gangababa
Well-Known Member
The Republican Party's fundamental thesis: You won't be allowed to VOTE. We will DECIDE.
The 2016 Presidential Candidates Thread
- Thread starter CarolKing
- Start date
The Republican Party's fundamental thesis: You won't be allowed to VOTE. We will DECIDE.
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I'd love to 'like' this post but it strikes me as the equivalent of saying something similar to Beetle-juice three times.
EDIT: Oh what the hell.....'like' it tiz
Last edited:
. Yes. For someone who has been beaten up for so long, by so many, why give them any reason to bash or hand them sticks....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...e-reason-she-mustn-t-hand-them-any-clubs.html
Edit: Here is another take on that AP story.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57c1db75e4b0267344505818
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
This one is Lose - Lose now. Step away from the foundation and it's.... 'see, she must have been doing something wrong or she wouldn't have resigned from the foundation'. Stay with the foundation and 'see, she's planning on ramping up her retirement account even more as president'. The best that can come out of this now is that nothing is found that sticks 'legally' and this becomes just another innuendo to her litany of unconfirmed shady events.
It's been said before.....good thing Trump is the opponent.
grokit
well-worn member
The russians appear to be playing ball with both "sides" in this election 
But what about the uranium scandal?
The what?
Before I quote a NY Times piece on this, consider—-suppose, just suppose the beautiful first couple, Bill and Hillary, have been running a parallel operation to the government, in the form of a Foundation that is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want (and get) serious political favors.
Well, current news stories confirm that. We already know that.
But uranium?
Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.
Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is owned by a Canadian mining company.
The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.
But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.
The State Department is headed up by Hillary Clinton. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.
The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Getting the picture?
Memory is short. On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.
The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.
From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States."
But what about the uranium scandal?
The what?
Before I quote a NY Times piece on this, consider—-suppose, just suppose the beautiful first couple, Bill and Hillary, have been running a parallel operation to the government, in the form of a Foundation that is taking in major chunks of cash from people who want (and get) serious political favors.
Well, current news stories confirm that. We already know that.
But uranium?
Consider this plot line. Follow the bouncing ball.
Putin wants 20% of uranium on US soil. That 20% is owned by a Canadian mining company.
The Canadian executives want to sell it to Putin.
But because uranium is a US “national security” product, various US federal agencies have to OK the deal. One of those agencies is the US State Department.
The State Department is headed up by Hillary Clinton. Her Department says yes to the uranium deal.
The kicker? Those Canadian mining executives, who wanted the sale to Putin to go through, donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.
Getting the picture?
Memory is short. On April 23, 2015, the NY Times ran a story under the headline: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal.
The bare bones of the story: a Canadian company called Uranium One controlled a great deal of uranium production in the US. It was sold to Russia (meaning Putin and his minions). So Putin now controls 20% of US uranium production.
From the Times: “…the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States."
Last edited:
I still don't see a problem with Pay to Play or whatever anyone chooses to call it - stroking egoist fringe regimes to play by our rules and pay to do so sounds like a win win strategy to me, one that government on it's own and always on our dime has never been any good at. Turning dirty money into clean is the height of goodwill alchemy, and I'm all for it. Hypocrites from both sides of the isle are only now rearing their two-faced heads, or staying hypocritically silent, when all along they were silently singing their praises for all the good the foundation has done. Much ado about zilch.
Last edited:
Civilized and meaningful discussion seems difficult to achieve anywhere when it comes to these topics. Thank you to all the folks who are making it happen here.
Where's lwien?
Disrupting the peace and harmony of the community and posting for the purpose of starting a dispute is against the rules. It's a balancing act in threads like these, and by the same token participants should know what they're getting into based on the topic.
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
Quick Takes: Media Winners and Losers
by Nancy LeTourneau
August 29, 2016 4:55 PM
When the gold medalist in both-sider-ism writes a column titled, “There’s Simply No Equivalence,” it might be time to shake the tambourines and shout “Alleluia!” It’s true…this one comes from none other than Ron Fournier.
OK, so he hasn’t quite made it across the finish line yet. But that’s a far cry from what we’re used to seeing from Fournier.
by Nancy LeTourneau
August 29, 2016 4:55 PM
When the gold medalist in both-sider-ism writes a column titled, “There’s Simply No Equivalence,” it might be time to shake the tambourines and shout “Alleluia!” It’s true…this one comes from none other than Ron Fournier.
