TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it!
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 9, 2026 20:06
VIEWED: 244478
PAGE 9 of 17
Equal protection under the law, it is the cornerstone of our society and must be adhered to in order for our nation to survive. Some think that the applying the law goes too far protecting evil scum, but it is part and parcel
what distinguishes us from the animals and the rest of the world.
We wouldn't be America without it.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The GOP attacks the Constitution.
On Monday, the Republican Party revealed that its new smear campaign against Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine will double as something else: an all-out assault on the United States Constitution.
The ad constitutes a straightforward, unapologetic attack on the Sixth Amendment. With it, the Republican Party can never again claim in good faith to be the party of defending the Constitution.
The Sixth Amendment Assistance of Counsel Clause: “In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” It is a principle of American jurisprudence that it predates the Constitution. John Adams famously defended the British soldiers accused of committing the Boston Massacre, arguing that even the most reviled defendants deserved a strong defense.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Eighteen years? He paid no taxes?
Are you sure this is standard practice?
No wonder he won’t release his returns.
The bigger the losses, the more he earns.
Airline, Trump U, and casinos
All went belly-up but he knows
Loss is gain. My projection:
He’ll make money from a lost election.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So what kind of businessman is Donald Trump? There have basically been six eras of Trump:
1970s: The Era of Early Failures. Trump breaks into the Manhattan real estate market but racks up loss after loss. He is bailed out by his father.
Early 1980s: The Era of Success. A chastened Trump apparently decides to buckle down and pay attention to work. It's during this period that he puts together the parcels and financing for Trump Tower, one of his most successful projects. This is the briefest of the Trump eras.
Mid 80s/early 90s: The Era of Catastrophic Failure. Trump reverts to form. He negotiates terrible deals for a USFL team, the Plaza Hotel, the Eastern Shuttle, and a yacht he never uses. He obsesses over plans to develop a grandiose project he called Television City, located on 57 acres of land along the Hudson River. But he bungles the deal and loses control. He builds casinos in Atlantic City, but epically mismanages them and loses a huge sum. By 1991 he's broke. He avoids personal bankruptcy partly by browbeating his bankers and partly by pleading for tens of millions of dollars in loans from his father and his siblings.
Mid/late 90s: The Era of Desolation. Trump finally emerges in 1995, no longer broke but no longer all that rich either. His marriage to Marla Maples is heading south, and ends in divorce in 1999. He keeps up a brave public face, but these are bleak years with nothing much to maintain his interest. Then, in 1999, Trump's father dies, followed by his mother in 2000. Trump inherits roughly $70 million or $700 million. Nobody knows.
2000 and beyond: The Era of Golf and Licensing. Building skyscrapers is now out of reach, since no one will lend Trump the kind of scratch that takes. So he starts overpaying for golf courses instead. Beyond that, he finally finds something he's good at: making money from his mouth. He licenses his name to naive developers from overseas who still think he's the king of real estate. He lends his name to a seemingly endless string of penny ante businesses—Trump steaks, Trump vodka, Trump radio—as well as a dodgy assortment of penny-ante scams—Trump University, Trump diets, Trump mortgages. In 2004, he hits the jackpot of random luck when reality king Mark Burnett chooses him to host The Apprentice, a show perfectly suited to Trump's talents for bullying and bombast.
2015-16: The Era of Making America Great Again. You all know this part of the story, right?
www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-federal-income-tax-records-506713
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To maximize the value of his holdings Trump sold his casinos to people who didn't know real estate tax law. The mom and pop stock investors of the mid-’90s were the perfect suckers, and they bought into the Trump Casino & Hotel Resorts IPO to the tune of $140 million.
The company’s sole asset at the time was the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, and the IPO money was supposed to be reinvested in the Plaza Hotel/Casino. Instead, the new equity paid down debts that Trump had personally guaranteed, meaning that company money was used not to relieve company debt, but a personal debt owed by Trump himself.
Having hooked a parade of marks, Trump next moved money out of the public company and into his pockets: Trump had the company he controlled buy things he owned personally.
The public company bought the Trump Castle casino from Trump, for example, for $490 million, a price that James Sterngold reported at the time “was based on optimistic profit projections and was about $100 million too high.” Trump also paid himself $880,000 for brokering the deal.
Trump received a $7 million pay package in 1996, including a $5 million bonus and a 71% salary increase, despite a more than 70% drop in the shares of Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Inc. from their high in 1995.
The company’s share price dropped because it was unprofitable. And it was unprofitable because it assumed $1.7 billion in debt as part of its acquisition of formerly Trump-owned enterprises. Trump was, in essence, paying himself a high salary for the trouble of running a company whose main purpose was to take enormous bad debts off Trump’s personal balance sheet and shift them over to the company.
A shareholder who bought $100 of shares in 1995 could sell them for about $4 in 2005. The same investment in MGM Resorts would have increased in value to about $600. Well done, Donald! You are the smartest man in the world for taking advantage of investors!
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/6/13163220/trump-hotels-and-ca
sino-resorts
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks for the summary, 2nd.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/nation-s-editorial-boards-rej
ect-donald-trump-780209731818
----------------------------
DUZ XaT SEM RiT TQ YQ? - Jubal Early
http://www.nooalf.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here, let's allow his accountant, Jack Nitmick to explain:
For some reason the Hulu video does not show up.
Shows how a little-known loop hole can be exploited, but only by the rich.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Eighteen years? He paid no taxes?
Are you sure this is standard practice?
No wonder he won’t release his returns.
The bigger the losses, the more he earns.
Airline, Trump U, and casinos
All went belly-up but he knows
Loss is gain. My projection:
He’ll make money from a lost election.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In a trenchant, unapologetically centrist essay for The Economist, Barack Obama has urged the next president to shun the “crude populism” being peddled by both the right and the left, and to ensure that the American economy remains open to the world.
www.economist.com/news/briefing/21708216-americas-president-writes-us-
about-four-crucial-areas-unfinished-business-economic
In what is, in effect, an open letter to his successor on how to navigate a time of voter rage, Mr Obama argues that politicians calling for “anti-immigrant, anti-innovation protectionism” are forgetting an all-American principle—that when businesses remember the common good as well as profits, and free markets avoid unhealthy concentrations of power: “capitalism has been the greatest driver of prosperity and opportunity the world has ever known.”
No living politicians are named, but the open letter contains unmistakable rebukes for Hillary Clinton’s recent, campaign-trail flirtations with anti-trade rhetoric, as well as swipes at those—starting with Bernie Sanders on the left, and Donald Trump on the right—who call the American economy rigged, and demand it be rebuilt. The economy is “an enormously complicated mechanism,” he cautions. Such radical moves as breaking up big banks or “erecting prohibitively steep tariffs on imports” would have serious real-world consequences.
Mr Obama, a professorial, hyper-rational sort, does not conceal his dismay at an election season that has seen so many voters—notably working-class Americans without college degrees—rally to candidates insisting that their country is a dystopian hell of corruption and government incompetence, or promising to restore past glories. Perhaps no other country has benefited so much from immigration, trade and innovation, he notes. Yet populists are now promising “a return to a past that is not possible to restore.” Indeed, in a veiled comment on the way that Mr Trump has wooed white men and downplayed past battles against racial and gender discrimination, Mr Obama adds that for lots of Americans, those past glories “never existed at all.”
With just months left in office the president is naturally keen to defend his own legacy. He duly argues that government actions in the wake of the financial crisis saved the world from a second Great Depression. But the essay is most striking for the candid advice it offers to the next holder of his office, and for the middle-path it treads between scolding elites and exhorting them to remember their responsibilities to society. He even offers expressions of regret that so many highly educated youngsters—“potential physicists and engineers”—instead spend their careers “shifting money around in the financial sector”. He suggests that wages gaps were once constrained by social interactions between bosses and employees “at church, at their children’s schools, in civic organisations”—interactions that he calls now sadly rare.
The open letter weighs in on the debate raging during this election, between those who blame populist insurgencies on economic anxiety, or darker forces bound up with identity and fear of the Other. Mr Obama’s answer is: both. With nods to the Brexit vote in Britain and to those campaigning against trade agreements and immigration across the democratic world, he talks of “understandable” frustrations as wages have stagnated and social mobility stalled. But globalisation and technology have also made the world more prosperous, he insists, and “While some communities have suffered from foreign competition, trade has helped our economy much more than it has hurt.” Some fears are not essentially economic, he writes, condemning those today peddling “anti-immigrant, anti-Mexican, anti-Muslim, and anti-refugee sentiment” and comparing them to such nativist movements as the anti-Catholic Know-Nothings of the mid-1800s.
For a man often called a socialist by critics, or at least a big government successor to Franklin Roosevelt, a past president that Mr Obama more clearly echoes is Theodore Roosevelt, the progressive Republican
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Until the last like 4 seconds of that video, I thought it was an endorsement paid by the Clintons.
Do you understand that this is where we're at now?
We're on the verge of Nuclear War... fucking World War III with Russia because of Obama and the Clintons, and were too busy here to notice because we're talking about how Trump called a fat girl a Fat Girl 20 years ago?
Don't watch Fox or Infowars.
Go to youtube and fucking Google that shit.
All of the recent Putin discussions are translated in plain english.
He wants us to know.
He wants Americans to ask What the Fuck is going on in Syria right now.
I'm NOT going to show a horrible ad that Hillary put out in he mean time. A bunch of 8 to 12 year old, undeveloped girls, looking in a mirror while Donald Trump is whispering in their ear that they're Miss fucking Piggy.
Meanwhile, Obama broke a cease fire with Russia 3 weeks ago. We were 2 days away from collaborating with heads of Russia to share intel to do a Collaborated Strike against ISIS.
Then, even though we've never fired a single bullet before, we sent 4 fucking planes in to bomb the area.
Who did we kill?
84 Syrian Government soldiers.
After that, ISIS went in and finished the job that "WE" wanted to get done in the first place.
Russia says "WTF?"
We say "OOPS! We had bad intel".
My only question is Why The Fuck Did We Do Anything In a Cease Fire.
Hillary Clinton/Obama/Bush Jr./Bill Clinton/Bush Senior
T?hey are all the same fucking person.
WAR?
You asked for it?
You Got it?
Toyota!
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Remember that the theme song behind "You Asked for it, you got it" was
"I love what you do to me, Toyota".
Obviously Japan is in our hands right now. Their only lucritive industry since the mid 80s is video games.
Would you rather hear that message in Korean?
Maybe you should watch a fucking Russian "debate"?
Seriously
Go fuck yourselves.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for WWIII.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Everything Putin said was more than reasonable to me.
I don't want to go to war with Russia for any reason at all.
Since George Bush Senior we've been going to many illegal, Unconstitutional Wars. Remember when Obama was for Hope and Change and he was going to end all of those illegal wars?
Meanwhile, we have illegally started 3 more in the Middle East under his Control.
The Bushes and the Clintons have Barbecues together.
Google it.
I don't waste your time with meaningless "feel good" college tests.
This is fucking real people.
While you're worried about Trump calling a fat girl fat 20 years ago, Russia has been conducting "Drills" with over 400,000 people. Civilians, Cops, EMTs....
If you've ever played a Fallout game, that's what they're doing this weekend.
They are not the agressors.
As was evidenced by the video I showed you.
WWIII only happens when we strike first.
After 8 years of The First Black President, and the hope for The First Female President, don't consider actual foreign affairs at all.
Barack was weak on Foreign Policy.......
My Ass.
Just like GWB couldn't string together 5 words into a cohesive sentence.
I hated GWB.
I'm on your fucking side.
Open your eyes and know it's true.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:While you are condemning Obama/Clinton/Bushes, you forgot Trump's VP, Mike Pence. Trump is sponsoring WWIII with Pence doing all the talking!
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Do you understand that this is where we're at now?
We're on the verge of Nuclear War... fucking World War III with Russia because of Obama and the Clintons
All of the recent Putin discussions are translated in plain english.
He wants us to know.
He wants Americans to ask What the Fuck is going on in Syria right now.
Hillary Clinton/Obama/Bush Jr./Bill Clinton/Bush Senior
They are all the same fucking person.
WAR?
Pence took a hard line against Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he called a “small and bullying leader” who is “dictating terms” to the United States.
Gov. Mike Pence appears to have gone far, far beyond anything Donald Trump has ever said about what Trump has called his “secret” plan for Syria. But Pence knows the “secret”.
Asked how a Trump-Pence administration would stop the civil war carnage in Aleppo, Pence said that he, at least, “truly believe(s) that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish safe zones, so that families and children can work out of those areas,” and “work with our partners…[to] make that happen. Provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength.” If Russia “continues to be involved” in airstrikes along with the Syrian government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he said, “the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the military forces of the Assad regime” and “prevent this crisis in Aleppo.”
