Hillary and Trump

[Wells]

.

Edited October 18, 2016 by spacester

[ralis]

Your argument has no validity whatsoever.

It doesn't matter who compiled the video clips of Hillary,

it matters what Hillary says in these video clips

and her statements in these clips are absolutely clear, complete, not "out of context" and can't be misunderstood.

 

I watched the Alex Jones video and one, she didn't keep repeating all out war against Russia, but warned Russia that all options are on the table. Second, the Iranian threat portion was edited and the context of that was if Israel is attacked by Iran, the US would retaliate. Every politician panders to the Israeli lobby which is a major voting block.

 

The narrator or propagandist for Alex Jones kept repeating war, war, with Russia which invokes fear.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 18, 2016 by spacester

[ralis]

[ralis]

The audio is here of what Hillary actually said.

 

[ralis]

 

Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.

Hermann Goring

[Wells]

.

Edited October 18, 2016 by spacester

[Wells]

.

Edited October 18, 2016 by spacester

[ralis]

So you are condemning Hillary's tactics?

Because she is war mongering against Russia and Iran, not Trump!

 

 

I am referring to all the fear going on in this thread.

[ralis]

So it is ok with you to answer to "cyber attacks" possibly with a "serious military response"?

Because that is one explicitly an option for her.

 

 

If you think that the clip is out of context I would appreciate you posting the "complete" clip,

if it sends another message.

 

 

Recognizing existing threats and being afraid of them is actually a sign of intelligence.

Ignoring existing threats and prefering positive delusion over negative reality

so one doesn't have to face and to feel fear is highly irrational.

 

I am not naive regarding threats, however, I understand what the rhetoric is in this regard as to how politicians behave. I am not anyone's 'boy' and will not be intimidated by fear mongering i.e, what I read, see or hear.

 

I posted the audio here of what she said.

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/41592-hillary-and-trump/page-62#entry713376

Edited October 12, 2016 by ralis

[Karl]

They should have attacked Iran years ago. Pointless doing so now Russia is firmly ensconced in the area after the USA/ West continually provoked them whilst simultaneously wasting blood and treasure playing liberators. Bad foreign policy which was presided over by the Clintons in many cases.

 

I can't say I can watch much of Alex Jones, there's sensationalism without much sense of his personal view. Politics have become a Punch and Judy show which bares no connection with reality whatsoever. Most of the commentary seems so shouty and irrational I have a tough time listening for more than a few seconds. Everything appears to be an appeal to emotion.

 

Again I refer to Brexit in which we watched two sides of supposedly intelligent people that promised a debate, turn the discussion into such a contorted mess that the public that did wish to grasp the import of the decision were left to find other sources to gain understanding.

 

As an example the remain side created a false narrative around the European single market, in which they obfscurated the definition to make it appear that leaving it would mean no more trade at all with Europe and then they introduced numbers prepared by the treasury which told the public the amount of trade that would be lost if we did not trade with Europe.

 

Of course once they had framed the argument in this way, they wanted the leave campaigners to fall into their little trap. At every opportunity they would ask 'do you want to leave the single market ?' Which put the leave campaigners in a double bind. If they said yes, essentially they were admitting to the false truth that leaving the single market would be ruinous. If they said no, then this would mean they were refuting that we should leave the EU at all (the single market membership means full membership).

 

This kind of thing isn't open debate, or informing the electorate, it is systematic subterfuge and distortions designed to con the electorate I to voting the way the Government wants them to. The days of this kind of thing are surely over thanks to the Internet and alternative media, but this kind of shouty emotive stuff just seems like the MSM all over again.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 18, 2016 by spacester

[ralis]

Is the fearless cow which is brought to the butcher brave or just ignorant?

As I said, recognizing and fearing existing threats is a sign of intelligence,

the contrary is not.

 

http://www.thedaobums.com/topic/41592-hillary-and-trump/page-62#entry713382

[Karl]

I think I'm in agreement on that point, but you aren't applying it equally Ralis. You posted whilst I was writing, but I was saying the same thing. I'm fed up of emotive, fact light reporting on both sides of the fence. There is a need for a degree of conjecture and opinion, but it appears mostly this is what we always get.

 

I wouldn't vote for Clinton, but the hit pieces on her changing her mind over a period of decades is crass. I would hate to have to look through my own changes of mind, it would look like I was totally inconsistent and confused, but we do change our minds, we do change. Attacking Iran isn't a bad option when it's a country threatening the west. Yet on the other side of the table we have the Clinton foundation extracting funding from Saudi Arabia and selling them high tech weaponry when it is the Saudis who fund terrorist groups which are threatening the West.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 18, 2016 by spacester

[ralis]

I understand that,

but as you quoted Göring,

I am sure that rumors about the ongoing holocaust in the third reich were back then also thought to be baseless fear mongering and no one could imagine that the elite in the third reich was really executing it.

But they in fact were doing it.

Of course some of the the German people believed there were just rumors which goes without saying. Göring's quote is timeless and cross cultural.

 

I am sorting out the propaganda in this thread by comparing and contrasting every point of view. The fear mongering here which is based on partial truth and inflated to the 'big lie' is what I am commenting on and very concerned about.

 

You asked me in an earlier post regarding the Trump lawsuit set to convene in December. I can make no judgement given that I am not privy to the discovery/depositions and have not seen the evidence.

Edited October 12, 2016 by ralis

[Kar3n]

Rails, you seemed quite fearful of Trump having access to nuclear codes several pages back, and now want to call others out for fear mongering and partial truths.

 

Ironic, don't you think?

[ralis]

Addendum to previous post;

 

To resolve contradictions or the quandary of a rigid yes/no believe system is the beginning of intellectual freedom.

[Wells]

.

Edited October 18, 2016 by spacester

[ralis]

Rails, you seemed quite fearful of Trump having access to nuclear codes several pages back, and now want to call others out for fear mongering and partial truths.

 

Ironic, don't you think?

 

Not fearful, but very concerned as to Trump's fascination with nukes. I will continually call out the rhetoric based in fear with warnings as to the consequences of following such.

 

It may have come off that way, but words are not a probable indicator of real emotions here. At least for me.

 

To reiterate, I am no ones  'boy' and will not be intimidated with fear mongering.

 

The 'big lie' always has a small partial truth, but when blown out of proportion, the 'big lie' is irresistible.

Edited October 13, 2016 by ralis

[ralis]

Well, I don't see you adressing the many alleged over decades executed rapes of Bill Clinton

and the alleged covering up and intimidating and slandering of the victims by "women right" supporter Hillary.

There are many women who came forward in the past and that not only suddenly during this presidential race,

so it's not just a propaganda initiated by Trump.

 

This thread is regarding Hillary/Trump and I was being specific to that point.

[liminal_luke]

Those inclined towards fear will find abundant justification for the sentiment if Trump OR Clinton wins.  

[Kar3n]

Not fearful, but very concerned as to Trump's fascination with nukes. I will continually call out the rhetoric based in fear with warnings as to the consequences of following such.

 

It may have come off that way, but words are not a probable indicator of real emotions here. At least for me.

 

To reiterate, I am no ones  'boy' and will not be intimidated with fear mongering.

 

The 'big lie' always has a small partial truth, but when blown out of proportion, the 'big lie' is irresistible.

 

But you said...

 

 

Words matter and one must understand the gravity of such as to the effect on other governments across the planet.

[Karl]

I posit that Hillary worships Bill. That when Bill got impeached by the people this was something that Hillary was mentally unable to accept. I think Hillary is at war with the people for what they did to Bill and by inference what they did to her.

 

"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"

 

What would a woman seeking revenge do to her detractors ? How far would she go to exact revenge - nuclear war ? How far does her psychosis stretch - could she actually believe that it was Bills downfall was the result of Russian involvement ? She is alleging that her emails were hacked by Russians and that Putin is responsible for the campaign against her.

 

Syria is a flashpoint right now. There is pretext for starting a conflict directly with Russia and the potential for rapid escalation. How long would it be before the Russians - who never back down- react to shoot downs of their pilots and planes by US/Allied forces ? This is a false re-run of Cuba and it won't end with the Russians backing away, they are preparing for a nuclear attack on their country, which should warn the cautious that retaliation on the Syrian battlefield will come and the response will not be light. What happens if the Russians take out a US battle fleet - this is a distinct possibility with the weapons they have employed to provide air cover. Will Hillary walk away licking her wounds ? If she were a man she would, but she is not, she is a vindictive raging woman that might well be blaming the Russians for Bills downfall.

 

I would take seriously my analogy with Bonnie and Clyde, I think that this is what's going on with Hillary. Think what Bonnie would do to the person who killed Clyde were she alive ?

 

I cannot help thinking of that song " they left him lying in a pool of blood and laughed about it all the way home". Clyde was Bonnies hero, Clyde being Clyde made Bonnie Bonnie. Think back to that manic Clinton laugh when she talked about The death of the Libyan dictator. Who else is on her target list ?

[blackstar212]

Well it is all fixed now.

 

http://weeklyworldnews.com/politics/68765/bill-clinton-endorses-donald-trump/

 

Bill Clinton endorses Donald Trump.

 

Please with people posting infowars as a source do not question world weekly news which we all know is the real truth.