Trump donated money to NAMBLA? Is this why he won't reveal his taxes?
POSTED BY: reaverfan
UPDATED: Saturday, September 10, 2016 20:54
VIEWED: 16800
PAGE 1 of 1
"Many people are saying that Trump’s tax returns reveal donations to the North American Man/Boy Love Association, an advocacy group for pedophiles."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...re-saying-donald-trump-donated-t
o-nambla.html
If this is true, is it because Trump himself is a pedophile? After all, we have proof that Republican politicos molest children 18 times more frequently than Dems.
Do we really want a pedophile in the Oval Office?
I, for one, don't. That's why I can't vote for Donald Trump. Supporting NAMBLA is supporting pedophilia, and I believe it's wrong. I'm voting my values.
NO PEDOPHILES IN THE WHITE HOUSE! NO TO TRUMP!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Allegations of Trump’s Pedophilia go as far back as 1994
For many people Trump’s involvement with underage sexual partners was first brought to their attention in June of this year when a lawsuit filed by a Jane Doe accused the Republican Presidential Nominee of raping her in 1994, when she was only 13. However, in 2011 an article was published outlining the gift of $5000 given to Nevada Senator Harry Reid by the candidate, mere days after Trump’s arrest on suspicion of having sex with an unidentified twelve year old boy in the owner’s suite of Trump’s Las Vegas hotel and casino. Since the publication of this article there have been rumors online about Trump’s relationship with NAMBLA.
Trump’s longtime friend and ally Roger Ailes has recently been forced to step down as the head of Fox News on multiple charges of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. It does not seem to be a coincidence that these rumors have gained footing in the days following Ailes’ departure. Some argue that without the head of a major network to suppress these rumors more of Trump’s victims may come forward, and confirmation of these rumors may be forthcoming.
Trump’s alleged financial support of NAMBLA ranges up to millions over the course of decades.
In July, rumors have been circulating in various political forums, alleging thatTrump has donated varying amounts from hundreds to millions of dollars over the course of years up to decades. Given the temper of the candidate and the violence of his supporters, all parties involved are very careful to state that these are still just rumors at the time of this writing. However, the number of questions and allegations has increased so rapidly in the past several days that a public statement being released that “people are questioning Donald Trump’s ties to NAMBLA. A lot of people are saying that he has donated money to NAMBLA, and that the reason he has not released his tax returns is that they will show tax deductible contributions to it”. The leaders also asked that reporters and curious minds stop contacting them until a determination on the validity of the allegations can be made.
In an uncharacteristic move, Trump’s campaign has refused to either confirm or deny his donations supporting NAMBLA at the time of this writing. Given the candidates history of issuing public statements over much less this has only fueled the rumors. On a popular site where “Trump-eters” discuss policy and the campaign, there are vehement defenses of the candidate, but no denial of the allegations, and questioners frequently find their posts deleted or replied to with personal attacks. This has led more conspiracy minded persons to the theory that Trump staffer’s are actively trying to suppress this rumor. As of the time of this writing, no statement has been issued confirming or denying these allegations.
https://medium.com/@DOdeadswitch/do...american-man-boy-love-cf4ba136688f#.pvsa9i2d5
Where there's smoke...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is false. The claim that Trump is a member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association is the result of a bot programmed by Reddit pranksters.
Originally posted by reaverfan:
If this is true, is it because Trump himself is a pedophile?
www.snopes.com/trump-did-not-donate-to-nambla/
On the other hand, there is lesson from LBJ of Texas, my home state, in how to smash an opponent.
Legend has it that LBJ, in one of his early congressional campaigns, told one of his aides to spread the story that Johnson's opponent fucked pigs. The aide responded "Christ, Lyndon, we can't call the guy a pigfucker. It isn't true." To which LBJ supposedly replied "Of course it ain't true, but I want to make the son-of-a-bitch deny it."
Today's Democrats could learn a lesson from this. The Republicans did.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2006/09/25/did-he-or-didnt-he/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, but that's the wrong Snopes. That's a Russian mirror site.
Originally posted by second:Quote:It is false. The claim that Trump is a member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association is the result of a bot programmed by Reddit pranksters.
Originally posted by reaverfan:
If this is true, is it because Trump himself is a pedophile?
www.snopes.com/trump-did-not-donate-to-nambla/
On the other hand, there is lesson from LBJ of Texas, my home state, in how to smash an opponent.
Legend has it that LBJ, in one of his early congressional campaigns, told one of his aides to spread the story that Johnson's opponent fucked pigs. The aide responded "Christ, Lyndon, we can't call the guy a pigfucker. It isn't true." To which LBJ supposedly replied "Of course it ain't true, but I want to make the son-of-a-bitch deny it."
Today's Democrats could learn a lesson from this. The Republicans did.
http://washingtonmonthly.com/2006/09/25/did-he-or-didnt-he/
Just kidding. I knew it was fake. The court case over him raping a 13 year old isn't, though.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We know thousands of verified facts about Trump. Every last one of them should've destroyed his reputation. But Americans have no taste and very little memory for anything Trump said or did more than a month ago. And so Trump is steadily climbing in the polls.
Originally posted by reaverfan:
Just kidding. I knew it was fake.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrp
romo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You do now that New York mag is one the most unreliable rags on the planet right? Maybe not. This is just their lame attempt to get Don to release his tax returns. You believe this scum over FOX News don't ya?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think that Trump's tax returns have tax evasions in exactly the same way Nixon's return showed tax evasion. When Nixon made his return public, somebody in the public put two and two together and then Dick owed $450,000 in additional taxes. Trump is in a tax evasion league far bigger than Dick was in.
Originally posted by whozit:
You do now that New York mag is one the most unreliable rags on the planet right? Maybe not. This is just their lame attempt to get Don to release his tax returns. You believe this scum over FOX News don't ya?
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/03/remembering_ric.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Other news outlets have reported "dirty" dealings by Trump & Co. like use of illegal immigrants for his construction company (then he doesn't pay them)
and illegal immigrants in his modeling company. He has females as young as 15 years old "model" within the Fashion industry, which uses these girls who overstay their visas and work permits.
Trump's company tells the girls to say they're visiting relatives, even though they have no one of their family here in the States. He's also been
tied to mob connections in New York. Plus the fact that the public, actually
economists, could figure out his real net worth. He's not as rich as he claims. Warren Buffet, a real billionaire, has said as much.
His immigration policy is just Make America White Again. Pure & Simple. Fact is that it was never that. The first settlers were a bunch of thieves, cutthroats and murderers. You know, the cream of the crop from Europe. England, France, Spain. Stole the country from the "Natives" that were here
long before the "longboats" came. That's the Vikings.
Yes, the first people were the Native Americans. So people of color were
here first. Funny how that works out, isn't it!?
Now. I'm ready for your insults. Go ahead, make my millennium!
Bwahahahah!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
You do now that New York mag is one the most unreliable rags on the planet right? Maybe not. This is just their lame attempt to get Don to release his tax returns. You believe this scum over FOX News don't ya?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The whole point of this story is to parody Trump.
"Many people, smart people, the best people" + "are saying."
Trump's every speech is a bunch of unsupported allegations.
