They Do This to Every Republican.

[Blueskye2]

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

And that is the real story here.  The vast majority of what we see, think and feel is shaped by the peddlers of news and except for the conspiracy theorist no one thinks the news media is that corrupt. Yet wikileaks proves otherwise, the system is corrupt, journalism in bed with politicians letting the politicians write their own story and read the script (verified by wikileaks that Clinton does this).  Anyone who doesn't become part of the corrupt system will be trashed. 

The news media is the first line of protection for the Gaddianton Robbers and power elites.

At the beginning of the first Gulf War, CNN was a fledgling radio broadcast, most of us tuned into CNN because they were providing real coverage, it was awesome.

Fast forward to GWB, where he, Cheney and their cronies were putting out press releases full of garbage and lies, and CNN and every other news outlet were reading and printing the press releases, verbatim. No fact checking. No verifying anything. I quit taking "news" at face value back then.

The problem I have with Trump is he sounds tyrannical. Freedom of the press is foundational to our republic and the way he talks, he sounds like a third world dictator, who hopes to squash the press (via lawsuits) because he doesn't like what it says about himself. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendment He wants to control the press the way he has controlled everyone else, via lawyers. I don't see that as any different to what you are commenting that Dems are doing.

The way to ending undo influence by politicians, of all stripes, is for we, the people, to use our critical thinking skills. Call them out, both biased liberal and conservative, without bias ourselves. 

Edited October 15, 2016 by Blueskye2

[yjacket]

8 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

This election and the SC issue have made me really look long and hard at voting my conscience and what that means.

 

 

Ginsberg is 83, Kennedy is 80, Breyer is 78.  So in 4 years it'd be 87,84,83.  A very good chance that 2 will need to be replaced, plus the current vacancy that's 3.

Replace at 2 lefties with Conservatives + the current vacancy that would really give this country a shot in the arm towards actual constitutionalism, smaller government, less power, etc..

Edited October 15, 2016 by yjacket

[mirkwood]

See why it's making me rethink what voting my conscience means?  I'm also a third party voter on multiple occasions.  I don't think so this time and not because Trump will make even an average President.

[yjacket]

19 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Freedom of the press is foundational to our republic and the way he talks, he sounds like a third world dictator, who hopes to squash the press (via liawsuits) because he doesn't like what it says about himself. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/26/trump-pledges-curb-press-freedom-libel-laws-first-amendment

I understand that, but the actual facts of what he has done speak a little bit differently than what he says he will do.  In certain cases, I'm actually okay with libel laws . . .I'm not okay with the press being able to hide behind the cover of the "freedom of the press" with the ability to destroy people's lives based on rumor, innuendo, etc. 

Using a lawsuit and then winning if what the press says is baseless (when it is reported as fact as opposed to opinion pieces) and it can be proven has been destructive in nature, isn't curbing the freedom of the press.  And Trump is also coming at it from a business perspective, businesses certainly have the right to sue when a newspaper make a fallacious claim that materially harms the company.

There is a big difference between suing and then letting the courts determine if the suit has merits vs. shutting down newspapers simply b/c someone doesn't like the paper.

If your fear is that he would do that, then you are already admitting we are a 3rd world country.

Edited October 15, 2016 by yjacket

[yjacket]

7 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

See why it's making me rethink what voting my conscience means?  I'm also a third party voter on multiple occasions.  I don't think so this time and not because Trump will make even an average President.

1st time in 16 years I'll vote R for Pres. . . .

[yjacket]

8 hours ago, mirkwood said:

This election and the SC issue have made me really look long and hard at voting my conscience and what that means.

 

And now there is evidence of a friendly business relationship between John Podesta and Federal Judge Richard Leon through (who is involved in the State Dept. e-mail Clinton case) ???  They teach a law course together.

Man, people wake up and smell the coffee!! It is corrupt to the absolute core.  Clinton was never going to be prosecuted for her high crimes.  It was all theatre to see how to make it go away without the American people seeing the corruption.

