TRUMP - Just because.....................Naw, I just can't say it! by SHINYGOODGUY

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by G:

I know you know, but just for the record: SIGNYM and KILLKILL just aren't interested.

Here's a happy, positive spin I just thought of. Stay with me: Trump wins. The scenario you describe above comes true in full. In the second year of the Trump reign, The People - especially those that voted for him - are finally unable to deny the destruction and false promises made by Trump. An actual, physical revolt happens and sweeping gov. change finally occurs. Had it not been for Trump it would have been another 35 years before such progress would be made. He goes down as The Failure that Saved America.

Even without Trump, there will be trouble.

America's constitutional democracy is going to collapse some day just like crappy democracies in Latin America because, in retrospect, the Founding Fathers made some very poor decisions while writing the US Constitution. Matthew Yglesias explains why other countries with constitutions modeled after the US Constitution have had the very same troubles that the USA is now having between Democrats and Republicans.
www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

“Voiced in another register, my outlandish thesis is actually the conventional wisdom in the United States. Back when George W. Bush was president and I was working at a liberal magazine, there was a very serious discussion in an editorial meeting about the fact that the United States was now exhibiting 11 of the 13 telltale signs of a fascist dictatorship. The idea that Bush was shredding the Constitution and trampling on congressional prerogatives was commonplace. When Obama took office, the partisan valence of the complaints shifted, but their basic tenor didn't. Conservative pundits — not the craziest, zaniest ones on talk radio, but the most serious and well-regarded — compare Obama's immigration moves to the actions of a Latin-American military dictator. . . .

The breakdown of American constitutional democracy is a contrarian view. But it's nothing more than the view that rather than everyone being wrong about the state of American politics, maybe everyone is right. Maybe Bush and Obama are dangerously exceeding norms of executive authority. Maybe legislative compromise really has broken down in an alarming way. And maybe the reason these complaints persist across different administrations and congresses led by members of different parties is that American politics is breaking down.”

I should mention that 1kiki and Signym are ordinary in Texas. 1kiki is very much like the far left wingers I know at the University of Texas at Austin and Signym is very much like my Republican neighbors in Baytown Texas. 1kiki and Signym would argue that that is not them at all, as would their argumentative clones living in Texas.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 3, 2016 1:59 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

"When I found out about Trump’s treatment of a Scottish family in his attempt to force them off their land I had to make a film about it. Now he wants to sue."
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/03/youve-been-trumped-too-f
ilm-donald-trump

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 3, 2016 4:21 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

On the financial disclosure forms that Donald J. Trump has pointed to as proof of his tremendous success, no venture looks more gold-plated than his golf resort in Doral, Fla., where he reported revenues of $50 million in 2014....But this summer, a considerably different picture emerged in an austere government hearing room in Miami, where Mr. Trump’s company was challenging the resort’s property tax bill.

Mr. Trump’s lawyer handed the magistrate an income and expense statement showing that the gross revenue had indeed been $50 million. But after paying operating costs, the resort had actually lost $2.4 million.

Well, really, what's the difference between plus 50 million and minus 2.4 million? According to Trump, nothing much. But it goes a long way toward explaining why he filed bankruptcy so many times, doesn't it?

Donald Trump’s Income Isn’t Always What He Says It Is, Records Suggest
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/donald-trump-money.html?_r=0

Trump listed gross revenue, as opposed to net income after expenses, on his disclosure forms without acknowledging that choice. Thus he made himself look far more important than he is. In news releases, the Trump campaign said that “Mr. Trump’s income” was $362 million in a 2015 report, and was more than $557 million in a 2016 report required by ethics laws. During the debate with Mrs. Clinton in September, he mentioned $694 million. So much hot air in so little time.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 3, 2016 6:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
On the financial disclosure forms that Donald J. Trump has pointed to as proof of his tremendous success, no venture looks more gold-plated than his golf resort in Doral, Fla., where he reported revenues of $50 million in 2014....But this summer, a considerably different picture emerged in an austere government hearing room in Miami, where Mr. Trump’s company was challenging the resort’s property tax bill.

Mr. Trump’s lawyer handed the magistrate an income and expense statement showing that the gross revenue had indeed been $50 million. But after paying operating costs, the resort had actually lost $2.4 million.

Well, really, what's the difference between plus 50 million and minus 2.4 million? According to Trump, nothing much. But it goes a long way toward explaining why he filed bankruptcy so many times, doesn't it?

Donald Trump’s Income Isn’t Always What He Says It Is, Records Suggest
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/donald-trump-money.html?_r=0

Trump listed gross revenue, as opposed to net income after expenses, on his disclosure forms without acknowledging that choice. Thus he made himself look far more important than he is. In news releases, the Trump campaign said that “Mr. Trump’s income” was $362 million in a 2015 report, and was more than $557 million in a 2016 report required by ethics laws. During the debate with Mrs. Clinton in September, he mentioned $694 million. So much hot air in so little time.

Good reporting SECOND

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2016 5:03 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

Yes, I agree, this is good reporting.

Allow me to add this:

Melania gave a speech that defies comprehension. She spoke of cyber bullying and how she would concentrate on the young children exposed to this unsavory
exposure. What's completely baffling is the fact that her dear husband is the King of Cyber Bullying. What gives!? Doesn't that go against message?

The Trump campaign is falling apart at the seams and no one seems to be capable of righting the ship. By the way, Kelly Anne appeared on The View and it was a total disaster as Donald says.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/the-view-clashes-with-trump-campaign-
manager-kellyanne-conway/ar-AAjLKKi?OCID=ansmsnnews11

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
On the financial disclosure forms that Donald J. Trump has pointed to as proof of his tremendous success, no venture looks more gold-plated than his golf resort in Doral, Fla., where he reported revenues of $50 million in 2014....But this summer, a considerably different picture emerged in an austere government hearing room in Miami, where Mr. Trump’s company was challenging the resort’s property tax bill.

Mr. Trump’s lawyer handed the magistrate an income and expense statement showing that the gross revenue had indeed been $50 million. But after paying operating costs, the resort had actually lost $2.4 million.

Well, really, what's the difference between plus 50 million and minus 2.4 million? According to Trump, nothing much. But it goes a long way toward explaining why he filed bankruptcy so many times, doesn't it?

Donald Trump’s Income Isn’t Always What He Says It Is, Records Suggest
www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/us/politics/donald-trump-money.html?_r=0

Trump listed gross revenue, as opposed to net income after expenses, on his disclosure forms without acknowledging that choice. Thus he made himself look far more important than he is. In news releases, the Trump campaign said that “Mr. Trump’s income” was $362 million in a 2015 report, and was more than $557 million in a 2016 report required by ethics laws. During the debate with Mrs. Clinton in September, he mentioned $694 million. So much hot air in so little time.

Good reporting SECOND

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2016 9:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I know you know, but just for the record: SIGNYM and KILLKILL just aren't interested.
Here's a happy, positive spin I just thought of. Stay with me: Trump wins. The scenario you describe above comes true in full. In the second year of the Trump reign, The People - especially those that voted for him - are finally unable to deny the destruction and false promises made by Trump. An actual, physical revolt happens and sweeping gov. change finally occurs. Had it not been for Trump it would have been another 35 years before such progress would be made. He goes down as The Failure that Saved America.

