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.
I'll admit that I'd much rather be living through Romney with a 15 point lead over Clinton than to be in the midst of this game of Russian Roulette we are playing with our republic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/12 22:31:17
whembly wrote: I'm surprised there isn't more outcry of the DNC hacks...
Here... we have foreign actors trying to influence our elections.
Regardless of your political leanings... this should piss you off.
It does piss me off. Trumps call for the Russian Federation to hack even more was infuriating, astonishing, indeed treasonous IMHO. And Trump's connections to Russia and his admiration for Putin I've said numerous times is the #1 reason no-one should vote for him. I've been pounding he keyboard over this since Page 1 of this iteration of the US politics thread. Even been accused of "eternal hatred of the Russian" over it.
Good.
Man... it was some ancient time ago that this guy said that Russia is our biggest geopolitical foe:
Spoiler:
The thing is, Russia doesn't have to be our foe. In fact, you want to know one of the reasons why they're our foe? Because the GOP has told you they are, because having a boogeyman has always been useful for politics, because when a big chunk of the US government keeps saying you are the enemy and won't treat you fairly, what reason do you have to be friends?. Maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are now if we actually engaged with Russia, rather than having an entire political party continually trash them. Maybe if we realized that the rest of the world could live without us, but we cannot live without the rest of the world, things might be just a tiny bit better and large swaths of the world wouldn't hate us as much. Because, yes, the GOP is playing the 21st century with the 1980s handbook. Because people are talking about what kind of response we should have for the hacks, how proportionate it should be, etc. You know what response we should have? IMPROVE OUR OWN FETHING SECURITY SO IT STOPS HAPPENING!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/12 23:20:14
"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
sirlynchmob wrote: Still gotta love Obama, he explains how the republicans ended up with trump.
Obama has more reason than anyone to be outraged with the behavior he described, and more reason than anyone to take satisfaction in them taking a swift kick of karma to the groin, but still managed to deliver that in a restrained manner. That he's keeping as cool as he is in the midst of this shitstorm continues to earn him respect in my book.
whembly wrote: I'm surprised there isn't more outcry of the DNC hacks...
Here... we have foreign actors trying to influence our elections.
Regardless of your political leanings... this should piss you off.
It does piss me off. Trumps call for the Russian Federation to hack even more was infuriating, astonishing, indeed treasonous IMHO. And Trump's connections to Russia and his admiration for Putin I've said numerous times is the #1 reason no-one should vote for him. I've been pounding he keyboard over this since Page 1 of this iteration of the US politics thread. Even been accused of "eternal hatred of the Russian" over it.
Good.
Man... it was some ancient time ago that this guy said that Russia is our biggest geopolitical foe:
Spoiler:
The thing is, Russia doesn't have to be our foe. In fact, you want to know one of the reasons why they're our foe? Because the GOP has told you they are, because having a boogeyman has always been useful for politics, because when a big chunk of the US government keeps saying you are the enemy and won't treat you fairly, what reason do you have to be friends?. Maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are now if we actually engaged with Russia, rather than having an entire political party continually trash them. Maybe if we realized that the rest of the world could live without us, but we cannot live without the rest of the world, things might be just a tiny bit better and large swaths of the world wouldn't hate us as much. Because, yes, the GOP is playing the 21st century with the 1980s handbook. Because people are talking about what kind of response we should have for the hacks, how proportionate it should be, etc. You know what response we should have? IMPROVE OUR OWN FETHING SECURITY SO IT STOPS HAPPENING!
Yeah no... Russia wasn't really on the GOP's psyche for quite some time.
sirlynchmob wrote: Still gotta love Obama, he explains how the republicans ended up with trump.
Obama has more reason than anyone to be outraged with the behavior he described, and more reason than anyone to take satisfaction in them taking a swift kick of karma to the groin, but still managed to deliver that in a restrained manner. That he's keeping as cool as he is in the midst of this shitstorm continues to earn him respect in my book.
