Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

A reason for Clinton's fall in the polls.

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-10-2016, 12:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: A reason for Clinton's fall in the polls.

And you expect different?  Really ? 
Always Broadcasting Crap channel,
NSA eyeball channel
Dodo bird channel

[Odin]

The Corporate Media needs to keep the election close because it is good for ratings, they will never allow a landslide election to happen as long as they control the minds of the population.

[Eric the Green]

(09-09-2016, 12:15 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Trump is not only a liar, he's a traitor. He's a dangerous, undeclared (aka, in intelligence biz lingo - "an illegal") foreign agent. He should be arrested by the FBI.

If he's president what do you wanna bet he quotes Nixon and says, "when the president does it, it's not illegal."

As others point out, it's not enough to defeat Trump. He has to be defeated soundly, or he will have imitators (of course, he may have them anyway; witness Reagan after Goldwater).

[pbrower2a]

(09-07-2016, 02:33 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 02:11 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 01:40 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 01:23 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:

(09-07-2016, 12:29 AM)Galen Wrote: There is still that little matter of the war before the embassies.  Even HuffPo, hardly a right wing publication, says that she was one of the prime movers for the Libyan war and that Libya was better off under Gaddaffi.  No wonder the neocons support her these days.

Thanks for providing evidence that you have, like the rest of the Boomers, moved into the Make War, Not Love stage of your life.

Well, some people on the Left and Right are complaining about Hillary's support for USA's actions in Libya, but Trump and the Republicans are ONLY making hay out of the deaths at the Benghazi American embassy, not the Libyan uprising or US actions; even though Hillary made mince meat of the Republicans at the hearings earlier. That is the point, regardless of what you think about the Arab Spring peoples' uprising in Libya against their cruel and ruthless dictator, and NATO's UN-approved activities to protect and/or help the rebels. My approval for uprisings against tyranny has not changed from an earlier "phase" in my Boomer life. I still root for the people. Whether the USA or NATO did the right things is questionable, but opposing those things is not such a clear-cut or obviously-correct idea as you seem to think.

Every other intervention in the region has ended badly, there was no reason to believe this one would end any better.  I very much doubt that Hillary, the US government or NATO really gave a shit about the people.  What should interest you is one of the main motives, though not the only one, was to prevent a gold backed dinar competing against the dollar.  This is something I long ago pointed out as one of the reasons for the countries the US has attacked and its current enmity with Iran.

It looks like more of the usual Boomer problem solving, take a problem and turn it into a huge intractable one for all of the wrong reasons.

That is what Trump and the Republicans are doing raising the Benghazi embassy issue.

You are not the only one here who has stated that aggressive US policy is aimed at protecting the dominance of the dollar. If that's what Hillary and others have thought, the concern is probably misplaced. It may not really matter to US interests if the dollar is supreme or not as a reserve currency, etc.

First, the Benghazi situation would not have arisen without the Libyan intervention.  I am not particularly thrilled with Trump but I would be surprised it he didn't say anything about this since Americans tend to get more worked up about US troops getting killed.

Second, the welfare and regulatory state you love depends on the petrodollar system remaining intact because that is the only thing maintaining demand for dollars and treasury securities which allows borrowing to continue.  It will not be possible to taxes enough to close the deficit, particularly when interest rates rise as doubts about the credit worthiness of the US government become commonplace.

Once that happens there are three choices.  First, the Fed can choose to monetize the debt, currently called quantitative easing.  Second, the federal government can default on its debt.  It may not even be called that but many promises, often called unfunded liabilities, will not be kept.  Third, the government can live within its means, which will mean the government will become much smaller.

Money is one half every transaction so it damn well matters what happens to it.

1. Do you think that it would have been appropriate to sit back while Moammar Qaddafi slaughtered people who had a pro-Western revolution against someone who has never been friendly to the United States? Immoral and wise is a horrible combination.

2. It is productivity, and not specie, that establishes prosperity.  The welfare creates a secondary economy upon which medical professionals, landlords, farmers, and grocers can prosper. Welfare may not redeem the parents, but it might give the kids a chance.

Wars and recessions create budget deficits. Obviously we will be in an expensive war should the North Korean military fire a nuclear-armed warhead at American territory. But we can avoid wars waged largely at the behest of war profiteers and resource-grabbers. Recessions? Maybe we need to quit sponsoring speculative booms (and we are paying a price for the last one).

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-12-2016, 11:02 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I am at the near-expert level in the study of small arms. Under the guise of exercising gun rights, many on what I now call the Faux "Right" purchased Soviet/Russian/Chinese compatible weapon platforms. This was prior to the Embargo that was set in place after the Crimea invasion. But the damage was already done. Now, the most sinister elements of the Faux "Right" have such weapons, and can be supplied with ammo and spare parts by GRU/Spetsnaz/SVR as irregulars. Remember all the supposed irregulars we saw in the case of Crimea, and still see in the case of Donbas. We will also see this. Not only that, some of the Soviet/Russian/Chinese weapon platforms were cached. So, GRU/Spetsnaz/SVR have ready caches when the signal comes. We are going to fight the initial battles of WW3 on American soil. It will be in our faces. Prepare for the worst.

https://globalvoices.org/2016/09/12/how-...-everyone/

What we have here is a lack of professional journalism and fact checking.

[Eric the Green]

A gaffe, or strategy?

"Deplorable" was no mistake. And it's working.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/9/13/...3ff87c45dd
By Murfster35
Tuesday Sep 13, 2016 · 4:07 PM PDT


I can play the media too Donnie Boy!


I love it when people who are smarter than I am agree with me! I never thought for one minute that Hillary Clinton’s “Basket of Deplorables” comment was either unintentional or accidental. And now it turns out that the Washington Post agrees with me. Talk about good company. Let me explain.

How often have we heard the complaint that Hillary Clinton comes off as impersonal because she is too calculating and scripted, she is never spontaneous and comes across as aloof. This may well be true. But there’s another consideration at play here. When you have a candidate that is that composed and scripted, they seldom screw up. The script is prepared, it is studied, it is practiced, and it comes off flawlessly. This is what you get with Hillary Clinton. A mistake of this magnitude, very unlikely.

Hillary has been playing this game with the press for more than 25 years, she’s a pro. The Orange Julius steals an entire news cycle or more with each outrageous statement. She’s turning the tables on Trump, but with an almost surgical purpose. If she had said “a few” or “some” of Trumps supporters were “deplorable”, it would have caused a minor tremor, but not overtake the cycle. In saying “½ of his supporters” I have no doubt that she was referring to the 61% who think that Obama is a secret Muslim-Marxist-Kenyan here to destroy the country. The “50%” was the hook to grab the attention of the press. Look how quickly and professionally the campaign walked back only the “50%’ portion, I’m betting that they had that written by the time she made the original statement.

And let me ask you a question. If this was such a major gaffe, why did the campaign already have a :30 spot ready to go, only having to insert Trumps peeved response to her comment. Hillary did this with a specific reason, to get the press talking about the racism in the Trump campaign.

And it’s working. In an article today in the Washington Post , they came to the same conclusion that I did. And they also confirmed that the media has picked up on this.

But one thing that does seem clear amid all the fallout from the remarks is that the national media is now spending more time talking about Trump’s bigotry and racist campaign.

This has already produced some high-profile moments. For instance, Trump veep candidate Mike Pence was repeatedly prodded on CNN to say whether David Duke is “deplorable.” Pence wouldn’t take the bait, but the net effect that produced was to create the impression that he was unwilling to criticize Duke; he subsequently went on Fox to clean up the mess.

This was exactly what the Clinton campaign was looking for with her “controversial” comment. I have had the teleovision on since about 11 a.m. PDT this morning, and every show I’ve seen on both CNN and MSNBC has covered Clinton’s remarks extensively, but more importantly they have highlighted past “deplorable” statements made by Trump, and have played the :30 Clinton spot in its entirety. This is “earned media coverage” at its finest. Trump uses it to highlight his most pompous self, Clinton is using it to take a light slap on the wrist in order for the media to pivot and hammer Trump on his previous statements. Every show that I’ve seen today on either channel has showed a clearly pissed off Mike Pence trying yet again to repudiate David Duke without stooping to use Hillary’s term. Instead of Clinton getting hammered, the Trump campaign is on the defensive.

This is clearly aimed at one particular demographic. And it’s a big one, one that no Republican has ever lost since polling started tracking it, college educated white voters. As we speak, Trump is tied with Clinton with white college educated males, and he’s getting his ass kicked by a whopping 23% with white college educated women. And guess what? In a recent WaPo poll, 60% of college educated whites think that Trump is biased against women and minorities. Kudos to the WaPo for not poisoning the well on this poll! They very carefully used the word “biased”, as opposed to the more inflammatory “racist” or “bigoted” that could have skewed the honest results.

The longer that Clinton can keep the media talking about the bigotry and racism in Trumps campaign, the longer she can get them to keep playing that :30 ad, the more firmly she locks in this unexpected goldmine of support. And if she can get them once, they may take another look at the Democrats and decide to stick around for a while. Just another possible unintended benefit for the Democrats from Trump’s candidacy.

Thanks as always for reading!

[pbrower2a]

Even if Donald Trump isn't a bigot, he can't see anything wrong with his voters being bigots.

It is time for Republicans to recognize that Barack Obama is a well-meaning American... sure, he could be wrong, but he has not sold out. They need to recognize that Islam is not the enemy, but that psychopathic leadership in Daesh and the Syrian government are. We might as well condemn the Korean people (including South Koreans) for the North Korean government as blame ISIS upon Islam.

Donald Trump will be a horrible leader because he lacks the guts to tell people the inconvenient, unpleasant truth. Does anyone think that Abraham Lincoln told Americans that the Civil War would be easy? Does anyone think that Sir Winston Churchill won the Battle of Britain by sugar-coating the reality of the Nazi menace? Lincoln and Churchill were honest. The war is not over until the shooting stops. I contrast Benito Mussolini who claimed that his personality would itself insure victory and of course Adolf Hitler who said that the 'racial' superiority of the German people would bring victory.

We are in a Crisis Era. Even if we evade a major war we will have a need for huge changes in the way that we do things as a nation. We will need major reforms of our political order just to sew shut the seams in our Constitutional system of government, seams that ruthless people have seen fit to exploit.

We can end up with our democracy gutted, with the effective government by lobbyists that we now have made even more rigorous and intractable. I question whether our democratic tradition will survive Donald Trump. Sure, there will be elections and a two-Party system... but one side will have every advantage where it counts.

Do we get our new Birth of Freedom, as Lincoln promised in his Gettysburg Address, or do we get an economic order in which the secret to success is to be born into or marry into the right family, and a political system that represnets wealth and economic power instead of the People?

It's our choice this year. That is one possible explanation of the word "Crisis".

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-14-2016, 01:10 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

Quote:This will be a Total War 4T (at least the latter portion). The enemies of egalitarianism and freedom have deemed the US and our allies to be "The Great Satan." I use this term not in the restrictive sense of Revolutionary Iran.

:: Sticks finger in air and concentrates to get the image ::





Got it. The world ends in a bang, not a whimper.

Quote:I use it to characterize the attitude of all fiends arrayed against us. Even if we dropped the "neocon" stuff that Rags and some others here have hairs up their butts about, it wouldn't matter.

You rang?     NeoCONS are stupid at best and evil at worst.  I mean evil see below:

Quote:

Quote:The enemies of egalitarianism and freedom will still hate us. They hate us for being us. They hate us for our NGOs. They hate us for promoting the original vision of the UN. They hate us for promoting the vision of a future world in which all peoples are given universal human rights, in which we have a pluralistic egalitarian framework. A world of rule of law.
[/qote]

Hello, man.  That's who the neoCONs are with their torture chambers, secret prisons, nation-state destructions, secret CIA drug running, and CIA plots, etc.  Btw, the Patriot Act != rule of law. The war on drugs != human rights. The enemy is us.

Quote:Our enemies hate such a future vision. They seek the old concept of a carve up into spheres of influence. They seek demolition of concepts of right of free passage, the Law of the Sea, of just international law. We see it in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, Crimea, Donbas, parts of the Middle East, and who knows where next. This cannot be resolved through negotiation, the two sides have irreconcilable differences. For our enemies, the only way forward, and, the master plan, is liquidation of us (at least, liquidation of our institutions and current governing structures). We will have no choice but to fight for our lives. 

Oh, true enough. That's the elites in corporate America and their minions.  Let's do this.  Hows about some 1960's social engineering.  Let's settle some Syrian refugees in Hollywood, Manhatten, San Fransisco,  a dash in Soro's mansion[s], Washington DC, some more in the Hamptons, etc.  Rags wants nothing but living large for our new guests! May they find peace in the fatcats' swimming pools, use tennis courts for good siting  prayers, yachts for fishing supper, and plowing down fancy lawns to grow whatever the hell they grew in Syria.  After all, there's one set of laws for fatcats and another for us proles.

But wait, there's more.  I'd love to social engineer some stuff like restart busing for fat cat locations as well.  I'd start with busing students between Oakland and San Francisco! I want every place to be like where I live where stuff is nice and even , and poor.

[pbrower2a]

(09-14-2016, 01:10 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(09-14-2016, 12:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Even if Donald Trump isn't a bigot, he can't see anything wrong with his voters being bigots.

It is time for Republicans to recognize that Barack Obama is a well-meaning American... sure, he could be wrong, but he has not sold out. They need to recognize that Islam is not the enemy, but that psychopathic leadership in Daesh and the Syrian government are. We might as well condemn the Korean people (including South Koreans) for the North Korean government as blame ISIS upon Islam.  

Donald Trump will be a horrible leader because he lacks the guts to tell people the inconvenient, unpleasant truth.  Does anyone think that Abraham Lincoln told Americans that the Civil War would be easy? Does anyone think that Sir Winston Churchill won the Battle of Britain by sugar-coating the reality of the Nazi menace? Lincoln and Churchill were honest. The war is not over until the shooting stops. I contrast Benito Mussolini who claimed that his personality would itself insure victory and of course Adolf Hitler who said that the 'racial' superiority of the German people would bring victory.

We are in a Crisis Era. Even if we evade a major war we will have a need for huge changes in the way that we do things as a nation. We will need major reforms of our political order just to sew shut the seams in our Constitutional system of government, seams that ruthless people have seen fit to exploit.

We can end up with our democracy gutted, with the effective government by lobbyists that we now have made even more rigorous and intractable. I question whether our democratic tradition will survive Donald Trump. Sure, there will be elections and a two-Party system... but one side will have every advantage  where it counts.

Do we get our new Birth of Freedom, as Lincoln promised in his Gettysburg Address, or do we get an economic order in which the secret to success is to be born into or marry into the right family, and a political system that represnets wealth and economic power instead of the People?

It's our choice this year. That is one possible explanation of the word "Crisis".

This will be a Total War 4T (at least the latter portion). The enemies of egalitarianism and freedom have deemed the US and our allies to be "The Great Satan." I use this term not in the restrictive sense of Revolutionary Iran. I use it to characterize the attitude of all fiends arrayed against us. Even if we dropped the "neocon" stuff that Rags and some others here have hairs up their butts about, it wouldn't matter. The enemies of egalitarianism and freedom will still hate us. They hate us for being us. They hate us for our NGOs. They hate us for promoting the original vision of the UN. They hate us for promoting the vision of a future world in which all peoples are given universal human rights, in which we have a pluralistic egalitarian framework. A world of rule of law.

Our enemies hate such a future vision. They seek the old concept of a carve up into spheres of influence. They seek demolition of concepts of right of free passage, the Law of the Sea, of just international law. We see it in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, Crimea, Donbas, parts of the Middle East, and who knows where next. This cannot be resolved through negotiation, the two sides have irreconcilable differences. For our enemies, the only way forward, and, the master plan, is liquidation of us (at least, liquidation of our institutions and current governing structures). We will have no choice but to fight for our lives.

We have plenty of enemies of freedom right here in the Good Old U.S. of A, as the Trump campaign so manifestly shows. Demagogues with as wide support as Trump has indicate serious weaknesses in the fundamental decencies that underpin a workable democracy. Are we truly a democracy? Not when the lobbyists really control both Houses of Congress -- and most state legislatures. It's not that I dislike the result; almost every issue is split 53-47 with little overlap on big issues.

Corporate America seems to act as if no human suffering is in excess so long as such turns a profit or enforces its dominion. Groups like the John Birch Society that used to be jokes for their reactionary ideology are just as crazy today -- but they are now in the mainstream! We need to remember that the economic elites of America see themselves as our benefactors and so that they can best take care of us they need to get everything that they want. Sure. Slave-owning planters saw themselves as benefactors to the slaves that they exploited, and expected other Americans to so see them.

Democracy as envisioned by the Founding Fathers depended upon people operating upo0n the principle of 'enlightened self interest' (well, they did miss slavery and women's rights, but we eventually solved those) ... millions of Americans lack the 'enlightened' part and probably have no idea of what their self interest is.  White people living in places that will surely be inundated in the American South vote for politicians who tell them that global warming isn't happening and will be of no harm if it happens.

Above all, democracy is incompatible with political violence, much of which occurs at Trump rallies.  Show opposition to Donald Trump and you may be beaten. If Donald Trump should be elected, that lesson might be extended beyond rallies for the President.

Just imagine how nasty an America with Donald Trump and Republicans in control of both Houses of Congress will look, especially from some dreary hick town in which I will almost certainly be a prisoner of poverty. I see no quick fix for that. Nothing would make me happier in the wake of a full consolidation of power by the Republican Party this November than a terminal diagnosis from a physician.

May God have mercy upon my soul. Plutocracy certainly has shown none.

[Mikebert]

Here I am going to make an argument for why Clinton with all her baggage, is more trustworthy than Trump.  Clinton is more trustworthy because of her baggage.  Anyone who has been a mover-shaker for as long as Clinton and Trump have is going to have baggage.  Clinton's baggage is out there for all to see.  Are any of the Clinton scandals been of a magnitude that would terminate her career like Jim Wright?  No, or it would have already done so.  Therefore we can be pretty sure there is nothing in Clinton's past for which she can be blackmailed.

This is not the case with Trump.  His baggage is unexamined.  We do not know things like to whom does he own money?  Who has the goods on him?  Does he have any criminal co-conspirators who could send him to prison with their testimony? Were Trump to become president he would become a MUCH bigger trophy than any of his co-conspirators and prosecutors would be falling all over themselves offering immunity to his co-conspirators so that they could take down a sitting president.  A president Trump with criminal co-conspirators would certainly be blackmailed by them, as they could credibly threaten to send him to prison at no risk to themselves.  It wouldn't be money they want (they would be rich men too) but the sort of favors they expect a president to be able to deliver.
 
This is why politicians release their tax records and other financial information.  By following the money you can find out if the person has any potentially illegal dealings.  (Recall they got Al Capone on tax evasion). Trump will not do this because of what is in those records.  He has a known history of shady business practices like Trump University, of stiffing creditors, and he been involved in the construction business in New Jersey and elsewhere and so has had dealings with the mob.  He operates close to the edge of legality.  He likes to take risks has been bankrupt numerous times as a result.  He openly admits to bribing politicians.  It is virtually certain he is hiding worse stuff than what is currently public.
 
Trump's situation is far worse than having donors.  Politicians throw donors and past associates under the bus when it is politically expedient all the time.  Clinton can line her pocket with Wall Street cash and then turn around and stab them in the back if that is what the politics calls for (e.g. Joe Kennedy).  Trump cannot do so with past associates who have the goods on him, he would have to comply.  This is why if you apply for a job in an intelligence agency they do such a thorough background check.  They want to make sure you have no secrets in your past that would allow a foreign agent to "turn" you.  Presidents do not get vetted in this way. 
 
For all we know Russian intelligence has their hooks into the Donald, he certainly seems to have a "special relationship" with Russia.  He is willing to throw NATO, Japan, Korea, even Israel under the bus at times--but not Russia.  Special relationships are not unprecedented. The Bush family had a special relationship with the Saudis, but that was public knowlege.  They even called Prince Bandar "Bandar Bush" because he we so close to the Bushes.  And it mattered, had Reagan been president in 1990 would have been no Gulf War or Iraq war, no 911, no Afghanistan and no ISIS, becasue Reagan was not an oilman and had no special relationship with the Saudis. Recall that the Saudis had orchestrated an oil embargo against America just three years before Reagan's first serious presidential run.  This embargo triggered a premature recession which adversely affected Republican electoral prospects in 1976, so I would doubt Reagan had a favorable opinion of the Saudis.

Just what shit will we be stuck with that come out of special relationships Trump has from his secret foreign dealings over the years.  What favors will Trump's past associates be able to extort from him?

In his defense, Trump has hinted that he plans to delegate the job of head of government to Mike Pence, while retaining the role of Head of State.  But the president is also the Commnder in Chief.  This cannot be delegated to Pence, because the chain of command does not go through the vice president, it goes through the Secretary of Defense.  We don't know who that will be--perhaps he will keep his predecessor's guy like Obama did.  Does Trump plan to delgate this job to him?  If he does this, then he becomes a figurehead like Queen Elizabeth.  There isn't much to be gained by blackmailing the Queen.  So maybe he neutralizes the threat of extortion.  But if so, voters should know that they are not voting for Trump but for Mike Pence (plus Ash Carter, or the guy Trump picks to be SecDef).

[Mikebert]

(09-07-2016, 02:33 AM)Galen Wrote: Second, the welfare and regulatory state you love depends on the petrodollar system remaining intact because that is the only thing maintaining demand for dollars and treasury securities which allows borrowing to continue.  It will not be possible to taxes enough to close the deficit, particularly when interest rates rise as doubts about the credit worthiness of the US government become commonplace.

Once that happens there are three choices.  First, the Fed can choose to monetize the debt, currently called quantitative easing.  Second, the federal government can default on its debt.  It may not even be called that but many promises, often called unfunded liabilities, will not be kept.  Third, the government can live within its means, which will mean the government will become much smaller.

Money is one half every transaction so it damn well matters what happens to it.

You guys have been saying this since '71 (some of you since '33).  This was a hot issue 300 years ago when it first came up. It's been with us ever since.

[pbrower2a]

(09-15-2016, 06:23 AM)Mikebert Wrote: Here I am going to make an argument for why Clinton with all her baggage, is more trustworthy than Trump.  Clinton is more trustworthy because of her baggage.  Anyone who has been a mover-shaker for as long as Clinton and Trump have is going to have baggage.  Clinton's baggage is out there for all to see.  Are any of the Clinton scandals been of a magnitude that would terminate her career like Jim Wright?  No, or it would have already done so.  Therefore we can be pretty sure there is nothing in Clinton's past for which she can be blackmailed.

This is not the case with Trump.  His baggage is unexamined.  We do not know things like to whom does he own money?  Who has the goods on him?  Does he have any criminal co-conspirators who could send him to prison with their testimony? Were Trump to become president he would become a MUCH bigger trophy than any of his co-conspirators and prosecutors would be falling all over themselves offering immunity to his co-conspirators so that they could take down a sitting president.  A president Trump with criminal co-conspirators would certainly be blackmailed by them, as they could credibly threaten to send him to prison at no risk to themselves.  It wouldn't be money they want (they would be rich men too) but the sort of favors they expect a president to be able to deliver.

Excellent! It's like knowing that the engine on the 12-year-old used car that you contemplate buying has had an engine overhaul. Yes, the car is old enough and has been driven enough to need an engine overhaul -- but such has been done. I feel more confidence with full disclosure of the faults of someone (I would break off relations with someone with a history of violent, sexual, or drug crime) than someone too good to be true.

Quote:This is why politicians release their tax records and other financial information.  By following the money you can find out if the person has any potentially illegal dealings.  (Recall they got Al Capone on tax evasion). Trump will not do this because of what is in those records.  He has a known history of shady business practices like Trump University, of stiffing creditors, and he been involved in the construction business in New Jersey and elsewhere and so has had dealings with the mob.  He operates close to the edge of legality.  He likes to take risks has been bankrupt numerous times as a result.  He openly admits to bribing politicians.  It is virtually certain he is hiding worse stuff than what is currently public.

One can have money from foreign investments so long as one doesn't have appreciable involvement in them other than a stake in ownership and no managerial role (as in shares of Unilever, Philips, Siemens, or Mitsubishi). If one is doing the dealing, then it had better be over the board. I'd be wary of someone having connections to dictatorial regimes. Yes, Truman had some business failures, but those involved no lack of morals.

I fear the connections to organized crime in America. The Clintons apparently have none.
 

Quote:Trump's situation is far worse than having donors.  Politicians throw donors and past associates under the bus when it is politically expedient all the time.  Clinton can line her pocket with Wall Street cash and then turn around and stab them in the back if that is what the politics calls for (e.g. Joe Kennedy).  Trump cannot do so with past associates who have the goods on him, he would have to comply.  This is why if you apply for a job in an intelligence agency they do such a thorough background check.  They want to make sure you have no secrets in your past that would allow a foreign agent to "turn" you.  Presidents do not get vetted in this way. 

Yes, they can. With the Clintons it is one deal, one time.
 

Quote:For all we know Russian intelligence has their hooks into the Donald, he certainly seems to have a "special relationship" with Russia.  He is willing to throw NATO, Japan, Korea, even Israel under the bus at times--but not Russia.  Special relationships are not unprecedented. The Bush family had a special relationship with the Saudis, but that was public knowlege.  They even called Prince Bandar "Bandar Bush" because he we so close to the Bushes.  And it mattered, had Reagan been president in 1990 would have been no Gulf War or Iraq war, no 911, no Afghanistan and no ISIS, becasue Reagan was not an oilman and had no special relationship with the Saudis. Recall that the Saudis had orchestrated an oil embargo against America just three years before Reagan's first serious presidential run.  This embargo triggered a premature recession which adversely affected Republican electoral prospects in 1976, so I would doubt Reagan had a favorable opinion of the Saudis.

I trust NATO, South Korea, Japan, and Israel more than I trust the dictatorial government in Russia.

Quote:Just what shit will we be stuck with that come out of special relationships Trump has from his secret foreign dealings over the years.  What favors will Trump's past associates be able to extort from him?

Acquiescence in aggression, corruption, and violation of human rights. If there should be a dispure between China and the Phillipines, which country's leadership has more Trump hotels?

Quote:In his defense, Trump has hinted that he plans to delegate the job of head of government to Mike Pence, while retaining the role of Head of State.  But the president is also the Commnder in Chief.  This cannot be delegated to Pence, because the chain of command does not go through the vice president, it goes through the Secretary of Defense.  We don't know who that will be--perhaps he will keep his predecessor's guy like Obama did.  Does Trump plan to delgate this job to him?  If he does this, then he becomes a figurehead like Queen Elizabeth.  There isn't much to be gained by blackmailing the Queen.  So maybe he neutralizes the threat of extortion.  But if so, voters should know that they are not voting for Trump but for Mike Pence (plus Ash Carter, or the guy Trump picks to be SecDef).

Does Donald Trump know anything about national defense? Sure, Barack Obama went in as a complete neophyte
but he was at least coachable. He wasn't going to do something dirty to the military or to the intelligence services. So he has a little project for the military and the intelligence services: capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Seal Team 6 may have gotten Barack Obama re-elected.

But that's all for nought. I would no rather see the prospect of a second term of Mitt Romney than a first term of Donald Trump. I am a very partisan Democrat, but I can see a huge difference. In my wont for seeing historical alternatives I can just see Barack Obama with a Boomer-like disdain, as common on the Left, for the military and intelligence services, and Osama bin Laden lingering along into mid-2013, when President Mitt Romney gets to announce the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Donald Trump? Just a crank on the fringe of the political scene. Barack Obama? The new Jimmy Carter.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-15-2016, 10:25 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Does Donald Trump know anything about national defense? Sure, Barack Obama went in as a complete neophyte
but he was at least coachable. He wasn't going to do something dirty to the military or to the intelligence services. So he has a little project for the military and the intelligence services: capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Seal Team 6 may have gotten Barack Obama re-elected.

Remember, The Donald knows more about the middle east situation than the generals in charge. We know this because The Donald said so. Why do you think he needs coaching?

[pbrower2a]

(09-15-2016, 12:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-15-2016, 10:25 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Does Donald Trump know anything about national defense? Sure, Barack Obama went in as a complete neophyte but he was at least coachable. He wasn't going to do something dirty to the military or to the intelligence services. So he has a little project for the military and the intelligence services: capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Seal Team 6 may have gotten Barack Obama re-elected.

Remember, The Donald knows more about the middle east situation than the generals in charge.  We know this because The Donald said so.  Why do you think he needs coaching?

I am reminded of the wisdom of Socrates -- he knew the one thing that nobody else knew: that he didn't know everything. Wise people know about the limits of their own knowledge and even the limits of knowledge available to anyone. Fools pretend to know what they don't know and even what nobody can know. Fools taking on responsibilities that they cannot handle inevitably get horrible results.

[Eric the Green]

What was that about the Clinton Foundation, again?

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.c...rgid=16680

Score
(out of 100) Rating ****
Overall Score & Rating 94.74 ****
Financial 97.50 ****
Accountability & Transparency 93.00 ****

[Eric the Green]

Forget This “Hillary Is Unlikable” Stuff. Hillary Is Downright Inspiring.
By L.V. Anderson
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/201...iring.html

Expectations for this election have become so warped that the primary conclusions media commentators took away from the second debate were that it had been an ugly, uninspiring affair and that Trump didn’t lose. Let’s set aside the absurdity that a man who brought up his own tax scandal unbidden, who threatened to jail his opponent, who betrayed his absolute ignorance of the nuances of the war in Syria, and whose best zinger amounted to recalling that Abraham Lincoln’s nickname was “Honest Abe” somehow fought to a draw with his opponent. Trump was as ugly and uninspiring as usual. But here’s what people haven’t been saying in the days since the debate: Hillary was inspiring as all get out.

Yes, I’m familiar with all the arguments against Hillary as inspirer-in-chief. She’s part of the establishment. She’s laden with potential conflicts of interest. Her judgment during the whole email thing was poor. She seems, to many observers, wooden and robotic. Fine. The fact remains that Hillary stood onstage and calmly and persuasively made the case for her candidacy while her looming, lurching, lunatic opponent attempted to humiliate her in front of the entire world. If Hillary can do that, then the rest of us can do whatever we put our minds to.

Put yourself in Hillary’s shoes for a moment. You’re 68 years old. You have spent decades—decades—in the public eye, absorbing criticism from every possible angle. Your opponent is an impulsive, amoral ignoramus with a long history of humiliating women. He has made it his strategy during this debate to dredge up what are probably the darkest moments of your personal life—your husband’s affairs and alleged sexual assaults—as evidence of your failures as a wife and as a woman. He has brought three of these women to sit in the front row during the debate in an attempt to throw you off guard and cow you into submission. He literally tells you to your face that he will imprison you if he wins the election.

What would you do? If I were Hillary, I would blubber incomprehensibly through my rage-tears for the duration of the debate, if I lasted onstage that long. What did Hillary do? She stood tall and looked comfortable. She listened carefully to the voters who were asking her questions and offered them empathetic, intelligent, and articulate answers. She serenely and thoughtfully enumerated the character faults that make Trump unfit for office. She laughed it off when Trump insulted her in the most personal of terms. And at the end, she complimented him on his children. Never mind that his children don’t really deserve that compliment—Hillary responded to undeniably sexist personal attacks that are unprecedented in the history of modern American politics with an inspiring level of grace and poise.

I am not saying Hillary deserves credit just for showing up and getting the job done. I am saying she deserves credit for showing up and getting the job done while a psychopath invaded her personal space, lied repeatedly, attempted to degrade her in the basest and vilest terms, and threatened to jail her for the crime of being a successful woman in the public eye. Nor am I saying that we all ought to live up to Hillary’s example: Crying and despairing are a completely reasonable response to being attacked and denigrated by a sexist pig. Not all of us have the guts and, yes, stamina to endure and overcome what Hillary is enduring and overcoming in this election. But that’s the point: Hillary has displayed superhuman strength in the face of disgusting, unfair, and false attacks on her character and judgment. If that’s not inspiring, I don’t know what is.

L.V. Anderson is a Slate associate editor.

[Bronsin]

(05-17-2016, 01:41 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-16-2016, 10:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I do think she needs to burnish her image as honest and trustworthy to win. I sent an email on her campaign page. You never know, maybe someone will read it. I advised her to release the transcripts of her Wall St. speeches.

You can polish a turd until it shines like a gemstone. Unfortunately it remains a turd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI

Actually, you can't polish a turd, but you can sprinkle some glitter on it!

[Eric the Green]

(10-14-2016, 05:01 PM)Bronsin Wrote:

(05-17-2016, 01:41 AM)Kinser79 Wrote:

(05-16-2016, 10:05 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I do think she needs to burnish her image as honest and trustworthy to win. I sent an email on her campaign page. You never know, maybe someone will read it. I advised her to release the transcripts of her Wall St. speeches.

You can polish a turd until it shines like a gemstone.  Unfortunately it remains a turd.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI

Actually, you can't polish a turd, but you can sprinkle some glitter on it!

Yes indeed. Trump DOES try to sprinkle glitter on himself all the time. It's wearing off though, gradually.