|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 29 2016 01:36 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On July 29 2016 01:28 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16 Whats your point? Trump's self-contradiction and walking back his statements. It's interesting that he felt the need to claim his previous statement was not serious. Meh, if you want to read malicious intent in a statement you are going to find something malicious. Doesn't change the fact it should be Hillary asking foreign governments if they have her emails.
Wait, we are using the KGB our back up server from goverment email now? This conversation is very silly.
|
On July 29 2016 01:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:36 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On July 29 2016 01:28 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16 Whats your point? Trump's self-contradiction and walking back his statements. It's interesting that he felt the need to claim his previous statement was not serious. Meh, if you want to read malicious intent in a statement you are going to find something malicious. Doesn't change the fact it should be Hillary asking foreign governments if they have her emails. Wait, we are using the KGB our back up server from goverment email now? This conversation is very silly.
Just take it for a Trumpism. One of those silly remarks that sound stupid but that are also a stealth jab at something his voters don't care for.
On July 29 2016 01:39 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 29 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 29 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:45 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:
[quote]
And if the DNC email leak has taught us anything its that there is an imoral relationship between Clinton and large parts of the mainstream media. When Washington Post reporters send their articles to the DNC to get the OK something is wrong. No, getting asked questions that you yourself have given to the media to ask you is not the same as getting asked questions you weren't briefed about beforehand.
As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. But if we have learned anything over the last few days, it’s that Trump is Putin’s biggest fan and Trump wants Russia to win the election for him. Maybe Trump will hand out some goodies from his security briefings to get Putin to help. Is that what we've learned or is that just your interpretation of just one more Trumpism from the press conference? • Zeo started the discussion by staying that a poster was poorly informed about Trumps plans. • We then moved to look up Trumps plans and found them to be lacking in details, which is a contrast to Clintons. • Zeo than decided to change subjects and spew out his standard press conference line. • I countered that argument saying that Clinton has responded to questions from the press in a number of formats and Trumps statements are still a dumpster fire and attempted to move the discussion back to Trump’s policies. • He then moved on to talk about the email scandal, the DNC and other things he wants to talk about. • Someone pointed out Trumps FP gaffs and Zeo said “Cool, lets talk about Clinton’s FP decisions” Every time the topic comes back to Trump and his statements, he turns it to an ever changing, mercurial discussion about Clinton that is not limited to any single topic. It is whataboutism and I have become tired of him doing it. Its is garbage and no way to hold a discussion about anything. Not exactly answering my slight objection, but fair enough. Just keep in mind that this conversation is always entirely voluntary and if you don't like the direction it is going you can always simply stop responding whenever. On July 29 2016 01:00 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:50 Rebs wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:
As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. While you have a point there, his plan isnt to destroy just ISIS, his plan is to destroy pretty much anything and everything that could be ISIS. That probably includes women that were going to University a few years ago.. along with the elderly, and children and .... Those women now have to wear burkas in areas that are under the control of the most moderate rebels, while 50 miles away in Assad territory they are holding fashion weeks and bikini contests. The whole blame though shouldn't be on Obama and Clinton, McCain/other neo-cons are just as guilty. McCain in my opinion is more dangerous because unlike Clinton who got paid millions by Saudi Arabia for her role he did it out of idealogical (neo-con) fanaticism. Hillary is the candidate who is most consistent with traditional US foreign policy. The problem is that that policy has been a shitshow in general. Can't disagree with that, but you have to remember that the only president in recent history who had a non-traditional approach of foreign policy was George W Bush and his neo cons hacks, and the result was ten time worse. I really don't like American FP. I didn't like it under Clinton, I didn't like it under Reagan and Bush senior, and I don't like it under Obama. But it's not because something is not great that any alternative is a good idea. Trump's proposals are so stupid and suicidal for trhe States and the West that he got Putin's approval. That's bad. In what way was W non-traditional? As far as I can tell the W years were a pretty logical extension of the Clinton years, which were a pretty logical extension of the H.W. years, which were... and so on. As far as I can tell, Putin praised Trump for encouraging better US-Russia relations. That's only bad if you want the countries to remain unfriendly towards each other. Beyond that I just see it as pandering to the part of the Republican base that wishes the US "would have a leader as tough as Putin instead of that wimp Obama." Pretty much every other nation, including China, prefers Clinton over Trump. It strikes me that it may not be worth damaging our relations with pretty much everyone else to cozy up to Putin. Sure. But that doesn't mean the original statement "Putin wants Trump just to hurt America" is true either. Honestly the difference between their rhetoric is less than most make it out to be. Trump says plenty of not-so-flattering things about Russia and I've heard at least a few conciliatory remarks from Hillary. I find the Russia contrast to be blown out of proportion. Trump's tacit alliance (if you could call it that) is for self-interest more than anything else. He (Trump) doesn't want to hurt the US, but I find it hard to believe that Trump's concept of improving Russian relations would have a net benefit to us. He;s just not equipped with the knowledge, skills or people to secure a win here.
