Another name to add to the list of mysterious deaths, DNC official Seth Rich, who Julian Assange came just short of acknowledging today was about to give documents to WikiLeaks, when he was shot in the back on the street for no explainable reason. The Washington DC police chief alleged a "botched robbery attempt" but his wallet, cel phone, watch and other possessions were untouched.
Three more for Killary's chopping block.
Vincent Fleck. The one who allegedly leaked Hillary's medical records dies in a swimming pool.
The allegation is that Hillary has a pair of nuts? I am confused.
Obama was involved with a far-left organization called ACORN (the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now).
SoM playfully posted some acorns.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
That's just so much Sophistry.
Stop flirting with me, you.
Then we get into your erroneous assumptions:
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
The sense of the "negative", why Clinton shouldn't be elected position (as opposed to the "positive", why Trump should be elected position) I get out of all of this is:
You make a partisan assumption that Trump's is a purely negative campaign, based on "fear" or xenophobia, either of immigrants or of foreign nations. That's wrong. Trump uses the phrase "LET'S MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN". That's not a phrase borne in fear or xenophobia, but in our inherent strength and historic greatness, that we can in a short time regain. His is a campaign scorning political correctness, returning to policy across the board grounded in common sense, in will of the people, and belief in the strength of individuals to do things better than would federal/authoritarian/Democrat/socialist central planning.
Against your insulting portrayal, that vision is inherently optimistic.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
a. Obama is a dangerous Marxist-trained agitating deceitful demagogue; b. Hillary is cut from the same clothe;
And what facts dispute that?
But Trump's campaign is not about voting for him ONLY in opposition to Obama and Hillary, but because he offers better trade policy, better immigration/border enforcement, reducing the debt that threatens to collapse the dollar (vs. Democraats who deny there is even a danger), rebuilding our military (same thing), and offers an administration that doesn't embrace anarchy and cop-killers.
Quote:
c. Middle Eastern immigrants rape and kill and Clinton will accelerate that;
There is abundant evidence to back that up, with Islamic terror-bombings that have followed muslim immigration worldwide on almost a daily basis, in the U.S., in Europe, in Turkey, Africa, the Phillipines, even in Russia and China. Even occasionally in your native Australia. I posted one of a muslim gang-rape and the Australian girl facing her attackers in court a few years ago.
It is not unreasonable on the part of Trump and other nationalists to advocate a policy to control a high ratio of PROVEN dangerous muslim immigrants who slip in among the more peaceful muslims. And even among the peaceful ones (and I work with two on a daily basis) they have a barely concealed contempt for U.S. policy and culture, and daily graze on Al Jazeera, siding with pan-Arab islamism over their fellow Americans.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
d. Mexicans do the same thing (not sure if you guys have bought into that assertion or not but I seem to recall it);
You conflate a lot here. It is an absolute fact that 58.8%, or 7 million, of illegal immigrants to the U.S. are from Mexico (Tribune Newspapers, "White House is Lining Up Allies To Pass Overhaul before Mid-Terms", Peter Nicholas, Dec 30, 2009 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-...olls-show-obama ). As I said prior, when you combine illegals statistically tracked from Central America (1.4 million, 11.76%), South America (775,000, 6.5%) and the Caribbeaan (500,000, 4.2%) Hispanic illegal immigration combines to be 81.25% of all illegal immigration.
Is it racist or xenophobic to be looking at Hispanics more, rather than Norwegians or Canadians? I think not.
As I said before (available in conservative media but rarely reported among the overwhelming pro-illegal/open-borders/pro-Hillary-Obama liberal media) the United States admits 1.1 million legal green-card immigrants per year.
And in addition to that, about 3 million illegals enter annually, about 1.5 million are deported, about 1.5 million a year stay and hide among us. While statistically illegals commit crimes at a lower rate than U.S. citizens and legal immigrants, they still account for hundreds of thousands of crimes that they could not commit if they were not here, ranging from drug trafficking to murder, rape, burglary and shoplifting.
It is common sense that many enter illegally because they have criminal records in their native countries, and would not pass a screening for legal immigration. I and many Americans would argue that their choosing to enter the country ALONE manifests their corruption and lack of respect for our laws, and that alone is a crime. The illegals I've met don't pay taxes and work under-the-table. And so myself and other Americans pay more in taxes, to compensate for what they don't pay but still use, for the police, fire, medical and other services they use at the taxpayers' expense.
Likewise, there is a terrible cost for Islamic immigrants when they resort to terror. It also turned out that the extended family in the U.S. of the Boston Marathon bombers, the Tsarnaev brothers, received welfare, food stamps, and free college tuition. Despite all they received from our nation, they still made war with us.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
e. Clinton will embroil the US in a war in Central Asia with Russia;
Are you mocking that notion? Clinton is comparable ideologically to the Neo-Cons of the W. Bush era. And to her husband Bill Clinton who similarly intervened in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and Rwanda. She is an interventionist. She HERSELF was involved in trafficking arms to questionably reliable muslim rebels in Syria who are fighting Assad.
Clinton is a globalist, whereas Trump is relatively isolationist, not wanting to intervene in areas that are not vital U.S. interests.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
f. Clinton will continue the stultifying effects of globalisation because of her ties to big business.
Again, you seem to say that as if mocking the concern of U.S. conservative opposition. But there is abundant evidence to support that belief.