"It's bad, folks. It's bad. I'm gonna fix it. You're gonna love it."
Look at what the bot said:
"Many people are saying that Trump’s tax returns reveal donations to the North American Man/Boy Love Association, an advocacy group for pedophiles. The theory has been floated by several highly reputable Twitter accounts, and Google Trends registered a spike in searches for “Trump and NAMBLA” in recent days.
According to the Daily Beast, the discussion was kicked off by a post on esteemed social-media site Reddit, which has brought many things to light, not all of them pleasant.
But why doesn’t Trump want to release his [tax returns]? Could it be because he donated a sizable amount of money to NAMBLA and he wants to cover it up? I’m not saying Trump donated money to NAMBLA, but people are saying that. It’s something I’ve heard, but I don’t believe Donald Trump donated several million dollars to NAMBLA over the last several years. Still, if he did that would be a great reason to not release his tax returns. But look, I’m not here to say whether or not Donald Trump donated millions to NAMBLA, I’m just here to let you know that every candidate has released his tax returns over the last 40 years, so there has to be a reason he doesn’t, and several very smart people are saying he contributed millions of dollars to NAMBLA.
“Maybe that’s right, maybe that’s wrong, but I don’t know why he doesn’t release his records,” Trump said in 2011, when demanding that President Obama dispel the rumor that he was born in Kenya by releasing his birth certificate. The same can be said, just as fairly, about Trump’s alleged ties to NAMBLA in 2016.
Some may think it irresponsible to spread inflammatory accusations that have no evidentiary basis other than the fact that other people are spreading them. But Donald Trump has always believed that there’s no harm in asking questions."
Also:
"It’s worth noting that there’s no substantive evidence that Trump has ever donated money to NAMBLA. Given the mogul’s broader aversion to giving money to any charity or organization, the chances that he gave to this particular advocacy group are miniscule. But then, there’s no substantive evidence that Obama is sympathetic to ISIS or that Hillary Clinton’s emails doomed an Iranian scientist. But that hasn’t stopped both Trump and his running mate from suggesting the latter.
Thus, many people are saying that Trump respects the trolls who are spreading the NAMBLA rumor, and that he would like it to be shared as widely as possible."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/08/many-people-are-saying-do
nald-trump-donated-to-nambla.html
I used this story to make conservatives flip their lids. When they post Snopes, I deny the validity if Snopes. When they ask for proof, I say "prove he didn't."
Just turning Trump's methods back on him. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For a little while Tuesday afternoon, it seemed as if the Republican nominee for president of the United States had risen to the occasion. Standing next to the Mexican president, he seemed almost thoughtful, reasonable, courteous and restrained. No doubt, the new, more presidential Trump made Clinton supporters a tad bit anxious.
They needn’t have worried.
A few hours after his surprise meeting with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, during which Trump was as polite and conciliatory as a frat boy confronted by a Matamoros cop, Trump in Phoenix was back with the bluster. He left little doubt that this was the real Trump, if there is such a thing. What appeared to be a “softening” during the last couple of weeks turned out to be a reflection of the dual and contradictory advice he’s been getting from his new campaign team.
Trump in all his red-faced bluster would be laughable if not for the fact that millions of Americans are looking for a scapegoat. They believe he’s just the man to drive out the brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking among us and to build a wall — an “impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall” —to keep them out. On immigration, that’s the essence of Trump’s appeal.
Mexico, Trump assures us, will pay for that multi-billion-dollar wall. “They just don’t know it yet,” he proclaimed in Phoenix, shortly after he said he and Peña Nieto did not discuss funding for the wall. (The Mexican president said they did, insisting that he told Trump Mexico would not be paying for any wall.)
To hear Trump tell it, undocumented immigrants in this country are, with few exceptions, innately criminal. That brown-skinned fellow putting up dry wall on the new apartment complex across the street, that fellow pulling weeds behind the walls of a gated community, the waitress bringing migas and coffee to our table — they have nothing on their minds but rape, pillage and murder. Don’t you know? That’s why they’re in this country.
We’ve come to understand that Trump’s hateful lies and exaggerations are part of a pattern. We know that for the Republican nominee, it’s the truth that’s alien. A few examples from Wednesday night:
• Illegal immigration does not cost our country more than $113 billion a year.
• Hillary Clinton does not plan to bring in 620,000 new Syrian refugees a year; those who do come here have been subject to a comprehensive two-year screening.
• Despite Trump’s claim that “countless Americans” are “victims of violence” by undocumented immigrants who are “dangerous, dangerous, dangerous criminals,” the vast, vast, vast majority of undocumented immigrants do not fit Trump’s description of aggravated felons, whose crimes include murder.
• NAFTA, despite weaknesses, has not been a “disaster,” as Trump has labeled it. The Mexican president noted on Tuesday that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce believes that more than 6 million American jobs rely on trade with Mexico.
All it took to bring down an avalanche of lies was a raucous, adoring crowd in Arizona egging Trump on and a speech prepared with input from the hardliner side of the campaign team.
www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/The-real-Trump-919
8897.php
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
You do now that New York mag is one the most unreliable rags on the planet right? Maybe not. This is just their lame attempt to get Don to release his tax returns. You believe this scum over FOX News don't ya?
What is he hiding? What is he afraid we'll find out if his tax returns are released?
This is a guy who has never held any elected office, and he's trying to make the case that he's a great businessman and deserves to run the country based on his prowess as said businessman.
But he can offer no evidence of his business expertise except a string of bankruptcies, unpaid contractors, illegal immigrants he hired to work for him so he could pay them less and threaten them with deportation if they complained, and more.
Hell, he even want to outsource the job of building a wall, making someone else pay for it!
And there is an awful lot of mounting evidence that he is indeed a pedophile and a child molester, neither of which would ever stop Republicans from voting for him, of course.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Seriously. How do you go bankrupt running a freaking casino?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They already have. Witness this thread.
"Many people are saying that Trump’s tax returns reveal donations to the North American Man/Boy Love Association, an advocacy group for pedophiles."- REAVERFAN
... There is lesson from LBJ of Texas, my home state, in how to smash an opponent. Legend has it that LBJ, in one of his early congressional campaigns, told one of his aides to spread the story that Johnson's opponent fucked pigs. The aide responded "Christ, Lyndon, we can't call the guy a pigfucker. It isn't true." To which LBJ supposedly replied "Of course it ain't true, but I want to make the son-of-a-bitch deny it."
Today's Democrats could learn a lesson from this.-SECOND
Democrats ... Hillary included ... are willing to say anything .... anything ... to discredit Trump.
Trump is an agent of Putin. So is Nigel Farage. So is Marine Le Pen. And all nationalists, apparently.
Hillary landed at the Bosnian airport under fire. Not.
Ludicrous.
--------------
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Huffington Post terminates former contributing writer for linking to a video on Hillary's health (viewed 3.5 million times already) and terminates his access.