He brought that on himself.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/13 01:15:56
Hrm, the Republicans never gave Obama a chance and were out for his blood from minute 1, with McConnell stating that their #1 goal from the minute he won the 2008 election was to ensure he didn't get a second term. No matter what Obama did the Republicans were going to treat him like garbage and be obstructionist to the best of their abilities, largely just for its own sake, and that's exactly what they did. One can pin many things on Obama, but his relationship with the Republicans and their current self destructive behavior cannot be reasonably blamed on him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/13 01:22:14
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
But, if ya'll are that worried... that tells ya how bad of a candidate truly is...
The nerves are reflective of the stakes, not the closeness of the race. Consider rollling two dice, needing anything but snake eyes. It's pretty likely you'll succeed, and you've probably done a lot right in the game to be in that situation. But consider it is the last roll of the game, and if you win you become grand tournament champion. You'd be very nervous, even though the chance of failure is less than 3%. This is because the stakes are high, not because the result itself is close.
Clinton is up by 6.5 points. Not huge by historic standards, but probably about the most you'll see in this hyper-partisan age. Through the campaign so far she's beat Trump, especially from the first debate onwards. This is in contrast to the Republican field, that got absolutely stomped by Trump. When Trump stomps 16 Republicans, and then gets beat soundly by Clinton, it makes zero sense to conclude that Clinton is weak.
But elections can fluctuate, there are always lots of unknowns, especially when there is still almost a month before election day. Given that an upset would be a Trump presidency, people are right to still be nervous.
Can you image a top ticket of O'Malley or Warren or Sanders? Trump would be KO'ed by now...
People assign a lot of imaginary attributes to people on the margins. O'Malley was roadkill to both Clinton and Sanders. Sanders got beat by Clinton by 15 points, and that was competing among Democratic primary voters, the most left wing audience those two will ever play for. And have you ever seen Warren give a speech? Go watch her convention speech, and imagine her trying to build a campaign around making that performance twice a day.
And whatever popularity they or any other candidate has is there because they haven't been subjected to heavy attack ads from the other side. Remember Romney went in to the 2012 campaign broadly popular, and finished with the Democrats having defined him as an autocrat who only cares about the rich. Obama started the 2008 campaign incredibly popular, and finished with people believing he was a muslim with ties to terror organisations. John Kerry was a war hero until he got swift boated.
Don't think that just because a candidate is reasonably popular right now, that they would remain such after going through a presidential campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: I don't think that'd be a big problem. The problem is that Rubio was a candidate made by committee, with a little Tea Party, some hard line social conservatism, a touch of bipartisan cred with the immigration bill, the possiblily of some outreach to Latinos (even though most Mexicans and central Americans don't really relate to Cubans), oh, and he's popular in a large swing state... which would have made him a really strong general election candidate. The problem was that he didn't have a natural base. Jeb had the money and the machine, Cruz snapped up the conservative votes, Kasich and Christie got the moderates, and that didn't leave much for Rubio.
Rubio might come back in 2016, but the party can't have him and Cruz go deep into the primaries again.
Yeah, whatever base Rubio had built up when he rode the Tea Party wave in to the senate, he had already walked away from as he looked to build a more moderate image that could compete in a general election. And his claim to fame was taking a lead position on the bi-partisan immigration bill, which was broadly unpopular with the public and failed to even make it to the floor. That's a pretty scarce resume for a presidential run.
Rubio was a darling of the pundits, the people who watch the game as a horse race, who saw Rubio's look and his political positioning and decided this was the guy who could win for the GOP. But voters don't work like that, voters want a story or a clear identity that they can understand and buy in to. Rubio's polling was bleh and his primary results were terrible because of this.
The guy is young, and a lot will happen in the next four or eight years. If he can build a clear identity in that time there's nothing saying he won't be a real contender. But he was always a pretty weak player in 2016.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/13 02:14:18
“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.
jasper76 wrote: It's worth noting that Rubio couldn't even carry his own state in the primary.
Sure... and who brought him down?
Spoiler:
Jeb!