Again, if you think so then that's fine. Vote on it. But that doesn't mean the original statement "Putin wants Trump just to hurt America" is true either.
|
United States43510 Posts
On July 29 2016 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2016 23:48 KwarK wrote:
Bernie knows that it's a two party system. There is no reason to make a third party run in a two party system. Reform FPTP and maybe he'll try. Yeah, everyone knows the two parties have always been Democrat and Republican... Which two parties are seen as the "two parties" never changes. Not once has a "third party" moved into becoming one of the two major parties. Also, It's not like anyone ever ran for president as third party before later becoming president within one of the parties. Clearly nothing has been gained in American history from people running third party.
Stop pretending to be stupider than you are. None of that is applicable to this election.
|
On July 29 2016 01:39 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:34 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 ticklishmusic wrote:On July 29 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 29 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:45 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:
[quote]
And if the DNC email leak has taught us anything its that there is an imoral relationship between Clinton and large parts of the mainstream media. When Washington Post reporters send their articles to the DNC to get the OK something is wrong. No, getting asked questions that you yourself have given to the media to ask you is not the same as getting asked questions you weren't briefed about beforehand.
As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. But if we have learned anything over the last few days, it’s that Trump is Putin’s biggest fan and Trump wants Russia to win the election for him. Maybe Trump will hand out some goodies from his security briefings to get Putin to help. Is that what we've learned or is that just your interpretation of just one more Trumpism from the press conference? • Zeo started the discussion by staying that a poster was poorly informed about Trumps plans. • We then moved to look up Trumps plans and found them to be lacking in details, which is a contrast to Clintons. • Zeo than decided to change subjects and spew out his standard press conference line. • I countered that argument saying that Clinton has responded to questions from the press in a number of formats and Trumps statements are still a dumpster fire and attempted to move the discussion back to Trump’s policies. • He then moved on to talk about the email scandal, the DNC and other things he wants to talk about. • Someone pointed out Trumps FP gaffs and Zeo said “Cool, lets talk about Clinton’s FP decisions” Every time the topic comes back to Trump and his statements, he turns it to an ever changing, mercurial discussion about Clinton that is not limited to any single topic. It is whataboutism and I have become tired of him doing it. Its is garbage and no way to hold a discussion about anything. Not exactly answering my slight objection, but fair enough. Just keep in mind that this conversation is always entirely voluntary and if you don't like the direction it is going you can always simply stop responding whenever. On July 29 2016 01:00 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:50 Rebs wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:
As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. While you have a point there, his plan isnt to destroy just ISIS, his plan is to destroy pretty much anything and everything that could be ISIS. That probably includes women that were going to University a few years ago.. along with the elderly, and children and .... Those women now have to wear burkas in areas that are under the control of the most moderate rebels, while 50 miles away in Assad territory they are holding fashion weeks and bikini contests. The whole blame though shouldn't be on Obama and Clinton, McCain/other neo-cons are just as guilty. McCain in my opinion is more dangerous because unlike Clinton who got paid millions by Saudi Arabia for her role he did it out of idealogical (neo-con) fanaticism. Hillary is the candidate who is most consistent with traditional US foreign policy. The problem is that that policy has been a shitshow in general. Can't disagree with that, but you have to remember that the only president in recent history who had a non-traditional approach of foreign policy was George W Bush and his neo cons hacks, and the result was ten time worse. I really don't like American FP. I didn't like it under Clinton, I didn't like it under Reagan and Bush senior, and I don't like it under Obama. But it's not because something is not great that any alternative is a good idea. Trump's proposals are so stupid and suicidal for trhe States and the West that he got Putin's approval. That's bad. In what way was W non-traditional? As far as I can tell the W years were a pretty logical extension of the Clinton years, which were a pretty logical extension of the H.W. years, which were... and so on. As far as I can tell, Putin praised Trump for encouraging better US-Russia relations. That's only bad if you want the countries to remain unfriendly towards each other. Beyond that I just see it as pandering to the part of the Republican base that wishes the US "would have a leader as tough as Putin instead of that wimp Obama." Pretty much every other nation, including China, prefers Clinton over Trump. It strikes me that it may not be worth damaging our relations with pretty much everyone else to cozy up to Putin. Sure. But that doesn't mean the original statement "Putin wants Trump just to hurt America" is true either. Honestly the difference between their rhetoric is less than most make it out to be. Trump says plenty of not-so-flattering things about Russia and I've heard at least a few conciliatory remarks from Hillary. I find the Russia contrast to be blown out of proportion. Trump's tacit alliance (if you could call it that) is for self-interest more than anything else. He (Trump) doesn't want to hurt the US, but I find it hard to believe that Trump's concept of improving Russian relations would have a net benefit to us. He;s just not equipped with the knowledge, skills or people to secure a win here.
Agreed. I don't think Trump wants anything but attention and approval from the people he thinks should be giving it to him. He admires Putin and others he views as strong leaders. He is deeply self absorbed and narcissistic, wanting proposal and attention at all times. I don't think he has set out to harm anyone. But I can think of a lot of very bad people who have started out that way.
|
On July 29 2016 01:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:36 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On July 29 2016 01:28 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16 Whats your point? Trump's self-contradiction and walking back his statements. It's interesting that he felt the need to claim his previous statement was not serious. Meh, if you want to read malicious intent in a statement you are going to find something malicious. Doesn't change the fact it should be Hillary asking foreign governments if they have her emails. Wait, we are using the KGB our back up server from goverment email now? This conversation is very silly.
Foreign nations most likely have everything Hillary ever wrote while in office because of her, to quote the FBI director 'incompetence'. Thats anything but silly.
Again if there was nothing important in those emails whats wrong with Hillary asking for them back so she can clear her name?
|
On July 29 2016 01:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2016 23:48 KwarK wrote:
Bernie knows that it's a two party system. There is no reason to make a third party run in a two party system. Reform FPTP and maybe he'll try. Yeah, everyone knows the two parties have always been Democrat and Republican... Which two parties are seen as the "two parties" never changes. Not once has a "third party" moved into becoming one of the two major parties. Also, It's not like anyone ever ran for president as third party before later becoming president within one of the parties. Clearly nothing has been gained in American history from people running third party. Stop pretending to be stupider than you are. None of that is applicable to this election.
Yep. One of the two parties is in control of the executive and the other controls both the Senate and House (somewhat narrowly). From what little I remember most of the party shifts in the U.S. occurred because someone swooped in on another party that was on their deathbed. Or because both parties were on their deathbed.
|
On July 29 2016 01:47 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:40 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 01:36 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On July 29 2016 01:28 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16 Whats your point? Trump's self-contradiction and walking back his statements. It's interesting that he felt the need to claim his previous statement was not serious. Meh, if you want to read malicious intent in a statement you are going to find something malicious. Doesn't change the fact it should be Hillary asking foreign governments if they have her emails. Wait, we are using the KGB our back up server from goverment email now? This conversation is very silly. Foreign nations most likely have everything Hillary ever wrote while in office because of her, to quote the FBI director 'incompetence'. Thats anything but silly. Again if there was nothing important in those emails whats wrong with Hillary asking for them back so she can clear her name?
Before we do that, we need to make sure you are not a criminal. Please open all your email, house and body cavities to a standard goverment search to prove you are not a criminal. The goverment will return your email, house and pride when they are done.
Because you want to clear you name right? Because right now, its not confirmed that you are not a criminal.
|
On July 29 2016 01:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2016 23:48 KwarK wrote:
Bernie knows that it's a two party system. There is no reason to make a third party run in a two party system. Reform FPTP and maybe he'll try. Yeah, everyone knows the two parties have always been Democrat and Republican... Which two parties are seen as the "two parties" never changes. Not once has a "third party" moved into becoming one of the two major parties. Also, It's not like anyone ever ran for president as third party before later becoming president within one of the parties. Clearly nothing has been gained in American history from people running third party. Stop pretending to be stupider than you are. None of that is applicable to this election.
The two nominees have never been less liked/trusted in modern polling history, if there's an election it applies to, it's this one.
|
On July 29 2016 01:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:47 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:40 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 01:36 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On July 29 2016 01:28 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16 Whats your point? Trump's self-contradiction and walking back his statements. It's interesting that he felt the need to claim his previous statement was not serious. Meh, if you want to read malicious intent in a statement you are going to find something malicious. Doesn't change the fact it should be Hillary asking foreign governments if they have her emails. Wait, we are using the KGB our back up server from goverment email now? This conversation is very silly. Foreign nations most likely have everything Hillary ever wrote while in office because of her, to quote the FBI director 'incompetence'. Thats anything but silly. Again if there was nothing important in those emails whats wrong with Hillary asking for them back so she can clear her name? Before we do that, we need to make sure you are not a criminal. Please open all your email, house and body cavities to a standard goverment search to prove you are not a criminal. The goverment will return your email, house and pride when they are done. Because you want to clear you name right? Because right now, its not confirmed that you are not a criminal.
You comparison is way off the mark. She was subpoenaed to hand over all of her emails, she deleted 33,000 after the court ordered her to hand them all over, thats ugly any way you look at it.
If I'm charged with murdering someone with a knife and then proceed to destroy half the knives I've ever came into contact with thats going to raise eyebrows.
|
So a friend of mine who graduated from Yale law and went into working in Climate change and human rights specifically (along with working on alot of other social issues) actively campaigned for Bernie (she lives in Baltimore and commutes to DC for work.)
We have a few groups that discuss goings on and I asked her if I could share this because it felt like the most common sense thing Ive read in a while.
Its the lets work together and get what we can and try to continue to get what we can for everyone benefit approach as opposed to the. Bern this fucking house down and rebuild it approach.
+ Show Spoiler +"Like many people in this country Bernie Sanders uniquely appealed to me as a politician. There are issues I care about that he was willing to address when no one else would even discuss. I think what he did for the party and country is remarkable and I don't think it will stop. But being in philly this past week, I've come to a personal realization which I share not to convert, to argue, or to polarize but because it has been hard and if anyone else feels this way I hope there is space for people to share.
As a Palestinian American Muslim Woman who may or may not want children at any point in the future, who works to stop climate change every day, who had family members deported, who has seen the horror of sexual assault, of gender violence- I listened to these people speak and if you haven't I would.
Leah Daughtry, Erica Smegielski, Felicia Sanders & Polly Sheppard, Christine Leinonen, Brandon Wolf and Jose Arraigada, Gabby Giffords & Mark Kelly, Jelani Freeman, Sybrina Fulton, Geneva Reed-Veal, Lucy McBath, Gwen Carr, Cleopatra Pendelton, Maria Hamilton, Lezley McSpadden, and Wanda Johnson
Hillary Clinton is not perfect- but she works for change and I believe that all the amazing people I have met, worked with, worked for and heard from these past few days will be there to help her shape the next presidency into the best one yet. As the president said last night- politics are not a spectator sport- I will be there to vote on Election Day and every day after to work and to push for the things I care about."
|
On July 29 2016 01:53 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:50 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 01:47 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:40 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 01:36 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On July 29 2016 01:28 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16 Whats your point? Trump's self-contradiction and walking back his statements. It's interesting that he felt the need to claim his previous statement was not serious. Meh, if you want to read malicious intent in a statement you are going to find something malicious. Doesn't change the fact it should be Hillary asking foreign governments if they have her emails. Wait, we are using the KGB our back up server from goverment email now? This conversation is very silly. Foreign nations most likely have everything Hillary ever wrote while in office because of her, to quote the FBI director 'incompetence'. Thats anything but silly. Again if there was nothing important in those emails whats wrong with Hillary asking for them back so she can clear her name? Before we do that, we need to make sure you are not a criminal. Please open all your email, house and body cavities to a standard goverment search to prove you are not a criminal. The goverment will return your email, house and pride when they are done. Because you want to clear you name right? Because right now, its not confirmed that you are not a criminal. You comparison is way off the mark. She was subpoenaed to hand over all of her emails, she deleted 33,000 after the court ordered her to hand them all over, thats ugly any way you look at it. If I'm charged with murdering someone with a knife and then proceed to destroy half the knives I've ever came into contact with thats going to raise eyebrows.
