Octopus Overlords

LordMortis wrote:The worst he can do is put a nut in the Supreme Court as a follow up to Congress bullshit blockade of Obama, as CiC, use the military to respond to attacks on his ego, and use the justice department/federal level policing efforts to act as a sort of mafia.

Congress will abdicate their check on the first, they already have done so with the second, and a favorable supreme court won't abdicate the third.

So be a conservative version of Obama. I can live with that.

hepcat wrote:

Rip wrote:
I don't buy into that. He doesn't have the time that would be needed to build a network of other rich crooks and despots

He's been building one for over 40 years. This is a guy who befriends known mob figures, and has shown that he has no problem selling his morals if the price is right.

Also, he's going to have nothing BUT time. He's already told one potential VP running mate that he plans on letting them take care of all the foreign and domestic stuff , while he "makes American great again".

Mob figures have no federal and above power. The only one that came close was Joe Kennedy.

I just had to endure 15 minutes of my co-workers playing this video over and over and commenting about how she was going to be replaced by the DNC. They couldn't make up their mind whether Hillary was about to die, or whether she was exaggerating her symptoms because she was "afraid to debate Donald Trump."

Rip wrote:

LordMortis wrote:The worst he can do is put a nut in the Supreme Court as a follow up to Congress bullshit blockade of Obama, as CiC, use the military to respond to attacks on his ego, and use the justice department/federal level policing efforts to act as a sort of mafia.

Congress will abdicate their check on the first, they already have done so with the second, and a favorable supreme court won't abdicate the third.

So be a conservative version of Obama. I can live with that.

I read your posts here why again?

On the one hand we have a video of Clinton feeling faint and being helped into a car. Online forum sleuths have deduced from this that she stroked out or was otherwise brain damaged.

On the other hand we have video of Clinton looking active and well about an hour later, something perfectly consistent with the doctor's explanation of walking pneumonia and strong antibiotics. Having had walking pneumonia and strong antibiotics myself (even without wearing a bulletproof vest after twelve months of nonstop campaigning), this seems legit to me.

So which is it? Is the doctor lying? Was that really Hillary we saw walking around after the event, or was it a body double?

It has to be one version or the other, and only one of them supports the theory that Clinton is at death's door.

Rip wrote:
Mob figures have no federal and above power.

It's cute that you believe that. It's telling that his friendships with mob figures is seemingly fine for you.

Holman wrote:So which is it? Is the doctor lying? Was that really Hillary we saw walking around after the event, or was it a body double?

#HillarysBodyDouble is one of the top trends on twitter this morning.

I think the only way to settle this is with an appropriately presidential endurance test. Let's make the debates six hours long.

True, that's only half the one-woman marathon Clinton ran for the Benghazi clown show, plus it's twice the debate length Trump complained about last winter. Is that unfair?

Captain Caveman wrote:#HillarysBodyDouble is one of the top trends on twitter this morning.

Dustin Hoffman getting to bring back a meaner, darker version of Tootsie.

Holman wrote:I think the only way to settle this is with an appropriately presidential endurance test. Let's make the debates six hours long.

Ack, you'll kill us all!

Holman wrote:On the one hand we have a video of Clinton feeling faint and being helped into a car. Online forum sleuths have deduced from this that she stroked out or was otherwise brain damaged.

On the other hand we have video of Clinton looking active and well about an hour later, something perfectly consistent with the doctor's explanation of walking pneumonia and strong antibiotics. Having had walking pneumonia and strong antibiotics myself (even without wearing a bulletproof vest after twelve months of nonstop campaigning), this seems legit to me.

So which is it? Is the doctor lying? Was that really Hillary we saw walking around after the event, or was it a body double?

It has to be one version or the other, and only one of them supports the theory that Clinton is at death's door.

It doesn't matter; her biggest problem continues to be the reflexive lack of transparency from her campaign, and all the attempted buffoonery to cover everything up prior to the emergence of the video. As David Axelrod put it:

What's the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?

Feeling the relief that comes from a full release. Of your tax returns.

hepcat wrote:Don't fool yourself. The only reason he hasn't lined his pockets like most politicians is because he hasn't been a politician up until now.

(quoting hep because I agree with him)

He is absolutely dishonest in his business dealings. That's going to change once he gets into office? Are you kidding me, Rip? He's ONE OF the rich cronies you're so worried Clinton pals around with.

Listen, if you would rather anyone than Clinton be in office, ok. I think that's asinine, but ok, at least I can understand it. Don't try to sell me Drumpf, because he's everything you hate about Clinton without any of the polish, experience or competence. Any assertion otherwise is completely counter to reality, a reality that Drumpf himself embraces in public. I mean, you have to actually disregard everything he himself says about himself. That's...hard to do, for most people. But hatred of Clinton seems to make it easier for some people.

So vote for Drumpf so Clinton doesn't get into office. Fine. But don't try to tell me Drumpf has ANYTHING going for him besides not being Clinton. Because that's a lie.

Hillary Clinton to Release More Medical Records After Pneumonia Diagnosis:

WSJ.com wrote:Campaign admits fault in delaying announcement that candidate was diagnosed with pneumonia

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y.—Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will release additional medical records this week, a spokesman said Monday, after a health-related stumble exiting a 9/11 ceremony put her well-being into the spotlight and reanimated critics’ complaints about secretiveness.

Press secretary Brian Fallon also said the campaign made mistakes handling the situation on Sunday, specifically by not responding to questions for 90 minutes about Mrs. Clinton’s exit from the memorial event in Manhattan.

Good, maybe now we can put to rest all these claims that she's an Electroid by way of the Eighth Dimension.

There was a good opinion piece and pretty objective from the UK about why asking politicians for their medical records is too much and unnecessary, not to mention useless. I believe it was the Telegraph if anyone wants to bother.

I also read others (also UK in origin) that were less objective and more about partisan politics.

LordMortis wrote:
So be a conservative version of Obama. I can live with that.

I read your posts here why again?[/quote]

Yeah. Rip, you are being ridiculous in the extreme.

hepcat wrote:Good, maybe now we can put to rest all these claims that she's an Electroid by way of the Eighth Dimension.

Given her current popularity, she might get more votes if it shows she is.

I think HRC is actually better off having the news cycle focused on her poor health rather than her private email server and her legacy as Secretary of State. Not much she can do to address the latter, but a few strong debate performances against Trump should take care of the health stuff.

Smutly wrote:has served me well in life.

That's what it's all about, isn't it? I don't say that facetiously.

Smutly wrote:Donald Trump is a private citizen in private industry working for himself for profit. That is, of course, self-serving and how Capitalism works. Hillary Clinton is working as a public servant and is using that to enrich herself and her friends. When public servants aren't, that's called an ethics violation. So yes, I am dead serious.

Serves himself, gets rich.
Serves others, gets rich.

When you put it like that, the choice is pretty easy.

Maybe Clinton was right? More than half of Trump supporters hold deplorable views on race.

When pollsters and researchers want to measure racial bias, they don’t ask if respondents are “racist”; the stigma of being a racist is strong enough that most people won’t answer honestly, to say nothing of the fact that racial prejudice exists on a continuum. A binary answer doesn’t capture the complexity of bias and bigotry. Instead, they ask proxy questions that try to capture attitudes associated with racism.

We can debate whether this is blindness or denial, but the data is clear: Large numbers of white Americans hold anti-black or racially resentful views, and for a substantial portion, those views are politically salient. They drive decisions about voting and party identification. Donald Trump did not win the Republican presidential primary because he out-organized or out-campaigned his competitors; he won because he played directly to those views, and Republican elites refused to challenge him.

Alefroth wrote:

Smutly wrote:has served me well in life.

That's what it's all about, isn't it? I don't say that facetiously.

I'm not sure you can make that statement if you don't know how a philosophy has served me well. Should I assume you are insinuating something or that you know something about my life that puts you in a position to make that statement?

Alefroth wrote: Serves himself, gets rich.
Serves others, gets rich.

When you put it like that, the choice is pretty easy.

Yeah, one is 'honest' in his intentions. The other is not honest in her intentions. Either way, they're both serving their self interests. Pretty simple.

Holman wrote:Maybe Clinton was right? More than half of Trump supporters hold deplorable views on race.

When pollsters and researchers want to measure racial bias, they don’t ask if respondents are “racist”; the stigma of being a racist is strong enough that most people won’t answer honestly, to say nothing of the fact that racial prejudice exists on a continuum. A binary answer doesn’t capture the complexity of bias and bigotry. Instead, they ask proxy questions that try to capture attitudes associated with racism.

We can debate whether this is blindness or denial, but the data is clear: Large numbers of white Americans hold anti-black or racially resentful views, and for a substantial portion, those views are politically salient. They drive decisions about voting and party identification. Donald Trump did not win the Republican presidential primary because he out-organized or out-campaigned his competitors; he won because he played directly to those views, and Republican elites refused to challenge him.

I heard this on one of the Sunday morning political shows as well. If someone supports Trump, by definition are they a racist?

Smutly wrote: I heard this on one of the Sunday morning political shows as well. If someone supports Trump, by definition are they a racist?

No. But if someone's views indicate they are a racist then we can say with confidence that they are a racist. Trump has played to those views, and their holders are significantly over-represented among his supporters.

Plus, popular leading proponents of racist views lean very heavily towards Trump.

Holman wrote:Maybe Clinton was right? More than half of Trump supporters hold deplorable views on race.

When pollsters and researchers want to measure racial bias, they don’t ask if respondents are “racist”; the stigma of being a racist is strong enough that most people won’t answer honestly, to say nothing of the fact that racial prejudice exists on a continuum. A binary answer doesn’t capture the complexity of bias and bigotry. Instead, they ask proxy questions that try to capture attitudes associated with racism.

We can debate whether this is blindness or denial, but the data is clear: Large numbers of white Americans hold anti-black or racially resentful views, and for a substantial portion, those views are politically salient. They drive decisions about voting and party identification. Donald Trump did not win the Republican presidential primary because he out-organized or out-campaigned his competitors; he won because he played directly to those views, and Republican elites refused to challenge him.

I imagine some of his supporters are racist/sexist/etc/deplorable, and a whole bunch of others are just comfortable or willing to look the other way while he does deplorable stuff.

One question I have is, were these deplorables deplorable before, or are they just following Trump's lead? And if a bunch of them are, will their deplorable views wane once/if he's out of the picture?

Get thee ridiculousness Trumpage (and objectivist assholery) over to the proper threads! Begone!! Shoo!!

Defiant wrote:One question I have is, were these deplorables deplorable before, or are they just following Trump's lead? And if a bunch of them are, will their deplorable views wane once/if he's out of the picture?

They were deplorable before. Trump's nomination is the triumph of their deplorability, not the other way around. The least-qualified and most unstable candidate in American history overcame a major political party to seize the nomination by promising the deplorables what they wanted.

And just to anticipate the point: Yes, there are Democrats who hold the same deplorable views. Being Democrats doesn't absolve of it. Lots of Americans suck.

But only one of the leading candidates has made these views the centerpiece of his campaign and elevated them to such an influential role in the national discourse. Only one of the leading candidates actually supports these views and works to legitimize them. Only one of the candidates has invited leading proponents of these views to a privileged place at the political table.

And only one of the leading candidates--the other one--stands against these views and opposes them as vigorously as President Obama has done in the face of their disgusting 21st-century resurgence.

Smutly wrote:

Alefroth wrote:

Smutly wrote:has served me well in life.

That's what it's all about, isn't it? I don't say that facetiously.

I'm not sure you can make that statement if you don't know how a philosophy has served me well. Should I assume you are insinuating something or that you know something about my life that puts you in a position to make that statement?

I'm not saying anything about your life. My point was about Objectivism.

Alefroth wrote: Serves himself, gets rich.
Serves others, gets rich.

When you put it like that, the choice is pretty easy.

Yeah, one is 'honest' in his intentions. The other is not honest in her intentions. Either way, they're both serving their self interests. Pretty simple.

Yet only one of them is a public servant.

Right. Only one of them has the slight chance of doing anything for me.

Holman wrote:

Smutly wrote: I heard this on one of the Sunday morning political shows as well. If someone supports Trump, by definition are they a racist?

No. But if someone's views indicate they are a racist then we can say with confidence that they are a racist. Trump has played to those views, and their holders are significantly over-represented among his supporters.

Plus, popular leading proponents of racist views lean very heavily towards Trump.

Does someone supporting building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out of the country make them a racist?

No, but belonging to a white supremacist group does.

Alefroth wrote:I'm not saying anything about your life. My point was about Objectivism.

That's an over simplification. It does put individuals first but demands respect for the rights of others. I'm not here to debate Objectivism. For those who want to learn more, feel free to visit The Atlas Society.

Alefroth wrote:Yet only one of them is a public servant.

I think that can be argued. If someone accepts a position to do what is in the public's best interest and they do otherwise for personal gain then I would say they are publically fucking me in the ass. I can do without that 'public service' and they should be punished for abusing the public trust.

Smutly wrote:

Alefroth wrote:I'm not saying anything about your life. My point was about Objectivism.

That's an over simplification. It does put individuals first but demands respect for the rights of others. I'm not here to debate Objectivism. For those who want to learn more, feel free to visit The Atlas Society.

Alefroth wrote:Yet only one of them is a public servant.

I think that can be argued. If someone accepts a position to do what is in the public's best interest and they do otherwise for personal gain then I would say they are publically fucking me in the ass. I can do without that 'public service' and they should be punished for abusing the public trust.

You keep asserting that Clinton has somehow spent her whole career acting contrary to the public interest to enrich herself. The problem is that that's simply not true except in the fever dreams of right wing media.

geezer wrote:

Smutly wrote:

Alefroth wrote:I'm not saying anything about your life. My point was about Objectivism.

That's an over simplification. It does put individuals first but demands respect for the rights of others. I'm not here to debate Objectivism. For those who want to learn more, feel free to visit The Atlas Society.

Alefroth wrote:Yet only one of them is a public servant.

I think that can be argued. If someone accepts a position to do what is in the public's best interest and they do otherwise for personal gain then I would say they are publically fucking me in the ass. I can do without that 'public service' and they should be punished for abusing the public trust.

You keep asserting that Clinton has somehow spent her whole career acting contrary to the public interest to enrich herself. The problem is that that's simply not true except in the fever dreams of right wing media.

I don't know how many times she has done it. How many times is acceptable to you?

Being President is grueling and it has a visible effect on the person who is President. Appearing weak, sickly, lethargic, or vulnerable to high stress activities(like campaigning) is not going to go unnoticed by the voters.

I'm not going so far as to say this will cost her the election but I'd be willing to bet there are a lot of people out there who might have been leaning towards voting for her who are now wondering if she could hack it for four years.

I'm assuming she's been given any and all assistance modern medicine has to offer for the sole purpose of marching through this campaign full speed ahead, and yet she got sick. That's not a good sign.

Smutly wrote:

geezer wrote:

Smutly wrote:

Alefroth wrote:I'm not saying anything about your life. My point was about Objectivism.

That's an over simplification. It does put individuals first but demands respect for the rights of others. I'm not here to debate Objectivism. For those who want to learn more, feel free to visit The Atlas Society.

Alefroth wrote:Yet only one of them is a public servant.

I think that can be argued. If someone accepts a position to do what is in the public's best interest and they do otherwise for personal gain then I would say they are publically fucking me in the ass. I can do without that 'public service' and they should be punished for abusing the public trust.

You keep asserting that Clinton has somehow spent her whole career acting contrary to the public interest to enrich herself. The problem is that that's simply not true except in the fever dreams of right wing media.

I don't know how many times she has done it. How many times is acceptable to you?

I'd prefer all people consider the greater good at all times... I'm not sure that's possible for anyone, politician, businessperson, teacher, priest or whatever. I have no idea how many times, or in what instances HRC has put personal gain ahead of the "right" thing, but I do know that after 30 years of the right trying to nail her on something - anything - nothing has ever stuck, so theoreticaly the answer to your question is, "never." Seemingly she's guilty mostly of believing that she can both be a public figure and have a reasonable expectation of privacy - and her actions to that end have spurred her critics to believe that there just absolutely, positively has to be something being hidden as a result.

If only Trump was held to the same standard by his more ardent supporters, right?

geezer wrote:

Smutly wrote:

geezer wrote:

Smutly wrote:

Alefroth wrote:I'm not saying anything about your life. My point was about Objectivism.

That's an over simplification. It does put individuals first but demands respect for the rights of others. I'm not here to debate Objectivism. For those who want to learn more, feel free to visit The Atlas Society.

Alefroth wrote:Yet only one of them is a public servant.

I think that can be argued. If someone accepts a position to do what is in the public's best interest and they do otherwise for personal gain then I would say they are publically fucking me in the ass. I can do without that 'public service' and they should be punished for abusing the public trust.

You keep asserting that Clinton has somehow spent her whole career acting contrary to the public interest to enrich herself. The problem is that that's simply not true except in the fever dreams of right wing media.

I don't know how many times she has done it. How many times is acceptable to you?

I'd prefer all people consider the greater good at all times... I'm not sure that's possible for anyone, politician, businessperson, teacher, priest or whatever. I have no idea how many times, or in what instances HRC has put personal gain ahead of the "right" thing, but I do know that after 30 years of the right trying to nail her on something - anything - nothing has ever stuck, so theoreticaly the answer to your question is, "never." Seemingly she's guilty mostly of believing that she can both be a public figure and have a reasonable expectation of privacy - and her actions to that end have spurred her critics to believe that there just absolutely, positively has to be something being hidden as a result.

If only Trump was held to the same standard by his more ardent supporters, right?

A Nigerian newspaper publisher tied to the ruling People's Democratic Party (spoiler: they are not democratic) paid Bill Clinton $1.4 million to deliver two speeches in 2011 and 2012. The Clintons closed their eyes to the human rights abuses by Nigeria's brutal president, Goodluck Jonathan, as they collected their checks. Secretary Clinton made an official visit to Nigeria in 2012, congratulating Jonathan on his non-existent "reform efforts". American legitimacy was bestowed at a bargain price and was just the opposite of what Human Rights Watch implored her to do.

Four days after Hillary Clinton was nominated as Secretary of State, Bill made the first of a string of speeches for TD Bank who paid almost $2 million. TD Bank was the single largest shareholder in the Keystone XL pipeline which required State Department approval. Hillary Clinton decided to support the pipeline and delayed the Obama administration's rejection of it. Her environmentalist friends were not happy.

There's no recording or smoking gun explicitly stating a quid pro quo, but these are just two examples of a larger pattern of behavior which at best is suspect. They won't be jailed, but there is a reason why no one trusts Hillary Clinton.

If they can't keep the governor of Virginia down on charges of corruption, they won't be able to do anything on Hillary. The courts pretty much said that that is how politics works.