So the difference between your dislike of Clinton and our dislike of Clinton is merely a matter of timing. That's actually great
well I believe the only difference is that I want a democrat in office not a right wing republican
cause that is the only choice ...the only outcome..one or the other
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:14 pm
by dada
Rory » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:53 pm wrote:And it does make a certain amount of sense: The social contract where civic governance is effected in the spirit of at least some semblance of integrity and honesty. There's a difference between stealing a few items of stationary from the office supply room, and brazenly bending the company apparatus to enact a pay to play, personal money making scheme, and having your "boss" effectively condone it by speaking out to shout down your accusers.
I'm not buying it. Not that I've 'become cynical,' I simply reject the premise. I didn't 'opt in' to any social contract, it's forced upon me. 'Civic governance' is primarily 'effected in the spirit' of coercion and obedience. Integrity and honesty just isn't built on that.
Power corrupts, and all that jazz. Authority (in the complex form it holds in the modern neoliberal West) is indeed losing its sheen, and naturally evoking a nostalgia in some. The next wave of authority will be simpler to understand both in motivation and execution. Tyrants and warlords have a certain time tested charm, for want of a better word.
Authority is not just the tyrant and warlord. It's the system of fear. It's psychological, a way of thinking, a mindset.
Are you familiar with the tyrant-worm? He's in a sci-fi story. He brought about six thousand years of mind-numbing galactic peace. He did this on purpose, so people would get so sick of it, they'd fly as far as they could from the core systems as soon as they had the chance. He saw that if the human species didn't expand outward, it would end. No one understood him. Well, not many did.
So the difference between your dislike of Clinton and our dislike of Clinton is merely a matter of timing. That's actually great
well I believe the only difference is that I want a democrat in office not a right wing republican
cause that is the only choice ...the only outcome..one or the other
Clinton is also a right-wing republican.
Wearing a donkey suit.
For many of my friends and family, the spectre of Ogre Drumpf setting up in the Whitehouse is too much to bear. Believe me, I get it. The two biggest issues for my acquaintances seem to be supreme court justices and immigration/forced exit of illegals.
Me? I'm tired of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:40 pm
by seemslikeadream
nothing matters Neon...we are just supposed roll over and die
do nothing ...believe in nothing...nothing matters .....
we have no choice
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:47 pm
by Luther Blissett
I mean you could just say you want to be able to vote for the first woman President. I want there to be a woman President too. I would respect that (and I do admire you for sticking it out here as one of the few direct supporters of Clinton).
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 3:50 pm
by seemslikeadream
please link to a support post for Clinton that I have made ....I will need to correct it
I have indeed corrected the barrage of right wing crappola that is posted here ...I have done that and will continue to do that
what I have said is there is only two choices that it..that's the truth
I have indeed corrected the barrage of right wing crappola that is posted here ...I have done that and will continue to do that
what I have said is there is only two choices that it..that's the truth
It's either the truth or the problem itself.
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 5:00 pm
by seemslikeadream
if it's the problem that doesn't mean it is not the truth
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 5:11 pm
by Rory
re dada.
I've read the Dune series. And we are never going to colonize the stars. Can't and won't happen, like it or not as you may.
We're stuck here with our silly little elections, the tendency of power to corrupt, and hardwired primate authoritarian drives.
Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous
Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2016 5:15 pm
by seemslikeadream
Despite Trump's Claims, Evidence From FBI's Clinton Foundation Probe 'Not Impressive,' Sources Say
On the campaign trail today, Donald Trump touted allegations about the Clinton Foundation that reliable sources say are false and ill-informed.
“It was reported last night that the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton's pay-for-play corruption,” the Republican presidential nominee said today in Jacksonville, Florida, during his first rally of the day. “The investigation is described as a high priority. It's far-reaching and has been going on for more than one year. It was reported that an avalanche of information is coming in. The FBI agents say their investigation is likely to yield an indictment."
While we may both be Stein voters, you seem to be promoting a Trump victory as being preferable to a Clinton win. As I've said, I would prefer a Clinton win.
I could not even consider Trump as worthy of snaking out a sewer. I'm fairly informed on Clinton. I've followed Clinton since 1978, when he became the youngest Governor of any US state elected to that high office. Not the first disappointment in my long life. I also recognize his astounding feat of actually balancing the federal budget after 12 years of incurring Republican promoted debt.
The Clinton's main White House chef in the 90's came out saying she had a pattern of calling African American people in the kitchen the N-Word.
And still, you offer forward unproven and virtually unprovable disparaging allegations without linking to any source, which is no more than sharing with us your feelings about what you believe or want to believe is true. Worse is, that you're here doing it.
And when you actually do provide us with a link, there is nothing in it that reinforces your claim. Did you actually read the article before you came to believe Clinton "talked Trump into running"? In fact the four anonymous Trump allies claiming to have been witness to the call actually were quoted as saying, "The tone of the call was informal, and Clinton never urged Trump to run, the four people said."
That alleged "rape of a 13 year old" has more holes in it than flat earth proponents, but again it leads to the same elite pedos Bill Clinton is involved in if any of it is true. Heck I've said maybe in this wacky world even Cathy O'Brien is credible.
I truly hope a 13 year old girl you might know or be related to is not raped and then judged by people who would try to discredit her without knowing the facts of the matter, just as you have shamefully done.
In your very next comment to semper, you wrote this, "RealClearpolitics is now reporting the FBI is about to indict over the Clinton Foundation." In reply to my remark, "4 eyes have seen the rumor, yet no link."
But you see that as a response to a comment seeking you to source your material?
Here's a link to their site, but I haven't the will or need to seek out what remains as rumor only, with no source. http://www.realclearpolitics.com
You're claiming something to be true that you seem unable to support with evidence.
Perhaps you'd remember the title of the article?