REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Trump donated money to NAMBLA? Is this why he won't reveal his taxes?

POSTED BY: REAVERFAN
UPDATED: Saturday, September 10, 2016 10:54
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 14752
PAGE 2 of 2

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 8:39 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Except, of course, when you want to repeat it.

I repeat what I said in the "Never" thread: I find Trump's statements on nuclear weapons less objectionable Hillary's.

I saw NOTHING in Trump's statements that he was a proponent of "first strike". If that's your interpretation, please point out to me where he said so.

Look again at
https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying-things-donald-trump-has-publicl
y-said-about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.79xjnrmho


MATTHEWS: Where would we drop — where would we drop a nuclear weapon in the Middle East?

TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain. Somebody hits us within ISIS — you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?

second: Mr Trump, if the Pulse nightclub killer in Orlando had been ISIS, would that count as being hit first by ISIS?

TRUMP: mumbles something about You’re damn right it is!

MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They’re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.

TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 11:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.




Trump's truthfulness as compared to Hillary's depends greatly on which questions you include in the tally.

If you include questions like ....

Did you know what "c" meant on documents?
Were you aware of the State Department's policy on using State Department servers for State Department business?
Who advised you to use a private server?
Did you purposefully delete emails to avoid upcoming or received subpoenas?
How many devices did you use to access your emails?
Were they secure?

..... then Hillary's PANTS ON FIRE! count zooms into the stratosphere. It seems even Politifact isn't exactly unbiased, since you can create (or hide) a story by relevant information selection.

BTW, a fair number of "liberal media" and "mainstream media" outlets like HuffPo, Salon, and CNN, clearly have an axe to grind, since they aggressively squash negative news about Hillary by (among other things) firing their own contributors.



--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 12:34 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Trump's truthfulness as compared to Hillary's depends greatly on which questions you include in the tally.

If you include questions like ....

Did you know what "c" meant on documents?

There were three emails that were marked classified in the body of the email. Here's what the FBI report had to say about those:

The emails contained no additional markings, such as a header or footer, indicating they were classified. State confirmed through the FOIA review process that one of these three e-mail chains contains information which is currently classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level. State determined that the other two e-mail chains are currently UNCLASSIFIED.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3039030/Hillary-Clinton-FBI
-Investigation.pdf


So two of the emails aren't classified at all and shouldn't have been in the first place, while the third is obviously something trivial ("Confidential" is the lowest possible level of classification). If that's your case against Hillary—one trivial email over four years that shouldn't have been sent—then go to town with it.
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Were you aware of the State Department's policy on using State Department servers for State Department business?
Who advised you to use a private server?
Did you purposefully delete emails to avoid upcoming or received subpoenas?
How many devices did you use to access your emails?
Were they secure?

..... then Hillary's PANTS ON FIRE! count zooms into the stratosphere.

Don’t ask Hillary those questions because Grandma Hillary has no idea what you are asking. Ask the FBI. Oh, somebody did!
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/14-excerpts-fbis-report-hillary
-clintons-email
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

It seems even Politifact isn't exactly unbiased, since you can create (or hide) a story by relevant information selection.

BTW, a fair number of "liberal media" and "mainstream media" outlets like HuffPo, Salon, and CNN, clearly have an axe to grind, since they aggressively squash negative news about Hillary by (among other things) firing their own contributors.

Who is more insincere when making promises to the American voter? Hillary or Trump? Personally, I think Trump is far better at making big promises than Hillary. Maybe that is why he should be President. He knows how to sell a promise like he will deliver the goods. But it is only a promise, it is not the goods, it is not even a legally enforceable contract between Trump and the voters. His promises are really only Trump’s bad breath and hot air, which is why he has been bankrupted, divorced and sued thousands of times.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 1:46 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Trump said yesterday: “Let her release her emails and I’ll release my tax returns immediately.”

He's willing to release his tax returns if he can get some advantage out of it –- Hillary’s personal emails. The IRS audit isn't what's stopping him at all. His previous explanation -- I can't release my tax returns while I am being audited -- was always a lie.

www.yahoo.com/news/trump-ill-release-my-tax-returns-when-hillary-relea
ses-her-emails-161139709.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 2:31 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

TRUMP: Let me explain. Let me explain. Somebody hits us within ISIS — you wouldn’t fight back with a nuke?

second: Mr Trump, if the Pulse nightclub killer in Orlando had been ISIS, would that count as being hit first by ISIS?

