Flonne Wrote:If the house and senate are blocking something, even if they are held by the other party, that doesn't mean you just get to go around it because you don't like it, you deal with it because that's how the country works. If nothing is happening it means the president believes he is more important than the entirety of Congress and is not willing to treat them as peers, instead only trying to push things that are only in his own interest.
Not willing to act treat like peers? Excuse me, which portion of the government is refusing to even discuss or vote on anything recommended by the other half?
Your argument is moot.
Republicans are out to prove that the government doesn't work by actively refusing to represent and govern.
They're literally running the government into the ground so they can complain about how the president is doing when they're the ones driving this thing.
The sheer absurdity of your viewpoint reinforces my believe that you live in an echo chamber.
It's not having what you want - It's wanting what you've got.
Eos Wrote:Not willing to act treat like peers? Excuse me, which portion of the government is refusing to even discuss or on anything recommended by the other?
Eos Wrote:Not willing to act treat like peers? Excuse me, which portion of the government is refusing to even discuss or vote on anything recommended by the other half?
Your argument is moot.
Republicans are out to prove that the government doesn't work by actively refusing to represent and govern.
They're literally running the government into the ground so they can complain about how the president is doing when they're the ones driving this thing.
The sheer absurdity of your viewpoint reinforces my believe that you live in an echo chamber.
How is my argument moot when you just said that that sort of thing is exactly what is happening? I didn't say anything about it not happening on all sides, it's a completely pervasive problem, none of the branches have any respect for any of the others anymore, and none of the parties have any real respect for any of the others anymore either. Obama knowingly puts forth bills that will be impossible to get through to claim they are being children, and Congress knowingly abuses their power of halting the process in order to make HIM look like a child. It's a playground fight between "adults".
The biggest mistake by far that you are making is having a vested interest in any politician or party; none of them have your interest at heart, none of them even care if you die unless your death reinforces one of their policies, people that are not directly useful to them don't matter at all, votes don't really matter much either given how gerrymandering and "battleground states" work. Getting worked up when "your party", either the face of or the policies of, is insulted, is illogical; everyone will make the mistake at some point, sometimes very often, but it's fundamentally incorrect, their policies should not matter at all to you, even if you agree with them they are really just wording them in such a way that the most people possible will do exactly that, and the implementation is often entirely different from that wording.
I hate Hillary, but mainly as a person, not a politician; she is a genuine, legitimate scumbag who cannot be trusted on ANY of her stances, the mindset of manipulation regardless of the ethical implications has corrupted her to the core. She is actually a very good politician because that is the definition of what a politician IS, and the better you are at being a heartless, out of touch pile of garbage, the better you are at being a politician. Obama is not a bad person, which is evidenced by the fact that he looks like he has aged several decades in his 8 years; if he came out looking fresh and unfazed by the pile of bullpomegranate that is the presidency, that would have been much more troubling. Therefore, I dislike Obama as a politician but not necessarily as a person, which I can also say about Bush.
I would vote for Trump even if he came out and said he was going to nuke any country in the world including our own the day he was sworn in, because I consider that the damage caused by a nuclear missile hitting a populated area to be less than the damage a Clinton presidency would cause, based solely on their character. A nuclear missile could kill millions of people and end the US as a country due to the backlash, a Clinton presidency could very well extinct the human race because the ensuing WWIII that -she- would cause would be much different than the WWIII Trump would cause; she would go down using every trick in her book, taking absolutely everyone else with her by bankrupting every country in the world using her extensive Foundation ties (which the power families would of course be in on, someone who owns the banks and the money itself can profit on absolutely anything and BRING DOWN absolutely anything, the only question would be whether or not they realized in time that she was too dangerous even for them to control), assassinating hundreds of political opponents in a last ditch effort to silence those who are calling for her head on a stake; there is much more to fear from a person who completely lacks morals than from a person who is simply an idiot, no amount of physical force is more dangerous than her mentality because the most dangerous people in history have all been narcissitic sociopaths that are also very clever. There's no question that she is clever, I'm not sure if she is actually intelligent but intelligence is not needed past a certain point for a person to be clever, though my guess would be that she is, because those two factors build off of each other at an exponential rate, there's no way she could have gotten this much power in this relatively short period of time unless she was clever enough to know who to manipulate AND smart enough to figure out HOW to manipulate them.
