ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
So, you welcome the return of the Neo-Confederate Slave States?
"sure, let's knock down everything, pave it all, build a REAL shit-hole!"
False-equivalence, you old dog....
The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
"sure, let's knock down everything, pave it all, build a REAL shit-hole!"
False-equivalence, you old dog....
Amoreena
Grown up Flower Child
A little sugar buzz doesn't hurt once in awhile.
If Hillary can make it till Nov, she will get my vote.
The right wing sites are screaming that the IRS is now investigating her foundation for pay to play.
Here is one snipped from Huffington post. (not right wing I think)
" The evidence showing clear-cut, stupid-proof, quid-pro-quo between Bill and Hillary Clinton donors and candidate Hillary Clinton is getting too obvious to ignore. The case of Rajiv Fernando, founder of Chicago-based high-frequency trading firm Chopper Trading, is the tip of the approaching iceberg. Thanks to State Department emails obtained by watchdog group, Citizens United, as well as investigative work by ABC News, we now know that Mr. Fernando gave up to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and tens of thousands more to assist Mrs. Clinton in paying off her 2008 campaign debt, while also acting as a major Clinton donation bundler.
In exchange for his fundraising prowess, Fernando secured a coveted spot on the powerful International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) and concomitant access to our nation’s highest-level intelligence. It’s a position for which the “wealthy commodities broker” had zero experience or knowledge. The blatant quid pro quo was confirmed in a September 11, 2009 email from Fernando to then Clinton deputy chief of staff (now campaign vice chairwoman), Huma Abedin: “If there is any way I can be a part of the list of the final 25 I would be grateful. Please let me know if there is anything you need me to do.”
Shortly after trying to have an ABC reporter arrested for legitimately asking him questions about this cozy arrangement, Mr. Fernando resigned from the ISAB, though he remains a big Clinton donor and is - in a laughable twist - a Clinton superdelegate."
more
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james...ly-to-lose-the-corruption-war_b_11251504.html
The right wing sites are screaming that the IRS is now investigating her foundation for pay to play.
Here is one snipped from Huffington post. (not right wing I think)
" The evidence showing clear-cut, stupid-proof, quid-pro-quo between Bill and Hillary Clinton donors and candidate Hillary Clinton is getting too obvious to ignore. The case of Rajiv Fernando, founder of Chicago-based high-frequency trading firm Chopper Trading, is the tip of the approaching iceberg. Thanks to State Department emails obtained by watchdog group, Citizens United, as well as investigative work by ABC News, we now know that Mr. Fernando gave up to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and tens of thousands more to assist Mrs. Clinton in paying off her 2008 campaign debt, while also acting as a major Clinton donation bundler.
In exchange for his fundraising prowess, Fernando secured a coveted spot on the powerful International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) and concomitant access to our nation’s highest-level intelligence. It’s a position for which the “wealthy commodities broker” had zero experience or knowledge. The blatant quid pro quo was confirmed in a September 11, 2009 email from Fernando to then Clinton deputy chief of staff (now campaign vice chairwoman), Huma Abedin: “If there is any way I can be a part of the list of the final 25 I would be grateful. Please let me know if there is anything you need me to do.”
Shortly after trying to have an ABC reporter arrested for legitimately asking him questions about this cozy arrangement, Mr. Fernando resigned from the ISAB, though he remains a big Clinton donor and is - in a laughable twist - a Clinton superdelegate."
more
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james...ly-to-lose-the-corruption-war_b_11251504.html
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
You must SURELY have at least ONE reason on which to base your notions that "there will [not] be any regression" as a result of a Tramp administration, and that "the right" is "getting over the hysteria".
A shred of proof, please - or even a scant suggestion of a real thought? God forbid, an ACTUAL argument supporting your assertion?
=====
if he wants to "enforce Federal law that is already on the books", what he's saying is that that he would enforce laws in a completely different fashion; since he shows no awareness of how our laws and government work, I suspect yet-another-con-jobHe said he wants to enforce federal law that is currently on the books. What do you think he meant by that? What I took away from the RNC: The camera angles during Melania's speech reminded me of Ivan Drago, I'm never watching Duck Dynasty again, and if the Republicans win the future is dim!