TRUMP: mumbles something about You’re damn right it is!

MATTHEWS: OK. The trouble is, when you said that, the whole world heard it. David Cameron in Britain heard it. The Japanese, where we bombed them in 45, heard it. They’re hearing a guy running for president of the United States talking of maybe using nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to hear that about an American president.

TRUMP: Then why are we making them? Why do we make them?

What I'm reading is Trump refusing to answer the question.

I think he realized where his undisciplined ramblings got him, and backed out rather quickly.

As far as the question, tho, that is central to the tenet of building nuclear weapons to begin with, and one which you yourself addressed: Why build them if you're not going to use them? (Or, using them doesn't gain an advantage?)

You would not make them and then advertise that you would never use them because indeed, what would be the point?


--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 2:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Who is more insincere when making promises to the American voter? Hillary or Trump? Personally, I think Trump is far better at making big promises than Hillary. Maybe that is why he should be President. He knows how to sell a promise like he will deliver the goods. But it is only a promise, it is not the goods, it is not even a legally enforceable contract between Trump and the voters. His promises are really only Trump’s bad breath and hot air, which is why he has been bankrupted, divorced and sued thousands of times.
Hillary can grind on and on about making the Post Office a bank, and making the ACA work, but nearly all of her "progressive" domestic agenda items will never get through.

Just like most of Trump's agenda won't get through.

So as far as which one is more honest, I'd say neither.

You seem to think that my vote is based on who is promising what, but I can guarantee that is not the case. After all, look at Obama's many, many promises... how many did he keep?

It's not what Hillary promises or doesn't promise, or what Trump promises or doesn't promise; it's what is LIKELY TO HAPPEN that is driving my vote. What I see with Hillary is a terrible confluence of interests between her corrupt self (willing to do anything for money) and her very wealthy donors: banks, neocons, Zionists, the Saudis, transnationals, etc.; and "establishment Republicans". I guarantee you that Hillary and the CIA and a business-oriented Republican Congress and internationalists like Soros will grease the way for more war, more money for the banks, more refugees, more wealth inequality ... because their interests all head in that same direction.

Trump, because he horrifies stock traders and bankers and the CIA and transnationals and "intellectual property" owners (who back the TPP) will be stonewalled by Congress and the deep state, and will get little done as well, but at least we won't be making "progress" in the wrong direction.

That, I fear, is the best we can hope for.



--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 3:58 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Trump, because he horrifies stock traders and bankers and the CIA and transnationals and "intellectual property" owners (who back the TPP) will be stonewalled by Congress and the deep state, and will get little done as well, but at least we won't be making "progress" in the wrong direction.

That, I fear, is the best we can hope for.

George Bush gave every indication that he would be as inconsequential as, say President Warren G. Harding, but then he got ambitious, didn’t he? Trump may get an ambitious, yet easy to implement, idea from Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and clean up crime by giving a pardon to every cop who kills a drug dealer or illegal alien. I can’t see Hillary giving out pardons like that, but with Trump that seems like a real possibility.
http://qz.com/774226/philippines-president-rodrigo-duterte-picked-the-
wrong-week-to-call-barack-obama-a-son-of-a-bitch
/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 4:06 PM

REAVERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


Trump's truthfulness as compared to Hillary's depends greatly on which questions you include in the tally.

If you include questions like ....

Did you know what "c" meant on documents?
Were you aware of the State Department's policy on using State Department servers for State Department business?
Who advised you to use a private server?
Did you purposefully delete emails to avoid upcoming or received subpoenas?
How many devices did you use to access your emails?
Were they secure?

..... then Hillary's PANTS ON FIRE! count zooms into the stratosphere. It seems even Politifact isn't exactly unbiased, since you can create (or hide) a story by relevant information selection.

BTW, a fair number of "liberal media" and "mainstream media" outlets like HuffPo, Salon, and CNN, clearly have an axe to grind, since they aggressively squash negative news about Hillary by (among other things) firing their own contributors.



--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

Yeah, it's the "liberal media!"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 7, 2016 4:28 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Why build them if you're not going to use them? (Or, using them doesn't gain an advantage?)

You would not make them and then advertise that you would never use them because indeed, what would be the point?

