US Elections 2016

[kgambit]

 

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/apply.asp

 

Nahh, stay and fight to change.  That and Canadians are largely all ****, passive aggressive ****, yes. But ****.

 

 

Actually that wasn't a personal plan but more of a suggestion to some other folks.  My mother was Canadian however, so there's that. 

[Namutree]

 

While GWB had that boyish "imma just going show those bad kids that what they are doing is wrong!" kind of vibe going for him for justifying his military actions, Hillary uses the military as a debraved extension of power. Case in the same youtube link as before:

Don't think she has authority over the military enough to 'use' it. At least she probably won't surround herself with devils like GWB did with Clark, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld.

 

Hillary is as bad as any of them. She doesn't need to surround herself with them.

[Hurlshort]

Hillary is bad, but every time I see her Gaddafi video I also think of this:

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

While GWB had that boyish "imma just going show those bad kids that what they are doing is wrong!" kind of vibe going for him for justifying. his military actions, Hillary uses the military as a debraved extension of power. Case in the same youtube link as before:

Don't think she has authority over the military enough to 'use' it. At least she probably won't surround herself with devils like GWB did with Clark, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld.

 

Hillary is as bad as any of them. She doesn't need to surround herself with them.

 

Nah she is fine, I would suggest  you consider a reality where she becomes the next USA president...compare her to Trump and his ideas of how to " make America great again " ( This is one of the many Trump contradictions. The USA is already great, I'm not sure how much more great Trump can make it ? )

 

And this video Drowsy keeps posting with some sound bites about Hilary taken out of context is no reason I have lost any faith in her and I encourage others to ignore them as well

[Barothmuk]

Nah she is fine, I would suggest  you consider a reality where she becomes the next USA president...compare her to Trump and his ideas of how to " make America great again " ( This is one of the many Trump contradictions. The USA is already great, I'm not sure how much more great Trump can make it ? )

[Malcador]

Hillary is bad, but every time I see her Gaddafi video I also think of this:

 

If only he'd shoot himself.

[Meshugger]

 

While GWB had that boyish "imma just going show those bad kids that what they are doing is wrong!" kind of vibe going for him for justifying his military actions, Hillary uses the military as a debraved extension of power. Case in the same youtube link as before:

Don't think she has authority over the military enough to 'use' it. At least she probably won't surround herself with devils like GWB did with Clark, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld.

 

 

Case in point. GWB's decisions was based on the input of the greatest hawks. In case of Hillary, she will not need them, as she is as dumb and aggressive as them. See post http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/84229-us-elections-2016/?p=1781915

 

 

Just based on my amateur knowledge in psychology.

 

By which you mean "absolutely no knowledge at all", surely  

 

 

I work in an industry where smiley glad hands with hidden agendas are the norm. You really have to to be good to hide your intensions, of which Hillary is very bad at and easily spotted. Maybe Social Engineering is better word for it than Psychology though, i give you that.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Meshugger

[Guard Dog]

I concerns me that all of the "not Trump" candidates agree Donald winning would not be a good thing. Yet none of them are willing to step back and consolidate their support behind just one "not trump" candidate. It worries me when someone wants power so badly they'll burn down the world as long as they can be king of the ashes. 

 

(Yes I stole that line, but it was a good one!)

[Guard Dog]

 

Of course admiring someone does not mean you agree with every dumbs--t stupid thing they ever said. But I'm sure you can see the double standard here. If Hillary had an R after her name this would have been the lead story in every newspaper. They excoriated Trump for not even knowing who David Duke was.  

Edited March 3, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Malcador]

David Duke isn't a corpse though or someone who was notable sufficient time ago to excuse ignorance of their stances. If it had been him with Wallace I could kind of get it.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Malcador

[Rostere]

 

While GWB had that boyish "imma just going show those bad kids that what they are doing is wrong!" kind of vibe going for him for justifying his military actions, Hillary uses the military as a debraved extension of power. Case in the same youtube link as before:

Don't think she has authority over the military enough to 'use' it. At least she probably won't surround herself with devils like GWB did with Clark, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld.

 

Sorry to break it to you, but Hillary Clinton's go-to consultancy firm used for foreign policy advice is the same one Rubio uses. The two are all but identical on foreign policy issues. Hillary has always been a foreign policy hawk historically (except for a short period in the run-up for 2008), and so unless you are suggesting she is some kind of Manchurian candidate for the realist foreign policy crowd, she will do the walk like she does the talk.

 

Anyway, you are completely off the point when you talk about this as if decisions would originate in Hillary's mind, or that her own psychology would be the deciding factor. Hillary will likely do whatever her advisors (and donors, indirectly) tell her to. Reading about how foreign policy decisions are made in the Obama administration would show you very clearly how much presidents' decisions rely on advisors. She has been paid off by neocons, been groomed by neocons, and so expect her administration to be crowded with neocon "experts" just like in the GWB years. There is literally no reason to expect otherwise, and even some old GWB neocons have already started migrating from the GOP to the comfort of the Hillary camp in case Trump signals a decreased tolerance for their foreign policy there.

 

I concerns me that all of the "not Trump" candidates agree Donald winning would not be a good thing. Yet none of them are willing to step back and consolidate their support behind just one "not trump" candidate. It worries me when someone wants power so badly they'll burn down the world as long as they can be king of the ashes.

I think you have missed something. All the #NeverTrump people had already coalesced around one candidate, and that candidate was Marco Rubio. When he was repeatedly mauled, some started pushing to vote for a third party (to give Hillary the election) or outright endorsing Clinton. A lot of people don't want Cruz either. If he was in the lead, we would see #NeverCruz instead. Naturally, Cruz want people to look upon him as the anti-Trump candidate, but in that quest he's really just exploiting the hysteria and hot air of the Rubio people. Meanwhile, Kasich is only in this to try to deprive Trump of Ohio, which might be crucial in order to achieve a brokered convention.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Rostere

[HoonDing]

http://www.dw.com/en/what-donald-trump-learned-from-his-german-grandpa-friedrich-drumpf/a-18701551

[Guard Dog]

 

 

I believe you hit the nail on the head here. The only hope they have of putting Trump down now is a brokered convention. What a mess. 

[Malcador]

Sorry to break it to you, but Hillary Clinton's go-to consultancy firm used for foreign policy advice is the same one Rubio uses. The two are all but identical on foreign policy issues. Hillary has always been a foreign policy hawk historically (except for a short period in the run-up for 2008), and so unless you are suggesting she is some kind of Manchurian candidate for the realist foreign policy crowd, she will do the walk like she does the talk.

 

Anyway, you are completely off the point when you talk about this as if decisions would originate in Hillary's mind, or that her own psychology would be the deciding factor. Hillary will likely do whatever her advisors (and donors, indirectly) tell her to. Reading about how foreign policy decisions are made in the Obama administration would show you very clearly how much presidents' decisions rely on advisors. She has been paid off by neocons, been groomed by neocons, and so expect her administration to be crowded with neocon "experts" just like in the GWB years. There is literally no reason to expect otherwise, and even some old GWB neocons have already started migrating from the GOP to the comfort of the Hillary camp in case Trump signals a decreased tolerance for their foreign policy there.

Interesting. I wasn't talking about her psychology - would be rather amusing to do so based on the information we have here, but hardly would be a shock, heh. Kind of funny that neocons would strongly consider voting for her though - article does paint it strongly as lesser evil rather than some sort of positive alignment.

 

Was curious what Wolfowitz was up to these days, came across this - http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/ADL-Farrakhan-praises-Trump-for-refusing-Jewish-campaign-donors-446553

 

And they say Trump is racist.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Malcador

[Malcador]

Actually that wasn't a personal plan but more of a suggestion to some other folks.  My mother was Canadian however, so there's that. 

Had intended the reply to be general, my mistake. Always knew there was something dodgy about you...turns out I was half right

[Meshugger]

 

Sorry to break it to you, but Hillary Clinton's go-to consultancy firm used for foreign policy advice is the same one Rubio uses. The two are all but identical on foreign policy issues. Hillary has always been a foreign policy hawk historically (except for a short period in the run-up for 2008), and so unless you are suggesting she is some kind of Manchurian candidate for the realist foreign policy crowd, she will do the walk like she does the talk.

 

Anyway, you are completely off the point when you talk about this as if decisions would originate in Hillary's mind, or that her own psychology would be the deciding factor. Hillary will likely do whatever her advisors (and donors, indirectly) tell her to. Reading about how foreign policy decisions are made in the Obama administration would show you very clearly how much presidents' decisions rely on advisors. She has been paid off by neocons, been groomed by neocons, and so expect her administration to be crowded with neocon "experts" just like in the GWB years. There is literally no reason to expect otherwise, and even some old GWB neocons have already started migrating from the GOP to the comfort of the Hillary camp in case Trump signals a decreased tolerance for their foreign policy there.

Interesting. I wasn't talking about her psychology - would be rather amusing to do so based on the information we have here, but hardly would be a shock, heh. Kind of funny that neocons would strongly consider voting for her though - article does paint it strongly as lesser evil rather than some sort of positive alignment.

 

Was curious what Wolfowitz was up to these days, came across this - http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/ADL-Farrakhan-praises-Trump-for-refusing-Jewish-campaign-donors-446553

 

And they say Trump is racist.

 

 

So Trump has the endorsement of some KKK guy and a black leader of nation of Islam. That's quite diverse, i have to say.

[Rostere]

Was curious what Wolfowitz was up to these days

 

Yeah, let's check.

 

Advising Jeb Bush up until very recently.

 

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/ADL-Farrakhan-praises-Trump-for-refusing-Jewish-campaign-donors-446553

 

More crackpots for Trump to disavow I guess. Great to hear the journalist corps won't become unemployed in the near future.

[BruceVC]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/mitt-romney-presidential-race-speech/index.html

 

Romney makes a lot of sense during this speech 

[Malcador]

And Rummy's gone into game development, heh.

[Hurlshort]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/mitt-romney-presidential-race-speech/index.html

 

Romney makes a lot of sense during this speech 

 

Yeah, gotta love politicians.

 

[BruceVC]

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/mitt-romney-presidential-race-speech/index.html

 

Romney makes a lot of sense during this speech 

 

Yeah, gotta love politicians.

 

 

Yeah it does demonstrate some hypocrisy...hard to deny it. But I suppose Trump has changed since then and I dont think Romney ever really thought someone like Trump would ever get this close to  the Republican candidacy

[HoonDing]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Trump

 

Shouldn't have changed name, really.

 

Though with a name like Drumpf I'd expect no one to take you seriously.

[Volourn]

"But I suppose Trump has changed since then"
 

Trump has always been this way. Where you have been the past four decades?

[Amentep]

 

Of course admiring someone does not mean you agree with every dumbs--t stupid thing they ever said. But I'm sure you can see the double standard here. If Hillary had an R after her name this would have been the lead story in every newspaper. They excoriated Trump for not even knowing who David Duke was.  

 

I'd be curious for the source for that quote; I'm pretty sure that its part of attempts to associate Sanger with an article written in 1933 in Birth Control Review that shares similarities with this quote, the problem is that Sanger didn't write it, nor was she quoted in it (and that exact line doesn't match).

 

When opening a clinic in Harlem, she had African-American doctors on the board and sought the support (and received it) of W.E.B. Du Bois.  She took great pains when working with a project to deliver birth control to poor African-Americans to make sure that it was understood that this wasn't a "sterilization" campaign.  Reportedly she wouldn't tolerate anyone refusing to work across "race lines" and received great praise from Martin Luther King in 1966.

 

If you want to criticize Sanger, I think it'd be easier to do so for her support of negative eugenics.

[Raithe]