And yes, I am assuming both candidates have a good chance of igniting WWIII, there shouldn't be much question about that at this point, the only thing we can do is mitigate the amount of damage done by who is put into power. I consider that both the death toll and the chance itself with Trump are both lower, thus I will be voting for him. His stances don't particularly matter to me, it's better just to ignore what they say because most politicians never act on anything the say in the way they say they will, it's safer to just look at their history and extrapolate their "next move" based on previous decisions. Her stances don't particularly matter to me for the same reason, she will not do a single thing she says she will, and that includes both things I consider would be negatives and things I consider would be positives; none of the words out of their mouths can be trusted. The only thing that can be trusted is your own thoughts on them as people; the way I rate it, it's safest by far to vote in the dumbest candidate who also has viewpoints will garner bipartisan dislike in Congress so nothing they want gets done. Nothing getting done sounds like a bad thing but in reality it's the best possible option, the less that gets done the less that can be pineappleed up, because almost every bill that gets passed WILL pineapple more things up than it solves. On the flipside, the most dangerous by far is, as I said, a morally bankrupt, narcissitic (Trump is too, but all of these traits must be present, or at least "the more the more dangerous" type scenario), intelligent, and most importantly clever, president, bonus points if they own large portions of the system they are trying to work; Hillary tags every one of these red flags for me, Trump tags much fewer. I don't feel that Trump is anywhere near as unethical as she is, but he IS running for president so that doesn't mean he doesn't possess the trait, the problem comes when trying to gauge the levels of these things in each candidate, because it's hard to separate person opinion from fact, it takes a pomegranateload of research that most people don't have the time to do, it requires you to make an entire job of reading every single thing the person has ever done. I'm sure I've read dozens of books worth of dirt on both candidates, and at this point I've stopped because Trump is so far ahead of her there's nothing I could find on him that would make him worse than her, because she has done most things I would consider points against him if I found out about them already anyway.
Eos Wrote:Not willing to act treat like peers? Excuse me, which portion of the government is refusing to even discuss or vote on anything recommended by the other half?
Your argument is moot.
Republicans are out to prove that the government doesn't work by actively refusing to represent and govern.
They're literally running the government into the ground so they can complain about how the president is doing when they're the ones driving this thing.
The sheer absurdity of your viewpoint reinforces my believe that you live in an echo chamber.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if the Republicans ever actually managed to control both branches simultaneously. Probably the exact same dysfunction and gridlock, but who would they blame it on?
Realistically, Democrats are just as guilty of using procedural bullshit to stall everything when the Republicans were in power.
Flonne, what do you think Hillary's goal is?
Obviously it's not the things she says or the Democrat platform. She's selfish, yes. But what, exactly, is she after?
And, more importantly, how would igniting WWIII contribute to that goal?
The way I see it, Trump is a lot more likely to go too far and trigger something he won't be able to stop, than Hillary is.
With Trump, we have to believe that he doesn't really mean - or will not be allowed to carry out - most of what he says.
With Hillary, my feeling is that she'll try to rock the boat as little as possible, while going on about her usual behind-the-scenes business.
I don't think either of them will be good for the USA or the world, but I don't think either would be as disastrous as you believe.
SaptaZapta Wrote:Flonne, what do you think Hillary's goal is?
Obviously it's not the things she says or the Democrat platform. She's selfish, yes. But what, exactly, is she after?
And, more importantly, how would igniting WWIII contribute to that goal?
The way I see it, Trump is a lot more likely to go too far and trigger something he won't be able to stop, than Hillary is.
With Trump, we have to believe that he doesn't really mean - or will not be allowed to carry out - most of what he says.
With Hillary, my feeling is that she'll try to rock the boat as little as possible, while going on about her usual behind-the-scenes business.
I don't think either of them will be good for the USA or the world, but I don't think either would be as disastrous as you believe.
I've got to agree with this. Hillary's goal in life has been the Presidency for more than a decade if not going all the way back to the Clinton era. Her entire political career has been about not rocking the boat. She's a fair wind politician that will always seek the middle. I'm pretty sure her end game is getting her name in the history books as more than First Lady.
SaptaZapta Wrote:Flonne, what do you think Hillary's goal is?
Obviously it's not the things she says or the Democrat platform. She's selfish, yes. But what, exactly, is she after?
And, more importantly, how would igniting WWIII contribute to that goal?
Money and power are the goals. War makes gaining both power and especially money MUCH easier, the power families have made their fortunes by funding both sides of pretty much every war in recorded history. The assumption ordinary people make of things like the world market is that there is some risk, but for a select few, there is NO RISK AT ALL; no matter what happens, no matter if a company or even a country succeeds or fails, they WILL make money off of it, the only factor that is a variable is how much money. If you own literally all sides of the deal, there is no risk in anything. Hillary's goal? She wants her name forever recorded as being among that group of people, she wants her family to have a majority stake in the ownership of this planet.
Becoming an upstart power family, especially bypassing "minor family" status almost entirely (that's where they are now, but it's generally decades or even centuries before one is even given a shot at being a main family, and even then they are usually devoured before that can happen so the existing families can maintain what they have), is almost unheard of, so it is absolutely required of her to make drastic decisions that will assuredly ruin the lives of countless people; it is impossible to get into a true position of power without climbing a mountain of corpses. Soros will have to handle her very carefully, he owns her at this point in time but the power dynamic can change if you are willing to do things that are normally outside of the grid of things a person would even consider, and almost every one of those "outside of the box" plans are outside of the box because nobody sane would even think of attempting them, like bankrupting entire countries regardless of the consequence just to get ahead, or taking vast donations from people that the majority of the world would never want to associate with.
It's hard for me to care at this point about what the power families do, they will do it regardless. People are not equal in this world regardless of the rhetoric put forth, and that's something that will never change, there's no reason to even worry over it or you will go insane. What's more important right now is that, at every junction point in history when a main family comes into power, it causes a MASSIVE upheaval in the structure of civilization; the fewer power shifts that happen, the better. And of course, not to downplay this fact in the least, technology is MUCH more advanced now than it has ever been and it will continue to grow at an incredible rate, more and more destructive forces become available ever year, and, in their desperation to get on the short list, minor families will becoming increasingly more liable to overshoot their goal and destroy everything in the process because they don't understand exactly how powerful that which they are trying to utilize is.
VerrKol Wrote:Hillary's goal in life has been the Presidency for more than a decade if not going all the way back to the Clinton era. Her entire political career has been about not rocking the boat. She's a fair wind politician that will always seek the middle. I'm pretty sure her end game is getting her name in the history books as more than First Lady.
The presidency is a pretty small goal for a person like her. The latter point is correct though, she definitely wants her name to be important, I'm just saying that being a president, even being the first female president of the US, is not that big. This is just one country, even if it is the superpower of the world right now all superpowers eventually fall and the names of all but a few of their leaders are forgotten. She will gain no "permanence" in the history books as a president. She wants to be remembered ten thousand years from now, not just a couple centuries.
WWIII at this point in time would destroy civilization, to the point where there's hardly any history remembered at all.
I agree that power and money can and have been gained through warmongering. However, that is best done by keeping various regional conflicts burning. Getting nuclear-armed countries directly involved and feeling threatened would not make anybody richer or more powerful. (Cold War would, of course. But that's not the scenario you're fearing).
SaptaZapta Wrote:WWIII at this point in time would destroy civilization, to the point where there's hardly any history remembered at all.
Yes, and thus, overshooting their goal because they don't know the actual power of what they are trying to use. It depends on the level of desperation she has, which, based on what I've read, all signs point to "very"; she has an overwhelming desire to be important that overrides almost all logic, it doesn't matter how smart she is, at a real clutch decision she will make the wrong choice if she sees the cheese at the end of her personal maze.
Either candidate trying to profit or cause war is highly unlikely, I dont give either that much credit. I feel the election can be summed in this, you're either voting for corporate(trump) or Hilary (Gov't). People are turning to corp because government is too saturated. I feel Hilary will only accelerate the problems rather than consolidate, we need more State responsibility and less Federal standard. I think Trump does understand this, but I think his tune will change as soon as he hits office.
Another fear of having a corporate entity run our country is you can't run a country for profit, you just can't but that's exactly I feel he will do. I personally will most likely vote for Gary Johnson, doesn't believe weed is fucking evil, isn't concerned with all this gender bull sh`it, more concerned about our domestic and economic affairs. Those are priority for me, especially destroying big pharma companies.
"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."
Flonne Wrote:The biggest mistake by far that you are making is having a vested interest in any politician or party; none of them have your interest at heart, none of them even care if you die unless your death reinforces one of their policies, people that are not directly useful to them don't matter at all, votes don't really matter much either given how gerrymandering and "battleground states" work. Getting worked up when "your party", either the face of or the policies of, is insulted, is illogical;
The biggest mistake you're making is you believe I have a party. I vote based on the ideas and the platform. The republican party has repeatedly failed to interest me in their platform since they're too busy stuffing it full of hate based ideology and flat out bad ideas. The green party is a joke. the libertarian party is arguably worse. That leaves one party that at least has a platform, a plan, a viable candidate and can be worked with to achieve things. I consistently review the other parties to see where they stand and I vote across party lines when I see competent reasonable candidates who seem better qualified or have a plan that I more firmly support.
VerrKol Wrote:I sometimes wonder what would happen if the Republicans ever actually managed to control both branches simultaneously. Probably the exact same dysfunction and gridlock, but who would they blame it on?
It's not having what you want - It's wanting what you've got.
Eos Wrote:The biggest mistake you're making is you believe I have a party. I vote based on the ideas and the platform. The republican party has repeatedly failed to interest me in their platform since they're too busy stuffing it full of hate based ideology and flat out bad ideas. The green party is a joke. the libertarian party is arguably worse. That leaves one party that at least has a platform, a plan, a viable candidate and can be worked with to achieve things. I consistently review the other parties to see where they stand and I vote across party lines when I see competent reasonable candidates who seem better qualified or have a plan that I more firmly support.
That's only half of what I said though. You don't have to have a party to have a vested interest in a certain political viewpoint. You said you vote based on ideas and platform, and that's a mistake, because it's all lies, or twisted halftruths that they will either never follow through on or will implement in a way that primarily helps themselves and their friends. It doesn't matter what their platform is other than a barebones guideline to the way they may handle theoretical situations, and even then you can only assume that as far as you can trust them to hold to even a wireframe of their platform once they get into office.
I get that most people don't have the kind of time I do to research everything they and everyone connected to them have done in their entire lives, but even if you don't it's clear to at least me that Trump is more trustworthy than Hillary just based on his actions, his rallies, the way he talks, everything. He says the first thing that comes to his mind, he doesn't think anything through very hard and that means he's being mostly honest. Hell, it's actually hurting him in the polls, he should have this election on lockdown but because he can't think about what he is saying even for a second before it leaves his mouth he doesn't. Regardless of what those viewpoints ARE or how shitty they are, we actually hear a lot of what he thinks, what is going through his head. If he was thinking "we should eradicate all Mexicans in the US because deporting them takes too long", he would just come out and say it, while when Hillary thinks equally shitty thoughts, she does not convey them in any way, there's no way of knowing what she is actually thinking because she is so caught up in her lies it would be impossible for her to extricate herself from them without showing everyone just how much of a liar she actually is.
That's the only thing you can really accurately gauge a politician on; everything else can be faked, but you can't fake your way out of your own actions in the past (though you can attempt to erase the records). I wouldn't trust either further than I could throw them, and they are two of the worst candidates in my lifetime (unfortunately, it seems like every single election is the worst until the next, each has been more of a joke than the last and this is just the latest in that line), but the difference is I would actually attempt the toss with Trump because I mistrust him in a different way from her, I mistrust him because he is an idiot and could make an off the cuff decision to do something stupid, not because he is (anywhere near as much of) a liar, and he certainly isn't manipulative in the way she is, being manipulative requires you do garner your words in some way, and he has no real filter on what he says. He probably lies about pomegranate too, but he doesn't lie about absolutely everything; when you can lie about completely inane pomegranate that nobody could possibly care about like opening a fucking pickle jar on a late night comedy show, that means you have reached a depth of degeneracy where every fiber of your existence is a lie.
"You don't like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don't break it. Don't break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That's not being faithful to what this country's about."
December 30, 2009: Vetoed H.J.Res. 64, a joint resolution making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes.
October 7, 2010: Vetoed H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010.
February 24, 2015: Vetoed S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act.
March 31, 2015: Vetoed S.J.Res. 8, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to representation case procedures.
October 22, 2015: Vetoed H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
December 19, 2015: Vetoed S.J.Res. 23, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units".
December 19, 2015: Vetoed S.J.Res. 24, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units".
January 8, 2016: Vetoed H.R. 3762, the Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015.
January 19, 2016: Vetoed S.J.Res. 22, a joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the definition of “waters of the United States” under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
June 8, 2016: Vetoed H.J.Res. 88, a joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to the definition of the term "Fiduciary".
Now he's well within his right to veto any bill he wants. But don't go painting him as the nice guy who just isn't getting the cooperation he needs from the mean old republicans.
2016-08-31, 10:52 AM (This post was last modified: 2016-08-31, 05:32 PM by Flonne.)
So, after spending many hours compiling what I consider to be the most important points in the document, I will now attempt to post them in the shortest manner possible; copy pasting is not an option because this post would be like 50 pages long if I tried that, so instead I will be using infographics (I won't be using any of the ones that are memetic garbage, and I'll only be using 1-2 per topic mostly), and posting page numbers from the document if you want to read everything on the subject. The only one I really would encourage you to read regardless of the length is the section on deaths of people she doesn't like, because it would require a suspension of disbelief that I hope nobody here possesses in order to chalk them all up to coincidence when presented with all of the information.
Collusion
http://i.imgur.com/9h374Iq.jpg
Page 117-130
This is definitely one of the longest sections due to the sheer number of people involved, but it's also one of the most important for that same reason. If you don't want to read it, at least look at the infographics at the start of the section. The first image (https://i.sli.mg/iXqOgY.png) is in regards to the new superPAC Correct the Record and others, the second (https://i.sli.mg/KEbps2.jpg) is a chart of mainly corporate donors and how much they donated, the third (https://i.sli.mg/Mv0N0R.jpg) and fourth (https://i.sli.mg/fbxaU2.jpg) are more donors who donated a substantial amount
Benghazi
http://i.imgur.com/LoGOPeD.jpg
Benghazi actually doesn't have a dedicated section in the document, it's scattered all over it, so you will have to Ctrl+F for it; there is still some information on it in the document, but less that I would have expected for such an important issue. It's just about the only issue linked to the Clintons that ISN'T covered to excess other than Kathy Shelton, which is actually the next topic.
[spoiler=Hillary's career launching court case] http://i.imgur.com/z6t3uiT.png
Yep, she's a feminist icon all right. Bonus points, listen to the tape at the top if you want to hate her even more! Related http://i.imgur.com/L0FKo7b.jpg[/spoiler]
Huma Abeddin
page 57-64.
No infographic for this one, everything I found was too biased, so instead I'll just say this is a relatively short section. She has many confirmed Muslim Brotherhood links in her own direct family including her mother/father/brother and she wrote for a radical Islamic newspaper for around a decade.
And most importantly
Deaths
Recent deaths: http://i.imgur.com/81nybFT.png will try to find better information on the remaining ones, but at least two of them are entirely incorrect.
Pre-2000s http://i.imgur.com/mGXsmQd.png
Page 133-142. Seth Rich was actually killed on his way to a meeting with the FBI to discuss the election fraud related to Hillary, and John Ashe died the day before he was to appear in court to testify against the DNC and Hillary.editee post on next page, the first image is almost entirely incorrect.
The deaths one I've done before, but since it's your "most important" I will get it out of the way before looking at the others.
Snopes has individual articles and an overarching one - http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/10/4th-mys...o-the-dnc/
It's not having what you want - It's wanting what you've got.
Eos Wrote:The deaths one I've done before, but since it's your "most important" I will get it out of the way before looking at the others.
Snopes has individual articles and an overarching one - http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/10/4th-mys...o-the-dnc/
I tried to pick out the least biased information possible, please don't use snopes as a rebuttal, lmao.
Other than that, the media can spin anything any way they want, or even outright lie about it, all the matters in this instance is the dates of their deaths in correlation with what they were about to do/had done. Someone tried to scale the embassy Assange is currently at the morning before did another major information leak, so it's ridiculous to assume she doesn't try to silence people. If that person had succeeded and killed Assange, it would still "just be a coincidence" or "he meant to only cause trouble but accidentally killed a man he didn't even know", et cetera.
Flonne Wrote:I tried to pick out the least biased information possible, please don't use snopes as a rebuttal, lmao.
Other than that, the media can spin anything any way they want, or even outright lie about it, all the matters in this instance is the dates of their deaths in correlation with what they were about to do/had done.
Did you read the Snopes rebuttal?
It disputes "what they were about do/had done".
![[Image: 14067694_1421383001211366_79204076206474...e=58869103]](https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14067694_1421383001211366_7920407620647402008_n.jpg?oh=318ddff7e845acc0c37d6968daac61d6&oe=58869103)
ee post on next page, the first image is almost entirely incorrect.