info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Clintons with their `We Came, We Stole, Haitians Died'" apparently like this Brit 'cause Hillary would like to give him a nice American job - so, more outsourcing of jobs and no more "reshuffling of the deck"!
254 views
Skip to first unread message
lo yeeOn
Apr 30, 2016, 8:00:40 AM4/30/16
to
David Miliband, the UK's former foreign secretary and William Hague's
predecessor, got a job in New York City getting paid as a CEO of some
kind of rescue mission organization for a huge salary of over three
quarters of a million US Dollars per year. One of the countries it
has done rescue work in is Haiti. But WHAT RESCUE WORK?
In fact, it's very suspicious how David Miliband managed to find such
a high-paying job in the first place. Why should it be David when the
planet has six billion people to choose from?
And then, there is the question of the Clinton Foundation, the outfit
through which billions of dollars intended for the earthquake victims
of Haiti disappeared.
According to Democracy Now! (January 13, 2016)
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/13/headlines/nyc_protesters_target_bill_clinton_over_conditions_in_haiti_6_years_after_earthquake
Tuesday marked six years since a 7.0-magnitude earthquake devastated
Haiti, killing an estimated 300,000 people. Tens of thousands of
Haitians are still living in tents. Here in New York City, a group
of Haitians gathered in front of the Clinton Foundation to protest
former President Bill Clinton's role as head of the Interim Haiti
Recovery Commission. Activist Dahoud Andre was among them.
Dahoud Andre: "Today is the 12th of January 2016, six years after
the earthquake. And for us, it was important to be in front of the
Clinton Foundation, because Bill Clinton, as head of the IHRC,
Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, was responsible for the $6
billion that came into his hands. He had unlimited control of this
money. Six years after the earthquake, not much has changed, and as
a matter of fact, Haiti is in worse condition than it was in 2010.
Only Bill Clinton can tell the world what happened with this money."
Interestingly, a photo in the article
https://www.democracynow.org/images/headlines/61/29061/quarter_hd/hdlns12-clinton-haiti.jpg
shows protesting Haitians carrying signs denouncing the power couple
Bill and Hillary Clinton. Of course, by the time of this protest, the
hundreds of millions of dollars the power couple have amassed through
their foundation over a time that spans at most a decade and a half
have become widely known.
Interestingly, David Miliband took the high-paying CEO job in NYC in
2013, right in the middle of the scandal surrounding the Haitian
rescue mission and Bill Clinton was the head of the Interim Haiti
Recovery Commission, through which billions have gone unaccounted for
and which must have a relationship with David Miliband's IRC.
So, beyond the stupid facade of David Miliband's expressed admiration
for Hillary, questions naturally arise as to exactly what kind of
service David Miliband was providing that should make him the choice
for such a lucrative job, instead of someone from the large Haitian
community in the United States, or someone from the Organization of
American States (OAS)?
Indeed, in my Google Search, another catching headline concerning the
Clintons' scandalous connection with the Haitian rescue mission is
telling:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/clinton_haiti_elections
The Clintons: `We Came, We Stole, Haitians Died'
Submitted by Glen Ford on Tue, 01/26/2016 - 22:01
Due to the Clintons' overt and disastrous "activism" in Libya and
Haiti, people died and continue to die while they and their cronies
stole and continue to steal and profit from the enormous scale of
the victims' misery.
So it sounds like David Miliband is just the kind of a "trustworthy"
guy for the Clintons to do business with!
How is Hillary going to "reshuffle the deck" for the American middle
class - not to mention the black communities in American cities - if
so much cronyism and so much corruption are going on in the Clintons'
dealings in what should belong to the society and the people?
And now Miliband has told his former LP colleagues that "Mrs Clinton
would like to appoint him as a foreign diplomat".
David Miliband must have served the Clintons well in his capacity as
the CEO of the IRC.
