Analysis: Trump 'rigged' vote claim may leave lasting damage

[Ulysses G.]

4 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

did you expect her to defy Obama?

 

 

Educate yourself. Even liberal publications admit HILLARY pushed Obama into attacking Libya.

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/even_critics_understate_how_catastrophically_bad_the_hillary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was/

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Pick up a newspaper sometime.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#2010.E2.80.93present

 

33 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I hold her responsible for the fallout stemming from the decision to invade Libya and Syria. Both are now embroiled in civil wars that stem directly from our involvement there. It has  caused hundreds of thousands (or more) deaths and it has created millions of refugees that has created a humanitarian crisis in Europe and elsewhere.

 

Pick up a newspaper sometime.  The US did not invade Libya or Syria.

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

 

 

Pick up a newspaper sometime.  The US did not invade Libya or Syria.

 

Not "boots on the ground"  but we lit the fuse. Say it ain't so.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

I like this part of your link:

 

" But since the conventions, and fueled by his own missteps, Trump has been hit by a tsunami of negative coverage, all but swamping the reporting on Hillary Clinton. "

 

So the media is biased for reporting Trump's missteps.  Howard Kurtz doesn't identify any errors in reporting on Trump or omissions in reporting on HRC, he just doesn't like the fact that Trump gives the media lots of negatives to report, and the media reports them.  That doesn't strike me as bias, that strikes me as the press doing its job.

 

The media's current pre-occupation with e-mails sent between a HRC aid and her estranged husband, with no evidence that these e-mails have anything to do with HRC, is bias.  The media's neglect of the fact that Trump has not released tax returns and hasn't agreed to put his holdings in a blind trust if elected is beyond bias, the media is neglecting its obligation to keep the public informed on important issues.

 

Perhaps you should use news sources other than Fox.

 

28 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Perhaps you should not be so obsessive about it. Howard Kurtz is a respected jounalist and has appeared on CNN and written for the Washington Post and the Daily Beast. He has also published numerous books about the media. Fox is simply his latest home.

 

Once again, you ignore the substantive part of my post to "be so obsessive" about the Fox comment.

[heybruce]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

 

Pick up a newspaper sometime.  The US did not invade Libya or Syria.

 

3 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Not "boots on the ground"  but we lit the fuse. Say it ain't so.

 

It ain't so.  The Syrian and Libyan people lit the fuse against their dictatorships.

 

Interesting that you rapidly backed off from "invasion" to "lit the fuse", which is also incorrect. 

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

 

Once again, you ignore the substantive part of my post to "be so obsessive" about the Fox comment.

 

"Substantive" is in the eye of the beholder and I have a hard time finding anything "substantive" in most of your posts, including this one. Nice way to divert from the ignorant Fox comment though.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

"Substantive" is in the eye of the beholder and I have a hard time finding anything "substantive" in most of your posts, including this one. Nice way to divert from the ignorant Fox comment though.

 

 

You are certainly consistent in your dismissal of facts. 

 

" So the media is biased for reporting Trump's missteps.  Howard Kurtz doesn't identify any errors in reporting on Trump or omissions in reporting on HRC, he just doesn't like the fact that Trump gives the media lots of negatives to report, and the media reports them.  That doesn't strike me as bias, that strikes me as the press doing its job. "

Edited November 2, 2016 by heybruce

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Interesting that you rapidly backed off from "invasion" to "lit the fuse", which is also incorrect. 

 

You are splitting hairs. Hillary pushed the foolish bombing of  Libya. That is a fact.

[lannarebirth]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

 

It ain't so.  The Syrian and Libyan people lit the fuse against their dictatorships.

 

Interesting that you rapidly backed off from "invasion" to "lit the fuse", which is also incorrect. 

 

More than 26,500 coalition bombing sorties over the course of 7 months. What was our national interest? Now ISIS is running the place.. Was that our intention? What was our intention?

Edited November 2, 2016 by lannarebirth

[Ulysses G.]

13 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

  Howard Kurtz doesn't identify any errors in reporting on Trump or omissions in reporting on HRC

 

Another distraction. That was not what the report was about. Why would he bother? The report was about blatantly biased reporting and how the dishonest MSM try to justify it.