Hillary Clinton is an active member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and far more than that, she has demonstrated her ability to sell out the American people to foreign interests through donations to the Clinton Foundation, giving some of the worst players on the global stage access to federal official, in exchange for cash donations, and for "speaking fees" in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per appearance. A modern Benedict Arnold, whose loyalty, whose GOVERNMENT, is on sale to the highest bidder.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
Not sure where you all stand on China.
What is there to explain? China has aggressively been expanding its military reach in the South China Sea, creating new islands and airbases to leverage out its neighbors.
Google up CHINA FIRST ISLAND CHAIN, SECOND ISLAND CHAIN, THIRD ISLAND CHAIN. A plan for widening circles of dominion over the Pacific. The second planned island chain runs through the U.S. territory of Guam. The third island chain runs through Hawaii!
China unrelentingly manipulates its currency to gain an unfair advantage over other nations.
China is constantly involved in pirating of copyright-protected U.S. properties.
China has committed cyberwarfare not only on the U.S. government and military, but on civilian infrastructure, and on virtually every major U.S. company. As I posted prior, in search of leaks from Chinese officials, China cyper-hacked the New York Times, and hacked into its reporters' e-mail accounts to track down the Chinese sources they used.
I started a topic several years ago about a Chinese diplomatic defector who said the Chinese government views the U.S. as its primary enemy in the world.
Again, what in here is there to question or mock? These things are absolute fact.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
What I have noticed is that, over the past 3-4 years, is how far Tea Party (anti-establishment) right you have all swung.
Back in the day, Wonder Boy was on the right wing of the mainstream Republican Party, G-Man was more mainstream again, and Pariah was out there in Libertarian Limbo Land, getting ready for post-Apocalypse survivalism. I'm kind of joking - in any event, you didn't really buy into mainstream politics.
Again, you make sweeping assumptions, against the facts. If you really looked at those posts back from 2003-2008, you saw myself, G-man and Pariah sided with W. Bush on the Iraq War, Afghan War and broader fight against Islamic terrorism, but still opposed Bush on deficit spending, and his attempts to label Islam for the most part as a "religion of peace". I opposed Bush on the Patriot Act, and said that it was not necessary, that only enforcement of our previously unenforced existing laws were necessary. I opposed the massive uptick in social spending under Bush, on S-Chip, No Child Left Behind, and the Prescription Drug Plan.
For all the attempts of the Left to say it was "Bush's wars" that caused the debt to spike from $5.5 trillion to 10.5 trillion in his 8 years, 80% of that was social spending, BIPARTISAN spending, in full cooperation with Ted Kennedy and the Democrats. Democrats also voted for the Iraq war, then opportunistically turned on the Iraq war when support of it declined in the polls.
I don't wish to put words in the mouths of G-man and Pariah, but I'd say we're less mainstream Republicans now because we've felt less represented by the Republican party.
Particularly in the 2014 election, when the GOP campaigned to gain control of the Senate, along with the House they already held, to de-fund Obamacare. But as soon as the newly elected legislature was seated in early 2015, against what they promised, they approved funding for Obamacare for another year!
Again, read the book OBAMANOMICS by Timothy Carney, which details how corporate lobby money infests and controls the majority of both parties. The Tea Party wing (that you seem to belittle and mock as crazy extremists) are the only ones trying to contain federal debt, shrink government, and make legislation and spending compliant to the will of the people.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
(To make it plain, I broadly regard Obama as a wonderful President...
Good Lord, is your delusion showing! No doubt a delusion fed by the Rothschild/globalist talking piece THE ECONOMIST, and other liberal/globalist Newspeak.
Minneapolis is burning right now. Ferguson Missouri. Baltimore, Maryland. New York City. Terrorist attacks all over the United States. Most recently 4 hours north of me in Orlando, FL. In the 8th year of Obama's presidency, he has spent almost 10 trillion in new debt (in addition to printing out of thin air another 3 trillion, more than quadrupling the 800 billion of U.S. currency in circulation when he took office.) And despite this monster ditch he has dug for the U.S., he has not exceeded 2% growth any year of his presidency. We are at the lowest ratio of homeownership since I was born. Skyrocketing rates of food stamps usage, disability, record lows in worker participation (in other words, many are either reluctantly working part-time jobs, unemployed, or have given up looking for work). Obama has brought this country to its knees, and will be remembered in the context of history as possibly its worst president, in terms of stoking both racial and economic-class division, his crippling of business growth, and hyperinflating our debt in a way that has positioned the dollar and our economy at the brink of collapse. And believe me, if and when it collapses, it will be felt in Europe, China and Australia as well.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
except on foreign policy where I think he has been disinterested and happy to leave things to his Secretaries of State, and I think Russia and China have taken advantage of that and that Israel/Palestine has become worse without the United States as a voice of reason. As a citizen of a non-US Western democracy, that should be no surprise: we all tend to like Democrats because they're closer to our chunk of the political spectrum.)
Obama's foreign policy errors are not incompetence or mistakes. They are the ideological success of his barely closeted anti-colonialism, liberation theology, and cultural marxism.
But it seems to me that you three have all veered hard right, and that is because of eight years of the Obama administration.
When you are already standing on the Left, Dave, anything to the right of you looks right-wingy. I increasingly think less in terms of Left and Right (knowing that people on both sides wear false hats to advance their self-serving and/or globalist agenda) and think more in terms of nationalism, Constitutional freedoms, our historic identity as a nation, who will preserve that, and who will front it as a false flag.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
So what does this mean if you're typical of GOP voters? There is a good chance - objectively by any measure, a very decent chance - that you'll have another eight years of a Democrat president. That would mean that since 1993, only eight years will have been under a Republican administration.