Edited October 15, 2016 by yjacket

[Blueskye2]

9 hours ago, yjacket said:

I understand that, but the actual facts of what he has done speak a little bit differently than what he says he will do.  In certain cases, I'm actually okay with libel laws . . .I'm not okay with the press being able to hide behind the cover of the "freedom of the press" with the ability to destroy people's lives based on rumor, innuendo, etc. 

Using a lawsuit and then winning if what the press says is baseless (when it is reported as fact as opposed to opinion pieces) and it can be proven has been destructive in nature, isn't curbing the freedom of the press.  And Trump is also coming at it from a business perspective, businesses certainly have the right to sue when a newspaper make a fallacious claim that materially harms the company.

There is a big difference between suing and then letting the courts determine if the suit has merits vs. shutting down newspapers simply b/c someone doesn't like the paper.

If your fear is that he would do that, then you are already admitting we are a 3rd world country.

His character and actions show he isn't taking the high ground. 

When GWB was campaigning he became so frustrated with bad press that he said there ought to be limits to freedom. Sounds like that is where you're at too.

When the press can be controlled by a billionaire who can sue all day long, for his whole life, freedom is indeed limited. A small, independent paper would never survive the threat of a lawsuit. It is the wrong path to open up that gate. 

Not third world yet, but I perceive the iron law of oligarchy is setting in. The oligarchy rise is made possible by controlling access to information. That is one reason why limiting freedom of the press is a bad idea. 

Edited October 15, 2016 by Blueskye2

[Blueskye2]

20 hours ago, anatess2 said:

If Republicans/Conservatives want to remain relevant, they need to destroy this with a national backlash.

This is, what... the 3rd time.. .in 6 months that I linked to a Rush Limbaugh excerpt.  I'm not really that much of a follower of Limbaugh but I do take a glance at his website because everything that happens in his show is transcribed.  I use Rush to balance places like the New York Times.

So, here's some excerpts:

• He was really on message, and now the Trump people and Pence are saying that evidence will soon be forthcoming to refute all of the allegations here that these various women are making.

• You've got to remember, you've got to understand that they do this to every Republican nominee.  They did it to John McCain.  The New York Times ran a story about how he had an affair with somebody way back. I don't even remember the details.  They did it to Newt Gingrich in the 2012 primaries.  They went out and claimed that Newt's ex-wife claimed that he did this to his third ex-wife and the second ex-wife was mad, and the first ex-wife wanted to get...

  It was so bad that Newt, if you remember in the South Carolina primary, John King of CNN opened the debate asking Newt to explain all this philandering and stuff, and his ex-wifes.  And Newt just destroyed the guy on the basis that how dare you denigrate what we are doing here by bringing it up anonymously like this.  Newt got three standing ovations in three-minute answer.  And then John King tried to say, "Hey, the story is out there. They reported over there."

  "Don't do that, John.  You chose to open this debate with this filth.  You chose to do it.  Don't try to blame this on other people." 

• So Donald Trump, 30 years an A-list celebrity, 30-years, wildly rich, wildly famous, he's owned the Miss Universe pageant, he's been surrounded by beautiful women all over the world, 30 years.  And not once in those 30 years has any of them ever claimed that he octopused 'em and he assaulted 'em, not once.  Nope, not until three weeks ago before the presidential election. 

• Did you see this rally in Cincinnati Trump had last night?  There were 20,000 people in the arena.  There were 7,000 people that wanted to get in that couldn't, that were standing outside.  It was streamed. Facebook had... Yeah, 240,000 people were watching it online various ways, and whatever implications are on that.  I mean, it was huge last night, and Trump was on message 100%, and I had somebody send me a note that was watching it last night who said, "If the Drive-By Media would cover this, Trump would win by 10 points.  If this speech Trump's giving..." This rally that Trump had in Cincinnati last night." If these were being seen by the people in this country, he'd win by 10 points."

Read it all here: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/10/14/they_do_this_to_every_republican_and_it_s_about_time_for_a_national_backlash

 

And here's the Cincinatti rally.  50 minutes of encapsulation of Trump policy positions delivered in a speech style that only Trump can deliver.  How many of you claiming Trump can't win have not yet seen a Trump rally?  I'm looking at you @Carborendum.  If you've been to/watched one take a few glances at this one to refresh what winning issues the guy has stood for this whole time. 

 

 

 

Some people do horrible, awful, things and get away with it for years, or a lifetime. Eventually, sometimes, the horrible behavior is exposed. 

The number of adoring fans a horrible person may have or may not have, is irrelevant.

 

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Some people do horrible, awful, things and get away with it for years, or a lifetime. Eventually, sometimes, the horrible behavior is exposed. 

The number of adoring fans a horrible person may have or may not have, is irrelevant.

 

And some people don't.

You are judging the sum total of 70 years of a person's life by a one minute video and the unsubstantiated claims of women through a newspaper that has gotten in trouble not too long ago for manufacturing anti- women offenses about Trump.

 

[anatess2]

On October 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, bytebear said:

There is clearly a double standard when it comes to the infidelities of Democrats vs. Republicans.  Frankly, I am surprised they didn't try to smear Romney, although I am sure they tried to find something.  That's far more telling about Romney really, since you should live a life so that if you are accused of wrong doing, your character will win out.  Trump is taking heat because it's probably true that he was a masher.  But I do find it hard to swallow the notion that some random woman comes forward after 30 years to complain about his behavior.   And for the NYTimes to actually run with this story as if it has even an ounce of verifiability, just tells me the deep dishonesty of the media.  Journalism is dead. 

Where've you gone to in 2012?

This is what the press successfully painted Romney to be:

• Out of touch rich guy who doesn't pay his fair share.
• Tax cheat.
• War on Women - complete with women put in binders and his desire to ban contraceptives.
• Considered 47% of the population as not worth campaigning for.
• Leaves his employees to die.
• Bullies his classmates.
• Abuses animals and even tied his dog to the roof of the station wagon.

Among others.

The difference is - only Democrats waged this super negative campaigning on him so he pretty much survived the primaries running on the issues with the GOP behind him.  On the other hand, Romney played the Democrat playbook of personal negative campaign of sexual transgressions against Newt Gingrich that caused him to step down after Super Tuesday.

But, even as Republicans stayed skeptical about all the negative attacks against Romney, he still lost with 5 million McCain voters sitting out the elections.

This time, Republicans have opened fire on Trump since New Hampshire and it just got worse all the way through the RNC.  Add to that the full force of the Clinton machine and the media.  That's far more telling about the strength of Trump as a leader fighting against all odds for what he believes in to have stayed standing and remain competitive for this long.

Edited October 16, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On October 14, 2016 at 9:44 PM, MormonGator said:

Trump and his Trumpers are the epitome of the anonymous, rage filled online poster who insults others and will argue over anything. It's so disturbing. 

And... It didn't take too long for the marginalization to come out again.  Didn't even last to page 2.

[bytebear]

Funny, but I can find a dozen videos of Democrats attacking Trumpers, tearing down Trump signs, flipping people off, screaming at them.  The whole movement of BLM and SJW.  There is simply nothing, NOTHING comparable on the conservative side.

 

[Blueskye2]

12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And some people don't.

You are judging the sum total of 70 years of a person's life by a one minute video and the unsubstantiated claims of women through a newspaper that has gotten in trouble not too long ago for manufacturing anti- women offenses about Trump.

 

Trump lies, a lot.  He's the man who cries wolf, so yeah, I have a hard time believing anything he says.  Also, do you have a list of each woman and who they originally interviewed with for publication? (Seriously, I would be interested in seeing such a list. )

ETA: Found it. http://www.npr.org/2016/10/13/497799354/a-list-of-donald-trumps-accusers-of-inappropriate-sexual-conduct. ...you're statement that this is a vendetta of one newspaper, is false. 

Edited October 16, 2016 by Blueskye2

[Blueskye2]

CNN interview with Temple Taggart. For you Trump supporters, I'm genuinely interested if, after watching this entire interview, you still believe in Trump. 

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by Blueskye2

[yjacket]

Blueskye in this instance, I do believe Ms. Taggart, but is stealing a kiss sexual assault??  She even mentions in the video that she mostly forgot about it b/c far worse has happened to her.  This is hardly the smoking gun.  Is it inappropriate, yes, but they guy didn't french her or grab her rear or chest, etc. Is it possible he has sexually assaulted women, yeah absolutely but we are all being played.

I don't like Trump.  Maybe he is a Thug and a pervert.  But I am telling you, the more that I read directly from the wikileaks e-mails (this isn't some weird conspiracy website crap); the more that I am convinced that there is something very, very serious going on at the highest levels of government.

All you need to do is go to DNC leaks on Reddit and start pouring through them.  There is some very serious corruption. One e-mail doesn't do it, but if you read enough of them a pattern emerges (and this isn't a confirmation bias pattern, it is simply piecing together the story).  Things like the Clinton's giving speeches and being paid 250k by Goldman Sachs.  Then you read that the Clinton Foundation rents office building space from Goldman Sachs. Does the CF pay Goldman Sachs for office space and then Goldman Sachs pays Clinton for speeches (that sounds an awful lot like money laundering).

Things like Qatar giving Bill Clinton a 1 million dollar birthday gift? Then reading that Qatar and Saudia Arabia are covertly funding ISIS.

Things like "Friends of Bill" getting preferential treatment to companies who are vying for State Department funds to rebuild Haiti.

Or an e-mail from Huma that talks about "bundlers" that list multiple generations of financial "bundlers" that include all the big names in the Democratic network.

Which you want to know why Trump is a horrible candidate . . .it doesn't have to do with the sexual crap; it has to do with the fact that he does not have the Financial Backing network, he doesn't have a network of "bundlers" to help him.

E-mails where she talks about "open borders" and a "hemispheric market", like downright crazy crap that almost implies a North American Union.

I know, I know Trump loses b/c of the stupid "sexual pervert" crap. But my heaven's while everyone is focused on the emotional, banel, inconsequential aspects, they are missing the boat on the absolute level of evil and corruption.

And folks, this isn't conspiracy crap-just read the blasted e-mails.

I have voted 3rd party all my life except for 1 Presidential election.  I have always been of the opinion that when people say "this is the most important election" they are full of crap.

I will be voting for Trump-not b/c he is a moral person but b/c dang it, I've read the blasted leaked e-mails between the power elites.  This isn't something that has been filtered down to me by some opinion writer or whatnot.  I'm getting things directly from the source.

For the first time in my life, I am legitimately genuinely afraid that if Hillary wins this election that it will be a watershed moment in American History. I am talking the absolute end of the Republic as we know it.  I have never in my life felt that "this" election is the election that it ends-except for now.

If she wins, I think it will literal be like 2nd world countries, where you vote but you instinctively know your vote doesn't really matter b/c it's already been decided.

Folks, if you can have enough political pull and power to get the DOJ and the FBI to clear her of any criminal wrongdoing (and I'm telling you anyone who has worked in the intelligence business knows she should be in jail-b/c they most certainly would be), there is no end to the amount of political pull you can have as President.  If she is elected Pres. you will see (you already see it), really, really weird crap happen. That if we as Americans saw it happen in Russia or in Chile, we'd all know it was politically orchestrated-we are talking political lies, stealing and yes even possibly murder.

If you want to look into the soul of these people all you need to do is understand that the day of the mass murders in San Bernadino-John Podesta (Clinton's Campaign Chairman) was e-mailed a tweet by Christopher Hayes who announced that Sayeed Farouk was the shooter.  

He responded back: "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter."

Who says that the day of a horrible mass shooting?  They are pure evil.  Trump may be a bad guy-but these folks are evil.

But go ahead focus on the stupidity of alleged sexual assault while our Republic is being sold down the river.

Edited October 17, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest Godless]

11 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Blueskye in this instance, I do believe Ms. Taggart, but is stealing a kiss sexual assault??  

 

Yes, that is absolutely sexual assault. 

 

As for the rest of your post, I'll just repeat what I've been saying all along: 1) Yes, our government is horribly corrupt and changes need to be made to make the system work for the people again, and 2) Trump is far from being the guy to do the job. He's a loose cannon who will literally be able to get nothing done without the use of executive order (and frankly the thought of Trump using that is terrifying). He's already alienated himself from any potential allies he could have had in Congress, and as president I have no doubt that he would also alienate us as a nation from our allies abroad. I don't trust him with our military, our nukes, or our Constitutional freedoms. His ability to run a business is suspect at best. And you want him to lead the nation? We have military installations all over the globe, and you think his isolationist plan is a good idea? Trump will not save our democracy. He will not make us safer as a nation (quite the opposite, I expect). I will absolutely take 4-8 more years of business-as-usual corruption before I allow myself to roll the dice on the unpredictable hothead that is Trump.

[Just_A_Guy]

17 minutes ago, Godless said:

Yes, that is absolutely sexual assault.

Amen. 

For guys who aren't getting this: imagine yourself being groped/smooched/ogled whilst naked, not by a woman; but by a gay man.

The sense of shock and helplessness and utter revulsion you'd feel in that scenario, is pretty much what these women (assuming they're telling the truth) went through.

As for these revelations about Hillary:  did Trump supporters not know she was crooked back during the primary when they first excused Trump from delaying "the pledge", then advocated his running a third party campaign if the delegates denied him the nomination? 

I don't think hardcore Trump supporters are as scared of Hillary as they want me to think they are.  If they were, they wouldn't have spent the primaries playing electoral chicken.

[Blueskye2]

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

Blueskye in this instance, I do believe Ms. Taggart, but is stealing a kiss sexual assault??  She even mentions in the video that she mostly forgot about it b/c far worse has happened to her.  This is hardly the smoking gun.  Is it inappropriate, yes, but they guy didn't french her or grab her rear or chest, etc. Is it possible he has sexually assaulted women, yeah absolutely but we are all being played.

I don't like Trump.  Maybe he is a Thug and a pervert.  But I am telling you, the more that I read directly from the wikileaks e-mails (this isn't some weird conspiracy website crap); the more that I am convinced that there is something very, very serious going on at the highest levels of government.

All you need to do is go to DNC leaks on Reddit and start pouring through them.  There is some very serious corruption. One e-mail doesn't do it, but if you read enough of them a pattern emerges (and this isn't a confirmation bias pattern, it is simply piecing together the story).  Things like the Clinton's giving speeches and being paid 250k by Goldman Sachs.  Then you read that the Clinton Foundation rents office building space from Goldman Sachs. Does the CF pay Goldman Sachs for office space and then Goldman Sachs pays Clinton for speeches (that sounds an awful lot like money laundering).

Things like Qatar giving Bill Clinton a 1 million dollar birthday gift? Then reading that Qatar and Saudia Arabia are covertly funding ISIS.

Things like "Friends of Bill" getting preferential treatment to companies who are vying for State Department funds to rebuild Haiti.

Or an e-mail from Huma that talks about "bundlers" that list multiple generations of financial "bundlers" that include all the big names in the Democratic network.

Which you want to know why Trump is a horrible candidate . . .it doesn't have to do with the sexual crap; it has to do with the fact that he does not have the Financial Backing network, he doesn't have a network of "bundlers" to help him.

E-mails where she talks about "open borders" and a "hemispheric market", like downright crazy crap that almost implies a North American Union.

I know, I know Trump loses b/c of the stupid "sexual pervert" crap. But my heaven's while everyone is focused on the emotional, banel, inconsequential aspects, they are missing the boat on the absolute level of evil and corruption.

And folks, this isn't conspiracy crap-just read the blasted e-mails.

I have voted 3rd party all my life except for 1 Presidential election.  I have always been of the opinion that when people say "this is the most important election" they are full of crap.

I will be voting for Trump-not b/c he is a moral person but b/c dang it, I've read the blasted leaked e-mails between the power elites.  This isn't something that has been filtered down to me by some opinion writer or whatnot.  I'm getting things directly from the source.

For the first time in my life, I am legitimately genuinely afraid that if Hillary wins this election that it will be a watershed moment in American History. I am talking the absolute end of the Republic as we know it.  I have never in my life felt that "this" election is the election that it ends-except for now.

If she wins, I think it will literal be like 2nd world countries, where you vote but you instinctively know your vote doesn't really matter b/c it's already been decided.

Folks, if you can have enough political pull and power to get the DOJ and the FBI to clear her of any criminal wrongdoing (and I'm telling you anyone who has worked in the intelligence business knows she should be in jail-b/c they most certainly would be), there is no end to the amount of political pull you can have as President.  If she is elected Pres. you will see (you already see it), really, really weird crap happen. That if we as Americans saw it happen in Russia or in Chile, we'd all know it was politically orchestrated-we are talking political lies, stealing and yes even possibly murder.

If you want to look into the soul of these people all you need to do is understand that the day of the mass murders in San Bernadino-John Podesta (Clinton's Campaign Chairman) was e-mailed a tweet by Christopher Hayes who announced that Sayeed Farouk was the shooter.  

He responded back: "Better if a guy named Sayeed Farouk was reporting that a guy named Christopher Hayes was the shooter."

Who says that the day of a horrible mass shooting?  They are pure evil.  Trump may be a bad guy-but these folks are evil.

But go ahead focus on the stupidity of alleged sexual assault while our Republic is being sold down the river.

 I googled around, a stolen kiss is in some places legally, sexual assault, other places it is sexual harassment. At the very least you see that Trump has lied.

So you got a look behind the curtain, of how politics works. It would be very naive for you to believe it works differently for Republicans, or that Trump would clean up corruption. He'd be the fox in the henhouse, and with the hatred he has for the press, he'd be the only reporter in the henhouse.  He could feed you feel good stories for four years.

Trump supporters keep making this giant leap, of Trump as savior. I just don't get it.

If the whole appeal is an "outsider", its time to wake up and smell the coffee. The minute Trump made himself a candidate he became an insider.  His friends that supported him in public, and on air, after The Video came out, were all seasoned, Republican, politicians. Not to mention the reports of him being coached by that snake in the grass, Karl Rove. 

If you think HRC should be in jail, and you think it's shocking, then you haven't studied up enough on Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George W Bush. Start with GWB winning an election ONLY because his brother was governor in Florida.  Move onto Halliburton. Then the WMD lie to get us into a war, where, we used Saudi Arabia as a base. Look up how the RNC was running an email server with the intent to illegally remove and keep presidential correspondence from ever being seen. Read up on how Karl Rove was subpoenaed  and never responded and nothing, NOTHING, happened. Dropped, magically. Read how Rove, Cheney and Bush jeopardized covert operations to cover their lies. Read how justices were illegally removed from their positions.

Just don't be so naive to think Trump is some kind of new political species. He isn't. 