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[AYJAYDEE]

44 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Educate yourself. Even liberal publications admit HILLARY pushed Obama into attacking Libya.

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/even_critics_understate_how_catastrophically_bad_the_hillary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was/

 

hahahahahaha! yeah, obama was so weak he couldnt say no!! good one !!

 

[AYJAYDEE]

46 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

If she thought it was wrong I'd expect her to give counsel that it is wrong. But she didn't do that, on the contrary, she was cheerleader in chief of the devastation we caused to millions of people's lives.

 

the american administrations have ALL been causing devastation and causing millions to die all over rthe globe for generations! why would Hillary be any different than all the other secretaries of state for a one party state like america?

 

[lannarebirth]

9 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

the american administrations have ALL been causing devastation and causing millions to die all over rthe globe for generations! why would Hillary be any different than all the other secretaries of state for a one party state like america?

 

 

If that's your argument then I'll confess that I wouldn't vote for Rumsfeld either.

[AYJAYDEE]

Just now, Ulysses G. said:

 

That does sound like him, but not the point. Hillary is the one who pushed the bombing of Libya and it is not a secret.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/

 

so what? all american secretaries of state support america's  vile, murdering aggression to get their way in the world. they wouldnt be named secretary of state if they didnt

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

so what? all american secretaries of state support america's  vile, murdering aggression to get their way in the world. they wouldnt be named secretary of state if they didnt

 

You know, Canada was a coalition partner of that Libya operation and filled some of the command roles. Just sayin'.

[AYJAYDEE]

Just now, lannarebirth said:

 

You know, Canada was a coalition partner of that Libya operation and filled some of the command roles. Just sayin'.

 

and stephen harper is a vile piece of sh*t! and we kicked the bastard to the curb.

[Rimmer]

Posts with altered quote and replies have been removed

[Morch]

16 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Nothing carries much weight on a public forum,  with those who have already made up their minds otherwise. If anyone should realize that, it is you.

Can't agree that speaking ones mind honestly is not taking the moral high ground. Revealing Hillary's real personality is a public service - she is running for office.

 

Going nihilist is a default cop out.

Can't see how conveniently conjured imaginary friends perfectly fitting all the argued dots contribute to the argument, or the discussion, such as it is.

 

And you can disagree as much as you like, breaking trust is not always quite  the same as "speaking one's mind honestly". Sometimes its just breaking trust. Secret Service agents are not there to pass moral judgement and conduct assessment of the persons they protect, but rather, are sworn to confidentiality. What you approve of, for partisan considerations, is the opposite. HRC being rude to her security detail is not a crucial point to the issue of running the country. Thought that was actually a point often made by Trump supporters regarding his conduct.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

You are splitting hairs. Hillary pushed the foolish bombing of  Libya. That is a fact.

 

Splitting hairs?  The US provided logistical support to UK and French air operations over Libya.  The US did not invade Libya.  Do you understand the very significant difference?

 

What was foolish in Libya was not providing any support (nation building) after the sadistic dictator Qaddafi was toppled.  The US assumed that since the UK and France took the lead in toppling Qaddafi, and since they were much closer economically, historically and geographically, that they would take the lead in nation building.  It was a bad assumption, but to blame HRC for their failure is ridiculous.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Another distraction. That was not what the report was about. Why would he bother? The report was about blatantly biased reporting and how the dishonest MSM try to justify it.

 

 

The report was about blatantly biased reporting and yet it doesn't give any evidence of blatantly biased reporting.  You don't care, you like what the report said so you take it as fact.

 

I repeatedly remind you that Trump has no experience in elected office or the military and is therefore clearly unqualified to be president.  These are indisputable facts, but you don't like them so you reject them.  You are a true Trump person--reality is whatever you want to imagine it to be.

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

More than 26,500 coalition bombing sorties over the course of 7 months. What was our national interest? Now ISIS is running the place.. Was that our intention? What was our intention?

 

Once again, pick up a newspaper.  ISIS is in full retreat.  It is in our national interest that ISIS be defeated, and significant progress has been made.

 

It is also in our interest for Syria to be stable and democratic, however that can't be forced on the Syrian people until they are ready for it.  In view of the fact that there is no Syrian opposition, but rather dozens if not hundreds of opposition groups, many that spend more time fighting each other than the Syrian government, it appears that not enough of the Syrian people are ready for democracy.

 

There is no quick fix or easy solution to the problems in the Mid-East.  However there is no shortage of people who will claim that regardless of what the US is doing there, all the problems are America's fault.

 

Edit:  Do you concede that the US neither "invaded" nor "lit the fuse"  (your words) in Libya and Syria?

Edited November 2, 2016 by heybruce

[lannarebirth]

35 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Once again, pick up a newspaper.  ISIS is in full retreat.  It is in our national interest that ISIS be defeated, and significant progress has been made.

 

It is also in our interest for Syria to be stable and democratic, however that can't be forced on the Syrian people until they are ready for it.  In view of the fact that there is no Syrian opposition, but rather dozens if not hundreds of opposition groups, many that spend more time fighting each other than the Syrian government, it appears that not enough of the Syrian people are ready for democracy.

 

There is no quick fix or easy solution to the problems in the Mid-East.  However there is no shortage of people who will claim that regardless of what the US is doing there, all the problems are America's fault.

 

Edit:  Do you concede that the US neither "invaded" nor "lit the fuse"  (your words) in Libya and Syria?

 

I'll concede the former but not the latter, nor do I concede that any of it in the US national interest. It's about oil production and pipelines and I would not see men kill or die for that in my name.

[heybruce]

8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

I'll concede the former but not the latter, nor do I concede that any of it in the US national interest. It's about oil production and pipelines and I would not see men kill or die for that in my name.

 

Please explain how the US "lit the fuse" on uprisings in Libya and Syria. 

 

You are way behind on current events on oil.  The US produces most of the petroleum products it consumes. http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_imports  .  The overwhelming majority of our imported petroleum comes from Canada  http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_11.pdf .  Imports from Iraq are small, from Libya negligible, and from Syria too small to make the charts.  http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_10.pdf 

 

It's time to update your conspiracy theory.

[Boon Mee]

More stolen, forged ballots discovered in Florida

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-seminole-county-election-fraud--joy-mcgahey-and-her-husband-matt-who-live-20161031-story.html

 

You need an ID to drive, buy liquor, fly on an aeroplane but not to vote? 

[MiKT]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Going nihilist is a default cop out.

Can't see how conveniently conjured imaginary friends perfectly fitting all the argued dots contribute to the argument, or the discussion, such as it is.

 

And you can disagree as much as you like, breaking trust is not always quite  the same as "speaking one's mind honestly". Sometimes its just breaking trust. Secret Service agents are not there to pass moral judgement and conduct assessment of the persons they protect, but rather, are sworn to confidentiality. What you approve of, for partisan considerations, is the opposite. HRC being rude to her security detail is not a crucial point to the issue of running the country. Thought that was actually a point often made by Trump supporters regarding his conduct.

 

Some people would be quite surprised and shocked at what the security details of those we cannot mention here say about them.

 

It's not exactly a matter that you would use a sole judgment of that persons fitness to be IC. However, with Trump he is just so blatantly unfit by every reasonable yardstick for judging moral worth, it  is a terrible condemnation of his supporters sanity that they keep on supporting him.

 

But then, TV for instance has more than a few who do not condemn rape and only blame the victim; and when Trump rapes them, which he will if given half a chance, they will be back here whining like the running dogs they are.

[Morch]

30 minutes ago, MiKT said:

 

Some people would be quite surprised and shocked at what the security details of those we cannot mention here say about them.

 

It's not exactly a matter that you would use a sole judgment of that persons fitness to be IC. However, with Trump he is just so blatantly unfit by every reasonable yardstick for judging moral worth, it  is a terrible condemnation of his supporters sanity that they keep on supporting him.

 

But then, TV for instance has more than a few who do not condemn rape and only blame the victim; and when Trump rapes them, which he will if given half a chance, they will be back here whining like the running dogs they are.

