Voting against Trump is no excuse for voting for Clinton. They're both evil. Determining which one is more evil is a pointless exercise. Trump has disagreeable moral opinions unacceptable to a majority of Americans. Clinton has a reprehensible record of moral atrocities on a global scale unacceptable to humanity in general. If you people elect either one of these, you have no moral compass.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Wednesday October 26, 2016 @04:10PM (#53157027)
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
Nope.
Anyone who feels it necessary to point anything out as a womens or minorities right (as opposed to a human right) absolutely cannot be taken seriously.
Source: I am a strong independent black woman who don't need no man.
I'd rather have policies that apply to just "people" as a whole instead of "only this one specific subset of people".
Tell you what. The day you can prove to me that your policies that are meant to be applied equally actually really do get applied equally in all major regions, I'll stop requesting policies that counteract discrimination and bias.
> I can see it now. Remember 1000 years ago the black person was a slave
Forgetting for a minute that your number is off, the black person is still an underclass. Liberals delight in telling us this. Not only are they an underclass but they have no hope of changing this fact due to "white privilege". Their only hope is to trust in the party to care for them.
Beyond your argument ad absurdism or false strawman, there will even be winners a losers. Even if Huey Newton IV becomes an Assad style despot, there
Sure they were, just as there was also human sacrifice. Until recently slavery was seen as the norm pretty much everywhere you had enough people to have a slave economy.
You're both fighting over the wrong thing, though.
We'll never have things perfectly even. And your suggestion simply helps create new prejudice rather than doing anything to actually fix the existing harmful prejudices. Victimizing new people is not the way to settle old grudges.
The correct way to help people is to help all disadvantaged persons. This can (and should) provide disproportionate help to those who have been systematically victimized. But, more importantly, it's a neutral way to help people.
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
Since you can't accurately cite the candidates actual policies, your opinion is irrelevant. But no, I don't want a president who wants to implement a more progressive tax code or maintain the status quo on regulations. That is what is killing this country's economy and needs to change. That alone disqualifies both women running and makes any other candidate better.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Thursday October 27, 2016 @03:02AM (#53159687)
Citing opinion pieces as fact is flat wrong. There is no editorial review or fact checking, just people writing whatever they feel, regardless of how far from reality that is.
Citing opinion pieces as fact is flat wrong. There is no editorial review or fact checking, just people writing whatever they feel, regardless of how far from reality that is.
Sounds like the mainstream media to me. Regarding the articles, there are plenty of facts in them if you bothered to expose yourself to some truth and some alternate viewpoints. Some of it is right from Hillary's own campaign thanks to Wikileaks.
Liberals love diversity when they think it helps them win elections, but hate diversity when someone has a differing opinion. Useful idiots indeed . ..
Don't worry JustNiz is on a roll, I'm still figuring by his pattern of replies if he gets payed by word or post, but now we know for sure he gets a bonus per link, the closer to rense.com fringe the more $. Go take a nap Niz, we get it, you love Trump and everyone else is a D, and a retard.
I really don't love Trump, he's an idiot, I'm actually solidly in the "Anyone but Hillary" camp. Why? because corruption is BY FAR the biggest problem in US government and it affects everyone living in the US every day of our lives. There is an avalanche of information out there showng how the Clinton dynasty is completely corrupt, and Hilary is the queen fucking bitch of it, yet most of all the self-important geni-asses here are clearly doing everything they can to keep their minds closed so they can keep li
Corruption will happen on all political systems, in developing and developed countries alike, is an inherent feature of power not people. Only thing that work is going the China way, pretty hardcore laws agains corruption (Execution, bill family for the bullet after expropriation) Truth is the west let the Lobbyists grab as much power as they could, those do more damage than the average pork barrel slinger imo. Of one thing you can be sure, whomever wins will be the most monitored and "controlled" president
Indeed, for example "The Gateway Pundit" claims that she "fudged" climate change data to show that climate change is real. Even Trump has since renounced his climate change denial. It's also based on a single email, which seems to be simply describing a change due to some unstated factor, not deliberate fudging.
”satta matka,kalyan matka tips” [kalyanmatkatipss.mobi]
you make money here create your own bissness and more fun and enjoy your life join my website
This is a great post. I like this topic.This site has lots of advantage.I found many interesting things from this site. It helps me in many ways.Thanks for posting this again.
http://t.co/8rkSzlY7PB [t.co]
Shilling for Hillary is a full time job these days.