=====
...wow...'cause of course, Tramp hasn't lied yet - good thing you hate him so much, or I'd be forced by your constant cheerleading to assume you're among his biggest fanboys.
Fortunately, I think the issue is that you have lousy news sources and no sane people to talk to...and all that is fixable.
=====
Not sure how you missed this but Putin has been THE SINGLE BIGGEST FACTOR in our difficulties relating to and co-operating with Russia. Part of the US' historical inability to not fall for fascist strongmen in other countries: we've aligned ourselves with them PREFERENTIALLY for more than 100 years, just as our childish awe of monarchy and titles has always dazzled us poor Americans.If there is anything I agree with Trump on are his perspectives on Putin and the Russians. I have a very hard time accepting and understanding the knee-jerk hostile stance America always seems to take with Russia. It seems to me a more wise approach with the Russians is to become cooperative allies. Russia could easily be America's most significant partner. One thing is certain. America is safer when we have a friendly relationship with Russia.
Many of the problems we are currently having with Russia is because of Washington's confrontational posture. The shit that went down in the Ukraine is a perfect example of a problem Washington and the EU created by making economic and NATO military invitations to the Ukrainians was a HUGE THREAT to Russia's security. What would America do if Russia was seriously courting a receptive Canada not only economically but also militarily? This all seems very hypocritical and unwise to me on the part of the United States.
Last edited:
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
@ClearBlueLou we need to keep this respectful. Stu will close this thread down. Remember to be nice. I know it's hard at times. Positive debate is good. It's been a fun thread. SometimeS folks get frustrated, I know I have.
Edit
Donald Trump Jr is accusing Obama of plagiarizing him in his speech. Obama said, "that's not the America that I know." Donald Jr said that's what he said in his speech. Ha ha. Then later when people were laughing at him because of the absurdity. Guess what he said? "I'm kidding" or "I was joking". He's been listening to daddy. He's third generation asshole. Like grandpa too.
Obama has said that before and so has George W. Bush. I guess then Donald Jr was plageriazing them. What an idiot. Damn exotic animal killer, a rich boy with too much money.
Hillary's video was narrated by God, Morgan Freeman.
I wonder if Bernie supporters did the giant fart off when Hillary accepted the nomination? It was rumored that they were going to do that.
Edit again
@ClearBlueLou What you said was no big deal. I read it again. I'm being paranoid about this thread. Sorry.
Keith Olbermann Destroys Trump Campaign With Single Tweet - PoliticusUSA
www.politicususa.com › 2016/07/28 › ke...
Edit
Donald Trump Jr is accusing Obama of plagiarizing him in his speech. Obama said, "that's not the America that I know." Donald Jr said that's what he said in his speech. Ha ha. Then later when people were laughing at him because of the absurdity. Guess what he said? "I'm kidding" or "I was joking". He's been listening to daddy. He's third generation asshole. Like grandpa too.
Obama has said that before and so has George W. Bush. I guess then Donald Jr was plageriazing them. What an idiot. Damn exotic animal killer, a rich boy with too much money.
Hillary's video was narrated by God, Morgan Freeman.
I wonder if Bernie supporters did the giant fart off when Hillary accepted the nomination? It was rumored that they were going to do that.
Edit again
@ClearBlueLou What you said was no big deal. I read it again. I'm being paranoid about this thread. Sorry.
Keith Olbermann Destroys Trump Campaign With Single Tweet - PoliticusUSA
www.politicususa.com › 2016/07/28 › ke...
Last edited:
grokit
well-worn member
To get serious for a minute
, I wanted to be inspired by hillary's speech. I wasn't, really. She's just not a charismatic, telegenic, public speaker. But I'll tell ya what I was inspired by, and that was all the other folks that spoke, that were inspired by hillary. Not by her words, but because she somehow touched their life, and improved it, and personally inspired them along the way with her deeds. Pretty inspiring stuff, and exactly the opposite of the kind of energy being displayed by the other side. It's like she represents our higher selves, while drumpf only appeals to our collective id. I hope it's enough to hold off the worms.
