Trump v Hillary Debate #1

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Friday, October 7, 2016 23:13
VIEWED: 9992
PAGE 1 of 1

SIGNYM

Tuesday, September 27, 2016 9:09 PM

Since the biggest reason to vote for Trump seems to be "Hillary", and the biggest reason to vote for Hillary seems to be "Trump", so many threads with either one as the putative topic turn into discussions of the other.

So, with the debate last night, this might a good time maybe to bring the Hillary v Trump discussion into a common thread, so that people don't have to check into three or four posts just to see what is being said about whom.

There are active and ongoing discussions about related topics in other threads, tho, I sure don't mean to displace those.

Too busy for a long post, but there are some points where I strongly agree with Trump, and some where I somewhat agree with Hillary.

IMHO, Trump's concept that you can't be a great country when you have NO PRODUCTION is spot-on. You can't be a great country by having the Federal government had out money so people can while away their time in college and consume unearned goods. Trade has to balance. And while Trump didn't SAY "tariff" imported goods, that is what he implied. OTOH, I do agree with Hillary that "trickle down" doesn't work. However, the answer to "trickle down" is not necessarily in the tax RATES, it's in the deductions, exclusions, exemptions, subsidies, off-shorings, and depreciations that companies and the wealthy are allowed to take. MOST big corporations don't pay anywhere the nominal tax rate, and some of them not only don't pay pay tax, they get a subsidies. So when Hillary accused Donald of )possibly) not paying any taxes, and he said, in essence, "It's the law, if you don't like the law change it" he was correct. Hillary had years in the Senate to make this an issue, and she didn't.

The other thing that he said, which I found to be very true, was "WE'RE IN A BIG FAT UGLY BUBBLE".

But more will have to wait for later.

WHOZIT

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 4:55 AM

The big loser, (drum roll) Lester Holt. He'll get to stay A-List but I bet his ratings drop. As the polls come in it looks like Trump is the winner. Trump didn't take the bait when Hillary tried to get him to bring up Bills sexcapades, he didn't bite. My guess they wanted him too so they could get a shot of her family looking sad and shocked, he didn't give them that.

THGRRI

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 5:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
The big loser, (drum roll) Lester Holt. He'll get to stay A-List but I bet his ratings drop. As the polls come in it looks like Trump is the winner. Trump didn't take the bait when Hillary tried to get him to bring up Bills sexcapades, he didn't bite. My guess they wanted him too so they could get a shot of her family looking sad and shocked, he didn't give them that.

•A poll of debate watchers by CNN/ORC, which found that 62 percent thought Clinton won and 27 percent thought Trump did. CNN’s David Chalian emphasized on air that the sample was 10 points more Democratic than in a typical poll, but that’s still a strong win for Clinton.

•A poll of debate watchers by Public Policy Polling, which found that 51 percent thought Clinton won and 40 percent thought Trump won.

•A focus group of 20 undecided Florida voters by CNN found that 18 of them thought Clinton won.

•And a focus group of Pennsylvania voters by GOP pollster Frank Luntz overwhelmingly thought Clinton had won.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

WHOZIT

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 5:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:
The big loser, (drum roll) Lester Holt. He'll get to stay A-List but I bet his ratings drop. As the polls come in it looks like Trump is the winner. Trump didn't take the bait when Hillary tried to get him to bring up Bills sexcapades, he didn't bite. My guess they wanted him too so they could get a shot of her family looking sad and shocked, he didn't give them that.

•A poll of debate watchers by CNN/ORC, which found that 62 percent thought Clinton won and 27 percent thought Trump did. CNN’s David Chalian emphasized on air that the sample was 10 points more Democratic than in a typical poll, but that’s still a strong win for Clinton.

•A poll of debate watchers by Public Policy Polling, which found that 51 percent thought Clinton won and 40 percent thought Trump won.

•A focus group of 20 undecided Florida voters by CNN found that 18 of them thought Clinton won.

•And a focus group of Pennsylvania voters by GOP pollster Frank Luntz overwhelmingly thought Clinton had won.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

I'm not trusting any CNN polls these days.

SECOND

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 6:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:

I'm not trusting any CNN polls these days.

Jayne retweeted https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin :
Ayn Rand: 'I Would Never Vote for a Woman President'
Presumably Jayne believes a woman as the commander-in-chief of the Army is unspeakable, to quote Rand.

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

SECOND

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 5:24 PM

Where is economic growth going to come from?
In the debate, Trump thinks it only comes from one place. Clinton sees many.

Presidents have limited power to change the fundamental drivers of economic growth, which include consumer spending, population change, and business investment. But to the extent that they can do anything, candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have drastically different conceptions of where new growth will come from. The contrast was on full display during the debate Monday night at Hofstra.

Here’s the distinction in a nutshell: Trump would try to boost growth by forcing companies to stay in America and pushing immigrants out. Clinton would try to boost growth by making America a more attractive place to invest, making American workers more attractive to employ, and making sure people have enough in their pockets to revive the kind of consumer demand that has fueled America’s economic engine since the end of World War II.

Trump laid out his philosophy when debate moderator Lester Holt asked how Trump would raise wages and create new jobs in America. (He’s promised 25 million of them, which is demographically impossible without an increase in immigration that he opposes.)

Trump answered in exactly one dimension: Manufacturing jobs that in recent decades have migrated to Mexico and China. He’d bring them back, he and his advisers say, by charging steep tariffs on imports and slashing corporate tax rates so that companies bring cash back from overseas. “That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan,” Trump said. “It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.”

There are a number of problems with that simple prescription, which itself is based on faulty assumptions about the current dynamics of global trade.

First, although Trump isn’t wrong that trade deals played a role in manufacturing job loss, the movement of manufacturing overseas was, to a large extent, going to happen anyway.

Second, even if he magically forced companies to return all of their manufacturing output to the United States, it could never replace all the jobs that were lost, since advancing technology allows companies to produce the same amount of stuff with many fewer people.

Clinton, of course, also opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal that Trump has vilified. She, too, visits old manufacturing plants and talks about revitalizing them into high-tech wonder plants that will employ some of the millions of mostly men who've faded from the labor force in recent years.

But while Trump stops there, Clinton goes further. She's spent the last several years stuffing an economic toolbox with plans for investing in clean energy, bringing more women and disabled people into the workforce, allowing young people to go to college without taking on crippling debt, creating a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, reining in the parasitic financial sector and putting capital to work at businesses that will use it to create jobs, not just play the stock market.

And critically, she understands the importance of raising wages for workers in the service jobs, to re-store the consumer class that weakened as well-paid manufacturing jobs faded away.

Progressives have termed this approach "middle-out economics," rather than what Clinton called the "Trumped-up trickle-down" philosophy, referring to the Reagan-era idea of giving tax breaks to the wealthy in hopes that they would use the windfall to create more jobs. Targeting lower-income workers, Clinton figures, will have a bigger economic impact. "The more we can do for the middle class, the more we can invest in you, your education, your skills, your future, the better we will be off and the better we'll grow," she said.

At a recent event in Houston, Dallas Federal Reserve President Robert Kaplan briefly laid out the federal budget policy he thought should have complemented low interest rates to address the aging of the population that has created suc

SECOND

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 5:35 PM

One of his most interesting quotes from the presidential debate Monday night was a firm reminder of the Republican nominee’s otherworldly perspective.

When Hillary Clinton accused the billionaire businessman of not paying federal taxes, he responded coolly, proudly: “That makes me smart.”

I guess the late real estate magnate Leona Helmsley was feeling smart, too, until her belief that “only little people pay taxes” landed her in prison for tax evasion.

Is that why Trump has not released his tax returns? Fear of jail for tax evasion? Does avoiding taxes make him responsible, or fair, or any of the other upstanding qualities Americans once desired in our highest representative?

I would say no. But apparently, some people are fine with that.

Somewhere, there’s a line between fair deductions and gaming. If a billionaire is paying nothing in taxes, it crosses that line.

And, as a presidential candidate, the hypocrisy is too rich. Here’s a guy running to lead a country he doesn’t feel obligated to help pay for. It’s akin to a preacher stiffing the collection plate.

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, September 28, 2016 8:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:
Where is economic growth going to come from?

"Growth" is not the same as "jobs", so discussing one thing is not the same as discussion the other. "Growth" ... especially when you're measuring the aggregate growth, "percent increase in GDP" ... can come from financial services and other non-job-creating activities.

Quote:
In the debate, Trump thinks it only comes from one place.

Trump thinks jobs, especially good=paying jobs, come from manufacturing production.

Quote:
Clinton sees many.

Clinton thinks that "growth" comes from wealth transfer, rich to poor. so that most of the people can buy more. In that sense, she is Keynesian.

Quote:
Presidents have limited power to change the fundamental drivers of economic growth, which include consumer spending, population change, and business investment.

Disagree

But to the extent that they can do anything, candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have drastically different conceptions of where new growth will come from. The contrast was on full display during the debate Monday night at Hofstra.

Agree.

Quote:
Here’s the distinction in a nutshell: Trump would try to boost growth by forcing companies to stay in America and pushing immigrants out. Clinton would try to boost growth by making America a more attractive place to invest, making American workers more attractive to employ, and making sure people have enough in their pockets to revive the kind of consumer demand that has fueled America’s economic engine since the end of World War II.

And that's the problem- both approaches are incomplete. Starting with Clinton, if much of the money that she extracts from the wealthy goes to buying good FROM CHINA (or Vietnam, or the Marianas or Haiti or India) the USA will stay on the path of very bad trade deficit. Americans will experience a temporary but unearned improvement in living standards, but at some point when other nations are no longer willing to accept the dollar as payment, and the USA military can no longer force them to, that will collapse. The only ones who benefit are the transnational corporations.

Quote:
Trump laid out his philosophy when debate moderator Lester Holt asked how Trump would raise wages and create new jobs in America. (He’s promised 25 million of them, which is demographically impossible without an increase in immigration that he opposes.)

Trump answered in exactly one dimension: Manufacturing jobs that in recent decades have migrated to Mexico and China. He’d bring them back, he and his advisers say, by charging steep tariffs on imports and slashing corporate tax rates so that companies bring cash back from overseas. “That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan,” Trump said. “It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.”

On the other hand, if production is forced to stay in the USA and imported goods are tariffed, but Americans can't afford to buy any of them, then either the "surplus" good will be exported or the "surplus" productive capacity will be allowed to decay, and Americans will experience an immediate decrease in living standards.

Quote:
There are a number of problems with that simple prescription, which itself is based on faulty assumptions about the current dynamics of global trade.

First, although Trump isn’t wrong that trade deals played a role in manufacturing job loss, the movement of manufacturing overseas was, to a large extent, going to happen anyway.

Not true. IF a nation has an economic policy, that means it has control over the goods, services, people, and money which flows across its borders. IF a nation can't, or won't, control these aspects of flows across its border, then it will be completely at the mercy of international trends.

Quote:
Second, even if he magically forced companies to return all of their manufacturing output to the United

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

1KIKI

Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:32 AM

This where I found a serious problem with Hillary (and the media).

She seems to go by the motto

If you lie, lie BIG! (And, note to self, make sure the media is with you.)

In this first debate, Hillary stated “(Putin has) let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee". But in the post-debate fact-checking frenzy, no one has bothered to fact-check this particular claim. That seems a pretty large gap in all this information-vetting.

In fact, unless Hillary’s received private information directly from the FBI - or indeed some other government security agency – Hillary’s claim runs contrary to all public statements: NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has identified Russia as the source of the hack.