"This kind of thing happens in mainland China"
Judging by the number of views that this video got, I believe this is the video that he linked to
--------------
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:When newscasters quote Trump’s statements back to his representatives, they reply, “That’s not what Mr. Trump is saying”; his words aren’t held to convey a fixed message. This obscurity comes to a head when Trump experiences his self-described “softening” on immigration, only to have his surrogates insist that there has been no change. “He hasn’t changed his position on immigration,” Katrina Pierson, a spokesperson, says on CNN. “He’s changed the words that he is saying.”
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Democrats ... Hillary included ... are willing to say anything .... anything ... to discredit Trump.
To know what Trump means, despite the words that he is saying, you have to understand—or think you understand—the message before he opens his mouth.
www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-mixed-signals-on-immigration-cause-
a-flap-1472169148
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How many of Trump's lies were about wars he voted for? People he bombed? Guns he ran? Coups he fomented? Countries he destroyed?
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'Tis true, 'tis true...........he's a different type of scumbag. Yes, he's never killed anyone; or so they say. There is a good reason, I guess, why he's never been afforded the opportunity.
But, I digress. As you have emphatically stated, several times I might add, Hillary is the Anti-Christ, Beelzebub, The Prince of Darkness, She who shall not be Named......say it with me...............The Devil.
And I say, why not vote for the best.......................in the end, what does it matter, the End is Nigh!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
How many of Trump's lies were about wars he voted for? People he bombed? Guns he ran? Coups he fomented? Countries he destroyed?
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's face it, Trump speaks in code, we all know it. In truth, he needs no
help from Hillary; he's doing a fantastic job all by his lonesome. He's the
consummate salesman, he could sell ice cubes to Eskimos. He said so.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:When newscasters quote Trump’s statements back to his representatives, they reply, “That’s not what Mr. Trump is saying”; his words aren’t held to convey a fixed message. This obscurity comes to a head when Trump experiences his self-described “softening” on immigration, only to have his surrogates insist that there has been no change. “He hasn’t changed his position on immigration,” Katrina Pierson, a spokesperson, says on CNN. “He’s changed the words that he is saying.”
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Democrats ... Hillary included ... are willing to say anything .... anything ... to discredit Trump.
To know what Trump means, despite the words that he is saying, you have to understand—or think you understand—the message before he opens his mouth.
www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-mixed-signals-on-immigration-cause-
a-flap-1472169148
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's odd! why would anyone try to 'gag' a reporter. Why would anyone ban
one of society's watchdog's - you know, the Fourth Estate! The First Amendment specifically,
among other things, prohibits infringing on the
freedom of the press, etc. and so forth.
This is an outrage! Who would dare infringe the press, one of our guaranteed
freedoms. This is un-American, is what this is!!!
Who would do such a thing! Let me guess, Hillary! No!, Obama, yeah he gets
blamed for everything. Nope, I was right the first time.....Hillary, from
now on it's her fault. The world's problems - floods, famine and disease,
it's her fault.
Trump Bans the Washington Post!
Putin......er, I mean Trump's Ban of Press Outlets continued
Trump The Dick-tator impinges the Press
Sorry, wrong Press coverage.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Huffington Post terminates former contributing writer for linking to a video on Hillary's health (viewed 3.5 million times already) and terminates his access.
"This kind of thing happens in mainland China"
Judging by the number of views that this video got, I believe this is the video that he linked to
--------------
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
'Tis true, 'tis true...........he's a different type of scumbag. Yes, he's never killed anyone; or so they say. There is a good reason, I guess, why he's never been afforded the opportunity.
But, I digress. As you have emphatically stated, several times I might add, Hillary is the Anti-Christ, Beelzebub, The Prince of Darkness, She who shall not be Named......say it with me...............The Devil.
And I say, why not vote for the best.......................in the end, what does it matter, the End is Nigh!
SGG
But you don't believe that. Because you don't REALLY think there's a downside potential with Hillary.
It's all about upside and downside potentials.
There's not a whole lot of upside with Hillary. First of all, she's not in a position to make good on most, or many, or probably not even any of her pages and pages and pages of platform promises. Second of all, she's not even a decent mouthpiece for them, since she doesn't believe in them and won't stump for them. But when it comes to downside potential, and nuclear weapons: "Right now, American policy is to reserve the right to launch first — that is, before the president has reason to think that nuclear weapons have actually been loosed upon the United States; that is, in the absence of any hard evidence that a bomb has actually detonated.
If you go to Clinton’s website, look under “Issues,” and hit the button (sorry) for “Military and defense,” then search for “nuclear,” you’ll come up blank. ... Does Clinton avoid broaching it because she doesn’t want to look soft, or because she’s afraid to scare the bejeezus out of the country by noting that it is currently American policy to reserve the right to launch nuclear weapons first ..."
Donald otoh has said this about nuclear weapons: “(I) wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of using nuclear weapons … I don’t want to rule out anything. I will be the last to use nuclear weapons. It’s a horror to use nuclear weapons. The power of weaponry today is the single greatest problem that our world has. I will be the last to use it. I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be. I will be the last, but I will never ever rule it out.” And he wants to reduce tensions with Russia. That seems far more sane and a definite upside potential.
As for his downside potential, well, we'd have to depend on Senate democrats to mitigate that.
http://www.salon.com/2016/09/02/the-non-nuclear-option-the-most-urgent
-threat-to-human-civilization-is-not-trump_partner/
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:None, because he has been playing games all his life. In contrast, there is the crew of Serenity. They are all earnest. Their decisions are as irreversible as death. They can't go to court or declare bankruptcy. Everyone they deal with will start shooting when Mal breaks his word. Trump's life is a completely different TV show.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
How many of Trump's lies were about wars he voted for? People he bombed? Guns he ran? Coups he fomented? Countries he destroyed?
Trump’s campaign chairman said in May: “This is the ultimate reality show. It’s the presidency of the United States.”
Each stage of Trump’s life, and campaign, has been something of a reality show. His privileged youth was Paris Hilton’s “The Simple Life,” his years in New York’s tabloid culture “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” his professional life “Million Dollar Listing,” his three marriages “The Bachelor” and, with Melania, “90 Day Fiance.”
In the campaign, his courtship of the religious right was “Duck Dynasty,” his systematic elimination of his 16 competitors in the GOP primary was “Survivor.”
Trump’s national spokeswoman, Katrina Pierson, has been doing double duty on a reality show, “Sisters in Law.” Omarosa Manigault and another “Apprentice” alum are Trump surrogates. One of Trump’s ex-wives, Marla Maples, was just on “Dancing With the Stars.”
Trump’s campaign is reality television’s hostile takeover of the U.S. political system. The winner is often the one who generates the most shock and who commands the most attention.
When Trump launched his campaign the rules of reality TV came along for the ride, in which the person who says the worst stuff is rewarded with the most airtime. Under these rules, fame disengaged itself from achievement. In this world, you became famous especially if you were the guy that nobody liked. In fact, the more despicable, the better.
Trump followed this plot device over and over again, causing one outrage after another — and it worked. It didn’t much matter what the issue was or what people thought of Trump; if they were talking about him, if he dominated the news cycle, he won.
Having a reality-TV celebrity running for commander in chief may subconsciously signal our brains to participate in this election the same way we’ve grown accustomed to consuming reality shows, believing that none of it is genuine, that none of it has any actual consequences. It doesn’t matter if two out of three claims Trump makes are false, or if he proposes dangerous ideas: It’s only entertainment.
