So lets see how far over the top we can take this conversation, eh?
War with Russia would be WWIII. Hillary has been very open about the fact she wants war with Russia.
So...
So, is the US Presidential election actually over?
- Thread starter cybrguy
- Start date
- Status
War with Russia would be WWIII. Hillary has been very open about the fact she wants war with Russia.
So...
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
I dislike Hillary and much of what she stands for. In the short time I've been here, I think I've made that fairly clear. I also believe she would have been far more likely to intentionally bring us to war than a Trump administration will be.Meh....not necessarily
Hillary has been pushing for war with Russia for the last decade, and blames literally everything on them to try to back/justify her psychotic lust for WWIII, and obviously 90% of the media are hacks and left wing shills who echo and parrot back whatever it is she wants them to.
That's not to say Russia didn't do anything, but whenever Hillary and her cabal blame Russia for something, I have to just assume they are lying.
BUT...........even though she saw the Russians as an enemy while running this time, she is the architect of the reset. It was one of her worst errors as Secretary of State; not asking the 80's for their foreign policy back. She screwed up and, I hope, at least some did not vote for her for that very reason.
So, I guess I kinda agree with you--except for the time line. (And, a bit of hyperbole.) Hillary has only recently come into her profound dislike for the Russians--for reasons. It does not stretch back a decade.
It is a good thing recounts have deadlines or we might still be debating the 2008 election. (Hoping for a saving throw of recount fact to keep from moderation.) To really see who benefits from a recount, see who is paying for it. It is odd to me that Ms. Stein is so suddenly popular however.
http://time.com/money/4584102/jill-...ing-election-wisconsin-michigan-pennsylvania/
Jill Stein could raise twice as much money in her effort to recount election votes than she did during her own failed presidential bid.
The Green Party candidate has already raised $6.3 million to recount election votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, according to her campaign website. She’s within striking distance of her goal of $7 million and has far exceeded the $3.5 million she raised during her presidential campaign.
The Green Party candidate has already raised $6.3 million to recount election votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, according to her campaign website. She’s within striking distance of her goal of $7 million and has far exceeded the $3.5 million she raised during her presidential campaign.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Really? I must have missed that. Could you provide a direct quote from her where she states that she wants a war with Russia?
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Ya gotta open up ya'lls reading repertoire. Throw in a little from the alts on the Right AND the Left.
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/10/20/hillary-clinton-just-say-okay-going-war-russia/
http://theantimedia.org/hillary-no-fly-zone-civilians-war-russia/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...d_syria_policy_could_start_a_nuclear_war.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/21/us/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-putin-russia.html?_r=0
lwien
Well-Known Member
There is not one statement in any of those links where Hillary states that she wants a war with Russia. They all revolve around her desire to set up a no-fly zone in Syria.
Drawing the conclusion that she "wants" a war with Russia because of her desire to set up a no-fly zone would be the same thing as stating that Kennedy wanted a war with Russia during the Cuban Missile crisis which would be an equally absurd assumption.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
You can argue the point if you like. Just not with me. If you want to call someone out for not having any basis for what they wrote, I think it unfair to quibble when someone posts multiple articles that say essentially the same thing. Maybe not as aggressively, but the same.
GreenDragon
Well-Known Member
Facts. Good luck with that.
Most reasonable people understand what a fact is and how that is different from fiction.
Others folks... not so much.
The truth is the last thing they want to hear.
Facts would only further prevent them from recreating "The good old days".
While politics is an art of deception, this election cycle has taken that aspect to the extreme.
Facts are flexible and Truth is dead.
All facts guaranteed factual by www.FrightFart.com, the most factual of all facting web facters. Factating since 19facty4. And that's a fact. Believe me, it's huge.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
little maggie
Well-Known Member
The election is over. But some of the perspectives here are really surprising. Like Hilary wanting war. In spite of the things that Trump is setting in motion, the majority of people who voted for Trump or voted for neither Trump or Hilary are happy with their decision. And then there are those- maybe only in the NW, who have committed or attempted suicide because of the results of the election.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
The scarey part is this SOB is going to have the nuclear codes come Jan. He's spending his free time tweeting out insults to college kids and the media. He needs to be boning up on constitutional laws and foreign policies.
This president needs to be watched over and made sure he doesn't tweet the wrong thing. As president of America, what he says makes a difference in the world and can cause problems if he says the wrong thing - that's what I'm afraid of. This isn't a damn TV show.
What about the conflict of interest with all his properties? When he complained about the Clinton foundation and what a conflict it was, he told America that he didn't care about his businesses because his job would be to make America great. His kids would be taking over. Now he claims he can run his business and his companies and the country all at the same time.
This fiasco of him parading all these contestants to fill the various jobs is degrading and rediculous that folks are putting up with this. Mitt Romney has no pride what so ever - he doesn't look strong and wise. He looks stupid and lacking character. Talk about eating crow, and for the world to see. Now if Trump doesn't appoint Romney he will look small and vindictive. Only appearing to be playing a cat and mouse game.
Trump feels he has free speech and can say whatever he wants but the citizens of this country can't? He wants to limit the media's access to the presidency when he's in office. I'm feeling frightened with the next four years we having coming up. Maybe he will piss off the republicans and they will impeach him.
This president needs to be watched over and made sure he doesn't tweet the wrong thing. As president of America, what he says makes a difference in the world and can cause problems if he says the wrong thing - that's what I'm afraid of. This isn't a damn TV show.
What about the conflict of interest with all his properties? When he complained about the Clinton foundation and what a conflict it was, he told America that he didn't care about his businesses because his job would be to make America great. His kids would be taking over. Now he claims he can run his business and his companies and the country all at the same time.
This fiasco of him parading all these contestants to fill the various jobs is degrading and rediculous that folks are putting up with this. Mitt Romney has no pride what so ever - he doesn't look strong and wise. He looks stupid and lacking character. Talk about eating crow, and for the world to see. Now if Trump doesn't appoint Romney he will look small and vindictive. Only appearing to be playing a cat and mouse game.
Trump feels he has free speech and can say whatever he wants but the citizens of this country can't? He wants to limit the media's access to the presidency when he's in office. I'm feeling frightened with the next four years we having coming up. Maybe he will piss off the republicans and they will impeach him.
Last edited:
grokit
well-worn member
He doesn't even have to issue a financial disclosure until May 2018, by then they will have new ethical guidelines set up that puts him in the clear. Because he needs to be free to "make great deals"
And Trump won’t have to file a comprehensive annual report of his assets, income, gifts and stock portfolio until May 2018, according to U.S. Office of Government Ethics requirements. (Trump has so far refused to release his federal or state income tax returns; three pages of his 1995 New York state income tax return obtained by The New York Times showed he declared $916 million in losses but few other details.)
https://www.propublica.org/article/...reign-business-deals-violate-the-constitution
Last edited:
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
From Wikipedia:
The Flag Protection Act of 2005 was a proposed United States federal law introduced in the United States Senate at the 109th United States Congress on October 24, 2005, by Senator Bob Bennett (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). Later co-sponsors included Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Thomas Carper (D-Del.).[1]
The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both.[1][2][3]
The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both.[1][2][3]
lwien
Well-Known Member
True but.............there is no mention of taking away a persons citizenship which would also be unconstitutional but which Trump proposed.
In one sentence, Trump proposed TWO things that are unconstitutional.
The other thing is that Trumps Supreme Court God, Scalia, voted FOR allowing flag burning to be part of a persons first amendment right.
Also, in regards to your post, it brings up the old adage of ..........two wrongs don't make a right.
Over........and out.
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
Not "unconstitutional", but there is no provision in the law for doing so to citizens.
I did not bring up a two wrong make a right argument, but put out the fact both sides are "unAmerikan". One tweeted his opinion, the other tried to make an unconstitutional law in order to game the Supreme Court.
lwien
Well-Known Member
That's like saying that there's no provision in a law that allows murder.
"The law prohibits the taking of your citizenship against your will."
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
Tranquility
Well-Known Member
So, we agree there is no provision in the law for the government to remove citizenship under our conditions and that that provision is not in the Constitution?
The point I made was that "taking away a persons citizenship" is not unconstitutional. If Trump actually denied a person his rights under color of authority and those rights were clearly established at the time of the breach, he could be sued in a Biven's action.