Not then, and not now.

I’ve been following this ever since the claim first came out, because it smelled – yanno – fishy. It came out in just a few days, and from a private firm hired by the DNC. How could they possibly ferret that out so quickly, especially when the FBI, with all its resources, could only claim they were ‘still investigating’?

But by then the claim was dutifully accepted by the media and - pardon the pun - trumped up beyond all reason. And it still continues today to be loudly asserted over and over by people who DO know better (like Hillary), and is still not challenged by people who SHOULD know better (especially not by the media).

Meanwhile, the much more low key and responsible statements made by Clapper at the time were buried pretty far down in the news. And there’s been zero follow-up or prominent press about what the FBI thinks since then.

So, I did some google searching about Hillary’s claim, because, while google doesn’t know all, it’s a reasonable place to start when you want to find something out and the media looks like it’s part of the problem of making news out of non-facts.

https://www.thenation.com/article/cyber-hacks-the-washington-posts-bas
eless-crusade-against-russia/
Cyber Hacks: The Washington Post’s Baseless Crusade Against Russia
If you’re going to point the finger of blame at one country in particular you should have more, you know, proof.
By James Carden
September 7, 2016

These are the search terms I used.

did the fbi proof russia hacked the dnc +september 2016

This is the result I got. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=did+the+fbi+proof+russia+hacked+t
he+dnc+%2Bseptember+2016&sout=1&tbm=nws

But feel free to look it up yourself. Use whatever search terms you want. Spend as much time as you need. Knock yourself out.

And then, when despite your best efforts, you fail to come up with proof for Hillary’s claim – a statement by the FBI, or the CIA, or the NSA, asserting Russia was the hacker as a fact - ask yourself these reasonable questions: If this is a lie about US cybersecurity, why does Hillary knowingly lie so often? If such a consequential lie can be so often repeated and so often reported with so little investigation and so little proof, what kind of media do we now have?

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?!

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:32 PM

I contend that it would behoove Mr. Moneybags to allow for companies to expand their growth and influence abroad. Why? Good question.

Let's take Mexico for instance. Ford recently struck a deal to manufacture small cars there, which creates job growth and keeps the general population,
well........there. It has been reported that the illegal immigration problem has slowed to a trickle in recent months, mainly because Mexico's economy has improved.

Ford makes money, the Mexicans make money (and consequently stay home), everybody's happy. Now we can cross the border to look for work, turnabout
is fair play. Well, Ford hasn't forgotten about us here in America; despite what the Donald says, Ford has committed to making large trucks and SUVs
here in the good old USA. So nobody here is losing their jobs.

Now if we could only find a way to make them share in their good fortune (an
understatement) and raise wages. CEOs are walking away with hundred million dollar bonuses, where's ours?

Speaking of "Crooked, Lying" Donald Frump - Newsweek will be releasing an article this morning about Trump's shady dealings with the Cubans in 1998-9.
Yes, Trump & Company did business with Castro & Cuba during the embargo, an
American No-No. Now, what does this have to do with the Debate...everything!
Do you think he lies? Of course he does. He lied to the government and he lied to the exiled Cubans in Miami; plus he took great pains to cover it up.
It's a wonder how he keeps his lies in order. My feeling is that he doesn't
really remember (pretty much like his surprise when Hillary brought up the
Miss Universe winner during Monday's debate.

Boy did he ever get sandbagged! It was beautiful, like watching Picasso paint. Hillary wiped the floor with him...the polls confirmed it yesterday.
Can't wait for Round 2!!!

SGG

SHINYGOODGUY

Thursday, September 29, 2016 4:54 PM

I found this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/07/25/fbi-suspects-russia-h
acked-dnc-u-s-officials-say-it-was-to-elect-donald-trump.html

Quote:
The DNC hired a computer security firm, CrowdStrike, to investigate the breach. It has publicly attributed the operation to two known hacker groups connected to the Russian government that it dubs Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear....
The two groups, which compete with one another, got into the DNC networks last summer and this April, respectively, CrowdStrike told The Washington Post, which first reported the breaches last month.

http://www.channel4000.com/nation/politics/could-a-couch-potato-hack-t
he-dnc/99339236

How do individuals go about their hacking?

While carrying out an attack the level of the DNC hack requires skill and manpower that individuals don't possess, attacks like breaking a few email accounts is within the realm of a single hacker.
Often the perpetrators use what's known as social engineering -- gathering clues about a person from their public life online and then using it to guess passwords or security questions to get into accounts and release the contents online.
But that's still probably beyond the abilities of most 10-year-olds.

Search term: Hack of DNC

SGG

THGRRI

Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
This where I found a serious problem with Hillary (and the media).

She seems to go by the motto

If you lie, lie BIG! (And, note to self, make sure the media is with you.)

In this first debate, Hillary stated “(Putin has) let loose cyber attackers to hack into government files, to hack into personal files, hack into the Democratic National Committee". But in the post-debate fact-checking frenzy, no one has bothered to fact-check this particular claim. That seems a pretty large gap in all this information-vetting.

In fact, unless Hillary’s received private information directly from the FBI - or indeed some other government security agency – Hillary’s claim runs contrary to all public statements: NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has identified Russia as the source of the hack.

Not then, and not now.

I’ve been following this ever since the claim first came out, because it smelled – yanno – fishy. It came out in just a few days, and from a private firm hired by the DNC. How could they possibly ferret that out so quickly, especially when the FBI, with all its resources, could only claim they were ‘still investigating’?

But by then the claim was dutifully accepted by the media and - pardon the pun - trumped up beyond all reason. And it still continues today to be loudly asserted over and over by people who DO know better (like Hillary), and is still not challenged by people who SHOULD know better (especially not by the media).

Meanwhile, the much more low key and responsible statements made by Clapper at the time were buried pretty far down in the news. And there’s been zero follow-up or prominent press about what the FBI thinks since then.

So, I did some google searching about Hillary’s claim, because, while google doesn’t know all, it’s a reasonable place to start when you want to find something out and the media looks like it’s part of the problem of making news out of non-facts.

https://www.thenation.com/article/cyber-hacks-the-washington-posts-bas
eless-crusade-against-russia/
Cyber Hacks: The Washington Post’s Baseless Crusade Against Russia
If you’re going to point the finger of blame at one country in particular you should have more, you know, proof.

But feel free to look it up yourself. Use whatever search terms you want. Spend as much time as you need. Knock yourself out.

And then, when despite your best efforts, you fail to come up with proof for Hillary’s claim – a statement by the FBI, or the CIA, or the NSA, asserting Russia was the hacker as a fact - ask yourself these reasonable questions: If this is a lie about US cybersecurity, why does Hillary knowingly lie so often? If such a consequential lie can be so often repeated and so often reported with so little investigation and so little proof, what kind of media do we now have?

Why comrade do you insist on defending Russia at all costs if you are American? Why is it you always believe the Russians? My search took all of two minutes.

Russia's Attack on the Election

“U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement agencies have seen mounting evidence of an active Russian-influenced operation targeting the 2016 presidential election. It is unlikely the Russians could sway the vote but they could sow disruption and instability”

http://time.com/

“Some of the most compelling evidence linking the DNC breach to Russia was found at the beginning of July by Thomas Rid, a professor at King’s College in London, who discovered an identical command-and-control address hardcoded into the DNC malware that was also found on malware used to hack the German Parliament in 2015. According to German security officials, the malware originated from Russian military intelligence. An identical SSL certificate was also found in both breaches. “

https://www.wired.com/2016/07/heres-know-russia-dnc-hack/

US official: DNC email hack likely came from Russia

“A U.S. official involved in the investigation said that the classified information collected on

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Friday, September 30, 2016 5:11 AM

So, what did Gary Johnson say in the Debate?

THGRRI

Friday, September 30, 2016 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So, what did Gary Johnson say in the Debate?

He didn't say anything. BUT, on morning Joe two weeks ago when asked what he thought about Aleppo he asked what's Aleppo. Then yesterday on another talk show he was asked to name his favorite foreign leader. He couldn't name any foreign leader. Not one in the entire world. So I would suggest he didn't belong in the debate and is certainly not qualified to be president.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

1KIKI

Friday, September 30, 2016 10:24 AM

NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has identified Russia as the source of the hack.

Not then, and not now.

It (the claim it was the Russian government who done dood it) came out in just a few days, and from a private firm hired by the DNC.

proof for Hillary’s claim – a statement by the FBI, or the CIA, or the NSA

The DNC hired a computer security firm, CrowdStrike, to investigate the breach. It has publicly attributed the operation to two known hacker groups connected to the Russian government that it dubs Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear....
The two groups, which compete with one another, got into the DNC networks last summer and this April, respectively, CrowdStrike told The Washington Post, which first reported the breaches last month.

Your post doesn't exactly refute the idea that NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has said Russia was responsible.

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?!

SHINYGOODGUY

Friday, September 30, 2016 12:17 PM

None found, but because there is no hard evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The FBI suspects it was Russia, but have had their hands tied by a Republican-led Congress. Meanwhile Hillary's e-mails are the hot topic of the day. I could see why you insist that the probe continue; you feel she lies. Trump, of course, he's totally beyond reproach and is innocent in all this. He never lies.

You state that hard questions should be asked of Clinton's lies and actions.
Granted, let's ask those hard questions. Let's tear down the barriers set up by Clintons; after all they have been evil for the last 30 years and deserve to be exposed. Obviously the hard evidence is there and has been produced, right!? If so, then hard questions need to be asked: Who's been protecting them all these years? What do they have over FBI Director Comey that he's so afraid to pursue legal action? Surely there must be some hard evidence that can back these claims of corruption and government manipulation? And if so, why aren't they in jail?

Trump is completely innocent in all this, I can tell.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has identified Russia as the source of the hack.

Not then, and not now.

It (the claim it was the Russian government who done dood it) came out in just a few days, and from a private firm hired by the DNC.

proof for Hillary’s claim – a statement by the FBI, or the CIA, or the NSA

The DNC hired a computer security firm, CrowdStrike, to investigate the breach. It has publicly attributed the operation to two known hacker groups connected to the Russian government that it dubs Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear....
The two groups, which compete with one another, got into the DNC networks last summer and this April, respectively, CrowdStrike told The Washington Post, which first reported the breaches last month.

Your post doesn't exactly refute the idea that NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has said Russia was responsible.

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?!

SIGNYM

Friday, September 30, 2016 8:49 PM

Quote:
How do individuals go about their hacking?
While carrying out an attack the level of the DNC hack requires skill and manpower that individuals don't possess,

If you have a PC or server attached to an internet, or phone, and you run MS, there is no way you can secure that thing against a determined but not-necessarily skilled hacker. All they have to do is go online and buy some hacking tools. Since the NSA is still asking MS to build in backdoors to the software, and MS is still complying, anyone can get to the keys of the kingdom here:

NSA Backdoor Exploit in Windows 8 Uncovered
http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/08/22/nsa-windows-8-exploit/

Microsoft's Software is Malware
https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html

The concept that you need an entire team of international experts to hack into the DNC server is laughable,

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
None found, but because there is no hard evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The FBI suspects it was Russia, but have had their hands tied by a Republican-led Congress. Meanwhile Hillary's e-mails are the hot topic of the day. I could see why you insist that the probe continue; you feel she lies. Trump, of course, he's totally beyond reproach and is innocent in all this. He never lies.

Trump and Hillary are equally corrupt. Trump engages in what used to be called "sharp" business deals: deals where the fine print in his contracts allowed him to do whatever benefitted him.

Hillary, aside form being an alcoholic, got over 30,000 people uselessly killed in Libya and is partly responsible for another 1000,000 more if Syria and elsewhere. Her personal business dealing involve her drug-traficking husband.

So, ethically, they're a wash.

THGRRI

Friday, September 30, 2016 9:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY has identified Russia as the source of the hack.

Not then, and not now.

In response to your Russian spin, I’ll speak for America.

There are diplomatic considerations. If this continues our government will be forced to act. Why hold off? It is a major decision and could start a cyber war. For now we are calling Russia out and giving them a chance to cease and desist. Like brushing aside a fly before swatting it. Remember, Clinton our next president IS calling them out. Therefore when she is sworn in the shit hit’s the fan for Russia if this is still going on.

I would also point out it is not just America but Europe as well that is dealing with an unprecedented amount of Russian trolls and hackers. If we all push back Putin will see the error of his ways. Our collective budgets far exceed his when it comes to funding cyber concerns.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

THGRRI

Friday, September 30, 2016 9:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Hillary, aside form being an alcoholic,

Just lie after lie SIG. You have no credibility.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

SECOND

Friday, September 30, 2016 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Trump and Hillary are equally corrupt. Trump engages in what used to be called "sharp" business deals: deals where the fine print in his contracts allowed him to do whatever benefitted him.

Hillary, aside form being an alcoholic, got over 30,000 people uselessly killed in Libya and is partly responsible for another 1000,000 more if Syria and elsewhere. Her personal business dealing involve her drug-traficking husband.

So, ethically, they're a wash.

Is it Hillary's fault that Colonel Gaddafi was in charge of Libya for 42 years and his only plan for peacefully handing power to the next leader was to give it to his son? Is it Hillary's fault that Gaddafi had been using the mutual hostilities of different tribes to stay in power because keeping them divided is what kept him in control? Is it Hillary's fault that the price of oil dropped and that limited the amount of bribes Gaddafi could pay to tribal leaders to keep the peace? Is it Hillary's fault that these different tribes did not want the son to rule over them and they decided to fight for power because Gaddafi had exhausted their patience with his endless promises and schemes to keep every tribe divided against all the other tribes? Gaddafi ran short of money and stamina to keep the tribes from fighting.

Is it Hillary's fault that Syria is the same damn story as Libya, except the old Syrian President successfully passed power to his son, who is killing Syrians to remain in power? Gaddafi's son would have done the same. Syria had 2,500,000,000 barrels of petroleum reserves as of 1 January 2010 according to the Oil and Gas Journal. That amount of oil is worth killing to control and President Bashar al-Assad kills Syrians for the reward in prestige and money. It has nothing to do with Hillary.

On the flipside of this vinyl record Signym keeps playing, it is definitely Trump's fault that he violated the contracts he wrote, and not just the fine print technical details only lawyers read. Trump has been sued thousands of times to get him to keep minimum standards of behavior.

THGRRI

Friday, September 30, 2016 11:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Trump and Hillary are equally corrupt. Trump engages in what used to be called "sharp" business deals: deals where the fine print in his contracts allowed him to do whatever benefitted him.

Hillary, aside form being an alcoholic, got over 30,000 people uselessly killed in Libya and is partly responsible for another 1000,000 more if Syria and elsewhere. Her personal business dealing involve her drug-traficking husband.

So, ethically, they're a wash.
Is it Hillary's fault that Colonel Gaddafi was in charge of Libya for 42 years and his only plan for peacefully handing power to the next leader was to give it to his son? Is it Hillary's fault that Gaddafi had been using the mutual hostilities of different tribes to stay in power because keeping them divided is what kept him in control? Is it Hillary's fault that the price of oil dropped and that limited the amount of bribes Gaddafi could pay to tribal leaders to keep the peace? Is it Hillary's fault that these different tribes did not want the son to rule over them and they decided to fight for power because Gaddafi had exhausted their patience with his endless promises and schemes to keep every tribe divided against all the other tribes? Gaddafi ran short of money and stamina to keep the tribes from fighting.

Is it Hillary's fault that Syria is the same damn story as Libya, except the old Syrian President successfully passed power to his son, who is killing Syrians to remain in power? Gaddafi's son would have done the same. Syria had 2,500,000,000 barrels of petroleum reserves as of 1 January 2010 according to the Oil and Gas Journal. That amount of oil is worth killing to control and President Bashar al-Assad kills Syrians for the reward in prestige and money. It has nothing to do with Hillary.

On the flipside of this vinyl record Signym keeps playing, it is definitely Trump's fault that he violated the contracts he wrote, and not just the fine print technical details only lawyers read. Trump has been sued thousands of times to get him to keep minimum standards of behavior.

All true SECOND. It is also lost on SIG that America took a back seat to our European allies on this one. We backed them up. It's kind of hard to expect them to back us up if we don't reciprocate. Our decision to get involved was also founded on that. Being Russian SIG would not understand that.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

THGRRI

Saturday, October 1, 2016 12:29 AM

Trump remains ensnared in Miss Universe trap Clinton set

Hillary Clinton set up Donald Trump with embarrassing stories about a former Miss Universe — and now Trump can't seem to let it go.

A bizarre early morning tweet storm by the Republican presidential nominee extended the Alicia Machado story into its fifth day Friday, enabling Clinton and her aides to continue hammering Trump over his treatment of women.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/09/30/
donald-trump-tweet-storm-miss-universe-hillary-clinton/91314446/

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

THGRRI

Saturday, October 1, 2016 2:52 AM

Why Trump can't win

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2016-09-27/david-plouffe-on-w
hy-donald-trump-can-t-get-to-270

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

SECOND

Saturday, October 1, 2016 3:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Trump remains ensnared in Miss Universe trap Clinton set

Who gets up a three o'clock in the morning to engage in a Twitter attack against a former Miss Universe? He hurled as many insults as he could. Really, why does he do things like that? His latest Twitter meltdown is unhinged even for him.

Jayne, as stupid as ever, tweets "At least we know he’d be around for that 3am phone call..." #MicDrop
https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/781871866071752705

Jayne, proving he is a bigger jackass than Trump, announced in February: Hollywood actor Adam Baldwin has quit Twitter over concerns that the platform is censoring opponents of the "regressive" left. Clever, Jayne, to replace the word progressive with regressive.

Too bad Jayne didn't stay quit, but something had to be done to support Trump when he won the nomination!

The actor and star of TNT’s The Last Ship deleted his entire seven-year history of tweets over the weekend, replacing them with a single message calling on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to be fired and the company’s new, widely-criticized “Trust and Safety Council” disbanded. It was Jayne's tweets that Hillary should be killed that caused the trouble. A picture of a target on Hillary and a quote that the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants was not real subtle.
www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/23/adam-baldwin-quits-twitter-calls-for
-jack-dorseys-resignation/

THGRRI

Saturday, October 1, 2016 3:12 AM

Originally posted by THGRRI:

Trump remains ensnared in Miss Universe trap Clinton set

SECOND

Who gets up a three o'clock in the morning to engage in a Twitter attack against a former Miss Universe? He hurled as many insults as he could. Really, why does he do things like that? His latest Twitter meltdown is unhinged even for him.

ME

Trump does because he has no self-control. And think Nevada, a Latino Miss Universe.

SECOND

Jayne, as stupid as ever, tweets "At least we know he’d be around for that 3am phone call..." #MicDrop

Jayne, proving he is as big a jackass as Trump, announced in February: Hollywood actor Adam Baldwin has quit Twitter over concerns that the platform is censoring opponents of the "regressive" left. Clever, Jayne, to replace the word progressive with regressive. Too bad Jayne didn't stay quit, but something had to be done to support Trump when he won the nomination!

The actor and star of TNT’s The Last Ship deleted his entire seven-year history of tweets over the weekend, replacing them with a single message calling on Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to be fired and the company’s new, widely-criticized “Trust and Safety Council” disbanded.

ME
Great in FireFly, failure as a person.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 1, 2016 8:04 PM

Quote:
In an email sent to his business partner and Democratic fundraiser Jeffrey Leeds, former Secretary of State Colin Powell wrote of Hillary Clinton, “Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris.”

Indeed!

Quote:
Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State during Barack Obama’s first term was an unmitigated disaster for many nations around the world. Neither the Donald Trump campaign nor the corporate media have adequately described how a number of countries around the world suffered horribly from Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy decisions.

Millions of people were adversely harmed by Clinton’s misguided policies and her “pay-to-play” operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative.

The following is a before and after recap, country by country, of the destabilizing effects of Clinton’s policies as Secretary of State:
Abkhazia

Before Hillary: In 2009, more and more nations began recognizing the independence of this nation that broke away from Georgia and successfully repelled a U.S.-supported Georgian invasion in 2008.

After Hillary: Clinton pressured Vanuatu and Tuvalu to break off diplomatic relations with Abkhazia in 2011. The State Department pressured the governments of India, Germany, and Spain to refuse to recognize the validity of Abkhazian passports and, in violation of the US-UN Treaty, refused to permit Abkhazian diplomats to visit UN headquarters in New York. The Clinton State Department also threatened San Marino, Belarus, Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba, Somalia, Uzbekistan, and Peru with recriminations if they recognized Abkhazia. Georgia was connected to Clinton through the representation of Georgia in Washington by the Podesta Group, headed by Tony Podesta, the brother of Mrs. Clinton’s close friend and current campaign chairman John Podesta.
Argentina

Before Hillary: Under President Nestor Kirchner and his wife Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Argentina’s economy improved and the working class and students prospered.

After Hillary: After former president Nestor Kirchner’s sudden death in 2010, the U.S. embassy in Buenos Aires became a nexus for anti-Kirchner activities, including the fomenting of political and labor protests against the government. Meanwhile, Clinton pressed Argentina hard on its debt obligations to the IMF, also crippling the economy.
Bolivia

Before Hillary: Bolivia’s progressive president Evo Morales, the country’s first indigenous Aymara leader, provided government support to the country’s coca farmers and miners. Morales also committed his government to environmental protection. He kept his country out of the Free Trade Area of the Americas and helped start the Peoples’ Trade Agreement with Venezuela and Cuba.

After Hillary: Clinton permitted the U.S. embassy in La Paz to stir up separatist revolts in four mostly European-descent Bolivian provinces, as well as foment labor strikes among miners and other workers in the same model used in Venezuela.
Brazil

Before Hillary: Brazil’s progressive presidents, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff, ushered in a new era for the country, with workers’ and students' rights at the forefront and environmental protection and economic development for the poor major priorities.

After Hillary: Clinton’s authorization of massive electronic spying from the US embassy in Brasilia and consulate general in Rio de Janeiro resulted in a “constitutional coup” against Rousseff and the Workers’ Party government, ushering in a right-wing, CIA-supported corrupt government.
Central African Republic

Before Hillary: Under President Francois Bozize, the CAR remained relatively calm under a peace agreement hammered out under the auspices of Muammar Qaddafi’s Libya.

After Hillary: In 2012, Islamist terrorists of the Seleka movement and supported by Saudi Arabia conducted an uprising, massacring Christians and riving Bozize’s government from power. The CAR became a failed state under Clinton’s State Department.
Ecuador

Before Hillar

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

THGRRI

Saturday, October 1, 2016 8:26 PM

Some of SIG'S sources for the above post. As you can see they are unreliable to say the least. Which is why SIG didn't post any. Isn't that right comrade?

