How about telling the truth

[oldsalt1]

No I don't expect her to stay up for 24 hours But when you are secretary of state and your country is under attack somebody should wake you up. I am sure that it would have made a difference if it was her son or daughter that was there killed. And please explain to me her reason for telling the families of the deceased that the attack was the result of a video.

an aside How are you doing Dave hope all is well Dan

[crfriend]

One of the problems when politics creeps into things is that the truth is difficult to ferret out, so folks tend to take to parroting the sound-bites from the campaigns that are currently going on. This is especially infuriating to people because they're bombarded with the same noise from pretty much every direction.

I live in Massachusetts (There, I've gone and said it.) and at the moment we're getting carpet-bombed with political ads for the senatorial race in New Hampshire (which is getting entirely ugly). It's getting wearisome, especially as there is a whole lot of mudslinging going on, just like there is at the presidential level. It's all smoke and no fire, much less light.

Were mistakes made in Benghazi? Certainly; that's one of the perils of diplomacy, especially when the major tool at hand is the Big Stick of the military. Did anyone see a para-military strike in the offing that took out an ambassador? Likely not. Once the ball was in motion, could anyone here have done anything about it? Probably not.

Is the personal conduct of a marginal-to-lousy business mogul who inherited most of his wealth (and almost lost it all on a bad gamble) worthy of criminal action? Who knows. However, the descriptions of his behaviour sound very much like the attitudes of a juvenile delinquent with a positively massive sense of entitlement. Is the man guilty of tax-evasion? According to the letter of the law, no, but is the law applied equally? I know that if I don't pay tax for twenty years I'll wind up in prison.

E-mail. Were laws broken? Likely yes. Were laws bent and a "pass" issued, yes, but that's the way things work right now. If I pulled shenanigans like that I'd be in jail or disappeared and dead by now.

Does the fact that a candidate doesn't know what Aleppo is disqualify him from office? I'd hope that candidates would be more in touch with the world around them. Does anybody recall Dubya being confused on seeing a bar-code scanner in a supermarket for the first time? Never having to have had to go shopping, it's entirely unsurprising; that's what servants are for. Same thing.

I don't know much about the other one, mainly because I haven't bothered to dig, but the point is that blindly repeating campaign-slogans does a dis-service to the process and torques people off who have heard the same things said on the telly a few (hundred) too many times. If we're to take the process seriously, we need accurate details and facts; else it's a third-rate side-show. (What was that question about votes mattering?)

[oldsalt1]

Lets see we have a choice a pathological liar or a juvenile delinquent. Boy I just can't wait until Wednesday November 9th when we start planning the 2020 election

[dillon]

So, let's see...Clinton may have lied about an incident, not of her making, that cost four American lives...

Cheney and Tenet and Bush and Rumsfeld contrived an ENTIRE WAR in Iraq based on outright lies that has taken 4500 American lives, and over 32,000 maimed or wounded, and an unknown number suffering PTSD, a war that is still going on and has no end in sight, so find me a SINCERE Republican who has the conscientious decency to speak the truth about the ones who lied, sometimes under oath, to get us in it. Trump's claims that he opposed it are historical revisionism; a "death-bed conversion."

If my choice is between an reasoned, experienced, competent liar and a hateful, say-anything, psycho liar, I'll take the competent one. Because if I ever heard the psycho one speak about grabbing my daughter by the p---y, it would be the last time he ever said anything to anyone again.

Sorry, but if you don't stand against that, you're as sick as he is. Now you know my POLITICS.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Whew!

Now this is a political discussion worthy of our Founding Fathers! (Check the historical record for the Adams-Jefferson races and Andrew Jackson's first election. He, by the way, probably was psychotic, neurotic at least.)

But first a few points of clarification, it was George HW Bush who was blown away by the bar-code scanner at the supermarket, not his blowhard son. Similarly, Hilary isn't so much a liar as a very defensive, closed individual who has a well-trained lawyer's talent for parsing words. While she doesn't exactly, her version of the truth isn't convincing either. It's a classic case of the wisdom of the crowds.

Frankly both Trump and Clinton suffer from a deep-seated inability to say, "I'm sorry, I screwed up and here's what I'm changing so it doesn't happen again," let alone mean it.