They were built to make money, at least in the USA. The more bombs made, the more money made. Since 99% of all the bombs ever made would never explode, why not make as much money as possible? The first 1% of bombs were for real purposes, either engineering tests or war, and the rest were made for good business reasons to justify building thousands of missile silos, bombers, and submarines.

For the people building bombs at Pantex near Amarillo and Congressmen voting more funding for more bombs, it was always about the money, first, last, always. But they can’t say that out loud and stay outstanding citizens, can they? They don’t talk about their real motives, do they?

But Trump can talk about creating new jobs and corporate profits by rebuilding the nukes. Obama already started. Trump could expand the program. Why stop at $1 trillion? Obama and Hillary are weak on defense, while Trump is strong! Trump can make it $4 trillion! Congress would go along, too.
www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/04/18/Why-US-Spending-1-Trillion-N
uclear-Weapons


Why would Trump worry about cost? It is traditional in politics to promise more than you can deliver. But I have to give Trump credit for realizing the he could take this much farther than any politician ever has. He understands that you flatly don't need to bother with reality at all. Just promise everything and claim that it will all be easy, a total piece of cake once the government isn't staffed by morons. The voters will eat it up and the press will shrug.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 8, 2016 8:21 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Yeah, it's the "liberal media!"
Yes, it is and I'm glad you finally recognized that!


As I've mentioned lo these many years ago, I listen to a VARIETY of sources: Xinhua, NPR, RBTH (Russia Behind the Headlines), BBC, Reuters, RT, Zerohedge etc. My attention is directed by my email group to minor but still informative sources such as Katehon or South Front. I even occasionally get out the popcorn and listen to Infowars.

I rarely am able to listen/ view/ read entire articles, but I DO manage to scan the headlines quite frequently, and I find that the various media outlets seem as if they're not even covering the same PLANET, let alone the same issues.

At the same time that ZH was trumpeting that Chinese G20 officials showed profound disrespect for Obama by failing to provide a "red carpet" airport landing and then the USA press getting into a tussle with Chinese officials over who had control over protocol ("This is our airport! This is our country!")

NPR was blathering on about the "warm welcome" that Obama received in China.

You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Not only should you disabuse yourself of the pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders, you should also disabused yourself about that little fairy tale about our "liberal press' being some sort of agenda-less "objective" reporting agency.


--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 8, 2016 8:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

George Bush gave every indication that he would be as inconsequential as, say President Warren G. Harding, but then he got ambitious, didn’t he?
You keep making the same mistake that it is "the President" who makes the decisions, when it's usually his (or her) backers.

Everyone knew- or at least everyone who was paying attention knew- that it was Cheney who made the decisions in the GWB administration, despite GWB's claims to being "the decider". This was evident from the moment Cheney, who was in charge of selecting the VP candidate, chose himself. It very much reminds me of the scene in the Disney cartoon Aladdin, when Jafar chooses himself to be Jasmine's groom (Why, that would be ME!" he exclaims after mumbling thru a long list of "requirements")




Myself, I think Cheney gave GWB a pedal car and took the keys to the Ferrari.



--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 8, 2016 9:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Why build them [nuclear bombs] if you're not going to use them? (Or, using them doesn't gain an advantage?) You would not make them and then advertise that you would never use them because indeed, what would be the point? - SIGNY

They were built to make money, at least in the USA.- SECOND



So, what are you suggesting, SECOND? That you expect and accept that Hillary will continue to make nuclear weapons for corrupt purposes (as Obama is doing before her), DESPITE their historically-evident aggressive destabilizing influence; and despite their known, calculated ability to destroy the world? Because nothing is as important as keeping the military-industrial complex happy (nod, nod, wink, wink) even if it means Armageddon?

Or do you think maybe we could use someone who asks the question What the hell are we making these for???"

That's the problem with thumping for "business as usual": You have to show that business as usual is a rousing success.

Quote:

But Trump can talk about creating new jobs and corporate profits by rebuilding the nukes. Obama already started. Trump could expand the program. Why stop at $1 trillion? Obama and Hillary are weak on defense, while Trump is strong! Trump can make it $4 trillion! Congress would go along, too.
www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/04/18/Why-US-Spending-1-Trillion-N
uclear-Weapons

Why are you hyperventilating about what Trump "could" do when Obama is already doing it?

Quote:

Why would Trump worry about cost? It is traditional in politics to promise more than you can deliver. But I have to give Trump credit for realizing the he could take this much farther than any politician ever has. He understands that you flatly don't need to bother with reality at all. Just promise everything and claim that it will all be easy, a total piece of cake once the government isn't staffed by morons. The voters will eat it up and the press will shrug.


As I said, promises are promises. You have to look at who is backing the candidate to even get an inkling of what is likely to happen. I've seen Hillary's long and inglorious record: An alcoholic who is probably neurologically-damaged (like GWB who was brain-blown from years of drinking and drug abuse) and who will do anything for money and approval .... even laughing and clapping her hands and bouncing in her seat about having destroyed a nation; leaving it to the tender mercies of saud0backed terrorists. She is the perfect puppet. And her backers have long been under discussion: Saudi Arabia. George Soros. International "wealth management" (tax evasion?) firms. Goldman Sachs. Big pharma. Zionists. International corporations. IP owners.

Is this the candidate I want?

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 8, 2016 10:48 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


G
What I heard ... I was listening to the radio in the kitchen, not reading .... was from a different segment (new briefs/ intro) than what you're quoting.


SECOND
I'd like to wrap up my responses to you regarding Hillary if possible.

At various times, in support of Hillary you've argued for "free trade" which harms USA jobs, for illegal immigration because it's beneficial to businesses in the USA, in favor of continued - if cynical- support for the nuclear sector of the military-industrial complex despite its world-shattering potential. You've repeatedly called KIKI a paid Russian troll, and carried forward Hillary's ludicrous "because Putin" argument.

Now, I'll grant you that you, REAVERFAN, SHINY, and even G are motivated by trying to "help". But somehow, in supporting Hillary, you've wound up supporting some pretty regressive arguments.

But look at where the refugee/immigrant problems are coming from: Everywhere the USA has destabilized or destroyed. Look at why the global nuclear threat exists: Because the USA has been the aggressor since the beginning (which you admitted to). Look at where income inequality is birthed: at the banks, who freely create the money that we have to sweat for.

Instead of "helping", maybe your go-to response should be "first, do no harm". Rather than trying to mitigate damage, you might want to consider preventing its cause.

And how does Hillary fit into that "first, do no harm" approach? Is she that kind of person or has she been promoting USA aggression throughout her entire political career?



--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 8, 2016 3:02 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

SECOND
I'd like to wrap up my responses to you regarding Hillary if possible.

And how does Hillary fit into that "first, do no harm" approach? Is she that kind of person or has she been promoting USA aggression throughout her entire political career?

Hillary is not Moses and she won’t make the USA into the promised land. The little good she can do will only be small things: not repeal Obamacare when Trump would and not appoint a Scalia clone to the Supreme Court when Trump would.

Who are these Presidents you imagine that come up to your standard of “first, do no harm”? Are they Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Truman? They all did a great deal of harm to citizens and deeply offended others. Americans moved to Canada because of Washington. FDR had prison camps for Japanese Americans. His Social Security and its payroll taxes are still considered to be hugely unfair. Lincoln was reviled in the North and South. Truman nuked civilians and thus started an arms race with Russia.

Your standard “do no harm” might work with Canadian Prime Ministers, but not with any US Presidents or any Presidential candidates who had a real chance of being elected. People such as the libertarian Gary Johnson or Green Party’s Jill Stein or even Bernie never had a hope of being President. Not enough Americans would vote for them. Maybe Canadians would elect them, but not Americans. I guess I should say it plainly. Americans really like Presidential candidates that they feel might do some real harm to the rest of the world. Hillary has to fake her belligerency and she overdoes it, while Trump is ready to go to war or sue in court 5 days a week. He is not faking belligerency like Hillary.

Most conversations about politics don’t change minds, but only strengthen preexisting beliefs. A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 8, 2016 5:21 PM

REAVERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:

Yeah, it's the "liberal media!"
Yes, it is and I'm glad you finally recognized that!


As I've mentioned lo these many years ago, I listen to a VARIETY of sources: Xinhua, NPR, RBTH (Russia Behind the Headlines), BBC, Reuters, RT, Zerohedge etc. My attention is directed by my email group to minor but still informative sources such as Katehon or South Front. I even occasionally get out the popcorn and listen to Infowars.

I rarely am able to listen/ view/ read entire articles, but I DO manage to scan the headlines quite frequently, and I find that the various media outlets seem as if they're not even covering the same PLANET, let alone the same issues.