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2016/live-updates/general-election/rea
l-time-fact-checking-and-analysis-of-the-vice-presidential-debate/pence-goes-far-far-beyond-trump-on-syria/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The war on coal, the Trump campaign says, is a vital part of the economic case against the Obama years. The argument: that Democrats on the national level hate coal. Trump is wrong. It is Texas and its natural gas industry waging war on coal. Trump can’t say that because he wants to win in Texas.
Although renewables have grown rapidly, they still represent a small fraction of overall power production. In fact, natural gas has inflicted far more damage on coal than wind, solar, or the U.S. government. The application of fracking, which has raged unabated during the Obama years, has liberated vast cheap supplies of domestic natural gas. The utility industry, motivated by a desire to earn profits and keep costs low, has been shifting wholesale from coal to natural gas.
Because electricity use isn’t growing that much in this country, coal and natural gas are engaged in a zero-sum game. In 2008, coal accounted for 48 percent of electricity generation, compared with just 21 percent for natural gas. By 2015, coal’s market slipped to 33 percent, while natural gas saw its share rise to 32.6 percent—a virtual tie. So far this year, natural gas is beating coal by 34 to 29 percent. Oh, and the displacement of coal hasn’t led to electricity becoming more expensive. Rather, it has coincided with electricity becoming less expensive.
Year % Coal/% Natural Gas
2008 48/21
2015 33/32.6
2016 29/34
Donald Trump Can’t Save the Coal Industry. His campaign gets everything wrong about its woes. Especially who to blame.
www.slate.com/articles/business/the_juice/2016/10/donald_trump_gets_ev
erything_wrong_about_the_war_on_coal.html
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The war on coal, the Trump campaign says, is a vital part of the economic case against the Obama years. The argument: that Democrats on the national level hate coal. Trump is wrong. It is Texas and its natural gas industry waging war on coal. Trump can’t say that because he wants to win in Texas.
Although renewables have grown rapidly, they still represent a small fraction of overall power production. In fact, natural gas has inflicted far more damage on coal than wind, solar, or the U.S. government. The application of fracking, which has raged unabated during the Obama years, has liberated vast cheap supplies of domestic natural gas. The utility industry, motivated by a desire to earn profits and keep costs low, has been shifting wholesale from coal to natural gas.
Because electricity use isn’t growing that much in this country, coal and natural gas are engaged in a zero-sum game. In 2008, coal accounted for 48 percent of electricity generation, compared with just 21 percent for natural gas. By 2015, coal’s market slipped to 33 percent, while natural gas saw its share rise to 32.6 percent—a virtual tie. So far this year, natural gas is beating coal by 34 to 29 percent. Oh, and the displacement of coal hasn’t led to electricity becoming more expensive. Rather, it has coincided with electricity becoming less expensive.
Year % Coal/% Natural Gas
2008 48/21
2015 33/32.6
2016 29/34
Such intelligence, such a display of critical thinking, such a joy to read, and such a smack down on those who post falsehoods to further their agenda.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Remember, Putin is a master manipulator regarding propaganda, learned while a KGB agent. That's one of the reasons why he has Trump in his back pocket.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Remember that the theme song behind "You Asked for it, you got it" was
"I love what you do to me, Toyota".
Obviously Japan is in our hands right now. Their only lucritive industry since the mid 80s is video games.
Would you rather hear that message in Korean?
Maybe you should watch a fucking Russian "debate"?
Seriously
Go fuck yourselves.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for WWIII.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I saw an article explaining that: “A tale of two ethics” at
www.economist.com/news/europe/21707959-why-many-germans-think-impracti
cal-idealism-immoral-tale-two-ethics
Why many Germans think impractical idealism is immoral
Oct 1st 2016
The phrases “ethic of conviction” and “ethic of responsibility” mean little to most English-speakers. In Germany the equivalent terms—Gesinnungsethik and Verantwortungsethik—are household words. Pundits drop them casually during television talk shows. Hosts use them as conversation-starters at dinner parties. The concepts draw on the opposition between idealism and pragmatism that runs through politics everywhere. But they also capture a specific moral tension that is “very German”, says Manfred Güllner, a sociologist and pollster. Anyone interested in understanding German politics, on anything from the euro to refugees, would do well to get a handle on them.
The terms come from the sociologist Max Weber, who used them in a speech he gave in January 1919 to a group of leftist students at a Munich bookstore. Germany had just lost the first world war. The Kaiser had abdicated, the country was in the throes of revolution and Munich was about to become the capital of a short-lived “Bavarian Soviet Republic”. Armed with only eight index cards, Weber gave a talk that would become a classic of political science. (“Politics as a Vocation” was published in English only after the second world war. http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Politics-
as-a-Vocation.pdf ) The lecture ranged broadly through history, but its main purpose was to curb the Utopian romanticism then gripping the ideologues fighting over the direction of the new Germany, including those sitting in front of him.
Weber described an “abysmal opposition” between two types of ethics. Those following their convictions wish to preserve their own moral purity, no matter what consequences their policies may have in the real world. “If an action of good intent leads to bad results, then, in the actor’s eyes, not he but the world, or the stupidity of other men, or God’s will who made them thus, is responsible for the evil.” By contrast, someone guided by responsibility “takes account of precisely the average deficiencies of people…(H)e does not even have the right to presuppose their goodness and perfection.”
Yanno what, SECOND? This exactly describes why you should vote for Trump.
Now, I've decided my vote not on the basis of who is the nicest because, as I've said many times before, but on the basis of what is likely to happen as a result of my vote.
So here's my first consideration: Almost all of Hillary's great plans for domestic reform and revival will come to naught. You can forget the Post Office Bank, tax reform etc. I know it, she knows it, and you should too. How do I know it?
Well, look at Obama. He had GREAT plans - or said he had great plans- for us:
No more war.
Most transparent ever.
Affordable healthcare for everyone.
Economic recovery.
Close Gitmo.
Enact the Buffet Rule - higher taxes on the wealthy.
Citizenship for the undocumented.
Fully fund Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
Recognize the Armenian Genocide.
Eliminate all oil and gas tax loopholes.
Include labor and environmental standards in free trade agreements.
Require publicly traded financial partnerships to pay the corporate income tax.
Close loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of CEO pay.
Create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners.
.... I mean, that man has made so many promises this is just a PARTIAL listing of everything he's promised .... and not kept.
It sounds just like the current Democratic Platform, doesn't it?
Out of all of that, he as accomplished very little .... and he was a POPULAR President with- at one point- A Democratic Congress solidly behind him in a moment of crisis. A historic moment, totally flubbed.
Now we elect Saint Hillary. Remember that, AS PRESIDENT, she ca
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Utah Senator Mike Lee said the Republican Party had to find another candidate or it would not win the White House.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Yanno what, SECOND? This exactly describes why you should vote for Trump.
"We've got candidates who can do it. There's still time to do it, but we have to actually do it," he told NBC's Meet the Press.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Guess I'm not the only one:
Quote:
This whole thing has pretty much taken me off the fence of deciding whether to vote 3rd party or stay home. Seeing the incredible push by all of the DC power-brokers to have Trump withdraw over this has convinced me that it's not an act. TPTB really are scared of him and desperately want Hillary to win.
That's good enough to convince me to vote for Trump. I wonder if any others like me who didn't really buy the hype had a similar reaction. I would guess yes.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-09/independent-voter-explains-ho
w-trump-tape-scandal-changed-his-mind
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:GREAT!
Utah Senator Mike Lee said the Republican Party had to find another candidate or it would not win the White House.
But why does that translate to "You should vote for Hillary"? It doesn't, actually. If you really wanted Hillary to win, wouldn't you continue to want Trump in the race?
So how come you're now supporting Republicans? Does this mean that you, really, would prefer an "establishment" Republican over Trump, or even Hillary? Does this make you an "establishmentarian"? And how do you justify your own cruelty?
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Utah Senator Mike Lee said the Republican Party had to find another candidate or it would not win the White House. He did not say Hillary will start WWIII. I assume he did not think that Signym's WWIII argument against Hillary was a strong argument.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:GREAT!
Utah Senator Mike Lee said the Republican Party had to find another candidate or it would not win the White House.
But why does that translate to "You should vote for Hillary"? It doesn't, actually. If you really wanted Hillary to win, wouldn't you continue to want Trump in the race?
So how come you're now supporting Republicans? Does this mean that you, really, would prefer an "establishment" Republican over Trump, or even Hillary? Does this make you an "establishmentarian"? And how do you justify your own cruelty?
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The crisis swirling around Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is unique, but there’s nothing unprecedented about congressional candidates distancing themselves from a locally unpopular presidential candidate.
Back in the 2012 cycle, for example, we had a smattering of Democrats from red states who declined to endorse Barack Obama’s reelection. At the time, the reaction within the Obama White House was to treat that as all in the game. Democrats would rather Joe Manchin represent West Virginia than a Republican, so if Manchin needs to criticize Obama now and again to stay viable, that’s politics. It’s nothing personal.
Trump’s attitude toward Republicans throwing him under the bus has been very different. In talking points circulated to campaign surrogates Sunday morning and reported by Jonathan Martin of the New York Times, Trump’s campaign is instructing its allies to punch back at Trump’s intra-party critics.
“A lot of the people who are being so critical now are the same ones who doubted him before,” read the talking points, which were forwarded by a Republican strategist. “They are more concerned with their political future than they are about the future of the country. Mr. Trump won the Primary without the help of the insiders and he’ll win the General without them, too.”
Trump himself was, as usual, even more blunt on his Twitter feed:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
So many self-righteous hypocrites. Watch their poll numbers - and elections - go down!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785120729364922369
This is not good politics in a conventional sense. Criticizing his intra-party rivals only serve to increase the salience of Republican Party disunity and make it more and more of a story.
But Trump himself is a thin-skinned and vindictive person, and his campaign chair, Steve Bannon, made bashing GOP congressional leaders a major sport when he was at the helm of Breitbart.com. So it’s entirely in character.
For the Republican Party as a whole, however, this is an absolute worst-case scenario. The House of Representatives map is so unfavorable to Democrats that it would take a miracle for the GOP to lose its majority. Closing out the 2016 election with a round of massive infighting is exactly just such a miracle. It’s the kind of thing you could imagine broadly demoralizing rank-and-file Republicans while confusing state parties and tanking turnout.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:GREAT!
Utah Senator Mike Lee said the Republican Party had to find another candidate or it would not win the White House.
But why does that translate to "You should vote for Hillary"? It doesn't, actually. If you really wanted Hillary to win, wouldn't you continue to want Trump in the race?
Your question is meaningless SIG. With all that has been discussed in these threads the real question is, why aren't you voting Hillary. The fact that you are not is testament to your agenda comrade.
More Than 150 Republican Leaders Don’t Support Donald Trump.
People who have been added to the Republican not backing Trump list since a tape of Mr. Trump making vulgar remarks
Kelly Ayotte, Senator of New Hampshire
Robert Bentley, Governor of Alabama
Jaime Herrera Beutler, Representative of Washington
Bradley Byrne, Representative of Alabama
Jason Chaffetz, Representative of Utah
Mike Coffman, Representative of Colorado
Barbara Comstock, Representative of Virginia
Mike Crapo, Senator of Idaho
Dennis Daugaard, Governor of South Dakota
Rodney Davis, Representative of Illinois
Cory Gardner, Senator of Colorado
Scott Garrett, Representative of New Jersey
Cresent Hardy, Representative of Nevada
Joe Heck, Representative of Nevada, running for Senate
Gary Herbert, Governor of Utah
Jon M. Huntsman Jr., Former governor of Utah
Will Hurd, Representative of Texas
Carly Fiorina, Former chief executive of Hewlett-Packard and candidate for G.O.P. nomination
Deb Fischer, Senator of Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Senator of Arizona
Jeff Fortenberry, Representative of Nebraska
John Kasich, Governor of Ohio
Steve Knight, Representative of California
Mike Lee, Senator of Utah
Frank LoBiondo, Representative of New Jersey
Mia Love, Representative of Utah
Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico
John McCain, Senator of Arizona
Lisa Murkowski, Senator of Alaska
George E. Pataki, Former governor of New York
Erik Paulsen, Representative of Minnesota
Tim Pawlenty, Former governor of Minnesota
Rob Portman, Senator of Ohio
Condoleezza Rice, Former Secretary of State under George W. Bush
Martha Roby, Represenative of Alabama
Tom Rooney, Representative of Florida
Brian Sandoval, Governor of Nevada
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Former governor of California
Chris Stewart, Representative of Utah
Dan Sullivan, Senator of Alaska
John Thune, Senator of South Dakota and chairman of the Republican Conference
Fred Upton, Representative of Michigan
Ann Wagner, Representative of Missouri
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The crisis swirling around Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is unique, but there’s nothing unprecedented about congressional candidates distancing themselves from a locally unpopular presidential candidate.