Since we can't trust their words, let's look at their actions. Donald Trump has made a career of serving only himself on the backs of other. Telling people whatever it took to get his way. When things didn't work out he'd declare bankruptcy or just simply say, 'Here's pennies on the dollar, deal with it.' He has so little regard for our system of government and our traditions that he's only gone as far as saying he'll accept the results of the election -- the will of the people -- if he wins.

Hillary Clinton has spent her career in public service. Despite her repugnance about the crime and the criminal she so zealously defended her client, even the Attorney General she beat gives her credit for doing just what she should have and getting his department on its toes. She worked for decades for the organizations that are now the Children's Defense Fund. She has made such a strong commitment to public service that the President of the United States says, no one in modern times, himself included, entered the Presidential race better prepared for the job.

The President of the United States is the President of all of us, not just one party or another and certainly not just themselves. Forget trying to decide which one's the bigger liar, we could debate that till the end of time and realize it's just a very small difference, look at who has shown they care the most about other people and therefore who is going to care the most about you and your children, or surrogate kids.

Sorry Dan,

I just remembered you asked how I'm doing personally. Thank you for asking. I think I am doing better.

I still don't have a job and need one. We're moving forward at church to healing our words and getting back to ministry so my time since my last temp job ended hasn't been wasted.

I've got a bunch of personal issues I have to work on: getting divorced, obtaining access to my grandchild, getting a healthy rhythm to my life I need to get squared away that I'm barely making progress on.

But I'm generally happier and I can't say I lack for things to do!

How are you doing? You've certainly conquered the last frontier of male skirting!

[crfriend]

[... I]t was George HW Bush who was blown away by the bar-code scanner at the supermarket, not his blowhard son.

I stand corrected on the individual but not on the surrounding text. Children of perfect privilege most likely have never been exposed to such devices; that's what servants are for.

Frankly both Trump and Clinton suffer from a deep-seated inability to say, "I'm sorry, I screwed up and here's what I'm changing so it doesn't happen again," let alone mean it.

That sentiment I can get behind. Owning up to a screw-up is an important part of being an adult. I've screwed up in the past, and occasionally do today, yet when I do I take responsibility for it and make sure that nobody else gets hurt by the fallout. I'm human. Having the guts to stand up and admit one's failures usually garners more respect than trying to sweep something under the carpet.

The President of the United States is the President of all of us, not just one party or another and certainly not just themselves.

In an ideal situation this would be the case; the times we live in are far -- very far -- from ideal. I realised a good many years ago that, "This is not my country any longer", and that sentiment has only been amplified by the advancing years. I recall a rather heated conversation whilst out sailing a couple of years ago when I voiced that sentiment and the immediate knee-jerk response by my companions was, "That BS and you know it!" However, after a lengthy conversation/debate on the matter a general understanding emerged that things really are screwed up and that no matter what we had shoved down our throats in civics class the reality is actually quite grave.

I am compelled by law to submit to the might and majesty of the State. This does not mean that I have to like or respect it; all that matters is fear. Bluntly, this is no longer the country I grew up in, studied from both within and without (and reading histories from non-US sources can be quite interesting indeed), and generally respected in my younger years. The system I now need to deal with is entirely terra-incognita, and, quite honestly, terrifying.

And there is no way in creation that it can be changed now at the ballot-box, any more than Russia's system be changed similarly. Unwilling partners from the 1940s until the '80s, and now brethren with identical political systems -- and a US candidate who fawns over his wished-to-be peer. When that "bromance" blows up I dearly hope that the launch codes have been removed from the Emperor's control.

[oldsalt1]

Something is beginning to surface about The Clinton's Ex congressman Weinner. a mysterious Island and underage girls. and how the NYPD had something to do with the FBI reopening the investigation. Of course right now it is only on the internet. so only god knows if its true and where its coming from. I would like to see how this pans out before I would have any further comment on the viability of Hillary as president Just as a point the only thing the Clinton's are interested in is lining their own pockets. She hasen't done a dam thing that hasen't benefited her personally in some way

[Disaffected.citizen]

As a Brit looking in on this, I have a vested interest in the outcome (as does the whole world) yet (rightly) no say in the matter; it is for my elected government to negotiate with yours (and others) in the (hopefully) best interests of the world.

That said, NEITHER candidate is clean (we in the UK have little information on the "minor" candidates), BOTH have a significant degree of self interest. It is the same the world over (unfortunately); there are very few philanthropic politicians in this world, so we make compromises.

I sincerely hope you're prepared for the worst whichever candidate proves to be victorious inflicts upon you, your country, and the world. Of course we look forward to the best they contribute.

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

Carl,

I agree entirely with what you said about how and why HW was so oblivious, I just happen to be a stickler for facts and wanted to be sure that as you shared that story you got it right.

I also agree that this isn't the country we grew up in, but as far as that goes, the country we grew up in wasn't quite as golden as it was presented to us in school. I believe that had the benefit of instilling in us the expectation that the US would always do the right thing.

One would have to be oblivious to think that the way the country's been going since the Reagan Administration has been in the best interests of the average person. During Republican administrations it most certainly has been going in the direction that is of the most short-term benefit for a small group of people who represent a special interest. And to a lesser degree during Democratic administrations. However, I don't believe we've become as much of an oligarchy or dictatorship as Russia. I also don't believe the country is beyond redemption by ballot box. Again, look at Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and the amount of influence they'll wield in a Clinton Administration.

And yes, Dan, it will be a Clinton Administration. She's not a saint, but she's not the demon her adversaries portray her as. And she does have core principles and causes that are critical to her.

Has she made a living at advancing those causes? I say good! There's only so much volunteering any of us can afford to do. Does she have a vested interest in some? I don't know, but let me digress. Decades ago, when South Africa still had an apartheid system in place, at the annual meeting of the British Commonwealth of Nations, the Canadians called out South Africa. When I told my Canadian girlfriend her country had just something she should be proud of, she cynically said that Canada had a vested interest in the sanctions they were proposing. My silent response was, "Good! Nothing like a little vested interest to keep you on track!"

With Donald Trump it's all bluster, ego and self-interest. He just wants to complete his resume. If he had any real interest in running the country for the greater good, he wouldn't be so thoroughly uninformed on domestic and foreign issues. He would have spent the last 4 years (I say 4 because he ran in a few primaries in 2012.) working every connection he had to learn everything he could about the issues. Could grief, he knows the Clintons; they're like encyclopedias on that stuff and they love to talk about it!

As to what's going on with Weiner, CNN reports that he sexted an underage girl. US Dept. of Justice takes those things VERY seriously and has had the FBI on the case for awhile. While going through Weiner's computer they stumbled into some of his estranged wife's, Uma Abadein's, files. She happens to be Hillary's closest assistant. Abadein claims she sent those emails to her and her husband's devices so she could print them more easily.

Problems with centralized printers? That's something we can relate to. Sending them home just to print them off, ok, but why didn't she delete them once she had her hard copy? And who sends their work emails to their spouse's computer? And yeah, they were State Dept. emails, but what do they have to do with Hillary? Probably nothing.

[crfriend]

Carl,

I agree entirely with what you said about how and why HW was so oblivious, I just happen to be a stickler for facts and wanted to be sure that as you shared that story you got it right.

Thank you for setting the historical record straight. I knew it was one of the two and automatically figured it was Junior (because it was easy, and I didn't feel like looking it up). The overall point is that it could very likely be almost anybody who's that deeply involved in the machinery.

I also agree that this isn't the country we grew up in, but as far as that goes, the country we grew up in wasn't quite as golden as it was presented to us in school. I believe that had the benefit of instilling in us the expectation that the US would always do the right thing.

And for those who still believe in the American Dream, it must be heartbreaking to see it go so horribly wrong so much of the time; I wonder what keeps the poor dears sane. Once one peeks under the bonnet, the machinery is entirely a mess and geared to one thing only, and that's moving money around. "What's good for GM is good for the United States.", and all that rot.

One would have to be oblivious to think that the way the country's been going since the Reagan Administration has been in the best interests of the average person. [...] However, I don't believe we've become as much of an oligarchy or dictatorship as Russia. I also don't believe the country is beyond redemption by ballot box. Again, look at Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and the amount of influence they'll wield in a Clinton Administration.

The key here is that we're continually bombarded with "how important the election is" and "we are a free nation" and "The USA remains a democracy". It's propaganda, of course, and is designed to keep the cattle on their path to the abattoir. Don't look at the process, look at the results and tell me what sort of political system is running the USA today. At least the Russians are honest -- unabashedly so -- about their system.

And yes, Dan, it will be a Clinton Administration.

That's where the safe money is. The problems will start in earnest on the morning of Wednesday 2016-11-09 because no matter which of them "wins" roughly 1/2 the country will be infuriated. I've been uninspired since day one, the departure of Sanders was a big disappointment, but there was no way the machine was going to allow him near the Top Spot (where he would have been a figurehead, much as Clinton the First was in the latter years of his second term). The Republicans couldn't field so much as a single credible candidate and so it was left to a wild-card, and which may be the death-knell for the party, and this brings us to where we are today.

