US Elections 2016

[Craig Gordons Gloves]

I was having a conversation at work this week, with a friend who is a registered Republican, he'd called me up on Monday night and told me not to watch the convention (i couldn't anyway) but his words were "I'm genuinely fearful of this guy getting in".  He's also not a nutty republican either, he's a very reasonable guy and based on some other conversations, many reasonable elephant supporters are also in this camp.

 

I'm genuinely worried about the future if he gets in as well.  I'm also not over enamoured about Clinton becoming president either and as for the 3rd choice of Johnson, the libertarians scare me quite a bit too. 

[Sharpie]

I watched Trump last night, as an orator I could not get out of my mind how similar to another leader I have watched speaking he was. The man and Trump shared several facial and body moves, The head tilted back, the powerful set to the mouth, and the feeling they were actually looking down their nose at the listeners. The pouted lips, the turn to the left with the gratuitous nodding of assent as if to say good you have got it, the constant use of I, never we, except a slight acknowledgement that he  does have a Vice Presidential nominee.

With these small signs, and some of his guests, and suggested policies, the word dictatorial kept going through my mind. The person he reminded me of, and I am not joking was Benito Mussolini.

 

It is without a doubt the first election that I have watched that I did not have a leaning to one candidate. Trump scares me for all of us, but I honestly cannot lean towards Ms Clinton, not only because of allegations about her conduct and ability, but I just cannot like the woman. Fear is an awful thing to admit, but it is an emotion I cannot help but feel at this time.

[Maple Leaf]

I watched Trump last night, as an orator I could not get out of my mind how similar to another leader I have watched speaking he was. The man and Trump shared several facial and body moves, The head tilted back, the powerful set to the mouth, and the feeling they were actually looking down their nose at the listeners. The pouted lips, the turn to the left with the gratuitous nodding of assent as if to say good you have got it, the constant use of I, never we, except a slight acknowledgement that he  does have a Vice Presidential nominee.

With these small signs, and some of his guests, and suggested policies, the word dictatorial kept going through my mind. The person he reminded me of, and I am not joking was Benito Mussolini.

 

It is without a doubt the first election that I have watched that I did not have a leaning to one candidate. Trump scares me for all of us, but I honestly cannot lean towards Ms Clinton, not only because of allegations about her conduct and ability, but I just cannot like the woman. Fear is an awful thing to admit, but it is an emotion I cannot help but feel at this time.

He's so similar to Mussolini it's almost like a caricature. 

[Sharpie]

He's so similar to Mussolini it's almost like a caricature. 

 

 

I sort of anticipated some ridicule but went to google and watched some Musssolini speeches from the balcony in Rome, and the mannerisms are even more graphic in some than others

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Tim Kaine is the Dem VP pick.

 

He was my in-laws neighbor decades ago, before he even ran for city council.  Incredibly decent guy, a very good mayor, good governor, and good senator.  I dislike his position on TTP (yes, niblick, we know), but he absolutely nailed his first major speech as the nominee.

 

Wasn't my favorite pick (I couldn't help but want to see former Saturday Night Live writer and Minnesota Senator Al Franken), but not a bad pick by any means.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

To wit -- from my father-in-law:

 

"Tim and Anne: really nice couple in our old Northside Richmond neighborhood. Used to see each other in park or at local stores with our kids in strollers. Was glad to hear he was running for City Council the year we were moving to Pottstown bc Richmond could use someone like that in city government. By all accounts he has not changed much through the years. Still lives in same neighborhood and goes to same integrated Catholic church.. HARD TO BELIEVE HE IS NOW VICE PRESIDENT CANDIDATE. Whatever you think of the ticket or his politics know this: there is not a more grounded, honest. or faithful person in national politics."

[Sharpie]

I watched his talk yesterday,  it was so different and actually nice to here someone talk about the inequalities that exist and be able to relate what he has actually done to resolve some of the problems. His record it seems on civil rights, and that record breaking decision he gained as a lawyer were proof of his genuine interests.

 

In an effort to make fair and equal comment having compared Trump to Mussolini, I thought Hilary sitting behind Kaine while he was speaking nodded her head so consistently she looked like she was modelling for a bobblehead figure. It would be a good thing for her to lose that action.

[niblick1874]

Tim Kaine is the Dem VP pick.

 

He was my in-laws neighbor decades ago, before he even ran for city council.  Incredibly decent guy, a very good mayor, good governor, and good senator.  I dislike his position on TTP (yes, niblick, we know), but he absolutely nailed his first major speech as the nominee.

 

Wasn't my favorite pick (I couldn't help but want to see former Saturday Night Live writer and Minnesota Senator Al Franken), but not a bad pick by any means.

We? There are others that know if you are for the TPP you are a traitor to your country but apparently not you. You try to impress everyone with your knowledge of all things political in America and you miss this? There have been numerous times that posters on here have pointed out to you just what a monster Clinton is and you come back with right wing bias in the press and Trump is a racist. Smoke and mirrors.

 

Are you going to tell us that Hilary knew nothing about all the times bill took a ride on the Lolita express to Jeffery Epstien's  pedophile island? Or is it all right wing propaganda and Trump is a racist.

 

You are at it.   

[Watt-Zeefuik]

We? There are others that know if you are for the TPP you are a traitor to your country but apparently not you. You try to impress everyone with your knowledge of all things political in America and you miss this? There have been numerous times that posters on here have pointed out to you just what a monster Clinton is and you come back with right wing bias in the press and Trump is a racist. Smoke and mirrors.

 

Are you going to tell us that Hilary knew nothing about all the times bill took a ride on the Lolita express to Jeffery Epstien's  pedophile island? Or is it all right wing propaganda and Trump is a racist.

 

You are at it.   

 

You use a lot of words without much understanding.

[niblick1874]

You use a lot of words without much understanding.

What in my post are you referring to?

Edited July 24, 2016 by niblick1874

[Ulysses]

You use a lot of words without much understanding.

 

Perhaps word salads are part of his 5-a-day?

[Watt-Zeefuik]

What in my post are you referring to?

Let's start with "traitor."  You have asserted that anyone who supports the TPP is guilty of it.  I don't think you understand what "treason" means.  

 

Further, you've never responded to my earlier posts which asked you to engage with things like NAFTA, GATT, and China's Most Favored Trading Nation status.  Some kind of engagement with other agreements like Mercosur would also probably be informative, as well as some modicum of understanding why honest people might promote trade agreements and why those honest opinions can still lead to oppression.  (You rarely respond to any of my queries to you, so I don't know why that would be different, but one can hardly discuss TPP without the context of former trade regimes.

 

Finally, I haven't, if I can recall, referred to Trump as a racist.  I've been pretty clear on multiple threads here that I generally treat racism as a structural problem and not an individual problem.  So either you didn't understand what I said, or you confused me with something else you read, or you just made it up.  There are a thousand things to say against Trump without having to resort to really basic stuff like "Trump is a racist."

 

But then again, sometimes I post while on the bevy, so I may have said that and forgotten.  But I doubt it.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Ugly American

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Perhaps word salads are part of his 5-a-day?

[Sharpie]

I watched the two Vice Presidential candidates speak, I have no vote, the most I have is an opinion with actually no basis because it is not my Country or my politics. What I will say and its a condemnation of both parties involved but the two Vice candidates both look more Presidential than the two Presidential candidates. I have said I just don't like Hillary Clinton, I never have really liked her, I have enjoyed watching Trump before his Presidential ambitions, he could at that stage be a likeable buffoon but again I say the two of them are the worst ever candidates for the Presidency I have ever seen, and that includes Nixon

[Watt-Zeefuik]

WikiLeaks finally confirms what everyone paying attention pretty much figured -- that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was discounting Sanders as a real candidate and mucking with the debate schedule to try to favor Clinton.

 

That's finally enough to force her ouster.  Good riddance -- she's been a drag on the party for years.

[Sharpie]

WikiLeaks finally confirms what everyone paying attention pretty much figured -- that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was discounting Sanders as a real candidate and mucking with the debate schedule to try to favor Clinton.

 

That's finally enough to force her ouster.  Good riddance -- she's been a drag on the party for years.

 

Watched some discussion about this on CNN, apparently she is out, but still in, if that makes sense, not to most I suppose but thats   the way these campaigns have been going.  Republicans look disjointed, ununified because of Cruz, who gets booed.  The Democrats who have an open goal and no defenders could shoot themselves in the foot if this woman as she insists she will do takes the platform on Tuesday. It seems that both get opportunities to forge ahead, and both when offered this manage to screw it up.

I am a big fan of U.S.A. and know many Americans, they deserve better than this fiasco that is being run to elect what some perceive as the most powerful leader in the World, how out of the vast population can it be honestly claimed that these two individuals are the best the Country can offer. Along with my criticisms of the two contestants I have to offer my negative opinion about the two political parties who have allowed this to happen.

 

I of course can be criticised because I have comments and criticism of a contest in which I have no, and cannot make any investment.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Watched some discussion about this on CNN, apparently she is out, but still in, if that makes sense, not to most I suppose but thats   the way these campaigns have been going.  Republicans look disjointed, ununified because of Cruz, who gets booed.  The Democrats who have an open goal and no defenders could shoot themselves in the foot if this woman as she insists she will do takes the platform on Tuesday. It seems that both get opportunities to forge ahead, and both when offered this manage to screw it up.

I am a big fan of U.S.A. and know many Americans, they deserve better than this fiasco that is being run to elect what some perceive as the most powerful leader in the World, how out of the vast population can it be honestly claimed that these two individuals are the best the Country can offer. Along with my criticisms of the two contestants I have to offer my negative opinion about the two political parties who have allowed this to happen.

 

I of course can be criticised because I have comments and criticism of a contest in which I have no, and cannot make any investment.

 

I'm frustrated with this one in particular because it was obvious that Wasserman Shultz needed to be out months ago.  She's very disliked among the activist wing of the party, even those who favored Clinton in the primary.  To have this happen after the trainwreck of the GOP convention and the general good reception that Tim Kaine has gotten is just really infuriating.  It's the kind of stupid stuff that follows the Clintons -- they mastermind excellent campaigns then trip up on trivial crap.

 

I'll again say that I like Clinton and think she'll be a good President, and I think this week's convention will highlight a lot of reasons why I think that for a lot of people.  I sure hope it does.  The US will finally get a woman President and we'll hopefully steamroll Trumpism and scare the Republicans from trying something like this again.  But when she leaves office, which to be frank will probably be after a single term, I'll feel a little relief at being a bit more done with the Clinton machine.  (Although in Virginia, we still have an arch-Clintonite governor in Terry McAuliffe.)

[Hendricks]

Watching Billary speak just now on TV. My God, she is nothing but a self serving, angry, lying, power hungry lowlife. She will undoubtably put herself before her country as proven already. Really really hope she never sits in the Oval Office. 

Edited July 25, 2016 by Hendricks

[John Findlay]

I repeat ad nauseum. Hobson's choice for the American electorate. If they had any sense they would all put none of the above on their ballot papers.

[Sraman]

I repeat ad nauseum. Hobson's choice for the American electorate. If they had any sense they would all put none of the above on their ballot papers.

 

If this happened would Richard Prior be President?

[Maple Leaf]

Watched some discussion about this on CNN, apparently she is out, but still in, if that makes sense, not to most I suppose but thats   the way these campaigns have been going.  Republicans look disjointed, ununified because of Cruz, who gets booed.  The Democrats who have an open goal and no defenders could shoot themselves in the foot if this woman as she insists she will do takes the platform on Tuesday. It seems that both get opportunities to forge ahead, and both when offered this manage to screw it up.

I am a big fan of U.S.A. and know many Americans, they deserve better than this fiasco that is being run to elect what some perceive as the most powerful leader in the World, how out of the vast population can it be honestly claimed that these two individuals are the best the Country can offer. Along with my criticisms of the two contestants I have to offer my negative opinion about the two political parties who have allowed this to happen.

 

I of course can be criticised because I have comments and criticism of a contest in which I have no, and cannot make any investment.

 

I have many friends and relatives who are American, and they are also deeply disappointed in the choice they are faced with. 

 

As a French philosopher once said, "A nation gets the government it deserves", and I think that the rise of Trump can be attributed, in part, to the dissatisfaction among Americans over the state of their politics in recent years.  Has there ever been a time when the two main parties were so far apart on everything?  The Republicans and Democrats can't even agree on what the priorities of the nation should be.

 

It's hard to imagine that the election will change anything, unless the Dems win the Presidency and a majority in the Senate.  Otherwise it will be the same old, same old, with Washington all talk and no action. 

 

If the Republicans win the Presidency and a majority in the Senate, I shudder to think of what will happen in the next four years.  Which country is at the top of the list to be invaded? 

[niblick1874]

Let's start with "traitor."  You have asserted that anyone who supports the TPP is guilty of it.  I don't think you understand what "treason" means.  

 

Further, you've never responded to my earlier posts which asked you to engage with things like NAFTA, GATT, and China's Most Favored Trading Nation status.  Some kind of engagement with other agreements like Mercosur would also probably be informative, as well as some modicum of understanding why honest people might promote trade agreements and why those honest opinions can still lead to oppression.  (You rarely respond to any of my queries to you, so I don't know why that would be different, but one can hardly discuss TPP without the context of former trade regimes.

 

Finally, I haven't, if I can recall, referred to Trump as a racist.  I've been pretty clear on multiple threads here that I generally treat racism as a structural problem and not an individual problem.  So either you didn't understand what I said, or you confused me with something else you read, or you just made it up.  There are a thousand things to say against Trump without having to resort to really basic stuff like "Trump is a racist."

 

But then again, sometimes I post while on the bevy, so I may have said that and forgotten.  But I doubt it.

Traitor, one who betrays one's country. That includes knowingly handing powers to those that do not holed the interests of the people of said country at heart and will use these powers to screw over the people of said country.

 

Who have done this?

 

Let's have a look at NAFTA.

 

http://nesara.insights2.org/NAFTA1.html

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/13/canada_being_sued_for_billions_under_nafta_investor_protections.html

 

Those that handed these powers to those that used them in the above manner include every President since it's beginnings, and included bosom buddies the Clintons and the Bushes.

 

The TPP and the TTIP (Obama) gives even more powers to the likes of Monsanto and the faceless money men taking away the last semblance of democracy in how many more countries.

 

Don't tell me to go look as if I haven't (I have, that is why I know you are at it) when you bring up China after giving China gate (yep, the Clintons again) a wide berth every time I have pointed it out to you.     

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Traitor, one who betrays one's country. That includes knowingly handing powers to those that do not holed the interests of the people of said country at heart and will use these powers to screw over the people of said country.

 

 

That's a pretty odd and non-standard definition, but it will serve for the time being.

 

One of the key differences here is the difference between deliberate intentional malice and error.  This would be why intent plays such a major role in our traditions of law and jurisprudence.

 

You can argue until you're blue in the face that NAFTA was a bad move and undermined an enormous amount of American industry, and for the most part I'll agree with you.  Until you demonstrate intent, you haven't managed to demonstrate treason.

 

If you're going to work yourself into a tizzy about what the Clintons did under NAFTA, you should probably have some comprehension of the (at times literal) carnage wreaked by the Reagan administration or Bush (43) administration.  See, I think those were really bad too, but I don't accuse them of treason because I can't demonstrate intent, nor do I think that either President (I hold a different opinion of Cheney) had the intent of undermining the country.

 

And this is why when you throw around words like "treason" without understanding what they mean, you actually undermine the case against the TPP at a time when that's a really bad thing to do.

[Hendricks]

Interesting opinion piece on where things stand just now by Michael Moore:

 

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

[jack D and coke]

Interesting opinion piece on where things stand just now by Michael Moore:

 

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

Michael Moore is a trumpet. What a load of nonsense.

No offence to you pal.

[niblick1874]

That's a pretty odd and non-standard definition, but it will serve for the time being.

 

One of the key differences here is the difference between deliberate intentional malice and error.  This would be why intent plays such a major role in our traditions of law and jurisprudence.

 

You can argue until you're blue in the face that NAFTA was a bad move and undermined an enormous amount of American industry, and for the most part I'll agree with you.  Until you demonstrate intent, you haven't managed to demonstrate treason.

 

If you're going to work yourself into a tizzy about what the Clintons did under NAFTA, you should probably have some comprehension of the (at times literal) carnage wreaked by the Reagan administration or Bush (43) administration.  See, I think those were really bad too, but I don't accuse them of treason because I can't demonstrate intent, nor do I think that either President (I hold a different opinion of Cheney) had the intent of undermining the country.

 

And this is why when you throw around words like "treason" without understanding what they mean, you actually undermine the case against the TPP at a time when that's a really bad thing to do.

The TPP and the TTIP are NAFTA on steroids in all the wrong places ready made for the abuse of all the new countries and their people they will include. As you yourself say, NAFTA was a bad move and undermined American industry (the American people). How can you say that the TPP is more mistakes and not traitorous when they have the NAFTA fiasco there for reference.

 

Just because these are the actions of both the democratic and republican parties does not take away the culpability of the Clintons in all of it. 

 

Again, you are at it. 

[Watt-Zeefuik]

Michael Moore is a trumpet. What a load of nonsense.

No offence to you pal.

 

Indeed.  Michael Moore could tell me that the sun came up in the east this morning and I'd go check.

 

 

The TPP and the TTIP are NAFTA on steroids in all the wrong places ready made for the abuse of all the new countries and their people they will include. As you yourself say, NAFTA was a bad move and undermined American industry (the American people). How can you say that the TPP is more mistakes and not traitorous when they have the NAFTA fiasco there for reference.

 

Just because these are the actions of both the democratic and republican parties does not take away the culpability of the Clintons in all of it. 

 

Again, you are at it. 

 

The results of NAFTA were widespread and complicated.  In many parts of the US, particularly in the larger cities, the boom in trade that followed NAFTA (and GATT and Most Favored Nation trading status with China) created the longest postwar economic expansion in history, a sudden upswing in employment, and an economic boom.  That happened at the expense of America's manufacturing sector and left small factory towns in the dust.  However, that was after Reaganite policies had hollowed out the industrial core and took places like New York City, which had been the US's closest thing to true social democracy, into massive tailspins.  So NAFTA hurt the small towns and boosted the coastal cities just a decade after Reagan (and before him Nixon) had helped to gut the cities.

 

NAFTA also accelerated the income inequality divergence, but not nearly as much as the Reagan era tax reforms did.

 

So why am I still a fan of the Clintons?  Because for the first time in my political memory, we actually had a reversal of the assault on public education and federal funding for school construction actually went up again.  We actually built considerable mass transit.  We expanded the earned income tax credit.  We halted clearcutting in the national forests.  We expanded the national park system.  Funding for science and health spending jumped after having been gutted by the Reagan administration.  Passenger rail was pulled out of the gutter and made functional again.  The first round of Medicaid expansion improved healthcare for millions of children.

 

It was the end of a long and brutal assault on some of the most important aspects of the American system of government.  And yes, in order to stay afloat politically, Clinton made calls like NAFTA and pushed low interest rate policies that later helped to balloon income inequality.  Those were political compromises that were part of the Clintonian strategy of "triangulation."

 

So I'm willing to go along with you in questioning the trade deals -- as I've said that's healthy.  But you want to go further than that.  You want to completely elide the carnage of Reaganism and focus on the mistakes and strategic compromises the Clintons made, and then call it treason.  And then you go on to obsess over the peccadillos that the endless witch hunts enacted by the Gingrich Congress sent against the Clintons like the mountain-from-molehill that the right wing still insists on calling "Chinagate" and declare them high crimes and misdemeanors.  Well, I suppose if you listen to too much Alex Jones, that happens to the brain, but don't expect me to have any respect for the thinking underlying it.

 

I've spent my (rather limited) political life with others trying to reconstitute the progressive wing of the Democratic party into something that actually has a positive program behind mid-century Keyensianism rehashed or neoliberalism-lite.  It's a damn long, hard slog, and while at times the Clintonites like Virginia Gov. McAuliffe or Debbie Wasserman Shultz have been in the way and causing havoc, more often they've been allies, like when McAuliffe just reinstated voting rights for 300,000 former felons who have long since served their sentences but were, because of a 100 year old law passed explicitly to disenfranchise black people, were blocked from voting.

 

But again, you sit as a non-native spectator to all of this, and think because you read InfoWars or wherever else you get this pablum from you've figured out the hidden key to all of this that the 150 million voters in this country who live the impacts of all of these policy changes are "sheeple" or something.  And you wonder why I think you're a complete idiot.

[niblick1874]

Indeed.  Michael Moore could tell me that the sun came up in the east this morning and I'd go check.

 

 

 

The results of NAFTA were widespread and complicated.  In many parts of the US, particularly in the larger cities, the boom in trade that followed NAFTA (and GATT and Most Favored Nation trading status with China) created the longest postwar economic expansion in history, a sudden upswing in employment, and an economic boom.  That happened at the expense of America's manufacturing sector and left small factory towns in the dust.  However, that was after Reaganite policies had hollowed out the industrial core and took places like New York City, which had been the US's closest thing to true social democracy, into massive tailspins.  So NAFTA hurt the small towns and boosted the coastal cities just a decade after Reagan (and before him Nixon) had helped to gut the cities.

 

NAFTA also accelerated the income inequality divergence, but not nearly as much as the Reagan era tax reforms did.

 

So why am I still a fan of the Clintons?  Because for the first time in my political memory, we actually had a reversal of the assault on public education and federal funding for school construction actually went up again.  We actually built considerable mass transit.  We expanded the earned income tax credit.  We halted clearcutting in the national forests.  We expanded the national park system.  Funding for science and health spending jumped after having been gutted by the Reagan administration.  Passenger rail was pulled out of the gutter and made functional again.  The first round of Medicaid expansion improved healthcare for millions of children.

 

It was the end of a long and brutal assault on some of the most important aspects of the American system of government.  And yes, in order to stay afloat politically, Clinton made calls like NAFTA and pushed low interest rate policies that later helped to balloon income inequality.  Those were political compromises that were part of the Clintonian strategy of "triangulation."

 

So I'm willing to go along with you in questioning the trade deals -- as I've said that's healthy.  But you want to go further than that.  You want to completely elide the carnage of Reaganism and focus on the mistakes and strategic compromises the Clintons made, and then call it treason.  And then you go on to obsess over the peccadillos that the endless witch hunts enacted by the Gingrich Congress sent against the Clintons like the mountain-from-molehill that the right wing still insists on calling "Chinagate" and declare them high crimes and misdemeanors.  Well, I suppose if you listen to too much Alex Jones, that happens to the brain, but don't expect me to have any respect for the thinking underlying it.

 

I've spent my (rather limited) political life with others trying to reconstitute the progressive wing of the Democratic party into something that actually has a positive program behind mid-century Keyensianism rehashed or neoliberalism-lite.  It's a damn long, hard slog, and while at times the Clintonites like Virginia Gov. McAuliffe or Debbie Wasserman Shultz have been in the way and causing havoc, more often they've been allies, like when McAuliffe just reinstated voting rights for 300,000 former felons who have long since served their sentences but were, because of a 100 year old law passed explicitly to disenfranchise black people, were blocked from voting.

 

But again, you sit as a non-native spectator to all of this, and think because you read InfoWars or wherever else you get this pablum from you've figured out the hidden key to all of this that the 150 million voters in this country who live the impacts of all of these policy changes are "sheeple" or something.  And you wonder why I think you're a complete idiot.

 

 

So what the Clintons have done is all to do with compromise and because of others actions when it comes to going along with handing the powers they have to those behind NAFTA and the TPP? They are surrounded in every way by some of the biggest players behind the TTP and you tell us that selling the people in these countries down the river to those very same people that surround them has nothing to do with it when they have NAFTA to go by when it comes to cause and effect. What right wing conspiracy or circumstance will you give us as an excuse for Obama's actions and inactions concerning the TTP when he had NAFTA to go by?

 

Alex Jones? What's next, David Icke? China Gate has been cover by all walks of life with the same conclusion. Just a three minute look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCIrIQJ2bfg

 

As for the last bit, Remind me of the countries that are under NAFTA? Canada one of them? What about the TPP? There are many countries involved in the TPP and the TTIP and this election has everything to do with those things so your attempt at that tack failed miserably and said more about you than I. 

[Riddley Walker]

So what the Clintons have done is all to do with compromise and because of others actions when it comes to going along with handing the powers they have to those behind NAFTA and the TPP? They are surrounded in every way by some of the biggest players behind the TTP and you tell us that selling the people in these countries down the river to those very same people that surround them has nothing to do with it when they have NAFTA to go by when it comes to cause and effect. What right wing conspiracy or circumstance will you give us as an excuse for Obama's actions and inactions concerning the TTP when he had NAFTA to go by?

 

Alex Jones? What's next, David Icke? China Gate has been cover by all walks of life with the same conclusion. Just a three minute look

 

As for the last bit, Remind me of the countries that are under NAFTA? Canada one of them? What about the TPP? There are many countries involved in the TPP and the TTIP and this election has everything to do with those things so your attempt at that tack failed miserably and said more about you than I.

Niblick just stop. He's tearing you apart.

[Hendricks]

Half the Dem crowd want Billary to be POTUS, the other half want her locked up!  This might end up being better TV than the Republican party last week and thats going some!

[maroonlegions]

Cheeky wee theme but its relevant to the Clinton's and the Trumps of this world and  who for now anyway masquerade as the "servants" of the American people..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[maroonlegions]

The occurring "web" and "cyber" war on the corrupt  politicians, wealthy come politicians and their historical links to their direct or indirect  financial dealings is  an ongoing war and as yet no final thesis on the real discrepancies of their actions is conclusive but its showing  that possible corruption is a cancer within the world  political  spectre.   

 

Anonymous and Wikileaks continue this war on exposing the "wolves in sheep"s clothing  within the corridors of world powers.

 

 

 

 WikiLeaks: Website Publishes 19,252 Emails Allegedly From Democratic National Committee Members

The site published the emails, sent between January 2015 and May 2016, in a searchable database on Friday. The emails allegedly come from seven top figures within the DNC.

 

 

The 4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump;

ABCN.WS|BY ABC NEWS

 

 

Emails Appear to Show DNC Trying to Aid Hillary Clinton.

 

How Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Dramatic DNC Exit Unfolded

Wasserman Schultz to Step Down as DNC Chairwoman

 

 

 

Facebook Admits It Blocked Links to Wikileaks DNC Emails

Facebook admitted it briefly blocked links to Wikileaks files containing internal Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails. The block seems to be the result?

GIZMO.DO|BY WILLIAM TURTON

 

 

 

 

And why did Facebook get involved..?? was it the threat of National Security laws being enforced to try to censor information that was just too sensitive and closer to the truth of the  reality of corruption, manipulation and financial skulduggery within the US and world political and financial systems..

 

Its a waiting game anyway,   so better not try and condemn or ridicule too much too soon, for as they say , patience is a virtue..  

Edited July 25, 2016 by maroonlegions

[niblick1874]

 

The occurring "web" and "cyber" war on the corrupt  politicians, wealthy come politicians and their historical links to their direct or indirect  financial dealings is  an ongoing war and as yet no final thesis on the real discrepancies of their actions is conclusive but its showing  that possible corruption is a cancer within the world  political  spectre.   

 

Anonymous and Wikileaks continue this war on exposing the "wolves in sheep"s clothing  within the corridors of world powers.

 

 

 

 WikiLeaks: Website Publishes 19,252 Emails Allegedly From Democratic National Committee Members

The site published the emails, sent between January 2015 and May 2016, in a searchable database on Friday. The emails allegedly come from seven top figures within the DNC.

 

 

The 4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump;

ABCN.WS|BY ABC NEWS

 

 

Emails Appear to Show DNC Trying to Aid Hillary Clinton.

 

How Debbie Wasserman Schultz's Dramatic DNC Exit Unfolded

Wasserman Schultz to Step Down as DNC Chairwoman

 

 

 

Facebook Admits It Blocked Links to Wikileaks DNC Emails

Facebook admitted it briefly blocked links to Wikileaks files containing internal Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails. The block seems to be the result?

GIZMO.DO|BY WILLIAM TURTON

 

 

 

 

And why did Facebook get involved..?? was it the threat of National Security laws being enforced to try to censor information that was just too sensitive and closer to the truth of the  reality of corruption, manipulation and financial skulduggery within the US and world political and financial systems..

 

Its a waiting game anyway,   so better not try and condemn or ridicule too much too soon, for as they say , patience is a virtue..  

 

You'll get the, we all know it's corrupt, without the, that means those with the most money can bye it all and what that mean's. 

[Hendricks]

Worth a watch. The Clinton's really are so corrupt.

 

[niblick1874]

Worth a watch. The Clinton's really are so corrupt.

 

Knowing all this is one thing but every time I see it put in a way that can't be ignored but is, turns my stomach.

 

If everyone want's to know what the Clintons are all about and what it means to the people of the countries they get their grubby paws on should watch the video above (I had never seen it before) and see for yourself what happens when the likes of them have dealings with corrupt leaders.

 

This is what they are and this is now.

Edited July 26, 2016 by niblick1874

[Watt-Zeefuik]

So what the Clintons have done is all to do with compromise and because of others actions when it comes to going along with handing the powers they have to those behind NAFTA and the TPP? They are surrounded in every way by some of the biggest players behind the TTP and you tell us that selling the people in these countries down the river to those very same people that surround them has nothing to do with it when they have NAFTA to go by when it comes to cause and effect. What right wing conspiracy or circumstance will you give us as an excuse for Obama's actions and inactions concerning the TTP when he had NAFTA to go by?

 

Alex Jones? What's next, David Icke? China Gate has been cover by all walks of life with the same conclusion. Just a three minute look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCIrIQJ2bfg

 

As for the last bit, Remind me of the countries that are under NAFTA? Canada one of them? What about the TPP? There are many countries involved in the TPP and the TTIP and this election has everything to do with those things so your attempt at that tack failed miserably and said more about you than I. 

 

It would probably be helpful to know that some form of neoliberal trade policy has been taught as the default and at times only option at most top economics, international studies, and public policy schools for a few decades now.  Pushing back on that has been a long slog (I'm proud to say geography has done some of the best work there), but most top federal employees have been brought up in that.  But it's hardly limited to some hidden corridors of power -- just pick up a copy of The Economist at your nearest newsstand and you'll find an extensive argument for these trade agreements.

 

And there's nothing particularly wrong with trade agreements, per se.  The problem is that corporate and large finance interests have gotten too much say in the process.  Yes, I wish Obama had done better on that.  Again, you continue to behave as if trade agreements are the single, solitary issue by which everything should be measured.  Which is just weird.

 

As to China Gate, I think what I'm supposed to take from that video is that the Clinton impeachment wasn't actually about a Republican party desperate to lay a glove on Mr. Teflon, but that Gingrich and Lott were in cahoots with the Clintons to sweep China Gate under the rug.  Is that right?  I want to make sure I'm getting this.

[niblick1874]

It would probably be helpful to know that some form of neoliberal trade policy has been taught as the default and at times only option at most top economics, international studies, and public policy schools for a few decades now.  Pushing back on that has been a long slog (I'm proud to say geography has done some of the best work there), but most top federal employees have been brought up in that.  But it's hardly limited to some hidden corridors of power -- just pick up a copy of The Economist at your nearest newsstand and you'll find an extensive argument for these trade agreements.

 

And there's nothing particularly wrong with trade agreements, per se.  The problem is that corporate and large finance interests have gotten too much say in the process.  Yes, I wish Obama had done better on that.  Again, you continue to behave as if trade agreements are the single, solitary issue by which everything should be measured.  Which is just weird.

 

As to China Gate, I think what I'm supposed to take from that video is that the Clinton impeachment wasn't actually about a Republican party desperate to lay a glove on Mr. Teflon, but that Gingrich and Lott were in cahoots with the Clintons to sweep China Gate under the rug.  Is that right?  I want to make sure I'm getting this.

Here are the links to the articles about NAFTA again that you seem to have ignored when referring to NAFTA as a free trade agreement.

 

NAFTA, the TPP and the TTIP are Trojan horses with the likes of what I posted hiding inside.

 

Have another look and address what I am pointing out as apposed to paragraph after paragraph of nothingness about see what I have done, see who I know, and see what I know about nothing to do with the point.

 

http://nesara.insights2.org/NAFTA1.html

 

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/01/13/canada_being_sued_for_billions_under_nafta_investor_protections.html

 

Now go and watch the video that Hendricks posted and cringe.

Edited July 26, 2016 by niblick1874

[aussieh]

Fecking YouTube the undeniable source of truth.

 

Great speech Senator Warren.

 

Go Hillary.

[Hendricks]

FLOTUS was by far the speech of the night, absolutely superb. Can actually see her be in the conversation for a run in 2024. Outstanding speech easily eclipsing any of the politicians.

 

Warren was weak in comparison and said nothing of much substance merely bashing Trump (again) but with little positive to say about Clinton who she's previously despised. Irony was clearly lost on her given her constant "rigged" comments not to mention her points on student debt....coming from the woman who was paid $430k a year as a professor!

 

Sanders is a total sell out which was sad to see in my opinion. Given how anti he has been about her and then endorsed her he should be pretty ashamed.

 

If the Democrats want to win they should just keep rolling out speakers who aren't Hillary because as soon as people see her and remember that THIS is the person they have been speaking about they will remember just how God awful a woman she is.

Edited July 26, 2016 by Hendricks

[aussieh]

FLOTUS was by far the speech of the night, absolutely superb. Can actually see her be in the conversation for a run in 2024. Outstanding speech easily eclipsing any of the politicians.

 

Warren was weak in comparison and said nothing of much substance merely bashing Trump (again) but with little positive to say about Clinton who she's previously despised. Irony was clearly lost on her given her constant "rigged" comments not to mention her points on student debt....coming from the woman who was paid $430k a year as a professor!

 

Sanders is a total sell out which was sad to see in my opinion.

 

Go Hillary, Go Democrats.

[Hendricks]

Go Hillary, Go Democrats.

 

Shocks me 0% you would be backing her.

[aussieh]

Shocks me 0% you would be backing her.

Crayon, anyone?.

[Maple Leaf]

FLOTUS was by far the speech of the night, absolutely superb. Can actually see her be in the conversation for a run in 2024. Outstanding speech easily eclipsing any of the politicians.

 

Warren was weak in comparison and said nothing of much substance merely bashing Trump (again) but with little positive to say about Clinton who she's previously despised. Irony was clearly lost on her given her constant "rigged" comments not to mention her points on student debt....coming from the woman who was paid $430k a year as a professor!

 

Sanders is a total sell out which was sad to see in my opinion. Given how anti he has been about her and then endorsed her he should be pretty ashamed.

 

If the Democrats want to win they should just keep rolling out speakers who aren't Hillary because as soon as people see her and remember that THIS is the person they have been speaking about they will remember just how God awful a woman she is.

Michelle Obama was excellent.  She's a bright, eloquent woman.

 

Warren's speech was OK, in that she said all the right things, but she sure didn't get the crowd excited.  She was the poorest of the three that I saw.

 

Bernie did a good job, and I'd view his position as practical rather than a sell-out.  If he wants to be a part of the decision-making process in the new administration, he had to endorse Clinton, so that's what he did.  Whether he can keep his "revolution" going after the election remains to be seen.  His supporters seem to be very passionate, judging by all the teary faces on camera.

[Watt-Zeefuik]

FLOTUS was by far the speech of the night, absolutely superb. Can actually see her be in the conversation for a run in 2024. Outstanding speech easily eclipsing any of the politicians.

 

Warren was weak in comparison and said nothing of much substance merely bashing Trump (again) but with little positive to say about Clinton who she's previously despised. Irony was clearly lost on her given her constant "rigged" comments not to mention her points on student debt....coming from the woman who was paid $430k a year as a professor!

 

Sanders is a total sell out which was sad to see in my opinion. Given how anti he has been about her and then endorsed her he should be pretty ashamed.

 

If the Democrats want to win they should just keep rolling out speakers who aren't Hillary because as soon as people see her and remember that THIS is the person they have been speaking about they will remember just how God awful a woman she is.

 

Michelle Obama ruled the night.  Of that there is no doubt.

 

Strange comment about Warren's salary - she made $430k a year to be a full professor at the most oldest and prestigious school in the country.  Many CEOs are paid tens of millions and lose money doing it. Which one is the problem here?

 

In any case Warren is a policy wonk at heart and a politician only because the Senate blocked her appointment to the CFPB.  I thought her speech was good for filling out substance.  Tonight was the left-wing rollout, and Warren is a leftist star in the Senate right now and a major player if the Dems win a majority.  (As y'all know I'm a big fan.)

 

As to Sanders being a sellout, he's been pretty damn clear the whole campaign that his differences with Clinton are on policy, and that they agree more than they disagree.  I don't know what the BoBs were expecting.  They acted like dicks the whole night until Sarah Silverman cut them to pieces with one line.

[Hendricks]

LOL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2016 by Hendricks

[Hendricks]

 

 

 

[aussieh]

So who's who on jkb?

A few doublers on here.

[aussieh]

LOL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Massive poster of jkb fraudster.

ML this your Hendrick persona. You've made a booboo.

[Hendricks]

Massive poster of jkb fraudster.

ML this your Hendrick persona. You've made a booboo.

 

Eh? You really do post so much incoherent bs.

[aussieh]

Eh? You really do post so much incoherent bs.

Nae bother ML.

Keep the pictures coming. Cause that really is riveting.