Sorry SECOND but the degree to which the Republicans are abandoning Trump is unpresented.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:If Trump does a good job, tonight, his endorsers will stabilize. If Trump implodes in the second debate as he did in the first, GOP politicians will dis-endorse him in numbers never seen before. It will then become Trump's Second Battle of Fort Fisher with him and the Confederate States of America beaten by the Yankee Hillary of NY.
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The crisis swirling around Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is unique, but there’s nothing unprecedented about congressional candidates distancing themselves from a locally unpopular presidential candidate.
Sorry SECOND but the degree to which the Republicans are abandoning Trump is unprecedented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fort_Fisher
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump didn't crash and burn like he did in the first debate, so that is a victory of sorts. But on substance he almost literally said nothing. Every question was used as an opportunity to attack Hillary in one way or another. She's a liar; she loves rich people; her husband is a sexual predator; she has "tremendous hate in her heart"; she wants to put coal miners out of business; she ought to be in jail; and on and on. I think it's safe to say that no one in presidential debate history has come anywhere close to being as derogatory as Trump was this evening.
No ordinary debate performance was likely to help Trump at this point, so why not shoot the moon? But it didn't work. According to CNN, debate watchers thought Hillary Clinton won the debate, 57-34 percent. CNN's focus group was something like 20-1 in favor of Clinton.
But! Trump did better than expected. He didn't spontaneously combust on stage.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm watching the replay right now. Yep, he's not said anything of any substance, as usual. He's not said anything new, or on point, or correct politically speaking (not politically correct).
And Hillary was evasive, but at least detailed in her responses to the questions raised.
Evasive in terms of the e-mail issue, but knowledgeable
and detailed in most of the other issues (yes, she did vote to
close the tax loop hole that Donald took advantage of).
Nothing new, more of the same, dredging up old crap
and not much else.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Trump didn't crash and burn like he did in the first debate, so that is a victory of sorts. But on substance he almost literally said nothing. Every question was used as an opportunity to attack Hillary in one way or another. She's a liar; she loves rich people; her husband is a sexual predator; she has "tremendous hate in her heart"; she wants to put coal miners out of business; she ought to be in jail; and on and on. I think it's safe to say that no one in presidential debate history has come anywhere close to being as derogatory as Trump was this evening.
No ordinary debate performance was likely to help Trump at this point, so why not shoot the moon? But it didn't work. According to CNN, debate watchers thought Hillary Clinton won the debate, 57-34 percent. CNN's focus group was something like 20-1 in favor of Clinton.
But! Trump did better than expected. He didn't spontaneously combust on stage.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Every question was used as an opportunity to attack Hillary in one way or another. She's a liar; she loves rich people; her husband is a sexual predator; she has "tremendous hate in her heart"; she wants to put coal miners out of business; she ought to be in jail; and on and on. I think it's safe to say that no one in presidential debate history has come anywhere close to being as derogatory as Trump was this evening.
Not true. Hillary did; and she started this. In the first debate, I was astounded by how many personal attacks she launched on Trump.
And most of them were speculative and without merit ... JUST LIKE THE PEOPLE DO ON THIS BOARD. The best example I can think of (first debate) went like this...
We saw his tax return from 1995...
And he had a loss that could (i.e might) mean he wouldn't pay taxes for almost 20 years...
Trump didn't pay taxes for 20 years...
He didn't pay taxes ....
He doesn't support our troops ....
And Trump, probably on advice of his campaign manager, didn't hit back. So now Hillary got a taste of her own medicine, in front of a wide audience. Boo hoo hoo for Hillary. She should realize that if she hits some people, they'll hit back. But her hubris has been built of by decades of her and Bill's misdeeds being covered up. Not feeling sorry for her.
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Trump admitted that he really did use that $916 million loss to offset nearly two decades of income taxes.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And he had a loss that could (i.e might) mean he wouldn't pay taxes for almost 20 years...
Trump didn't pay taxes for 20 years...
He didn't pay taxes ....
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/second-presidential-debate-electi
on-2016/
Quote:Trump vowed to prosecute his opponent should he be elected president. And don’t forget Trump admitting that he really did use that $916 million loss to offset nearly two decades of income taxes.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And Trump, probably on advice of his campaign manager, didn't hit back. So now Hillary got a taste of her own medicine, in front of a wide audience. Boo hoo hoo for Hillary. She should realize that if she hits some people, they'll hit back.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/second-presidential-debate-electi
on-2016/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Copied to here: http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthreadadd.aspx?bid=18
There's just too many pages on this
--------------
I think it's time you disabused yourself of that pleasant little fairy tale about our fearless leaders being some sort of surrogate daddy or mommy, laying awake at night thinking about how to protect the kids. HA! In reality, they're thinking about who to sell them to so that they can get a few more shekels in their pockets.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
https://twitter.com/ErinChack/status/785293432491274240
Trump is too hyperactive to sit in his chair when the other person is talking, so he wandered the stage. More often than not, he ended up about five feet behind Hillary Clinton, looming over her.
It's just an instinctive part of the dominance games that control his life. On the other hand, some of his dominance games were very deliberate:
Donald Trump’s campaign sought to intimidate Hillary Clinton and embarrass her husband by seating women who have accused former president Bill Clinton of sexual abuse in the Trump family’s box at the presidential debate. Officials with the Commission on Presidential Debates intervened.
www.reddit.com/r/firefly/comments/56sb2g/an_embarrassment_to_firefly_f
ans_worldwide/
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785854588654092290
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
After Trump calls him out in debate, Warren Buffett says he's paid federal income taxes every year since 1944
Warren Buffett’s personal income taxes, once debated in Congress after he complained they were too low, are back in the political fray.
In response to a comment by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, the Omaha financier said Monday he didn’t take a “massive” deduction, as suggested by Trump, and has paid federal income taxes every year since 1944.
Buffett’s federal income tax last year: $1,845,557, despite making $2.85 billion in charitable contributions, he said.
http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/national/after-trump-calls-him-out-in-d
ebate-warren-buffett-says/article_f6eecf2e-8f31-11e6-a35d-ff1fc2421345.html
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Conservative political commentator and media personality Glenn Beck said opposing Donald Trump is a "moral, ethical" choice — even if that results in Hillary Clinton becoming the next president.
The outspoken opponent of the GOP's presidential nominee wrote on Facebook over the weekend that every voter had to decide for themselves what constitutes "a bridge too far," after the release of footage last week in which Trump can be heard making lewd and sexually aggressive comments about women.
"It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity," Beck wrote on Facebook in reference to Trump. "If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice."
www.facebook.com/GlennBeck/posts/10154622008673188
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Conservative political commentator and media personality Glenn Beck said opposing Donald Trump is a "moral, ethical" choice — even if that results in Hillary Clinton becoming the next president.
It's amazing and fun to watch as the Republican party and it's talking heads run from trump.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war
Wed Oct 12, 2016 6:35pm EDT
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Americans should vote for Donald Trump as president next month or risk being dragged into a nuclear war, according to a Russian ultra-nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin who likes to compare himself to the U.S. Republican candidate.
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a flamboyant veteran lawmaker known for his fiery rhetoric, told Reuters in an interview that Trump was the only person able to de-escalate dangerous tensions between Moscow and Washington.
By contrast, Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton could spark World War Three, said Zhirinovsky, who received a top state award from Putin after his pro-Kremlin Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) came third in Russia's parliamentary election last month.
Many Russians regard Zhirinovsky as a clownish figure who makes outspoken statements to grab attention but he is also widely viewed as a faithful servant of Kremlin policy, sometimes used to float radical opinions to test public reaction.
"Relations between Russia and the United States can't get any worse. The only way they can get worse is if a war starts," said Zhirinovsky, speaking in his huge office on the 10th floor of Russia's State Duma, or lower house of parliament.
"Americans voting for a president on Nov. 8 must realise that they are voting for peace on Planet Earth if they vote for Trump. But if they vote for Hillary it's war. It will be a short movie. There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere."
Zhirinovsky's comments coincide with deep disagreements between Washington and Moscow over Syria and Ukraine and after the White House last week accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organisations.
Even as WikiLeaks released another trove of internal documents from Clinton’s campaign on Wednesday, Putin insisted his country was not involved in an effort to influence the U.S. presidential election.
THE RUSSIAN TRUMP?
Zhirinovsky likes to shock liberal public opinion and he has frequently heaped scorn on the West, which he and other Russian nationalists regard as decadent, hypocritical and corrupted by political correctness.
His combative style, reminiscent of Trump's, ensures him plenty of television air time and millions of votes in Russian elections, often from the kind of blue-collar workers who are the bedrock of the U.S. Republican candidate's support.
Zhirinovsky once proposed blocking off mostly Muslim southern Russia with a barbed wire fence, echoing Trump's call for a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.
Zhirinovsky, who said he met Trump in New York in 2002, revels in his similarities with the American businessman - they are the same age, favour coarse, sometimes misogynistic language and boast about putting their own country first. Zhirinovsky has even said he wants a DNA test to see if he is related to Trump.
But unlike Trump, a billionaire real estate developer who casts himself as the anti-establishment candidate in the U.S. presidential race with no past political experience, Zhirinovsky is a consummate political insider who has sat in the Duma for more than two decades.
Putin has also praised Trump as "very talented", while the Republican candidate has said the Kremlin boss is a better leader than U.S. President Barack Obama. Clinton has accused Trump of being too cosy with Putin and questioned his business interests in Russia.
In other comments that have delighted Moscow, Trump has questioned the value of NATO for Washington, has spoken ambiguously about Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea and suggested that the United States under his leadership would adopt a more isolationist foreign policy.
"He (Trump) won't care about Syria, Libya and Iraq and why an earth should America interfere in these cou
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I saw this article online in MSN News and thought that maybe it was one of those bait and switch stories that sensationalize statements made by prominent people to capture reader's attention.
Oh, it got my attention alright.
Let's put aside the chauvinistic comments for a moment. This guy flat out
threatened the United States:
"...but if Hillary Clinton wins it will be the last U.S. president ever."
The guy is completely mental, especially if he thinks that Russia will be left standing unscathed. In a nuclear war, nobody wins. It makes you wonder
about comments made right here in River City by our dynamic duo; of how
Hillary is the warmonger and aggressor in this equation. It takes a lot of
balls to make that bold of a statement. That or lack of mental capacity; it just might be that, like Trump, he's lost all semblance of reality.
Buckle up Dorothy, Kansas is going Bye-Bye!
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I like Buffet, as billionaires go, because he often challenges Trump on a great many things, but most especially on his claim to being a billionaire.
Buffet chuckles every time he hears this; that's revealing.
The man makes billions because he's shrewd and smart, as far as finances are concerned. He's also a bit of a blow hard, like I would imagine most billionaires are. Buffet, who created The Giving Pledge (there are 125 members), participates in a billionaire's club (Gates, Ellison, Bloomberg,
Zuckerberg, Icahn, Allen, Premji, Dalio, Perelman, Potanin and, of course,
Buffet) these are the top contributors.
You notice that Trump isn't among the names listed above. Hmmmm, I wonder why?
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It reminds me of the vote for the Iraq War, public opinion was strong back then as well. But this time, I think they got it right.
Just ask Hannity! ............lol
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Conservative political commentator and media personality Glenn Beck said opposing Donald Trump is a "moral, ethical" choice — even if that results in Hillary Clinton becoming the next president.
It's amazing and fun to watch as the Republican party and it's talking heads run from trump.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:This is just part of the theatrics of the Mutual assured destruction (MAD) game.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
This guy flat out
threatened the United States:
"...but if Hillary Clinton wins it will be the last U.S. president ever."
The guy is completely mental, especially if he thinks that Russia will be left standing unscathed. In a nuclear war, nobody wins. It makes you wonder
about comments made right here in River City by our dynamic duo; of how
Hillary is the warmonger and aggressor in this equation. It takes a lot of
balls to make that bold of a statement. That or lack of mental capacity; it just might be that, like Trump, he's lost all semblance of reality.
I think Trump’s election makes nuclear war more likely than Hillary’s election. A little background for why Putin’s Vladimir Zhirinovsky is deliberately misleading you into thinking only Trump can prevent a nuclear war. It is to benefit Russia in a game it is playing with the USA.
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.
It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons.
The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium from game theory in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm. You can look at the rules of the MAD game at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism
Since it is a game, the USA is only completely safe if it plays the game of MAD the way the game rules are written. If this was a game of Tennis and the President hesitates to hit the ball back once Putin serves it, the game is lost and millions die on the first serve. If the President leaves the tennis court, by disarming, the game is also lost. The MAD game is won for only as long as nobody serves the ball and everyone stays in the game. Holding the ball and acting bad-tempered toward Putin is a part of the theatrics of the MAD game for as long as Hillary does not actually serve the ball. Trump acting good-tempered and refusing to hit Putin’s serve back at him is a losing strategy in this game.