Huh? Jeb! dropped out in February, the Florida primary was held in March. And Trump absolutely monstered the result in Florida, he got 46% of the vote, beating Rubio by 17 points. Seriously, whatever Rubio might one day be, right now he's a small time player with no resume and no base, who got smashed by the worst presidential candidate in living memory.
The case for Rubio is really weak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: IMO, he'd be leading HRC now by 10+ percentage-wise right now.
Trump thrashes Rubio. Clinton is beating Trump soundly. Therefore Rubio would thrash Clinton. Yeah... no.
I mean, I know the general is very different to the primary, and you're theorising that Rubio would do much better away from the very conservative Republican primary voters. And yeah, probably there's more votes for Rubio among the more moderate Republican leaning voters than there is for Trump. But there'd also be no appeal to Rubio at all outside of the Republican base.
But all of that is theory-hammer. End of the day, the simple rule of thumb is that the guy who wins was probably better than the guy who lost.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/13 02:26:34
“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.
jasper76 wrote: It's worth noting that Rubio couldn't even carry his own state in the primary.
Sure... and who brought him down?
Spoiler:
Jeb!
Huh? Jeb! dropped out in February, the Florida primary was held in March. And Trump absolutely monstered the result in Florida, he got 46% of the vote, beating Rubio by 17 points. Seriously, whatever Rubio might one day be, right now he's a small time player with no resume and no base, who got smashed by the worst presidential candidate in living memory.
The case for Rubio is really weak.
Jeb! unleashed the warchest primarily against Rubio. That's the reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: IMO, he'd be leading HRC now by 10+ percentage-wise right now.
Trump thrashes Rubio. Clinton is beating Trump soundly. Therefore Rubio would thrash Clinton. Yeah... no.
I mean, I know the general is very different to the primary, and you're theorising that Rubio would do much better away from the very conservative Republican primary voters. And yeah, probably there's more votes for Rubio among the more moderate Republican leaning voters than there is for Trump. But there'd also be no appeal to Rubio at all outside of the Republican base.
But all of that is theory-hammer. End of the day, the simple rule of thumb is that the guy who wins was probably better than the guy who lost.
Nah... if Rubio made it to the General Election v. Clinton, I'd posit the he'd be kicking her ass right now as he's the perfect CONTRAST to Clinton.
Breotan wrote: Still, we'll have to see how these allegations are handled in court. Are they thrown out? Settled out of court? Is a verdict rendered? Are the accusations proven or shown to be false? Is Trump wrongly accused because of politics or is he truly worse than Bill Cosby? We'll have to keep our eyes on this and see. Just remember that whatever Trump winds up being proven to be, Bill Clinton was also a friend of that rich pedo and Hillary is a proven enabler of his proclivities.
Ah, so with Trump any accusations must be handled with through the courts. But with the Clintons then having a friend who was a paedophile is automatic condemnation, and we can just claim Hillary Clinton is a 'proven enabler' without actually having built any substantial argument for that, let alone test it in a court.
fething ridiculous.
“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.
Breotan wrote: Still, we'll have to see how these allegations are handled in court. Are they thrown out? Settled out of court? Is a verdict rendered? Are the accusations proven or shown to be false? Is Trump wrongly accused because of politics or is he truly worse than Bill Cosby? We'll have to keep our eyes on this and see. Just remember that whatever Trump winds up being proven to be, Bill Clinton was also a friend of that rich pedo and Hillary is a proven enabler of his proclivities.
Ah, so with Trump any accusations must be handled with through the courts. But with the Clintons then having a friend who was a paedophile is automatic condemnation, and we can just claim Hillary Clinton is a 'proven enabler' without actually having built any substantial argument for that, let alone test it in a court.
“Spend a few hours every week studying American history, human nature, and economic theory. Start with “Economics in One Lesson.” Then try Keynes. Then Hayek. Then Marx. Then Hegel. Develop a worldview that you can articulate as well as defend. Test your theory with people who disagree with you. Debate. Argue. Adjust your philosophy as necessary. Then, when the next election comes around, cast a vote for the candidate whose worldview seems most in line with your own.”
Bravo.
