I'm not saying we stop the thread. The thread is about whether Trump could be President, a topic of fruitful argument. I'm simply saying there's no debate as to whether he or his Republican rivals are murderous, twisted psychopaths.
Donald Trump Runs for President sounds like a bad movie idea. I keep reading news stories and saying is this really happening? Are we actually lving in this Black Mirror future where money decides so much that a gargantuan child and obvious maniac (I don't mean that last one as an exaggeration, he is quite clearly a maniac) is actually in contention to run the most powerful nation on earth? We are fcked.
And no he probably won't win. But he's doing quite well and that's just reiterating to me how totally fcked this world is. We've all been enjoying peace in our lands for some time but if there's one thing that's true about the universe, it's that history repeats itself, and the fact that someone like Trump can gain momentum and large scale support says to me that these lovely peace times aren't staying around. Sometime soon some megalomaniac in a wig will have his fingers hovering over the nuclear codes while some bloke sitting in a bar that's about to become a mushroom cloud will be patting himself on the back for voting him in because he 'sticks it to the rest of em', when really he's just been sold a fat one by a media machine that feeds outrage porn to knuckle-draggers.
Editor’s Note: This is another in a series of reports on the polling by Clout Research, a national opinion research firm in Columbus, Ohio, for WND.com.
Right, so I haven't check this thread in a bit and it's all kicked off.
@Leuth, as usual, I largely agree with you. There was a point in time up until pretty recently when I would have said that not all Republicans are bigots, just the people they elect. But the party has moved so far to the right, that is seems to have shed a large portion of its Libertarian base. That's not to say that all that is left are racists far right religious fanatics, but even 2-3 years ago Rubio was considered a rising star in the part, though there were concerns he was too far right to win a general election due to his Tea Party links, but he now looks like a moderate given his surroundings. It should be noted that the people who run for president are rarely entirely representative of the electorates of their party, but given how many far right candidates the Republicans have (especially with Christie and Jeb!, the last two moderates, dropping out), well, it's pretty damning.
@MuttleyCAFC A very articulate point, and one I largely agree with. We have a very bright, articulate, nobel prize winning economist here in the states called Paul Krugman. He writes regular op-eds for the NY Times, and even though sometimes he gets a little repetitive, he does an excellent job of representing the Keynesian perspective, and has regularly criticized the Obama administration for not being economically left enough. http://www.nytimes.com/column/paul-krugman
I would of course disagree that "Socialism" and "Marxism" have been disproved as theories. I stated somewhere earlier in the thread that when I call myself a Marxist, I mean that first and foremost that I am a staunch critic of Capitalism, and would contrast that with the implementations of Governments of other followers of Marx, Marxist-Lenninism/Communism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. I will say that a lot of our terms for economic theory have incredibly ambiguous definitions, and are desperately outdated.
As for the comment about our education system going downhill since we let black people in, it was of course an attempt at bringing levity and humor to a serious situation, and also to highlight the fact that we only let African-Americans into mainstream education 60 years ago in some parts of the country. I very much appreciate that it was taken in the spirit it was intended. It should be noted that the quality of education received is still divided along racial lines in America. Despite the fact that segregated education was outlawed just over 60 years ago (Brown Vs. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas, 1954), segregation in everything but name still exists in our education system. This includes my alma mater for high school, a very well respected, diverse, progressive school in Los Angeles. That is another story for another time.
@PragueAddick I would be happy to try and add information and insight into the electoral process. The first thing you should know is that it makes absolutely no sense, particularly at the primary level. Different states have different selection processes, and the two parties have slightly different process, and in general, it's a mess. A lot of it right now is based on real and perceived momentum. When I get some time I'll start a new thread on that.
To his immense credit, Bernie Sanders has outlined his plan for a single-payer healthcare system for the US. This would be very hard, very expensive, and, as he points out, will require raising taxes. You can read all sorts of critiques of this with Google searches, but I think it's at least worth putting his plan out there: https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall/
The Republican Party nowadays is like if some unholy union of the BNP and the Tory right was in constant opposition, supported by trillions of dollars and a media machine. They're all twisted fucking lunatics. This isn't even a debate.
Thanks for clearing this up, admin you can close this thread now.
So I'll try not to get too anorak on this, but I do a lot of work with cybersecurity. The tone and level of the email controversy is absolutely manufactured by Fox News and Republicans in congress. That said, what Hillary Clinton did was stupid. Just because emails do not directly fall under a "Clearance" umbrella (e.g. Classified) doesn't mean that they don't contain important information, such as phone numbers and email address.
I work with web applications that contain such data, and we have to go through an extensive approval process of our applications and hosting servers to be cleared for such information. What she did was willfully negligent, and quite stupid in my opinion. It's not treason or whatever the Republicans are calling it (I don't even follow the furore), but it's also not something that should be dismissed entirely. It was a poor use of judgment that did put information potentially at risk.
Maybe you haven't been keeping up. Some of the emails in question contain such material in them, that the people investigating them don't have that high a level of clearance to see them. This is at least the equivalent of breaking the O.S.A. in the U.K., maybe worse at her high level of clearance. As for Benghazi, four Americans died, including the Ambassador, while Hilary held back a rescue force that could have saved them, and then put out lies about the whole thing. Please read more about these incidents than the sound-bites presented in the main-stream lefty biased media.
Maybe you haven't been keeping up. Some of the emails in question contain such material in them, that the people investigating them don't have that high a level of clearance to see them. This is at least the equivalent of breaking the O.S.A. in the U.K., maybe worse at her high level of clearance. As for Benghazi, four Americans died, including the Ambassador, while Hilary held back a rescue force that could have saved them, and then put out lies about the whole thing. Please read more about these incidents than the sound-bites presented in the main-stream lefty biased media.
This information only became classified after the fact. As I mentioned above, it's still negligence on her part, but it is not the same as breaking the Official Secrets Act.
Furthermore, she would not be held accountable for the level of clearance that the people investigating the emails have.
Please don't use Murdoch owned press as your only source.
Maybe you haven't been keeping up. Some of the emails in question contain such material in them, that the people investigating them don't have that high a level of clearance to see them. This is at least the equivalent of breaking the O.S.A. in the U.K., maybe worse at her high level of clearance. As for Benghazi, four Americans died, including the Ambassador, while Hilary held back a rescue force that could have saved them, and then put out lies about the whole thing. Please read more about these incidents than the sound-bites presented in the main-stream lefty biased media.
This information only became classified after the fact. As I mentioned above, it's still negligence on her part, but it is not the same as breaking the Official Secrets Act.
Furthermore, she would not be held accountable for the level of clearance that the people investigating the emails have.
Please don't use Murdoch owned press as your only source.
I don't. She signed a document that she wouldn't put classified information at risk when she got the job. Keeping a secret personal email server, that could be hacked into was a violation of the law that she signed off on. And incredibly stupid.
I don't. She signed a document that she wouldn't put classified information at risk when she got the job. Keeping a secret personal email server, that could be hacked into was a violation of the law that she signed off on. And incredibly stupid.
The more support Trump gets the more extreme he will become - he just comes across like a teenage bully. He offers nothing constructive but then his support is obviously not phased by this. Quite incredible watching him.....
Maybe you haven't been keeping up. Some of the emails in question contain such material in them, that the people investigating them don't have that high a level of clearance to see them. This is at least the equivalent of breaking the O.S.A. in the U.K., maybe worse at her high level of clearance. As for Benghazi, four Americans died, including the Ambassador, while Hilary held back a rescue force that could have saved them, and then put out lies about the whole thing. Please read more about these incidents than the sound-bites presented in the main-stream lefty biased media.
This information only became classified after the fact. As I mentioned above, it's still negligence on her part, but it is not the same as breaking the Official Secrets Act.
Furthermore, she would not be held accountable for the level of clearance that the people investigating the emails have.
Please don't use Murdoch owned press as your only source.
I don't. She signed a document that she wouldn't put classified information at risk when she got the job. Keeping a secret personal email server, that could be hacked into was a violation of the law that she signed off on. And incredibly stupid.
How was it secret? She asked and received permission to use her own server.
At the time it was not uncommon for government employees to be granted permission to do this. With hindsight you could say she was guilty of poor judgement. But to claim it is a worst scandal than Watergate as some of the wacko pundits on Fox news do is simply laughable.
There hasn't been a high profile political assassination in America for a long time. I'd be very nervous about the security of 'The Don' if his bandwagon keeps rolling. The man has upset some very powerful people during his campaign.
There hasn't been a high profile political assassination in America for a long time. I'd be very nervous about the security of 'The Don' if his bandwagon keeps rolling. The man has upset some very powerful people during his campaign.
He definitely has the kind of head that will earn you a nickname "Sniper's Delight."
Maybe you haven't been keeping up. Some of the emails in question contain such material in them, that the people investigating them don't have that high a level of clearance to see them. This is at least the equivalent of breaking the O.S.A. in the U.K., maybe worse at her high level of clearance. As for Benghazi, four Americans died, including the Ambassador, while Hilary held back a rescue force that could have saved them, and then put out lies about the whole thing. Please read more about these incidents than the sound-bites presented in the main-stream lefty biased media.
This information only became classified after the fact. As I mentioned above, it's still negligence on her part, but it is not the same as breaking the Official Secrets Act.
Furthermore, she would not be held accountable for the level of clearance that the people investigating the emails have.
Please don't use Murdoch owned press as your only source.
I don't. She signed a document that she wouldn't put classified information at risk when she got the job. Keeping a secret personal email server, that could be hacked into was a violation of the law that she signed off on. And incredibly stupid.
How was it secret? She asked and received permission to use her own server.
At the time it was not uncommon for government employees to be granted permission to do this. With hindsight you could say she was guilty of poor judgement. But to claim it is a worst scandal than Watergate as some of the wacko pundits on Fox news do is simply laughable.
Maybe you haven't been keeping up. Some of the emails in question contain such material in them, that the people investigating them don't have that high a level of clearance to see them. This is at least the equivalent of breaking the O.S.A. in the U.K., maybe worse at her high level of clearance. As for Benghazi, four Americans died, including the Ambassador, while Hilary held back a rescue force that could have saved them, and then put out lies about the whole thing. Please read more about these incidents than the sound-bites presented in the main-stream lefty biased media.
This information only became classified after the fact. As I mentioned above, it's still negligence on her part, but it is not the same as breaking the Official Secrets Act.
Furthermore, she would not be held accountable for the level of clearance that the people investigating the emails have.
Please don't use Murdoch owned press as your only source.
I don't. She signed a document that she wouldn't put classified information at risk when she got the job. Keeping a secret personal email server, that could be hacked into was a violation of the law that she signed off on. And incredibly stupid.
How was it secret? She asked and received permission to use her own server.
At the time it was not uncommon for government employees to be granted permission to do this. With hindsight you could say she was guilty of poor judgement. But to claim it is a worst scandal than Watergate as some of the wacko pundits on Fox news do is simply laughable.
A decent case to be made that she violated the Federal Records act. The FOIA thing, yeah whatever. FOIA requests aren't law, and requests for personal emails often go unheard.
I am very much in favor of knowing about breaches of security by the US Government. And also, when and why Americans are killed in sovereign nations overseas. But why the fuck would we start with personal emails and Benghazi? You want an inquiry and a trial, great, join those of us who've spent the better part of a decade on why thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of civilians have died overseas. Or the countless "informants" we threw millions at who were lying to us and playing both sides and sold information on to those who used it against us.
If you want to not like Hillary Clinton, both Clintons really, there are SO many reasons to choose from. Look at her relationship with insert large company here. Try to determine if the bombings of Chad, Iraq, and parts of Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo count as war crimes. Google Whitewater. Watch the film "Primary Colors," for a humorous take on the actions of Mr. Clinton. But FFS we've already spent millions investigating the Benghazi nonsense, and there has been no evidence put forth that the emails she was dealing with had information that at the time was Classified (see my post on PII and PHI). Your witch hunt seems to be about accusing someone of being a witch because she has a broom. Why not at least have the intellectual decency to figure out what's in that cauldron over there!
The Trump bandwagon continues - I'm now starting to think this incoherent lunatic could end up as President. Listening to him speak I'm stunned how anyone can take him seriously. God knows what would happen if he became President.
The Trump bandwagon continues - I'm now starting to think this incoherent lunatic could end up as President. Listening to him speak I'm stunned how anyone can take him seriously. God knows what would happen if he became President.
Winning Nevada and winning the Latino vote was impressive.
The problem I see it is that some Ameican citizens see Trump as "one of them" saying the things they want to hear about immigration, Muslim influence etc. but fail to see behind the mask that here is a dangerous meglomaniac who could walk the world into Armageddon. I work for a US company and when I talk to colleagues they admire this bellicose approach in my experience, the most loved President of recent times remains Ronald Reagan but the big difference between him and Trump was that he was surrounded by very talented people who he listened to, you can't imagine Trump doing that.
Interestingly it is hard to find anyone with a good word to say about Obama they generally think he has been useless but all through his tenure he has been hampered by Congress. So you ask yourself what is The Presdident for? My personal opinion is that the Trump bandwagon will derail at some time as the head of steam continues I can imagine that this egomanic at some point will say something so outrageous or frightening that it willl pull the whole thing up short. At least I hope so because the thought of Trump and Putin getting into a pissing contest is truely scary.
As for Hillary Clinton a more unlikeable person is hard to imagine at least old Bill had charm and the chutzpah to try and convice the world that a blow job isn't sex
A decent case to be made that she violated the Federal Records act. The FOIA thing, yeah whatever. FOIA requests aren't law, and requests for personal emails often go unheard.
I am very much in favor of knowing about breaches of security by the US Government. And also, when and why Americans are killed in sovereign nations overseas. But why the fuck would we start with personal emails and Benghazi? You want an inquiry and a trial, great, join those of us who've spent the better part of a decade on why thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of civilians have died overseas. Or the countless "informants" we threw millions at who were lying to us and playing both sides and sold information on to those who used it against us.
If you want to not like Hillary Clinton, both Clintons really, there are SO many reasons to choose from. Look at her relationship with insert large company here. Try to determine if the bombings of Chad, Iraq, and parts of Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo count as war crimes. Google Whitewater. Watch the film "Primary Colors," for a humorous take on the actions of Mr. Clinton. But FFS we've already spent millions investigating the Benghazi nonsense, and there has been no evidence put forth that the emails she was dealing with had information that at the time was Classified (see my post on PII and PHI). Your witch hunt seems to be about accusing someone of being a witch because she has a broom. Why not at least have the intellectual decency to figure out what's in that cauldron over there!
Alex Out.
There's so much wrong in this post I just wish I had the time........including a veiled insult of my intelligence. The usual lefty tactic. I have to go out and make a living so that I can fulfill Mr. Obama's ever increasing demands on my efforts, otherwise I'd continue to answer your points one by one.
Comments
And no he probably won't win. But he's doing quite well and that's just reiterating to me how totally fcked this world is. We've all been enjoying peace in our lands for some time but if there's one thing that's true about the universe, it's that history repeats itself, and the fact that someone like Trump can gain momentum and large scale support says to me that these lovely peace times aren't staying around. Sometime soon some megalomaniac in a wig will have his fingers hovering over the nuclear codes while some bloke sitting in a bar that's about to become a mushroom cloud will be patting himself on the back for voting him in because he 'sticks it to the rest of em', when really he's just been sold a fat one by a media machine that feeds outrage porn to knuckle-draggers.
We are FCKED.
Cracking research firm name that.
@Leuth, as usual, I largely agree with you. There was a point in time up until pretty recently when I would have said that not all Republicans are bigots, just the people they elect. But the party has moved so far to the right, that is seems to have shed a large portion of its Libertarian base. That's not to say that all that is left are racists far right religious fanatics, but even 2-3 years ago Rubio was considered a rising star in the part, though there were concerns he was too far right to win a general election due to his Tea Party links, but he now looks like a moderate given his surroundings. It should be noted that the people who run for president are rarely entirely representative of the electorates of their party, but given how many far right candidates the Republicans have (especially with Christie and Jeb!, the last two moderates, dropping out), well, it's pretty damning.
@MuttleyCAFC A very articulate point, and one I largely agree with. We have a very bright, articulate, nobel prize winning economist here in the states called Paul Krugman. He writes regular op-eds for the NY Times, and even though sometimes he gets a little repetitive, he does an excellent job of representing the Keynesian perspective, and has regularly criticized the Obama administration for not being economically left enough.
http://www.nytimes.com/column/paul-krugman
I would of course disagree that "Socialism" and "Marxism" have been disproved as theories. I stated somewhere earlier in the thread that when I call myself a Marxist, I mean that first and foremost that I am a staunch critic of Capitalism, and would contrast that with the implementations of Governments of other followers of Marx, Marxist-Lenninism/Communism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc. I will say that a lot of our terms for economic theory have incredibly ambiguous definitions, and are desperately outdated.
As for the comment about our education system going downhill since we let black people in, it was of course an attempt at bringing levity and humor to a serious situation, and also to highlight the fact that we only let African-Americans into mainstream education 60 years ago in some parts of the country. I very much appreciate that it was taken in the spirit it was intended. It should be noted that the quality of education received is still divided along racial lines in America. Despite the fact that segregated education was outlawed just over 60 years ago (Brown Vs. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas, 1954), segregation in everything but name still exists in our education system. This includes my alma mater for high school, a very well respected, diverse, progressive school in Los Angeles. That is another story for another time.
@PragueAddick I would be happy to try and add information and insight into the electoral process. The first thing you should know is that it makes absolutely no sense, particularly at the primary level. Different states have different selection processes, and the two parties have slightly different process, and in general, it's a mess. A lot of it right now is based on real and perceived momentum. When I get some time I'll start a new thread on that.
Trump is polling around 35% nationally, and he is a candidate who has a ceiling:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/does-donald-trump-have-a-ceiling/
To his immense credit, Bernie Sanders has outlined his plan for a single-payer healthcare system for the US. This would be very hard, very expensive, and, as he points out, will require raising taxes. You can read all sorts of critiques of this with Google searches, but I think it's at least worth putting his plan out there:
https://berniesanders.com/medicareforall/
littlegreenfootballs.com/article/45416_Trump_Touts_Bogus_Poll_From_Birther_Conspiracy_Site_World_Net_Daily_to_Show_Minorities_Support_Him
europe.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-emailgate-312784
mediamatters.org/blog/2016/02/08/newsweek-dismantles-partisan-attacks-on-hillary/208458
I work with web applications that contain such data, and we have to go through an extensive approval process of our applications and hosting servers to be cleared for such information. What she did was willfully negligent, and quite stupid in my opinion. It's not treason or whatever the Republicans are calling it (I don't even follow the furore), but it's also not something that should be dismissed entirely. It was a poor use of judgment that did put information potentially at risk.
Okay, that's me done on that.
Furthermore, she would not be held accountable for the level of clearance that the people investigating the emails have.
Please don't use Murdoch owned press as your only source.
Quite incredible watching him.....
At the time it was not uncommon for government employees to be granted permission to do this. With hindsight you could say she was guilty of poor judgement. But to claim it is a worst scandal than Watergate as some of the wacko pundits on Fox news do is simply laughable.
I am very much in favor of knowing about breaches of security by the US Government. And also, when and why Americans are killed in sovereign nations overseas. But why the fuck would we start with personal emails and Benghazi? You want an inquiry and a trial, great, join those of us who've spent the better part of a decade on why thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of civilians have died overseas. Or the countless "informants" we threw millions at who were lying to us and playing both sides and sold information on to those who used it against us.
If you want to not like Hillary Clinton, both Clintons really, there are SO many reasons to choose from. Look at her relationship with insert large company here. Try to determine if the bombings of Chad, Iraq, and parts of Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo count as war crimes. Google Whitewater. Watch the film "Primary Colors," for a humorous take on the actions of Mr. Clinton. But FFS we've already spent millions investigating the Benghazi nonsense, and there has been no evidence put forth that the emails she was dealing with had information that at the time was Classified (see my post on PII and PHI). Your witch hunt seems to be about accusing someone of being a witch because she has a broom. Why not at least have the intellectual decency to figure out what's in that cauldron over there!
Alex Out.
God knows what would happen if he became President.
Interestingly it is hard to find anyone with a good word to say about Obama they generally think he has been useless but all through his tenure he has been hampered by Congress. So you ask yourself what is The Presdident for? My personal opinion is that the Trump bandwagon will derail at some time as the head of steam continues I can imagine that this egomanic at some point will say something so outrageous or frightening that it willl pull the whole thing up short. At least I hope so because the thought of Trump and Putin getting into a pissing contest is truely scary.
As for Hillary Clinton a more unlikeable person is hard to imagine at least old Bill had charm and the chutzpah to try and convice the world that a blow job isn't sex
I have to go out and make a living so that I can fulfill Mr. Obama's ever increasing demands on my efforts, otherwise I'd continue to answer your points one by one.