Reality TV may favor scoundrels, but reality can be more judgmental. One of the earliest heroes of the genre, the Machiavellian Richard Hatch, won “Survivor” — and later won himself 51 months in prison for tax evasion. May Trump get prison once he releases his tax returns.
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reality-interrupts-the-trump-show/2016
/09/02/d543606a-7127-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What Trump’s hires reveal about GOP candidate
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But you don't believe that. Because you don't REALLY think there's a downside potential with Hillary.
It's all about upside and downside potentials.
Ruth Marcus says questionable campaign staff decisions pale in face of latest move to bring on the ‘Captain Ahab of Clinton haters.’
WASHINGTON — Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas, the old saying goes. If so, Donald Trump should be awfully itchy.
Trump has just augmented his ever-changing cast of mostly second-string campaign operatives with a new deputy campaign manager, conservative activist David Bossie. “A friend of mine for many years,” Trump told my Washington Post colleague Robert Costa. “Solid. Smart. Loves politics, knows how to win.”
That’s one way to put it. Win at any cost would be another, and that’s being polite. If Bossie’s name doesn’t ring a bell, you’re lucky, because it means that you haven’t been immersed for the last two decades-plus in the mucky minutiae of the right’s no-holds-barred war against Bill and Hillary Clinton.
This is a war in which Bossie has risen from foot soldier to general, in large part thanks to his willingness to do anything in pursuit of his prey. He is the Captain Ahab of Clinton haters.
Some highlights:
Back in 1992, Bossie was working with Floyd Brown, of Willie Horton 1988 campaign ad fame, on an anti-Clinton effort that included a phone line in which callers could pay $4.99 to hear supposed sex tapes between Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers. President George HW. Bush denounced the tactic as “the kind of sleaze that diminishes the political process” and filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against the group, the Presidential Victory Commission.
Bossie’s particular contribution to this effort involved harassing friends and family of a former law student of Clinton’s, Susan Coleman, who had committed suicide. As reported by CBS’ Eric Engberg, Bossie’s effort involved trying to prove that Coleman shot herself after having a sexual relationship with Clinton and becoming pregnant.
Bossie and another investigator pursued Coleman’s mother to an Army hospital where her husband was being treated for a stroke. “Here the two men burst into the sick man’s room, and began questioning the shaken mother about her daughter’s suicide,” Engberg reported.
Five years later, Lloyd Grove recounted in The Washington Post, “A chastened Bossie later told friends that the CBS story had made his grandmother cry.”
Chastened? Not so much. Grove was writing about Bossie because he had landed himself back in the news, this time as a committee investigator for former Republican Rep. Dan Burton (famed for claiming Vince Foster was murdered and shooting a pumpkin, or maybe a melon, to prove it).
After working with Bossie for several months on the investigation into Clinton’s campaign fundraising, the committee’s chief counsel and two other staffers, with the lawyer, John Rowley III, issued a public letter denouncing Bossie’s “unrelenting, self-promoting actions.”
“Not since Roy Cohn — the bare-knuckled chief counsel for Sen. Joe McCarthy in the Red-hunting hearings of the 1950s — has a congressional staffer been so thoroughly demonized by his enemies,” Grove wrote. The comparison is particularly striking in retrospect, since post-McCarthy Cohn became Trump’s lawyer.
Less than a year later, Burton was forced to apologize to his colleagues and Bossie resigned under pressure, after accusations that tapes of former Hillary Clinton law partner Webster Hubbell had been unfairly edited to exclude exculpatory comments about whether Clinton had known of his phony billing. (She had “no idea,” Hubbell said.)
In a closed-door Republican conference meeting, then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich told Burton he was “embarrassed ... at the circus that went on at your committee,” The Washington Post reported.
Since then, of course, Bossie, now at the helm of Cit
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Including that Trump, Farage, Le Pen, AfD, and even Assange, are all part of that great Russian conspiracy to make sure Hillary doesn't get elected, and the equally ludicrous assertion that it was the Russians who hacked the DNC server.
Democrats ... Hillary included ... are willing to say anything .... anything ... to discredit Trump.- SIGNY
I just had to bring that up to remind you pro-Hillary people the truly ridiculous depths to which her campaign has gone. They rival anything that Trump has said for sheer ludicrousness.
Trump says dumb things off the top of his head. The man has no filter between his ADHD-brain and his mouth. That man needs a shock collar!
Hillary and her campaign, OTOH, say really dishonest things with malice aforethought.
You clearly didn't watch the video, and listen to Hillary's endless string of lies, evasions, and reversals....
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60790
-----
Personal emails are my personal business.
We turned over everything that was work-related. Every single thing.
90 to 95% of my work-related emails were in the State system. If they wanted to see them they would certainly have been able to do so... We learned that from the State Department analysis. (Contradicted by Inspector General's analysis that less than 1% of Hillary's State Dept emails were accounted for.)
This was a fast-moving series of events in the fog of war. (Her excuse for blaming the killing of Ambassador Stevens on movie about Allah)
The server contains personal communications from my husband and me (Bill: "The only time I went on the internet, I wrote two emails and ordered Christmas presents from a reservation. I found people said embarrassing things on emails, I didn't want to be one of them.")
How many angels dance on the head of a pin? *laughter* I mean, how do you answer that? (Deflecting yet another question about her emails.)
I am so sick of the Sanders Campaign lying about me.
Q: Do you think New York State should recognize gay marriage?
A: No
I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I do not support gay marriage.
-----
This is just the first four minutes of a 37-minute video.
We haven't even gotten to free trade, and all of the scandals in which document-hiding played such an important part, and including Bill's "Pardons for contributions to my wife's Senate campaign" scheme, which netted Hillary millions of dollars.
Trump may blurt out silly statements, but Hillary (and Bill) are inveterate liars. So, getting to Hillary's latest scandals ...
PRESS CONFERENCES?
You know, of course, that Hillary has not had a press conference - where people get to ask her questions... for (by now) over 273 days. (But who's counting?)
Hillary didn't have the balls to address that topic directly. but of course left it to her press secretary to podcast:
Quote:
Naturally, as questions mount if and when the Democratic Presidential candidate will finally speak to the press, overnight Clinton's press secretary, Brian Fallon, had some good news, when he assured an ABC News podcast that she will hold regular press conferences, but under one condition.
That she is president... This is not a joke: this is how ABC put it, "Clinton’s lead press secretary, Brian Fallon, vowed that if elected, “Hillary Clinton will hold press conferences.” And here we were worried that if elected, Hillary would serve Clinton Foundation corporation and Middle Eastern donors for (at least) 4 years without speaking to the press at least once (an idea Trump may want to consider).
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-03/hillary-promises-deliver-regu
lar-press-conferences-one-condition
Of course, Hillary has had plenty of "interviews" where preprepared softballs are lobbed at her, but nothing where she has had to interact flexibly in multiple directions and on fast-moving topic
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"In contrast, there is the crew of Serenity."
Because nothing says REAL WORLD EVENTS like a fictional story. Slipped a cog there, second?