You'll have to flesh out the murder argument a bit more as I don't understand your point. Maybe it's because I'm thinking in jargon and not English and might be using some of the words more technically than appropriate here. (Unless the point is breaking any law is unconstitutional.)
How is that surprising? Hillary is one of, if not the, biggest war hawks in Washington. She has supported pretty much every war since she has been in politics.
I mean just as an example, both Obama and the right wing war chiefs were against war with Libya, but Hillary kept at it with Obama until he finally relented and bombed the shit out of Libya. While Libya is not a great place by any means, by regional standards, it was one of the better countries in the region, now completely destroyed, thousands of innocent people slaughtered (mostly women and children) That's all Hillary. And she brags about it and lists that as a proud accomplishment.
I think people who support her have painted some delusional picture in their minds of her being some kindly old grandma. While she is essentially just the female version of Dick Cheney, with a "D" slapped in front of her name to fool people into thinking that she is not a neo-con.
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
This thread's looking like a sequel to the one many of us were bombarding till the play ended, the curtain came up and Trump was handed the bouquet.
Something I noticed about the old thread that I'm not sure isn't just part of my imagination.....
The old election thread had many more democrats participating than republicans and had way more Hillary supporters at the end than Trump supporters. There was one other thread where the demographics seemed to be skewed toward Trump supporters and it was something about Wiki Leaks. Now that Trump has won there seems to be more people willing to stand up as a Trump supporter or at the very least "not a Hillary supporter". Is this just my imagination?
Before anyone takes the above to be a shot at Trump supporters or the anti-Hillary supporters let me just say, it's not. It's just an observation of mine and I may be wrong. Another thing that may just be my imagination is that the Trump supporters were less abrasive and less debatable/vocal than us democrats in that old election thread as well as the Wiki thread I mentioned where they seemed to be the dominant participants. I wonder if it was because the Trump supporters were so outnumbered on this site that they were uncomfortable getting into a confrontation for fear of being outnumbered.
I think one of the reasons I was so surprised by the election result was my view may have been skewed through the prism of those threads. Then there's also the fact that I have way more people in my life who are liberal/dems and that may have also added to the surprise.
In answer to the thread's subject line...Yes, the election is actually over. My candidate lost by the way.
Something I noticed about the old thread that I'm not sure isn't just part of my imagination.....
The old election thread had many more democrats participating than republicans and had way more Hillary supporters at the end than Trump supporters. There was one other thread where the demographics seemed to be skewed toward Trump supporters and it was something about Wiki Leaks. Now that Trump has won there seems to be more people willing to stand up as a Trump supporter or at the very least "not a Hillary supporter". Is this just my imagination?
Before anyone takes the above to be a shot at Trump supporters or the anti-Hillary supporters let me just say, it's not. It's just an observation of mine and I may be wrong. Another thing that may just be my imagination is that the Trump supporters were less abrasive and less debatable/vocal than us democrats in that old election thread as well as the Wiki thread I mentioned where they seemed to be the dominant participants. I wonder if it was because the Trump supporters were so outnumbered on this site that they were uncomfortable getting into a confrontation for fear of being outnumbered.
I think one of the reasons I was so surprised by the election result was my view may have been skewed through the prism of those threads. Then there's also the fact that I have way more people in my life who are liberal/dems and that may have also added to the surprise.
In answer to the thread's subject line...Yes, the election is actually over. My candidate lost by the way.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Nope.
Havelock Vetenari
Patrician
I keep hoping it's not...and expecting to wake up from this nightmare.
I'll grasp at straws at that...
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/201...-to-block-trump-s-inauguration-001288257.html
The man is obviously not fit for the position.
(He's more interested in his tweet following than in security briefings to give 1(!) example.)
I'll grasp at straws at that...
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/201...-to-block-trump-s-inauguration-001288257.html
The man is obviously not fit for the position.
(He's more interested in his tweet following than in security briefings to give 1(!) example.)
BD9
Well-Known Member
I just read that on my 'news' page. I emailed my senator Friday, Monday and yesterday asking him to not vote her back into a leadership position. My senator seems to be telling me something.............
- Status