Ha! Telling people to look at policies of the candidates has become "shilling for Hillary" these days. Sort of how 'conspiring against Trump" consists of actually printing the things he says and does. (Johnson voter here.)
I wish I had moderator points today to give to you. This (along with nearly everything that Johnson says when he opens his mouth) is why I can't vote for him. Or Stein for that matter. an ocean of rotten choices this election season.
I'm completely comfortable with a presidential candidate having very little to say about Aleppo, though I'd much prefer the silence be an active choice instead of simple ignorance.
Look... as long as there are two people left alive in this world, they will fight. We cannot stop that; it's just human nature. It shouldn't be Team America World Police to the rescue every time there's a dust-up in the Middle East. And it REALLY shouldn't be our responsibility to help arm the rebels against the big bad govern
Left wingers, since they are property rights deniers, will automatically steal from each other, which will lead to fighting. Right wingers respect property rights.
He neither named a world leader nor said that there were none that he respected. The only one that he mentioned, though not by name, is not a current world leader.
He followed it up the next day with a tweet "It's been 24 hours and I still can't come up with one I respect!"
I would have said Justin Trudeau, he's about as boring and uncontroversial as it gets, and a US President hopeful should at least be able to know the neighbors. An unconventional choice would have been Queen Elizabeth II. Most others come to mind because they're either bad or polarizing. Maybe the King of the Netherlands, is he a chill dude?
Someone who can't pass a very basic test to show awareness of one of the most troubled areas of the planet is unfit to get the job of a major international statesman. Sorry.
Yes, I was aware of the situation in Aleppo and Syria at large... because I read the news. I can absolutely find Aleppo on a map. I'm not running for office, I know these things, and I'm sure as shit going to discount a presidential candidate for not being immediately aware of one of the more significant global current events.
Not that this speaks volumes for anyone else. I doubt Trump knew much more about Syria, but fortunately for him he can just say meaningless drivel like "Whatever it is, we're goin
You played all the usual baseless and hyperbolic adjectives, but left out bigoted. I hope CTR doesn't dock your pay. Good job on the usual FUD bullet points, though, and letting us know what Clinton's 'public' opinion is, positions she only adopted because Sanders proved them to be popular amongst his base.
A few quick observations from this election cycle:
- campaign finance fraud and electioneering that forced the DNC chair to resign
- a secretive conspiracy of paid protestors, agitators and rioters that led to the shutdown of a political event, interfering with free speech and the right for citizens to peacefully assemble
- A compromised attorney general that refused to recuse after a secretive tarmac meeting with a person related to an active investigation
- An FBI refusing to recommend any indictments were SAP level confidential information is leaked during the course of violating federal record keeping laws, where evidence was destroyed, perjury committed, and case for obstruction of justice could easily be made.
- leaked emails that provide substantial evidence of pay-for-play access to the secretary of state and millions of dollars in bribes
A vote for Clinton is one for the double standard where justice is not applied equally under the law, and critical organs of government cannot be relied upon to perform their function impartially in order to serve as checks and balances. Rules for thee, not for me. A Trump administration sees Trey Gowdy as attorney general, who systematically dismantled Clinton's lies. I do not believe any Gowdy would cover for Trump, neither would the FBI.
Phrasing it eloquently doesn't actually make any of those things true though. For instance, there was nothing for the AD to recuse herself from - the FBI said there was no case to be made. The theory that the FBI was some how corrupted is pretty empty too, when you consider that Comes is not only widely respected for his integrity, but I'd also a registered Republican that was a Republican appointee. Additionally, Comey was pulled in front of Congress multiple times to explain the exact legal rationale,
Did you watch the same 3 hour hearing I did, where congressmen used the FBI's own reports to make Director 'Dont Call Us Weasels' Comey look like a fool? Where they proved that Mills lied about knowing about the server? Where they listed all the devices that the FBI couldn't search, because they had been purposefully destroyed and or wiped after the preserve order for the records was issued?
No, I understand. You base your understanding on propaganda from the Washington post and all the other DNC surrogates who have all but broken their neck looking the other way on how the FBI investigation was conducted. Thanks to the Podesta email leak, we find out there was an active effort to 'clean up' the emails sent by President Obama himself, who also falsely claimed ignorance of HRC's email setup. Then you wonder why the immunity agreement for Mill's laptop had the stipulation that they could not consider as evidence emails after the date the records preservation order was issued, and why the laptop was destroyed afterwards. But, no intent! *facepalm*
Don't you even fucking dare compare the HRC email scandal to Patreas when we have no idea what the content of those top secret SAP emails were. For all we know, HRC's self-serving desire to avoid public scrutiny from lawful FOIA requests may have cost intelligence assets their lives, perhaps even ambassador Stevens himself and those around him.
It sucks living in a country where the majority would rather get their talking points from the MSM boobtube newsbites and extrapolate opinion from there, rather than invest some time and effort to research and analyze evidence to find the truth. We're going to pay a heavy price for allowing the federal government to intrude and take over our education system.
Funny, I have spent quite a bit of time over there and never met any of them in places like Silicon Valley and Boston. But I have never been to the rust belt.
It is very frightening that Trump is within a hairs breath. Not because he is evil -- he is but that is not the point. He is incompetent, vain, self serving and just sounds awful. He is transparently awful. It is completely obvious that he will do nothing to help his supporters.
Now imagine what happens if the US suffers a real depression. And the
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that
You check out/r/politics or/r/news in the last 3 months? Post something that's anti-clinton you'll be banned. You can skim through/r/subredditcancer [reddit.com] if you really want. You'll also find multiple cases where a mods way of writing has changed, or cases where multiple new 1-day old accounts were suddenly given full modding privileges. CTR is rather well known for buying accounts on multiple sites especially those that have high reputations with the community.
That all sounds like conspiracy theories by a movement that doesn't understand the other side also has supporters. If CTR were operating, they'd have a few people posting replies and steering discussion, not that they suddenly have control over a major website.
You mention that they are well known for buying accounts, is there any evidence for that either?
Clinton defended rapist, who raped child. And she bragged about it how successful she was in her job
Pussy grabbing aside, if you believe this is true, you are completely beyond delusional and cannot be helped. There are things to hate about HRC. This is not one of them, because that is not what happened.
People like you really make me itch to check the Clinton box when I know better and should be checking the Johnson box.
What else do you believe that is completely fucking insane? Are you the flat Earther who keeps posting to the red site?
Oh, and just because it's almost that time of the year when all th
It's a matter of public record. Hillary Clinton voluntarily defended the man who so viciously raped a 12-year-old girl that she became unable to bear children. This man, who should have been executed, got off with only 1 year in jail. Hillary bragged about her role in this case.
Even the WashingtonPost, who HATES HATES HATES Trump admits he is to the left of clinton on economics, trade, and foreign policy. Hard to believe but if you listen to what he says about cutting military spending by closing bases and dropping weapon systems, getting out of foreign alliances, ending trade deals, increasing tarrifs, and going after crony capitalism you would swear you were listening to Bernie Sanders and not the Republican cannidate for president.
Trump has also claimed he wanted to usurp part of the wealth of the wealthy and distribute it to the middle class. Is he left of Hillary? Yes ! Is he right of Hillary? Yes! He is a mindless idiot with beliefs scattered in every direction as well as with zero ability to actually achieve any of his goals. What sane person would vote for a man on his third marriage following his sixth bankruptcy? He has unstable stamped all over his forehead.
Even the WashingtonPost, who HATES HATES HATES Trump admits he is to the left of clinton on economics, trade, and foreign policy. Hard to believe but if you listen to what he says about cutting military spending by closing bases and dropping weapon systems, getting out of foreign alliances, ending trade deals, increasing tarrifs, and going after crony capitalism you would swear you were listening to Bernie Sanders and not the Republican cannidate for president.
It is called populism, and it very common almost a defining characteristic in far right candidates. They rarely fullfill any of the promises though.
Populism is the close relative of rabble-rousing, a Democrat exclusive. Populism is comparatively rare among Republicans.
I think you live in a different reality than I do. Bernie Sanders was certainly a populist, but he wasn't considered mainstream in the Democratic party and didn't win the nomination. Trump is all populism and no republican policies at all....
I understand why people distrust Trump on "Women's Rights", what I don't understand is why HRC gets a free pass, at best she's a serial enabler to her Husband's sexual predations, at worst Bill fucked them physically and Hillary fucked them psychologically.
At least Trump doesn't blame the victims like Hillary does.
Hillary did what any woman would have done? Bull f*ing sh*t! Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, you're out the door with your possessions strewn all over the front lawn. In the rain. Your car sent to the crusher, as well as your reputation in the neighborhood.
History says otherwise. I sent the 4-year-old car to the crusher after agreeing to sell it for a buck after they failed to do the transfer. I had made it clear I wan't going to pay any more traffic tickets, accidents, insurance, maintenance, or license fees. Ripped the license plate off in front of 8 cops, drove off, ripped it into 3 pieces and tossed them in a field. I went back, everyone had cleared out, including the cops and my soon-to-be ex-father-in-law. I popped open the trunk to find that a lot of m
Doesn't the fantasy land he lives in worry you at all? Yesterday he claimed that 650 million immigrants could come to the US in one week under Clinton. He lives in his own little world.
> Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports.
No, look at the actions they use in carrying out those policies. Particularly the actions of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative. Go read Podesta's emails on r/wikileaks to get a sense of what they're planning. It's not good.
The short answer is they're plotting more wars and to enrich themselves by selling all kinds of things to people who are especially deplorable.
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports.
I did that and then decided to vote Libertarian or Green. The Democrat/Republican policies (which, in terms of the policies that actually matter as opposed to irrelevant wedge issues, are both the same) are way too authoritarian.
The Greens are tyrannical. The Libertarians are erratic. Johnson is a particularly bad example of a libertarian, drug-addled and taking many anti-freedom positions.
This is the first election, where I am 100% convinced that policy positions don't matter at all, because I have 0 confidence that either candidate has any loyalty to their past positions. Hillary Clinton will do and say whatever is necessary to get elected or re-elected. If public opinion changes, then Hillary will change to match it. Donald Trump is a child. His policy positions are based on whatever feels right to him in the moment. I don't think he's ever come up with a policy position prior to gett
Candidates all lie so aren't you kind of a gigantic buffon for buying into the lies of the "platform they support".
In particular, Hillary has not only VERBALLY been against every single thing she supposedly is for now, she's on record for voting or acting against things like gay marriage and even the black population in general.
So voting for Hillary you are not voting for a "platform" but for whatever she decides to do in the future, which it utterly unknowable and not dictated by her "platform".
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
To be fair Trump may think climate change is serious, and wants women's and minority rights, plus a progressive tax code but he sure isn't saying this.
You had mail, but the super-user read it, and deleted it!
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No. (Score:1, Insightful)
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
Nope.
Anyone who feels it necessary to point anything out as a womens or minorities right (as opposed to a human right) absolutely cannot be taken seriously.
Source: I am a strong independent black woman who don't need no man.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Call me crazy
Done and done. You are crazy.
I'd rather have policies that apply to just "people" as a whole instead of "only this one specific subset of people".
Tell you what. The day you can prove to me that your policies that are meant to be applied equally actually really do get applied equally in all major regions, I'll stop requesting policies that counteract discrimination and bias.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that the same day you stop claiming your treasured victimhood?
Re: (Score:2)
Equality does not exist in nature. It requires effort and energy to enforce.
So, kind of like the rest of civilization?
Re: (Score:2)
> I can see it now. Remember 1000 years ago the black person was a slave
Forgetting for a minute that your number is off, the black person is still an underclass. Liberals delight in telling us this. Not only are they an underclass but they have no hope of changing this fact due to "white privilege". Their only hope is to trust in the party to care for them.
Beyond your argument ad absurdism or false strawman, there will even be winners a losers. Even if Huey Newton IV becomes an Assad style despot, there
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're both fighting over the wrong thing, though.
We'll never have things perfectly even. And your suggestion simply helps create new prejudice rather than doing anything to actually fix the existing harmful prejudices. Victimizing new people is not the way to settle old grudges.
The correct way to help people is to help all disadvantaged persons. This can (and should) provide disproportionate help to those who have been systematically victimized. But, more importantly, it's a neutral way to help people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
Since you can't accurately cite the candidates actual policies, your opinion is irrelevant. But no, I don't want a president who wants to implement a more progressive tax code or maintain the status quo on regulations. That is what is killing this country's economy and needs to change. That alone disqualifies both women running and makes any other candidate better.
Re: (Score:2)
So here's a of income inequality in the United States over the last few decades. The "progressive taxation" that you seem to think is killing the country, by definition, takes more money away from rich people than poor people. Yet rich people are getting richer, and poor people are getting poorer. The economic conditions you seem to be so worried about, the taxation regime you're complaining about, is one that's making the rich richer and the poor poorer, so clearly progressive taxation isn't doing shit [epi.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate
https://www.commentarymagazine... [commentarymagazine.com]
>> that takes climate change seriously,
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co... [thegatewaypundit.com]
>> that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously,
http://www.nationalreview.com/... [nationalreview.com]
>> that wants to implement a progressive tax code
http://www.realclearpolitics.c... [realclearpolitics.com]
>> and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
http://drrichswier.com/2016/09... [drrichswier.com]
Keep drinking the Hiliary koolaid dude.
Re: No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Citing opinion pieces as fact is flat wrong. There is no editorial review or fact checking, just people writing whatever they feel, regardless of how far from reality that is.
Re: (Score:1)
Citing opinion pieces as fact is flat wrong. There is no editorial review or fact checking, just people writing whatever they feel, regardless of how far from reality that is.
Sounds like the mainstream media to me. Regarding the articles, there are plenty of facts in them if you bothered to expose yourself to some truth and some alternate viewpoints. Some of it is right from Hillary's own campaign thanks to Wikileaks.
Liberals love diversity when they think it helps them win elections, but hate diversity when someone has a differing opinion. Useful idiots indeed . . .
Re: No. (Score:2)
No, we just don't like fuckwits
Re: (Score:1)
Classic self-loathers then!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't love Trump, he's an idiot, I'm actually solidly in the "Anyone but Hillary" camp.
Why? because corruption is BY FAR the biggest problem in US government and it affects everyone living in the US every day of our lives.
There is an avalanche of information out there showng how the Clinton dynasty is completely corrupt, and Hilary is the queen fucking bitch of it, yet most of all the self-important geni-asses here are clearly doing everything they can to keep their minds closed so they can keep li
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting theory. I can't honestly see it, but at this point nothing would surprise me.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, for example "The Gateway Pundit" claims that she "fudged" climate change data to show that climate change is real. Even Trump has since renounced his climate change denial. It's also based on a single email, which seems to be simply describing a change due to some unstated factor, not deliberate fudging.
Re: (Score:2)
Wikileaks is an opinion piece? whatever dude.
Re: my opinoin (Score:1)
Re:No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Shilling for Hillary is a full time job these days.
Ha! Telling people to look at policies of the candidates has become "shilling for Hillary" these days. Sort of how 'conspiring against Trump" consists of actually printing the things he says and does. (Johnson voter here.)
Re: No. (Score:1, Troll)
And what is Aleppo?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The correct question is: What's a leppo?
A leprous leopard that has lost its tail to the disease.
Re: No. (Score:1)
A Leppo is the fifth Marx brother.....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what is Aleppo?
Isn't that a dog food?
Re: (Score:2)
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Can you tell me about Aleppo?
It's a pepper.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you tell me about Aleppo?
It's a pepper.
It's someone with a disease called lep'osy
Re: (Score:2)
I'm completely comfortable with a presidential candidate having very little to say about Aleppo, though I'd much prefer the silence be an active choice instead of simple ignorance.
Look ... as long as there are two people left alive in this world, they will fight. We cannot stop that; it's just human nature. It shouldn't be Team America World Police to the rescue every time there's a dust-up in the Middle East. And it REALLY shouldn't be our responsibility to help arm the rebels against the big bad govern
Re: (Score:2)
>as long as there are two people left alive in this world, they will fight.
if they are right-wingers, they will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you tell me which country Mosul borders?
Re: (Score:2)
How about because he is unable to name current world leaders or because he doesn't take the election seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
You misrepresent the question he was asked. Johnson was unable to name current world leaders that he respected.
That said, Johnson is certainly not an ideal candidate... but in this bullshit farce of a race that boils down to "who's the least-worst?," he wins!
Re: (Score:2)
He neither named a world leader nor said that there were none that he respected. The only one that he mentioned, though not by name, is not a current world leader.
Re: (Score:2)
He followed it up the next day with a tweet "It's been 24 hours and I still can't come up with one I respect!"
I would have said Justin Trudeau, he's about as boring and uncontroversial as it gets, and a US President hopeful should at least be able to know the neighbors. An unconventional choice would have been Queen Elizabeth II. Most others come to mind because they're either bad or polarizing. Maybe the King of the Netherlands, is he a chill dude?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
... can't pass a middle eastern geography lesson.
Someone who can't pass a very basic test to show awareness of one of the most troubled areas of the planet is unfit to get the job of a major international statesman. Sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
A few quick observations from this election cycle:
- campaign finance fraud and electioneering that forced the DNC chair to resign
- a secretive conspiracy of paid protestors, agitators and rioters that led to the shutdown of a political event, interfering with free speech and the right for citizens to peacefully assemble
- A compromised attorney general that refused to recuse after a secretive tarmac meeting with a person related to an active investigation
- An FBI refusing to recommend any indictments were SAP level confidential information is leaked during the course of violating federal record keeping laws, where evidence was destroyed, perjury committed, and case for obstruction of justice could easily be made.
- leaked emails that provide substantial evidence of pay-for-play access to the secretary of state and millions of dollars in bribes
A vote for Clinton is one for the double standard where justice is not applied equally under the law, and critical organs of government cannot be relied upon to perform their function impartially in order to serve as checks and balances. Rules for thee, not for me. A Trump administration sees Trey Gowdy as attorney general, who systematically dismantled Clinton's lies. I do not believe any Gowdy would cover for Trump, neither would the FBI.
Re: No. (Score:3, Insightful)
Phrasing it eloquently doesn't actually make any of those things true though. For instance, there was nothing for the AD to recuse herself from - the FBI said there was no case to be made. The theory that the FBI was some how corrupted is pretty empty too, when you consider that Comes is not only widely respected for his integrity, but I'd also a registered Republican that was a Republican appointee. Additionally, Comey was pulled in front of Congress multiple times to explain the exact legal rationale,
Re: No. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I understand. You base your understanding on propaganda from the Washington post and all the other DNC surrogates who have all but broken their neck looking the other way on how the FBI investigation was conducted. Thanks to the Podesta email leak, we find out there was an active effort to 'clean up' the emails sent by President Obama himself, who also falsely claimed ignorance of HRC's email setup. Then you wonder why the immunity agreement for Mill's laptop had the stipulation that they could not consider as evidence emails after the date the records preservation order was issued, and why the laptop was destroyed afterwards. But, no intent! *facepalm*
Don't you even fucking dare compare the HRC email scandal to Patreas when we have no idea what the content of those top secret SAP emails were. For all we know, HRC's self-serving desire to avoid public scrutiny from lawful FOIA requests may have cost intelligence assets their lives, perhaps even ambassador Stevens himself and those around him.
Re: (Score:2)
It sucks living in a country where the majority would rather get their talking points from the MSM boobtube newsbites and extrapolate opinion from there, rather than invest some time and effort to research and analyze evidence to find the truth. We're going to pay a heavy price for allowing the federal government to intrude and take over our education system.
Those jack asses are about 50% of America (Score:2)
Funny, I have spent quite a bit of time over there and never met any of them in places like Silicon Valley and Boston. But I have never been to the rust belt.
It is very frightening that Trump is within a hairs breath. Not because he is evil -- he is but that is not the point. He is incompetent, vain, self serving and just sounds awful. He is transparently awful. It is completely obvious that he will do nothing to help his supporters.
Now imagine what happens if the US suffers a real depression. And the
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You check out /r/politics or /r/news in the last 3 months? Post something that's anti-clinton you'll be banned. You can skim through /r/subredditcancer [reddit.com] if you really want. You'll also find multiple cases where a mods way of writing has changed, or cases where multiple new 1-day old accounts were suddenly given full modding privileges. CTR is rather well known for buying accounts on multiple sites especially those that have high reputations with the community.
Re: (Score:2)
You mention that they are well known for buying accounts, is there any evidence for that either?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but which particular third party candidate is that? Because it sure as hell isn't the Democrat nor Republican nominees.
Re: (Score:1)
Clinton defended rapist, who raped child. And she bragged about it how successful she was in her job
Pussy grabbing aside, if you believe this is true, you are completely beyond delusional and cannot be helped. There are things to hate about HRC. This is not one of them, because that is not what happened.
People like you really make me itch to check the Clinton box when I know better and should be checking the Johnson box.
What else do you believe that is completely fucking insane? Are you the flat Earther who keeps posting to the red site?
Oh, and just because it's almost that time of the year when all th
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, yes they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Everything you know is wrong.
