TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%
Page 30 of 559 FirstFirst ... 51015202526272829303132333435404550556065707580130280530 ... LastLast
Results 726 to 750 of 13953

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #726
    Regarding my point about the US actively supporting terrorism.

    If you were watching Bloomberg they just gave a top of the hour news update that Turkey has sent troops into Syria "with support from US aircraft and special operations forces". Turkey has been actively assisting ISIS by bombing Kurdish opposition to ISIS....so the US again supporting ISIS by proxy.

    I think he thinks only of himself.

    The Trump as Hillary's sleeper agent, theory is gaining traction but I don't think he has the humility to mock himself even a tiny bit, in the service of anything as abstract to him as an entire country.
    The theory is stupid. Everything that Trump could have given Hillary, she already in the establishment-favored candidate Jeb Bush. Not only did he have such a weak personality and platform as to guarantee a Hillary win but he wouldn't have posed any threat of shaking up the grift the way Trump does.

    I refuse to believe that a group smart enough to run as sophisticated a black-flag campaign as would be required for that theory to be true, is also so stupid that they would do that when there is no benefit.


    Obama's drone program in the Middle East is dispicable. Civilian casualty number are disgusting, the administration of course lies about it, and they continue to fuel jihadist terror by convincing young muslims that American empire and the Western way of life need to be erased from the Earth.
    Despicable is an understatement. Obama has taken a terrifying position in regards to the war on terror, where he more or less claims the ability to kill whoever he pleases for any reason he deems fit....from a legal perspective it's beyond even what 20th century dictators claimed(who at least maintained the need for a show trial), and is comparable only to what monarchies have claimed.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 24th Aug 2016 at 10:16.

  2. #727
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    As far as I understand it, the US is trying to broker a temporary arrangement of sorts between the Turks and Syrian Kurds so they don't waste energy fighting each other and concentrate on ISIS. We're basically telling the Kurdish fighters to operate east of the Euphrates river, and let the Syrian Turkmen brigades and Turks operate to the west of the river. The Northwest corner of Syria historically has a mix of Turkmen and Kurdish peoples and the Turks are trying to prevent the Syrian Turkmen from coming under Kurdish control. ISIS has been losing a lot of ground. As it's former territory comes up for grabs, there is a danger that a larger regional war will break out between the Turks and Kurds. We're trying to find a way to prevent that. What would you have us do?

    Regarding who created this mess, we know ISIS took root in Syria as a byproduct of the civil war. The Turks, Saudis, Emiratis, Qataris et al did not perceive militant Sunni Islamist groups like Al Qaeda to be a threat to them (and most of them probably still don't). Their fight is with the Shiites. So they were happy to support any Sunni opposition group who was willing to go fight Assad's army. Thanks to foreign support a relatively weak rebellion grew into a multi-sided civil war. And yeah US intelligence knew they were doing it, e.g. arms smuggling. But what would you have suggested we do about it? Did you expect us to embargo our own allies to stop it?

    Some people are now arguing that the US should not have withdrawn from Iraq, that if we had a large troop presence there we could have defended it from the advancing ISIS. These people must have short memories. Even leaving a small residual force was opposed by the Iraqi Parliament. And we couldn't get them to agree to give immunity to US forces. So no agreement was reached. Even if we had troops in Iraq, we were persona non grata in places like Mosul and Fallujah. ISIS was welcomed into these places.

    It's easy to criticize, much harder to solve problems. If you think the Obama administration screwed this up so badly, what would you do?

  3. #728
    Left Assad in power.

    The statement about embargoing our allies is also a double bind. You can put a lot of pressure on them without an embargo.

    But that again implies that the US is a passive bystander and not actively working to protect the interests of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

  4. #729
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2000
    Location: Portreath Cornwall UK
    Farage as Presidential advisor?

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37177938

  5. #730
    For the folks who are on about how the "Hillary was tried and they've found nothing", you are defending an ugly standard of privilege and double standards for the rich.

    There are NUMEROUS people who have been put in jail on obstruction of justice charges for far less than Hillary does such as Martha Stewart

    One banker, Frank Quattrone, got 18 months in jail for a single email telling staff to delete their emails

    Both of these people did far less than what Comey and Lynch have admitted Hillary did......even ignoring the extreme conflicts of interest that would disquallify anyone else from any administrative position related to foreign policy.

    Again, I DO know what I am talking about. I have been in positions before where I was overseeing the implementation of government contracts on a much smaller scale. If I had failed to report any gift they had tried to give me, or accepted any gift over about $50, I would have at the very least been removed from the project and more likely convicted on bribery charges. The notion that Hillary has "done nothing illegal" is blatantly false and is on par with arguing that the Stanford rapist was "tried and the court found no wrongdoing", so that there is nothing more that should be done to him.

  6. #731
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Tony, your two examples are of obstruction of justice, purposefully deleting incriminating emails to cover the deeds of their crimes. Clinton is guilty of something else altogether, mishandling classified information that she otherwise had legal access to.

    In other words, it's an ill considered administration FUBAR that's being treated as the crime of the century.

    ...and it's hardly the first time it's happened. Tit for tat.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 25th Aug 2016 at 08:51.