, I wanted to be inspired by hillary's speech. I wasn't, really. She's just not a charismatic, telegenic, public speaker. But I'll tell ya what I was inspired by, and that was all the other folks that spoke, that were inspired by hillary. Not by her words, but because she somehow touched their life, and improved it, and personally inspired them along the way with her deeds. Pretty inspiring stuff, and exactly the opposite of the kind of energy being displayed by the other side. It's like she represents our higher selves, while drumpf only appeals to our collective id. I hope it's enough to hold off the worms.
ClearBlueLou
unbearably light in the being....
Don't mean to bring more dicey conversation in, and pretty sure I called no names, but I accept the admonishment. My intent was to point out contradictions, and to call attention to a tendency toward wild and unsupported assertions, and not to insult. If I have bruised, I am sorry. I CAN be schooled.
Snarky ill-spirited admonishments in response to opinions, and name calling, is not welcome, nor is it instructive - particularly when so off-base.
Last edited:
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
Just curious @ClearBlueLou , you don't cite any references for the posts where you give your thoughts. Why is it I am the only one who has to throw up links, etc.?
Thanks for assuming I can be 'fixed.' Makes it pretty clear your ideas about those who happen to disagree with you. I thought that kind of approach was only for those who voted Republican?
And if because I hate Hilary you think that means I'm defacto Trump, even though the only thing I ever said remotely positive was the one time he said he doesn't care about weed, then that's your problem. I don't argue against Trump on here because everyone agrees, so there's no need for argument. The argument I bring forth is that Hilary is just as bad in similar and different ways.
Thanks for assuming I can be 'fixed.' Makes it pretty clear your ideas about those who happen to disagree with you. I thought that kind of approach was only for those who voted Republican?
And if because I hate Hilary you think that means I'm defacto Trump, even though the only thing I ever said remotely positive was the one time he said he doesn't care about weed, then that's your problem. I don't argue against Trump on here because everyone agrees, so there's no need for argument. The argument I bring forth is that Hilary is just as bad in similar and different ways.
KimDracula
Well-Known Member
A false equivalency was indeed made and Trump is quite obviously a totally reactionary racist xenophobe. To those who like to attack atheists who are critical of religions like Islam, this is what real Islamophobia looks like (as well as real bigotry and racism of all other kinds).
Many people have enjoyed reducing Hillary Clinton to Trump's level somehow but rarely offer any substantive justification for it. Most simply assert she's a liar and a villain without saying why, which is always particularly telling when she has a long record to criticize if you're willing to actually have a conversation about things. When one candidate stands for nothing but hate, fear, and a shocking level of ignorance the choice actually becomes quite easy.
Anything but a vote for Hillary Clinton is helping a dangerous bigoted fool to become president. It really is a zero-sum game.
Many people have enjoyed reducing Hillary Clinton to Trump's level somehow but rarely offer any substantive justification for it. Most simply assert she's a liar and a villain without saying why, which is always particularly telling when she has a long record to criticize if you're willing to actually have a conversation about things. When one candidate stands for nothing but hate, fear, and a shocking level of ignorance the choice actually becomes quite easy.
Anything but a vote for Hillary Clinton is helping a dangerous bigoted fool to become president. It really is a zero-sum game.
lwien
Well-Known Member
Not even close. They're not even playing in the same ballpark. Similar and different? What we're talking about here is the degrees between good and bad, and right and wrong. While Hillary is no angel by any means, she is not a racist, or a bigot and just on those two issues alone, it places her wayyyyyy above Trump in the good/bad and right/wrong scale, and in this election, those things matter.
They're both untrustworthy, I give you that. But when you add racism and bigotry into the mix, it tips the scales in a very big way. What I'd like to know is why you can't see that?
