[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

while Overlord Hillary is generally a dumbass narcissist "global nationalosm" is politicospeak for something similar to neo-Imperialism. and to be sure Putin is most definitely a worst class assholevand how he is somehow winning a global PR battle simply because many people are rightfully critical of American policies baffles my mind. its the definition of cutting off your nose just to spite your face!

[greenlight]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

while Overlord Hillary is generally a dumbass narcissist "global nationalosm" is politicospeak for something similar to neo-Imperialism. and to be sure Putin is most definitely a worst class assholevand how he is somehow winning a global PR battle simply because many people are rightfully critical of American policies baffles my mind. its the definition of cutting off your nose just to spite your face!

imperialism? he might be an asshole (probably is) and some sort of dictator (probably is), that is for sure, but he is definitely not as such a threat to the world like he is being described in mainstream media, espec. US.. instead NATO is building bases all around Russia criticising how aggressive they are. I do not know who the aggressor is. but NATO is definitely provocateur it seems and bit cheeky and definitely expanding, it is like poking bear with the stick. it is all game on people and part of propaganda that Russia is blamed for everything, which is stoopid. but maybe it is plan to bring conflict between west and Russia and China which would suck big time.

then when I see Larvov and Kerry in Geneva, how friendly they appear to be, it is just confusing. there is actually so much stuff in politics which doesn't make sense anymore....

[greenlight]

 

[ilduclo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1FLZPFI3jc

(trump and his handlers)

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by greenlight

imperialism? he might be an asshole (probably is) and some sort of dictator (probably is), that is for sure, but he is definitely not as such a threat to the world like he is being described in mainstream media, espec. US.. instead NATO is building bases all around Russia criticising how aggressive they are. I do not know who the aggressor is. but NATO is definitely provocateur it seems and bit cheeky and definitely expanding, it is like poking bear with the stick. it is all game on people and part of propaganda that Russia is blamed for everything, which is stoopid. but maybe it is plan to bring conflict between west and Russia and China which would suck big time.

then when I see Larvov and Kerry in Geneva, how friendly they appear to be, it is just confusing. there is actually so much stuff in politics which doesn't make sense anymore....

Putin has stolen Russia through open corruption, and has used a combination of coercion and corruption to force a Russian economic agenda all around the Eastern world. last time i checked waging wars in Ukraine and Syria are the definition of Imperialism, especially when these wars are connected with lucrative oil pipelines that are Russia's economic life blood.

I am not one to "blame Russia for everything" but it is foolish to somehow give Russia a pass for their national and international sins simply because their sins are less than America's or any other power.

Sure the US is pushing against Russia because of America's own neo-Imperialist agenda, BUT that somehow doesn't magically negate Russia's own neo-Imperialist interests globally.

And Russia isn't a threat to the world, but if you live in Ukraine or Syria right now, Russian military strikes are most definitely and existential threat.

[dead_battery]

its not so bad if we let russia have its oil pipelines because by the time it does most prole westerners will be living off batteries that last 30 years and power your whole house. we just got to let pooty poot get bogged down in this shit for a few more decades to keep him busy.

also at the rate he is having people murdered im sure someone will take him out or the whole shithouse will collapse. feel bad for the ruskies with their krokodil and vodka but at least they have eccentric sci fi billionaires i guess

[greenlight]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Putin has stolen Russia through open corruption, and has used a combination of coercion and corruption to force a Russian economic agenda all around the Eastern world. last time i checked waging wars in Ukraine and Syria are the definition of Imperialism, especially when these wars are connected with lucrative oil pipelines that are Russia's economic life blood.

I don't understand why nobody talks about wiki leaks on Sorors.

Soros-affiliated organizations are deeply connected to numerous color revolutions, the Arab Spring, and a number of other uprisings across the world. They have been intimately involved in the coup that took place in Ukraine, and subsequent ratcheting up of Cold War tensions with Russia.

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it's as if 8 years of Bush-Cheney had never happened for some people

For fuck's sakes here's a reminder of what got started there

-my pet goat
-wmds
-valerie plame
-gog & magog (!!!)
-mission accomplished
-abu ghraib
-brownie is doing a heckuva job
-the great recession
etc etc

Before My Pet Goat came "Mr. President, could you please put down the Game Boy and read this shit?"

 

 

[Drjohnrock]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

i didn't intend for my snarky comment to come across as a personal attack. i was being sarcastic. My legit apologies on that one..

i just honestly can't understand how ANYONE even remotely read Trump's words as a veiled threat of violence. sure we have heard A LOT of outright frightening and inflammatory rhetoric from Republicans, but this particular example is just not one of them.

do you honestly believe i "haven't been paying attention" simply because i am being rightfully critical of the Democrats overreaction and exaggerating responses? what, should i just kowtow to the party line now and get it over with?

look, no one has been or will be more critical of Trump than myself, but i REFUSE to put on political blinders and wave the Democrats flag in every instance.

indeed it seems Trump's recent comments seem to be some kind of partisan political Rorschach Test, people will see what they want to

Apology accepted, SFAD. At the end of the day you're a good dude.