And typically, who gets a post as a foreign diplomat representing the
United States? Someone to whom the successful presidential candidate
owes a big political pay back. Now, with all the black votes that has
taken her to the top, are there so few in the black community she can
find that she has to look for a Brit to serve our country? This is
beginning to sound like the new Ukraine! (Recall that in Ukraine, all
kinds of foreigners, including people from the US were given top jobs
after the coup of 2014. And since hiring foreigners in the post-coup
Ukraine did not reshuffle the deck for the pensioners of that country,
why should we expect that hiring a Brit and all the cronies of the
Clintons will help reshuffle the deck for the American middle class,
not to mention the black communities in American cities?)
And is Hillary going to appoint Jesse Jackson for any signifiant
diplomatic post that she is promising David Miliband? Jesse has an
illustrious record of achievements in diplomacy, you know!
Meritocracy has long been thrown out of the window in American
politics and now even corruption is strongly suspected in the
situation between David Miliband and the Clintons. How can we think
that Hillary Clinton will be an acceptable choice for our next
president?
lo yeeOn
David Miliband 'to be given top US government job if Hillary Clinton
becomes president'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/29/david-miliband-to-be-given-top-us-government-job-if-hillary-clin/
David Miliband is expected to be appointed to a "top" US government
position if Hillary Clinton becomes president in January 2017, it was
reported on Thursday.
The former Labour foreign secretary, who now works as president and
CEO of the International Rescue Committee in New York, has told MP
friends that Mrs Clinton would like to appoint him as a foreign
diplomat - for the United States - the Sun reported.
Mr Miliband, whose spokesman did not return a request for comment on
Thursday night, would have to take up US citizenship in such
circumstances, thereby likely ruling him out of a return to UK
politics.
"David said he is expecting a good job from Hillary," an unnamed
Labour MP told The Sun. "They still speak, and it sounded like she
may already have offered him something - probably an envoy role rather
than a job in her cabinet."
"He'd jump at it. What's the point in coming back here with the mess
Labour is going to be in for years?"
Mr Miliband and Mrs Clinton struck up a close working relationship
when he was foreign secretary and she was US secretay of state.
In an interview with ES Magazine last month, Mr Miliband gushed about
the Democratic presidential frontrunner's "fantastic smile".
He opened up about his friendship with Mrs Clinton, as he praised her
humour and intelligence.
He said he likes to think of her as "a friend" and that people are
always surprised by her.
"She's a very good listener. She's not afraid of what she doesn't know
and she wants to learn what she doesn't know, which is an
underestimated quality in politics," she said.
"She's obviously very intelligent, she's obviously very worldly. She's
very funny."
"And as I said to Louise last night, when she smiles the full smile,
she's got a fantastic smile. You know when someone relaxes and you
suddenly capture what they're really like. She doesn't take herself
too seriously."
Mr Milband said in the interview that to win an election, political
parties need to position themselves in the centre ground and that at
the moment the "centre left and centre right are under pressure".
He said, "Here in the States with [Bernie] Sanders and [Donald] Trump,
as well as in the UK. And the question is why and what does the centre
left and centre right do about it?"
Mr Miliband quit as MP for South Shields in 2013 having lost the
Labour leadership election to his brother Ed. He took the job as head
of IRC in September that year, a role for which he is reportedly paid
more than 400,000 British pounds a year.
Note: 400,000 British pounds is currently equal to 770,899.65 USD.
predecessor, got a job in New York City getting paid as a CEO of some
kind of rescue mission organization for a huge salary of over three
quarters of a million US Dollars per year. One of the countries it
has done rescue work in is Haiti. But WHAT RESCUE WORK?
In fact, it's very suspicious how David Miliband managed to find such
a high-paying job in the first place. Why should it be David when the
planet has six billion people to choose from?
And then, there is the question of the Clinton Foundation, the outfit
through which billions of dollars intended for the earthquake victims
of Haiti disappeared.
According to Democracy Now! (January 13, 2016)
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/13/headlines/nyc_protesters_target_bill_clinton_over_conditions_in_haiti_6_years_after_earthquake
Tuesday marked six years since a 7.0-magnitude earthquake devastated
Haiti, killing an estimated 300,000 people. Tens of thousands of
Haitians are still living in tents. Here in New York City, a group
of Haitians gathered in front of the Clinton Foundation to protest
former President Bill Clinton's role as head of the Interim Haiti
Recovery Commission. Activist Dahoud Andre was among them.
Dahoud Andre: "Today is the 12th of January 2016, six years after
the earthquake. And for us, it was important to be in front of the
Clinton Foundation, because Bill Clinton, as head of the IHRC,
Interim Haiti Recovery Commission, was responsible for the $6
billion that came into his hands. He had unlimited control of this
money. Six years after the earthquake, not much has changed, and as
a matter of fact, Haiti is in worse condition than it was in 2010.
Only Bill Clinton can tell the world what happened with this money."
Interestingly, a photo in the article
https://www.democracynow.org/images/headlines/61/29061/quarter_hd/hdlns12-clinton-haiti.jpg
shows protesting Haitians carrying signs denouncing the power couple
Bill and Hillary Clinton. Of course, by the time of this protest, the
hundreds of millions of dollars the power couple have amassed through
their foundation over a time that spans at most a decade and a half
have become widely known.
Interestingly, David Miliband took the high-paying CEO job in NYC in
2013, right in the middle of the scandal surrounding the Haitian
rescue mission and Bill Clinton was the head of the Interim Haiti
Recovery Commission, through which billions have gone unaccounted for
and which must have a relationship with David Miliband's IRC.
So, beyond the stupid facade of David Miliband's expressed admiration
for Hillary, questions naturally arise as to exactly what kind of
service David Miliband was providing that should make him the choice
for such a lucrative job, instead of someone from the large Haitian
community in the United States, or someone from the Organization of
American States (OAS)?
Indeed, in my Google Search, another catching headline concerning the
Clintons' scandalous connection with the Haitian rescue mission is
telling:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/clinton_haiti_elections
The Clintons: `We Came, We Stole, Haitians Died'
Submitted by Glen Ford on Tue, 01/26/2016 - 22:01
Due to the Clintons' overt and disastrous "activism" in Libya and
Haiti, people died and continue to die while they and their cronies
stole and continue to steal and profit from the enormous scale of
the victims' misery.
So it sounds like David Miliband is just the kind of a "trustworthy"
guy for the Clintons to do business with!
How is Hillary going to "reshuffle the deck" for the American middle
class - not to mention the black communities in American cities - if
so much cronyism and so much corruption are going on in the Clintons'
dealings in what should belong to the society and the people?
And now Miliband has told his former LP colleagues that "Mrs Clinton
would like to appoint him as a foreign diplomat".
David Miliband must have served the Clintons well in his capacity as
the CEO of the IRC.
And typically, who gets a post as a foreign diplomat representing the
United States? Someone to whom the successful presidential candidate
owes a big political pay back. Now, with all the black votes that has
taken her to the top, are there so few in the black community she can
find that she has to look for a Brit to serve our country? This is
beginning to sound like the new Ukraine! (Recall that in Ukraine, all
kinds of foreigners, including people from the US were given top jobs
after the coup of 2014. And since hiring foreigners in the post-coup
Ukraine did not reshuffle the deck for the pensioners of that country,
why should we expect that hiring a Brit and all the cronies of the
Clintons will help reshuffle the deck for the American middle class,
not to mention the black communities in American cities?)
And is Hillary going to appoint Jesse Jackson for any signifiant
diplomatic post that she is promising David Miliband? Jesse has an
illustrious record of achievements in diplomacy, you know!
Meritocracy has long been thrown out of the window in American
politics and now even corruption is strongly suspected in the
situation between David Miliband and the Clintons. How can we think
that Hillary Clinton will be an acceptable choice for our next
president?
lo yeeOn
David Miliband 'to be given top US government job if Hillary Clinton
becomes president'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/29/david-miliband-to-be-given-top-us-government-job-if-hillary-clin/
David Miliband is expected to be appointed to a "top" US government
position if Hillary Clinton becomes president in January 2017, it was
reported on Thursday.
The former Labour foreign secretary, who now works as president and
CEO of the International Rescue Committee in New York, has told MP
friends that Mrs Clinton would like to appoint him as a foreign
diplomat - for the United States - the Sun reported.
Mr Miliband, whose spokesman did not return a request for comment on
Thursday night, would have to take up US citizenship in such
circumstances, thereby likely ruling him out of a return to UK
politics.
