US Elections 2016

[niblick1874]

So, niblick, let's be up front about this.  You've forwarded the Washington Times, the official cheerleader of Reaganism, as a trustworthy news source. What other sources do you deem not under the control of the global puppetmasters?  Specific names, now, not vague statements.

 

Up front? Where did I say the Washington Times was trustworthy? I did not. You are the one that is not being up front. I do not go by any specific source, I go by common sense and facts after looking at all of what is being reported, which is something that you do not do. You have proven this by not having a look at anything I have put forward. Your arrogance is nothing but bluster and only shows up the fact that you are blinkered in the extreme.  

 

 

This is quite the statement.  It indicates you're not terribly familiar with American history.  I live in Richmond -- that thing in the 1860s was kind of a big deal.

 

EDIT: This is a nice little piece on some local history that can be helpful with statements like these.  http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/virginia-felon-disenfranchisement/480072/

 

As per usual you say nothing about my point and try to distract from it. Again, the fact that NAFTA and the TPP were passed by the Democrats, which was treason of the highest order, should tell you all you need to know about them. Them's the facts, and none of your distractions will change that

[Watt-Zeefuik]

The passing of NAFTA was a mistake wrought by the overeager embrace of neoliberalism triumphant.  Calling it treason of the highest order is being a hyperreactive flake.

 

I have looked at everything you have put forward, no matter how much of a waste of my time it's been.  I have yet to see anything other than the ravings of the poorly informed and the barest, most feeble attempts at critical thought, all easily dismissed with broad and independent evidence that relies not at all on the "MSM."  Meanwhile, you have dismissed everything I've put forward out of hand using the extensively-documented tropes of the Murdoch-centered media, all the while disclaiming the conservative movement.

 

When I try to be reasonable you resort to insults, then when I get fed up and respond in kind you respond by whimpering.  If I take you seriously and read the mess you're spreading here and respond to it substantively you change the subject.  (I haven't heard you say much about BLM being a paid front operation recently since I pointed out that all the sources making the claim were are owned and controlled by right wing groups?)  You give choppy lectures on the dangers of the media and accuse everyone else of being in the thrall of the puppetmasters, but then won't discuss your own sources of information.  

 

I wish most of all that you would engage in good faith conversation, but that seems to be beyond you.  I tried my best to ignore you but you manage to sidetrack the adults in the room from having a discussion no matter what.  Failing that, I really wish you would keep this nonsense to a thread where someone cares, but then you squeal about shutting down discussion.  As a last resort, I admit I wish you would just shut the hell up, but there's clearly no danger of that happening.

 

So with all other conceivable adoptions I, exhaustedly, ask, just what the hell do you want out of all of this?

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

The passing of NAFTA was a mistake wrought by the overeager embrace of neoliberalism triumphant. Calling it treason of the highest order is being a hyperreactive flake.

 

I have looked at everything you have put forward, no matter how much of a waste of my time it's been. I have yet to see anything other than the ravings of the poorly informed and the barest, most feeble attempts at critical thought, all easily dismissed with broad and independent evidence that relies not at all on the "MSM." Meanwhile, you have dismissed everything I've put forward out of hand using the extensively-documented tropes of the Murdoch-centered media, all the while disclaiming the conservative movement.

 

When I try to be reasonable you resort to insults, then when I get fed up and respond in kind you respond by whimpering. If I take you seriously and read the mess you're spreading here and respond to it substantively you change the subject. (I haven't heard you say much about BLM being a paid front operation recently since I pointed out that all the sources making the claim were are owned and controlled by right wing groups?) You give choppy lectures on the dangers of the media and accuse everyone else of being in the thrall of the puppetmasters, but then won't discuss your own sources of information.

 

I wish most of all that you would engage in good faith conversation, but that seems to be beyond you. I tried my best to ignore you but you manage to sidetrack the adults in the room from having a discussion no matter what. Failing that, I really wish you would keep this nonsense to a thread where someone cares, but then you squeal about shutting down discussion. As a last resort, I admit I wish you would just shut the hell up, but there's clearly no danger of that happening.

 

So with all other conceivable adoptions I, exhaustedly, ask, just what the hell do you want out of all of this?

 

Smackdown, bitch.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Back on topic, Elizabeth Warren is potentially building a strong Democratic Senate majority based around progressivism instead of centrism, which would be absolutely enormous.  

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-elizabeth-warren-trump-us-senate-elections-democrats-politics-progressives-213874

Edited May 7, 2016 by Ugly American

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Ugly now working out why niblick is on the ignore list.

[Maple Leaf]

Back on topic, Elizabeth Warren is potentially building a strong Democratic Senate majority based around progressivism instead of centrism, which would be absolutely enormous.  

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-elizabeth-warren-trump-us-senate-elections-democrats-politics-progressives-213874

I'm a fan of Elizabeth Warren and I believe that she'll be a huge player in American politics in upcoming years.  If she can transform the Senate into something useful it will be a feather in her cap.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

I'm a fan of Elizabeth Warren and I believe that she'll be a huge player in American politics in upcoming years.  If she can transform the Senate into something useful it will be a feather in her cap.

Off the reservation kind of remark mentioning feathers.

[Big Slim Stylee]

Back on topic, Elizabeth Warren is potentially building a strong Democratic Senate majority based around progressivism instead of centrism, which would be absolutely enormous.  

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-elizabeth-warren-trump-us-senate-elections-democrats-politics-progressives-213874

 

We've got a vote.  Thinking Trump for our family here in CA.  Any thoughts?

[maroonlegions]

When individuals or organisations start censoring information then its a sure sign that information  being censored is regarded as a real worry and concern to those keeping a lid on high office accountability and corruption.

 

Clinton"s e-mails  paint a very different and insidious  picture of her that the US and global media ignore.

 

 

This is no tin foil hat source or conspiracy , like it or not there something just not right with her and those ruling this world.

 

 

This is pretty huge. And facebook does not like it; 

 

 

 

United Kingdom ? On Wednesday, a major archive containing over 30,000 of Hillary Clinton?s emails were released. Though the State Department began releasing the emails in May last year ? after a Freedom of Information Act request ? it is the first time the messages have been made easily available in a searchable format, courtesy of WikiLeaks. Before the launch, the FBI was investigating the Democratic candidate?s use of a private server during her tenure as Secretary of State.

 

 

The archive contains over 7,000 emails written by Clinton herself.

The scary, albeit fascinating expos? on who?s in bed with whom in the halls of global power has expanded to include Facebook, according to WikiLeaks. The organization has accused the social networking site of censorship, saying Facebook is blocking users? access to the latest Clinton dispatch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wikileaks Drops Hillary Email Bomb That Could End Her Campaign but FB Censored It

The scary, albeit fascinating expos? on who?s in bed with whom in the halls of global power has expanded to include Facebook, according to WikiLeaks. The?

ANONHQ.COM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2016 by maroonlegions

[Nookie Bear]

We've got a vote.  Thinking Trump for our family here in CA.  Any thoughts?

Nothing printable.

[Norm]

Any chance the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson could pick up some votes as a 3rd candidate?

[maroonlegions]

Financial corruption seems rife nowadays and it seems that its in all avenues from multinationals to governments or those linked to  financial  governmental  institutions .

 

Any manifestos from Clinton and Trump on this topic, any real effort to tackle or expose it, any transparency at all from these two prime candidates  for the US presidency ?? 

 

Any thing at all in fact that can show they actually give a feck about financial corruption in the US Federal Reserve..?? 

 

It will be interesting to see what other revelations come to light on these two characters running for the US government and  any links to past or present discrepancies regarding their credibility and honesty to be fit for the US presidency,like that ever matter i know ,but transparency of ones character today is a whole new ball game and should be regarding these two jokers.. 

 

I am looking closely at these two charlatans in this election and so far it kinds of scares the shit out of me thinking about any of these two gaining power and influence in the most powerful nation on earth..  am i  alone in these concerns... nope...

 

 

Hacking group Anonymous announces war against Bank of England and New York Stock Exchange Mirror O

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwG9Wb8a9to

 

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2016 by maroonlegions

[maroonlegions]

As this video proves Clinton is a liar and hypocrite, especially on gay or same sex marriage, here she is lying her way through the things she said in the past.

 

 

As i have said before the truth  needs no fear of investigation but lies tend to catch up with you, the trouble with lying is that if one is not consistent  with the lie it will fail, and Clinton has failed on these lies.. 

 

In telling lies one always at some point strays from the original lie..

 

This video exposes Clinton as the psychopathic liar she is, one know begs the question that is she credible or fit enough  or even to be trusted as a leader of the US;

 

 

I really think that she is a real threat to any attempts at stability and peace in the middle east and the world in general, she is i feel a corporate puppet, she intends to protect and manipulate  the needs of the corporations and multinationals , she has history with it.  

 

Edited May 8, 2016 by maroonlegions

[Watt-Zeefuik]

maroonlegions, I would strongly encourage you to read the article I linked to above about Elizabeth Warren's work to install a progressive Senate regime.  It's highly relevant to the concerns you're outlining.  Unless you just enjoy posting gigantic gifs, in which case, cool, but it's hardly participating in discussion.

 

 

We've got a vote.  Thinking Trump for our family here in CA.  Any thoughts?

 

What issues make you lean towards Trump?  

[Watt-Zeefuik]

 

 

What time?  I'll try to have tea and biscuits, but it would help to know a number.  And if anyone has gluten allergies. 

[Norm]

maroonlegions, I would strongly encourage you to read the article I linked to above about Elizabeth Warren's work to install a progressive Senate regime. It's highly relevant to the concerns you're outlining. Unless you just enjoy posting gigantic gifs, in which case, cool, but it's hardly participating in discussion.

 

 

 

What issues make you lean towards Trump?

A Mexican family keep trespassing in his garden?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Any chance the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson could pick up some votes as a 3rd candidate?

 

I see Johnson's hailing this election as a huge opportunity for the LP, and I don't disagree with him.  There's a lot of states where if you get 5% in a Presidential election, ballot access down the line gets a lot easier.  I'm sure there will be plenty of Republicans (I know several) who will simply be unable to stomach voting for either Trump or Clinton.  Johnson as a protest vote will look attractive to a lot of them, which will help out down-ballot libertarians.

[Norm]

I see Johnson's hailing this election as a huge opportunity for the LP, and I don't disagree with him. There's a lot of states where if you get 5% in a Presidential election, ballot access down the line gets a lot easier. I'm sure there will be plenty of Republicans (I know several) who will simply be unable to stomach voting for either Trump or Clinton. Johnson as a protest vote will look attractive to a lot of them, which will help out down-ballot libertarians.

Having a 3rd party in US politics could only be a good thing, I would think.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Warren and Trump are going at it hard right now on social media.  Don't sleep on Warren's potential to impact this campaign, even if she's not on the ticket.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Nope. 60% unfavorable nationally.  That's literally unheard of in the history of polling for a major party candidate.

 

And what's more, the GOP basically was never able to put a glove on him because of the ideological, wedge crap they've run on for two decades now.  Clinton's campaign won't have any such problem.

 

You Democrat's are bricking it! 

[Maple Leaf]

You Democrat's are bricking it! 

I think most people are bricking it at the thought of Trump being POTUS.  And it could certainly happen.

[aussieh]

UA swatting all before him.

 

Good stuff.

 

 

The anonymous stuff is getting on my nips.

ML goes on about secret Email. Yet his hero's are secret.

[AlphonseCapone]

Maroonlegions must be about 10 years old surely?

 

Never seen someone so impressed with a meme before.

 

I thought niblick1874 had left...shame.

[aussieh]

Maroonlegions must be about 10 years old surely?

 

Never seen someone so impressed with a meme before.

 

I thought niblick1874 had left...shame.

You're a very bad man, Al.

 

I like it.

[Ian Beale]

Vote Trump !!!

[Norm]

Vote Trump !!!

The very idea that both him and Boris Johnson could be in charge of nuclear weapons this time next year is terrifying.

[Rab]

Trump isn't the Republican nominee yet. He still needs the convention to ratify it.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

For those who think Trump is the favorite to win, Ladbrokes will give you 11/4 against right now.  I'm not jumping but I've been wrong about an awful lot in this election.  That's solid earnings if you favor it.

[Seymour M Hersh]

I think most people are bricking it at the thought of Trump being POTUS.  And it could certainly happen.

 

That's just nuts. Billary is as poor a choice given her penchant for telling massive porkie pies. She has lied during her campaign giving the impression she is much more left  wing than she actually is and now that she can see the finishing line she's starting up a "Republicans for Hilary" group.  How many faces does the bitch have? Add to that her liberal/political elitist status that ordinary folk are sick to the back teeth of.

[Maple Leaf]

That's just nuts. Billary is as poor a choice given her penchant for telling massive porkie pies. She has lied during her campaign giving the impression she is much more left  wing than she actually is and now that she can see the finishing line she's starting up a "Republicans for Hilary" group.  How many faces does the bitch have? Add to that her liberal/political elitist status that ordinary folk are sick to the back teeth of.

Yup.  I posted earlier in the thread that Americans will have to choose the lesser of two evils, and I'm glad it's them and not me who has to decide.

 

Neither of them is suitable for the job, imo.  But one of them is almost certain to get it.

[maroonlegions]

 

 

Fecking crazy religious twats get every where..

 

 

And this in relation to the US elections.

 

 

 

 

 

Seems that some people have no shame when a big buck $ is to be made..

 

The US elections or the two front runners  in it will have a big impact on any possible future or present  stability of  not only the middle east but the world in general and there are some out to spread disinformation and misleading information.

 

The Wiki-leaks documents on Clinton are genuine as was the exposer of Trumps too by the real Anonymous.

 

Seems there is a campaign to distort and even discredit the real Anonymous by those seeking either financial,cult or political gain.. feck em.. 

 

They are on the case to expose any more discrepancies and lies  they find on Clinton and Trump.. 

 

[aussieh]

 

 

Fecking crazy religious twats get every where..

 

 

And this in relation to the US elections.

 

 

 

 

 

Seems that some people have no shame when a big buck $ is to be made..

 

The US elections or the two front runners in it will have a big impact on any possible future or present stability of not only the middle east but the world in general and there are some out to spread disinformation and misleading information.

 

The Wiki-leaks documents on Clinton are genuine as was the exposer of Trumps too by the real Anonymous.

 

Seems there is a campaign to distort and even discredit the real Anonymous by those seeking either financial,cult or political gain.. feck em..

 

They are on the case to expose any more discrepancies and lies they find on Clinton and Trump..

 

What a bunch of bangers.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

The Anons warning about fake Anons are fake!!!

 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

That's just nuts. Billary is as poor a choice given her penchant for telling massive porkie pies. She has lied during her campaign giving the impression she is much more left  wing than she actually is and now that she can see the finishing line she's starting up a "Republicans for Hilary" group.  How many faces does the bitch have? Add to that her liberal/political elitist status that ordinary folk are sick to the back teeth of.

 

Politifact is a collaborative project of a number of daily newspapers in the US.  It's a decent measure of the degree to which candidates make stuff up on the stump.

 

Of the final five candidates, Clinton, Sanders, and Kasich all score relatively closely as the most truthful.  Cruz was next after a distance, and then Trump way, way in the back.

 

From late March, all five: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/mar/27/final-five-truth-o-meter/

 

Clinton: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

 

Trump: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

[Norm]

Politifact is a collaborative project of a number of daily newspapers in the US. It's a decent measure of the degree to which candidates make stuff up on the stump.

 

Of the final five candidates, Clinton, Sanders, and Kasich all score relatively closely as the most truthful. Cruz was next after a distance, and then Trump way, way in the back.

 

From late March, all five: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/mar/27/final-five-truth-o-meter/

 

Clinton: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

 

Trump: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Haven't checked the link but I remember reading about this a while back. If I remember correctly, Sanders and Clinton's lies mainly fell in the "twisting words and studies to make them mean what you want or wilfull misinterpretation" kind of thing.

 

Trumps were mainly in the "**** knows where that came from, it looks you've just grasped those "facts" out of the thin air" category.

[Dallas Cowboys]

Politifact is a collaborative project of a number of daily newspapers in the US.  It's a decent measure of the degree to which candidates make stuff up on the stump.

 

Of the final five candidates, Clinton, Sanders, and Kasich all score relatively closely as the most truthful.  Cruz was next after a distance, and then Trump way, way in the back.

 

From late March, all five: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/mar/27/final-five-truth-o-meter/

 

Clinton: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

 

Trump: http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

 

I'd believe Trump way before anything that comes out of Clinton's mouth.

[Nookie Bear]

What a bunch of bangers.

 

At least they are smiling nicely for the camera.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

TBF I should probably be less dismissive of Trump's chances -- Michael Dukakis was ahead of Bush by a bunch in 1988 and still lost, and Trump has outrun a whole lot of obituaries for his campaign.

 

Basically at this point both candidates have divided parties.  The one that wins is the one that's going to be able to consolidate the party best.  I think (and the bookies agree at this point) that the Democrats have a lot better shot of doing that, but who knows.
 

I'd believe Trump way before anything that comes out of Clinton's mouth.

Cool.

[maroonlegions]

TBF I should probably be less dismissive of Trump's chances -- Michael Dukakis was ahead of Bush by a bunch in 1988 and still lost, and Trump has outrun a whole lot of obituaries for his campaign.

 

Basically at this point both candidates have divided parties.  The one that wins is the one that's going to be able to consolidate the party best.  I think (and the bookies agree at this point) that the Democrats have a lot better shot of doing that, but who knows.

 

Cool.

 

 

Not cool why , well i think you know the answer , they are both serial liars, swindlers and utterly  very rich  psychopathic manipulative  manipulators .

 

Their mega bucks are in no way intended to serve the people of America.. silver dollar for every child .. yeh..

 

The fact that lies, discrepancies on what they have said on  various topics has been skilfully "spun" by the US media mattes not a jot to those Americans and world wide audiences who cannot  tell  the difference between a party  political candidate tv  tour circus show  sitcom. and  a skilful manipulation of insidious  political   manipulated manifestos...   

 

 

If the democratic choice is between two unsavoury characters and feck all else then is that democratic system  not infested by undemocratic media coverage , undemocratic exposure of corruption and falsehoods and undemocratic transparency of two serial liars and manipulators who serve their own interests  through financial links to multi corporations?? 

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2016 by maroonlegions

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Hi maroonlegions,

 

Congrats on managing to only one piece of irrelevant media in your post.  It's progress!

 

The reason I said "cool" to "Dallas Cowboys" (go Panthers!) is because he stated an opinion in response to a shared link.  He trusts Trump more -- that's not an argument, it's a personal preference.  If after all we've seen of Trump at this point someone looks at him and still goes, "that's my man," I'm not going to be able to persuade him otherwise.

 

On the other hand -- something to know about the US Constitution, something that unfortunately a lot of Americans forget -- the branch of government invested with the most power is not actually the Executive, which the President is head of.  It's the Legislative.

 

This is why Republican control of Congress has been able to stymie a broad range of reforms, despite Obama having 8 years in office.

 

Clinton is effectively Obama term 3 when it comes to policy -- there was little daylight between them policy-wise in 2008, and it remains so.

 

Keeping Trump out of the White House is important for saving the dignity of the US, but policy-wise, the Senate is a more important electoral battle.  Do you know who Elizabeth Warren is?  How about Deborah Ross?  Ted Strickland?  Tammy Duckworth?  Katie McGinty? Russ Feingold?  On the other side of the aisle, do you know Mitch McConnell?  What Ted Cruz was doing before he ran for President? Chuck Grassley?  James Inhoffe?

 

If you don't know who these people are, despite the fact that their elections will have enormous impact on US policy for years to come, do you maybe want to wonder about your news sources, and who exactly is telling you that Clinton vs. Trump is the only election worth paying attention to?

[maroonlegions]

 

   

[Watt-Zeefuik]

<sigh> back to random media, I see.

[maroonlegions]

Hi maroonlegions,

 

Congrats on managing to only one piece of irrelevant media in your post.  It's progress!

 

The reason I said "cool" to "Dallas Cowboys" (go Panthers!) is because he stated an opinion in response to a shared link.  He trusts Trump more -- that's not an argument, it's a personal preference.  If after all we've seen of Trump at this point someone looks at him and still goes, "that's my man," I'm not going to be able to persuade him otherwise.

 

On the other hand -- something to know about the US Constitution, something that unfortunately a lot of Americans forget -- the branch of government invested with the most power is not actually the Executive, which the President is head of.  It's the Legislative.

 

This is why Republican control of Congress has been able to stymie a broad range of reforms, despite Obama having 8 years in office.

 

Clinton is effectively Obama term 3 when it comes to policy -- there was little daylight between them policy-wise in 2008, and it remains so.

 

Keeping Trump out of the White House is important for saving the dignity of the US, but policy-wise, the Senate is a more important electoral battle.  Do you know who Elizabeth Warren is?  How about Deborah Ross?  Ted Strickland?  Tammy Duckworth?  Katie McGinty? Russ Feingold?  On the other side of the aisle, do you know Mitch McConnell?  What Ted Cruz was doing before he ran for President? Chuck Grassley?  James Inhoffe?

 

If you don't know who these people are, despite the fact that their elections will have enormous impact on US policy for years to come, do you maybe want to wonder about your news sources, and who exactly is telling you that Clinton vs. Trump is the only election worth paying attention to?

 

 

Gobally  gash of predictive side stepping or avoidance of corruption by two high runners for the American presidency.

 

You have just named the other pawns in this corrupt farce that is the US elections. their mega bucks are not to serve the American people or to help serve that nation , its to serve the corporations , bankers and neo cons.. time will tell but its getting a wee bit more obvious..

 

 

 

..Makes me really  wonder  that you do not consider  Wilkileaks as a credible alternative news source.

 

When will it start  worrying you that Clinton and Trump are corrupt and known serial liars.

 

When will it start  worrying you that  that the US and global  main stream media are the ones that are telling us that Clinton v Trump is the only election worth paying attention too??

 

There are many snakes in the US House of Representatives and all have links to each other.. lets not stray from the two main antagonists here and  that the US media are forcing down everyone's throats .. globally..

 

 

Anonymous  are quite ware of Elizabeth Warren .   Deborah Ross?  Ted Strickland?  Tammy Duckworth?  Katie McGinty? Russ Feingold?  Mitch McConnell?  And what  Ted Cruz was doing before he ran for President?  And Chuck Grassley and   James Inhoffe?

 

In time the house of cards will come falling down.. expect it..

 

 

As Snowden once said..

 

 

 

 

 

[maroonlegions]

<sigh> back to random media, I see.

 Nothing random about it to me.

 

What do you see in it..

 

Everyone sees things differently.  

 

Sigh ..predictable but subconscious in its   warning..

[Arse 'Friends' Dyslexic?]

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Wikileaks is not a news source, it is a document dump repository, and a very important one at that.  It does not do reporting, nor does it try to.  (It has a "news" section, but there's exactly one entry for this calendar year.)

 

Clinton's record of relative truthfulness is demonstrated by the above fact-check site.  She is a standard politician, no more or less truthful than Obama, who has been known to bend the truth on his own.  This is compared to Trump, who just invents stuff as he thinks of it.  It's an important distinction.

 

 

 

When will it start  worrying you that  that the US and global  main stream media are the ones that are telling us that Clinton v Trump is the only election worth paying attention too??

 

This has been worrying me for quite some time, which is one reason I keep mentioning it on here, on my Twitter feed, on Facebook, and annoying my friends at parties by bringing it up.

 

In your previous comments, you said multiple times that it worried you that neither candidate was bringing up undue influence of banks or the two big trade deals currently being negotiated.  I responded with some information on some very important candidates who are bringing that up.  It seems a bit disingenuous to use Clinton's (admittedly) weak stance on finance reform as your prime criticism, then dismiss those doing the most impactful work in that regard as more hapless tools of the system. (And it's not a horrible shortcoming to know about all of these US Senators -- I would certainly struggle to name very many MP's.  But if you don't actually know anything about them, maybe type one or two into Google just as a starter?)

 

This seems to be lost on you, but it is perfectly possible to rationally and without contradiction believe that the Democratic party has immense problems and is highly compromised, that Clinton is far from an ideal President, that there are still an enormous number of highly worrisome things at a national level that will not get resolved with a Democratic victory, BUT that it is still a vastly superior choice to elect Clinton vs. Trump to the White House and to get a Democratically controlled Senate elected.  This doesn't stop the need to continue to work on everything else at a systemic level, it's just one election cycle.  As such, simply pointing out that the Democratic party is a problematic and compromised party is not in itself an argument against anything I've said or advocated on here.

 

Which brings me back to the question I asked earlier -- do you actually do anything other than post these things with lots of emoji in them saying that everyone else is naive?  I ask because this is an immense frustration of mine.  It's one thing to lecture everyone else about being insufficiently cynical about the election, but if that's the only thing you do, you're actually causing more damage.

 

I'll let Bruno Latour play me out here . . . 

 

Edited May 16, 2016 by Ugly American

[Watt-Zeefuik]

For a bit of lighter fare -- if one is campaigning for office, it's a good idea to close ones porn browser tabs before posting screenshots to ones website:

 

http://gawker.com/close-your-porn-tabs-before-posting-screenshots-to-your-1776955238

 

 

Mike Webb is running for U.S. Congress in Virginia?s 8th district, and he would really appreciate your vote. He would also appreciate, judging from a screenshot uploaded to his Facebook page earlier today, a little alone time with the pages ?IVONE SEXY AMATEUR? and ?LAYLA RIVERA TIGHT BOOTY.?*

Edited May 16, 2016 by Ugly American

[niblick1874]

Wikileaks is not a news source, it is a document dump repository, and a very important one at that.  It does not do reporting, nor does it try to.  (It has a "news" section, but there's exactly one entry for this calendar year.)

 

Clinton's record of relative truthfulness is demonstrated by the above fact-check site.  She is a standard politician, no more or less truthful than Obama, who has been known to bend the truth on his own.  This is compared to Trump, who just invents stuff as he thinks of it.  It's an important distinction.

 

 

This has been worrying me for quite some time, which is one reason I keep mentioning it on here, on my Twitter feed, on Facebook, and annoying my friends at parties by bringing it up.

 

In your previous comments, you said multiple times that it worried you that neither candidate was bringing up undue influence of banks or the two big trade deals currently being negotiated.  I responded with some information on some very important candidates who are bringing that up.  It seems a bit disingenuous to use Clinton's (admittedly) weak stance on finance reform as your prime criticism, then dismiss those doing the most impactful work in that regard as more hapless tools of the system. (And it's not a horrible shortcoming to know about all of these US Senators -- I would certainly struggle to name very many MP's.  But if you don't actually know anything about them, maybe type one or two into Google just as a starter?)

 

This seems to be lost on you, but it is perfectly possible to rationally and without contradiction believe that the Democratic party has immense problems and is highly compromised, that Clinton is far from an ideal President, that there are still an enormous number of highly worrisome things at a national level that will not get resolved with a Democratic victory, BUT that it is still a vastly superior choice to elect Clinton vs. Trump to the White House and to get a Democratically controlled Senate elected.  This doesn't stop the need to continue to work on everything else at a systemic level, it's just one election cycle.  As such, simply pointing out that the Democratic party is a problematic and compromised party is not in itself an argument against anything I've said or advocated on here.

 

Which brings me back to the question I asked earlier -- do you actually do anything other than post these things with lots of emoji in them saying that everyone else is naive?  I ask because this is an immense frustration of mine.  It's one thing to lecture everyone else about being insufficiently cynical about the election, but if that's the only thing you do, you're actually causing more damage.

 

I'll let Bruno Latour play me out here . . . 

 

We're working on it, honest, we'll fix it.

 

No you wont. You'll not even get to first base because it is now their first base and they've picked it up and gone walkabout, but thanks for the effort.

Edited May 17, 2016 by niblick1874

[Watt-Zeefuik]

We're working on it, honest, we'll fix it.

 

No you wont. You'll not even get to first base because it is now their first base and they have stuck it in their back pocket and gone walkabout, but thanks for the effort.

You never answered my question.

[maroonlegions]

Exposure of those behind or involved in political and corporate  financial manipulations and corruptions in the US is slowly coming to the surface.  

 

While in the US elections the two front runners are getting all the stage time from the corporative owned media it still begs the question of the  influence and manipulation by the banks or financial institutions in regards to US politicians and their financial interests through respective manifestos.

 

Transparency will never be a goal of  the US corporate  media on those who are responsible for serving not the people of America but their own and corporate  financial interests.

 

Who do the banks own in the political circus of US politics ???

 

Anonymous Hackers Shut Down Federal Reserve Bank;

 

 After announcing a global call to arms against the ?corrupt global banking cartel,? the hacker collective known as Anonymous, in conjunction with numerous other hacktivist groups, have taken over 20 central banks offline, including striking at the heart of the Western imperialist empire; the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, the Bank of England and the Bank of France.

 

 

A press release by Anonymous explained in the intentions behind the operation know as #OpIcarus:

?The banks have been getting away with murder, fraud, conspiracy, war profiteering, money laundering for terrorists and drug cartels, have put millions of people out on the street without food or shelter and have successfully bought all our governments to help keep us silenced. We represent the voice of the voiceless.

We are uniting to make a stand. The central banks which were attacked in recent days were attacked to remind people that the biggest threat we face to an open and free society is the banks. The bankers are the problem# Oplcarus is the solution".

?We would just like to make it very clear that all targets of #OpIcarus have been Rothschild and BIS central owned banks. In fact most of the targets so far such as Guernsey, Cyprus, Panama, Jordan, British Virgin Isles, etc are in the top 10 places of tax havens for the elite.

No on-line consumer accounts were harmed, no ATM?s were blocked and no personal client data was leaked. This has been a protest against the Central Banks and the 1% ? no innocent or poor people were harmed?

 

 

http://www.anonews.co/anonymous-hackers-shut-down-federal-reserve-bank/