I made up my own mind about Trump's screed before reading any of the pundits' takes on it. And I don't feel obliged to always go along with Democratic spin. FWIW, a Republican or two also thought Drumpf was suggesting an OK Corral solution to that pesky Clinton woman.

[Drjohnrock]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

OH FUCKING SNAP DRJOHNROCK DID YOU FORGET YOU SAID THIS OR NAH????

Maybe I should use an emoji in the future when making sarcastic comments so there's no misunderstanding. Sorry, SFAD, but you haven't caught me in a contradiction.

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by Drjohnrock

FWIW, a Republican or two also thought Drumpf was suggesting an OK Corral solution to that pesky Clinton woman.

YES, that's why I posted this!

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

 

That old-timer in red got it right away, eh.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Drjohnrock

Apology accepted, SFAD. At the end of the day you're a good dude.

I made up my own mind about Trump's screed before reading any of the pundits' takes on it. And I don't feel obliged to always go along with Democratic spin. FWIW, a Republican or two also thought Drumpf was suggesting an OK Corral solution to that pesky Clinton woman.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Drjohnrock again.

[The Soup Nazi]

From The Washington Post:

Trump's history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?

In the heat of a presidential campaign, you’d think that a story about one party’s nominee giving a large contribution to a state attorney general who promptly shut down an inquiry into that nominee’s scam “university” would be enormous news. But we continue to hear almost nothing about what happened between Donald Trump and Florida attorney general Pam Bondi.

I raised this issue last week, but it’s worth an update as well as some contextualization. The story re-emerged last week when The Post’s David A. Fahrenthold reported that Trump paid a penalty to the IRS after his foundation made an illegal contribution to Bondi’s PAC. While the Trump organization characterizes that as a bureaucratic oversight, the basic facts are that Bondi’s office had received multiple complaints from Floridians who said they were cheated by Trump University; while they were looking into it and considering whether to join a lawsuit over Trump University filed by the attorney general of New York State, Bondi called Trump and asked him for a $25,000 donation; shortly after getting the check, Bondi’s office dropped the inquiry.

At this point we should note that everything here may be completely innocent. Perhaps Bondi didn’t realize her office was looking into Trump University. Perhaps the fact that Trump’s foundation made the contribution (which, to repeat, is illegal) was just a mix-up. Perhaps when Trump reimbursed the foundation from his personal account, he didn’t realize that’s not how the law works (the foundation would have to get its money back from Bondi’s PAC; he could then make a personal donation if he wanted). Perhaps Bondi’s decision not to pursue the case against Trump was perfectly reasonable.

But here’s the thing: We don’t know the answers to those questions, because almost nobody seems to be pursuing them.

For instance, there was only one mention of this story on any of the five Sunday shows, when John Dickerson asked Chris Christie about it on “Face the Nation“ (Christie took great umbrage: “I can’t believe, John, that anyone would insult Pam Bondi that way”). And the comparison with stories about Hillary Clinton’s emails or the Clinton Foundation is extremely instructive. Whenever we get some new development in any of those Clinton stories, you see blanket coverage — every cable network, every network news program, every newspaper investigates it at length. And even when the new information serves to exonerate Clinton rather than implicate her in wrongdoing, the coverage still emphasizes that the whole thing just “raises questions” about her integrity.

The big difference is that there are an enormous number of reporters who get assigned to write stories about those issues regarding Clinton. The story of something like the Clinton Foundation gets stretched out over months and months with repeated tellings, always with the insistence that questions are being raised and the implication that shady things are going on, even if there isn’t any evidence at a particular moment to support that idea.

When it comes to Trump, on the other hand, we’ve seen a very different pattern. Here’s what happens: A story about some kind of corrupt dealing emerges, usually from the dogged efforts of one or a few journalists; it gets discussed for a couple of days; and then it disappears. Someone might mention it now and again, but the news organizations don’t assign a squad of reporters to look into every aspect of it, so no new facts are brought to light and no new stories get written.

The end result of this process is that because of all that repeated examination of Clinton’s affairs, people become convinced that she must be corrupt to the core. It’s not that there isn’t plenty of negative coverage of Trump, because of course there is, but it’s focused mostly on the crazy things he says on any given day.

But the truth is that you’d have to work incredibly hard to find a politician who has the kind of history of corruption, double-dealing, and fraud that Donald Trump has. The number of stories which could potentially deserve hundreds and hundreds of articles is absolutely staggering. Here’s a partial list:

• Trump’s casino bankruptcies, which left investors holding the bag while he skedaddled with their money

• Trump’s habit of refusing to pay contractors who had done work for him, many of whom are struggling small businesses

• Trump University, which includes not only the people who got scammed and the Florida investigation, but also a similar story from Texas where the investigation into Trump U was quashed.

• The Trump Institute, another get-rich-quick scheme in which Trump allowed a couple of grifters to use his name to bilk people out of their money

• The Trump Network, a multi-level marketing venture (a.k.a. pyramid scheme) that involved customers mailing in a urine sample which would be analyzed to produce for them a specially formulated package of multivitamins

• Trump Model Management, which reportedly had foreign models lie to customs officials and work in the U.S. illegally, and kept them in squalid conditions while they earned almost nothing for the work they did

• Trump’s employment of foreign guest workers at his resorts, which involves a claim that he can’t find Americans to do the work

• Trump’s use of hundreds of undocumented workers from Poland in the 1980s, who were paid a pittance for their illegal work

• Trump’s history of being charged with housing discrimination

• Trump’s connections to mafia figures involved in New York construction

• The time Trump paid the Federal Trade Commission $750,000 over charges that he violated anti-trust laws when trying to take over a rival casino company

• The fact that Trump is now being advised by Roger Ailes, who was forced out as Fox News chief when dozens of women came forward to charge him with sexual harassment. According to the allegations, Ailes’s behavior was positively monstrous; as just one indicator, his abusive and predatory actions toward women were so well-known and so loathsome that in 1968 the morally upstanding folks in the Nixon administration refused to allow him to work there despite his key role in getting Nixon elected.

And that last one is happening right now. To repeat, the point is not that these stories have never been covered, because they have. The point is that they get covered briefly, then everyone in the media moves on. If any of these kinds of stories involved Clinton, news organizations would rush to assign multiple reporters to them, those reporters would start asking questions, and we’d learn more about all of them.

That’s important, because we may have reached a point where the frames around the candidates are locked in: Trump is supposedly the crazy/bigoted one, and Clinton is supposedly the corrupt one. Once we decide that those are the appropriate lenses through which the two candidates are to be viewed, it shapes the decisions the media make every day about which stories are important to pursue.

And it means that to a great extent, for all the controversy he has caused and all the unflattering stories in the press about him, Trump is still being let off the hook.

[The Soup Nazi]

Y'know, if I were HRC I'd show up to the first debate with this:

 

No country names, no colors, just the borders. When Donathan brings up Benghazi (and you know that's gonna happen pretty early), I'd hold it in front of him and go, "You seem very concerned about the situation in Libya. Could you please show us where Libya is in this map? No? Well, you're very preoccupied with Syrian immigrants being terrorists. Can you point at Syria in the map? You can't, huh. OK, let's make this easier — how about Saudi Arabia? ...Sheesh. Alright, can you show us where GERMANY is? No, you imbecile, that's France!"

Of course, the next day all the talk would be about "me" being an elitist meanie belittling Real America's candidate, poor thing he's never been in a presidential debate before, but heck wouldn't it be awesome to have a beer with him...

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

Y'know, if I were HRC I'd show up to the first debate with this:

 

No country names, no colors, just the borders. When Donathan brings up Benghazi (and you know that's gonna happen pretty early), I'd hold it in front of him and go, "You seem very concerned about the situation in Libya. Could you please show us where Libya is in this map? No? Well, you're very preoccupied with Syrian immigrants being terrorists. Can you point at Syria in the map? You can't, huh. OK, let's make this easier — how about Saudi Arabia? ...Sheesh. Alright, can you show us where GERMANY is? No, you imbecile, that's France!"

Of course, the next day all the talk would be about "me" being an elitist meanie belittling Real America's candidate, poor thing he's never been in a presidential debate before, but heck wouldn't it be awesome to have a beer with him...

Overlord Hillary probably scared that even after being the most travelled Secretary of State in American history that she would also fail a similar test

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Overlord Hillary probably scared that even after being the most travelled Secretary of State in American history that she would also fail a similar test

I highly doubt that.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

I highly doubt that.

he wants to resurrect selassie and make him emperor of the world you understand

everything else will come up short

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

he wants to resurrect selassie and make him emperor of the world you understand

everything else will come up short

haha don't be sassy at me because all the candidates in American election suck

plus in an election where people have called for various movie characters or a meteorite apocalypse certainly a well respected historical world leader even resurrected would certainly be an improvement

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

haha don't be sassy at me because all the candidates in American election suck

plus in an election where people have called for various movie characters or a meteorite apocalypse certainly a well respected historical world leader even resurrected would certainly be an improvement

i'm just putting your pointless comments into context so that people don't wrongly assume you're supporting a "better" candidate when in reality you're just trolling

"people have" always said something or another so any claims can be claimed in support of your sophistry

most voters aren't really partisan--they're just looking to make rational tradeoffs to solve practical problems

you're just making fun of those who give a shit about this election--you're making high-sounding statements and pretending to be serious but you're just trolling

this is evident from the "number of fucks [you] give" but some of your victims still don't get it

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

im not trolling shit and until your conceited ass figures it out you will always look as silly as this election