• http://finance.yahoo.com/m/e4bffa30-9506-38cd-9934-cc3b0df6dea6/undefi
ned
• http://www.kosovo-metochia.org/2016/09/29/kosovo-countries-destroyed-h
illary-clinton/
• http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-complete-z-nations-destroyed-hillary-cl
intons-hubris
• https://www.yahoo.com/news/novartis-psoriasis-drug-maintains-efficacy-
four-years-study-051637981--finance.html
• https://sports.yahoo.com/m/365f8b37-73d8-36d8-97ce-96ca4759d301/ss_kov
alev%3A-russian-boxing-is.html
• http://beforeitsnews.com/gold-and-precious-metals/2016/09/the-complete
-a-to-z-of-nations-destroyed-by-hillary-clintons-hubris-2969109.html

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

SIGNYM

Saturday, October 1, 2016 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Some of SIG'S sources for the above post.

How would you know what my sources are?

Oh, that's right: you don't. You're a liar.

And, of course, too dishonest to address the actual content of the post.

Anybody who claims to support Hillary because of her experience in government and her curriculum vitae as Secretary of State, Senator, and First Lady ... which gave her, presumably, first-hand knowledge of how politics "works" and the chance to practice her skills, especially as Senator and Secretary of State .... cannot then go on to claim that she has no responsibility for anything.

If she has no responsibility for anything, then she was useless female window-dressing, right? And all of her "experience" was for naught, correct?

She either had a hand in directing foreign policy .... which is what her title Secretary of State .... implies, or she was just a passenger in the administration. It can't be both.

--------------
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.

THGRRI

Sunday, October 2, 2016 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Some of SIG'S sources for the above post.

• http://finance.yahoo.com/m/e4bffa30-9506-38cd-9934-cc3b0df6dea6/undefi
ned
• http://www.kosovo-metochia.org/2016/09/29/kosovo-countries-destroyed-h
illary-clinton/
• http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-complete-z-nations-destroyed-hillary-cl
intons-hubris
• https://www.yahoo.com/news/novartis-psoriasis-drug-maintains-efficacy-
four-years-study-051637981--finance.html
• https://sports.yahoo.com/m/365f8b37-73d8-36d8-97ce-96ca4759d301/ss_kov
alev%3A-russian-boxing-is.html
• http://beforeitsnews.com/gold-and-precious-metals/2016/09/the-complete
-a-to-z-of-nations-destroyed-by-hillary-clintons-hubris-2969109.html

Quote SIG

How would you know what my sources are?

Oh, that's right: you don't. You're a liar. And, of course, too dishonest to address the actual content of the post.

Actually I do know who your sources were and that makes you, once again the liar. Since all you do is cut and paste a bunch of bullshit lies, all I have to do is run it through a plagiarism checker and IT GIVES ME THE SOURCES.

So you cut and pasted a books worth of bullshit ( like always ). You do not post your sources and in response to me you deny them. Why, because you know they are propaganda sites and not reputable.

And I am addressing your post. By pointing out you always misrepresent the truth so your posts are not to be believed. further, by pointing out that if you are deceitful here, ( which you constantly are ), than you fit the description of an internet troll.

Isn't that right comrade?

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Sunday, October 2, 2016 1:11 AM

You can really pile on the B.S. can't you?

Quote:
Originally posted by SECOND:
Where is economic growth going to come from?
In the debate, Trump thinks it only comes from one place. Clinton sees many.

Clinton's places: more government, bigger government, more government, any "job creation" that can take away (reduce) non-government jobs - all paid for by more taxes which won't exist because fewer non-government jobs will exist.
Quote:

Here’s the distinction in a nutshell: Trump would try to boost growth by forcing companies to stay in America and pushing immigrants out. Clinton would try to boost growth by making America a more attractive place to invest, making American workers more attractive to employ, and making sure people have enough in their pockets to revive the kind of consumer demand that has fueled America’s economic engine since the end of World War II.

Trump laid out his philosophy when debate moderator Lester Holt asked how Trump would raise wages and create new jobs in America. (He’s promised 25 million of them, which is demographically impossible without an increase in immigration that he opposes.)

Quite a pile you've stepped into already - making phony fake claims to bolster your blustery pre-determined conclusion, avoiding any facts.

25 million new jobs would require 25 million people to fill them, is that how you are figuring?
7.8 million Unemployed under Obama's fake numbers, and forecasted to be about 8.2 million by December.
6.1 million Involuntary Part Time workers, meaning part of Obama's hidden Unemployed who he has forced out of the workforce, and they are looking for full time jobs and are readily available and wanting work. When these workers who are working 2 or 3 jobs to sustain the income they wish they had with one job get a decent job (meaning pre-Obama type), 2 or 3 times as many vacancies may open up - meaning about 12-18 million jobs.
1.7 marginally Unemployed, under counted from reality, but which Obama's fake numbers admit they are not counted as unemployed as a result of tricky government paperwork, but they really are unemployed and willing, able, and available to work. These figures are notoriously underreported, largely because nobody knows how many they really are.
So far this is a minimum of 16.0 million jobs, and as many as 28 million.

Then there are the Illegal Alien jobs. With estimated (2014) 11.3 milion Illegal Aliens, 8.1 million of them were working illegally, filling jobs.
Deporting these Illegal Aliens would free up these 8.1 million jobs - even if they are not filled, the jobs would still remain as unfilled jobs. Following the laws of supply and demand, these jobs could be modified, making higher income for these jobs, or changed to be more effective jobs, making a higher paying (new) job in place of one or more of these jobs, yet paying more.

That would make a total so far of around 24.1 million jobs, and as many as 37 million jobs.
And that is not even counting the unemployed who want to work but are hidden in Obama's fake figures, and those who are stuck at mom's house because they can't get a job, and those who would like to supplement their retirement but can't with this horrendous job market.
No immigrants required. But, with decent jobs in need of filling, we could start to allow legal, skilled, desirable workers to immigrate - which I have not heard that Donald is opposed to.

Quote:

Trump answered in exactly one dimension: Manufacturing jobs that in recent decades have migrated to Mexico and China. He’d bring them back, he and his advisers say, by charging steep tariffs on imports and slashing corporate tax rates so that companies bring cash back from overseas. “That’s going to be a job creator like we haven’t seen since Ronald Reagan,” Trump said. “It’s going to be a beautiful thing to watch.”

But while Trump stops there, Clinton goes further. She's spent the last several years stuffing an economic toolbox with pl

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

JO753

Sunday, October 2, 2016 2:29 AM

----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early

http://www.nooalf.com

1KIKI

Sunday, October 2, 2016 3:05 AM

I really don't care about what Trump said. He made many valid points, and he said many stupid things, but he's not going to be president so TRUMP IS BESIDE THE POINT.

What we need to do is examine what CLINTON is shilling.

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?!

ELVISCHRIST

Sunday, October 2, 2016 3:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by whozit:

As the polls come in it looks like Drumpf is the winner.

You must have been watching the polls with a bunch of cocaine addicts.

Even FauxNews's own poll shows Hillary winning by more than 40 points. Not one single legitimate poll has Trump winning. Probably a big part of why not one single major newspaper has endorsed him - something that has never happened before in this country.

ELVISCHRIST

Sunday, October 2, 2016 3:36 AM

I'm kind of curious why Trump thinks a woman being in a "sex tape" is "disgusting" - unless it's his wife, of course, who did lesbian porn.

The "sex tape" Trump referenced about Alicia Machado actually featured a cameo appearance by none other than Trump himself. Perhaps that's the "disgusting" part he refers to.

And how anyone in the Trump camp has ANYTHING to say about someone's weight is beyond me. But hey, these are a bunch of guys who average 3 wives each, trying to tell us there's something wrong with Hillary because she's only had one husband...

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 2, 2016 4:33 AM

What I don't get is why you guys (and gals) are focusing on such minor stuff.

What I recall of the debate is that Hillary launched a lot of personal attacks at Trump, about what he said about some beauty contest candidate, or making a lot of suppositions about Trump's taxes (or lack of), or whether Trump was for the war in Iraq (portraying Trump's "yeah I guess" as some sort of full-throated call to war) etc. Yanno, really stupid stuff. I mean REALLY stupid stuff. I think she and her campaign managers decided that was her best bet, because if Trump attacked HER like that, he's look like a mean-old man, attacking an elderly woman!

But all I could think was "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones"...

I've heard about Trump's misuse of his Foundation. But Hillary and Bill have their own Foundation concerns, don't they? I've heard of Trump's fine-print charity contests where it turns out that you don't win anything, but then there was Whitewater. For all the dirt Hillary tries to smear Trump with, there is plenty on her, too. After all, who bleaches 30,000 emails about yoga and a wedding??? There are a lot of her staffers who've been given "criminal immunity" for something that supposedly didn't happen. Hillary has spent so much time stealing, hiding, and destroying evidence that sweeping up after her must be her staff's full-time job. And that's not even counting her drinking or her nasty unpredictable temper.

So Hillary and Trump are, ethically, a wash.

But what does that have to do with the price of eggs?

Trump said some very true things about debt, free trade, jobs, infrastructure, and war. Hillary said some true things about taxes and trickle-down. None of that was debated, and that's a shame.

--------------
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.

1KIKI

Sunday, October 2, 2016 5:55 AM

Hillary Clinton: Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn't worked.

I agree. And I'm sure there are a lot of people just gobbling up your tasty junk-food sound-bites, Hillary.

But honey, there was a LOT more than trickle-down that caused the crash. And if you don't understand that, you'll never solve the problem - or avoid the next one.

America has ceased to be a nation that produces value. And so, people no longer invest in America because we produce things that others need and want to buy. (This is one point for Donald, btw. A country without robust manufacturing is economically crippled.)
Instead, people speculate. And drive bubbles. This has been commented on for over 15 years.
https://mises.org/library/americas-bubble-economy
http://www.economist.com/node/160056

As their name implies bubbles are valueless froth that pop and leave little behind but a disgusting mess.

And bubbles didn't start with dumbya. No, they can be traced back to the dot.com bubble 1995–2001. HIYA, BILL! Nor did Bill fix the problem. If anything the so-called 'free' trade agreements from his administration crippled US manufacturing even more. So not only did the US lose iron and then steel earlier, but THEN it ALSO lost auto, textile, chemicals, chips and memory and computers ... and made them, like, even worser. So, by the time dumbya took office, US manufacturing had already been thoroughly hollowed out.

Another factor that lead to the meltdown was the bank deregulation that took place - ALSO during Bill's term of office. HEY THERE - again - BILL! http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351
_1877350_1877322,00.html

AND finally there was the ruinous expense of the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq - financed off the federal budget books by floating bonds and selling them to the Chinese. Very clever! (not) Unfortunately, Hillary didn't seem to learn that expensive foreign conflicts, that drive the US government into competing for global lenders, can ruin your economy.

Trickle down was only one player among many large ones on our road to economic ruin. So called 'free' trade agreements that greased manufacturing flight from the US, bank deregulation, and ruinously expensive foreign conflicts also contributed their share.

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?!

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, October 2, 2016 6:02 AM

Quote:
Hillary, aside form being an alcoholic, got over 30,000 people uselessly killed in Libya and is partly responsible for another 1000,000 more if Syria and elsewhere. Her personal business dealing involve her drug-traficking husband.

Well then, drug traffic-king, he should be arrested, charged and tried before a judge and a jury of his peers.

Next.

Hillary, like other high profile folks, should go to the Betty Ford Clinic.

Next.

Partly, come on! You could do better than that. Why not blame her for the whole thing, what was it? 30K exactly! Are you sure? and A thousand, a hundred thousand, a million??? ..."more if Syria and elsewhere."