It's nice that Rowe is asking people to read more, and it's really nice that he's focusing on economics. But holy hell his list of recommended reading could not be more terrible. He starts with a work that was almost entirely irrelevant to economics when it was published in the 40s. While it's peculiar take on classical economics plays well with a certain set who treat economics as a weird kind of pseudo-philosophy, the book is simply irrelevant to anything in modern economics work or debate. It's arguments have either long been proven wrong, or are simply not relevant given what we now know. Hayek and Marx are similarly irrelevant. Marx has some value to economic history, but that's not the point in discussion. Keynes is very relevant, but telling people to read Keynes is terrible advice - Keyne's General Theory is one of the toughest slogs in literature - the guy was an exceptional economist but a woeful writer.
The best work for intro to macro is Mankiw's Macroeconomics. There's no ideology for sale, it's just the models and formulas used in modern macro, and the relationships between all macro factors.
It's actually kind of funny that Mike Rowe would be criticising celebrities for working for get out the vote on the assumption that they're doing so in the assumption that people will vote for their preferred candidate.... but then Rowe will encourage people to read, and focus on a mediocre economics text that is 70 years out of date.
You want a real lesson. Don't take your voting advice from celebrities, don't take your reading advice from them either.
“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.
The thing about Rubio is that even when he had the chance to be presidential, he blew it. His comments after the Orlando shooting were basically "bad things happen all over, and this was just Florida's turn." And, no, I'm not kidding about how he said it was just his state's turn to have a mass shooting.
"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
whembly wrote: Nah... if Rubio made it to the General Election v. Clinton, I'd posit the he'd be kicking her ass right now as he's the perfect CONTRAST to Clinton.
Any other fictional, magical stories you want to share? Maybe something with a dragon, or an ogre, so that it can seem somewhat plausible in comparison.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Breotan wrote: Still, we'll have to see how these allegations are handled in court. Are they thrown out? Settled out of court? Is a verdict rendered? Are the accusations proven or shown to be false? Is Trump wrongly accused because of politics or is he truly worse than Bill Cosby? We'll have to keep our eyes on this and see. Just remember that whatever Trump winds up being proven to be, Bill Clinton was also a friend of that rich pedo and Hillary is a proven enabler of his proclivities.
Ah, so with Trump any accusations must be handled with through the courts. But with the Clintons then having a friend who was a paedophile is automatic condemnation, and we can just claim Hillary Clinton is a 'proven enabler' without actually having built any substantial argument for that, let alone test it in a court.
fething ridiculous.
Your interpretation of my statement is what's ridiculous. Trump's accusations must be handled through the courts because there is a case currently in court. Part of the accusation against Trump involves his past association with that millionaire pedo. That's been brought up as part of the discussion here. I'm merely pointing out that Bill Clinton is also associated with that very same rich pedo and not in a "Gosh I had no idea" way. Multiple news outlets have done stories about it, too. If Hillary is elected, I'm sure reporters will dig deep into it and more will come out. Bill has been out of sight mostly but scandal is what the Clintons do, so expect them to continue.
As for Hillary being an enabler, this goes way back to when they were in the White House originally. Do you not remember the "bimbo eruptions" stuff? She made famous the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" when she used it as part of the effort to defend Bill against the women coming forth with their stories. Hillary was working to destroy the reputations of those women who accused Bill of infidelity. The Clintons had started in on Monica, too, in the days after the story broke on the Drudge Report. The only thing that saved Monica was having that blue dress with Bill's "protein" on it. So, yes, I'd call all that proof that Hillary is Bill's enabler.
Given the histories of everyone involved, the press are going to have a field day no matter who gets elected.
Breotan wrote: I'll still vote Trump because SCOTUS is far too important to me not to.
That must be very embarrassing for you. Years from now, when you're asked by your children or grandchildren about how you voted in this historic election, will you tell them the truth?
I will tell them the truth. I'll tell them I voted against Clinton. I believe that this political cartoon sums up my position (although clearly greatly exaggerated).
No more Kool-Aid for you, you've had enough, methinks. Forget about Seb's comment regarding "Years from now...", how about NOW?! Explain your Trump support to your daughter, sister, mom, aunt, wife, girlfriend...unbelievable!
To quote from the article you reference, "The one common strain running through these historic civil liberties assaults is war."
To be fair, that kind of makes the point that this isn't really an America on a day-to-day, business-as-usual snapshot, is it?
But the US has been constantly at war, from the war on communism, the war on drugs, the war on Terrorism and so on.
whembly wrote: Nah... if Rubio made it to the General Election v. Clinton, I'd posit the he'd be kicking her ass right now as he's the perfect CONTRAST to Clinton.
Any other fictional, magical stories you want to share? Maybe something with a dragon, or an ogre, so that it can seem somewhat plausible in comparison.
I supported Rubio, but I have to agree that he wasn't the best candidate when the dust had settled. I believe Ted Cruz was the stronger candidate of the bunch as his performance in the primaries suggested but he's so polarizing that matching him against Hillary might actually drive Democrat voters to the polls despite Hillary's unfavorablility numbers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/13 04:33:59
Breotan wrote: Still, we'll have to see how these allegations are handled in court. Are they thrown out? Settled out of court? Is a verdict rendered? Are the accusations proven or shown to be false? Is Trump wrongly accused because of politics or is he truly worse than Bill Cosby? We'll have to keep our eyes on this and see. Just remember that whatever Trump winds up being proven to be, Bill Clinton was also a friend of that rich pedo and Hillary is a proven enabler of his proclivities.
Ah, so with Trump any accusations must be handled with through the courts. But with the Clintons then having a friend who was a paedophile is automatic condemnation, and we can just claim Hillary Clinton is a 'proven enabler' without actually having built any substantial argument for that, let alone test it in a court.
fething ridiculous.
Your interpretation of my statement is what's ridiculous. Trump's accusations must be handled through the courts because there is a case currently in court. Part of the accusation against Trump involves his past association with that millionaire pedo. That's been brought up as part of the discussion here. I'm merely pointing out that Bill Clinton is also associated with that very same rich pedo and not in a "Gosh I had no idea" way. Multiple news outlets have done stories about it, too. If Hillary is elected, I'm sure reporters will dig deep into it and more will come out. Bill has been out of sight mostly but scandal is what the Clintons do, so expect them to continue.
As for Hillary being an enabler, this goes way back to when they were in the White House originally. Do you not remember the "bimbo eruptions" stuff? She made famous the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" when she used it as part of the effort to defend Bill against the women coming forth with their stories. Hillary was working to destroy the reputations of those women who accused Bill of infidelity. The Clintons had started in on Monica, too, in the days after the story broke on the Drudge Report. The only thing that saved Monica was having that blue dress with Bill's "protein" on it. So, yes, I'd call all that proof that Hillary is Bill's enabler.
Given the histories of everyone involved, the press are going to have a field day no matter who gets elected.
And even if the worst of those expectations were completely true it would still be dwarfed by the scale of Trump's misconduct and lies. I'm not one to condemn support of Trump as I remain open mined about rational reasons to do so, but please, please, please stop trying to tell us that past misconduct is an important factor in your decision when we can see from the evidence that it is not.
Tannhauser42 wrote: The thing is, Russia doesn't have to be our foe. In fact, you want to know one of the reasons why they're our foe? Because the GOP has told you they are, because having a boogeyman has always been useful for politics, because when a big chunk of the US government keeps saying you are the enemy and won't treat you fairly, what reason do you have to be friends?. Maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we are now if we actually engaged with Russia, rather than having an entire political party continually trash them.
What? Russia has engaged in wars of expansion in breach of international law. They have recently committed war crimes in order to dismantle peace deals so that their man in Syria can resume killing civilian populations loyal to the resistance. Russia should be actively and aggressively opposed as long as they continue to be a negative actor on the world stage.
This doesn't mean forever war against Russia, of course, and they should always be given opportunity and reason to change their behaviour and return to the international community. But their current status has nothing to do with Republican doctrine or Obama decisions, and everything to do with Putin's actions in Ukraine and Syria.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Biden probably would have had the KO by now.
What's the KO that Clinton doesn't have? Is anyone claiming that in this age, with party affiliation dominating all else, that any match up is likely to go much past 6 or 7 points?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Jeb! unleashed the warchest primarily against Rubio. That's the reason.
And Clinton wouldn't?!
Nah... if Rubio made it to the General Election v. Clinton, I'd posit the he'd be kicking her ass right now as he's the perfect CONTRAST to Clinton.
Just repeating your opening claim isn't discussion. I'll repeat my point again, can you respond to it this time? Trump thrashes Rubio. Clinton is thumping Trump. Therefore the argument that Rubio would beat Clinton is really weak, right off the bat.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/13 05:10:49
“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.
NinthMusketeer wrote: And even if the worst of those expectations were completely true it would still be dwarfed by the scale of Trump's misconduct and lies. I'm not one to condemn support of Trump as I remain open mined about rational reasons to do so, but please, please, please stop trying to tell us that past misconduct is an important factor in your decision when we can see from the evidence that it is not.
Let me be clear (again since people missed it), SCOTUS appointments are the important factors in my vote. Everything else is secondary. No matter what history either candidate has or what crimes are alleged, one of them will be our next President. That is a simple fact. I have called Trump a Democrat plant and compared voting for him to drinking bleach so please don't suggest I'm ignoring his faults. It is fair to say that I dislike Trump slightly less than Hillary but not by much and mostly because I know less about him.
I bring up Bill's past in these discussions as counterpoint to the comments about Trump's past, nothing more. Other posters are commenting about Trump's failings so I'm posting about Clinton's. I'm not doing it to defend Trump, claim he is innocent or decent, or that any facts about him are misrepresented. I'm not defending Trump at all. I'm simply pointing out that the Clintons are just as dirty.
To be clear, I really don't believe that pointing out Hillary's faults means I am defending Trump or using any of her history to justify my vote. Once again, I am not voting for Trump. I am voting against Hillary and I am doing so because of the SCOTUS appointments, one of which is on hold until after the election. Given the chance, Hillary will push SCOTUS left and I oppose that. That is the important factor in my decision.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/10/13 05:12:16
Breotan wrote: As for Hillary being an enabler, this goes way back to when they were in the White House originally. Do you not remember the "bimbo eruptions" stuff?
"Bimbo eruptions" was Betsey Wright, not Clinton.
She made famous the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" when she used it as part of the effort to defend Bill against the women coming forth with their stories.
Except that there was clear intent and action from day one to get Bill Clinton. There were ridiculous conspiracies and rumours from day one. Remember the ridiculous lies and speculation about Vince Foster? It was the bs about Foster's suicide, and the money the Clinton's lost in Whitewater that started Ken Starr's investigation... I don't think people to this day understand how incredible it was to have such a free wheeling, open ended investigation in to a president, looking wherever he could for something that might stick. And of course all that investigation turned up exactly nothing until he eventually came across Clinton's infidelities.
Hillary was working to destroy the reputations of those women who accused Bill of infidelity.
And here it is again. That same repeated statement, and same as all the other times there's still no substance attached. No quote of something Clinton said about any woman who claimed an affair with Bill Clinton. Not even a summary or explanation of a thing Clinton did to harm the reputation of any one of these women. Just the accusation repeated again.
So I'll ask again, for maybe the 10th time in this thread - please give an actual example of a thing Clinton said or did to one of the women to substantiate the claim or concede that the claim is bs.
“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.
Breotan wrote: Given the chance, Hillary will push SCOTUS left and I oppose that.
And what makes you think that Trump is any better? He's explicitly in favor of taking away first/fourth/fifth amendment rights (his "security" plans against Muslims), explicitly wants to overturn the 14th amendment and strip citizenship from people he doesn't like (children of illegal immigrants), and seems pretty solidly in favor of a "I am president, everyone does what I tell them to do" approach to executive power where legal limits are mere obstacles to be overcome. Given the established history of democrats going with a "talk a lot but never actually do anything" approach to gun control it seems that the only "rights" Trump would be interested in protecting in his nominations that Clinton wouldn't also protect would be the "right" to reject gay marriage and ban abortion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/13 05:31:00
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
"I am president, everyone does what I tell them to do" approach to executive power where legal limits are mere obstacles to be overcome.
And I'd point out this is a mentality that is extremely dangerous for Presidential systems. There's a reason most of the governments modeled after the United States fall into cycles of perennially elected dictatorship. The executive controls the monopoly of force of the state in these systems, and the checks against that power are fundamentally soft (budgetary control, court decisions, a respect for the political process). The US has done remarkably well in this regard. Trump meanwhile voices praise for Putin, the picture perfect example of the perennially elected dictator who maximizes monopoly of force to further rampant political corruption and suppression of dissent.
NinthMusketeer wrote: And even if the worst of those expectations were completely true it would still be dwarfed by the scale of Trump's misconduct and lies. I'm not one to condemn support of Trump as I remain open mined about rational reasons to do so, but please, please, please stop trying to tell us that past misconduct is an important factor in your decision when we can see from the evidence that it is not.
Let me be clear (again since people missed it), SCOTUS appointments are the important factors in my vote. Everything else is secondary. No matter what history either candidate has or what crimes are alleged, one of them will be our next President. That is a simple fact. I have called Trump a Democrat plant and compared voting for him to drinking bleach so please don't suggest I'm ignoring his faults. It is fair to say that I dislike Trump slightly less than Hillary but not by much and mostly because I know less about him.
I bring up Bill's past in these discussions as counterpoint to the comments about Trump's past, nothing more. Other posters are commenting about Trump's failings so I'm posting about Clinton's. I'm not doing it to defend Trump, claim he is innocent or decent, or that any facts about him are misrepresented. I'm not defending Trump at all. I'm simply pointing out that the Clintons are just as dirty.
To be clear, I really don't believe that pointing out Hillary's faults means I am defending Trump or using any of her history to justify my vote. Once again, I am not voting for Trump. I am voting against Hillary and I am doing so because of the SCOTUS appointments, one of which is on hold until after the election. Given the chance, Hillary will push SCOTUS left and I oppose that. That is the important factor in my decision.
Apologies, since the reasons that Trump was a worse pick for protecting the amendments you mention were already covered I assumed things had moved on to the past as a main factor. I was too optimistic, I suppose.
sebster wrote: I don't think people to this day understand how incredible it was to have such a free wheeling, open ended investigation in to a president, looking wherever he could for something that might stick.
Scooter Libby remembers. Fitzgerald knew about Armitage being Novak's source of Valerie Plame's leaked CIA employment fairly early on and could have closed the investigation nearly three years earlier than he did. He chose to continue hunting wabbits hoping to bag Rove or Cheney. He eventually got lucky when Libby decided for some unknown reason to perjure himself before the grand jury.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Apologies, since the reasons that Trump was a worse pick for protecting the amendments you mention were already covered I assumed things had moved on to the past as a main factor. I was too optimistic, I suppose.
No apology necessary. This thread moves fast and things get missed. It's happened to me, too.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/13 05:55:19
Breotan wrote: Scooter Libby remembers. Fitzgerald knew about Armitage being Novak's source of Valerie Plame's leaked CIA employment fairly early on and could have closed the investigation nearly three years earlier than he did. He chose to continue hunting wabbits hoping to bag Rove or Cheney. He eventually got lucky when Libby decided for some unknown reason to perjure himself before the grand jury.
Yep, 'they do it too'. But whether there are also bad people with blue hats, it really has nothing to do with the claim you made against Clinton. You thought it was bad she said 'vast rightwing conspiracy', but now you are happy to accept that such a thing was in place from his first day in office.
And I'm still waiting on you or anyone else to substantiate the claims against Hillary Clinton made in this thread. You say she attacked and ruined the reputations of women who made accusations against her husband. Well substantiate that. Show one instance, give one quote, describe one action she took to destroy someone.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/13 06:48:04
“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.
