|
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 23:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:05 a_flayer wrote:On October 12 2016 22:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 12 2016 17:02 TheYango wrote:On October 12 2016 16:52 a_flayer wrote:
I am aware of tactical voting. It happens here as well. I deliberately don't engage in that sort of thing because I feel like if you do that sort of thing, you are essentially just trying to prevent "the other side" from getting their way which is not what democracy should be about in my opinion. It'd feel like I was trying to suppress someone else's opinions. Tactical voting is not something that I can base my choice on, at any rate. I vote for someone who I can support, if I can't support any of the candidates, they're not getting my vote. If you think that is a simplistic view, then that's fine, as I am literally trying to keep it as simple for myself as possible. The system is completely fucked, we've been through this before. But the only way to un-fuck the system is to participate in it. You don't un-fuck the system by sitting out. As bad as it sounds, the only way to make the game less shit is to play it. The problem is getting over the activation energy of getting enough people who care to participate in the system and enact change. When they all don't participate because they think the system is bad, the system stays bad. I think no internet discussion is really complete without an argumento ad hitlerium, so let me take that one for the team and try to double down on Kwark's metaphor. In 1932, the Weimar republic was fucked. It was corrupt, inefficient, unable to lift Germany from a horrendous crisis, and disconnected from the people. By your logic, you then don't vote at all, or vote for an obscure candidate that has no chance of getting any seat. Now, you introduce Adolf. Does your position still holds? No. You vote Otto Wels, who was indeed much more shitty than Clinton, because of course, he is the lesser of two evils by a universe and a half. Yet, 30% of Germans didn't bother to vote that day. Ok, Trump is not Hitler, but America is not fucked like Germany was and Clinton is not Otto Wels. The difference between the statu quo and the horror that is looming is absolutely gigantic here. You have a choice, between, essentially four more years of Obama, because it's the same party, with leaders that are actually quite similarly minded, and have a very close agenda, and a potential political catastrophe. How bad Trump would be for America, no one really knows, but most probably extremely, extremely bad. When we think of those Germans who didn't vote on July the 31st 1932, we think that they were crazy and irresponsible. Well, it might be that history judges you the same way one day. Trump has the potential to destabilize and fuck up the whole world and screw up America for decades. I suggest you also watch that video of an uncompromising and principled person if there is one, who has an extremely negative opinion of Clinton. He says that if he lived in a swing state, of course he would vote for her because of the enormity of the danger Trump represents. It's Noam Chomsky: + Show Spoiler + Yeah, I watched that as it aired. I honestly just think Trump is a bit of a joke and not much would change if he were to take office. He might be even more of a puppet to corporate interests than HRC, similar to Reagan in that respect, but not some sort of evil dictator or tyrant. Maybe a bit Cheney'esque, which, admittedly, is not a good prospect. So yeah, if I lived in a US swing state, I might also be persuaded to vote for Hillary because of the reality of the situation that I would be in. It's hard to argue against Chomsky in most cases. Well then I disagree with you. First of all, we should judge politicians in the change they bring (or don't bring). You elect someone, and the only thing that matters is the comparison between the country when he takes office and the country when he leaves office. You compare Clinton and Reagan. Reagan changed America for the worst. Not a bit, but enormously. He transformed society, transformed education, transformed the economy, transformed culture in a disastrous way (what we call neoliberalism). Comparing them only has a sense if you assume that Clinton will keep pushing the country in that direction. It would be a spectacular 180° considering the job the Obama administration has done and considering her platform. Obama has been a good and successful president because he has pushed the country in a good way. America is in a better shape and a better place than when he took office. There is nothing that doesn't allow one to postulate Clinton would have similar result, and her platform is a good one. So in my opinion, your assessment of Clinton is wrong. Pragmatically speaking, she will probably leave America a better place, even if you think she is too far right. What matters is that she is at the left of where America is now. Second point: you completely underestimate, in my opinion, what Trump can do. The guy is clueless, completely unstable, completely megalomaniac, and a total jerk. If he follows, even a bit, his platform, he will fuck up the economy, widen exponentially inequalities, destroy the efforts that have been made for climate change and environment in general (and god knows we can't afford to lose time anymore), exacerbate tensions between races and religions with his toxic rhetoric, completely destabilize international relations and jeopardize America's place in the world, fuck up as much as possible the social security making the life of the poor much, much harder etc etc etc. Clinton simply won't. She will make things incrementally better. Those things matter In fact they are the only things that matter. He is also gonna chose the most conservative Justice he can which, in itself, is a reason to vote Clinton, because that can change the country radically. Not choosing between the abyss and incremental improvement because you want drastic improvement is unbelievably irresponsible. People, a shitloads of people are going to suffer if Trump is elected. Since I am doing ad hitlerium today, I'de like to remind you that people didn't take Adolf seriously in 1932. They thought he was not dangerous, that he didn't mean it, that he was a lunatic and a big mouth. Really, they did, as extraordinary as it sounds today. Well, bad luck, he was serious.
I'd also add that the checks and balances really wouldn't help since the a Republican-controlled Congress will happily rubber stamp and goose step the way towards disaster with Trump at the head.
|
On October 12 2016 23:20 KwarK wrote:
Why would you conclude that chemical weapons attacks in Syria were false flags given that
A) Syria definitely had chemical weapons
B) They didn't attack anything notable with them
A false flag is meant to justify an action. A chemical weapon attack on Tel Aviv would have worked but not this shit.
If an atrocity happens and the US takes action you call it a false flag. If an atrocity happens and the US doesn't take action, well, you still call it a false flag attempt.
Most likely they fell into "rebel" hands and the rebels used these weapons against the populace and blamed the government.
They wanted the US to get involved because they were losing the war against Assad.This has happened so many times in history.
BTW if you want to see some of the terrible damage inflicted by US chemical weapons check out the damage depleted uranium shells did to Iraq especially with regard to birth defects.No real action taken by the UN against the US over this disaster.
|
That's why I have attacked Green Horizon so vehemently in this thread. I believe we have an extremely close position politically (my ideal system would be the scandinavian, which is partly why I live in Norway) and altogether, I am muuuuch further left than Clinton.
But what I am interested in and what I think matter is the real world, not some grand ideal or fantasy. And if you love in the real world and care about it, you vote Clinton, period, because the alternative is a disaster.
|
On October 12 2016 23:21 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 22:58 parkufarku wrote:On October 12 2016 21:53 Plansix wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 11:26 ZeaL. wrote:On October 12 2016 11:15 Probe1 wrote:On October 12 2016 09:54 ZeaL. wrote:
Yeah... Unfortunately there is probably going to be violence on election night. Honestly, I'm not too sure what there is to be done about people who distrust everything and everyone except for those in their echo chambers. We said that same thing when Obama was first elected. Turned out aside from a few super crazies the FBI caught before they ever got the ball rolling.. nothing. Maybe I'm being excessively anxious. You do have to admit that the rhetoric this election has been much worse however, with the one of the candidates talking about rigged elections, second amendment solutions, jailing their opponent, etc. I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected. I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? And is telling his supporters at every rally that if he loses, it is because the system is rigged. We could have the presidential election that ends with the loser claiming the process was broken. It is a threat to the democratic process to have the banner barer of one party claiming our elections are rigged. If you can't see the system is rigged, I have no words for you. You can obviously see the Establishment is behind Hillary; go look at major media that isn't foxnews and you'll see most of them will always put up "neutral" articles that bash Trump while praising Hillary. Threat to the democratic process claiming that? LOL. It's a threat to the democratic process to have unfair elections. God you are so biased / blind, can you just stop posting here? Why exactly do you think the establishment backing someone necessarily means the system is rigged? Couldn't it just mean the other person is just awful?
If one candidate had 95%+ of Wall St donations I wouldn't vote for them, put it that way.
|
United States41991 Posts
The UN isn't designed to challenge the US Nettles. The UN is designed to give the great powers a forum for collective action and dispute resolution between themselves. Hence the veto.
|
On October 12 2016 23:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:22 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 22:45 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 22:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 12 2016 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 22:04 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:On October 12 2016 13:38 Probe1 wrote:
[quote]
I'm anxious too. This is the first time in living memory that a candidate has threatened to have his opponent sent to jail if he is elected.
I'm really pissed at Republicans over this. I've been staunchly independent my whole life and they're making this election a joke. You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation. Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton regardless of the FBI's opinion. Why have they not done so? @biology]major Still waiting for an answer on this question. it does? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor Oh didn't know this was determined by congress. Guess they can't get a vote to pass? Not sure. Seems like a good idea to me. It's not. The FBI didn't carry on because they didn't have a case because there is no indication or way to prove she had criminal intents or was anything more than not careful enough. You know we've been talking about those fucking emails for 1000 pages or so, and nobody except for you gives a fuck anymore. We are not electing an email server, and you are the only one here to think that this is the worst thing anybody has ever done. Just drop it, it's annoying, and we are all repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again.
I don't give a shit about her server with 3 classified emails out of 30, 000. I care about the possibility of collusion and her attempts to repeatedly lie to cover it up. There is a huge conflict of interest. The DOJ is run by a president who endorsed HRC. DOJ AG was seen with Bill Clinton before hand discussing kids and golf. HRC is a democratic nominee with the backing of the entire establishment and lobbying power. You have to be naive as hell to think this was even remotely impartial.
Comey added in an intent element, but as Gowdy said numerous times, intent can be shown indirectly through her repeated lying, for which the FBI says it did not look over the benghazi hearing(??). The whole investigation is suspect, and I will keep bringing it up. I hope trump brings it up a few more times in the next debate as well.
|
I trust Comey more than the blech in congress.
Watching the hearings with him was all I needed to see who was better. (admittedly better than congress isn't much of a standard)
and that congress doesn't appoint a special prosecutor to look into is indicative.
|
Comey is no friend of Clinton and was harsh during his testimony, but it’s not his job to produce the result congress is looking for. There is a reason the FBI isn’t controlled by the congress.
|
On October 12 2016 23:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:20 KwarK wrote:
Why would you conclude that chemical weapons attacks in Syria were false flags given that
A) Syria definitely had chemical weapons
B) They didn't attack anything notable with them
A false flag is meant to justify an action. A chemical weapon attack on Tel Aviv would have worked but not this shit.
If an atrocity happens and the US takes action you call it a false flag. If an atrocity happens and the US doesn't take action, well, you still call it a false flag attempt. Most likely they fell into "rebel" hands and the rebels used these weapons against the populace and blamed the government. They wanted the US to get involved because they were losing the war against Assad.This has happened so many times in history.BTW if you want to see some of the terrible damage inflicted by US chemical weapons check out the damage depleted uranium shells did to Iraq especially with regard to birth defects.No real action taken by the UN against the US over this disaster.
Can you back up your claims or are you just making that up simply because making stuff up to fit your vision of the world has become the modus operandi of Republicans these days?
|
On October 12 2016 23:38 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 12 2016 23:22 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 22:45 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 22:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 12 2016 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 22:04 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation. Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton regardless of the FBI's opinion. Why have they not done so? @biology]major Still waiting for an answer on this question. it does? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor Oh didn't know this was determined by congress. Guess they can't get a vote to pass? Not sure. Seems like a good idea to me. It's not. The FBI didn't carry on because they didn't have a case because there is no indication or way to prove she had criminal intents or was anything more than not careful enough. You know we've been talking about those fucking emails for 1000 pages or so, and nobody except for you gives a fuck anymore. We are not electing an email server, and you are the only one here to think that this is the worst thing anybody has ever done. Just drop it, it's annoying, and we are all repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. I don't give a shit about her server with 3 classified emails out of 30, 000. I care about the possibility of collusion and her attempts to repeatedly lie to cover it up. There is a huge conflict of interest. The DOJ is run by a president who endorsed HRC. DOJ AG was seen with Bill Clinton before hand discussing kids and golf. HRC is a democratic nominee with the backing of the entire establishment and lobbying power. You have to be naive as hell to think this was even remotely impartial. Comey added in an intent element, but as Gowdy said numerous times, intent can be shown indirectly through her repeated lying, for which the FBI says it did not look over the benghazi hearing(??). The whole investigation is suspect, and I will keep bringing it up. I hope trump brings it up a few more times in the next debate as well.
Please do if you have something substantially new to add, and please don't if you don't. The fact that you find something suspect is very interesting, but I think I speak for most people here when I say that we are not interested in hearing you repeating the same thing over and over ad nauseam.
And if you want to claim that Hillary is the most corrupted human being that has ever existed, please come up with something better than "the investigation is suspect". You can do better than that.
|
On October 12 2016 23:38 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 12 2016 23:22 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 22:45 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 22:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 12 2016 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 22:04 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:On October 12 2016 15:50 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
You for real? what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump? what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation. Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton regardless of the FBI's opinion. Why have they not done so? @biology]major Still waiting for an answer on this question. it does? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor Oh didn't know this was determined by congress. Guess they can't get a vote to pass? Not sure. Seems like a good idea to me. It's not. The FBI didn't carry on because they didn't have a case because there is no indication or way to prove she had criminal intents or was anything more than not careful enough. You know we've been talking about those fucking emails for 1000 pages or so, and nobody except for you gives a fuck anymore. We are not electing an email server, and you are the only one here to think that this is the worst thing anybody has ever done. Just drop it, it's annoying, and we are all repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. I don't give a shit about her server with 3 classified emails out of 30, 000. I care about the possibility of collusion and her attempts to repeatedly lie to cover it up. There is a huge conflict of interest. The DOJ is run by a president who endorsed HRC. DOJ AG was seen with Bill Clinton before hand discussing kids and golf. HRC is a democratic nominee with the backing of the entire establishment and lobbying power. You have to be naive as hell to think this was even remotely impartial. Comey added in an intent element, but as Gowdy said numerous times, intent can be shown indirectly through her repeated lying, for which the FBI says it did not look over the benghazi hearing(??). The whole investigation is suspect, and I will keep bringing it up. I hope trump brings it up a few more times in the next debate as well.
Again. I have shown you Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton. It has not done so. Why?
They cant get a vote through? They hold the majority
Why have they not done anything?
Could it possibly ever be because they know that they have nothing they can prosecute for?
Why have they not used the power they have to bring Clinton to justice?
Do tell me.
They held 100+ votes to repeal the ACA, 7 Benghazi investiations. They sure don't lack previous example
Where is the Prosecution now?
|
On October 12 2016 23:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:20 KwarK wrote:
Why would you conclude that chemical weapons attacks in Syria were false flags given that
A) Syria definitely had chemical weapons
B) They didn't attack anything notable with them
A false flag is meant to justify an action. A chemical weapon attack on Tel Aviv would have worked but not this shit.
If an atrocity happens and the US takes action you call it a false flag. If an atrocity happens and the US doesn't take action, well, you still call it a false flag attempt. Most likely they fell into "rebel" hands and the rebels used these weapons against the populace and blamed the government.They wanted the US to get involved because they were losing the war against Assad.This has happened so many times in history. BTW if you want to see some of the terrible damage inflicted by US chemical weapons check out the damage depleted uranium shells did to Iraq especially with regard to birth defects.No real action taken by the UN against the US over this disaster.
This is a good example of why people don't take you seriously. The 'most likely' scenario is always whichever scenario best validates your preconceived views, no matter how contrived. You don't even claim there's a small chance of that happening because of x and y, you straight up lie to yourself that it's 'most likely'.
|
On October 12 2016 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:38 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 23:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 12 2016 23:22 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 22:45 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 22:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 12 2016 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 22:04 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:
[quote] what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Drumpf?
what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation. Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton regardless of the FBI's opinion. Why have they not done so? @biology]major Still waiting for an answer on this question. it does? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor Oh didn't know this was determined by congress. Guess they can't get a vote to pass? Not sure. Seems like a good idea to me. It's not. The FBI didn't carry on because they didn't have a case because there is no indication or way to prove she had criminal intents or was anything more than not careful enough. You know we've been talking about those fucking emails for 1000 pages or so, and nobody except for you gives a fuck anymore. We are not electing an email server, and you are the only one here to think that this is the worst thing anybody has ever done. Just drop it, it's annoying, and we are all repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. I don't give a shit about her server with 3 classified emails out of 30, 000. I care about the possibility of collusion and her attempts to repeatedly lie to cover it up. There is a huge conflict of interest. The DOJ is run by a president who endorsed HRC. DOJ AG was seen with Bill Clinton before hand discussing kids and golf. HRC is a democratic nominee with the backing of the entire establishment and lobbying power. You have to be naive as hell to think this was even remotely impartial. Comey added in an intent element, but as Gowdy said numerous times, intent can be shown indirectly through her repeated lying, for which the FBI says it did not look over the benghazi hearing(??). The whole investigation is suspect, and I will keep bringing it up. I hope trump brings it up a few more times in the next debate as well. Again. I have shown you Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton. It has not done so. Why? They cant get a vote through? They hold the majority Why have they not done anything? Could it possibly ever be because they know that they have nothing they can prosecute for? Why have they not used the power they have to bring Clinton to justice? Do tell me.
Congress is suspicious...forget emails. Lets talk about her speeches. Once you debunk that we can go to Clinton Foundation and then circle back to emails again.
Meanwhile Drumpf is going to go grab some pussy.
|
On October 12 2016 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:38 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 23:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 12 2016 23:22 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 22:45 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 22:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 12 2016 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 22:04 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 21:27 Nevuk wrote:
[quote] what US presidential candidate from a major party has called for the jailing of their opponent besides Trump?
what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation. Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton regardless of the FBI's opinion. Why have they not done so? @biology]major Still waiting for an answer on this question. it does? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor Oh didn't know this was determined by congress. Guess they can't get a vote to pass? Not sure. Seems like a good idea to me. It's not. The FBI didn't carry on because they didn't have a case because there is no indication or way to prove she had criminal intents or was anything more than not careful enough. You know we've been talking about those fucking emails for 1000 pages or so, and nobody except for you gives a fuck anymore. We are not electing an email server, and you are the only one here to think that this is the worst thing anybody has ever done. Just drop it, it's annoying, and we are all repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. I don't give a shit about her server with 3 classified emails out of 30, 000. I care about the possibility of collusion and her attempts to repeatedly lie to cover it up. There is a huge conflict of interest. The DOJ is run by a president who endorsed HRC. DOJ AG was seen with Bill Clinton before hand discussing kids and golf. HRC is a democratic nominee with the backing of the entire establishment and lobbying power. You have to be naive as hell to think this was even remotely impartial. Comey added in an intent element, but as Gowdy said numerous times, intent can be shown indirectly through her repeated lying, for which the FBI says it did not look over the benghazi hearing(??). The whole investigation is suspect, and I will keep bringing it up. I hope trump brings it up a few more times in the next debate as well. Again. I have shown you Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton. It has not done so. Why? They cant get a vote through? They hold the majority Why have they not done anything? Could it possibly ever be because they know that they have nothing they can prosecute for? Why have they not used the power they have to bring Clinton to justice? Do tell me.
I don't know, but they should.
|
United States41991 Posts
Bio Major, didn't Loretta Lynch wash her hands of direct intervention into the investigation saying that as a political appointee she felt her presence may taint it by implication, even if she remained impartial? She said she'd accept whatever recommendation the FBI made. And this all happened months before Bill spoke to her. I'm somewhat confused by how Bill is meant to have altered this. Lynch said she wouldn't be involved, Bill met with Lynch, people freaked the fuck out, Lynch reiterated that she wasn't getting involved to avoid undermining the integrity of the case and people accused her of having been pressured by Bill into saving Hillary by doing what she was already doing and staying out of it. I just don't see the part where Lynch wasn't impartial. She said she'd accept whatever recommendation the FBI made, didn't act at all to change it, met with Bill, still didn't act at all to change it and then accepted the recommendation of the FBI.
Could you explain to me exactly where Lynch became impartial and how Bill was involved in making that happen?
|
On October 12 2016 23:55 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:53 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 23:38 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 23:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 12 2016 23:22 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 23:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 22:45 biology]major wrote:On October 12 2016 22:42 Trainrunnef wrote:On October 12 2016 22:05 Gorsameth wrote:On October 12 2016 22:04 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
what US presidential candidate from a major party was under investigation for mishandling of classified information? She needs to be investigated by an independent source. There is no trust in the FBI or DOJ at the moment. What trump said was how millions of Americans feel. Cover up worse than crime situation. Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton regardless of the FBI's opinion. Why have they not done so? @biology]major Still waiting for an answer on this question. it does? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_prosecutor Oh didn't know this was determined by congress. Guess they can't get a vote to pass? Not sure. Seems like a good idea to me. It's not. The FBI didn't carry on because they didn't have a case because there is no indication or way to prove she had criminal intents or was anything more than not careful enough. You know we've been talking about those fucking emails for 1000 pages or so, and nobody except for you gives a fuck anymore. We are not electing an email server, and you are the only one here to think that this is the worst thing anybody has ever done. Just drop it, it's annoying, and we are all repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. I don't give a shit about her server with 3 classified emails out of 30, 000. I care about the possibility of collusion and her attempts to repeatedly lie to cover it up. There is a huge conflict of interest. The DOJ is run by a president who endorsed HRC. DOJ AG was seen with Bill Clinton before hand discussing kids and golf. HRC is a democratic nominee with the backing of the entire establishment and lobbying power. You have to be naive as hell to think this was even remotely impartial. Comey added in an intent element, but as Gowdy said numerous times, intent can be shown indirectly through her repeated lying, for which the FBI says it did not look over the benghazi hearing(??). The whole investigation is suspect, and I will keep bringing it up. I hope trump brings it up a few more times in the next debate as well. Again. I have shown you Congress has the power to prosecute Clinton. It has not done so. Why? They cant get a vote through? They hold the majority Why have they not done anything? Could it possibly ever be because they know that they have nothing they can prosecute for? Why have they not used the power they have to bring Clinton to justice? Do tell me. I don't know, but they should.
Well we do, and we've given you the answer.
Let's move on, thanks.
|
On October 12 2016 23:37 KwarK wrote:
The UN isn't designed to challenge the US Nettles. The UN is designed to give the great powers a forum for collective action and dispute resolution between themselves. Hence the veto.
Well the system needs to change then.
The US bombing the Syrian army a couple of weeks ago was a clear war crime.
The bombing of the Doctors without borders hospital last year was a clear war crime.
Bush invading on false pretense of WMDs was a war crime.
These powers need to be accountable for the war crimes they commit.US courts & the ICC are protecting these people.
|
On October 12 2016 23:54 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2016 23:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 12 2016 23:20 KwarK wrote:
Why would you conclude that chemical weapons attacks in Syria were false flags given that
A) Syria definitely had chemical weapons
B) They didn't attack anything notable with them
A false flag is meant to justify an action. A chemical weapon attack on Tel Aviv would have worked but not this shit.
If an atrocity happens and the US takes action you call it a false flag. If an atrocity happens and the US doesn't take action, well, you still call it a false flag attempt. Most likely they fell into "rebel" hands and the rebels used these weapons against the populace and blamed the government.They wanted the US to get involved because they were losing the war against Assad.This has happened so many times in history. BTW if you want to see some of the terrible damage inflicted by US chemical weapons check out the damage depleted uranium shells did to Iraq especially with regard to birth defects.No real action taken by the UN against the US over this disaster. This is a good example of why people don't take you seriously. The 'most likely' scenario is always whichever scenario best validates your preconceived views, no matter how contrived. You don't even claim there's a small chance of that happening because of x and y, you straight up lie to yourself that it's 'most likely'.
That's how you end up with a whole party that believes in the most stupid conspiracy theories. Don't like something? Make stuff up!
0 intellectual integrity, and a complete disregard for facts can take you very far in terms of building a fantasy world. Also make your party look like a bunch of delusional lunatics, which is not great to win elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
