Trump clinched the GOP nomination today (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36392084).
If you tried to write this campaign as part of a political thriller, you could never get it published on the grounds of being too unrealistic. And I don't know whether to make popcorn and watch, or make a stiff drink and weep.
Quote from: trdsf on May 26, 2016, 01:25:26 PM
Trump clinched the GOP nomination today (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36392084).
If you tried to write this campaign as part of a political thriller, you could never get it published on the grounds of being too unrealistic. And I don't know whether to make popcorn and watch, or make a stiff drink and weep.
QuoteOn Wednesday, the New York billionaire suggested going against Mr Sanders in a TV debate in California before the state's primary on 7 June.
Mr Sanders agreed to the debate in a tweet, saying "Game on".
And what's Hillary supposed to do while Trump is debating Sanders. This is totally weird. Serves no purpose, other than exclude Hillary, who will be the nominee.
Quote from: SGOS on May 26, 2016, 01:40:16 PM
And what's Hillary supposed to do while Trump is debating Sanders. This is totally weird. Serves no purpose, other than exclude Hillary, who will be the nominee.
Ken Ham vs Bill Nye, Round 2
QuoteOn Wednesday, the New York billionaire suggested going against Mr Sanders in a TV debate in California before the state's primary on 7 June.
Mr Sanders agreed to the debate in a tweet, saying "Game on".
Gotta love Sanders' enthusiasm. Game on is exactly the right response. It sure beats imperiously demanding that your opponent change his tone before deigning to debate him.
The problem -- and I say this as a Sanders man -- is that a Trump/Sanders debate before the conventions will only serve to solidify the "Bernie or Bust" contingent and make them less amenable to voting for Hillary in the fall, and let's be honest, she's going to need to pick up some of those voters. I think this is exactly why the idea would appeal to Trump, who's been unsubtly suggesting that Bernie run as an independent, knowing it will hurt Hillary more than himself.
To the best of my knowledge, an inter-party candidates' debate before the nominating conventions would be unprecedented, although there may have been a minor one of which I am unaware.
As for Trump toning it down before a debate with Hillary, oh, no. She's on the wrong foot there. She needs him to be an idiot, and not to appear presidential in any way. She needs to rile him up so he shoots off his mouth even more, and preferably so he says something unconscionable on live TV that he can't spin his way out of.
Quote from: SGOS on May 26, 2016, 01:40:16 PM
And what's Hillary supposed to do while Trump is debating Sanders. This is totally weird. Serves no purpose, other than exclude Hillary, who will be the nominee.
Hillary excluded herself by adopting a campaign strategy based on pretending Sanders no longer exists. Sanders asked her for another debate. She refused, so he is going to debate the only other presidential candidate left.
She's left out? Her fault.
Quote from: trdsf on May 26, 2016, 01:25:26 PM
Trump clinched the GOP nomination today (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36392084).
If you tried to write this campaign as part of a political thriller, you could never get it published on the grounds of being too unrealistic. And I don't know whether to make popcorn and watch, or make a stiff drink and weep.
Personally, I would just laugh. While they may be somewhat even in national polls, only the electoral college matters. The New York Times did the math recently and here are the results. Let me tell you a secret: Its not even close.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/04/upshot/electoral-map-trump-clinton.html
I for one welcome our newly returned Clinton overlords.
I don't like it, but I think that Trump is the next POTUS. Clinton is unlikely to win. Sanders just won't get out of the way.
Quote from: _Xenu_ on May 26, 2016, 04:00:40 PM
Personally, I would just laugh. While they may be somewhat even in national polls, only the electoral college matters. The New York Times did the math recently and here are the results. Let me tell you a secret: Its not even close.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/04/upshot/electoral-map-trump-clinton.html
I for one welcome our newly returned Clinton overlords.
Your attachment also shows a possible Trump win. Clinton is not assured a victory. I, for one, don't have that much faith in her winning. I think that Trump has a good shot.
Quote from: Nonsensei on May 26, 2016, 03:28:49 PM
Hillary excluded herself by adopting a campaign strategy based on pretending Sanders no longer exists. Sanders asked her for another debate. She refused, so he is going to debate the only other presidential candidate left.
She's left out? Her fault.