Or it could mean that enough Democrats have lost their jobs and suffered under Obama/Reid/Pelosi that they are willing to vote for Trump as well. Certainly the coal miners in traditionally Democrat West Virginia. A Reagan-Democrat style re-alignment, because many Democrats are both angry and afraid of the far-Left/globalist Democrat agenda, that costs them their jobs in offshoring, that favors risky Islamic immigration over the security of taxpaying citizens, that spikes tuition to the point they may not be able to send their kids to college, while giving free tuition to illegal immigrants. Democrats that treat illegal immigrants better than they treat U.S. veterans. Democrats that side with anarchists and cop-killers, and makes citizens even wonder if the police can still protect them.
The Left likes to condescendingly sell us the inevitability of what they oh-so-enlightenedly favor.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
(And let's face it, with the benefit of hindsight: despite his nutty advisors and their internationalist interventionist instincts, Dubya was more centrally balanced than a ballerina. He helped big business and he didn't really cause much of a ruckus on the domestic front. He even set aside the world's largest environmental exclusion zone in his last days in office.)
Perhaps you somehow overlooked the near-collapse of the U.S. economy, and the $750 billion TARP bailout, that John McCain suspended his 2008 presidential campaign to go back to Washington and vote on.
Perhaps you missed the collapse of AIG and Lehman Brothers, the mortgage crisis, and its resultant effect on the economies of Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Ireland. And the snowballing crisis of the Euro in 2010.
The Bush era, despite your rose-colored glasses, wasn't so rosy. It was a very scary time. And I think if not for the crisis in Europe that made the U.S. a relative investment safe haven, that might have been when the dollar would have collapsed, without an external greater crisis that brought an infusion of foreign investment into the U.S.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
Dubya left office in 2009. Clinton wins and she is in office, most feasibly, until 2024. And that ignores her husband's administration, 1993-2001.
That's a long time in the cold.
And the funny thing is that, if the GOP loses, then instead of saying, well, we need to work on Hispanic or young voters and get them to understand the benefits of conservative politics (and there are many, many benefits - I am a conservative voter in my country), you'll be doing your best to deny Hispanics citizenship rights, curtail the rights of ex-cons to vote because they're black and likely to be Dem supporters and so on.
While there is a need to reach out to black, Hispanic and Asian voters by the GOP, as I stated above, the central problem is their alienation of the GOP's core voter-base, in not doing what they promised after the 2014 election (using their newly-elected power to repeal Obamacare). And further alienating white GOP (and Reagan Democrat) voters, under the years of Bill Clinton, W. Bush, and now Obama, through the offshoring of jobs and bringing in low-wage immigrants to steal the jobs that are left.
You again conflate illegal immigration (that the GOP condemns) with LEGAL immigration (that the GOP embraces, and truly is an American strength). That is a dishonest argument.
Originally Posted By: Australia-Dave
There needs to be a positive narrative in the GOP. Jobs - get competitive with manufacturing in advanced technologies instead of the shit manufacturing that is now done in Vietnam and Cambodia because even the Chinese can't undercut them.
That's not lucid or clear enough to respond to.
Quote:
Security - have a gun, if you must, but lock it up and don't let nutjobs have them so as to prevent your kids getting shot.
That's also assuming a lot. I don't know anyone who DOESN'T keep their guns locked in a safe when not in use.
And regulation never prevented one criminal or terrorist from getting the guns they needed. The old saying "If all guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them." Law abiding people obey the gun laws, criminals don't.
Quote:
Christian values - and to appeal to young voters, that means modern Christian values around forgiveness and tolerance. Recognise that lots of people pray to Jesus. Be inclusive about that.
But, right now... Fucked if I can see any positive narrative at present with the current freakshow.
Again, too unclear to respond to. But it again appears to be sweeping stereotypes of Christian beliefs, and Christian political groups in the U.S., that you don't truly understand, even as you condescend to them.
Quote:
If the GOP keep focussing on securing the votes of that diminishing demographic, the old white dudes, the GOP will never be back in office.
That's the core, right there. Democrats, and other elites who pretend to be conservative Republicans, have worked together to demographically destroy the GOP since the 1964 immigration reform act.
It was calculated to destroy the party of nationalism, to open the U.S. up to globalist submission, eroding its financial independence (with crushing federal debt), and its nationalism and identity (with immigration, both massive legal, and massive illegal), and its border security (again, through illegal immigration). We are witnessing the endgame, the last nation insulated from globalism, and there is nowhere else to go.
Regarding your delusional point about reaching out to minority voters, that is impossible. A majority of minority voters will always overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
The best Republicans can do is shave off another 10 or 15% of minority voters in addition to their white voter base, as Republicans did to win in 2004. But you will never NEVER get a majority of blacks, Hispanics or asians to vote Republican.
As Rush Limbaugh said just after the 2012 election, "You just can't compete with Santa Claus." Minorities vote for free stuff, social spending and open borders to admit their extended family. The Democrats will always be able to offer more freebies, and lawless free passes for illegal immigrants, than the Republicans will ever concede.
Just want to clarify that the Philippines does not have any problems with Muslim immigrants (technically, we're not being "invaded" by Islam. They were here first.)
Well, you live in the Phillipines and obviously know it better than those of us in the States.