 

"it  is a terrible condemnation of his supporters sanity"

"whining like the running dogs they are."

 

One of the main things that worries me with regard to the US are the divisiveness which seems to grow year by year. Obviously, Trump is playing an active role in widening existing rifts. But then again, can't really blame the many Americans holding negative views of the Democrats, and/or what is labeled Liberal policies and social engineering.

 

Don't see such comments and name-calling, by either side, as constructive.

 

Thought of pointing out that a day after the elections, every voter is an American, rather than partisan. But considering the predictions of post-elections harassment, this notion might be smelling funny.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Morch

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

More stolen, forged ballots discovered in Florida

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-seminole-county-election-fraud--joy-mcgahey-and-her-husband-matt-who-live-20161031-story.html

 

You need an ID to drive, buy liquor, fly on an aeroplane but not to vote? 

Five absentee ballots submitted fraudulently, no information on who the votes were for.

[heybruce]

23 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Don't worry, Hillary supporters are not known for their mental abilities. 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/11/01/prominent-economists-including-eight-nobel-laureates-do-not-vote-for-donald-trump/

 

Apparently many people of exceptional mental abilities aren't too keen on Trump.

Edited November 2, 2016 by heybruce

[MiKT]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

"it  is a terrible condemnation of his supporters sanity"

"whining like the running dogs they are."

 

One of the main things that worries me with regard to the US are the divisiveness which seems to grow year by year. Obviously, Trump is playing an active role in widening existing rifts. But then again, can't really blame the many Americans holding negative views of the Democrats, and/or what is labeled Liberal policies and social engineering.

 

Don't see such comments and name-calling, by either side, as constructive.

 

Thought of pointing out that a day after the elections, every voter is an American, rather than partisan. But considering the predictions of post-elections harassment, this notion might be smelling funny.

 

My views are from a non-American, and I am just reiterating what I have already said several times in this thread. But the views I am putting forward about Trump echo the worries of many millions of people outside the US. They can't understand in this day and age of easy international travel and the internet bringing foreign experiences right to your door, why anybody could support this man.

 

He is so obviously not suited to be POTUS he should have it tattooed on his forehead in bright red letters, like a slave brand from Roman days, beware thief, beware crook, beware carpetbagger, .........and so on almost to an infinity of clichés describing someone you would not want to come begging in your neighbourhood public toilet, let alone running a country. Better still if he was branded with a hot iron and sent to row in the galleys.

 

Its so obvious, that with his limited knowledge of how governments work and how international diplomacy works he could change his name to Duterte and nobody would notice, except his pal Putin might have his nose put out of joint (now theirs a pleasant thought) by the Chinese tie-ups.

 

The world needs a stable prosperous US, not a kindergarten republic run buy a pouting brat.

[Linzz]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

Once again, pick up a newspaper.  ISIS is in full retreat.  It is in our national interest that ISIS be defeated, and significant progress has been made.

 

It is also in our interest for Syria to be stable and democratic, however that can't be forced on the Syrian people until they are ready for it.  In view of the fact that there is no Syrian opposition, but rather dozens if not hundreds of opposition groups, many that spend more time fighting each other than the Syrian government, it appears that not enough of the Syrian people are ready for democracy.

 

There is no quick fix or easy solution to the problems in the Mid-East.  However there is no shortage of people who will claim that regardless of what the US is doing there, all the problems are America's fault.

 

Edit:  Do you concede that the US neither "invaded" nor "lit the fuse"  (your words) in Libya and Syria?

 

American mid east foreign policy seems contradictory. On one hand they are assisting the Iraqi govt fighting jihadists in the form of ISIS, and on the other hand assisting a multitude of jihadists including Al-Nusra (formerly a branch of Al Qaeda) and suicide bombers with arms and info against a legitimate Syrian govt, which is a member of the UN. Have they forgotten 9/11 already? In my view the US has inflicted too much regime change in the middle east and made a bigger mess of it. I can never forget that video of Hillary saying about Gaddafi, "we came ,we saw, he died" and then she laughed loudly. Libya, that went well didn't it?