On one hand, Clinton. On the other hand, Trump. That’s the unfortunate choice facing voters in a system rigged heavily in favor of the two major parties.
But there’s no equivalence.
On one hand, Benghazi and email and lies.
On the other hand, mendacity, bigotry, bullyism, narcissism, sexism, selfishness, sociopathology, and a lack of understanding or interest in public policy—all to extremes unseen in modern presidential politics.
But there’s no equivalence.
On one hand, Benghazi and email and lies.
On the other hand, mendacity, bigotry, bullyism, narcissism, sexism, selfishness, sociopathology, and a lack of understanding or interest in public policy—all to extremes unseen in modern presidential politics.
OK, so he hasn’t quite made it across the finish line yet. But that’s a far cry from what we’re used to seeing from Fournier.
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
The russians appear to be playing ball with both "sides" in this election
But what about the uranium scandal?
Yeah I am not buying it.
25 years of the media and the reich going after the Clintons in a way that no other candidate has been gone after is getting tiresome to put it mildly. Obama got mild treatment compared to the Clintons.
Admittedly it is hard to find the truth without putting some time into it but it can be found.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/
I guess it comes down to deal with that once now or deal with it forever. If no foul is found, then game on.
Gunky
Well-Known Member
The foundation offers lifesaving AIDS therapy to millions of people who might otherwise die. How dare the Clintons take donations from [supply name here] to accomplish those goals!
You know, it's a shame that shmoozing, back-scratching, mutual favor-doing, and yeah even pork type political deals are out of favor nowadays. People are such silly purists. How do you think anything really gets done politically? This is part of the reason Congress has been paralyzed in recent years - ever since Hastert got rid of pork there hasn't been much of any means to sway votes and get shit done. Pork was the grease so to speak that lubricated the axle of the wheels of legislation.
You know, it's a shame that shmoozing, back-scratching, mutual favor-doing, and yeah even pork type political deals are out of favor nowadays. People are such silly purists. How do you think anything really gets done politically? This is part of the reason Congress has been paralyzed in recent years - ever since Hastert got rid of pork there hasn't been much of any means to sway votes and get shit done. Pork was the grease so to speak that lubricated the axle of the wheels of legislation.
Last edited:
lwien
Well-Known Member
Totally agree. Gotta have some wheelin' and dealin' in there, i.e., schmoozing.
Bill was one of the best at that. No doubt, he still is. Sadly, btw, that was lacking a bit with Obama. Yeah, I know the roadblocks that were put up, but still, he's no Bill Clinton. Politics really is all about relationships.
Remember Antoin "Tony" Rezko and Rod Blagojevich?
I am not saying close it down. Others are...
But Clinton should have insulated herself as SoS from the foundation. She chose not to.
Weigh it. Deal with it. Or don't...
That, is the reason we are in this mess right now.
"During their campaigns for president eight years ago, one of the things Hillary blasted then-Senator Obama for was his ties to a pay-to-play schemer and political fundraiser Tony Rezko, a man Hillary referred to as a Chicago “slumlord.” If you’re not familiar with Obama’s close relationship with Rezko, that’s probably because the media then saw only a lot of smoke, but no fire.
As it turns out, Rezko was convicted and jailed for fraud and money laundering in his own pay-to-play scheme. NPR reported in 2011:".
Rod got 14 years
Tony got 10
Edit: To be fair, maybe I am wrong and there are different degrees of pay to play that count or different degrees of right and wrong, for that matter. ( Not how I was raised)
Is there a difference between selling* the Chinese president a seat next to Biden or some $5 million donor buying* seat on some national security panel? (Both happened here)
Where is the line drawn?
Just saying.
Edit2: let's make America great again, with pork and shady backroom deals?..
Ohh boy..
Edit3. Nothing gets done because we have racist political leaders who refuse to work with a black President. No amount of pork can fix that.
I am not saying close it down. Others are...
But Clinton should have insulated herself as SoS from the foundation. She chose not to.
Weigh it. Deal with it. Or don't...
That, is the reason we are in this mess right now.