There is absolutely no doubt that Hillary and Putin understand all the rules of the MAD game. The way Trump talks, I have serious doubts he knows what kind of game is being played, but my opinion does not count as much as Putin’s opinion of Trump. Putin truly has control of his half of the MAD game. If Putin thinks Trump will not play it according to the rules Trump never learned, then the USA is risking WWIII.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I saw this article online in MSN News and thought that maybe it was one of those bait and switch stories that sensationalize statements made by prominent people to capture reader's attention.
Oh, it got my attention alright.
Let's put aside the chauvinistic comments for a moment. This guy flat out
threatened the United States:
"...but if Hillary Clinton wins it will be the last U.S. president ever."
The guy is completely mental, especially if he thinks that Russia will be left standing unscathed. In a nuclear war, nobody wins. It makes you wonder
about comments made right here in River City by our dynamic duo; of how
Hillary is the warmonger and aggressor in this equation. It takes a lot of
balls to make that bold of a statement. That or lack of mental capacity; it just might be that, like Trump, he's lost all semblance of reality.
Buckle up Dorothy, Kansas is going Bye-Bye!
SGG
The guys unhinged and as much as I don't care for Hillary it would be a disaster if she were to lose to him.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is the Cuban Missile crisis all over again. Putin is showing his cards in advance to see what POTUS will do. This is a test.
Agreed, Trump knows nothing. Hillary has some experience in these matters.
A high-stakes game of "chicken" - whoever blinks first, loses.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:This is just part of the theatrics of the Mutual assured destruction (MAD) game.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
This guy flat out
threatened the United States:
"...but if Hillary Clinton wins it will be the last U.S. president ever."
The guy is completely mental, especially if he thinks that Russia will be left standing unscathed. In a nuclear war, nobody wins. It makes you wonder
about comments made right here in River City by our dynamic duo; of how
Hillary is the warmonger and aggressor in this equation. It takes a lot of
balls to make that bold of a statement. That or lack of mental capacity; it just might be that, like Trump, he's lost all semblance of reality.
I think Trump’s election makes nuclear war more likely than Hillary’s election. A little background for why Putin’s Vladimir Zhirinovsky is deliberately misleading you into thinking only Trump can prevent a nuclear war. It is to benefit Russia in a game it is playing with the USA.
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.
It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons.
The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium from game theory in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm. You can look at the rules of the MAD game at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction#Criticism
Since it is a game, the USA is only completely safe if it plays the game of MAD the way the game rules are written. If this was a game of Tennis and the President hesitates to hit the ball back once Putin serves it, the game is lost and millions die on the first serve. If the President leaves the tennis court, by disarming, the game is also lost. The MAD game is won for only as long as nobody serves the ball and everyone stays in the game. Holding the ball and acting bad-tempered toward Putin is a part of the theatrics of the MAD game for as long as Hillary does not actually serve the ball. Trump acting good-tempered and refusing to hit Putin’s serve back at him is a losing strategy in this game.
There is absolutely no doubt that Hillary and Putin understand all the rules of the MAD game. The way Trump talks, I have serious doubts he knows what kind of game is being played, but my opinion does not count as much as Putin’s opinion of Trump. Putin truly has control of his half of the MAD game. If Putin thinks Trump will not play it according to the rules Trump never learned, then the USA is risking WWIII.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Democracy for Realists, based on years of scholarship done on the ugly realities of how American voting behavior really works, sheds crucial light on a question that liberals have been banging their heads over for months — why on earth would anyone vote for Donald Trump? The book's analysis is both troubling and important: Throughout history, people in general have cast their votes for no particularly good reason at all, so there’s no reason to expect Trump supporters to be any different.
www.amazon.com/Democracy-Realists-Elections-Responsive-Government/dp/0
691169446/
The frightening knowledge that general election outcomes are heavily shaped by arbitrary factors helps explain some of the appeal of books like 2008’s The Party Decides. Not only was the book’s argument compelling on its own merits, but there was also something fundamentally reassuring about the idea that policy-savvy elites were picking nominees through a rational deliberative process. You might not like the policy outcomes the winning political party pursued, but things would probably be done competently and coherently, and as long as the parties rotate in power, nothing too terrible should happen.
Donald Trump’s nomination by the Republican Party served to largely shatter that book’s prestige in the media.
But the crucial thing about Trump is that while he gives all appearances of being a catastrophic presidential candidate — not supported by either of his party’s two living past presidents, endorsed by zero major newspaper editorial pages, routinely decried as a liar by mild-mannered, non-ideological campaign reporters, and enjoying only grudging backing from the GOP congressional leadership — he’s not performing that badly.
Vox’s Trump Tax model, designed in partnership with a group of political scientists, suggests that Trump is polling only 5 percentage points worse than you would expect a generic Republican to poll given the overall political climate. Major election forecasts see a Trump win as unlikely, but still normally give him a 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 chance, meaning Hillary losing to Trump would be the equivalent of Hillary's football team blowing an easy field goal — surprising, but hardly unheard of.
Shark attacks, which Presidents and candidates have no control over, have moved voters 10 percentage points in Presidential elections. Trump is behind by only 6% of the popular vote. All of the evidence from both the current campaign and longer-term studies of the American electorate suggests two basic conclusions about Trump — that the vast majority of people who would vote for a generic Republican nominee will vote for him, and that while he would need some good luck from external events to win, it’s easily within the realm of possibility.
We are only one poorly timed piece of bad economic news or one case of Hillary Clinton coming down with the flu away from a president with no relevant qualifications who virtually nobody with real experience governing truly thinks is a good choice.
It would be nice to think that government is driven by the profound desires of the people. The evidence, however, suggests something rather different and darker — that as the balance of power shifts away from party establishments and toward the mass public, we will get government driven by the whims of inattentive and uninformed voters, and there won’t be much beyond dumb luck standing between the republic and a telegenic demagogue who happens to secure the backing of the minority of people who bother to vote in primary elections.
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/14/12663318/bartels-achen-demo
cracy-for-realists
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yesterday’s presentation by Donald Trump's economic adviser, Peter Navarro, at the Tax Policy Center’s discussion of the presidential candidate tax plans reminded me of a passage in George Orwell’s dystopic novel 1984. The inner party’s chief torturer holds up his left hand with the thumb hidden and four fingers extended and asks the prisoner, “How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?” When Winston replies “four”, the official responds, “And if the party says it is not four but five – then how many?”
That’s a bit of what’s happening with Navarro’s explanation of Trump’s tax and trade policy. His argument goes something like this: Yes, Trump’s tax plan on its own would increase the deficit. But in tandem with his trade policy (as well as regulatory changes and a pro-carbon energy policy), their tax plan would not increase the deficit.
Here’s where Navarro’s argument about trade goes wrong: continue at -Trump adviser's take on taxes, trade turns economic theory on its head
www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2016/1016/Trump-adviser-s-take-on-t
axes-trade-turns-economic-theory-on-its-head
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
He now points a finger at "animal" Democrats for the fire bombing in NC. I think that the jury's still out as to who done it, but I wouldn't put it past his supporters to try and distract attention away from the sexual assault allegations.
I found his response a bit too quick and wrong-headed. As usual despicable.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I saw this article online in MSN News and thought that maybe it was one of those bait and switch stories that sensationalize statements made by prominent people to capture reader's attention.
Oh, it got my attention alright.
Let's put aside the chauvinistic comments for a moment. This guy flat out
threatened the United States:
"...but if Hillary Clinton wins it will be the last U.S. president ever."
The guy is completely mental, especially if he thinks that Russia will be left standing unscathed. In a nuclear war, nobody wins. It makes you wonder
about comments made right here in River City by our dynamic duo; of how
Hillary is the warmonger and aggressor in this equation. It takes a lot of
balls to make that bold of a statement. That or lack of mental capacity; it just might be that, like Trump, he's lost all semblance of reality.
Buckle up Dorothy, Kansas is going Bye-Bye!
SGG
The guys unhinged and as much as I don't care for Hillary it would be a disaster if she were to lose to him.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I believe Trump's campaign went off the rails because of Trump's new campaign C.E.O. Steve Bannon:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
He now points a finger at "animal" Democrats for the fire bombing in NC. I think that the jury's still out as to who done it, but I wouldn't put it past his supporters to try and distract attention away from the sexual assault allegations.
I found his response a bit too quick and wrong-headed. As usual despicable.
SGG
www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/steve-bannons-vision-for-the-trump-co
alition-after-election-day
It took someone smarter and more cynical than Trump to distill Trump’s platform of protectionism, closed borders, and white identity politics into one message about a global conspiracy. The man behind this new message is Steve Bannon, who became the C.E.O. of the Trump campaign in August. Bannon is on leave from Breitbart, the right-wing news site where he served as executive chairman, and where he honed a view of international politics that Trump now parrots.
Bannon, who is sixty-two, is new to right-wing rabble-rousing, compared to someone like Stone. Bannon went to the Harvard Business School and became wealthy as a mergers-and-acquisition deal-maker for Goldman Sachs, in the nineteen-eighties. He made a fortune by buying a share of the royalties for “Seinfeld” back in 1993, and receives them to this day.
Bannon met Andrew Breitbart, the founder of the news Web site, when Bannon was financing conservative documentaries in Los Angeles in the aughts. Breitbart, who previously worked with the Drudge Report, started Breitbart in 2005 as a conservative news aggregator, much like his former employer. In the fall of 2009, Bannon and Breitbart worked together on a business plan to launch a more ambitious version of the site, and Bannon joined its board in 2011, once the financing deal closed. When Andrew Breitbart died, in 2012, Bannon became executive chairman and took over the site. Back then Breitbart was a pugnacious but still recognizably conservative site, but, with Bannon in charge, its politics started to change.
Bannon embraced the growing populist movement in America, including the “alt-right,” a new term for white nationalists, who care little about traditional conservative economic ideas and instead stress the need to preserve America’s European heritage and keep out non-whites and non-Christians. Under Bannon, Breitbart promoted similar movements in Europe, including the United Kingdom Independence Party, the National Front in France, Alternative for Germany, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands. Bannon likes to say that his goal is “to build a global, center-right, populist, anti-establishment news site.” After the election is over, Breitbart, which has offices in London and Rome, plans to open up new bureaus in France and Germany.
This ambition extends to supporting the election of right-wing candidates. In 2013, Bannon encouraged Senator Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, who led the opposition to immigration reform, to run for President, but Sessions declined to enter the race. Bannon went on to attend early candidate forums, where he noticed that, while most Republicans stuck to the Party’s small-government message, Trump was hitting the protectionist themes that proved popular at Breitbart and on the European right.
In early 2015, Breitbart tilted toward Cruz, but after Trump entered the race that summer, with a sharper anti-immigrant message, Breitbart evolved into an unofficial arm of the Trump campaign. “Donald Trump: Candidate for Our Age” and “20 Reasons Why It Should Be Donald Trump in 2016” were typical headlines. When Trump fired his campaign director, Paul Manafort, in mid-August, he made Kellyanne Conway, a Republican pollster, his new campaign manager, and named Bannon his campaign C.E.O.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump’s appeal isn’t limited to what he says he’ll do on social issues. Trump’s promises to lower taxes and cut government spending also are attractive. Gene, 39, immigrated from Moscow 16 years ago and works as a computer consultant. “Why do I support Mr. Trump? Because I pay $70,000 in taxes,” he said, playing with the metal bracelet in his hand as he sat sipping coffee, facing the water. “I believe a lot of people don’t understand that he is a really good guy. He looks like kind of crazy but the question is what is inside. Inside he is a good guy.”
Boris Korosty, who immigrated to the US 27 years ago, said, “Hillary would take us towards something like socialism. She has the same mentality like Mr. Obama—bigger government, more welfare, more this, more that. I have seen what this does, this is not a good thing.”
He shares his dim view of America’s future. “What scares me is that I saw one of the biggest countries fall down in a few days because of wrong leadership. No war, nothing. Boom, no more Soviet Union. Scares me, a lot.” Another reason he backs Trump? “At least he is a tough guy,” said Korosty. “What kind of president falls down while she is walking?”
http://qz.com/809857/the-heart-of-a-russian-enclave-of-new-york-beats-
strong-for-donald-trump/
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump from the start had been playing a part, but his acting got worse and worse as time went on, until finally he couldn't keep track: Was he supposed to be a genuine traitor to his class and the savior of the common man, or just be himself, i.e., a bellicose pervert with too much time on his hands? Or were the two things the same thing? He was too dumb to figure it out, and that paralysis played itself out on the Super Bowl of political stages. It was great television. It was also the worst thing that ever happened to our electoral system.
Trump's shocking rise and spectacular fall have been a singular disaster for U.S. politics. Built up in the press as the American Hitler, he was unmasked in the end as a pathetic little prankster who ruined himself, his family and half of America's two-party political system for what was probably a half-assed ego trip all along, adventure tourism for the idiot rich.
