Why do we need to know who she's married to or what her net worth is?
Can't read around the personal stuff, eh?
I did. They couldn't find 5 things they didn't like about her? Why not just say here's 3 things you should know about her? Makes it just that much less credible.
1. Her China speech on women. 2. Her role in killing Osama bin Laden. 3. Management of the State Department during which time we saw a 50 percent increase in exports to China, aggressive work on climate (particularly at Copenhagen), and the effort to create and implement the toughest sanctions ever on Iran—helping to lead us to the agreement currently on the table.
1.? An accomplishment for the people? And if she is attributed with backing women in general, she is equally attributed for trashing women for supporting a candidate that is not her. Should we bring up her role in Bill's extramarital affairs and how she quietly dismissed but first chided them down to nothing? Look it up.
2. Bin Laden. And what role is that? No one Ever even showed proof that he was even killed, there was no body the US provided in photograph, let alone a body.
3. Exports to China led to tax breaks for companies to export jobs and companies overseas. Climate work? Ha, if accepting $$$ from fossil fuel industry is climate work, yeah, taken care of. I don't see anything about Panama Papers in there, and her involvement...and she and Bill certainly were.
so if bin laden wasnt killed, why his silence since it was reported he was killed?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Why do we need to know who she's married to or what her net worth is?
Can't read around the personal stuff, eh?
I did. They couldn't find 5 things they didn't like about her? Why not just say here's 3 things you should know about her? Makes it just that much less credible.
Edit: credible is the wrong word. Makes them seem more biased.
Why do we need to know who she's married to or what her net worth is?
Can't read around the personal stuff, eh?
I did. They couldn't find 5 things they didn't like about her? Why not just say here's 3 things you should know about her? Makes it just that much less credible.
Edit: credible is the wrong word. Makes them seem more biased.
Go back and read the title and tell me what it says.
1. Her China speech on women. 2. Her role in killing Osama bin Laden. 3. Management of the State Department during which time we saw a 50 percent increase in exports to China, aggressive work on climate (particularly at Copenhagen), and the effort to create and implement the toughest sanctions ever on Iran—helping to lead us to the agreement currently on the table.
1.? An accomplishment for the people? And if she is attributed with backing women in general, she is equally attributed for trashing women for supporting a candidate that is not her. Should we bring up her role in Bill's extramarital affairs and how she quietly dismissed but first chided them down to nothing? Look it up.
2. Bin Laden. And what role is that? No one Ever even showed proof that he was even killed, there was no body the US provided in photograph, let alone a body.
3. Exports to China led to tax breaks for companies to export jobs and companies overseas. Climate work? Ha, if accepting $$$ from fossil fuel industry is climate work, yeah, taken care of. I don't see anything about Panama Papers in there, and her involvement...and she and Bill certainly were.
so if bin laden wasnt killed, why his silence since it was reported he was killed?
Why do we need to know who she's married to or what her net worth is?
Can't read around the personal stuff, eh?
I did. They couldn't find 5 things they didn't like about her? Why not just say here's 3 things you should know about her? Makes it just that much less credible.
It's like 7 minute abs. It's not 6 but 7.
Not a very good comparison
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I'm talking about mainstream media on TV where the average person gets their news. Not websites that are mostly for political junkies, who quite frankly already knew this. So the DNC is supposed to be a fair and unbiased committee helping all nominees equally. That clearly didn't happen.
You'll have to explain to me what is democratic about sending people on TV and other news outlets to demonize one of your parties candidates. Because that is exactly what happens. I thought America was about getting a fair shake. Whether it be in politics or your job.
After all this the fact that you think Hillary and the DNC are separate entities is laughable.
It's laughable for you to think that either party's plays by the rules the GOP is no better , either way this country eats shit come November it's just who's shit you like more at least ill come here and say there is no way I'm voting for Trump , I'm an immigrant I'll take her evil ways over his dung eating grin !!
My guess is Bernie is playing it a bit safe because like most of the rest of us, he recognizes that a Trump presidency would be an utter debacle. But besides that, at the same time I'm disappointed that Bernie didn't stand firm on his objectives. Or maybe he still hopes to obtain those objectives through the Senate.
I for one am conflicted about this coming election. Stein is the candidate with whom I feel most aligned. If we get close to election time and it looks like Hillary is going to win by record numbers- something she does not deserve- I will definitely vote for Stein. If it looks like Hillary is likely to win but not hugely, ditto. But if it looks like Trump has a decent (I mean indecent) chance, then I might have to consider doing what basically amounts to heresy toward my beliefs- voting for She Who Shall Not Be Named here. I really really really hope it doesn't come down to that.
I think it's funny that anti establishment voters are so willing to vote the same old same old instead of something different. Shaking up Washington should be what one would want under those circumstances. But get lulled into political as usual bc of....wait for it....Drilling for fear.
The irony in this election is intriguing.
I agree, Edson, and if your basic run of the mill establishment type had won the Republican ticket, I would vote for what you term an "anti-establishment" candidate (I would call people like Stein and Sanders "Reestablishing" candidates) but this is Trump where talking about. No fear here, just frustration.
But isn't he the ultimate anti-establishment? Bernie really isn't. He's just an ultra liberal that already works in Washington who is trying to guide his party to the more extreme side of their policy spectrum. That would certainly be something different. And, he's certainly less establishment than Queen Hillary, but he is ensconced in DC no different than any other Senator.
On the other hand, Trump is (clearly) no politician, he (clearly) upsets pretty much everyone in the (both?) party(ies). Quite honestly, I'm not even sure he's a Republican.
What he is, is a businessman who has used every process to his advantage to gain the ultimate American dream. Again, setting aside whether you agree with what and how he's done it, he's never gone to jail (hopefully you get what I mean and don't define this so narrowly). The most that's been raised on him is numerous lawsuits. Which, even Mark Cuban can attest - when you get to that level - everyone's looking to sue you.
If you are looking for someone to potentially destabilize Washington - Trump is actually your candidate.
Now, truth be told, he would end up no different than Obama or any other elected official that goes to Washington. Obama had zero, count that - zero - international experience when he ran for office. At least Trump has had international business experience. He does business all over the world.
Not platforming for Trump, but the more I see people afraid of what will happen when the boogyman gets elected, the more I think he may be just what we need. A person who doesn't really want it, doesn't really need it, and ultimately will be better off if he's not elected. I'm not sure you can say that about anybody else (including Bernie Sanders) in this cycle.
Post edited by EdsonNascimento on
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
trump is the epitome of the establishment ... the establishment aka corporate america ... DC is run by corporations and lobbyists - something trump is very familiar and fond of ... he only upsets a tiny portion of the republican caucus because a few of them can't bring themselves to support some of his outrageous ideas ... to say trump has more international experience because he has had international business relations is one of the most absurd rationalizations of his legitimacy I've read recently ...
And as we get closer to the election, and people think about Trump winning, we get more minimizations and rationalizations. All of a sudden, it doesn't matter who the president is, because they're all the same. I don't think that's how it works. Trump would end up no different than Obama? There's nothing that supports this statement. Obama didn't have experience dealing in the international arena, but he obviously has a personality and skill set that worked. You think Trump has the same?
And as we get closer to the election, and people think about Trump winning, we get more minimizations and rationalizations. All of a sudden, it doesn't matter who the president is, because they're all the same. I don't think that's how it works. Trump would end up no different than Obama? There's nothing that supports this statement. Obama didn't have experience dealing in the international arena, but he obviously has a personality and skill set that worked. You think Trump has the same?
Is there no difference in the judges that will be selected for the SCOTUS? We've seen Trump's list already. The difference is stark on the most basic of presidential functions.
trump is the epitome of the establishment ... the establishment aka corporate america ... DC is run by corporations and lobbyists - something trump is very familiar and fond of ... he only upsets a tiny portion of the republican caucus because a few of them can't bring themselves to support some of his outrageous ideas ... to say trump has more international experience because he has had international business relations is one of the most absurd rationalizations of his legitimacy I've read recently ...
Then everyone's establishment!
Oh, and I wasn't rationalizing his legitimacy. I was just comparing his known international experience (for what it's worth) vs. what our current President had when he entered office. Perhaps, they're both invalid. That's a fine conclusion to draw. I wasn't telling you what to think. Just stating a fact there. Point being, I don't know why he's any more scary than Obama other than the counter-rhetoric. People running say stupid stuff all the time. Obama also said he'd close Quantanamo. Which was an utterly ridiculous, inexperienced thing to say that would (oopsy! has) lead to International destabilization (not in it's entirety. Don't make this statement bigger than it is - he has released prisoners that have proven to be part of planning attacks in an effort to make that promise come true even after 8 years of knowing it would never happen, but would please his constituents to say).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
And as we get closer to the election, and people think about Trump winning, we get more minimizations and rationalizations. All of a sudden, it doesn't matter who the president is, because they're all the same. I don't think that's how it works. Trump would end up no different than Obama? There's nothing that supports this statement. Obama didn't have experience dealing in the international arena, but he obviously has a personality and skill set that worked. You think Trump has the same?
It worked? Interesting.
And you give no credit to negotiating multi-billion dollar deals? Interesting.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Perhaps if the DNC were not so flagrant with what they put on email they would not have to pass the buck and blame Trump.
96 Randall's Island II
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,079
My guess is Bernie is playing it a bit safe because like most of the rest of us, he recognizes that a Trump presidency would be an utter debacle. But besides that, at the same time I'm disappointed that Bernie didn't stand firm on his objectives. Or maybe he still hopes to obtain those objectives through the Senate.
I for one am conflicted about this coming election. Stein is the candidate with whom I feel most aligned. If we get close to election time and it looks like Hillary is going to win by record numbers- something she does not deserve- I will definitely vote for Stein. If it looks like Hillary is likely to win but not hugely, ditto. But if it looks like Trump has a decent (I mean indecent) chance, then I might have to consider doing what basically amounts to heresy toward my beliefs- voting for She Who Shall Not Be Named here. I really really really hope it doesn't come down to that.
I think it's funny that anti establishment voters are so willing to vote the same old same old instead of something different. Shaking up Washington should be what one would want under those circumstances. But get lulled into political as usual bc of....wait for it....Drilling for fear.
The irony in this election is intriguing.
I agree, Edson, and if your basic run of the mill establishment type had won the Republican ticket, I would vote for what you term an "anti-establishment" candidate (I would call people like Stein and Sanders "Reestablishing" candidates) but this is Trump where talking about. No fear here, just frustration.
But isn't he the ultimate anti-establishment? Bernie really isn't. He's just an ultra liberal that already works in Washington who is trying to guide his party to the more extreme side of their policy spectrum. That would certainly be something different. And, he's certainly less establishment than Queen Hillary, but he is ensconced in DC no different than any other Senator.
On the other hand, Trump is (clearly) no politician, he (clearly) upsets pretty much everyone in the (both?) party(ies). Quite honestly, I'm not even sure he's a Republican.
What he is, is a businessman who has used every process to his advantage to gain the ultimate American dream. Again, setting aside whether you agree with what and how he's done it, he's never gone to jail (hopefully you get what I mean and don't define this so narrowly). The most that's been raised on him is numerous lawsuits. Which, even Mark Cuban can attest - when you get to that level - everyone's looking to sue you.
If you are looking for someone to potentially destabilize Washington - Trump is actually your candidate.
Now, truth be told, he would end up no different than Obama or any other elected official that goes to Washington. Obama had zero, count that - zero - international experience when he ran for office. At least Trump has had international business experience. He does business all over the world.
Not platforming for Trump, but the more I see people afraid of what will happen when the boogyman gets elected, the more I think he may be just what we need. A person who doesn't really want it, doesn't really need it, and ultimately will be better off if he's not elected. I'm not sure you can say that about anybody else (including Bernie Sanders) in this cycle.
Some interesting observations here, Edson. The thing is, simply being anti-establishment is not necessarily constructive. That would be like me revolting against the people I work with at the bookstore because I don't like the way they arranged things before I came on board and I decided to rearrange all 300,000 plus books by color or size or something crazy. And that's Trump. Something... someone... CRAZY!! And this election year is making me CRAZY (makes me, makes me, makes me!).
Jose pegged it: "either way this country eats shit come November".
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Perhaps if the DNC were not so flagrant with what they put on email they would not have to pass the buck and blame Trump.
I didn't blame Trump. But there's no doubt that Putin is trying to divide Europe and he is extending that into our country. The Russians benefit from NATO breaking up and the EU (Ukrainian sanctions will be difficult to enforce and exclude Britain). It allows them to form new alliances and economic deals. Why do you think the Russians spent serious money supporting the National Front in France, or cheerleading Brexit? So anytime they can create fissure in the traditional alliances (which Trump does), it's a win for Putin. And do you really think a hacker from Russia (Guccifer 2) is operating without the consent or support of the government?
Edit for more context: HRC and the Democrats are highly supportive of traditional alliances. Trump, such as he has a policy, has bashed NATO, praised Brexit, threatened to allow Korean Peninsula to become nuclear, etc. So you can see why Putin would prefer a Trump presidency.
And as we get closer to the election, and people think about Trump winning, we get more minimizations and rationalizations. All of a sudden, it doesn't matter who the president is, because they're all the same. I don't think that's how it works. Trump would end up no different than Obama? There's nothing that supports this statement. Obama didn't have experience dealing in the international arena, but he obviously has a personality and skill set that worked. You think Trump has the same?
Is there no difference in the judges that will be selected for the SCOTUS? We've seen Trump's list already. The difference is stark on the most basic of presidential functions.
This is the elephant in the room.
Listen, I find Clinton about as appealing as a pair of shitty underwear, but the thought of having Trump be given the opportunity to place possibly four appointees on the Supreme Court is terrifying. There is already one slot open and RBG, Breyer, and Kennedy are all over, or pushing, 80. Their days are numbered. So couple this with the fact that you have Thomas, Alito, and Roberts all currently sitting, what you could end up with is a super majority of ultra-conservative justices sitting on the court for at least a decade, maybe more. This will be a death nail in any progressive movement. At least with Clinton you know any nominee will be at least a centrist to moderate progressive. And that is why she will get my vote even if I have some reservations about her.
We are looking at two candidates with huge name recognition. In a change election if Hillary doesn't come out of the convention with at least a tie it will be hard to come back. The kitchen sink has pretty much been thrown at Trump already and he hasn't even spent a dime yet in the swing states.
Comments
2. Bin Laden. And what role is that? No one Ever even showed proof that he was even killed, there was no body the US provided in photograph, let alone a body.
3. Exports to China led to tax breaks for companies to export jobs and companies overseas. Climate work? Ha, if accepting $$$ from fossil fuel industry is climate work, yeah, taken care of. I don't see anything about Panama Papers in there, and her involvement...and she and Bill certainly were.
so if bin laden wasnt killed, why his silence since it was reported he was killed?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
...and what page if any did this come from?
It is quite amazing to watch people doing this.
Oh, and she reported a negative net worth because she has 2 mortgages.
we will find a way, we will find our place
we will find a way, we will find our place
Let this thread fall like a leaf.
And let this be a lesson.
we will find a way, we will find our place
On the other hand, Trump is (clearly) no politician, he (clearly) upsets pretty much everyone in the (both?) party(ies). Quite honestly, I'm not even sure he's a Republican.
What he is, is a businessman who has used every process to his advantage to gain the ultimate American dream. Again, setting aside whether you agree with what and how he's done it, he's never gone to jail (hopefully you get what I mean and don't define this so narrowly). The most that's been raised on him is numerous lawsuits. Which, even Mark Cuban can attest - when you get to that level - everyone's looking to sue you.
If you are looking for someone to potentially destabilize Washington - Trump is actually your candidate.
Now, truth be told, he would end up no different than Obama or any other elected official that goes to Washington. Obama had zero, count that - zero - international experience when he ran for office. At least Trump has had international business experience. He does business all over the world.
Not platforming for Trump, but the more I see people afraid of what will happen when the boogyman gets elected, the more I think he may be just what we need. A person who doesn't really want it, doesn't really need it, and ultimately will be better off if he's not elected. I'm not sure you can say that about anybody else (including Bernie Sanders) in this cycle.
Oh, and I wasn't rationalizing his legitimacy. I was just comparing his known international experience (for what it's worth) vs. what our current President had when he entered office. Perhaps, they're both invalid. That's a fine conclusion to draw. I wasn't telling you what to think. Just stating a fact there. Point being, I don't know why he's any more scary than Obama other than the counter-rhetoric. People running say stupid stuff all the time. Obama also said he'd close Quantanamo. Which was an utterly ridiculous, inexperienced thing to say that would (oopsy! has) lead to International destabilization (not in it's entirety. Don't make this statement bigger than it is - he has released prisoners that have proven to be part of planning attacks in an effort to make that promise come true even after 8 years of knowing it would never happen, but would please his constituents to say).
And you give no credit to negotiating multi-billion dollar deals? Interesting.
Clinton - 0
USA - 0
Fixed that for ya!
98 CAA
00 Virginia Beach;Camden I; Jones Beach III
05 Borgata Night I; Wachovia Center
06 Letterman Show; Webcast (guy in blue shirt), Camden I; DC
08 Camden I; Camden II; DC
09 Phillie III
10 MSG II
13 Wrigley Field
16 Phillie II
Jose pegged it: "either way this country eats shit come November".
Edit for more context: HRC and the Democrats are highly supportive of traditional alliances. Trump, such as he has a policy, has bashed NATO, praised Brexit, threatened to allow Korean Peninsula to become nuclear, etc. So you can see why Putin would prefer a Trump presidency.
Listen, I find Clinton about as appealing as a pair of shitty underwear, but the thought of having Trump be given the opportunity to place possibly four appointees on the Supreme Court is terrifying. There is already one slot open and RBG, Breyer, and Kennedy are all over, or pushing, 80. Their days are numbered. So couple this with the fact that you have Thomas, Alito, and Roberts all currently sitting, what you could end up with is a super majority of ultra-conservative justices sitting on the court for at least a decade, maybe more. This will be a death nail in any progressive movement. At least with Clinton you know any nominee will be at least a centrist to moderate progressive. And that is why she will get my vote even if I have some reservations about her.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/index.html