Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Parsifal]

This is an excellent example:

A small architectural firm's experience working for the Trump Organization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmfSWPmw86k

[Karl Henning]

This is an excellent example:

A small architectural firm's experience working for the Trump Organization.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmfSWPmw86k

Exactly; he is known.

God help America if he "runs" the country just as "well" as he "does business."

[Karl Henning]

And again, El Tupé lies on an order to which Hillary could not dream of attaining.

[Madiel]

Now now, Trump creates jobs. They're just not PAID jobs.

[Spineur]

Why does the mexican government recieve Donald Trump as an honorable guest while he is vomiting his xenophobic speeches against mexican immigrants ?

How can conservative americans endorse the end of free trade and pulling out of the OMC ?

Frédéric Bastiat, a french 19th century economist  said "if the goods cannot cross borders, the armies will"....
History proved him right

[André]

Now now, Trump creates jobs. They're just not PAID jobs.

Coincidentally, today's issue of Montreal's main newspaper is about such a story. Most of the so-called Trump  Models were illegal aliens who ended up working for next to nothing, paying Trump Models 1600$ a month for the luxury of sleeping in bunk beds.

http://www.lapresse.ca/international/dossiers/maison-blanche-2016/201609/01/01-5016119-une-ex-mannequin-quebecoise-denonce-lhypocrisie-de-trump.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B17_correspondants_299_section_POS1

[zamyrabyrd]

This is an excellent example:
A small architectural firm's experience working for the Trump Organization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmfSWPmw86k

Paid for by "Hillary for America". OK it may be true but there may also be details left out.

[Herman]

Paid for by "Hillary for America". OK it may be true but there may also be details left out.

there are hundreds of these stories of smaller businesses defrauded by Trump, what details do you want to know about?

[zamyrabyrd]

there are hundreds of these stories of smaller businesses defrauded by Trump, what details do you want to know about?

As one of our eminent members says, evidence needs to be provided and if there is a case, then prosecute it.
Fraud is one thing but criminal negligence leading to murder is rather higher on the scale.
Quite, frankly, I was not happy with the rape of Atlantic City over the years by DT.

[Parsifal]

As one of our eminent members says, evidence needs to be provided and if there is a case, then prosecute it.
Fraud is one thing but criminal negligence leading to murder is rather higher on the scale.
Quite, frankly, I was not happy with the rape of Atlantic City over the years by DT.

Criminal negligence leading to murder? What are you talking about?

[zamyrabyrd]

Benghazi. Protection was desperately needed. They were warned. No need for that bloody debacle.
Look up "Vince Foster" which should lead you to other unresolved sudden deaths of people around the Clinton's.

[Karl Henning]

Benghazi. Protection was desperately needed. They were warned. No need for that bloody debacle.

Then when does the litigation begin?  (What is the count of the investigative committees that have been formed?)

[Karl Henning]

As one of our eminent members says, evidence needs to be provided and if there is a case, then prosecute it.

One difference is, a small businessman, whose resources are already strained thanks to non-payment of his invoice, is going to take a billionaire to court?  In this case, I don't think it is quite reasonable to conclude that the fact that there was no legal action, means that there is no case.

If there is a case against Clinton, there are a hundred Republican lawyers who are morally and financially prepared to litigate.

Why don't they?  Could it be, because there is no case?

[Parsifal]

Benghazi. Protection was desperately needed. They were warned. No need for that bloody debacle.
Look up "Vince Foster" which should lead you to other unresolved sudden deaths of people around the Clinton's.

Hilary Clinton was secretary of state. She was not a military or security officer responsible for security at diplomatic compounds. Security requests were sent up the chain of command, some were acted on some weren't, some were not forwarded to the state department in Washington. None directly reached Hilary Clinton's desk. Certainly security was inadequate in Benghazi, that is clear in hindsight. It indicates a security bureaucracy that didn't perform adequately. It doesn't indicate "criminal" behavior by the Secretary of State.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/26/600-requests-from-benghazi-for-better-security-what-this-statistic-really-means/

Incidentally, only two of the deaths were at a State Department facility. The other two were at a CIA installation that was attacked later. Why is no one claiming that CIA director was criminally responsible?

Vince Foster? "A clinically depressed man committed suicide" seems less plausible than "Hillary had him killed because he knew too much." Ok, now you have outed yourself as one of the tin-hat brigade. Do you also believe that extraterrestrials landed in Roswell New Mexico?

[Madiel]

Benghazi.

Facts. Who needs 'em? It's enough to conduct the trial in the court of Republican opinion.

Benghazi is the thing that convinced me not of Clinton's "crimes" but of the maniacal ideology of the US Republicans in their current form. You could not get a better example of a witch hunt. As Karl has raised more than once, there has been more than enough investigative resources thrown at this issue to create an evidence brief for a prosecution, and yet there's no sign of a prosecution.

And of course the Republicans don't want an actual prosecution. They're not interested in the findings of a judge, trained in examining facts and analysing arguments. They don't want the views of one trained jurist, they want a slavering horde of "ordinary" people at the ballot box, people with neither the time nor skills to figure out that all the digging for evidence of a "crime" hasn't yielded anything fit for a court room. They're in fact relying on that lack of time and lack of skills.

Every now and then I encounter a situation where I think either a politician is stupid or that the politician is hoping his/her audience is stupid. I actually think it's worse that the politician is hoping the audience is stupid, and I also think it's more common. Politics is a game designed to convince people for the politician's own advantage, and it frequently relies on the fact that much of the population is hopelessly ill-informed, lacking in critical thinking skills or mindlessly tribal to begin with.  Benghazi is a perfect illustration of that.

[kishnevi]

Facts. Who needs 'em? It's enough to conduct the trial in the court of Republican opinion.

Benghazi is the thing that convinced me not of Clinton's "crimes" but of the maniacal ideology of the US Republicans in their current form. You could not get a better example of a witch hunt. As Karl has raised more than once, there has been more than enough investigative resources thrown at this issue to create an evidence brief for a prosecution, and yet there's no sign of a prosecution.

And of course the Republicans don't want an actual prosecution. They're not interested in the findings of a judge, trained in examining facts and analysing arguments. They don't want the views of one trained jurist, they want a slavering horde of "ordinary" people at the ballot box, people with neither the time nor skills to figure out that all the digging for evidence of a "crime" hasn't yielded anything fit for a court room. They're in fact relying on that lack of time and lack of skills.

Every now and then I encounter a situation where I think either a politician is stupid or that the politician is hoping his/her audience is stupid. I actually think it's worse that the politician is hoping the audience is stupid, and I also think it's more common. Politics is a game designed to convince people for the politician's own advantage, and it frequently relies on the fact that much of the population is hopelessly ill-informed, lacking in critical thinking skills or mindlessly tribal to begin with.  Benghazi is a perfect illustration of that.

The stupidity of the GOP on Benghazi is for me illustrated by their long focus on the WH/State Department explanations of the attack after the fact than the negligence/culpability/whatever of those responsible for the security/lack of security.  They were in essence complaining not that Obama and Clinton did not provide enough security, but that Obama and Clinton did use the correct terminology afterwards.

[drogulus]

     I'll cling to my Benghazi version, but thanks to everyone for offering theirs.

     What was announced publicly appears to conform to what was believed for a very short while. What was soon recognized was that the video protest was used by AQ. We can leave the question of a genuine video inspired protest or entirely made up one to the historians looking at records that are sealed for 50 years.

     It transpired that the principals had to sort out both what they thought was true and what they would say about it that would be untrue by omission or actively deceptive. Part of this would be HRC being unhelpful, and crucially for my thesis, the CIA being unhelpful to HRC. It was decided that since the heat would fall on her for obvious reasons, she would have to be the publicly unhelpful one. And so it went. I take it that the support HRC is getting now from her CIA "coconspirator" is due to her good soldiering. Of course that does leave the question of whether there is anything of a timely nature left to conceal hanging out there.

     On Benghazi one must explain the behavior of the committees, not HRC. Their behavior tells the story to the extent a public story can be pieced together. The committees knew HRC couldn't fully explain Benghazi and they knew approximately why. They had her trapped, but only to the extent that they didn't overplay their advantage. Is it surprising that they did exactly that again and again? Not to me.

[drogulus]

 
     The Revenge of Roger's Angels

     How Fox News women took down the most powerful, and predatory, man in media.

[snyprrr]

And again, El Tupé lies on an order to which Hillary could not dream of attaining.

PUTIN 2016

[snyprrr]

GMG Posts in two years, if Hilldawg "wins":


"Aw, she's really trying but those darn Republicans keep being mean to her."

"We wouldn't be in this 2018 mess if it weren't for those racist Republicans."

"It's Bush's fault."

"Hillary's such a strong woman for arresting the opposition like that. They were being racist and mean spirited."

"So what if Hillary took a gift? So WHAT?"

"I think these new "White Laws" are a good thing."



"server, schmerver."



"Whatever... I'm with HERRRRRR."


"But... she's a... woman!!"





"I can't believe they said THAT... about a... a.... a.....WOMAN!!!!"




"I haven't had sex since she was elected."