  7. #732
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Which every secretary of state if not of every department before her is also guilty of.

  8. #733
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    To be fair, Clinton did go a bit slightly above and beyond compared to the rest. She conducted the vagaries of her position via a private server specifically set up for that particular task. The previous Secretaries of State merely opted to use AOL.

    The whole scandal is an entirely manufactured one. A political dog and pony show put on for the benefit of the voting public during a heated election season to leverage doubts over the candidate of an opposition party.

  9. #734
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    What about all the emails that she didn't hand over because they were "private", that turned out to be work related? Why did she have them deleted after her team sorted them? Worse yet, why did her team go the extra mile of running cleaner tools to wipe the servers of deleted data before handing them over to the FBI? Unfortunately, that has rendered some unknown number of emails permanently lost.

    The FBI recovered 15000 work related emails, from a cloud backup that Clinton didn't know about and from email archives of other State personnel. And some of them were classified. Finally, why was she fighting in court to assert a right of ownership over the recovered emails that she had deleted, which the FBI already categorized as work related, to prevent their transfer to the State Department? It's fishy.

    Unless/until the recovered emails are publicly released, we're not going to know if there was any pattern behind the selective deletions, or anything to explain how they might have been mis-declared "private".

    She can't use the excuse that previous department heads used personal email, because by the time she took office there was a department policy against it, made in order to comply with public records law. And bloody everybody working in government in 2008 knew very well to keep government information off of personal devices. She can't claim ignorance either because State staff are on record saying they reminded her of the policy and the risk of cyber-attack and tried multiple times to get her to switch to using State email and BB.

    A public official acting in good faith would have followed the law and her own department's policies and not have done what she did. And since when is Hillary Clinton careless about anything? She's been through scandals before and has a top legal team. She's not stupid or careless. The whole bloody thing was done to get around FOIA and she was willing to put sensitive government information at risk of cyber theft to do it.

    She has a history of this sort of behavior. It reminds me of when she had an aide rush over to Vince Foster's office when he died and swipe his Whitewater files before the police could get there and seal the scene, which she then held onto in her White House private quarters for a couple days before turning them over to the lawyers. Or when the first special prosecutor Fiske subpoenaed Clinton's Whitewater records from Rose Law, and she reported them missing, and then a couple years later some staffer stumbled across them, again in her private quarters. Or how she fought for a couple years in court to keep the proceedings and even the member list of the Health Care Task Force she headed sealed secret.

  10. #735
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Because Bill and Hillary Clinton do have a history of bending the rules for their own benefit. Their actions reflect a mindset of always wanting to do everything they can to get their way on things, but are also well aware that anything and everything they do will be used against them by the Republicans if it can be construed in a negative fashion. It makes them come across as both nakedly ambitious, and very furtive.

    Though as far as the email server goes, despite all the fervor and gnashing of teeth from the usual talking heads, the question remains whether this was this an act of criminal negligence, or merely administrative misconduct. This is a question that'll never be answered, because, hey, it's good political theater.

  11. #736
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Regarding the emails, she's her own worst enemy because her attempts to avoid disclosure are the very reason why everyone is interested in poring over them. I doubt that there is a smoking gun or she is covering up some crime. What pisses me off is:
    a) Willfully not following the rules of her own department. What kind of leader does that?
    b) She put her own interest in avoiding disclosure/FOIA above protecting national security information

  12. #737
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    What she's doing is trying to avoid blame to save face during her campaign, which only serves to make her look that much worse as she backtracks and backtracks and backtracks some more.

    Honestly, if she just owned up to it from the start, saying "YEAH, I DID IT. I'M A DUMB SHIT. SORRY", the email saga would've been over with before it even started. It's not like she's the only one who's been busted doing something stupid in Washington. But since she didn't? SECOND INVESTIGATION INTO EMAIL COMING FORTHWITH AFTER THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARING FOR PERJURY!

  13. #738
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Mexican President, Enrique Pen Nieto, invites Donald Trump to Mexico for a press conference...

    Last edited by Vae; 31st Aug 2016 at 20:38.

  14. #739
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Their both just as bad as each other really. Hillary keeps it hidden, whilst Trump says it straight to the camera. Personally that's one of reasons I like him over her. Others may feel very differently, and that's fine.

    Now in Trump's case (and not to the same extent for Hillary since she keeps it hidden / attempts to) he'll likely piss off a great amount of overseas leaders and people in general since he tells it like he see's it and does not care who he offends (unlike Hillary).

    Whose better? I dunno.

    If this was an everyday type person, would you prefer them to say what they think of you to your face, or only behind closed doors where you'd never hear about it (or not until much later on). I'm not advocating either scenario btw, but just telling it as the way it looks from my perspective.

  15. #740
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    In politics, I'm okay with shaming (not censoring) people to the point where they feel they need to keep their awful views secret. That's one way attitudes can change over generations.

    Also, I don't think Hillary has any skeletons on par with what Trump sometimes says, and I think Trump has plenty of skeletons of his own. Indeed, I'm not even convinced Trump is speaking his mind, people who speak their mind are usually less erratic; it's kind of scary to contemplate the possibility that he's actually that inconsistent inside.

  16. #741
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: not here
    Yeah. Trump 'telling it like it is' is a pretty specious argument, unless you usually agree with belligerent back-pedalling subnormal human (I guess he qualifies as human on some base level, unfortunately) beings.

  17. #742
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    On a slightly lighter note, I saw this pop up on my Facebook wall earlier today, presented as yet more proof of black agenda driven racism against whites...



    Maybe it's because I'm secretly a race traitor or something. I dunno. Whatever the reason, I didn't find it offensive in the least. Quite the opposite, in fact. IT'S GODDAMN HILARIOUS!

  18. #743
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    Yeah. Trump 'telling it like it is' is a pretty specious argument, unless you usually agree with belligerent back-pedalling subnormal human (I guess he qualifies as human on some base level, unfortunately) beings.
    People who say they like Trump because he is "telling it like it is" are deluding themselves. What they actually mean without realizing it themselves is that he has the speech patterns and mannerisms of one of those greasy, brash, blue collar supervisors that are common in the East Coast. Think your stereotypical New York construction superintendent as an example. In other words he has a recognizeable blue collar mentality and background that stands in sharp contrast to the very deliberate, genteel, mannerisms that most politicians have on camera.

    Those mannerisms trigger a tribalistic "he's one of us" reaction in the same way that they also trigger an instinctive revulsion in people who are well.....in my experience the type to have a wine collection and listen to NPR. They also instictively recognize which "tribe" Trump belongs to and know that it isn't their tri







    Now in Trump's case (and not to the same extent for Hillary since she keeps it hidden / attempts to) he'll likely piss off a great amount of overseas leaders and people in general since he tells it like he see's it and does not care who he offends (unlike Hillary).

    Whose better? I dunno.
    Good point. Hillary is much more measured with what she says and more careful about offending foreign leaders.

    Like this example.

  19. #744
    Moderator
    Registered: Jan 2003
    Location: NeoTokyo
    Not even Putin himself thinks he has a soul.

    Anyway, while I think Hillary's alleged "corruption" is exaggerated--I've yet to see an example that wasn't peanuts compared to her peers, Benghazi, Servergate, Clinton Foundation, or unsubstantiated tin foil hattery, the assassinations--I still acknowledge she has all the charisma of a toothache and this meme still gets a pass as legit because it's so perfect:

  20. #745
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Not even Putin himself thinks he has a soul.

    Anyway, while I think Hillary's alleged "corruption" is exaggerated--I've yet to see an example that wasn't peanuts compared to her peers, Benghazi, Servergate, Clinton Foundation, or unsubstantiated tin foil hattery, the assassinations--I still acknowledge she has all the charisma of a toothache and this meme still gets a pass as legit because it's so perfect:
    A: That's part of the problem. She is a "status quo" candidate who will not disrupt the current goings on in any way, shape, or form.

    B: Uploading information covered by Special Access Protocols onto a private server, then deliberately turning off the security protocols after you already know that foreign interests (the same Russian interests that were donating to her foundation) have been hacking the server is far beyond even the normal level of corruption. If we assume that she isn't so stupid as to be unqualified for any kind of public office this means that she knew exactly what was going to happen and that the server was most likely acting as a drop box in addition to email. Not that I am advocating it in this instance but look up what the US did to the Rosenbergs for the exact same thing.

    Hell the US wanted Reagan's hide for Iran Contra, which is peanuts compared to any one action Hillary's been involved in foreign policy wise.


    Because Bill and Hillary Clinton do have a history of bending the rules for their own benefit. Their actions reflect a mindset of always wanting to do everything they can to get their way on things, but are also well aware that anything and everything they do will be used against them by the Republicans if it can be construed in a negative fashion. It makes them come across as both nakedly ambitious, and very furtive.
    You mean like how the Koch brothers are now supporting Hillary?

  21. #746
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Yes, Hillary would be a status quo president. I won't argue that we need a change, but voting Trump for the simple sake of said change is like burning your house down because you think the carpet is ugly.

    I see her presidency as a holding pattern. It's better to deal with the devil we know while we wait for something better to come our way. It's the same line of reasoning the Koch brothers are taking, which, considering their rather begrudging endorsement, should illustrate just how unfit for the presidency Trump and his ilk actually are.

  22. #747
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    It's the same line of reasoning the Koch brothers are taking, which, considering their rather begrudging endorsement, should illustrate just how unfit for the presidency Trump and his ilk actually are.
    The Koch brothers first attempted to buy Trump. When that failed, they begrudgingly went after the only other alternative...and as expected, purchased a new friend.

  23. #748
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    They're not exactly showering her with Republican earmarked money, Vae. Though they did throw her a bone in a recent political ad.

  24. #749
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    There is always a lot of money behind an endorsement from the Koch brothers, whether publicly visible or not...and of course, a business agreement.

    Because Hillary is for sale and Trump is not, is precisely why they ended up endorsing Hillary.

  25. #750
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Just because nobody wants your product, doesn't mean it's not for sale.

Page 30 of 559 FirstFirst ... 51015202526272829303132333435404550556065707580130280530 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •