Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Karl Henning]

Employees at Trump's California golf course say he wanted to fire women who weren't pretty enough

[Karl Henning]

"Trump had me at 'build a wall,'" Anglin said. "Virtually every alt-right Nazi I know is volunteering for the Trump campaign."

"We had no idea he would be engaging in this kind of footsie with them," said Heidi Beirich, who tracks hate groups for the Southern Poverty Law Center and now monitors Trump's statements as part of its campaign watch.  "These are some of the worst ideas in the history of our society. I don't know how you undo this."

[Turner]

We already had a cretin for two terms! (There must be a reverse sifting process in politics so only the wealthiest, sneakiest, stupidest people get chosen!)

Walking down memory lane with George W:

20. "Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." - Nov. 28, 2005

............................

1. "They misunderestimated me." - Nov. 6, 2000

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=41606

Those not yet acquainted with David Icke as a reference used here should perhaps know he´s the very, very colourful fellow who´s made a fortune by claiming that a secret, ancient race of reptiles took over the Earth long ago, and that they are now ruling the human race, in disguise as leading politicians etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke 

Ridiculous "Bushism" statement examples are well-documented - but there are better sources than David Icke.

[Mahlerian]

"Trump had me at 'build a wall,'" Anglin said. "Virtually every alt-right Nazi I know is volunteering for the Trump campaign."

"We had no idea he would be engaging in this kind of footsie with them," said Heidi Beirich, who tracks hate groups for the Southern Poverty Law Center and now monitors Trump's statements as part of its campaign watch.  "These are some of the worst ideas in the history of our society. I don't know how you undo this."

The rapid rise in the online and mainstream visibility of white supremacy and antisemitism has, for me, been the most shocking byproduct of this bizarre election cycle.

[Karl Henning]

The rapid rise in the online and mainstream visibility of white supremacy and antisemitism has, for me, been the most shocking byproduct of this bizarre election cycle.

Loathsome.  Utterly loathsome.

[Karl Henning]

Second, the argument that "I am a rotten human being, but your husband is, too" in essence acknowledges that [El Tupé] is a cruel bully.

[Karl Henning]

Second, the argument that "I am a rotten human being, but your husband is, too" in essence acknowledges that [El Tupé] is a cruel bully.

"Fifth, the hypocrisy is a bit much to bear here. [El Tupé] is a thrice-married, admitted philanderer who openly cheated on his ex-wife and bragged about it to the media. In the annals of marital cruelty, he is in a class by himself."

[Parsifal]

Afterwards the FBI admitting to finding 30 emails related to Benghazi.  One canonly assume how many emails related to pay-for-access via the Clinton Foundation (which the FBI was not interested in) were deleted.

Yes, one can only assume, and you seem to wish to assume without evidence. Emails related to the Clinton foundation would be private, would not have been on the State Department server if Clinton had strictly followed the rules. She would have been under no obligation to turn them over to anyone. Why is she culpable for not turning over private emails? She has no right to preserve her privacy?

The law she violated does not require any intent, the mere act of removing or destroying is a violation of the statute.  The fact that the FBI chose not recommend indictment was within their discretion, but no indication of innocence on her part.  The FBI makes judgment calls all the time, as they did with David Pretreous, who similarly mishandled government documents and was forced to plead guilty, which ended his career.

There is no equivalence with the Petreous case. Clinton failed to handle her email with proper security and record keeping. There has been no evidence that she willfully send classified information to anyone not qualified to receive it. Petreous purposefully sent classified information to a film producer with whom he was having an extramarital affair. Someone who, because of the illicit relationship, would have been in a position to extort him. That is a different thing entirely.

To the degree someone accepts her explanations with a straight face is the degree they are viewing her behavior through a partisan lens.  She famously stated that she had not deleted any email "labeled classified".  Well, that is technically correct, government documents are not labeled "Classified",  they are labeled with the level of classification, e.g., Top Secret; Secret; Confidential; Restricted; Official - one of the five levels of classfication. And even if they had not been labeled, State Dept. employees with security clearance are trained to recognize by the content s when a document should b etreated as classifed.

Hillary's use of language is classically Clintonian.

I didn't say I accepted her explanations, which often seem disingenuous. I accept the analysis of the FBI.

[Spineur]

Trump released his playlist today.  Believe it or not but there is Nessun Dorma sung by Pavarotti.
Less surprising "heart of Stone" (Rolling Stones)

[knight66]

Was 'Smack My Bitch Up' on the list?

Mike

[André]

"Fifth, the hypocrisy is a bit much to bear here. [El Tupé] is a thrice-married, admitted philanderer who openly cheated on his ex-wife and bragged about it to the media. In the annals of marital cruelty, he is in a class by himself."

It pales - really it does - compared to deleting emails. THAT is evil, evil.

[drogulus]

Voters picked Trump based on his positions on these issues, he was not chosen by some vague notion of the "Republicans".  If anything, the back room Republicans worked overtime in an attempt to thwart the will of the voters.

     If you want to appeal to the mammoth suckage of Trump voters I'm OK with that. If it's the will of these voters that to be a Repub is to be a Trumpist, and the other Repubs will crawl through a sewer to stay on his good side like oh, Ted Cruz, Man of Principle, what good name do you have left to defend?

[Madiel]

You act as if Hillary Clinton isn't a very rich woman.   

No, I act as if wealth isn't a point of distinction that somehow makes Trump into an anti-establishment candidate who will transform Washington.

And, corporations more than the average voter, are effected by what these politicans do.

This very much feels as if you're now arguing against yourself to spite me. Your complaint was that the agenda is set by corporations and lobbyists. You're now declaring, after I agreed with you that this is a problem, that corporations are affected more than average voters.

Well if corporations are affected more than average voters, what the hell is wrong with corporations setting the agenda rather than average voters? Make up your goddamn mind and don't change tack just because you perceive me as an opponent.

However, the main kind of reform I support is absolute and instantaeous transparency so voters see who gave what to whom and what they got.  Regulation by the ballot box.

So you want the lights on when you're being screwed. This will in no way prevent you being screwed.

Presidents have the power to set the agenda, access to a bully pulpit and, if voted in with enough of a mandate, they drive the legislative bus. Not so for a member of the House of Representatives, which is where most of the Tea Party candidates are you mention.

The President of the United States isn't even a member of the legislature, and you think he/she drives the legislative bus. How's that been working for Obama?

But, why am I talking about this election with you?  Are you even a citizen of the US?

Gosh, no, but it's good to know the legendary insular American attitude that there is nothing interesting to be learned beyond the border is alive and well.

[Madiel]

The law she violated does not require any intent, the mere act of removing or destroying is a violation of the statute. 

Are you the kind of amateur lawyer who believes that intent is only required if a law explicitly says something about intent? Or does this statute actually say that intent is not required?

Because as a professional lawyer who actually drafts laws, I can tell you that a law does not have to say "intent is required" to require intent.

[Madiel]

Reading this is like revisiting parts of this thread all over again.

http://www.scarymommy.com/hillary-clinton-myths-debunked/

[André]

Excellent article.

But when someone makes your skin crawl, I guess there is no remedy as long as that person is around.

[Madiel]

Well, corporations do have a right to contribute to campaigns and lobby elected officals; they have been treated as "persons" under the law for a long time. 

Nope. I can't leave it alone. This comment is just so intellectually lazy (and so reminiscent of the majority in Citizens United and the ludicrous decision that said companies have religious beliefs) that I can't let it slide by.

Right. Corporations have been treated as "persons" under the law for a long time. So let's get them registered as voters. Those that are at least 18 years old of course. Get them signed up at their home address, there's still time before this election.

When they're between 5 and 15 years old, though, they need to be in school. It's compulsory. We'll prosecute their parents if they're not in school.

And corporations have a right to life, yes? Intentionally causing the death of a person, why that's murder! Killing a corporation is murder!

Of course, corporations that commit crimes ought to go to jail. It's outrageous how judges keep letting them off with a fine, I say lock them up. Especially those corporations that intentionally caused the death of other corporations. Do you realise how many serial killer corporations are roaming the streets at night?

But they're not all bad. There are some decent, law-abiding corporations out there. And we deny them the right to marry. Again, this is only for the ones who are old enough, but this discrimination has to end. Marriage equality now!



Corporations, ******, are treated as "persons" under the law for specific and discrete purposes. Pointing this out is no answer at all to whether or not they ought to be treated as "persons" for the purposes of electing representatives. Pointing out, as I did, that they're not actually entitled to vote and that these representatives are not therefore representatives of corporations is rather more pertinent.

You questioned why you were talking to me, when I'm not a citizen of the United States. That's right. I'm not. I have no vote in the 2016 presidential election. And yet you completely glide over the fact that no corporation has a vote in the 2016 presidential election by glibly stating that they are to be treated as "persons".

"Ah!", you'll say, "but they're AMERICAN!". In which case no doubt you've seen their birth certificate and/or their citizenship papers. But tell me, how patriotic are they? Have you ever seen them take the pledge of allegiance?

* Edited by moderator

[71 dB]

Was 'Smack My Bitch Up' on the list?

Mike

A brilliant Prodigy song!  0:)

[Pat B]

Corporations are treated as "persons" under the law for specific and discrete purposes.

I think it would be more accurate to say that they are legally treated as persons except where the law specifies otherwise. Obviously McCain-Feingold was one of many laws that specified otherwise.

SCOTUS has a long and inconsistent history of deciding whether the First Amendment applies to such laws. Citizens United waves it away by defining "corporation" as "an association of citizens." I think that's incredibly disingenuous. To me, it stands to reason that just as incorporation can provide legal benefits to its owners (e.g. liability shield) then it can also impose legal restrictions on what the corporation can be used for.

[Rinaldo]

Was 'Smack My Bitch Up' on the list?

Mike

I'd say Baby's Got a Temper might be more appropriate.