Arrest, charge, and try. I'll agree with you and be first in line to condemn.
When that happens.

And no, it's not a wash. Trump is a disgusting pig of a man, hell he's no man but a filthy womanizer and rapist. Child molester and incest artist.
That makes him the Devil in my book.

Anything else?

SGG

1KIKI

Sunday, October 2, 2016 6:09 AM

Double standards ...

(Hillary) Arrest, charge, and try. I'll agree with you and be first in line to condemn.
When that happens.

And no, it's not a wash. Trump is a disgusting pig of a man, hell he's no man but a filthy womanizer and rapist. Child molester and incest artist.
That makes him the Devil in my book.

So ... you're OK with thousands of people being killed (as long as you get to quibble about numbers, and) as long as Hillary hasn't been convicted ... but you don't have the same caveats about Donald being accused of being a rapist and child molester? (not sure that being a 'womanizer' is a crime by any statute in the US)

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?!

1KIKI

Sunday, October 2, 2016 6:13 AM

back to the debate ...

Hillary Clinton: Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn't worked.

I agree. And I'm sure there are a lot of people just gobbling up your tasty junk-food sound-bites, Hillary.

But honey, there was a LOT more than trickle-down that caused the crash. And if you don't understand that, you'll never solve the problem - or avoid the next one.

America has ceased to be a nation that produces value. And so, people no longer invest in America because we produce things that others need and want to buy. (This is one point for Donald, btw. A country without robust manufacturing is economically crippled.)
Instead, people speculate. And drive bubbles. This has been commented on for over 15 years.
https://mises.org/library/americas-bubble-economy
http://www.economist.com/node/160056

As their name implies bubbles are valueless froth that pop and leave little behind but a disgusting mess.

And bubbles didn't start with dumbya. No, they can be traced back to the dot.com bubble 1995–2001. HIYA, BILL! Nor did Bill fix the problem. If anything the so-called 'free' trade agreements from his administration crippled US manufacturing even more. So not only did the US lose iron and then steel earlier, but THEN it ALSO lost auto, textile, chemicals, chips and memory and computers ... and made them, like, even worser. So, by the time dumbya took office, US manufacturing had already been thoroughly hollowed out.

Another factor that lead to the meltdown was the bank deregulation that took place - ALSO during Bill's term of office. HEY THERE - again - BILL! http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351
_1877350_1877322,00.html

AND finally there was the ruinous expense of the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq - financed off the federal budget books by floating bonds and selling them to the Chinese. Very clever! (not) Unfortunately, Hillary didn't seem to learn that expensive foreign conflicts, that drive the US government into competing for global lenders, can ruin your economy.

Trickle down was only one player among many large ones on our road to economic ruin. So called 'free' trade agreements that greased manufacturing flight from the US, bank deregulation, and ruinously expensive foreign conflicts also contributed their share.

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?!

SHINYGOODGUY

Sunday, October 2, 2016 6:22 AM

You are right, the near financial collapse was not predicated solely on trickle-down. Many more factors were involved, but I didn't hear her say that was the case. Maybe I watched a different debate.

Anywho, the near "crash" was many different factors, but mainly allowing the financial institutions to go completely unchecked - no thanks to the republicans who insist we have too many regs on the books. And, it has nothing to do with production, and everything to do with market manipulation.
The world banking industry tried to do what was done during the original crash of '29. It wasn't about destruction, it was about limiting control to a chosen few. A kind of financial slavery, if you will.

There is a battle out there. It's not about black or white, but obscenely rich and everyone else. Maintain the status quo is the name of the game.

http://facts.randomhistory.com/millionaires-facts.html

Do you need to be rich to get elected to Congress? Or does getting elected to Congress make you rich? Whatever the cause and effect, Congress is now officially the land of millionaires.

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/09/millionaires-now-have-the-majority-in-c
ongress.html

There was a time when millionaires were growing on trees.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/14/rise-of-minority-businesses-in-the-us-s
urvey.html

Quote:
In the pursuit of the American dream, minority business owners often face an uphill battle. Often facing social and economic discrimination, the climb is tough. Despite the inevitable hurdles, minority entrepreneurs seem to be confident in what the future holds.

According to the Minority Business Development Agency, the rate at which minority-owned businesses are being formed continues to rise. The number of minority business enterprises increased 39 percent between 2007 and 2012 (from 5.8 million to 8.0 million), or more than three times faster than population growth among minorities, according to the Census Bureau's 2012 Survey of Business Owners. But they fall short in comparison to other businesses' overall success in terms of revenue and profit growth.

Control, that's the ticket.....control.

P.S. By the way, if you're for Gary Johnson. He's for TPP.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Hillary Clinton: Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn't worked.

I agree. And I'm sure there are a lot of people just gobbling up your tasty junk-food sound-bites, Hillary.

But honey, there was a LOT more than trickle-down that caused the crash. And if you don't understand that, you'll never solve the problem - or avoid the next one.

America has ceased to be a nation that produces value. And so, people no longer invest in America because we produce things that others need and want to buy. (This is one point for Donald, btw. A country without robust manufacturing is economically crippled.)
Instead, people speculate. And drive bubbles. This has been commented on for over 15 years.
https://mises.org/library/americas-bubble-economy
http://www.economist.com/node/160056

As their name implies bubbles are valueless froth that pop and leave little behind but a disgusting mess.

And bubbles didn't start with dumbya. No, they can be traced back to the dot.com bubble 1995–2001. HIYA, BILL! Nor did Bill fix the problem. If anything the so-called 'free' trade agreements from his administration crippled US manufacturing even more. So not only did the US lose iron and then steel earlier, but THEN it ALSO lost auto, textile, chemicals, chips and memory and computers ... and made them, like, even worser. So, by the time dumbya took office, US manufacturing had already been thoroughly hollowed out.

Another factor that lead to the meltdown was the bank de

1KIKI

Sunday, October 2, 2016 7:02 AM

Here's the transcript of the debate. I always find it helpful to examine what people actually said, instead of what I heard, or paid attention to, or remembered.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-tr
ump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/

What did Hillary say about the economy (aside from stories about her father)?

CLINTON: I want us to invest in you. I want us to invest in your future. That means jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewable energy, and small business, because most of the new jobs will come from small business. We also have to make the economy fairer. That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also guarantee, finally, equal pay for women's work.
... We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That's a lot of jobs; that's a lot of new economic activity.

Where is the money for this 'investment' going to come from? Has she ALREADY written off iron and steel, automotive and transportation, rubber and chemicals, chips and computers, textiles and soft goods? And how does SHE think small business is going to get us to renewable energy - an industry where many countries already have a head-start and that require large-scale industrial works, not small-business store-fronts.

CLINTON: Well, let's stop for a second and remember where we were eight years ago. We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s. That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.

And nothing about free-trade agreements, too-big-to-fail institutions (which she seems reluctant to cut down to a more reasonable size), and god-awful ruinous spending on oversees adventurism like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Independent experts have looked at what I've proposed ...

Then she misstates what economists have said about her plan v Trump's.

CLINTON: And I have -- well, not quite that long. I think my husband did a pretty good job in the 1990s. I think a lot about what worked and how we can make it work again...

Though it was Bill's 'free' trade agreements and bank deregulation that moved our economic catastrophe along.

more later

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?!

1KIKI

Sunday, October 2, 2016 8:01 AM

CLINTON: Incomes went up for everybody.

Except if you were dependent on wages.

CLINTON: When I was secretary of state, we actually increased American exports globally 30 percent. We increased them to China 50 percent.

This is something that needs looking into. I expect she's talking about gross, not net. So, for example, it wouldn't matter if our exports to China went up 50%, if our imports went up 120%. And in terms of well-paying jobs, it makes a difference if we export raw materials, or manufactured goods.
ETA - it shows that exports went up but imports went up more - during Clinton's term, the trade deficit rose.

TRUMP: And, Hillary, I'd just ask you this. You've been doing this for 30 years. Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now? For 30 years, you've been doing it, and now you're just starting to think of solutions.
CLINTON: Well, actually...
TRUMP: I will bring -- excuse me. I will bring back jobs. You can't bring back jobs.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have thought about this quite a bit.
TRUMP: Yeah, for 30 years.
CLINTON: And I have -- well, not quite that long. I think my husband did a pretty good job in the 1990s. I think a lot about what worked and how we can make it work again...
TRUMP: Well, he approved NAFTA...
CLINTON: Well, that is just not accurate. I was against it (the TPP) once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about that in...

I'll let Trump answer for me "TRUMP: You called it the gold standard."

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?!

SECOND

Sunday, October 2, 2016 10:12 AM

Many left-of-center people who are generally strongly critical of Trump have been inclined to praise his criticisms of US trade policy. It is important, however, to understand that Trump is not in any way offering any version of the most sophisticated criticisms of America’s approach to global trade. Not just in his rallies and off-the-cuff remarks but in his policy papers prepared by PhD economists, he is appealing to the idea that arbitrary restrictions on the sale of foreign-made goods will mechanically boost the American economy.

There is no empirical or theoretical basis for this view, which is why no president of either party has ever attempted to make it the centerpiece of his national economic strategy. It’s just wrong. It’s the kind of thing you might come up with if you were a wealthy landlord and reality television personality who ran for president on a whim without learning anything about issues or public policy.

www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/9/29/13075538/trump-trade-policy

1KIKI

Sunday, October 2, 2016 10:20 AM

Perhaps you can explain what Hillary's trade policies are, how they've been evaluated, and what was concluded.

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?!

SECOND

Sunday, October 2, 2016 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Perhaps you can explain what Hillary's trade policies are, how they've been evaluated, and what was concluded.

You are asking too much work from me, but I did do some on manufacturing. I proved that you're half right and half wrong about it:

You aren’t right that the USA is getting weaker as times go forward from WWII: I see Industrial Production increasing, except when wars end or depressions begin.
http://myf.red/g/7vQS

You are right: I see Manufacturing Employment is decreasing. Why?
Industry was never in the job creation business. Just look at the record:
http://myf.red/g/7vRa

Many have complained about the decline of the manufacturing sector in the United States. If you look at the number of people employed in that sector, the decline started in July 1979. If you look at the share of manufacturing in total employment, the decline has been ongoing since Dec 1943.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2014/04/the-decline-of-manufacturing/

The role of manufacturing in the U.S. economy is often discussed. As a year-over-year percent change, the level of manufacturing has generally grown. (One striking exception is during the recent recession.) The number of employees working in manufacturing is a different story, however. It has sometimes grown, but it has nearly always grown less than the growth in manufacturing. There have been years when production grows while employment shrinks. This suggests that growth in manufacturing does not equal growth in manufacturing jobs.
https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2014/12/manufacturing-is-growing-even-
when-manufacturing-jobs-are-not/

Industry is always trying to reduce employment. If industry wanted to increase employment (and why would they? what would be their motive?) industry would cut the number of hours worked per employee in half at the same time as doubling the hourly wage rate. Every doubling means twice as much manufacturing employment. But why would an industry do that to itself?

It would be as silly for industry to increase employment as it would be silly for semiconductor manufacturer Intel to follow an upside-down Moore's Law where transistors double in size every two years. Intel could really increase manufacturing employment if it completely stops making integrated circuits and switches all production to triode vacuum tubes.

And Ford Motors could really increase employment if it stopped using modern assembly lines and went back to the old ways that Henry Ford built cars in 1916! Those were the good old days when an American farmer could get a job at a factory in Detroit.

