreign donations once HRC becomes president.

If they're doing this to, mitigate any appearance of undue influence, then why the feth was it kosher during HRC's tenure as SoS?

It's like, you'd rationalize any possible malfeasance the Clinton's may have done just to make you "feel better"... yet, any opponent to the Clintons are assumed the worst-of-the-worst?

I make an effort to see the actual evidence roll in. I'm not going to say I succeed every time, because I don't. But at least the effort is there, and that puts me a long way ahead of anyone trading in the 'people have suggested there could be potential for an investigation in to some kind of Clinton thing... therefore it's a scandal and let's all just conclude she's guilty of the thing that might possibly be true.

Here's the difference.

HRC is running to become the next President. It's their past behaviors that is deserving of review/investigating before it's too late.

In the name of partisan politics, much of this is excused by stating that this is how all of this works in politics.

So... the Clintons get a pass. I firmly believe there's nothing they can do that'll derail her candidancy that would destroy your average politician's career.

Hence, they're The Teflon Clintons™.

And I'm the political hack here on this board?!?!

We're all political hacks. That's pretty much what this thread is.

Heh... good point.

Frankly, I'm amused about all this energy spent to defend the Clintons... as if, there's a fear she'd lose so you'd better support her in any way.

This so very 2000. Gore was certain to win because his opponent was an idiot running on transparently stupid lies, so you don't need to defend him against the allegations (that weren't true). And then you know, look what happened.

Clinton is so not Gore.

And Trump is not GW Bush either. Bush at least had some fething gentlemanly class over that pompous clown.

Which is wholly ironic as I'd wager massively that Clinton will not only win... but, she'll win big.

You know I'm not a betting man. I told you last time we bet that I waited until the result was known, but people didn't know it yet. This time around, funnily enough, I think things are a lot more uncertain that you do.

Here's an interesting factoid I heard recently.

The Presidential Candidate who has lead the polls on Labor Day has NEVER lost the race.

The only way Trump overcomes and win, is that something happens that favors his "strongman persona" over HRC. Something of a 9/11 magnitude....

Otherwise?

Get used to Madame President Clinton.

The various info has been public for quite a while, so has anybody anywhere actually come up with a single person that Hillary met with that wouldn't have gotten a meeting with a SoS?

 whembly wrote:
I'm not trying to minimize it... when I read up on it, that was point when I knew I was never going to vote for Trump.

Well... it was that, and Trumps perpetual complaints of the judge presiding that case.

Cool. I'm probably just a bit sensitive on it, because it really bugs me that it's being treated as just another scandal. I mean, there's dodgy stuff, then there's illegal stuff, and then there's stuff that's simply unconscionable. And TU was clearly the latter, because it was basically luring people who were on the bones of their asses in to small rooms so you can hammer them with high pressure sales tactics until they agree to put thousands of dollars on credit cards they can't pay back, for a course that everyone involved knew would never deliver these people future incomes.

The Clintons (Bill?) is on record saying that they'll refuse to accept foreign donations once HRC becomes president.

If they're doing this to, mitigate any appearance of undue influence, then why the feth was it kosher during HRC's tenure as SoS?

Because they didn't see it an issue until they got hammered in the media, because the issue they with it is that it got Clinton hammered in the media

So... the Clintons get a pass.

I don't think the Clintons have gotten a pass. I can't think of a single thing in the last 25 years that the Clintons have done that hasn't had endless news coverage and opinion pieces written about it.

Hence, they're The Teflon Clintons™.

Right, and whether the investigations had slid off because there was no underlying substance, or because the Clintons are super slick is one we'll leave down to partisan opinion.

Clinton is so not Gore.

And Trump is not GW Bush either. Bush at least had some fething gentlemanly class over that pompous clown.

That's true. Bush was certainly charming, and was always a gentleman. And perhaps the biggest difference is that Bush understood the importance of winning minority voters over to the GOP.

I'm not equating the individuals involved, but comparing the coverage of the two campaigns. Thing is, much like Trump this time Bush was graded on a curve. A debate in which he remember his opponent's name was treated as a triumph, and it was all okay because he wasn't going to win (no matter what the polls said). Meanwhile the default assumption with Gore was that anything he said had an underlying objective or nefarious purpose.

Here's an interesting factoid I heard recently.

The Presidential Candidate who has lead the polls on Labor Day has NEVER lost the race.

But they have moved by five or more points a few times between Labor Day and the election. In the past that hasn't swung an election, because the candidate was already leading by more than that, or because they moved in favour of the candidate who was already winning. But when polls can swing by more than the current lead, then it certainly isn't over.

And you have to remember we're talking about a pretty small number of events to start using for historical absolutes.