If Trump is elected - which is doubtful- the globalists, neocons, media, financial institutions, international corporations, "IP" companies, and Janet Yellen will do everything that can to torpedo his Presidency ... without actually, yanno, hurting themselves too badly. So they might engineer a quick contraction of the stock market by raising rates, crank up some trouble spot on the globe, allow a major terrorist incident at home, and try to create a real "color revolution" within the borders of the USA. It's been done before many times elsewhere; there's a whole playbook of options, and people are so divided in the USA that it's entirely possible.

Quote:
Even without Trump, there will be trouble.

Truer words were never spoke.

Hillary, if she is elected and runs true to form, will be ridiculously belligerent abroad and shred the Constitution ever further at home under the guise of being "at war". I'm sure she will take this opportunity to stuff even more money into her pantsuit. There could be a real showdown between her and the House; and she COULD - under dire enough circumstances that she herself creates - suspend Congress to avoid impeachment.

Quote:
America's constitutional democracy is going to collapse some day just like crappy democracies in Latin America because, in retrospect, the Founding Fathers made some very poor decisions while writing the US Constitution.

Well, the Presidential system was a poor choice, Parliamentarian systems work much better.

But, as a liberal- SECOND, you should note that the article points a finger at BOTH Bush and Obama as Constitution-shredders. Bush was no progressive, but neither is Obama. And Hillary for sure isn't: she is a dyed-in-the-wool globalist, neocon, and transnational ass-licker.

Quote:
I should mention that 1kiki and Signym are ordinary in Texas.

What you have yet to figure out, SECOND, is that when I criticize Obama, I'm criticizing him from the LEFT. Since you define yourself as the leftward edge of politics (clearly, you have no one else to compare yourself to except troglodytes) I think you just don't know what the even further-left thinks of liberals. HINT: My even more leftward friends call you folks "liberaloids". Basically, liberals like you would never actually attempt to fundamentally challenge those in power.

The word that comes up frequently in the liberal agenda is "help". Liberals want to "help" immigrants escape their home nations (which the USA has likely destabilized, exploited, or bombed) and liberals want to "help" the poor (who can't find jobs because transnationals have outsourced or automated the work in pursuit of maximized profits). The only reason liberals want to "help" the disadvantaged is so that open revolt doesn't occur. Liberals have no intention of SOLVING problems - they just want to soften the worst aspects of "business as usual" so that things can continue as they have been.

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"

Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2016 10:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Yes, I agree, this is good reporting.

Allow me to add this:

Melania gave a speech that defies comprehension. She spoke of cyber bullying and how she would concentrate on the young children exposed to this unsavory
exposure. What's completely baffling is the fact that her dear husband is the King of Cyber Bullying. What gives!? Doesn't that go against message?

The Trump campaign is falling apart at the seams and no one seems to be capable of righting the ship. By the way, Kelly Anne appeared on The View and it was a total disaster as Donald says.

I watched it. All the press was left scratching their heads over her hypocrisy on the subject of cyber bullying. And they said as much.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2016 7:39 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

What you have yet to figure out, SECOND, is that when I criticize Obama, I'm criticizing him from the LEFT. Since you define yourself as the leftward edge of politics (clearly, you have no one else to compare yourself to except troglodytes) I think you just don't know what the even further-left thinks of liberals. HINT: My even more leftward friends call you folks "liberaloids". Basically, liberals like you would never actually attempt to fundamentally challenge those in power.

The word that comes up frequently in the liberal agenda is "help". Liberals want to "help" immigrants escape their home nations (which the USA has likely destabilized, exploited, or bombed) and liberals want to "help" the poor (who can't find jobs because transnationals have outsourced or automated the work in pursuit of maximized profits). The only reason liberals want to "help" the disadvantaged is so that open revolt doesn't occur. Liberals have no intention of SOLVING problems - they just want to soften the worst aspects of "business as usual" so that things can continue as they have been.

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"

We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.

By design, the USA Constitution rules gives the nation a government that cannot go forward or backward, turn left or right, unless it is pushed very hard by some powerful external force that is not part of the system of voters and Congress and Presidents. Often the external force is war.

Sometimes the external force might be economics, for example, Napoleon wanting to sell the Louisiana Purchase. Before the purchase was finalized, the decision faced Federalist Party opposition; they argued that it was unconstitutional to acquire any territory. Per usual, a political party was bullshitting because their real motive was economic self-interest. They did not want US grain being shipped from New Orleans rather than the East Coast.

It was the greatest land bargain in history and the Federalist Party wanted to pass up this deal because, they said but were insincere, the U.S. Constitution does not contain explicit provisions for acquiring territory. Jefferson went outside the Constitution and made a treaty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase#Domestic_opposition_a
nd_constitutionality

The cheapest land deal in history and the USA almost decided to not take the deal.

The House called for a vote to deny the request for the purchase, but it failed by two votes, 59–57. If even one more Congressman had changed their vote on the treaty, this important decision would have gone undecided. That was 1803 and the Federal Government was not running right even back then. They came so very close to making no decision, or the stupidest imaginable decision, looked at another way.

The Feds of 2016 show that the system has not changed in two centuries. The Feds are constantly dithering, unable to decide whether to go left or right, forward or backward.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 4, 2016 7:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

What you have yet to figure out, SECOND, is that when I criticize Obama, I'm criticizing him from the LEFT. Since you define yourself as the leftward edge of politics (clearly, you have no one else to compare yourself to except troglodytes) I think you just don't know what the even further-left thinks of liberals. HINT: My even more leftward friends call you folks "liberaloids". Basically, liberals like you would never actually attempt to fundamentally challenge those in power.

The word that comes up frequently in the liberal agenda is "help". Liberals want to "help" immigrants escape their home nations (which the USA has likely destabilized, exploited, or bombed) and liberals want to "help" the poor (who can't find jobs because transnationals have outsourced or automated the work in pursuit of maximized profits). The only reason liberals want to "help" the disadvantaged is so that open revolt doesn't occur. Liberals have no intention of SOLVING problems - they just want to soften the worst aspects of "business as usual" so that things can continue as they have been.

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"

SECOND

We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.

Wrong SECOND. SIG doesn't see a government full of bad people doing bad things so she posts about it. If that were true she would not defend the likes of Russia. No SIG wants to get others to believe democracies like Americas are failures. Therefore we should be angry and rebel. That's why she is always poking them, delegitimizing them. It is her defense of everything Russian that gives it away. If you want a clear window into what SIG and 1kiki are about look to Putin. They believe as he does. They believe as Russians do.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 5:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.

I DO see the design flaw. In fact, I see several. And I have posted about this more than once: How to design a system where bad people don't eventually take over anyway.

A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!

But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.

Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.

Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 6:23 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

The Electoral College is the Flaw.

Immediately the Democrats always have 100 pts in just 5 states, EVERY year.

I don't believe in a Popular vote, but I believe that all states should split the Electoral votes based off of the popular votes.

It's bullshit that 20 Electoral votes swing one way with only a 1% majority.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 7:00 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.

Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.

In theory the voters can sort the sheep from the goats, the evil politician from the wholesome politician. The voters even think that is what they are doing, but if you stand far enough back where you can't hear the voters' glib rationalizations for their decisions and look only at what voters do, I think voters know no more than a flipping coin. Elections are too much like heads for Democrat, tails for Republican. There is an article on that very subject called Why Are US Presidential Elections So Close?
http://nautil.us/issue/42/fakes/why-are-us-presidential-elections-so-c
lose

Only four times since 1824 has the winner received more than 60 percent of the popular vote. Since 2000, the candidates have been separated by an average of 3.5 points. The article dissects several very popular, and probably wrong, explanations then it gets to the best one that nearly every expert that the author talked to zeroed in on: the median voter theorem.