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

SECOND

Sunday, October 2, 2016 8:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Perhaps you can explain what Hillary's trade policies are, how they've been evaluated, and what was concluded.

Trump proves it makes no difference what BS spews from the mouths of candidates with his profoundly lazy campaign.

One thing Donald Trump has taught us all over the course of the 2016 campaign is that a lot of things we might have thought mattered to winning elections turn out to not matter much.

Previous major party nominees have built teams of professional staff and circles of formal and informal advisers who have helped them craft policy blueprints across a wide range of issues. They have courted recognized authorities — typically well-regarded veterans of government service — to vouch for their competence to deal with various important matters. They have built large field operations. They have crafted communications teams that respond to damaging allegations leveled against their campaign in the media. When their factual claims are widely refuted, they work to develop new, more defensible claims that can nonetheless support their key political and policy goals.

Trump has done basically none of that, and so far it’s worked out pretty well.

Fundamentals-based models of the election suggest we should expect a close race. And Trump and Clinton are in fact giving us a close race, despite the fact that Trump, in some respects, barely seems to be trying.

This is a fascinating discovery and also a rather disturbing one. After all, the main reason we might have thought that building a team — a large, high-quality one capable of executing complicated tasks and developing policy ideas — is important to winning votes is that doing these things is essential to being an effective president.

Donald Trump briefly had a small policy team, but it collapsed over the summer when the whole team quit because he wouldn’t pay them.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/09/08/inside-the-collap
se-of-trumps-d-c-policy-shop/

But while he hasn’t found any money to spend on a policy staff, his campaign has spent $6 million renting his own plane from himself. His donors are paying Trump for Trump to fly in his plane. Making a profit while running for President.
www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-business-campaign-trail-22
8500

SIGNYM

Sunday, October 2, 2016 9:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I contend that it would behoove Mr. Moneybags to allow for companies to expand their growth and influence abroad. Why? Good question.

Yes, good question!

THIS is what the USA has been doing ever since we entered into the WTO, so where has it gotten us? Seriously. Would "more of the same" yield a good result for Americans?

Quote:
Let's take Mexico for instance. Ford recently struck a deal to manufacture small cars there, which creates job growth and keeps the general population,
well........there. It has been reported that the illegal immigration problem has slowed to a trickle in recent months, mainly because Mexico's economy has improved.

How should this consideration affect our trade policies with China, Vietnam, Albania, and Ecuador? Should we export jobs to those other nations in order to keep illegal immigrants in their home nations? Or is Mexico a special case due to its proximity and pain-in-the-assedness?

And if Mexico is a special case, simply because of illegal immigration, wouldn't it be better to simply enforce the border and enforce immigration laws, especially those requiring that jobs go to American citizens?

Quote:
Ford makes money, the Mexicans make money (and consequently stay home), everybody's happy.

Except Americans?

Quote:
Now we can cross the border to look for work, turnabout is fair play. Well, Ford hasn't forgotten about us here in America; despite what the Donald says, Ford has committed to making large trucks and SUVs here in the good old USA. So nobody here is losing their jobs.

Ford has ALWAYS made their large vehicles in the USA.

So I don't see how Ford moving its small-car production - when subtracting the negatives from the positives, benefits AMERICANS (not corporations). What the real net effect would be is the question that needs to be answered and it would take some real research in order to figure out that answer, for real.

Now here is an article which attempts to explain why this is all a good thing for American workers. Somehow, it never quite gets around to explaining why Americans "shouldn't fear for their jobs" - as the subheading promises to explain - since all of the benefits seem to extend to shareholders and upper management. If I were to try to explain in their stead, maybe their logic is that American jobs won't be lost in this move. However, what is clear is that American jobs won't be gained either.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/why-ford-is-planning-
to-make-more-cars-in-mexico.aspx

Quote:
Now if we could only find a way to make them share in their good fortune (an understatement) and raise wages. CEOs are walking away with hundred million dollar bonuses, where's ours?

We need to change the TAX LAW. Corporations pay taxes in the nation where they "declare" their income. SO let's assume that Ford creates a shipping company, and headquarters it in Panama. This shipping company "buys" auto parts from the USA at a low price, and "sell" auto parts to Mexico at a high price. This shipping company makes a phenomenal profit, but that profit is made in Panama which has 0% tax. Why do you think that so many companies have headquarters in places like the Cayman Islands, Panama, and Nevada?

Quote:
Speaking of "Crooked, Lying" Donald Frump - Newsweek will be releasing an article this morning about Trump's shady dealings with the Cubans in 1998-9.

And Hillary sought to influence an arms sale to Saudi Arabia.

Yanno, Hillary and Bill are every bit as sociopathic as Trump - if not more so- and every bit as crooked. There was a long-time political analyst- and unfortunately I forget who otherwise I would link the statement - who said that the problem with Hillary is that she's gotten away with so much for so long through so many coverups (like browbeating and blackmailing the victims of Bill's exte

1KIKI

Sunday, October 2, 2016 10:23 PM

Trump proves it makes no difference what BS spews from the mouths of candidates

And then you go on at length refuting what you already claim is bs. Isn't that a little self-defeating?

MEANWHILE, when it comes to the candidate who actually WILL be president - you have nothing to say about her. Could it be you don't know anything about the candidate you claim to support?

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?!

1KIKI

Sunday, October 2, 2016 10:30 PM

I see Industrial Production increasing

But sadly, the US has not enough internal manufacturing to keep up with internal demand. If we DID have enough internal manufacturing to meet internal demand, we wouldn't be purchasing goods made in foreign countries.

Over the years the manufacturing to fill US internal demand has been increasingly located in foreign countries, which means those jobs have been increasingly located in foreign countries. And our purchases of foreign goods has been increasing relative to our exports of US-made goods. Consequently, our trade deficit has gone up and up over the decades.

As an ultimate indicator of US manufacturing jobs relative to foreign manufacturing jobs, the US balance of trade is pretty good. Other statistics are irrelevant.

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?!

SECOND

Monday, October 3, 2016 12:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:
Trump proves it makes no difference what BS spews from the mouths of candidates
And then you go on at length refuting what you already claim is bs. Isn't that a little self-defeating?

MEANWHILE, when it comes to the candidate who actually WILL be president - you have nothing to say about her. Could it be you don't know anything about the candidate you claim to support?

It is very hard to bust through your smug certainty that you know what you're talking about. My premise is that enough Americans to swing an election either way will never understand what policies Republicans and Democrats are selling. Both Trump and Hillary realize this, but each responds differently. Trump does not need a policy team. He can just make it up on the fly because Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan will do the work once Trump is President. Trump's only job is to get elected, not to govern. Hillary needs a policy team because she needs a policy in case the Republicans, by some election day miracle, cannot sabotage the Federal Government in 2017, unlike what the GOP has done to Obama. Hillary likes to talk about policy when she campaigns, even if it all amounts to nothing unless the GOP is out of power in Congress because of that miracle I told you about.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/09/08/inside-the-collap
se-of-trumps-d-c-policy-shop/

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

SECOND

Monday, October 3, 2016 3:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Quote:
I see Industrial Production increasing

But sadly, the US has not enough internal manufacturing to keep up with internal demand. If we DID have enough internal manufacturing to meet internal demand, we wouldn't be purchasing goods made in foreign countries.

Over the years the manufacturing to fill US internal demand has been increasingly located in foreign countries, which means those jobs have been increasingly located in foreign countries. And our purchases of foreign goods has been increasing relative to our exports of US-made goods. Consequently, our trade deficit has gone up and up over the decades.

As an ultimate indicator of US manufacturing jobs relative to foreign manufacturing jobs, the US balance of trade is pretty good. Other statistics are irrelevant.

You've been listening to Trump again, haven't you? What made you think Trump knows what he is talking about? Your common sense?

Donald Trump believes that a half-trillion-dollar trade deficit with the rest of the world makes the United States a loser and countries with trade surpluses like China and Mexico winners.

“They’re beating us so badly,” he has said. “Every country we lose money with.”

The reality is different. Trade deficits are not inherently good or bad; they can be either, depending on circumstances. The trade deficit is not a scorecard.

What’s more, eliminating the trade deficit would not, on its own, make America great again, as Mr. Trump promises. And in isolation, the fact that the United States has a trade deficit does not prove that trade agreements are bad for Americans, a staple of Bernie Sanders’s campaign in the Democratic presidential primary. In fact, trying to eliminate the trade deficit could mean giving up some of the key levers of power that allow the United States to get its way in international politics.

Getting rid of the trade deficit could very well make America less great. The reasons have to do with the global reserve currency, economic diplomacy and something called the Triffin dilemma.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/upshot/the-trade-deficit-isnt-a-s
corecard-and-cutting-it-wont-make-america-great-again.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&referer=

Currently we are running an annual trade deficit of around $540 billion (@ 3 percent of GDP). This could be offset by spending more on education, infrastructure, clean technology or other areas, but the Very Serious People in the GOP will not let us run larger Federal and State Government budget deficits. In that context, it is quite reasonable to link a trade deficit to higher unemployment, so Trump is not wrong in that respect.

I’m not saying that Trump has any idea what he’s talking about; he doesn’t. But we are living in a world where, for the time being, a little mercantilism makes a bit of sense.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/trade-deficits-these-times
-are-different/?_r=0

THGRRI

Monday, October 3, 2016 3:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:

It is very hard to bust through your smug certainty that you know what you're talking about.

Great point SECOND. kiki has post after post attacking Clinton in different threads and then asks why we keep pointing out that Trump is worse. That's a laugh. She posts negatively about Clinton and then suggests we are responding to her posts incorrectly. And forgets many of us have said we don't care for her either; but Trump is out of the question.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

1KIKI

Monday, October 3, 2016 6:48 AM

second

I didn't bring up the manufacturing/ jobs topic - you did. And my post responded directly to your manufacturing/ jobs post, where I said the trade deficit was a far better metric for manufacturing jobs lost to foreign countries than your figures.

Here's the original summation: "As an ultimate indicator of US manufacturing jobs relative to foreign manufacturing jobs, the US balance of trade is pretty good. Other statistics are irrelevant."

The question is - has the US lost manufacturing jobs to foreign countries?

My response is yes. If you look at the US trade deficit, it's obvious the US isn't manufacturing enough goods internally to meet internal demand. Instead it is having to purchase foreign goods made with foreign labor to meet internal demand. Those purchases of foreign goods represent a loss of US manufacturing capacity to foreign countries, along with the loss of US manufacturing jobs to foreign labor.

I thought I was pretty clear, but maybe you needed to see it in different words. Now that you have, maybe you can respond to what I posted.

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?!

SIGNYM

Monday, October 3, 2016 3:18 PM

Quote:
It is very hard to bust through your smug certainty that you know what you're talking about. My premise is that enough Americans to swing an election either way will never understand what policies Republicans and Democrats are selling. Both Trump and Hillary realize this, but each responds differently. Trump does not need a policy team. He can just make it up on the fly because Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan will do the work once Trump is President. Trump's only job is to get elected, not to govern. Hillary needs a policy team because she needs a policy in case the Republicans, by some election day miracle, cannot sabotage the Federal Government in 2017, unlike what the GOP has done to Obama. Hillary likes to talk about policy when she campaigns, even if it all amounts to nothing unless the GOP is out of power in Congress because of that miracle I told you about.

Is there a point in there?

If Hillary wins she needs a policy just in case she wins?

--------------
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.

