zerostao

2016 us election

Recommended Posts

the only reason I see to wait is to make sure Obama cant pardon her

 

cant be forgiven for a crime one hasnt been tried for much less convicted

 

that said, she should be hung for treason asap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah the politics of outrage.. You'll probably be waiting a long time for treason charges and stringing people up.  People played that game with Bush.. probably with every president. 

 

 

I agree with what Jeff Greenfield wrote- http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-gop-republicans-terrorism-worried-concerned-nominee-213963

 

'..Trump has the instincts of a narcissistic bully, unable to even imagine that anyone might have a reasonable basis for disagreeing with him, and Trump’s apparent inability to distinguish between his private interests and the public interest. What is haunting a significant number of Republicans is that they are on the verge of putting someone in the Oval Office whose character and temperament make him unfit for the job.. '

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope some solid Election rule reforms come out of this election.  No more super delegates.  A simple, fair and uniform way for each state to pick there delegates. 

 

Why not go further.  Put limits and clear visibility into all donations.  Let position papers take front row over emotional sound bites.  With every newspaper required to print no bullshit or evading answers on the major issues. 

 

Also, lets have some debates purely on positions and ideas where the first person to throw an insult is asked told to leave.   We can still have the usual pointless debates where most answers drift into there cookie cutter everday speech.   A few with only substance, throwing the ones who break the rules off the set, either a hook or two or three beefy guys tossing them off.  I'd like that.   Be good for ratings too. 

 

Lets have one debate where knowledgeable, as neutral as possible experts have a controls that rates truth in real time like factcheck.org does, from true, mostly true, down to pants on fire. 

Edited by thelerner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah the politics of outrage.. You'll probably be waiting a long time for treason charges and stringing people up. People played that game with Bush.. probably with every president.

 

 

I agree with what Jeff Greenfield wrote- http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-gop-republicans-terrorism-worried-concerned-nominee-213963

 

'..Trump has the instincts of a narcissistic bully, unable to even imagine that anyone might have a reasonable basis for disagreeing with him, and Trump’s apparent inability to distinguish between his private interests and the public interest. What is haunting a significant number of Republicans is that they are on the verge of putting someone in the Oval Office whose character and temperament make him unfit for the job.. '

I'd agree with that assessment, except that he is deemed unsuitable for the job. He is unsuitable only by dint of him being, or seeming to, not play the corporatist game. If they can't control him, then expect an early exit, if he was a plant, then expect a Damascian conversion to Busclinobamump.

 

His unwillingness to listen to the Lords of the Universe certainly woukd make him unsuitable-for them.

Edited by Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gawd. :-/ it's just bickering.

Whether Trump is the real deal, or not, it's amazing the amount of heat generated around the political royalty. Would any of these people get a second look from Clinton or Trump outside of an election ?

 

Killary certainly likes to murder a lot of brown people whilst conducting wars to supposedly liberate them from dictators. Liberation appears to liberating them of property, family, education, health and peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killary certainly likes to murder a lot of brown people whilst conducting wars to supposedly liberate them from dictators. Liberation appears to liberating them of property, family, education, health and peace.

You know, Hillary wasn't president when the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?  She like most of congress was fed bad intelligence.   What was England's excuse? 

 

Never mind.  I can't have a serious conversation with someone using kindergarten name calling like Killary.   I know Fox news has popularized that jargon but amongst adults it means your.. trying to impress preschoolers. 

Edited by thelerner
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, Hillary wasn't president when the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? She like most of congress was fed bad intelligence. What was England's excuse?

 

Never mind. I can't have a serious conversation with someone using kindergarten name calling like Killary. I know Fox news has popularized that jargon but amongst adults it means your.. trying to impress preschoolers.

 

She has supported every war and promoted them. Britain has no excuse. We participated in an illegal war on a country that wasn't a threat and never threatened us. The EU and Britain is the USA lapdog, we are vassal states of the most powerful military power on the planet. Iraq posed no threat the the USA either and the people were lied to in order to encourage them to believe 9/11 was the result of an Iraqui plot.

 

Clintons war lust is well documented. I hardly need to expand on it. Killary seems the perfect nickname for a behind the lines murderess who sacrificed blood and treasure so cavalierly. The reason why she is the front runner is that she never questions her enablers, or her actions, unless of course she gets caught lying or committing acts of criminality.