That such a small man would have such an awesome impact on our nation's history is terrible, but it makes sense if you believe in the essential ridiculousness of the human experience. Trump picked exactly the wrong time to launch his mirror-gazing rampage to nowhere. He ran at a time when Americans on both sides of the aisle were experiencing a deep sense of betrayal by the political class, anger that was finally ready to express itself at the ballot box.
The only thing that could get in the way of real change – if not now, then surely very soon – was a rebellion so maladroit, ill-conceived and irresponsible that even the severest critics of the system would become zealots for the status quo.
In the absolute best-case scenario, the one in which he loses, this is what Trump's run accomplished. He ran as an outsider antidote to a corrupt two-party system, and instead will leave that system more entrenched than ever. If he goes on to lose, he will be our Bonaparte, the monster who will continue to terrify us even in exile, reinforcing the authority of kings.
If you thought lesser-evilism was bad before, wait until the answer to every question you might have about your political leaders becomes, "Would you rather have Trump in office?"
Trump can't win. Our national experiment can't end because one aging narcissist got bored of sex and food. Not even America deserves that. But that doesn't mean we come out ahead. We're more divided than ever, sicker than ever, dumber than ever. And there's no reason to think it won't be worse the next time.
www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/the-fury-and-failure-of-donald-
trump-w444943
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND... do you suppose you could post your own opinion, instead of someone else's?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4
I'm beginning to think that you let others do your thinking for you.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, i can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, i can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
President: National poll results
Hillary Clinton (D) 45% (+7.00)
Donald Trump (R) 38%
Gary Johnson (L) 6%
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
President: National poll results =
Reality isn't decided by polling.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
President: National poll results =
Reality isn't decided by polling.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:
I'm pretty sure Kissmyfatbottom said:Quote:
Originally posted by Kissmyfatbottom:
sdvwvwkmdv;wmdv;kwmv;lkwfv;ksv;fnwvlkwnvlksnvlksndvlwnfvlkwnvlkwndlvknwvlnsfbl;jnaefkvnef;lbjnelnvaelfknval;sfknv;alkfnvlqwknrvlqkrnlaeknvalkrnvlrnvlwrnvlwkrnvlwknvlwnrvlrnglnvlaknfvlawknfvlakndvlaksncvlkansdvlknwrbnwrbovihwrbgpih1[j4t-xw[podmvowivowpief;ow2e f;lw c;qjw v;jqefv;jeqnvnl;kdvl;k flvknqw'rvknqw'rkvnw'rknvw'krnvlwk dnvlw lk dlkw dlvwk v'lkw rv'kwn rvlw rv'l wr'vlk ewlkrv[pembpemtbpermgrgwkrmg sdvwvwkmdv;wmdv;kwmv;lkwfv;ksv;fnwvlkwnvlksnvlksndvlwnfvlkwnvlkwndlvknwvlnsfbl;jnaefkvnef;lbjnelnvaelfknval;sfknv;alkfnvlqwknrvlqkrnlaeknvalkrnvlrnvlwrnvlwkrnvlwknvlwnrvlrnglnvlaknfvlawknfvlakndvlaksncvlkansdvlknwrbnwrbovihwrbgpih1[j4t-xw[podmvowivowpief;ow2e f;lw c;qjw v;jqefv;jeqnvnl;kdvl;k flvknqw'rvknqw'rkvnw'rknvw'krnvlwk dnvlw lk dlkw dlvwk v'lkw rv'kwn rvlw rv'l wr'vlk ewlkrv qw'lkjrbnvpqwoeiyurbp01f92merv[pembpemtbpermgrgwkrmg sdvwvwkmdv;wmdv;kwmv;lkwfv;ksv;fnwvlkwnvlksnvlksndvlwnfvlkwnvlkwndlvknwvlnsfbl;jnaefkvnef;lbjnelnvaelfknval;sfknv;alkfnvlqwknrvlqkrnlaeknvalkrnvlrnvlwrnvlwkrnvlwknvlwnrvlrnglnvlaknfvlawknfvlakndvlaksncvlkansdvlknwrbnwrbovihwrbgpih1[j4t-xw[podmvowivowpief;ow2e f;lw c;qjw v;jqefv;jeqnvnl;kdvl;k flvknqw'rvknqw'rkvnw'rknvw'krnvlwk dnvlw lk dlkw dlvwk v'lkw rv'kwn rvlw rv'l wr'vlk ewlkrv qw'lkjrbnvpqwoeiyurbp01f92merv[pembpemtbpermgrgwkrmg sdvwvwkmdv;wmdv;kwmv;lkwfv;ksv;fnwvlkwnvlksnvlksndvlwnfvlkwnvlkwndlvknwvlnsfbl;jnaefkvnef;lbjnelnvaelfknval;sfknv;alkfnvlqwknrvlqkrnlaeknvalkrnvlrnvlwrnvlwkrnvlwknvlwnrvlrnglnvlaknfvlawknfvlakndvlaksncvlkansdvlknwrbnwrbovihwrbgpih1[j4t-xw[podmvowivowpief;ow2e f;lw c;qjw v;jqefv;jeqnvnl;kdvl;k flvknqw'rvknqw'rkvnw'rknvw'krnvlwk dnvlw lk dlkw dlvwk v'lkw rv'kwn rvlw rv'l wr'vlk ewlkrv qw'lkjrbnvpqwoeiyurbp01f92merv[pembpemtbpermgrgwkrmg sdvwvwkmdv;wmdv;kwmv;lkwfv;ksv;fnwvlkwnvlksnvlksndvlwnfvlkwnvlkwndlvknwvlnsfbl;jnaefkvnef;lbjnelnvaelfknval;sfknv;alkfnvlqwknrvlqkrnlaeknvalkrnvlrnvlwrnvlwkrnvlwknvlwnrvlrnglnvlaknfvlawknfvlakndvlaksncvlkansdvlknwrbnwrbovihwrbgpih1[j4t-xw[podmvowivowpief;ow2e f;lw c;qjw v;jqefv;jeqnvnl;kdvl;k flvknqw'rvknqw'rkvnw'rknvw'krnvlwk dnvlw lk dlkw dlvwk v'lkw rv'kwn rvlw rv'l wr'vlk ewlkrv qw'lkjrbnvpqwoeiyurbp01f92merv[pembpemtbpermgrgwkrmg vsdvwvwkmdv;wmdv;kwmv;lkwfv;ksv;fnwvlkwnvlksnvlksndvlwnfvlkwnvlkwndlvknwvlnsfbl;jnaefkvnef;lbjnelnvaelfknval;sfknv;alkfnvlqwknrvlqkrnlaeknvalkrnvlrnvlwrnvlwkrnvlwknvlwnrvlrnglnvlaknfvlawknfvlakndvlaksncvlkansdvlknwrbnwrbovihwrbgpih1[j4t-xw[podmvowivowpief;ow2e f;lw c;qjw v;jqefv;jeqnvnl;kdvl;k flvknqw'rvknqw'rkvnw'rknvw'krnvlwk dnvlw lk dlkw dlvwk v'lkw rv'kwn rvlw rv'l wr'vlk ewlkrv qw'lkjrbnvpqwoeiyurbp01f92merv[pembpemtbpermgrgwkrmg vsdvwvwkmdv;wmdv;kwmv;lkwfv;ksv;fnwvlkwnvlksnvlksndvlwnfvlkwnvlkwndlvknwvlnsfbl;jnaefkvnef;lbjnelnvaelfknval;sfknv;alkfnvlqwknrvlqkrnlaeknvalkrnvlrnvlwrnvlwkrnvlwknvlwnrvlrnglnvlaknfvlawknfvlakndvlaksncvlkansdvlknwrbnwrbovihwrbgpih1[j4t-xw[podmvowivowpief;ow2e f;lw c;qjw v;jqefv;jeqnvnl;kdvl;k flvknqw'rvknqw'rkvnw'rknvw'krnvlwk dnvlw lk dlkw dlvwk v'lkw rv'kwn rvlw rv'l wr'vlk ewlkrv qw'lkjrbnvpqwoeiyurbp01f92merv[pembpemtbpermgrgwkrmg
prawn cocktail
THUGR, GSTRING: Haters gonna hate.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
President: National poll results
Hillary Clinton (D) 45% (+7.00)
Donald Trump (R) 38%
Gary Johnson (L) 6%
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
THUGR, GSTRING: Haters gonna hate.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, I have a question for you, second.
Hillary's been elected. Donald is waaaayyy back there, lost over the horizon in the rearview mirror. You can no longer use his name as an excuse to avoid talking about that crazy shit that crazy Hillary has been able to do - thanks to support from democrats and republicans in Congress, and her cozy, familiar relations with neocons in the State Department and in the CIA.
The US has continued to escalate tensions with Russia, and open warfare now seems nearly inevitable.
Do you have a plan to address her broken actions and rein her in?
Or are you going to ride her all the way down?
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:JFK, a Democrat, was President during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. Unanimously agreed. The. Only. Solution. JFK was skeptical.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
¤°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸,ø¤°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤
So, I have a question for you, second.
Hillary's been elected. Donald is waaaayyy back there, lost over the horizon in the rearview mirror. You can no longer use his name as an excuse to avoid talking about that crazy shit that crazy Hillary has been able to do - thanks to support from democrats and republicans in Congress, and her cozy, familiar relations with neocons in the State Department and in the CIA.
The US has continued to escalate tensions with Russia, and open warfare now seems nearly inevitable.
Do you have a plan to address her broken actions and rein her in?
Or are you going to ride her all the way down?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Responses_considere
d
The Pentagon is always advising the President that there is a need for more war. Nothing has changed about that since WWII.
The USA’s military structure is controlled by Generals and Admirals who are registered Republicans. (Google it.) Congress is controlled by Republicans who are wholehearted warmongers. I believe that Hillary will be extremely skeptical of advice coming from Republicans. Her experience with Republicans is that they are belligerent, unwise, and often downright stupid, but always loudly certain.
If JFK had taken the Pentagon’s advice, the Cuban Missile Crisis would have gone badly. If Hillary takes advice from Republicans in the Pentagon and Congress, her Crisis will go badly. I believe that Hillary has learned from her terrible experiences with Republicans to not to do what they want, no matter how loudly they shout.
But if Hillary has not already learned the lesson, Republicans will be giving her many reminders not to trust their opinions on foreign policy – they are already claiming she stole the election.
Not just Trump, but Paul Ryan, speaker of the House, will be reminding Hillary to be skeptical of everything from Republicans, including their foreign policy advice.
According to Ryan, Hillary will bring “a gloom and grayness to things,” ruled by a “cold and unfeeling bureaucracy.” America will become a place “where passion — the very stuff of life itself — is extinguished.” And this is the kind of America Clinton “will stop at nothing to have.” I am very hopeful Hillary will understand the message Republicans are broadcasting. It is not just campaign rhetoric. They want to sabotage her. And if that means giving her disastrous foreign policy advice, they will do that, too.
www.politico.com/story/2016/10/paul-ryan-democratic-washington-229822
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
I bet Putin is soiling himself. The idea of him getting beaten by a woman? That has to hurt. That's probably why he wants Trump to win - he's scared of women.
Remember Trump calling everyone including Romney losers? Or saying Ryan and the Republicans don't know how to win. That he will show them. He is going to have to live with the loser label soon enough.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
POLO
President: National poll results
Averages for Mon Sep 19 2016
Hillary Clinton (D) 42% (+3.00)
Donald Trump (R) 39%
Gary Johnson (L) 7%
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike Pence repudiated his own running mate, saying on Sunday, "We will absolutely accept the result of the election." I sure hope so. It would be quite a spectacle if the vice presidential candidate conceded on Election Night but the presidential candidate didn't.
Obama took on Trump over his repeated remarks about the election being rigged:
Obama accused Trump of “whining before the game is even over” and described Trump’s remarks as “unprecedented.”
“I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections and the election process before votes have even taken place,” Obama said....The president, clearly troubled by Trump’s claims of a fixed election, quickly decided not to hold back. He described Trump’s allegations as a threat to American democracy and to the “integrity and trust” of the country’s civic institutions.
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-slams-trumps-claims-of-a-rigged-
election-as-whining-before-the-game-is-even-over/2016/10/18/b5530c12-9551-11e6-9b7c-57290af48a49_story.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump’s lack of personal involvement in anti-Semitism (at least until very recently) makes the way his campaign is stirring up anti-Jewish sentiments so fascinating. Trump quite clearly has built his political profile in large part on dislike of blacks (birtherism) and Latinos (Mexicans are rapists) and Muslims (the total ban on immigration “until we figure out what’s going on”) even while maintaining a very close relationship with an Orthodox Jewish son-in-law.