Last edited:
grokit
well-worn member
It's like we have to make a faustian bargain to stop drumpf, and as much as I hate to admit it I'm okay with it this time around. Hillary will sign us up for even more middle-eastern and africom adventures, along with nato poking the bear while our naval forces act out in provocative fashion enforcing the asian pivot. Her hegemonic foreign policies were hardly touched upon during the convention, but in the crowd she runs with (kissenger & co.) it's pretty much a given that these policies will be continued if not expanded upon. As I've mentioned before, it's her past and expected future body count that gives me the most pause. But domestically she's pretty solid, and when compared to the alternative, a mussolini-type of buffoon that has the potential to make dubya's years of folly look like a walk in the park, I will go with the devil I know.
Bdubbdiblets
Well-Known Member
Agreed...2 negatives cancel out. Soooooooo we can move on to the other comparisons i.e. sexist, racist...hill dog clearly wins there.
I find it strange that hill dogs biggest critique is this untrustworthy notion...aren't they all a lil untrustworthy and hasn't it been that way forever...this is sobering indeed but it is what it is...unfortunatley.
Amoreena
Grown up Flower Child
That's what I've always believed about ALL politicians.
Edit: Maybe trust some people as much as 90%, but can count on the fingers of one hand, with fingers to spare, the folks (none politicians) I trust 100%.
Last edited:
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
I'm trying to get to know Hillary from a different perspective now that she is the nominee. I like hearing the stories and seeing the pictures of her as a young girl. She and Chelsea resemble so much. I'm trying to keep an open mind. Thinking about how she began her path in life.
I think you have to be a little bit diabolical in order to win a political election.
Trump is busy tweeting this morning while the grown ups are out working. No comparison. I think Trump's sons could end up being also part of his down fall.
Hillary is winning with white educated voters. Remember Trump loves the uneducated.
Edit
Twiiter tirade time - Trump is calling Michael Bloomberg as "little man". His handlers are going to have to duct tape his mouth to keep him quiet.
I think you have to be a little bit diabolical in order to win a political election.
Trump is busy tweeting this morning while the grown ups are out working. No comparison. I think Trump's sons could end up being also part of his down fall.
Hillary is winning with white educated voters. Remember Trump loves the uneducated.
Edit
Twiiter tirade time - Trump is calling Michael Bloomberg as "little man". His handlers are going to have to duct tape his mouth to keep him quiet.
Last edited:
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
I have linked multiple articles showing her racism. She's just not proud/loud about it.
TeeJay1952
Well-Known Member
@steama Bernie or Bust folk should start now. Win Local elections build to a national platform. All the kvetching now seems like "sour grapes"
Being in politics is like herding cats. We know where we want to go but allot of contrary and divergent viewpoints. It is difficult to separate the screamers from the scammers and the passionate from the profane but only adults stand in line to vote. (hint hint) This one is over but counting the votes. So vote. @CarolKing maybe you can lock hubby up with wild weekend so he doesn't notice.
Being in politics is like herding cats. We know where we want to go but allot of contrary and divergent viewpoints. It is difficult to separate the screamers from the scammers and the passionate from the profane but only adults stand in line to vote. (hint hint) This one is over but counting the votes. So vote. @CarolKing maybe you can lock hubby up with wild weekend so he doesn't notice.
rayski
Well-Known Member
Not much there! No equivalence. Trump pushes racism; Her past campaign didn't push back.
Bill ordered profiling as governer, so she's a racist?
You'd put credence to the word of Bill's jilted lover on how Hilary treats black women rather than the words of black women she's known for decades. Come on!
Yeah, she's not proud about the times she's shown cultural insensitivity because she's not a racist.
lwien
Well-Known Member
I must admit that I didn't read your links and I'm just too damn lazy to go back and search them out but I do think that this needs to be said.
If we all are REALLY honest about ourselves and look really deeply into ourselves, there are very few of us that can honestly say that we are totally free from any racial bias. When one considers our tribal DNA as well as how we were brought up as kids as well as what we were exposed to from a very young age, I would tend to think that there are very few, if ANY of us that can say that we don't have a racial bone in our body.