The median voter model seems to assume that the voters are uniformly distributed across the political spectrum. However, what if the distribution has changed so that there is greater concentration towards both right and left ends of the spectrum? That would explain why both politicians have moved away from centrist platforms. As long as both politicians are able to accurately assess the 'average' mood of their bases, and position themselves accordingly, the race can still be close, without either party’s platform being centrist.

When one politician misreads the public mood while the other doesn't the race won't be close.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 8:08 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
When one politician misreads the public mood while the other doesn't the race won't be close.

All of everything else was bullshit in between. Forgive me for editing it Second....

This is exactly the entire race.

Where you gonna go?

Where you gonna run?

Where you gonna hide?

Nowhere....

Because there's no-one like you left....

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 9:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
I DO see the design flaw. In fact, I see several. And I have posted about this more than once: How to design a system where bad people don't eventually take over anyway.

A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!

But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.

Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.

Read this carefully folks. I don't have time now but I will be back to break this down.

OK, I'm back

SIG

A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!

My response

What we have in fact, is three separate branches of government that assures a stringent thought process, debate and compromise before policy is made law. The executive, legislative and judicial branches. So why does SIG constantly attack our system and suggest we change it? She tells us having a president, chairperson or CEO is a bad thing. What she describes as what she wants is pure Socialism. Everything controlled by a central government. And yet she continually champions the republican party. The party that promotes the purist form of capitalism and works diligently to cut our existing social programs. Below is a quote of her promoting socialism and bashing capitalism. I provide a link.

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

What I should have said was- Democracy is a POLITICAL system. It describes how our government is made up, and how our laws our made. Usually, it has something to do with a vote.

If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives, not only would that be democracy, it would be socialism. In fact, it would be "democratic socialism". As opposed, for example, to tyrannical capitalism, in which there is a non-elected government and privately owned business.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=3

My Response

Again, I must point out that while SIG writes about turning all business and companies over to government, she is voting republican. Can you spell schizophrenic. At best, all she does is babble subjectively while trolling. Here is another quote below.

Quote SIG

But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things. Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.

My Response

Here we have SIG who praises Putin (war crimes Syria) claiming our system of governing promotes people doing bad things. She even suggests almost everyone in power is bad. Clearly she does not understand the differences between how our system of checks and balances is working as opposed to Putin ruling with an iron fist. She is working to undermine democracy and convince us to give up our freedoms. She is also working to convince Russians to accept their plight by implying it is the same everywhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 9:44 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

The design flaw has come home to roost, Thgrri, I await your response with great anticipation.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 10:50 AM

SHINYGOODGUY

The "mood" is circumvented by the "lies" and who does it better, or so it would seem. Politicians poll the voters to death and gear up for the battle
to gain the edge in every possible manner, but the rule of the day is to outmaneuver your opponent toward that goal.

Manipulating the Big Lie, seems to me, to be the weapon of choice. Propaganda
and it's control have ceased the day. Careful and methodical manipulation.
For example: Giuliani reveals, in a Fox interview, that he had an inkling as to the October surprise of Comey's last minute reveal of the Weiner/Huma e-mails. He was gleeful in his reveal to the point of smacking his lips over
how delighted he was.

Then Chris Matthews interviews him and he back-pedaled so fast he almost choked on his words. It was really sad to see. As Matthews pressed, as he
is known to do, Giuliani stumbled and gagged his way to a safer position.
He now claimed that he knew nothing and even offered a differing account of what he meant to say. No, he said, I received my info from "former" FBI agents. When he clearly stated before that "they" were angry that Comey had
abandoned the prosecution path. The interview also broached the subject of
"leaks" within the FBI ranks. Who are these so-called "leakers" and if they
want to "expose" Hillary for being "crooked" then step forward and present the facts. Congress could appoint a Special Prosecutor. End of story.

Comey reveals that he wanted to prevent a leak. So he writes a letter to Congress stating that they found something, new e-mails, that may be
pertinent to the case.

650,000 e-mails, allegedly. All on Weiner's laptop, shared by Huma. But Comey offered few details, leaving a huge opening for speculation and innuendo. When was this discovered? How many e-mails were "pertinent"? How many e-mails belonged to Huma, specifically and how many were to Clinton?
What is the time frame? How long did they have this laptop? When did they actually make the discovery? Nothing, nada, zilch......we found something,
that was it! Comey was CYA.....that's what's real. He needs to worry about that "leak" within the Bureau. Why would he inform Congress of an ongoing investigation? Isn't he supposed to stay neutral?

For example: The Judge Curiel - he could have easily set the trial for Trump's fraud case well before the election, citing pressure from the Dems.
But he set the trial for late November, the 28th, as Trump mistakenly cited as the day of the election in one of his rallies. The judge was obviously
sticking to Justice Dept. tradition and protocol regarding not influencing
the general election. Yet, some have completely ignored that little tidbit.
The case has been on the docket since 2010, according to a CBS News report, and Curiel was concerned about a trial during the campaign, partly out of concern for the jurors' safety. "Ultimately that's my Number 1 concern."

To this day, the FBI have refused to reveal more about their discovery of
the contents of the Weiner laptop. Curious that the discovery came now, since the investigation into Weiner's online sexting started in September. Hillary's Secretary of State tenure was from 2009 to 2013, that's 4 years. So the FBI can narrow down the search to those years and limit the e-mails to Huma's part of the laptop. If they find criminal behavior, I say go for it. But, I think it's all BULLSHIT. They, the FBI agents that are "angry" about Comey's lack of balls, they have forced the issue. But do "they" have the smoking gun? The hard evidence that a crime was committed. Really!?
Don't you think that by now they would have found something to nail her ass?

Regardless, "they" can be angry all they want, the proof is in the pudding.
It's pretty simple: Cough up or shut the fuck up! Oh, and by the way, How is it that Colin Powell isn't facing the same scrutiny? He used a private server, whether he was careless with his emails or not. He still used a private server - if she faces criminal charges for using it, then so should he. But, that's not what the propaganda calls for now, is it? It's all about control.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.

Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.
In theory the voters can sort the sheep from the goats, the evil politician from the wholesome politician. The voters even think that is what they are doing, but if you stand far enough back where you can't hear the voters' glib rationalizations for their decisions and look only at what voters do, I think voters know no more than a flipping coin. Elections are too much like heads for Democrat, tails for Republican. There is an article on that very subject called Why Are US Presidential Elections So Close?
http://nautil.us/issue/42/fakes/why-are-us-presidential-elections-so-c
lose

Only four times since 1824 has the winner received more than 60 percent of the popular vote. Since 2000, the candidates have been separated by an average of 3.5 points. The article dissects several very popular, and probably wrong, explanations then it gets to the best one that nearly every expert that the author talked to zeroed in on: the median voter theorem.

The median voter model seems to assume that the voters are uniformly distributed across the political spectrum. However, what if the distribution has changed so that there is greater concentration towards both right and left ends of the spectrum? That would explain why both politicians have moved away from centrist platforms. As long as both politicians are able to accurately assess the 'average' mood of their bases, and position themselves accordingly, the race can still be close, without either party’s platform being centrist.

When one politician misreads the public mood while the other doesn't the race won't be close.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 12:12 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Just as an aside, SECOND, here is a list of possible design flaws to consider:

As you mentioned, Presidential v Parliamentarian system.

As SIX mentioned, the electoral college.

Here are a few more:

The people who get to decide the boundaries of voting districts are partisan. Gerrymadering much?

The people purchase and manage the voting machines and the voting districts are partisan. Rigging much?

The media is privately owned, which means that the media will represent the will of private owners and private ownership.

In fact, the idea that we have a group pf people who we elect to make decisions for us concentrates so much power in so few hands that it's tempting and cheap for the elites to buy off those few. If we had direct democracy, the elites would have to buy off at least half the people, right?

Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
I DO see the design flaw. In fact, I see several. And I have posted about this more than once: How to design a system where bad people don't eventually take over anyway.

A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!

But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.

Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.

Read this carefully folks. I don't have time now but I will be back to break this down.

OK, I'm back

SIG

A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!

My response

What we have in fact, is three separate branches of government that assures a stringent thought process, debate and compromise before policy is made law. The executive, legislative and judicial branches. So why does SIG constantly attack our system and suggest we change it? She tells us having a president, chairperson or CEO is a bad thing. What she describes as what she wants is pure Socialism. Everything controlled by a central government. And yet she continually champions the republican party. The party that promotes the purist form of capitalism and works diligently to cut our existing social programs. Below is a quote of her promoting socialism and bashing capitalism. I provide a link.

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

What I should have said was- Democracy is a POLITICAL system. It describes how our government is made up, and how our laws our made. Usually, it has something to do with a vote.

If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives, not only would that be democracy, it would be socialism. In fact, it would be "democratic socialism". As opposed, for example, to tyrannical capitalism, in which there is a non-elected government and privately owned business.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=3

My Response

Again, I must point out that while SIG writes about turning all business and companies over to government, she is voting republican. Can you spell schizophrenic. At best, all she does is babble subjectively while trolling. Here is another quote below.

Quote SIG

But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things. Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.

My Response

Here we have SIG who praises Putin (war crimes Syria) claiming our system of governing promotes people doing bad things. She even suggests almost everyone in power is bad. Clearly she does not understand the differences between how our system of checks and balances is working as opposed to Putin ruling with an iron fist. She is working to undermine democracy and convince us to give up our freedoms. She is also working to convince Russians to accept their plight by implying it is the same everywhere.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 4:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
We aren't going to agree. You see a government full of bad people doing bad, while I see that the US Constitution is poorly designed. The design flaws showed two centuries ago.
I DO see the design flaw. In fact, I see several. And I have posted about this more than once: How to design a system where bad people don't eventually take over anyway.

A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!

But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things.

Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 5:43 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

The Trump campaign is falling apart at the seams and no one seems to be capable of righting the ship.

Then why bother posting about it, sgg? You seem obsessed with something that - according to you - is all but defunct.

I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 6:08 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

In theory the voters can sort the sheep from the goats, the evil politician from the wholesome politician.
I disagree.
The problem with our system is the feedback cycle takes too long. In a parliamentary system, the minute the party-in-power strays from voter mood, that party can be challenged and voted out. It makes parties that much more accountable and therefore more careful about the promises they make. In the US we elect short-term dictators - politicians that make all sorts of promises just to get elected, knowing full well that should they fall short, they won't be held accountable until the next election cycle.
And it makes voters cynical and disenfranchised. Except for the people who've really drunk deep of their party's kool-aid - like, for example, people who really think hillary is going to reform obamacare, provide good jobs, or that Trump could actually launch nuclear war on his whim alone - voters know that the promises made are beyond pointless, and that any new person is likely to be just as bad as the old one.
And there's nothing they can do about it.

I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 6:25 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Comey ... Why would he inform Congress of an ongoing investigation? Isn't he supposed to stay neutral?
Other FBI investigations have been made public from the start - Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick, Nixon and Watergate. I honestly don't see why all the outrage. It's well within historical norms.

How is it that Colin Powell isn't facing the same scrutiny?
The rules changed after Powell. the rules governing electronic communication changed considerably — and got more strict — between Powell's time in office and Clinton's. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/19/hillary-clin
tons-colin-powell-did-it-defense-of-her-email-practices-is-just-plain-wrong/

I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 6:57 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Read this carefully folks. I don't have time now but I will be back to break this down.... OK, I'm back = THUGR

A single person making decisions will always be more agile and more forceful than a deliberative body of 600+ people, who will invariably take time to think things over and compromise. That is why I think that ANY organization should never have a unitary position, like President or Chair or CEO. I know I've posted about that more than once!- SIGNY

What we have in fact, is three separate branches of government that assures a stringent thought process, debate and compromise before policy is made law. The executive, legislative and judicial branches. So why does SIG constantly attack our system and suggest we change it? She tells us having a president, chairperson or CEO is a bad thing. What she describes as what she wants is pure Socialism.= THUGR

Huh? Socialism is an economic system; it is a description of "who owns what". A democracy ... well, in reality a what we have is a representative democracy ... is a political system; it describes how laws are written.

Quote:
Everything controlled by a central government.

Again, you seem to be very confused. Most people - you included- conflate socialism with tyranny and capitalism with democracy. What I was pointing out is that it is possible to have democratic capitalism and democratic socialism and tyrannical capitalism and tyrannical socialism. And what I'm advocating is decentralization.

Quote:
And yet she continually champions the republican party.

No. Here I am, pissed off at Bush and Cheney

Quote:
Since Conyers is being browbeaten by the Dems NOT to look into the misdeeds of the Bush/ Cheney administration, others Dems are taking the bull by the horns. So if you want to add your voice to the chorus of Cheney! go here....
http://wexlerwantshearings.com/
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=31941

And here I am, pissed off at one of Bush's executive orders

Quote:
Or the Secret Service, CIA, FBI, and the President Himself. (Mistaken renditions, people cleared from motorcade areas, invading Iraq because it posed an "imminet threat". Sheesh!)
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=31672

Here I am, angrily quoting Bush

Quote:
A dictatorship would be a heck-of a lot easier; as long as I’m dictator.
This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.
A lot of folks don't think I can string a sentence together, so when I was able to do so, it uh - Expectations were so low, all I had to do was say, 'Hi, I'm George W. Bush.'
Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. (ObL) And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=31682

Quote:
The party that promotes the purist form of capitalism and works diligently to cut our existing social programs.

Since I've proved you wrong, I guess I don't have to address this again.

Quote:
Below is a quote of her promoting socialism and bashing capitalism.

No, I was trying to explain the difference between a political system and an economic one. The Founding Fathers and the Constitution describes our political organization, but doesn't address an economic system. So, let me ask you a question: Did you see any reference to capitalism in the Constitution???
Yeah I thought not!

Quote:
What I should have said was- Democracy is a political system. It describes how our government is made up, and how our laws our made. Usually, it has something to do with a vote.
If a democracy were to take a vote, and abolish the laws of incorporation as they currently exist, and turn business ownership over to the governing body of elected representatives, not only would that be democracy, it would be socialism. In fact, it would be "democratic socialism". As opposed, for example, to tyrannical capitalism, in which there is a non-elected government and privately owned business.= SIGNY
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=58208&p=3

Which is me, describing the difference between a POLITICAL system and an ECONOMIC one. Sheesh!

Quote:
Again, I must point out that while SIG writes about turning all business and companies over to government,- THUGR

I was - as explained - demonstrating an example of the difference between economic and political systems

Quote:
she is voting republican. Can you spell schizophrenic.- THUGR

I'M AGAINST WAR. YOU ARE FOR IT.

Quote:
At best, all she does is babble subjectively while trolling. Here is another quote below -THUGR

But since we DO have a system that not only allows bad people to do bad things, it actually REWARDS bad people doing bad things with even more power, we now have almost everyone in power doing bad things. Even if your goal is to redesign the system and implement a better one, you still have to get rid of the bad people in power or you will never make progress.- SIGNY

Here we have SIG who praises Putin (war crimes Syria)

Where have I praised Putin?

Quote:
claiming our system of governing promotes people doing bad things.

it does

Quote:
She even suggests almost everyone in power is bad.

They are.

Quote:
Clearly she does not understand the differences between how our system of checks and balances is working as opposed to Putin ruling with an iron fist.

I understand that our system of checks and balances was not written to deal with transnational corporations and traitors within its midst.

Quote:
She is working to undermine democracy

By suggesting that our representatives be more responsive to the people? By suggesting that direct democracy would be harder to corrupt? The person who is "undermining democracy"... who argues for corruption and elitism, is you , my friends

Quote:
and convince us to give up our freedoms.

Yep, let's give up our freedoms by voting the bums out of power!

Quote:
She is also working to convince Russians to accept their plight by implying it is the same everywhere.

GOOD LORD!!!

HOW MANY RUSSIANS do you imagine are reading any of these posts??

Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 7:54 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

In the US we elect short-term dictators - politicians that make all sorts of promises just to get elected, knowing full well that should they fall short, they won't be held accountable until the next election cycle.
And it makes voters cynical and disenfranchised. Except for the people who've really drunk deep of their party's kool-aid - like, for example, people who really think hillary is going to reform obamacare, provide good jobs, or that Trump could actually launch nuclear war on his whim alone - voters know that the promises made are beyond pointless, and that any new person is likely to be just as bad as the old one.

And there's nothing they can do about it.

Bernie does not agree with your fundamental position.

Bernie answers https://newrepublic.com/article/137103/bernie-looks-ahead

Q: All right, let’s talk about the young voters you mentioned. During the primaries, almost three-quarters of voters under the age of 30 cast their ballots for you. What do you say to your younger supporters who don’t plan to vote for Clinton because they see her as too establishment-oriented?

Look, I ran against Hillary for over a year, so I understand where she is coming from. For me, this is not a tough choice. I am a United States senator, and I know what would happen to our government if Donald Trump became president. I think Donald Trump is the worst candidate for a major party that has surfaced in my lifetime. This guy would be a disaster for this country and an embarrassment to us internationally. A man who is a pathological liar. Somebody who, to the degree that he deals with issues at all, changes his position every day. That is clearly not the kind of mentality we need from somebody who is running for the highest office in the land.

What is particularly outrageous and disturbing is that the cornerstone of his campaign is based on bigotry—trying to turn people against Mexican-Americans or against Muslims or against women. To my mind, it’s very clear that Donald Trump would be an incredible disaster to this country, and I will do everything I can to see that he is defeated.

Q: But is there a case to be made for Hillary, solely on her own merits?

On a number of issues, I believe Hillary Clinton’s positions are quite strong. I was happy to negotiate an agreement with her in the party’s platform which said that she would support making public colleges and universities tuition-free for families making $125,000 or less. That is pretty revolutionary. That will not only transform the ability of people to go to college, it will have an impact on kids in elementary school today who know that if they study hard, they can get a college education. She and I also agreed to a doubling of the expansion of community health centers. That’s tens of millions more people who will have access to primary health care and dental care and low-cost prescription drugs and mental health counseling. I want to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and I think Clinton is open to moving in that direction, to at least $12 an hour. She supports infrastructure projects that will put millions of people back to work. She understands the significance of not acting on climate change, while Donald Trump does not believe that climate change is real, which is a real threat to the planet.

So what I would ask people is to take a hard look at (a) what a Donald Trump presidency would mean for this country, which in my view would be a disaster, and (b) how Clinton’s views on a number of issues are fairly good. That is what we should be focusing on—not the personalities of the candidates, but what their policies will do for the middle class and working families of this country.

Q: You certainly played a major role in pushing Clinton to the left on some key issues, at least in the party’s platform. But many of your supporters don’t believe that Hillary really supports those positions or will make good on those promises. They see it as something she did in the platform to appease the left.

I think that Hillary Clinton is sincere in a number of areas. In other areas I think she is gonna have to be pushed, and that’s fine. That’s called the democratic process.

Right now, you have a majority of Republicans—of Republicans—who believe we should raise taxes on the wealthy. Do I think Clinton is prepared to do that? Yeah. Do I think she is prepared to do away with loopholes to get rid of outrageous tax breaks for large multinational corporations? Yeah, I do. Do I think she is serious about climate change, and that we can push her even further? Yeah, I do. Do I think that under Clinton we will raise the minimum wage? Yeah, I do. I’m not quite sure it will be 15 bucks an hour, but it will bring millions of people out of poverty.

Through the work of millions of people, we created a Democratic platform which is far and away the most progressive platform in the history of the United States of America for any political party. Our job the day after the election—and hopefully after Clinton is elected—is to make sure that that platform is implemented.

So what I would ask of young people is to turn off CNN. Let’s assume that Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and you and everybody else are not perfect human beings, all right? Let’s take a look at the needs of ordinary people and which candidate will be better on that as president of the United States. On that approach, there is no debate to my mind that we should elect Clinton.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 8:49 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Bernie seems to be speaking for himself. I'm talking about voter turnout, which has run between 52 - 64% in the last 4 presidential election cycles, and voter apathy.

But all of this is beside the point. hillary's going to win.

I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 9:24 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

But all of this is beside the point. hillary's going to win.

There is a one-third chance Trump will be President, so it is not beside the point. And there is certainty that a Republican will be elected President in 2020 if Trump loses next week. Sixteen years in a row of Democratic Presidents looks impossible. The points Bernie made in his interview should be kept in mind for the next four years, no matter what happens this month.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 9:26 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

There is a one-third chance Trump will be President ...

Whether or not hillary's elected, she'll win. It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.

I predict she'll win. And my prediction is based on the documented extensive collusion between her campaign, the DNC, the Justice Department, the Obama administration, and the media; as well as the proven hackability of electronic voting where there's no paper trail.

It's clear she's meant to win. And so, she will.

I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 5, 2016 10:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The points Bernie made in his interview should be kept in mind for the next four years, no matter what happens this month.

So now that you're discovering the possibility of a GOP President in the near future - perhaps the VERY near future - you're rediscovering your liberal principles???

MY, HOW CONVENIENT!

You should have thought of that BEFORE you started thumping for one of the most corrupt politicians in the pantheon, and his wife. Maybe next time you'll think about that BEFORE you attach yourself to the asshole of the Democratic Party.

Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 4:09 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

So now that you're discovering the possibility of a GOP President in the near future - perhaps the VERY near future - you're rediscovering your liberal principles???

MY, HOW CONVENIENT!

You should have thought of that BEFORE you started thumping for one of the most corrupt politicians in the pantheon, and his wife. Maybe next time you'll think about that BEFORE you attach yourself to the asshole of the Democratic Party.

Every single time you make comments like that I think that Signym spends too much time in troll mode. Neither Bernie nor I agree with your evaluation of what President Trump would do. Or that Hillary is the worst of the two. I'll give you Bernie's comments on Trump. Everyone in the world, including conservative Republicans who won't vote for Trump or Hillary, knows Bernie's truth about Trump:

Look, I ran against Hillary for over a year, so I understand where she is coming from. For me, this is not a tough choice. I am a United States senator, and I know what would happen to our government if Donald Trump became president. I think Donald Trump is the worst candidate for a major party that has surfaced in my lifetime. This guy would be a disaster for this country and an embarrassment to us internationally. A man who is a pathological liar. Somebody who, to the degree that he deals with issues at all, changes his position every day. That is clearly not the kind of mentality we need from somebody who is running for the highest office in the land.