At the same time that ZH was trumpeting that Chinese G20 officials showed profound disrespect for Obama by failing to provide a "red carpet" airport landing and then the USA press getting into a tussle with Chinese officials over who had control over protocol ("This is our airport! This is our country!")

NPR was blathering on about the "warm welcome" that Obama received in China.

You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Not only should you disabuse yourself of the pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders, you should also disabused yourself about that little fairy tale about our "liberal press' being some sort of agenda-less "objective" reporting agency.


pockets

There is very little liberal media in the US. MSM is decidedly far right. Always has been since Reagan.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 8, 2016 5:21 PM

REAVERFAN


Quote:

Originally posted by second:
Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

SECOND
I'd like to wrap up my responses to you regarding Hillary if possible.

And how does Hillary fit into that "first, do no harm" approach? Is she that kind of person or has she been promoting USA aggression throughout her entire political career?

Hillary is not Moses and she won’t make the USA into the promised land. The little good she can do will only be small things: not repeal Obamacare when Trump would and not appoint a Scalia clone to the Supreme Court when Trump would.

Who are these Presidents you imagine that come up to your standard of “first, do no harm”? Are they Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Truman? They all did a great deal of harm to citizens and deeply offended others. Americans moved to Canada because of Washington. FDR had prison camps for Japanese Americans. His Social Security and its payroll taxes are still considered to be hugely unfair. Lincoln was reviled in the North and South. Truman nuked civilians and thus started an arms race with Russia.

Your standard “do no harm” might work with Canadian Prime Ministers, but not with any US Presidents or any Presidential candidates who had a real chance of being elected. People such as the libertarian Gary Johnson or Green Party’s Jill Stein or even Bernie never had a hope of being President. Not enough Americans would vote for them. Maybe Canadians would elect them, but not Americans. I guess I should say it plainly. Americans really like Presidential candidates that they feel might do some real harm to the rest of the world. Hillary has to fake her belligerency and she overdoes it, while Trump is ready to go to war or sue in court 5 days a week. He is not faking belligerency like Hillary.

Most conversations about politics don’t change minds, but only strengthen preexisting beliefs. A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

Yup.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, September 8, 2016 7:14 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And how does Hillary fit into that "first, do no harm" approach? Is she that kind of person or has she been promoting USA aggression throughout her entire political career?

How To Destroy A Presidential Candidate? Make him (or her) look weak on defense.

Did a bad photo op change history? No. But the image of Michael Dukakis riding around in a tank during the 1988 presidential campaign tells us a lot about how campaigns do and don’t work. In “Backfire: How To Destroy A Presidential Candidate,” a short documentary from FiveThirtyEight and ESPN Films, director Jason Reid looks back at how Vice President George H.W. Bush overtook Dukakis in the polls and won the election, and considers a basic question: Do campaigns have defining moments?


Marge and Homer wrestle with the choice in this election


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 9, 2016 6:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


GXXX
Quote:

Obviously - like you do with much of your "analysis" - you hear/read one small thing and then you assume the rest instead of doing any kind of complete review. And especially if you can align it with your pre-accepted ideas/agenda. You maybe should try and get a broader, more complete view. It's why your analysis can never be trusted.


If it was only "one small thing" then I'd agree with you, but HuffPo and The Nation (both "liberal" publications) have gone full-fascist over articles about Hillary's health.

I already posted about HuffPo firing one of their contributors, but if you want an example of how committed The Nation is to NOT covering Hillary's health, just search their website. Use site:TheNation.com + [your search terms] in the google search term; You will not find a single reference to Hillary's health. Not one. That speaks to a really stringent editorial policy over there.

REAVERFAN
Quote:

There is very little liberal media in the US. MSM is decidedly far right. Always has been since Reagan.

So, who else? NPR? MSNBC? Pacifica radio? Who counts as "liberal" in your book?

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 9, 2016 7:00 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


SECOND
Quote:

How To Destroy A Presidential Candidate? Make him (or her) look weak on defense.

So.... let me get this straight.
What you're saying ... or at least implying ... is that the only reason why Hillary has been such a warmonger ever since she entered national public life 25 years ago isn't because she's a bought-and-paid-for bitch but because she's been burnishing her warmongering credentials so that she can become a true peacemaker once she gains the Presidency?

Is THAT what you're implying?