Edited October 17, 2016 by Blueskye2

[bytebear]

You're joking right?  You think Hillary didn't have the specifics on the Gulf War?  You think she didn't set up the over throw of the Libyan government and then joke about the death of Qaddafi? That she didn't run guns into foreign countries, or give Mexican drug lords weapons?  Or that she didn't get payoffs from foreign governments for favors?  That she doesn't have deep deep ties to wall street banks.  If you think the Bush administration was corrupt, take that and double, triple it, and you won't even come close to Clinton.  And now we have a bombing of a GOP office. And we have CNN telling us not to read Wikileaks, and they will tell us what is relevant.  All the while, they still play up these absurd accusations of sexual harassment. Suddenly, these poor women feel the need to come forward, a month before the election?  And you actually want to paint Hillary as the better candidate?  She's not.  Her husband actually paid off his accusers.  He was actually accused of rape, at the time the incidents happened (not 30+ years later).  Seriously, when I hear someone defend Hilary against Trump in the way you have, I just tune out, because it's just flat out, ignoring so much evidence, just as CNN is telling you to do.

[Blueskye2]

19 minutes ago, bytebear said:

You're joking right?  You think Hillary didn't have the specifics on the Gulf War?  You think she didn't set up the over throw of the Libyan government and then joke about the death of Qaddafi? That she didn't run guns into foreign countries, or give Mexican drug lords weapons?  Or that she didn't get payoffs from foreign governments for favors?  That she doesn't have deep deep ties to wall street banks.  If you think the Bush administration was corrupt, take that and double, triple it, and you won't even come close to Clinton.  And now we have a bombing of a GOP office. And we have CNN telling us not to read Wikileaks, and they will tell us what is relevant.  All the while, they still play up these absurd accusations of sexual harassment. Suddenly, these poor women feel the need to come forward, a month before the election?  And you actually want to paint Hillary as the better candidate?  She's not.  Her husband actually paid off his accusers.  He was actually accused of rape, at the time the incidents happened (not 30+ years later).  Seriously, when I hear someone defend Hilary against Trump in the way you have, I just tune out, because it's just flat out, ignoring so much evidence, just as CNN is telling you to do.

Hillary is not Bill.

Do you remember Richard Nixon, the guy who was impeached for paying off people to break into a Democratic office with the intent to steal campaign information that would be valuable to the Republicans? Your precious Wikileaks are the same thing! Someone broke into an office and is using what they have in an attempt to influence the outcome of the election. You are indeed participating in the fruits of illegal voter fraud and influence peddling. This information isn't being released out of the goodness of anyone's heart. You are being used.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote for Clinton. I'm just flabbergasted at how utterly gullible some people can be, and I mean really, really, smart people. People are freaking asleep and have been for decades.

i already said once, in another thread, if I could I'd move out to a different country. It isn't because I kind of like Sweden. It's because democracy in this country is a sham, and has been since at least Ronald Reagan (who I did in fact vote for).

All of the sudden you, an internet stranger to me, has discovered the sham, but you still think one side is less of a sham than the other.  I got past that, solidly, when GWB and Cheney were elected, TWICE.

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by Blueskye2

[bytebear]

No, Hillary is worse than Bill, politically.  And she certainly did intimidate and harass the women he involved himself with.  She is notorious for it.  Just the things she said about a poor naive intern who was seduced is enough to condemn her for her "treatment of women". 

I remember Nixon was nearly impeached for his actions, and he resigned in disgrace. I expect nothing less of Hillary. And comparing his deleting 30 seconds of audio tape to destroying her entire email cache is quite a difference. What's said is that you are actually defending the corruption of journalism to protect her.  I want them to reveal the corruption of all people in power.  That's their job. And sadly, they are giving her a pass on her corruption, as any Sanders supporter will tell you.  But the media is entirely ignoring the fact that we know for a fact that her campaign and the DNC worked together to ensure her victory.  I want to stop the corruption. You seem to want to pretend it doesn't exist.  It does.  It's clear as day.  And frankly, I don't really thing anyone on the left has gotten over the Bush/Gore election, and will accept all kinds of corruption as some twisted form of justice, even when it harms their own self interests. 

[Blueskye2]

10 minutes ago, bytebear said:

No, Hillary is worse than Bill, politically.  And she certainly did intimidate and harass the women he involved himself with.  She is notorious for it.  Just the things she said about a poor naive intern who was seduced is enough to condemn her for her "treatment of women". 

I remember Nixon was nearly impeached for his actions, and he resigned in disgrace. I expect nothing less of Hillary. And comparing his deleting 30 seconds of audio tape to destroying her entire email cache is quite a difference. What's said is that you are actually defending the corruption of journalism to protect her.  I want them to reveal the corruption of all people in power.  That's their job. And sadly, they are giving her a pass on her corruption, as any Sanders supporter will tell you.  But the media is entirely ignoring the fact that we know for a fact that her campaign and the DNC worked together to ensure her victory.  I want to stop the corruption. You seem to want to pretend it doesn't exist.  It does.  It's clear as day.  And frankly, I don't really thing anyone on the left has gotten over the Bush/Gore election, and will accept all kinds of corruption as some twisted form of justice, even when it harms their own self interests. 

Presidents and their staff have been given a pass on corruption since good ole Oly North. 

I live in Utah and who I vote for President hasn't mattered a hill of beans. I feel it is a moral obligation to vote, otherwise I think I would just sit this one out.  Seems a lot of LDS in these parts are swinging towards a third party.  I might just follow suit. 

[bytebear]

See, there you go again, pretending Republicans are the catalyst for corruption, and that Democrats are magically immune.  This is the biggest problem I have with Democrats. Rather than own their own corruption, they deflect, as if Olly North's actions decades ago somehow makes Hillary's actions non-factual.  They are, and not only that, they are far worse than North's.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, bytebear said:

See, there you go again, pretending Republicans are the catalyst for corruption, and that Democrats are magically immune.  This is the biggest problem I have with Democrats. Rather than own their own corruption, they deflect, 

I see this as a problem with both parties.

 

[yjacket]

There is a problem with both parties (they are in bed together).  But folks, I am really worried, more worried than my entire life that if Hillary gets in, it will be no kidding the end of the Republic. I have never in my life talked like this or thought like this about an election (and I've been around for plenty).

Quite frankly, if I have the choice between the end of the Republic and someone who has stolen kisses and who may sexual assault women.  I will 100% take the sexual predator over the end of the Republic every day of the week.

Guys, I have not come to this conclusion based upon news media, upon conspiracy websites, pro-Trump websites, etc.  While I have defended Trump in the past, I have said I would vote Johnson (up until recently). Please stop with the partisan politics for just a few minutes-leave it out and think!

There is some very weird crap going on, stuff that if we as Americans saw it going on in say Chile you'd immediately know what is going on. . . .it's so obvious with a corrupt government.

Based upon what I have personally read in the wikileaks e-mails (again not from conspiracy websites).  I think if Hillary is elected, we will see an end to the Republic. I think this is a no kidding watershed moment in US history.  Take out Trump, take out R/D (yes they are both in bed together), but do we as a nation want to continue as an independent Republic or not?  I used to think the people on the news media saying this were just simply saying it to promote Trump this election cycle . . .no now I think it is absolutely real. This election isn't Trump vs. Clinton, this election is one for all the marbles.  This is a battle for the heart and soul of the Republic.  Heaven above, I pray that I am really seriously wrong on this.

If you will notice, I did not really start posting like this up until the past week (until I started reading the e-mails, most are innocuous, but several make you go what the .. .???).

Quite frankly, I think there is a likelihood that if she is elected in my lifetime (and probably in the not to distant future) and time frame we will see the United States join a European Union like organization but for North America. 

If Trump is elected will it still happen maybe . . .heck if I know, but I am willing to take that chance. Maybe McMullin (even though I think he is in bed too) is the answer.  I don't know . . .all I know is from what I've read, heaven help us if she is elected.

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by yjacket