But..........I think that there are many of us who, when they recognize that racial bias is creeping in on our daily activities, we do our best to push them back into the primal areas of our soul. For me, I believe that I do that mostly unconsciously, but when I do it consciously, a bit of guilt creeps in and I kinda slap myself in the face saying, "what in the fuck am I thinking......??"
So when you say that Hillary is just not proud and loud about it, you are implying that Trump is loud and proud about it and when you are loud and proud of your racism, THAT takes it to a WHOLE other level.
Last edited:
yogoshio
Annoying Libertarian
Maybe I used the wrong phrase, but she has, since the inception of PC, always had multiple gaffs. She apologizes, etc., but then they keep popping up. And then against Obama there was a flood of racially biased talk, all of which has been forgiven by the media/public.
I just don't get why? Trump claims he doesn't have a problem, which is denial. Clinton says she doesn't have a problem, which is also denial. I see these as two sides of the same coin. Why does she get a pass when she apologizes but continues to maintain the problem, and Trump gets lambasted for saying what he's doing isn't even wrong? It IS wrong, don't misunderstand my argument, but what's the difference?
If I could say whatever I want and then apologize for it, does that make it any better when I say it again? Doesn't that just mean I'm not actually sorry and that I haven't changed my mind?
Pretending to be sorry but not actually changing IMO is the same as not seeing the problem in the 1st place.
I just don't get why? Trump claims he doesn't have a problem, which is denial. Clinton says she doesn't have a problem, which is also denial. I see these as two sides of the same coin. Why does she get a pass when she apologizes but continues to maintain the problem, and Trump gets lambasted for saying what he's doing isn't even wrong? It IS wrong, don't misunderstand my argument, but what's the difference?
If I could say whatever I want and then apologize for it, does that make it any better when I say it again? Doesn't that just mean I'm not actually sorry and that I haven't changed my mind?
Pretending to be sorry but not actually changing IMO is the same as not seeing the problem in the 1st place.
CarolKing
Singer of songs and a vapor connoisseur
@yogoshio You just don't get it. I honestly don't think there's anybody here that can get you to understand that there are degrees of saying inappropriate things. Trump has gone way over the top.
When he made fun of the newsman with cerebral palsy I honestly thought he was done. Never underestimate the madness of the American people.
At first he was entertaining and he does occasionally say something funny. Now he's not funny. He's dangerous. He's threatening my life here in my country. I don't want this man representing my country. A vote for anybody else but Hillary Clinton is a vote for Donald Trump.
How can anybody allow this hater and fear monger to hijack our nation is beyond me.
The Republican Party is crazier than I ever gave them credit for.
When he made fun of the newsman with cerebral palsy I honestly thought he was done. Never underestimate the madness of the American people.
At first he was entertaining and he does occasionally say something funny. Now he's not funny. He's dangerous. He's threatening my life here in my country. I don't want this man representing my country. A vote for anybody else but Hillary Clinton is a vote for Donald Trump.
How can anybody allow this hater and fear monger to hijack our nation is beyond me.
The Republican Party is crazier than I ever gave them credit for.
Last edited:
gangababa
Well-Known Member
Is it possible that Trump is pulling off the Yuuuugest trolling project ever.
His ego seems to be large enough that he likely gets great reward from 'sticking it to others'.
To pull of a major punking of the entire Republican party could be his plan and purpose.
He consistently sames crazy things; going further than before in each new outrageous statement.
And still the supporters cheer.
Perhaps Trump is flabbergasted to find each time that there is no bottom to the insanity.
This year's late October surprise may be Trump (seeing his loss as inevitable) saying,
"I wish to address my Republican Party supporters. From the day I announced my candidacy, disparaging Mexicans, I have not been able to find the point at which my supporters' humanity would finally surface and my crass and boorish behavior would be rejected.
I have never found that bottom to your hatred and ignorance. Whether I bad mouth women, minorities, the alternately able-ed, veterans, war-heros, our military, or praise the despots and dictators of the world, you simply won't quit supporting me.
Therefore, my fellow Americans, I can not in good conscience be the leader of a country that is half crazy.
If elected I will not serve."
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Please tell me which post those links are in.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
YES!
North Carolina voting restrictions rejected by appeals court
07/29/16 04:52 PM
By Steve Benen
Voting-rights advocates have had a pretty encouraging month. As discussed the other day, last Tuesday, a federal court issued a ruling mitigating some of the voter-ID restrictions imposed by Wisconsin Republicans. A day later, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals shot down part of Texas’ voter-suppression campaign. By Friday, a federal court issued an injunction blocking a Michigan GOP measure banning straight-ticket voting in the state.
But perhaps no ruling as important as the one handed down this afternoon. MSNBC’s Zach Roth, who has a new book out on voting rights, published this report:
Keep in mind, few states were as brutal in imposing new voting restrictions as North Carolina. Not long after taking office, Gov. Pat McCrory (R) partnered with the state’s Republican-run legislature to put all kinds of new hurdles between North Carolinians and the ballot box: Roth’s report noted that GOP officials “imposed a voter ID requirement, cut early voting opportunities, eliminated same-day voter registration and banned out-of-precinct voting, among other provisions.”
By the state’s own admission, these voting restrictions disproportionately affected the state’s African-American population.
The 4th Circuit wasn’t impressed with North Carolina’s brazenness. “The only clear factor linking these various ‘reforms’ is their impact on African American voters,” the appeals court ruling said, adding, “[W]e can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.”
The decision went on to say, “We recognize that elections have consequences, but winning an election does not empower anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination.”
The ruling also notes that North Carolina Republicans, who scrapped early-voting opportunities for reasons even they couldn’t explain, specifically sought data on racial breakdowns in early voting, then eliminated those days most likely to be used by African-American voters.
It’s a safe bet that GOP officials in the state, eager to use these restrictions to keep Democrats from winning elections, will appeal today’s decision.
------------------
Good luck with that appeal...
North Carolina voting restrictions rejected by appeals court
07/29/16 04:52 PM
By Steve Benen
Voting-rights advocates have had a pretty encouraging month. As discussed the other day, last Tuesday, a federal court issued a ruling mitigating some of the voter-ID restrictions imposed by Wisconsin Republicans. A day later, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals shot down part of Texas’ voter-suppression campaign. By Friday, a federal court issued an injunction blocking a Michigan GOP measure banning straight-ticket voting in the state.
But perhaps no ruling as important as the one handed down this afternoon. MSNBC’s Zach Roth, who has a new book out on voting rights, published this report:
A federal appeals court on Friday struck down the heart of a North Carolina voting law seen as the strictest in the nation, finding that Republican lawmakers intentionally discriminated against African-Americans when they passed it.
A divided 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the measure’s provisions “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”
A divided 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the measure’s provisions “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”
Keep in mind, few states were as brutal in imposing new voting restrictions as North Carolina. Not long after taking office, Gov. Pat McCrory (R) partnered with the state’s Republican-run legislature to put all kinds of new hurdles between North Carolinians and the ballot box: Roth’s report noted that GOP officials “imposed a voter ID requirement, cut early voting opportunities, eliminated same-day voter registration and banned out-of-precinct voting, among other provisions.”
By the state’s own admission, these voting restrictions disproportionately affected the state’s African-American population.
The 4th Circuit wasn’t impressed with North Carolina’s brazenness. “The only clear factor linking these various ‘reforms’ is their impact on African American voters,” the appeals court ruling said, adding, “[W]e can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.”
The decision went on to say, “We recognize that elections have consequences, but winning an election does not empower anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination.”
The ruling also notes that North Carolina Republicans, who scrapped early-voting opportunities for reasons even they couldn’t explain, specifically sought data on racial breakdowns in early voting, then eliminated those days most likely to be used by African-American voters.
It’s a safe bet that GOP officials in the state, eager to use these restrictions to keep Democrats from winning elections, will appeal today’s decision.
------------------
Good luck with that appeal...