192 replies to this topic

[Niels]

Wasn't expecting this to happen. Doubt it will influence the polls much, at least until the televised debates begin.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-parents-of-two-benghazi-victims-file-lawsuit-against-hillary-clinton/

 

If they had been serious with regards to this lawsuit, they would have chosen a serious counsel.  Instead, they chose a guy (Larry Klayman) who is (in)famous for trying to get Pres. Obama deported as an illegal alien in 2014.

Lack of seriousness suggests the goal is pretty much only to get headlines (rather than actual compensation, like wrongful death cases normally seek), and then maybe complain about a "rigged system" when the case gets thrown out.

[hilowe]

 

Wasn't expecting this to happen. Doubt it will influence the polls much, at least until the televised debates begin.

 

http://www.mediaite.com/online/breaking-parents-of-two-benghazi-victims-file-lawsuit-against-hillary-clinton/

 

If they had been serious with regards to this lawsuit, they would have chosen a serious counsel.  Instead, they chose a guy (Larry Klayman) who is (in)famous for trying to get Pres. Obama deported as an illegal alien in 2014.

Lack of seriousness suggests the goal is pretty much only to get headlines (rather than actual compensation, like wrongful death cases normally seek), and then maybe complain about a "rigged system" when the case gets thrown out.

 

 

I see this as them trying to provide ammunition to anyone that's anti-Hilary, to basically be able to say "see, she lied to these people about why their children died. She's responsible, and we shouldn't reward her with another public office."

 

Now, just waiting to see who uses it first, a super-pac or Trump.

[onbekende]

Trump is smart, otherwise he wouldn't be plastering his residence with goldleaf in all the decadence he so claims to eradicate from Washington.

 

He (and lets face it, either side of the media aswell) has cleverly steered it away from him persnally to Hillary personally (or any other candidate he passed) by using nothing then positive adjectives on himself and negative on his opponents. And people love that inhibited remarks about people they themselfes dislike.

[Lazarus Hex]

I think the incidents happening in Germany only help prove Trumps point. We cannot allow anyone into this country that we know nothing about. Period, end of story. Political correctness and being afraid to "hurt someones feelers" is out. His point has been proven by actual action taken by the hidden terror cells within the Syrian refugees that flooded into Germany. Now you've got Murkel sitting there like oh fuck what have I done. My people are being gang raped by these people (look it up) in my own country and now they're being killed. Silly bleeding hearts, that's what you get when your only concern is not hurting a particular groups feelings.

 

Sad reality is we're looking at a Hilary win here. Women voting Hilary because she's a woman and not because they give a shit about her history, values, or policies.

And of course the majority of all minority groups excluding probably Asian-Americans will be voting Democrat, when have they not? Sure there are some here and there that are voting Republican but the majority will be voting democratic blindly, as always.

 

I remember back in 08, which was the first election I was allowed to vote in, I voted for Obama. I was a naive 18 year old child fresh out of highschool living off mommies money and support not knowing shit about the real world and I bought into the bull shit that he spewed in the debates. Good thing i'm in a Republican dominated state because my vote didn't count anyway. Never again will I make that mistake.

Edited by Lazarus Hex, 09 August 2016 - 07:08 PM.

[hilowe]

by using nothing then positive adjectives on himself and negative on his opponents.

 

I know, I keep referencing Scott Adam's blog, but he was talking about this during the Republican primaries.  Essentially, it's a form of persuasion, and (at least according to Adams) Trump is really effective with it.  Scott Adam's basically has said that, up until recently, Trump was using better persuasive techniques than Clinton was, and was giving specific examples.  Trump's "make America great" leaves it vague enough that people can come up with their own version of what great is.  I can't remember what he said about Clinton's "I'm with Her" slogan, but I remember it wasn't good.  He also blasted on Clinton for using something to the effect of "Trump is too dangerous as President, with nukes in his control" (I don't remember the exact phrasing) because it effectively makes people imagine Trump has already won.

 

He has said that the Clinton campaign has improved in their use of persuasive language within about the last month or so.

 

His point has been proven by actual action taken by the hidden terror cells within the Syrian refugees that flooded into Germany. Now you've got Murkel sitting there like oh fuck what have I done. My people are being gang raped by these people (look it up) in my own country and now they're being killed.

 

Again, Scott Adam's referenced this a while back.  Said something to the effect of, it was a no lose or minimal loss proposition.  If it didn't happen, people would likely forget Trump was predicting the attacks, and if it did, people would remember and say he was right.  Trump weighed the odds of an attack (especially with the number of refugees that were being let in to Europe), and took a gamble.

 

Dear God, I sound like a Trump supporter again.  Anyways, this is one time I have to give recognition to Trump.  After it was pointed out to me, and I started trying to watch for it, he has very consistently done a good job of using this type of persuasive speech to influence people.

 

Good thing i'm in a Republican dominated state because my vote didn't count anyway. Never again will I make that mistake.

 

Ehh, in my mind it's always dangerous to just vote based on the political party of the candidate.  I know my vote won't count for much, especially with where I live, but I still vote based on who I think is the best candidate.  Seems it's usually third party.

[onbekende]

I think the incidents happening in Germany only help prove Trumps point. We cannot allow anyone into this country that we know nothing about. Period, end of story. Political correctness and being afraid to "hurt someones feelers" is out. His point has been proven by actual action taken by the hidden terror cells within the Syrian refugees that flooded into Germany. Now you've got Murkel sitting there like oh fuck what have I done. My people are being gang raped by these people (look it up) in my own country and now they're being killed. Silly bleeding hearts, that's what you get when your only concern is not hurting a particular groups feelings.

and all the attacks perpetrated in germany are by people already over 2y in germany and I believe only 2 of the recent (read +1y) are from people from Syria/Iraq during the current crisis/war.

 

Also you folks aren't getting nearly any Syrians, let alone without vetting them for like years. Heck the pope percentage wise took in more Syrian refugees (illegally I might add, he stowed tem on his plane when visiting Lesbos ).

 

The analogy works when speaking about Mexican/South Americans, but then you also need to add that the current asylum seekers won't be the issue, it are the already present and shadowy millions who 99% of the time want to intigrate but just can't cause nationalism is a national pasttime in the US. The 2nd and 3rd generations (usually the generation born on your soil) who will be utterly discriminated, those will be the ones doing the reactionary attacks (cause they are reactionary!)

[onbekende]

And a "well regulated militia" is now a firing squad. Niiice!

[hilowe]

And a "well regulated militia" is now a firing squad. Niiice!

 

Where's this one coming from??

 

Please tell me you aren't referencing this.

[onbekende]

ooo no, just the latest Trump alliteration.

[hilowe]

ooo no, just the latest Trump alliteration.

 

He made some comment, something to the effect of nothing anyone could do about Clinton judicial appointees, then made a follow on comment about second amendment people may be able to. That's what you're referring to, right?  I literally just heard about this comment this morning. 

 

The way I read that was, not a call to assassinate Clinton, but to do what a lot of the gun groups have been doing to their members of Congress, which is inundate them with phone calls, letters, and emails telling them what you expect them to do on certain pieces of legislation or nominations.

 

Sue Collins, from Maine, actually said something similar to how I'm taking what he said.  “I think he was suggesting that the Second Amendment advocates across the country might be able to come together to pressure the Senate to reject her nominees should she become president,” Ms. Collins said on MSNBC. “That’s how I interpreted it.”  Here's where I got that quote.

Edited by hilowe, 12 August 2016 - 05:15 PM.

[onbekende]

The quote itself isn't that bad indeed, but watch the entire thing leading up to it with it included, pauzes and tone changes and all, it still isn't a direct call for it but it could be interpretted as a rather marcabre remark.

 

As for the actual info in that little exchange, if he continues like this they might actually get the needed super-majorities (2/3rd and 3/4ths of various senate/congress/states) to actually strike down an amendment, a wild dream offcourse thus

[Icewolf]

The thing is that when it gets to this stage, where frantic trump staffers issue a constant stream of denials often which can be seen immediately as false, (the it's sarcasm line) people simply stop listening to the denials.

Do I believe Trump didn't mean it? No. He is playing a game he plays a lot. Say something that appeals to a hardcore minority. (Hack her emails at benghqzi truths, she's the devil to the small group who thought Obama and now Hillary is the anti-Christ, shoot those that threaten your guns for the mentally unhinged gun owners ). Then deny having said it, and relying on the target group to say to each other "well obviously he has to deny it to keep the illuminati happy."

If you look at a lot of wacky things he says it follows this pattern. He is trying to get these people into his tent. In that pattern "you should shoot people" is a pretty clear interpretation of what he said.

[onbekende]

At this point, the only thing that Hillary has on him on being a politician is a political scandal itself. Namely he can't have one yet cause he hasn't been in a politicial mandate yet. All the other stuff he has already done, the most obvious one being the constant flip-flopping to garner votes from all walks of life.

[Mazuurek]

bernie

[Icewolf]

At this point, the only thing that Hillary has on him on being a politician is a political scandal itself. Namely he can't have one yet cause he hasn't been in a politicial mandate yet. All the other stuff he has already done, the most obvious one being the constant flip-flopping to garner votes from all walks of life.

His campaign manager has some questions to answer however.

[onbekende]

which one, isn't he on his 4th by now?

[Icewolf]

Current. Name discovered in ledgers of corrupt payments by the former Ukrainian government.

[onbekende]

just saw the news about it and wanted to edit my comment

 

=> LOL

[sffc1]

I'll be voting for Hillary in November. The candidate I'd actually like to see as president is Gary Johnson, but the electoral college incentivizes a two-party system and unfortunately that makes a vote for Gary Johnson a vote for Trump.

[Rhizoctonia]

Gary Johnson or Bust