Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 10:56 am

Ray Jay wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:I think you missed my scathing criticism of Bill for meeting with the AG and, more recently, her aide's pathetic explananation with regard to the 12 million donation by the King of Morocco.


But, you're voting for her, in spite of many, many lies and many, many ethical lapses (too put it mildly).


Even with all of Hillary's faults (corruption and bad judgement, etc., etc.), when all is said and done, and all has been said and done, the great depression was started by a trade war, and Trump is calling for a trade war.

Furthermore, a guy who spends the wee hours of the morning thinking about all the people who have wronged him is a dangerous guy. I honestly believe he does not have the normal psychological control mechanisms that most humans have. We cannot let him control the nukes. What else is there to discuss?


Other candidates.

A woman who used the Department of State to enrich herself (and her family) will do what when she is in charge of the nation? Become altruistic?

Principles, people!

How did we get these two candidates? The American people abandoned their principles!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 10:58 am

freeman3 wrote:We're beyond the political and into existential concerns. RJ cut through all the stuff out there. Trade wars...real wars. Trump at the helm. Omg.


And, please.

Syria? Is that not a real war? Who's responsible?

Libya? Yemen?

ISIS?

Ukraine?

South Pacific?

You people act as if Obama/Clinton have a freaking clue what they're doing. They don't.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 11:05 am

Oh, and Hillary is such a "steady hand," right?

In what until today was the latest available email in the chain, Clinton stated that "there may be opportunities as the Iraqi piece improves." She also asked Podesta if he had "any idea whose fighters attacked Islamist positions in Tripoli, Libya," which was "worth analyzing for future purposes," according to Clinton.

Podesta quickly recognized the conversation shouldn't be happening on Gmail and Clinton's "clintonemail" server. "Yes and interesting but not for this channel," he warned.

If Clinton was discussing information after leaving the State Department that was sensitive enough to give Podesta concern, one can only imagine the kind of information she was relaying to others.

Another email dumped by WikiLeaks Thursday suggests Podesta was warned in 2008 about the dangers of communicating sensitive information on unsecured servers.

"I was struck by the memo partly because it was first I had heard of it but much more because it was a sensitive doc bumping around on public email addresses," Denis McDonough, President Obama's first chief of staff, wrote to fellow transition team member Daniel Tarullo on Nov. 3, 2008, "There is a very real threat to the security of our documents," he said.


Meanwhile, FBI sources are saying there is a 99% chance her private server was hacked by at least 5 countries. Who knows how much damage she did to national security? If not for the Attorney General running interference for her, Hillary would be under indictment for the Clinton Foundation scam now.

Principles.

She is clueless, reckless, and groundless. But, at least she's not Trump, right?

She will be impeached within two years of taking the oath. I will laugh at your lack of principles then, even as I shake my head at it now.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Nov 2016, 11:22 am

We got this way because of false equivalencies. Let's assume that the criticism you leveled at Hillary is true. Trump would be many magnitudes worse. Trump got nominated because too many Republicans thought essentially that they would rather risk getting Hillary than go with Republican Establishment candidates who were not acting in accordance to their interests. That's why Nader ran in 2000--Gore is just as bad as Bush.

It's not principles that are at issue but better judgment that needs to be used. I'm pretty sure that Trump supporters think their principles are just fine. But we are so partisan that the guy who is completely unqualified gets people's nod as long as they say the right things. If you don't like Hillary, well, then you should have done everything to stop the Trump candidacy. Then you would have a Rubio or Jeb Bush or Kasich presidency. And you would have got the Supreme Court choices you want. But, no, those guys were not acceptable to many Republicans. Now for the good of the country you should vote for Hillary and try to beat her in four years with a legitimate candidate. But you won't because "Hillary is just as bad as Trump". But I guarantee that you will not believe that statement if we get into a real crisis under Trump.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 11:31 am

After seeing how she handled the Benghazi nonsense and the Iran deal plus her interactions with Russia, I'm not so sure she would be much better than Trump? Maybe a tiny bit since she is at least seemingly calm but even there the two options just suck beyond belief.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 11:35 am

again Freeman, you are showing your partisanship.
All that stuff you said about the Republicans nomination of Trump can pretty much go for the Democrats as well, hell, they had TWO bad candidates in Clinton and Sanders (sanders being incredibly socialistic) yet they nominated a person who may very well lose to Trump!? He should be a slam dunk win to go against but now they have a somewhat close race because they chose her.

This really cuts both ways, try to avoid seeing only what you want to see!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Nov 2016, 11:41 am

A tiny bit? Really? Trump is a narcissist who loves to be flattered and cannot stand to be criticized. He sermingly has difficulty controlling his emotions. That is not a good personality for CIC. One last thing: if you think he will allow himself to be guided (ala Bush II by Cheney), everything I have read indicates that he is completely uncontrollable--he does what he wants to do.

False equivalencies...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Nov 2016, 11:43 am

Well, I supported Sanders. He did probably lose because Democrats were ultimately concerned he could not win the general election. But there were no plausible Democrstic candidates running besides Hillary and Sanders, so again another false equivalency.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 11:54 am

freeman3 wrote:A tiny bit? Really? Trump is a narcissist who loves to be flattered and cannot stand to be criticized. He sermingly has difficulty controlling his emotions. That is not a good personality for CIC.


I agree. 100%

Clinton is untrustworthy--she lies about lying. She even recently lied about being in NYC on 9/11. She seemingly can't help but lie. She is self-serving, greedy, and doesn't have a shred of integrity.

She's also incompetent. She failed in Benghazi--leaving all partisanship to the side. She didn't do her job. She also claimed not to know what "C" meant on confidential emails. If she didn't know that, she's incompetent. Every foreign policy item she's touched has been a failure. That's incompetence.

That is not a good personality for CIC.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 11:55 am

freeman3 wrote:Well, I supported Sanders. He did probably lose because Democrats were ultimately concerned he could not win the general election. But there were no plausible Democrstic candidates running besides Hillary and Sanders, so again another false equivalency.


Because the entire DNC was owned by the Clintons! Wasserman-Schultz and Brazile both cheated and lied for Clinton. No one else had a chance.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15856
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 12:38 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:We're beyond the political and into existential concerns. RJ cut through all the stuff out there. Trade wars...real wars. Trump at the helm. Omg.


And, please.

Syria? Is that not a real war? Who's responsible?
President Assad. Heard of him?

Libya?
Ultimately, Colonel Gadaffi

Yemen?
It's a proxy war between Saudi and Iran, but initially caused by internal tribal and sectarian conflict

ISIS?
Frankly, Bush & the sectarian leadership of Iraq, and then a power vacuum in Syria

Ukraine?
Putin

South Pacific?
Huh? You mean South China Sea, surely? The South Pacific's main issues are rising sea levels. If you did mean South China Sea, and/or the Philippines: China, and the new demagogue rape apologist and murder-enthusiast Duterte.

You people act as if Obama/Clinton have a freaking clue what they're doing. They don't.
You act as if the US is responsible for everything in the world. It isn't.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4628
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 12:38 pm

Fate:
She is clueless, reckless, and groundless. But, at least she's not Trump, right?


Yes, that sums it up nicely. Too bad it won't fit on a bumper sticker.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 03 Nov 2016, 1:12 pm

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
freeman3 wrote:We're beyond the political and into existential concerns. RJ cut through all the stuff out there. Trade wars...real wars. Trump at the helm. Omg.


And, please.

Syria? Is that not a real war? Who's responsible?
President Assad. Heard of him?


Wrong. Obama failed to act. Then invited the Russians in (indirectly, by saying it would be a mistake, etc.). Furthermore, Clinton tried to arm the rebels via Libya.

Libya?
Ultimately, Colonel Gadaffi


No, Europeans wanted him out. Clinton strategized--and the result was chaos, and 4 dead Americans.

Yemen?
It's a proxy war between Saudi and Iran, but initially caused by internal tribal and sectarian conflict


So, the US played NO role here? Really? Is that your final answer?

ISIS?
Frankly, Bush & the sectarian leadership of Iraq, and then a power vacuum in Syria


Wrong--and you know that.

Ukraine?
Putin


American weakness invites exploitation. Obama/Clinton were the weakest foreign policy team in modern American history until Kerry replaced her.

South Pacific?
Huh? You mean South China Sea, surely? The South Pacific's main issues are rising sea levels. If you did mean South China Sea, and/or the Philippines: China, and the new demagogue rape apologist and murder-enthusiast Duterte.


Yes, South China Sea, where your team is getting whipped.

You people act as if Obama/Clinton have a freaking clue what they're doing. They don't.
You act as if the US is responsible for everything in the world. It isn't.


The US is responsible for its cowardly approach and greenlighting every thug and rogue regime on the planet.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10744
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 15 May 2017, 2:53 pm

fate
She is clueless, reckless, and groundless. But, at least she's not Trump, right?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 30d24b7df9

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.


yeah. Because who else but Trump ....
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 20590
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 15 May 2017, 4:40 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
She is clueless, reckless, and groundless. But, at least she's not Trump, right?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... 30d24b7df9

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State.


yeah. Because who else but Trump ....
Next thing you know, he'll establish a private email server with zero protection on it.