"David said he is expecting a good job from Hillary," an unnamed
Labour MP told The Sun. "They still speak, and it sounded like she
may already have offered him something - probably an envoy role rather
than a job in her cabinet."
"He'd jump at it. What's the point in coming back here with the mess
Labour is going to be in for years?"
Mr Miliband and Mrs Clinton struck up a close working relationship
when he was foreign secretary and she was US secretay of state.
In an interview with ES Magazine last month, Mr Miliband gushed about
the Democratic presidential frontrunner's "fantastic smile".
He opened up about his friendship with Mrs Clinton, as he praised her
humour and intelligence.
He said he likes to think of her as "a friend" and that people are
always surprised by her.
"She's a very good listener. She's not afraid of what she doesn't know
and she wants to learn what she doesn't know, which is an
underestimated quality in politics," she said.
"She's obviously very intelligent, she's obviously very worldly. She's
very funny."
"And as I said to Louise last night, when she smiles the full smile,
she's got a fantastic smile. You know when someone relaxes and you
suddenly capture what they're really like. She doesn't take herself
too seriously."
Mr Milband said in the interview that to win an election, political
parties need to position themselves in the centre ground and that at
the moment the "centre left and centre right are under pressure".
He said, "Here in the States with [Bernie] Sanders and [Donald] Trump,
as well as in the UK. And the question is why and what does the centre
left and centre right do about it?"
Mr Miliband quit as MP for South Shields in 2013 having lost the
Labour leadership election to his brother Ed. He took the job as head
of IRC in September that year, a role for which he is reportedly paid
more than 400,000 British pounds a year.
Note: 400,000 British pounds is currently equal to 770,899.65 USD.
calim...@gmx.de
May 1, 2016, 6:25:04 PM5/1/16
to
Max
--
Stop Trump, stop fascism!
Court_1
May 1, 2016, 6:29:25 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:25:04 PM UTC-4, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> Still Hillary is better than a fascist!
She'll crush that circus jester Trump. Bet on it.
> Still Hillary is better than a fascist!
bob
May 1, 2016, 7:34:17 PM5/1/16
to
and most people are dumb enough to believe it.
bob
Gracchus
May 1, 2016, 7:57:14 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 4:34:17 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2016 15:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> On Sun, 1 May 2016 15:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:25:04 PM UTC-4, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> >
> >> Still Hillary is better than a fascist!
> >
> >
> >She'll crush that circus jester Trump. Bet on it.
>
> i don't doubt she'll win, she tells everyone what they want to hear
> and most people are dumb enough to believe it.
Yep, no point in messing with a formula that won her husband two elections. Soon it will be 2.5
>
> >On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:25:04 PM UTC-4, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> >
> >> Still Hillary is better than a fascist!
> >
> >
> >She'll crush that circus jester Trump. Bet on it.
>
> i don't doubt she'll win, she tells everyone what they want to hear
> and most people are dumb enough to believe it.
Court_1
May 1, 2016, 8:01:58 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 7:34:17 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >She'll crush that circus jester Trump. Bet on it.
>
> i don't doubt she'll win, she tells everyone what they want to hear
> and most people are dumb enough to believe it.
There are dumb and smart people who follow Clinton and dumb and smart people who follow Trump. As bad as Clinton may be, Trump is 10 times worse IMO.
> >She'll crush that circus jester Trump. Bet on it.
>
> i don't doubt she'll win, she tells everyone what they want to hear
> and most people are dumb enough to believe it.