But as I said a few years back, I dated a girl from Bohol in the Phillipines for almost 2 years. She said that Muslims are centered on the island of Mindanao, and that they regularly are involved in violence against the Christian islands of the Phillipines, and in kidnappings and so forth. During the W. Bush years, I recall a kidnapping of Americans there, who were in captivity for a long time, a year or more. And I recall the U.S. sending military forces to train the Phillipine army to combat Islamic terrorism.
But then, I also had an Israeli girl in one of my classes, who said despite what's on TV news, Islamic violence is pretty rare for most Israelis there.
Remind me not to show up in the Phillipines looking like a rich caucasian tourist!
A new batch of emails released Tuesday is raising fresh questions about whether Clinton Foundation donors got preferential treatment from the State Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure at the top.
Conservative watchdog Judicial Watch released 44 new email exchanges which it says were not in the original 30,000 handed over to the State Department, despite the Democratic presidential nominee's claims she turned over all work-related emails amid the now-closed probe into her private server use.
The documents, produced as a result of the group's FOIA lawsuit, appear to challenge Clinton's insistence that there is "no connection" between her family foundation and her work at the department.
Though the campaign is downplaying the emails, Republican opponent Donald Trump, at a campaign stop in Virginia on Wednesday, suggested the emails reveal potentially illegal activity.
“It’s called pay for play,” Trump said.
In one email exchange released by Judicial Watch, Doug Band, an executive at the Clinton Foundation, tried to put billionaire donor Gilbert Chagoury -- a convicted money launderer -- in touch with the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon because of the donor’s interests there.
In the email, Band notes that Chagoury is a “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us,” and insists Clinton aide Huma Abedin call Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman to connect him with Chagoury.
Chagoury is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and has appeared on the Clinton Foundation donor list as a $1 million to $5 million contributor. He’s also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for money laundering. He cut a deal and agreed to repay $66 million to the Nigerian government.
In another email from April 2009, Band seems to pressure Clinton’s former aides Cheryl Mills and Abedin into hiring a foundation associate.
In the email, Band writes it’s “important to take care of [name redacted].”
Abedin responds, telling Band, “Personnel has been sending him options.”
The latest batch of emails came more than a week after Clinton said, in a "Fox News Sunday" interview, that “there is absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of state and the Clinton Foundation.”
The Republican National Committee seized on the appearance of favor-trading in the latest batch of documents.
“That the Clinton Foundation was calling in favors barely 3 months into Hillary Clinton’s tenure at the State Department is deeply troubling and it is yet another reminder of the conflicts of interest and unethical wheeling and dealing she’d bring to the White House,” spokesman Michael Short said in a statement.
But a Clinton campaign spokesman said: “Neither of these emails involve the Secretary or relate to the Foundation’s work. They are communications between her aides and the President’s personal aide, and indeed the recommendation was for one of the Secretary’s former staffers who was not employed by the Foundation.”
The campaign initially was responding to an account in The Wall Street Journal.
The emails are separate from a larger batch of several thousand work-related emails that FBI officials recovered from Clinton's private server.
Clinton's legal team turned over more than 30,000 emails from her server to the State Department last March but only after deleting another 30,000 messages that Clinton's team deemed private and personal. The FBI plans to turn over the reconstructed Clinton emails to the State Department for public release.
The new Clinton emails also include a February 2009 message to her from Stephen Roach, then-chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, saying he planned to testify to Congress that week and was "happy to help in any way I can." Roach later met with Clinton over the summer for 30 minutes, according to Clinton calendars obtained by The Associated Press.
In another email, Clinton's chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, informed her that National Security Agency and State Department officials discussed an attempt to develop a modified blackberry for Clinton that might be used when she worked in a restricted State Department office that did not allow private phones.
Clinton called the development "good news," but she continued using a private Blackberry tied to her private server.
But as I said a few years back, I dated a girl from Bohol in the Phillipines for almost 2 years. She said that Muslims are centered on the island of Mindanao, and that they regularly are involved in violence against the Christian islands of the Phillipines, and in kidnappings and so forth.
The fact that she uses "Muslims" to refer to all of them says a lot about your ex.
Hilldawg's definitely scared shitless of what Assange might have to try and disappear him in the embassy.
For those unaware, this is his insurance file if anything happens to him: file.wikileaks.org/torrent/2016-06-03_insurance.aes256.torrent
Incidentally, remember that Assange's attorney John Jones was suicided by train back in April fitting the Arkancide MO completely. Also reminder Assange has all but come out and admitted murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was the source of the email leak.
The allegation is that Hillary has a pair of nuts? I am confused.
Obama was involved with a far-left organization called ACORN (the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now).
SoM playfully posted some acorns.
An effort at being funny which fell flat, clearly.
Quote:
Regarding your delusional point / Against your insulting portrayal / You conflate a lot here / Again, you seem to say that as if mocking the concern of U.S. conservative opposition / blah blah
I don't think you understand the purpose of my post, and sorry if that wasn't clear.
I'm not arguing with you, baiting you, mocking US conservative views, or trying to get traction in some sort of debate. I'm trying to understand where you and Pariah and G-Man are coming from. The list I made above was to try and give some sort of definition to it, not to mock it.