What we’ve seen from the Trump-o-verse is that many bigots do not make these same fine-grained distinctions. Once you position yourself as the leader of a white nationalist movement, you end up with a lot of anti-Semites in your followership. And Trump, tellingly, has never said or done anything to discourage this kind of behavior.
A normal campaign would be embarrassed by having its self-proclaimed fans out there every day telling Jewish journalists they hope they get sent to the gas chamber. Trump, who tweets and retweets everything under the sun, has thus far not bothered to address this with so much as a tweet, to say nothing of a broader speech or campaign aimed at denouncing these sentiments.
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/19/13326336/trump-antisemitism
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Trump’s lack of personal involvement in anti-Semitism (at least until very recently) makes the way his campaign is stirring up anti-Jewish sentiments so fascinating. Trump quite clearly has built his political profile in large part on dislike of blacks (birtherism) and Latinos (Mexicans are rapists) and Muslims (the total ban on immigration “until we figure out what’s going on”) even while maintaining a very close relationship with an Orthodox Jewish son-in-law.
What we’ve seen from the Trump-o-verse is that many bigots do not make these same fine-grained distinctions. Once you position yourself as the leader of a white nationalist movement, you end up with a lot of anti-Semites in your followership. And Trump, tellingly, has never said or done anything to discourage this kind of behavior.
A normal campaign would be embarrassed by having its self-proclaimed fans out there every day telling Jewish journalists they hope they get sent to the gas chamber. Trump, who tweets and retweets everything under the sun, has thus far not bothered to address this with so much as a tweet, to say nothing of a broader speech or campaign aimed at denouncing these sentiments.
Trump is only addressing his hard core followers now. That would be the deplorable.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The deplorables tell Trump that he is flawless, which is why they are the only ones he wants to attract. Revenge is a big part of Trump's life. Following the first presidential debate, he spent days of valuable campaign time (and hours of valuable sleep time) slamming Alicia Machado....Rosie O'Donnell....Judge Gonzalo Curiel....Khizr and Ghazala Khan....Carly Fiorina and Megyn Kelly.....Gov. John Kasich....Lyin’ Ted, Little Marco.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Trump is only addressing his hard core followers now. That would be the deplorable.
Why all the insults, bullying, and grudge matches? There is a reason. Trump fervently believes in retaliation. How do we know? Because he has said so numerous times that he is driven by revenge and that it is a basic tool to use in business. He is obsessed with payback.
Pretty much everything else flows from this. The bullying is always in service of revenge. The narcissism is a way of elevating himself above his adversaries. The dominance games are always aimed at real and perceived enemies.
But there's a flip side to this: Anyone who is nice to Donald Trump is a great guy. The best. One of the smartest people you'll ever meet. And this can flip in a minute. This explains why he was inexplicably pleasant to so many of his primary opponents for so long: they hadn't attacked him. Once they did, though, the gloves were off. Ditto for Vladimir Putin. As long as Putin is personally nice to him, Trump is almost literally incapable of attacking him. This will change the moment Putin says anything even mildly derogatory about Trump.
Lots of people are obsessed with scorched-earth retribution against anyone or anything that attacks them. The weird thing about Trump is that it seems to be almost hardwired. No matter how little sense it makes to play nice with, say, Vladimir Putin, Trump simply can't attack until Putin attacks him first. Likewise, no matter how personally or politically destructive it is, Trump is flatly unable to ignore an attack from anyone of influence. It's as if he has a special revenge neuron in his brain, and it flips back and forth and forces him to attack regardless of anything else. It's as automatic for him as jerking your knee is for you when a doctor taps it with a hammer. It's not something that's under Trump's conscious control.
Apparently even Newt Gingrich agrees:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/newt-gingrich-little-trump-acts-
uncontrollably-when-criticized
The former House speaker and top Trump surrogate told the Washington Examiner’s David Drucker that the Republican nominee loses his cool in response to “anything which attacks his own sense of integrity or his own sense of respectability, and he reacts very intensely, almost uncontrollably, to those kinds of situations.”
....“There’s also a part of his personality that sometimes gets involved in petty things that make no sense, and I think that that’s what I was talking about when I talk about there’s a big Trump and a little Trump,” Gingrich said.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:The deplorables tell Trump that he is flawless, which is why they are the only ones he wants to attract. Revenge is a big part of Trump's life. Following the first presidential debate, he spent days of valuable campaign time (and hours of valuable sleep time) slamming Alicia Machado....Rosie O'Donnell....Judge Gonzalo Curiel....Khizr and Ghazala Khan....Carly Fiorina and Megyn Kelly.....Gov. John Kasich....Lyin’ Ted, Little Marco.
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Trump is only addressing his hard core followers now. That would be the deplorable.
Why all the insults, bullying, and grudge matches? There is a reason. Trump fervently believes in retaliation. How do we know? Because he has said so numerous times that he is driven by revenge and that it is a basic tool to use in business. He is obsessed with payback.
Pretty much everything else flows from this. The bullying is always in service of revenge. The narcissism is a way of elevating himself above his adversaries. The dominance games are always aimed at real and perceived enemies.
But there's a flip side to this: Anyone who is nice to Donald Trump is a great guy. The best. One of the smartest people you'll ever meet. And this can flip in a minute. This explains why he was inexplicably pleasant to so many of his primary opponents for so long: they hadn't attacked him. Once they did, though, the gloves were off. Ditto for Vladimir Putin. As long as Putin is personally nice to him, Trump is almost literally incapable of attacking him. This will change the moment Putin says anything even mildly derogatory about Trump.
Lots of people are obsessed with scorched-earth retribution against anyone or anything that attacks them. The weird thing about Trump is that it seems to be almost hardwired. No matter how little sense it makes to play nice with, say, Vladimir Putin, Trump simply can't attack until Putin attacks him first. Likewise, no matter how personally or politically destructive it is, Trump is flatly unable to ignore an attack from anyone of influence. It's as if he has a special revenge neuron in his brain, and it flips back and forth and forces him to attack regardless of anything else. It's as automatic for him as jerking your knee is for you when a doctor taps it with a hammer. It's not something that's under Trump's conscious control.
Apparently even Newt Gingrich agrees:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/newt-gingrich-little-trump-acts-
uncontrollably-when-criticized
The former House speaker and top Trump surrogate told the Washington Examiner’s David Drucker that the Republican nominee loses his cool in response to “anything which attacks his own sense of integrity or his own sense of respectability, and he reacts very intensely, almost uncontrollably, to those kinds of situations.”
....“There’s also a part of his personality that sometimes gets involved in petty things that make no sense, and I think that that’s what I was talking about when I talk about there’s a big Trump and a little Trump,” Gingrich said.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity
You give a good account of things that make Trump unsuited for the role of president. I will watch the debate tonight to see which of his character flaws make an appearance.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It’s possible that half of undocumented US immigrants have paid more taxes than Donald Trump. Given that Trump has refused to release his income tax returns, it’s unclear how exactly any tax payments stack up against those of unauthorized immigrant workers. In the past, Trump has said that he pays “federal tax,” though that doesn’t necessarily mean he pays personal federal income tax—as opposed to the federal tax on gasoline or jet fuel he purchases, for example.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
people really are that gullible.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
POLO
President: National poll results
Averages for Wed Oct 19 2016
Hillary Clinton (D) 44% (+6.00)
Donald Trump (R) 38%
Gary Johnson (L) 6%
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:It’s possible that half of undocumented US immigrants have paid more taxes than Donald Trump. Given that Trump has refused to release his income tax returns, it’s unclear how exactly any tax payments stack up against those of unauthorized immigrant workers. In the past, Trump has said that he pays “federal tax,” though that doesn’t necessarily mean he pays personal federal income tax—as opposed to the federal tax on gasoline or jet fuel he purchases, for example.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
people really are that gullible.
All this is evidence of Trumps answer to everything. Trust me
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Trump’s campaign has written a detailed immigration plan. Trump appears to have no idea what is in his plan. Here is 500 word article explaining Trump’s plan. He should read it today:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
All this is evidence of Trumps answer to everything. Trust me.
www.vox.com/2016/9/7/12817566/donald-trump-immigration-position
How would I know that Trump does not know? Chris Wallace did me and the debate-watching audience a great favor by asking Trump an enormous softball question to kick off the third debate’s second segment, turning to the GOP nominee and asking him to explain his position on immigration.
Trump’s answer is worth quoting in full. Keep in mind that this is his signature issue — the topic on which he has centered his campaign from its first day more than a year ago. Pay attention and you’ll note that it has no content whatsoever:
Quote:www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/us/politics/third-debate-transcript.html?_r
First of all, she wants to give amnesty, which is a disaster and very unfair to all the people who are waiting in line for many years. We need strong borders. In the audience tonight we have four mothers of — I mean, these are unbelievable people that I've gotten to know over a period of years whose children have been killed, brutally killed by people who came into the country illegally. You have mothers, fathers, relatives all over the county. They're coming in illegally.
Drugs are pouring in through the border. We have no country if we have no border. Hillary wants to give amnesty, she wants to have open borders.
As you know, the border patrol agency, 16,500-plus ICE last week endorsed me. First time they've ever endorsed a candidate. It means their job is tougher, but they know what's going on. They know it better than anybody. They want strong borders. They feel we have to have strong borders. I was up in New Hampshire, the biggest complaint they have with all the problems going on in the world, many of the problems caused by Hillary Clinton and by Barack Obama, all of the problems, their single biggest problem is heroin that pours across our southern borders, just pouring and destroying their youth. It's poisoning the blood of their youth and plenty of other people.
We have to have strong borders. We have to keep the drugs out of our country. Right now we're getting the drugs, they're getting the cash. We need strong borders. We absolute -- we cannot give amnesty.
Now I want to build a wall. We need the wall. The Border Patrol, ICE, they all want the wall. We stop the drugs, shore up the border.
One of my first acts will be to get all of the drug lords, we have some bad, bad people in this country that have to go out. We'll get them out, secure the border, and once the border is secured, at a later date we'll make a determination as to the rest. But we have some bad hombres here and we're going to get them out.
=0
Trump’s repeating empty slogans, absurdly asserting that a massive construction project on the Mexican border will cure opiate addiction in New England, and saying offensive things about Latinos.
Trump, to be clear, wants to be president of the United States. He’s not qualified in a conventional sense so he needs to convince us with his surprising command of the issues. Immigration is his signature issue. And he can’t make any sense discussing it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SECOND you are representing what others want Trump to say his plan is as Trumps actual plan. He has no policies or plans other than the ones he states himself. And they are no more extensive than talking points.
A big thing that has not been spoken much about here is that two democrats from NY are the nominees. One of which recently changed his positions so he could run as a republican.
Imagine our two dummy trolls ( SIG, 1kiki ) trying to sell here that Hillary is the liar. That's precious.
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I guess if Hillary wins and starts a nuclear WWIII, we're all fucked, royally fucked, proper fucked!
Yeah, it's a fucked up thing. Well, Donald has sealed the deal. No sense in placing bets on if she'll be a good president since you know best. WE ARE DOOMED! Between now and the first 100 days, I figure we have a little under 200 days of living to do. After that, kiss your ass goodbye!
Good Bye Cruel World!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And second - you proved my point. Shame on you for extreme selective quoting to address a point I never made, because you really ARE that dishonest! No wonder you like hillary so much. You're peas in a pod. And of course shame on people who believe your version of my post, because they really ARE that gullible.
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:It’s possible that half of undocumented US immigrants have paid more taxes than Donald Trump. Given that Trump has refused to release his income tax returns, it’s unclear how exactly any tax payments stack up against those of unauthorized immigrant workers. In the past, Trump has said that he pays “federal tax,” though that doesn’t necessarily mean he pays personal federal income tax—as opposed to the federal tax on gasoline or jet fuel he purchases, for example.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
people really are that gullible.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
sgg
I have bets with people at work that we and Russia will be shooting at each other within a year. (Let's not count the fact that the US already bombed and strafed the Syrian army for over an hour despite calls to US command, so Russia bombed a 'secret' US outpost in Syria in retaliation.)*
*And what's with the US keeping all this a 'secret', anyway? The Russians know, and our fearless leaders know they know. It's not like putting that information out there is going to be a tactical advantage or disadvantage for anybody. Why are us poor schmucks, the people, the only ones left in the dark?
Meanwhile you can keep on ignoring hillary's results of abysmal failure in every military adventure she supported Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria. Hail saint hillary the perfect!
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1kiki, your post was your usual. We've seen it a hundred times before: “hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.”
Originally posted by 1kiki:
And second - you proved my point. Shame on you for extreme selective quoting to address a point I never made, because you really ARE that dishonest! No wonder you like hillary so much. You're peas in a pod. And of course shame on people who believe your version of my post, because they really ARE that gullible.
1kiki, you think you’re Cassandra -- doomed to know the future but nobody at fireflyfans.net (other than Signym) believes your prophecies. I think you’re the Anti-Cassandra -- doomed to be always wrong about the past and what actually happened back then. As for the future, 1kiki can predict the date of New Year's Day because it is marked on the calendar.
For 1kiki, I have an article that begins: "Nobody believes it, but politicians mostly keep their promises.
There is probably no politician in American history whose dealings have been as extensively researched, investigated, FOIAed, subpoenaed, hacked, and WikiLeaked as Hillary Clinton. Despite this, many people regard her as sphinx-like and unknowable — yearning for even more secret documents to reveal what she really thinks and what she will really do as president.
Academic research on politicians and promises suggests a simpler method: Check her campaign website." -- www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/21/13317060/politicians-keep-p
romises
1kiki, would it really slow down your word (or work) production to know what you are writing about before writing at enormous length?
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
About that article that you cite, SECOND ...
You cited it in another thread, and I cited a different article, a far more robust one, which disproves your article, here: http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60930
Which you have not had the temerity to dispute since it was posted 24 hours ago. Since others may not want to go to a link to find another link, here is the original paper
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens
_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
What it shows, over approximately 1,800 policy decisions, is that mostly Americans and the elite decide in the "same direction" when it comes to policy, but when they conflict, the elite get their way.
So I noticed you abandoned your disputation on the other thread but carried it here, because yes, you ARE that dishonest, and you are desperate to make your pro-Hillary point. The part that you abandoned is this
Quote:
The paper that I cited indicates that "people" mostly get what the wealthy want, because "people" and the wealthy mostly want the same decisions.
HOWEVER, even when a majority of people want something that the wealthy don't want, they don't get it. Example: the public option health insurance.= SIGNY
Academic research on politicians and promises suggests a simpler method: Check her campaign website. In other words, Clinton’s promises tell us a lot about what will happen if she wins the election, and they tell us even more about what she will seriously, energetically try to do.= SECOND
"Do. Or do not. There is no try."
The reason why politicians are able to keep many of their promises, as shown in the paper that I linked, is because most of the time there is no serious elite opposition to most of their promises. However, those promises which seriously skin the elite in some way won't be fulfilled.
That's why I focused in Hillary's tax plan as the least likely to make it through, which puts many of her other domestic plans in jeopardy. She will either get only minor tax concessions, spend as planned, and let the Federal debt go higher,
Or she will have to cut back on her plans in order to not increase the debt. My guess is that she will let the debt go higher, because it is more painless, in the sort run, to put everything on credit.- SIGNY
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your article did not persuade me.
Trump promised a tax-cut for the rich. He would have kept that promise because it is aligned with the long term plans of the GOP. Hillary promised a tax increase for the wealthy. She might not succeed because in reality she will be opposed by every Republican in Congress. If Hillary can’t get almost every Democrat in Congress behind her position, the GOP wins again. Then Signym will be saying Hillary did not keep a promise because she was secretly working for the elite GOP, but that won't be what happened. What happened instead is the GOP killed another good law.
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/final-numbers-are-trumps-t
ax-plan-huge-windfall-wealthy 
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
About that article that you cite, SECOND ...
You cited it in another thread, and I cited a different article, a far more robust one, which disproves your article, here: http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=60930
Which you have not had the temerity to dispute since it was posted 24 hours ago. Nut since others may not want to go to a link to find another link, here is the original paper
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens
_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
What it shows, over approximately 1,800 policy decisions, is that mostly Americans and the elite decide in the "same direction" when it comes to policy, but when they conflict, the elite get their way.
So I noticed you abandoned your disputation on the other thread but carried it here, because yes, you ARE that dishonest, and you are desperate to make your pro-Hillary point. The part that you abandoned is thisQuote:
The paper that I cited indicates that "people" mostly get what the wealthy want, because "people" and the wealthy mostly want the same decisions.
HOWEVER, even when a majority of people want something that the wealthy don't want, they don't get it. Example: the public option health insurance.= SIGNY
Academic research on politicians and promises suggests a simpler method: Check her campaign website. In other words, Clinton’s promises tell us a lot about what will happen if she wins the election, and they tell us even more about what she will seriously, energetically try to do.= SECOND
"Do. Or do not. There is no try."
The reason why politicians are able to keep many of their promises, as shown in the paper that I linked, is because most of the time there is no serious elite opposition to most of their promises. However, those promises which seriously skin the elite in some way won't be fulfilled.
That's why I focused in Hillary's tax plan as the least likely to make it through, which puts many of her other domestic plans in jeopardy. She will either get only minor tax concessions, spend as planned, and let the Federal debt go higher,
Or she will have to cut back on her plans in order to not increase the debt. My guess is that she will let the debt go higher, because it is more painless, in the sort run, to put everything on credit.- SIGNY
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, it sounds like my article DID persuade you because you are trying to use its principles
Your article did not persuade me.
Quote:"GOP" or not, it is in line with the prospect of NATIONAL capitalists: i.e those who make their money inside the USA, are subject to USA tax laws, and who can't or don't hide their wealth in offshore corporate tax havens, foundations, and offshore accounts. That usually means medium-to-small businesses, because the biggest (international) entities which avoid taxes are already doing so:
Trump promised a tax-cut for the rich. He would have kept that promise because it is aligned with the long term plans of the GOP.
Quote:That includes corporations like Apple, which makes obscene profits by offshoring jobs to China (paying $20 for the production of a $600 phone) and then offshoring its profits in Ireland.
All told, American Fortune 500 corporations are avoiding up to $695 billion in U.S. federal income taxes by holding $2.4 trillion of “permanently reinvested” profits offshore. In their latest annual financial reports, 27 of these corporations reveal that they have paid an income tax rate of 10 percent or less in countries where these profits are officially held, indicating that most of these monies are likely in offshore tax havens.
http://ctj.org/ctjreports/2016/03/fortune_500_companies_hold_a_record_
24_trillion_offshore.php
I would be extremely interested in the calculation that estimates tax savings under the Trump plan. I doubt that it takes these loopholes into account.
Quote:Also, many Democrats. There is an unfortunate game that Democratic politicians play in Congress, and that is if there is legislation which is offensive to their corporate backers, they will designate just enough votes to look like they are "trying" but not enough votes to actually... yanno.. pass. Where Democratic (and Republican) ethics are REALLY put to the test is when they have a majority in Congress, AND have the White House. You know, like OBAMA 2008-2011, when the donkey labored and brought forth a mouse.
Hillary promised a tax increase for the wealthy. She might not succeed because in reality she will be opposed by every Republican in Congress.
Quote:It depends on whether the Dems achieve a majority in Congress or not.
If Hillary can’t get almost every Democrat in Congress behind her position, the GOP wins again. Then Signym will be saying Hillary did not keep a promise because she was secretly working for the elite GOP, but that won't be what happened. What happened instead is the GOP killed another good law.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Having majority for the next two years will not fix what is fundamentally wrong with the US Constitution.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It depends on whether the Dems achieve a majority in Congress or not.
Irresolvable conflict is, unfortunately, baked into America’s system of government — a system that really only works if the political parties aren’t ideologically disciplined and polarized. Except the D and R’s have never been more polarized.
America's constitutional democracy is going to collapse some day just like crappy democracies in Latin America because, in retrospect, the Founding Fathers made some very poor decisions while writing the US Constitution. Matthew Yglesias explains why other countries with constitutions modeled after the US Constitution have had the very same troubles that the USA is now having between Democrats and Republicans.
www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed
“Voiced in another register, my outlandish thesis is actually the conventional wisdom in the United States. Back when George W. Bush was president and I was working at a liberal magazine, there was a very serious discussion in an editorial meeting about the fact that the United States was now exhibiting 11 of the 13 telltale signs of a fascist dictatorship. The idea that Bush was shredding the Constitution and trampling on congressional prerogatives was commonplace. When Obama took office, the partisan valence of the complaints shifted, but their basic tenor didn't. Conservative pundits — not the craziest, zaniest ones on talk radio, but the most serious and well-regarded — compare Obama's immigration moves to the actions of a Latin-American military dictator. . . .
The breakdown of American constitutional democracy is a contrarian view. But it's nothing more than the view that rather than everyone being wrong about the state of American politics, maybe everyone is right. Maybe Bush and Obama are dangerously exceeding norms of executive authority. Maybe legislative compromise really has broken down in an alarming way. And maybe the reason these complaints persist across different administrations and congresses led by members of different parties is that American politics is breaking down.”
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1kiki, you think you’re Cassandra
No, I don't. And thanks for lying about me - AGAIN.
Meanwhile, I'll keep posting until someone addresses my points - one of which isn't 'what' but HOW. HOW is hillary going to get all her promises through a republican Congress?
As for addressing what * I * posted, instead of the voices in your head, YOU have failed to do so at every opportunity.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
FYI: TRUMP'S FIRST 100 DAYS IN OFFICE (FULL SPEECH)
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What!? I'm agreeing with you, you Silly Billy!
Bombs away I say. You win the bet! We'll be speaking Russian inside of 2 years......all because we wouldn't listen to you and Sig about Hillary. You were right all along.........oh, the HORROR!!!
SGG, the meek and shameful!
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
sgg
I have bets with people at work that we and Russia will be shooting at each other within a year. (Let's not count the fact that the US already bombed and strafed the Syrian army for over an hour despite calls to US command, so Russia bombed a 'secret' US outpost in Syria in retaliation.)*
*And what's with the US keeping all this a 'secret', anyway? The Russians know, and our fearless leaders know they know. It's not like putting that information out there is going to be a tactical advantage or disadvantage for anybody. Why are us poor schmucks, the people, the only ones left in the dark?
Meanwhile you can keep on ignoring hillary's results of abysmal failure in every military adventure she supported Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria. Hail saint hillary the perfect!
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1kiki, if you really were correct then Obama also had "zero power" during the last 4 years. You might want to back off of that claim of "zero". It makes you sound like a drunken Republican celebrating how the GOP will ruin the Democrats despite Trump losing.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible.
As a practical matter, Paul Ryan decided what laws Obama got to sign for the last year. Before Ryan, it was John Boehner deciding.
Should Hillary die in office, the second person in line to replace her is Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. Should Hillary live, it will still be up to Ryan to make a choice about how to govern the USA. Will it just be the usual obstruction of Hillary, same as Ryan did to Obama? Or will he take the GOP back from the hostage-happy tea partiers and team up with Republican moderates and with Democrats to occasionally pass a few important bills that might revive the GOP's fortunes? We will soon know which kind of co-leaders of the USA Paul Ryan and Hillary will be.
The suspense is how many Republicans will Trump defeat.
www.gocomics.com/tomtoles/2016/10/21
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump vows to sue all his female accusers!
Trump's revenge message overshadows otherwise substantive speech.
Trump didn’t say what kind of lawsuits he planned to file against the women, but any libel litigation could be complicated by the fact that Trump, in the 2005 recording, bragged about the same kind of conduct the women now accuse him of perpetrating. Trump recently vowed to sue the New York Times for libel, but has not yet followed through on the threat.
www.boston.com/news/politics/2016/10/22/trump-vowing-to-sue-every-one-
of-his-female-accusers
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday the choice offered to voters in the U.S. presidential election was between "bad and worse" and that harsh exchanges in the debates pointed to a lack of morality in America, Tehran's arch adversary.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
No, I don't. And thanks for lying about me - AGAIN.
Meanwhile, I'll keep posting until someone addresses my points - one of which isn't 'what' but HOW. HOW is hillary going to get all her promises through a republican Congress?
As for addressing what * I * posted, instead of the voices in your head, YOU have failed to do so at every opportunity.
"America claims it has more than 200 years of democracy, and they have had 50 presidential elections, but there is no morality in that country," Rouhani said in a speech, carried live by state television.
"You saw the presidential debates, how they talk..., how they accuse and mock (each other)," Rouhani told a crowd gathered at a stadium during his visit to the central city of Arak.
Rouhani said a head of state had asked him during his visit to the United Nations in September about who he preferred between Republican candidate Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
"I said should I prefer bad over worse or worse over bad?," said Rouhani, a pragmatist politician and cleric who may run for reelection in Iran's presidential polls in May 2017.
He did not say to which candidate his descriptions referred.
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-iran-idUSKCN12N0G0
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tom Hanks, playing the Fox News anchor and debate moderator Chris Wallace, introduced Saturday Night Live‘s spoof of the third US presidential debate as “a lot like the third Lord of the Rings movie—you don’t really want to watch, but you’ve come this far.”
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
1kiki, if you really were correct then Obama also had "zero power" during the last 4 years. You might want to back off of that claim of "zero". It makes you sound like a drunken Republican celebrating how the GOP will ruin the Democrats despite Trump losing.
As a practical matter, Paul Ryan decided what laws Obama got to sign for the last year. Before Ryan, it was John Boehner deciding.