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Back to the real world:
Do Hillary's lies about these topics not disturb you, second? ... wars voted for ... people bombed ... guns that were run to ISIS ... coups fomented ... countries destroyed ...
Does Hillary's adherence to America's first strike nuclear policy not cause you any concern, second?
And if not, why not?
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do I care about 1kiki's careful arguments about not letting Hillary have the launch codes? No!
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Back to the real world:
Do Hillary's lies about these topics not disturb you, second? ... wars voted for ... people bombed ... guns that were run to ISIS ... coups fomented ... countries destroyed ...
Does Hillary's adherence to America's first strike nuclear policy not cause you any concern, second?
And if not, why not?
Is Hillary the best man for the job? No!
That would be Trump! Or Kaine! Or Libertarian Johnson!
But there are other considerations:
Who didn’t publicize his tax returns? Trump!
www.factcheck.org/2016/09/kaine-muffs-trump-nixon-comparison/
Who will appoint the next Scalia? Trump!
Who purchased ads demanding execution of the Central Park Five? Trump!
Who has been bankrupted and divorced and sued thousands of times? Trump!
Who is the bigger liar? Trump!
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinto
n-donald-trump-truth-o-met/
I am voting for the unTrump or the opposite of the Trump!
Does anyone know who that would be? Bernie or Kaine, maybe, if Hillary is killed by Trump's second amendment followers before the election?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by reaverfan:
"Many people are saying that Trump’s tax returns reveal donations to the North American Man/Boy Love Association, an advocacy group for pedophiles."
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...re-saying-donald-trump-donated-t
o-nambla.html
If this is true, is it because Trump himself is a pedophile? After all, we have proof that Republican politicos molest children 18 times more frequently than Dems.
Do we really want a pedophile in the Oval Office?
I, for one, don't. That's why I can't vote for Donald Trump. Supporting NAMBLA is supporting pedophilia, and I believe it's wrong. I'm voting my values.
NO PEDOPHILES IN THE WHITE HOUSE! NO TO TRUMP!
SJW wow...
I worked with a lot of politicians that flew down to Costa Rica to fuck 16 year old hotties where it was legal.
If I had an evil bone in my body, I would have scanned every single image of politicians you might have heard of with a 16 year old tit in their mouth with their thumbs up on those trips.
I'm not even going to look at your supposed proof.
If Trump donated money to NAMBLA, Hilary would have already won the election with 99% of the popular vote.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Because Donald's taxes are so much more vital than Hillary aggressively provoking Russia - and keeping the US's nuclear strike-first policy? Because Senate democrats can't be counted on to be the party of 'no' to republican aims? Because the Billary corruption machine that mixes personal gain with government power is trivial? Because when Donald lies about personal things it overshadows Hillary lying about national security and her 'personal' server?
You've done everything except say right out that you're going to vote for a party that isn't going to represent you. You might as well fold your hands and present your butt right now.
Meanwhile, I've gotten my 'I told you so' posts all lined up.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Had you bothered to read this thread, you'd know what I was doing. It would have taken you less time than posting what you erroneously posted.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm not even going to look at your supposed proof.
If Trump donated money to NAMBLA, Hilary would have already won the election with 99% of the popular vote.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Donald otoh has said this about nuclear weapons: “(I) wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of using nuclear weapons … I don’t want to rule out anything. I will be the last to use nuclear weapons. It’s a horror to use nuclear weapons. The power of weaponry today is the single greatest problem that our world has. I will be the last to use it. I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be. I will be the last, but I will never ever rule it out.” And he wants to reduce tensions with Russia. That seems far more sane and a definite upside potential.
As for his downside potential, well, we'd have to depend on Senate democrats to mitigate that.
First of all, did we grow up together and I wasn't aware of it? Is that what you decipher? That I believe there is no "downside" to a Hillary presidency.
Funny, am I that predictable? Gee, and I thought I was a Pisces.
Tell me something, is Donald predictable? Some may say, no he's quite the
opposite. But really, how many times has he flipped the switch? How many times has he said one thing and then completely go off the rails? His big immigration speech, he blatantly lied through his teeth and said that
paying for the Wall wasn't discussed. Well, that doesn't matter either.
You think you know everything, well make all the predictions and statements
you want. In the end it doesn't matter because you know nothing. You want to hate on Hillary, be my guest. Have at it. Don't go telling me what I do or don't believe..........you do not know me. And I don't know you, don't care
to.
I want Trump to win so badly. Why? To finally shut up the mouths of people that swear they know everything. I don't know what will happen, no more than you do. But I do know how I feel about this lying sack of shit. I want him
to win to see him build that Wall, to see him deport 11 million people, to see him create those jobs for the black community, and for you folks too.
Oh, there will be blood.......make no mistake. He will make America white again, so sorry, Great again! Fuck him and the fucking shitboat he came in on. Hope he wins and keeps his promises, no matter how asinine they are.
Hope he wins and plunges this country into a shit-storm of grief, pain and
financial ruin. Yes, he will make America Broke Again with his fantastic
tax structure that favors the rich. With his asinine policies that will
bankrupt this nation - Wall, Mass deportation, connections to Russia (among other things). Yes, you guys will be selling Tacos on every corner, cleaning toilets and growing pot all with the Trump logo prominently displayed.
Even so-called republicans have stated as much. The Wall will cost this country billions, if not trillions to build. And to what purpose? His economic plan (wait, I gotta stop chuckling) favors corporations and the rich exclusively. Joe Blow will have to fend for himself. You really think he's going to help the black community at large? FUCK NO! He didn't even want them living in his luxury apartments.
Of course he wants to make nice with Russia, he has a lot invested there.
Please don't bother. I follow the script he wrote. You talk shit about Hillary, but Trump, although you say you are not voting for him, you blindly
defend. And then you accuse me of being blind to Hillary's evil-doing.
Yeah, you got that right. I believe you have been totally objective.
Yep, Trump should definitely beat Hillary.
Yeah, Make America ____________ Again!
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes
Donald otoh has said this about nuclear weapons: “(I) wouldn’t dismiss the possibility of using nuclear weapons … I don’t want to rule out anything. I will be the last to use nuclear weapons. It’s a horror to use nuclear weapons. The power of weaponry today is the single greatest problem that our world has. I will be the last to use it. I will not be a happy trigger like some people might be. I will be the last, but I will never ever rule it out.” And he wants to reduce tensions with Russia. That seems far more sane and a definite upside potential.
As for his downside potential, well, we'd have to depend on Senate democrats to mitigate that.- KIKI
First of all, did we grow up together and I wasn't aware of it? Is that what you decipher? That I believe there is no "downside" to a Hillary presidency. Funny, am I that predictable?
Quote:So?
Gee, and I thought I was a Pisces.
Quote:So are you going to vote for him?
Tell me something, is Donald predictable? Some may say, no he's quite the opposite. But really, how many times has he flipped the switch? How many times has he said one thing and then completely go off the rails? His big immigration speech, he blatantly lied through his teeth and said that paying for the Wall wasn't discussed. Well, that doesn't matter either. You think you know everything, well make all the predictions and statements you want. In the end it doesn't matter because you know nothing. You want to hate on Hillary, be my guest. Have at it. Don't go telling me what I do or don't believe ..........you do not know me. And I don't know you, don't care to.
