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.
The sad and strange thing about the GOP's 20-year quest for ideological purity is that it ended up with Trump, who has no real, identifiable ideology.
Trump is clearly fascist. Not a fascist, perhaps, it doesn't really make any difference, but his constant appeals to strength, past greatness, masculinity and white supremacy are very much identifiable.
Yea we can do without calling the candidates Fascist or Communist thanks.
yea what frazz said, and if we're going to be nice, avoiding hitlary as well, that'd be greeeaaaaat.
I am very agreeable to that. Misspellings on my part exempted as I type as good as you would expect a blind neanderthal to type.
I thought you had your badger hound doing the typing...
Thats only when I type more gooder. He's at home getting his much needed 23.5 hours of daily sleep. Fat little basterd...
-"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!
Ustrello wrote: At this point I feel like I am just yelling into the void with some posters and the "two evils" mantra they chant like modern day Gregorian monks
I've always been wary of making predictions, but as sure as Dakka follows Dakka, President Hilary Clinton will send the US Marines into some country, be it Syria, or some other part of the Middle East.
She has been itchng to intervene somewhere, anywhere, for years. Her track record on past conflicts is the evidence.
Expect the 'new' Cold War with Russia to hit freezing point on her watch.
If I'm wrong, and we're all still here in 4 years, and somebody remembers this post, I'll be the first to stick up my hand and say I was wrong.
But I get this dread feeling I'll be proven right on this and I don't want to be right on this, because it will mean that people will be getting killed.
infinite_array wrote: Hey, today I learned that a father and a son presidential team (with 8 years in between their terms) and a husband and wife team (with 16 years in between their terms) are dynasties!
Or maybe someone needs to tone down the exaggerations.
John Adams and John Quincy Adams.
George Bush and George W Bush, with Jeb Bush running for president, but failing...
Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton.
John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, who was obviously unsuccessful...
Franklin Roosevelt, and Teddy Roosevelt. Ok, they were cousins, but still related...
True, we're not exactly into Queen Victoria and 67 years territory, but IMO, the USA is not far off a dynasty in my book.
@Do_I_Not_Like_That: I sincerely hope Clinton loses. She would have already dropped out if not for collusion and extreme hardcore partisanship. The more Wikileaks keeps releasing the more dark a Clinton presidency looks.
By the way, one of Assange's "Dead Man's Switch"es went off and a 87 gigabyte file is available to the public via torrent. It has a lot of interesting files, including oddball stuff on Steve Jobs, Merkel and others. Assange is alleged to have more of these lying in wait just in case....so if the information that John Kerry tried to force Ecuador to hand over Assange is true, then John Kerry just literally screwed himself and everyone else.
In Clinton's defence, at least you know what you're getting with a Clinton administration.
A few cruise missiles lobbed into the desert, a few camels blown up, needless antagonism with Russia, and a continuation of Obama's domestic policies...
She did play a large part in the destabilization and overthrow of the Lybian government and the subsequent chaos there. ISIS pretty much owns that country now thanks to her.
US-backed government militia in Libya are pushing forward in their battle to expel ISIS from the coastal Libyan city of Sirte, despite ongoing attacks from the terror group.
Faced with a shrinking grip throughout the country, ISIS fighters are stepping up their assaults on Libyan forces by deploying lethal IEDs.
The terror group is also increasing the number of suicide attacks and snipers in a bid to hamper soldiers loyal to the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli.
Lot of media are saying it is pretty much over for ISIS in Libya? I guess that dog doesn't hunt anymore.
That may be, but history shows us that US backed groups have a habit of turning around and biting the US on the ass when they no longer need the US.
See Vietnam and Afghanistan for evidence of this...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/19 21:19:12
"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 just ran across an article that shows polling numbers which are very bad for both Clinton and Trump - in Utah at least. If poll numbers reflect voting come November, McMullin could very well take the Beehive State. So, what happens then?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/19 21:22:06
Breotan wrote: I just ran across an article that shows polling numbers which are very bad for both Clinton and Trump - in Utah at least. If poll numbers reflect voting come November, McMullin could very well take the Beehive State. So, what happens then?