The reason for the desire to understand is that, as an outsider to the process, the conservative support for Trump is just bizarre given he stands against so many Republican ideals (many of which, outside of the Republican social agenda, I have sympathy with if not share). You don't think it is bizarre, and that is fine: I am endeavouring to understand why that is so rather than get into the usual point-scoring pissing contest (which we see on this forum so often) with you over it. We are not going to persuade each other that one of us is right and one of us is wrong, but a polite exchange of information on the topic is not going to harm anyone. I should have made the tone of my post a bit clearer around that.
And this pretty much sums up what I guess I was looking for:
Quote:
I don't wish to put words in the mouths of G-man and Pariah, but I'd say we're less mainstream Republicans now because we've felt less represented by the Republican party.
Bit of a shame we don't have any mainstream Republican voters here to draw a distinction in those views with.
I have been incredibly busy over the past few weeks Dave, and I'm liable to continue to be through this week. So while I would like to address your post in full, I cannot. You're operating off of so many erroneous premises that it would take me hours to contextualize and re-frame every error I see. I simply don't have the time right now.
Suffice it to say however, I have always been the most right wing person on this board--and I'm not saying that for the purpose of posturing. It's simply the truth; G-man has never held a candle to my starboard politics. The only reason you may have ever believed otherwise is because I had far less capacity to articulate the extent of my hard-right positions. As such, people like G-man and WB typically spoke for me, which caused people to lump me in with their closer-to-center stances.
-I've never been a fan of Bush even if I supported the war and tax-cuts. Even when I defended some of his policies, you could never have called me a fan.
-I've always been an advocate of secession in principle and have always lamented the fact that the South lost the Civil War.
-I've always had a problem with Federalism even when I defended the Founding Fathers' endorsement of the practice.
-I have never EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER considered myself to be a Libertarian. Their self-proclaimed indifference toward--if not condemnation of--culture consciousness and the nation-state makes them my mortal enemies.
To be fair, I wasn't even totally aware of exactly how right-wing and nationalist I was until I recently did some intensive research into the early 20th century that vindicated certain ideas that I've always entertained on an abstract level, but never quite had the gumption to vocalize for fear of saying something anathema, and therefore I denied outright.
I realize that sounds cryptic, but not quite ready to expand upon it yet. For now, I leave you with this: your perception of American conservatism is not based in objective reality. You, like many others who happen to be slaves of the MSM narratives, have fixated on the simulacra, and thus created an alternative hyper reality based on your own manipulated perceptions. Consider for a moment that Republican politicians do not actually represent their constituencies, but they ultimately end up characterizing conservatives anyway. This disconnect identifies two different realities, but the most popularized one inexorably overtakes the other regardless of any objective virtues.
Just ask yourself for a moment: are you seeing something real or could you actually be trapped in Plato's Cave?
Australia-Dave, you allege that you were asking U.S.-Conservative opinion, but as detailed in my lengthy answer to every one of your comments above (which were not questions of yours, by the way, just flippant dismissive condescending statements, where YOU ESSENTIALLY TOLD US what we actually think). Re-read what I answered above in detail.
It is also insulting to portray me, G-Man and Pariah as "fringe" or "not mainstream" Republicans or conservatives. Far from it, I unwaveringly plan to vote for Trump and other GOP candidates. You seem immune to the concept that we ARE mainstream Republicans, trying to get our party to show backbone and represent our mainstream interests.
I could respond more as well, but I prefer to stay focused on Pariah's concluding reflective inquiry:
Originally Posted By: Pariah (to Australia-Dave)
Just ask yourself for a moment: are you seeing something real or could you actually be trapped in Plato's Cave?
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
-I have never EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER considered myself to be a Libertarian. Their self-proclaimed indifference toward--if not condemnation of--culture consciousness and the nation-state makes them my mortal enemies.
hey man, promise I'm not being facetious or condescending here, but could you do me a favor and elaborate on what you mean when you use the phrase 'culture consciousness'? just curious.
Back in the day, Wonder Boy was on the right wing of the mainstream Republican Party, G-Man was more mainstream again, and Pariah was out there in Libertarian Limbo Land, getting ready for post-Apocalypse survivalism. I'm kind of joking - in any event, you didn't really buy into mainstream politics...
But it seems to me that you three have all veered hard right, and that is because of eight years of the Obama administration.
Speaking for myself, did we "veer hard right," or did segments of society move far left in the culture war?
For example, "back in the day," gay marriage was a lot more controversial. My position was/is "let the state legislatures decide." That was actually a bit left/libertarian leaning, compared to big chunks of the country (let alone the GOP). Even Obama and Hillary were against gay marriage back then.
Now my position, rather than being on the "moderate Republican" side is considered some sort of "hard right" position by the left and their allies in the media.
Similarly, back in 2003 (when I joined the board), the idea of transgender bathrooms would have been laughed out of the DNC headquarters.
Then, there's the fact that aspects of Trump style-populism/nationalism was once as--if not more-- likely to be part of a Democrat-leaning union's platform (they're stealing our jobs). Back in 1996, Bill Clinton sounded more like Trump on immigration than he did Obama or Hillary.
I could make similar points about Bill and "black lives matter"/Sistah Souljah and welfare reform.
So, again, if my position hasn't changed, but the DNC's has, who really veered hard in a particular direction?
Hehe. This guy sums things up pretty well with a nice touch at the end. Short and sweet.
I can actually enjoy this on multiple levels: not only is a Hillary goon going down for the count, but also a literal goon from SomethingAwful. Feels good, man.