I want Trump to win so badly.
Quote:
Why? To finally shut up the mouths of people that swear they know everything. I don't know what will happen, no more than you do. But I do know how I feel about this lying sack of shit. I want him to win to see him build that Wall, to see him deport 11 million people, to see him create those jobs for the black community, and for you folks too.
So are you going to vote for him?
Quote:Armageddon! Catastrophe!
Oh, there will be blood
Quote:
.......make no mistake. He will make America white again, so sorry, Great again! Fuck him and the fucking shitboat he came in on. Hope he wins and keeps his promises, no matter how asinine they are. Hope he wins and plunges this country into a shit-storm of grief, pain and financial ruin.
Do you think The Donald "will" plunge this nation into grief, pain and financial ruin?
Hey dood, you don't have to wait that long- we're already there! Or haven't you noticed?
Quote:You can't break "again" what is already broken. Do you have ANY idea the kind of debt that we have piled up individually, corporately, governmentally, and in the investment firms? Oh my Lord, each American owes $60,000 already, every man woman and child, and that's just what the government owes. We will NEVER pay off that debt.
Yes, he will make America Broke Again
Quote:
with his fantastic tax structure that favors the rich.
Bull. Shit.
Wealthy people and big corporations.... they ALREADY don't pay taxes. It doesn't matter- to them- if Hillary raises taxes to 90% or Trump lowers them to 10%, they will still be paying the same fraction of taxes that they were before: less than 10%
Hillary's biggest donors, you might have noticed, are all international wealth management firms . yanno, the kind that will (for a sizable fee) unearth a 15-year-old dummy corporation or a 10-year-old foundation, with "instant history" that you can stuff your wealth into. All for the purpose of tax avoidance. If you had any idea of the measures that the wealthy go to to hide their wealth, and the helping hand that these international law firms and banks are willing to extend, you would be shocked. I had just three strategies explained to me, and I was amazed.
Quote:
With his asinineNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You need a twitter account so you can start now. Jayne's tweets would be a good example, but don't delete like he does. The world loses a vital resource when Jayne, every week, removes all his past tweets and starts fresh. Let your Hillary hatred build for years. Unlike Jayne, you don't need to worry that your political statements will interfere with getting a job in Hollywood.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Meanwhile, I've gotten my 'I told you so' posts all lined up.
https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/
Quote:It really does matter that Trump tax cheated, divorced, bankrupted, and sued thousands of times. Well, it does NOT matter if you hate Hillary and Trump is the only thing stopping her.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Because Donald's taxes are so much more vital than Hillary aggressively provoking Russia - and keeping the US's nuclear strike-first policy? Because Senate democrats can't be counted on to be the party of 'no' to republican aims? Because the Billary corruption machine that mixes personal gain with government power is trivial? Because when Donald lies about personal things it overshadows Hillary lying about national security and her 'personal' server?
You've done everything except say right out that you're going to vote for a party that isn't going to represent you. You might as well fold your hands and present your butt right now.
Who disbelieves 1kiki careful arguments about nukes and Hillary? Me!
It really does matter that the USA and Russia fell in love with the atom bomb before Hillary was born, but 1kik is blaming Hillary for “provoking” Russia. I think the simple existence of thousands of American nukes would provoke craziness in Russia. And Russians sure did respond like crazy. There are millions of Russians and Americans, living and dead, who were building the actual atom bombs. This was a major industry in both countries, but bigger in Russia because of their unique craziness. See the graph, below. Most of those millions knew what they were doing and who they wanted to nuke, yet Hillary gets all the blame from 1kiki for “provoking” Russia. 1kiki must really hate Hillary to shift all the blame to her.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then you're stupid. Or willfully blinding yourself to the history of nuclear weapons and American foreign policy since Reagan.
I think the simple existence of thousands of American nukes would provoke craziness in Russia.- SECOND
--------------
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I noticed that the French and the Chinese did not feel the need to build 40,000 nukes, like the Russians did, to counterbalance American nukes. It was the Russians that panicked, year after year, and could not stop themselves. What Russia and America did was not sane, but at least America had the Capitalist's excuse that building 30,000 nukes too many would make a larger profit than stopping at 1,000. In Russia, every nuke beyond the first thousand was a pure waste of resources and manpower.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Then you're stupid. Or willfully blinding yourself to the history of nuclear weapons and American foreign policies since Reagan.
I think the simple existence of thousands of American nukes would provoke craziness in Russia.- SECOND
www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
But if you want to blame Hillary for what FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Khrushchev and Stalin did about nukes, you are welcome. Since Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,110 years, these leaders’ nuclear mistakes will be a long time in passing away naturally.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I think the simple existence of thousands of American nukes would provoke craziness in Russia.- SECOND
Then you're stupid. Or willfully blinding yourself to the history of nuclear weapons and American foreign policies since Reagan.- SIGNY
I noticed that the French and the Chinese did not feel the need to build 40,000 nukes, like the Russians did, to counterbalance American nukes. It was the Russians that panicked, year after year, and could not stop themselves. What Russia and America did was not sane, but at least America had the Capitalist's excuse that building 30,000 nukes too many would make a larger profit than stopping at 1,000. In Russia, every nuke beyond the first thousand was a pure waste of resources and manpower.
www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
But if you want to blame Hillary for what FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Khrushchev and Stalin did about nukes, you are welcome.-SECOND
And now you're lying about what I said. You might have noticed or responded to (but chose to ignore) the fact that I referenced Reagan as the start of a new policy on nukes.
No wonder Hillary's lies, evasions and reversals don't bother you.
--------------
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What about Reagan's nuke policy was so much worse than Nixon's? Was it StarWars? Because I heard that physicists were telling the Pentagon that the goals were physically impossible. Did the Russians panic over the StarWars program and decided to build even more nukes to counterbalance StarWars?
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And now you're lying about what I said. You might have noticed or responded to (but chose to ignore) the fact that I referenced Reagan as the start of a new policy on nukes.
No wonder Hillary's lies, evasions and reversals don't bother you.
I think the graph shows that the Russians did panic and kept on building to counter an imaginary threat from space-based weapons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race
Notice that China did not feel the need to build thousands of nukes. It could be because they aren't killing their brains with binge drinking, unlike Americans and Russians.
www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First of all, that's a stupid chart. I know what the USA blue area means, but what does USSR/USA mean?
Total nukes?
Ratio of USSR to USA?
USSR alone?
Secondly, if you were to look up the various nuclear arms deals (SALT I, SALT II, START I, START II) you would see that where they were failed to be signed, more often it was the USA that failed to sign. The relevant signed treaty was START I, signed and implemented in 1990.
That treaty - which the USSR was happy to comply with- led to the sharp reduction in nuclear weapons.