SECOND

Monday, October 3, 2016 5:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
second
. . .
I thought I was pretty clear, but maybe you needed to see it in different words. Now that you have, maybe you can respond to what I posted.

I did answer your question here:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60875&mid=10172
00#1017200

It was a long answer, most of it in the links, most of it subtle and sophisticated. I could give you a short and unsophisticated answer. I even wrote it out. But why bother posting it? Neither the GOP nor the Bernie lovers honestly confront the cost of their goals or tradeoffs between economic goals. Why should I try to change the way they think? They both have been wrong all my life and they are going to stay wrong and never understand why their lives gets steadily worse. I cannot fix what is wrong inside their minds. That is work they will either do themselves or it will stay wrong.

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

SIGNYM

Monday, October 3, 2016 5:54 PM

"Subtlety" in this case is just another word for "wrong".

Here is my response to your response:

Quote:
Donald Trump believes that a half-trillion-dollar trade deficit with the rest of the world makes the United States a loser and countries with trade surpluses like China and Mexico winners.

“They’re beating us so badly,” he has said. “Every country we lose money with.”

The reality is different. Trade deficits are not inherently good or bad; they can be either, depending on circumstances.

First of all, this is a simple assertion with no evidence to back it up. Are we supposed to just take this point on faith?

SHORT TERM trade deficits, over the course of 5 years or so, probably won't do much harm, especially if they represent a small fraction of GDP. But the USA doesn't have a short term trade deficit, this deficit has been accumulating over decades. The USA has to borrow money to make up the deficit, and while accounting for these debts is tricky (due to the fact that other entities also borrow from the USA, currencies fluctuate and the value of other assets also rise and fall) the current net US position is negative $8trillion dollars-

About half of our current GDP
http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-gdp@2x.png?s=wgdpus&v=201610011543o

Quote:
What’s more, eliminating the trade deficit would not, on its own, make America great again, as Mr. Trump promises. And in isolation, the fact that the United States has a trade deficit does not prove that trade agreements are bad for Americans, a staple of Bernie Sanders’s campaign in the Democratic presidential primary. In fact, trying to eliminate the trade deficit could mean giving up some of the key levers of power that allow the United States to get its way in international politics.

Bullshit. The levers of power include (but are not limited to) tariffs, interest rates, capital controls, sanctions, subsidies, currency swaps, specific contracts etc. - all of which can be applied without resort to trade agreements.

Quote:
Getting rid of the trade deficit could very well make America less great. The reasons have to do with the global reserve currency, economic diplomacy and something called the Triffin dilemma.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/28/upshot/the-trade-deficit-isnt-a-s
corecard-and-cutting-it-wont-make-america-great-again.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1&referer=

You conveniently left off the part that discusses the option that a nation with "excess" currency generated by a trade surplus will invest that currency in the deficit nation. However, the NET USA position - taking all of that into account- is still negative and going more negative over time.

Also, in the article that you linked, the "Triffin Dilemna: is framed this way ...

Quote:
The roughly $500 billion trade deficit that the United States runs each year isn’t just about poorly negotiated trade deals and currency manipulation by this or that country. It’s also, to some degree, a byproduct of the central role the United States plays in the global financial system.

There’s even a name for this: the Triffin dilemma. In the mid-20th century, the economist Robert Triffin warned that the provider of the global reserve currency would need to run perpetual trade deficits to keep the world financial system from freezing, with those trade deficits potentially fueling domestic booms and busts.

First of all, the USA sought to become the world reserve currency with the creation of the "petrodollar" in 1973 (under Nixon). Becoming the world reserve currency didn't just "happen" it was a matter of aggressive monetary policy.

Secondly, the article seems to say that WE ought to run a perpetual trade deficit for the GOOD OF THE REST OF THE WORLD.

But... what about us???

Quote:
America's Trade Deficit- The Job Killer

htt

1KIKI

Monday, October 3, 2016 9:54 PM

second

you started with an insult "You've been listening to Trump again, haven't you? What made you think Trump knows what he is talking about? Your common sense?" then went on to address a point I never made.

You were talking about trade deficits being bad. ... a half-trillion-dollar trade deficit ... Trade deficits are not inherently ... eliminating the trade deficit would not ... the fact that the United States has a trade deficit does not ... trying to eliminate the trade deficit ... Getting rid of the trade deficit ...

I was talking about LOSS OF MANUFACTURING JOBS being bad, with trade deficits being a measure of manufacturing job loss.

As for the snark you repeated, TWICE, I'm going to credit you with being lazy and inattentive, rather than assume you're too stupid to understand the difference between what I posted and what you claim I posted, or too dishonest to admit it.

So, maybe you can try engaging your brain and respond to what I posted. Care to try again?

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?!

SECOND

Monday, October 3, 2016 10:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

What Trump said, as I recall, is that we have YUUGE debts AND our infrastructure is shot. He is correct.

About Trump being correct there is a saying: "Even a blind squirrel can find a nut once in a while." Or "A stopped clock is right twice a day." Nothing Trump says is worth paying attention to because he is blind and stopped.

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

However, the real risk to the financial system is the 6-10X WORLD GDP of debt in derivatives, which is always denominated in US dollars. The rest is chump change compared to that,

This is what panics you? Your numbers seem to be two orders of magnitude too large so I looked them up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)#Size_of_market

You can look up the original Sources:
BIS www.bis.org/statistics/index.htm ;
CIA World Fact book www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/ ;
Economist www.economist.com/markets-data

In 2010, while the aggregate of OTC derivatives exceeded $600 trillion (at least you got that right) the value of the market was estimated much lower, at $21 trillion. The credit risk equivalent of the derivative contracts was estimated at $3.3 trillion. The world annual Gross Domestic Product is about $65 trillion. (You got that right.)

$3.3 trillion, actual credit risk from derivatives, is more than enough to crash the world’s economy if the leaders act like ignoramuses, which they are. But what else could we expect?

The qualities that get a leader elected are the same qualities that make it difficult for them to learn anything that takes more than a day of study. Find an example of our Congressional leaders’ inability to learn and understand economics here: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/a-general-theory-of-auster
ity/

THGRRI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 1:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
This where I found a serious problem with Hillary (and the media).

She seems to go by the motto

If you lie, lie BIG! (And, note to self, make sure the media is with you.)

Trump’s Charity Is Told to Stop Raising Money in New York

The office of New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman has issued a “notice of violation” to Donald J. Trump’s foundation, ordering it to immediately stop soliciting donations in New York.

The letter, which was sent on Friday and released on Monday morning by Mr. Schneiderman’s office, said that its charities bureau had determined that the Donald J. Trump Foundation had been fund-raising in New York this year when it was not registered to do so under state law.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump%e2%80%99s-charity-is-told
-to-stop-raising-money-in-new-york/ar-BBwX5DW?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=BHEA000

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

SIGNYM

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 1:39 AM

BILL CLINTON: SOCIOPATH
Bill is probably worse than Hillary. Bill had a history, if you recall, of getting state troopers and his security detail to pick out women and bring them to him, where he would force himself on them through a combination of intimidation, surprise, and glamor, then pay for their silence with government jobs. The number of troopers, reporters and investigators who could have testified against Clinton and who died of "unnatural causes" in the 1992-1994 timeframe is truly astounding. Here, you don't have to believe the story, just count the names...

To this day, Bill shares quite a bit of time with convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, having taken a dozen flights WITHOUT his security detail on the "Lolita Express".

Quote:
“Bill Clinton … associated with a man like Jeffrey Epstein, who everyone in New York, certainly within his inner circles, knew was a pedophile. Why would a former president associate with a man like that?” said Conchita Sarnoff of the Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking, Fox reported. Ms. Sarnoff also authored a book on Mr. Epstein titled “TrafficKing.”

Mr. Epstein was arrested in 2005 and signed a plea agreement in 2007 with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, accepting a single charge of soliciting prostitution. He agreed to a 30-month sentence, registered as a “Tier 1” sex offender with the U.S. Virgin Islands and paid dozens of young girls under a federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton-ditched-s
ecret-service-on-multiple-lo/

HILLARY'S RESPONSE TO ALL THIS

Quote:
Hillary Clinton Is Not a Feminist
Since Hillary announced that her husband would be joining her on the campaign trail, people have been debating whether or not it’s fair for the GOP to attack Bill’s sexual misdeeds in order to indirectly attack her.

This makes sense. After all, we’re talking about a guy who has been accused of the sexual assault of more than ten women. Think about it: How is her appointing him really any different than if she’d appointed Bill Cosby?

But here’s the thing: The real issue isn’t whether or not to attack Bill to indirectly attack Hillary — it’s about directly attacking Hillary for how she herself treated the women involved.

Hillary Clinton claims to be pro-women, yet has actively worked to ruin lives of so many of them. She’s running on a “feminist platform” — she’s even dared to say that sexual-assault survivors have a “right to be believed” — despite the fact that what she did to the women who accused Bill went far beyond not believing them.

She attacked them.

When allegations of sexual misconduct emerged during Bill’s 1992 presidential run, she’s reported to have said “Who is going to find out? These women are trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.” Multiple people also report that she called the women “sluts” and “whores” — you know, for daring to be raped. A private investigator named Ivan Duda claims that, after Bill lost his second governor’s race, Hillary told him: “I want you to get rid of all these b****** he’s seeing . . . I want you to give me the names and addresses and phone numbers, and we can get them under control.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429138/hillary-clinton-feminist-
bill-clinton-sexual-assault

And it's not like these suspicious activities stopped in 1995. The DNC staffer, Seth Rich, who was widely speculated to have been the source of 20,000 DNC emails sent to Wikileaks (i.e not Russia) was gunned down in an apparent "attempted robbery" ... although nothing was taken.

The investigation of Clinton's private email server, in which staff and Hillary herself demonstrated a concerted effort, with forethought and intent, to wipe and erase data (even after a subpoena was issued), was thoroughly compromised by Bill's "conversation" with DOJ Loretta Lynch and

1KIKI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 1:49 AM

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
But the real reason for my fear and loathing of Hillary is not that's she evil- which I think she is - but that she's DANGEROUSLY DELUSIONAL.

And therefore has failed to learn even the smallest bit from her 'successes': Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria.

Originally posted by SIGNYM: Hillary has personally and repeatedly attacked and antagonized Putin. The State Department- HER State Department - ran guns from Libyan jihadists to Syrian jihadists, via Turkey, after SHE successfully argued to destroy Libya. The State Department - HER state department- fomented, and encouraged the coup in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland- HER hand-picked employee- said much more than "fuck the EU", she also talked about "birthing this thing [the coup]" and "making it [the coup] stick". Intent much?

This is her history: after the 'success' called Iraq, she actively destroyed one country - Libya, crawled into bed with jihadists to destroy another - Syria, and fomented a coup and destroyed a third - Ukraine ... ... ... And now Hillary has been openly antagonizing and provoking a rival nuclear power. And she's even written it into the DNC platform. We don't have to guess what kind of deluded policy she might have. She's already proudly proclaimed it, as if it was a good thing.

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
NUCLEAR WAR
At the very top of my list of things I'm voting on is

No nuclear war.

Everything else comes a far distant second. Nothing should be more important than that. Global warming is slow suicide, The fact that our economy is saddled with an unsupportable number of parasites at the top is a serious problem. But we won't be able to solve ANY of these things of it all goes up in a flash, or- worse yet- suffers slow radiation burn.

Originally posted by SIGNYM:During the debate, Trump renounced first use. (Then ,of course, he waffled because anybody who negotiates anything doesn't want to give away a point for free; even I know that.)