Not a big Alex Jones fan, but he is citing multiple other sources, on how the mainstream (liberal) media is manipulating polls to favor Hillary Clinton, trying to discourage opposition to Hillary Clinton by selling the public her inevitability as a candidate.
I've seen some of this elsewhere, such as how Democrat-leaning pollsters poll 15% more Democrat voters in their surveys, in order to make Hillary Clinton the consistent winner in the polls.
It still favors Frau Hitlery, but only because she begins with 240 guaranteed electoral votes, in states dominated by Democrat zombies who will vote for her no matter what. Even if Trump has growing momentum, that's a tough handicap to overcome for Trump.
/pol/ just scrounged SomethingAwful for more StoneTear goodies...and, well, this is what they found.
Warning, Spoiler:
Lowtax, the SA admin tried to nuke all of his posts (SJW cunt that he is), but luckily he was unsuccessful at keeping everyone from the Combetta info. And now we have a post by StoneTear--which /pol/ autists have confirmed is Combetta--that reveals he has a new client with Parkinson's Disease. Fucking wow.
Hillary couldn’t be proven guilty without proving the president guilty as well.
"How is this not classified?”
So exclaimed Hillary Clinton’s close aide and confidante, Huma Abedin. The FBI had just shown her an old e-mail exchange, over Clinton’s private account, between the then-secretary of state and a second person, whose name Abedin did not recognize. The FBI then did what the FBI is never supposed to do: The agents informed their interviewee (Abedin) of the identity of the second person. It was the president of the United States, Barack Obama, using a pseudonym to conduct communications over a non-secure e-mail system — something anyone with a high-level security clearance, such as Huma Abedin, would instantly realize was a major breach.
Abedin knew an insurance policy when she saw one. If Obama himself had been e-mailing over a non-government, non-secure system, then everyone else who had been doing it had a get-out-of-jail-free card.
As I explained in February, when it emerged that the White House was refusing to disclose at least 22 communications Obama had exchanged with then-secretary Clinton over the latter’s private e-mail account, we knew that Obama had knowingly engaged in the same misconduct that was the focus of the Clinton probe: the reckless mishandling of classified information.
Still, the difference in scale is not a difference in kind. In terms of the federal laws that criminalize mishandling of classified information, Obama not only engaged in the same type of misconduct Clinton did; he engaged in it with Clinton. It would not have been possible for the Justice Department to prosecute Clinton for her offense without its becoming painfully apparent that 1) Obama, too, had done everything necessary to commit a violation of federal law, and 2) the communications between Obama and Clinton were highly relevant evidence.
Indeed, imagine what would have happened had Clinton been indicted. The White House would have attempted to maintain the secrecy of the Obama-Clinton e-mails (under Obama’s invocation of a bogus “presidential communications” privilege), but Clinton’s defense lawyers would have demanded the disclosure of the e-mails in order to show that Obama had engaged in the same misconduct, yet only she, not he, was being prosecuted. And as most experienced criminal-law lawyers understand (especially if they’ve read a little Supreme Court case known as United States v. Nixon), it is an argument that Clinton’s lawyers would have won.
That is why, as I argued in February, Obama is trying to get away with the vaporous claim that presidential communications must be kept confidential. He does not want to say “executive privilege” because that sounds too much like Nixon. More important, the only other alternative is to designate the e-mails as classified. That would be tantamount to an admission that Obama engaged in the same violation of law as Clinton.
Again, this is why the prosecution of Mrs. Clinton never had a chance of happening. It also explains why, in his public statements about the matter, Obama insisted that Clinton’s e-mailing of classified information did not harm national security. It is why Obama, in stark contrast to his aforementioned executive order, made public statements pooh-poohing the fact that federal law forbids the mishandling of any intelligence secret. (“There’s classified, and then there’s classified,” he said, so cavalierly.) He had to take this position because he had himself effectively endorsed the practice of high-level communications through non-secure channels.
I will end with what I said eight months ago:
To summarize, we have a situation in which (a) Obama knowingly communicated with Clinton over a non-government, non-secure e-mail system; (b) Obama and Clinton almost certainly discussed matters that are automatically deemed classified under the president’s own guidelines; and (c) at least one high-ranking government official (Petraeus) has been prosecuted because he failed to maintain the security of highly sensitive intelligence that included policy-related conversations with Obama. From these facts and circumstances, we must deduce that it is possible, if not highly likely, that President Obama himself has been grossly negligent in handling classified information.
That is why the Clinton e-mail scandal never had a chance of leading to criminal charges.
If anyone recalls, when Sen. Chaffetz questioned the State Department IG about the redacted emails that Congress wasn't allowed to see, he replied that they were designated ORCON (Originator Control). In which case, the originator owns the data and is the only entity authorized to peruse and distribute it. Furthermore, the IG stated that he could not reveal the owner in a public forum. This, obviously, created speculation as to whom the emails could possibly belong for them to be barred from inspection by congress. A lot of people suspected it was some alphabet soup organization, but still some theorized it was the Executive Office. And that makes a whole lot of fucking sense.
With any luck, Guccifer and friends are biding their time with the ultimate October Surprise: the emails Obama sent to Hilldawg on her private server.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I was looking to follow the Chicago Herald-Tribune on Facebook (my newsfeed on Facebook ranges from the Moscow Times to the Bangkok Post to the Japan Times to the Cambodia Daily and many more - I like multiple sources of news) and discovered this parallel universe of news sources - the Conservative Tribune and others.
It is so odd that in an age of information there is this parallel world, from both perspectives, of what the truth is.
.....The documentation is taken directly from the emails themselves, Dave.
Breitbart and other less known online outlets have broken the news. But you can't expect even a muttering about it from CNN, et al. That's exactly why /pol/ has scrounged them for the dirty details.
I can corroborate the highlighted text if that's what you're worried about since I got a copy too.
Quote:
It is so odd that in an age of information there is this parallel world, from both perspectives, of what the truth is.
I really don't know why you're surprised. Newspeak and wrongthink have been a part of the cultural narrative for quite some time now.
We've come a long way since the "Not about Oil or Iraq" thread, which I can guarantee you at this stage is full of nothing but lies and faulty premises from every side of the isle (Whomod, G-man, you, Flordia-Dave, JQ).
That's in addition to current DNC chair Donna Brazile (as a pundit on CNN, while simultaneously at the time the vice-Chair of the DNC) using her position at CNN to leak the exact question asked by a black man to Hillary Clinton at a town hall primary debate, about the death penalty and later exonerated men on death row. THE EXACT WORDS. Brazile can deny she leaked the question, but it was obviously leaked.
That's in addition to other reporters who gave the Hillary Clinton campaign the e-mailed ability to veto publishing a story (not just asking them for comment before print), and John Harwood who grilled Donald Trump in a primary debate, and secretly revealed his contempt for Trump in e-mails, and his support of the Hillary campaign.
There's thousands more e-mails still to dig into, but probably only Fox News and conservative media will inform the public of the DNC/liberal media corruption at every level.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
We've come a long way since the "Not about Oil or Iraq" thread, which I can guarantee you at this stage is full of nothing but lies and faulty premises from every side of the isle (Whomod, G-man, you, Florida-Dave, JQ).
Much has been released to show that the Democrat conspiracies of "blood-for-oil" were completely false, and the slanderous allegations against the Bush administration were false DNC/far-left talking points.
But even in the worst case scenario (which doesn't exist), if "Bush lied" to motivate invasion of Iraq, the fact that Libya was revealed to have a nuclear weapons program, and handed it over to U.N. inspectors to be dismantled to avoid being similarly invaded, that alone, preventing another rogue nuclear state, was well worth it.
It's just an infuriating betrayal of our military that Obama withdrew all forces from Iraq in Dec 2011, allowed ISIS to rise and kill tens of thousands, and to metastasize into over 30 nations now, and caused Iraq to now be on the verge of collapse. And now Obama wants to do the same in Afghanistan.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
MEPs have voted on a resolution that likens threats from the Russian media to those from ISIS. Monday’s resolution from members of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament began with a statement saying “Hostile propaganda and disinformation directed against our societies by both the Kremlin and non-state actors such as ISIS/Daesh is a fact.”
There was a time when the EU regarded both Russia and America as “partners” – including in the fight against terrorism. But in recent years, the bloc has moved almost completely into the US camp and a number of statements issued from Brussels seem to indicate it regards Russia as nothing but an enemy alongside those extremists.
Apparently as the MEPs see it, shouting down Russian media for carrying alternative opinions is the first step in safe-guarding “Western democratic values.”
Monopoly on Truth
Of course, the EU representatives aren’t saying all outsiders are bad. The American media has had a massive presence in Europe for decades. This ranges from CNN being a staple of cable packages, to European newspapers & broadcast outlets using US-owned wires for breaking news and features content, to print editions of US newspapers being widely available in across the continent. Not to mention Washington’s state broadcasters – the BBG-run VOA and RFE/RL.
Is this influence whiter than white? Do these outlets have confident ownership of truth? The statement by MEPs warns that “hostile propaganda against the EU and its member states seeks to distort the truth, provoke doubt, divide the EU and its North American partners, paralyze the decision-making process, discredit the EU institutions and incite fear and uncertainty among EU citizens.” Let’s look at the time when practically all leading US print and broadcasting outlets claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and used this not only as an excuse for going to war in Iraq, but also as useful emotional pressure on Europe to join in. Was that not “disinformation” and was it not an attempt to “incite fear and uncertainty among EU citizens?”
Yet Eurocrats have never emoted about US dissemination of inaccurate news to Europe, even when it’s clearly promoted by intelligence agencies, as in the infamous WMD case.
Looking for a more recent example? How about the unbridled euphoria emanating for months from the speeches of Western politicians and the pages of the media alike over the social unrest in the Middle East in 2010-2012? Should their reluctance or downright refusal to soberly assess and communicate the risks of regional instability be considered harmful disinformation, considering the consequences – from immigration crisis to security – reverberating throughout the world today?
A Word on ISIS
Speaking of security: for all the absurdity of the MEP’s statement, one part of it rings true: “Islamic terrorist organizations are actively campaigning to undermine and increase the level of hatred against European values and interests,” says the resolution.
Indeed, they are also trying to do the same to Russia, which is actually engaged in combat against them in Syria. And Russia has arguably suffered more from Islamic terrorism than any other European country. But instead of suggesting cooperation with Russia to combat this menace, the EU lobs it in with a group that it’s fighting, while EU countries take part in a US-led coalition more concerned with regime change.
David and Goliath
The European Parliament committee lists the many tools employed by Russia to supposedly influence the political processes in Europe. Problem is, substitute every mention of Russia/Moscow/Kremlin for USA/Washington, and the claims of interference ring far truer.
To wit: “MEPs are concerned about the rapid expansion of Kremlin-inspired propaganda. They note how ”the Russian government is aggressively employing a wide range of tools and instruments, such as think tanks [...], multilingual TV stations (e.g. Russia Today), pseudo-news agencies [...], social media and internet trolls, to challenge democratic values, divide Europe, gather domestic support and create the perception of failed states in the EU’s eastern neighborhood.”
Let’s break down this propaganda cornucopia.
The US employs dozens of think tanks all over Europe (examples include the German Marshall Fund, the Atlantic Council and CEPA) which are often funded by, in addition to the State Department and the Department of Defense, American weapons manufacturers. Coincidentally, these are the entities that stand to gain the most from escalating tension with Russia, as fighting talk leads to greater military spending in the NATO area.
Of “multilingual television stations,” [of which there is literally one] “Russia Today” is available in two European languages, English and Spanish, with digital content in French and German. Compare this to other state-funded actors. The BBG’s VOA and RFE/RL are available in English, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Serbian, Macedonian, Albanian, Azeri, Georgian, Kazakh, Tajik, Kyrgyz and Uzbek, Which is quite a collection of tongues. Meanwhile, the British state broadcaster BBC makes its news available in Russian, Turkish, Ukrainian, Azeri, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Uzbek and Kyrgyz. EU officials have no difficultly with this, despite London's impending withdrawal from their bloc.
This, of course, does not include the EU’s own news giants, from Euronews, France24 and Deutsche Welle available on TV in multiple languages, to each country’s local news channels, to thousands of native newspapers, magazines, radio stations and so on, and so on, and so on…
The MEPs also bring up everyone’s favorite practically-literal boogeyman: Russian online trolls. This is based on a series of articles from two years ago all about the same office in St Petersburg, which allegedly employs a couple of hundred contractors to write online comments in poor English. Even if true, just compare that to the UK’s “Facebook warriors” of 1,500 highly trained and well paid soldiers, for instance. What are the chances that NATO or the US doesn’t have the same counterparts?
MEPs vs. Reality
And what of the claims that Russia has tried to “create the perception of failed states in the EU’s eastern neighborhood?” According to the MEPs it must be the Russian media’s fault the Baltic States have lost a huge chunk of their people since joining the EU in 2004 (Latvia's population has dropped by 12.8 percent and Lithuania by 15.3 percent in those twelve years). Or that in Ukraine, long before the Maidan crisis, living standards were lower than they were in 1991, when the USSR collapsed.
If the legion of aforementioned media outlets, lavishly funded think tanks and thousands-strong state-sponsored communication initiatives fail to convince their own people that all is hunky dory in the neighborhood, placing the blame at the feet of RT, Sputnik and a couple of hundred people writing “Putin is great!” in comment chains is absurd on its face.
There is a reason RT resonates with European audiences: the realities the channel reports on are the same ones they witness with their own eyes. EU officials are free to shout “propaganda” to their hearts’ content while concocting ways to limit their constituents’ access to information. Yet, it won’t resolve the underlying problems facing European society that, when not properly reflected in the establishment approved media, are causing the people to seek out alternative sources of news.
All in all, the MEP’s resolution is a rather peculiar interpretation of the much-touted democratic values, particularly that of freedom of speech – which in action means attacking a rare voice of dissent among literally thousands of European media outlets. If anything is eroding public confidence in European institutions, it's that.
TL;DR
The email leaks and viral stories about EU failures and corruption/collusion with US officials, MEPs are trying to SHUT IT DOWN by dubbing anything critical of the EU as "terrorism" or "disinformation".
That's welcome WikiLeaks information on the Hillary Cinton campaign 2 posts above (if it happens).
My concern is that it's too close to the election, just 26 daays away. And the liberal media is so partisan in favor of Hillary that they simply won't report it for 26 days, even as they pound the case against Donald Trump on every last lewd remark or alleged groping all the way to election day. AGAIN: Which matters more? A few sexually callous remarks and unproved gropings by Donald Trump? Or massive treason and corruption in multiple scandals by Hillary Clinton?
It's apparent that the human cattle who vote Democrat only have the mental capacity to understand a sex scandal, and can't seem to grasp the ramifications of what Hillary Clinton has already demonstrated she would do to damage and corrupt our government.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I might consider this unbiased, if they had, y'know, interviewed ANY of the women who accused Bill Clinton of similar or worse allegations. Or had given some focus to the role Hillary Clinton had taken in attacking and discrediting Bill Clinton's accusers, leading the charge to trash their reputations, despite in many cases their accusations were known to be absolutely true.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Unfortunately, the "mainstream" in this election is so far in the tank for Clinton (for whatever reason [excuse it on Trump being "deplorable" if it makes you feel better]), that if they cover this stuff at all it's along the lines of "wah...look at how those terrible hackers stole private info."
(This, mind you, being the same institution that thought [not wholly without justification] that Daniel Ellsberg was a hero)
Assange tweeted a hashcode hours ago and mentioned John Kerry. Someone apparently started shitting bricks because now Kerry is calling for Ecuador to surrender Assange, and the Brits are threatening to beat the embassy door down.
Wikileaks, for its part, has posted numerous hashcodes with a clear meaning that they're preparing to deploy their contingency decryption algorithms so that anyone may access their resources--which are allegedly filled to the breaking point with classified data.
On top of this, Drudge is hinting at a Clinton sex scandal vid, and O'Keefe is supposed to drop his 'racist Hillary' footage today.
