Hillary and Trump

[wilfred]

yuge energy in this thread today. as always hillary for prison, looking good for next week!

[Karl]

RICO is a serious charge and could become a criminal matter. I am done with this thread given that the Trump supporters are holding sway here which leaves no room for reasonable discussion.

I don't think there are many Trump supporters here. You can count me out. The main thrust of the discussion is the bells being tolled around the world for Hillary. Trump is a bit player now, a side show bob, he is last week, Hillary and the FBI calling an investigation at 7 days out.....now that is huge news, that's bigger news than dead Hillary, robot Hillary of clone Hillary. Who cares about trumps minor civil court case at this point ?

[MooNiNite]

Powerful Words

 

[joeblast]

I'm sure they didnt cancel band for this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------

 

hows about that weaponry to isis, ralis?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN3QVTFItkw

[MooNiNite]

political posts are usually obnoxious, but this one is pretty accurate.

 

[Brian]

He is not off the hook for anything, but civil suits are in no way proof of criminal activity. Someone wanting money for allegedly being wronged is a far cry from criminal investigations.

Woman-hater.

 

[Brian]

I'm sure they didnt cancel band for this

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--------------------------------

 

hows about that weaponry to isis, ralis?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN3QVTFItkw

Speaking of "band" (Doug Band...) reminds me -- did you see where they had been trying to get diplomatic passports reissued to executives at the Clinton Foundation?

[dawei]

I would call me violent either. Don't think I've been in a fight for over 45 years seconds

 

I have it on the authority of the TDB server, with FBI warrant, that the above correction is necessary... now back to your regular broad cast 

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells

[Karl]

I have it on the authority of the TDB server, with FBI warrant, that the above correction is necessary... now back to your regular broad cast

Physical ya know. :-)

[blackstar212]

the best part of this thread is the fact that they reopened an investigation on a dead womans clone.

 

LOL

[Karl]

the best part of this thread is the fact that they reopened an investigation on a dead womans clone.

 

LOL

There isn't a great deal of difference. A cardboard cut out would be just as relevant. There is nothing to investigate because no one is getting investigated. The keystone cops are protecting their position of trust, just like the news channels try and seem honest. It's all a big sham with possibly Trump representing a destabilising force that will have to be accommodated. Clinton and Obama are like competing news anchors trying to win the networks favour.

[blackstar212]

There isn't a great deal of difference. A cardboard cut out would be just as relevant. There is nothing to investigate because no one is getting investigated. The keystone cops are protecting their position of trust, just like the news channels try and seem honest. It's all a big sham with possibly Trump representing a destabilising force that will have to be accommodated. Clinton and Obama are like competing news anchors trying to win the networks favour.

If the world is anything remotely like what is being preached in this thread then Trump will not be a destabilizing force. They will not allow this to happen. He will be eliminated.

[Brian]

You appear to have given him a free pass. Further, I posted reports from journalists, but some respond with hearsay as if such persons have some understanding of the legal process in regards to the latest email revelation.

 

I could care less as to what Comey's politics are, but in this case according to AG Lynch, he acted against DOJ policy. Until that is given clarification, then all comments here are BS. Comey appears to be engaged in electioneering.

 

No, I don't want your opinion unless I see a more balanced discussion here which must include Trump's transgressions, which I stated earlier.

 

BTW, I am tired of the veiled or overtly stated hate towards a woman that is a presidential nominee. Whether it is on this forum or from Trump during several debates.

Quite an interesting pair of goggles you have there, ralis. I'll reply in detail tomorrow, when I have a chance.

 

Until then, however, are you aware that the FBI and AG Lynch are currently being sued to force them to disclose what was learned in the initial e-mail server investigation and what led them to recommend not prosecuting Hillary despite acknowledging very clear felony violations (might wanna read the Espionage Act). I suspect the Hatch Act has been very much on Comey's mind recently (and, apparently, on his wife's mind...) but not quite in the way you suggest.

 

 

EDIT: Oh! And would you be so kind as to point to an example of an investigation warrant? Sounds intriguing! (There is no such creature, mind you, but sometimes imaginary creatures are quite interesting...)

OK, I promised to respond in a bit more detail yesterday -- started composing this on one computer but then got busy with other stuff.

 

First, the claim that I have given Trump "a free pass" indicates that either you didn't bother to review what I've actually written about Trump (in this thread and elsewhere on the forum) and ignorantly labeled me because it fits your narrative OR you knew what I've written about Trump and you maliciously labeled me because it fits your narrative. I'm not asking for a clarification.

 

I've said all along that Trump is a buffoon, an asshole, a jerk, a liar, a Narcissist, a power-tripper, a Progressive. In fact, he is probably the second-worst serious Presidential candidate in US history. To say it is like a South Park episode is no joke.

 

My perspective on this election is like this -- it is a hiring process. When I have a job opening, I look for the best candidate for that particular position. I don't get to choose who applies but I do get to screen the pool based on qualifications. In this case, all the candidates meet the minimum requirements to be eligible for consideration. At that point, if the pool is large, I might do a second cut based on published preferred qualifications. Then, during the interview process, my focus is on how well I think the candidates will do at meeting the job's duties and responsibilities. In this case, the job description is spelled out in the Constitution and the Oath of Office -- this person is primarily charged with faithfully executing the laws enacted by Congress, with protecting and defending the Constitution, and with serving as Commander-in-Chief during times of war.

 

The question, then, is which candidate seems likely to fulfill the duties of office? (This applies to selecting a tape monkey or a dogcatcher in just the same way as it applies to selecting presidents.)

 

As I stated earlier, Trump is a Progressive but he's just a garden-variety Progressive who may not even recognize that he is (much like George W., for instance). He's a hubristic jackass and most of his proposed plans & solutions are straight out of the statist playbook but he is a casual/opportunistic statist rather than an ideologue so it's not likely he'd fight for any of them very hard. If he caves on any of them or if he follows through with any of the handful of non-Progressive ideas he's floated (like appointing constitutionalists to the SCOTUS), it isn't a total loss. Scored on a ten-point scale, with 1 being Woodrow Wilson and 10 being maybe someone like Fredrick Douglass or Patrick Henry, I'd give Trump a 2.

 

Hillary, on the other hand, is a dyed-in-the-wool radical revolutionary who has spent her entire career post-Watergate wearing sheep's clothing, in precise accord with Saul Alinsky's direction in Reveille for Radicals. She was literally not just a student of Alinsky but also exchanged personal correspondence with him for years. In fact, here's her senior thesis from Wellsley College "THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT...":An Analysis of the Alinsky Model in which she disagrees with Alinsky on one point -- she maintained that the collapse of the US government and society could be affected from inside the government rather that strictly from outside as he suggested. (I mention Watergate because most people seem unaware (perhaps because much of the mainstream media have been, as has recently been documented, actively colluding to get her elected) that Hillary was involved in that scandal in an unsavory fashion.) Hillary has a lifelong track-record of deceit and has been surrounded by clouds of scandal, one after another, for at least 5 decades now. Anyone who has taken an ethics class (and some people take them annually) knows that it is important to not just avoid impropriety but the appearance of impropriety. Hillary, on the other hand, takes the approach of "let's see you prove it!"

 

Now, I know that we have been lectured for twenty years on how character doesn't matter and what politicians do in their personal lives shouldn't reflect on their professional lives (curiously, this entire amoral argument originating with President Clinton) but I strongly disagree. Perhaps you, ralis, think character truly doesn't matter in the person selected to sit in The Oval Office but I do -- in part because perceived character is an indicator of how a person can be expected to behave when no one is watching. My observations of Hillary for the last twenty years (and a little longer) is that former General Council and Chief of Staff for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation seems to have been spot-on when he described her as "ethically flawed" and I think it wise to give some merit to his position that he "could not recommend her for any future position of public or private trust."

 

So, looking at her behavior rather than her words, I find her totally untrustworthy. Lacking any confidence in her veracity, I have to look to her history, to her historical behavior and to the philosophies she has espoused. A hardcore Alinskyite radical with a track record of deception and of actively participating in retaliatory campaigns against the series of women who have accused her of protecting and enabling her predatory husband while simultaneously portraying herself as the nation's biggest advocate for women seems unlikely in the extreme to faithfully execute any law with which she doesn't agree, to protect or defend a document in which she doesn't believe -- and her judgement in the Middle East during her time as SoS offers no reassurance regarding her ability to serve as CiC. I honestly couldn't care less about Hillary's chromosomal composition, her gender identification or her sexual orientation; I care about whether she would fulfill the obligations inherent upon the job of President of the United States of America.

 

That ten-point scale doesn't go low enough. Honestly, I cannot imagine a single person in politics today who would be a worse choice than Hillary -- and the fact that Obama described her as the very best qualified person for the role in the history of the nation would make me question his faculties if I didn't already know that he is also a dyed-in-the-wool Alinskyite.

 

So, ralis, let me ask you something -- did you whole-heartedly and full-throatedly support and defend Carly Fiorina during her bid for the White House? How about Sarah Palin? Michelle Bachman?

 

Inquiring minds want to know...

[joeblast]

cmon brian, dont you know that not being a progressive democrat means a woman revokes her vagina card?

[Brian]

You may notice that I didn't even touch on the more recent scandalous allegations surrounding her e-mail server, pay-for-play or what happened in Haiti...

[joeblast]

You can tell the trashy and half baked sources ralis gets his opinions from

 

http://time.com/4551711/hillary-clinton-emailgate/

 

'It's not about emails; it's about public communication by a woman’

I am mad. I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.

 

The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man? Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere. There is so much of that going around.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

this has got to be some of the stupidest shit I've ever read.....it baffles my mind how people can honestly and truly believe this...

[Karl]

Anyone playing 'the woman' card is demeaning, marginalising and deliberately giving wings to the lie that women are any less capable than men. It's another attempt to cause friction and fractionalisation where none need exist.

 

It would serve these idiots right to get a good dose of Hillary for eternity. It would be a Dantesque hell for the lefty liberal feminists. It's funny how they are unable to cast their eyes across the pond, where, even 20 years after Thatcher was prime minister, these same lefty feministas were burning effigies of the woman they hated more than any male prime minister in the history of the U.K. Paliament. Ring the bells the wicked witch is dead they chanted in glee at her death.

 

Do they have a clue about what they would get if Hillary gets the presidents chair ? That is a woman who hates woman, she hates blacks, Hispanics, gays, abortionists, the middle class, the poor. The world could burn whilst she cackled like a Bond villain in her nuclear bunker.

 

I comment on the Conservative women's website in the UK and am starting to see a proper feminist backlash against these faux feminists. Strong women everywhere should stand up against these feminista and their male cuckolds.

[Apech]

......

 

I comment on the Conservative women's website in the UK and am starting to see a proper feminist backlash against these faux feminists. Strong women everywhere should stand up against these feminista and their male cuckolds.

 

Mary Whitehouse, is that you?

[joeblast]

what was that people were saying about intent again?

 

 

this is getting to be like shooting fish in the cargo hold of a full fishing boat, nevermind a barrel.

[Karl]

Mary Whitehouse, is that you?

Not telling.

[liminal_luke]

Thanks Brian for taking the time to spell out your views so thoroughly. 

[cold]

LOL!

[zerostao]

chris matthews of msnbc, yes the same chris matthews that has always staunchly supported obama and the clintons,

that chris matthews NOW, a week before this election, changes course. 

 

http://www.tmn.today/2016/11/msnbcs-chris-matthews-makes-unbelievable-speech-must-watch/?source=TPI

[Wells]

.

Edited January 20, 2017 by Wells