Unwashed Village
General Discussion => Unwashed Village => Topic started by: BlueCross on October 10, 2016, 07:14:34 PM
-
Kudos to the Village for not bringing this up earlier.
But I just can't help myself.
It's not so much that I am a Hillary supporter but instead that I find it appalling than anyone could support Trump. I can understand not supporting Hillary; I'm fine with that.
But there don't seem to be enough disparaging words to describe Trump's behavior. The ability to ignore, overlook or deflect his incredible flaws by his supporters is... well... unbelievable.
Ugh... ugh... ugh...
-
I had this discussion with four New Yorkers I met on a bar in Budapest two weeks ago. Three of them were Trump supporters, one Hillary. All of them were there to teach US Politics.
The Trump supporters were mainly voted for him becuase they thought Hillary was a criminal (Haiti, the e-mails, etc.). But it also turns out that they had all voted republican as far back as they had been able to vote.
As an outsider, I can't imagine any scenario where out of 300+ million people, these are the two you wind up with.
-
Well, I'll come to Hillary's defense a bit. I don't believe she has engaged in criminal activities; every time they are investigated, nothing comes of it other than a 'stern warnng' once. Most of the actions against her have been deemed unfounded. The Republican mantra of 'Crooked Hillary' has been repeated enough times that it apparently has significant traction.
Every time I read something about her (Clinton Foundation, emails, Benghazi, etc) that seems exceptionally damaging, I do a serious amount of research on it.
And virtually every time it is smoke and mirrors; the Republicans have a smear campaign against her matched only by the one they had against Obama.
The worst I could find about her was that she made some errors in judgement (even though she had recommendations from Colin Powell) that resulted in some lower classified emails that COULD (but didn't) have some security ramifications. I've often wondered about her IT people, and the little I found out was not encouraging. In fact, one of them was called to some Congressional hearing and took the fifth.
But even if you don't buy into those arguments, then just listen only to the comments by the candidates themselves. The only way (in my opinion) you could support Trump then is because of an intense (and unfounded) hatred of either Hillary or the Democrats
Sidebar on Classified Documents:
For years, I held a Top Secret clearance; in fact, even the level of clearance I had was classified. One of the stranger side-effects of that clearance was that I was unable to fly over Communist Countries for seven years after I was no longer in a position that required that clearance. And in all my years in the military and as a private contractor, I NEVER ONCE saw a document tagged with the letter 'C' that indicated it was Confidential; classified documents that I saw were always clearly labeled "CONFIDENTIAL" (the lowest level), "SECRET" or "TOP SECRET". This whole issue of her not knowing that the 'C' tag on some emails meant "CONFIDENTIAL" is completely understandable to me and only a very minor breach of security.
OK, yeh, I guess I am a Hillary supporter.
-
I had this discussion with four New Yorkers I met on a bar in Budapest two weeks ago. Three of them were Trump supporters, one Hillary. All of them were there to teach US Politics.
The Trump supporters were mainly voted for him becuase they thought Hillary was a criminal (Haiti, the e-mails, etc.). But it also turns out that they had all voted republican as far back as they had been able to vote.
As an outsider, I can't imagine any scenario where out of 300+ million people, these are the two you wind up with.
It's what you get when you have a "first past the post" electoral system and the major two parties control the rules for the debates, thereby pretty much shutting out all third parties. (Not that the two most prominent third parties put up candidates that were particularly compelling in their own right. About the only thing that can be said about them is that neither one is Trump or Hillary.)
This was the year for the Green Party or the Libertarian party to put up a candidate who could really shine (though, the 15% in polls to be able to debate thing is part of the reason third parties struggle). But the Green party has an anti-vaccination medical doctor. (Seriously, WTF?) And she believes Wi-Fi is a threat to children's health. (Seriously, WTF?) And the Libertarians have a guy who doesn't know what Aleppo is, and after screwing that up in one interview, was stumped in a second interview by a reporter asking him who his favorite foreign leader was, mainly because he didn't know any of their names. The Aleppo gaffe might have been excusable since everyone has a brain fart here and there. But you'd think the guy would have at least tried to bone-up on foreign policy for his next interview, but nope.
The only candidate even remotely qualified to be president is Hillary. And that's a sad state of affairs. But the idea that anyone can get elected POTUS is a joke. It takes a lot of money and a lot of connections just to be in the running.
-
And in all my years in the military and as a private contractor, I NEVER ONCE saw a document tagged with the letter 'C' that indicated it was Confidential; classified documents that I saw were always clearly labeled "CONFIDENTIAL" (the lowest level), "SECRET" or "TOP SECRET".
Ditto. Though I was always working for a contractor when I had my clearance.
-
This was the year for the Green Party or the Libertarian party to put up a candidate who could really shine
I have mixed feelings about 3rd (and 4th) party candidates. Full Disclosure: I am a member of the Green Party. But I don't like those names on the ballot. They will never garner enough votes (in our current two party system) to win, and all they do is suck votes from the Democrats (or most of the votes, anyway).
I also agree that the Green and Libertarian party candidates are exceptionally weak this year; I would never vote for either of them.
-
And to keep fanning the anti-Trump flames, here is an article about the 2nd debate:
NY Times Article (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/opinion/donald-trump-barbarian-at-the-debate.html?action=click&contentCollection=Times%20Insider&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article)
-
But the Green party has an anti-vaccination medical doctor. (Seriously, WTF?) And she believes Wi-Fi is a threat to children's health. (Seriously, WTF?)
I heard these weren't true. I think I saw on her website addressing this saying it was false.
But what do I know? I survive on a steady diet of tangerines.
-
"Will my fear of tangerines compel the dead midget in my closet to spring back to life and crap on my bed?"
Asked on Yahoo.
And answered:
"Only if the pomogranite in your drawer speaks in aremaic."
"Only if you don't pat the brown duck at the top of the hill."
"What is it with you and midgets? Don't you know midgets never die! And yes, the tangerines will compel it to strike back with a vengeance! Destroy all citrus fruits, immediately!"
-
I hated Trump before it was cool for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Forbes_(farmer)
-
I hated Trump before it was cool for this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Forbes_(farmer)
Ha-ha, love it!
-
Oh, and anyone who faults a criminal defense attorney for reducing the penalty their client receives or getting an acquittal has no business being the head of the Executive Branch of the United States of America.
John Adams is rolling over in his fucking grave right now.
-
Oh, and anyone who faults a criminal defense attorney for reducing the penalty their client receives or getting an acquittal has no business being the head of the Executive Branch of the United States of America.
John Adams is rolling over in his fucking grave right now.
Where's the 'like' button?
-
I don't really know what I'm going to do, I can't stand any of the candidates. Trump lacks tact and has always been a bigot and pretty racist, can't see that anyone believes he genuinely cares about anything but making money. His (in)ability to handle foreign policy should scare everyone, imagine him trying to bluster his way through a UN meeting or visiting foreign dignitaries. Not big on many of his stances either, be it immigration of abortion. Trump is like if the internet comment section of youtube was given a human body, he's the result.
Hillary is just as unconscionable. It's true that both have the PR machines working against them pretty heavily, some of it's pretty extreme. That said, while I don't agree with the "jail her!" cries, I find that she's so untrustworthy and willing to flip flop at the drop of a hat just to get a vote. She basically lied about the emails and even the FBI said she was "extremely careless" which, along with the Clintons overall history, doesn't engender feelings that she'll handle things well as President. Hell, anyone I know probably would have lost their security clearance instead of having a slap on the wrist for sending/receiving work emails (especially classified ones, whether she realized it or not,) after being counseled that it wasn't a good idea. I know she isn't the only one to do it but that doesn't really make anything better. Nevermind if the leaks (which I still consider dubious, so trying to not lend them too much credence yet,) about her talks with wall street are actually true.
That said, it's a bit unfair that people attack her based on Bill's actions. I think most of that is fear of him having any sort of sway when she's in office, or a lack of judgement if many of the allegations are true.
-
I'm at once comforted and horrified that I have absolutely no say in what I fear might be a train crash on a national scale.
Trump and his golf course are responsible for destroying the bio diversity and forcing people from their homes on the Aberdeen coastline, I may be glad to be out of there but it used to be one of my favourite places up that way. I hate to think about what would come out of his administration.
Not that our current givernmental parody is any better.
-
Hillary is just as unconscionable...
I'm gonna have to be a Hillary fan-boy for a few moments here.
First, there are HUGE differences in levels of classified material. Losing track or being careless with Confidential material is nothing like doing the same with Top Secret material. A slap on the wrist is generally what happens with a first offense with low-level security breaches. Also note that very few classification prosecutions are brought to court UNLESS the government can prove malice and/or intent.
Second, she was warned AFTER the fact, not before. The worst thing (in my view) is she just took some bad advice.
I seriously suggest to anyone who is anti-Hillary to do multi-researches on any issue you believe she has a serious problem with (obviously you wouldn't go to Rush Limbaugh et. al. for sources but you don't need to go to her camp as well). I have yet find any substantive evidence against her that is seriously damning.
-
The book A Deriliction of Duty (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009YJB6T2/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1) paints a believable picture of Hillary in my mind. It's not a very flattering picture but shows that she knows the system inside and out and will not hesitate to use it.
Trump on the other hand.... I feel this parliament hearing (https://www.c-span.org/video/?403099-1/british-house-commons-debate-barring-donald-trump-uk) should speak for itself but apparently doesn't. When one of our allies has to even think about discussing barring a presidential hopeful from the country, what does that say about his foreign policy?
As much as I want anyone rather than Hillary because of who she seems to be as a person, she might be the right person for the job (at least of the options). We know she knows the system and as almighty Oprah said - I don't have to have her over for dinner. I just desperately wish I had another realistic option.
-
My knee-jerk reaction on reading about Patterson and his book was that he was just another right-wing wacko. I tried to do a more in-depth research on him (and his book) but could find surprisingly little other than what you would expect to find on right-wing wacko sites.
A lot of his stuff has been debunked; I found this quote "his brief book does not contain much more than a collection of mostly unsubstantiated anecdotes and rumors aiming to denigrate the Clintons". On the same page, I also found this interesting quote "Shelton’s sober account now substantiates at least one story in Patterson’s book" which has a strong implication that people have to dig pretty deep to find any stuff that can be verified.
It seems that if Patterson's book was accurate and verifiable, you would find a lot of it being quoted by the Trump propaganda machine. Since it isn't, I surmise that they are worried about the backlash from quoting (not a valid argument by me here, but still, it is a talking point).
Anyway, until I kind some convincing arguments elsewhere, I will lump Patterson into the Rush Limbaugh deplorables.
-
I was thinking more of the portrayal of the Clintons as people not necessarily as politicians. History is already telling us what to think of the 90's. Hillary was only mentioned in a few chapters of the book, the focus was more on complaining about Bill.
The book is strongly anecdotal but it confirms stuff that is easily seen. Hillary is a PR machine and I'm not sure there is any documented occurrence of her acting like an actual person rather than (excuse the term) a Kardashian. At face value she is a facade but she does have a strong history proving she knows what she's talking about.
-
Fair enough.
-
Fuck
-
Fuck indeed.
-
Fuuuuuuck
-
America, Fuck Yeah
-
I'd say plenty of reasons to not like Hillary, but then I'd have to get into specifics about which Hillary
the one that's always been a moderate,
or
the one that's always been a progressive
the one that gives s speech to Verizon execs
or
the one that goes down to the street with Verizon workers on strike for a photo op
When her stance depends on audience, it's hard to figure out what she actually supports. But when the DNC lifted Obama's ban on contributions from lobbyists, the DNC used state and local Democratic parties to launder money for her campaign, it proved just how strong her Wall Street ties are; well that and the board meeting she had with her "investors"/donors to explain why she lost. Later on, she would accept full responsibility for her loss, and then in the same breath, blame Comey. Despite all of her flaws, despite the obvious electioneering and the obvious collusion, the only reason she lost is because she alienated voters. She alienated them with things she said. She alienated them with her million dollar troll brigade. She alienated them with her fake news stories being pushed by David Brock and Blue Nation Review. And then her loyal followers followed her example attacking anyone that was not on board with her 100%.
The DNC has not denied collusion with the Clinton campaign in the current lawsuit against them, instead they insisted there was no reason for impartiality because they are a private organization, and even that they can pick their own candidate regardless of tax payer funded primaries. Of course it helped to have people from her earlier campaign now in key positions within the DNC for this campaign.
Now as far as any criminal negligence on her part regarding her server and the emails, I think you're aware that in fact during the Congressional hearing with Comey (available on C-Span's website) he did admit there was criminal negligence on her part. In fact, whether you hate her or are a diehard fan, you really should actually watch the video. Yes, it's long and boring, and Democrats try to build up Comey like they're trying to score a date with him. But just listen to his answers when they actually ask him questions.
And keep in mind Hillary was not just some janitor at a school, she was the Secretary of State, a position that required handling classified information on a daily basis. Her server was without a valid security certificate for 3 months. And we all know about Paul Combetta asking about how to edit the email database during the FBI's investigation, a move that would be considered tampering with evidence/ destruction of evidence. He also posted some details about the server that should never have been posted, and then went back and started deleting these posts during the congressional hearing.
The legality of the server itself hasn't come up as much as the question behind the reasoning for it. It's been shown that Sate Department and the Clinton foundation had enough overlap in business to raise several red flags. In fact, even the Washington Post, where Podesta is now a columnist, wrote a piece on it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/emails-reveal-how-foundation-donors-got-access-to-clinton-and-her-close-aides-at-state-dept/2016/08/22/345b5200-6882-11e6-8225-fbb8a6fc65bc_story.html?utm_term=.47d76e1128ab
Thank god she wants to lead the #McResistance now. Not sure what she's resisting, except responsibility for her own actions. But at least she gets to handle someone else's money again.
-
Why don't we overthrow every world's government and replace it with soviet llamas, that would be better than any candidate of any nation to date.
-
Later on, she would accept full responsibility for her loss, and then in the same breath, blame Comey.
I fucking saw that too! And I about lost my shit when she said "If the election had been held on October 27, I'd be your president" The arrogance of that fucking woman! Even if Comey had influenced enough people past the tipping point to cost her the election, theres no way to fucking prove things would be different. She's not some inter-dimensional time traveler. Its just a rather pathetic coping mechanism to justify what she was overly confident would happen, but didn't.
My dad always used to say "don't use shoulda/coulda/woulda and just accept the results of your actions". Instead of admitting "Our message wasn't very good, and my campaign focused too narrowly on population centers. Trump obviously had more support across broader areas." its blaming Russia, Comey, and now even the DNC. Its pretty scary, and i'm thankful things happened the way they did. I earnestly think the election results may have been influenced by God, and what was meant to happen did.
-
Meh.
Really, I blame the whole thing on the third parties. This was arguably the first election where they could have actually won, thus establishing themselves as relevant. But the Greens and the Libertarians put up horrible candidates. Seriously. If I were the head of the Green party I would have have begged Ralph Nader (who isn't actually a Green, but ran for them previously) to run again. He certainly would have been better than any of the other choices. And the Libertarians should have had their Veep be running as for Pres, and gotten someone with a clue to run as Veep.
The two major parties put up very unlikable candidates. It was a golden chance for the other parties. But they shat the bed.
Do I think Hillary would have been better than Trump. Yep! Do I think she was a particularly good candidate? Nope! But I sure as Hell wasn't voting for anyone else. And that's really a sad statement for someone who prides himself on usually voting for third parties. I just couldn't do it this time, even though the major party candidate I voted for was probably worse than any of the other major party candidates I could have voted for in other elections/positions.