|
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 October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!'
I love how every time someone asks "where is Clinton's Smoking Gun that we were promised", someone has to pipe in and say "when you finally do get it you'd just ignore it".
Surprisingly, hypothetical stories about people ignoring your hypothetical leaks is not a compelling argument.
|
On October 12 2016 04:32 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 04:22 KwarK wrote:
I feel like the Christians are having a lot of fun trying to incorporate Trumpianity into their dogma. He's literally everything Jesus was telling people reject. This is a good year. Now now, "the Christians" isn't really the proper title here, we're talking Evangelicals, Baptists, and Non-Denominationals for the most part. The vast majority of Catholics and most Protestant ecclesiastical polities have largely denounced Trump, though some have definitely taken longer to do it than others. IIRC the largest association of Catholic clergy manifestly denounced Trump all the way back in March or something.
Speaking of which, the 'flagship evangelical magazine' (according to WaPo) just renounced him
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2016/october-web-only/speak-truth-to-trump.html
|
If I lived in a third world country like zeo I would also find it odd to see people support the status quo candidate no matter how bad she or he would be.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good.
My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States.
You all know what would happen here if my post came true.
|
On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here if my post came true.
No it wouldn't
|
On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here if my post came true.
I agree, it's remarkable how much doublethink people will do to not realize Trump is a corrupt politician up there with Taft.
|
On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here if my post came true.
So you don’t know shit about US history as well?
Edit: TheTenthDoc is now my favorite for a good Taft reference. But let us not forget William M. Tweed, the legend himself.
|
On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Drumpf releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Drumpf talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here.
Sure, but to agree with you that it actually happens, it has to happen. So far no mental gymnastics have been required to dismiss the wikileaks "scandals" because there just isnt anything there. Plenty of mental gymnastics are required to create something. You should be quite familiar with this behavior as you are exhibit A.
Also lol at most corrupt president in history. I laughed so hard the backrest on my office chair broke. Now I need to stay late at work and steal someones.
|
Clinton taking the position as Secretary of State in hindsight probably didn't help her future presidential campaign, independent of her opposition. To the extent she's competent, it's nonetheless a cabinet position and she has to make other people's mistakes, being a governor somewhere would be better, shows executive practice. To the extent she's incompetent, it would have been better for her to stay in the senate where nobody outside of the politics notices and you can still launch presidential bids.
|
On October 12 2016 05:45 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Drumpf releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Drumpf talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here. Sure, but to agree with you that it actually happens, it has to happen. So far no mental gymnastics have been required to dismiss the wikileaks "scandals" because there just isnt anything there. Plenty of mental gymnastics are required to create something. You should be quite familiar with this behavior as you are exhibit A. Also lol at most corrupt president in history. I laughed so hard the backrest on my office chair broke. Now I need to stay late at work and steal someones.
Most corrupt politician, not president. Maybe there isn't enough political will to go after her now but everything comes to the surface sooner or later.
|
United States41989 Posts
On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here if my post came true.
Your point is that if Clinton were proved to be corrupt people would deny it. Your evidence is that so far people have denied her corruption on the grounds that there is no proof of it. Your further evidence is that in the hypothetical scandal you invented, which didn't involve corruption, the hypothetical straw men you invented to joust did exactly what you said they would.
You should think before you type.
|
On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!'
Look. I know you don't want to admit it. But your candidate has admitted to engaging in sexual assault. He holds women down and forces parts of his body into theirs regardless of whether they want it or not. That's what he admitted to on that video. The only places this would be considered locker room talk would be in a community of rapists. He's a vile, unrepentant rapist.