Quote:

Who are these Presidents you imagine that come up to your standard of “first, do no harm”? Are they Lincoln, FDR, Washington, Truman? They all did a great deal of harm to citizens and deeply offended others. Americans moved to Canada because of Washington. FDR had prison camps for Japanese Americans. His Social Security and its payroll taxes are still considered to be hugely unfair. Lincoln was reviled in the North and South. Truman nuked civilians and thus started an arms race with Russia.
First, let me stop you before you get too much on a roll. Why are you referring to these particular Presidents? Do they belong in the pantheon of liberal idols?

Quote:

Your standard “do no harm” might work with Canadian Prime Ministers, but not with any US Presidents or any Presidential candidates who had a real chance of being elected.

Ummm.... may I remind you that a candidate who advertised himself as AGAINST WAR actually DID get elected, and that was Barack Obama?

As you may recall, he promised to undo many of the warmongering evils of the Bush administration: end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, stop torture, close Gitmo etc etc.

And he offered his Senate vote AGAINST the war in Iraq in contrast to Hillary's vote FOR the war as proof that he was sincere about his promise and that he had to guts to make it stick.

And many people who were already sick to death of war, war, and more war voted for Obama on the hope that he would bring peace. So you can take that whole argument about how There is a price to pay for a liberal domestic agenda at home, and that price is "war abroad" and you can stuff it back wherever it came from. In fact, I think that you're really afraid that making nice with Russia is one of Trump's stronger arguments, because you've done everything you can to derail it.


Quote:

Most conversations about politics don’t change minds, but only strengthen preexisting beliefs. A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney

And that pretty much describes you and the rest of the liberals here.

The REAL issue is that you would rather trade war abroad for a "liberal agenda" at home. Not "Americans", not "people", but you, specifically. That is YOUR choice.

And in reality, your domestic agenda has nothing to do with illegal immigrants or free trade or women's rights or gay rights, your REAL fears are about who Trump might appoint to the Supreme Court and Obamacare.

Well, IMHO Obamacare is such a fucking nightmare that losing it wouldn't be such a big deal. If Obama has really wanted to make a healthcare plan that REALLY worked .... covered everyone and cut costs ... he wouldn't have let Max Baucus craft such a compromised piece of go se.

Like you, I have concerns about the Supreme Court. And if Hillary would only change her warmongering stance, and ditch her big bank and big pharma friends, I would vote for .... nah, there is nothing she can do at this point to convince me that she's anything other than a really really corrupt politician, along with the whole DNC.

We have two bad choices. I believe that we can recover from a Trump administration, but I don't believe we will ever recover from a Clinton one. My view is that she will propel such awful changes that either the entire world will be blown up. or the USA won't be the USA anymore because it will be 100% owned by the transnationals.

--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 9, 2016 11:09 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

second

Is THAT what you're implying?

I’m not implying, I’m saying. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton’s National Security Advisers are a “Who’s Who” of the Warfare State. Gen. David Petraeus, Michael Chertoff, and Mike Morrell might be more than window dressing to make Hillary look tough.
https://theintercept.com/2016/09/08/hillary-clintons-national-security
-advisors-are-a-whos-who-of-the-warfare-state
/

To get elected, Hillary has to look tough. Once elected, Hillary has to look tough if she wants to be reelected. The next election campaign starts immediately after this election and next time the Republicans might pick a better candidate than Trump. But they will be picking somebody as belligerent and enough voters are in love with toughness and war-like talk that peace-mongers like Bernie or Michael Dukakis or George McGovern or Jimmy Carter (1980 run) can NOT get elected or reelected. The Republicans voters were enraged that Carter did not invade Panama, but instead just gave the Canal Zone back. The voters were really enraged that Carter did not invade Iran to free the hostages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_197
2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_198
0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_198
8


If the USA is to become a more peaceful nation, it needs a more peaceful electorate. Bringing back the military draft with everybody going into the Army and no college deferments would make the voters and the President actually think very carefully about all military adventures.
www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html

American voters never forgave Pres. Jimmy Carter for being afraid of a bunny because the appearance of toughness is important to voters. Every other quality comes in second.
www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/204:_America

Quote:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

And Obama offered his Senate vote AGAINST the war in Iraq in contrast to Hillary's vote FOR the war as proof that he was sincere about his promise and that he had to guts to make it stick.

And many people who were already sick to death of war, war, and more war voted for Obama on the hope that he would bring peace. So you can take that whole argument about how There is a price to pay for a liberal domestic agenda at home, and that price is "war abroad" and you can stuff it back wherever it came from. In fact, I think that you're really afraid that making nice with Russia is one of Trump's stronger arguments, because you've done everything you can to derail it.

America is at war because Americans want war. The war lovers are the 61% of Americans supporting the death penalty. The support for the death penalty is a little squishy, just like support for war: a Public Religion Research Institute survey found less than half favored executions when life without parole was an option. (That is probably why Republicans and their Congress don't want Guantanamo Bay prison closed, it is a life sentence without parole.)

Americans are in love with killing, so long as it is not a do-it-yourself project.

Particular wars, like Iraq, get boring to the public, but they want a war somewhere. The public is not fighting it so they don't really care to know details about the why. Even soldiers don't care enough to know why. Soldiers, when asked, give answers like: Protect America's freedom! That is a slogan, not an explanation. There has been enough war memoirs written that I know the volunteer soldiers have no more idea of why they fight than somebody playing Call of Duty. War for them is about protecting their platoon. There wasn't any bigger American purpose and that is crazy.

I’d say Obama won in 2008 because he campaigned against an incompetently run Iraq War. He was NOT campaigning against war, but he was stuck with the anti-Iraq war theme because he had used it against Hillary. His big advantage over John McCain was he wasn’t Republican and he wasn’t a third term for Bush and his incompetent Secretary of Defense. Except Obama did keep the same Bush team in charge of the Pentagon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates
The only person who Obama fired was a Republican General that ran his disrespectful mouth to Rolling Stone magazine. Voters may have been fatigued by Mideast wars, but Obama was not.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, September 9, 2016 2:45 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two


The elephant in the room remains the American electorate. Trump, with comic transparency, combines the worst aspects of a huckster, con man, snake oil salesman, and partisan conspiracy nut, and yet better than 40% of voters think he would be a plausible president. Reporters who want to get to the nub of the American Problem would do well to start here.

Obama backed in because his ignorant, curiosity free predecessor was awful. America clearly has a hunger for such candidates until they get one.

Election held today, Trump gets 42%. 10.1% for Mr Also Ran and 100,000,000 who wouldn't vote no matter who runs.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, September 10, 2016 10:54 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Is THAT what you're implying?- SIGNY

I’m not implying, I’m saying.= SECOND

Well, at least there's no argument here about who meant what!

Quote:

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton’s National Security Advisers are a “Who’s Who” of the Warfare State. Gen. David Petraeus, Michael Chertoff, and Mike Morrell might be more than window dressing to make Hillary look tough.
All neocons and universal-surveillance proponents. Doesn't that raise any red flag for you?

Quote:

To get elected, Hillary has to look tough.

To get elected, Hillary has to satisfy her neocon/ transnational corporate/ international-finance backers. So far, I would call that "mission accomplished".

Quote:

Once elected, Hillary has to look tough if she wants to be reelected. The next election campaign starts immediately after this election and next time the Republicans might pick a better candidate than Trump. But they will be picking somebody as belligerent and enough voters are in love with toughness and war-like talk that peace-mongers like Bernie or Michael Dukakis or George McGovern or Jimmy Carter (1980 run) can NOT get elected or reelected.
Both Obama and Carter were elected with peace as PART of their platform. And Bill Clinton ran on It's the economy, stupid", plus he kept is foreign wars to a minimum, and only picked on countries that couldn't pick back. The moment it looked like he was going to enter a quagmire (Somalia Black Hawk down!") he slid out of the situation.

Quote:

The Republicans voters were enraged that Carter did not invade Panama, but instead just gave the Canal Zone back.
Good thing he wasn't on the Repub ticket then!

Quote:

The voters were really enraged that Carter did not invade Iran to free the hostages.
There was also the problem of "stagflation" - high unemployment and high inflation. I recall that very specifically, because we were selling a hours then, and we offered the buyers a second mortgage for 18%.

Quote:

If the USA is to become a more peaceful nation, it needs a more peaceful electorate.

One of then things that might help is to stop scaremongering the American public, as Presidents and candidates LIKE HILLARY are wont to do, and you are wont to go along with.

WHO would be best in a crisis??? Hillary's ads intone. Meanwhile, endless, baseless accusations against Trump being Putin's puppet, and endless baseless accusations about Putin's (so far invisible) "invasion" of Ukraine, and Putin's (so far undemonstrated) manipulation of the upcoming vote. (By the way, I have been bitching and complaining about the United State's ultra-shoddy voting system since GWB hacked HIS two elections. I think we should be voting in paper, and the votes should be hand-counted... that's one way for sure NOBODY gets to "hack the vote counting".)

And then there is that vast conspiracy of Putin's domestic and international minions: Le Pen, Geert Wilder, AfD, Theresa May, all of the other EU nationalists, and the "alt right" and that army of "paid Russian trolls" and "useful Putin idiots" who are all doing Putin's bidding. All that hyperventilation!

Even you don't believe that, SECOND. Meanwhile it was Hillary and her fellow neocons who made a lot of those crises in the first place.

Quote:

And Obama offered his Senate vote AGAINST the war in Iraq in contrast to Hillary's vote FOR the war as proof that he was sincere about his promise and that he had to guts to make it stick. And many people who were already sick to death of war, war, and more war voted for Obama on the hope that he would bring peace. So you can take that whole argument about how There is a price to pay for a liberal domestic agenda at home, and that price is "war abroad" and you can stuff it back wherever it came from. In fact, I think that you're really afraid that making nice with Russia is one of Trump's stronger arguments, because you've done everything you can to derail it. = SIGNY

America is at war because Americans want war.= SECOND

American's "wanted" the Iraq war because they were scared into it because of non-existent WMD. They wanted the war in Afghanistan because they were scared into it by 9-11, altho Afghanistan had fuck-all to do with it. (We should have invaded Saudi Arabia, if anywhere.) Americans were sure that Assad was a terrible dictator when - according to those who lived in Syria- he was really the protector of minorities. Americans were convinced that Noriega was a powerful drug runner. They were lied to that about the "massacres" of civilians in Libya and the former Yugoslavia which never happened. There was the attack on our Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin.

Americans can be stampeded into war, and for those old enough to remember the last five (six? seven? eight?) times we were lied into war ... and smart enough to learn lessons from those events ... there will always be a fresh new generation who doesn't remember our government's lying people into mindless support for pointless, baseless wars of aggression everywhere.

Quote:

I’d say Obama won in 2008 because he campaigned against an incompetently run Iraq War. He was NOT campaigning against war, but he was stuck with the anti-Iraq war theme because he had used it against Hillary. His big advantage over John McCain was he wasn’t Republican and he wasn’t a third term for Bush and his incompetent Secretary of Defense. Except Obama did keep the same Bush team in charge of the Pentagon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates
The only person who Obama fired was a Republican General that ran his disrespectful mouth to Rolling Stone magazine. Voters may have been fatigued by Mideast wars, but Obama was not.



American's don't want a generically "antiwar" President; I agree. Despite the fact that WE are the biggest military on the globe, with our boots everywhere on the ground and generators of war and chaos everywhere we go, we have been scaremongered so long and by so many Presidents and candidates (because nothing unites a baboon troop like LEOPARD! LEOPARD!) that telling the American people "Peace is always the best way" is not a winning message.

Also, it is untrue. There ARE threats out there, and the President has to be able to respond to whatever may arise, in a muscular and aggressive fashion if necessary.

On the other hand, making shit up just to scare the people into voting for you, and creating international crisis is not being a good President, or a good candidate. (And knowingly, illegally using an unsecure private server to evade FOIA requests and then illegally bleaching most of the content doesn't make you a good Scy State, either.)

Trump isn't an anti-war President. What he DOES want to do is reduce tensions with Russia, and since we were the ones who cranked up that problem in the first place, I think it's a great idea.


--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
A.I Artificial Intelligence AI
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:16 - 237 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, October 31, 2024 19:06 - 592 posts
How do you like my garbage truck?
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:49 - 2 posts
Trump on Joe Rogan: Full Podcast
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:05 - 7 posts
Israeli War
Thu, October 31, 2024 18:04 - 62 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:58 - 4657 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, October 31, 2024 17:45 - 4425 posts
Spooky Music Weird Horror Songs...Tis ...the Season...... to be---CREEPY !
Thu, October 31, 2024 16:19 - 56 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, October 31, 2024 15:11 - 381 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Thu, October 31, 2024 14:25 - 921 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, October 31, 2024 13:46 - 7408 posts
No matter what happens...
Wed, October 30, 2024 23:43 - 21 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL