Should have followed the godfathers advice. Sounded like a third grader , horrible final round Hillary won it and not even going to be close
Should have followed the godfathers advice. Sounded like a third grader , horrible final round Hillary won it and not even going to be close
Trumps interesting ties to shady crime figures and how he bullies the media. Both Hedges and his guest have won Pulitzer's and have worked for The NY Times. Both men are off the charts credible. Hedges is like Jill Stein, to honest for the MSM.
17:15 for Trump, very credible and no where else. GG Trump Don't fall for Trump's blame the the Mexicans while he has a tax plan right under your nose made just for the rich. The people who really rigged the game.
As a tax expert he recommends raising taxes on the rich and that an unfair tax system is a sign of impending despotism. I'd suggest watching the whole shebang.
23:15 Hedges final summary on Trump is the nuts.
It's weird how he asked all kinds of journalist to ask Trump about this organized crime figure and even provides them with the source material and NADA.
Stay home or Jill Stein's our only options.
Last edited by FPS_Russia; 10-20-2016 at 08:30 AM.
Yea you just don't understand how the concept of proving innocence works if you think it's tied to a legal setting. Like this isn't some kinda technicality that i'm using to save my favorite candidate from telling the truth. It's literally impossible to answer the question in any other way than what Hillary did unless you semi randomly want to say "fuck yea it was a pay-for-play scheme".Originally Posted by Dan Druff
This was a debate, not a court of law. If the moderator asks you a question of, "There are accusations that you did XXXXX and there is evidence YYYYY we have seen to back that up. How do you explain this?", your response should be, "No, that's untrue. Here is why I didn't do XXXXX and why YYYYY isn't true, and here's what you can do to look up that I'm telling the truth...."
But Hillary didn't do that. She purposely avoided the question.
It was essentially this:
Moderator: "So it appears your charity was pay-for-play, and foreigners who donated to it got special favors. How do you explain that?"
Hillary: "I'm glad you asked that. Let me tell you about all the children my charity helped..."
Do you think Hillary was that stupid to where she didn't understand the question?
Come on.
I know you're way left of center and want to defend your candidate, but geez, at least concede the point here that Hillary has a lot to hide regarding her actions regarding the Clinton Foundation, and did all she could to avoid answering about it.
Her first answer was that State Department didn't find anything conflicting and her second answer was that there is no evidence. And obv a plug for Clinton Foundation because there is nothing more she can say.
I mean sure she could've just said "wrong" several times, but that seems kinda retarded for any adult to say.
You do understand that you need the evidence part to refute any accusation. That's is the very reason why there is a need for evidence. Mostly i'm just thinking wtf is wrong with your school system.
Say...
Moderator: Mr.Druff it appears that you have been plotting to assassinate Hillary Cinton. How do you explain that?
Druff: ???
Have you seen this latest bint getting beamed live all around the world claiming that Trump commented on her long legs and part of his hand brushed against the side of her breast as he greeted her.
This happened years ago and she is now sitting here sobbing about this inappropriate moment that has apparently traumatised her ever since.
This is total bullshit. Trump is the devil. Of that I have no doubt. But this witch hunt by so-called neutral media is not democratic and more in line with state sponsored media in countries run by dictators and tyrants.
In case some one cares about the latest Clinton Foundation "proof" of foul play in Haiti...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...linton-friend/
...tldr: there is no evidence of pay-to-play. Either nothing is there or she's actually competent. I don't care either way.
What are you talking about?Yea you just don't understand how the concept of proving innocence works if you think it's tied to a legal setting. Like this isn't some kinda technicality that i'm using to save my favorite candidate from telling the truth. It's literally impossible to answer the question in any other way than what Hillary did unless you semi randomly want to say "fuck yea it was a pay-for-play scheme".
This was a debate, not a court of law. If the moderator asks you a question of, "There are accusations that you did XXXXX and there is evidence YYYYY we have seen to back that up. How do you explain this?", your response should be, "No, that's untrue. Here is why I didn't do XXXXX and why YYYYY isn't true, and here's what you can do to look up that I'm telling the truth...."
But Hillary didn't do that. She purposely avoided the question.
It was essentially this:
Moderator: "So it appears your charity was pay-for-play, and foreigners who donated to it got special favors. How do you explain that?"
Hillary: "I'm glad you asked that. Let me tell you about all the children my charity helped..."
Do you think Hillary was that stupid to where she didn't understand the question?
Come on.
I know you're way left of center and want to defend your candidate, but geez, at least concede the point here that Hillary has a lot to hide regarding her actions regarding the Clinton Foundation, and did all she could to avoid answering about it.
Her first answer was that State Department didn't find anything conflicting and her second answer was that there is no evidence. And obv a plug for Clinton Foundation because there is nothing more she can say.
I mean sure she could've just said "wrong" several times, but that seems kinda retarded for any adult to say.
You do understand that you need the evidence part to refute any accusation. That's is the very reason why there is a need for evidence. Mostly i'm just thinking wtf is wrong with your school system.
Say...
Moderator: Mr.Druff it appears that you have been plotting to assassinate Hillary Cinton. How do you explain that?
Druff: ???
The moderator cited e-mails which strongly indicated pay for play, regarding Haiti.
Why couldn't she have answered with, "No, there was not a pay for play scheme going on. The donors you described did not get any special treatment.... (followed by details explaining how they didn't)"
She did not answer that way.
Instead, she completely avoided the question, rambled about the charity's "work", and was about to go to her standard "no evidence" line after the moderator chided her for avoiding it. Then she was fortunately rescued by Trump mouthing off, and the subject shifted.
You are trying to say that it's impossible to disprove baseless accusations when the other side is just making things up about you.
But these accusations contain very specific details which Hillary should be able to debunk, especially given that the moderator referred to the Haiti relief situation.
Hillary's answer made zero sense. "Everything I did as Secretary of State was in furtherance of our country's interest and our values"?? WTF does that even mean? How is that an answer regarding the pay to play accusation?WALLACE: In this bucket about fitness to be president, there's been a lot of developments over the last 10 days since the last debate. I'd like to ask you about them. These are questions that the American people have. Secretary Clinton, during your 2009 Senate confirmation hearing, you promised to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest with your dealing with the Clinton Foundation while you were secretary of state, but emails show that donors got special access to you. Those seeking grants for Haiti relief were considered separately from nondonors, and some of those donors got contracts, government contracts, taxpayer money. Can you really say that you kept your pledge to that Senate committee? And why isn't what happened and what went on between you and the Clinton Foundation, why isn't it what Mr. Trump calls pay to play?
CLINTON: Well, everything I did as secretary of state was in furtherance of our country's interests and our values. The State Department has said that. I think that's been proven. But I am happy, in fact I'm thrilled to talk about the Clinton Foundation, because it is a world¬renowned charity and I am so proud of the work that it does. (The rest was a bunch of useless crowing about the "great work" done by the charity.)
The simple answer here (if she were innocent) would have been, "That is absolutely untrue. No one was ever given priority for contracts based upon their donations to the Clinton Foundation, and none of the Wikileaks e-mails of mine will show otherwise."
That's how you deny an accusation.
She did not give a strong denial (or really any denial) because she knew she would be proven as a liar, so her best tactic was to dodge the question and give generic responses if forced to answer it.
Again, when falsely accused, Hillary is the first to want to rub it in the accuser's face. In those cases, she directly answers the question and cites details in order to make the accusers look like fools.
Here she was clearly practicing avoidance, to the point where she wouldn't even give a single direct denial. The closest we got was "I did everything in furtherance of our country's values" and "There's no evidence".
Give me a break.
If we were debating and you said to me, "Todd, there are e-mail transcripts going around to show that, despite your proclaimed clean reputation in poker, you actually scammed a total of $400,000 out of various poker players", do you think my response would be, "Everything I've done was to further the values of the poker community" or "There's no evidence I did this"? Fuck no. I would say, "That's absolutely false. I've never done such a thing, any such allegations are made up, and you will never find anything remotely credible pointing to me scamming anyone."
That's how you deny a false accusation.
Hillary is not an idiot, and she's been at this political game for decades. This was a dodge, and you know it.
AHAHHAHAHAHHAHAA TRUMP IS THE GREATEST TROLL OF ALL TIME
"I will accept the election results IF I WIN!!!" just now LMFAO
LOL
Trump is GOD
BTW, ask any criminologist or anyone long involved in law enforcement investigations.
The term "There's no evidence" is something used by guilty people, not innocent people.
If a cop came to your house and accused you of murder, you wouldn't answer, "There's no evidence I did this."
You would answer, "I have no idea what you're talking about. I did not do this, and I can't imagine how I could even be a suspect."
"There's no evidence" is something a guilty person says when they believe that they covered their tracks well enough to avoid being proven guilty.
There have been two major dodges on the part of Hillary during the debates.
One was about the 33,000 e-mail deletions. She still cannot explain it, but instead falls back on "The FBI cleared me", when in reality the FBI simply chose not to charge her, but made a public statement accusing her of a lot of wrongdoing.
The second was about the Clinton Foundation, where she completely dodged the pay-for-play question.
If you bring up anything where Hillary is innocent or partially innocent of claims against her, she is chomping at the bit to give you every detail which proves her innocence.
This is a career politician and former attorney we are talking about here.
If she could have answered that Clinton Foundation directly without lying, she would have. But she couldn't.
So why are you losing your shit when she acts like one?
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
https://twitter.com/twt/status/789160820399804416
Suck on it shills...and lighten up. That's why so many hate trump in the first place, cuz ur too fuckin boring
I honestly think there is equity on his line down to +265'ish. People really want to tear down the system and thats exactly what he's pretending to sell.
I also honestly think that the pro-Hillary media blitz is going to make it much easier for people to vote for Trump since they assume that it doesnt matter.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
i thought chris wallace was great last night and is probably the best in the business, but his questions on the clinton foundation could have been a little more narrow and harder to duck.
obviously she's going to deny pay to play if you ask your question in a way that is designed to elicit that response.
a better question might have been: "between 2008 and 2012, the clinton foundation received _____ dollars from foreign governments, businesses and individuals, including [insert]. two questions for you. first, do you agree that these facts could create the appearance of impropriety? (follow up could be if she would allow her sec of state to do the same thing if she is elected.)
next, setting aside whether you were actually influenced by these donations, is it fair to surmise that these foreign actors were attempting to curry favor with the you, the state department and possibly the next president?
you might not be able to prove she's corrupt, but she would have had a hard time shaking questions about her judgment
Rasmussen National Poll
Donald Trump 43%
Hillary Clinton 40%
9:27 AM - 20 Oct 2016 · Columbus, OH, United States
WTF is going on here?
We got Obama and Biden threatening Russia. We got Hillary comparing Putin to Hitler, threatening nuclear modernization and possible cyber and full scale nuclear war. All kinds a red baiting going on.
Russia's ordering citizens to return home and find fallout shelters, relocating nukes, changing all kinds of rules in preparation for nuclear war.
Here's Netanyahu (probable commander of the entire US military under Hillary) at the Kremlin just a few months ago. To whom we just agreed to pay over $10 milliion every single day for the next decade as half the US population is in or near poverty.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Pol...-terror-456193
Quote
“We discussed the continued coordination between our two militaries in the region, which already works quite well,” Netanyahu told reporters at a joint press conference in the Kremlin with Putin after their meeting.
It is their fourth meeting in the last year, and their third in Moscow. Both countries have air forces that are reportedly operational around the Syria region, and tight coordination is needed to ensure de-confliction. “We want to avoid conflict and make sure we are operating against those same entities that endanger everyone,” Netanyahu said.
“We talked about the challenges to all civilized countries such as terrorism and radical Islam,” Netanyahu added.
According to an English translation of Putin’s words by the Tass News Agency, the Russian leader stated: “We spoke about the necessity to pool efforts to counter international terrorism. Israel knows only too well what it means and it is fighting against terrorism. In this sense, we are unconditional allies.”
The meetings are also a sign of the warming ties between Moscow and Jerusalem, as the two countries celebrate 25 years of diplomatic relations."
Trump's saying pretty much the same thing as Netanyahu but Trump's getting hammered for it. But he's unelectable. Are Hillary Obama Biden Netanyahu and Putin really in bed together? Trying to scare us into funding some super expensive war bullshit or something, what is going on here?
We're getting played are we not?
Last edited by FPS_Russia; 10-20-2016 at 01:41 PM.
Obama's statement from the same month as the above meeting.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-rea...tion-of-putin/
"President Obama spoke on NBC Nightly News tonight and reacted to reports that Russia was behind the DNC email hack.
What was particularly striking about Obama’s remarks was how he not-so-subtly brought up links between Russia and Donald Trump"
“What I do know is that Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for Vladimir Putin… I am basing this on what Mr. Trump himself has said, and I think that Trump’s gotten pretty favorable coverage back in Russia.”
I fail to see the logic from the left suggesting that trying to open up a line of communication with Putin is a bad thing
Trump has stated numerous times at his rallies...
"wouldn't it be great if we got along with Russia ?"
SPOT ON
imagine how quickly ISIS would be stomped out if we formed a strategic alliance with Russia, as opposed to Hillary/Obama seemingly going out of their way to antagonize Putin....and idiot Joe Biden actually announcing a forthcoming cyber attack
lol what a fucking moron
_______________________
Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine
There’s no doubt that Hillary is the candidate of Wall Street. Even more dangerous, though, is that she is the candidate of the military-industrial complex. The idea that she is bad on the corporate issues but good on national security has it wrong. Her so-called foreign policy “experience” has been to support every war demanded by the US deep security state run by the military and the CIA.
Hillary and Bill Clinton’s close relations with Wall Street helped to stoke two financial bubbles (1999-2000 and 2005-8) and the Great Recession that followed Lehman’s collapse. In the 1990s they pushed financial deregulation for their campaign backers that in turn let loose the worst demons of financial manipulation, toxic assets, financial fraud, and eventually collapse. In the process they won elections and got mighty rich.
Yet Hillary’s connections with the military-industrial complex are also alarming. It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious realists who don’t want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.
Just as the last Clinton presidency set the stage for financial collapse, it also set the stage for unending war. On October 31, 1998 President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act that made it official US policy to support “regime change” in Iraq.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
Thus were laid the foundations for the Iraq War in 2003.
Of course, by 2003, Hillary was a Senator and a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, which has cost the US trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and done more to create ISIS and Middle East instability than any other single decision of modern foreign policy. In defending her vote, Hillary parroted the phony propaganda of the CIA:
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members... “
After the Iraq Liberation Act came the 1999 Kosovo War, in which Bill Clinton called in NATO to bomb Belgrade, in the heart of Europe, and unleashing another decade of unrest in the Balkans. Hillary, traveling in Africa, called Bill: “I urged him to bomb,” she told reporter Lucinda Frank.
Hillary’s record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern US history. Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.
Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In the meantime, Hillary found it hilarious to declare of Qaddafi: “We came, we saw, he died.”
Perhaps the crowning disaster of this long list of disasters has been Hillary’s relentless promotion of CIA-led regime change in Syria. Once again Hillary bought into the CIA propaganda that regime change to remove Bashir al-Assad would be quick, costless, and surely successful. In August 2011, Hillary led the US into disaster with her declaration Assad must “get out of the way,” backed by secret CIA operations.
Five years later, no place on the planet is more ravaged by unending war, and no place poses a great threat to US security. More than 10 million Syrians are displaced, and the refugees are drowning in the Mediterranean or undermining the political stability of Greece, Turkey, and the European Union. Into the chaos created by the secret CIA-Saudi operations to overthrow Assad, ISIS has filled the vacuum, and has used Syria as the base for worldwide terrorist attacks.
The list of her incompetence and warmongering goes on. Hillary’s support at every turn for NATO expansion, including even into Ukraine and Georgia against all common sense, was a trip wire that violated the post-Cold War settlement in Europe in 1991 and that led to Russia’s violent counter-reactions in both Georgia and Ukraine. As Senator in 2008, Hilary co-sponsored 2008-SR439, to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. As Secretary of State, she then presided over the restart of the Cold War with Russia.
It is hard to know the roots of this record of disaster. Is it chronically bad judgment? Is it her preternatural faith in the lying machine of the CIA? Is it a repeated attempt to show that as a Democrat she would be more hawkish than the Republicans? Is it to satisfy her hardline campaign financiers? Who knows? Maybe it’s all of the above. But whatever the reasons, hers is a record of disaster. Perhaps more than any other person, Hillary can lay claim to having stoked the violence that stretches from West Africa to Central Asia and that threatens US security.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffre...b_9168938.html
Tyde
One of the greatest investments I ever made was Raytheon RTN in a trust for the kids. A nice DRIP program too.
Look at any time frame you please. The war machine has cashed nicely. 24% from Jan - Aug this year alone.
Democrat or Republican you can count on the US war machine. Now I agree Hillary has a more proven track record. She is credentialed.
But I was appalled listening to every candidate beating the war drum. It's what the public wants.
Donald Trump has said, "I would bomb the s--- out of them."
Ted Cruz has vowed, "We will utterly destroy them. We will carpet bomb them into oblivion."
Cruz and the rest were careful to use "Carpet Bomb". Wanting to avoid the visual of troops on the ground. Rather random appendages and babies being obliterated from remote distances.
Now if Hillary is so certain to win - as I believe - why is Raytheon forming an awful "head and shoulders" price failure?
I was forced to sell. I don't ask why. But it don't make fundamental sense. But Raytheon will be back.
You cannot bomb US hatred from the Middle East. You can't erase ideas with bombs. Generations of kids will work to get even. You can invest in that.
You could help their economy. Jobs stem violence. Detroit or Iraq. Build some factories and make iPhones or Harley Davidson motorcycles. Nope. Bomb the fuck outta them.
Yup, war and yoga pants are trendy. It's bi-partisan.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Reply With Quote
