Clinton First Edition
We need a Clinton topic. Let's post here why we like or dislike her. I think she's a great politician and full of win. She's the most honest candidate running. And has the best foreign policy experience, and has made excellent decisions thus far. Who else is on the Clinton train?
Forcefed4door "She's the most honest candidate running."
Meanwhile she is in middle of a dishonesty scandal at her current position where she has lied about sending classified emails time and time again. She can't even do her current job right, and we want her as president?????
Darrin Have to love election years.... Not a fan of Clinton but then again there are worse candidates running. Personally still waiting for someone else to jump in but I guess we're out of time.
Bonv Honest? You are kidding right? White Water, Bengazi, FBI investigation on Clasified Info on private email server.She should be sitting behind bars, not in the Oval Office.
John C "She's the most honest candidate running"
did I really just read that? please tell me you are being facetious.
Joe Friday I guess you guys haven't been paying attention to the Trump thread. Forcefed4door is a rabid Trump supporter and just trying to stir the pot here.
MB 
JerryG Way way way too many employment related integrity issues - she is running for president so she doesn't get indicted in my opinion lol
skippy She's a liar, likely a felon, under investigation by the FBI.
And don't get me started on Benghazi
JeffersonRepub 
Old Gent But JR, she wants to build bridges not walls. And forget making America great again. She believes we should make America whole again. Now that's a helluva slogan.
The FBI stuff is just bs to make her look bad. She's a good person and follows the law accordingly. She wins
Considering how low the other candidates have set the bar, not sure "the most honest" candidate is praise for any of them.
Agust I think she deserves credit for dodging all the bullets. Every day she runs across the primary tarmac, enemy allegation guns blazing, and yet no one can land the kill shot. She ducks, she pivots, she lies, she runs, but you can't even wound her.
Got the best plans, got my vote.
Actually I have not read the plans but figure you don't have to read them to know they're the best.
So scream your White Water, Bengazi, Email server and more. If you want a lie list: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/
Remember, Hillary lies pale in comparison to the master liar of them all, Donald Trump: http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=donald+trump+lies
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/
strangerdanger Former "First Lady."
I would not use the term "lady" to describe her at all.
Shrew, lying sack of $hit, murderer, liar, nasty wench, liar, lousy Secretary of State, Benghazi debacle screw up, liar, foreign enemy money launderer, a phony...and did I mention liar?
Heidi But Donalds lies are just political talk. Hers are after taking deadly actions. Her profession is a lawyer. She got thrown out of that. She is just plain sleazy. Donald is still working at his and didn't kill anyone. Donald lost money for some investors as his worst crime, if you will, but they all took a gamble.
drcOnly stranger danger logic would praise and admire someone for being a consummate POLITICIAN
the sad and unfortunate thing when it comes to our legal system is that IF anything comes from this email scandal with her, she'll get off with a slap on the wrist, if that. nothing will come of the investigation and potential hearings and she'll be able to continue on with her presidential plans. she was complicit in Benghazi and we all see how that panned out.
Hot corner she's a national nightmare of a dishonest, unpleasant, sadly flawed excuse for a candidate,
the democrats should draft Kasich while they still can, he'd be a shoe-in for them and could win the whole she-bang. as a republican he doesn't stand a chance.
BrotherDog "the democrats should draft Kasich while they still can, he'd be a shoe-in for them and could win the whole she-bang. as a republican he doesn't stand a chance."
This is true. And ironically, it's exactly WHY he doesn't stand a chance running as a republican- because he's really a democrat LOL
And as far as SD admiring Hillary for her ability to "dodge the killshot"... well then, he should be a rabid Trump supporter... after all, both the GOP and the mainstream media tried to kill him from the beginning, and didn't let up until recently.... NOTHING STUCK... if anything, it made him EVEN MORE popular... talk about teflon-coated.... and I submit, if Trump was running as a dem SD would simply re-spin his current diatribe and BE a rabid Trump supporter.
She is a liar and a crook... She is also married to one!! That makes her twice as qualified as all the other liars and crooks in the race!!!!! With her as our next president and Obama and Bill advising her we are all screwed... Can u say take from the middle class and give to the poor!!!!!!!!!! We will have Hillary care which much like Obama care will be designed to screw the middle class!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mr. Tone StrangerGoogle is a True Believer...which might be forgivable if he was young and 20 (helI, I was a "conservative"....though I questioned the all-or-none package, some of which seemed anti-personal liberty and rather the blind allegiance that club membership involved.) I thought Reagan was the greatest.
I believe SD to be older, pretty smart.... but not wiser.
Statism (or the fascist version of it that it has become in the US) is a religion. Fighting within that framework may be his jihad. A desire to promote, support and enforce this corrupt system may be his choice.
But it's not mine.
SD has probably changed few minds, despite all of the energy directed to crafting his well-written posts.
I have probably changed few minds, so I guess I'm in the same boat.
It's entertainment for all of us to do this, I guess, or we wouldn't keep coming back.
jjmonth4 "Actually I have not read the plans but figure you don't have to read them to know they're the best. "
I'm hoping that was sarcasm. If not, you're a special ball of stupid.
btownguy She is an evil liar. Has lots of practice, after passing off Chelsea as Bill's.
Then Whitewater.
Benghazi lies.
Email "I didn't know..." lies were the worst.-added Stupidity to her list of bad.
Wish she'd slither away.
Plusgirl And yet despite all your protest....she's probably going to be the next POTUS. Can't say I'm thrilled, but then I rarely am with any of the "choices".
eperot "And yet despite all your protest....she's probably going to be the next POTUS"
Says a lot about the intelligence level of the majority of voters. Or maybe, more accurately, the ignorance level.
There is a saying "America gets the government it deserves" (referring the popular vote).... I think it could be more accurately stated "America gets the government that is in relation to the level of it's willful ignorance."
America has been very ignorant.
"And yet despite all your protest....she's probably going to be the next POTUS"
This has to be the most frightening statement not because someone under federal investigation and criminal speculation since she was 28 years old could be president but that we have so many millions of people that are dullards, voting for her, giving her the power to continue without question.
It is frightening to think of the prospect of another 8 years of malfeasance, the dismantling of the constitution and a destruction of values and morality. Any one with children and grand children who votes for this disgrace should bow their heads in shame for what they are doing to their children.
Mark T minus 30 posts and yet not one mention of anything wrong with Hillary's plans. They must be unassailable.
Love the name calling. JJMouth, we should at least not make up pet names for each other and just target the politicians. Its strangerdanger.
So you got the lies and the scandals none of which have resulted in charges or sanctions. The only lie charge you have logged, in another post, was the famous crossing the tarmac under fire exaggeration. Not exactly a watershed when compared to "millions of Muslims cheering from the rooftops in NJ after 9/11."
Whitewater -- no charges. "no inquiry ever produced evidence of wrongdoing,"
Benghazi -- “it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup” scenario. Hillary has taken responsibility, it was on her watch, but no wrong doing and no lies. However, IMO, Clinton's words re the movie were legally not a lie but oh so close to the line. Close enough that it's very understandable how the families heard a lie even if there wasn't one.
Email server --- good luck. looks like the server wasn't hacked so no secrets handed over even though they weren't secrets at the time but are classified as such today.
"after passing off Chelsea as Bill's." That's just rude and crude.
"Shrew, lying sack of $hit, murderer, liar, nasty wench, liar, lousy Secretary of State, Benghazi debacle screw up, liar, foreign enemy money launderer, a phony...and did I mention liar?" --- Does your mother know you talk like this? Pony up some facts.
Here's mine: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/
Now, about those plans...... Yup, all good. No one here disagrees at least on the facts.
I have my bumper sticker on, it reads: Go to Hill.
"but that we have so many millions of people that are dullards, voting for her, giving her the power to continue without question."
THIS is exactly what I have such a hard time digesting. Are people that oblivious to what is going on with her or do they simply not care because in their mind "it's not a big deal"? I don't see how anyone can simply dismiss everything she has done and been accused of. And not just recently but her entire career, no less.
Well.... If she wins, she'll be sitting behind the same desk that Monica was sitting under.
completely ingrained in the myopic habit of suckling on the teat of government largess, they can no longer find the personal strength to wean themselves off of that addictive predigested brew, and blinded by their lust for more and more of the same, it makes them incapable of independent thought, and just like lemmings, they follow the lead of those self-anointed preachers and their ideological bias to the ruination of their party and the nation. blinded by the light of political intransigence, and intoxicated on the nourishment big government provides them, they can no longer see the forest for the trees. so they just go blindly on, no.matter.what.
Hillary knows this and is using them as sheep. they can't see it, they just bay her tune and follow along right over the cliff. wait till she comes after them with a pair of shears in one hand and some clippers (ouch!) in the other.
WOW!!
yes JJ, +1 , you made some very valid points,
But that's jut it, Joe. An accusation doesn't necessarily imply truth.
I've read every post here and seen Benghazi thrown up as a reason to dismiss or even jail Clinton, but no one seems to have read the numerous findings of Republican led House Select Committee intelligence Investigations (of which there have been many as well) all finding that there is no reason to implicate Clinton or any of the Obama Administration in any type of criminal act. Their own conclusion: Benghazi was a tragedy, not a scandal. Yet as long as the Right keeps tossing the name out there it still sticks in people's minds. Nothing more than a smear campaign, like Swiftboat Veterans for Truth (or untruth, actually) and going back to Tippecanoe and Tyler too. It's easy to make people believe a problem exists, and nearly impossible to prove otherwise once it has been set in the collective public mind.
Trying to explain these things to those who still believe it is tough. Even in the face of evidence. It's like talking to conspiracy nuts. You might believe in aircraft dispersed chem-trails. I could sit down, explain in depth the thermodynamics of hot engines producing warm, moist combustion meeting cold dry air in the upper atmosphere causing instant condensation. And that individual would look back and say "nope. It's Chemicals the government is spraying on us to (pick your random reason)". Hopeless.
And Mark...what morals and values have been destroyed over the last 8 years? What freedoms afforded you by the Constitution have been shredded? I can only assume on the values front you are talking about the recognition of Homosexuals as legitimate human beings afforded the same rights as everyone else? Please, correct me if I'm wrong. I hope I am.
BD wrote "completely ingrained in the myopic habit of suckling on the teat of government largess, they can no longer find the personal strength to wean themselves off of that addictive predigested brew, and blinded by their lust for more and more of the same, it makes them incapable of independent thought, and just like lemmings, they follow the lead of those self-anointed preachers and their ideological bias to the ruination of their party and the nation."
I'll give you that as having some credibility...but don't forget, you could just as easily be talking about Republicans who do the EXACT same thing.Talk about ruination of the party. You've seen the state of the GOP lately, right?
I agree that Clinton is about the worst candidate on the planet and I would never vote for her. But what does it say about the GOP that they can't bring themselves to nominate someone who will beat her?
Trump is a trainwreck that seems to finally be leaving the tracks. Cruz is a dominionist whackjob who states that he is a Christian first, and an American second. If that's true, he should become a minister and get out of politics. Who would vote for someone who puts his religion above his country?
ianimal "T minus 30 posts and yet not one mention of anything wrong with Hillary's plans. They must be unassailable. "
Honestly, I have no idea if her plans are assailable or not.... but her CHARACTER is not only assailable, but been proven to be unworthy of public service.
"Who would vote for someone who puts his religion above his country?"
I submit the other candidates are the same.... whether it's religion or something else is irrelevant....
Trump puts his EGO above his country....
Hillary puts her OWN POWER above (the good of) her country (as do most politicians)...
Bernie puts unrealistic utopian pipe dreams above (the good of) his country....
(I actually think Bernie may actually be stupid enough, or perhaps senile enough, to believe his plans could actually work)
jd2 What politician has an unassailable character?
What person has no mistakes in his/her past?
What kind, honest person would want this job, or be able to successfully perform this job, since it requires swimming with so many sharks?
We need a politician who can compromise and prevaricate and drive for results.
Hilary is at least tough, persistent, informed and well connected.
If nothing else one must admire her energy.
I'm not sure who to vote for yet. The sad truth is all of the candidates are scary for different reasons.
If the Rs nominate Trump- gulp. We would lose respect from the international community for one. What would he do with his executive powers? Can't see him working with Congress somehow. (Congress being paid by taxpayers to block everything and do nothing is an entire separate topic)
If they don't nominate Trump, who then Cruz? Who wants him? That's giving the
election to the Dems. And can't Trump then run as an Independent and try to win anyway? Kasich isn't as well known, but some may not bother to find out more about him because we like to back a winner and he just can't get enough delegates now. The system is flawed.
hktownie hktownie,
I'm sorry, I can't get on board with "admiring" the character of a candidate based on "how well they've done their job".... Mussolini did his job very well, as did Hitler, Mao, Marx, Lenin, Castro.... the list is a long and "distinguished" one. Just because someone is good at something- if that something is dishonesty, subterfuge, criminality, immorality, and other negative traits, I cannot "admire" them.
Did you admire Hitler's "energy"? He certainly had the energy and the toughness to get rid of most of those jews, didn't he? Sorry, that logic doesn't follow.
Admiring a politician because they have been good at BEING A POLITICIAN is exactly WHATS WRONG WITH THE VOTERS IN THIS COUNTRY. Might as well like a used car salesman because he's such a good salesman and so good at pulling the wool over so many people's eyes.
"We would lose respect from the international community for one."
We've already lost an immeasurable amount of respect from the international community due to Obama.
Since it always get viewed at its worst in this forum, let's for once say what POLITICS is at its best - THE ART OF THE POSSIBLE. Just some food for thought.
JR I agree with you, character is everything.
But what person who is honest, moral, law-abiding and transparent would ever want this job? And if someone did, how would he navigate the party machinery and campaign funding challenges, end up on a ballot and win? We just don't get those kind of candidates. I wish we did.
Reality is that the systems is broken. When you read the vote counts after almost every election a number of people just write in Mickey Mouse. For this election, we are stuck with a pool of 5 for now, and none of them are stellar.
Would be interested to know, which past Presidents have had the sterling character you admire?
There will always be opposing opinions. I still say a politician has to have perseverance and patience to negotiate and craft compromises. Check the definition in this link. I'm thinking 1,3,4 and 5. You're thinking 2 and 6.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/politician
Regarding your Hitler remark, my family had to survive in occupied Netherlands during WW II, so I find that out of line.
Everybody cries foul when Hitler is mentioned... with all due respect, give me a break. It's history. It's not out-of-line to discuss history. History is reality.
And for the record: Hitler doesn't hold the market on evil: every name on that list was evil. Hitler had nothing on Stalin and Mao:
I'm not saying one of these people is even worth voting for, but I am saying picking "the best liar of the bunch" is not a good way to pick who to vote for.
Correct hktownie. JR's thoughtless comment about Hitler is also wrong from another perspective. He did his job well?? It resulted in the destruction of his country, Germany.
Hitler "did his job well" in that he did what he said he was going to do: stop the jews who's "fault" it was that Germany was in the state it was in. Haven't you ever heard "under Mussolini the trains ran on time?"
The comment wasn't thoughtless at all... on the contrary, it was thoughtFUL. We need to remember and learn from history, not sweep it under the rug because it's to "ugly" or "insensitive" to discuss.
You know some other people who were "good at their jobs"?
Charles Manson
Jim Jones
Che' Guevarra
Bernie Madoff
Jordan Belfort
Out of the bunch, I think Clinton talks very kindly at her rallies to we the people. Some think she sounds monotone, but I think she is great.
The only thing that bothers me, is when she claims she will fix all the issues and make things better in this country. It's confusing, she says she will basically be a third term Obama. Is she saying she has to fix issues created by him or what? SD, what do you make out of it, because I'm leaning towards voting for her just a little worried we may end up just raising the deficit.
JR you've posted lists here of people that were responsible for tremendous evil in the world. Just to be clear, I don't admire any of them, in case you want to ask again.
I could find and post a list of people who were good at their jobs and did great good in the world.
But let's see if you can post something positive.
Here's my question again.
Which past Presidents have had the sterling character you admire?
20th century US Presidents please.
hktownie.
Again, you're missing the point. The point is, admiring someone because they are a good politician is not a compliment. Admiring Hillary because she has, as SD said "dodged all the bullets" is not a reason to vote FOR someone. Admiring someone because they have lied, cheated, possibly gotten away with committing felonious acts, is not a compliment.
I don't need to answer your question, because it's irrelevant to my point: there hasn't been a 100% virtuous president, ever. Because the 100% virtuous HUMAN does not exist. You're trying to "gotcha" me, but it won't work. It's not relevant.
See if you can find a candidate to vote FOR because of POSITIVE things they have done: and being the best liar and getting away with crimes are not positive things.
So, Bernie wins 9 out of the last 11 primaries & caucuses. But due to Hillary's "superdelegates", he's still far behind. If I were a democrat, I think I'd be more pissed off at my party and the way they do things than I am at the GOP, as a republican. LOL
Give it up, JR. Hitler saw his job as creating the "Thousand Year Reich". How did that turn out?
Although I see the point you are trying to make, saying that he did his job well is just plain wrong, not to mention offensive. Find another argument.
Hitler did his job VERY well, as he saw it, from 1933-1945, when the Allied powers finally stopped him. Had it not BEEN for the Allied powers, he and Hirohito would have conquered the world between them.
Offensive? You people are too PC. That's one thing Trump is right about: this PC ridiculousness is dangerous and has to stop.
I don't need another argument, I stated it above, but I'll state it one more time for you slow ones (whoops, did I OFFEND???)
Again, you're missing the point. The point is, admiring someone because they are a good politician is not a compliment. Admiring Hillary because she has, as SD said "dodged all the bullets" is not a reason to vote FOR someone. Admiring someone because they have lied, cheated, possibly gotten away with committing felonious acts, is not a compliment.
See if you can find a candidate to vote FOR because of POSITIVE things they have done: and being the best liar and getting away with crimes are not positive things.
Well, of course, JR, the allied powers were there wrecking Germany as a direct result of Hitler doing his job as leader of his country so terribly. How could he have done his job any worse? And that includes his job as he saw it, creating a thousand year Reich of pure "Aryan" stock, etc, a complete failure. Ruin everywhere. Suicide.
Oh well, I know trying to win this argument is hopeless so I hereby cease and desist.
Sorry, but what about Hillary's plans seems remotely good? They're either "I'm trying to be Bernie without being Bernie to get some of those votes" or "I'm going to pander to the status quo a bit".
What's original or good there? It's hack political efforts from an individual that knows how to speak in lawyer speak but says nothing.
CNN Cuts Off Segment After Mention of Hillary's Accused Child Rapist Defense...
CNN host Carol Costello abruptly ended a segment Tuesday after a guest brought up Hillary Clinton’s 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist.
‘No, No, No.’ CNN Host Cuts Off Interview After Guest Mentions Hillary’s Defense Of Child Rapist
You don’t want to hear it? That Hillary Clinton is on tape bragging about, as a lawyer getting off on a technicality. That woman now says, ‘Hillary ruined my life.’ That’s not fair,”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/05/no-no-no-cnn-host-cuts-off-interview-after-guest-mentions-hillarys-defense-of-child-rapist-video/#ixzz4501h9Lty
gadfly The State Police screwed up the evidence and they pleaded down to a lesser charge. He did a year in prison. As a pubic defender she did her job. Like any lawyer, that is their job regardless if their client is guilt or not. Bragging about it shows no class in my opinion.
kb2755 Look it up Gadfly, plenty of reports of he bragging and laughing about it. Take off you Clinton blinders.
sparksjbc1964 My, my, my. We are finally talking plans, albeit generally, mixed with some real lunacy.
JR, your list of evildoers as folks who "did his job well" is wrong because it is nonsensical. None of these people did their job well, none achieved their stated goals and no one would support their goals as being beneficial in any way. Or are you saying something else? They were all removed and discredited. Your funniest example was Manson. Do you think he achieved Helter Skelter at least in your opinion? Or maybe you just like the forehead tat.
And you misconstrued my "dodging all the bullets" comment as somehow once again proving allegations are truth. Point is you can't hit the target, you can't do anything beyond a total whiff of your allegation and innuendo bullets. You are right though, dodging bullets is not a reason to support someone. Not being guilty is.
You're guilty of unfounded allegations as shown above.
Yes I admire a good politician. Sue me but that's the job and I would rather someone who does it well versus the folks you want who can't do the job.
"Admiring someone because they have lied, cheated, possibly gotten away with committing felonious acts, is not a compliment." Everyone misstates things, I have posted many of Hillary's recent ones. Find me an egregious one. "cheated, possibly gotten away with committing felonious acts" ---- Prove it or be quiet. My proof of your being wrong on the major topics in this regard is posted above.
Meanwhile, back to the plans and folks expressed general views.
F4D: "It's confusing, she says she will basically be a third term Obama. Is she saying she has to fix issues created by him or what? SD, what do you make out of it" One example would be the ACA which, by definition of being huge, has issues needing attention. I don't think she have even said she will be Obama's third term as you just did. She supports some things, does not support others, will modify some others. I find it a little hard to believe your leaning towards voting for her, good luck.
I don't trust any of them on the deficit (and debt). Kasich is probably the most rational. Clinton will take a centrist approach, Cruz will slash and burn for principles, damn the results, and Trump/Sanders are economically off the charts bonkers. Sanders for Socialism, Trump for his history of wildcatting causing boom or bust. Can't get bailed out on this one Don. But wait, he can act Presidential. Well, 60 plus years and waiting.... Recent hush money for fraud paid in 2011.
btownguy says: "They're either "I'm trying to be Bernie without being Bernie to get some of those votes" or "I'm going to pander to the status quo a bit". Yes, I agree that the Bernie effect on Hillary is her moving left of center on some issues. Not all, but some. After all she is a good politician. Damned millennials.
Pandering to the status quo. She's a centrist or moderate liberal. Just like Kasich is a centrist or moderate conservative. What did you expect? Although one man's pander is another's prudent. Otherwise you get Sanders or Cruz or worse yet, a race baitng fascist like Trump.
"What's original or good there? It's hack political efforts from an individual that knows how to speak in lawyer speak but says nothing." I think she's got the most credible and workable plans out there amongst all the candidates. It's in writing and not legal contracts. But I agree that she knows how and uses lawyer speak upon occasion. Benghazi movie time in support of Obama's re-election was exactly that. Most often you will see it when she is pushing a controversial topic or most certainly in defense of allegations. To one extent I admire the precision. To another I wish she could avoid the nuance.
Keep those plan comments coming. Love to talk issues.
Keep those allegation comments coming, love to see fact-less feckless crash and burns.
But JR, please just give us a break.
Bernie can win Nu Yawk with his Brooklyn accent...unless Hillary changes hers. She does that, at least in the south.
DannyC If somehow Bernie became democrat nominee. He would beat any republican thrown at him. Sad but true.
Bernie stumbles on foreign policy:
"The Daily News continued, asking him if he supports the Palestinian leadership’s efforts to drag Israel before the International Criminal Court over alleged war crimes.
No, said Sanders.
“Why not?” the Daily News asked.
“Look, why don’t I support a million things in the world? I’m just telling you that I happen to believe,” said the senator, who went on to say that Israel’s military had engaged in indiscriminate bombings of Palestinians but never said why he opposed bringing in the ICC."
From:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-bobbled-foreign-policy-1401903242035254.html
To summarize... Bernie is full of shi!. He is just another Jew blindly supporting his tribe...
iJay Om jusy saying... he has all those crazy supporters. And i betcha most of Hillary's supporters would vote for him woth no other choice. The gop is so divided they would not stand a chance vs Bernie. It would be doomsday
OMG!!! Hillary Clinton? She makes me sick to my stomach. Dishonest, cheat, liar, criminal and the list goes on. Vote her in and the good ol' USA is collectively over. How anyone could even fathom voting for her is beyond comprehension. GO TRUMP!!!
"He is just another Jew blindly supporting his tribe..." Oh sigh.
"The gop is so divided they would not stand a chance vs Bernie. It would be doomsday" Now it's a sad day for sure when conservatives become unglued. Last election they sounded like ultra conservatives, acted like Democrats. Galvanized the Democrats to act like Republicans. Felt funny to be part of a well-funded, well-organized election machine.
You got to go with innuendo, allegation and conspiracy theory because you can't prove it gottagowithtrump. Otherwise when Trump loses, you got to go with Trump too. I say Go to Hill. There's a shining light on the Hill.
Lamppost >> There's a shining light on the Hill.<<
Human predators have used shining lights to fascinate deer for years.
There's something about that wonderful light, cutting through the darkness, that captivates these otherwise cagey animals.
It fills them with awe, and they stare at it in doe-eyed wonder.
Then bad things usually happen.
It has been so effective in overcoming their natural defenses, that it has been deemed unethical. It is also illegal.
The people behind the lights usually just want to kill for meat, or profit, or thrills...or all of the aforementioned.
With few exceptions, they are considered criminals.
Pretty good metaphor for Hillary, IMO.
Totally uncalled for iJay..I guess the filter from your brain to your fingers is malfunctioning?
positive 
Not uncalled for Positive. Our great country has been manipulated into vetoing all actions against Israel. And people wonder WHY we are hated. We are not hated for our freedoms, we are hated for our meddling and bias in the way we interact with the rest of the world.
Just like David Duke is a bad person. Making a lot of sense from this interview 10 years ago:
https://youtu.be/p2QMQi-m63E
Timely article from yesterday:
http://observer.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-berated-with-questions-about-zionist-jews-at-harlem-forum/
The way Trump has cheated on his wives or babymamas, created several litters, and talks about how he finds his daughter Ivanka sexy, and spoke about his daughter Tiffany when she was one (wondering whether she'd have big breasts one day), he'll never get my vote. He's also not bright...he can't answer any question intelligently, preferring to resort to "you're a loser" or something equally ridiculous when he can't come up with an answer.
I don't like ANY of them, but Trump is disgusting.
ChristIsRisen Bill Clinton called out the Black Lives Matter thugs who as usual tried to disrupt his speech on Friday telling them they should be concerned with the black on black crime tn their own neighborhoods. Many Democrats and Republicans gave him kudos for taking them on. Unfortunately he had to walk back his comments as to not offend Hillary's lock on the black vote.
The black community needs to examine itself as to why they are at the bottom. Stop blaming slavery hundreds of years ago and start taking responsibility for today...
To iJay I say, Yes, but...
Yes, the past can't be changed; we live in today. Everyone has to take responsibilities for their actions today. I think most people do.
But, slavery ended not hundreds of years ago but 151 years ago, to be exact. And much more recent than that there were laws such as Jim Crow that institutionalized disadvantages to black people. Advantages in wealth and opportunity persist for many generations. Descendants of slaves have a hurdle that others do not.
Easy for everyone who is not black to say. There have been many groups who have faced discrimination such as Italians and the Irish. However, it seems that it was never as systemic as it was and is for blacks. Imagine trying to live your life and knowing that every thing is stacked against you. Think of Ferguson where your friends wouldn't come to visit you because they didn't want to get a ticket in your town. I think social, political, and environmental discrimination is more rampant than any non blacks realize or can imagine. Kinda hard to pull yourself up from that.
RAS 
Thank goodness you're here, Lamppost. Obviously we need more silly memes and less thoughtful discussion to get "back on topic".
So what about the issue of the day: buying and collecting delegates in BOTH hegemonic parties. Do we live in and under a system that even approximates a democracy?
Danny,
Just another in a long line of BS "rules" and "policies" passed by those in power, which also includes "superdelegates" and "gerrymandering".... and I'm quite sure MANY more.... just another "legal" way for those in power to stay in power, regardless of what the people want.
Remember, slavery was LEGAL. The holocaust was LEGAL. Segregation was LEGAL.
Legality is a matter of power, not justice.
That being said, the system is so convoluted that I don't think anyone could complain about HOW the nominees are chosen... or, EVERYBODY can.
If Trump gets 1237, no one can complain when he's the nominee (or everyone can).
If Trump does NOT get to 1237, no one can complain when he ISN'T the nominee (or everyone can).
The point being, at this point, the system is so corrupt it's not possible to separate "right" from "wrong" anymore. Everyone is playing any angles and advantages they can. But Trump is no "victim", that's laughable. The only victim in all of this is the American people- ALL of them- regardless of who they support. It's just a complete and utter mess.
To JR: True, yes. But your statements are not relevant to the topic.
To Danny: The political parties are not part of the government; they don't need to be democratic. If you started a political party of your own, and you wanted it to represent your beliefs, wouldn't you be within your rights to make sure your candidates reflect those beliefs?
If Trump is a "victim" of anything, he's a victim of his own ignorance of all the ins & outs of how the nomination process works.... his own fault.... I thought he had "the best people"??? LOL
I'm just a naïve old white man, who spent a lot of time in the corporate rat-race, but always thought that politics was "one person, one vote", not so multi-tiered, with the middle tiers, like middle management, only concerned with their own meaningless jobs, and doing anything to keep them, even at the expense of both top management and the troops. I was so wrong.
Old Gent -
A co-worker once said to his kid, "It's not fair? It's not supposed to be fair. If it was fair, then nobody would work, and nothing would get done." Smiles and peace.
jd2,
Any discussion of slavery that ended with the 13th Amendment are not relevant to the topic.
Now, if you'd like to discuss the slavery of the American people to the overgrown, over-powerful, all-encompassing government, then you'd have something "relevant" there.
"If it was fair, then nobody would work"
Normal person's definition of fair = Equal Opportunity (i.e. no discrimination)
Progressive person's definition of fair = Equal Results (i.e. free s**t)
Mark Mc. 
Mark. I guess we have more progressives then normal people in this country the way it stands. I would call it different names. Responsible and Irresponsible (excluding the handy cap)
auntiel 
fujixt1 
Well you have certainly nailed her on the issues and plans.
Think the only good comment was the creepy sitting behind that desk thing. Creepy.
the dnc is getting concerned that their hand-picked shoe-in hillary is losing ground to bernie sanders
DNC Chair Suggests Bernie Supporters’ Tactics ‘Border on Harassment,’ ‘Feel Like Stalking’
SuperdelegateList.com, lists the names and contact information of every single Democratic superdelegate, who are free to vote for whomever they like at the convention.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dnc-chair-suggests-bernie-supporters-tactics-border-on-harassment-feel-like-stalking/
hillary and mayor DeBlasio making racial jokes at a black tie event, get called out on it by the the african-american MC who told them that "Hey! that's not funny!"
why does the democratic party condone this type of overt racist behavior on the part of their leading presidential candidate Hillary clinton? she really needs to check her white privilege and knock off the racist jokes. they are not funny.
go out and vote for Bernie Sanders, he is gaining ground in the delegate count and he has a real chance to win the nomination.
"I guess the many Democratic voters seemed concerned with her issues and her plans."
Really, which ones? Last I checked she was closing the door on the nomination.
That may be true but Bernie has closed the gap and is only 2% points behing her in the National Poll.
Hillary will be much easier to beat over sanders. If she is the nominee it greatly increases the chances of president trump. There are a good amount of sanders voters who will protest vote. And another large amount that will stay home. Clinton's group of supporters are generally of the older crowd and of the I like free stuff and don't wanna work crowd. Her people would vote for sanders, but his people won't vote for her.
"Hillary will be much easier to beat over sanders."
And even I would take Sanders over Clinton in a heartbeat (not that I'd actually vote for either of them).
Sanders wants to change things, but I get the impression he would do it the "right" way through the legislative process - perhaps not always successful but probably open to compromise. Clinton will use every underhanded, back-stabbing, immoral, and probably illegal way to get what she wants come hell or high water.
F4Door claims majority of Democtratic party is don't wanna work crowd. What a useless, factless, feckless assumption.
Mark would rather Socialism over Hillary's getting the job done even as his guy admits he can't win because of the rules promising violent upheavel if the rules are followed and he doesn't get his way.
But he's right about Hillary making Obama look like a chief executive puppy. Deal with it; obstructionism won't work during that regime.
"obstructionism won't work during that regime"
So when Republicans had the minority of the House/Senate they were obstructionist because they didn't go along with what the Democrats wanted...
Now they have the majority of the House/Senate they are obstructionist because they don't go along with what the Democrats wanted...
Nice logic, and interesting choice of words (regime, as opposed to administration...)
Its not a matter of not going along: its refusing to anything except theirs. Heck, they can't even agree with each other. Zero common ground sought.
Its those binary choices.
Fyi- when the Dems last held the house, they got a lot done.
And here it is, queue the trumpets - Ta-Ta! Donald Trump's brilliant nickname for Clinton: "Crooked Hilary".
"obstructionism won't work during that regime"
re·gime /rəˈZHēm,rāˈZHēm/ noun
- a government, especially an authoritarian one.
Yeah, obstructionism is frowned-upon in authoritarian governments. That's why they're usually called dictatorships.
Y'all seem waaay too invested in arguing the merits of your soon-to-be-selected binary choices. The winner will be happy to rule you within the context that the forces-behind-the-throne dictate.
These people start useless wars, support their corporate cronies at the expense of your freedom and your hard work, invade our privacy using patriotic names to sell you on the concept....and you polish your chains and send your family members off to destroy, kill and cripple, or be killed or crippled.
Zealots scare me, especially when they constitute a majority within our so-called "democracy."
And please tell me how a majority enforcing their will on a minority is an example of freedom and liberty...
Somebody woke up on the Debbie Downer side of the bed finding themselves surrounded by zealots, dictators and corporate puppet masters while festering a deep distrust of democracy as well.
"Don't worry, be happy!"
While campaigning for her mother recently, Chelsea Clinton admitted that the left is planning to use the Supreme Court to enact greater gun control if a Democrat wins the presidency this fall.
The Washington Free Beacon reported:
Chelsea Clinton: Gun Control Opportunity on Supreme Court With Scalia Gone
Chelsea Clinton said Thursday at an event in Maryland that there is now an opportunity for gun control legislation to pass the Supreme Court since Justice Antonin Scalia passed away.
“It matters to me that my mom also recognizes the role the Supreme Court has when it comes to gun control. With Justice Scalia on the bench, one of the few areas where the Court actually had an inconsistent record relates to gun control,” Clinton said. “Sometimes the Court upheld local and state gun control measures as being compliant with the Second Amendment and sometimes the Court struck them down.”
Clinton then touted her mother’s record on gun control issues and knowledge that the Supreme Court has an effect on whether many gun control laws stand.
This will be great for sales; I hope the gun manufacturers are sending Chelsea a nice thank-you card.
Here's why I think Trump will win:
Hillary is "old news". She brings nothing new to the table (other than the fact that she's a woman, which isn't impressive anymore), and she's hated by more than 1/2 the population. Trump isn't too popular either, but the thing that makes him a good candidate against Clinton is that he's revolutionary; he plans to bring big changes to Washington. It's been proven time and time again that "change" candidates almost always win.
1988LJ Lj, I've been saying from the beginning, hillary can't beat trump. But Bernie Sanders has potential to easily beat him. Maybe Bernie is staying in because he knows she's going to jail :-)?
Darrin
We all know the sd/gm is a sad old 1960's liberal pining for those lost days of camelot. Excuse my ignorance, but what does your cryptic abbreviation mean?
"We have a candidate and she is great."
...or maybe just shorten it to "Hillary is Great!"
This can be the takbir of the Democratic Party faithful, and they can shout it every time they plant a sign, donate money, canvass for votes or do other things to honor their "great" one.
Every jihad needs its battle cry.
tigerx Hillary can't beat Trump? You are joking, right?
We've only seen large support for Trump in the primaries because people who vote in primaries generally have the biggest axe to grind.... Yet they are a small percentage of the general voting population. In the general election, people will be choosing someone other than the know-nothing novelty candidate who is a rude, brash narcissist who has no real experience, plans, or diplomacy.
Cynic, I know, but does not mean we cannot poke fun!
LMFAO = laughing my f***ing a** off
ROFL = roll on floor laughing
:-)
So we move on to the gunfight at the "it ain't OK" corral between Trump and Clinton, we see the Bernie effect of Hillary leaning more to the left and Trump, as usual, leaning every which way and loose.
Hillary's perfect plans now incorporate "debt free college" which is Hillary code speak to attract the Berns without buying the farm by offering free tuition. The intent is to offer better rates at public institutions through funding obtained by lowering deductions on the rich. Its a compromise on the Bern plan that will not attract the Berns and will piss off those looking to reduce spending. Oh well.
I actually say bull to this. We need to think like a "sad old 1960's liberal pining for those lost days of camelot." In Camelot, we would have a plan where students can pay off their debt through service to America. Let them pay us back by taking jobs like inner city teachers, social service professionals, armed services, etc.
Trump also has promised to end student college debt . His progressive plan: "trust me." Don't worry, be happy.
I actually say bull to this. We need to think using our brains. Where there is no plan and just a promise, that's not half a loaf, that's brain dead to accept that trash.
"what does your cryptic abbreviation mean?" Whatever do you cryptically mean?
Enough with the Clinton's. Her getting the nomination just shows how stupid people really are.
Love how it's OK for Clinton to speak for the biggest racist in this country rev. Al at the national action hate network but yet Trump is a racist for wanting to deport ILLEGAL immigrants. Ah the great democratic double standard.
And straight from the Clinton News Network:
ANDERSON COOPER: One of the things that Sen. Sanders points to and a lot of your critics point to is you made three speeches for Goldman Sachs. You were paid $675,000 for three speeches. Was that a mistake? I mean was that a bad error in judgment?
CLINTON: Look. I made speeches to lots of groups. I told them what I thought. I answered questions.
COOPER: But did you have to be paid $675,000?
CLINTON: Well, I don't know. That's what they offered, so...
(LAUGHER)
Wake up dummies! How has the last 8 years of Clinton policy been treating ya?
NoHopeForHumanity Eperot, I have never been into politics, first time I ever voted was for Romney and didn't follow any of the race that year. Just did it because I heard Obama was no good. I had no interest in paying attention to this race either.
Then donald trump announces to run. After watching the speech I knew then and there he'd be known as president trump. I've been hooked to politics ever since.
It's been fun watching the media since day 1 saying he was a joke he would never make it past 5% then up and up it went. And they all still said he'll never make it blah blah. Look at them now. Complete 180. Those general election polls that they have been feeding everyone are absolute garbage. Kasich beats hillary by double digits, yet he can only win 1 state and has nothing to show whatsoever. People don't like the guy. Same situation with cruz, he's getting pummeled by the popular vote, but they show him beating Clinton. It's a joke and pretty obvious that you will see them tinkering with those numbers soon enough. Because when trump trounces hillary they don't wanna look like complete fools with the phony numbers.
You voted for Romney because you "heard Obama was no good"? That's a hell of an informed endorsement there.
It's all a scam in my opinion Hillery is not fit to be a leader but I think she will win. It's a rigged election just like everything else political. It's the beginning of the end. First they took our freedom of speech now they want our guns. What's next my first born?
More drivel from the whacked out right. Actually, i'm surprised Yep didn't say Obama was the beginning of the end.
They took your freedom of speech, huh? How so? I must have missed the day they repealed the first amendment. Keep living in the little republican bubble 'O doom.
"They took your freedom of speech, huh? How so?"
It's not like they aren't trying...
Free Speech "cages" are not a liberal, or even conservative ideas; it comes from all sides. Greatly expanded post 9/11 during the Bush/Cheney reign, Obama updated the Nixon law in 2012 via an act passed overwhelmingly by both sides of Congress. He did not add new restrictions or penalties. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/obama-criminalize-free-speech/
Free Speech "cages" are about time, place, and manner and not about restricting what is being said.
I find it humorous that Trump's financial success is based on the sale of luxury products catering specifically to the 1% but Hillary taking money for speaking is criminal. If we could get a who's who of the Duck's more important customers, I am sure it would be telling as to who has their hand in his pockets.
No one every blinks when the Don makes $1.5M for speaking, he is an individual making money. He charges an average of $250,000 per talk. Just like Hillary. When he becomes President, his tax plan will profit the Trump empire by $2.8B. You do the math on what he is paying himself with tax dollars for his current speeches. Pretty good gig.
Let's see what he earned from who for speaking; let's see the speeches, let's see his emails.
Mark Mc "It's not like they aren't trying..."
And even more drivel from the whacked out right. Is there no end?
So posting pictures of free speech "cages" is whacked out drivel?
Perhaps you'd object to them more if it said "Transgender Speech Area"...
To those bemoaning the alleged loss of their freedom of speech...the very fact that you can post whatever you wish here without government censorship is proof that you continue to have the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Took your freedom of speech? What a load of whacked-out nonsense.
So you only consider a right to be infringed/abridged when it's completely gone JerryG? It's OK to just take a little?
Remember:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Note: *Shall make no law*... abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble.
Now read through 36 CFR 2.51 (pretty sure this qualifies as a "law")... hmm isn't the government prohibited from doing that?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/2.51
Mark,
You've posted what appears to be regulations regarding demonstrations in National Park by organized groups of more than 25 people.
Requiring a permit is not abridging the right of people to peaceably assemble. Permits are granted all the time for demonstrations; the issuance of a permit is a reasonable requirement where there are concerns about security, sanitation, trash removal, and so on.
In fact, to quote from your link, permits MUST be issued, with specific exceptions as noted (and I quote from your link):
"(f) Processing the application. The superintendent must issue a permit or a written denial within ten days of receiving a complete and fully executed application. A permit will be approved unless:
(1) The superintendant has granted or will grant a prior application for a permit for the same time and place, and the activities authorized by that permit do not reasonably allow multiple occupancy of that particular area;
(2) It reasonably appears that the event will present a clear and present danger to public health or safety;
(3) The event is of such nature or duration that it cannot reasonably be accommodated in the particular location applied for, considering such things as damage to park resources or facilities, impairment of a protected area's atmosphere of peace and tranquility, interference with program activities, or impairment of public use facilities;
(4) The location applied for has not been designated as available under paragraph (c)(2) of this section;
(5) The application was submitted more than one year before the proposed event (including set-up); or
(6) The activity would constitute a violation of an applicable law or regulation."
I still fail to see how this regulation is an infringement of your (and my) First Amendment rights. What right of free speech does this prohibit?
"You've posted what appears to be regulations regarding demonstrations in National Park by organized groups of more than 25 people."
Wrong... right in section (a) it states "engaged in by one or more persons"
There are other conditions/exemptions for various group sizes, but this title applies to everyone in some manner, regardless of group size.
"I still fail to see how this regulation is an infringement of your (and my) First Amendment rights. What right of free speech does this prohibit?
There you go again... everything is OK as long as it's not completely "prohibited"?
The 1st Amendment prohibits the government from "abridging" the right.
From Webster - abridging is to "lessen the strength or effect of". If I have to get a "permit" to exercise a right, that right has been abridged.
If they are concerned about garbage, etc... they are free to create regulations for littering.
Mark: you are ignoring, once again, the court's interpetation of the amendment replacing it with your own interprtation.
It is proper that the courts interpet as designed by the founders and that interpetations change kver time. That's how the founders wanted it and that's why the amendments are so general.
Now I agree the free speech cages limit the time, pkace, and manner but they do not limit what you can say which is the essence of free speech.
There are and always have been *some* restrictions on freedom of speech, Mark. You cannot make threats of physical harm or murder to the President. You cannot yell 'fire" in a crowded public space when there is no such emergency. It isn't an all or none right to say whatever you want, at any moment.
eperot - restrictions on the "result" of the speech are fine (generally).
That's why we have libel and slander laws, etc...
But preemptive laws saying you need to get permits are certainly (in my opinion) exactly the things that the Constitution exists to prohibit the government from implementing.
They get away with it because people say "oh, that's reasonable"... just turn up the heat a little bit at a time.
If litter or security is the concern (which is where "fire in a crowded theater" falls into) then make a law about litter or security. But just because activity A, B, or C may results in outcome X (the undesired result), that doesn't give the government the go-ahead to ban A, B, or C.
Aside from the un-constitutionality, it's akin to fixing the leak in your roof by banning rain.
"Now I agree the free speech cages limit the time, pkace, and manner but they do not limit what you can say which is the essence of free speech."
What a load of crap... the 1st Amendment is very simple.
"It is proper that the courts interpet as designed by the founders and that interpetations change kver time"
Not every law is or has been challenged in court. It's unfortunate that we even have to have such a conversation, but looking back it would have served this country well to require laws be judicially reviewed BEFORE implementation.
Your faith in SCOTUS is admirable, though. I assume there are exactly zero court decisions you disagree with?
I just said what is and why. I did not say I love it.
The chance for abuse is high on this one; what if the space is too small or located next to the unisex toilet. Plus permitting can be restrictive although most of these locations don't require one except in your mind.
And uh......it was judicially reviewed. That's how it happened.
We have free speech but that doesn't give us the excuse to go wherever we want to engage in it.
I want to engage in free speech in Mark's backyard. Laws should not prevent me from going there to do that.
I want to go into a military base with restricted access. It would be an abridgment of my free speech rights if they stop me.
I want to go with a large group into a protected national park area in order to engage in free speech there. Wildlife protections be damned.
"I want to engage in free speech in Mark's backyard. Laws should not prevent me from going there to do that.
Private property - the government can't make a law saying you can't speak on my lawn, but I can press charges against you for trespassing. Not a free speech issue.
"I want to go into a military base with restricted access. It would be an abridgment of my free speech rights if they stop me."
EVERYONE is restricted from going on base. Even if you just sat there quietly. Perhaps the better argument is should the base be restricted at all, being public property...
"I want to go with a large group into a protected national park area in order to engage in free speech there. Wildlife protections be damned."
Similar to above... but if you damage/endager wildlife then you violated wildlife protection laws, not free speech related.
I don't get what you guys don't get... if you want to protect wildlife it's illegal to disturb wildlife, whether exercising free speech or not.
If you don't like litter, it's illegal to litter, whether exercising free speech or not...
If you don't like getting attacked, it's illegal to attack people, whether exercising free speech or not.
So what's the permit for? Why are there any conditions above and beyond those valid laws that requires someone's permission to speak in a publicly accessible area?
"I just said what is and why. I did not say I love it. "
So there are SCOTUS decisions you don't like... which means you think they got it wrong on certain issues, yes? So they aren't infallible...
"Plus permitting can be restrictive although most of these locations don't require one except in your mind."
Yep, it's in my mind that there is a big aluminum sign in those photos...
"And uh......it was judicially reviewed. That's how it happened."
So every law passed by Congress (or on a more local level the State legislature) gets put on the court docket before making it to the books?
I don't think so... bringing suit AFTER it's passed only by a "damaged" party (that happens to have the $$ to do so) allows plenty of un-constitutional laws to remain in effect.
Mark,
No, you're wrong: ".. right in section (a) it states "engaged in by one or more persons""
Section (a) defines the word "demonstration" as used in the law. That's all. It then goes on to qualify that permits are NOT needed for groups of 25 or less.
So you and 25 friends want to demonstrate against Donald Trump's candidacy in Gateway National Park? You apply to the NPS, and as long as none of the (very reasonable) prohibitions stated in section (f) apply, you get issued a permit.
Are there any laws/regulations that you are in favor of? Or do all laws constitute unreasonable governmental restriction of Mark's rights to do whatever Mark likes without regard for how it may effect others?
Welcome to society. If you don't want to participate and prefer the "wild west" type of lawlessness, you'd do better to go live in a cave somewhere.
"Are there any laws/regulations that you are in favor of? Or do all laws constitute unreasonable governmental restriction of Mark's rights to do whatever Mark likes without regard for how it may effect others?
Welcome to society. If you don't want to participate and prefer the "wild west" type of lawlessness, you'd do better to go live in a cave somewhere."
I've given plenty of examples of laws that are perfectly reasonable... you know, laws that actually inhibit you from infringing on someone else's right, not just things the government doesn't "like". (Edit - Rather than "inhibit" I should say laws that provide punishment for infringing on someone else's rights... laws can never physically stop something form happening.)
Just because something may be "good" doesn't absolve the government from creating laws within the confines of the Constitution, and the government is forbidden from putting ANY conditions upon peaceable assembly. Full stop.
All the examples you and others have tried to provide is falsely implying that the right to assemble absolves those attendees from complying with other laws, which it doesn't. There should be no need to regulate the act of assembling to prevent the act of other lawbreaking. The two actions are mutually exclusive.
Mark,
So let me get this straight...if you and your 25 friends decide you're going to hold a demonstration in the public picnic area at a National Park and disrupt the rights of other park-goers to enjoy a picnic, the government because of the first amendment still has no right to regulate your behavior? So your "rights" are somehow more important then other people's "rights?"
"Having a picnic" isn't an enumerated right.
As long as they aren't stepping on your picnic basket or getting into scuffles there is no infringement of rights. Not being able to see a particular pine tree is not tangible damages.
I'm sure plenty of people don't like how demonstrations look in their neighborhood... Picket lines for workers on strike aren't pretty... etc.
Tough.
This thread is about Clinton so I don’t know what Mark’s argument has to do with that. I think the key word lacking in Mark’s idea is legitimacy; his argument has little.
The SCOTUS has the legitimate role to interpret laws and the Constitution. They have done so and he does not like the answer. That’s fair but yet it is the legitimate answer. To say, no the Constitution says “"Congress shall make no law…..abridging the freedom of speech,” is Mark interpreting the Constitution differently than the SCOTUS. That’s his right but he palls when it comes to legitimacy of SCOTUS Constitutional definition.
The Founders made the Bill of Rights generalized on purpose. The intent was to specify the general core value but let the SCOTUS interpret the value as to the specific laws of the times. Thus the possibility of what was once black to be white and then black again is a possibility that would pass muster with the Founders. They might not like the current interpretation but they would respect the process.
We all agree the message is not restricted nor censured. Mark feels requiring a special zone is a restriction. It is. Mark feels requiring a permit is a restriction. It is. Yet in certain instances, the SCOTUS does not agree.
From WIKI, a good SCOTUS summary: “The Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words.”
On its face value, to require a permit for a group to gather for any reason in order to protect the public’s safety seems appropriate. You need a permit for a parade for example because appropriate resources can then be brought to bear to protect the public: onlookers and participants alike. The same might be said for free speech zones without permits, the intent is to protect the public so single demonstrators, for example, can not disrupt college classes, etc. According to the SCOTUS, you have the right to free speech, you do not have the right to force a captive audience. Thus you cannot stand up in a movie and begin your speech.
But even this further SCOTUS specificity of the Constitution can become grey: “Occasionally, the Supreme Court has recognized a right to preach even to a captive audience. For instance, in Cohen v. California, the Court upheld a man's right to wear a jacket emblazoned with the "F" word in a courthouse, a classic situation where the audience is more or less captive. But generally, there is no such right.” http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/04/hilden.freespeech/
IMHO, using permits for single protestors and fenced in enclosures topped with razor wire located in places the audience will never see sure looks like intimidation in the furtherance of censorship. SCOTUS says you do not have a right to a captive audience, that the time, place and manner may be altered, but that you do have the right to protest and your protest can not be blocked from your intended audience. You have the right to be heard. And if you want me, by myself, to get a permit and then sit away from the crowd in a wire cage surrounded by police, I will pass and find another way: I have been censored.
Yet I respect the process and the legitimacy of the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution. I just think the implementation in those cases is not following the law and should be challenged in court. The end result would be further specificity interpreting the Constitution.
Does that help Mark? I know, tmi and too long.
Again, the interpretation on this seems valid, IMHO. It's just the implementation seems to, at times, violate the interpretation.
"I think "shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed" were carefully chosen words for a reason, so as no to be subject to "interpretation"." Obviously, if you read the SCOTUS treatment on the subject, you are wrong on this for many reasons. Except for the carefully chosen part.
"We all agree the message is not restricted nor censured. Mark feels requiring a special zone is a restriction. It is. Mark feels requiring a permit is a restriction. It is. Yet in certain instances, the SCOTUS does not agree."
Good. You agree with me.
How the SCOTUS "interprets" something doesn't change the fact that there is a law in violation of a very simple statement in the Constitution. Fox guarding the hen house and all... perhaps the founding fathers gave judges more credit than they were due, thinking there's no possible way someone can interpret "you can't do this" to mean "you can do this".
There are several places where the Constitution *does* allow for interpretation, and it's very clear when it does so... the 4th Amendment allows for "reasonable" search and seizure. The 3rd Amendment allows for quartering of troops "in a manner to be prescribed by law". 8th Amendment describes "excessive" or "cruel and unusual" which are open to interpretation.
I think "shall make no law" or "shall not be infringed" were carefully chosen words for a reason, so as no to be subject to "interpretation".
And again, unless you think that every single SCOTUS decision has been correct (I'm sure there are some you disagree with) you have to question if they "got it right" here as much as if they "got it wrong" on those other issues.
"You need a permit for a parade for example because appropriate resources can then be brought to bear to protect the public."
Acquiring a parade permit to exempt you from other laws (traffic, pedestrian, etc.) is fine. Now you can run red lights and walk in the traffic lanes.
Requiring a permit to gather in an area otherwise accessible by any other member of public shouldn't be acceptable.
Would you be ok with the government requiring a permit for your kids to go trick or treating? I mean, that's a group of people walking down the street in costume. Somewhat of a parade...
Again, the concept is a permit is required to protect the public: both participants, audience, and onlookers. Halloween is a well recognized and understood holiday and we assume the protections are already in place because of that. It's not like anyone needs a heads up as to what is happening that night. Even then, guess what? There are restrictions on Halloween.....
Does the town get a permit for Memorial Day parade? I honestly don't know but if not, you have your answer.
And again, I said "IMHO, using permits for single protestors and fenced in enclosures topped with razor wire located in places the audience will never see sure looks like intimidation in the furtherance of censorship" so it's not like I don't see the grey area. But it's in implementation, not SCOTUS interpretation IMO.
Now I am off to the Spring Fest and yes, they have a permit.
SECRET SERVICE AGENT BOOK ROCKS CLINTON CAMPAIGN
Sat Jun 04 2016 18:03:18 ET
**Exclusive**
Posted directly outside President Clinton's Oval Office, Former Secret Service officer Gary Byrne reveals what he observed of Hillary Clinton's character and the culture inside the White House while protecting the First Family.
Coming in 3 weeks his tell-all book: 'CRISIS OF CHARACTER!'
The secret project is causing deep concern inside of Clinton's campaign, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
Specific details of the agent's confessional are being held under tight embargo.
"What I saw in the 1990s sickened me," Byrne explains. "I want you to hear my story."
http://drudgereport.com/flashss.html
The Clinton's have their own Trump University issue, its called Laureate Education. Can't add the link from my phone.
Hillary has used the office of secretary of state to enrich herself and her husband while at the same time purposely mishandling classified information.
she is corrupt as the day is long, none of the rules apply to her, and the press lets her get away with it lock, stock and barrel because the great majority of them are registered democrats who support the democratic party line no matter what, lies, corruption and and all.
Strange... No one in a formal proceeding has reached these conclusions Dog. And once again, you have no facts to support, no links, just hot air.
Formal proceedings are ongoing, they take time.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clintons-email-practices/2016/05/25/fc6f8ebc-2275-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_clintonemails-1030a-lede%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&tid=a_inl
http://www.inquisitr.com/3164250/hillary-clinton-email-probe-update-intelligence-officials-named-in-clintons-emails-could-be-fbis-reason-for-indicting-hillary/
Anyone who uses company computer systems can try to use their personal email services for company business and dealing with clients and see how long they will stay employed and how long it will take a company to open a case for embezzling company proprietary information. Should not take really long. The formal proceeding will take a while as lawyer are paid by hour.
Lena You might have a point here Lena, time will tell. My guess is we will see a reprimand at most and Hillary will slip the noose while looking more untrustworthy.
Much of this in the current time is caused by Clinton herself. The Clintons under fire tend to let the process grind while weasel-wording different stands as the information unfolds. I would like to see sometimes that they just stand up and say: "Hey, I'm stupid, shouldn't have done it, nothing bad happened and we'll let the process confirm that but I'm moving on."
Then again Trump in his civil fraud cases, what is it three of them now, also will drag the process on, say a lot of really stupid things like Americans of Mexican heritage can not be judges on his case, but in the end will capitulate and settle out of court for an undisclosed amount with records sealed as part of the settlement and no guilt assigned. And that will be after the election.
You are right, there is no way this could happen today without someone being fired or worse. But it was not today.
The issue of "was it approved" will probably end up being the bug-a-boo. It will end up IMO as murky where no one formally approved it, it was not illegal or against policy but a stupid thing, and when staffers questioned it, State Department upper management squashed them. There will be no finding that Hillary did anything overtly to hide the system or squash the dissenters, no classified info (under the classifications of the time) was transmitted, and no hacking will be found. So it will be OK but will still look very murky especially since she has said it was approved. She will weasel that into it wasn't disapproved.
To the me the "no harm, no foul" rules the day and life goes on. She shouldn't have done it. Frankly there was no privacy value in doing it and why she did it defies explanation. It was a stupid mistake.
So put that up against Trump and his University that defrauded students worse than a Used Car Lot. Stupid versus evil. This was not a stupid mistake, this was done to steal people's money to put it in Trump's pocket. You be the judge.
Or perhaps she will get caught and I will eat my words.
" It was a stupid mistake." There is no mistake if someone doesn't want to use certain servers knowing that everything that comes thru them is recorded, analyzed and can be used against them later, and hires IT professionals who created independent server with extremely restrictive access. She personally paid for it and now "That State Department staffer, Bryan Pagliano, told a congressional committee this week that he would invoke his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination instead of testifying about the setup." And she was a Secretary of State at that time.
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-personally-paid-state-department-staffer-to-maintain-server/2015/09/04/b13ab23e-530c-11e5-9812-92d5948a40f8_story.html
Clintons took 'tens of millions' from Islamist rulers that violently oppress women...:
as Mrs. Clinton commemorates her 1995 women’s rights speech in Beijing in back-to-back events in New York, she finds herself under attack for her family foundation’s acceptance of millions of dollars in donations from Middle Eastern countries known for violence against women and for denying them many basic freedoms.
the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Algeria and Brunei — all of which the State Department has faulted over their records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/09/us/politics/hillary-clinton-faces-test-of-record-aiding-women.html?_r=0
""It was a stupid mistake" is your typical lame excuse for breaking the law." Really? Typical? doubtful. Lame -- IYO, sure. What law did she break? Has she been found guilty? Or are you guilty of forgetting innocent before proven guilty? How lame that would be.
BDog quoting the NYT --- what's next?
I think the more good than harm doctrine comes into play. Yes, they take money from countries and people with whom they disagree with in certain areas. At the same time, they work to change the things they disagree with. For women, they take this money and:
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/by-topic/girls-and-women
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/our-work/no-ceilings-full-participation-project
Juxtapose that against Trump's support of women's rights. He has hired some women. Here's how it goes:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-trump-camp-pays-female-staff-35-percent-less-than-men/
As far as the Trump Org. goes, all we have is Trump's words. And he is a conspicuous liar. Like Trump University, he has rolled out a bevy of cheerleaders while there are just as many naysayers as well. Of course there is zero transparency.
In the public arena, Trump has done nothing. And we all know his track record in promotion of women's rights in the entertainment arena.
So if women's rights is the scale you want to judge these candidates, I think Hillary's record speaks for itself, the Don has none.
Hillary takes NJ, CA, SD, NM, and CA. Sanders gets MT and ND.
First woman nominated to be President from a major party. Historic times.
People should be more concerned this is the first person nominated who was under active federal criminal investigation. I read that 75% of the party would support her and even if indicted. These are truly historic times.
As opposed to the racist son of a racist who married a woman raised as a communist and who has a civil court case pending for fraud?
Let's face it, the Anyone But Hillary or Trump factor is so strong that it defeats common sense on both sides.
To me the real question is when it's all said and done, how do we lower the polarization and actually begin to work together to solve our daunting problems.
I don't see an answer in either of these two and instead see more years of obstruction with little focus on getting things done and lots of focus on petty scandals, allegations, and innuendo. We seem to be spending more time turning on each other than attempting to find common ground for our nation's future.
Not only do we have the traditional Republican/Democrat schism, the Republican Party has already spent the last four years turning on itself to the point that the Speaker of the House just put up his hands and said "I quit." The Democrats could start down the same course soon as well.
We have tough problems. We need centrist solutions that we can all support and give a try. We either come together and compromise on how to get things done or we will be done ----- very soon.
Strangerdanger - very good post and questions. Sadly I think we are done and there is no coming back - it's been a good run. The voice of the moderate individual has been dwarfed by the extremists on both sides and no one cares about working together and compromise as obvious from the political posts on HL and many other sites. People are too busy blaming the other side and wearing blinders to blatant issues on their own side.
It's the centrist that have giving up, and left us with the two extremes. The goverment is broke and the middle class is gone. It's all part of the master plan I have been talking about, with my tin hat.
And therein lies the problem OG. First, Bill Clinton was a centrist and my oh my, could we have those economic years back again?
George W. Bush was neither centrist nor conservative, he was just a mistake. Huge deficit, nation building, pre-emptive strikes, this guy had policies both ultra liberal and ultra conservative.
The sad part is Obama could have been centrist but he continued many of Bush's policies and on most issues, leans decidedly to the left. Granted he shouldered a heavy load with the Great Recession, but even today seems to forget we have a debt fueled by a deficit fueled by entitlements. Conservatives preach austerity, liberals like Obama close their eyes, and centrists look for pragmatic solutions in the middle.
On foreign policy, we might agree with the need to pull back but Obama's liberal pull out at all costs strategy has cost us.
On social issues he has been very left but on all of this he has inflamed one side or the other and rarely has reached common ground.
No, we need a centrist who can bring everyone to the table, get everyone to agree on something and move ahead while not only measuring results but making changes based on said measurement.
You're getting the picture, but I maintain it is deliberate actions by the powers to be with money that's running Caesar's world. You know the saying. Every man has a price. We have been bought out of our Freedom. There is no such thing as something for nothing. Freedom requires, earning your keep.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp
nobody brought up the Clinton body count?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/devastating-hillary-clinton-received-1-5-million-fewer-votes-2016-2008-democrats-7-million-votes/
What is reality is Clinton received 1.5 MM FEWER votes in 2016 than in 2008 — So this year Hillary received 1,594,720 FEWER primary votes than in 2008. And she lost that time...
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/google-works-closely-with-hillary-clinton-to-promote-presidential-campaign-julian-assange-34780998.html
"Google is directly engaged with Hillary Clinton's campaign" - Julian Assange
"What is reality is Clinton received 1.5 MM FEWER votes in 2016 than in 2008 — So this year Hillary received 1,594,720 FEWER primary votes than in 2008. And she lost that time..."
Well that says a lot right there doesn't it! LMAO
So Hillary IS under criminal investigation
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/06/09/white-house-admits-fbi-probe-of-hillarys-emails-is-a-criminal-investigation-n2176225
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/06/09/breaking.-white-house-admits-hillary-clinton-criminal-investigation-video/
So honest question....what happens if she is elected president and then is found guilty and sentenced? What does that mean for her presidency?
She could be indicted and convicted and still be President.
And Josh Earnest misspoke; he does not have a clue whether this is a criminal investigation or not.
Well... all these terms (i.e. Hillary calling it a "security inquiry", to which even the FBI said "huh?") comes from the family that wants to know what the definition of "is" is.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/11/comey-rebuffs-clinton-claim-fbi-only-conducting-security-inquiry-on-emails.html
The FBI *investigates* (heck, it's even in their NAME) and it's certainly not a civil matter.... hence it's a "criminal investigation". Sometimes words just mean what they mean.
justintime I dislike Trump a LOT more than Clinton. There's very little to like about Trump. Everything about him makes me squirm. The epitome of the greedy, uncaring, cheating, and bombastic blowhard.
MrSmith999 Security inquiry is indeed Clintonian weasel words given an FBI investigation. After all, if there was such a thing, a FBI inquiry IS an investigation. It's also an investigation into State Department processes including other Secys of State like Colin Powell who did the same thing albeit at an early and more innocent data security time. There's also investigations by other organizations as well.
Even with the investigation, nothing happens until the DOJ decides to proceed. The FBI can not indict.
But that's what it is and it has to run it's course.
No matter how it unfolds, it is not good for Hillary given the choices she has made and things she has said, like "inquiry" along the way. Does not help contradict the untrustworthy brand. And even a full bore "you're guilty" does not stop her from being President ---- legally.
Same with Trump and his fraud case(s).
The Google search bru-ha-ha of course has no ties to Clinton or the Clinton campaign. And there is a lot of evidence that it's much ado about nothing. Another urban legend.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-denies-accusations-it-manipulated-searches-for-hillary-clinton-1465594099
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/10/technology/hillary-clinton-google-search-results/
Now the Google-Clinton engagement reported by Assange is more interesting except this guy has been locked in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London to avoid rape charges in Sweden. But there are certainly associations. As to whether anything illegal is happening, there's only Assange's rape charge at this point.
When in doubt --- use multiple search engines.
But if it's lots of lies you want that convince people to act in certain ways: just read Trump's lips. This guy not only lies at the drop of a hat but has the gall to respond to being caught in a lie by lying.
I have never personally gone bankrupt. I have personally built the best company in the world. Except when it went bankrupt and then it was not personal any more.
Come learn my secrets for getting rich first hand at my University with my teachers and my curriculum. Fraud? I have zero operational input or anything to do with selection of employees at this place.
I am self-funding except when I hire an entire staff and work my billydoots off raising money for the Republican Party who, in turn, will use it to support the Republican candidate. Hey, did you hear I made a profit on the loan I made to myself to run for President. That's what I meant when I said "self-funding."
DNC committee member Bonnie Schaefer believes that no one should have a gun:
A member of the Democratic National Committee’s 15-person platform drafting committee said during a public meeting on Wednesday that she does not believe that “anyone should have a gun”
Bonnie Schaefer, a former retail executive and a progressive philanthropist, said that more should be done to combat gun violence in addition to “just keeping the guns out of the hands of mentally ill people and criminals.”
“I really don’t personally think anyone should have a gun,” she said.
Do You Think Most Democrats Feel The Same Way About Guns As Bonnie Schaefer? (answer: Unfortunately most democrats agree with her)
http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/08/dnc-platform-committee-member-says-nobody-should-have-a-gun-video/#ixzz4BJgiUxk8
"DNC committee member Bonnie Schaefer believes that no one should have a gun"
http://ammo.com/articles/earths-largest-arms-dealer-is-obama-administration-infographic
No one except governments, that is...
You are all functionally disabled if you are seriously thinking of voting for this criminal
Rumor has it that the Russians have hacked into the DNC servers. Also heard they are in possession of 400 never seen Hilary Clinton's e-mails.
Here is the link.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/283408-russian-hackers-steal-dncs-trump-opposition-research-report
Did anybody watch the Libertarian Town Hall on CNN last night?
I was not at all impressed with Gary Johnson. I like some of the Libertarian ideals such as right to choose on various issues and concerns of the average American. I liked Johnson's work visa plan. I'm not so sure about legalizing marijuana. I 100% disagree with the woman's choice platform. I agree that our global interventions have made matters worse not better. I thought he sounded completely ridiculous when he went on and on about heroin clinics after he said heroin should remain illegal.
There were some pointless/bad questions IMO but I got enough from Gary Johnson to know he isn't my choice as THE alternative to the two primary AWFUL choices that we do have.
Chris Cuomo said it best when he said (paraphrasing) this is perhaps the first time when a large portion of Americans don't like either candidate. That too many people are trying to decide which is the least worst choice.
Hearing what William Weld had to say about Trump helped me define why Trump will not get my vote.
CBGB Lorretta Lynch meets with Bill Clinton for a half hour in an Hanger at the Phoenix Airport. A reporter was tipped off about the meeting. When questioned about the meeting, Lynch says they were just talking about grandkids and golf. Why would the Attorney General meet with the spouse of the person who is under investigation by her office. Bad move on both their parts.
You have to be above the appearance of anything fishy, which is why it's definitely a big mistake. But there could be a realistic explanation beyond the hardly believable cover of kids & golf - she maybe on the short list for VP candidate. That's what I figured when I heard this.
GC Do as I tell you and we'll make you a supreme court justice is what I figure. And if they did something like this that definitely smells fishy there must be some big stuff in this email scandal.
Ollie Loretta Lynch should step down, Bill Clinton should have been impeached and Hillary should be in prison.
The Man News flash - Bill Clinton WAS impeached, didn't make any difference, did it? What's -her-face is as teflon coated as he was.
Resign, fire, leave.
As far as Bill meeting her, hey, Trump told him to strike the best deal he could. Bill's a deal master now.
looks like Lynch will be recusing herself after coming under fire from both political sides.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/01/under-fire-after-secret-meeting-lynch-to-step-back-from-clinton-probe.html?intcmp=hpbt1
Lynch said it was a "chance encounter" and they talked about social brick-a-back.
Yeah, she took a chance to encounter Hillary's husband.
Busted, recuse this, leave town. You're a firestorm.
Joe Friday, she didn't recuse herself, she just said she would take the recommendations of the prosecutors that are handling the case. She will still make the decision though. She should fully recuse herself and appoint a special prosecutor. Its funny also just prior to this the state dept. said they would release the rest of the emails, in 27 MONTHS. funny how that happens. Cover up? naw, not with the Clintons! Just like all the hidden taxes and price increases in Obamacare are due in 2017, when our current president will no longer be in office, hmmmmmmm
YankeeFrank 
4catmom Yes, 4catmom, it's exactly the same. Good grief.
If she recuses herself and the name an independent counsel to investigate then the entire investigation would start over from day one. That's not something we want.
I think "impeached" is a flawed word.. It SHOULD mean what most people think it means - removed from office. But unlike with some other languages, there is no one in charge of English to appeal to. :-)
Impeached by the House, acquitted by the Senate.
Impeached for perjury and obstruction, much of the case revolved around the term sexual relations and did Clinton's act comply with the definition and his lying about the affair using "there's nothing going on between us" to mean either "we have no relationship" or "we didn't have sex." Riveting stuff that should determine whether one has the stuff to be President.
The obstruction charge was weaker, even Republicans voted no, stating Clinton convinced others to lie for him about the affair.
Frankly my Mother taught me to never kiss and tell even to Congress. He was just very respectful of a tramp :>)
$70 Million dollars later......
He was very respectful of a tramp? Wow.I'm pretty sure I remember Hillary not feeling so kind when it was Bill Cosby that was being accused. They are both an embarrassment. I wish they would just go away and enjoy their money and their grandchildren.
Impeached is defined well enough. The problem is people (those in power - politicians and media folks primarily) manipulating the language to conflate reality with the perception they wish to convey. For some strange reason we collectively accept it. Go figure...
hillary co-enabled her husband as a serial sexual predator by engaging in 'slut shaming' throughout her career. She is guilty of blaming the victims of her husbands sexual aggressions. It's pathetically sad and disheartening to see the entrenched libs on this site do the same thing to the victims of Bill Clinton. that's not very 'progressive' of them.
Hillary is guilty of co-enabling her husband to continue to sexually assault many women over their careers. She made a habit of "Slut shaming" Bill's victims who came forward thereby co-enabling Bill to keep doing it, and he did, over and over again.
Hillary does not really mean it when she says: "Victims of sexual assault ought to be believed". Hillary does not walk her own talk. In reality she is not supporting the victims of her husband, and this co-enabled him to continue the assaults. This alone makes her unsuited to be president.
from wiki:
"Victim blaming and slut shaming
Victim blaming is the phenomenon in which a victim of a crime is partially or entirely attributed as responsible for the transgressions committed against them.[77] For instance, a victim of a crime (in this case rape or sexual assault), is asked questions by the police, in an emergency room, or in a court room, that suggest that the victim was doing something, acting a certain way, or wearing clothes that may have provoked the perpetrator, therefore making the transgressions against the victim her or his own fault.[78][79]
Victim blaming may also occur among a victim's peers, and college students have reported being ostracized if they report a rape against them, particularly if the alleged perpetrator is a popular figure or noted athlete.[80][81] Also, while there is generally not much general discussion of rape facilitated in the home, schools, or government agencies, such conversations may perpetuate rape culture by focusing on techniques of "how not to be raped" (as if it were provoked), vs "how not to rape."[82][83] This is problematic due to the stigma created and transgressed against the already victimized individuals rather than stigmatizing the aggressive actions of rape and the rapists.[83] It is also commonly viewed that prisoners in prison deserve to be raped and is a reasonable form of punishment for the crimes they committed.[citation needed]
Slut shaming is a variant on victim blaming, to do with the shaming of sexual behaviour. It describes the way people are made to feel guilty or inferior for certain sexual behaviors or desires that deviate from traditional or orthodox gender expectations. A study of college women from sociologists at the University of Michigan and the University of California found that slut-shaming had more to do with a woman's social class than it did with their activity.[84] The SlutWalk movement aims to challenge victim blaming, slut shaming and rape culture.[85]
"hillary co-enabled her husband as a serial sexual predator by engaging in 'slut shaming' throughout her career. She is guilty of blaming the victims of her husbands sexual aggressions."
Source it, prove it, or shut up and go home.
Trump is not going to release his tax returns as he has, self admittedly, been a user of the system. But unlike others (such as the Clintons) he admits it. Now, if elected, time will only tell if he will be for the people (like he says) or just the 1%...
Source it? You're obviously more than capable to find the references. I can think of one off the top of my head, a gentlemen who used to work for the Clintons in the WH and happens to have a lot to say about the matter. In fact, he even wrote a book about it. Haven't read it personally (have no desire to really) but as a "source" it seems pretty cut and dry.
Prove it? Lol, not a blessed thing posted on this website can be "proven" except through referencing other sources or by making claims based on common knowledge. Rarely will someone here have first hand knowledge.
Shut up and go home? Don't think that was called for.
"Shut up and go home"
LMFAO, we are typing for one, and my computer is home....where is yours?
http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/speech-3930
JANUARY 26, 1998 Bill Clinton states that he did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinski.
.. On January 27, 1998, Hillary Clinton appeared on NBC's The Today Show, in an interview with Matt Lauer. This was all a vast right wing conspiracy to get her husband..
http://leany.com/Conspiracy/hillary_clinton_transcript.htm
On Aug. 17, 1998 Bill Clinton went on national tv and admitted that he had misled the American people about his relationship with Monica Lewinski.
http://www.historyplace.com/speeches/clinton.htm
Indy2 Character matters. Words matter. Honesty matters. Trustworthiness matters. That's why it's relevant.
Yes, all of that matters as does hypocrisy. The traits you mentioned are missing by both POTUS candidates although the hypocrisy is not lacking. Frankly Trump is worse at every single trait mentioned.
RE: Clinton the questions related to his sexual life were never relevant and the witch-hunt by the conservatives pathetic considering how many of those were sleeping around and doing worse.
"Source it? You're obviously more than capable to find the references." Are you asking me to find info to support BDog's allegation or to find info proving his allegation wrong? Obviously I wouldn't do the former. As to the later, no I won't chase unsourced allegations from someone who doesn't source them.
Prove it? Lol, not a blessed thing posted on this website can be "proven..." means source it, but you know that.
Rude? Perhaps but really --- put up or shut up when it comes to baseless allegations versus just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks, then repeat yourself to see if it sticks and then post it in multiple threads to see if it sticks and then repeat yourself.....
Indy --- we'll never know when Hillary Clinton knew. Not that it's relevant to anything. Obviously Bill was a cad and obviously their marriage, unique as all marriages are, found a way to work through it. But enable? Enabler? Prove it.
Was Hillary lying saying what she said at the time she said it. No one knows but one can assume she had a feeling this one could go either way. As to "This was all a vast right wing conspiracy to get her husband.." at $70 million of taxpayer money to discover the President was going to lie about an affair and convince a few others to do so also --- yeah, I would say that fits the profile of a group doing anything to get this man. Remember, the affair was not illegal. As to lying about an affair --- was that worth $70 million to get him to do that? Yeah, I can see where conspiracy works. Here's the timeline that smacks of it: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/resources/lewinsky/timeline/
+1 Bonv
"Character matters. Words matter. Honesty matters. Trustworthiness matters. That's why it's relevant." Yeah, I think when it comes to Words and Honesty, Clinton wins hands-down. You may not like her carefully chosen legal-ese bordering on weasel-words, but compared to Trump's braggadocio, slurs, innuendo's, and out-n-out crudeness, yeah, I believe Clinton wins the war on words. Honesty --- Clinton hands down, even with the Tarmac incident. Trust and Character --- more of a toss up with negatives high for both.
I expect your Hillary vote after this Ollie :>)
Honesty --- Trump vs. Clinton --- Clinton wins, Trump is a world-class liar http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-checkers-confirm-hillary-clinton-is-more-honest-than-any-of-her-2016-opponents/24196/
Trustworthiness --- Trump vs. Clinton --- This one is tough. Is it general trust or trust to solve the issues. On the issues and trust, people trust Trump more to solve economic, immigration and job creation issues. Clinton gets Social Issues, Foreign Affairs, and Environment: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/clinton_vs_trump_whom_do_voters_trust_on_the_big_issues
Character --- Trump vs. Clinton --- Again, a tough one. I would say in the end HIllary will win but it will be a mud slinging festival for the ages: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-unfavorables-spike-clintons-challenged-poll/story?id=39856303
Ollie - And only one who will get off. Can you believe the power of the Clinton machine? WTF is going on in the USA?
It's a disgusting system we have. To many people are brainwashed voting for another Clinton. In the end, I hope common sense will prevail.
Yes. Common sense to vote Hillary. Two Clintons trump one singleton Antisemetic Trump.
The investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails are pure politics.
With the Chillcott investigation into the Iraq debacle still going on and Iraq still reeling from the lies wrought by the Bush administration, it is interesting to note Republicans baying for the indictment of Hillary Clinton when the US Judiciary Committee took just seven minutes in June 2008 to decline to investigate further the bill put forward by a majority of Congress to impeach George Bush. When both Bush & Cheney lost or blatantly deleted emails.
Benghazi and emails are nothing compared to the national and international devastation brought upon the US, still reeling from it today, by the Bush administration and their deceit. This goes to the heart of how rule of law is perceived in the US. It is totally partisan, conducted by Republican funded think tanks such as Judicial Watch, presided over by the jury of Murdoch's Fox media and in favor of the worst perpetrators.
* https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/hres1258/text
* http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE01258:@@@X
I believe, then Senator Clinton, voted for the war. Although, by all means, after 8 years continue to blame Bush, Fox News and all of conservative radio.
How can you not love a candidate that was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. Opps, another mistruth.
Continue to blame not really but pointing out the blatant hypocrisy absolutely. The continual witch-hunt is really pathetic at this point.
***
DOVER, N.H. (MarketWatch) — I have a confession to make: I can’t keep up.
Am I supposed to hate Hillary Rodham Clinton because she’s too left-wing, or too right-wing? Because she’s too feminist, or not feminist enough? Because she’s too clever a politician, or too clumsy?
Am I supposed to be mad that she gave speeches to rich bankers, or that she charged them too much money?
I’m up here in New Hampshire watching her talk to a group of supporters, and I realized that I have been following this woman’s career for more than half my life. No, not just my adult life: the whole shebang. She came onto the national scene when I was a young man.
And for all that time, there has been a deafening chorus of critics telling me that she’s just the most wicked, evil, Machiavellian, nefarious individual in American history. She has “the soul of an East German border guard,” in the words of that nice Grover Norquist. She’s a “bitch,” in the words of that nice Newt Gingrich. She’s a “dragon lady.” She’s “Elena Ceaușescu.” She’s “the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock.”
Long before “Benghazi” and her email server, there was “Whitewater” and “the Rose Law Firm” and “Vince Foster.” For those of us following her, we were promised scandal after scandal after scandal. And if no actual evidence ever turned up, well, that just proved how deviously clever she was.
So today I’m performing a public service on behalf of all the voters. I went back and re-read all the criticisms and attacks and best-selling “exposés” leveled at Hillary Rodham Clinton over the past quarter-century. And I’ve compiled a list of all her High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-the-terrible-things-hillary-clinton-has-done-in-one-big-list-2016-02-04?mod=mw_share_facebook
Antisemitic Trump, talk about throwing around baseless allegations. Give me a break.
Did someone just use the word honesty and Clinton in the same sentence? Now that's pretty funny!
Also mentioned was the fact that we are still led to believe that there are only two possible choices at this time. How completely ridiculous! A choice between deer turd and rabbit turd is the same choice! Pick someone else, use your vote the way you want, not the way someone else tells you to vote.
It won't make one bit of difference which one of these losers gets elected (the financial historical record is pretty clear how the trend lines goes), yet still people get emotionally invested because they are led to believe their "team" leader will do the right things. Hell, hasn't it been proven time and time again that *every* politician lies to get into office then implements just s fraction of what they promised and never, unless under duress, does what must be done.
It's ridiculous all the energy that goes into rooting for either main stream candidate, especially when nearly everyone concedes that both are turds!
Sorry justintime, I'm not as cynical as you. I believe one of them will make better appointments to the Supreme Court. The wrong choice could put this country in a tailspin in which we've never seen before.
The trends already point us to a tailspin Ollie. The only question is how long the manipulations, like those of the past several years, can hold it off. The trends of debt (up) and fed fund rates (down) have been pretty consistent since our last major monetary system change. Hard to imagine the trend will diverge without some painful stimulus.
The POTUS, whoever it will be, will simply keep the monetary status quo, thus no change in fiscal discipline and a continuation of the negative trends. That's why it really doesn't matter who gets elected. Nothing cynical about viewing trends as they are what they are unless acted upon, and neither candidate cares to change the underlying systems of government.
Not sure I agree. But that's the best thing about living here. We have that right to not always see eye to eye. My main concern is still the Supreme Court.
Does "our last major monetary system change" mean getting off the gold standard in 1933 or getting off the gold standard in 1971? Because the 1933 version means the debt trend has been very inconsistent including a 30-year downward trend. The 1971 version means the chance for a downward trend exists however we are currently in our second largest upwards spike in history.
In either case, the 1929 and 1873 Depressions took effect on the gold standard. The Great Recession of 2008 was blunted by our monetary policy, not the gold standard. Without our current monetary policy tools and strategies, these earlier Depressions literally killed thousands. The Panic of 1873 lasted 6 years, the Great Depression lasted 10 years.
FYI, I am using debt/gdp ratio as the metric since I feel it neutralizes any effect of time plus, since some amount of debt can be good, it's a better measure of how much can you afford to reasonably borrow.
I agree we have a HUGE debt problem and have said it will take decades to cure once we actually try in earnest. Our debt/GDP levels are at the all time high only reached before post WWII. The current strategy to run a smaller deficit each year will only reduce the debt if GDP takes off; that's not enough. I agree no candidate has even broached this downer topic instead pushing new jobs and the other guy's bad debt record. No one wants to say "we have to pay down the debt" since that is code for higher taxes and less spending combined.
Obviously similar bad monetary policy was present during the gold standard but with far less economic tools to blunt the blows.
Trump anti-Semitism can be found on Trump post.
"There's only on candidate under FBI investigation"
not anymore. now there are no candidates under FBI investigation
darwin I guess the Lynch, Clinton meeting was a success.
Next will come the diatribe from our resident libratards.
libratards - how original and childish at the same time. But it goes to show the mentality since you had already convicted Hilary no wonder you're having a temper tantrum.
Bonv - except it's not at all original. It's thrown around constantly on political posts on facebook (though usually it's "libtard").
I really, really wish it would die. It's so immature and insensitive to those with mental handicaps.
+1 MB and Bonv ; i agree, you both are quite correct, it's very insensitive to use that word in that way. It's almost as insensitive as 'slut shaming' Bill Clinton's sexual assault victims by HL's progressive liberals who think that's a good way to go. (it's pathetically sad and disheartening to see they really think that way)
do either of you have a comment on that? or is your outrage only to be directed at republicans?
hillary skates clean on criminal charges it's true, but she does have to answer for why she put the nations classified information at risk by 'carelessly mishandling' sensitive information.
she should have known better, and this lapse in judgement on her part makes her unsuitable to be president .
and yes it looks like the meeting between Bill and Loretta Lynch has paid off nicely for the clinton's (will wonders never cease?)
I didn't read any slut shaming on here. If you link I can provide my outlook. If I denounce it, does that make it OK for me to dislike the term libtard?
@BD - I haven't seen the articles but it's an irresponsible move as it is on the conservative side since they've done the same thing for some of the people coming out to speak against Trump. On this I don't think we are too far apart - it's wrong for either political camp.
Actually my biggest problem with all of the Clinton BS is the hypocrisy, double-standard and partisan financial investment in going after her for the last 25 years while ignoring the same issues/questions from their own party.
I'm not surprised about the ruling. Just shows how Hillary and Bill are above the law. Very dissapointing but it doesn't erase the lies that Hillary has told or her flip-flopping on vital issues--Trump will win in November.
Ollie, I agree different opinions are fine but what I'm talking about is different perspectives. If I took the typical short-term perspective as most people do I agree with a lot of what's posted. Problem is, once you step back and look longer term it's difficult for me to see how we can be so collectively selfish given that our entire societal existence is based on borrowing from those who come after us. MG says to look at debt to GDP to realize that things really aren't that bad, but he conveniently forgets that GDP, being a linear equation, also includes government spending as a component - spending that happens because of more debt! Besides, the trends have not, nor will ever, abate given the way the current system is designed. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that it has been created specifically to operate that way so that some folks *today* will enjoy a better life at the expense of those who follow. And then they try to obfuscate that fact and pretend that there's nothing wrong with doing it! Not only that, but there is always a way to fix it - surprisingly with more of the same! Duh.
IMO, anyone who understands they system and doesn't want to change it, often arguing for the continual expansion of it, is knowingly being a selfish SOB. That's OK (it's basic human nature after all), but at least is should be *accepted* for what it is and not purported to be something else, which is how every politician, news outlet, and some here sell it.
btw, regarding Clinton not being charged: Did anyone really expect another outcome?
I know some will poopoo the link, but debunk the content rather than dissing the source:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-05/peak-fbi-corruption-meet-bryan-nishimura-found-guilty-removal-and-retention-classifi
“To be clear this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions but that’s not what we’re deciding here. “ - James Comey
I don't see how she could be granted access to classified information in the future and I'm not sure how she'd be able to operate if she is the successful candidate for POTUS. It would be awkward, to say the least, if not outright impossible.
precedent - Ted Branch
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/01/27/the-admiral-in-charge-of-navy-intelligence-has-not-been-allowed-to-see-military-secrets-for-years/
In any regard - this shows a HUGE breach in the use of good judgement that I hope people remember come november
"I guess the Lynch, Clinton meeting was a success." Because Clinton talked to Lynch, Lynch talked to Comey, Comey talked to Vince Foster......
"'slut shaming' Bill Clinton's sexual assault victims....." Yeah I did say something based on --- who doesn't clean the dress..... --- but in reading about her life, I think I was wrong. Just a young person that made a bad choice probably due to immaturity. And yes, Bill was a cad.
But Tripp was hunting for money and Jones is a slut...IMO.
"but it doesn't erase the lies that Hillary has told or her flip-flopping on vital issues--Trump will win in November." What lies? And flip-flopping or changing your mind? When it comes to flippy flops, you man Trump leads the pack. And he's not even been in office yet.
"MG says to look at debt to GDP to realize that things really aren't that bad" How far back were you standing to see me say that. Who's MG? Strangerdanger said: "we are currently in our second largest upwards spike in history." "I agree we have a HUGE debt problem and have said it will take decades to cure once we actually try in earnest. Our debt/GDP levels are at the all time high only reached before post WWII. The current strategy to run a smaller deficit each year will only reduce the debt if GDP takes off; that's not enough. I agree no candidate has even broached this downer topic...."
And, of course, you don't answer the questions..... Is that a dialog?
Sometimes at 30,000 feet, you can't see the trees for the forest.
MB - yes, of course you can, and i agreed with you and bonv on that up above, it's offensive to use terms like that, and the HL's 'progressive' in residence has admited/revealed that he did indeed engage in 'slut shaming'. It's a bit further up the thread if you check back;
here is what HHMGSDDS wrote about bill clintion; "He was just very respectful of a tramp"
that's a version of Slut Shaming, that is blaming the victim for being victimized, as if it somehow dismisses the behavior of the sexual predator who happens to be the past president of the united states, her husband,
Hillary has gone after these women time and time again trying to minimize the damage to her husbands image. that's co-enabling for sure, no way around it.
and she has said she supports women and that "women who report being sexually assaulted ought to be believed'
Hillary is not walking her own talk and that speaks to credibility does it not? she is actually saying it's only true for those women her husband hasn't already sexually assaulted. that's a co-enabler. big time.
from wiki: "Victim blaming and slut shaming"
Victim blaming is the phenomenon in which a victim of a crime is partially or entirely attributed as responsible for the transgressions committed against them.[77] For instance, a victim of a crime (in this case rape or sexual assault), is asked questions by the police, in an emergency room, or in a court room, that suggest that the victim was doing something, acting a certain way, or wearing clothes that may have provoked the perpetrator, therefore making the transgressions against the victim her or his own fault.
+1 to bonv who said - "Actually my biggest problem with all of the Clinton BS is the hypocrisy, double-standard and partisan financial investment in going after her for the last 25 years while ignoring the same issues/questions from their own party."
agreed, they all should be held accountable to the same standard, sadly there is too much tom-foolery tolerated inside that beltway, so go after republicans who are doing the same things in the same way, they all need to be held accountable.
frankly, lately, and this is over the last half a century, it looks to me like the rule of law doesn't matter anymore. they all (r&d) are trying to get away with it over and over. it's time to stop it, anyway we can
jit - spot on as usual, booking government spending as part of gdp is self-delusional, and it's tricks with the books like this that makes balance sheets look a little less pukey, but they still bad to look at even with the double accounting tricks being used.
"those who have ears, let them hear . . . . ."
government cannot create wealth, it can only consume it, regurgitate it, and redistribute it via enforced taxation, government can and does print money though and that makes the reduction in wealth a little less noticeable, but it is there and it is constant. those who are ok with doing these things are selfish,narcissistic, and delusional, they are gleefully eating their own young and not worrying about the consequences,
"those who have eyes, let them see . . . . ."
I wish that those who engineered the Iraq war or those who destroyed the economy were investigated this ferociously. Or at least in proportion to the harm they caused!
Based on what Comey laid out today regadless of who the person was, they would never be granted a security clearance let alone be able to run for President.
I find it humorous that 240 years ago her acts would have gotten her hung for treason, but in today's society we view it as common place and think it to be o.k.. (smh) :(
"Based on what Comey laid out today regadless of who the person was, they would never be granted a security clearance let alone be able to run for President"
Have you read any of Trump's tweets? He's got the self-control of a drunken frat boy at 3am. Do you think he would be granted a security clearance?
I think anyone who votes for either of these people has a screw loose. If there's any other name on the ballot, pick that one.
Trump is a buffoon but this a Clinton thread. I agree, the choices we have don't make excited about getting to the Poll Booth in November.
Would love to vote for Gary but am afraid any vote for Gary is a vote for Hillary since he won't carry enough to win
That's the problem, skippy. Everyone gets wrapped up in this "lesser of two evils" crap and plays the game. And the game never ends because the same thing happens every four years.
If more people voted for the candidate they WANT and not just the least abhorrent, we wouldn't still be in this situation.
Geeez, I know you're having a dog day but.... Boy, so much for admitting one's wrong.... Talk about kicking a dog kicking a man when he’s down. If I wasn’t feeling so good for some reason….
Of course the BDog who likes to bark allegations without support likes to pull quotes out of context too. The full quote was: "Frankly my Mother taught me to never kiss and tell even to Congress. He was just very respectful of a tramp :>)” As in “A gentlemen never tells, a lady never asks.”
And then I followed up with ""'slut shaming' Bill Clinton's sexual assault victims....." Yeah I did say something based on --- who doesn't clean the dress..... --- but in reading about her life, I think I was wrong. Just a young person that made a bad choice probably due to immaturity. And yes, Bill was a cad."
That Dog don’t hunt apparently because BDogster don’t accept nuttin. NO. He says "tramp" is offensive, I have "Slut Shamed," I have dismissed the actions of a sexual predator. Gee, I thought I said he was a cad..... And correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t it voluntary, under the desk, in The White House, and let’s keep a souvenir? Yeah, offensive I was.
Then he gives us the truth: "Hillary has gone after these women time and time again." I say source it......again. But no, Bdog can just bay at the moon, he cannot source.
And to top it off, we get some unintelligible math "booking government spending as part of gdp is self-delusional, and it's tricks with the books like this that makes balance sheets look a little less pukey." Well, that isn't exactly what JIT said and without going into the math --- of course government spending is included in GDP. The delusion is yours. JIT’s point was that the same debt included in GDP is included on both sides of the debt/GDP ratio and that’s wrong. He’s wrong too but he does make a point. For another place and time.
The Bdog then goes Trumponian after his really shaky logic and concludes: "those who are ok with doing these things are selfish, narcissistic, and delusional, they are gleefully eating their own young and not worrying about the consequences..." You know, Dog, the Greatest Generation did the exact same thing to win WWII. We missed it in the beginning of The Great Depression and boy did that hurt, but began many of the debt-based programs to get us out of the Depression and into the modern financial era. And all the name calling in the world ain't gonna make that wrong.
Yes the debt is too high, yes we need to pay it down, yes, the politicians avoid it, use it as their piggy bank, and have continued the trend….for now. Obama has slowed it down, but IMHO that’s not good enough. We need to all tighten our belts and start to pay it forward again. But your logic is faulty and your invectives unnecessary and untrue.
I agree with Skippy, a vote for Johnson is a vote for Clinton. Vote for Trump and the GOP will make him be more presidential.
" Vote for Trump and the GOP will make him be more presidential." Do you really believe that for a second? Give Trump more power and he will then abide by your desires to be more Presidential? Isn't that what he said when he became the disruptive Presumptive. That's a great deal ---- for Trump. Not so great for those on the other side of that deal, the GOP.
If the law does not apply equally to all, does it really apply at all?
Serious question.
the laws are for the little people
i have maintained for a long time that we have the best justice system that money can buy
Lets see, Billy Boy meets Loretta Lynch in a Airport hanger last week, the FBI interviews Hilary on Saturday Comey lays out the facts for an indictmentment for 15 minutes and then in the last 90 seconds decides he will not recommended indictment while Hilary is about to jump on AF1 with Obama off to a Campaign Rally. Me thinks something is rotten in Denmark.
Such a sad state of affairs America is faced with, two absolutely miserable candidates.
Hilary lost in 2008, what has changed to now make her the democratic party's number one? She won this go around with less votes than she had when she lost!
Nothing has changed, it's just that we, as usual, are left with choosing between the lesser of the two evils like others have stated.
I agree a vote for anyone else is a vote of Hilary, and Hilary is the absolute last person i want to see in office. I would rather kermit the freakin frog.
Honestly the tactic of "if there is another name on the ballot vote for that" will be wasting your time. At that rate, don't waste the 10 minutes to vote. In this election you will have to vote against the person you do not want the most, even if that means voting for someone unfit for the job.
Darrin,
I've never voted for a republican or a democrat - as long as I have been able to vote, I've voted third party.
It's absolutely not a waste of time. If more people were willing to vote third party, maybe we'd be able to break away from the cycle. But as long as everyone insists on voting AGAINST their perceived "greater evil", the two party system will continue.
Obviously you can vote however you want. But just know that you're perpetuating the cycle and you're just going to be faced with the same thing again in four years.
It's just another government cover up, so all the other corrupt politicians private emails cannot be questioned. Money talks bull poop walks.
MB, don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you, but unless you convince a whole ton of people to do the same, you will be wasting your time.
And how do we convince a whole bunch of people? One at a time!
The alternative is just continuing the status quo. I guess you're OK with that?
"Since never, but should be since forever." Good point. Fact is that since the dawn of man, power - whether monetary or other - provides advantages.
Let's go Trump. Here's a man who uses his power, influence, money and the law to get what he wants above the concept of justice. Bankruptcy law -- he's leveraged that to his bottom line using lawyers, accountants and all sorts of "tricks." Was justice served? Did he get the same treatment as the common man. No. Numerous civil cases where he has used top legal advice to drag these cases to the point where the common man adversary is more than willing to take the payoff at the end which comes with a no-apology and a gag order. His current fraud case he even used his press-ability to slander a good man's reputation nationally based on the guy's heritage. Could the common man do that? I have looked but can't find but guess that the Trump organization is heavily populated with lawyers and has a huge bill for outside hired legal guns. Is that justice?
Hillary too has obviously benefited legally from the power she wields. Like Trump, she is well versed in using power to jigger the legal system. Perhaps in a different field than Trump, but the same effect. It's the mantle of power. Folks with higher priced legal support receive better legal outcomes than those without.
So here we are. Hillary most certainly has an email problem that is not going away. It was pre-ordained post her getting the Presumptive that she would probably not be indicted. But the lies, the classified mistakes, the specter of the Lynch conspiracy, the FBI conspiracy, but most important, the similar cases where people have been indicted and convicted; these all loom large.
Trump meanwhile has returned to being Trump with the large rallies and unfounded taunts, innuendos, and name calling. Folks like me can pick his facts apart easy enough but right now, today, we would be fools to say he is not leveraging her weakness to his advantage. His travails of the past few weeks are erased.
Chances are Trump will put a few shots in his foot soon but that will not be enough. Disney movie, Chuck Todd, all the conspiracies --- he will overstep his advantage. Hillary has to have a fireside chat with the American people, come clean, apologize for mistakes and put a strong policy vision in front of her campaign. She needs to dump some baggage like Bill too. The concept of Bill consulting on the economy for example was stupid and frankly, she should send him home and off the campaign.
Here's a Times opinion piece that dovetails with what I am saying recommending:
- send Bill home, nuff said
- hold a news conference every week
= I would add that even though this is high risk, it is a place where she might put Trump at a disadvantage
- Get those positions out
= I would add the need to sound byte them, sell them, and use them to nail Trump on his complete lack of many cogent plans whatsoever
I would also add:
- Keep nailing Trump on his history, especially business, and his plans or lack thereof .
= Trump is more likely to overstep when you poke the bear. And he is prickly, you don't have to poke hard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/opinion/hillary-beyond-email.html?_r=0
But justice --- no, the rich and powerful have always had an advantage here since the dawn of man. Heck, they have advantages in many more places than that.
@MB - I agree with you in concept but like many will be voting for the lesser evil. For me the lesser evil is Clinton. Frankly both candidates are horrible and it is fairly pathetic that these are the options.
""Since never, but should be since forever." Good point. Fact is that since the dawn of man, power - whether monetary or other - provides advantages."
Yet you still want Hillary over Trump when they are both equally guilty of the same.
Voting for anyone but them is the only logical choice.
And therein lies the issue - everyone agrees, but no one wants to "waste" their vote. So I guess we'll just be stuck with this duopoly for the foreseeable future.
What's my point? Well, it was a rhetorical question meant to convey the cynical, but realistic view that the law has never applied equally to all. I thought it was pretty straightforward.
Trey Gowdy pretty much just handed Comey his ass...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC1Mc6-RDyQ
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/
Timeline of Clinton Scandals.
Here's the problem. I talked with people all day long for the past 2 days and this pretty much sums up what I kept hearing from my Democrat friends and clients:
"It's terrible that Hillary Clinton lied to the American public for over a year about this, and then gets a pass. And that secret meeting Bill had with AG Lynch? It just looks suspicious and corrupt. Hillary Clinton should not be above the law! But... I'm still going to vote for it in November. Party first!"
"FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau's investigation into whether she mishandled classified information."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216
Clinton not only mishandled TS SCI information but lied about it - she has ZERO integrity.. What possible reason could you find to vote for her other than falling in on party lines.
So if that's the case Gadfly, that it is not only normal but expected that laws are applied unevenly across the population, then why in the world would anyone obey the law in the first place?
You're wrong. Laws applied unevenly beg to be corrected, at least by civilized folks anyway. Accepting inequality in law as normal is useful only for the immensely selfish, and it is those people who invite dissent and violence with their desire to maintain the inequality.
Every action we take as a society should be to ensure EVERYONE is treated the same. Period.
"You're wrong. Laws applied unevenly beg to be corrected, at least by civilized folks anyway. "
Or UNcivilized folks, if it becomes necessary.
Wow, JIT, I'm not sure how to respond to that, other than to say that you seem to be making enormous and erroneous assumptions. No, I'm not wrong. I'm making a simple observation about the justice system.
Lol Gadfly, like you I'm only making observations. Acceptance of the obvious inequality in the implementation of laws is the same thing as condoning it.
Just because that's how things work today doesn't mean we shouldn't work to change it. Voting for either candidate, Clinton especially, is a big rubber approval stamp for more of the same in the future. Sorry, but Imo we should vehemently reject inequality in law when we see it, and the inequalities couldn't be more glaring in this case.
But making sure our team "wins" (aka maintaining the illusion that we will get the stuff we want when our team can impose the force if government over our neighbors) is more important to the American psyche than real justice, so we will of course get what we deserve. Curious how many of us comprehend that fact? Given the mainstream chatter, not many at all...
Wow, I can't believe how obtuse you are being. No, you're not making observations, you are assigning all kinds of value judgements to me for which you have absolutely no basis. I have not accepted an inequality in application of the law, I have acknowledged it. There is a world of difference.
Assigning to you? Only if you agree with the premise that inequality in law should be accepted and tolerated.
Laws are the only thing that binds functioning societies together. If it's accepted that laws are "elastic", what do you suppose those on the wrong side of the inequality will do? I'm assuming a bit here, but maybe they would lash out and do something terrible like target LE's like in Dallas? Think about it.
And about being obtuse, you do know what that means right? Consider its meaning relative to the argument you're making about acceptance of inequality...
Yes, assigning to me. Otherwise, please explain your statement, directed to me, "you're wrong", followed by the sermon about how injustice should be corrected.
Already answered:
"Assigning to you? Only if you agree with the premise that inequality in law should be accepted and tolerated."
I know, tell me about it ;-)
Seriously though, this is pretty straight forward to comprehend. Two sets of rules begs for dissent and violence, so I have a hard time understanding why anyone would think that's a good idea...
I suppose the people who get the favorable rules would think it's a good idea, if they thought they could get away with it. Btw, your second sentence should have started with the word "having" or something similar. It's unclear the away you wrote it.
The best part was Comey made it pretty clear that Clinton violated the law and lied about it when questioned but the FBI utilized their discretion not to charge her - meaning Comey didn't want to become suddenly unemployed or dead mysteriously like others involved with the Clintons.
More than likely it was decided that Obama would have pardoned her anyway so why waste the money - the fact that anyone would vote for this woman after she just gave a whole branch of government the middle finger is ponderous to me. Regardless of her stance on anything - she's a criminal.
I think what Patrick Buchanan said about this makes a lot of sense:
"What was behind this extraordinary performance?
By urging no prosecution, but providing evidence for a verdict of criminal negligence in handing classified material, Comey was saying:
'I am not recommending prosecution, because, to do that, would be to force Hillary Clinton out of the race, and virtually decide the election of 2016. And that is not my decision. That is your decision.
You, the American people, should decide, given all this evidence, if Clinton should be commander in chief. You decide if a public figure with a record of such recklessness and duplicity belongs in the Oval Office.'
Comey was making the case against Clinton as the custodian of national security secrets with a credibility the GOP cannot match, while refusing to determine her fate by urging an indictment, and instead leaving her future in our hands.
And, ultimately, should not this decision rest with the people, and not the FBI?"
Rich During nearly five hours of nonstop grilling by the oversight committee of the House of Representatives, Comey insisted that recommending charges in the case would have been “celebrity hunting” because normally prosecutors require evidence of intent in such cases, despite what was possibly unlawful handling of classified emails.
Under the 1917 Espionage Act there is a provision for bringing charges for gross negligence without evidence of an intentional breach of the law, he said, but only one much more serious case has ever been brought using it.
“You know what would be a double standard? If she were prosecuted for gross negligence,” said Comey. “No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years based on gross negligence.”
“That’s just not fair,” he added. “It would be fair to have a robust disciplinary proceeding. It’s not fair to prosecute someone on these facts.”
“Look me in eye and listen to what I am about to say,” he said, after accusing Florida Republican John Mica of insinuating political orchestration. “I did not coordinate that with anyone: the White House, the Department of Justice – nobody outside the FBI family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath ... I don’t want to get strong, but I want to be definitive about that.”
“The recommendation was made by people who didn’t give a hoot about politics,” added Comey.
"but only one much more serious case has ever been brought using it."
So, because a law is infrequently enforced it shouldn't be enforced, thus making sure that it continues to be infrequently enforced?
The law(s) she broke required no "intent" just negligence. Comey also confirmed that she committed perjury in her other testimony, but because he didn't have a specific "referral" from Congress on that specific issue, that wasn't part of his investigation.
"Accepting inequality in law as normal" Did I hear someone do that or is that just a theoretical?
"Voting for anyone but them is the only logical choice." Justinspock?
"Laws applied unevenly beg to be corrected." I agree absolutely. But how do you make sure everyone gets the exact same legal support, the exact same jury support, the exact same judicial support ----- computers? robots? And is totally even a better system all the time? Part of the beauty of the system is that it does work uneven at times. OJ was a travesty but it did send a backlash message against LAPD overreach. Sometimes uneven results jury nullification, perhaps not in the OJ case, but sometimes uneven is good.
"But making sure our team "wins" (aka maintaining the illusion that we will get the stuff we want when our team can impose the force if government over our neighbors) is more important to the American psyche than real justice" What if the only "stuff" we get is fixing poverty, ending crime, etc. etc. which is nothing direct per se in our own pockets? What if our stuff is the right stuff? Or what if Trump's stuff is the imposition by force of things I don't want. Aren't I your neighbor?
"Comey didn't want to become suddenly unemployed or dead mysteriously like others involved with the Clintons." So how did she get Vince Foster's body past the Secret Service, especially that guy who saw ALL the bad stuff go down. You know that Trump's brother died ----- inheritance? Conspiracy ho!!!!
"Regardless of her stance on anything - she's a criminal." Maybe she just knows how to strike a better deal than the Duck.
Oh, and whoever said it ---- I do not think she lied under oath. I am pretty sure she was not under oath when she grossly misinterpreted and misstated the facts of which she should have been aware even IF the emails were not marked as Classified. If other words, she lied or is grossly incompetent on this issue.
And still is more qualified than Trump for the office of President.
When Comey was asked by Rep Chavis I believe if he attend the questioning of Clinton he said No. When asked if he spoke to any of the 6 Agents that questioned her he said No. When asked if any of the Agents took notes he said No. Word has it she took the 5th on about 100 of the 150 questions she was asked. Funny that he says that nobody outside of the FBI family knew what he was about to say while Hilary and Obama were headed to AF1 for the campaign rally in Charlotte. Does he thing that we are stupid, apparently so.
How do you take the fifth when you're not under oath KB? Neat trick. Word seems wrong.
It doesn't matter if she was under oath or not - she was either grossly incompetent (dubious thing to say about the most qualified presidential candidate since Jefferson) or lied to an 1811 conducting a federal criminal investigation - a crime in it self under title 18 USC.. So SD your stance is no matter how stupid or dirty she was you don't care because she will end poverty and crime? Sorry dude that makes no sense.
And are you saying that maybe she had a better lawyer - her lawyers should not have been involved. That's tampering with an investigation too. Her lawyers have a right to be present during questioning and object to certain lines of questions but that's it - until she is criminally charged they don't get to do anything. Comey's job is to collect evidence and hand it over to a US attorney - the FBI can recommend prosecution or not but anything else is an overreach of the office.
And you don't have to be under oath to invoke your 5th amendment rights - you don't have to answer any questions the police have for you at all - any time during questioning she could have just not answered the question and moved on.
SD - Clinton was not being investigated for overdue library books - do you honestly expect that a group of attorneys and agents interviewed a presidential candidate and nobody took notes... Only because it was tape recorded and transcribed.. Clinton got away with it and Comey is playing ball - I'm sorry but it's not reasonable to believe anything else.
I watched the oversight committee last night. What I got from it is I now understand Comey's decision, I just can't agree at all with his decision.
You can't plead the fifth unless under oath. You can choose not to answer a question. And when you say "Word has it she took the 5th on about 100 of the 150 questions she was asked" you are spreading gossip.
I have already said she has misspoken at either a knowledgeable level or a level of gross incompetence. Whether or not the materials were marked classified or not does not matter. You are supposed to know and your title does not matter.
Is it indictable. Apparently not. Is it censurable. Absolutely. As is the entire portion of the state department that observed this behavior in action. All of them, Hillary included. So censure and move on.
An important part of these cases is harm. And here, beyond the threat, this is none proven. Makes indictment and conviction much harder IMO. She did not do this to profit. She did not attempt to distribute. And no proof of hacking beyond sniffs and innuendo can be proven. Here Comey went over the line basically accusing Clinton of the same potential of hacking that his or any other organization could be accused of. The "it was possible" accusation was uncalled for.
But will we stop and move on. We will go to the Congress and see how many $10's of millions we can waste to come to that very same conclusion. Because that's what we do. It's politics as usual.
And I still say she is more qualified to be President than Mr. Trump. He is that bad of a choice.
"No person....shall be compelled to be a witness against himself," - miranda v. arizona (1966) expanded the 5th amendment to non-sworn testimony and police interrogations not just criminal trials. Any time the police question some one and they answer they are forgoing their 5th amendment rights..
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_miranda.html
and if we go by this standard then i guess we should make manslaughter legal because there was no intent?
http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title18-section793&num=0&edition=prelim
THIS is an actual law and was made to be used in cases like this. Comey states it's only been used ONCE since it was enacted in 1917. Guess what? still a law..
She willfully communicated information via her email and several of her aids and people who had access to the server didn't have clearance to see it. She had lawyers destroy said emails, again people who didn't have clearance and were destroying evidence. She had Brian Pagliano help her move top secret information from the Government to her Server and her aids where all in on it. Her defense was basically I didn't understand the consequences.
and apparently Comey needs congress to tell him to do his job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGaJyJkRMLo
“Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?”
Comey responded:
“We sure do.”
Chaffetz then said:
“You’ll have one in the next few hours.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-gop-chairs-call-for-hillary-clinton-perjury-investigation/
Congress requests investigation into Hillary for perjury.
In other related news: FBI Director states they cannot get an accurate polygraph reading on Clinton due to her pants being on fire.
Meanwhile current Secretary of State John Kerry leaves the NATO summit a day early to attend a wedding. Kerry somehow bags tickets to the last show of the three stars leaving Hamilton and ditches the wedding.
Priceless.
Clinton gave weapons to Middle Eastern countries that illegally donated to her campaign
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/hillary-clinton-foundation-state-arms-deals
She called African American teenagers super predators that need to be brought to heel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0uCrA7ePno
She Sold our country's Top Secret information to China, Saudi Arabia and Russia
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
Skippy: why don't you at least do a small bit of due diligence before you post this crud.
On the arms deals: that one is the best one since the facts are just there. HRC should have severed all ties with the CGI --- recently naming it after her in response to her contributions was really a bonehead move. She should send Bill home, much less suggesting he would be an economics advisor --- another boneheaded move. But that said, you will never find any quid-pro-quo and there were plenty of checks and balances to have stopped any of these arms deals. I think the truth is, looks bad, but there was no evil doing:
https://breakingtothink.com/2015/11/11/another-lie-about-hillary-debunked-about-those-arms-deals/
On the second one: wait, you're a Trumpeter and you're offended by this.... That's like DannyC posting the word BS and then being offended in the next post by kids using the F-word..... The issue in question was over 20 years old with Clinton calling young black criminals, at the height of the crack epidemic, super predators. And you have a problem with this? http://nypost.com/2016/03/01/clinton-confronted-for-calling-black-kids-super-predators/ Maybe you're just upset that she didn't go full Trump and end with "but those people are great people, the blacks, I love them and they love Trump...."
The third one we have covered ad nausea and again, no quid pro quo but she should have severed any CGI ties. As far as the actual facts in the case, apparently it works to sell books and advertising to folks, but as to a huge fire behind the smoke: none except the smoldering that is HRC's ties to the CGI. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/
But Ronald Reagan killed 241 servicemen in Beirut, then turned tail and ran away, and he gets a pass.
New Hillary ad features --- Trump - in his own words..... Gotta love it
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/big_tent/Hillary-PA-ad-Trump-bad-role-model-for-kids.html
Having fun yet?
Ever seen trumps ads featuring Obama talking about Hillary from 2008? Obama said a lot of similar stuff to what I say about her - think about that
Sure, go with that...... Bill said bad things you wouldn't want your children to hear. Hillary swears a lot.... Once again, no sources....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGqD8-a-REQ
"Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected... and change nothing."
When talking about whether the Governor of Michigan should be jailed she stated "people should be held accountable for their actions" implying that if someone did something worthy of jail, they should be jailed." - I agree with her - too bad she will never see the inside of a cell
The speech issue honestly seems like a stretch. This article does a good job juxtaposing the alleged "plagiarized" sections:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/melania-trump-speech.html
Not a single sentence is the same. Some short phrases are similar in two paragraphs, but that's it.
So yes Melania said we should, "treat people with respect". That's clearly a ripoff of Michelle who said we should, "treat people with dignity and respect".
Trump and Melania just got to dominate the news cycle for days over two partial sentences - I think it was a planned move.
The article you posted used the term "legit plagiarism."
If the article is correct and there were outside writers and a team of internal writers then Mrs Trump's statement about her writing most of the speech is a lie.
The real question is not that it happened or that it is her fault. It did and it is not. Its how did Trump let it happen and what happens nect and, so far, that's a dismal affair.
And of course she lied anout writing it but that's small change.
It's definitely indicative poor staff management and follow up - but I think it was planned to happen - it's dominated the news and any publicity is good publicity. And it's trumps fault - you own what your staff does. I honestly think Michelle Obama and trumps teams scraped the same source actually
"but I think it was planned to happen - it's dominated the news and any publicity is good publicity." ----- skippy
That's hysterical!!
A "plan" to make Melania guilty of plagiarism and bring into the limelight her lack of a college education?
Yep, that's really GOOD publicity!!!
LOLOLOLOL
A lot of people are going with Skippy's theory and believe that the campaign knew that it was Michelle's speech. Day 1 has been in the news all day and the Trump-bots have been out in full force deflecting or minimizing the plagiarism - no big deal to them.
"Theory"
Exactly.
The Trump-bots have no course of action except to try to minimize the plagiarism. They can't have a bimbo for First Lady, after all!
lol
"They can't have a bimbo for First Lady, after all!"
Why not, if Hillary is elected, the 1st spouse will be a gigilo!
maja2 Absolutely none, skippy, absolutely NONE!
Don't flatter yourself !!!!!
OMG!
LOL
http://youtu.be/LISNAWln6p8
Here is Hillary blaming the police for getting shot.
Alton Sterling was a convicted paedophile, a wife beater and assaulted / robbed countless of people. Hillary Clinton is defending him. Let that sink in for a while...
She is ranting about the bad results of the policies SHE and her husband instituted.
"A "plan" to make Melania guilty of plagiarism and bring into the limelight her lack of a college education?"
What does a college education have to do with anything? Where on that diploma does it say you are smart? There are plenty of college educated people out there that are stupid.
outsider "Here is Hillary blaming the police for getting shot."
Skippy, she never did that in the cherry-picking you did nor did she defend Alton. What she did do was reveal the statistics of the black experience and recommended plans to improve the situation. The term "white privilege" was not part of her speech.
To your point, she noted a need to remove any bias in policing; is this what you are against?
Don't think you are guilty of being racist, just of not listening to what was said in your post.
"Third graders know plagiarism is wrong."
But apparently, democrats don't...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/19/melania-trump-plagiarism-hillary-biden-barack-michelle/
The Man ---
Want to discuss "stupid" ?
Third graders know plagiarism is wrong.
Typical answer, try as you may to address the question. What does a college education have to do with it?
"wow -- a racist on board.
You have shown your true color, skippy."
Wait what? You mean Hillary right ?
The Man --
If you are not able to concede the virtue of higher education, maybe you can agree Malania did not pay attention in the third grade.
happiest girl,
Still no answer, keep dancing.
I really don't know what she did in third grade same as I don't know what you did in third grade. All I can do is speculate.
The Man -
You can speculate, just like anyone else can speculate.
This is the fact:
Rather than stay in college, Melania chose to drop out of college. Then she decided to take off her clothes for nude photo shots.
Wow - what a great role model for the young women of our country.
This whole discussion goes back to "skippy's" statement that her plagerized speech was an intentional "plan".
Yikes --- if THAT is true -- yet another unintelligent decision.
Let's get alternate about the theory about the Melania mess.
- Trump hired pro's but decided to toss that out
- Trump kids took over the process
- first thing you look at is previous speeches culling what you like, getting a feel for it
- then you look to the famous people, especially ladies, of your party culling what you like
- then you have a pile of good bits and hopefully, hopefully, you have included sources
- if "lifting," you massage the message so as not to plagiarize
My theory is that due to their inexperience in the process, and under pressure, they either grabbed a good idea not realizing where it came from, thinking it was safe or theirs, or did a really inexperienced sophomore job at massaging the original message. The grabbing a good idea without remembering the source, and even thinking it's yours, happens to the most experienced of writers. However, at this amount of lift, one would imagine it was done by non-professionals inexperienced with the process and the practice. Rube mistake in other words.
Or they were sabotaged.
If either case, that old Arlo Guthrie Presidential Rag comes to mind:
"...................you never go along with that kind of stuff no where,
but that just isn't the point man,
that's the wrong wrong way to go,
if you didn't know about that one, well then what else don't you know
You said that you were lied to,
well that ain't hard too see,
but you must have been fooled again by your friends across the sea,
and maybe you were fooled again by your people here at home,
because nobody could talk like you,
and know what's going on.
Nobody elected your family,
and we didn't elect your friends,
no one voted for your advisors,
and nobody wants amends,
You're the one we voted for, so you must take the blame,
For handing out authority to men who were insane."
"Alton Sterling was a convicted paedophile..."
He was convicted of statutory rape for having a sexual relationship with a 14-year old when he was 20. That's a crime, but it's not pedophilia. A pedophile is attracted to "pre-pubescent" children. The fact that the girl in question got pregnant pretty much rules that out.
And I'm certainly not defending statutory rape. He should be sitting in jail... right alongside Ted Nugent and the Duck Dynasty weirdo.
Ok I'll go with that Ian still has other violent crimes on his record and Hillary is still in essence justifying the violence against uniformed officers as a result.
Great assessment SD - it's a staff QA issue.
It is, however, being overblown by media - and Trump is nothing if not strategic and a master of crowd psychology. I would not discount it as an intentional move. That being said - pundits and politicians alike on both sides of the isle have done the same thing repeatedly.
it's a waste of energy to care about Melanie's speech beyond the thought process of "well, she shouldn't have done that. It was a stupid thing to do". - there is a lot more at play here and we're wasting time on this quite frankly.
Imagine if Michelle Obama had gotten caught plagiarizing Laura Bush's speech... I'm sure that would have generated the same "so, what... no big deal" attitude by conservatives? LOL.... they'd STILL be talking about it daily.
skippy, so are you suggesting that his past criminal history justifies his death by cops, assuming, aguendo, that it was committed without just cause?
Tracy She did though - in 2008 Michelle used Saul Alanaky's "rules for radicals" I her DNC speech. For some reason people feel the need to try to prove their candidate's legitimacy by attacking the opposing camp "they do it too!". It literally makes zero sense. They all plagiarize.
The point is, people are treating speech plagiarism like a new phenomena while ignoring issues that actually matter.
Yeah Trumps camp screwed up - It's nothing new for politicians, now, let's get to things that matter is my point. We're wasting time in one of the most critical times this country has seen.
"Ok I'll go with that Ian still has other violent crimes on his record"
last time I checked none of his past crimes came with a death sentence. Last time I checked we don't execute people for illegally selling CDs. I don't get why we need to look up someone's past when they get killed by a cop as a way to justify it. Regardless of his past, his actions that night did not warrant to be killed. period.
Michael Brown, yes his actions that day warranted him getting shot, This guy, no.
"Rather than stay in college, Melania chose to drop out of college. Then she decided to take off her clothes for nude photo shots."
I sure hope hillary doesnt decide to take off her clothes.
Granted - Does that justify BLM executing uniformed officers because they showed up that day? It goes both ways - and would you deny that the best predictor of future performance is past performance ? This individuals history of violent crime certainly sheds light on his motivations during the encounter and its outcome.
the fact is that every African American shot by cops this month was armed and either shooting at police, or attempting too.
sterling was resisting arrest , he was armed and was trying to shoot the police.
Castile was wanted as a suspect in an armed robbery, was a member of a gang known for child sex slave trafficking, he drew his gun on the officer it was in his lap in the video... this is not what you do when you are a CC licence holder, you never draw your weapon, you hand the officer your license.
dallas and baton rouge are self explanatory...
BLM is a terrorist organization, blocking highways, attacking trump supporters, and assassinating police officers.
police were called because sterling was waving his gun around.
And the fact that a presidential candidate could justify a terrorist organization in its actions because of this is treasonous.
Even the KKK is not classified as a terrorist organization so it's ironic to classify BLM as one. It's also obvious to any one with objectivity that the BLM did not assassinate police officers - 2 very sick (not just mentally) individuals did so.
Re: Castille and Sterling - investigations are still ongoing including all of the video evidence and statements. The videos show very graphic viewpoints and the LEO verbally are providing a different viewpoint - perhaps somewhere in between is the truth.
"Granted - Does that justify BLM executing uniformed officers because they showed up that day?" NO it does not.
"would you deny that the best predictor of future performance is past performance"
I'm in finance, I am programed to say past performance does not dictate future returns :)
"the fact is that every African American shot by cops this month was armed and either shooting at police, or attempting too."
Where do you get your news? This guy was not attempting to shoot at cops. no where in the video does it show him reaching for his gun. The Minn guy was even worse. Announced to the cop that he had a gun and a carry permit, was told to get his DL and as he reach for his DL was shot multiple times.
Come on now. I get that you're a retired blue but you can't defend every bad cop out there.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/2/tim-constantine-black-lives-matter-terrorist-group/
yeah the white house alleges they have no authority to label them as a terrorist group
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/formally-recognize-black-lives-matter-terrorist-organization .
"Castile was wanted as a suspect in an armed robbery, was a member of a gang known for child sex slave trafficking"
Where the F do you get your news from?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/us/baton-rouge-alton-sterling-shooting/
"Sterling was selling CDs early Tuesday outside the Triple S Food Mart in Baton Rouge, the source said, when the homeless man approached him and asked for money. The man was persistent, and Sterling showed him his gun, the source said.
"I told you to leave me alone," Sterling told the man, according to the source.
The homeless man then used his cell phone to call 911."
So the police were rolling on a man with a gun job..
Here is the video - the cops were struggling with him - have him a lawful order not to move and he resisted arrest while in possession of a firearm. Stop minimizing the actions of others - he did not get shot for selling CD's.
He also had the complete control of that incident - police incidents escalate till you comply or die - that is the reality.
Castile was the suspect in an armed robbery.
Convenience Store Robbery
https://theconservat...g-cop-killings/
http://eastsiderevie...nvenience-store
http://minnesota.cbs...-armed-robbery/
Police Scanner Transcript: http://www.kare11.co...dio-1/267042738
So this cop is rolling up on what he believes to armed robbery suspect who he believed to be reaching for a gun.
P.O. Yanez in the video yells "I told him not to reach for it I told him to keep his hands off of it!" Meanwhile the passenger is filming video for facebook..
People have been trying to get KKK labeled a terrorist organization for decades so not sure what the outrage is about BLM. But I guess burning, hanging, shooting people and terrorizing people in their homes and businesses has never been enough. Yet to see the conservatives outraged over this.
http://gotnews.com/breaking-philandocastile-falconheightsshooting-crips-gangmember/
he posted stuff on facebook proclaiming he was a crips member.
Bonv - when is the last time you have heard of the KKK doing anything? I agree they are domestic terrorists as well but they have all been dead for 30 years.
Skippy - sadly they are not dead and people like D. Duke are still leading their organizations strong. It's also still pretty common to hear reports of burning crosses and swastikas. RE: murders and affiliations - I believe there was the dragging death of the African American man in TX about 10+ years ago .... I'm sure that there are others but for whatever reason you don't get the same outrage over this group. Maybe so many people can rationalize away their special brand of evil because they are not the targeted audience.
They're domestic terrorists - I agree. I just haven't heard anything about them in a while so that's why I am not outraged however - if you say they're active and killing people let's lock them up for hate crimes - I also think the recent police shootings should investigated as hate crimes as well notwithstanding
Skippy - Individual people are getting arrested, tried and put in jail but it's not the organization. I agree with you, the murders against police officers should have the hate crime statute applied.
Slippery slope with first amendment rights and freedom of assembly and association etc. I fear the best we can do is have law enforcement infiltrate these groups and hope to stop their terrorist activities.
And just as a reminder with the CCW shooting - I was all over that guy and his department citing a training gap. The point being that we ALL need to stop rushing to judgement until the facts come out - our candidates included. There's a lot of muck being thrown in all directions - Clintons speech to the NAACP did nothing except add fuel to an already explosive situation
"have the hate crime statute applied"
If I kill someone because I "hate" them (race/gender/etc)... or I kill someone because I didn't like the baseball cap they were wearing... what's the difference?
The action is what should be punishable, not the intent. Laws should be simplified... murder is murder.
outsider ---
the word is *you're*
Speaking of which, you're entitled to your opinion, however without context it is meaningless.
I tend to agree with you but there is a long history of applying aggravating and mitigating circumstances when it comes to acts of violence. Criminals are punished differently if they merely acted recklessly or negligently rather than if they acted knowingly or intentionally.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3592
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373622/hate-crime-laws-and-expansion-federal-power-john-fund
hate crime statutes allow for the introduction of motive “because of” the victim’s “actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, disability, or sexual orientation.”
the basis for this was to to fairly punish crimes, specifically of violence, which reach beyond the immediate victim and can serve to damage society and fragment communities.
http://www.uclalawreview.org/taking-the-hate-out-of-hate-crimes-applying-unfair-advantage-theory-to-justify-the-enhanced-punishment-of-opportunistic-bias-crimes/
Yes, I agree that there should be maybe 4 "grades" for a crime. Let's take a death/homicide example:
Negligent (You fell through my rotten deck)
Unintentional (We fist fight or I push you, not intending to kill, but that's the result)
Intentional (I intend to kill you in the heat of the moment, perhaps in response to some action on your part or through actions that a reasonable person would know could result in death).
Premeditated (I planned out how to kill you over a period of time).
Again, though... my "reasons" for killing you don't really come into play, just the general state of mind with each tier more "punishable" than the last.
but then you are saying all lives have equal weight - which clearly they have not since 2009 or so.. I am not disputing you and tend to agree with you but SCOTUS says nope
"SCOTUS says nope"
...and this is how we get umpteen million pages of laws, trying to address someone's "thoughts" rather than just addressing what they did.
So can we lockup Bush, Chaney, Rumsfeld, snd Rice for war crimes and allowing 9/11 to happen?
Hate crimes are not about thoughts. They are about what you did.
But it's somewhat moot as Skippy's ascertain about what Hillary said she didn't.
She's not a strong enough woman to even leave a cheating husband. Not a role model I'd like my daughter to look up to.
It's sad that Clinton and Trump are the "best" candidates America has to offer its citizens. I wonder who the worst ones would be.
DD's Pad "She's not a strong enough woman to even leave a cheating husband. Not a role model I'd like my daughter to look up to." Wow. On behalf of all spouses who have opted to stick it out and work through tough marriages ---- that's harsh. Your glass house must be made of brick.
"Clintons speech to the NAACP did nothing except add fuel to an already explosive situation" Only if you were lit dynamite to begin with. She said:
- she said these murders drove home how we need to make reforms to criminal justice (that's cops, courts, n jails). SD: Something I think most of you have said. She is talking end-to-end from DA to cop on the street.
- stop the bias and stop killing African Americans. SD: Seems prudent.
- many blacks fear police, many people sick about Dallas and LO, but fear vital questions about police community relations will go unanswered. SD: Probably a reasonable fear. Seems worth talking about.
- AA's are disproportionally stopped, killed, jailed, longer sentences, more than any other group. Something is wrong. We should make it right, we should end-to-end reform criminal justice system. SD: Hmmm. Didn't you all say that about criminal justice? Aren't you always saying police go militaristic, can't aim, etc. Don't you say Grand Juries will indict a ham sandwich but not a cop. Do you not believe blacks, statistically get a rougher deal than other groups. And I am not talking us n them. I am talking ANY other group.
- Hold police departments like Ferguson accountable. SD: Well, you have to be literal here because that's true that Ferguson PD sucked, but not true for Dallas and probably not LO
- Unequal sentences for same crimes like --- powder coke vs. crack. SD: Again, isn't this your mantra as well?
- Common sense gun reforms, yada, yada, yada. SD: OK, we know now the real reason you are so hot.......
- fix racial inequities in health care. SD: Well, if they are there, that's a good thing to fix. Seems like some red meat to throw a black crowd....
- I have a lot of plans ---- they are actually on my web site. I have actually said what I will do and how I will get it done. SD: Now I know you all don't like to get bogged down in details like plans given your love affair with Trump....
- White Americans needs to do a better job listening to blacks and their problems. Recognize our privilege and have some humility and compassion to perhaps a different experience. SD: OK, there you have it. At the very, very end of the speech she makes a cry for white America to have some humility and to listen to the feelings of black America with some compassion for another point of view, another life experience. Wow ---- pretty brutal, hateful, fiery language. We white folk certainly don't want to do that...... I mean no one has ever told SD that I should perhaps look at the world through their eyes, to see another point of view.... Nope, HL would NEVER do that......
The rest of your kvetching that followed is still pretty interesting even if it has absolutely nothing to do with what Hillary said.
Peace out.
DD, I thought I was the only one who had the same sentiments about her character as a woman. Her husband has cheated on her since before they were married. Why on earth would any sane woman stay in a relationship and or marriage when your husband has slept with more women than Tiger Woods, and his wife kicked his ass to the curb asap. That's what real self respecting women do. Hillary has no self respect for herself. She has been nothing more than a door mat for her husband and the Democratic party. Any woman that would vote for a door mat is a fool, any man that would vote for Hillary, who clearly has no respect for herself, has NO respect for women what so ever. If Hillary would have given Bill the heave ho during his Presidency when the whole world was watching she would have earned my respect. I still will not vote for her, but at least I would have respect for her as a women.
"Hate crimes are not about thoughts. They are about what you did. "
No, *what* you did is assault someone, steal their money, wrongly deny a job, etc.
*Why* you did it is because they are black, white, gay, old, a Red Sox fan, etc.
Laws should be about the *what* not the *why*.
SD as you have pointed out - most of us have said that stuff but only she is a presidential candidate. Also there's a time and a place for everything as a leader I would think she would call more for a stop to violence rather than underscoring the inequities of a broken criminal justice system. I honestly believe that Obama and his administration have spent the last 8 years polarizing this country along racial and financial lines and this does nothing but make it worse. And actually I am hot because cops are dead for no other reason than they came to work.. This is beyond guns.
OK Mark, I think you have a point here. Appears that on the Fed level, hate crimes are a way for the Fed to step in when it appears that local authorities are turning a blind eye to the intimidation and subjugation of certain groups. That seems to be justice and a good thing.
On the state level, you are right ---- it is punishment based on thought and perhaps a violation of first amendment rights and additional punishment for exercising first amendment rights is a slippery slope. I agree:
http://www.npr.org/2012/04/10/150351860/are-hate-crime-laws-necessary
Looks like it's the DNC convention is in a bit of a turmoil. Debbie out of her job and now hired by Hillary. Bernie's supporter's are feeling the" Bern" and not in a good way.
And poor Hillary, thinks she held to a different standard than everyone else. She's right, she lies like a rug and gets away with it all. Different standard for her is right.
It will be a very short-term arrangement, so not so bad. Wonder if it's legal for an elected congressperson to "employed" as such. Probably not but Clinton never cared about what is and is not legal, as laws and rules don't apply to her.
Different standard for Trump on lying for sure; many just shrug it off. Can't believe that he lied a lot in his acceptance speech at the convention: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/07/22/fact-checking-donald-trumps-acceptance-speech-at-the-2016-rnc/
Last thing Hillary needs is Wasserman-Schultz to speak tonight; it will make Cruz's speech look like a love-in. Yup, Hillary just loves to hear about more email..... Someone said she has "classified" it as a four-letter word. I understand loyalty, it's a Trump forte, but this is just over the top stupid.
Not only that but how much ego does it take for Wasserman to take the stage just to make Hillary look really bad and virtually erase Trump's convoluted convention opening?
If she does speak, and continues to work for Hillary, it will be all about the money she brings in and that will be shameful.
Meanwhile keep checking out the Trump/Putin connection. You got his campaign manager with major Russian clients, now the obvious play by Putin to get Trump elected and ---- why oh why hasn't he put those taxes out? Maybe it's not just that he's the world's richest cheap charity giver and philanthropist. Could there be a lot of Russian profits in there? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-putin-yes-it-s-really-a-thing
Hilary names Wasserman Schultz as Co-Chair of her Election Campaign Committee. Can't make this stuff up.
The left is so focused on who hacked them lol. Blame trump, blame Putin, but don't blame themselves for writing and sending them around the circle. Those emails shouldn't have existed the only ones to blame are themselves. This for the most part brings out the leftist propaganda scandal. The dems control what the media says to make puppets out of as many as possible. Everyone should ditch all news channels besides Fox. Even stranger danger :-)
KB, it's "honorary" co-chair for the campaign, essentially a non-title but the wrong thing for Hillary to do nonetheless. I think it's about the money DWS can bring in, that's what she knows, can't imagine any other reason. If it were some deep dark secret that Ollie imagines, Hillary would have just given her a cushy job upon becoming President. Much better gig.
She is not speaking and I expect will be "on the bench" for the campaign. She has her own problems getting elected in FLA --- looks remote at this point. Not speaking is a good thing, email or not. This pit bull has needed to be put down for some time.
Forced -- strange, but I did not do that. I blamed DWS and others in management for the DNC and said letting her speak was "over the top stupid." I have also said in the past that the debate structure alone proved the DNC rigged the game.
I have been highlighting the Trump/Russia connection conspiracy for quite a while even before Trump said he admires Putin as a strong leader. What a putz to say that. Since then the conspiracy has been building as he had admitted to Russia as being the next Trump Org. profit center (and has done so), hired a campaign manager with incredibly strong Russian monetary ties basically depending on them for his livelihood, and now ---- Putin's favor to Trump in this "timely" release. The Trump/Russia/Putin relationship seems worthy of scrutiny.
Why would Putin give a rats behind about Trump? Seems to me he's gotten everything he wanted out of Obama and Hillary so far.
Yes, the left's usual explanation, try and blame the messenger not the message. I'm not sure it's going to work this time. But who knows!
Ollie - Just can't make this stuff up. So desperate, so sad that the media has lost its talent at deception, but this is bizarre. Who writes this tripe now, summer interns?
Bernie gets booed by his own supporters for telling them to vote for Hillary...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0Ik8m9iX5o
I'll catch the highlights tomorrow. There's no way I can handle watching it live. I'm not taking enough medication for that.
The convention is like watching telemundo. If your not fluid in Spanish your gonna miss some of the message unfortunately... I was interested in watching but had to turn it off. I thought we lived in America where people spoke English.
I'll put on a tin foil hat with you SD and agree on a Trump / Putin alliance - it definitely seems plausible. Not sure if it's a bad thing yet though
Forcefed4door ---
Ah .... so a few sentences in Spanish bothered you? Perhaps you are unaware that the majority of the students at Florida International University are Hispanic --- or perhaps you don't care.
I found it a refreshing and respectful gesture.
It is unfortunate that there are people like you that prefer Trumps profane use of the English language to denigrate the many examples of people that he is prejudice against.
Let's pretend you call someone to do work at your house, they talk perfect English, but talk to each other in Spanish while struggling with a repair. Wouldn't you wonder what there saying?? The least these dnc people could do is interpret for the independents on the fence that don't speak Spanish n. Just sayin.
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings Blake opens the Convention, great pick, told her Police Force to stand down and let the looters have a field day ruining their own neighborhood.
Wait what? Speaking English in America now degrades people and is a sign of prejudice ? When was being multi-lingual a requirement for the office of POTUS? I could see having closed captioning or something but not giving a speech in Spanish is indicative of not being fluent in the language which is not a legitimate expectation.
But meanwhile it has no bearing on what was said . If you want to randomly run your virtual mouth and say things that iare completely irrelevant and off topic - create a different thread and pontificate there please - every time we get into an intellectual conversation this happens - that being said:
Let me explain to you what the poster meant - they use inside terms and symbolism that are not familiar to non trump supporters such as "get this man a coat" and centipedes, trump train, high energy, low energy etc. not literal Spanish - the poster was alluding to the non familiar jargon.
'If your not fluid in Spanish your gonna miss ' .....'Wouldn't you wonder what there saying??'.......
FFFD, try being fluent in a language, any language.
MeisterNJ Stephanie Rawlings Blake opens the convention, and Michael Brown's Mom is one of the upcoming speakers. I guess Babu Omowale wasn't available. Good thing the noted political analyst Sarah Silverman was on hand to straighten out the Bernie supporters and let them know they are being ridiculous.
Denis No Skippy ------ so sorry you have no reading comprehension.
Speaking English does not degrade people.
TRUMP degrades people.
Trump's words ....*HIS* words ........ which *happen* to be spoken in the English language .......... are words that degrade many many people in this country.
It is who he is. A horrible person.
Any moment now I'm expecting Paul Rubens AKA Pee Wee Herman to pop up and say "I know you are but what am I?"
Well, both parties get the fear mongering label. They lost me at speaker 4 or so. Be afraid. Or vote for Hillary, and fear no more. I'm afraid I changed the channel.
Meister, that's the problem. I shouldn't have to learn Spanish unless I travel to a country that it be required to live comfortably. That's sort of the issue here.
I was just glad to her Michele was proud of America. When did she have her awakening?
What was Cory Booker's speech? How to make America as safe as Newark (the 9th most dangerous city in the US)?
I guess Melania will make a fantastic speech at the next RNC convention in 2020 if Trump winds up as POTUS then... (-;
This BLM stuff at the convention is unbelievable... what about all the gunned down officers?
Philliesman Nice of them to give the fallen officers a mention SD. All the Mom's out there including Michael Browns Mom, with BS story that led to all the riots. Where are the Widows of the officers? The had Stephanie Rawlings Blake Gavel in the convention. The mayor who has presided over the City descending into chaos with the highest per capita murder rate in the history of the city. They are pandering to the lowest denominator.
I don't know why you are calling me out on this, Philliesman...I don't think I've ever even brought up the BLM movement. I agree with much of what they say, and I do think that black men especially are targeted more and with harsher treatment by police than whites. I also am certain some in the BLM movement are probably racist. Racism extends across all colors. But just because there are some people in the BLM movement who may be racist does not mean the rest are as well. They have a legitimate concern. So I really have no idea why you are jumping on my back about this.
Carry on.
I hope some people turned on fox business last night to see what was happening behind the scenes. Not a single mention by any of the other networks. But there were at times chaotic points in the tens of thousands protesting . The media was all over rnc protests of like 100 people. This is legit propaganda that people are being fed. The bias is absolutely unbelievable.
All the doom and gloom about America and what needs to be fixed. Haven't they been the ones in charge for the last 7 and 1/2 years? And I don't want to hear that it's the right that has been blocking everything. POTUS just does an end run around congress to get what he wants.
Oh yeah he "gets what he wants". And every time he does an end run the right screams about it. And maybe rightfully so but let's not forget how they swore they would make him a do nothing president. I hope the next congress has a close mix of both dems and repubs so some friggin work can get done. If one party has all the control they don't have to listen to the other side. If it's close or even if they have a small advantage members have to be worked to get their vote, compromises made and no one gets left out of the process. At least that's what I'm hoping for. I know I'm an optimist.
How about following the constitution as written? Maybe that's why the right screams about. And I would anticipate the left would do the same if it was Republican president.
Yep you're absolutely right ollie. If everyone would just do their damn job neither side would resort to the end run.
The end runs can only go so far and are never the best solution.
That was some strange and dangerous Bubba speech, cute, but somehow talking about their wonderful marriage seems both cute and creepy at the same time. And in the new age of feminism to go old age boy n girl stories seems again cute but somewhat sexist.
Guy can really tell a story and connect still though. Apparently half of that speech was ad-libbed. The teleprompter guy must have pulled his hair out :>)
Didn't realize Hillary was such a activist. Hope she gets a clean bill of fact checker health from his stories.
This was funny: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/289702-full-speech-jennifer-granholm-speaks-to-convention
After last night, Trump was seen with clenched fists, head towards the sky, screaming: "Khaaaaaaaan."
Why Not Hillary? She has quite the impressive resume
1968-1974: protege of communist Saul Alinsky noted for his 1971 book Rules for Radicals which Michelle Obama used in her DNS speech.
1974: She was terminated rom her role in the Watergate proceedings due to "Ethically Flawed Procedures" and her superior said he "could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust."
1978: She invested $1000 in a cattle investment that should have cost $12,000 and after 10 months the investment turned a $100,000 profit. She is a trading savant! No wonder she won’t release her wall street transcripts..
1978-1989: Whitewater land deal. More investment profits for Bill and Hillary ! Winning!
1984-85: Rose Law firm; association with the Madison S&L (related to Whitewater), the records of which were "lost" when subpoenaed but miraculously turn up in the White House in 1996.
1993: Vince Foster; Lets pretend she didn’t have him killed or browbeat him to suicide. She ransacked his office for embarrassing and incriminating files before his corpse was cold.
1996: Selling Defense secrets to the Chinese. The Clintons accepted funds from communist Chinese defense ministers via the intermediary Johnny Chung in order to allow the transfer of sensitive technology to the ChiComs
2000: Pardons for pay. On their way out of the White House, the Clintons sold presidential pardons via Hugh Rodham (Hillary's brother).
2001: Looting the White House. On their way out of the White House, the Clintons took "gifts" with them valued at ~$190k - they ended up paying the national park service $86k
1996-2016: Having a Muslim Brotherhood agent as white house staffer. Huma Abedin has deep connections with the terrorist front group Muslim Brotherhood
http://www.wnd.com/2013/07/the-explosive-secret-huma-is-hiding/
2010-11: Arab Spring/Libya. Clinton as Sec State is directly responsible for funding the "Free Syrian Army" in which radical islamists overthrew or attempted to overthrow governments in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and Bahrain. The turmoil resulted in the public murder of Muammar Gaddafi and plunged Libya into chaos. It caused Egypt to fall temporarily into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and created the dumpster fire in Syria and led to the rise of ISIS.
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/16/erik-prince-obama-clinton-complicit-creating-isis/
2012: Benghazi. After the downfall of Gaddafi, Clinton as Sec State moved guns to Islamic radicals and ordered the CIA to setup channels to move Libya's extensive weapons stockpiles to rebels in Syria for use against the Assad government forces. The annex in Benghazi was key to this and that fact led to the attacks on Sept. 11 2012 that left 4 Americans, including the US Ambassador to Libya dead.
2009-13: Sec State Emails nuff said.
1997-2016: Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation/Clinton Global Initiative is a family slush fund / money laundering operation used to sell access and special favors to any interested party with the funds.
@HG - I'm with you from the standpoint that Trump will be horrific so it's good to see the polls but IMO there's a long way to go.
Wow, that's some list Skipster. How oh how will Hillary ever win. Or conversely, how bad is your candidate and party if you lose?
Hillary and Saul: protégé --- really you have to be kidding. You give Trump's wife, part of a communist family who grew up profiting from an active party membership, the buy and you nail Hillary as protégé for writing a college paper that approved of some Alinsky programs and condemned others, especially those being destructive. http://prospect.org/article/hillary-haters%E2%80%99-fixation-saul-alinsky What was Trump doing in college; whoring and making $1M working for Daddy.
Saul died in 1972 so the protégé period must have been quick. Michele Obama plagiarized Saul: mostly false http://www.snopes.com/michelle-obama-copied-her-2008-dnc-speech-from-saul-alinsky/
Fired from Watergate by her supervisor for ethics: He wasn't her supervisor and she didn't get fired. He was her peer and a very unlikable guy who didn't like anyone else either. That's a start.... http://www.snopes.com/michelle-obama-copied-her-2008-dnc-speech-from-saul-alinsky/
Cattle investment: That's a good one but nothing illegal ever proved. Hillary was not doing the trading herself. But really, bringing up financial shenanigans while backing the $10B con man? Pretty weak. Plus, usually when one chooses to play the game this way, you find huge loses too.
Whitewater: Oh wait, it's a $70,000 loss to Clinton...... And you call that winning. Don't think I am investing in your speculations.
Rose Law Firm: So she kept and then voluntarily turned over the papers because they proved her guilty?
Foster: Hillary was never in the office that night, it was her aids and no proof of tampering exists.
OK, at this point, I am asking for links or source material since this stuff is pretty much unfounded or speculation and allegation without anything illegal ever being proved.
But on the ones you actually supported with links.
Huma Abedin: OK, this one needs development given this guy has advised from Bush to Obama: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/roger-stone-huma-abedin-terrorist-agent-224261 Given the House has given him not only a buy but an "atta boy," something is up.
Arab Spring/Libya --- Come on, you can start with Carter and move forward assigning some amount of blame to all of them. It's a mess and this latest mess is as much due to Bush Jr. as to Obama. And Clinton is SoS, not President. Syria was not her call for example.
You need some actual proof for the rest. Since the Clintons still roam freely across the planet, good luck.
SD - That was a verbatim cut & paste of a late night Trump tweet. It really didn't warrant that kind of response. It's essentially says nothing more than "Because *I* say so".
Can someone tell me where Hillary has been? Is she in the witness protection program? Ok, I really know the answer. The more she's out speaking the more people dislike her. Otherwise she'd be out doing press conferences with questions that haven't been pre-screened.
Considering her poll numbers are increasing compared to Trump's, her strategy seems to be working - let Trump the troll continue his narcissistic immature rants and disrespecting entire groups of people while pursuing more bankruptcies.
She was in CO yesterday at an American tie factory trashing Trump for manufacturing overseas.
It was a beautiful thing. Shrill and to the point. Dead serious. no cackle.
Because we all know President's must be judged on their laugh and their voice. That's why Trump has never laughed. Although I did find one rare picture of Trump laughing (it was right before he ate the baby :>)
yea at this point there is no reason for her to do anything. Just sit back and watch your opponent self destruct
I don't buy those polls for a second. If your supporting trump, your not jumping ship for hillary. Trump got a bump from his convention which I think was rigged to make trump look terrible after the crooked Clinton convention. It's all in the democratic playbook. Feed people propaganda all day long. Meanwhile there are millions of people in the shadows,who may have never voted in there life. And you could guess they will come out for trump and there aren't anyway to poll them. So no matter the poll numbers, there is a large portion out there that can put him over the edge.
The poll asked ~1000 people.
Be a statistician all you want, polling 0.00033% of a population isn't rock solid.
You probably could get 0.00033% of people to say water isn't wet if you ask it the right way.
Yup ---- watch him self destruct is right.
Here's a good laugh if you never saw it---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUQfCBdWOh4
You proved my point bonv. She hides from any real press so no one hears her and her polls go up. Guess she needs to be elected to find out what she really thinks.
Not buying the polls either. Not with this MSM.( the arm of the leftwing party.) Fortunately there are other ways now for people to get the news of the day.
I would hardly call meeting people and campaigning hiding but then again you've drunk the Trump-Aid. To call Fox News left wing just further proves the point.
Forcefed4door,
I've never voted before. I will vote Trump. Hillary is a crooked spinster.... I'm tired of the status quo and that is what we'll get with Hillary continuing the Obama legacy.
Metsman That's what I'm saying metman. There is truly no way to poll this election. The democrats are trying to feed trump supporters propaganda through polling that he's losing baaaad. They themselves probably know there is no way to have a proper poll due to the awakened "silent majority". They can skew the polls however they want, but it is not going to stop the train.
It's the same polls that had Trump winning a week ago after his convention bounce ----- and now you have a problem? After a successful Democratic Convention and one Trumpian disaster after another ---- you're lucky to still be in the running.
All this can change when the debates come up.
Meanwhile Tea Party incumbent Representative got blown out of the water by a moderate in yesterday's primary. Teasunami may be coming.
Bonv, how many days has it been since she's held a true press conference? I believe it's been well over 200. And please try and come up with something more original than drinking the "kool aid."
And just for the record, I am not a big Fox News fan. Sorry to ruin that assumption for you.
December 2015. But there was some pesky House Subcommittee Hearings this year: they probably should count. Not the FBI though, that was a private affair.
Ollie - Obama covered Hillary by holding a press conference today, and did a pretty good job. Thank God it didn't come from John Kerry, probably Hillary's choice for SOS, the "talking tree" or the "long wet dish rag". Swift boats are-a-coming, there's dancing tonight.
Actually Ollie I could care what you watch and care even less to assume. Simple fact is that one of the many polls with Clinton leading came out of Fox news which is hardly an arm of the "left wing party". Trump's the one that has a narcissistic need for "press" conferences so that he can have his daily LOOK AT ME moment. Not that you can call them true press conferences anymore since he continues to ban press organizations from attending. Can't wait for the response since 9 out of 10 times you just mimic back my same content so the call for originality is humorous.
I just read this very interesting article on Hillary. Important to read if you're considering voting for her.
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/08/06/25-reasons-not-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-n2202375
"obviously it's biased but everything in it is a true fact." exsqueeze me? Is it true but biased or biased but true?
Head injury --- She fell, she got a clot, they cured it, she's fine.
Is 4F and has bone spurs --- oh wait, that's Trump
The cough --- yes, for over a decade, could kill her any moment.....just sayin.
Has Tourette syndrome ---- oops, Trump again
Secret Service punishment --- which one?
White house workers can't talk and must hide behind drapes --- again, which ones. Hide behind drapes? That's a good one.
Doesn't pay worker's bills ---- Trump
Defaults on loans ---- Trump
Ruins cities ---- Trump
Has conversations with Roosevelt and Ghandi ---- OK, this is a humor piece, right?
Sees Muslims cheering on rooftops, pallets of money, and believes all Mexicans are rapists ----- Wanna guess?
Hasn't driven a car since 1996 --- so?
Doesn't have license ---- Trump, maybe it's the bone spurs
12-yr old rape victim story ---- Your version is a complete lie. (see above somewhere)
100,000 bribe ---- another complete lie (see above somewhere)
Favors for money ---- prove it, you can't because it's another complete fabrication better known as a lie
I will stop here because you're hitting home run status in the lie department. You can' prove most of this, it has been disproved in this thread already, and this is not biased ------- it's just a pack of lies.
In the beginning it looked like humor, but by the middle it looks like either utter stupidity or malice of a high order. At best vicious rumors but also a lot of lies. Matter of fact, it's hard to find a fact amongst the lies.
We should expect better.
BUSTED
Oh please- you're just pouting that there's some media that isn't biased towards your heavily flawed candidate. Hillary is a trainwreck, and she has no grasp on reality.
I mean, what kind of candidate can call a ban on muslim immigration racist when Muslims are killing hundreds of westerners.
How can she claim to support American jobs when her husband presided over the creation of NAFTA and the beginning of manufacturing jobs being shipped off to China?
Hillary doesn't want to deport illegals or build a wall even though millions of illegal aliens live in the country and there's no sign of the migration stopping.
As a New Jersey resident, and someone who has witnessed firsthand the problems democrats can cause and have caused, I can't understand how ANYONE could vote for a dimocrap.
Thanks SD. I just don't have the energy. I'm know neither side is an angel but it seems to me one side in particular goes over the top with the same stuff. I mean how many investigations can or should you initiate that result in squat? Just so at election time your side can claim dishonesty and say whoa she's been investigated over umpteen times. Well of course she has and the right made sure of it. Time and money well spent I bet;) I'm not in love with Hillary but geez, I'm so sick of hearing about white water and Clinton foundation and Bill was a douche and on and on. Just like the repubs are sick of imaginary WMD's and Katrina and whatever else they're sick of hearing. Anything that's been said in this election cycle has been said a hundred times so let's just focus on the future bitching and finger pointing we can do. I'm sure wiki leaks will come out with something soon that will cause us to bay at the moon!
And we wonder why Hillary is paranoid enough to keep a email server under the nightstand.....
LJ -- here are some facts just to open a discussion. First I find it funny n the age of Christy that you point out the failures of Democrats versus Republicans in NJ.... His economic policies have been disastrous leaving us last to feel any sort of recovery whatsoever.
Second, NAFTA and free trade in general is a mixed bag of results: try Trump's Wharton school for example for a less grim picture of gloom n doom: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/
The thing about building trade walls is generally they just blunt the trend for awhile but it resumes shortly after the wall's completion. Blockades, tariffs, etc. are all just walls that blunt but don't stem the inevitable. If people are willing to make commodity goods for less, those goods will cost less. The days of a mindless factory job paying a living wage are over. Many, if not most of the smart jobs remain. We just need to learn how to make more of those (like make the invention business a Henry Ford factory line and train our folks for high paying smart-guy jobs). We also need to make all service industry jobs life-sustainable rather than subsidizing these industries with out tax dollars via welfare and other programs. It's time we pay our fair share for our Big Macs and Walmart Fashion statements.
Conjoined with people able to work mindless jobs for less, technology has also savaged the livelihood of the factory worker. Would you tariff technology? The right-wing Heritage Org. says this: "During the past decade, manufacturing employment has fallen by one-third while manufacturing output has remained roughly constant. " There's a really cool economist in the mid-west somewhere that has some really good statistics to back this up to the point of concluding that most of the job loss can be "blamed" on technology improvements. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/10/technology-explains-drop-in-manufacturing-jobs
I mean in my own NJ experience I watched our US factories shrink by 90% without one job being shipped overseas. That was a reduction n floor space and people while production was relatively stable, even rose in the Clinton years.
My point is that it's not just as simple as kill Nafta.
"there's no sign of the migration stopping." Actually it has levelled off for the past 5 years or so with people leaving as people are coming http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/22/unauthorized-immigrant-population-stable-for-half-a-decade/ Trump's plan is a ridiculous play on fear and frustration. Build a wall and deport. Build a wall: can you say boat? Deport: where are you getting the people to fill those jobs.
The best one was when Trump was saying "well, we're gonna build this wall so great, so huge, so tall that even if you got a ladder to the top, you wouldn't be able to jump to the other side." I cracked up as my thought bubble read: "hey, Donster, wouldn't you just drag the ladder up and flop it on the US side of the wall?" What an idiot.
Home about some facts close to home. We have 400,000 illegal immigrant workers in NJ. We have 230,000 unemployed. So if we convince 100% of our unemployed to work at Burger King, where are you going to import those 170,000 additional Burger flippers. Come, move to NJ: land of part-time minimum wage..... Deportation is a stupid idea. And same problem in the entire SW, FL, GA, NC, IL and many other states. Twenty times the NJ problem across the entire US.
How about e-verify instead. Uh oh, problem solved even if you have a boat..... But that's not spinnable by the Donster. Meanwhile you still need to figure out how to back-fill those 11 million jobs so just booting them overnight might cause an economic disruption you can't tolerate.
I guess what I am trying to point out is there are complex issues not solvable with simple sound bites solutions. He's a gold digging con man just panning for your vote by stoking your fears and giving you snake-oil solutions.
"Vhat.....somebody copied/paste without sourcing...... Impossibull
IIRC (and I do) you know a thing or two about that ;-)
Btw, are you using a computer program or something like that to gather your info? The volumes of regurgitation you're doing lately is quite impressive.
I used to enjoy sourcing and presenting the flip side of your biased bent, but honestly I have a life that is far more important to me. I really wish I had the time though, but scanning your progressive govt-is-God ramblings takes too much time!
I'd like to see you prove I plagairized that.
That was a bery rude and mean thing to say.
JIT - Do you mean taking time out to use emotional phrases like "at the end of a gun" when you told the world to take the emotion out of it all? [distracted driving] Or calling him a manipulator after calling for critical thinking when you haven't tried to end sheep, you're just trying to be the new shepherd ? [Trump] Or calling for the demise of the country so some privileged few hedge funders can go ballistic? [Clinton]
Your glass house and mine are no better than his. Throwing boulders is a lose-lose proposition for us all. No one survives the monumental collapse let along profits from it.
High school students are not counted in unemployment numbers, but many would happily take a BK job.
Think something like this came from Jimmy Fallon.
Hillary first tries to steal fashion advice from Melania but her second choice......
I'd rather see her in an expensive men's suit than what she wears. It shouldn't matter, but if asked, I would say her wardrobe choices are horrid.
http://sourcesnews.com/judge-jeanine-pirro-dropped-a-bomb-on-hillarys-campaign-shes-losing-voters-by-the-second/
Best rant against Hillary I have heard yet.
$600 for a haircut, for Hillary? (in the photo, posted). Check out Melania's new 5$ million, diamond encrusted, 24k gold leaf desk, to "design" her crappy jewelry, prior to sending it off to China, for production.
Unless I'm mistaken, Melania Trump isn't running for president, her husband is.
If Hillary wants to seem like she cares about the American people, maybe she should stop the lies and pandering ("I keep hot sauce in my purse"- give me a break) and spending ridiculous amounts of cash on her appearance while she still looks dumpy.
What these people look like has no bearing on their abilities. Have we've become so pretentious.. that looks are such an issue?
Trump looks like a turnip on crack, but that's not my issue with him at all...goes beyond that.. has to do with his character, zero morals and zero values.
His character is like a turnip on crack.
Hey, I need cue cards to fill my poll talk time void
So true @positive. Disparaging Hillary for her voice or appearance is the equivalent of disparaging Donald for his hair, fake tan and appearance - sad considering there are SO many other reasons.
Well I googled "turnip on crack" figuring Trump would come up, but alas....
And there's a movie...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGNTlWM9FQQ
Well I googled "stranger danger" and this is what I came up with.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=stranger%20danger
Not much going on with Hill. Maybe her strategy is to be quiet and people will vote for the name, Bill or Hill, they won't care. Very smart strategy actually.
maja- Clinton doesn't have to campaign anymore --- she will be the next President.
Trump successfully removed himself out of the possibility.
Thank God for that.
Yup... she's even going neck and neck, here, with the number of postings, about him. Forget the first Trump thread. That was before we all got to see how dangerous he really is for the good of this country. A lot of people are starting to see through "the shiny things", drama coupled with the fact that this is NOT a reality show. This election is for your next leader. I wouldn't want Trump, as my boss. I know how badly he treats his undocumented and (a few) documented employees. Certainly not as a president of all of us... he still scares me.
Funny... everything he criticizes, about Hillary, is some sort of rip off from insults projected at him. Then he tries to sound like a "Bernie or Hillary copy". He can't really think of anything else bad to say about her. Hillary...2016!!!!
That wall, that's going to say "Trump memorial wall", is going to have to surround the entire country. Mexico is not the only way in. And it's going to have to be built 100's of feet, below the earth. Tunnels, you know. Then, we are going to get our military to drive around in caged busses, rounding up millions of "undocumented" people, and their families and lock them into some sort of camp, before they can be processed, fingerprinted and tossed... or I should say driven back to Mexico or flown back overseas. Yep.... that's really going to happen.
Maybe we can just pull a "Trumpy"...borrow the money from one of our allies.... then when the bill comes, tell them to F off. Now, that's how we keep world peace. LOL although really more scary than funny.
Lol, all these brainwashed libtards are so funny.
"Hillary will be the next president!"
Hahaha, whatever helps you sleep at night, o little child.
And yes, sparksjbc1964, we will be able to deport the illegals. If we just treat them as prisoners or enemies rather than as our equals or peers, we can do it. No, we won't be able to get rid of the illegals if we're giving them notices, speaking their language, putting them in holding facilities, etc. Just knock on the door, cuff them, brand them, and put them on a one-way train or plane back home, wherever that may be.
Hillary is also a racist, and a real racist, not the "sort-of-said-something-maybe-offensive" type of racist the media tries to paint Trump as.
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/19/off_the_reservation_4_times_hillary_clintons_racism_showed/
LMFAO, these liberals are too funny. Honestly, it's my laugh of the day. I guess when you combine ignorance + elitism + oversensitivity + white guilt, you get a Hillary Clinton supporter.
Pretty funny The Man, I lost some coffee on that one. Close to the truth too.
Mistergoogle's icon, or whatever you call that, was Nick Danger ---- Third Eye, a 50's smart-mouthed, hard-nosed fictional character, comedic and a little dense.
So when I needed a new name to log in during a timeout period, I choose a stranger version of my icon, strangerdanger. I also intended it to be a warning to the kids on the site (all of us :>) about dealing with anonymous characters, a lot of us.
Didn't see or expect it to become a noun with physical violence attached.......
So now you know the rest of the story.
My question is how long does it take for Darrin to laugh that off? And does he really do what he says he does with it. Think strangerdanger might be safer :>) or you could drop the extra letter Darrin.
So turnabout and all.... The Man: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The%20Man
strangerdanger,
No need to try to explain yourself.
Actually definition #4 would be more accurate.
'Why don't you people use monikers that cannot be looked up in urbandictionary?"
That would be dull and funless,
Yes it's all about perception, however some people can't tell the difference between reality and reality TV. I've never seen the Kardashians, however, it must be very popular, because every time I type the word "the" it pre fills "Kardashians". Like just now. I just typed a "K", and it popped up.
JIT - After all the denial to me, you go right back to SD and do all the things you said you didn't. If you're not obfuscating and manipulating as well, you're saying SD's come around to your way of thinking. That's not shepherding? You say he's throwing all the stones to try to deflect your own. If you truly believe the whole thing is a sham, why did you specifically chose a candidate based on who would make the collapse happen fastest? In fact why even be involved? By now you're so heavily invested in that ruin, you're trying to help cause it. There's a narrow point between trends and profiteering.
The glass house isn't SD's opinions, but all of our actions. Denying the same uncaring selfishness of our own is. I wasn't defending SD's opinions, but his ability to express them without being called ignorant, stupid, or just long winded. Calling him names, underhanded, or insulting his intelligence would be obfuscating and manipulation.
PS. No need to go over your denial of the Constitution again. That's on other threads already. Contracts like it have both rights and responsibilities. You can't be a huge supporter of the rights, but them deny your responsibilities. You either accept it or change it.
Looks like the DNC fixed their leak:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html
Why are the self-righteous so pompous and so completely devoid of a sense of humor? Some are serious even in their character assassination and personal attacks. Where’s the fun in that? Amazingly JIT provides some great examples of that of which he accused in that very post. Close to losing it you are on that one.
To the point. You say you never said: "…all government except what he deems necessary is at the point of a gun.” And then you say: “So in the end it comes down to how much you are willing to ask the government to put a gun to the head of others to get what you want.” Well, smack my head and call me silly. Need I say more? Do you really want me to find where you said it before, or something amazingly close to it given you just said it once again? Talk about just in time :>)
I said before that I agree about law being force and enforcing the law is force. Didn’t say I disagreed this time. I just said you must be miserable to bear this cross in the manner than you do. Think you have proved that point in spades.
I have said it is force. I have also said it is based on our representative government and the will of the people hopefully for the benefit of the people. It is not a bad thing, it is not stealing from your neighbors, it is the way in a country built on the rule of law vis-à-vis our Constitution and enacted through representatives duly elected by the people to fulfill the will of the people. You feel at its base level, that is immoral. I do not. You have no solutions except your own misery. I am happy with our Constitutional solution and feel I live in the greatest country in the world. And Hillary will make it better. (how’s that for segue to point?)
“So yes, sir, I think you're a schmuck for asking for so much without ever considering the means and ways it takes to get those things.” I understand the name calling personal attack schmuck part although schmuck seems an odd name coming from you, but a question. Why don’t you list some of the “asking for so much” things? Love to see that list but will not prequel to find an answer.
On the debt-based solution part, of course once again you can’t come up with your solution except to refer readers to research past tomes for the answer. Of course. I would think you had it down in sound bites by now. Come around over the years? I said our debt is a top priority as it became high. What you taught me is that fiat money has inherent inflation, and for that, I thanked you……remember?
“Regarding solutions, tell me, sir, how do you deal with too much debt when the removal of said debt (paying it down) removes money from our economy, and thus results in a contraction of the money supply?” Uh…. If the government retires the debt, it buys back bonds. That means it provides cash to those holding paper. In other words, paying down the debt increases the money supply….. Not sure you have the right cause and effect here. Could be wrong, it’s complicated.
That said, paying down the debt indeed can cause pain but does not have to. We felt no pain when Clinton paid down debt so that’s one way: vote Hillary (second segue!). If we cut costs by doing without things we don’t need, there should be no pain. As I have said, if we capped spending, went zero-budget, whatever, we have plenty of money. Spending it wisely is what needs to happen. However, if we raise taxes to pay down the debt, and as good citizens we should, we will feel pain, but not necessarily a shrinkage of the money supply.
Don’t matter to me. My feeling is that we bought the longest war ever in Afghanistan, a costly war in lives and money in Iraq just to create ISIS which we continue to spend money fighting today. Fighting terrorism is a necessary expenditure, but we at home need to step up and pay our bills for the things we financed. We correctly financed the largest recession recovery since the Great Depression and did not suffer what our grandparents suffered. Might not have been a stellar stimulus but it was a good and necessary one. Given all that, it is time we pay the piper IMHO since the debt reduces our ability to withstand another downturn or another national financial emergency.
I agree with you that no one wants to touch it, don’t even want to talk about it unless it’s a debate question. Trump plans to make it worse, Hillary has little plans to make it better. My thoughts have been 1) zero based budget for x years, x tied to time and GDP metrics. 2) active cost cutting including re-engineering entitlements, 3) higher taxes, especially the free-loading rich, legally earmarked to paying down the debt versus program funding. Yes, there is pain in that but not necessarily a reduction to the money supply or an increase in inflation.
As far as hoping for a crash to be able to start over, that’s just bad thinking. Crashes kill and we all should desire to do anything necessary to avoid that.
And yes, I enjoy humor and you don’t. Telling indeed.
Inside/outside money and the fed buying debt: http://www.pragcap.com/does-the-money-supply-increase-when-the-fed-buys-bonds-2/
Fiat money used to painlessly remove debt: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/12/fed-money-debt-taxes.asp
Debunking the myths (just a weird one for fun): http://www.pragcap.com/the-biggest-myths-in-economics-page/
Gotta admit sg, sometimes you actually make sense and sound like a conservative in what you say, also gotta admit, that if we do get stuck with the wicked witch, we'll get bill back too, he was after all, pragmatic enough to understand that he had to work with repubs after the '94 election in order to get anything done (like balancing the budget) so he could claim the credit. Hopefully, the ww will be smart enough to listen to him. Trump is indeed a loon (I've said so from the get go) and scares me more than her (if that's possible) so, I'm gonna go with Johnson at this point. Still gotta admit as well, that you're a funny guy sometimes.
"After all the denial to me, you go right back to SD and do all the things you said you didn't."
Examples? I'm not clear on what your expectations are/were based on my post.
" If you're not obfuscating and manipulating as well, you're saying SD's come around to your way of thinking."
My point was his now admitting to understanding that debt is a problem and not something that just "is", based on conversations in years past. Nothing erroneous about that.
" You say he's throwing all the stones to try to deflect your own."
Deflect what, precisely? Serious question.
"If you truly believe the whole thing is a sham, why did you specifically chose a candidate based on who would make the collapse happen fastest? In fact why even be involved? By now you're so heavily invested in that ruin, you're trying to help cause it. There's a narrow point between trends and profiteering."
Wow, that's a stretch. In an attempt to be even more clear, do you recall past conversations about the lack of a restraint system on our monetary system, our going all-in on fiat in the early 1970's? Gold used to be a barrier to prevent those in power from over-extending the monetary system, and while it admittedly isn't the best tool today the point is that there is currently *nothing* in place that requires any type of restraint except for economic pain. So since the early '70's the train has been going down the tracks and building debt faster and faster every year. The St Louis Fed has FRED data which shows an increase in the growth rate of debt after 1971 - it's in the open for all to see. My point is that the debt trend is rarely discussed, except when dismissed by using it's ratio to GDP (GDP which, as has also been discussed, consists of debt-fueled government spending more or less in a linear relationship).
So while you're now trying to spin my comments as stating that everything is a "sham" (not what I said or implied) the truth is that if there is a "sham" it's that the underlying systems of government are indeed the root cause of so much of what's interpreted today as problems. Dealing with the root cause, however, would make certain people uncomfortable - those who have expectations from our government to get stuff without even having an inkling as to what must happen to get said stuff- because it means they need to reevaluate the things they are asking. So profiteering? Not on my part, I can assure you. But those desiring, condoning and benefiting from the current systems of government? Something to consider...
And regarding my voting for Trump, it very well may come down to that. The arrogance of non-Trumpians is pretty astounding at the moment, so the vote would be an "against" for and not so much as a "for" vote. And since I truly believe there is no fundamental difference between R's and D's (except on the push-button emotional subjects that are relatively small potatoes in the grand scheme of things), I see no reason why either would be better than the other.
"Contracts like it have both rights and responsibilities"
Yeah, we've been over this too before. What contract? Where? The concept of a social contract is an emotional one, the idea being that by virtue of being alive you must obey any and all dictates by the central authority. In reality, all we have are laws - that's what you have to obey. Laws enforced by men and women in blue who are authorized to harm, mame and/or kill you if you do not do as they say. That's the gist of the "social contract". And that's what I wrote about above.
As an individual, based on your posts I know you are kind-hearted, generous and giving. And while I'm sure you would find it hard to believe, I am as well. The difference between us though is quite simple: While we both believe in voluntary actions, it is offensive to me to force one's philosophies on others using the government. Obviously, you and a great (great, great) many others do not share the same sentiment because the overriding thought process today is to immediately ask (demand, really) the government to pass laws that will impose through force whatever the topic De jour of the day is.
The Constitution is pretty clear on most counts, as it was written specifically to *limit* the Federal government to needs that the States couldn't (or shouldn't) fulfill on their own. In today's world, does the word "limit" even exist???
As a society, don't we punish for murder, theft, kidnapping and generally bringing harm to people when committed by individuals? Of course.
As a society, don't we condone murder, theft, kidnapping and generally bringing harm to people when committed by the government? Of course.
Somewhere between those two extremes we each draw a line that we can live with.
I much favor the first over the second, and I say as much on nearly every occasion and every topic, while you and others clearly disagree. Clearly disagree. And yet people still wonder why there is turmoil in our society?
If our collective morals have degraded so much that we turn a blind eye to the necessary evils perpetrated by governments, no longer viewing them as necessary evils but just as necessary, then we certainly are getting the society we deserve.
So every time someone says that the government should take from one person to give to another (theft), or that the government should jail people for bringing no harm to others, as in the case of the war on drugs (kidnap), or that the government should arbitrarily kill on our behalf (murder), is it really too much to ask that the reasons those actions are taken are legitimate and not just because someone thinks it's a good idea?
Ultimately that's the underlying disagreement in nearly every subject, so don't get your panties is a wad when others ask you to justify the otherwise criminal activity that you are asking the government to do on your behalf.
Mark Mc, do you think anyone believes that, next they will be telling us that the father of the Orlando terrorist would be sitting a few rows behind Hilary while at a campaign rally on Monday.
"father of the Orlando terrorist"
...and of course he blames gun control laws, not his POS son.
JIT - You're so on full tilt you had to go on twice as long as before, and now you even had to post a second time just to get all the emotion out. (you can start with that as another one of the things you accused SD of that you just did yourself)
I'm not the straw man you see sitting some where you believe comes up with a $ amount they want out of JIT's personal stack.
I couldn't even get passed the "my vote is not 'for', it's 'against'" part. That's totally contrary to what you said about supporting who ever makes it all collapse first. It's not the recent revelation you claim either, you've been saying that all along.
Deny the Constitution (just like you accused SD of knowing full well, you know full well too and brought it up later after you denied it), deny the emotion (guns pointed at people, everything is theft), deny the deflection ("which of the two of us?", it's all a sham but I'm participating anyway, vote to make it collapse but I'm not advocating that at all). Deny. Deny. Deny.
In many ways I agree with a lot of the problems you outline in the financial area. I can't agree with the solutions, but most of all I don't agree with personal attacks on others.
As Clinton plans to sell out America to add to her millions, she remains in the lead. Hopefully people will start opening there eyes. And hope for the sake of the country the scale starts to tip against her.
Wow GC, seems like you are taking personal offense to my little delve into reality. Mind you, I didn't invent how the government operates, I just live with it like everyone else. If you don't care to acknowledge that the only difference between a man in blue sticking you up and your neighbor doing it is how one justifies the act, then I'm not sure what to tell you - you must be "full on" head buried in the sand ;-). It just is what it is, and no matter how much you want it to not be true that's just the way it is.
And all that other stuff you just said, well, I'd say you're correct on only one point. If anything, I've been pretty consistent in my views, but regarding Trump though, yes I've decided that, based on all the crazy emotions put toward the lunatic-ridden election this year, a little push back against *all* crazies has been warranted. So I'll concede that in regards to that topic I've pushed a few buttons here and there to make a point at how ridiculous the entire process is this year.
Regarding HH/mg/sd/MM, he has long made his bed and has to sleep in it. I get that you prefer his sly little attacks at people over my direct and to the point ones toward him - and only him, in case you missed it - but sometimes you just gotta tell it like it is.
JIT - "personal offense"
Nope. That's more denial and deflection. That's emotional and not what I'm saying. I disagree and nothing more. Trying to say "pushing buttons" is just a passive aggressive way of being that shepherd towards hastening a collapse for personal gain. The only buttons pushed is when you go off the deep end and spend huge posts saying others are too stupid or are selfish.
I also agree with The Man in taking that to heart, it's specifically why I said all of us, including myself, live in that glass house. I didn't just say "you" but said "we" several times to indicate no one is immune to that.
So not to belabor the point, but if it's all a sham, why are you still involved here?
positive - Having met the Queen while out of the country during the time of Thatcher, you would never confuse the two. Very funny mash up with Bill. Personally, the Queen's frumpy style is actually better than the pant suits. Although true, is it relevant?
Not relevant.. just like Trump looking like a turnip is not relevant. Have to say though, Bill makes for a handsome woman. Like to see a Trump mash up. I dont think it would very pretty.Lol
"why are you still involved here?"
Here, as in HL, or here as in the US? HL because it's interesting to see the microcosm of our society in one place, and the US because I am a citizen after all, and this is my country too.
On HL, ultimately we all choose to comment or remain silent about whatever the topic is. Personally, I see so many topics discussed emotionally with rarely a mention that there are underlying reasons for the things that happen - it's usually "that guy's a jerk" or "she's a shill", etc. So I post to them. People can dismiss my comments just as easily as any other, but if anyone takes my comments personally I'd ask if there's a reason why I may have touched a nerve, perhaps by pointing out something true but rarely discussed?
And sham is your word, not mine in this case. I'm just saying that the trends are and have been unidirectional, and I don't know how else to convey the point that without structural changes it's a certainty that we'll go off the rails. I've posted so many links in the past to demonstrate the point, so I really don't care to rehash all of it. But I did come across one man's views that correlate closely to mine, although I think many will disagree with as much as they do me. If anyone cares to spend the time, the link is here:
https://www.scribd.com/document/320557915/How-You-Got-Screwed-1-0
Given the thread and many of our neighbor's political bent, I figured Bill but had to expand and really look to be sure. Yes, he's a handsome elder-woman. Stylish too: that ain't no pantsuit.
On to JIT and trying to avoid responding to your penchant to lowering yourself to personal attacks. Even the oblique ones like the MM moniker you have branded me with, you sly humorist, you.
"My point was his now admitting to understanding that debt is a problem" Now admitting? You know I have railed against the debt for years, Probably before you.
Fiat money: I asked for your solution, you request readers to review previous tomes, then you just said: "Gold used to be a barrier to prevent those in power from over-extending the monetary system, and while it admittedly isn't the best tool today" which sort of leans towards gold then weasel-words it's way to "admittedly not the best tool today." So again, what is your solution? Be blunt, be direct. be to the point. Take a stand, man. It's an anonymous web site, not a lot of risk.
I even threw you a soft ball in the alternative to debt in the second link. Crazy idea, but at least an alternative. Greenspan threw me for a loop recommending a return to gold, caused me much googling, but turns out Greenspan only likes fiat money when it's managed like pegging to a fixed commodity like gold. OK, that I get. Not sure I agree in a absolute sense but, like Greenspan, I think it's a great goa. You could have gone there.... But no, you chose to go nowhere and duck the answer....again. So, I say step up, give us your grand solution to the grand root cause you have discovered.
Government and the individual: So we agree there's force but waiver where the line should be drawn. That will be true, but I had asked you "Why don’t you list some of the “asking for so much” things? Love to see that list but will not prequel to find an answer" to which you declined to answer. I say, "JIT, show us your line. What is too much?" Then we can further the discussion in a meaningful way.
Evils in government: when it comes to kidnapping, murder, sure, government should be held accountable. Not sure what you mean about the war on drugs being kidnapping though.
Collapse to start again: here we strongly disagree. IMO, collapse is a violent solution that will kill thousands, women and children included and there is no guarantee the future would be better. Quite the opposite. We should avoid the "American Spring" and instead look for other less violent solutions.
Clinton's national voter registration program, called "Mi Sueño, Tu Voto/My Dream, Your Vote," was announced Sunday.
Just an fyi, when you go into Mexico to visit a business for a day, you need to go into the immigration building and fill out visa paperwork. None of the signs or documents offer a translation in any other language than Spanish. That's fine. Do unto others though, and let's stop offering translations for 40 languages. We can be a melting pot, but language unites. To ignore that just allows gaps to widen.
WHAT THE HAITIANS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON AND THE CLINTON FOUNDATION WILL SHOCK YOU!
WHERE IS THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA?
Well I guess these Black Lives didn't matter to Hillary "Rob-Them" Clinton and the Clinton foundation. Billions of dollars raised. People still living in tents. Where's the money at Hillary??
https://www.facebook.com/kalepwa/videos/1092404104189865/
sha44ss 1,100,000,000 or 10% percent of the population is starving due to a drought. Not a word about it in the Press. Food for the Poor are looking for donations, 97% of which gets to the people.
My thoughts on the 2016 elections:
Is your fridge running? Because I'll vote for that.
Maritza 
Pyc http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-15/hillarys-health-conspiracy-or-concern
apparently she is healthy for her age - it was not just an internet hoax GC Hannity talked about it for a week lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LYRUOd_QoM&t=49m29s
If you have not had a chance to look at it - watch "Clinton Cash" - The documentary film, directed by M.A. Taylor and written and produced by Danny Fleuette and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon, is based on research that first appeared in the New York Times bestselling book of the same name, authored by Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer.
Hillary is actually very ill. She can barely stand (hence the stool right behind her wherever she speaks, just google all her rally's and you will clearly see it, this is not conspiracy stuff), she has medical professionals within 4 feet of her at all times (and they travel in her vehicles with her), She has a man that holds her up and one that stands 4 feet from her with an injection pen in case she has a seizure.
Also, the reason she has not done a press conference and flash cameras are NOT allowed at her rally's is because any flashing lights cause her to have a type of seizure.
I know this because my (stupid) brother in law works for her campaign (yeah, we argue a lot about this) and he admitted they are very worried about this coming out. This is also why they are trying to get the debate to be a sit down at a table type debate without a live audience. She also wants it to be in 4 parts (debate, take a 15 minute break, debate, another 15 minute break, etc), with the debate and then commentary or videos in between. The mainstream media IS talking about all of this, even MSNBC, but they are not telling the American people WHY the Hillary campaign wants this.
Right. That would explain her ability to go through a grinding primary visiting almost every state multiple times, and giving hundreds of speeches. Only a very ill person could do that.
I'd be way more concerned about your candidate's mental health.
yankeefan agreed, physically Hillary is not up to the task of being president, she has serious disabling health conditions that are being ignored, blood clots, brain seizures, balance problems, shakiness, tremors, Fresnel lenses, heavy duty meds to control all of this,
reasonable people need to know the full story and should have the right to ask for honest answers
(waiting for the sarcasm retort (w/out plagiarism) . . . . how will this one be spinned into a positive for the democrats? )
I do believe ( and to my brother in law has even admitted) that it will become an issue. She can't even debate, do a press conference, or stand for that matter! I don't like her, but I do feel bad for her as this is no way to live.
My brother in law told me that after even a brief 4 or 5 minute speech, her handlers MUST have a chair, right out of camera view for her to plop into as she exits the stage. It is getting worse by the day and they are actually worried that she will collapse on camera during a speech - that would be devastating to her campaign and would be an embarrassment to her.
I don't get why she's in such bad physical health as she's only 68, way too young for all this to be going on.
Your brother should find someone he can support rather than sabotage. Does he put that on his resume --- likes to dish dirt behind the back of his team.
at this point I think I would vote for a corpse over Trump so not sure Hillary's health is a deciding factor fo me. Plus like I said that is what VPs are for if she falls ill.
Sounds like Heidi's bil is on the wrong end of a game of telephone, but time will tell. Not a Hill fan, but don't like rumors. Showing some evidence is the way to go.
Hey Kaine would be a better president - he believes crooked politicians should resign
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/17/tim-kaine-once-said-cheating-politicians-should-resign-including-bill-clinton.html
Oh wait whoops
Dr. Drew says in radio interview that he's "Gravely concerned" about Hillary's health.
Interview was on KABC Radio yesterday.
This is a riot. The world is realizing how completely unfit Trump is for office. The more he opens his mouth, the further his numbers drop. So now Trump's machine is spreading wildly fabricated stories about how Hillary is on her death bed?!!? Just....wow!
BTW Heidi, many, many people are working for Hillary. I really doubt many of them have much of an idea of Hillarys health. And the ones that do are not telling there conservative sister-in-laws so that they can blab it on the local Internet forum. Lol. This election jumped the shark a long time ago.
Democratic politicians don't seem to care any more than Republicans. Mostly middle class, poor, minorities flooded out. Their target audience, supposedly. But the wife doesnt allow work during vacation, except fundraisers for Hill.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/18/politics/obama-vacation-louisiana-flooding/index.html
Dr. Drew? What does Dr. Phil think? LOL...
Far more disturbing than Hillary's poor health is Donald's apparent good health. If he gets elected, we're likely stuck with him for the full four years. That should be enough to terrify anyone.
"That should be enough to terrify "
Hell , I have been terrified for the past eight years.
the daily tracking poll by the LA times has them in a dead heat:
SHOCK POLL: CLINTON 44.0% TRUMP 43.4%...
Where is Hillary? I'd like to hear her answer some questions about the release of new emails, the Clinton Foundation, why she tried to throw Colin Powell under the bus, Huma's relationship with that muslim magazine and articles she wrote.
She's waiting to get Trump's tax records, health records, speech transcripts, and the list of HUGE powerbrokers that have funded him throughout the years. You know, like Putin...... And where's Melania's immigration press conference that was promised a week ago. Can't print up some papers yet. Heck, she can gen up speech in an hour.....
Hillary's answered all the questions about the emails, many times, in front of Congress, to the FBI... No quid pro quo pay for play at Clinton Foundation yet. Bill is stepping down so that he's ready to be Economic Advisor. Colin Powell didn't work for her so hard to toss under bus. Especially for doing what we all know he was doing with the emails. The rest is banter as to who said what to who.
Where's Hillary? She's out at the beach fund raising with Cher. She doesn't have to answer any of your questions. The polls are doing her talking.
Hillary for President ----- "What have you got to lose?"
If she's answered everything why be in hiding? No press conference, no rallies. Just calls into CNN and goes on Jimmy Kimmel. Truthfully I hope she keeps it up and the polls will take care of themselves.
As far as what have I got to lose. More regulations, higher insurance premiums, open borders, higher taxes, a country that will be unrecognizable for my children and grandchildren.
"what have you got to lose?" seriously sg old buddy, you been at that wacky weed up there on planet krypton again?
"If she's answered everything why be in hiding?"
Because she's ahead and just running out the clock. The real question is hold long can Trump's "softening" hold up before he goes nuclear again?
More regulations - could be
Higher insurance premiums - this is regulated at the state level, doubt you will see ObamaCare set a higher bar than present; expect a lower bar actually
open borders -- FUD
higher taxes --- there is no plan for than unless you are rich
a country that will be unrecognizable for my children and grandchildren --- yeah, sure.
Oh, and legalized wacky weed for Cynic to forget it all
I'm too tired to answer all those talking points. I think I'd worry more about Hillary and what the next scandal might be than Trump going nuclear.
Put plainly, Ollie thinks fabrications and innuendo are far more worrisome than nuclear war. Maybe after a nap things will look better...
270 days and still no press conferences. Where is Hillary and what is she hiding from?
She seems to be out on the trail every other day or so. I guess those Geritol cocktails aren't working. Meanwhile current SOS John Kerry says the media should stop reporting terrorist attacts. Is this guy for real?
Yeah he's for real. It's just that you are out of context. Read the entire text. He's saying much more than the sound bite.
But he could have worded that better.
"john (i'm a war hero)kerry is a dope."
Man, talk about holding a grudge. Making fun of Kerry's Vietnam service while supporting a draft deferment shady medical deferment dodger Donald Trump who quotes his Club 54 war against STDs to be his personal Vietnam... That's your hero?
Kerry guy stood on the line, all the Swiftboaters were discredited and even if he got some perks, he was there. Who cares how he was wounded, was he just lucky to get some medals, did his silver spoon make him a glory target, he was there. In war and in peace, this is a good guy whether you agree with his politics or not.
You should be ashamed.
Not only that but he's gonna rack up a pretty good SoS record IMHO. You should be congratulating him. Already makes Hillary look bad.
Congratulating for what, that great Iranian deal where we were taken to the cleaners.
Yeah, the deal has had such bad results... Here's what Israeli Israeli Chief of the General Staff Lieutenant General Gadi Eizenkot has to say. Think he's a bit closer to it than you or I. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/iran-nuclear-deal-israel/472767/
Time will tell but so far it's mostly a success.
Beyond that though, my main point was denigrating Kerry's Vietnam War service is just not called for IMO. Feel good, they knocked him out of the race by Swiftboating him or he let himself be knocked out. However he got snookered, he lost. But it was not valid and I think it's shameful to denigrate his war time actions in defense of our nation.
Congratulating him for what, throwing his medals away? The only one making Hillary look bad is Hillary.
Govt class can never, ever do wrong Ollie, especially if they wear your teams colors. Gotta get the emotion-charged arguments in where you can...
(disclaimer-I have nothing against Kerry personally)
To me, service is always to be respected, medals or not, protests or not, politics or not. He earned the medals risking his life for us.
The fact that later he decided to protest the War and, like many others on that day, tossed some medals over a fence at the Capitol, in the year of the War, 1971, does not diminish the sacrifice in service he made. Frankly, makes it all more relevant.
If in 1971 you thought this was not to be congratulated, I think you missed something.
The fact that later he weasel-worded whether he tossed them nor not is another matter all together but I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt and honor his service, his bravery both in war and in protest, and forgive a lack a maturity.
Perhaps you can't and feel his protest erases the service. Whatever.
What success, how many times has the IAEA done inspections since the deal was signed? They have been testing ballistic missiles since the deal was signed.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/07/15/exclusive-iran-conducts-4th-missile-test-since-signing-nuke-deal.html
Also, more on the exemptions done in secret.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-exemptions-exclusive-idUSKCN1173LA?il=0Sep
Kudos to John Kerry for crapping on the USA and now gets to be Secretary of State. Protesting the country sure turned out great for him. And of course, lets never forget, that wonderful photo op of him and James Taylor singing You've Got a Friend. Diplomacy of the Obama Admin. at it's finest.
Back to Mrs.Clinton. Looks like FBI release today shows some very interesting things.
strangerdanger,
"You should be ashamed."
The men he served with told the story or did you forget?
If you weren't there you got nothing to say about fighting a war or bravery.
The Man - Cruising the Mekong River under enemy fire was not a pleasure, and coming home to negative talk, I can understand John Kerry's attitude, but not his current political actions, which are as out of line as non-veterans Obama and Clinton..
Back to the health thing with Hillary..I've been watching the election hoopla, and since she's back in public after her Hamptons fund raiser, she's looking quite different. My husband and I both noticed it when she was in Ohio. There was a gentleman on the stage who had to steer her by the arm to reach the podium. And she's had many stretches of time without public appearances.
Denise "If you weren't there you got nothing to say about fighting a war or bravery."
That's the standard? Really? I thought two medals and three Purple Hearts sort of spoke for themselves.....
Most of the Swift Boat Volunteer for Truth have been discredited or shrouded in the "fog of war." A couple of the SBVTs received the same awards in the same encounters (but did not turn them down). Some have recanted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry_military_service_controversy
Don't matter. Between the SBVT attack now immortalized as "swiftboating," Kerry's anti-war protests, and his later weasel-wording of those events, he lost his bid to be President --- that's the price he paid. I, for one, give him a mulligan for youth and the time for his protest shenanigans and respect his service and what he risked for his country. Sure, he was a military brat that certainly maneuvered for less risk, but he ended up in a pretty risky role and, IMO, served with honor.
As far as his SoS results, we can differ, but I am impressed with his progress and, sorry, overall so far the Iran deal seems like more good than bad. The Iran Deal does not cover missile production; it covers their nuclear program. That's covered under a UN Resolution and should be handled accordingly. They should be decades away; their last test blew up at take-off. Supposedly the red line is whether the missiles are nuclear capable and debate on that continues.
The new allegation that Iran is keeping more nuclear material than the original deal specified and that the "deal commission" that administers the program: US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany plus Iran made secret arrangements for waivers. There is no report on whether waivers are temporary or permanent. It's based on a report from a US watchdog group called, I kid you not, ISIS, is based on unidentified officials. The administration says there is no violation, all is in compliance, however the ability to "ease" compliance is possible. IMO there is a question of did it happen, and if it did, what are the waivers. For example a temporary waiver is vastly different than a permanent one and might be more acceptable. This story is still TBD.
sd, Danny C,
Did you serve?
FOUR OUT OF FIVE WHO CLAIM TO BE VIETNAM VETS ARE NOT.
Silver Stars among officers were a dime a dozen.
The Man - Piloted helicopters out of Da Nang Air Base for two years, lucky not to be shot down? Then worked for 20 years as an electrical engineer on what are still top secret enhancements to the AH-64 Apache Longbow helicopter, the initial stealth vehicles deployed during both Gulf wars. How did you serve? Let's not forget that Obama and the Clintons did absolutely nothing for our country in terms of military service.
Nope. Both too young and too old to be called on and did not enlist. Neither did I duck or deferment my way out of the two lotteries I was in, just took my chances. And yes, in the interim I protested vocally as often as I could but not exactly a zealot.
I could say I "served" under a decorated hero of the greatest generation or had a bunch of vet friends. Or that I volunteered for a number of years to serve helping amputee vets upon their return home --- great bunch of guys yet very bitter about their stateside reception and care. Rightfully so.
Sure, none of this matters a hoot compared to those who stood on the line to protect our freedom. Not even close. Even in protest I respected that. None of this makes me ineligible to respect Kerry's service or you to discount every piece of it. With all those medals, yes, I would say we should respect his service and not disrespect it.
And yes, I do understand that officers get more medals; that sucks.
Yes, Hilary Clinton and Obama didn't serve. But they didn't get a fake Drs. note to skip the draft like Trump either. That's more like Bill Clinton who did similar Donald dance moves to avoid being inducted. But no one would callously say in 1997 what Trump said:
"It's amazing, I can't even believe it. I've been so lucky in terms of that whole world. It is a dangerous world out there. It's like Vietnam, sort of."
"It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier!"
http://www.redstate.com/diary/Anteater/2016/02/17/trumps-vulgar-admission-avoiding-stds-women-personal-vietnam/
The Man - As an officer and a pilot who flew gunners on low flight missions to use deadly force and save dozens of lives, I may have deserved a medal, but never got one, "dime a dozen" or not. Still have no respect for Obama and the Clintons for not serving, George W. as well for that matter.
DannyC,
Welcome home Brother.
Officer or WO?
Made countless insertions on the UH-1 in the Central highlands late 1967 - early 1969, 6 mo. extension cut short due to someone wanting a sharpshooters badge.
when you're arguing with someone online? Thanks unnamed person: https://youtu.be/T-i-Y6-BWOM
This is what I know about George W, Bush...
George W. Bush joined the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group of the Texas Air National Guard on May 27, 1968, during the Vietnam War. He committed to serve until May 26, 1974, with two years on active duty while training to fly and four years on part-time duty.[1] In his 1968 Statement of Intent (undated), he wrote, "I have applied for pilot training with the goal of making flying a lifetime pursuit and I believe I can best accomplish this to my own satisfaction by serving as a member of the Air National Guard as long as possible."
Following his six weeks of basic training, Bush began 54 weeks of flight training at Moody Air Force Base, Georgia.[2] In December 1969, Bush began 21 weeks of fighter interceptor training on the F-102 in Houston at the 147th's Combat Crew Training School, soloing in March 1970 and graduating in June 1970. When he graduated, he had fulfilled his two-year active-duty commitment.[1]
In November 1970, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, commander of the 111th Fighter Squadron, recommended that Bush be promoted to First Lieutenant, calling him "a dynamic outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top notch fighter interceptor pilot." He said that "Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries," and that "he is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing."[3] Bush was promoted.[citation needed]
Air National Guard members could volunteer for active duty service with the Air Force in a program called Palace Alert, which deployed F-102 pilots to Europe and Southeast Asia, including Vietnam and Thailand. According to three pilots from Bush's squadron, Bush inquired about this program but was advised by the base commander that he did not have the necessary flying experience (500 hours) at the time and that the F-102 would soon be retired.[1][4]
Bush's four-year part-time obligation to serve required him to maintain his immediate readiness to be recalled to active duty in the event of a national emergency. Bush performed part-time Guard duty as an F-102 pilot through April 1972, logging a total of 336 flight hours.[5]
Prior to April 1972 Bush had fulfilled more than the required hours of service, but with more than two years remaining before his discharge. He volunteered his services on several projects, including a political campaign. After April 1972, Bush may have failed to meet the attendance requirements established for members of the Air National Guard. In mid-1972, he failed to meet the Air Force requirement for an annual physical examination for pilots, and lost his authorization to be a pilot.[6] According to Bush's pay records, he did not attend any drills between mid-April and the end of October 1972. He drilled in Alabama in October and November 1972, and again in January 1973; what duties he performed are unknown. Bush returned to his home unit in Houston and was paid for his service in April 1973 through July 1973; again, what duties he performed are not documented in any way.
On October 1, 1973, Bush was honorably discharged from the Texas Air National Guard and transferred to the inactive reserves in Denver, Colorado.[7] He was discharged from the Air Force Reserve on November 21, 1974, ending his military service.
We've had many wars and in my opinion some were unnecessary. If a presidential candidate or a president didn't serve, I'm not going to hold it against them especially if it's a war they did not agree with. On the other hand, lying and being deceptive to get out of serving is a whole different animal.
Bush's service record is somewhat on par with Clinton although with far less dancing. Clinton did a number of dodges, including using political patronage (like Bush) ending up with the ROTC route but reneging of that after Nixon announced the ramp down. Bush undoubtedly benefited from being the scion of the Bush legacy to join the Guard. Certainly it couldn't have been his grades or resume that got him selected amongst other young sober Texans. He trained on obsolete planes so would never have been called without a do-over retraining program but he did learn to fly. And for his 4-year part-time duty, he was basically AWOL drinking and partying. Texas thought he was in Alabama, Alabama didn't care where he was. Nonetheless, nothing illegal in all that.
IMO both these guys danced on the edge of legality on the draft but legal they were. Clinton had to dance much harder than Bush but his father wasn't rich, famous, and connected. He had to pull his a$$ out by his bootstraps :>)
Put that up against Trump's 1964-1968 1A status, backed up by a physical, and then magically turning 4F in 1968 for bone spurs as his college deferments expired. Apparently he had congenital bone spurs for a over FOUR years yet he can't even remember which foot (subsequently his campaign issued it was both feet --- stranger still). If you can't smell fraud and money in that..... here's the funniest part ---- his birthdate put him in the 300's in the lottery, his cheating was all for naught or he was practicing his famous double-down that would serve him well later in life.
"If conservative treatment fails to treat symptoms of heel spurs after a period of 9 to 12 months, surgery may be necessary to relieve pain and restore mobility." Web Md
How about after 4 years? Maybe he just could not afford the cure.
Somehow, medals or not, seems very harsh to disrespect John Kerry's service record.
Back to Mrs. Clinton, maybe there is a reason she has not been on the campaign trail. Blames coughing on Trump.
https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/watch-hillary-clintons-violent-cough-strikes-again-in-ohio-video
She has not given a press conference in 9 months - even mainstream media is reporting she is ill.
Not sure if she's sick, but dry throat coughing fits are the worst when they happen to you in public. At least she finally showed up in public, so that there is ANYTHING to discuss about her.
She did a speech today and could not even begin because she was coughing so badly. When she finally did speak it was barely audible. Then, after a few minutes of speaking she started again. I really want to know what"s wrong and why this is happening! I am so surprised that the media covering this are not concerned/curious.
Also no mention of it on the Big 3 (ABC, CBS, NBC) evening news shows. New campaign slogan is Kaine and Unable.
Clevelanders have neen complaining about the polluted air since mid-July when a foul wind first blew into town.
Dry throat is the worst I sincerely hope she recovers soon from a humanistic standpoint - if she is indeed I'll I hope she gets treatment.
When Initially stated she was ill everyone jumped on me but if she has ailments I sincerely hope that she addresses them forthwith
So now word is her staff smashed some of her old phones with hammers.
Guess she didn't just wipe them "with a cloth" like previously stated...
SD, concerning Trump's comment about Kerry..it was more than harsh it was downright disgusting. Only a low life talks like that.
Trump is the perfect example that money can't buy class....
positive - I don't think Trump or anyone else is questioning John Kerry's military record. That was attempted by "swift boats for truth" long ago and failed. What is now in question are his political actions as SOS, especially the $400,000 ransom paid in cash to Iran.
As she sits idly by waiting for election day to come she's dropping in the polls. I'm sure this is not where she thought she would be with only slightly two months out from election day
positive - It was a $4,000,000 ransom, not $400,000. Extremely dangerous as a temptation for additional coercion by our enemies.
I don't like either candidate. But I will be damned before I vote for a man accused of raping a 13 year old girl, and who violently raped his own wife after ripping the hair out of her head.
Let's hope in 4 years the republicans actually put up someone who isn't a blithering idiot and child molester/rapist.
Yup, no problem questioning the $4M, optics very bad. While it is not really ransom, the timing stinks. The Iranian advertising as a quid pro quo is not a positive sign of them moving forward in world diplomacy although I can understand why they think this helps them look tough for hardliners in their country.
Her coughing is that big of a concern? She's been holding rallies for months on end where she's shouting the whole time. I'm surprised she and Trump have any voice left at all.
The payment to Iran was not ransom, since the money belonged to them to begin with. And the timing was unavoidable in the sense that it would have been unthinkable to repay them them the money without making sure Iran was releasing our people.
As to Clinton's chances, I can now see her losing the election simply because she seems so boring.
It was 400 million not 4 million that was paid in hard currency. Those funds go back to the days the Shah of Iran was in power. They were for the purpose of buying military fighter aircraft. One could argue that we really don't owe them the money as they held our hostages for 444 days plus we lost 8 servicemen in the failed hostage rescue attempt. Funny how Obama said everyone knew about the payment but not the details that the hostages would not be released until the hard currency was on the tarmac. He said we just couldn't just cut them a check but just days later the 1.3 billion that was frozen was paid via Fed wires in amount of just under 100 million each. Meanwhile White House press secretary Josh Earnest says he believes that some of these funds are being used to fund terrorist groups like Hezbollah.. The Clinton email scandal keeps getting more legs every day. Today we learned the Platte River, the company in charge of one of her servers bleach bit her e-mails from the server while under subpoena after failing to delete e-mails as instructed earlier by Clinton's team.
As far as the ransom that was paid to Iran. Of course it was a ransom, to say it was not is a demonstration of the delusional liberal fog.
The US loads pallets of foreign currency on a private jet in the middle of the night to deliver and execute an airport exchange. Read the words of Pastor Saeed Abedini, one of the US hostages being held, as they waited at the airport being told that they were waiting for another airplane to arrive and only after that plane arrived, and was secured, would they be released. This is not a ransom?
This administration and the criminal in waiting to assume the role is a disgrace and anyone supporting her should be considered either highly deranged or an enemy of the constitution and this country.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2016/08/05/american-hostage-forced-to-wait-for-2nd-plane-before-iran-release.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stop-blue-lives-matter_us_57bc6d8ae4b07d22cc39ab0a
Still think this administration is not directly attacking the police ?
$1.7 billion? Way off on the numbers. But this was about a nuke deal with Iran which has enabled them to at least harass the US Navy in the Straight of Hermuz
"but just days later the 1.3 billion that was frozen was paid via Fed wires in amount of just under 100 million each." You have a source for that KB? Seems pretty hard to do.
"Still think this administration is not directly attacking the police." Sorry Skippy.. and where do you see the administration (which incidentally does not include Hillary) involved?
This will be an interesting law.
It was the interest of the 400 million.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/24/us-paid-iran-1-3b-two-days-after-400m-cash-transfer.html
Got it. It's a Captain Obvious moment. Sorry that you and FOX were caught unawares by previously released information highlighting a settlement compromise that saved us a pile of money. Yes, 1.7B in total, 400M in principal and 1.3B in interest for holding the money since 1979. This is roughly half what the Iranians were suing for: over $10B. It was expected that we would lose in world court for up to $4B. So we got a $2.3B compromise to the favor of the U.S.
Think the Iranians got about around a 4% interest rate for 37 years which is well under what they could have reaped in most investments for the time period.
Hopefully you were not surprised at the number since it was announced at the same time the $400M was announced and obviously was paid post the hostage release so not ransom either. Pretty sure it was cash this time too since US Banks can not deal with Iranian Banks.
http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/
Or instead of American fair play, we could have just gone Full Trump, launched a surprise attack based on seeing millions of Iranians yelling "death to America," declare war later, and then take all their oil in spoils to the victor.
As stated in the article,
Briefing reporters last week, a senior U.S. official involved in the negotiations said the interest payments were made to Iran in a "fairly above-board way," using a foreign central bank. But the official, who wasn't authorized to be quoted by name and demanded anonymity, wouldn't say if the interest was delivered to Iran in physical cash, as with the $400 million principal, or via a more regular banking mechanism.
If the funds were paid in cash, why in 13 equal payments of 99,999,999.99 and a final payment of 10 million. Why would the
Foreign Central Bank have that much hard currency on hand? Did we deliver it to them? Why not pay them directly as we did with the 400 million. You say we made out on the deal because we only paid them 4% interest. I say we owe the nothing for the pain and suffering the 52 hostages had to go through for 444 days plus losing 8 of our servicemen. If the government payed them to show Iran good faith to get the nuclear deal done then I say no deal. They have taken us as fools time and time again and we show no spine in standing up to them.
Valerie Jarrett is Iranian & the real President and Obama is Muslim and Putin kicks our ass on a daily basis...and China don't put the steps down for Air Force None...and Hillary can't stop coughing the Demons out of her.
Yup things be great...the Monkeys Dead - the Show is Over - See Yah!
RU "SD - So you support Iran's enormous payments by the US to foster their nuke plans?" Of course not. I support not losing in the World Court for a bigger loss of taxpayer dollars. I also think stealing others money and resources as in Trump's "spoils of war" strategy is un-American. So is being judge and jury outside of the appropriate court of law. The hostages were compensated for their service.
RU again with the tin foil hat... "Jarrett was born in Shiraz, Iran, to American parents James E. Bowman and Barbara Taylor Bowman. One of her maternal great-grandfathers, Robert Robinson Taylor, was an architect who was the first accredited African American architect, and the first African-American student enrolled at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." WIKI Jarrett's parents are African-American......
Obama is Muslim ---- oh please. You know he is really the antichrist, born in Nigeria, with no religious affiliation. Hillary is his numero uno angel, thus the cough.
Putin only kicks our ass because Trump is revealing our secret strategies while his campaign manager is Putin's top consultant. Once the Trump/Putin bromance is fully consummated, the Don will learn Putin's tricks for getting an 82% approval rating (hint: kill your competitors).
OK, the stairs are the real thing. Now you got something to really be upset about: airport cluster....... ---- a global calamity.
Wow...Now they caught Hillary wearing an earpiece... she's like the gift that keeps on giving, lol!
Accusations of paying Iran for hostage releases and destroying thousands of documents. I think you should more appropriately be comparing this administration to Ronald Reagan, not Nixon, lol.
Well, "they" and you are pretty funny. I love the conspiracy that she was being fed lines from the earpiece. If that's true, "hey H e i d i, there's gonna be some firing goin on........" Because they were giving her suck advice.
From the NYTimes-Dec 24, 2015 regarding compensation for Iranian hostages.
"It has been 36 years, one month, 14 days, obviously, until President Obama signed the actual bill, until Iran was held accountable,” he said.
The law now stands to bring closure to an episode that riveted the nation and ruptured America’s ties with Iran. The very agreement that won the hostages’ release in 1981 barred them from seeking restitution. Their legal claims were repeatedly blocked in the courts, including an appeal denied by the Supreme Court. Congress tried but failed to pass laws granting them relief.
But this year, vindication came in a decision that forced the Paris-based bank BNP Paribas to pay a $9 billion penalty for violating sanctions against Iran, Sudan and Cuba. Some of that money was suddenly available for victims of state-sponsored terrorism. Congress was also motivated by many members’ anger over the Iran nuclear accord".
These type of penalties would usually deposited to the US Treasury general fund so the compensation was basically paid by the US taxpayer. Interesting that this was added to the omnibus spending bill signed on December 18th (last day of Congress before their long holiday break) and two weeks before our payment to them and shortly thereafter the Nuclear deal.
Good update. Interesting how they finally finagled it and too bad Iran didn't cough it up although it was kind of Iranian sponsored.
It really wasn't paid from tax dollars; it was paid by BNP profits turned into penalities from selling things to Iran which we then deposited in a taxpayer account.
But they were compensated under Obama and that's the important part.
Compensated under Obama is the important part? You have got to be kidding me, connect the dots, you are surely smart enough to know this was all put together, these payments and the ones to Iran to get the nuclear deal done.
Connect the dots....... Hmm, so you think Iran would have balked on the nuclear deal without us giving them all their money back. That's one opinion.
Perhaps start with it was their money.
Then the nuclear deal which was contingent on opening frozen Iranian assets and lifting sanctions put in place because of the nuclear program. The first sanctions were in 1979 and were US only and were because of the hostages. We lifted those in 81 (Mr. Reagan, tear down those sanctions), reinstituted for aggressive actions in 87 (oops, changed his mind), turned off oil in 95, joined the UN and the world in 2006 over nuclear and tripled down in 2010 (shoot, that was Obama....) with fines of up to $1M and 20-years for those dealing with Iran. In 2011 (damn, Obama again) we doubled down again basically not letting a needle into Iran.
So now we opened up the assets in return for cessation of the nuclear program under a, as Hillary says, a distrust but verify arrangement. So far the program seems to be working. Ballistic missiles and state-sponsored terrorism are still a problem but not in the deal. For ballistic missiles, frankly, who are we to say a country can't develop missiles.
Why we didn't link state-sponsored terrorism in to the nuclear deal is a mistake IMO. The world should have taken a stand and linked it in. Now if we act on it, impose sanctions, Iranian hardliners will blame us for reneging on the nuclear deal (they will have no problem in linking it for political gain) and try to restart the nuclear program. At minimum, we should have put words in the deal to the effect of world-actions for detecting state-sponsored terrorism support. We will take the action anyway, we just made it harder to get the world to join and gave the Iranian hardliners a scapegoat if we do.
Now, on returning the arms money. First, it was the Iranians. Second --- sure dot-wise, once you lift the sanctions, unfreeze the assets, of course one would expect we unfreeze these assets. Third, we were going to lose in court, the court might render a decision at any time and one would think after convening since the Algiers Accord, they were ready to call it quits. Iran wanted $10B. Best estimates is that we would lose for $3M to $4B. In truth, off the $1.7B, only $300M was interest/penalty, the rest was principle and inflation. So we owed them $400M which turns into $1.3B with inflation and we put $300M on top. Last I checked, $1.7B is less than $4B and way less than $10B.
So sure, there are dots. It's called unfreezing Iranian assets locked up by the nuclear freeze and once that's done, probably a good idea to settle legal cases that include frozen assets over hostages that have been free and now are compensated since you gonna lose in court.
But I don't think the nuclear deal was contingent on this deal and even if is was: so what? Better to pay less now than more later. Or would you have suggested just keeping it.
Hillary had a medical episode at the 9/11 ceremony this morning. Leaving she stumbles and gets helped into her van.
I truly think she suffers from exhaustion amongst other things
http://youtu.be/iAWaT9AwMjQ
She was carried to her van
It's OK, she just won't visit any hot countries (or states) while in office. I'm safe...
If I were on her schedule I'd be wobbly a lot more often - and, I suspect - so would some of you.
If she can't handle campaigning how is she ever going to handle running the country? Let the excuses begin.
Most likely just exhaustion but frankly an exhausted Clinton is better than Trump any day of the week. Even Kaine is better than Trump - for that matter Pence too.
Trump is the equivalent of a Kardashian except that they didn't inherit their money, file multiple corporate bankruptcies and shockingly they have more class.
Bonv, the temperature in lower Manhattan is about 4 degrees warmer than it is out here today. It's not terribly hot. She's clearly very unhealthy.
Say what you will about Trump, but a conscious president is always better than an unconcious one. What if she passes out during the State of the Union?
Every losing campaign has a moment that is the beginning of the end. For Romney, it was the 47% comment. For Dukakis, it was the tank photo. For Hillary, it will be today.
1988LG - not convinced that she's significantly unhealthy. The rumors have been going on for over 3 years that she's very sick and even close to death (according to extremist websites) so time will tell. IMO she's still better than the mentally incompetent Trump - imagine what his mouth will get the country into.
Trump isn't mentally incompetent. That's as much of a ridiculous conspiracy theory as that Hillary is an illuminati humanoid lizard. Trump is much more competent than Hillary. He just doesn't have a filter. Neither do I, but that doesn't make me incompetent.
I believe Hillary is unhealthy. My mother is 65, slightly overweight, smoked until two years ago, and would rather go to lunch with her friends than excercise, and I can guarantee you that she would not pass out on a 78 degree day. Clearly something is wrong.
@1988LG - exhaustion would cause her to pass out but is there something else, time will tell. Like I said the theories and close to death rumors have been going on for a very long time so I don't think it's anything extremely serious but I'd still take her over the alternative. Re: Trump - hardly a conspiracy theory. Many people, myself included, believe he is mentally incompetent based on a lot of his statements and actions.
Updated:
"Hillary Clinton has pneumonia and has been advised to rest, the Democratic presidential nominee’s doctor said on Sunday, after Clinton abruptly left the 9/11 memorial ceremony in downtown Manhattan because, her campaign initially said, she “felt overheated”. " That would explain the coughing fit from a few days ago.
"but a conscious president is always better than an unconscious one".
Have to agree with most of the presidents we've had, but not when Trump is concerned..a man that acts like he's on crack. We are better off with his VP choice taking over.
Concerning Hillary's health, well I hope she gets better even though I'm not crazy about her either, but would never wish illness on anyone. IMO she is another nominee that I'd prefer her VP choice to take over.
1988LJ, the good the thing about you and Trump not having filters is that everyone gets to see what you and Trump are all about without hesitation. Much appreciated. ..
Sorry, but regardless of health, Trump is better than Hillary in every way. He's not a phony, his policies are excellent, he cares about rural, middle-class Americans like you or I, and he's from the area!
Hillary's "pneumonia" or fainting or whatever it is, is just the topping on the cake. I think these close polls we've seen over the past week or two will begin to go heavily Trump as the American people realize who Hillary realize is, and what she isn't.
I'm sure he cares that there are dangerous objectionable people whom frequent dollar stores putting the good middle/upper middle class at risk..
1988LJ- I can certainly see why you'd think he'd make a great president.
If he actually cared about lower-middle class workers he wouldn't have spent decades trying to avoid paying those same people whether contractors, those impacted by his bankruptcies, those jobs outsourced to China and all those jobs that he hires foreign workers for because US wages are so high. You can say many things but that he suddenly cares about lower/middle class workers is not one of those things - granted he tells you he cares but actions over decades speak larger than words. But that's right his latest excuse is that it's not his fault that he outsourced those jobs so I guess it's okay.
Yes, when he shoves all those illegal alien young models into sardine dormitories its because they are the little people.
When Trump U defrauds, its a teachable moment for the little guy on how Trump really gets ahead.
His tax plan cares for the uber rich netting his family $3B if he becomes President.
Yes, a man of the people who has always strived to support the middle class.
Bonv, I don't think 1988LJ cares about the lower middle class since he has stated in the past he is amongst the upper middle class. Apparently when the Dollar General first opened according to him that type of store lures the wrong kind. He was very concerned about his safety and his family's safety..having to consume the same air with the dangerous undesirable lower class who shop at such places. Even though he considered shopping there himself....
Well the lavender is still a dud at this point, but I'm not giving up. I trimmed my rose campion and that's doing well. My basil, parsley and tomato plants are thriving.
Thanks for asking. :)
If it was Trump who left early all the libs and the media wouldn't be so kind. She had a security meeting Friday and press conference now all of a sudden she has pneumonia. If she was so sick why go to the 9/11 Memorial in the first place?. I call BS.
Who cares about illegal immigrants? They're lucky nobody's calling for them to be exterminated.
Anyways, the "Dollar General" thing was a year ago and I'm not running for office.
Actually if Trump left early it would be no big deal but had Hillary stayed home - she would have been crucified by Trump, his supporters and the media. Having suffered from pneumonia - the fatigue and coughing were the worst ever similar to her coughing the other day. Once you get started you can't stop.
She's had coughing fits since January... that's a long time to have pneumonia and not know it.
There was no "better option" for Hillary. Either way, she has proven herself to be too unhealthy for president. Anyone who votes for her is a fool, unless you're particularly fond of Tim Kaine.
Actually she's healthy enough for President considering some of the issues JFK and FDR had. She's also proved herself mentally competent and stable unlike Trump - whether you like her policies is another matter.
Yes, illegal immigrants are lucky that the mobs aren't calling for their extermination - how very astute and kind of you. But considering Mrs. Trump was most likely an illegal immigrant I guess that's a good thing for her. Wasn't she scheduled to have a press conference to address her immigration status in July?
It looks like she has a some sort of neurological condition. If it was pneumonia then why was she out walking around after leaving Chelsea's apartment saying she feels great. Something's not right. I hope she gets better if indeed it is pneumonia.
Not a Hillary fan, but have suffered in the past to "walking pneumonia". You can function but you feel like crap for what seems to be forever. Mine lasted about 7 months. Not fun! Hope she feels better.
Perhaps true Hot Corner, but you didn't have a medical team walking beside you 24/7 like Hillary does.
If she had pneumonia 7 months ago, she would have known 7 months ago.
She would have known 7 months ago Mark Mc., but she would have kept it from the public. That's her MO.
"It looks like she has a some sort of neurological condition." Dr. Oz-kb has spoken...
If I was a guessing man....:>) Hillary seems prone to overwork and exhaustion which exhibits itself in the usual fashions. I would also surmise this was at the root of her SoS downtime and subsequent recovery.
I used to work with this gent, a virtual genius. But he would work non-stop for months, well beyond those surrounding him, yet he never forced his style on others. Then suddenly he would disappear for a week. Could be contacted for advice and direction on emergencies but pretty much off the grid. Turns out he literally crashed and had to recharge the batteries. Kept this up for the decades I worked with him and may be doing it still.
Trump does not seem to suffer any of this, I could say he is coddled: many speeches on the tarmac, when talking in town he steps from Escalade to green room to podium and then back to the most comfortable private charter in the world. Yet he obviously has abundant energy and drive.
When I did a world-wide speaking tour, I could see how "the other side" lived. Being very "frequent," I flew first class, hotel upgrades, chauffeured, wined and dined everywhere. In Asia, big leather-seated Mercedes were the standard. Stood in very few lines. Room service when needing a rest, clothes cleaned by hotel, never did dishes, made beds, etc. and my giant four-suit rolling bag for all my stuff. All I did work-wise was edit the charts, turn up and speak for 15 minutes to an hour ---- most around 30 minutes, do some email, and move on. Had to do some reading and attend other talks to remain topical. Admitted to my sympathetic wife that frankly I had it much easier than she at home. After a few weeks I was a talking puppet. Not a bad gig and Trump has far more conveniences, more than Hillary.
Frankly, Hillary should release her medical records but given his style, chances are Trump will have to force that through his release. Right now Hillary is ahead when it comes to health records release. Trump's health release bar setting is at a circus level. He promises he just went for a physical, hopefully release will be faster than Melania's press conference from something more rigorous than his hippy-dippy doctor.
Many folks work their way through walking pneumonia; that's why it has that name. Dry coughing is part of it but until you get the chest xray, no one knows so that's bunk thinking that she knew at the first cough. Some don't notice or fight it. Others end up pushing it too far and that's where recovery can take some time. Once down, there's no way to come back at full strength without some rest and full recovery can take days, weeks, or months -- it just depends. Usually though, you feel better, not perfect but better, in a few days and can operate on a careful schedule. My guess is Hillary pushed it too far and will have to modify schedule. Often this can be done without effecting your output.
Generally walking pneumonia is a one time event and does not reoccur. However, working yourself to exhaustion and getting something else can be a way of life.
Next let's see the taxes so we can better understand his financial health.
There is no point to Mark Mc's comment.
Maja2 - A+
Strangerdanger - A+
Felipe - Don't worry, Trump will not win. Even if he did, he will not deport you. He is just saying all kinds of stupid things.
Some of us can't afford a medical team Mark! Lol!
I couldn't get through Strangerdangers dialogue (not enough time) but he is probally right in his eyes. ;)
https://m.sputniknews.com/us/20160912/1045214398/google-clinton-manipulation-election.html
A variation of this had come up previously I think. Even if the conclusions are incorrect I think the subject matter is quite interesting when applied to any number of topics.
Sure its definitely pneumonia - here she is playing pull my finger (Classic fart faint game) with Dr. Lisa Bardack in the street - https://i.sli.mg/tmmPh9.jpg - she is undergoing a neurological exam.
"Examine the patient's hands. Look for intrinsic hand, thenar and hypothenar muscle wasting.
Test the patient's grip by having the patient hold the examiner's fingers in their fist tightly and instructing them not to let go while the examiner attempts to remove them. Normally the examiner cannot remove their fingers. This tests the forearm flexors and the intrinsic hand muscles. Compare the hands for strength asymmetry.
Finger flexion is innervated by the C8 nerve root via the median nerve."
Work cited - https://informatics.med.nyu.edu/modules/pub/neurosurgery/motor.html
Been coughing since 2008 - that"s a helluva pneumonia.
Total BS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ0hYABkbMo
If she is sick, and my gut tells me something isn't right, why not give up the political life, enjoy the money you have and especially enjoy those grandchildren. You can't get that time back no matter how powerful or rich you are.
So Trump being "mentally unstable" purely on conjecture is A-OK, but doing the same re: Hillary's obvious health condition (whatever it is) in invalid? The double standard continues....
Trump is mentally ill and therefore shouldn't be president, Hillary is physically ill (and we aren't talking pneumonia), "but hey... it's cool... whatever...."
IMO neither is fit to run our country...
There is no double standard coming from me. Lol
Mark, I'm not one for doctors, so I went about 3 weeks before seeing one with what was diagnosed as a bad cold, went another 2 weeks or so before I was diagnosed properly and medicated. Started to feel better then bad again then better then bad. The doctor finally told me to get bed rest for 2weeks or be hospitalized. I did one week and feeling better went back to work still medicated. At that time I was working a 40 hour week. It almost killed me, I'm sure Hillary is putting in a few more hours than that.
I'm not faulting you for having a delayed diagnosis... you don't have a hospital's Chair of Internal Medicine on speed dial and making house calls like Clinton does.
Who, up until this weekend, basically said Clinton was in perfect health... so either the previous coughing, fatigue, etc. wasn't pneumonia, the doctor sucks for not catching it months ago, or something isn't the whole truth...
So true @positive - maybe they can both decide to throw in the towel and leave it to their VP picks.
Hardly double standards @JR considering that there have been dedicated websites/"special reports" from extreme groups for years now about her health whereas there aren't the equivalent "reports" set up about Trump's mental issues - sure comments but not the same dedication, OTT claims and vitriol as some of those sites.
Bonv-
I'm talking about the liberals' double-standard: opinion that Trump is mentally ill should disqualify him, but opinion that Hillary is seriously physically ill should not disqualify her.
Thanks, JR - they should both go but I guess that's not going to happen at this point. This is the most depressing election and choices ever (IMO).
+1 Bonv. If this is what we have to look forward to from the intelligence level of the American electorate, I'm starting to wonder... why bother?
"Why bother? There are Supreme Court justices to be appointed"
And that may be the ONLY reason... and even SCOTUS has been invaded by political agenda, and is far from the objective constitutionalist court it was designed to be. So again- not sure THAT is even worth the bother, either. But it's certainly more worth the bother than POTUS is.
Even Mark Levin, who was a "Never Trump"er, is begrudgingly voting for Trump- he doesn't want to- but feels he has been left no choice in the binary election (binary meaning there are only 2 people who are going to win). So we are back to picking for the lesser of 2 evils.
I think I posted this in one of the other threads, but it's a very interesting take on voting for the lesser of 2 evils vs not voting:
http://stepstopoliticalepiphany.com
Ha ha guys, very funny NOT. I don't like Hillary either, but poking fun of her age and health is really hitting below the belt...quite trivial and immature.
Shows the shallowness and superficialness of some people...
Of course coming from the "Dumpsters"
Just put me in the basket of deplorable people. A presidential candidates health and age are and should be a concern to everyone planning on voting.
It should all be on the record just like a candidates tax returns and other documents. Speaking of hypocritical... so far Clinton has released detailed taxes and medical reports. So far Trump continues to hide his taxes and his spouse's immigration details.
Clinton has released more medical health information that Trump. We have her history and current tests. We only have his current tests.
It's not a strength test; the question is not who is more healthy, it's are they healthy enough. So far, I don't think pneumonia is in the Constitution as a deal breaker.
The Debates will pretty much seal the deal at this point.
Bonv: The immigration story is actually pretty dead. Photographer recanted on the dates and liberal-lawyer states he has seen the papers but that it's moot given the new dates on the photos.
She was still raised a Communist in a Communist country. But that's OK because Trump just loves Putin; he's got a thing for strong men. His new ruler amore is Egypt's Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a Muslim version of Putin, ex military, leader of the Morsi coup, 1,400 dead and 16,000 locked up in initial protest massacre, incarcerated forever now, banned the Muslim Brotherhood making it easy to win elections, and further repressions combined with positive PR moves and a great time with Putin.
Why is Trump best friends with any Dictator who comes by? Foreshadowing?
Hillary cancelled all her events for today and tomorrow, hmm....
One of her "surrogates" were on MSNBC this afternoon and (accidentally?) said she might "take some more time off to prepare for the 1st debate." Hmm, again...
Yeah, but she just fine...
I was actually surprised that she got back on the road to begin with. When I had pneumonia I took 2 weeks off from work and then spent another 2 working from home (and yes I consider myself very lucky to have that flexibility). There is no quick rebound with pneumonia even in the mildest form.
Doctors said she had pneumonia and she showed all of the classic symptoms but it's Hillary and there's always a different standard applied to her. One of the best is how people condemn her for staying with her husband because he cheated on her and yet never condemn Trump for cheating on his spouses, raping his first wife (although she dropped the claim later on) and additional rape allegations but yes she's the evil one for staying in the marriage.
"Assuming she really had pneumonia." ---- Ollie
Ollie --- Do you assume Fat Trump has a functioning brain ??
Don't forget his veins are clogged with cholesterol. Keeps oxygen from circulating in the brain ......
LOL
You're right, with Hillary, I should never assume what comes out of her mouth is the truth. First it was allergies, then over heated, then pneumonia, then maybe the flu that Bill had said. Yes, maybe Trump has high cholesterol, as do many deplorable people, but it hasn't slowed him down. He hasn't cancelled rallies, needs to be helped upstairs, seen on 9/11 wobbling around and being held up by a post until she was practically thrown into the van.
I don't hold Hillary to any different standard because she's a women. You are assuming by my name that I am a male. Never assume.
HG, I won't go to name calling. It makes people take you less serious.
Another glaring reason to NOT vote for Clinton: Wall Street desperately wants her over Trump.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/296958-hedge-funders-pony-up-for-hillary-clinton-super-pac
The couple of donations that JIT noted are huge, but just a drop in the Wall Street bucket highlighting two lightning rod donators. These guys are influential but they do not own Wall Street or The Banks or even the Hedge Funds; the miniscule part of Wall Street they represent. http://fortune.com/2016/08/02/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-campaign-fundraising-wall-street-donors/
It is simply true that Wall Street wants Hillary over Trump but the rationale is more complex. And frankly, it's not just Wall Street. Almost all business favors Hillary over Trump. I guess you could say, business-wise --- Trump sucks.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/donors-in-most-industries-back-hillary-clinton-1473462212
Trump says he knows Wall Street. And they know him. They just don't like him. And it's not based on banking issues, he's just bad for business for them.
When we go to the issues, one would imagine that Wall Street would overwhelmingly favor Trump. Overwhelmingly. He is so much more pro-Wall Street than Hillary it would make a banker blush. Even when he is against them, he is actually for them. Extermination regulations, lowering taxes, pro bail outs ---- he's a banker's dream.
Some days he wants to destroy Dodd-Frank, other days he only wants to mortally wound it. Hillary wants to expand and strengthen it. Trump states he will not touch the Big Banks, Hillary will break up any that pose systemic risk, a punt for sure but still tougher than Trump. Both favored the Big Bank bailout and Trump even offered Trump University courses in how to profit from Mortgage failures. Both know Wall Street, it's just that Wall Street does not like to work with Trump. Even if profitable, he is bad banking business for them as a businessman. Many Hedge fund managers financially support Trump, many Wall Streeters work on the Trump campaign. He is not totally shunned.
Trump's biggest Wall against Wall Street is taxing Hedge Fund manager profits. Oh yeah, he's gonna treat them like ordinary income earning citizens. Tough guy, right. Middle Amerika's best friend. Gonna make you great again. Sure, the pea is under the middle walnut Don. Even after that, Don's tax plan may end up taxing them less than they are today. Like all things Trump, you have to watch all three of Don's hands to know which walnut the pea is under. Or what day of the week it is. Hillary will tax Hedge fund profits as simple income. Simple.
So there you have it. On the policies, plans, and proposals, Trump is Wall Street's guy.
So why isn't he? Because they think as a businessman he is bad for their business and regardless of what he says, they feel the same is true as President.
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/where-do-clinton-and-trump-stand-on-wall-street/
Now that's interesting. Wall street WANTS Clinton, so all the (liberal democrat) 99%-ers on here should take that into consideration... and vote for someone else. Since they all think Wall Street is one of the great evils of this country.
Really not a surprise wall street wants someone that hasn't failed dozens of businesses, filed 4 bankruptcies and had to get Saudi and Russian loans because he doesn't pay money back. For all those anti Wall st people the good thing is that Trump has already said he'd put his Goldman Sachs finance campaign manager to head up the Fed.
LOL - Hillary's not telling the truth about her health while Trump spent more than 5 years lying about the fact that Obama wasn't born in the US. But that's right only Trump gets to tell lies.
"Actually most business wants Clinton. Think about that."
EXACTLY.
If Wall Street wants a republican, it's a bad thing, businesses are evil, and not to be trusted. But if Wall Street wants a democrat, it's a good thing, they are smart and wise and we should listen to them. LOL The liberal hypocrisy has become laughable at this point.
Where are all the 99%-decrying Wall Street and their apparent choice of Clinton?
-crickets-
"Actually most business wants Clinton. Think about that."
I wonder how those in the Occupy movement feel about Clinton, how the duplicity of her words and actions must be causing all sorts of mental anguish lol.
Up is down! White is black! The word "is" doesn't mean what you think it means! (Oh wait, that was her husband - nevermind that one!)
Obviously you did not read the WSJ piece jr.
First, those decrying Wall Street are called Bernie Supporters and some Hillary.
Second, if you had read the WSJ piece, you would see Hillary's plans include:
- Strengthening Dodd-Frank
- Breaking up any big bank that has systemic risk
- Actually tax hedge fund manager profits as income (unlike Trump who won't and may lower)
- Not personally profiting on failed mortgages
This is the majority of what those decrying Wall Street want, she just does not go as far as Bernie who would have burned it down. Trump, on the other hand, wants to lower regulations and rules, lower Wall Street taxes, and may be even give Hedge Fund managers additional tax breaks.
This is not Democrat or Republican; the banks are mostly agnostic in that regard usually going for the Republican. Yes, the banks know Hillary, she is from NY after all. Yes, the banks know Donald, he is also from NY.
And even though Hillary's plans are far more detrimental to bank profits whereas Donald promises additional profits (from the same revenues) ------ they still prefer Hillary to Donald. It's about rational and irrational, reality and the surreal. It's not that they can't work with Donald. It's that Donald does not work even if he does promise them free cookies and cake.
Hillary is from NY like I'm from arkansas. She moved to NY to run for the Senate seat.
SD -"It's about rational and irrational, "
You really believe this crap, don't you. I have misunderestimated you. I thought you were just an expert spin doctor, but I'm now beginning to see the possibility that you are in fact quite deluded. You know what they say, if you repeat a lie enough times, you begin to believe it yourself....
Yes, I believe this crap as you would say. And I have backed up my opinion with the underlying facts which you term spin because you can't refute them yet choose not to believe them.
Let's just say you were being funny when you quoted the genius George Bush for your misuse of the non-word misunderestimated meaning "Doofimizm used only by fully edgymicated presidents when their teleprompters are busted or they are feeling kinda smart ..." (Urban Dictionary)
You like to label people who have different opinions from yours with cute brands and negative names like spin doctor or deluded when you don't agree with the facts and haven't the wherewithal to argue the point. If you feel Donald Trump acts like a rational man, so be it. That's your opinion even if you can't prove it. I, as well as many others, have the opinion that he is irrational. But I certainly wouldn't say because of your opinion that you are a "Doof." :+)
JWC I'll repeat it again, the Dems are in a panic. The old play book isn't working.
SD, you've done your fair share of cute brands and negative names like a spin doctor as well. So be it is right. We all have our own opinions and yours aren't any better or worse than mine. But don't act like your are holier than thou.
Trump's now leading in 3 battleground states: NV, NC, and OH.
No one's won the presidency w/o Ohio since 1848.
Using our monkey spheres against us I see. How sad that that particular manipulative technique works so well :-(
(Regardless of team, btw)
Fujitsu: if you say it, it's your "little delve into reality." If you disagree, it's manipulation, MSM bias, spin, or just not based on the facts. Sure, reality.
From above: "No one's won the presidency w/o Ohio since 1848."
A quote from Wikipedia: "Since Republicans started winning elections, Ohio has voted with the winning candidate except for Grover Cleveland in both 1884 and 1892, Franklin D Roosevelt in 1944 and John F Kennedy in 1960."
jd2, thanks for the correction.... when I did a quick google, my source was (obviously) only talking about republicans... which I missed (and you can see I reversed the last 2 numbers of the year as well, I do that alot when typing... it's like I have intermittent typing dyslexia lol)
The only context in which your comment makes sense is if you view the electoral process as a game to be won by your chosen team via masterfully manipulating the perception of others through obfuscation and misdirection. Iow, same-old same-old lol. Best to stick with your factual posts, even if there are skewed perspective-wise.
So, are you aware of how ridiculous it is to look to celebrities for political guidance? Ian's comment in the other thread, about the level of intelligence you're targeting, applies equally well here. Do you really believe that video is not intended to be outright manipulation of the uneducated? As a smart guy you should know better, and if you do know better as I suspect, this is just another instance validating the MM moniker. :-)
Hilarious video about Hillary...I suggest everyone watch it. It's edited, but it shows her true personality. Plus, it's really funny!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=vqYJRc0TJkQ
Hard to match LJ's Hillary laughs and might be first woman President but I will give it a shot. Here's Donald Trump's Spaceballs.
Why am I thinking Woody Allen. Must be their family similarities :>)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU_Jdts5rL0
Commenting is no longer available.