Edited by Karl
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I'm still not sure you realize that Clinton wasn't president for Iraq war.  Not sure why you feel the need to blame it on her. 

 

Do you understand that as secretary of state she withdrew our troops from Afghanistan and the majority from Iraq.  She did vote for Libya but only as a limited force in a country where massacres were taking place. 

 

I can understand people being against her.  Do you really believe your emotion charged rhetoric that she 'likes to murder a lot of brown people'.  You honestly believe that is her policy motivation?  You do know her one of her closest friends and advisors is Muslim. 

 

There are indepth books that explain the complexity of history and what was going on.  You can learn about the people, background, currents that were happening at the time.  If you read, you can go deeper then 'its because she likes brown people'.  You can learn about what shaped Englands decisions too, beyond- they're just lackeys. 

 

I'm not defending the war, or the decisions, but there is depth to history that is invisible to your simplistic black and white view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you forgetting that its congress' job to declare war?  no matter what the theater, she's been supportive of action, whether we're talking bosnia or iraq or libya or afghanistan

 

speaking of which, our troops never left either iraq or afghanistan

 

and her close advisor isnt just muslim, she's a muslim brotherhood operative, go look at who huma is related to.

 

its not about hating muslims.  its about the strip mining of the planet at the explicit expense of the little people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I'm still not sure you realize that Clinton wasn't president for Iraq war.  Not sure why you feel the need to blame it on her. 

 

Do you understand that as secretary of state she withdrew our troops from Afghanistan and the majority from Iraq.  She did vote for Libya but only as a limited force in a country where massacres were taking place. 

 

I can understand people being against her.  Do you really believe your emotion charged rhetoric that she 'likes to murder a lot of brown people'.  You honestly believe that is her policy motivation?  You do know her one of her closest friends and advisors is Muslim. 

 

There are indepth books that explain the complexity of history and what was going on.  You can learn about the people, background, currents that were happening at the time.  If you read, you can go deeper then 'its because she likes brown people'.  You can learn about what shaped Englands decisions too, beyond- they're just lackeys. 

 

I'm not defending the war, or the decisions, but there is depth to history that is invisible to your simplistic black and white view.

She gets well paid to do what she does and she isn't squeamish about doing it. She likes anyone who can give her more power and money, that's her goal. All politicians are power seekers, even the most idealistic soon discover that progress isn't made by integrity, they quickly learn how to compromise.

 

She would murder brown, white, black or yellow people if it got her what she needed.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your ignoring the fact that as secretary of state she (mostly) pulled the US out of the wars the Republicans and more precisely the neo-cons started.  The truth is Hillary would rule would look more like Obama's & Clintons.   Trump looks increasingly like a Neocon.

 

Is he a neocon, like the ones who started stupid pointless wars?

 

His speeches are often based on Fear, paranoia and exaggeration and an unbelievable dose of self aggrandizement.  Major points are We're weak, the military is weak.  We're not respected.  We need to be Tougher.  Mexico is sending us there rapists, China is raping us.   We're being taken advantage of by other countries, particularly the Middle East.  We'll force Mexico to pay Billions for a wall.  We'll Take Over Iraq's Oil Fields(1).

 

These are red flags, bright bloody red flags that shout Republican NEOCON.   We want less war, I don't think Trump is our man.  In truth no one knows which way Trump will go, but if he true to his words, he could do anything, he's been on both sides of most issues.  Once in charge his main advisors will be Republican.  The crazy trade wars with Mexico and China will look pleasant compared to what this man's ego is capable of.

 

Speaking of colors, a big reason Trump is going to lose is because he's pissed off so many people of color, particularly Hispanic, and of course Muslims worldwide.   There is a good chance the more he speaks, the more groups, including Republicans, he'll make enemies of. 

