The US Election 2016, Part VI

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

I actually think Nixon is a better person than the majority of our politicians today, based on two facts.  In 1960 the election was extremely close between him and JFK, and he could have challenged the outcome, there was plenty of whispers of fraud that might have turned the tide.  He chose not to, he didn't want to come across like a sore loser.  Then, after Watergate, he chose to resign.  I can't even imagine a politician doing that today.  Those both struck me as kind of honor among thieves moments.

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. 

 

Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day.

 

Are you referring to Hilary when you say  " who is corrupt and won't resign any day.  " 

 

That Hillary is corrupt (or at the VERY least irredeemably dishonest) is no longer a fact that can be disputed Bruce. I realize you picked you horse here and that's fine. As I posted before being dishonest or even corrupt does not mean she will not make an effective President necessarily. But you should be aware of what you are buying with her. 

 

And her bad qualities do not necessarily make Trump a better option for some folks. It's not for nothing we say elections here are about choosing the lesser evil.

 

Just to be clear, we are saying she is corrupt because of the whole email scandal and her private email server?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

I actually think Nixon is a better person than the majority of our politicians today, based on two facts.  In 1960 the election was extremely close between him and JFK, and he could have challenged the outcome, there was plenty of whispers of fraud that might have turned the tide.  He chose not to, he didn't want to come across like a sore loser.  Then, after Watergate, he chose to resign.  I can't even imagine a politician doing that today.  Those both struck me as kind of honor among thieves moments.

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. 

 

Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day.

 

Are you referring to Hilary when you say  " who is corrupt and won't resign any day.  " 

 

That Hillary is corrupt (or at the VERY least irredeemably dishonest) is no longer a fact that can be disputed Bruce. I realize you picked you horse here and that's fine. As I posted before being dishonest or even corrupt does not mean she will not make an effective President necessarily. But you should be aware of what you are buying with her. 

 

And her bad qualities do not necessarily make Trump a better option for some folks. It's not for nothing we say elections here are about choosing the lesser evil.

 

Just to be clear, we are saying she is corrupt because of the whole email scandal and her private email server?

 

Do you read nothing that get's linked here? Seriously? That is one piece of a very, very big picture. The corruption is certainly debatable. Was she using the server to hide from FOI & Congress? Is the Clinton Foundation a pay to play vehicle for bribes, etc? We'll never know the truth. but there is a lot of evidence to suggest she not on the up and up. But her dishonesty about it all, and about many, many things she has said and done over the years is beyond dispute. She is a liar. She is a habitual liar. Even YOU would have to concede that. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually think Nixon is a better person than the majority of our politicians today, based on two facts.  In 1960 the election was extremely close between him and JFK, and he could have challenged the outcome, there was plenty of whispers of fraud that might have turned the tide.  He chose not to, he didn't want to come across like a sore loser.  Then, after Watergate, he chose to resign.  I can't even imagine a politician doing that today.  Those both struck me as kind of honor among thieves moments.

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. 

 

Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day.

 

Are you referring to Hilary when you say  " who is corrupt and won't resign any day.  " 

 

That Hillary is corrupt (or at the VERY least irredeemably dishonest) is no longer a fact that can be disputed Bruce. I realize you picked you horse here and that's fine. As I posted before being dishonest or even corrupt does not mean she will not make an effective President necessarily. But you should be aware of what you are buying with her. 

 

And her bad qualities do not necessarily make Trump a better option for some folks. It's not for nothing we say elections here are about choosing the lesser evil.

 

Just to be clear, we are saying she is corrupt because of the whole email scandal and her private email server?

 

Do you read nothing that get's linked here? Seriously? That is one piece of a very, very big picture. The corruption is certainly debatable. Was she using the server to hide from FOI & Congress? Is the Clinton Foundation a pay to play vehicle for bribes, etc? We'll never know the truth. but there is a lot of evidence to suggest she not on the up and up. But her dishonesty about it all, and about many, many things she has said and done over the years is beyond dispute. She is a liar. She is a habitual liar. Even YOU would have to concede that. 

 

Why would I automatically believe something that is based on a subjective view of her motives?

 

Sorry GD but neither the email scandal or Clinton Foundation is irrefutable proof of her dishonesty but if you can share other things she did I would like to read them? I know you think I'm biased but Im not....I always look at any accusation objectively   

[Malcador]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295273-trump-i-would-shoot-at-confrontational-iranian-ships

 

Ah nothing like macho

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Jill Stein is a hardened criminal

[BruceVC]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/295273-trump-i-would-shoot-at-confrontational-iranian-ships

 

Ah nothing like macho

Remember its about " proving how tough the USA is " as far as Trump is concerned

 

He would attack the Iranian navy, destabilize the Uranium enrichment deal and in turn make the entire ME more chaotic and unmanageable all because he " wants to show Iran cant bully the USA  " 

 

Why?

[Malcador]

Well that kind of stance sells well to people that think international affairs is like dudes in a bar.

[BruceVC]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-commander-idUSKCN11D12K

 

Is no one concerned about this comment where Trump said Putin is a better leader than Obama?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually think Nixon is a better person than the majority of our politicians today, based on two facts.  In 1960 the election was extremely close between him and JFK, and he could have challenged the outcome, there was plenty of whispers of fraud that might have turned the tide.  He chose not to, he didn't want to come across like a sore loser.  Then, after Watergate, he chose to resign.  I can't even imagine a politician doing that today.  Those both struck me as kind of honor among thieves moments.

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. 

 

Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day.

 

Are you referring to Hilary when you say  " who is corrupt and won't resign any day.  " 

 

That Hillary is corrupt (or at the VERY least irredeemably dishonest) is no longer a fact that can be disputed Bruce. I realize you picked you horse here and that's fine. As I posted before being dishonest or even corrupt does not mean she will not make an effective President necessarily. But you should be aware of what you are buying with her. 

 

And her bad qualities do not necessarily make Trump a better option for some folks. It's not for nothing we say elections here are about choosing the lesser evil.

 

Just to be clear, we are saying she is corrupt because of the whole email scandal and her private email server?

 

Do you read nothing that get's linked here? Seriously? That is one piece of a very, very big picture. The corruption is certainly debatable. Was she using the server to hide from FOI & Congress? Is the Clinton Foundation a pay to play vehicle for bribes, etc? We'll never know the truth. but there is a lot of evidence to suggest she not on the up and up. But her dishonesty about it all, and about many, many things she has said and done over the years is beyond dispute. She is a liar. She is a habitual liar. Even YOU would have to concede that. 

 

Why would I automatically believe something that is based on a subjective view of her motives?

 

Sorry GD but neither the email scandal or Clinton Foundation is irrefutable proof of her dishonesty but if you can share other things she did I would like to read them? I know you think I'm biased but Im not....I always look at any accusation objectively   

 

Jesus Christ are you really going to make me do this again? Alright, but mister, you had best read ever last one of them!

 

• She claimed to be dead broke when they left the White House: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyLhDz_ZvA4&feature=youtu.be , they were not. They were worth over $10M and each had just gotten $2M advances on their books: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/29/hillary-clinton-on-her-dead-broke-misstep-i-regret-it/
• The whole sniper fire thing in Bosnia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c
• She claimed she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary. She was six years old when he climbed Everest
• She claimed she tried to join the Marines in 1975, that wasn't true: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/12/fact-checker-hits-hillary-for-claiming-she-tried-to-join-the-marines-video/
• Even the FBI said she lied to them AND to Congress about her e-mail server
• She lied to the whole world about Benghazi: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/28/benghazi-report-points-out-obama-clinton-lies/
• She was fires from a house judiciary job in 1973 for "unethical behavior". She and another lawyer wrote a "fraudulent legal brief". 

Need I go on? I haven't even gotten to Whitewater of the other good stuff.

[Volourn]

"Why do you doubt some of Trumps supporters are bigots...they are, trust me"

 

Some are.  Some Clinton supporters are too. You know the ones. The ones who chant 'DEATH TO WHITEY' as they march? You know, the ones who don't care about black lives like that black mother who was shot by a BLM punk.

 

 

"Is no one concerned about this comment where Trump said Putin is a better leader than Obama?"

 

I don't like Putin. He is a scumbag piece of crpa nazi but it is indisputable that he is a better leader than Obama.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually think Nixon is a better person than the majority of our politicians today, based on two facts.  In 1960 the election was extremely close between him and JFK, and he could have challenged the outcome, there was plenty of whispers of fraud that might have turned the tide.  He chose not to, he didn't want to come across like a sore loser.  Then, after Watergate, he chose to resign.  I can't even imagine a politician doing that today.  Those both struck me as kind of honor among thieves moments.

He also had his "enemies lists" and a reputation for being verbally abusive of family and staff. Of course low character and high character can certainly co-exist. No one is so bad they don't have some redeeming qualities or so good they have no flaws. 

 

Still, I'd take a person which is verbally abusive over one who is corrupt and won't resign any day.

 

Are you referring to Hilary when you say  " who is corrupt and won't resign any day.  " 

 

That Hillary is corrupt (or at the VERY least irredeemably dishonest) is no longer a fact that can be disputed Bruce. I realize you picked you horse here and that's fine. As I posted before being dishonest or even corrupt does not mean she will not make an effective President necessarily. But you should be aware of what you are buying with her. 

 

And her bad qualities do not necessarily make Trump a better option for some folks. It's not for nothing we say elections here are about choosing the lesser evil.

 

Just to be clear, we are saying she is corrupt because of the whole email scandal and her private email server?

 

Do you read nothing that get's linked here? Seriously? That is one piece of a very, very big picture. The corruption is certainly debatable. Was she using the server to hide from FOI & Congress? Is the Clinton Foundation a pay to play vehicle for bribes, etc? We'll never know the truth. but there is a lot of evidence to suggest she not on the up and up. But her dishonesty about it all, and about many, many things she has said and done over the years is beyond dispute. She is a liar. She is a habitual liar. Even YOU would have to concede that. 

 

Why would I automatically believe something that is based on a subjective view of her motives?

 

Sorry GD but neither the email scandal or Clinton Foundation is irrefutable proof of her dishonesty but if you can share other things she did I would like to read them? I know you think I'm biased but Im not....I always look at any accusation objectively   

 

Jesus Christ are you really going to make me do this again? Alright, but mister, you had best read ever last one of them!

 

• She claimed to be dead broke when they left the White House: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyLhDz_ZvA4&feature=youtu.be , they were not. They were worth over $10M and each had just gotten $2M advances on their books: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/29/hillary-clinton-on-her-dead-broke-misstep-i-regret-it/
• The whole sniper fire thing in Bosnia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZHO1vo762c
• She claimed she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary. She was six years old when he climbed Everest
• She claimed she tried to join the Marines in 1975, that wasn't true: http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/12/fact-checker-hits-hillary-for-claiming-she-tried-to-join-the-marines-video/
• Even the FBI said she lied to them AND to Congress about her e-mail server
• She lied to the whole world about Benghazi: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/28/benghazi-report-points-out-obama-clinton-lies/
• She was fires from a house judiciary job in 1973 for "unethical behavior". She and another lawyer wrote a "fraudulent legal brief". 

Need I go on? I haven't even gotten to Whitewater of the other good stuff.

 

Thanks, I'll go through these before I comment 

 

"Why do you doubt some of Trumps supporters are bigots...they are, trust me"

 

Some are.  Some Clinton supporters are too. You know the ones. The ones who chant 'DEATH TO WHITEY' as they march? You know, the ones who don't care about black lives like that black mother who was shot by a BLM punk.

 

 

"Is no one concerned about this comment where Trump said Putin is a better leader than Obama?"

 

I don't like Putin. He is a scumbag piece of crpa nazi but it is indisputable that he is a better leader than Obama.

Putin is a better leader than Obama......seriously?

 

How is he a better leader....what has he done better than Obama?

[Meshugger]

 

It doesn't matter if they hate everything from eskimos to the color of your shoes. None of that does. It's attacking the voters of another candidate, it's about as low as you can get as politician and leader.

 

Attacking another's candidates base support is basic strategy in politics. Which is something that also Trump does. It is strategy that aims to associate people that general public or certain demographic don't like with other candidate, so that they will have higher threshold to vote that other candidate, which makes it easier to lure them to vote yourself. It isn't nice strategy, but politics and politicians rarely are nice.

 

 

Thanks for broading the definition into something that borderlines that it is not. 

 

 

It doesn't matter if they hate everything from eskimos to the color of your shoes. None of that does. It's attacking the voters of another candidate, it's about as low as you can get as politician and leader.

Bit rich when you consider how Trump behaves like a low level forum troll. Certainly are a lot of trash backing Trump watching his rallies, but not sure of the percentage

 

 

Uh-huh. But have you seen him call Hillary supporters with any modern labels? Point being, Hillary is playing the game badly.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Meshugger

[Guard Dog]

By the way Bruce. Did you ever complete that little "homework" assignment I gave you? Learning about the creation of a company called Uranium One and Hillary Clinton's involvement in that?

[Volourn]

"How is he a better leader....what has he done better than Obama?"

 

Putin has made his country 'great' again.

 

What has Obama done?  Push a race war. Has spammed anti police rhetoric while spreading misinformation - ie. blaminmg whitey when a black cop shoots a black suspect leading to riots that lead to black owned businesses being  destroyed. Has allowed a country like Iran to play him like a violin, has  allowed countries to laugh in his face when he makes an ultimatium and then does nothing when said countries cross the 'line' according to him. Has fully supported a  criminal like Hillary Clinton for president even thouh she wants to start WW3.

[BruceVC]

By the way Bruce. Did you ever complete that little "homework" assignment I gave you? Learning about the creation of a company called Uranium One and Hillary Clinton's involvement in that?

No I didnt because it would be unfair to scrutinize either candidate's history in this way   and then judge them on this type of past action

 

Things like the email scandal matter to me 

 

And I am being balanced, I could post daily inconsistencies of things Trump says that are inaccurate but I only post the " big "  things he says 

[BruceVC]

"How is he a better leader....what has he done better than Obama?"

 

Putin has made his country 'great' again.

 

What has Obama done?  Push a race war. Has spammed anti police rhetoric while spreading misinformation - ie. blaminmg whitey when a black cop shoots a black suspect leading to riots that lead to black owned businesses being  destroyed. Has allowed a country like Iran to play him like a violin, has  allowed countries to laugh in his face when he makes an ultimatium and then does nothing when said countries cross the 'line' according to him. Has fully supported a  criminal like Hillary Clinton for president even thouh she wants to start WW3.

So Putin has a very high popularity rating.....so what, its irrelevant when compared to the damage he has caused Russia.

 

You do realize Russia has been in a recession for nearly 2  years?

Please read this link....how can you not think a failure to manage any economy by any government is a failure of leadership 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/11/news/economy/russia-economy-recession-six-quarters/index.html

[Guard Dog]

 

By the way Bruce. Did you ever complete that little "homework" assignment I gave you? Learning about the creation of a company called Uranium One and Hillary Clinton's involvement in that?

No I didnt because it would be unfair to scrutinize either candidate's history in this way   and then judge them on this type of past action

 

Things like the email scandal matter to me 

 

And I am being balanced, I could post daily inconsistencies of things Trump says that are inaccurate but I only post the " big "  things he says 

 

And right there you just fell into the biggest trap of this election. You can't make a positive argument for one candidate without mentioning the other. They are, without a doubt, the two biggest turds to ever float in the electoral bowl at the same time. The only positive statement anyone can make about either is "well at least they are not the other one". 

[BruceVC]

 

 

By the way Bruce. Did you ever complete that little "homework" assignment I gave you? Learning about the creation of a company called Uranium One and Hillary Clinton's involvement in that?

No I didnt because it would be unfair to scrutinize either candidate's history in this way   and then judge them on this type of past action

 

Things like the email scandal matter to me 

 

And I am being balanced, I could post daily inconsistencies of things Trump says that are inaccurate but I only post the " big "  things he says 

 

And right there you just fell into the biggest trap of this election. You can't make a positive argument for one candidate without mentioning the other. They are, without a doubt, the two biggest turds to ever float in the electoral bowl at the same time. The only positive statement anyone can make about either is "well at least they are not the other one". 

 

 "turds " 

 

 

Oh by the way, it shouldn't be seen as huge negative because Johnson didnt know about Aleppo

 

There is nothing the USA can do because its the Syrians and Russians who are bombing the city...and now the Russians have agreed with the USA to a peace deal but why would Johnson know about Aleppo ?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/09/09/russia-us-reach-cease-fire-deal-syria/90147222/

[Malcador]

 

 

 

 

It doesn't matter if they hate everything from eskimos to the color of your shoes. None of that does. It's attacking the voters of another candidate, it's about as low as you can get as politician and leader.

Attacking another's candidates base support is basic strategy in politics. Which is something that also Trump does. It is strategy that aims to associate people that general public or certain demographic don't like with other candidate, so that they will have higher threshold to vote that other candidate, which makes it easier to lure them to vote yourself. It isn't nice strategy, but politics and politicians rarely are nice.

Thanks for broading the definition into something that borderlines that it is not.

 

It doesn't matter if they hate everything from eskimos to the color of your shoes. None of that does. It's attacking the voters of another candidate, it's about as low as you can get as politician and leader.

Bit rich when you consider how Trump behaves like a low level forum troll. Certainly are a lot of trash backing Trump watching his rallies, but not sure of the percentage

Uh-huh. But have you seen him call Hillary supporters with any modern labels? Point being, Hillary is playing the game badly.

Who knows given how he runs his mouth. Not sure she may be playing all that badly. Not like the group she insulted is up for grabs and there are people she can try to spook using the idea that a man willing to entreat with meshback racists is a Bad Thing.

 

Certainly isn't wrong, maybe 20% though.

[kgambit]

 

By the way Bruce. Did you ever complete that little "homework" assignment I gave you? Learning about the creation of a company called Uranium One and Hillary Clinton's involvement in that?

 

No I didnt because it would be unfair to scrutinize either candidate's history in this way   and then judge them on this type of past action

 

Things like the email scandal matter to me 

 

And I am being balanced, I could post daily inconsistencies of things Trump says that are inaccurate but I only post the " big "  things he says 

 

 

Are you really saying that a candidate's past performance in business and/or government isn't pertinent in judging their qualifications for POTUS?  Or is that just a convenient excuse that lets you sweep uncomfortable things under the rug?  

[Chippy]

On a side-note; a British guy tried to assassinate Trump back in June.  I'd like to apologize to all Trump supporters on behalf of the British people for the actions of that moron - you know every country has got them.

[Malcador]

On a side-note; a British guy tried to assassinate Trump back in June. I'd like to apologize to all Trump supporters on behalf of the British people for the actions of that moron - you know every country has got them.

I dunno. Pence might be an ok President.

[BruceVC]

 

 

By the way Bruce. Did you ever complete that little "homework" assignment I gave you? Learning about the creation of a company called Uranium One and Hillary Clinton's involvement in that?

 

No I didnt because it would be unfair to scrutinize either candidate's history in this way   and then judge them on this type of past action

 

Things like the email scandal matter to me 

 

And I am being balanced, I could post daily inconsistencies of things Trump says that are inaccurate but I only post the " big "  things he says 

 

 

Are you really saying that a candidate's past performance in business and/or government isn't pertinent in judging their qualifications for POTUS?  Or is that just a convenient excuse that lets you sweep uncomfortable things under the rug?  

 

Dont get mad with me because you think both candidates are worthless,  all I'm saying is both people seem to have a history

 

But since you did ask, obviously Clinton has more experience in government. This is irrefutable 

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/27/1416000/-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton-The-Most-Experienced-Presidential-Candidate-This-Election-Cycle

[Gromnir]

 

 

By the way Bruce. Did you ever complete that little "homework" assignment I gave you? Learning about the creation of a company called Uranium One and Hillary Clinton's involvement in that?

 

No I didnt because it would be unfair to scrutinize either candidate's history in this way   and then judge them on this type of past action

 

Things like the email scandal matter to me 

 

And I am being balanced, I could post daily inconsistencies of things Trump says that are inaccurate but I only post the " big "  things he says 

 

 

Are you really saying that a candidate's past performance in business and/or government isn't pertinent in judging their qualifications for POTUS?  Or is that just a convenient excuse that lets you sweep uncomfortable things under the rug?  

 

this election is weird... weirder.  oh sure, all major elections track away from the issues and from actual candidate qualifications, but this Presidential election has predictable devolved to the point where the major topics being debated is candidate health and whether trump or clinton is the bigger jerk. other than broad-stroke ideological differences, the American people appear little concerned 'bout qualifications o' the candidates. that ain't shocking or different than in the past elections save for the degree to which qualifications has been marginalized. 

 

as you note, past performance in business and government would seeming be relevant, but mention tax returns and trump supporters sneer... and is no better for clinton folks.

 

weird.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps tax returns

[ShadySands]

The thing with experience is that it's only really a plus if you like what they've done. In the case of Clinton I see a lot of people making the experience claim both for and against her