What is particularly outrageous and disturbing is that the cornerstone of his campaign is based on bigotry—trying to turn people against Mexican-Americans or against Muslims or against women. To my mind, it’s very clear that Donald Trump would be an incredible disaster to this country, and I will do everything I can to see that he is defeated.
https://newrepublic.com/article/137103/bernie-looks-ahead

The following is real. It is not a satire. (Well, it is a satire but it is so close to describing Trump's actual speech-making that it is true. ) Donald Trump's speeches were written by a temperamental child. And then Trump actually gives the speech.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 4:11 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

Whether or not hillary's elected, she'll win. It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.

I predict she'll win. And my prediction is based on the documented extensive collusion between her campaign, the DNC, the Justice Department, the Obama administration, and the media; as well as the proven hackability of electronic voting where there's no paper trail.

It's clear she's meant to win. And so, she will.

The FBI is not on Hillary's side. A cabal of NYC FBI agents (including, or solely, Bret Baier’s false “indictment” leaker), may well have PLANTED those emails on Weiner’s laptop–possibly at the behest of Rudy Giuliani or James Kallstrom, or both, who ARE part of the cabal’s conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act (to name just one of a slew of federal criminal statutes these folks have violated).
http://angrybearblog.com/2016/11/i-retract-my-retraction-a-cabal-of-ny
c-fbi-agents-including-or-solely-bret-baiers-false-indictment-leak-may-well-have-planted-those-emails-on-weiner.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 4:22 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Tonight's news: at a Trump rally in Reno, a guy lifted his hands to hold up a sign. Someone nearby panicked, thinking he was raising a gun. The Secret Service hustled Trump offstage, and Trump reappeared shortly after it became clear that nothing had happened. Here's the reaction—as always, nothing but class from Trump and his supporters. See their tweets at www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/11/trump-not-assassins-target

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 1:51 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Any facts (supported by evidence) in your link that you would like to point out?

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The FBI is not on Hillary's side. A cabal of NYC FBI agents (including, or solely, Bret Baier’s false “indictment” leaker), may well have PLANTED those emails on Weiner’s laptop–possibly at the behest of Rudy Giuliani or James Kallstrom, or both, who ARE part of the cabal’s conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act (to name just one of a slew of federal criminal statutes these folks have violated).
http://angrybearblog.com/2016/11/i-retract-my-retraction-a-cabal-of-ny
c-fbi-agents-including-or-solely-bret-baiers-false-indictment-leak-may-well-have-planted-those-emails-on-weiner.html

I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

GOOD LORD!!!

HOW MANY RUSSIANS do you imagine are reading any of these posts??

2

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 2:27 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Any facts (supported by evidence) in your link that you would like to point out?
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The FBI is not on Hillary's side. A cabal of NYC FBI agents (including, or solely, Bret Baier’s false “indictment” leaker), may well have PLANTED those emails on Weiner’s laptop–possibly at the behest of Rudy Giuliani or James Kallstrom, or both, who ARE part of the cabal’s conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act (to name just one of a slew of federal criminal statutes these folks have violated).
http://angrybearblog.com/2016/11/i-retract-my-retraction-a-cabal-of-ny
c-fbi-agents-including-or-solely-bret-baiers-false-indictment-leak-may-well-have-planted-those-emails-on-weiner.html

Meet Donald Trump’s Top FBI Fanboy
Trump supporters with strong ties to the agency kept talking about surprises and leaks to come—and come they did.

Two days before FBI director James Comey rocked the world last week, Rudy Giuliani was on Fox, where he volunteered, un-prodded by any question: “I think he’s [Donald Trump] got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next few days. I mean, I’m talking about some pretty big surprises.”

Pressed for specifics, he said: “We’ve got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this thing around.”

The man who now leads “lock-her-up” chants at Trump rallies spent decades of his life as a federal prosecutor and then mayor working closely with the FBI, and especially its New York office. One of Giuliani’s security firms employed a former head of the New York FBI office, and other alumni of it. It was agents of that office, probing Anthony Weiner’s alleged sexting of a minor, who pressed Comey to authorize the review of possible Hillary Clinton-related emails on a Weiner device that led to the explosive letter the director wrote Congress.

Hours after Comey’s letter about the renewed probe was leaked on Friday, Giuliani went on a radio show and attributed the director’s surprise action to “the pressure of a group of FBI agents who don’t look at it politically.”

“The other rumor that I get is that there’s a kind of revolution going on inside the FBI about the original conclusion [not to charge Clinton] being completely unjustified and almost a slap in the face to the FBI’s integrity,” said Giuliani. “I know that from former agents. I know that even from a few active agents.”

Along with Giuliani’s other connections to New York FBI agents, his former law firm, then called Bracewell Giuliani, has long been general counsel to the FBI Agents Association (FBIAA), which represents 13,000 former and current agents. The group, born in the New York FBI office in the early ’80s, was headed until Monday by Rey Tariche, an agent who just retired from the New York FBI office. In Tariche’s letter to the Association stepping down as president because he's retiring from the Bureau to take a job "within the Banking Industry," he wrote that “we find our work—our integrity questioned” because of it, adding “we will not be used for political gains.”

When the FBIAA threw its first G-Man Honors Gala in 2014 in Washington, Giuliani was the keynote speaker and was given a distinguished service award named after him. Giuliani left Bracewell this January and joined Greenberg Traurig, the only other law firm listed as a sponsor of the FBIAA gala. He spoke again at the 2015 gala. The Bracewell firm also acts as the association’s Washington lobbyist and the FBIAA endorsed Republican Congressman Mike Rodgers, rather than Comey, for the FBI post in 2013. Giuliani did not return a Daily Beast message left with his assistant.

There is more at www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/03/meet-donald-trump-s-top-fbi-
fanboy.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 2:28 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Stephen Hawking Angers Trump Supporters with Baffling Array of Long Words
By Andy Borowitz , May 31, 2016

LONDON (The Borowitz Report)—The theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking angered supporters of Donald J. Trump on Monday by responding to a question about the billionaire with a baffling array of long words.

Speaking to a television interviewer in London, Hawking called Trump “a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator,” a statement that many Trump supporters believed was intentionally designed to confuse them.

Moments after Hawking made the remark, Google reported a sharp increase in searches for the terms “demagogue,” “denominator,” and “Stephen Hawking.”

“For a so-called genius, this was an epic fail,” Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said. “If Professor Hawking wants to do some damage, maybe he should try talking in English next time.”

Later in the day, Hawking attempted to clarify his remark about the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, telling a reporter, “Trump bad man. Real bad man.”

www.newyorker.com//borowitz-report/stephen-hawking-angers-trump-suppor
ters-with-baffling-array-of-long-words

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 2:43 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

second - not only did I read the entire article you linked, I read the linked articles in it as well. And I went through them line by line, parsing out the unsupported (no evidence), the rumors, the false - for example, the authors fundamentally misrepresent the Hatch Act*, and the irrelevant. And I came up with nothing. Literally nothing to discuss. (If you want I can post the long post that goes into tedious detail.)

And not only did the articles fail to support their own conclusions, they failed to support your point, whatever it is (it got hazier and hazier the more I delved into articles that seemed unrelated). I couldn't decide what point you were trying to make, and what you found in the articles that was so compelling you wanted to discuss them. Which is why I gave up on posting my long post that looks at it all.