Not much, I don't think Utah's electoral votes are enough to alter the outcome of the election. If McMullin continues to poll better than Hillary or Trump over the next month and it gets more media attention and leads to other states seeing increasing polls for third party candidates then maybe it could mean something. Look at the states that Trump has to win to beat Clinton (NC, FLA, OH, NV etc) and the states that Clinton can't afford to lose (PA, MI, WI etc) and see how the candidates are polling there and what turnout projections look like in the upcoming weeks. Low turnouts and new voters can mess up predictions based on polling of what we conventionally think of as "likely voters."
Breotan wrote: I just ran across an article that shows polling numbers which are very bad for both Clinton and Trump - in Utah at least. If poll numbers reflect voting come November, McMullin could very well take the Beehive State. So, what happens then?
kronk wrote:
Easy. Don't confuse the Dixi-Crats of the 1950s and 60s with today's Democrats. They have more in common with the un-educated right these days than the current Democratic party.
And I say that as a Republican that spent his first 35 years in the South (Louisiana and Texas).
And as somebody who still lives in the South, I can assure you it's still there. Both among blacks and whites. It's just not as overt as it was in the Dixiecrat and Civil Rights era, because the worst of it was burned out of people's systems back then, and people (at least around here) try to live and let live. But some of the worst racist comments I've heard throughout my entire life has come from card-carrying Democrats, because most people in my part of the State are registered as Democrats.
Republicans around here, on average, tend to be better educated and successful than the average Democrat (many of whom are living on some sort of Federal assistance). And we are still in a minority when it comes to politics.
As for non-Southern Democrats, many are guilty of the worst kind of racism: the highly cynical "racism of lower expectations". The sames ones that perpetuate the "cult of victimization" because it gets the votes and political support.
infinite_array wrote:Hey, today I learned that a father and a son presidential team (with 8 years in between their terms) and a husband and wife team (with 16 years in between their terms) are dynasties!
Or maybe someone needs to tone down the exaggerations.
The facts are not exaggerations. The Bush dynasty has been involved in politics (on all levels, particularly Federal) every since Samuel P. Bush (the industrialist) was appointed head of the War Industries Board's Ordnance, Small Arms, and Ammunition Section in World War One. He also served on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, was appointed by Herbert Hoover to the President's Committee for Unemployment Relief, and was recommended to serve on the board for Reconstruction Finance Corporation. His son, Prescott, severed on the United States Senate for nine years and was a big shot Wall Street banker that was active in both business and politics. Besides Bush the Elder, Dubya, and Jeb, other noteworthies are Nancy Bush Ellis, who has been heavily involved in politics in both the Democratic and Republican parties, Jonathan Bush has been involved in shady dealings with the Saudis and lobbying in D.C. And that is not including other members of the family that have married into other powerful families, involved (and influential) in banking, lobbying, and multinational big business.
And everybody knows about the Kennedy clan. So, yeah, political dynasties exist in the American political mosaic, and have always existed there.
LordofHats wrote:
Meanwhile the Republicans have put up a complete race baiter for President, who seems to think that minorities will ignore his race baiting because reasons. That's not really that different from the mentality of Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, who for years have tried to paint the Democrats as a real racists and the Republican party as the party that freed the slaves and therefore completely unracist.
If anything you ably demonstrated the complete flaw of equating the present with the past, which just means you've played right into the criticism you were responding to.
It's not just in the past, amigo. As I mentioned earlier in this post, it's still there and very much alive. And I was speaking of the South in particular (though you can find it among Democratic Party machines across the United States).
Are there racists among the Republican Party? Of course there is. There were racists in the Party even back in Lincoln's day, when it was the "party of emancipation". That will never change. But to say that the Republican Party holds the exclusive title as "refuge to racists and bigots", or has more bigots amongst it's ranks than the Democrats, are patent falsehoods and myths perpetuated by the political establishment. .
The reason Trump tends to get labeled a "race baiter" is mostly due to his stances on illegal immigration, #BlackLivesMatter, and tightening up on immigration from predominately Islamic countries. How much of that is pandering to his support base, and how much is genuine, is still a big question. Though, I wouldn't hold my breath that he'll follow through on those stances. If he is as smart as I think he is, he'll quickly adjust to political realities and soften the rhetoric. Not that it will matter. Even those who attempt to approach such issues in a rational
manner will still be labeled as "hateful", "racist", "xenophobic" or "islamophobic" (my favorite contrived word) by the left and media organs.
I don't pay attention to either Hannity or Beck. They are both blowhards and shills for the political establishment, the Buckley-ite neocons in particular. To hell with them.
Vaktathi wrote:
So, theyll take a NYC tycoon who travels in many of the same circles as Clinton (remember...Trump invitied Hillary to his wedding), who seems to have to end of personal issues, with a past no less shady and arguably much worse than Clinton, who cannot maintain the undivodes support of a party once renknowned for its discipline and unity, simply because he hasnt held political office before?
Sounds like cutting off one's nose just to spite their face.
Just because you dont like Hillary doesnt mean that Trump is a viable alternative. I dont like Hillary. I wont be voting for her. But I will not vote for Trump and would take Hillary over Trump in a hearbeat. The me of 24 months ago would be shocked at that statement, but Trump is just no a reasonable alternative.
The Republican Party hasn't been unified or disciplined every since the National Review/William F. Buckley neocons ousted the Taft conservatives and "Old Right", and turned the party into the "lite beer" version of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It's put up a good front until the reign of Bush the Younger (Dubya). But the cracks began to show, with libertarians fleeing the party in favor of unelectible third parties, and paleos (like myself to a degree) being alienated. People started waking up, and realizing that when it comes to the political establishment, there is ultimately no real difference between the two major parties.
Sure, like Hilldog, the Hairpiece has a history of shady and questionable business practices, hobb-knobbing with the rich, powerful, and (probably) crooked, and has the mentality of a dumb jock. Sure Trump has a history of sexual indiscretions that others have had to clean up, just as Hillary has done for Slick Willie since the late 1970's. But as for being worse, that's matter of opinion. Trump hasn't held a position of political power and helped drop the ball in the Benghazi affair (a ball dropping that got four operators and a U.S. Ambassador killed). Trump doesn't have a trail of suspicious and convenient deaths tied to him that can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. And Trump hasn't (not yet, anyway) gone up before a Congressional investigation and hearings, lied his ass off, and had taxpayer-paid government cronies cover up for them, some out of fear of biting the hand that feeds them (figuratively speaking).
So, I'm willing to give him a shot. I expect him to screw up somewhere. But I'm willing to give a political unknown (celebrity he may be, he's no career politician) a fair shake at it, rather than cast my vote for another shill of the political establishment with (at least in the case of Benghazi) blood on her hands.
Or, its from real life experience. I explained the situation with my cousin in a post bove, and of the Trump supporters I personally know he's not that far off from the norm. I love many of them, they are friends and family, but, at least personally, they are either all 60+ and wish it were 1955 or have no education beyond high school (if that). When you go to online forums of Trump supporters, be it on Reddit, 4chan, facebook or others, they are populated overwhelmingly by either the very old or those without college degrees or other post HS education.
I do not personally know a single person with a college degree under 70 who is voting Trump.
You are looking at someone (or at least my typed words) who is under 70, and is college educated (Associates, Bachelors, and Masters Degrees), has professional skills, and plans on voting for Trump. Most in my family are well educated and skilled professionals, are under 70, some (like myself) have served, and the majority of them are lifelong Democrats (a couple were Obama supporters, and would vote for him again if he could run for another term). And every one of them plan on casting their vote for Trump. I know, personally, blacks, American Indians, and hispanics who support Trump and are educated (most them are in law enforcement or ex-military). The only one amongst my blood kin that supports Hillary Clinton is my pot head, ex-hippie cousin.
I will not sit here and deny that there are idiots, asshats, and trolls that support Donald Toupee (in the case of many on /pol/, I suspect that it's "for the lulz"). But I can assure you that some of us have legit reasons why we plan on voting the way we will. You might not agree with those reasons, and I can respect that view (as I respect the reasoning of the other folks I'm responding to right now, in this post, even if I disagree). And tell you the truth, I, and many others, could be absolutely wrong in our own reasoning. But that remains to be seen. And we won't know until we get there.
^This guy gets it. If some of the people in this thread bothered to seek information as vigorously as they defend HRC, then their perspectives might change. The media painting a bad narrative for Trump are mostly shills for the establishment and leaks prove such collusion.
The video I linked a short number of posts ago went ignored for some reason. Truth is a hard pill to swallow.
When is deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
And wave your hands and shout.
Why not go there, if the shoe fits. I get the whole gut reaction against labels, especially when they are fascile, but at some point the people who support certain policies have to recognize what policies they are supporting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Airman wrote: ^This guy gets it. If some of the people in this thread bothered to seek information as vigorously as they defend HRC, then their perspectives might change. The media painting a bad narrative for Trump are mostly shills for the establishment and leaks prove such collusion.
The video I linked a short number of posts ago went ignored for some reason. Truth is a hard pill to swallow.
Yes, we get it. Evidently, somehow Clinton is winning with the people who are more educated than people who are not. Here!s a wild idea. Get an education. Look at how people use language. Look at how people use media, look a how people use money. Sometimes an education isn't all that bad. Sometimes educated people make educated decisions. Sometimes it isn't the pill that is hard to swallow, sometimes it's the real world that s hard to swallow.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/19 22:13:24
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: I thought it was a vehicle that put other peoples money towards charity things, like fighting malaria. As opposed to using other peoples money to fund legal battles and other simalar things.
It depends on whether you read reports from independent third party charity analysis teams, or whether you support Trump.
The Airman wrote: ^This guy gets it. If some of the people in this thread bothered to seek information as vigorously as they defend HRC, then their perspectives might change. The media painting a bad narrative for Trump are mostly shills for the establishment and leaks prove such collusion.
The video I linked a short number of posts ago went ignored for some reason. Truth is a hard pill to swallow.
Ironic since most of your "evidence" comes from sub reddits, trumps mouth piece newsite, or dubious youtubers
The Airman wrote: ^This guy gets it. If some of the people in this thread bothered to seek information as vigorously as they defend HRC, then their perspectives might change. The media painting a bad narrative for Trump are mostly shills for the establishment and leaks prove such collusion.
The video I linked a short number of posts ago went ignored for some reason. Truth is a hard pill to swallow.
Ironic since most of your "evidence" comes from sub reddits, trumps mouth piece newsite, or dubious youtubers
Look up what happened to Scott Foval and Bob Creamer. The other videos regarding CNN I posted showed them being entirely unethical.
Additionally that subreddit image I posted was meant to point out areas of interest within the Project Veritas Action video I linked. You can sit there and lie to me about what I posted, I see where you get it from.
And lastly, WikiLeaks has a near 100 percent accuracy rating. So which part of my information is just "evidence", as you say? The denial is deliciously sweet
When is deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
And wave your hands and shout.
Ustrello wrote: At this point I feel like I am just yelling into the void with some posters and the "two evils" mantra they chant like modern day Gregorian monks
I've always been wary of making predictions, but as sure as Dakka follows Dakka, President Hilary Clinton will send the US Marines into some country, be it Syria, or some other part of the Middle East.
She has been itchng to intervene somewhere, anywhere, for years. Her track record on past conflicts is the evidence.
Expect the 'new' Cold War with Russia to hit freezing point on her watch.
If I'm wrong, and we're all still here in 4 years, and somebody remembers this post, I'll be the first to stick up my hand and say I was wrong.
But I get this dread feeling I'll be proven right on this and I don't want to be right on this, because it will mean that people will be getting killed.
infinite_array wrote: Hey, today I learned that a father and a son presidential team (with 8 years in between their terms) and a husband and wife team (with 16 years in between their terms) are dynasties!
Or maybe someone needs to tone down the exaggerations.
John Adams and John Quincy Adams.
George Bush and George W Bush, with Jeb Bush running for president, but failing...
Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton.
John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, who was obviously unsuccessful...
Franklin Roosevelt, and Teddy Roosevelt. Ok, they were cousins, but still related...
True, we're not exactly into Queen Victoria and 67 years territory, but IMO, the USA is not far off a dynasty in my book.
@Do_I_Not_Like_That: I sincerely hope Clinton loses. She would have already dropped out if not for collusion and extreme hardcore partisanship. The more Wikileaks keeps releasing the more dark a Clinton presidency looks.
By the way, one of Assange's "Dead Man's Switch"es went off and a 87 gigabyte file is available to the public via torrent. It has a lot of interesting files, including oddball stuff on Steve Jobs, Merkel and others. Assange is alleged to have more of these lying in wait just in case....so if the information that John Kerry tried to force Ecuador to hand over Assange is true, then John Kerry just literally screwed himself and everyone else.
In Clinton's defence, at least you know what you're getting with a Clinton administration.
A few cruise missiles lobbed into the desert, a few camels blown up, needless antagonism with Russia, and a continuation of Obama's domestic policies...
She did play a large part in the destabilization and overthrow of the Lybian government and the subsequent chaos there. ISIS pretty much owns that country now thanks to her.
US-backed government militia in Libya are pushing forward in their battle to expel ISIS from the coastal Libyan city of Sirte, despite ongoing attacks from the terror group.
Faced with a shrinking grip throughout the country, ISIS fighters are stepping up their assaults on Libyan forces by deploying lethal IEDs.
The terror group is also increasing the number of suicide attacks and snipers in a bid to hamper soldiers loyal to the UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli.
Lot of media are saying it is pretty much over for ISIS in Libya? I guess that dog doesn't hunt anymore.
That may be, but history shows us that US backed groups have a habit of turning around and biting the US on the ass when they no longer need the US.
See Vietnam and Afghanistan for evidence of this...
What actually is your prediction, that the USA will intervene somewhere in the world in the next four years, or that a nuclear war will wipe us all out?
It's a bit difficult to imagine that the USA will not intervene somewhere, given that it has been intervening since the end of WW2, and it hardly seems reasonable to point out Clinton as an exceptional non-exception to this.
The Airman wrote: ^This guy gets it. If some of the people in this thread bothered to seek information as vigorously as they defend HRC, then their perspectives might change. The media painting a bad narrative for Trump are mostly shills for the establishment and leaks prove such collusion.
The video I linked a short number of posts ago went ignored for some reason. Truth is a hard pill to swallow.
Ironic since most of your "evidence" comes from sub reddits, trumps mouth piece newsite, or dubious youtubers
Look up what happened to Scott Foval and Bob Creamer. The other videos regarding CNN I posted showed them being entirely unethical.
Additionally that subreddit image I posted was meant to point out areas of interest within the Project Veritas Action video I linked. You can sit there and lie to me about what I posted, I see where you get it from.
And lastly, WikiLeaks has a near 100 percent accuracy rating. So which part of my information is just "evidence", as you say? The denial is deliciously sweet
The real evidence that Hillary still isn't nearly as bad as Trump or the imaginary evidence which proves whatever you want it to? Without clarification things could be difficult to sort
*incoming post about how we are blind for not listening blindly*
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/10/19 22:57:47
oldravenman3025 wrote: or has more bigots amongst it's ranks than the Democrats, are patent falsehoods and myths perpetuated by the political establishment.
The Dems aren't the party that persisted in using racist double speak into the 21st century, the party that regularly falls back on racist stereotypes as part of general campaigning, nor are they the party that tried to bar black people from voting.
There are no doubt racists among the Dems, but the Dems have not made racism and its various cloaks of appeal part of their party ideology and platform. That's a big difference.
The reason Trump tends to get labeled a "race baiter"
He is labeled a race baiter because he is a race baiter. Whether or not he himself is racist (and there's lots of reason to think he is), is irrelevant to the label. He blatantly baits racism, among other kinds of derogatory categories. If Trump was even remotely capable of softening his rhetoric, he would have done so once we hit the general run. Except he didn't. It's safe to say that any hope Trump will adjust to political realities is looking a bit naive.
I don't pay attention to either Hannity or Beck. They are both blowhards and shills for the political establishment, the Buckley-ite neocons in particular. To hell with them.
Yeah but it's nice to know what's being peddled.
The Republican Party hasn't been unified or disciplined every since the National Review/William F. Buckley neocons ousted the Taft conservatives and "Old Right", and turned the party into the "lite beer" version of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. It's put up a good front until the reign of Bush the Younger (Dubya). But the cracks began to show, with libertarians fleeing the party in favor of unelectible third parties, and paleos (like myself to a degree) being alienated. People started waking up, and realizing that when it comes to the political establishment, there is ultimately no real difference between the two major parties.
You insist other people should read their history, but this shows a rather weak understanding and again a false equalizing of the present with the past. The Republican party of Taft was radically different from that of Lincoln, that of Eisenhower, and that of Reagan. Absolutely nothing about Buckley's influence is related to Taft. Buckley forced out the Eisenhower Republicans, who had forced out the Taft republicans much earlier in the late 20s. The liberal/conservative party dynamic is not universal. It didn't exist as a mainstay of US politics until the run of Barry Goldwater. Prior to the political realignment of the 1960s, the main distinctions between the two parties were over domestic social and economic policies. They were divided not on the left right axis, but rather the top down axis. The Republicans were generally Authoritarian while the Democrats were generally Libertarian (yes it's crazy I know). The big difference between the two was their response to the Civil Rights movement (matters both parties largely ignored prior to the 40s), which brought both parties back to the center of the top down axis by 1980, and resulted in a shift of the Dems to the left and the Reps to the right (at which time the current left-right dynamic became part of our general discourse for the worst). William Buckley was pretty influential in how things turned, but to call the Republicans who emerged from that period "lite beer" democrats shows a rather poor understanding of both party's ideologies at the time.
btw, Buckley might have denounced Ayn Rand and the John Birch society, but they did so in a targeted manner that allowed them to ensure followers of such would still vote for them. It was extremely well crafted. Reagan solidified that hold (the Libertarian Party's strongest showing were in 1980 and 2012, with their weakest showings being in 1984 and 1992). It's not that the party pushed Libertarians out it's that there were never very many libertarians to begin with. It's a small group that played a big role in shaping rhetoric but fundamentally little in actual policy. He's a big part of how racism went underground in America, hiding more than ever before behind double speak and code terms. Buckley played a huge role in making racist sentiment publicly untenable (and he does not get enough credit for this). However Buckley was not a politician. He was the Rupert Murdoch of the formative years of the new right, and the National Review the Fox News. He shaped the language people used, but ultimately his impact on actual voting demographics didn't stop the most racist elements of America from switching right, nor the Libertarians from falling into line to support Neoconservatives for twenty years. The John Birch Society was also very important in the formation of the new right, and Buckley's best efforts were unable to keep them out.
There's actually probably a good debate to be had about who was right in the end about the fate of the Republican party. William Buckley, or Robert Welch Jr. Both predicted that the other would be the party's downfall, and now what we're seeing is the fracturing of the party along the lines that divided them nearly half a century ago.
Sometimes it isn't the pill that is hard to swallow, sometimes it's the real world that s hard to swallow.
I tend to find that anyone who invokes "hard to swallow" language these days is the kind who needs to swallow the most
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: There is a rating agency for sources of distribution of hacked and stolen information?
If there isn't there probably will be soon. Hacktivism isn't going away anytime soon.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/10/19 23:09:34
d-usa wrote: The amount of lies and editing by Project Veritas just means that based on their history there is no reason to even watch their latest video.
He still hasn't released the unedited videos from his previous claims, despite lying that he did.
But he isn't a mainstream media shill so he is 100 percent correct amirite?
Wait, people are taking the project veritas seriously? Guys, above in the thread people were lambasting Moore for his less than ethical documentary style. He would readily embrace that description, I think. But now people are willing to take the guy who uses many of the same tactics to make his videos as Moore at face value? When Moore's new movie comes out, use the same deductive analysis you use on project veritas' videos, you might be disappointed. Also keep in min that one of those people are indicted under federal law, and it isn't Moore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/10/19 23:31:21
d-usa wrote: The amount of lies and editing by Project Veritas just means that based on their history there is no reason to even watch their latest video.
He still hasn't released the unedited videos from his previous claims, despite lying that he did.
So Creamer and Foval did not do the things they did or say the things they said, and they both stepped down for no reason?
Sweet, sweet denial. You wouldn't be trying to Correct The Record would you?
When is deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
And wave your hands and shout.
d-usa wrote: The amount of lies and editing by Project Veritas just means that based on their history there is no reason to even watch their latest video.
He still hasn't released the unedited videos from his previous claims, despite lying that he did.
So Creamer and Foval did not do the things they did or say the things they said, and they both stepped down for no reason?
Sweet, sweet denial. You wouldn't be trying to Correct The Record would you?
Ooh, shill accusations! I was waiting for those.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
d-usa wrote: The amount of lies and editing by Project Veritas just means that based on their history there is no reason to even watch their latest video.
He still hasn't released the unedited videos from his previous claims, despite lying that he did.
So Creamer and Foval did not do the things they did or say the things they said, and they both stepped down for no reason?
Sweet, sweet denial. You wouldn't be trying to Correct The Record would you?
Nah man Trump's just an evil fascist don't worry about madam Hillary #ImWithHer
Once again, we march to war, for Victory or Death!
Never wake yourself at night, unless you are spying on your enemy or looking for a place to relieve yourself. - The Poetic Edda
Breotan wrote: I just ran across an article that shows polling numbers which are very bad for both Clinton and Trump - in Utah at least. If poll numbers reflect voting come November, McMullin could very well take the Beehive State. So, what happens then?
There is literally no polling in Utah that could be bad for Hillary - it was one of the reddest states on the map. The fact that Trumps own idiocy may see him lose those electoral votes probably has the Clinton campaign staffers giggling like school girls. Texas in Play, Utah in play, it's a complete collapse of the disorganised Trump machine.
Sorry to shove my nose in, but the YouTube chat feed is absolutely fething hilarious - best entertainment i've ever seen!
here's the link, give it a whirl..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=466E33mxzBs
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
You are looking at someone (or at least my typed words) who is under 70, and is college educated (Associates, Bachelors, and Masters Degrees), has professional skills, and plans on voting for Trump.
I understand that there are people with good education that are planning to vote Trump, hence why I noted, "I do not personally know", but my primary point was that it's not just "The Media" that propagates that idea that educated voters are fleeing Trump and undereducated voters are flocking to him, and are by far his largest and most fervent political base.
Just about every poll I can find, even those that typically lean Republican (like the Wall Street Journal and Rasmussen), are showing that college educated voters are heavily favoring Clinton, and for the first time in a lifetime, a majority of white college educated voters are appearing to favor the Democratic candidate, while support among whites with no degree for the Republicans has increased.
I will not sit here and deny that there are idiots, asshats, and trolls that support Donald Toupee (in the case of many on /pol/, I suspect that it's "for the lulz"). But I can assure you that some of us have legit reasons why we plan on voting the way we will. You might not agree with those reasons, and I can respect that view (as I respect the reasoning of the other folks I'm responding to right now, in this post, even if I disagree). And tell you the truth, I, and many others, could be absolutely wrong in our own reasoning. But that remains to be seen. And we won't know until we get there.
Fair enough.
Sure, like Hilldog, the Hairpiece has a history of shady and questionable business practices, hobb-knobbing with the rich, powerful, and (probably) crooked, and has the mentality of a dumb jock. Sure Trump has a history of sexual indiscretions that others have had to clean up, just as Hillary has done for Slick Willie since the late 1970's. But as for being worse, that's matter of opinion. Trump hasn't held a position of political power and helped drop the ball in the Benghazi affair (a ball dropping that got four operators and a U.S. Ambassador killed).
Which the Republicans saw fit to blame entirely on Hillary despite being very far removed from it (though admittedly she does share some blame being in the top state dept job), and was used by the Republicans as a political device (by their own admission) and beaten to death as an issue. It was a sad event that happened, that was blown out of proportions, it would never have gotten to the levels of teeth-gnashing and congressional inquiries that it did had Hillary not been involved. Had it been Powell or Rice in that job, we wouldn't be hearing a peep about it, and I don't think that's a controversial assertion.
Trump doesn't have a trail of suspicious and convenient deaths tied to him that can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The issue here is that nobody except the ultrapartisan puts any stock in these stories, and that for most people died as an issue almost 20 years and 3 presidents ago. If our sole evidence is "well we can't prove she didn't have something to do with these deaths", well, I'm just as guilty of them. I admit my wee lad self may have been in on the whitewhater coverup because nobody can prove I wasn't.
There's plenty to ding Hillary on (like her atrocious conduct in the 2008 primary), but the conspiracy stuff doesn't have traction outside the "I hate Hillary" echo chamber. Nobody is hitting her on things that are going to change people's minds that weren't already made up. Obama beat her as an underdog in 2008 for a reason, and the Republicans have chosen to pretty much only use what riles up their base on not what works on undecided and opposition voters.
That said, in large part that may be because Trump exhibits those same behaviors, only moreso. Which is why he's currently on track for a potential landslide defeat if the polls don't change massively in the next three weeks.
And Trump hasn't (not yet, anyway) gone up before a Congressional investigation and hearings, lied his ass off, and had taxpayer-paid government cronies cover up for them, some out of fear of biting the hand that feeds them (figuratively speaking).
Except he's done the equivalent to boards, business partners, sexual partners, tenants, suppliers, etc... with clockwork regularity, and nobody seems to disagree with that. Why does anything think putting him in the highest political office in the land will net a different result?
So, I'm willing to give him a shot. I expect him to screw up somewhere. But I'm willing to give a political unknown (celebrity he may be, he's no career politician) a fair shake at it, rather than cast my vote for another shill of the political establishment with (at least in the case of Benghazi) blood on her hands.
Essentially it boils down to "we know he's a shitbag that we expect to screw up, but we'll give him the job anyway because he isn't part of the establishment despite being chummy friends with all of them up until he ran for office!". The dude is an inhereted wealth billionaire New York businessman in his 70's that thinks he gets away with whatever he wants, and aside from just not having held public office before and being mean to people in tweets in a way politicians ordinarily would not be, he's about as "establishment" as they come. It's hard to take him as an "anti-establishment" character there, he's just trying to enhance his position among that establishment.
Again, I'm not saying vote for Hillary, and again, I'm not going to vote for her. In terms of democratic politicians I think the only one I like less is Diane Feinstein (who's ideal world is seemingly "1984"), but there's no rational basis for thinking Trump is a reasonable alternative or that he's "anti-establishment" beyond simply ousting whoever is at the top to put himself there, and I just don't see where that's a particularly anti-establishment position. His policy proposals have been either nonexistent or largely fiction, it pretty much just boils down to "yeah I'll make it better" without any explanation or detail, or when we do get detail it's fantasy stuff. Hillary at least has put out *some* solid policy stuff, even if it's not something I necessarily agree with.
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.
d-usa wrote: The amount of lies and editing by Project Veritas just means that based on their history there is no reason to even watch their latest video.
He still hasn't released the unedited videos from his previous claims, despite lying that he did.
So Creamer and Foval did not do the things they did or say the things they said, and they both stepped down for no reason?
Sweet, sweet denial. You wouldn't be trying to Correct The Record would you?
Ooh, shill accusations! I was waiting for those.
More tongue-in-cheek than seroous, but at this point a fanatical defense of Hillary is pretty braindead.
When is deadly danger,
When beset by doubt,
Run in little circles,
And wave your hands and shout.
d-usa wrote: The amount of lies and editing by Project Veritas just means that based on their history there is no reason to even watch their latest video.
He still hasn't released the unedited videos from his previous claims, despite lying that he did.
So Creamer and Foval did not do the things they did or say the things they said, and they both stepped down for no reason?
Sweet, sweet denial. You wouldn't be trying to Correct The Record would you?
Ooh, shill accusations! I was waiting for those.
More tongue-in-cheek than seroous, but at this point a fanatical defense of Hillary is pretty braindead.
I think irony is lost on a certain crowd. Which is too bad really, because they would have the most to gain from a good laugh or a good realignment of perception.