This points up the power that a President really DOES have, even with a recalcitrant Congress. So, what did Obama (or maybe it was Hillary) accomplish in his last six years? He (and Hillary) managed to ...
1) Engineer a coup in the Ukraine
2) Instigate sanctions on Russia, creating further stresses on EU economies
3) Destroy Libya
4) Break Sudan into two pieces, creating two failed states out of one
5) Drone Yemen into instability, and support Saudi Arabia's invasion
6) Instigate a proxy was against Assad, using radical Muslim extremists as tools
7) Negotiate trade deals TTIP and TTP
8) Participate in a climate change negotiation
9) Support a Honduran coup
10) Drag his feet in Keystone XL
11) Create a marine sanctuary off Hawaii
12) Piss off Philippine President Duterte
13) Complete the monstrous data storage center in Utah, which contains the emails, texts, phone calls and tweets of hundreds of millions of average Americans
14) Signed more (combined) Executive orders and "Presidential Memoranda" than any other President, including Truman, who up until Obama took the record.
http://moneymorning.com/2016/01/06/president-obama-is-the-most-controv
ersial-executive-action-user-in-u-s-history-heres-why/
15) Sent more troops back into Iraq
16) Failed to stem the wealth gap
I should really look into those Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda. But the list of Obama's "accomplishments" actually demonstrates my previous point:
The President's power resides PRIMARILY in the realm of "foreign policy", including negotiated treaties, trade agreements, and partnerships, military intervention and covert action. Exactly the place I don't want Hillary to be.
And where Hillary might do some good - domestic policy- she doesn't have much authority. I made this point before: It would be an interesting test if Congress turns Democratic. I know, SECOND, that you objected to this point because of the possibility of minority Senate Republicans filibustering everything. But you contradicted yourself, because even you yourself said that the filibuster COULD be done away with by a simple majority vote. So if Senatorial Democrats were truly hard-nosed, they could get their way. This would be a test, not only of Hillary's commitment to the American people, but also a test of the Democratic Senators' commitment.
Now, with that kind of legislative and executive power - like 2008 to 2011- the Democrats could choose to accomplish a lot. And if they made a real difference in the lives of everyday Americans they would ensure their hold on power for the foreseeable future. But like in 2008-2011, my bet s that they'd scurry from responsibility, like cockroaches when the light is turned on, because nobody but nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds them contributions, neither Democrats nor Republicans.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, some points from Trump's speech (and no, it's not just suing the women who accused him, as SECOND lied.)
Term limits for Congress
Prohibit the additional consolidation of media as being too anti-competitive
5-year prohibition on leaving office and going to work as a lobbyist, and a lifetime ban on leaving office and then representing a foreign nation
Simplifying and changing the tax law
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"1kiki, if you really were correct then Obama also had "zero power""
YOU EFFING LIAR!!!
MAYBE IF I MAKE IT BIG ENOUGH, BOLD, ENOUGH, ITALIC ENOUGH, RED ENOUGH, CAPITAL ENOUGH, UNDERLINED ENOUGH
YOU'LL FINALLY FUCKING STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I'VE BEEN POSTING ALL ALONG
THERE ARE ONLY TWO - TWO - 2 - DOS - DUEX - DWA - EK - THINGS hillary WILL BE ABLE TO DO.
Trade deals, and provoke Russia.
Got it, now? Or are you so FUCKING dishonest you'll pretend to not understand it NOW?
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
POLO
Hillary Clinton
46.3%
Donald J. Trump
40.1%
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You forgot about the Jade Helm Invasion of Texas to establish Marshall Law.
Remember!? It was supposed to take place in July 2015. There's that.
You know, black helicopters, invading soldiers and drones!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:
1kiki, if you really were correct then Obama also had "zero power" during the last 4 years. You might want to back off of that claim of "zero". It makes you sound like a drunken Republican celebrating how the GOP will ruin the Democrats despite Trump losing.
As a practical matter, Paul Ryan decided what laws Obama got to sign for the last year. Before Ryan, it was John Boehner deciding.
This points up the power that a President really DOES have, even with a recalcitrant Congress. So, what did Obama (or maybe it was Hillary) accomplish in his last six years? He (and Hillary) managed to ...
1) Engineer a coup in the Ukraine
2) Instigate sanctions on Russia, creating further stresses on EU economies
3) Destroy Libya
4) Break Sudan into two pieces, creating two failed states out of one
5) Drone Yemen into instability, and support Saudi Arabia's invasion
6) Instigate a proxy was against Assad, using radical Muslim extremists as tools
7) Negotiate trade deals TTIP and TTP
8) Participate in a climate change negotiation
9) Support a Honduran coup
10) Drag his feet in Keystone XL
11) Create a marine sanctuary off Hawaii
12) Piss off Philippine President Duterte
13) Complete the monstrous data storage center in Utah, which contains the emails, texts, phone calls and tweets of hundreds of millions of average Americans
14) Signed more (combined) Executive orders and "Presidential Memoranda" than any other President, including Truman, who up until Obama took the record.
http://moneymorning.com/2016/01/06/president-obama-is-the-most-controv
ersial-executive-action-user-in-u-s-history-heres-why/
15) Sent more troops back into Iraq
16) Failed to stem the wealth gap
I should really look into those Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda. But the list of Obama's "accomplishments" actually demonstrates my previous point:
The President's power resides PRIMARILY in the realm of "foreign policy", including negotiated treaties, trade agreements, and partnerships, military intervention and covert action. Exactly the place I don't want Hillary to be.
And where Hillary might do some good - domestic policy- she doesn't have much authority. I made this point before: It would be an interesting test if Congress turns Democratic. I know, SECOND, that you objected to this point because of the possibility of minority Senate Republicans filibustering everything. But you contradicted yourself, because even you yourself said that the filibuster COULD be done away with by a simple majority vote. So if Senatorial Democrats were truly hard-nosed, they could get their way. This would be a test, not only of Hillary's commitment to the American people, but also a test of the Democratic Senators' commitment.
Now, with that kind of legislative and executive power - like 2008 to 2011- the Democrats could choose to accomplish a lot. And if they made a real difference in the lives of everyday Americans they would ensure their hold on power for the foreseeable future. But like in 2008-2011, my bet s that they'd scurry from responsibility, like cockroaches when the light is turned on, because nobody but nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds them contributions, neither Democrats nor Republicans.
Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?
G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:1kiki wrote “Trade deals and provoke Russia.” Maybe you could revise that to “provoke any country” ? You do know that Russia isn’t that special, right? Maybe special to 1kiki and Russian megalomaniacs, but not to the USA or its President. 1kiki, did you notice that I once again "lied" because I removed a comma when I quoted you?
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"1kiki, if you really were correct then Obama also had "zero power""
YOU EFFING LIAR!!!
MAYBE IF I MAKE IT BIG ENOUGH, BOLD, ENOUGH, ITALIC ENOUGH, RED ENOUGH, CAPITAL ENOUGH, UNDERLINED ENOUGH
YOU'LL FINALLY FUCKING STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I'VE BEEN POSTING ALL ALONG
THERE ARE ONLY TWO - TWO - 2 - DOS - DUEX - DWA - EK - THINGS hillary WILL BE ABLE TO DO.
Trade deals, and provoke Russia.
Got it, now? Or are you so FUCKING dishonest you'll pretend to not understand it NOW?
Michael Moore in TrumpLand: Movie Review
www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/michael-moore-trumpland-939622
Carefully refraining from directly criticizing the Republican presidential nominee, Moore compares disaffected Americans to those Brits who voted for Brexit, saying that they "used the ballot box as an anger management tool." And he says that if Trump is elected, the voters will have declared "the biggest 'f— you' ever recorded in human history."
But his true agenda becomes clear when he talks about Clinton.
"Can't you say something nice about Hillary Clinton?" he implores the crowd. One male Trump supporter grudgingly allows that "she stood by her man."
Moore has his own nice thing to say about her: "I'm glad she killed Vince Foster," he announces to startled laughter. He proceeds to lampoon the many conspiracy theories that have sprung up about Clinton's supposed trail of bodies, referencing one internet site claiming that the candidate has been involved in the deaths of 46 people. Enthusing over her "badass" credentials, Moore crows, "ISIS is gonna shit if she's president!"
In other news: The Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Trump for president. The Review-Journal was bought late last year by billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a Trump supporter. It is the first major newspaper to give Trump its blessing. “Mr. Trump’s impulsiveness and overheated rhetoric alienate many voters,” its endorsement said. “He has trouble dealing with critics and would be wise to discover the power of humility.”
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why is Trump losing an entirely winnable race, especially since parties controlling the White House rarely hold on for a third-straight term?
Because the conservative echo chamber drowned out doubts about Trump. That Trump is trailing Clinton by double digits shouldn't be surprising. In the April NBC/WSJ poll -- before the GOP primary season concluded -- Clinton led Trump in a hypothetical matchup by 11 points (50%-39%), but she was ahead by just two points against Ted Cruz (46%-44%), and she trailed John Kasich by 12 (51%-39%). But GOP voters didn't listen to those MSM voices and poll numbers. As conservative radio host Charlie Sykes said back in August, "We've basically eliminated any of the referees, the gatekeepers. There's nobody."
www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/how-republicans-ended-trump-n67166
6
All Hillary haters can take comfort in knowing that she probably won't be elected for a second term, unless the GOP foolishly runs Trump against her and he once again gets struck by lightening.
https://twitter.com/RabidParrots/status/672034951399792641 
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
COOL - NOW I KNOW YOU READ IT! And you'd be hard pressed to lie about that again. In fact, now I know what it takes to make you look so fucking dishonest you can't avoid doing what I want.
BTW, I'll keep posting this until you respond to the facts. Though you DO seem afraid of facts about hillary. Why is that?
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
Let me just point out that the author left out vital relevant facts in the opinion piece. Doing that is known as cherry-picking. And whether you do that in the news, in discussion, in debate or in opinion, when you distort the facts, you've changed the nature of your communication into propaganda. But WE don't have any of THAT in the US, do we?!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
There are many, many problems with hillary. She breaks countries and starts wars wherever she goes. Right now, she and obama are drumming up war fever JUST TO WIN THE ELECTION. Never mind that it's not against some small hapless country full of brown people that most voters can't find on a map. No, hillary and obama are aiming a Russia, a fully capable nuclear equal. I wonder if they've considered that the Russian response to their war-mongering might be something they can't just turn off after the election.
hillary as a president would have zero power to keep her many, many empty promises. And she knows that, but it doesn't stop her from making them anyway, because people really are that gullible. So, why not? But even more than that, hillary herself doesn't believe them, as the leaked documents show. hillary is an empty husk of a person when it comes to integrity.
hillary is completely corrupt, mixing state power with personal gain, as the leaked emails about pay-to-play as Secy of State and her toadying speeches to GS show.
And there's the billary issue - co-abusers of women and children, equal, if not worse than anyone else on the campaign trail.
But the BIGGEST problem with hillary is her finger on the nuclear button. Having left Iraq, Libya, Ukraine and Syria in unfixable smoking ruins, and unable to admit or even understand that she was wrong, surrounded by her equally deluded neocons in the State Department, military and CIA who also think a nuclear war is winnable, deaf to warnings, she'd turn her attention toward Russia - with her fat finger on the nuclear button and US policy to launch nuclear weapons FIRST in her waddling hip pocket. Given her unblemished history of failure, I can't imagine anything could possibly go wrong.
POLO
Probabilities as of Sun Oct 23 2016
Hillary Clinton (D) 85% (+71.00)
Donald Trump (R) 14%
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Temper Temper 1kiki. 
____________________________________________
Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I hope you don't want a point by point agreement from me for all your facts. That is too much work. I'll make a blanket agreement to all facts, known and unknown about HRC: I respond to 1kiki's facts by writing that I believe you, 1kiki. You have changed my mind about Hillary. Every single thing you ever wrote is now a proven fact. You did a great job of making an airtight case against Hillary.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
COOL - NOW I KNOW YOU READ IT!
BTW, I'll keep posting this until you respond to the facts. Though you DO seem afraid of facts about hillary. Why is that?
I wish you had forced me to confront Hillary’s evil sooner, because I already voted a straight party ticket for Democrats. Woe is me. I now will have to live with my regrets.
Except Texas was going to pick Trump’s 38 electoral college delegates no matter how I voted. Maybe I should have withheld my vote? Vote for None of the Above? That might not have really made a difference, either.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/texas/#now
But looking at this election, who believes that 1kiki's "facts" make a difference, even if I believe every single one of these "facts”? Assuming everything 1kiki said about Hillary is true and Trump is still losing would suggest that 1kiki's version of the facts doesn't matter. Possibly, 1kiki's facts about Hillary are not believed by enough voters and that is why Trump is losing. 1kiki has four more years to make an even stronger case against Hillary for 2020.
What has not changed is I still don't want Trump as President.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME