well, the Clinton foundation is sure to be investigated,
along with hillarys e mails which just keep coming, its said that a cash payment to the Clinton foundation will get you just about anything you want, Hillary didn't need this. bills speeches 550,000 a whack, plus whatever more they find out about this ruse, Julian Assange is said to present more of hillarys e mails which could be extremely damanging, it looks like the dems made a mistake in nominating her, should have been Bernie.
question... is Hillary going to blow this election? what do you all think of the Clintons now?
It is the Electoral College map on which all interested parties should be focusing. It favors the Democrats even to the extent of rendering control of the Senate competitive.
You should keep in mind that access to public officials on the federal, state, and even local level is often a function of financial contributions.
Every month there's a new reason Hillary's "done". It's Trump who's done.
now,oak you have to admit shes losing votes because of the e mails and now the foundation, and the third party could take votes away from her.
regardless of what you think, Hillary isn't as strong as she was 6 mo,ago, she could still win, but, its going to take a stronger effort, and no more surprises.
Binnie, have you seen what Hillary demands with her costly speeches? Take a look at the actual contract. a private jet, the Presidential suite, a couple of rooms, etc., etc.,And if she's getting this along with her exorbitant fee, what is Slick Willie demanding? http://www.thesmokinggun.com/backstage/politicians/hillary-clinton
Hate to quibble with you, Binnie, but Hillary's lead has steadily increased in the polls. She's not in trouble. She never was. This is looking to be the biggest landslide election since Reagan over Mondale.
Hate to quibble with you, Binnie, but Hillary's lead has steadily increased in the polls. She's not in trouble. She never was. This is looking to be the biggest landslide election since Reagan over Mondale.
love to see it oak, it would put trump and his neo-nazis
I'll say it again, this is why I can't take you guys seriously. I can at least admit Trump is not the ideal candidate and I have a lot of reservations about him. I won't be voting for him and the only good thing about him winning would be that Hillary didnt.
But here you guys are not even acknowledging Hillary's corruption and certainly being the worse of the two evils. That she's a liberal Democrat is enough for you to overlook everything about her.
bean, wow, these guys are something else, too bad we have such a weak choice, I'm a NEVER TRUMP person.
Binnie, if you take a few more steps you can become a NEVER TRUMP/NEVER HILLARY voter. It's a small hill to climb, but light of the sun will lead the way. Once you make it over you'll notice the air is cleaner and the day is brighter.
bean, wow, these guys are something else, too bad we have such a weak choice, I'm a NEVER TRUMP person.
Binnie, if you take a few more steps you can become a NEVER TRUMP/NEVER HILLARY voter. It's a small hill to climb, but light of the sun will lead the way. Once you make it over you'll notice the air is cleaner and the day is brighter.
lol,lol, faithful, its certainly a different election than what seniors like myself have ever seen,
Hillary keeps getting slamed every other day, come election day, she will have a ton of baggage. makes a lot of older people wonder, about the Clintons.
Binnie, if you take a few more steps you can become a NEVER TRUMP/NEVER HILLARY voter. It's a small hill to climb, but light of the sun will lead the way. Once you make it over you'll notice the air is cleaner and the day is brighter.
lol,lol, faithful, its certainly a different election than what seniors like myself have ever seen,
Hillary keeps getting slamed every other day, come election day, she will have a ton of baggage. makes a lot of older people wonder, about the Clintons.
Binnie, I don't have to criticize Trump to you since you're already in the NEVER TRUMP camp. But a few things about Hillary:
1. Hillary is a Machiavellian who will do anything and say anything to advance, including lying, deception and pandering. She pandered to black churches using a phony accent, she lied about being under fire in Bosnia, and continues to lie about her emails. We know that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC undermined Bernie Sanders' campaign, and we also know that Schultz and the DNC was pushing from Clinton. Schultz used to work for Hillary, and it's likely that she was involved herself in sabotaging the Sanders campaign. Back in 1996 the late William Safire of the New York Times called Hillary a compulsive liar then and listed the reasons why: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html
2. She still lies today and repeatedly defends them, one lie on top of another. FBI Director James Comey pointed out how she made one untruthful statement after another. Since then thousands of documents have been released from the State Dept. and through Wikileaks providing even more evidence of lying and corruption.
3. She used the Clinton Foundation as a "pay to play" operation in which big donors would get favors from the State Dept. Her top aide Cheryl Mills worked in the Clinton Foundation and at State at the same time, a total conflict of interest. The Foundation is known for providing help all over the world, but it also gives contracts to Clinton friends and cronies that does more to help their businesses than the people supposedly in need.
4. She vowed to keep the monstrosity known as Obamacare instead of the more viable alternatives such as the single-payer plan promoted by Bernie Sanders or the free market plans put out by Ben Carson and Rand Paul.
5. She's an abortion extremist, not only supporting it for the entire duration of a pregnancy for any reason whatsoever (up to birth), but supports forcing religious groups that have moral disagreements to pay for them -- even when there's absolutely no need, like a group of elderly Catholic nuns.
6. She wants to appoint judges who would re-interpret the Second Amendment to take away the individual right to own firearms. She has stated she would like to adopt the Australian plan that involved gun confiscation.
7. Whether you agree or not, she did engage in gross negligence with classified information and it was not the same thing Colin Powell did. Powell still had a secure server. Hillary had several servers. James Comey added an element of intent that's not in the statute U.S. Code 18-793(f), and wasn't in it for a reason. Deleting 30,000 emails is something that's done by racketeers, not normal individuals deleting unimportant personal data as she claimed. Moreover, her attorneys didn't have the clearance to do what they did, and they used a wipe program that prevents even the FBI from recovering them. Her husband's former adviser James Carville gave the reason she did this, and that was she wanted control over the information. It's likely there was something incriminating.
8. Her other top aide, Huma Abedin, was for 11 years the assistant editor of her mother's journal, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Her mother was in the Muslim Brotherhood (a group that Egypt and several other Middle Eastern countries declared a terrorist organization) and the journal is Islamist and blames 9/11 on the United States. We don't know exactly how Abedin has influenced her, but it's interesting to note that President Obama said he wants to bring in 10,000 Syrian Muslim refugees to the U.S. (and he's almost reached that goal) with a lot of criticism and questions about vetting, yet Hillary says she wants to bring in SIX TIMES as many Syrian refugees. It's also interesting to note that associates of the Muslim Brotherhood are on the Homeland Security advisory board TODAY. This is amazing since Hamas, which is designated as a terrorist organization by the USA, is part of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda also came out of the Brotherhood.
9. She voted for the Iraq War, she supported bombing Libya and Syria and still supports war in Syria. She's also made unfounded conspiratorial criticisms of Putin (not saying all criticisms are unjustified)and could very well try to provoke an incident between the U.S. and Russia. There's a reason why she's known as a hawk and a warmonger.
These are only some of the concerns about Hillary Clinton. As my daughter told me, she'd like a female President, but NOT HER.
She vowed to keep the monstrosity known as Obamacare instead of the more viable alternatives such as the single-payer plan promoted by Bernie Sanders or the free market plans put out by Ben Carson and Rand Paul.
faithful, looks like you have done ton of research on Hillary. article by safire, who was I think one of the best writers ever
was informative, and factual, of course the problem is she always gets a pass, if she was facing anyone but trump, she would lose. what is particulary disturbing to me is her wanting to implement gun control amounting to confiscation, this makes my hair stand on end, can you imagine trying to disarm America? you are talking about millions of law-abiding gun owners. can you imagine the black market for guns, and ammo.
if shes elected she must rethink her position on guns.
Binnie, we hear about various "lobbies" that the Republicans are indebted to, like the "gun lobby" (the NRA), the Christian Right and the Tea Party. Yet we don't hear as much about the Democratic Party lobbies. Right now the Democratic lobbies include the gun control lobby (like the Brady Campaign and several others), the teachers' union (the NEA), the Teamsters, Black Lives Matter, the NAACP, the abortion lobby (Planned Parenthood), the gay and trans lobby (GLAAD, etc), environmentalists, and several others. There are also big donors such as Tom Steyer, George Soros and Hollywood celebrities. Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and their aides wrote the 2016 Democratic Party Platform to reflect the interests of all these lobbying groups.
To appease the gun lobby, one thing that is on the agenda is that Hillary wants to make it possible for gun manufacturers to face lawsuits for the actions of those who illegally use firearms. If this goes through what may happen? It may put them out of business. That's the goal: destroy gun makers. It's on page 39 of the Democratic Party Platform: https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content...16-no-lines.pdf
She won't rethink her position on guns. Follow the money of the big donors, it's what they want. Not only that, she's always been a Far Left-wing progressive going back to when she befriended the radical Saul Alinsky and always supported gun control. (You can read her thesis on Alinsky pointing out that she disagrees with him in one area, and that's working on the inside (as a politician): http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/documents/HillaryClintonThesis.pdf)
Binnie, we hear about various "lobbies" that the Republicans are indebted to, like the "gun lobby" (the NRA), the Christian Right and the Tea Party. Yet we don't hear as much about the Democratic Party lobbies. Right now the Democratic lobbies include the gun control lobby (like the Brady Campaign and several others), the teachers' union (the NEA), the Teamsters, Black Lives Matter, the NAACP, the abortion lobby (Planned Parenthood), the gay and trans lobby (GLAAD, etc), environmentalists, and several others. There are also big donors such as Tom Steyer, George Soros and Hollywood celebrities. Hillary and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and their aides wrote the 2016 Democratic Party Platform to reflect the interests of all these lobbying groups.
To appease the gun lobby, one thing that is on the agenda is that Hillary wants to make it possible for gun manufacturers to face lawsuits for the actions of those who illegally use firearms. If this goes through what may happen? It may put them out of business. That's the goal: destroy gun makers. It's on page 39 of the Democratic Party Platform: https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content...16-no-lines.pdf
She won't rethink her position on guns. Follow the money of the big donors, it's what they want. Not only that, she's always been a Far Left-wing progressive going back to when she befriended the radical Saul Alinsky and always supported gun control. (You can read her thesis on Alinsky pointing out that she disagrees with him in one area, and that's working on the inside (as a politician): http://www.hillaryclintonquarterly.com/documents/HillaryClintonThesis.pdf)
Of course, just to state the obvious, all the press about Republican lobbies, and the lack of it about Democrat lobbies, is the result of, well, the liberal press. The left-leaning media has always ran interference for the Democrats.
The media and the Democratic party are conspiring to make sure children have schools to go to and the elderly have social security. We'd better keep an eye on them.
as I mentioned the gun confiscation is something I am 100% against, it could result in a massive non-compliance all over the country, if a effort is made to imprison those who don't comply with gun confiscation, this country will blow up.
if Hillary wants a civil war, good way to start one.
as I mentioned the gun confiscation is something I am 100% against, it could result in a massive non-compliance all over the country, if a effort is made to imprison those who don't comply with gun confiscation, this country will blow up.
if Hillary wants a civil war, good way to start one.
Watch this video with Hillary in her own words (yes, it has NRA commentary, you are free to ignore that and pay attention to the words coming out of Hillary's mouth):
"The Australian government purchased more than 650,000 guns from citizens in the compulsory 1996 buyback program." You do know what compulsory means, don't you?
Skip the civil war and divide the country east/west. Hilary and her legion of deadbeats to the west, and everyone else on the east. See who achieves more and runs a better nation. Lets see who prospers and flourishes. Lets see who fails and self implodes first. In ten years do an analysis and exterminate the losers. Do away with their mindset and let the winners rebuild the new USA. I dont like to use the word that often, but whenver I see Hilary, c u next tuesday, comes to mind. Why would she stay with Bill for so long, with his scandalous past. Because shes a piece of shit. Whenever you're ready Oak.
"The Australian government purchased more than 650,000 guns from citizens in the compulsory 1996 buyback program." You do know what compulsory means, don't you?
I know Hillary Clinton has never said a word about confiscating guns, and doesn't in that video, either.
Skip the civil war and divide the country east/west. Hilary and her legion of deadbeats to the west, and everyone else on the east. See who achieves more and runs a better nation. Lets see who prospers and flourishes. Lets see who fails and self implodes first. In ten years do an analysis and exterminate the losers. Do away with their mindset and let the winners rebuild the new USA. I dont like to use the word that often, but whenver I see Hilary, c u next tuesday, comes to mind. Why would she stay with Bill for so long, with his scandalous past. Because shes a piece of shit. Whenever you're ready Oak.
Yeah, Rick Perry of Texas already proposed that. A week later he begged federal government for assistance with the Swine Flu.
faithful- i dont like that video, ive always known she against guns,
now I'm thinking something else, now, when I was selling guns you only had to fill out a form 4473, to purchase a gun. when Clinton became president he listened to sarah brady, hence the brady bill. then I had to call in a background check with a nics
purchase order, you either got a proceed, delay, or denial. and I hated bill Clinton for that, I voted for bob dole in 96 now Im wondering if it was Hillary behind sarah brady and the brady bill. your thoughts on that.
Lol. Is there a solution everyone could agree on? Was Christie's action of firing the police force successful? Maybe it's time to do that with congress and the White House. All that arguing and they cant put aside their differences and come to an agreement to better our great nation. The days of republicans and democrats need to end. How many people in this day and age are true die hard republicans or democrats and agree with all of the beliefs of each party? Rome lasted 1k years, we're not even 300 years old.
Lol. Is there a solution everyone could agree on? Was Christie's action of firing the police force successful? Maybe it's time to do that with congress and the White House. All that arguing and they cant put aside their differences and come to an agreement to better our great nation. The days of republicans and democrats need to end. How many people in this day and age are true die hard republicans or democrats and agree with all of the beliefs of each party? Rome lasted 1k years, we're not even 300 years old.
very good points, ill bet a lot of people are thinking same.
faithful- i dont like that video, ive always known she against guns,
now I'm thinking something else, now, when I was selling guns you only had to fill out a form 4473, to purchase a gun. when Clinton became president he listened to sarah brady, hence the brady bill. then I had to call in a background check with a nics
purchase order, you either got a proceed, delay, or denial. and I hated bill Clinton for that, I voted for bob dole in 96 now Im wondering if it was Hillary behind sarah brady and the brady bill. your thoughts on that.
I'm sorry, but I don't know so I can't answer that question. My belief is that Bill shares Hillary's views on firearms, but when he was President the consensus was that she had more liberal views than he did. After all, Bill did work with the GOP on his second term which had good results for the economy. On the other hand, during the first Democratic debate with Bernie Sanders, etc., when asked who she was proud to consider her enemy she named the NRA and the Republicans. How are you going to work together and reach across the aisle if you consider the opposition to be enemies? She could have said ISIS or Al Qaeda, but to her I guess the NRA and the GOP are worse. Back in the days of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan the presidents would at least be cognizant of the fact that their political opponents are still fellow Americans. Anyway, that's the best answer I can give.
Skip the civil war and divide the country east/west. Hilary and her legion of deadbeats to the west, and everyone else on the east. See who achieves more and runs a better nation. Lets see who prospers and flourishes. Lets see who fails and self implodes first. In ten years do an analysis and exterminate the losers. Do away with their mindset and let the winners rebuild the new USA. I dont like to use the word that often, but whenver I see Hilary, c u next tuesday, comes to mind. Why would she stay with Bill for so long, with his scandalous past. Because shes a piece of shit. Whenever you're ready Oak.
Whoa, why do we get stuck with that vile sorry excuse for a woman? She's from Arkansas and has spent most of her time on the east coast like Washington DC and New York. I say you guys get her.
Thanks for the vids, also for the article that you posted weeks ago highlighting how Clintons pillaged the money donated and allocated for the economic recovery of Haiti. I've written here since I joined that the "aid industry" is a scam. Not intended to help the countries they claim to, just to use poor people as stage props to raise funds and pocket them. More important than what they took. Under the watch of Clinton foundation....people were displaced....land was grabbed and drilling rights granted....for gold now and other things soon
So the very resources under the ground in Haiti, which could/should raise the standard of living for the people....is instead going to enrich outsiders. Same thing that happened in African countries.
Clintons are scoundrels and thieves of the highest order.
I have no proof, but I suspect that they used local contacts to uncover and expose "Bridge Gate" in NJ.Christie was the biggest threat to Hillary..and he was derailed. I also think that they used influence to help Trump in Rep. primaries. She couldn't have asked for a better opponent in general election.
I'm just sickened over Haiti. Money that could have been used for sanitation and food is used for soccer stadiums and mini-mansions for foreign workers. The people who wanted to help by donating their hard-earned money certainly didn't want it used like that. Meanwhile, the citizens of Haiti starve.
Can't comment on Bridgegate. You may be right. Something tells me though that if this happened under a Democratic governor it wouldn't have received more that one day in news coverage.
you guys are fucked clinton or trump both will be as bad as each other. Cant stand Hillary she is trouble she will inflame tensions with Russia instead of trying to work with them she would rather fight them she has the mentality of someone from the 70s. Not that Russia are saints Putin is a scumbag and what they have done in Ukraine is wrong but its ridiclous tensions are very high at the moment was not like this ten years ago.
Obama i liked i think he was a nice guy but putin as much as i dislike him is a genius and he played obama he will do the same to Hillary. She probably supports the idea of a fucking European army cant stand her EU should tell to go fuck herself if she tries to stick her nose in but they wont because most of the politicians in Europe are out of touch with there own people sadly when US gets into another conflict my country will get forced in because we do whatever the US say.
but i will give the EU credit demanding apple pay all that tax to Ireland took balls i know the US are going crazy greedy fucks want the money for themselves. I will enjoy this fight EU vs the corporations cant stand these guys make all this money and pay no tax
Just pointing out that it is part of Trump's strategy, even if people honestly sharing their own opinions don't realize they're playing right into it. Either way, it's a failed strategy.
i dont even live in the US its just a outsiders opinion on things and i have a very different interest in this election for example i dont care what trump or Clinton do domestically if Trump wants to build a fucking wall i wont judge even if from my point of view its crazy i dont live in the US how would i know whats right and whats wrong?
Its there foreign policy which interests me because it will effect us because the US is such a big power in the world what they do throughout the world has a knock onffect on everyone else. And from what i have seen these two are awful trumps ego is too big of a problem he will just offend people and putin would eat him alive. Clinton is just trouble US will end up in a war in her time as president i guarantee it she is so confrontational she wants things to go back to the cold war cant stand her she is one of the many US leaders who think they know all the answers to the worlds problems when the truth is she does not know shit. She will cause problems with Putin and will enflame an already very tense situation in Europe things have not been this tense since the 80s. And last thing we need is her getting involved in the middle east look what happened last time she did that fucked Libya up now millions of refugees are coming through there into Italy we have to deal with the US fucking mess and she helped destabilize Syria millions of refugees she will cause some nation to collapse and then there will be a war and millions of refugees its a cycle.
Thanks for the vids, also for the article that you posted weeks ago highlighting how Clintons pillaged the money donated and allocated for the economic recovery of Haiti. I've written here since I joined that the "aid industry" is a scam. Not intended to help the countries they claim to, just to use poor people as stage props to raise funds and pocket them. More important than what they took. Under the watch of Clinton foundation....people were displaced....land was grabbed and drilling rights granted....for gold now and other things soon
So the very resources under the ground in Haiti, which could/should raise the standard of living for the people....is instead going to enrich outsiders. Same thing that happened in African countries.
Clintons are scoundrels and thieves of the highest order.
I have no proof, but I suspect that they used local contacts to uncover and expose "Bridge Gate" in NJ.Christie was the biggest threat to Hillary..and he was derailed. I also think that they used influence to help Trump in Rep. primaries. She couldn't have asked for a better opponent in general election.
gets,,, think trump--- running for prez,could have been set up by the Clintons, he was all for them in 2008, and before. remember trump has always been a democrat, he talked to bill Clinton before he decided to run. maybe it goes deeper than you think.
Yeah, another person who "doesn't care" about this election, yet has a million things to say about it, chief among them that both Trump and Hillary are bad, and the U.S. is screwed no matter what. And, like everyone else who says this, you're wrong. We're not screwed no matter what. Hillary Clinton is a far better candidate.
reread what i said never said i dident care about the election i said i dont care what there domestic policies are. I do have an interest in the election because of the power the US has
I dont know how me having a different opinion to Clinton supporters helps when i dont live in the US i dont really care. Her having a heart? i dont know what she has been doing in the US but most people outside of the US think she is a [BadWord] she has caused us mass problems and when she causes another war where thousands will die she will be a great person then of course in the bubble some of you guys in the US live in you wont notice that nor will you care i blame alot of the problems in Europe and Middle East on this last obama/clinton/john kerry administration i dont know if i can believe not many good people are politicians obama had some morals but he was caused alot of trouble in the world not all his fault though he got unlucky and was just out of his depth
also you said obama improved the US not denying that i dont live there but i thought congress blocked 90% of what he wanted to do so did he really do much? i dont know i could be wrong i dont live in the US
Trump i agree he is a fucking idiot my opinion from a outsider someone who does not live in the US is that clinton or trump both will be bad news for the rest of the world
now i just think your a fucking idiot read what i said my last post started with me saying i did have an interest in the election for reasons i stated
Actually read my posts aswell because i dont think you have your just chatting shit instead of actually replying to my posts because you dont like what i said about that clinton pathetic really
but its pointless arguing with people like you because you will just twist what i say and not actually answer my posts
now i just think your a fucking idiot read what i said my last post started with me saying i did have an interest in the election for reasons i stated
Actually read my posts aswell because i dont think you have your just chatting shit instead of actually replying to my posts because you dont like what i said about that clinton pathetic really
but its pointless arguing with people like you because you will just twist what i say and not actually answer my posts
Right on, I agree with most of what you say on foreign policy issues.
Oak views everything through a super hyper partisan lens, and likes to misrepresent other people's position. It's fascinating to actually come across someone like that though.
There's a reason even some neo con war Hawks talk about supporting Clinton and hate Trump more. It isn't because of Trumps domestic policy, because they could careless about that. It's because he isn't pro war enough for the republican establishment. Which is crazy.
It actually isn't clear that Clinton is the better candidate. I won't be cheering election night no matter who wins.
lol. The super hyper hatred of Hillary Clinton by people pretending to not care about the election is as super hyper partisan as anything you'll ever hear.
now i just think your a fucking idiot read what i said my last post started with me saying i did have an interest in the election for reasons i stated
Actually read my posts aswell because i dont think you have your just chatting shit instead of actually replying to my posts because you dont like what i said about that clinton pathetic really
but its pointless arguing with people like you because you will just twist what i say and not actually answer my posts
Thanks for sharing your personal opinion of me. It means a lot.
Anyhow, you did say you didn't care. You said it twice.
But dont' worry, you and SoCal don't have to tell me you actually do care. I already know you guys do. And I already know who you guys want to win. The person that's obviously not going to win, which is why you're both so defensive.
now i just think your a fucking idiot read what i said my last post started with me saying i did have an interest in the election for reasons i stated
Actually read my posts aswell because i dont think you have your just chatting shit instead of actually replying to my posts because you dont like what i said about that clinton pathetic really
but its pointless arguing with people like you because you will just twist what i say and not actually answer my posts
Right on, I agree with most of what you say on foreign policy issues.
Oak views everything through a super hyper partisan lens, and likes to misrepresent other people's position. It's fascinating to actually come across someone like that though.
There's a reason even some neo con war Hawks talk about supporting Clinton and hate Trump more. It isn't because of Trumps domestic policy, because they could careless about that. It's because he isn't pro war enough for the republican establishment. Which is crazy.
It actually isn't clear that Clinton is the better candidate. I won't be cheering election night no matter who wins.
This pro war view that alot of politicians have in the US i cant understand history tell us that whenever the US have tried to intervene it has ended up in a disaster from Vietnam in the 70s to Iraq early 2000s. Libya another disaster that was again US getting involved supporting groups who overthrew the government now look that country is fucked 8 different groups running the country and millions of refugees.The republicans always seem to be very pro war which i cant understand you think Iraq would have taught them a lesson its this bubble alot of US politicians live in they think they know the answers to everything and instead of doing good they just cause trouble alot of hypocrites aswell.
Trumps plans wont work putting troops into Iraq is pointless sure ISIS will get pushed out alot quicker but then what you have tens of thousands of soldiers studk in a country where the people hate the US and you cant allow countries like Iraq to be depdant on the US under Saddam dictator yes but Iraq was able to look after itself but now look it cant survive without US if the west as soon as the US and UK left terrorist groups like ISIS took territory and the Iraqi army today is so shit that if the west had not started doing airstrikes ISIS would have probably taken the whole of Iraq. These countries need to sort there own problems out otherwise every time the west leaves groups like ISIS will attack.
His comments on South Korea are dumb the US is not protecting them because they are kind people look at all those african countries that have wars going on people getting slaughtered there but US is not there why? no benefits for the US alot of hypocrites these politicans they are doing it for there own reasons trade, stopping communism and limiting Chinas influence are the reasons the US helps the south trump saying south should pay for protection is ridiculous its not like the US are doing it for nothing.
I do agree with him on Nato to a certain degree it is overfunded and i dont think it is useful in this day and age. Those exercises they are doing in Eastern Europe are wrong aswell just causing tensions to rise with Russia. US does need to start working with Russia than against it but it wont happen even if trump wins he will get played by putin he will be out of his depth sad state.
I am watching this election with interest i am not going to be happy about either candidate but too late now i just hope they dont do too much damage i was hoping a moderate would be voted in
gets,,, think trump--- running for prez,could have been set up by the Clintons, he was all for them in 2008, and before. remember trump has always been a democrat, he talked to bill Clinton before he decided to run. maybe it goes deeper than you think.
Binnie,
yeah, I have no proof. Neutralizing Christie was the big victory. Christie was such a favorite to win the nom. in 2016, that I heard that he let Romney know in '12 that he didn't want to be his VP running mate.
I think the weak field of candidates for '16 was more indication that the race was Christie's to lose.Things played out well for Trump. In other years, he would have gotten laughed out of the building.
I put NOTHING past the Clintons. They are expert politicians.Not only are they behind Trump's rise(possibly) but when the Trump phase ends, several of the Rep.s who threw support behind him will have to own up to that in future elections.
Think of who Clinton beat to get the Dem. nomination and who she is projected to beat to win the Presidency. It reads like an NCAA tourney bracket where the number one seed has to beat a junior college and a clown college to win the title.
I can buy that, GR. And, after reading more of your comments, I'm more inclined to think you mean what you say when you criticize Trump and Clinton. You just have to understand that in this country, a lot of Trump supporters try to pretend they're just disinterested in the process, that Hillary and Trump are equally as bad, and of course that's total bullshit. For one, Hillary Clinton is not as bad as Donald Trump. Not even close. And secondly, they obviously do care. They list dozens of serious criticisms about Hillary Clinton, then say that Trump is just "stupid", or something, thinking this somehow passes for a bipartisan view. I apologize for lumping you into this crowd. You clearly have a global approach to this election, and I appreciate reading it.
I like that theory, Nets, that the Clinton's planted Trump into the GOP primary so that the path to victory would be easy. I think the Democrats should do that with Trump every election from here on out.
now i just think your a fucking idiot read what i said my last post started with me saying i did have an interest in the election for reasons i stated
Actually read my posts aswell because i dont think you have your just chatting shit instead of actually replying to my posts because you dont like what i said about that clinton pathetic really
but its pointless arguing with people like you because you will just twist what i say and not actually answer my posts
Right on, I agree with most of what you say on foreign policy issues.
Oak views everything through a super hyper partisan lens, and likes to misrepresent other people's position. It's fascinating to actually come across someone like that though.
There's a reason even some neo con war Hawks talk about supporting Clinton and hate Trump more. It isn't because of Trumps domestic policy, because they could careless about that. It's because he isn't pro war enough for the republican establishment. Which is crazy.
It actually isn't clear that Clinton is the better candidate. I won't be cheering election night no matter who wins.
This pro war view that alot of politicians have in the US i cant understand history tell us that whenever the US have tried to intervene it has ended up in a disaster from Vietnam in the 70s to Iraq early 2000s. Libya another disaster that was again US getting involved supporting groups who overthrew the government now look that country is fucked 8 different groups running the country and millions of refugees.The republicans always seem to be very pro war which i cant understand you think Iraq would have taught them a lesson its this bubble alot of US politicians live in they think they know the answers to everything and instead of doing good they just cause trouble alot of hypocrites aswell.
Trumps plans wont work putting troops into Iraq is pointless sure ISIS will get pushed out alot quicker but then what you have tens of thousands of soldiers studk in a country where the people hate the US and you cant allow countries like Iraq to be depdant on the US under Saddam dictator yes but Iraq was able to look after itself but now look it cant survive without US if the west as soon as the US and UK left terrorist groups like ISIS took territory and the Iraqi army today is so shit that if the west had not started doing airstrikes ISIS would have probably taken the whole of Iraq. These countries need to sort there own problems out otherwise every time the west leaves groups like ISIS will attack.
His comments on South Korea are dumb the US is not protecting them because they are kind people look at all those african countries that have wars going on people getting slaughtered there but US is not there why? no benefits for the US alot of hypocrites these politicans they are doing it for there own reasons trade, stopping communism and limiting Chinas influence are the reasons the US helps the south trump saying south should pay for protection is ridiculous its not like the US are doing it for nothing.
I do agree with him on Nato to a certain degree it is overfunded and i dont think it is useful in this day and age. Those exercises they are doing in Eastern Europe are wrong aswell just causing tensions to rise with Russia. US does need to start working with Russia than against it but it wont happen even if trump wins he will get played by putin he will be out of his depth sad state.
I am watching this election with interest i am not going to be happy about either candidate but too late now i just hope they dont do too much damage i was hoping a moderate would be voted in
You're preaching to the choir with me and foreign policy. Generally I root for the more antiwar candidate or less interventionist candidate. War and military intervention is the most important issue and since I usually hate both parties domestic plans, I believe foreign policy is where the greatest difference will be made. It's just that this time around it isn't so clear, as let's say Obama vs. McCain or Romney. Obama ran as a WAY better candidate back in 07-08 than Hillary Clinton ever has or could. And despite what Oak thinks, I would NEVER support or endorse a candidate that not only supports but enthusiastically supports torture.(Trump). The only good things about him is he's pissing off the republican establishment, and he criticizes the war in Iraq while running as republican while crushing Jeb Bush in the primaries.
I like that theory, Nets, that the Clinton's planted Trump into the GOP primary so that the path to victory would be easy. I think the Democrats should do that with Trump every election from here on out.
Then you are clearly in favor of corruption, because that would be a totally corrupt, underhanded and deceitful thing to do. I don't think that's the case, but the fact that you favor such evil says more about you than the candidate you favor.
I like that theory, Nets, that the Clinton's planted Trump into the GOP primary so that the path to victory would be easy. I think the Democrats should do that with Trump every election from here on out.
Then you are clearly in favor of corruption, because that would be a totally corrupt, underhanded and deceitful thing to do. I don't think that's the case, but the fact that you favor such evil says more about you than the candidate you favor.
Yup. Anyone who is voting for Hillary obviously couldn't care less about corruption. Of course, it's no surprise when you see many of the kinds of people that are voting for her. People can say what they want about Trump but when they then turn around and vote for Hillary - who is absolutely the worse of the two - they lose all credibility.
I like that theory, Nets, that the Clinton's planted Trump into the GOP primary so that the path to victory would be easy. I think the Democrats should do that with Trump every election from here on out.
Then you are clearly in favor of corruption, because that would be a totally corrupt, underhanded and deceitful thing to do. I don't think that's the case, but the fact that you favor such evil says more about you than the candidate you favor.
Wanting to keep Republicans out of the white house by any means necessary only shows a deep care for the country, and a knowledge of its history.
People can say what they want about Trump but when they then turn around and vote for Hillary - who is absolutely the worse of the two -
No.
That's not true, at all, actually.
Hillary Clinton is not worse than Donald Trump, at anything.
In fact, if Hillary Clinton went into the business world, she would be more successful than Donald Trump. And she would do it without a father's rich friends to bail her out every time she goes belly up, like Donald Trump has.
Hillary Clinton is better than Donald Trump at every single thing on the planet. She's genetically better. She's cut from a better cloth. It's just one of many reasons she's destroying him in this election.
fox news is making trump this is an example of far right bias right in your face, not only does Hannity, o'reilly, and company manufacture facts, but they are at the point of total absurdidy, example... o'reilly statement, "slaves were well fed" Hannity screaming that Hillary has health problems, that don't exist. and refusing to disavow far rightists who say "Hillary should be shot for treason" these guys and this network scandals [ ailes sexual groping } are coming undone, they can't talk sense anymore, I feel they [fox comentators] are really going off the rails.
I've noticed they're backing off the health issues strategy. Wonder what silly thing it will be next. I'm seeing some headlines about Whitewater. Good grief. These poor guys just won't quit.
Fox news was created simply to fill a niche.I'm not sure that any of the on air people believe the copy they read or the editorials that they allegedly write anymore than any cable news person does. I watched segments on msnbc and fox earlier this weekend and depending on the slant of the guest....the host would either allow the person to speak or abruptly cut them off mid sentence and ask them another question.
Fox on air talent and their shenanigans become more extreme when there is a candidate that they are promoting that they can't honestly support with a straight face.Like Trump now or like Sarah Palin years ago. That's when they break out the clown suits and do the entire 3 ring circus. It's a distraction, and it works for the their viewers. Can't blame them, though. What are they gonna do? Try to logically explain to the public why a novice politician is suited to be POTUS?
fox news is making trump this is an example of far right bias right in your face, not only does Hannity, o'reilly, and company manufacture facts, but they are at the point of total absurdidy, example... o'reilly statement, "slaves were well fed" Hannity screaming that Hillary has health problems, that don't exist. and refusing to disavow far rightists who say "Hillary should be shot for treason" these guys and this network scandals [ ailes sexual groping } are coming undone, they can't talk sense anymore, I feel they [fox comentators] are really going off the rails.
typical republican reactionaires.
Fox News started as an alternative to the Far Left Democrat reactionaries at MSNBC and the Left-wing CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. So its market were viewers tired of the Left-wing bias at those other networks. Sometime last years CNN and Fox started putting Trump on all the time because he drove up the ratings. When Megyn Kelly challenged and criticized him, her ratings declined. O'Reilly had him on all the time because they were personal friends. I think Hannity was for Cruz originally, but he started having Trump on more and Cruz complained about it and had some sort of falling out.
As for FOX disavowing those who say "Hillary should be shot for treason," are you sure about that? I only watch FOX and CNN when I'm at the gym doing cardio, so can't say I watch all that much, but to me it seems unlikely that the hosts at FOX wouldn't disavow such people. "Hillary for prison" people, that's a different story. Are you sure you don't mean the "Hillary for prison" people? And by the way, I seem to recall Far Leftist Vincent Bugliosi and a few others on CNN promoting George W. Bush being executed, but not sure if any of the networks disavowed him. Before that, I remember a bunch of loony leftist being overjoyed when Reagan was shot.
O'Reilly isn't known for his scholarship, and he uses his show to sell his books co-written by a California high school teacher. I did manage to watch him debate George Will on YouTube after Will criticized his book as bad history. O'Reilly started yelling at Will, "You're a hack!" O'Reilly totally lost his mind. I had to admire Will for having the guts to face that bully. O'Reilly is an arrogant prick who thinks he knows more than he really does. That's where that "slaves were well fed" comment comes in. He probably figured they were well-fed since it doesn't make sense that a slave owner would starve his slaves. The reality is that there's a huge gap between starving and well-fed. Often they were given just enough to not starve, but it doesn't mean they weren't hungry.
It's annoying how liberals bitch and moan about Fox News without realizing the entire reason for it, as well as conservative talk radio, was because conservatives were tired of the blatant liberal bias across the majority of the media. They never minded the bias as long as it was going their way. But it was that liberal bias that first turned the news into what it's become today, ie not simply reporting the facts in an objective manner but reporting (or not reporting) things based on a social/political slant.
No, the reason for FoxNews and right wing radio is that Reagan ended the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, which opened up the flood gates to the craziness that goes over those airwaves.
People can say what they want about Trump but when they then turn around and vote for Hillary - who is absolutely the worse of the two -
No.
That's not true, at all, actually.
Hillary Clinton is not worse than Donald Trump, at anything.
In fact, if Hillary Clinton went into the business world, she would be more successful than Donald Trump. And she would do it without a father's rich friends to bail her out every time she goes belly up, like Donald Trump has.
Hillary Clinton is better than Donald Trump at every single thing on the planet. She's genetically better. She's cut from a better cloth. It's just one of many reasons she's destroying him in this election.
It's like you're the only one on this board who doesn't realize how full of crap you are. Faithful gave you a huge list (by no means exhaustive) of things that are wrong with Hillary and make her unworthy of the presidency. For all that Trump lacks, his history doesn't even come close to hers. But you ignore Hillary's record and don't even acknowledge it because you don't care. It's enough that she's a liberal Democrat like yourself. I mean, how clueless and ignorant does one have to be to actually ask if the Clintons have become corrupted? It's why I generally don't even respond to you anymore. Waste of time.
As has been established long ago on this forum and elsewhere, there is nothing in Hillary Clinton's history that makes her even close to being as bad as Trump. There could be a photo of Hillary Clinton and Colin Kaepernick slamming mojitos at a Kanye West show, and she's still a more qualified candidate than Donald Trump. Donald Trump might be the worst candidate for the presidency in the country's history. There's still rumors of him dropping out. Imagine how funny that would be.
Ivy, are you going to watch Hillary's inauguration? I bet Fleetwood Mac performs Don't Stop. Going to be a party. Trump will probably be there. lol. In the audience, of course.
Both candidates aren't proposing anything good from an anti-authoritarian point of view.. Clinton is more hawkish and beholden to special interests and is overall a far worse and currupted person than Trump, but when you look at Trump's ideas there's no substance other than blame China and immigrants for economic problems. It gets a certain voter base all excited and it worked well in getting him as the republican nominee but all that isn't going to fix the fundamental problems with the US economy. He doesn't seem to have a deep knowledge on foreign policy issues at all either. Either way it'll be interesting.
You almost make it sound as if we've actually had an anti-authoritarian president since Jimmy Carter. Why not hold it against Hillary that she hasn't been sainted, while your'e at it? If the best criticism of Clinton that her critics can come up with is that she's authoritarian...you know, like every U.S. president...then she must be faring pretty well. She has a platform that makes sense, something that can not be said about Trump. She's not crazy, something that can not be said about Trump.
The authoritarian Frankenstein in the white house started with Reagan. If an anti-authoritarian president is what anyone wants, they might as well wish for a president that has never run a red light, either. Or never told a lie. You have to go back a couple hundred years for that. You might as well want Spiderman for president. What is the point of even following presidential politics with such unrealistic expectations?
I view election cycles differently. I look at them as a historical point in history and a way to understand the overall trend of the country. The one and only good thing is the opportunity to point out the absurdity of it all, to introduce, share and debate ideas. Because that's when more people tend to be a little more interested. I'm not expecting a perfect person to suddenly become president. I don't believe anyone is qualified. I will be unsatisfied no matter who wins, but I will be at peace with it, as I dont expect major fundamental changes in the near future. It would be similar to ask an atheist why he doesn't care much for a new pope, why doesn't he believe in the new pope? Don't share the religion. But the people that believe in it are real and they affect the world. It'll still be interesting.
As has been established long ago on this forum and elsewhere, there is nothing in Hillary Clinton's history that makes her even close to being as bad as Trump. There could be a photo of Hillary Clinton and Colin Kaepernick slamming mojitos at a Kanye West show, and she's still a more qualified candidate than Donald Trump. Donald Trump might be the worst candidate for the presidency in the country's history. There's still rumors of him dropping out. Imagine how funny that would be.
Established by who? The voices in your head? Like I said, the list alone Faithful posted was beyond anything regarding Trump. You just won't acknowledge it because you have no answer for it. It's why I've said it's pointless to even talk to you. You're neither honest or objective.
Again, impossible. There is no list that demonstrates Hillary Clinton is worse than Donald Trump, at anything! Because there's no evidence of such a thing in existence. Hillary Clinton is completely superior to Donald Trump as a person, as a citizen, and most certainly as a candidate to lead the free world, something Trump has no qualifications for whatsoever, btw.
Going to watch Hill's inauguration, Ivy? Going to be a party.
Say, if it's pointless to talk to me, why do you keep doing it? Why am I in your signature? You love me.
You're not a Catholic? Must have been a little challenging growing up around all of the Chicanos in LA and not being Catholic.
Lol. That wasn't the point of my post. But yeah I was raised Catholic. So no, it wasn't challenging growing up since it was the norm. But I'm an adult and my views have evolved since then. It isn't at all unusual for those of us 2nd and 3rd generations to leave or no longer identify with the Catholic Church as adults.
I was brought up a Catholic, but I never let being a Catholic spoil my fun. However, if we had a Monsignor like the one in my parish now I may have turned out different. I really like this guy, but not enough to go to church. I fully expect him to be a bishop who knows down the road a cardinal.
He even has his own cooking show on the Catholic channel. His parents were from Italian Harlem. My newest grand daughter Sophia was baptized in my area church and my other grand daughter Mia made her communion here as well.
Now both my Grandaughters moved to New Jersey. I just found out I have a cousin Robert living in the same town as my SON.. My aunt Fannie lived in the same building as we did in Italian Harlem. They lived on the third floor we lived on the fourth floor. He had two older brothers oldest was Dennis he is dead now. Joseph I don't know about him.
In those days whole families lived in the same building. My aunt Irene lived right next door to us. When Daddio got pissed off at me. He would make his point remembered by banging my head against the wall. When my mother wanted to see her sister she would bang on the kitchen wall. She would come in and visit her sister. It also saved me from a bigger beating.
Man do I miss Daddio to bad someone hung him one day. He had plenty of enemies. Well he is with all his friends now burning in hell. I doubt if I will ever die, but if it happens I will be happy to join him in hell so I can make him even suffer more then he is suffering now
fox news is making trump this is an example of far right bias right in your face, not only does Hannity, o'reilly, and company manufacture facts, but they are at the point of total absurdidy, example... o'reilly statement, "slaves were well fed" Hannity screaming that Hillary has health problems, that don't exist. and refusing to disavow far rightists who say "Hillary should be shot for treason" these guys and this network scandals [ ailes sexual groping } are coming undone, they can't talk sense anymore, I feel they [fox comentators] are really going off the rails.
typical republican reactionaires.
Fox News started as an alternative to the Far Left Democrat reactionaries at MSNBC and the Left-wing CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC. So its market were viewers tired of the Left-wing bias at those other networks. Sometime last years CNN and Fox started putting Trump on all the time because he drove up the ratings. When Megyn Kelly challenged and criticized him, her ratings declined. O'Reilly had him on all the time because they were personal friends. I think Hannity was for Cruz originally, but he started having Trump on more and Cruz complained about it and had some sort of falling out.
As for FOX disavowing those who say "Hillary should be shot for treason," are you sure about that? I only watch FOX and CNN when I'm at the gym doing cardio, so can't say I watch all that much, but to me it seems unlikely that the hosts at FOX wouldn't disavow such people. "Hillary for prison" people, that's a different story. Are you sure you don't mean the "Hillary for prison" people? And by the way, I seem to recall Far Leftist Vincent Bugliosi and a few others on CNN promoting George W. Bush being executed, but not sure if any of the networks disavowed him. Before that, I remember a bunch of loony leftist being overjoyed when Reagan was shot.
O'Reilly isn't known for his scholarship, and he uses his show to sell his books co-written by a California high school teacher. I did manage to watch him debate George Will on YouTube after Will criticized his book as bad history. O'Reilly started yelling at Will, "You're a hack!" O'Reilly totally lost his mind. I had to admire Will for having the guts to face that bully. O'Reilly is an arrogant prick who thinks he knows more than he really does. That's where that "slaves were well fed" comment comes in. He probably figured they were well-fed since it doesn't make sense that a slave owner would starve his slaves. The reality is that there's a huge gap between starving and well-fed. Often they were given just enough to not starve, but it doesn't mean they weren't hungry.
great post... loved the take on o'reilly, and not surprised his books were written by a high school student, his books a very great disservice to history majors, or professers. in other words his take on U.S. history is bogus, and should not go unchallenged.