Third, and most important, that chart that you brought to the board, however interpreted, clearly shows the USA as the aggressor nation. The nation that started and drove the arms race was NOT the USSR. There is, literally, no other way to interpret that period of time, from 1960 about 1975, when the USA had vastly more nuclear missiles than the USSR, more than enough missiles to wipe the Soviet Union off the map, and yet the USA started to build and continued to aggressively add to its nuclear stockpile. Not only that, but the USA had a history of actually using nuclear weapons against a primarily civilian target ... which was, btw, exactly why the USA used them against Japan: not to shorten the war, but to threaten Russia.
And yet, the nation that you castigate for defending itself is the Soviet Union?
Are you saying that every nation in the world was supposed to lie down in front of USA nuclear superiority?
--------------
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Look again. It is USSR/Russia in the "stupid chart". Russia got a divorce from the Soviet Union and changed back to her maiden name.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
First of all, that's a stupid chart. I know what the USA blue area means, but what does USSR/USA mean?
I’ll grant you that America was the aggressor, but you forgot about radioactive fallout and Nuclear Winter. Physics, weather and fallout do not respect Russian or American national borders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter I have some quibbles with this article because the writers don’t want to be proven even slightly wrong if and when WWIII doesn’t kill off absolutely all civilizations everywhere. In case New Zealand survives, the article uses weasel words to protect the writers’ precious reputations for moderation and accuracy in describing something that may never happen.
Americans and Russians knew about Nuclear Winter. China, France and UK knew, too, because it is physics. It is no secret. It places an upper limit on how many nukes can be exploded without killing yourself. American and Russian leaders blatantly ignored the limit. China, France and UK did not act so ignorant. Sensibly they stopped building when they had 300 bombs or less.
There is an analogy between firing nukes on Mother Earth and lead bullets fired into your mother: 10 lead bullets would be enough to kill that mother, but 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000? You are wasting bullets and killing yourself with the ricochet. Maybe some Russian and American Presidents have figured that out. Maybe they should talk to the Chinese and ask them to do a calculation on Nuclear Winter.
If they actually understood the calculation, maybe the American and Russian Presidents would follow China’s slightly smarter path and dismantle more of their nuclear arsenals. Neither Russia nor America needs to sign a treaty with the other country to do the smart thing. Or, maybe, they would repeat past mistakes and build thousands more atom bombs and just go on a drinking binge to kill their brains. At least we know that Trump does not drink, while Hillary does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_arms_race
www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
First of all, did we grow up together and I wasn't aware of it? Is that what you decipher? That I believe there is no "downside" to a Hillary presidency.
Funny, am I that predictable? Gee, and I thought I was a Pisces.
You and second seem bound and determined to give away your vote for Hillary without demanding anything in return. Since you seem content with everything she has to offer, you find no fault, you express no reservations, you don't exercise the power to say 'no - unless', what else am I to conclude?
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Tell me something, is Donald predictable? ...
You think you know everything, well make all the predictions and statements
you want.
I want Trump to win so badly. Why? To finally shut up the mouths of people that swear they know everything. I want him to win to see him build that Wall ... Hope he wins and plunges this country into a shit-storm ...
And more blah blah blah ... I'm not pro-Donald. Something I've said from the very beginning. So your anti-Donald posts go right by me.
And as an aside, I think I can be FAR more forgiven for assuming you find no fault with Hillary - given your 100% lack of finding fault with Hillary - than you repeatedly misrepresenting me as being pro-Donald - given that fact that I've stated my position at least a dozen times.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
... but Trump, although you say you are not voting for him, you blindly defend.
I do? I sure would like you to quote me on that.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
You want to hate on Hillary, be my guest. Have at it.
It's true I personally hate Hillary. She brings on that same level of disgust I felt for dumbya, Dick et al. But that hasn't been the center of my arguments against her. They've been centered on her history, the results of her decisions which have been without exception disastrous, and her inability to learn from her failures given that she's carrying the same policies forward.
What *I* find remarkable is how loathe you are to discuss Hillary's VERY obvious issues in any rational way.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I want to quibble with your without demanding anything in return. How do you imagine that "demand" would work? Do I get a signed contract from Hillary that she will give me my heart's desire or else I will withdraw my vote after the election and thus kick her out of the White House with my single withdrawn vote? She'd be making this agreement without knowing if I'd really vote for her. She'd never know if I voted for Trump, would she? The mechanics of making "demands" of the candidates just doesn't work, especially when Trump will promise anything and sign any paper to get elected. He is not sincere about any deal he has ever made in business.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You and second seem bound and determined to give away your vote for Hillary without demanding anything in return. Since you seem content with everything she has to offer, you find no fault, you express no reservations, you don't exercise the power to say 'no - unless', what else am I to conclude?
By the way, 1kiki, you are mistaken that Trump is trustworthy around nukes:
https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying-things-donald-trump-has-publicl
y-said-about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.l2y65dcsq
Trump said he might use nuclear weapons and questioned why we would make them if we wouldn’t use them
MATTHEWS: Well, why would you — why wouldn’t you just say, “I don’t want to talk about it. I don’t want to talk about nuclear weapons. Presidents don’t talk about use of nuclear weapons”?
TRUMP: The question was asked — we were talking about NATO — which, by the way, I say is obsolete and we pay a dis —
MATTHEWS: But you got hooked into something you shouldn't have talked about.
TRUMP: I don’t think I — well, someday, maybe.
MATTHEWS: When? Maybe?
TRUMP: Of course. If somebody —
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?
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?
[MSNBC, March 30, 2016]
Trump said he was open to nuking Europe because it’s a “big place”
TRUMP: Well, I don’t want to take cards off the table. I would never do that. The last person to press that button would be me. Hey, I’m the one that didn’t want to go into Iraq from the beginning. The last person that wants to play the nuclear card believe me is me. But you can never take cards off the table either from a moral stand — from any standpoint and certainly from a negotiating standpoint.
BOLLING: Donald, I understand they are not taking the cards off the table for ISIS or Islamic terror. But when Chris expanded to Europe, what about that?
TRUMP: Europe is a big place. I’m not going to take cards off the table. We have nuclear capability. Now, our capability is going down rapidly because of what we’re doing. It’s in bad shape. The equipment is not properly maintained. There are all lot of talk about that. And that’s a bad thing not a good thing. The last person to use nuclear would be Donald Trump. That’s the way I feel. I think it is a horrible thing. The thought of it is horrible. But I don’t want to take anything off the table. We have to negotiate. There will be times maybe when we’re going to be in a very deep, very difficult, very horrible negotiation. The last person — I’m not going to take it off the table. And I said it yesterday. And I stay with it.
[Fox News, 3/31/16]
Trump said that “you want to be unpredictable” with nuclear weapons
DICKERSON: They talk about th
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How do you imagine that "demand" would work?
By withdrawing your support. As I've explained before - more than once - the only way Hillary will change course is if she sees her poll numbers slipping.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What I think is that Trump is like this Presidential candidate from XKCD, promising anything that will get him elected. Trump makes slight course changes at every opportunity in order to sell himself more effectively to the audience before him at that moment:
Originally posted by 1kiki:Quote:
How do you imagine that "demand" would work?