The difference between this and the hypothetical of Clinton eating someone's face off is that this isn't a hypothetical. He is a rapist. He does not repent. That makes him vile and loathsome.
|
On October 12 2016 05:48 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:45 Rebs wrote:On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Drumpf releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Drumpf talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here. Sure, but to agree with you that it actually happens, it has to happen. So far no mental gymnastics have been required to dismiss the wikileaks "scandals" because there just isnt anything there. Plenty of mental gymnastics are required to create something. You should be quite familiar with this behavior as you are exhibit A. Also lol at most corrupt president in history. I laughed so hard the backrest on my office chair broke. Now I need to stay late at work and steal someones. Most corrupt politician, not president.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_administration_scandals
|
On October 12 2016 05:48 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:45 Rebs wrote:On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Drumpf releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Drumpf talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here. Sure, but to agree with you that it actually happens, it has to happen. So far no mental gymnastics have been required to dismiss the wikileaks "scandals" because there just isnt anything there. Plenty of mental gymnastics are required to create something. You should be quite familiar with this behavior as you are exhibit A. Also lol at most corrupt president in history. I laughed so hard the backrest on my office chair broke. Now I need to stay late at work and steal someones. Most corrupt politician, not president.
You know nothing of US history if you believe that. Nothing.
|
On October 12 2016 05:48 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:45 Rebs wrote:On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Drumpf releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Drumpf talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here. Sure, but to agree with you that it actually happens, it has to happen. So far no mental gymnastics have been required to dismiss the wikileaks "scandals" because there just isnt anything there. Plenty of mental gymnastics are required to create something. You should be quite familiar with this behavior as you are exhibit A. Also lol at most corrupt president in history. I laughed so hard the backrest on my office chair broke. Now I need to stay late at work and steal someones. Most corrupt politician, not president. Maybe there isn't enough political will to go after her now but everything comes to the surface sooner or later.
Right my bad, got ahead of myself there. Also, not helping your case with that still. You just leveled up the stupid by reiterating that.
Or well I guess the obvious answer is shes so corrupt that she has the entire establishment by the balls and no one can do nothing about her corruption because shes so corrupt.
|
On October 12 2016 05:46 oBlade wrote:
Clinton taking the position as Secretary of State in hindsight probably didn't help her future presidential campaign, independent of her opposition. To the extent she's competent, it's nonetheless a cabinet position and she has to make other people's mistakes, being a governor somewhere would be better, shows executive practice. To the extent she's incompetent, it would have been better for her to stay in the senate where nobody outside of the politics notices and you can still launch presidential bids.
She had a bad Term as SOS just because of the events that happened while she was there. Benghazi happening wasn't her fault but she was at the help of the state department when it did, the arab spring was coming a mile off as the cold war dictators we put in place would die off but Obama didn't have the option of doing much with the country not wanting intervention anywhere after Iraq and Afghanistan didn't turn out as well as could be hoped. when the best FP move you made during your term was to reinstill a military dictatorship you have a really low bar on what you could have done with the office.
|
|
|
On October 12 2016 05:49 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:48 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:45 Rebs wrote:On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Drumpf releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Drumpf talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here. Sure, but to agree with you that it actually happens, it has to happen. So far no mental gymnastics have been required to dismiss the wikileaks "scandals" because there just isnt anything there. Plenty of mental gymnastics are required to create something. You should be quite familiar with this behavior as you are exhibit A. Also lol at most corrupt president in history. I laughed so hard the backrest on my office chair broke. Now I need to stay late at work and steal someones. Most corrupt politician, not president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_administration_scandals
I'm not sure if this proves your point, Clinton has her own category on wikipedia with 54 separate articles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinton_administration_controversies
|
On October 12 2016 05:54 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:49 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 05:48 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:45 Rebs wrote:On October 12 2016 05:43 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Drumpf releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Drumpf talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' You understand that to illustrate your point about how we're ignoring perfectly valid Clinton scandals you had to create a fictional scandal that would be valid, right? That doesn't make your point look good. My point is there are a fair few people on this forum that would do any amount of mental gymnastics to not see what in front of you: The most corrupt politician in the history of the United States. You all know what would happen here. Sure, but to agree with you that it actually happens, it has to happen. So far no mental gymnastics have been required to dismiss the wikileaks "scandals" because there just isnt anything there. Plenty of mental gymnastics are required to create something. You should be quite familiar with this behavior as you are exhibit A. Also lol at most corrupt president in history. I laughed so hard the backrest on my office chair broke. Now I need to stay late at work and steal someones. Most corrupt politician, not president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant_presidential_administration_scandals I'm not sure if this proves your point, Clinton has her own category on wikipedia with 54 separate articles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinton_administration_controversies
Thats ermmm.. Bill Clinton ?
Also the only mention of Hillary in that at a cursory look is the AAP whining in court about her childcare shit that got overturned iirc.
|
On October 12 2016 05:38 PhoenixVoid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:34 zeo wrote:On October 12 2016 05:23 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 05:21 LegalLord wrote:
At some point in the past, Assange said that he doesn't have any anti-Trump releases because nothing he could come up with could compare to the damage the words that come out of his mouth could do. Regardless of whether or not you agree with his leaks or real/perceived bias, I think he's probably right about that. So when are those damaging emails he keeps talking about going to come out? Before or after Hillary gets inaugurated? A video could leak where you can clearly see Clinton eating someones face off while tripping out on bath salts and the reaction in this thread would be 'is that it? I don't see a problem here. Grasping at straws much? But Trump talked about grabbing vaginas ten years ago! I don't believe anything until I see John Oliver talk about it'. Gradually it would move on to 'why are you still talking about the bath salts incident? She said she was sorry, it was a harmless mistake beside that one guy that got his face eaten. The FBI said there was no criminal intent! Oh my God just let it go... ughrh misogynists!!' Resorting to hypotheticals doesn't help your point. Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 05:21 raga4ka wrote:On October 12 2016 03:46 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:WASHINGTON ― The U.S. is in a shooting war in Yemen, where the American military has spent years vaporizing suspected terrorists in airstrikes and a Saudi-led coalition is busily slaughtering civilians with American refueling and intelligence support.
You wouldn’t know it from watching the second presidential debate Sunday night. Even after one of the deadliest attacks of the Saudi campaign — a series of airstrikes on a funeral in Sanaa, Yemen’s ancient capital, that killed more than 140 people Saturday — neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton was asked about whether the U.S. should keep aiding an ally that appears to be actively targeting civilians.
Since debate moderators won’t ask the presidential candidates about Yemen, we did. But neither campaign answered, and their public statements alone make it impossible to tell whether they would continue President Barack Obama’s policy of supporting the Saudi-led coalition’s war against the Houthi rebel group that now controls much of the western part of the country, including the capital.
“Shouldn’t this be something we’re discussing as a country?” asked Adam Baron, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, who lived in Yemen from 2011 to 2014. “Shouldn’t the American people be aware of the fact that the U.S. is a major part of a war in Yemen?”
Because the U.S. isn’t directly involved in the Saudi-led fight, there are no U.S. troops on the ground and both sides have committed human rights abuses, Yemen barely registers in the political consciousness of American voters. It’s hard to quantify exactly how little the electorate cares about Yemen because pollsters don’t even ask about it.
That helps explain why Clinton and Trump have been able to campaign for over a year without ever being made to outline a plan forward in the country. Source Yet when rebels in Aleppo are about to lose to Assad/Russia, US, Britain and France were screaming full lungs "WAR CRIMES". I guess an ally to the west like Saudi and Israel in the past can commit war crimes without anyone batting an eye. US of all countries have committed more war crimes then any other country in the past decade. That's why I'm supporting Trumptard to become president and slow down west imperialism and hypocrisy even by a little, but again it's Trump so it might just get worse... Trump is a man who promised to end ISIS in 90 days, so he won't exactly be playing faraway foreign policy actor.
Trump is a clown, I can't take anything he says seriously. I hope if he ever gets to the white house that his advisors are at least smart people, but he seems more willing to cooperate with other super powers like Russia and China on global issues. Hillary on the other hand has already done things under the Obama administration I'm not a fan of and will continue her husband, the Bushes and Obama's foreign policy. Tensions in EU and Asia - refugee crisis, Ukraine, middle east and even the South China Sea are at a boiling point, I don't want to see how it could possibly get any worse then this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