If so much as one piece of the Sanders/Warren platform gets enacted during Clinton the Second's term I'll be astounded unless it directly benefits the elites. The rest will be quietly jettisoned or ignored, and it'll be business as usual.

As to what's going on with Weiner, CNN reports that he sexted an underage girl./quote]
Other than holding perfect privilege and thinking it's a birthright, why is it that these clowns can't keep it in their pants? (This is another case where reality trumps satire for humour. The name...)

Sending them home just to print them off, ok, but why didn't she delete them once she had her hard copy?

Possibilities include: (1) a momentary lapse of reason, (2) desire to hold onto something perhaps useful for future blackmail, (3) utter carelessness, (4) not being able to find the "delete" button. Also, if anybody in power really needs a copy, the NSA has one.

[oldsalt1]

[quote="crfriend"][quote="Pdxfashionpioneer"]Carl,

Republicans couldn't field so much as a single credible candidate and so it was left to a wild-card, and which may be the death-knell for the party, and this brings us to where we are today.

If so much as one piece of the Sanders/Warren platform gets enacted during Clinton the Second's term I'll be astounded unless it directly benefits the elites. The rest will be quietly jettisoned or ignored, and it'll be business as usual.
[quote]As to what's going on with Weiner,
You mean to say Hillary was Fielded I thought it was divine intervention.

As far as sanders is concerned. He was an afterthought of the democratic party. He was put up to mollify the electorate. It scared them when he got as much attention and votes as he did.

Weiner is a dirt bag What he did is a disgrace. But I think his involvement with the Clinton's goes a little further than his actions alone I would like to wait to see what develops.

[crfriend]

Gah. The quoting above is so bad I don't know where to start repairing it.

In any event, Sanders may have been an "afterthought" but Clinton was the Anointed One from the get-go and was a guaranteed shoe-in right from the start. Sanders may have been put in just to test the waters to see how in touch with things the "unwashed masses" are, and it turns out that lots are entirely in tune with it and don't like the current path or system much at all. Not that it mattered anyway, the decision was already made within the party and within party rules. Yes, Virginia, the "system is rigged" (in the Democratic Party, think "super-delegates").

Many of Sanders' supporters feel betrayed by this, and rightly so. Which way they vote the week after next is anybody's guess as I happen to know a number of them that are either not going to vote or will vote for one of the two "third-party" candidates. Some may vote for Trump as a protest. This could get ugly, and quickly.

I've been watching this farce unfold rather dispassionately, and can do so because i know that my vote amounts to less than a fart in a gale, and because I'm interested to see if my theories on the current workings are correct. I intend to vote in early November, but I still haven't made up my mind about who, what, or any. The answer to my theoretical questions will only be answered when evidential results start showing up in January.

From an intellectual perspective it'll be an interesting watch. Clinton remains the entirely safe "bet" in this as she's the darling of the oligarchs (mainly because she'll quietly do their bidding without "going renegade" (she recalls what happened to her husband)). If Trump "wins", and at this point it may be down to how the Sanders folks vote (if they do), it's going to be "all bets are off" unless Trump will STFU [0] with his inane rhetoric and personality faults and is going to toe the line. This would indicate that the oligarchs have actually lost control and the system would react by hamstringing him at the congressional layer (where it'll be business as usual), or possibly going the "terminal route" to solve the "problem" (child).

From an emotional perspective I'm terrified of what might happen. The rest of me is simply disgusted.


[0] Shut The F**k Up

[oldsalt1]

[0] Shut The F**k Up[/quote]


This was on the bottom of the last post. What is this about

[oldsalt1]

or possibly going the "terminal route" to solve the "problem" (child).
are you referring to the same terminal route as Justice Scalia

[dillon]

Even if I had not already voted, and the exaggerated claims by Donald Trump about the uncovered emails contained any sort of smoking gun about Clinton, which no one, including Trump, yet knows, there is nothing short of a confession of capital homicide that could make me change my vote, or vote for the GOP platform in general, or for their nut-job nominee. I pray for the souls of the single-issue pseudo-religious voters who ignore the most egregious sins of a candidate who has only to proclaim himself anti-abortion to take the votes of those folks. And that's what I sense in this case.