And the FBI determined it was not criminal and not outside the norm. Done and over.
|
On July 29 2016 01:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:14 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 29 2016 01:06 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:56 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:48 LegalLord wrote:On July 29 2016 00:45 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:31 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 00:26 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:23 farvacola wrote:
How many press conference posts does that bring us to now? We get it, you've been told to harp on how many days it's been, thanks for the info. Every time you bring up the talking point of what Trump is saying to the press it is perfectly fine to remind people that at least he is saying something. This thread is moving so fast that I'm sure there are people out there that haven't been shown the fact that Clinton has been avoiding reporters for 236 days now. That doesn’t prove anything though. Clinton still answers the presses questions, just not in that format. The press asks her campaign questions all the time. You might as well cite “It is been 462 since Clinton has done a 1 on 1 hour long interview with someone with opposing views to her” as some sort of evidence that Trumps statements are not directly from a tire fire factory. We get it, she doesn’t do a lot of press conferences. Trump has not detailed a plan to deal with ISIS beyond “we will kill them all with our army, which is the best.” And if the DNC email leak has taught us anything its that there is an imoral relationship between Clinton and large parts of the mainstream media. When Washington Post reporters send their articles to the DNC to get the OK something is wrong. No, getting asked questions that you yourself have given to the media to ask you is not the same as getting asked questions you weren't briefed about beforehand. As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. But if we have learned anything over the last few days, it’s that Trump is Putin’s biggest fan and Trump wants Russia to win the election for him. Maybe Trump will hand out some goodies from his security briefings to get Putin to help. Is that what we've learned or is that just your interpretation of just one more Trumpism from the press conference? • Zeo started the discussion by staying that a poster was poorly informed about Trumps plans. • We then moved to look up Trumps plans and found them to be lacking in details, which is a contrast to Clintons. • Zeo than decided to change subjects and spew out his standard press conference line. • I countered that argument saying that Clinton has responded to questions from the press in a number of formats and Trumps statements are still a dumpster fire and attempted to move the discussion back to Trump’s policies. • He then moved on to talk about the email scandal, the DNC and other things he wants to talk about. • Someone pointed out Trumps FP gaffs and Zeo said “Cool, lets talk about Clinton’s FP decisions” Every time the topic comes back to Trump and his statements, he turns it to an ever changing, mercurial discussion about Clinton that is not limited to any single topic. It is whataboutism and I have become tired of him doing it. Its is garbage and no way to hold a discussion about anything. Not exactly answering my slight objection, but fair enough. Just keep in mind that this conversation is always entirely voluntary and if you don't like the direction it is going you can always simply stop responding whenever. On July 29 2016 01:00 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 00:50 Rebs wrote:On July 29 2016 00:42 zeo wrote:
As for ISIS saying you will destroy them is better than using American taxpayer money to actively fund and train extremist groups that would later go on to become ISIS. Saying you will destroy ISIS in Libya is better than being the guy that bombed the only secular force in the country, turning it into a tribal sharia hellhole where women who were going to university a few years ago now get acid throw in their face by 'democratic forces' because you could see their ankles. While you have a point there, his plan isnt to destroy just ISIS, his plan is to destroy pretty much anything and everything that could be ISIS. That probably includes women that were going to University a few years ago.. along with the elderly, and children and .... Those women now have to wear burkas in areas that are under the control of the most moderate rebels, while 50 miles away in Assad territory they are holding fashion weeks and bikini contests. The whole blame though shouldn't be on Obama and Clinton, McCain/other neo-cons are just as guilty. McCain in my opinion is more dangerous because unlike Clinton who got paid millions by Saudi Arabia for her role he did it out of idealogical (neo-con) fanaticism. Hillary is the candidate who is most consistent with traditional US foreign policy. The problem is that that policy has been a shitshow in general. Can't disagree with that, but you have to remember that the only president in recent history who had a non-traditional approach of foreign policy was George W Bush and his neo cons hacks, and the result was ten time worse. I really don't like American FP. I didn't like it under Clinton, I didn't like it under Reagan and Bush senior, and I don't like it under Obama. But it's not because something is not great that any alternative is a good idea. Trump's proposals are so stupid and suicidal for trhe States and the West that he got Putin's approval. That's bad. In what way was W non-traditional? As far as I can tell the W years were a pretty logical extension of the Clinton years, which were a pretty logical extension of the H.W. years, which were... and so on. As far as I can tell, Putin praised Trump for encouraging better US-Russia relations. That's only bad if you want the countries to remain unfriendly towards each other. Beyond that I just see it as pandering to the part of the Republican base that wishes the US "would have a leader as tough as Putin instead of that wimp Obama."
Are we all really so naive? Putin doesn't do anything if he doesn't think it will put Russia in an advantageous position. Nothing. He thinks that a Trump Presidency is better for Russia and we have to stop and ask ourselves why. No doubt the reasons involve Trump wanting to all but destroy NATO, the major military deterrence against their further takeover in Eastern Europe. Surely it has to do with his strong anti-climate change stance, which only further empowers Oil states like Russia. How about him saying he is willing to formally recognize Crimea as part of Russia? Or how about the obvious consequences of our deteriorating relations with allies during a Trump Presidency (like having our military bases kicked out of countries, decreasing our footprint around Russia)?
I've listened to one of Putin's biographers. She basically said he was a sociopathciac megalomaniac fixated on reviving the old Soviet Union. He does not, and NEVER WILL, have the interests of the United States in mind. If Putin wants Trump President, a reasonable person can only interpret it as a combination of him thinking Trump will do well for Russia and/or do bad for America. One could easily argue that the former leads to the latter.
|
|
|
Did you guys know this when you kept repeating it or were you just repeating it without checking it out? Told you it was a bs number.
|
Curious to see what impact Obamas speech has on those numbers.
|
United States43510 Posts
On July 29 2016 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:42 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2016 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2016 23:48 KwarK wrote:
Bernie knows that it's a two party system. There is no reason to make a third party run in a two party system. Reform FPTP and maybe he'll try. Yeah, everyone knows the two parties have always been Democrat and Republican... Which two parties are seen as the "two parties" never changes. Not once has a "third party" moved into becoming one of the two major parties. Also, It's not like anyone ever ran for president as third party before later becoming president within one of the parties. Clearly nothing has been gained in American history from people running third party. Stop pretending to be stupider than you are. None of that is applicable to this election. The two nominees have never been less liked/trusted in modern polling history, if there's an election it applies to, it's this one.
No, it'll be much more likely to be in the fallout from this one as the parties analyze what went wrong in this election. But even then they'll be far, far more likely to reform themselves internally and take ground previously occupied by a third party than implode and be replaced by a third party. This isn't a debate we're having, this is just me having to explain to you how first past the post works. It is extremely difficult for one of the two dominant parties to cease to be dominant and takes active effort on their part. It just doesn't work the way you want it to. We're not arguing from equal positions here, this is me speaking from a position of knowledge and you speaking from one of ignorance and I am trying to fix your ignorance. And you really ought to be smart enough to understand that and listen.
I know you really liked Bernie and I know you really don't like either of the two candidates. That sucks for you. But that does not change the intrinsic barriers created by first past the post or the colossal amount of momentum that the establishment parties have. Reality isn't treating you very nicely right now but that doesn't mean that reality is any less real. You need to stop committing to this insane alternate reality in which there is any scenario that results in a win for you. The system failed you and that's that.
|
On July 29 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:28 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16 Whats your point? Trump's self-contradiction and walking back his statements. It's interesting that he felt the need to claim his previous statement was not serious.
It's not that interesting when you consider the media chose to run with the interpretation of his "statement" as "controversial" so they could talk during the DNC about the latest appalling thing the other nominee did. It was only ever a joke. Anti-Trumpists get so clouded that they suddenly can't understand basic language when it comes out of one person's mouth. This is the M.O.: First, let's find a way to spin it. Then if he says something more, we'll either claim he's doubling down, insinuating that he refuses to accept a mistake, or walking it back, implying he knows we caught him making a grave error. Great trap.
|
On July 29 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:53 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:50 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 01:47 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:40 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 01:36 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On July 29 2016 01:28 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16 Whats your point? Trump's self-contradiction and walking back his statements. It's interesting that he felt the need to claim his previous statement was not serious. Meh, if you want to read malicious intent in a statement you are going to find something malicious. Doesn't change the fact it should be Hillary asking foreign governments if they have her emails. Wait, we are using the KGB our back up server from goverment email now? This conversation is very silly. Foreign nations most likely have everything Hillary ever wrote while in office because of her, to quote the FBI director 'incompetence'. Thats anything but silly. Again if there was nothing important in those emails whats wrong with Hillary asking for them back so she can clear her name? Before we do that, we need to make sure you are not a criminal. Please open all your email, house and body cavities to a standard goverment search to prove you are not a criminal. The goverment will return your email, house and pride when they are done. Because you want to clear you name right? Because right now, its not confirmed that you are not a criminal. You comparison is way off the mark. She was subpoenaed to hand over all of her emails, she deleted 33,000 after the court ordered her to hand them all over, thats ugly any way you look at it. If I'm charged with murdering someone with a knife and then proceed to destroy half the knives I've ever came into contact with thats going to raise eyebrows. And the FBI determined it was not criminal and not outside the norm. Done and over.
The FBI can't do anything because of political pressure from the Obama administration. Maybe you are OK with the justice system in your country being corrupt but other people are not.
If they are so sure she is innocent there is nothing wrong with having a look at those emails.
|
On July 29 2016 02:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 29 2016 01:42 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2016 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 28 2016 23:48 KwarK wrote:
Bernie knows that it's a two party system. There is no reason to make a third party run in a two party system. Reform FPTP and maybe he'll try. Yeah, everyone knows the two parties have always been Democrat and Republican... Which two parties are seen as the "two parties" never changes. Not once has a "third party" moved into becoming one of the two major parties. Also, It's not like anyone ever ran for president as third party before later becoming president within one of the parties. Clearly nothing has been gained in American history from people running third party. Stop pretending to be stupider than you are. None of that is applicable to this election. The two nominees have never been less liked/trusted in modern polling history, if there's an election it applies to, it's this one. No, it'll be much more likely to be in the fallout from this one as the parties analyze what went wrong in this election. But even then they'll be far, far more likely to reform themselves internally and take ground previously occupied by a third party than implode and be replaced by a third party. This isn't a debate we're having, this is just me having to explain to you how first past the post works. It is extremely difficult for one of the two dominant parties to cease to be dominant and takes active effort on their part. It just doesn't work the way you want it to. We're not arguing from equal positions here, this is me speaking from a position of knowledge and you speaking from one of ignorance and I am trying to fix your ignorance. And you really ought to be smart enough to understand that and listen. I know you really liked Bernie and I know you really don't like either of the two candidates. That sucks for you. But that does not change the intrinsic barriers created by first past the post or the colossal amount of momentum that the establishment parties have. Reality isn't treating you very nicely right now but that doesn't mean that reality is any less real. You need to stop committing to this insane alternate reality in which there is any scenario that results in a win for you. The system failed you and that's that.
You're not explaining anything to me silly. There's more to running third party than winning a single election. But I know you know that and are just being difficult.
|
On July 29 2016 02:04 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2016 01:56 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 01:53 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:50 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 01:47 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:40 Plansix wrote:On July 29 2016 01:36 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:On July 29 2016 01:28 zeo wrote:On July 29 2016 01:24 Doodsmack wrote:
“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing,” the Republican presidential nominee said, staring directly into the bank of television cameras...“I think you will probably be mightily rewarded by our press.”
- D. Trump, 7/27/16
“Of course I’m being sarcastic...You have 33,000 emails deleted, and the real problem is what was said on the emails from the Democratic National Committee.”
- D. Trump, 7/28/16 Whats your point? Trump's self-contradiction and walking back his statements. It's interesting that he felt the need to claim his previous statement was not serious. Meh, if you want to read malicious intent in a statement you are going to find something malicious. Doesn't change the fact it should be Hillary asking foreign governments if they have her emails. Wait, we are using the KGB our back up server from goverment email now? This conversation is very silly. Foreign nations most likely have everything Hillary ever wrote while in office because of her, to quote the FBI director 'incompetence'. Thats anything but silly. Again if there was nothing important in those emails whats wrong with Hillary asking for them back so she can clear her name? Before we do that, we need to make sure you are not a criminal. Please open all your email, house and body cavities to a standard goverment search to prove you are not a criminal. The goverment will return your email, house and pride when they are done. Because you want to clear you name right? Because right now, its not confirmed that you are not a criminal. You comparison is way off the mark. She was subpoenaed to hand over all of her emails, she deleted 33,000 after the court ordered her to hand them all over, thats ugly any way you look at it. If I'm charged with murdering someone with a knife and then proceed to destroy half the knives I've ever came into contact with thats going to raise eyebrows. And the FBI determined it was not criminal and not outside the norm. Done and over. The FBI can't do anything because of political pressure from the Obama administration. Maybe you are OK with the justice system in your country being corrupt but other people are not. If they are so sure she is innocent there is nothing wrong with having a look at those emails.
So what we need is lord Putin, sociopath of Russia, to release these emails and save us all from the terrible corruption under Obama and Clinton.
We get it. Clinton bad. Trump good. Putin Great!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