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Hilary's policy is you make a big donation to her foundation then you get a meeting to discuss her policies.
Trump is to the left of clinton (Score:5, Interesting)
Even the WashingtonPost, who HATES HATES HATES Trump admits he is to the left of clinton on economics, trade, and foreign policy. Hard to believe but if you listen to what he says about cutting military spending by closing bases and dropping weapon systems, getting out of foreign alliances, ending trade deals, increasing tarrifs, and going after crony capitalism you would swear you were listening to Bernie Sanders and not the Republican cannidate for president.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the WashingtonPost, who HATES HATES HATES Trump admits he is to the left of clinton on economics, trade, and foreign policy. Hard to believe but if you listen to what he says about cutting military spending by closing bases and dropping weapon systems, getting out of foreign alliances, ending trade deals, increasing tarrifs, and going after crony capitalism you would swear you were listening to Bernie Sanders and not the Republican cannidate for president.
It is called populism, and it very common almost a defining characteristic in far right candidates. They rarely fullfill any of the promises though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Populism is the close relative of rabble-rousing, a Democrat exclusive. Populism is comparatively rare among Republicans.
I think you live in a different reality than I do. Bernie Sanders was certainly a populist, but he wasn't considered mainstream in the Democratic party and didn't win the nomination. Trump is all populism and no republican policies at all....
Re: (Score:3)
I understand why people distrust Trump on "Women's Rights", what I don't understand is why HRC gets a free pass, at best she's a serial enabler to her Husband's sexual predations, at worst Bill fucked them physically and Hillary fucked them psychologically.
At least Trump doesn't blame the victims like Hillary does.
Re: (Score:2)
Hillary did what any woman would have done? Bull f*ing sh*t! Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, you're out the door with your possessions strewn all over the front lawn. In the rain. Your car sent to the crusher, as well as your reputation in the neighborhood.
And don't call me. Ever.
Re: (Score:2)
History says otherwise. I sent the 4-year-old car to the crusher after agreeing to sell it for a buck after they failed to do the transfer. I had made it clear I wan't going to pay any more traffic tickets, accidents, insurance, maintenance, or license fees. Ripped the license plate off in front of 8 cops, drove off, ripped it into 3 pieces and tossed them in a field. I went back, everyone had cleared out, including the cops and my soon-to-be ex-father-in-law. I popped open the trunk to find that a lot of m
Re: (Score:3)
Go ask the Haitians what the Clintons take seriously....
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p... [donaldjtrump.com] I've looked him over, makes more sense than anything I've heard from Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the fantasy land he lives in worry you at all? Yesterday he claimed that 650 million immigrants could come to the US in one week under Clinton. He lives in his own little world.
Re: (Score:2)
> Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports.
No, look at the actions they use in carrying out those policies. Particularly the actions of the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative. Go read Podesta's emails on r/wikileaks to get a sense of what they're planning. It's not good.
The short answer is they're plotting more wars and to enrich themselves by selling all kinds of things to people who are especially deplorable.
Re: (Score:2)
I did that and then decided to vote Libertarian or Green. The Democrat/Republican policies (which, in terms of the policies that actually matter as opposed to irrelevant wedge issues, are both the same) are way too authoritarian.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a super-dumb approach (Score:2)
Candidates all lie so aren't you kind of a gigantic buffon for buying into the lies of the "platform they support".
In particular, Hillary has not only VERBALLY been against every single thing she supposedly is for now, she's on record for voting or acting against things like gay marriage and even the black population in general.
So voting for Hillary you are not voting for a "platform" but for whatever she decides to do in the future, which it utterly unknowable and not dictated by her "platform".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then look at the actual POLICIES each candidate supports. The presidency is about more than just one person: it's about the entire administration. Thousands of jobs change when a president does.
Do you want a candidate that thinks climate change is a hoax, and that renewable energy "doesn't work" but clean coal does? A candidate that explicitly promises a shockingly xenophobic, sexist, and racist administration? A candidate that wants massive tax cuts for the wealthy coupled with deregulation of telecom, banking, and energy industries, among others?
Or perhaps you would prefer a centrist candidate that takes climate change seriously, that takes women's and minorities' rights seriously, that wants to implement a progressive tax code and roughly maintain the status quo on regulations.
To be fair Trump may think climate change is serious, and wants women's and minority rights, plus a progressive tax code but he sure isn't saying this.