"During their campaigns for president eight years ago, one of the things Hillary blasted then-Senator Obama for was his ties to a pay-to-play schemer and political fundraiser Tony Rezko, a man Hillary referred to as a Chicago “slumlord.” If you’re not familiar with Obama’s close relationship with Rezko, that’s probably because the media then saw only a lot of smoke, but no fire.
As it turns out, Rezko was convicted and jailed for fraud and money laundering in his own pay-to-play scheme. NPR reported in 2011:".
Rod got 14 years
Tony got 10
Edit: To be fair, maybe I am wrong and there are different degrees of pay to play that count or different degrees of right and wrong, for that matter. ( Not how I was raised)
Is there a difference between selling* the Chinese president a seat next to Biden or some $5 million donor buying* seat on some national security panel? (Both happened here)
Where is the line drawn?
Just saying.
Edit2: let's make America great again, with pork and shady backroom deals?..
Ohh boy..
Edit3. Nothing gets done because we have racist political leaders who refuse to work with a black President. No amount of pork can fix that.
Last edited:
Gunky
Well-Known Member
Yes, there is a discernible difference separating criminality from a whole host of phenomena like influence peddling, back-scratching, favor-swapping (including what is now termed 'pork', things like federal construction projects, military bases, etc etc) and other time-honored methods of political persuasion. Without these things, very few of the great legislative accomplishments in the US over the last 240 years would have happened. With our new-found puritanism and omnipresent, gotcha media coverage, we have turned compromise into a dirty word and allowed our government and society to become seriously challenged and to a considerable degree paralyzed. You hardly ever even hear the word compromise any more; it has been replaced by 'flip-flop'.
Last edited:
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
I'm good with the compromise needed to make things happen as long as they are done transparently.
The recent comments I've seen that attempt to justify favor swapping, pay for play, whatever the term .... done in the dark is just plain wrong. There is a reason something is done as a backroom deal and it's not because the deal was 'good for the people'.
The recent comments I've seen that attempt to justify favor swapping, pay for play, whatever the term .... done in the dark is just plain wrong. There is a reason something is done as a backroom deal and it's not because the deal was 'good for the people'.
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
Fixed, and you know what I meant.
Waiting...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/why-republicans-dont-compromise/280346/
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
They aren't waiting on pork. They are waiting on him to magically change the color of his skin...
An honest answer! I thank you!
Silat
When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind.
They do not care about that either. When they start in on Hillary it will make Obama's time in office look like a picnic.
Dems have allowed this to happen because they did not fight back and appeased the reich at almost every turn.
And the failed 4th estate must take much of the blame for the rise of the crazy reich.
I agree here also, but will it be because of her past or more misogynistic, because she is a woman?
His_Highness
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
All of the above PLUS the most important factor....she's not a republican.
EDIT: This ceased being about finding common ground and doing something for the people. It's as simple as 'If the idea didn't come from my party I am against it..... because I need to get re-elected'. Any republican that had any interest in compromising with Obama in an attempt to do right by his/her constituency knows that when their primary occurs they will lose to the republican competitor who didn't compromise. This alone will make it interesting for those who refuse to back Trump AND are openly stating they will vote for HRC.
Last edited:
cybrguy
Putin is a War Criminal
With the Senate back in the hands of Democrats, and the House closer (at least) to parity I think there is a good chance that the Republicans will be less obstructionist that they were with President Obama. The nod nod wink wink "don't let that black dude have any wins" attitude the repubs took will drop off automatically with Hillary's whiteness, so all they will be left with is obstructing the Democrats, and while that has plenty of kick it will be way less powerful than the racial aspect. And with the President "better" reflecting the majority of voters (being a white female) I think the misogyny built into the repub base (old white men) will drop off considerably. No, I'm not foolish enough to think it will go away, but I do think it will be markedly diminished.
Yes, I will admit there is some wishful thinking involved in this prediction, but I do have more faith in this possible eventuality than the CW or the average reader of this group may have.
Most progress only occurs when people believe it can. While belief is certainly not enough, it IS essential.
Yes, I will admit there is some wishful thinking involved in this prediction, but I do have more faith in this possible eventuality than the CW or the average reader of this group may have.
Most progress only occurs when people believe it can. While belief is certainly not enough, it IS essential.