I didn't realize she had done that. I don't have a TV, so I miss a lot of key issues, not that I'm interested in most of them. I go to a friend's house to watch a debate once in a while, but I've had enough debates to do me for now. I will watch one of the Trump/Clinton debates, but probably not more than one. They get pretty repetitive. Sadly, I've written off Sanders. Not because I don't like him. I love the man, and I hate to see him go. He was a brief if only a faint light of hope for a short time.
Quote from: SGOS on May 26, 2016, 04:15:11 PM
I didn't realize she had done that. I don't have a TV, so I miss a lot of key issues, not that I'm interested in most of them. I go to a friend's house to watch a debate once in a while, but I've had enough debates to do me for now. I will watch one of the Trump/Clinton debates, but probably not more than one. They get pretty repetitive. Sadly, I've written off Sanders. Not because I don't like him. I love the man, and I hate to see him go. He was a brief if only a faint light of hope for a short time.
The US is just not ready for such a drift to the left. Too bad, Sanders is the only candidate with a vision for the future.
Trump said today that Obama did a horrible job. Hmm. During Obama's reign:
9 million jobs added
Unemployment rate down to 4.9%
Corporate profits up 166%
18 million more have health insurance
Wind and solar power tripled
62% less petro imports
Exports up 31%
Violent crime down 16%
Homicides down 13%
I could go on but it shows you how full of hot air Trump is.
Quote from: trdsf on May 26, 2016, 01:25:26 PM
Trump clinched the GOP nomination today (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36392084).
If you tried to write this campaign as part of a political thriller, you could never get it published on the grounds of being too unrealistic. And I don't know whether to make popcorn and watch, or make a stiff drink and weep.
Why choose? Make whiskey glaze for your popcorn, instead of caramel ;-)
I heard from one source, that these debates will be fund raisers for charity?
Meh. Sanders could do the right thing at this point and work to bolster the Dems rather than keep campaigning. Debating Trump? Whatever, but I don't see any point to it. Either he or Elizabeth Warren for VP would be cool.
Quote from: reasonist on May 26, 2016, 04:31:46 PM
The US is just not ready for such a drift to the left. Too bad, Sanders is the only candidate with a vision for the future.
Trump said today that Obama did a horrible job. Hmm. During Obama's reign:
9 million jobs added
Unemployment rate down to 4.9%
Corporate profits up 166%
18 million more have health insurance
Wind and solar power tripled
62% less petro imports
Exports up 31%
Violent crime down 16%
Homicides down 13%
I could go on but it shows you how full of hot air Trump is.
Yeah but during Obama, illegal immigrant/rapist numbers have skyrocketed. Source (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/19/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/).
It's a lot like how God's not allowed in schools anymore, Christians are oppressed, Obama's taking away people's guns and sneaking perverts in women's bathrooms. From a certain point of view, Obama's tenure has been a disaster. But only if that point of view is deliberate ignorance.
Quote from: stromboli on May 26, 2016, 08:01:26 PM
Meh. Sanders could do the right thing at this point and work to bolster the Dems rather than keep campaigning. Debating Trump? Whatever, but I don't see any point to it. Either he or Elizabeth Warren for VP would be cool.
He would do better to campaign for an independent candidate, since he was never a Democrat. The Libertarian Party is waiting for his support. The Dems and Repubs both need to go away.
I've been saying that trump will be the next president.
Which I'm pretty sure he will. unfortunately.
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 11:05:45 PM
The Libertarian Party is waiting for his support.
LOL wut?
Quote from: gentle_dissident on May 27, 2016, 12:11:15 PM
LOL wut?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure libertarians aren't too keen on democratic socialism.
Quote from: Baruch on May 26, 2016, 11:05:45 PM
He would do better to campaign for an independent candidate, since he was never a Democrat. The Libertarian Party is waiting for his support. The Dems and Repubs both need to go away.
I don't number myself as a Libertarian, but their candidate Gary Johnson at least says more sensible shit than the others.
Quote from: stromboli on May 27, 2016, 12:55:48 PM
I don't number myself as a Libertarian, but their candidate Gary Johnson at least says more sensible shit than the others.
But who other than Libertarians have heard of him?
Quote from: marom1963 on May 27, 2016, 01:12:34 PM
But who other than Libertarians have heard of him?
The name sounds familiar. He's the "burn down your house with the lemons" guy, isn't he?
Quote from: marom1963 on May 26, 2016, 04:13:58 PM
I think that Trump has a good shot.
I think he has a shot, but I don't think he has a good shot. The demographics are well stacked against him, and I don't see him making the inroads with women and minorities that he needs to in order to have a good shot. Also, the GOP is not really enthusiastically on board with him.
Most of all, he hasn't been the target of really intense opposition research before, and what might have been just a titillating peccadillo in the tabloid press before he entered politics will be taken completely differently now. I wouldn't be surprised if there were several October Surprises with him in the crosshairs.
Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary both have been the target of repeated politically-motivated investigations over the last 25 years, and the only thing they've actually managed to prove is that Bill can't keep it in his pants -- even Witchfinder General Ken Starr had to finally admit, after wasting years of the nation's time and millions of the nation's dollars, that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing in the one thing he was
supposed to be investigating, Whitewater.
If there were anything out there to destroy her, we'd know about it by now.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 27, 2016, 01:12:34 PM
But who other than Libertarians have heard of him?
He was governor of New Mexico for eight years from the '90s to the '00s; I think he was a Republican back then.
Quote from: trdsf on May 27, 2016, 01:42:39 PMMeanwhile, Bill and Hillary both have been the target of repeated politically-motivated investigations over the last 25 years, and the only thing they've actually managed to prove is that Bill can't keep it in his pants
Whoa there. Just because the Republicans have been out for blood doesn't mean the Clintons haven't made some pretty major mistakes.
Bill was on national TV saying "I've never had sexual relations with that woman" and pondering what the meaning of the word is is. I liked his policies, but his personal conduct left a lot to be desired. And we all know Hillary's dirty laundry. Granted, it's nothing compared to what went down during the Bush administration, but goddamn, we really need less scandal-prone leadership. Especially going against a slimeball like Trump.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 27, 2016, 02:31:59 PM
Whoa there. Just because the Republicans have been out for blood doesn't mean the Clintons haven't made some pretty major mistakes.
Bill was on national TV saying "I've never had sexual relations with that woman" and pondering what the meaning of the word is is. I liked his policies, but his personal conduct left a lot to be desired. And we all know Hillary's dirty laundry. Granted, it's nothing compared to what went down during the Bush administration, but goddamn, we really need less scandal-prone leadership. Especially going against a slimeball like Trump.
This really is inappropriate, but sometimes I do wish that some alien overlord would come down and just take over. You know, execute our leadership for corruption and crimes against decency before handing out lolly-pops to everyone. I just get so tired of the whole thing. Every election cycle, the crop of candidates is worse and weedier than the last. Next time around, why don't they just put up a donkey and an elephant. I'd vote for the donkey.
Quote from: stromboli on May 26, 2016, 08:01:26 PM
Meh. Sanders could do the right thing at this point and work to bolster the Dems rather than keep campaigning. Debating Trump? Whatever, but I don't see any point to it. Either he or Elizabeth Warren for VP would be cool.
If it were impossible for him to win I might agree, but it isnt. Its unlikely, but not impossible. If he kicks her ass in California he could end up with more delegates than her, at which point the superdelegates would be hard pressed not to change their votes to him.
Something the Libertarian said on TV the other night made some sense to me. They are the only other party on all ballots already. They could act as a siphon on the Reps who just cannot vote Trump and will not vote for Hillary. That could be enough to water down Trump's votes.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 27, 2016, 02:48:18 PM
This really is inappropriate, but sometimes I do wish that some alien overlord would come down and just take over. You know, execute our leadership for corruption and crimes against decency before handing out lolly-pops to everyone. I just get so tired of the whole thing. Every election cycle, the crop of candidates is worse and weedier than the last. Next time around, why don't they just put up a donkey and an elephant. I'd vote for the donkey.
It is called the UN.
Trump says he won't debate Sanders, saying that it would be "inappropriate" for the Republican nominee to debate "the second-place finisher".
Sanders' response: "I hope that he changes his mind again. Mr. Trump is known to change his mind many times in a day," Sanders said. "Trump is a bully, he's a big tough guy. Well, I say to Mr. Trump, what are you afraid of?"
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 28, 2016, 03:40:44 AM
Trump says he won't debate Sanders, saying that it would be "inappropriate" for the Republican nominee to debate "the second-place finisher".
He might have advisors he pays to keep him from doing inappropriate things. But is it really inappropriate? I don't see any harm in it, but it seems kind of pointless. Perhaps its pointless enough to be considered inappropriate. It kind of paints a picture of a guy who can't concentrate on the more important tasks in front of him. I think many voters might be perplexed by his proposal.
Yes I find it hard to believe that Trump suddenly gives a crap about what is appropriate.
Trump's eagerness then refusal paints a picture of a guy whose bravado is matched only by his cowardice. Who can't be trusted to follow through. This embarrassing debacle is just a taste of what this guy would be like as president. Imagine him dealing with international crises and war. It'd be a nightmare.
Trump: "I'd love to debate Bernie Sanders. It'd be a dream. We can raise $10 million or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount. I understand the television business very well."
Sanders: "Game on."
Trump: Uhh...well, I just realized that uhh I left the oven on...and uhh...*runs*
What a chump.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 28, 2016, 11:46:40 AM
Trump's eagerness then refusal paints a picture of a guy whose bravado is matched only by his cowardice. Who can't be trusted to follow through. This embarrassing debacle is just a taste of what this guy would be like as president. Imagine him dealing with international crises and war. It'd be a nightmare.
Trump: "I'd love to debate Bernie Sanders. It'd be a dream. We can raise $10 million or $15 million for charity, which would be a very appropriate amount. I understand the television business very well."
Sanders: "Game on."
Trump: Uhh...well, I just realized that uhh I left the oven on...and uhh...*runs*
What a chump.
I don't think that Trump's a coward by any measure. I think that his advisors made him realize that it would inappropriate. Understand, it's not as though I'm a fan of Trump, but to have him - or anybody - unfairly maligned is unacceptable.
If not cowardice, then a poorly considered offer. Either way, you don't offer then retract without a hit to your (already bad) reputation.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 28, 2016, 12:48:12 PM
If not cowardice, then a poorly considered offer. Either way, you don't offer then retract without a hit to your (already bad) reputation.
Well, yes, his reputation is bad - he knows that - so why worry about it? Trump has never worried about that.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 28, 2016, 12:20:59 PM
I don't think that Trump's a coward by any measure. I think that his advisors made him realize that it would inappropriate. Understand, it's not as though I'm a fan of Trump, but to have him - or anybody - unfairly maligned is unacceptable.
Nero's advisers told him it was inappropriate for a Roman emperor to appear on a private stage, let alone a public one, to perform his own The Voice. He simply had them banished or killed if he didn't like their advice. Hillary is like Messalina though, look her up, if you dare. Hail Obama, we who are about to die in the ME salute you! Lots of emperors came to grief in the ME, then and now.
Quote from: Baruch on May 28, 2016, 02:08:16 PM
Nero's advisers told him it was inappropriate for a Roman emperor to appear on a private stage, let alone a public one, to perform his own The Voice. He simply had them banished or killed if he didn't like their advice. Hillary is like Messalina though, look her up, if you dare. Hail Obama, we who are about to die in the ME salute you! Lots of emperors came to grief in the ME, then and now.
Trump's already lived longer than Nero ever did w/o having to commit suicide.
Quote from: marom1963 on May 28, 2016, 02:10:34 PM
Trump's already lived longer than Nero ever did w/o having to commit suicide.
Some posters here are like Nero's "fans". Trump perhaps sings better ;-) I was studying Nero this past month, and it came to me, that what he really wanted to be was the lead singer for KISS ... but he was born in the wrong place and time. Like a woman born in a man's body, only worse. Nero's singing career and sexuality were like that.
Quote from: Baruch on May 28, 2016, 02:18:07 PM
Some posters here are like Nero's "fans". Trump perhaps sings better ;-) I was studying Nero this past month, and it came to me, that what he really wanted to be was the lead singer for KISS ... but he was born in the wrong place and time. Like a woman born in a man's body, only worse. Nero's singing career and sexuality were like that.
Perhaps Nero was driven mad by the lead that they used deliberately to put in wine to made it taste better. Apparently, lead it quite tasty when added to wine.
Quote from: Baruch on May 28, 2016, 02:18:07 PM
Some posters here are like Nero's "fans". Trump perhaps sings better ;-) I was studying Nero this past month, and it came to me, that what he really wanted to be was the lead singer for KISS ...
LOL!
I was watching Chump s Memorial Day address today; once again I was amazed that ANYONE could even remotely be enamored with the people pleasin', snake oil salesman, 8th grade horse shit the guy runs. Our military is losin, our economy is losin' our politicians are losin blah, blah, blah. When I'm President were gonna win sssoooo much; you'll call me to say it's embarrassing, and to not win ssssoooo much! We're gonna make America great again! And the crowd goes wild!!!! They did too. LOL!
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 27, 2016, 02:31:59 PM
Whoa there. Just because the Republicans have been out for blood doesn't mean the Clintons haven't made some pretty major mistakes.
Bill was on national TV saying "I've never had sexual relations with that woman" and pondering what the meaning of the word is is. I liked his policies, but his personal conduct left a lot to be desired. And we all know Hillary's dirty laundry. Granted, it's nothing compared to what went down during the Bush administration, but goddamn, we really need less scandal-prone leadership. Especially going against a slimeball like Trump.
There's a big difference between 'made some mistakes' and the level of assault the Clintons have been under. I mean, you compare "I never had sexual relations with that woman" with the kinds of whoppers Nixon and his staff told during Watergate (which I am old enough to remember). And yes, of course, the monumental lies told by Dubya to get us into a war we didn't need to be in. Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no. I'll take the Clinton scale of wrongdoing over the average Republican scale any day you name.
At least when a Democrat has a scandal, only one person gets fucked, and it's usually with her consent.
Quote from: Nonsensei on May 27, 2016, 03:49:33 PM
If it were impossible for him to win I might agree, but it isnt. Its unlikely, but not impossible. If he kicks her ass in California he could end up with more delegates than her, at which point the superdelegates would be hard pressed not to change their votes to him.
Yeah, but it's going to take a complete blowout in CA. I don't see that on the cards, but I will be delighted if it happens. Bernie is my preference, but I have no general objection to Hillary if it comes to it. As in 2008, I am definitely satisfied with all the choices on my side of the aisle.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 27, 2016, 05:09:45 PM
Something the Libertarian said on TV the other night made some sense to me. They are the only other party on all ballots already. They could act as a siphon on the Reps who just cannot vote Trump and will not vote for Hillary. That could be enough to water down Trump's votes.
I believe Johnson already has a suit going to be included in the national debates, since he's qualified on all the state ballots, and when he's included in the polling, seems to be running around 11%. I have no doubt in my mind that his presence would gut Trump's potential vote. Wouldn't do Hillary any favors either, but it would hurt Trump a lot more.
Quote from: trdsf on May 29, 2016, 07:50:15 PM
I believe Johnson already has a suit going to be included in the national debates, since he's qualified on all the state ballots, and when he's included in the polling, seems to be running around 11%. I have no doubt in my mind that his presence would gut Trump's potential vote. Wouldn't do Hillary any favors either, but it would hurt Trump a lot more.
It is interesting in that both candidates are so disliked. But the hard core Rep must be just close to vomiting, thinking of their choices. The libertarian party gives them a sort of face-saving out. Some real hard core Bernie people may vote libertarian party rather than Hillary. But they should number less than the anti-Trump people. I like the idea.
Quote from: trdsf on May 29, 2016, 07:43:13 PM
At least when a Democrat has a scandal, only one person gets fucked, and it's usually with her consent.
After it became apparent that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 and no weapons of mass destruction were found, I heard someone quip, "When Clinton lied, no one died." I suppose it was a popular bumper sticker or it went viral on the internet or something, so everyone has probably heard it.
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 29, 2016, 07:58:50 PM
Some real hard core Bernie people may vote libertarian party rather than Hillary.
More likely for the Green Party, if they get someone on the ballot. Bernie himself probably wouldn't consider running as a Green, although I think most everything he has been pushing for is already part of the Green Party platform.
Quote from: trdsf on May 29, 2016, 07:50:15 PM
I believe Johnson already has a suit going to be included in the national debates, since he's qualified on all the state ballots, and when he's included in the polling, seems to be running around 11%. I have no doubt in my mind that his presence would gut Trump's potential vote. Wouldn't do Hillary any favors either, but it would hurt Trump a lot more.
Because the Libertarians are anti-drug-war ... no R-person will ever vote for them. I can see D-persons voting for him, assuming Bernie doesn't run his own 3rd party.
Quote from: trdsf on May 29, 2016, 07:43:13 PM
There's a big difference between 'made some mistakes' and the level of assault the Clintons have been under. I mean, you compare "I never had sexual relations with that woman" with the kinds of whoppers Nixon and his staff told during Watergate (which I am old enough to remember). And yes, of course, the monumental lies told by Dubya to get us into a war we didn't need to be in. Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no. I'll take the Clinton scale of wrongdoing over the average Republican scale any day you name.
At least when a Democrat has a scandal, only one person gets fucked, and it's usually with her consent.
Clinton voted for Iraq and is only pretending to be against it now. She hasn't changed her mind on Iraq. Anyone who believes she did is extremely gullible. Afghanistan was not a good idea either. The Taliban's numbers are far greater now compared to then. What about Libya? Hillary convinced Obama to take action when he was hesitant to do so. There's another country ruined because of a Clinton. "We came, we saw, he died!"... then laughs her ass off because Gaddafi getting raped up the ass by a sword was just oh so funny, and Clinton ruining the country and the lives of countless children, women, and men was just the funniest thing ever to her. The woman is pure evil.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on May 30, 2016, 02:22:16 PM
The woman is pure evil.
I'm glad I'm not the only one seeing this.
This thread needs a Portman break.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/androidlove/hillary_clinton_natalie_por_zpsnah8sysv.jpg)
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on May 30, 2016, 02:22:16 PM
Clinton voted for Iraq and is only pretending to be against it now. She hasn't changed her mind on Iraq. Anyone who believes she did is extremely gullible. Afghanistan was not a good idea either. The Taliban's numbers are far greater now compared to then. What about Libya? Hillary convinced Obama to take action when he was hesitant to do so. There's another country ruined because of a Clinton. "We came, we saw, he died!"... then laughs her ass off because Gaddafi getting raped up the ass by a sword was just oh so funny, and Clinton ruining the country and the lives of countless children, women, and men was just the funniest thing ever to her. The woman is pure evil.
Not pure evil, but not a saint either. Imho, both her ardent supporters and ardent detractors get her wrong, either magnifying her faults or ignoring them.
Yes, like most of congress, she voted for the Iraq resolution. And she ended up regretting it, like we all do. She doesn't regret intervention in Libya (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/14/hillary-clinton-has-no-regrets-about-libya/), but at the same time, saying that she somehow enjoys the humanitarian aftermath of that is pretty obviously not true.
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 30, 2016, 02:53:28 PM
Not pure evil, but not a saint either. Imho, both her ardent supporters and ardent detractors get her wrong, either magnifying her faults or ignoring them.
Yes, like most of congress, she voted for the Iraq resolution. And she ended up regretting it, like we all do. She doesn't regret intervention in Libya (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/14/hillary-clinton-has-no-regrets-about-libya/), but at the same time, saying that she somehow enjoys the humanitarian aftermath of that is pretty obviously not true.
You're taking her at her word when saying she regrets Iraq. Maybe she thinks it could have been done differently, but I think she still holds the position that Saddam had to go at any cost. She cares very little for the lives of brown people overseas. You can take her word for it, but I wouldn't believe her if she told me the sky was blue. She is a pathological liar. Bernie's been saying that about Trump, but he should be saying it about Clinton as well. She lies when it's completely unnecessary. Hillary Clinton is as dishonest as it gets (lying about being under fire when she was greeting little girls and a bunch of other people). She just can't help herself. Politicians usually lie because they have to. Hillary lies because of that, but also because she's a pathological liar. Lying when there's no need to about the dumbest things.. what a joke. No wonder she is the most unlikeable democrat pretty much of all time.
Clinton certainly is pure evil. She slipped up with that Libya interview and was acting like a psychopath out in the open. She momentarily forgot that she was supposed to hide her psychopathic tendencies. I'm not trying to say that Bernie and Trump are not also pro-war. They are pro-war. Bernie has praised Obama's wars and Trump has said some pretty concerning things about what he might do militarily. Hillary isn't that much different from Obama. I'm not saying she's really that much worse than him. Obama is a psychopath too, but at least he knows enough to try to hide it. Hillary is just out in the open with her evil nature, and can't help herself from showing extreme, almost orgasmic joy when talking about countries being destroyed, lives being destroyed, and men being slaughtered and raped up the ass by swords. Hillary Clinton is one sick individual. You say her detractors are magnifying her faults, but why should we not? Hillary Clinton is a sick puppy and there's nothing wrong with pointing out just how sick she is.
Quote from: FaithIsFilth on May 30, 2016, 04:56:28 PM
You're taking her at her word when saying she regrets Iraq. Maybe she thinks it could have been done differently, but I think she still holds the position that Saddam had to go at any cost. She cares very little for the lives of brown people overseas. You can take her word for it, but I wouldn't believe her if she told me the sky was blue. She is a pathological liar. Bernie's been saying that about Trump, but he should be saying it about Clinton as well. She lies when it's completely unnecessary. Hillary Clinton is as dishonest as it gets (lying about being under fire when she was greeting little girls and a bunch of other people). She just can't help herself. Politicians usually lie because they have to. Hillary lies because of that, but also because she's a pathological liar. Lying when there's no need to about the dumbest things.. what a joke. No wonder she is the most unlikeable democrat pretty much of all time.
Clinton certainly is pure evil. She slipped up with that Libya interview and was acting like a psychopath out in the open. She momentarily forgot that she was supposed to hide her psychopathic tendencies. I'm not trying to say that Bernie and Trump are not also pro-war. They are pro-war. Bernie has praised Obama's wars and Trump has said some pretty concerning things about what he might do militarily. Hillary isn't that much different from Obama. I'm not saying she's really that much worse than him. Obama is a psychopath too, but at least he knows enough to try to hide it. Hillary is just out in the open with her evil nature, and can't help herself from showing extreme, almost orgasmic joy when talking about countries being destroyed, lives being destroyed, and men being slaughtered and raped up the ass by swords. Hillary Clinton is one sick individual. You say her detractors are magnifying her faults, but why should we not? Hillary Clinton is a sick puppy and there's nothing wrong with pointing out just how sick she is.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing w/you, but now that you've labeled the top 3 candidates for POTUS as psychopaths, is there anyone out there that you see as fit for office?
Quote from: marom1963 on May 30, 2016, 05:20:06 PM
I'm not necessarily disagreeing w/you, but now that you've labeled the top 3 candidates for POTUS as psychopaths, is there anyone out there that you see as fit for office?
If you aren't a psychopath, the job probably isn't for you.
Maybe Jill Stein? Sanders wouldn't have been a terrible choice. Yeah, he's way too militaristic, but... baby steps. At least with Bernie, you would have been taking two steps forward. With Clinton, you are taking two steps backward and are pretty much voting in a Republican. Tulsi Gabbard may have had a chance with her anti-war message if Clinton didn't get her disinvited from the debates.
Libya isn't over ... it isn't over until it is over. Evidence indicates that potential if not planned armed invasion of Libya is getting ready to send up the red balloon.
Yes, they are all sociopaths. Don't insult the psychopaths ;-) See, democracy doesn't work, it didn't work in ancient Athens or republican Rome either. No government works, unless you consider criminality to be work.
Quote from: Baruch on May 30, 2016, 09:39:59 PM
Libya isn't over ... it isn't over until it is over. Evidence indicates that potential if not planned armed invasion of Libya is getting ready to send up the red balloon.
Yes, they are all sociopaths. Don't insult the psychopaths ;-) See, democracy doesn't work, it didn't work in ancient Athens or republican Rome either. No government works, unless you consider criminality to be work.
Depends on how you define "work." An absolute tyranny can work. If nobody can complain about anything, there'd be no way to know if wasn't working!
There's still the outside shot that HRC shoots herself in the foot before the nomination is wrapped up or even indicted so it's always good to have the alternative candidate ready to go just in case.
Quote from: Baruch on May 30, 2016, 09:39:59 PM
Don't insult the psychopaths ;-)
We need their vigilance.