 

His loss in November might be epic.  When he does I'll drink to it.  I'll make a Killary.. let's see brown liquor, bourbon, white umm.. milk no coconut milks, black.. more bourbon, yellow.. pineapple juice, pink will be pink grape fruit juice.  All of humanity altogether, working in harmony, along with ice in my glass.  B)

 

 

(1) *from http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trumps-odd-fixation-seizing-middle-eastern-oil-fields-jim-geraghty

“So you would keep troops in Iraq after this year?” asked Wall Street Journal reporter Kelly Evans. “I would take the oil,” Trump responded. Trump has repeatedly endorsed the bizarre, bellicose fantasy that the U.S. could and should seize oil fields in Iraq and Libya.
 
A confused Evans responded, “I don’t understand how you would take — does that mean keeping troops there, or staying involved in Iraq?” “You heard me, I would take the oil,” Trump insisted. “I would not leave Iraq and let Iran take the oil.” About a week after his interview with Evans, Trump elaborated, suggesting that America’s losses in Iraq deserved compensation in the form of Iraqi oil. “In the old days, you know when you had a war, to the victor belong the spoils,” he told George Stephanopoulos in 2011. “You go in. You win the war and you take it. . . . You’re not stealing anything. . . . We’re taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse ourselves.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trumps-odd-fixation-seizing-middle-eastern-oil-fields-jim-geraghty
Edited by thelerner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

she pulled us out of wars?  LOL...that's about as honest as "the clinton surplus"

 

yeahyeah, except the neocons hate trump and have been doing all they can to electoral fraud him out of the race.  his response is of a business man having bought a company - and a quote from 2011, lol.   he's said numerous times how much of a mistake it was going into iraq, have we not had mexican illegals do some raping,  and businesswise its the big business owners that are doing the raping - americans have at least had the quasi boon of cheap chinese goods, but its come at the expense of american mfg base and it shafts the plebes in china.

 

you sure you dont watch chris matthews every night?   keep seeing too much epitomizing Twain's "if you dont read the news, you're uninformed, if you read the news, you're misinformed" here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So your ignoring the fact that as secretary of state she (mostly) pulled the US out of the wars the Republicans and more precisely the neo-cons started.  The truth is Hillary would rule would look more like Obama's & Clintons.   Trump looks increasingly like a Neocon.

 

Is he a neocon, like the ones who started stupid pointless wars?

 

His speeches are often based on Fear, paranoia and exaggeration and an unbelievable dose of self aggrandizement.  Major points are We're weak, the military is weak.  We're not respected.  We need to be Tougher.  Mexico is sending us there rapists, China is raping us.   We're being taken advantage of by other countries, particularly the Middle East.  We'll force Mexico to pay Billions for a wall.  We'll Take Over Iraq's Oil Fields(1).

 

These are red flags, bright bloody red flags that shout Republican NEOCON.   We want less war, I don't think Trump is our man.  In truth no one knows which way Trump will go, but if he true to his words, he could do anything, he's been on both sides of most issues.  Once in charge his main advisors will be Republican.  The crazy trade wars with Mexico and China will look pleasant compared to what this man's ego is capable of.

 

Speaking of colors, a big reason Trump is going to lose is because he's pissed off so many people of color, particularly Hispanic, and of course Muslims worldwide.   There is a good chance the more he speaks, the more groups, including Republicans, he'll make enemies of. 

 

His loss in November might be epic.  When he does I'll drink to it.  I'll make a Killary.. let's see brown liquor, bourbon, white umm.. milk no coconut milks, black.. more bourbon, yellow.. pineapple juice, pink will be pink grape fruit juice.  All of humanity altogether, working in harmony, along with ice in my glass.  B)

 

 

(1) *from http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trumps-odd-fixation-seizing-middle-eastern-oil-fields-jim-geraghty

“So you would keep troops in Iraq after this year?” asked Wall Street Journal reporter Kelly Evans. “I would take the oil,” Trump responded. Trump has repeatedly endorsed the bizarre, bellicose fantasy that the U.S. could and should seize oil fields in Iraq and Libya.

 

A confused Evans responded, “I don’t understand how you would take — does that mean keeping troops there, or staying involved in Iraq?” “You heard me, I would take the oil,” Trump insisted. “I would not leave Iraq and let Iran take the oil.” About a week after his interview with Evans, Trump elaborated, suggesting that America’s losses in Iraq deserved compensation in the form of Iraqi oil. “In the old days, you know when you had a war, to the victor belong the spoils,” he told George Stephanopoulos in 2011. “You go in. You win the war and you take it. . . . You’re not stealing anything. . . . We’re taking back $1.5 trillion to reimburse ourselves.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421825/donald-trumps-odd-fixation-seizing-middle-eastern-oil-fields-jim-geraghty

Interesting, there's a back story there that you might not know regarding Iran. Essentially they stole the oil from the legitimate businesses who were extracting it. They decided that the price they had been paid was insufficient-even though they had neither the money, nor the technology to get the oil out of the ground. Iran is a nation that has consistently threatened violence against the West and the USA-in particular as the indispensable nation-had a foreign policy that failed to address the threats, kidnappings and terrorist attacks on Western people and interests. Iran is a dangerous country because it threatens The UAE and consequently US dollar/oil hegemony. Now that the US has wrecked the counter balance of Iraq it means that Iran is poised to take the Iraq gas/ oil fields and potentially dominate the Middle East. A compact of a sort has been forged between UAE and Iran but it's very tenuous and my yet blossom into all out war in which the US/ NATO would be inevitably dragged along with Russia who support Iran and Israel who won't hesitate for a moment to employ every means at its disposal to wipe Iran off the face of the planet.

 

This is a powder keg. I can see why Trump would attempt to prevent Iran getting its hands on more wealth, hence more power. IMO the US made a terrible mistake allowing Iran to steal the oil wells from the legitimate businesses who were paying Iran to do that business. They made another mistake when they failed to act against the terrorist activities of those Iran shelters and the various fatwas and sabre rattling. The made the final mistake in giving the Iranians the option of going nuclear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume neo-cons prefer Trump a Republican to Hillary.   They may hold there nose, as will many Republican leaders but odds are that's the way they'll be voting and more then likely its his administration they'd be joining if he was elected.   His speeches and temperament are much closer to neocons in there Absolute Us vs Them world view, and frequent themes of fear, paranoia and need for respect. 

 

Karl, I could answer but moving the thread into discussion on Iran is going too far away from elections, imo.  Its a complication issue and if you want to find someone to discuss it with you should start a new thread. 

 

don't write it <damn>- personally I'm not happy with the deal the Obama administration worked out, but I'm very happy we didn't got to war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume neo-cons prefer Trump a Republican to Hillary.   They may hold there nose, as will many Republican leaders but odds are that's the way they'll be voting and more then likely its his administration they'd be joining if he was elected.   His speeches and temperament are much closer to neocons in there Absolute Us vs Them world view, and frequent themes of fear, paranoia and need for respect. 

 

Karl, I could answer but moving the thread into discussion on Iran is going too far away from elections, imo.  Its a complication issue and if you want to find someone to discuss it with you should start a new thread. 

 

don't write it <damn>- personally I'm not happy with the deal the Obama administration worked out, but I'm very happy we didn't got to war. 

You may yet go to war over Iran, but instead of Iran it may well be the combined power of China and Russia. Anyone for nuclear Armageddon ? It's rumoured that Europe would last 60 hours tops even in a conventional battle.

 

I'm not going to defend Trump, but that's where lies and subterfuge get you when the political process is distorted. At some point the people get sick and then someone will appear who is prepared to do things everybody will later agree were awful. Is that Trump ? I don't know, I don't think so and I suspect he is so far away from beating Clinton that it won't be on the cards. However, Obama/Clinton has laid down the base for a tyrant to rule to benefit their class, they have removed all the stops, checks and balances so it's only a matter of time before the 'right' person appears and uses the apparatus bequeathed to him.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume neo-cons prefer Trump a Republican to Hillary.   They may hold there nose, as will many Republican leaders but odds are that's the way they'll be voting and more then likely its his administration they'd be joining if he was elected.   His speeches and temperament are much closer to neocons in there Absolute Us vs Them world view, and frequent themes of fear, paranoia and need for respect. 

 

Karl, I could answer but moving the thread into discussion on Iran is going too far away from elections, imo.  Its a complication issue and if you want to find someone to discuss it with you should start a new thread. 

 

don't write it <damn>- personally I'm not happy with the deal the Obama administration worked out, but I'm very happy we didn't got to war. 

that's a huge assumption....and neglects that many establishment Rs were saying the exact opposite, that they'd hold their nose and go for cankles instead of that wildcard trump.

 

 

and as for Iran, it was quite different before our security services began to subvert the place (for not letting oil companies take oil for relative beans in payment)

 

Same+happened+to+iran+after+khomeini+too

 

Gilan_Anzali_Pabeda_1950s.jpg

 

 

 

 

Edited by joeblast
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno if any of you follow Reddit, "the front page of the internet."

 

Recently, they altered their algorithm to "diversify" the front page.  It was mainly done as a way of censoring the Donald Trump subreddit, which is big on free speech and hates censorship and political correctness.  At the same time, they made "enoughTrumpspam" subreddit the "subreddit of the day" which depicts Trump holding a Nazi flag.

 

There is no evidence Trump is a Nazi.  Even the claims he is racist are virtually always a twisting of his words if not downright made-up.

 

But it is "wrong" and "Islamophobic" to speak out against violence, yet to accuse someone of being a Nazi with no evidence is sponsored as "subreddit of the day."

 

Reddit has an agenda now.  I hope the site falls to shit as people move to sites with less censorship in the name of a political agenda.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/16/reddit-adjust-algorithm-punish-trump-suporters-following-orlando-shootings/

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughtrumpspam

Edited by futuredaze
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno if any of you follow Reddit, "the front page of the internet."

 

Recently, they altered their algorithm to "diversify" the front page.  It was mainly done as a way of censoring the Donald Trump subreddit, which is big on free speech and hates censorship and political correctness.  At the same time, they made "enoughTrumpspam" subreddit the "subreddit of the day" which depicts Trump holding a Nazi flag.

 

There is no evidence Trump is a Nazi.  Even the claims he is racist are virtually always a twisting of his words if not downright made-up.

 

But it is "wrong" and "Islamophobic" to speak out against violence, yet to accuse someone of being a Nazi with no evidence is sponsored as "subreddit of the day."

 

Reddit has an agenda now.  I hope the site falls to shit as people move to sites with less censorship in the name of a political agenda.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/06/16/reddit-adjust-algorithm-punish-trump-suporters-following-orlando-shootings/

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/enoughtrumpspam

 

 

Same thing has happened to democraticundergound.com which is censoring anything critical of Hillary.

 

In regards to Trumps personality there are a number of articles in which it is clearly written that 'narcissistic personality disorder' fits. Listen to his authoritarian rants and decide for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing has happened to democraticundergound.com which is censoring anything critical of Hillary.

 

In regards to Trumps personality there are a number of articles in which it is clearly written that 'narcissistic personality disorder' fits. Listen to his authoritarian rants and decide for yourself.

Not a huge fan of his personality but I would trust him over Hillary any day.

 

What makes you think he is authoritarian?

Edited by futuredaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters;

 

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/definition/con-20025568

 

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html

 

https://psmag.com/donald-trump-s-appeal-to-the-authoritarian-personality-b5a0e8820a6e#.n8b1jj3k9

 

https://www.psychologistworld.com/influence_personality/authoritarian_personality.php

 

 

The Authoritarian Personality Type

According to Adorno's theory, the elements of the Authoritarian personality type are:

  • Blind allegiance to conventional beliefs about right and wrong
  • Respect for submission to acknowledged authority
  • Belief in aggression toward those who do not subscribe to conventional thinking, or who are different
  • A negative view of people in general - i.e. the belief that people would all lie, cheat or steal if given the opportunity
  • A need for strong leadership which displays uncompromising power
  • A belief in simple answers and polemics - i.e. The media controls us all or The source of all our problems is the loss of morals these days.
  • Resistance to creative, dangerous ideas. A black and white worldview.
  • A tendency to project one's own feelings of inadequacy, rage and fear onto a scapegoated group
  • A preoccupation with violence and sex
Edited by ralis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a huge fan of his personality but I would trust him over Hillary any day.

 

What makes you think he is authoritarian?

I'm sure that goes with the territory for those at the top, as does a degree of narcissism. I imagine similar characters for Clinton and Trump. Trump gets the benefit of the doubt because he hasn't yet done any bad things, unlike Hillary who has proved adept at denying she has done bad things, whilst accepting praise for decent things she hasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.