By withdrawing your support. As I've explained before - more than once - the only way Hillary will change course is if she sees her poll numbers slipping.
http://xkcd.com/1073/
Trump's flexibility during the sales stage of every deal he has ever made is why he has been divorced, bankrupted, and sued thousands of times. When he is not performing his famous "art of the deal", he falls down while executing his mutually incompatible promises that were made only to close the deal.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for contributing to an intelligent, thoughtful discussion. Not.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You are always welcome, 1kiki, but it threw you off your game that Trump would promise everyday is Saturday if that would get your vote. What gets an applause, Trump would promise.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Thanks for contributing to an intelligent, thoughtful discussion. Not.
I found an article that tries to make sense out of Trump’s immigration policy. The inconsistencies that Trump has thrown in during every speech are giving headaches to people who want to know what would happen if Trump did what he said he would do. Read how Trump’s immigration policies could put Americans out of work:
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/03/how-trumps-immigration-
policies-could-put-americans-out-of-work/
Trump need not care because he won’t be implementing anything. It will be the Republican party. Elderly Trump can just sit back and enjoy his retirement home in the White House and let others do all the real thinking and implementing. As Dick Cheney was the real brains in the White House for Bush, perhaps Mike Pence will be Trump’s brain.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Boy, was I sleepy when I read that!
Look again. It is USSR/Russia in the "stupid chart". Russia got a divorce from the Soviet Union and changed back to her maiden name.
Quote:But what?
I’ll grant you that America was the aggressor, but
Quote:
American and Russian leaders blatantly ignored the limit. China, France and UK did not act so ignorant. Sensibly they stopped building when they had 300 bombs or less.
I don't think that China, France, and the UK were more "sensible". The UK's resources, especially access to uranium, was limited. France joined the club in 1960 and China joined the atom-bomb-test club in 1964, proving that they had the technology but not necessarily the resources to commit to full weapons production.
There is something else about the chart that you might have noticed, which is unflattering to the USA and to Reagan: The USA didn't really get serious about limiting its own nuclear weapons until we had been thoroughly and convincingly overtaken by the USSR. So maybe there was a method to the Soviet madness after all.
Quote:Unfortunately, Hillary is committed to a "first strike" policy.
If they actually understood the calculation, maybe the American and Russian Presidents would follow China’s slightly smarter path and dismantle more of their nuclear arsenals.
--------------
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The USA does not need thousands of atom bombs to have a "first strike" policy. North Korea only has eight atom bombs and it also has a "first strike" policy. Trump also has a "first strike" policy. He would say his policy is very different from Hillary's, but that is not what his words say, but then again he often says that what he said is not what he meant, if you know what he means:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Unfortunately, Hillary is committed to a "first strike" policy.
If they actually understood the calculation, maybe the American and Russian Presidents would follow China’s slightly smarter path and dismantle more of their nuclear arsenals.
"9 Terrifying Things Donald Trump Has Publicly Said About Nuclear Weapons"
(videos of Trump included)
https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying-things-donald-trump-has-publicl
y-said-about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.l2y65dcsq
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”
-- Donald Trump quoting W.C. Fields
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are always welcome, 1kiki, but it threw you off your game that Trump would promise everyday is Saturday if that would get your vote.
Is this relevant to anything I brought up, or to the specific question you asked me, which I answered?
In case you need a refresher:
second: How do you imagine that "demand" would work?
kiki: By withdrawing your support. As I've explained before - more than once - the only way Hillary will change course is if she sees her poll numbers slipping.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The USA does not need thousands of atom bombs to have a "first strike" policy.
It needs thousands of nuclear weapons to assure any potential opponent that even if we lost 95% of our missiles, we would obliterate the other country no matter what. It's about winning by having ashed more square inches of the other country than they have ashed of ours. Not that there'll be anyone left to verify that statistic.
That's what "first strike" is about, hon. That's what Hillary's about.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is a difference between the calculations of MUTUAL assured destruction (MAD) and first strike.
The USA does not need thousands of atom bombs to have a "first strike" policy. North Korea only has eight atom bombs and it also has a "first strike" policy.-SEXOND
MUTUAL assured destruction depends on a formal kind of calculation which requires that each side have sufficient excess of well-protected nuclear weapons to assure that "the other side" would be directly obliterated even if one side was subject to a a "first strike" attack (which BTW would target enemy missiles first).
Quote:
Trump also has a "first strike" policy. He would say his policy is very different from Hillary's, but that is not what his words say, but then again he often says that what he said is not what he meant, if you know what he means:
"9 Terrifying Things Donald Trump Has Publicly Said About Nuclear Weapons"
(videos of Trump included)
https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying-things-donald-trump-has-publicl
y-said-about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.l2y65dcsq
The very first thing that your article claims, was what I was objecting to here http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60720
Quote:Except, of course, when you want to repeat it.
On Wednesday, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough passed on an intriguing piece of gossip: Donald Trump, speaking with a “foreign policy expert,” repeatedly asked “why can’t we use nuclear weapons.”
Scarborough’s claim was thinly sourced. He didn’t reveal the identity of the expert advising Trump or even where he learned the information. Information attributed to anonymous sources is inherently suspect.
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.
If you want to discuss each of Trump's statements in detail, I'm prepared for that too.
--------------
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It is relevant to every word out of Trump’s mouth. He will promise whatever will get votes and, for at least some of those voters, it will never darken their sunshiny day that Trump can’t do what he promised. More cynical voters might not believe he ever meant what he said.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Quote:
You are always welcome, 1kiki, but it threw you off your game that Trump would promise everyday is Saturday if that would get your vote.
Is this relevant to anything I brought up, or to the specific question you asked me, which I answered?
Trump told 2015’s Lie of the Year. He is a very capable salesman.
www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Look again at
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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:
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?
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:Don’t ask Hillary those questions because Grandma Hillary has no idea what you are asking. Ask the FBI. Oh, somebody did!
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.
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/14-excerpts-fbis-report-hillary
-clintons-email
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.
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What I'm reading is Trump refusing to answer the question.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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? 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.
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.
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, it's the "liberal media!"
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, it is and I'm glad you finally recognized that!
Yeah, it's the "liberal media!"
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You keep making the same mistake that it is "the President" who makes the decisions, when it's usually his (or her) backers.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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:Why are you hyperventilating about what Trump "could" do when Obama is already doing it?
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
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:There is very little liberal media in the US. MSM is decidedly far right. Always has been since Reagan.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:Yes, it is and I'm glad you finally recognized that!
Yeah, it's the "liberal media!"
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yup.
Originally posted by second:Quote: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.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How To Destroy A Presidential Candidate? Make him (or her) look weak on defense.
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?
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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: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?
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.
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:And that pretty much describes you and the rest of the liberals here.
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
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 Clint
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote: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.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
second
Is THAT what you're implying?
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: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.)
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.
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well, at least there's no argument here about who meant what!
Is THAT what you're implying?- SIGNY
I’m not implying, I’m saying.= SECOND
Quote:All neocons and universal-surveillance proponents. Doesn't that raise any red flag for you?
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.
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: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.
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.
Quote:Good thing he wasn't on the Repub ticket then!
The Republicans voters were enraged that Carter did not invade Panama, but instead just gave the Canal Zone back.
Quote: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%.
The voters were really enraged that Carter did not invade Iran to free the hostages.
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 afraidNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME