View Full Version : POTUS Election thread
Bill Clinton was a notorious womeniser. Trump has said much more stupid things than this, and didn't say it 10 years ago. Hillary is a much worse person, Trump probably has only blood on his hands once a month if he actually does it
Bill Clinton is a completely different person in many aspects. Surely not a flawless one, but then who is? There is also a difference between liking women and degrading them.
That Trump has said even more stupid things on many occasions works in his favor how exactly?
And no, Hillary is not a much worse person. Unless you mean worse than Bill Clinton, that I'd agree with. But to say she is worse than Trump is just wrong, certainly if you compare their proposals and goals. That she has had a job where she had to make hard decisions and Trump didn't does not make her a worse person just like that. Not to forget that he supported the bombing of Libya and the invasion in Iraq.
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12842998/trump-iraq-libya-lie-command-in-chief-forum
So you really have no point there.
Montmorency
10-10-2016, 12:54
Trump would be a goldmine for the type of women he abused and I haven't heard of any lawsuits. He was just larking probably. everybody already knows he's a sexist who thinks lowly of women. Probably with good reason as he's rich, atracts certain types
You mean this (http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/)?
Feel free to look up the many many scandals surrounding Hillary, does she belong in jail instead of the White House, yeah. Trump might be an idiot but at least he's really an idiot. Hillary scares the crap out of me she is a very dangerous woman.
Montmorency
10-10-2016, 13:10
How do you feel about Henry Kissinger?
You mean this (http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/)?
Never heard of that, won't say it isn't true
Feel free to look up the many many scandals surrounding Hillary, does she belong in jail instead of the White House, yeah. Trump might be an idiot but at least he's really an idiot. Hillary scares the crap out of me she is a very dangerous woman.
Well, when Stalin the criminal fought Hitler the idiot, the criminal won.
Which only shows us that a criminal mastermind is still better to lead a nation than an idiot, without wanting to take the comparison any further.
Whether Hillary actually is a criminal mastermind is entirely up for debate though because all the Republicans have are scandals but not a single conviction. I will give you that I don't think she is clean, but neither is Trump "only" an idiot. Trump University is an outright scam, that's not idiocy, that is evil and criminal. Not to forget that he bribed that attourney in Florida with money donated to his charity to not get sued. So you still don't really have a point there as Trump is obviously just as capable of criminal actions. It's not even surprising given that humans tend to choose psychopaths as their leaders:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/of-psychopaths-and-presidential-candidates/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/1-in-5-ceos-are-psychopaths-australian-study-finds/
That Bernie Sanders got anywhere is the hopeful part.
You have to be a psychopath to want the job anyway probably
Sarmatian
10-10-2016, 14:36
Let's face it, Trump is barely fit to be considered a human being, but his scandals with women are nothing compared to Bill Clinton's, which Hillary helped cover up. Using a position of power to force women to provide sexual favours to you, is, for all intents and purposes, rape.
You have to be a psychopath to want the job anyway probably
Sanders is actually close to Gandhi, and doesn't seem to have any traits in the psychopathic range.
Obviously the people preferred psychopathic Hillary and Trump. Don't forget that people vote for them based on preference.
:dizzy2:
Let's face it, Trump is barely fit to be considered a human being, but his scandals with women are nothing compared to Bill Clinton's, which Hillary helped cover up. Using a position of power to force women to provide sexual favours to you, is, for all intents and purposes, rape.
I've got to be running with outdated info, I thought his affair(s) were consensual, or is the abuse of power always implied when one person is a president and the other is not?
Let's face it, Trump is barely fit to be considered a human being, but his scandals with women are nothing compared to Bill Clinton's, which Hillary helped cover up. Using a position of power to force women to provide sexual favours to you, is, for all intents and purposes, rape.
Women aren't mindless, rape goes too far. But Bill Clinton certainly liked tons of it. Hillary's role in intimidating Bill's (probably very
eager) 'victims' is much more questionable. She pretends to for women yet gets funded by the most backward counties one could think off. How woman see any sense in that I can't grasp
Gilrandir
10-10-2016, 15:16
Sanders is actually close to Gandhi, and doesn't seem to have any traits in the psychopathic range.
Gandhi was (allegedly) a racist:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ghana-removes-statue-racist-mahatma-gandhi-1585365
Sarmatian
10-10-2016, 15:27
I've got to be running with outdated info, I thought his affair(s) were consensual, or is the abuse of power always implied when one person is a president and the other is not?
It doesn't appear to be that way. Monica Lewinsky maintains that the relationship was consensual, but at the same time she says Clinton took advantage of her.
At best, it is actually performing in practice what Trump was talking about.
Some other cases are in the grey area. Paula Jones for instance, filed a lawsuit against Clinton for sexual harassment. Clintons made a deal with her to withdraw in exchange of 850,000$.
Of course, it is not impossible that some malicious women were trying to take advantage and make money, but there's too much there to be just that.
It doesn't appear to be that way. Monica Lewinsky maintains that the relationship was consensual, but at the same time she says Clinton took advantage of her.
At best, it is actually performing in practice what Trump was talking about.
Some other cases are in the grey area. Paula Jones for instance, filed a lawsuit against Clinton for sexual harassment. Clintons made a deal with her to withdraw in exchange of 850,000$.
Of course, it is not impossible that some malicious women were trying to take advantage and make money, but there's too much there to be just that.
I just read up on some allegations, and it is in fact terrible if true.
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/09/497291071/a-brief-history-of-juanita-broaddrick-the-woman-accusing-bill-clinton-of-rape
http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/bill-clinton-rape-victim-hillary-knew/
The sad thing is that I'd still prefer Clinton as POTUS than Trump, one might want to ask why that sort of thing only gets into the spotlight now and how the parties could end up nominating these two as candidates when there were so many other choices...
I mean Trump basically engaged in modern slavery: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/donald-trump-model-management-illegal-immigration
And even "imported" foreigners for that...
Not to forget that every third sentence he utters seems to include a lie and that even though his language is so very simple.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-10-2016, 16:25
Harding, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton were all notorious womanizers.
F. Roosevelt, while not notorious, had a mistress during his tenure and more or less died in her arms.
Fidelity, per se, is not a relevant concern to the office.
None of the aforementioned ever got themselves recorded bragging about it like a 16-year old high school footballer in a locker room d*** measuring discussion.
Man's got multiple billion dollars from an amazing business career and celebrity status to boot and feels he has to do that kind of locker-room bragging to impress....Billy Bush?
NOT a level of maturity I feel should be associated with the office.
22 Declared candidates among the two major parties and more than a $100m dollars spent and THESE TWO are the choices we are left with? [I would insert a 'screaming vomit' smiley here if we had one]
We've got a "big government cures all" self-serving liar whose BEST leadership characteristic is her Machiavellianism and an insecure narcissistic rich guy who demagogues for the benefit of the LOWEST common denominator while bragging about his penis.
I am voting for my wife. I will still be getting f**ked by the person for whom I a voting -- just like the rest of the country -- but unlike the other choices I actually respect her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aaF9PRt0Qs
Diarrhea and constipation. :laugh4:
I also wonder why anyone would want to fly to a star. :sweatdrop:
Greyblades
10-10-2016, 17:31
So can we agree that this is now a choice between Göring and a female Himmler?
21 Declared candidates among the two major parties and more than a $100m dollars spent and THESE TWO are the choices we are left with? [I would insert a 'screaming vomit' smiley here if we had one]
We've got a "big government cures all" self-serving liar whose BEST leadership characteristic is her Machiavellianism and insecure narcissistic rich guy who demagogues for the benefit of the LOWEST common denominator while bragging about his penis.
I am voting for my wife. I will still be getting f**ked by the person for whom I a voting -- just like the rest of the country -- but unlike the other choices I actually respect her.
It's pretty funny, in a very sad, morbid, and depressing way. If the Democrats had done what the Republicans did (had a fair nomination process), and if the Republicans had done what the Democrats did (allow party insiders control over their nomination), we wouldn't be in this mess. Both parties should really be ashamed of themselves, and it may take decades before the GOP recovers from this debacle.
I will be writing in either Bernie or Cthulhu, depending on my nihilism level that day. My congressional vote is still up for grabs. The GOP really needs to get smacked down, but it's pretty much guaranteed at this point that Hillary will have the Senate. Giving her the House as well is a step too far.
Sarmatian
10-10-2016, 17:57
Harding, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton were all notorious womanizers.
Womanizers I don't mind. Rapists on the other hand, belong in jail.
Bill is as bad and disrespectful to women as Trump, at least. At most, he's a rapist.
Montmorency
10-10-2016, 17:57
So can we agree that this is now a choice between Göring and a female Himmler?
Neither of them bear any resemblance to either of these individuals. Pick another two out of the Nazi hat. Maybe you can get a lucky draw.
Greyblades
10-10-2016, 18:12
What, an over inflated ego, pomposity and a tendancy for self aggrandizement isnt ringing any bells?
Seamus Fermanagh
10-10-2016, 18:18
What, an over inflated ego, pomposity and a tendancy for self aggrandizement isnt ringing any bells?
And in what way are these characteristics peculiar to the German National Socialist Workers Party?
I would challenge you to find virtually any cadre of political leaders throughout history without finding a good bit of this present.
Kralizec
10-10-2016, 18:38
It doesn't appear to be that way. Monica Lewinsky maintains that the relationship was consensual, but at the same time she says Clinton took advantage of her.
At best, it is actually performing in practice what Trump was talking about.
Some other cases are in the grey area. Paula Jones for instance, filed a lawsuit against Clinton for sexual harassment. Clintons made a deal with her to withdraw in exchange of 850,000$.
Of course, it is not impossible that some malicious women were trying to take advantage and make money, but there's too much there to be just that.
Paula Jones case dragged on for a while, but only because Clinton argued at first that the case couldn't be brought against a sitting president. When it went forward, it was dismissed very quickly. Clinton settled to prevent it from going through the appeal process, and according to Bill himself it was only to move on with his life. Considering that Paula Jones' lawsuit was the trigger for the Lewinsky scandal I tend to believe that explanation.
The most serious allegation levelled against Clinton was by Juanita Broaddrick, who was allegedly raped. Her case is full of holes: she became active as a political volunteer for Bill Clinton after he supposedly raped her, she kept quite about it for 20 years, denied in a court proceeding there was any truth to rumours of rape...before making a 180 degree turn, claiming it took her so long because she was emotionally distressed. Granted, that is possible, but nevertheless the whole story is fairly dubious- and the onus is on the accusing side.
I'm sure there are others, and it's universally accepted that Bill is/was promiscuous, but saying "well, there's a lot of smoke, so there probably is a fire of some sort..." isn't going to cut it. The problem with Trump's attacks isn't just that all of these allegations are unproven, but also that there's absolutely no indication that Hillary covered up for him or threatened these women in any way. This whole angle of attack is an excercise in stupidity, especially considering Trump's own record of marital infidelity.
So can we agree that this is now a choice between Göring and a female Himmler?
It sounds like you're the only one who has changed his opinion. Every sane person has known for months that Trump is a complete sack of shit, what took you so long?
Hillary would probably not be my first choice if I were an American either. She has popularity issues for a reason. And yet, somehow, the alternative the Republicans are pushing is *Trump*? Hillary can at least be counted on to govern rationally, and to pursue policies that are liked by US democrats and liberals.
Greyblades
10-10-2016, 18:49
This election feels like a choice between two who fit into my conceptions of goering and himmler. Why are you two being so confrontational.
Edit:by you two I dont mean krazelic, I dont need the displeasure of a hillary fan explained to me.
Kralizec
10-10-2016, 19:07
I agree, explanations are lost on you.
I don't understand the choice of either party, out of so many decent and qualified people get to choose between a corrupt bitch and a vulgar brawler. Lots of eyes must be rolling.
Greyblades
10-10-2016, 19:24
I cant seem to remember what heinous thing I did to piss off krazelik and montmorency this way, unless they are somehow taking my distaste for hillary personally now.
Sarmatian
10-10-2016, 20:11
Paula Jones case dragged on for a while, but only because Clinton argued at first that the case couldn't be brought against a sitting president. When it went forward, it was dismissed very quickly. Clinton settled to prevent it from going through the appeal process, and according to Bill himself it was only to move on with his life. Considering that Paula Jones' lawsuit was the trigger for the Lewinsky scandal I tend to believe that explanation.
The only thing missing from that explanation is ponies and rainbows.
If it were the only one, I might have agreed with you.
The most serious allegation levelled against Clinton was by Juanita Broaddrick, who was allegedly raped. Her case is full of holes: she became active as a political volunteer for Bill Clinton after he supposedly raped her, she kept quite about it for 20 years, denied in a court proceeding there was any truth to rumours of rape...before making a 180 degree turn, claiming it took her so long because she was emotionally distressed. Granted, that is possible, but nevertheless the whole story is fairly dubious- and the onus is on the accusing side.
I'm sure there are others, and it's universally accepted that Bill is/was promiscuous, but saying "well, there's a lot of smoke, so there probably is a fire of some sort..." isn't going to cut it.
Well, statistics tell us that only 2% of rapes are falsely reported and in many cases victims don't report it for a very long time, if ever. So, the odds of several women falsely accusing Bill Clinton are minute.
Is he a rapist in the true sense of the word? Maybe, I don't know, but he is definitely a scumbag who disrespected, objectified and sexualized women, and in that sense, he is at least as bad as Trump.
Montmorency
10-10-2016, 20:20
Well, statistics tell us that only 2% of rapes are falsely reported and in many cases victims don't report it for a very long time, if ever.
This argument is a non-starter. There is no reliable way to calculate a false-report rate. There isn't even a way to calculate a report rate.
Kralizec
10-10-2016, 20:32
Well, statistics tell us that only 2% of rapes are falsely reported and in many cases victims don't report it for a very long time, if ever. So, the odds of several women falsely accusing Bill Clinton are minute.
Is he a rapist in the true sense of the word? Maybe, I don't know, but he is definitely a scumbag who disrespected, objectified and sexualized women, and in that sense, he is at least as bad as Trump.
I'm not sure that there are other rape allegations against Bill except the Broadrick case. There are multiple stories of sexual harassment, though.
I can agree on Bill being a sexist pig.
Forget about Bill Clinton being a sex-addict, let's talk about Hillary intimidating his victims instead. There is so much wrong with this woman, she is relentless, any humanity is completily lost to her. Why can't people see what kind of person she is. I only need a second
rory_20_uk
10-10-2016, 21:41
I don't want to marry the bint or even have a conversation with her. Right about now the bar is set at "not Trump".
Even if one of her hobbies was driving around DC with an assault rifle picking off the passers by she's still be on balance a better candidate.
~:smoking:
She probably has a much better crew, but I'm not sure what they are good at
She probably has a much better crew, but I'm not sure what they are good at
Now we're discussing politics with the lingo used in rap battles and gang wars.
Thanks, Obama.
Now we're discussing politics with the lingo used in rap battles and gang wars.
Thanks, Obama.
I don't understand?
Montmorency
10-10-2016, 23:20
Now we're discussing politics with the lingo used in rap battles and gang wars.
No - pirates.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-10-2016, 23:20
Now we're discussing politics with the lingo used in rap battles and gang wars.
Thanks, Obama.
"Will you never cease prating of laws to us that have swords by our sides?"
-- Gnaeus Pompeius "Magnus"
Madison cribbed quite a bit off the Romaoi.
HopAlongBunny
10-11-2016, 03:21
Quick over-view from FiveThirtyEight:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-second-debate-probably-didnt-help-trump-and-he-needed-help/
Best line: Or was the whole business a sort of confidence trick, which was bound to implode once people began to lose faith in it?
Mixed results from tape:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-polls-show-potential-fallout-from-trump-tape/
Gilrandir
10-11-2016, 09:34
I cant seem to remember what heinous thing I did to piss off krazelik
For once, you can't spell his nickname properly.
As for the discussion, I don't understand what personal sexual inclinations have to do with performing one's duties as POTUS. Let him/her be a good president from 9 to 5, and do whatever pleases him/her (staying within the law) in his/her spare time.
rory_20_uk
10-11-2016, 22:05
For once, you can't spell his nickname properly.
As for the discussion, I don't understand what personal sexual inclinations have to do with performing one's duties as POTUS. Let him/her be a good president from 9 to 5, and do whatever pleases him/her (staying within the law) in his/her spare time.
The head of state is the chief salesperson of the country. So being a letch in one's spare time does impact on the day job - like it or not, world leaders are humans and will respond to the person as well as the message.
~:smoking:
The head of state is the chief salesperson of the country. So being a letch in one's spare time does impact on the day job - like it or not, world leaders are humans and will respond to the person as well as the message.
~:smoking:
Given that they're most likely psychopaths of a similar kind, you could say that makes it a plus. :sweatdrop:
Excuse my ignorance of politics, its rules and the game around it.
But isn't there any openings that can be employed if the american people suddenly realized that they either have to vote for Hitler or Stalin? Can the republicans throw in a candidate at this point that the republican voters will flock en-mass to? Is there any rule-book that can be thrown into the ring at this point?
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2016, 14:26
Excuse my ignorance of politics, its rules and the game around it.
But isn't there any openings that can be employed if the american people suddenly realized that they either have to vote for Hitler or Stalin? Can the republicans throw in a candidate at this point that the republican voters will flock en-mass to? Is there any rule-book that can be thrown into the ring at this point?
Only a massive write-in campaign could alter things at this point. The various state ballots have been locked.
Pannonian
10-12-2016, 14:38
Harding, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton were all notorious womanizers.
F. Roosevelt, while not notorious, had a mistress during his tenure and more or less died in her arms.
Fidelity, per se, is not a relevant concern to the office.
None of the aforementioned ever got themselves recorded bragging about it like a 16-year old high school footballer in a locker room d*** measuring discussion.
Man's got multiple billion dollars from an amazing business career and celebrity status to boot and feels he has to do that kind of locker-room bragging to impress....Billy Bush?
NOT a level of maturity I feel should be associated with the office.
22 Declared candidates among the two major parties and more than a $100m dollars spent and THESE TWO are the choices we are left with? [I would insert a 'screaming vomit' smiley here if we had one]
We've got a "big government cures all" self-serving liar whose BEST leadership characteristic is her Machiavellianism and an insecure narcissistic rich guy who demagogues for the benefit of the LOWEST common denominator while bragging about his penis.
I am voting for my wife. I will still be getting f**ked by the person for whom I a voting -- just like the rest of the country -- but unlike the other choices I actually respect her.
We have a government proposing fascist policies, while our leader of the opposition is a communist (and his chief of staff is someone whom even the Communists considered an extremist nutter). Are things worse on your side of the water?
Gilrandir
10-12-2016, 15:05
The head of state is the chief salesperson of the country. So being a letch in one's spare time does impact on the day job - like it or not, world leaders are humans and will respond to the person as well as the message.
So world leaders won't speak to a POTUS who is notorious for his heartbreaking skills?
World leaders don't vote POTUS in. And here we have voters discussing whether it is appropriate for an official to be a lady's man in his spare time. Let him rule gloriously and indulge in whatever legal pastime he fancies.
So world leaders won't speak to a POTUS who is notorious for his heartbreaking skills?
World leaders don't vote POTUS in. And here we have voters discussing whether it is appropriate for an official to be a lady's man in his spare time. Let him rule gloriously and indulge in whatever legal pastime he fancies.
I agree with that but who am I. How it should be isn't always how things are.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-12-2016, 15:38
We have a government proposing fascist policies, while our leader of the opposition is a communist (and his chief of staff is someone whom even the Communists considered an extremist nutter). Are things worse on your side of the water?
Worse, no. But I am not sure they are substantively better. The functional major party has a significant portion of their followership who want to repeat -- more or less completely -- the policies and approach to governance and society that is working so "well" for Sweden right now. The dysfunctional party has a candidate who is too narcissistic to be a fascist and the party has at least three major sub-components, maybe 4, none of whom are willing to comfortably hang out under that proverbial "big tent."
Our two-party system has been a source of stability since early in the Republic. Of course, the last time one of the two went belly up, we had a Civil War going within 5 years.
The GOP is living in "interesting times." [Chinese curse definition of that phrase]
So world leaders won't speak to a POTUS who is notorious for his heartbreaking skills?
World leaders don't vote POTUS in. And here we have voters discussing whether it is appropriate for an official to be a lady's man in his spare time. Let him rule gloriously and indulge in whatever legal pastime he fancies.
And here we have a foreigner telling voters how to choose their candidate? :dizzy2:
a completely inoffensive name
10-13-2016, 02:12
Our two-party system has been a source of stability since early in the Republic. Of course, the last time one of the two went belly up, we had a Civil War going within 5 years.
And the first time one went belly up, we had the Era of Good Feelings. So your mileage may vary.
Gilrandir
10-13-2016, 14:08
And here we have a foreigner telling voters how to choose their candidate? :dizzy2:
This forum is all about giving foreigners a piece of one's mind, isn't it?
But getting personal, why were you not shy to tell a foreigner what lamps he should use? Perhaps because you deemed it universal truth?
This forum is all about giving foreigners a piece of one's mind, isn't it?
But getting personal, why were you not shy to tell a foreigner what lamps he should use? Perhaps because you deemed it universal truth?
Fellow EU citizens are not foreigners.
Once we are all United Earth citizens, you can tell those from the US-district how to choose their governor.
Gilrandir
10-13-2016, 15:19
Fellow EU citizens are not foreigners.
You are snubbing not only me (as a non-EU citizen), but Norwegians as well.
Once we are all United Earth citizens, you can tell those from the US-district how to choose their governor.
Let's wait until then.
You are snubbing not only me (as a non-EU citizen), but Norwegians as well.
About you I don't know, but Norwegians follow those guidelines willingly.
Does Ukraine not have the technology to produce its own incandescents if it wants them so much?
Gilrandir
10-13-2016, 17:05
About you I don't know, but Norwegians follow those guidelines willingly.
Does Ukraine not have the technology to produce its own incandescents if it wants them so much?
I was referring to your comment on a foreigner giving advice to voters, not on incandescents. The latter are produced in plenty. And the lamp you showed (looking like incandescent but being LED) is not available - at least at those outlets I inquired. They had only those non-translucent ones which emit the kind of light I dislike.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-13-2016, 17:25
And the first time one went belly up, we had the Era of Good Feelings. So your mileage may vary.
First collapse was the more conservative party, Second was the more liberal. Probably due for a conservative collapse this time, if you adhere to the pendulum notion.
a completely inoffensive name
10-14-2016, 02:04
First collapse was the more conservative party, Second was the more liberal. Probably due for a conservative collapse this time, if you adhere to the pendulum notion.
Can you really apply those labels accurately to Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans?
Federalists emphasized strong national government, while the party of Jefferson emphasized the states...you sure it was the conservatives that collapsed?
Oh noes, two kisses on the cheek and one on the mouth, I do that as well. Sexual-assault must be something else in the US of A
rory_20_uk
10-14-2016, 14:56
So world leaders won't speak to a POTUS who is notorious for his heartbreaking skills?
World leaders don't vote POTUS in. And here we have voters discussing whether it is appropriate for an official to be a lady's man in his spare time. Let him rule gloriously and indulge in whatever legal pastime he fancies.
To paraphrase Churchill, he'd find good things to say about the Devil if in an alliance.
I have no interest in him being a lady's man - it being when he boasts of being a letch and lies about it that it becomes an issue.
World leaders didn't vote him in. But there's a good chance he'll have to deal with the world. If they all perceive him as lying scum that makes things harder for the USA.
~:smoking:
Treating women as sub-human shouldn't be that much of a problem with Hillary's foreign friends either. This is all good fun in an awful way. I have never seen anything like it
Hooahguy
10-14-2016, 18:21
World leaders didn't vote him in. But there's a good chance he'll have to deal with the world. If they all perceive him as lying scum that makes things harder for the USA.
~:smoking:
I mean to be fair both candidates have this issue, though I think overall Trump has it worse on the "world leaders dont respect me" part.
HopAlongBunny
10-14-2016, 19:49
Fortunately, The Donald has revealed a complicated conspiracy to steal the election from him.
It is of course Hillary; backed by International Bankers, the Media, women (of course) and the Clinton spiderweb of crime.
Proof!? Who needs proof? Donald said so! So there:
http://wonkette.com/607530/donald-trump-is-going-insane-right-now-about-jews-and-ugly-women-out-to-get-him
Do something against the establishment of billionaires and corporations and vote for the billionaire who owns a huge corporation!
AE Bravo
10-14-2016, 20:54
Treating women as sub-human shouldn't be that much of a problem with Hillary's foreign friends either. This is all good fun in an awful way. I have never seen anything like it
Yet sexual harassment and rape is skyrocketing in your culture, way more than the middle east. Even people running for president indulge in it. Where are women really "subhuman?"
Maybe that's why the overly thirsty Muslims flock to you.
Montmorency
10-14-2016, 21:41
Ah, that old casuistry. To keep with the style, I'll point out then that of course the Presidents of Middle Eastern countries can't be rapists if they personally own those women.
AE Bravo
10-14-2016, 22:19
Ah, that old casuistry. To keep with the style, I'll point out then that of course the Presidents of Middle Eastern countries can't be rapists if they personally own those women.
Wrong. They own everyone. Both genders are victims of this, still significantly less than western rape culture.
Montmorency
10-14-2016, 22:52
So you have just weakened yourself from multiple angles, by conflating oligarchy with rape culture and then going on to claim that oligarchy is stronger in the Middle East, and that this somehow has bearing on rape culture in the West, which surely must needs be worse than in the Middle East.
Cut the drivel.
Yet sexual harassment and rape is skyrocketing in your culture, way more than the middle east. Even people running for president indulge in it. Where are women really "subhuman?"
Maybe that's why the overly thirsty Muslims flock to you.
That could be fair I guess, but rape in muslim countries is low because women are forced into a role. You can easily counter that of course
AE Bravo
10-14-2016, 23:32
So you have just weakened yourself from multiple angles, by conflating oligarchy with rape culture and then going on to claim that oligarchy is stronger in the Middle East, and that this somehow has bearing on rape culture in the West, which surely must needs be worse than in the Middle East.
Cut the drivel.
I think you're being pedantic. I just responded to your bs with some bs. You should try disproving a point rather than arguing semantics or writing a dissertation on a forum. Rape is more prominent where? End of story. Whether you attribute this to oligarchy or religious piety or sexism is another story.
Also note that you were the one who conflated the two to begin with.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-14-2016, 23:42
Back then, the lack or minimization of a central government was the liberal position -- each man as free as possible -- and a federal government was the conservative choice.
Henry, Jefferson, etc. were far more "liberal" in outlook than were Hamilton and Washington.
Admittedly, the labels are not quite so applicable to the older framing as they are today.
Montmorency
10-14-2016, 23:58
I think you're being pedantic. I just responded to your bs with some bs. You should try disproving a point rather than arguing semantics or writing a dissertation on a forum. Rape is more prominent where? End of story. Whether you attribute this to oligarchy or religious piety or sexism is another story.
Also note that you were the one who conflated the two to begin with.
So wrong or irrelevant on all counts, as before. You seem to have nothing to say beyond a variant of the tired 'People who cry racism are the real racists!" nonsense.
AE Bravo
10-15-2016, 00:27
So wrong or irrelevant on all counts, as before. You seem to have nothing to say beyond a variant of the tired 'People who cry racism are the real racists!" nonsense.
For a person claiming I have nothing to say, you have nothing to say here.
It's funny that Fragony can say what he likes but an opposing view of the same tone is seen differently. That's all I'm saying.
Can't say that I'm not open to opposing views
Pannonian
10-15-2016, 10:13
For a person claiming I have nothing to say, you have nothing to say here.
It's funny that Fragony can say what he likes but an opposing view of the same tone is seen differently. That's all I'm saying.
Fragony is a far right :daisy:. He admits he is one though, which is a level of self awareness that eludes you.
Fragony is a far right :daisy:. He admits he is one though, which is a level of self awareness that eludes you.
Depends on what I am supposed to admit, I don't like the islam and the EU no, that that is seen as rightwing is not up to me. I don't see that as being wrong, if it's seen as that I can't deny it because I look at it that way but that's just definitians that outstayed it's welcome. I am extremily moderate really
Depends on what I am supposed to admit, I don't like the islam and the EU no, that that is seen as rightwing is not up to me. I don't see that as being wrong, if it's seen as that I can't deny it because I look at it that way but that's just definitians that outstayed it's welcome. I am extremily moderate really
Define "don't like the Islam", I'd say I don't like islam either and yet we keep arguing about it...
Define "don't like the Islam", I'd say I don't like islam either and yet we keep arguing about it...
There were also moderate nazi's, doesn't make the nazi-ideoligy very nice no? I got no problem putting them both in the same comfort zone. Do you have a good reason for me not doing that.
There were also moderate nazi's, doesn't make the nazi-ideoligy very nice no? I got no problem putting them both in the same comfort zone. Do you have a good reason for me not doing that.
Do you blame yourself for the massacres in the East Indies because you call yourself a dutchman? Have you apologized yet?
Do you blame yourself for the massacres in the East Indies because you call yourself a dutchman? Have you apologized yet?
Nothing to see here move along. I am glad there are still people who see islam for what it is. It's not just a religion, it's a political movement that is as welcome as the inquisition, especially for your ordinary muslim who is terrified of these guys. Islamapoligists is the second worst thing
Do something against the establishment of billionaires and corporations and vote for the billionaire who owns a huge corporation!
This is the essence of the right. Claim to be persecuted when you are the wealthiest and hold the majority of the best jobs. Claim that you are anti establishment when you are the economic and political elite. Claim to be bringing back the past, when you are presenting an imagined past no one had - while simultaneously talking about "civil rights" holding back progress.
Nothing to see here move along. I am glad there are still people who see islam for what it is. It's not just a religion, it's a political movement that is as welcome as the inquisition, especially for your ordinary muslim who is terrified of these guys. Islamapoligists is the second worst thing
I guess if I copy paste that entire post into the forum search, I get about 500 posts that are exactly the same and are completely irrelevant regarding the post quoted above them as well. Sometimes I might as well think of you as a bot that repeats the same line over and over if it does not understand the question. :dizzy2:
Can you at least explain why a moderate follower of islam is not the same as a muslim to you or why do you put the former "in the same comfort zone" and say the latter wants nothing to do with Islam? I shall ignore that no muslima would probably say she has nothing to do with Islam for the sake of exploring your seemingly schizophrenic argumentation.
The only way I can make sense of it is that you're saying moderate followers of islam are muslims and want nothing to do with the political islam but because it's more comfortable for you, you'd rather stow them away with murderous islamists far away from you. In that case your argument would make sense, you'd just come across like a pretty big butthole despite all your claims that you have such a big heart.
I will be saying the exact same thing I did in your forum search so why do I have to say it again if you already know what I will say
Seamus Fermanagh
10-15-2016, 21:57
Depends on what I am supposed to admit, I don't like the islam and the EU no, that that is seen as rightwing is not up to me. I don't see that as being wrong, if it's seen as that I can't deny it because I look at it that way but that's just definitians that outstayed it's welcome. I am extremily moderate really
cultural conservative; social moderate/liberal; foreign policy ?; military/use of force?
Montmorency
10-15-2016, 21:59
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_right
Seamus Fermanagh
10-15-2016, 22:07
Define "don't like the Islam", I'd say I don't like islam either and yet we keep arguing about it...
He is not anti-Islam really. Much of what he abhors about Islam are those elements that are, in many ways, cultural carry-overs from pre-Islamic Arabian culture. That is where we get the women as property, cover them or they are whores for you to use as you please etc. stuff that Frag's consistently derides.
I think he would actually be supportive of Suffism or even of the Baha'i (though Bahaists claim separate religious status even though their originators were Shiites.
a completely inoffensive name
10-16-2016, 01:28
Admittedly, the labels are not quite so applicable to the older framing as they are today.
That's my point exactly. Seems like a mistake to try and guess the outcome of the collapse of the Republican party through the lens of liberal and conservative.
He is not anti-Islam really. Much of what he abhors about Islam are those elements that are, in many ways, cultural carry-overs from pre-Islamic Arabian culture. That is where we get the women as property, cover them or they are whores for you to use as you please etc. stuff that Frag's consistently derides.
I think he would actually be supportive of Suffism or even of the Baha'i (though Bahaists claim separate religious status even though their originators were Shiites.
That's what I usually think, but then he says things like
There were also moderate nazi's, doesn't make the nazi-ideoligy very nice no? I got no problem putting them both in the same comfort zone. Do you have a good reason for me not doing that.
Which as I read it implies that he treats moderate muslims and extremist ones in the same way.
And when I ask what it means exactly, I never get an explanation apparently, just repetitions or him saying that he will continue to repeat said repetitions. :dizzy2:
What is the distinction good for if he basically says he wants them treated the same way anyway?
edyzmedieval
10-16-2016, 02:23
Regardless of your preferences, the current election in the United States has offered some very weird and some downright shocking moments. Whatever happened to those elegant jokes in debates like in the old days?
He is not anti-Islam really. Much of what he abhors about Islam are those elements that are, in many ways, cultural carry-overs from pre-Islamic Arabian culture. That is where we get the women as property, cover them or they are whores for you to use as you please etc. stuff that Frag's consistently derides.
I think he would actually be supportive of Suffism or even of the Baha'i (though Bahaists claim separate religious status even though their originators were Shiites.
t 'not anti-muslim' would be better
I kinda like women as they are. But I have much more objections, especially against the multicultural left, can I please call them 'usefull infidels'. I am not afraid of the islam as they are to stupid to herd their goats and somehow end up here. It are leftist intelectuals I fear. Believe me or not my mind is much sharper than you think.
Gilrandir
10-16-2016, 06:41
Yet sexual harassment and rape is skyrocketing in your culture, way more than the middle east. Even people running for president indulge in it. Where are women really "subhuman?"
In Middle East even presidents indulge in it: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/former-president-moshe-katsav-gets-7-years-in-jail-for-rape-1.351092
In Middle East even presidents indulge in it: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/former-president-moshe-katsav-gets-7-years-in-jail-for-rape-1.351092
That's not really fair imho opinion, power says power does. As rightious human beings we shouldn't want the power to overthrow the dignity of others. The left is so sick they can't see the ambiguety. That they are right is a given in their tightly wrapped heads just isn't anything they can doubt. braaiiiiiiiins
Seamus Fermanagh
10-16-2016, 15:39
t 'not anti-muslim' would be better
I kinda like women as they are. But I have much more objections, especially against the multicultural left, can I please call them 'usefull infidels'. I am not afraid of the islam as they are to stupid to herd their goats and somehow end up here. It are leftist intelectuals I fear. Believe me or not my mind is much sharper than you think.
You are sometimes in consistent in how your express yourself on these threads. I never know how much of that is the result of: a) inconsistent thinking, b) operating in your second (third?) language, or c) adult beverages.
Gilrandir
10-16-2016, 15:54
You are sometimes in consistent in how your express yourself on these threads. I never know how much of that is the result of: a) inconsistent thinking, b) operating in your second (third?) language, or c) adult beverages.
Inconsistent operating in second (third?) adult beverage.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-16-2016, 16:02
Inconsistent operating in second (third?) adult beverage.
Well said sir, well said.
Gilrandir
10-16-2016, 16:53
Well said sir, well said.
:bow:
HopAlongBunny
10-16-2016, 22:49
Another great SNL cold-open:
https://youtu.be/GhpHp31ozxQ
You are sometimes in consistent in how your express yourself on these threads. I never know how much of that is the result of: a) inconsistent thinking, b) operating in your second (third?) language, or c) adult beverages.
It's very simple, a muslim is just someone who was born muslim, they celerbrate ramadan and that's about it. You mentioned sufi's, that's more of a spiritual thing that goes back a long time, they share a word for god nothing more it's an acient religion. I don't bring up the parralel society that is being created just for fun. They don't even deny it
Seamus Fermanagh
10-17-2016, 18:17
Clinton now has an advantage in the Electoral College that appears insurmountable. The next three weeks will have to produce enough change in voter opinion to shift several states by 4 or more points for Trump to win, as he has to carry virtually all the remaining battleground states to win, whereas Clinton wins if she can secure only an additional 14 EC votes over those that appear destined to be hers.
Despite this, despite the airing of Trump's soiled laundry, and despite questionable performances in the debates (Sucked in debate one, better in debate two but the rhetorical situation was horrific), and despite increasing claims of groping and what not...
Hillary has STILL dropped back below 50% support in the polls and still has several battleground states where Trump is within the margin of error. THAT is how unappealing she is to the American voter.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-17-2016, 18:20
I am almost ready to offer prayers that NEITHER of them finish with 270 EC votes, that one "faithless" elector will put Paul Ryan into the mix and that the House selects him as President. Kaine would end up VP since the Senate, following Trump's "elegant leadership" of the campaign, is very likely to be a Dem majority in January (or a majority factoring the two independents who usually caucus with the Dems).
I am almost ready to offer prayers that NEITHER of them finish with 270 EC votes, that one "faithless" elector will put Paul Ryan into the mix and that the House selects him as President. Kaine would end up VP since the Senate, following Trump's "elegant leadership" of the campaign, is very likely to be a Dem majority in January (or a majority factoring the two independents who usually caucus with the Dems).
Actually, the best-case scenario might be Evan McMullin. He may very well win Utah's EC votes, which would put him in the mix if neither of the sociopaths gets to 270. The House could be convinced to put him in, he's a true conservative.
How about they make a compromise and elect Bernie Sanders? :creep:
Seamus Fermanagh
10-17-2016, 19:21
Actually, the best-case scenario might be Evan McMullin. He may very well win Utah's EC votes, which would put him in the mix if neither of the sociopaths gets to 270. The House could be convinced to put him in, he's a true conservative.
He would not be my first choice as I prefer a bit more gravitas -- but if he takes UTAH and thus becomes one of the top three EC vote getters who are the limited slate from which the HoR can select, then I would happily prefer him to the other two.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-17-2016, 19:29
How about they make a compromise and elect Bernie Sanders? :creep:
You are nothing if not consistent in your views, pal.
Not gonna happen though.
The mechanics of a HoR vote prevent it. If no candidate gets to 270 in the electoral college, the House decides, but is limited in their choice to the top three vote getters in the Electoral College. Two of these will be Clinton and Trump. The Third (if any) would be either a 3rd party candidate who "steals" one state (the McMullen scenario above is the only one with a chance really) or a person getting one or two single votes from "faithless" electors who choose to vote for someone other than the candidate for whom they were designated to vote at the time of their selection.
Ryan or Kasich or Rubio or even Bush might get such a one off from a Trump elector. It is possible that a Clinton elector might instead vote for Sanders, thus making him 3rd and putting his name in the mix.
HOWEVER, the House vote is by STATE, not by individual as it is for the Senate vote for VP. As the GOP controls (and will do so even after the election) 27-29 of the state delegations, they person chosen from the short list will be GOP or just perhaps a conservative amenable to the GOP. Sanders would not get the nod.
Having the GOP House turn it's back on him might be the only way to save the party in the long run. And given Trump's latest on the global world conspiracy (it's teh joows!) to keep him out of office, it would be pretty hilarious. But I'm not sure the GOP reps have the cajones for it, unfortunately.
You are nothing if not consistent in your views, pal.
Not gonna happen though.
Thanks, and that was a given. But I can dream, can't I?
Maybe once Hillary makes only politics for the banks the people will become more ready for someone like Sanders. :sweatdrop:
Having the GOP House turn it's back on him might be the only way to save the party in the long run. And given Trump's latest on the global world conspiracy (it's teh joows!) to keep him out of office, it would be pretty hilarious. But I'm not sure the GOP reps have the cajones for it, unfortunately.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cajones
They don't have the drawers? ~;)
HopAlongBunny
10-18-2016, 01:35
Latest update from fivethirtyeight:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-clintons-big-lead-means-a-steadier-forecast/
a completely inoffensive name
10-18-2016, 06:28
I am almost ready to offer prayers that NEITHER of them finish with 270 EC votes, that one "faithless" elector will put Paul Ryan into the mix and that the House selects him as President. Kaine would end up VP since the Senate, following Trump's "elegant leadership" of the campaign, is very likely to be a Dem majority in January (or a majority factoring the two independents who usually caucus with the Dems).
Fun Constitutional oddities aside, this would be greatly devastating to the American psyche and the people's faith in government.
HopAlongBunny
10-18-2016, 06:35
Fun Constitutional oddities aside, this would be greatly devastating to the American psyche and the people's faith in government.
But such a turn might be satisfactory to the people who run the government:laugh4:
Strike For The South
10-18-2016, 15:16
How do you feel about Henry Kissinger?
I like him. It's how I rationilze Hillary.
Gets even funnier, team Hillary supposedly hires mental patients do act like Trump supporters. I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually true, I have zero faith in her integrity
Seamus Fermanagh
10-18-2016, 17:58
I like him [Henry Kissinger]. It's how I rationilze Hillary.
An ode to that rockstar among policy wonks -- Henry Kissinger (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vo7jLGOb8)
AE Bravo
10-18-2016, 19:39
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCjQbTEuoDU
Got to wonder what Assange had on the Hillary, he's an alledged Trump supporter and his internet was cut of
Thanks, and that was a given. But I can dream, can't I?
Maybe once Hillary makes only politics for the banks the people will become more ready for someone like Sanders. :sweatdrop:
Americans, when they get radical, tend to swing right rather than left. They have an innate trust of powerful corporations and charismatic billionaires.
Americans, when they get radical, tend to swing right rather than left. They have an innate trust of powerful corporations and charismatic billionaires.
That's racist. :stare:
On a more serious note, I think it is their culture, how they grow up. May call it innate flippantly, but it's just a narrative they grow up with and not all of them buy it anymore either. Sanders got relatively far even if it was not far enough after all.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-20-2016, 16:46
Americans, when they get radical, tend to swing right rather than left. They have an innate trust of powerful corporations and charismatic billionaires.
Trust? Not really, we are well aware of corporate lobbying and the like. A lack of antipathy? Yes. Especially so when it is not some faceless corporation but a personified story of success. Remember, in our culture, many of us really do think that -- with hard work, a good idea or two, and some luck -- that we or our children could achieve that same success for themselves. We don't assume them to be "the enemy" as a matter of course.
And of course we trend "right" when crises hit -- we start a bit left of center as a norm, so the balance tends to swing that direction when pushed.
Hooahguy
10-20-2016, 17:48
Got to wonder what Assange had on the Hillary, he's an alledged Trump supporter and his internet was cut of
Wasnt it the embassy itself which cut it off? Not everything is a Clinton conspiracy.
Wasnt it the embassy itself which cut it off? Not everything is a Clinton conspiracy.
Never said it was. But she frightens me, I can't shake the feeling that she's extremily dangerous. Not because of arguments but because of body-language.
Trust? Not really, we are well aware of corporate lobbying and the like. A lack of antipathy? Yes. Especially so when it is not some faceless corporation but a personified story of success. Remember, in our culture, many of us really do think that -- with hard work, a good idea or two, and some luck -- that we or our children could achieve that same success for themselves. We don't assume them to be "the enemy" as a matter of course.
And of course we trend "right" when crises hit -- we start a bit left of center as a norm, so the balance tends to swing that direction when pushed.
I suppose the rags to riches stories are prevalent and often repeated, while the inherited wealth (the vast majority) is underplayed. Even trump is presented as a self made man.
I suppose the rags to riches stories are prevalent and often repeated, while the inherited wealth (the vast majority) is underplayed. Even trump is presented as a self made man.
He only got a really small loan of a million and all of his family's business contacts and friends... :rolleyes:
edyzmedieval
10-20-2016, 20:16
Donald Trump got a 1 million dollar loan from his father, and he had a very impressive / serious network of contacts, plus Manhattan as his working place.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-21-2016, 02:50
I suppose the rags to riches stories are prevalent and often repeated, while the inherited wealth (the vast majority) is underplayed. Even trump is presented as a self made man.
Admittedly, a first class education and a $14m stake is easier to work with than $65k in college loan debt and a $42k/annum start.
HopAlongBunny
10-22-2016, 20:47
Latest from FiveThirtyEight:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-there-are-4-ways-this-election-can-end-and-3-involve-clinton-winning/
Clinton continues to lead, but Trump still in the hunt.
edyzmedieval
10-23-2016, 02:55
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0
93% chance of Hillary winning.
Winter is coming
edit, these sexual abuse accusations are getting a bit rediculous, asking a pornstar to come back to his room for 10.000 dollar sexual abuse? You are a pornstar ffs sake you do everything for money, you have had probably had enough sperm on/in you to colonise Jupiter. I can't help starting to feel sorry for Trump even despite not liking him, I am starting to see him as a victim of militant feminists, soooo false and relentless. Like Hillary. Must be hard to be the underdog against a perfectly oiled machine
HopAlongBunny
10-23-2016, 08:42
Winter is coming
edit, these sexual abuse accusations are getting a bit rediculous, asking a pornstar to come back to his room for 10.000 dollar sexual abuse? You are a pornstar ffs sake you do everything for money, you have had probably had enough sperm on/in you to colonise Jupiter. I can't help starting to feel sorry for Trump even despite not liking him, I am starting to see him as a victim of militant feminists, soooo false and relentless. Like Hillary. Must be hard to be the underdog against a perfectly oiled machine
So, it's payment that matters not consent?
Well that will clear up a lot of misunderstandings :clown:
So, it's payment that matters not consent?
Well that will clear up a lot of misunderstandings :clown:
It kinda depends on how and why you think of a certain type of women. Yes payment is consent if you ask me. I probably don't have to point out what sort of women flock around him. I don't see it as immoral really to make use of it. Feminists see it as sexist but why really, what's wrong with sexism, women aren't thoughtless victims some are calculating harpies.
Why do people never ask WHY he thinks so lowly of women, I bet he has a good reason, looks like this $$$$$$$$
Nice Fragony. You've really excelled yourself. Really odious sentiment.
Admittedly, a first class education and a $14m stake is easier to work with than $65k in college loan debt and a $42k/annum start.
Modern corporate capitalism is a million miles from the story of "hard working man made good". The vast majority of wealth is owned and managed through a web of corporate and legal entities that very few people would understand or recognise.
Nice Fragony. You've really excelled yourself. Really odious sentiment.
I made myself vulnerable, you wouldn't believe what happened next
internet cliché, I know
You see Idaho, I have been there myself, usually only as protection but in a rare occasion also as an asset. I know how things work there. But it's their job ffs, find another if you want to be a Disney princes,, can't have any parience with the complaints realy
I made myself vulnerable, you wouldn't believe what happened next
internet cliché, I know
[Complains about criticism regarding his opinion]
You see Idaho, I have been there myself, usually only as protection but in a rare occasion also as an asset. I know how things work there. But it's their job ffs, find another if you want to be a Disney princes,, can't have any parience with the complaints realy
[Criticizes thousands of people for their opinion that payment for other services does not make rape okay]
:sweatdrop:
You do know that you sound just as misogynistic as Trump, right?
Did you just say that you worked for a pimp or that you were a condom in a previous life?
No I only worked as security to beat up asshholes. and sometimes (very rare, having to beat up anyone is also very rare) I was asked to join and gpot payed for doing so yes. Better than having a loan. You also get a free view of the darker sight of things, no matter how nice you are things can go wrong
You also get a free view of the darker sight of things, no matter how nice you are things can go wrong
And yet you seem to think that's perfectly fine and there's no room for improvement. :dizzy2:
And yet you seem to think that's perfectly fine and there's no room for improvement. :dizzy2:
cynisism is fine as long as you have a sense of humor
cynisism is fine as long as you have a sense of humor
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/compassion-matters/201212/is-cynicism-ruining-your-life
A 2009 study of more than 97,000 women showed that optimistic women had lower rates of coronary heart disease, cancer-related deaths, and mortality. Conversely, women with the most pessimistic and cynical personalities, had higher rates of these diseases and death. When we think of hostility and negativity as life-threatening conditions, it makes the goal of being less cynical all the more crucial.
Cynicism is part of a defensive posture we take to protect ourselves. It's typically triggered when we feel hurt by or angry at something, and instead of dealing with those emotions directly, we allow them to fester and skew our outlook. When we grow cynical toward one thing in our lives, we may slowly start to turn on everything.
[...]
Because cynical and suspicious attitudes create a negative filter through which we observe our surroundings, when we are in this state, we tend to miss out on joys in life. We indulge in an "us versus them" mentality that pins us against a certain person or group. It is easy to distort people and create a caricature of their flaws. When we do this, it's valuable to ask ourselves, "Whose point of view is coming through? Is this how I really feel, or am I overreacting based on old feelings from my past?"
You should really deal with your emotions instead of negating them by being ever more cynical about Clinton. It's for your own good.
ffs Hussie you just proved my point and any you will make later if you insist
Kralizec
10-23-2016, 16:46
You are a pornstar ffs sake you do everything for money, you have had probably had enough sperm on/in you to colonise Jupiter.
:laugh4:
Sorry, but Trump deserves all the negative attention with these sexual harrasment accusations. He made Bill Clinton's sexual conduct an important part of his campaign, during a time when everybody already knew he was never a loyal husband himself. Then an audio tape leaks out in which he brags about behaviour which meets the legal definition of sexual assault. He dismisses it as just a joke and denies ever having done anything remotely like that, which is pretty much an invitation to prove him wrong.
:laugh4:
Sorry, but Trump deserves all the negative attention with these sexual harrasment accusations. He made Bill Clinton's sexual conduct an important part of his campaign, during a time when everybody already knew he was never a loyal husband himself. Then an audio tape leaks out in which he brags about behaviour which meets the legal definition of sexual assault. He dismisses it as just a joke and denies ever having done anything remotely like that, which is pretty much an invitation to prove him wrong.
But what if is just foolish bragging, I heard much worse. But that goldmine has never been tappen and it is one. If there is any evidence of legal abstruction I could change my mind, right now it at least looks like opertunism. Why now. Worth asking.
ffs Hussie you just proved my point and any you will make later if you insist
I don't know how that works, but I accept your point about all my future points being proven. :2thumbsup:
I don't know how that works, but I accept your point about all my future points being proven. :2thumbsup:
Hate say it but you are going to die eventually no matter what I say
Hate say it but you are going to die eventually no matter what I say
:inquisitive: I'm sure you're fun at parties...
:inquisitive: I'm sure you're fun at parties...
Well yes, less sure about you even going to one though
Well yes, less sure about you even going to one though
Why would I go to the ones where you are? ~;)
Why would I go to the ones where you are? ~;)
Can't remember inviting you ;)
Seamus Fermanagh
10-24-2016, 16:00
Can't remember inviting you ;)
Of course you don't remember, you were hitting the schnapps pretty hard by then.
Can't remember inviting you ;)
I know we're terribly off topic by now (then again, there are still Trump and Hillary and what else is there to say? :sweatdrop: ), but you actually did, about ten years ago or so, in the chat. You said you organize techno parties and I should let you know if I ever want to come.
That's how much you have changed, the cynicism is really changing you, just like my link said. :no:
Greyblades
10-25-2016, 00:23
As fascinating as it is watching the thread devolve into a round of baiting fragony, project veritas put up more captured footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQvsK5w-jY
I know we're terribly off topic by now (then again, there are still Trump and Hillary and what else is there to say? :sweatdrop: ), but you actually did, about ten years ago or so, in the chat. You said you organize techno parties and I should let you know if I ever want to come.
That's how much you have changed, the cynicism is really changing you, just like my link said. :no:
Oh stopped doing that, fun times. And cynism is just facing reality
Hooahguy
10-25-2016, 05:28
As fascinating as it is watching the thread devolve into a round of baiting fragony, project veritas put up more captured footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQvsK5w-jY
The Clintons have a long history of conspiring with ducks. (https://i.imgur.com/zlTTH2g.jpg)
:laugh4:
In any case, what I thought was an innocent joke isn't all that innocent, unreal that this is actually a well thought over part of the campaign
Montmorency
10-25-2016, 12:42
Might as well put this (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/putin-syria-and-why-moscow-has-gone-war-crazy) here - nice enough article.
PUTIN, SYRIA, AND WHY MOSCOW HAS GONE WAR-CRAZY
Earlier this week, to get a whiff of the new atmosphere, I went to the studios of Channel One, the country’s main state broadcaster, to appear as a guest on a daytime political talk show. Russian television stations have long devoted much of their time to dissecting the minutiae of America’s every political hiccup, a consequence of the Russian ruling class’s simultaneous fascination and revulsion with the U.S. political system. I was the only American on set, and it was clear I was meant to play the role of the pitiable imbecile and birthday-party piñata: everyone would get a chance to step up and have a whack. The host of the program, Artem Sheinin, noted that it was the thirtieth anniversary of the Reykjavik summit between Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan, talks that ultimately led to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which reduced missile stockpiles in both countries. “Some people think this is when our country began its surrender; others say it marks the end of the Cold War,” Sheinin said. “But, as we see from our conversation today, the Cold War wasn’t brought to an end, and, in my view, can’t be.”
As a digital animation of a grizzly bear clawing away at a bald eagle played on a large screen behind him, Sheinin turned to me. “Does it not seem to you,” he asked, “that all these children dying in Syria, in eastern Aleppo, this fear about Iskanders—all this is a result of how you have been pushed into being the word’s gendarme, and want to remain as such?” I fumbled through an answer. Russia obviously sees itself as fighting against U.S. hegemony, I said, but what is it fighting for? What is its strategic vision for itself and the world? Another guest, a Russian parliamentary deputy, began to shout, “For Yugoslavia! For Libya! For Syria! For everything you have done these past twenty years!” He was nearly hysterical, but his answer was truthful: Putin’s foreign policy at this moment is, in large part, about avenging the wrongs inflicted on Russia over the past decades, the insults and grievances borne by a generation. It may be a tall order to achieve by January 20th of next year. But Putin may certainly try.
This is also why, IMO, US and European administrations cannot approach the situation by 'quarantining' Russia (even assuming that were politically and economically practicable at this time) but rather by somehow forcing a consolidation of primary Russian interests. Russia is doing this to the US, so perhaps it may be worth trying to manipulate the Russian public's perceptions such that they no longer take certain events as injuries, thereby undercutting the same sentiments that Putin both foments and responds to in his overt hostile or bad-faith gestures.
Easily said...
And done, propaganda isn't actually supposed to be believed that's not it's purpose. People must know that something is bullshit, and there is nothing they can do against. North_Korean's for example aren't dumb. They know that the Great Leader didn't score a hole in one the firstt time he played golf, but what to do about it
Got a good interview with a former KGB-spy back home, it's pretty long but it gives great insight how things really work
Montmorency
10-25-2016, 13:27
That's a naive view. Propaganda isn't just "I'm/we're so great", but a redirection of attention, the spread of disinformation, the setting of agendas...
Edit: Indeed, part of the cited article's discussion would suggest a turn by Russia towards behaving like a bigger North Korea in terms of the projected self-image for national relations.
I'll look it up for you when I'm home,it's quite fascinating. Mostly on how the KGB actually operates in the west, but also how blatantly lying is actually a tactic back home because knowing that something is a lie is disempowering. Cold War era though
As fascinating as it is watching the thread devolve into a round of baiting fragony, project veritas put up more captured footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQvsK5w-jY
Aww, but don't you worry, your problems can also be taken seriously:
http://www.fearof.net/fear-of-ducks-phobia-anatidaephobia/
The fear of ducks phobia can be a debilitating anxiety condition, wherein, no matter what one is doing or where s/he is in the world, they feel the constant presence of a duck or goose.
Might as well put this (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/putin-syria-and-why-moscow-has-gone-war-crazy) here - nice enough article.
This is also why, IMO, US and European administrations cannot approach the situation by 'quarantining' Russia (even assuming that were politically and economically practicable at this time) but rather by somehow forcing a consolidation of primary Russian interests. Russia is doing this to the US, so perhaps it may be worth trying to manipulate the Russian public's perceptions such that they no longer take certain events as injuries, thereby undercutting the same sentiments that Putin both foments and responds to in his overt hostile or bad-faith gestures.
Easily said...
How typically United Statesian, if people somewhere in the world don't agree with the US, the US needs to manipulate them until they more or less fall in line. Wouldn't it be better to establish some kind of rational approach that convinces people that there is no need to hate one another rather than talk about manipulating the stupid foreigners? This kind of talk always reeks of arrogance and imperialism and that's why many oppose the US in the first place. :inquisitive:
Montmorency
10-25-2016, 14:55
Wouldn't it be better to establish some kind of rational approach that convinces people that there is no need to hate one another rather than talk about manipulating the stupid foreigners?
See, that's exactly what I meant, but you Euroweenies get so sensitive when we don't pay utmost respect to your pride. :wink:
Maybe you don't like the wording, but attempting to "convince" the Russians to "change their minds" about how they perceive their own role in the world and how they perceive America relative to that is precisely manipulation.
See, that's exactly what I meant, but you Euroweenies get so sensitive when we don't pay utmost respect to your pride. :wink:
Maybe you don't like the wording, but attempting to "convince" the Russians to "change their minds" about how they perceive their own role in the world and how they perceive America relative to that is precisely manipulation.
Maybe if you use the word in a very wide sense, yet it still implies complete lack of action on the side of the one being manipulated, whereas convinbcing implies that they use their own rationality to come to the conclusion that you are correct. It gives more credit to the recipient. You can also manipulate a lever, a knob or a chair, but you cannot convince them. Not to forget that manipulating humans usually has a very bad connotation that you cannot just ignore. If convince is what you meant, then I guess we can agree on that.
Montmorency
10-25-2016, 15:14
You can't get around that connotation, since changing minds is not for altruistic purposes but for the sake of changing how their government acts and calculates.
You can't get around that connotation, since changing minds is not for altruistic purposes but for the sake of changing how their government acts and calculates.
That's your intention, not mine. I'd rather see Russians (or anyone for that matter) as friends than as enemies. The change of their governments' behavior would be a logical side effect of such an approach. Given the things people say about Putin, it may not be a given however. You can also find plenty of people in Iran who like the USA, but their government is not so eager so far. Pride, greed and stupidity/lack of education tend to get in the way of possible friendships, and that is as true here as it is there.
The question you obviously asked yourself is also how you would go about that given that their government does everything it can to keep foreign influences out. The internet seems somewhat divided by language barriers for a majority of people even in Western countries. Things like student exchange programs will probably not change a lot of minds in the time frame we're aiming at. Not to forget that a lot of us like to see Russia as the big devil, too, so maybe we should begin by curbing the vitriol coming from our side that they like to parade around on their state-controlled media to keep the vitriol on their side flowing. :dizzy2:
Montmorency
10-25-2016, 15:41
their government does everything it can to keep foreign influences out
That's not the issue - the major problem is that the Russian people, while overall well-inclined toward America, do not trust America. Their government doesn't have to work hard in this regard. In fact, much of what Putin does is indeed as a response to public sentiment toward "American aggression", meaning he has a mandate (and personal interest) in appearing to make tough stands against American influence. Putin is not a corrupt third-world dictator looking out only for his "clan", he is a legitimate (as far as he can be) leader of the Russian state and he does ultimately act with Russian strategic interests in mind. The angle that is the sticking point here, and what it might pay most to leverage, is that, as a dictator, appearances and innuendos are crucial for maintaining his own standing, and therefore his own power networks and rule, and therefore the strategic interest of a coherent and internally-stable Russia. If the Russian people can be convinced to see at least some actions as other than simply naked aggression intent on keeping Russia down, or be convinced of the merits of some sort of terms of understanding, then Putin from the dictatorial standpoint has less room to maneuver aggressively in the international field.
And that alone would be a significant step to making Russia less of a problem/pariah and more of a partner.
That's not the issue - the major problem is that the Russian people, while overall well-inclined toward America, do not trust America. Their government doesn't have to work hard in this regard. In fact, much of what Putin does is indeed as a response to public sentiment toward "American aggression", meaning he has a mandate (and personal interest) in appearing to make tough stands against American influence. Putin is not a corrupt third-world dictator looking out only for his "clan", he is a legitimate (as far as he can be) leader of the Russian state and he does ultimately act with Russian strategic interests in mind. The angle that is the sticking point here, and what it might pay most to leverage, is that, as a dictator, appearances and innuendos are crucial for maintaining his own standing, and therefore his own power networks and rule, and therefore the strategic interest of a coherent and internally-stable Russia. If the Russian people can be convinced to see at least some actions as other than simply naked aggression intent on keeping Russia down, or be convinced of the merits of some sort of terms of understanding, then Putin from the dictatorial standpoint has less room to maneuver aggressively in the international field.
And that alone would be a significant step to making Russia less of a problem/pariah and more of a partner.
So how would you go about convincing them. I brought the quoted part up as a side-issue because you can't just establish a media network there that tells them how much you love Russia or something old-fashioned like that. How can you establish trust if their strategic interests oppose yours in quite a few cases and you're not willing to give in on yours? You only need to be intent on keeping America up and that necessitates keeping Russia down in a world where the strategic interests of both countries focus on ever more rare resources and strategic partners. Or are you saying you want to share even if it means the US economy suffers a bit for the benefit of the Russian one? Or are we still talking about fooling them to believe that while doing something else entirely?
Gilrandir
10-25-2016, 16:04
Putin is not a corrupt third-world dictator looking out only for his "clan", he is a legitimate (as far as he can be) leader of the Russian state and he does ultimately act with Russian strategic interests in mind.
Correction: ... act with WHAT HE THINKS Russian strategic interests...
And he thinks this interest in Russia being a superpower.
The angle that is the sticking point here, and what it might pay most to leverage, is that, as a dictator, appearances and innuendos are crucial for maintaining his own standing, and therefore his own power networks and rule, and therefore the strategic interest of a coherent and internally-stable Russia.
The strategic interest you forwarded is opposite to the one Putin has in mind. Anyway, what Putin has been doing for the last two and a half years does anything but getting him closer to a coherent and internally-stable Russia.
One should assume that Putin acts rationally, like Husar I think it's better to improve relationships. If we act rationally and improve our relationship with the Kremlin we will all be better of. First step, stop surrounding them the west seems to be almost begging for escalation
Montmorency
10-25-2016, 16:25
So how would you go about convincing them.
nigga i dont know
Correction: ... act with WHAT HE THINKS Russian strategic interests...
Well, it's pretty straightforward as far as establishing buffers goes. Iran wants them too, and China, and Japan, and India, and Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, and South Africa, heck why not bring up Argentina and Chile while we're at it...
The strategic interest you forwarded is opposite to the one Putin has in mind. Anyway, what Putin has been doing for the last two and a half years does anything but getting him closer to a coherent and internally-stable Russia.
Just as the US administration and Ukrainian administrations do not have unlimited practical options for how to approach the situation, neither does Putin. He has the Russian bear by its ears, and he is driving it where he can. Even if we were to imagine him desiring such a thing, he has no way to unilaterally defuse the Syrian and Ukrainian theaters without crippling his own domestic reputation and setting back Russian political ambitions by a decade.
I suggest what he is simply hoping for is to pull off as much bravado as he can before the issues become frozen over a few years, the world loses patience, and a new status quo settles in. That's the single way he can avoid either voting himself out of office or continually escalating aggression until someone needs to call a bluff or the European Union gets distressed enough to temporarily back Russia against American complaints.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-25-2016, 16:34
In any case, what I thought was an innocent joke isn't all that innocent, unreal that this is actually a well thought over part of the campaign
You're smarter than that and cannot really be that naive. This is the game as it has always been played.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-25-2016, 16:38
Russian -- US Relations should really be it's own thread topic.
Kralizec
10-25-2016, 16:38
As fascinating as it is watching the thread devolve into a round of baiting fragony, project veritas put up more captured footage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEQvsK5w-jY
Project Veritas is not a reliable source. The founder has a proven track record of doctoring videos conjure up controversy about non-existent issues. He's even been convicted for entering a Senator's office on false pretenses, posing as a repairman with the intent of bugging his telephone line.
And he's supporting Donald Trump, surprise surprise....
You're smarter than that and cannot really be that naive. This is the game as it has always been played.
I'm afraid I really am that naive, I took it for something completily harmless. There I go priding on being cynical. Of to flute-lessons
Americans could find this interesting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gnpCqsXE8g Lecture by ex-kgb, warning, very conservative slant, and long
@Monty, couldn't find the study on propaganda I no longer have acces to the uni
Montmorency
10-25-2016, 16:53
Russian -- US Relations should really be it's own thread topic.
Well, of course the article and others like it do deal with American administrations. more specifically Hillary/Trump perspectives and the Obama/Kerry approaches (including speculation on the months leading up to office transfer). For the moment that's not what Orgahs are commenting on, but this doesn't belong in the Ukraine thread and a new topic would likely be DOA.
Let it run the course.
AE Bravo
10-25-2016, 19:14
Putin keeps bringing up that the US public doesn't agree with US aggression, so how are you so sure that Russian public perception will affect its strategic interests in any way? Public perception in Russia is not going to be manipulated, and certainly not by the west. As long as US aggression appears to be more aggressive, Putin will continue to balance that out and public perception will maintain its course just like it is in Iran.
It's hard to shape public perception the way you want it when the country is being suffocated by the manipulator. A Syrian child laborer in Turkey makes as much money in three days as the average worker in Syria makes in a month with sanctions at work, so public perception is already effectively being driven by the US in the other direction with these resistance states.
I don't see the west reversing this because its interests prevent it from doing so.
Greyblades
10-25-2016, 19:15
Project Veritas is not a reliable source. The founder has a proven track record of doctoring videos conjure up controversy about non-existent issues. He's even been convicted for entering a Senator's office on false pretenses, posing as a repairman with the intent of bugging his telephone line.
And he's supporting Donald Trump, surprise surprise....
Video records dont become automatically false because of the person presenting it.
Dodges through incredulity, ridicule and outright denial in the face of video testimony of lawbreaking, this squirming is depressing to witness.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-25-2016, 19:27
Hillary Clinton:
Washington "Game" Experience (FLOTUS, Foundation work) = Check
Legislative Experience (Supported Bills as FLOTUS, 6 years in Senate) = Check
Executive Experience (4 Years as Secretary of State) = Check
Economic Experience (Senate Budget Committee) = Check minus/meh
Military Leadership Experience) Senate Armed Services Committee, Consulted as Sec State on some military issues) = Check minus
Personal Strengths: Cerebral, not prone to temper, spouse has held Presidency suggesting truly aware of job difficulty
Personal Drawbacks: Not an inspirational speaker, ethically challenged [note: this does not deviate far from the general opinion most in USA hold of all politicians]
Donald Trump:
Washington "Game" Experience (none [note many of his supporters feel this to be positive]) = Miss
Legislative Experience (Used lobbyists for corporate advantage) = Miss
Executive Experience (Decades, thoroughly comfortable making decisions) = Check [would be check plus, BUT executive power in Washington is more "hedged" and restricted than that of a CEO. Transition will be rough]
Economic Experience (Decades in Business; comfortable with large numbers and scope) = Check plus
Military Leadership Experience (none) = Miss
Personal Strengths: Decisive, risk-taker, experienced negotiator, not beholden to Washington establishment
Personal Drawbacks: Mixed skills as public speaker, has a temper, risk-taker, prefers off-the-cuff interaction too much, rumored behavior strongly offensive to women
Campaign Concerns:
Clinton has raised more than $449M while Trump has raised roughly $220M, including more than $55M of his own money.
Clinton has 489 staffed campaign offices compared to Trump's 178.
Clinton's campaign staff is roughly 800 strong; Trump's is under 400.
Electoral College Votes in "safe" states at start of 2016: Clinton 182, Trump 140
...and the latest polls? LINK (http://www.bing.com/search?q=latest+polls+for+2016+presidential+election&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IENTSR). Two major polls show trump closing the gap that had opened back to a dead heat.
THAT is how much many Americans LOATHE Hillary Clinton. She is, prima facie, vastly more qualified to serve as President than Trump. Unless you actively loathe Democrat policies [I do, but many in the USA disagree with me]...there is simply no logical reason that this campaign isn't a totally foregone conclusion joke.
I still think she wins in the EC....but the comedians that were joking that both nominees were lucky to be facing the only person they could possibly hope to beat seem to be evaluating things just right.
Greyblades
10-25-2016, 19:46
She has a lot of experience, but it doesnt help her as much as you'd think because it has been largely bad experience, benghazi, lybia, syria, screwups of the highest order dotting a generally lacklustre performance.
Trump is unproven but Clinton is proven bad.
I am watching it with closily, I of course can't look into the American psyche but I wonder what will happen once a 'winner' becomes the underdog. Hillary is absolutily cold and ruthless, a well-oiled machine, and Trump is not the smartest man ever who says stupid things when he shouldn't.
As for me, Hillary frightens me. If I had kids I would rather have Trump watching over them if I have to go somewhere. I am pretty sure they will be just as terrified of her as I am, but will have a blast with Trump.
Hooahguy
10-25-2016, 21:26
She has a lot of experience, but it doesnt help her as much as you'd think because it has been largely bad experience, benghazi, lybia, syria, screwups of the highest order dotting a generally lacklustre performance.
Trump is unproven but Clinton is proven bad.
Eh, shes done a lot of good too (https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/42y3jp/all_i_hear_is_about_is_how_dishonest_and_bad/cze62ig/). And it doesnt help that the US public is tired to death of hearing about failures like Benghazi. And Trump has been proven bad. Remind me again how his casinos are doing?
Kralizec
10-25-2016, 21:54
Video records dont become automatically false because of the person presenting it.
Dodges through incredulity, ridicule and outright denial in the face of video testimony of lawbreaking, this squirming is depressing to witness.
Personally, I vastly prefer a written article to a video. Even without taking account of the quality, or the person who made it. You can chalk that up to lazyness if you want. I just don't want to waste 15 minutes of my life, for some information that would take less than 5 minutes to read, and from a dubious source to boot.
The only bit I got from your video (I fast forwarded to about halfway through and watched a couple of minutes) that he accuses Clinton of violating campaign finance rules (i.e. giving directions to people paid by a supposedly independent PAC) . If true, that's serious.
You could do me a favour and summarize the charges made in that video...afterall, you were the one who was trying to make some sort of point with that video...I assume.
Sarmatian
10-25-2016, 23:01
that he accuses Clinton of violating campaign finance rules
Everybody does that.
The only beef I've got with Clinton is that she's promising tougher stance towards Russia, and with Putin on the other end, that may prove very serious. She wants to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria. Since ISIS doesn't have an air force, it's pretty clear whose planes she wants grounded. Granted, it may be just tough talk, as actually implementing a no-fly zone iz pretty much impossible, but she has a track record of supporting military solutions.
We (as in all of us who live on this planet) need some one who can defuse the situation, not add oil to a fire.
Hooahguy
10-26-2016, 00:13
The only beef I've got with Clinton is that she's promising tougher stance towards Russia, and with Putin on the other end, that may prove very serious. She wants to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria. Since ISIS doesn't have an air force, it's pretty clear whose planes she wants grounded. Granted, it may be just tough talk, as actually implementing a no-fly zone iz pretty much impossible, but she has a track record of supporting military solutions.
We (as in all of us who live on this planet) need some one who can defuse the situation, not add oil to a fire.
To be fair, I think shes doing that in large part because of two reasons: 1) She oversaw the "reset" with Russia which clearly failed with what happened with Crimea and Eastern Ukraine so she probably thinks that softer talk hasnt worked. And 2) She sees how Trump is soft on Putin so she is going hard at this to potentially sway Reagan-era Conservatives who really hate Russia.
I kinda think her talk about a no-fly zone in Syria is just talk, as its impossible now to implement without Russian consent. Which she wont get. This might have been possible in 2012 or 13, but now its impossible. I think she understands this but it makes for good tough talk especially when the other side is soft on the issue.
Pannonian
10-26-2016, 00:25
Video records dont become automatically false because of the person presenting it.
Dodges through incredulity, ridicule and outright denial in the face of video testimony of lawbreaking, this squirming is depressing to witness.
Have you watched The Wilderness Years yet? Now that is acknowledged by experts on the subject to be one of the great political documentaries, with research and sources that stand the scrutiny of trained historians and politicians across the whole political spectrum. Including testimony from all the main players who were still alive. This was your response.
Not a good sign when you need videos to make your point.
Do you know what hypocrisy means?
Greyblades
10-26-2016, 02:27
Do you know what the difference between using a documentary to tell a point you are too stupid to articulate yourself and using a video's footage of secret recordings as proof of another criminal act by hillary clinton?
You keep bringing that up again and again like it's some masterful putdown but in reality it's just proof of your complete lack of originality and adaptation plus an insufficient ability to distinguish between proper usage of visual aids and over reliance of other people's work.
Personally, I vastly prefer a written article to a video. Even without taking account of the quality, or the person who made it. You can chalk that up to lazyness if you want. I just don't want to waste 15 minutes of my life, for some information that would take less than 5 minutes to read, and from a dubious source to boot.
The only bit I got from your video (I fast forwarded to about halfway through and watched a couple of minutes) that he accuses Clinton of violating campaign finance rules (i.e. giving directions to people paid by a supposedly independent PAC) . If true, that's serious.
You could do me a favour and summarize the charges made in that video...afterall, you were the one who was trying to make some sort of point with that video...I assume. Too lazy to even read the description apparantly.
Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck.
In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.”
The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.
Eh, shes done a lot of good too (https://np.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/42y3jp/all_i_hear_is_about_is_how_dishonest_and_bad/cze62ig/). And it doesnt help that the US public is tired to death of hearing about failures like Benghazi. And Trump has been proven bad. Remind me again how his casinos are doing?
Allowing an ambassador to be killed inspite of plentiful prior warning (http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clintons-benghazi-emails-to-be-released-by-state-department-1432309888), being stupid enough to let classified documents be exchanged on an unsecured email server and turning Syria and Lybia from functioning states into warzones to noone's benefit but the USA's enemies, combined all tip the scales of competence extremely against her. Remind me, did those casinos get anyone killed or ruin him?
Hooahguy
10-26-2016, 02:54
D
Allowing an ambassador to be killed inspite of plentiful prior warning, being stupid enough to let classified documents be exchanged on an unsecured email server and turning Syria and Lybia from functioning states into warzones to noone's benefit but the USA's enemies tip the scales of competence extremely against her. Remind me, did those casinos get anyone killed or ruin him?
Remind me again how many investigations on Benghazi have been done and remind me again what the resulting conclusions were? The ambassador chose to go to Benghazi despite the risks, his travel is at his discretion. Benghazi has been talked about so many times everyone is sick of it. Investigations have brought no charges against Clinton and now most people think its synonymous with a witch hunt. Which it probably is to be honest.
I agree with you on the emails. Really bad move and shows bad judgement. But I overlook them because of how bad Trump is. That should tell you something.
As for Libya and Syria, Id place that one more on Obama. You see, the Sec of State does not make foreign policy decisions. POTUS does. Sec of State can advocate policy but ultimately it is up to the president. The principle failure of Libya was the lack of a real follow up to build a stable government. But nobody wanted another Iraq debacle so thats why there wasnt much of a follow up. Syria was a similar situation but hardly Clinton's fault its such a mess. Its funny you mention both nations as cases against her so it seems like damned if you do, damned if you dont? Unless you advocated massed boots on the ground like in Iraq to maintain stability?
Well might havent gotten anyone killed (not that we know of anyways) but many lost their jobs. But he doesnt seem concerned about that, as he was rooting for the financial crisis in which millions lost their jobs. So it didnt ruin him. Just the people who worked for him.
You keep bringing that up again and again like it's some masterful putdown but in reality it's just proof of your complete lack of originality and adaptation plus an insufficient ability to distinguish between proper usage of visual aids and over reliance of other people's work.
Says the guy who keeps parroting Sargon of Akkad... :rolleyes:
Pannonian
10-26-2016, 08:41
Do you know what the difference between using a documentary to tell a point you are too stupid to articulate yourself and using a video's footage of secret recordings as proof of another criminal act by hillary clinton?
You keep bringing that up again and again like it's some masterful putdown but in reality it's just proof of your complete lack of originality and adaptation plus an insufficient ability to distinguish between proper usage of visual aids and over reliance of other people's work.
Of course I rely on other people's work to articulate what the Labour Party was up to. That's because they are primary sources, the best kind of sources from a historian's POV. And what's more, they're the primary actors in the subject, again the best kind of sources from a historian's POV. Are you familiar with Polybius's discussion of meta-history?
Montmorency
10-26-2016, 08:41
Putin keeps bringing up that the US public doesn't agree with US aggression, so how are you so sure that Russian public perception will affect its strategic interests in any way?
I don't follow your logic here. Putin's statement is exactly a reflection of Russian public sentiment and the internal efforts to keep it floated at a particular level. At any rate, I was talking about the more difficult manipulation, that of changing the fundamentals of aggression calculation. As a matter of fact, what is taken for aggression is anything that is constructed as a response to Russian bloc-building in its periphery, so by existing standards there is no way for America to appear unaggressive to Russia other than by completely ignoring both it and Eastern Europe in its actions, and even then the proliferation of conspiracy thinking among the Russian people that transcends even Arab-level paranoia (it even transcends America's homegrown paranoiacs!) leaves inaction just as good a circumstance for animosity to fester. All this is why probably most policy wonks would prefer giving Russia a 'time-out' from the international system, even though mechanically it's un-achievable, and I don't believe it has proven to have an effect in other scenarios over the years.
Pannonian
10-26-2016, 08:45
Well might havent gotten anyone killed (not that we know of anyways) but many lost their jobs. But he doesnt seem concerned about that, as he was rooting for the financial crisis in which millions lost their jobs. So it didnt ruin him. Just the people who worked for him.
That sounds just like the kind of politician that Greyblades would support. Over here in the UK, the shadow chancellor whom GB supports was gleeful at the prospect of economic turndown and high unemployment, as it represents an opportunity for the kind of revolutionary politics that normal Britain would never accept.
Montmorency
10-26-2016, 08:46
It would be one thing to demerit Obama and Clinton for allowing Syria, Iran, and Russia to mutually strengthen each other at the expense of Obama('s efforts to isolate them from one another), but to blame either for the existence of al-Assad or of ISIS is delusional. It's so stupid you might as well blame Putin or Khamanei for it.
Trump must have crafty hands, Hillary is all wetworks, according to wikileaks at least
Trump must have crafty hands, Hillary is all wetworks, according to wikileaks at least
If you like your conspiracy theories, how about this one:
Is it a coincidence that a guy who was/is accused of rape now seems to support the misogynist candidate?
Something to think about for the freethinkers?!?
Or maybe not?!?
Or is it?!?
Of course Hillary would never have someone assasinated, who believes that when a ruthless icecold bitch is running for the white-house of cards
Gilrandir
10-26-2016, 14:52
One should assume that Putin acts rationally, like Husar I think it's better to improve relationships. If we act rationally and improve our relationship with the Kremlin we will all be better of. First step, stop surrounding them the west seems to be almost begging for escalation
He would see it as a sign of the West's weakness and will push on. Same as he has been doing for 2.5 years and the West has been doing nothing but expressing grave concerns and trying to reasom with him.
Public perception in Russia is not going to be manipulated, and certainly not by the west.
It is being constantly manipulated, but certainly not by the West.
He would see it as a sign of the West's weakness and will push on. Same as he has been doing for 2.5 years and the West has been doing nothing but expressing grave concerns and trying to reasom with him.
I really can't judge who's provocating who. Ukraine government certainly is no saint the reaction to us possibly not signing the treaty is very intimidating
As I wrote that tbe Dutch parlement is being blackmailed over getting radar-images of the M17, huh thought they didn't have them
Gilrandir
10-26-2016, 16:08
I really can't judge who's provocating who. Ukraine government certainly is no saint the reaction to us possibly not signing the treaty is very intimidating
As I wrote that tbe Dutch parlement is being blackmailed over getting radar-images of the M17, huh thought they didn't have them
This is ridiculous. Ukraine is is no position to blackmail or intimidate anyone.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-26-2016, 16:52
... a ruthless icecold bitch is running for the white-house....
This is the part of her leadership skill set I respect.
I hate her policy set and her lack of ethics.
The other stuff is "faked moon landing" level theory.
Kralizec
10-26-2016, 22:03
in reality it's just proof of your complete lack of originality and adaptation plus an insufficient ability to distinguish between proper usage of visual aids and over reliance of other people's work.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Pannonian
10-26-2016, 23:00
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
GB probably thinks a montage of RTW images is a decisive historical argument, whereas citing Polybius's analysis of the causes of war is over reliance on other people's work.
As the POTUS campaign grows increasingly grim, this made me laugh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzjRwNUQDRU&wpisrc=nl_daily202&wpmm=1
AE Bravo
10-27-2016, 16:05
I don't follow your logic here. Putin's statement is exactly a reflection of Russian public sentiment and the internal efforts to keep it floated at a particular level. At any rate, I was talking about the more difficult manipulation, that of changing the fundamentals of aggression calculation. As a matter of fact, what is taken for aggression is anything that is constructed as a response to Russian bloc-building in its periphery, so by existing standards there is no way for America to appear unaggressive to Russia other than by completely ignoring both it and Eastern Europe in its actions, and even then the proliferation of conspiracy thinking among the Russian people that transcends even Arab-level paranoia (it even transcends America's homegrown paranoiacs!) leaves inaction just as good a circumstance for animosity to fester. All this is why probably most policy wonks would prefer giving Russia a 'time-out' from the international system, even though mechanically it's un-achievable, and I don't believe it has proven to have an effect in other scenarios over the years.
It's more that there needs to be actual deescalation so the animosity can shift its attention somewhere else. Demonizing Russian leadership plays a big role in that country's threat perception, and is considered an affront to the nation. Even if inaction leaves room for animosity to fester, exasperating conflict with the demonization makes the animosity worse anyway. There's no significant change if people feel they're not getting their fair place in the negotiating table because they will just go ahead and egg on the person who portrays them strongly in a counternarrative. "Fundamentals of aggression calculation" can be changed with conflict resolution or deescalation.
There are at least a handful of examples of two states not seeing each other the same way, while one sees a threat the other side would not at all. It can be achieved and makes it more likely for a shift in the political narrative, including the paranoid side.
Montmorency
10-27-2016, 18:30
In concrete terms, what would "actual de-escalation" look like? The US fundamentally cannot back down on the contestation of the Crimea annexation, so it's clearly not a matter of simply dropping sanctions. There has to be some other transaction for that to happen, but we've been going through those motions for 2 years and the US is continually getting burned. There are only so many times we can go through the cycle of John Kerry proclaiming imminent reconciliation before bitterly writing off Russia as a country, followed by Obama calling Russia "a regional power" and then turning around with "world partner". It's not credible to advise the US state department to just turn the other cheek, unless you believe that Putin has already accomplished all his goals and there is no better option to ease the pain for America.
Could be worse, you could have something like the EU wanting to recognise all borders of a deeply devided country in the disguise of a trade-treaty.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-27-2016, 20:01
In concrete terms, what would "actual de-escalation" look like? The US fundamentally cannot back down on the contestation of the Crimea annexation, so it's clearly not a matter of simply dropping sanctions. There has to be some other transaction for that to happen, but we've been going through those motions for 2 years and the US is continually getting burned. There are only so many times we can go through the cycle of John Kerry proclaiming imminent reconciliation before bitterly writing off Russia as a country, followed by Obama calling Russia "a regional power" and then turning around with "world partner". It's not credible to advise the US state department to just turn the other cheek, unless you believe that Putin has already accomplished all his goals and there is no better option to ease the pain for America.
Putin's goal set is not complete. However, he is something of an opportunist -- he is not likely to foment another Crimea episode anytime soon....unless the opportunity is too ripe for too little risk to refuse.
Montmorency
10-27-2016, 20:37
It's an interesting thing. Economically, Russia has much less scope than America to 'play the long game', and yet due to the nature of leadership differences between the two countries, Russia is in a better position to play a political long game with a consistent policy set and stance. I just think Putin has this over any possible American administration, so even a more-or-less hawkish approach can only limit damage done by Russia to US interests and backed institutions - there's no decisive check opportunity.
Maybe another strategy would be to lose the American predictability and try to match Putin for wildcard bluffs. Probably just cartoonish, though. Would only work in a Japanese comic.
At this point maybe everyone (in the security establishment) just wishes it were 1999 again.
Hooahguy
11-04-2016, 19:37
So the race has tightened significantly in the past week or so. It seems like its a tossup now compared to the definite Clinton win two weeks ago. Really interested to see how this ends up. Clinton camp must be freaking out over the Comey stuff. Funny how it works, back in July or whenever when the FBI said that they wouldnt press charges or whatever all the liberals were like "hooray FBI" and the conservatives hated the FBI. Now its flipped. Same with wikileaks, back with the Manning leaks the conservatives wanted Assange's head on a spike, and now they love him for the DNC leaks. We live in a strange world.
Montmorency
11-04-2016, 19:53
We live in a strange world.
Not really. The reactions are quite predictable, even if the events less so.
With Hillary, for instance, enthusiasts resort to non-sequitur to defend her, while opponents grasp at straws to condemn her. After all that has happened so far I can't even claim an opinion on Hillary either way. I see no reason why she should be plumped for President, but on the other hand there's nothing missing - so why not? She's good enough for government work, at any rate.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-04-2016, 22:11
Oddly enough, it may be as much of a product of St. Onge and Anthony Weiner.
1. The pay to play and hide the evidence e-mails revealed by wikileaks are having as much an impact as anything. The USA was not happy with her ethics before and this rubs many the wrong way, though some dismiss it as politics as usual.
2. It is not just that Comey's note was jarring, but that the source of the information was Weiner's computer. "Carlos Danger" has not covered himself with glory or done much to inspire confidence in his ability to NOT be blackmailed. And since the copies of the "private" server computer messages were on his computer.....
Odds still favor Clinton. Trump has to run the table on every toss up state AND the toss up district in Nebraska....or...take almost all of them and somehow steal PA or MI with low minority voter turnout and a strong showing by "Reagan democrats."
HopAlongBunny
11-04-2016, 23:13
I'm amazed.
I think a journalist nailed it months ago:
If you turn the process into a circus, you have to live with the fact that the clown might win.
(from memory; the journalist? I forget her name)
edyzmedieval
11-05-2016, 01:51
Honestly I can't wait for this to be over. The whole election process has been once big mud-slinging scandal contest, with each side accusing each other of so many illegal wrongdoings and unpalatable words/declarations.
Can't wait for this to be over.
~:handball:
Kralizec
11-05-2016, 01:52
"Carlos Danger"
That man is really something special. An intelligent guy, with good public speaking skills and enough charisma to go very far in politics. Important qualities that you'd want in someone whose job is advancing the goals of your party. Good material for a politician, regardless of wether you agree with his views or not. He had a promising career, and a wife that most men think is very attractive. And he blows it all by sending photo's of his genitals on his phone. Gets caught with it, and then does it again.
Bill Maher scorned him on his show because he managed to disgrace himself with a sex scandal that didn't even involve him having actual sex. Maher doesn't get the appeal of sexting and I don't either...maybe this particular scandal bothers me because it makes me feel old. Anthony Weiner certianly is more in touch with the younger generations :no:
HopAlongBunny
11-05-2016, 02:03
Anthony Weiner certianly is more in touch with the younger generations :no:
Perhaps, but that is also what he is under investigation for :p
In other news, injunction upheld against Trump's so-called poll-watchers:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/civil-rights-lawyer-tweets-voter-suppression-hearing-donald-trump
Too bad, when it comes to presenting facts, there is no "there" there.
edyzmedieval
11-05-2016, 12:32
64.5% 35.5%.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast
19130
So is 538 the only one not biased or just plain off? :sweatdrop:
Sarmatian
11-05-2016, 15:14
19130
So is 538 the only one not biased or just plain off? :sweatdrop:
It doesn't have to either of those. Electoral college system really complicates stuff. Florida and North Carolina are tightly contested but together have 44 electoral votes. If support changes for half a point, it may change who actually wins the elections. Remember Bush vs. Gore, where basically a couple of hundred of votes from Florida decided who was going to be the president.
Hooahguy
11-06-2016, 01:37
Traditionally I think 538 just uses a more conservative calculation. We will know who is more correct on Wednesday.
edyzmedieval
11-06-2016, 21:17
5:38 project leader went on public TV (I think) and mentioned that Hillary is literally one swing state away from losing the Electoral College.
So this will be very very close.
Hooahguy
11-06-2016, 23:28
Because of how close this might be it might mean that we see another Trump-esq candidate appear for the 2020 election. The alt-right wont be driven out of the GOP unless they lose decisively.
edyzmedieval
11-07-2016, 02:35
FBI has cleared Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing with the emails.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html
Seamus Fermanagh
11-07-2016, 05:13
It doesn't have to either of those. Electoral college system really complicates stuff. Florida and North Carolina are tightly contested but together have 44 electoral votes. If support changes for half a point, it may change who actually wins the elections. Remember Bush vs. Gore, where basically a couple of hundred of votes from Florida decided who was going to be the president.
Quite correct. Final recount showed a gap of well under 2k votes. Had only a few thousand persons who were TRUE left wingers voted Gore instead of Bush, then the 21st century would be a good bit different.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-07-2016, 05:14
Because of how close this might be it might mean that we see another Trump-esq candidate appear for the 2020 election. The alt-right wont be driven out of the GOP unless they lose decisively.
They take the electability of much of the GOP with them when they leave. There are a few yahoos on the Trumpwagon, but many are just the politically frustrated.
Pannonian
11-07-2016, 11:04
Quite correct. Final recount showed a gap of well under 2k votes. Had only a few thousand persons who were TRUE left wingers voted Gore instead of Bush, then the 21st century would be a good bit different.
After chasing leads for over a decade, in 1984, the writer-politician Rupert Allason finally tracked down the legendary Agent Garbo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Pujol_Garc%C3%ADa), persuading Pujol to return to Europe in time for the 40th anniversary of the D Day landings, in which he played an integral part.
Always tip the waiter (http://www.noddleit.com/nod/i10373)
At 2am on 2 May 1997 the Liberal Democrat Adrian Sanders was elected as MP for Torbay. This was after three recounts. Adrian had overcome the 5,787 majority of the sitting Conservative MP Rupert Allason and won by the narrow margin of 12 votes.
The story goes that Rupert had lost his seat because he failed to tip a local pub waitress a week before polling day. Fourteen Conservative-voting waiters then switched to the Liberal Democrats in protest... and Rupert lost by 12 votes.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-07-2016, 18:42
After chasing leads for over a decade, in 1984, the writer-politician Rupert Allason finally tracked down the legendary Agent Garbo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Pujol_Garc%C3%ADa), persuading Pujol to return to Europe in time for the 40th anniversary of the D Day landings, in which he played an integral part.
Always tip the waiter (http://www.noddleit.com/nod/i10373)
At 2am on 2 May 1997 the Liberal Democrat Adrian Sanders was elected as MP for Torbay. This was after three recounts. Adrian had overcome the 5,787 majority of the sitting Conservative MP Rupert Allason and won by the narrow margin of 12 votes.
The story goes that Rupert had lost his seat because he failed to tip a local pub waitress a week before polling day. Fourteen Conservative-voting waiters then switched to the Liberal Democrats in protest... and Rupert lost by 12 votes.
Not quite sure of the Garbo link to this POTUS thread, but LOVED both tidbits.
I didn't even know I could vote, but I guess I have to start searching for my voting location tomorrow.
https://i.imgur.com/Iu3jhFd.jpg
Seamus Fermanagh
11-07-2016, 19:57
I didn't even know I could vote, but I guess I have to start searching for my voting location tomorrow.
https://i.imgur.com/Iu3jhFd.jpg
Don't worry, just find the nearest one to you, hop the pond, and exercise the franchise. Clinton will win and you will probably wind up with a path to citizenship.
Hooahguy
11-08-2016, 19:40
So, election day. It comes down to this. Cant wait for this to be over, its been helluva ride.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-08-2016, 20:03
I am looking forward to Wednesday so that the ads revert to tampons with wings and our ambulance chasers (Morgan and Mogan....FOR the people!). Infinitely preferable to the overdose (Fl is THE swing state) of political ads nauseum.
HopAlongBunny
11-08-2016, 20:17
https://youtu.be/F-t8PngHgWY
I'll be voting after work today. I won't be voting for either Clinton or Trump- as they're both repulsive individuals. Not sure who I'll waste my POTUS vote writing in (probably either Vermin Supreme of Evan McMullin), but there are some down-ballot races that are worth voting for.
edyzmedieval
11-08-2016, 22:34
http://www.slate.com/votecastr_election_day_turnout_tracker.html
Live turnout tracker - but keep in mind it's based on data analysis, and cannot be fully trusted/accurate.
Kralizec
11-08-2016, 23:01
Seamus and Xiahou:
just curious, during the republican primaries did you have a favourite candidate?
Strike For The South
11-08-2016, 23:14
TRUMP WEARING A BLUE TIE TO VOTE. HE WAS A PLANT THE WHOLE TIME. I CALLED IT.
Also, casted a protest vote. Real politician, had to write it in.
Hooahguy
11-09-2016, 00:12
Dont forget Strike about our little bet. :yes:
EDIT: for those who forgot (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?148952-POTUS-thread&p=2053708568&viewfull=1#post2053708568).
HopAlongBunny
11-09-2016, 00:17
Trump has revealed a strategy: litigate early
http://wonkette.com/608398/sore-losermen-trump-babies-will-be-crying-and-suing-forever-over-nevada-cheating
We'll have to see how that works out as a "plan".
Win or lose (lose really) it keeps the "debate alive", and will act to feed the "rigged" narrative.
Hooahguy
11-09-2016, 00:39
Also, the results from our little poll should be available to see now so it looks like Clinton narrowly beats out Johnson.
GeneralHankerchief
11-09-2016, 01:04
Might as well call my prediction right now: Clinton takes the popular vote but Trump wins the Electoral College in a repeat of 2000.
Anyway, I've got fond memories of going over the 2008 returns with you all, here's hoping for a relaxing and productive night everybody. :medievalcheers:
Seamus and Xiahou:
just curious, during the republican primaries did you have a favourite candidate?
Almost any of them would have been more tolerable than Trump. If I could've named the nominee, I would've went with Cruz. I think a politician that is willing to go into Iowa and tell them he wants to kill the RFS (and still won the state no less) is one who might actually put principle over expediency. He did, however, lose a little bit of my respect when he knuckled under and endorsed Trump.
Aside from him, I think I could have voted for Rubio, Walker, (probably) Fiorina, Paul, Jindal or even Perry. :shrug:
In the end, I wrote in Evan McMullin. Apparently he was formally registered as a write-in (that's a thing?) in my state, meaning that his vote totals would be counted. Apparently other write-ins aren't even tallied unless write-ins make up a significant portion of the vote....
Seamus Fermanagh
11-09-2016, 01:48
I'll be voting after work today. I won't be voting for either Clinton or Trump- as they're both repulsive individuals. Not sure who I'll waste my POTUS vote writing in (probably either Vermin Supreme of Evan McMullin), but there are some down-ballot races that are worth voting for.
Voted for my wife for POTUS.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-09-2016, 01:49
Seamus and Xiahou:
just curious, during the republican primaries did you have a favourite candidate?
Rubio mostly, some thoughts about Cruz.
Voted for my wife for POTUS.
I learned my lesson once when I wrote in my own name for a county GOP committee seat and won. Since then, I've never wrote in anyone I care about. :sweatdrop:
EDIT: On a different note, here's (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president) a fun real-time election forecast via the NYT. It updates itself before your very eyes as results come in- Right now it predicts Hillary 80% likely to win and with a 310 electoral vote total. I don't know if it's accurate- but at least it's interesting.
Seamus Fermanagh
11-09-2016, 01:52
I learned my lesson once when I wrote in my own name for a county GOP committee seat and won. Since then, I've never wrote in anyone I care about. :sweatdrop:
I would follow her to Hell with a damp sponge for a shield. Since none of the other candidates were truly qualified, I tapped her for it.
Pannonian
11-09-2016, 02:04
I learned my lesson once when I wrote in my own name for a county GOP committee seat and won. Since then, I've never wrote in anyone I care about. :sweatdrop:
Did you serve in the committee, and what did you have to do?
Did you serve in the committee, and what did you have to do?
I showed up at the first meeting and got a witness a very petty fight over two people who wanted to be chair. It seemed mainly like a GOP cheerleading team otherwise. After the meeting, I withdrew from the committee- though they still send me spam. :no:
I don't really consider myself a GOP loyalist- I've never given them any money and may never do so. My beliefs align much closer to the Republicans than Democrats- but I think the tribalism that goes with the two parties is unhelpful. The worst case of that is this election.
Hooahguy
11-09-2016, 03:18
So Trump will probably be taking Florida, North Carolina, and... Virginia? Might also win Wisconsin and Michigan. Looks great for Trump. Terrible for Clinton. I kinda think now that Trump will win.
So Trump will probably be taking Florida, North Carolina, and... Virginia? Might also win Wisconsin and Michigan. Looks great for Trump. Terrible for Clinton. I kinda think now that Trump will win.Yeah, this election looked like a tall order for Trump, but to me, his X factor was also the crowd that he speaks to who doesn't normally turn out big for elections. We're seeing the possibility that he could flip some traditionally blue states.
If Trump does manage to win, I look forward to seeing liberals and media (but I repeat myself :clown:) heads exploding over the next few days. He'd definitely be a more entertaining president than Clinton.... not sure that's a good thing though. :sweatdrop:
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 04:15
Losing Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina is looking fatal. Losing Wisconsin and Michigan might as well make it decisive.
So according to the NYT, there's an 80% chance of Trump winning and a 95% chance to maintain control of the House and Senate. I never countenanced the possibility of a president Trump with total GOP control of Washington. ~:eek:
Hooahguy
11-09-2016, 04:44
Yup, and Clinton will go down in history as one of the worst candidates in history who lost to Trump, of all people. Her political career is over if she doesnt win.
Yup, and Clinton will go down in history as one of the worst candidates in history who lost to Trump, of all people. Her political career is over if she doesnt win.
I'm pretty sure it's over either way.
Assuming the worst, as horrifying as a Trump presidency will be there will be a small part of me that would enjoy watching Hillary wondering what the hell just happened. Hopefully the DNC learns from this. You may think you know better than us, but you have to do a better job convincing the rest of us, not just smugly telling us how it goes.
I can't believe Trump is actually probably going to win, I thought for sure it was going to be Clinton. The thought of a Trump presidency scares me but in a way I'm excited to see what he will do. Me personally I voted for Vermin Supreme, because I'm worried about the state of dental care in this country.
Also, casted a protest vote. Real politician, had to write it in.
Was it Mimi Soltysik? I bet it was Mimi Soltysik.
GeneralHankerchief
11-09-2016, 05:16
I'm pretty sure it's over either way.
Assuming the worst, as horrifying as a Trump presidency will be there will be a small part of me that would enjoy watching Hillary wondering what the hell just happened. Hopefully the DNC learns from this. You may think you know better than us, but you have to do a better job convincing the rest of us, not just smugly telling us how it goes.
Judging by the reactions on my Facebook feed, this is not going to be a lesson quickly or easily learned.
Montmorency
11-09-2016, 05:27
Amusingly, winning Iowa and keeping at least Michigan would make a probably victory for Clinton.
Kinda makes you wonder what would have happened if Sanders had won the Democratic nomination. One the one hand his self labeling as "socialist" made him a non-starter for the older generation but on the other hand a lot of people seemed excited for a potential Sanders presidency, more so than for Clinton who was supported just because she isn't Trump.
GeneralHankerchief
11-09-2016, 05:40
269-269
Pannonian
11-09-2016, 05:42
Kinda makes you wonder what would have happened if Sanders had won the Democratic nomination. One the one hand his self labeling as "socialist" made him a non-starter for the older generation but on the other hand a lot of people seemed excited for a potential Sanders presidency, more so than for Clinton who was supported just because she isn't Trump.
Depends what the voting demographics are. Corbyn is incredibly popular among the younger demographic in the UK, but they're also highly unlikely to vote. A marker of this discrepancy was David Cameron's former constituency, where the Labour membership doubled prior to the by-election, but where their vote halved.
Judging by the reactions on my Facebook feed, this is not going to be a lesson quickly or easily learned.
The Dems still think they are entitled to the union (working class) and black vote. They have been losing the union votes over the years by both letting the country's manufacturing go to hell and trying (or being painted as trying) to take the guns from the Midwest hunters. And Clinton could not get the black vote motivated in the states that count. She won the primaries in the South mainly with the black vote, but she wasn't going to win those states in the general election regardless.
Pure arrogance lead them to this point. Anointing Clinton before the nomination race even began bypassed the usual vetting, they knew she was hugely disliked and scandal prone and put her up anyway. "How am I not up by 10 points" indeed. :no: They just don't get it.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.