HILLARY WAS SILENT ON THE TOPIC.

Of course she was.

She thinks she can force Russia to back down everywhere by being more willing to blow up the world than Putin. Not only is this thinking vastly unethical and fully sociopathic, it is delusional. At some point, Russia will respond. Putin has said openly and repeatedly that in the next world war, the USA isn't going to sit this one out while everyone else gets destroyed.

Anyone who ignores that warning doesn't deserve to be in the White House, because that person is endangering all of us. Reagan knew better, so should Hillary.

Even worse - US nuclear policy is to reserve the 'first-strike' right. Or in less jargon-laden words: The US reserves the right to launch nuclear missiles FIRST, BEFORE a confirmed nuclear launch has been made against it. US policy is to reserve the right to start a nuclear war.

As former Secretary of State, Clinton knows this.

What does her coy, smug silence about US nuclear policy say to you? Because it means to me that she wants to trick you into thinking she's got better ideas than anybody ... and to avoid the facts so that you won't know about them, or have an opinion about them, or her.

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?!

THGRRI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:23 AM

Here you go SIG. I Think you meant to post this about Bill Clinton but again you pushed the wrong button comrade. I especially like the part about our deactivating 1,700 Nuclear Russian war heads because they couldn't do it for themselves. You're such an ass.

•Longest economic expansion in American history
The President's strategy of fiscal discipline, open foreign markets and investments in the American people helped create the conditions for a record 115 months of economic expansion. Our economy has grown at an average of 4 percent per year since 1993.

•More than 22 million new jobs
More than 22 million jobs were created in less than eight years -- the most ever under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous twelve years.

•Highest homeownership in American history
A strong economy and fiscal discipline kept interest rates low, making it possible for more families to buy homes. The homeownership rate increased from 64.2 percent in 1992 to 67. 7 percent, the highest rate ever.

•Lowest unemployment in 30 years
Unemployment dropped from more than 7 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in November 2000. Unemployment for African Americans and Hispanics fell to the lowest rates on record, and the rate for women is the lowest in more than 40 years.

•Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment
Since 1992, reading and math scores have increased for 4th, 8th, and 12th graders, math SAT scores are at a 30-year high, the number of charter schools has grown from 1 to more than 2,000, forty-nine states have put in place standards in core subjects and federal investment in education and training has doubled.

•Largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI Bill
President Clinton and Vice President Gore have nearly doubled financial aid for students by increasing Pell Grants to the largest award ever, expanding Federal Work-Study to allow 1 million students to work their way through college, and by creating new tax credits and scholarships such as Lifetime Learning tax credits and the HOPE scholarship. At the same time, taxpayers have saved $18 billion due to the decline in student loan defaults, increased collections and savings from the direct student loan program.

•Connected 95 percent of schools to the Internet
President Clinton and Vice President Gore's new commitment to education technology, including the E-Rate and a 3,000 percent increase in educational technology funding, increased the percentage of schools connected to the Internet from 35 percent in 1994 to 95 percent in 1999.

•Lowest crime rate in 26 years
Because of President Clinton's comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties, more police, and smart prevention, as well as common sense gun safety laws, the overall crime rate declined for 8 consecutive years, the longest continuous drop on record, and is at the lowest level since 1973.

•100,000 more police for our streets
As part of the 1994 Crime Bill, President Clinton enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.

•Enacted most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation
Since the President signed the Brady bill in 1993, more than 600,000 felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons have been stopped from buying guns. Gun crime has declined 40 percent since 1992.

•Family and Medical Leave Act for 20 million Americans
To help parents succeed at work and at home, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act in 1993. Over 20 million Americans have taken unpaid leave to care for a newborn child or sick family member.

•Smallest welfare rolls in 32 years
The President pledged to end welfare as we know it and signed landmark bipartisan welfare reform legislation in 1996. Since then, caseloads have been cut in half, to the lowest level since 1968, and millions of parents have joined the workforce. Pe

1KIKI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:28 AM

Nothing that you posted refutes anything that Signy posted.

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?!

1KIKI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:29 AM

Meanwhile, so it doesn't get lost in the noise
Originally posted by 1kiki:
second

you started with an insult "You've been listening to Trump again, haven't you? What made you think Trump knows what he is talking about? Your common sense?" then went on to address a point I never made.

You were talking about trade deficits being bad. ... a half-trillion-dollar trade deficit ... Trade deficits are not inherently ... eliminating the trade deficit would not ... the fact that the United States has a trade deficit does not ... trying to eliminate the trade deficit ... Getting rid of the trade deficit ...

I was talking about LOSS OF MANUFACTURING JOBS being bad, with trade deficits being a measure of manufacturing job loss.

As for the snark you repeated, TWICE, I'm going to credit you with being lazy and inattentive, rather than assume you're too stupid to understand the difference between what I posted and what you claim I posted, or too dishonest to admit it.

So, maybe you can try engaging your brain and respond to what I posted. Care to try again?

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?!

THGRRI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Is Bill running?

SIG seems to think so. And I noticed you say nothing when she posts bullshit lies about him. Whys that comrade?

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

1KIKI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:33 AM

Meanwhile, so it doesn't get lost in the noise
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
But the real reason for my fear and loathing of Hillary is not that's she evil- which I think she is - but that she's DANGEROUSLY DELUSIONAL.

And therefore has failed to learn even the smallest bit from her 'successes': Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria.

Originally posted by SIGNYM: Hillary has personally and repeatedly attacked and antagonized Putin. The State Department- HER State Department - ran guns from Libyan jihadists to Syrian jihadists, via Turkey, after SHE successfully argued to destroy Libya. The State Department - HER state department- fomented, and encouraged the coup in Ukraine. Victoria Nuland- HER hand-picked employee- said much more than "fuck the EU", she also talked about "birthing this thing [the coup]" and "making it [the coup] stick". Intent much?

This is her history: after the 'success' called Iraq, she actively destroyed one country - Libya, crawled into bed with jihadists to destroy another - Syria, and fomented a coup and destroyed a third - Ukraine ... ... ... And now Hillary has been openly antagonizing and provoking a rival nuclear power. And she's even written it into the DNC platform. We don't have to guess what kind of deluded policy she might have. She's already proudly proclaimed it, as if it was a good thing.

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
NUCLEAR WAR
At the very top of my list of things I'm voting on is

No nuclear war.

Everything else comes a far distant second. Nothing should be more important than that. Global warming is slow suicide, The fact that our economy is saddled with an unsupportable number of parasites at the top is a serious problem. But we won't be able to solve ANY of these things of it all goes up in a flash, or- worse yet- suffers slow radiation burn.

Originally posted by SIGNYM:During the debate, Trump renounced first use. (Then ,of course, he waffled because anybody who negotiates anything doesn't want to give away a point for free; even I know that.)

HILLARY WAS SILENT ON THE TOPIC.

Of course she was.

She thinks she can force Russia to back down everywhere by being more willing to blow up the world than Putin. Not only is this thinking vastly unethical and fully sociopathic, it is delusional. At some point, Russia will respond. Putin has said openly and repeatedly that in the next world war, the USA isn't going to sit this one out while everyone else gets destroyed.

Anyone who ignores that warning doesn't deserve to be in the White House, because that person is endangering all of us. Reagan knew better, so should Hillary.

Even worse - US nuclear policy is to reserve the 'first-strike' right. Or in less jargon-laden words: The US reserves the right to launch nuclear missiles FIRST, BEFORE a confirmed nuclear launch has been made against it. US policy is to reserve the right to start a nuclear war.

As former Secretary of State, Clinton knows this.

What does her coy, smug silence about US nuclear policy say to you? Because it means to me that she wants to trick you into thinking she's got better ideas than anybody ... and to avoid the facts so that you won't know about them, or have an opinion about them, or her.

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 propagand

THGRRI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Meanwhile, so it doesn't get lost in the noise
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
But the real reason for my fear and loathing of Hillary is not that's she evil- which I think she is - but that she's DANGEROUSLY DELUSIONAL

Except we all know it you and SIG that are dangerously delusional.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

1KIKI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:35 AM

Meanwhile, so it doesn't get lost in the noise
Originally posted by 1kiki:
second

you started with an insult "You've been listening to Trump again, haven't you? What made you think Trump knows what he is talking about? Your common sense?" then went on to address a point I never made.

You were talking about trade deficits being bad. ... a half-trillion-dollar trade deficit ... Trade deficits are not inherently ... eliminating the trade deficit would not ... the fact that the United States has a trade deficit does not ... trying to eliminate the trade deficit ... Getting rid of the trade deficit ...

I was talking about LOSS OF MANUFACTURING JOBS being bad, with trade deficits being a measure of manufacturing job loss. A point I made TWICE, in different words, so you might grasp my point.

As for the snark you repeated, TWICE, I'm going to credit you with being lazy and inattentive, rather than assume you're too stupid to understand the difference between what I posted and what you claim I posted, or too dishonest to admit it.

So, maybe you can try engaging your brain and respond to what I posted. Care to try again?

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?!

THGRRI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 2:46 AM

Post-debate, Clinton takes the lead

CNN) — Hillary Clinton emerges from the first presidential debate with a five-point lead over Donald Trump in the race for the presidency, having narrowed the enthusiasm gap between her supporters and Trump's, and holding broad advantages over the Republican nominee as the candidate with the right temperament and preparation for the job, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

The survey finds Clinton topping Trump 47% to 42% among likely voters with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson at 7% and Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 2%.

Clinton's boost in the race stems largely from gains on Trump among men (from a 22-point deficit with that group in early September to just a 5-point one now) and sharply increased support from independents, who broke heavily in Trump's favor in the early September poll but now tilt Clinton, 44% to 37%.

http://fireflyfans.net/mreply.aspx?mid=1017236

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

1KIKI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 11:59 AM

I'm glad to see you're finally coming around to what I predicted weeks ago - Clinton will win.

It's time to stop obsessing over Trump. In fact, it's time to stop posting about him at all.

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?!

THGRRI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 9:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Clinton will win.

Yep

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

1KIKI

Tuesday, October 4, 2016 10:11 PM

Meanwhile, so it doesn't get lost in the noise
Originally posted by 1kiki:
second

you started with an insult "You've been listening to Trump again, haven't you? What made you think Trump knows what he is talking about? Your common sense?" then went on to address a point I never made.

You were talking about trade deficits being bad. ... a half-trillion-dollar trade deficit ... Trade deficits are not inherently ... eliminating the trade deficit would not ... the fact that the United States has a trade deficit does not ... trying to eliminate the trade deficit ... Getting rid of the trade deficit ...

I was talking about LOSS OF MANUFACTURING JOBS being bad, with trade deficits being a measure of manufacturing job loss. A point I made TWICE, in different words, so you might grasp my meaning.

As for the snark you repeated, TWICE, after letting it go, I'm going to return some: I'm going to credit you with being lazy and inattentive, rather than assume you're too stupid to understand the difference between what I posted and what you claim I posted, or too dishonest to admit it. Even though not only did you snark, you repeated the exact same strawman TWICE as well.

So, maybe you can try engaging your brain and respond to what I posted. Care to try again?

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?!

THGRRI

Friday, October 7, 2016 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
This where I found a serious problem with Hillary (and the media).

She seems to go by the motto

If you lie, lie BIG! (And, note to self, make sure the media is with you.)

Rudy Giuliani’s Daughter Is Voting For Hillary Clinton

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rudy-giuliani-daughter-clinton_us_
57f7bc99e4b068ecb5ddd201?section=&;

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719