US Elections 2016

[Wrath of Dagon]

Why is Reuters writing an article about something that has "no substantive evidence"? Obviously they have sources which are credible. My opinion doesn't matter, it's the FBI's opinion which will matter once they finish their investigation.

[Elerond]

 

My point was that rebels wouldn't have been able to kill Gaddafi without help from west and people in west need admit consequences of their actions too (they supported, even demanded deposing Gaddafi and his supporters, they give arms to rebels that had ties to Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, they used their superior military strength to destroy Libya's national army, important infrastructure, legal institutions that kept peace in the land, without these actions current situation in Libya would be different and Gaddafi probably would still be alive)

But the only way you could reasonably blame the West for wanting to depose Gaddafi is if you believe the Arab Spring was a creation of the West....do you believe that?

 

Yes and no. But western want to depose Gaddafi had little to do with Arab Spring, it just give them opportunity do something that they had wanted to do for long time before that point. And fact that people in Libya wanted to depose Gaddafi give west absolution of responsibility of their actions in Libya. I must admit that I just can't comprehend your reasoning why Arab Spring would anyway remove/lessen responsibility that west has over their actions and decisions.

[BruceVC]

Why is Reuters writing an article about something that has "no substantive evidence"? Obviously they have sources which are credible. My opinion doesn't matter, it's the FBI's opinion which will matter once they finish their investigation.

Thats a good question, I'm  glad you asked that. That article is a cleverly written piece of anti-Clinton propaganda. It was created for one reason, to besmirch Hilary Clinton and to try to erode her integrity. Its common in politics, it contains just enough " information "  to make you think its credible but then  consider points they make 

 

• That campaign has been widely reported by Reuters and other media outlets, but it officially is classified as a “Top Secret/Special Access Program” (SAP), meaning only a limited number of people whose names are on a special list are allowed to learn details about it.
• A spokesman for NGA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. CIA spokespeople declined to comment.
• It was unclear what the congressional committees that received the classified reports, the House and Senate intelligence and foreign relations panels, will do with them. The contents cannot be discussed publicly. The committees requested intelligence reports in connection with their efforts to ensure that government secrets are appropriately protected.

So in fact basically we have NO idea if she was vindicated, chastised, supported.....its very incoherent the whole  thing

[Guard Dog]

 

He's going to win. Dammit he should not win but he's going to: http://freebeacon.com/blog/7-reasons-democrats-should-be-terrified-of-donald-trump/

 

 

Well, you all know what I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowVkIzBixc

He plays well to the disenfranchised party base. He hits all their buzzwords and topics and seems like he'd be WoD's personal favorite for "never ever EVER give anything away!". It's no surprise that he's winning the party where voter base considers getting 99% of what they want an utter failure. The thing is he'll either wind up against Hillary who's moderate enough she could probably catch several of the voters who feel Trump is to insane to vote for, while also getting the consistent democratic majority (in recent years/last decade) of the youth vote in a situation where many would turn up simply NOT to see Trump attain presidency. Or he'd be up against Bernie, who's activated the disenfranchised liberal base and would probably be able to get the entire party behind him because (as of right now) the democrats are significantly better organized than their opponents.

 

You right. The sad thing is the party base is disenfranchised because the elected politicians go to Washington and become big government liberals. They are nearly indistinguishable from the Democrats except on the odd social justice issues they feel offers the opportunity to "throw the base a bone". Now in response to that disenfranchisement the base is supporting a man whose few policy admissions favor big government authoritarianism and who has been pretty left of center on almost all his public utterances over the years. This is a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Wrath of Dagon]

@Bruce It's not anti-Clinton propaganda, it's an objective article. We don't know if she's vindicated or chastised because the investigation isn't finished yet, which is also a reason no one will talk on record. That's how journalism works here, I don't know about SA. And what "campaign" are you talking about, this is about top secret documents which were improperly sent over public internet to a private non-secure server.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

Well, I'm not voting for Trump. No way, no how. And I'm sure as hell not voting for a goddamned democrat. Not now, not ever. The love of freedom, liberty and federalsim does not exist in any of their hearts.

 

So it looks like I'm voting LP this year for President. Besides, someone has to.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

He's going to win. Dammit he should not win but he's going to: http://freebeacon.com/blog/7-reasons-democrats-should-be-terrified-of-donald-trump/

 

 

Well, you all know what I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowVkIzBixc

He plays well to the disenfranchised party base. He hits all their buzzwords and topics and seems like he'd be WoD's personal favorite for "never ever EVER give anything away!". It's no surprise that he's winning the party where voter base considers getting 99% of what they want an utter failure. The thing is he'll either wind up against Hillary who's moderate enough she could probably catch several of the voters who feel Trump is to insane to vote for, while also getting the consistent democratic majority (in recent years/last decade) of the youth vote in a situation where many would turn up simply NOT to see Trump attain presidency. Or he'd be up against Bernie, who's activated the disenfranchised liberal base and would probably be able to get the entire party behind him because (as of right now) the democrats are significantly better organized than their opponents.

 

You right. The sad thing is the party base is disenfranchised because the elected politicians go to Washington and become big government liberals. They are nearly indistinguishable from the Democrats except on the odd social justice issues they feel offers the opportunity to "throw the base a bone". Now in response to that disenfranchisement the base is supporting a man whose few policy admissions favor big government authoritarianism and who has been pretty left of center on almost all his public utterances over the years. This is a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

Republican competition isn't about liberal vs conservative any more. It's about corporatist globalists vs populist nationalists. Granted Trump has a lot of faults but he's all we got.

[BruceVC]

 

 

My point was that rebels wouldn't have been able to kill Gaddafi without help from west and people in west need admit consequences of their actions too (they supported, even demanded deposing Gaddafi and his supporters, they give arms to rebels that had ties to Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, they used their superior military strength to destroy Libya's national army, important infrastructure, legal institutions that kept peace in the land, without these actions current situation in Libya would be different and Gaddafi probably would still be alive)

But the only way you could reasonably blame the West for wanting to depose Gaddafi is if you believe the Arab Spring was a creation of the West....do you believe that?

 

Yes and no. But western want to depose Gaddafi had little to do with Arab Spring, it just give them opportunity do something that they had wanted to do for long time before that point. And fact that people in Libya wanted to depose Gaddafi give west absolution of responsibility of their actions in Libya. I must admit that I just can't comprehend your reasoning why Arab Spring would anyway remove/lessen responsibility that west has over their actions and decisions.

 

Yes I agree to a certain degree...once the Libyan conflict started the West wanted to depose Gaddafi, I also wanted that. He was dictator who abused his country and his people

 

I would add 6-8 current African leaders that I wish would  be removed from power and arrested for numerous crimes...people like Gaddafi never had a real  election when he was in power....not once, not once in 40 years . He was never the legitimate leader of Libya 

 

And the reason I keep bringing up the Arab Spring is that was the reason in places like Libya and Syria there was a civil war...irrespective of what the West did once these conflicts started the West is not to blame for causing them

[BruceVC]

@Bruce It's not anti-Clinton propaganda, it's an objective article. We don't know if she's vindicated or chastised because the investigation isn't finished yet, which is also a reason no one will talk on record. That's how journalism works here, I don't know about SA. And what "campaign" are you talking about, this is about top secret documents which were improperly sent over public internet to a private non-secure server.

Yes but the outcome will still be secretive, unless you saying the outcome will become public record later?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well, I'm not voting for Trump. No way, no how. And I'm sure as hell not voting for a goddamned democrat. Not now, not ever. The love of freedom, liberty and federalsim does not exist in any of their hearts.

 

So it looks like I'm voting LP this year for President. Besides, someone has to.

Are you going to take a chance on Democrats appointing the next Supreme Court justice? And before you say Trump will appoint a liberal any way, remember when GWB tried to appoint Harriet Myers, and the whole conservative base went nuclear.

 

 

@Bruce It's not anti-Clinton propaganda, it's an objective article. We don't know if she's vindicated or chastised because the investigation isn't finished yet, which is also a reason no one will talk on record. That's how journalism works here, I don't know about SA. And what "campaign" are you talking about, this is about top secret documents which were improperly sent over public internet to a private non-secure server.

Yes but the outcome will still be secretive, unless you saying the outcome will become public record later?

 

There's no way they'll be able to keep something that important secret, trust me on this. We'll know what FBI recommends, one way or another. Edited February 27, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[BruceVC]

 

Are you going to take a chance on Democrats appointing the next Supreme Court justice? And before you say Trump will appoint a liberal any way, remember when GWB tried to appoint Harriet Myers, and the whole conservative base went nuclear.

 

WOD do you hunt in Texas? I mentioned to you how I met several Texas hunters in SA....hardcore guys, real outdoor survivalists. The type of people who could live in the wilderness if necessary  

[Meshugger]

 

 

He's going to win. Dammit he should not win but he's going to: http://freebeacon.com/blog/7-reasons-democrats-should-be-terrified-of-donald-trump/

 

 

Well, you all know what I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowVkIzBixc

He plays well to the disenfranchised party base. He hits all their buzzwords and topics and seems like he'd be WoD's personal favorite for "never ever EVER give anything away!". It's no surprise that he's winning the party where voter base considers getting 99% of what they want an utter failure. The thing is he'll either wind up against Hillary who's moderate enough she could probably catch several of the voters who feel Trump is to insane to vote for, while also getting the consistent democratic majority (in recent years/last decade) of the youth vote in a situation where many would turn up simply NOT to see Trump attain presidency. Or he'd be up against Bernie, who's activated the disenfranchised liberal base and would probably be able to get the entire party behind him because (as of right now) the democrats are significantly better organized than their opponents.

 

You right. The sad thing is the party base is disenfranchised because the elected politicians go to Washington and become big government liberals. They are nearly indistinguishable from the Democrats except on the odd social justice issues they feel offers the opportunity to "throw the base a bone". Now in response to that disenfranchisement the base is supporting a man whose few policy admissions favor big government authoritarianism and who has been pretty left of center on almost all his public utterances over the years. This is a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

 

Trump fits into the paleo-conservative folder, which in turn leaves a lot of libertanians, constitutionalists and mostly neo-cons scratching their heads.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

 

 

 

Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially regarding issues such as military interventionism, illegal immigration and high rates of legal immigration, as well as multiculturalism, affirmative action, free trade, and foreign aid.[1]

 

Why not vote for Gary Johnson, btw?

[Meshugger]

...and about Clinton. There are rumors abound that about half of the FBI will resign (well important people atleast) due to what they have found during the investigation. But since it is not completed yet, and the details will most likely remain top secret due to their content, the rumors are only that: rumors.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

He's going to win. Dammit he should not win but he's going to: http://freebeacon.com/blog/7-reasons-democrats-should-be-terrified-of-donald-trump/

 

 

Well, you all know what I think: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HowVkIzBixc

He plays well to the disenfranchised party base. He hits all their buzzwords and topics and seems like he'd be WoD's personal favorite for "never ever EVER give anything away!". It's no surprise that he's winning the party where voter base considers getting 99% of what they want an utter failure. The thing is he'll either wind up against Hillary who's moderate enough she could probably catch several of the voters who feel Trump is to insane to vote for, while also getting the consistent democratic majority (in recent years/last decade) of the youth vote in a situation where many would turn up simply NOT to see Trump attain presidency. Or he'd be up against Bernie, who's activated the disenfranchised liberal base and would probably be able to get the entire party behind him because (as of right now) the democrats are significantly better organized than their opponents.

 

You right. The sad thing is the party base is disenfranchised because the elected politicians go to Washington and become big government liberals. They are nearly indistinguishable from the Democrats except on the odd social justice issues they feel offers the opportunity to "throw the base a bone". Now in response to that disenfranchisement the base is supporting a man whose few policy admissions favor big government authoritarianism and who has been pretty left of center on almost all his public utterances over the years. This is a classic example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

 

Trump fits into the paleo-conservative folder, which in turn leaves a lot of libertanians, constitutionalists and mostly neo-cons scratching their heads.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

 

 

 

Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives, especially regarding issues such as military interventionism, illegal immigration and high rates of legal immigration, as well as multiculturalism, affirmative action, free trade, and foreign aid.[1]

 

Why not vote for Gary Johnson, btw?

 

Why not indeed. Why haven't we heard more about this one I wonder: http://www.shawnasterling.org/. Well besides the fact she is only on the ballot in Kentucky. And has no shot. She does seem to be a big 10th amendment  proponent though and this is one of my big issues. In the end any vote not for either the R or D is, at best, a statistical statement. The Libertarian & Green Parties are growing but neither projects to ever reach the big stage.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Elerond]

Why not indeed. Why haven't we heard more about this one I wonder: http://www.shawnasterling.org/

 

 

 

I would guess that reason is same as why she has not hired designer to do her web page. Meaning no money, no voice.

[Guard Dog]

Earlier I started writing a post that sounded good at first but devolved into a three paragraph rant. I deleted it before posting because I like all of you too much to make you read it. But I can sum it up this way, the love of real liberty is being lost in this country. If it isn't already gone that it. The religious right wants a government that will force everyone to behave like they think christians should. The socialist left idolaizes Europe and wants a government that will force everyone into their interperetation of "benevolent" socialisim. The center left & right want a government that makes the world safe for corportatisim and "secure" state where everyone is watched. All of them say they favor small business but nose of them really do because small business can't help them. Where do you turn when you just want to be left alone? The Libertarians. But small good that does when no one listens.

[ShadySands]

Hmm, I'd like to watch the Libertarian debate tonight

 

Link if anyone else is interested

[Guard Dog]

Thanks Shady, I'll give that a look.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

 

 

And yet there was a popular uprising that ultimately led to him being literally beaten to death.

 

Deliberately obtuse or just uninformed?

 

Neither, he is right. Gaddafi was captured hiding in some drain and then killed by his captives a short time later....he got what he deserved. And this was the Libyan rebels....not the West who killed him

 

 

When you arm, finance and offer intelligence, air and electric communication support to people that did the deed can you really say that you weren't involved? 

 

Sure if that was what supported the Arab Spring you would be right....but the West didn't arm, finance or initially support the Arab Spring. It was an ideological movement  created and spread by Muslims who wanted a more equitable  society in many countries in the North Africa and the ME who were tired of being ruled by families or dictators for decades 

 

 

But Libya's rebels were armed and supported by west in their effort to depose Gaddafi. Even if rebellion itself was not started by west, said rebellion would have most likely failed without help from west. So it is quite dubious to say that west didn't play part in Gaddafi's death. 

 

Let take hypothetical and badly fitting metaphor to give an example that resembles situation distantly. Person has been beaten and otherwise subjugated by thier spouse and then they plan to get revenge against said spouse and ask help from their neighbor who then provides them a gun, and then goes and strikes said spouse unconscious and then leaves said person with a gun to sort things out with their unconscious spouse, who then shoot their spouse. Would you say that neighbor in question is innocent and didn't partake in said murder anyway, because said person was already planning to murder their spouse?

 

 

The "rebels" only existed in the first place because of outside encouragement and support. Even Lenin had to get a wagon of German gold to make the revolution happen, and that was in a state that was disintegrating.

 

There is no such thing as "popular protests", every protest has to be organized and the organizers, if not the rabble on the street, do it for a purpose.

 

But this is known to anyone who knows anything about politics.

 

And utterly besides my original point, which was that Hillary Clinton is a monster. She's a monster because she doesn't even realize how casually evil she is - as is evident from the video. Basic lack of empathy is a trait of psychopaths. 

[ShadySands]

Anytime anyone calls someone a monster I hear it in that creepy calm voice of the Yandere simulator guy

 

Edit - In an attempt to make this post on topic and less about my weird word associations

 

I finally got my caucus info for Tuesday. Two flyers, one from the Sanders campaign and one from our local state rep

Edited February 27, 2016 by ShadySands

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Earlier I started writing a post that sounded good at first but devolved into a three paragraph rant. I deleted it before posting because I like all of you too much to make you read it.

Spam it on forums that you don't like.

 

But I can sum it up this way, the love of real liberty is being lost in this country.

But what is real liberty? I've heard AnCaps argue it's free markets, Left Libertarians argue it's freedom from property(ie being able to work land without paying some guy because he has a piece of paper saying he owns it) and the state, Fascists argue it's the establishment of a home for your nation, and other non-mutually inclusive statements from various ideologies. It seems to me that "real liberty" is determined by ideology rather than being a constant value, which is why the religious liberty folks feel justified in state enforced standards based on theocratic values and calling it liberty.

 

The socialist left idolaizes Europe and wants a government that will force everyone into their interperetation of "benevolent" socialisim.

The social democrats perhaps, but socialists are more likely to be bitching at each other about whether reformism will work or if a terra cotta proletarian army will spring up and put their special snowflake party with maybe 100 members into power.

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

Are you going to take a chance on Democrats appointing the next Supreme Court justice? And before you say Trump will appoint a liberal any way, remember when GWB tried to appoint Harriet Myers, and the whole conservative base went nuclear.

WOD do you hunt in Texas? I mentioned to you how I met several Texas hunters in SA....hardcore guys, real outdoor survivalists. The type of people who could live in the wilderness if necessary

 

No, the most I'm willing to kill is a mosquito or a fly.

[HoonDing]

Trump will make the Dallas Cowboys great again.

[ShadySands]

^In that case I hope someone assassinates him

 

I was willing to let everything else go but that's too far

[Meshugger]

What's the deal with Dallas Cowboys? I've seen it referenced everywhere from The Simpsons to random memes.

 

Make a eurofag understand.