So, rather than me posting all sorts of things that might or might not respond, let me ask you directly - what is your claim? I thought it was that the FBI is part of a cabal to bring down hillary. Is that your claim? And, whatever claim you ARE making - what facts in these articles support it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
*The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch,[1] from engaging in some forms of political activity. (which means neither Giuliani nor Kallstrom are covered)

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
The FBI is not on Hillary's side. A cabal of NYC FBI agents (including, or solely, Bret Baier’s false “indictment” leaker), may well have PLANTED those emails on Weiner’s laptop–possibly at the behest of Rudy Giuliani or James Kallstrom, or both, who ARE part of the cabal’s conspiracy to violate the Hatch Act (to name just one of a slew of federal criminal statutes these folks have violated).
http://angrybearblog.com/2016/11/i-retract-my-retraction-a-cabal-of-ny
c-fbi-agents-including-or-solely-bret-baiers-false-indictment-leak-may-well-have-planted-those-emails-on-weiner.html

I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 3:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
She is also working to convince Russians to accept their plight by implying it is the same everywhere.= THUGR

GOOD LORD!!! HOW MANY RUSSIANS do you imagine are reading any of these posts?? = SIGNY

2= THUGR

My point exactly.

Why would I be working to "convince Russians to accept their plight" on this forum if only two (or none) are reading it? You just shot yourself in the foot. That problem may be why you were dishonorably discharged from the army.

Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 3:59 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
second -

So, let me ask you directly - what is your claim? I thought it was that the FBI is part of a cabal to bring down hillary. Is that your claim? And, whatever claim you ARE making - what facts in these articles support it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939
*The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch,[1] from engaging in some forms of political activity. (which means neither Giuliani nor Kallstrom are covered)

1kiki, when you quote the Hatch Act, you forgot to mention that all the FBI agents involved work for the government. They will be in trouble. Those agents are connected to Trump through ex-government employees Giuliani and Kallstrom.

There is one HUGH fact that can’t be verified until after the election: The FBI will NOT file charges against Hillary. If the FBI agents had anything they could have already announced it, but if they were working for Trump the FBI agents will take as much time as possible, about 4 years, before announcing they have nothing to charge Hillary with.

If the FBI does NOT file, then we know this was a political dirty trick played by Giuliani, Kallstrom and their friends inside the FBI. Kallstrom is the former head of the New York FBI office. Kallstrom has often been on Fox, where he’s called the Clintons a “crime family.”

If Trump wins, nobody in the FBI loses their job for playing this trick. Giuliani and Kallstrom won't lose their new government jobs in the Trump White House, either.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 4:39 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Is that your claim? That FBI agents violated/ are violating the Hatch Act?

You can find more details @ wiki, but these I believe are the salient points of the Hatch Act:

ORIGINALLY: The 1939 Act forbade the intimidation or bribery of voters and restricted political campaign activities by federal employees, using public relief or public works funds electoral purposes, forbade officials paid with federal funds from using promises of jobs, promotion, financial assistance, contracts, or any other benefit to coerce campaign contributions or political support, and forbade persons below the policy-making level in the executive branch of the federal government from generally illegal political practices

HOWEVER, it was amended in 1993 to ALLOW personal activity in "political management or political campaigns." Federal employees are still forbidden to use their authority to affect the results of an election, run for office in a partisan election, solicit or receive political contributions, and engage in political activities while on duty or on federal property.

So, political activity in and of itself is allowed, as long as it's otherwise legal, and doesn't take place on employer time, or property.

I think the political activities of Guiliani and Kallstrom are evident - and as private citizens their involvement is completely legal.

What I find more tenuous are the claims that active FBI agents working on the Weiner case were and/ or are, actively involved. That rests on the very inconsistent statements by Guiliani (and it's not like he's never exaggerated his part or connections), and Kallstrom. As for Kallstrom, while he verified he knows agents actively involved in email-gate, it was after the investigation was closed (and before it was re-opened). He's fairly consistent in saying he has no contact with, in fact doesn't even know, any agents on Weiner-gate.

So, the whole idea that it's a 'fact' that there's a cadre of FBI agents in the NY office violating the Hatch Act trying to take down hillary via Weiner-gate seems to based on the inconsistent claims of a blowhard. And also the innuendo it must be true because all of the players knew each other from way back.

That's why I'm hoping you can point out the facts (things backed by evidence). I didn't find any, just claims to 'know' things made by a dubious source. But certainly I might have missed the facts that exist that show that indeed, FBI agents violated/ are violating the Hatch Act.

I TOLD YOU SO will be very sweet indeed, and repeated often.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 5:01 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:

What I find more tenuous are the claims that active FBI agents working on the Weiner case were and/ or are, actively involved. That rests on the very inconsistent statements by Guiliani (and it's not like he's never exaggerated his part or connections), and Kallstrom. As for Kallstrom, while he verified he knows agents actively involved in email-gate, it was after the investigation was closed (and before it was re-opened). He's fairly consistent in saying he has no contact with, in fact doesn't even know, any agents on Weiner-gate.

So, the whole idea that it's a 'fact' that there's a cadre of FBI agents in the NY office violating the Hatch Act trying to take down hillary seems to based on the inconsistent claims of a blowhard. And also the innuendo it must be true because all of the players knew each other from way back.

That's why I'm hoping you can point out the facts (things backed by evidence). Certainly I might have missed them.

You have the sneering attitude of Trump's defense lawyer proclaiming everybody is presumed innocent until all the FBI agents working on Weinergate testify under oath that they know Trump, Hillary, Guiliani and Kallstrom and the agents were colluding against Hillary. Only with such self-incriminating testimony by FBI agents would 1kiki be convinced that Hatch Act was violated by FBI agents.

A lawyer prosecuting Trump would tell the court that every FBI agent working on Weinergate can quickly and convincingly prove they are innocent by filing charges against Hillary. I look forward to the day the FBI files those charges and proves those agents are innocent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 5:18 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

The New York Times has a truly remarkable piece this morning about the final days of the Trump campaign:

Aboard his gold-plated jumbo jet, the Republican nominee does not like to rest or be alone with his thoughts, insisting that aides stay up and keep talking to him. He prefers the soothing, whispery voice of his son-in-law.

....Mr. Trump’s candidacy is a jarring split screen: the choreographed show of calm and confidence orchestrated by his staff, and the neediness and vulnerability of a once-boastful candidate now uncertain of victory.

....Aides to Mr. Trump have finally wrested away the Twitter account that he used to colorfully — and often counterproductively — savage his rivals. But offline, Mr. Trump still privately muses about all of the ways he will punish his enemies after Election Day, including a threat to fund a “super PAC” with vengeance as its core mission.

His polished older daughter, Ivanka, sat for a commercial intended to appeal to suburban women who have recoiled from her father’s incendiary language. But she discouraged the campaign from promoting the ad in news releases, fearing that her high-profile association with the campaign would damage the businesses that bear her name.

Staring at Defeat, Donald Trump Is Sleepless and Vengeful. How...Nixonian.

www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/donald-trump-presidential-race.
html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 5:54 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That's why I'm hoping you can point out the facts (things backed by evidence). Certainly I might have missed them.- KIKI

You have the sneering attitude of Trump's defense lawyer proclaiming everybody is presumed innocent until all the FBI agents working on Weinergate testify under oath that they know Trump, Hillary, Guiliani and Kallstrom and the agents were colluding against Hillary. = SECOND

So, no facts.

Also, isn't "presumed innocent" the way it works?

Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 6:25 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
That's why I'm hoping you can point out the facts (things backed by evidence). Certainly I might have missed them.- KIKI

You have the sneering attitude of Trump's defense lawyer proclaiming everybody is presumed innocent until all the FBI agents working on Weinergate testify under oath that they know Trump, Hillary, Guiliani and Kallstrom and the agents were colluding against Hillary. = SECOND
So, no facts.

Also, isn't "presumed innocent" the way it works?

Presumed innocent means that FBI does not accuse Hillary of a crime before indicting her. Here is another fact for you. I hope you're as angry as Trump was. Fortunately, Trump was wearing brown pants when he "lost control of his bowel movement" because he was so furious at the FBI's Comey for backing down. Trump then changed his suit:

FBI Director James B. Comey said Sunday that after reviewing newly discovered Hillary Clinton emails, his agency had again determined that the Democratic presidential candidate should face no criminal charges for her email practices, clearing a distraction that had dogged the final days of Clinton’s campaign and providing perhaps the last twist of the wild 2016 election year.

Comey notified key members of Congress of the finding in a letter sent Sunday afternoon, writing that investigators had worked “around the clock” to review all the emails found on a device used by former congressman Anthony Weiner that had been sent to or from Clinton and determined that the emails did not change “our conclusions expressed in July.”

With the letter, Comey removed the pending FBI investigation from the last 48 hours of the campaign. But the central role the FBI has played in the political process for months could cause lingering trouble for the nation’s top law enforcement agency, including personally for Comey, who must work with whoever is elected president on Tuesday.

Investigators reviewing the material found that the emails were either duplicates of correspondence they had reviewed earlier or personal e-mails that did not pertain to State Department business, a government official said. The official said Comey’s letter was not an “interim report” but rather represented a conclusion of the investigation.

Comey had upended the campaign just nine days ago, when he alerted Congress that new emails had been located that were related to Clinton’s use of a private server as secretary of state.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-director-comey-says-agency-wont-re
commend-charges-over-clinton-email/2016/11/06/f6276b18-a45e-11e6-ba59-a7d93165c6d4_story.html

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 8:14 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The points Bernie made in his interview should be kept in mind for the next four years, no matter what happens this month. = SECOND

So now that you're discovering the possibility of a GOP President in the near future - perhaps the VERY near future - you're rediscovering your liberal principles??? MY, HOW CONVENIENT!

You should have thought of that BEFORE you started thumping for one of the most corrupt politicians in the pantheon, and his wife. Maybe next time you'll think about that BEFORE you attach yourself to the asshole of the Democratic Party. =SIGNY

Every single time you make comments like that I think that Signym spends too much time in troll mode. = SECOND

I'm in troll mode? This from the person who posts everyone else's opinion except their own, plus snarky cartoons, satire, and lies?

Here's my problem with you and the rest of the liberaloids, SECOND. You've been responding to "identity politics" no matter what Hillary has done that was illegal or immoral or dangerous to the nation. Somehow, your principles and your objectivity - if you have any- have become defunct.

So the "identities" that you respond to - women, nonwhite, Democratic, poor.

Yanno I was listening to NPR the other day, and they had this little piece on The poor illegal immigrant felon! So there he was, describing (in Spanish) his pathetic current life, how he can't see his (American) family except once a week. How he got to this sorry state because he immigrated illegally twice, got amnesty under Reagan, got a green card, married and had four children, then made a "mistake" by transporting drugs. How he got caught, and booted out of the USA. Pobrecito! And these liberaloids are whining that this guy deserves another chance. So, he hasn't even bothered to learn English, he's already broken the law three times: WHY in god's name does he "deserve" another chance? We don't even give those kinds of chances to our own felons!

And then there was this long disquisition on "Fresh Air" about how Trump, the Republican, took the place of the democrats when it came to represent the white working class. So by rationalizing its transition ... how the Democratic party stopped representing people on the "lower socioeconomic scale" (although it claims to represent blacks and Hispanics), how the Democratic party came to stop representing the "less educated" (although it claims to represent blacks and Hispanics), how the Democratic party stopped representing "workers" (although it claims to represent immigrant workers) ... the Democratic party came to become IN MY OPINION a biased, racially-based political party.

And there was some outrage, and perhaps a little fear, that the Republican party was pandering to self-identified group of white working-class Americans, and I thought ...

Wait, isn't "black lives matter" a self-identified, racially-motivated group?
Isn't "la Raza" a self-identified cultural (they claim "racial") group?
Aren't WOMEN a self-identified gender group?
Is every other group allowed some sort of self-identification, but not allowed for Trump supporters? Does the process of self-identification suddenly become dangerous ONLY for this group of people?

Now, you might think that I'm aiming at "white" self-identification, but I'm not.

Select to view spoiler:

What is wrong with identifying yourself as a worker?
What is wrong with identifying yourself as American?

The purview of our government is the United States and Americans, not every other fucking nation on this globe and every other person elsewhere. WE can't do anything about Mexico's corrupt politics that might impoverish their people and drive them towards our border, but what we can do is stop our transnationals from fucking up their internal processes. WE can't stop China from manipulating its currency, but what we CAN do is be more self-sufficient so that we're not subject to their extortion.

I'm simply aghast at how low Democrats and liberaloids have stooped. Constantly accusing people of being Putin's minions, which is blatantly absurd. Booing Julian Assange, who is simply providing what a working democracy needs in order to function: INFORMATION.

Since when did you become such a closed-minded partisan who believes in every identity EXCEPT "American", and the ideals that (supposedly) undergird our nation? Sometimes I feel like I'm the only pro-American here, because I seem to be the only one who even TALKS about "America". Not black-America, not white-America, not Hispanic-America, or queer-America, or female-America, just plain America.

HILLARY IS A WAR CANDIDATE BUT WAR IS NOT IN OUR INTEREST. She represents the wealthiest of the wealthy ... even wealthier than Trump ... the transnationals who don't give a FUCK about America or Americans and, if you have been paying any attention to what's going on elsewhere... they don't give a FUCK about Libya, Iraq, Mexico, Greece, or any other godforsaken place either.

Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 9:08 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Here's my problem with you and the rest of the liberaloids, SECOND. You've . . .

I don’t mind too much if Trump wins because I will get a huge tax cut from Trump. He promised! Hillary will only raise my taxes. She takes me for granted.
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/final-numbers-are-trumps-t
ax-plan-huge-windfall-wealthy

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 9:15 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

What good will your "tax cut" do if we are at war?

Hillary is a WAR CANDIDATE, and that's just what we need, right? More war?

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 9:17 PM

Time for the trolls to crawl back under the rocks from whence they came.

FBI Completes Review of Newly Revealed Hillary Clinton Emails, Finds No Evidence of Criminality

FBI Director James Comey said Sunday that the bureau won't change the conclusion it made in July after it examined newly revealed emails related to the Hillary Clinton probe.

"Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton," Comey wrote in a letter to 16 members of Congress.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/fbi-completes-review-new
ly-revealed-hillary-clinton-emails-finds-no-n678701

____________________________________________

Russia trolls get contract extension
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60719

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 9:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Julian Assange was correct: Trump will not be allowed to win.

Well, we get to see if the FBI will ever investigate Saudi Princess and operative Huma Abedin, or the criminal enterprise that is the Clinton Foundation, or if we Americans will be sold down river.

THUGR is an anti-American Soros troll.

G, THUGR, MAL4: Oh BTW, please define intelligence.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=60903&p=4#1
018100

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 6, 2016 10:23 PM