I'm starting to believe the rumors that Trump may have been a plant by the Clintons because some of the things coming out of Trump's mouth are too unbelievable to be real. I've never seen such stupidity come from a presidential candidate who has come this far. He's like a real live clown. Trump and the Clintons came from the same circle and perhaps the Clintons did encourage Trump to run thinking he would be so comical with his tomfoolery that he would ruin the reputation of the Republican party and make Clinton look like a God in the process. In return, Trump gets to increase his brand awareness and get whatever he wants from the Clintons for the remainder of his career in business. It doesn't seem that far-fetched at this point. The art of the deal indeed.
bob
May 1, 2016, 8:17:09 PM5/1/16
to
here goes another 8 yrs of same ole.
bob
bob
May 1, 2016, 8:26:16 PM5/1/16
to
then i thought he was a democrat plant.
then trump kept getting more votes...and more votes...and more votes.
i'm curious to see how trump handles a trump/hillary debate. gloves on
or gloves off? but it appears now that trump will have enough votes to
get nominated.
it's not about trump for me, it's about anybody but her. her and
bill's behavior isn't acceptable, no matter if the country had a good
economy under bill. the lies are a lil over the top. would make nixon
blush.
bob
Court_1
May 1, 2016, 8:27:45 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 7:57:14 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> Yep, no point in messing with a formula that won her husband two elections. Soon it will be 2.5
Surely by now you'd agree that Trump is worse than Clinton? I mean Trump can't possibly believe the things he's putting out there lately especially about Clinton and women are going to get him the win in the general election? Women do make up 53% of the electorate. He can't possibly be that stupid so I have to question whether his entire run for the race is legit or if the Clintons put him up to it just as Jeb Bush, Glenn Beck, etc. have suggested. Who the hell knows.
> Yep, no point in messing with a formula that won her husband two elections. Soon it will be 2.5
*skriptis
May 1, 2016, 8:30:05 PM5/1/16
to
bob <b...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:
Still it's going to be fun if she wins. Bad, but fun.
Imagine the reputation USA will enjoy over the world?
12 years of Bush as president and vice president.
8 years of Bill and Hillary.
8 years of Bush's son.
4 years Hillary as #2 or #3 under Obama.
Pause 4 years with no members of these families.
Hillary and Bill again, perhaps 8 years.
In a country with over 330 million people, members of two families
could be in charge for up to 4 decades.
No wonder max supports Hillary. He wants the worst for USA.
Can you even find a modern democratic country where leaders were
succeeded by their sons ans wives?
It's happening in America today.
Oh, yes and North Korea.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Imagine the reputation USA will enjoy over the world?
12 years of Bush as president and vice president.
8 years of Bill and Hillary.
8 years of Bush's son.
4 years Hillary as #2 or #3 under Obama.
Pause 4 years with no members of these families.
Hillary and Bill again, perhaps 8 years.
In a country with over 330 million people, members of two families
could be in charge for up to 4 decades.
No wonder max supports Hillary. He wants the worst for USA.
Can you even find a modern democratic country where leaders were
succeeded by their sons ans wives?
It's happening in America today.
Oh, yes and North Korea.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
bob
May 1, 2016, 8:40:31 PM5/1/16
to
to get at least 40% of white women IMO, about double where he stands
now.
most young women don't like hillary, it's only the 40+ crowd like
courty that are in her corner like she's some sort of "feminist."
bob
Gracchus
May 1, 2016, 8:42:07 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 5:27:45 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 7:57:14 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > Yep, no point in messing with a formula that won her husband two elections. Soon it will be 2.5
> Surely by now you'd agree that Trump is worse than Clinton? I mean Trump can't possibly believe the things he's putting out there lately especially about Clinton and women are going to get him the win in the general election? Women do make up 53% of the electorate.
So how is he winning all of these Republican primaries? Hard to believe that only men are coming out to vote.
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 7:57:14 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > Yep, no point in messing with a formula that won her husband two elections. Soon it will be 2.5
> Surely by now you'd agree that Trump is worse than Clinton? I mean Trump can't possibly believe the things he's putting out there lately especially about Clinton and women are going to get him the win in the general election? Women do make up 53% of the electorate.
He can't possibly be that stupid so I have to question whether his entire run for the race is legit or if the Clintons put him up to it just as Jeb Bush, Glenn Beck, etc. have suggested. Who the hell knows.
bob
May 1, 2016, 8:54:58 PM5/1/16
to
a fortune 20 health company. he absolutely adores hillary. he adored
her in also feb 2008 when i told him that obama was much more likable
and was going to topple her unexpectedly.
he said something simple on facebook the other day, and IMO it just
kinda sums up things like sampras, federer, nadal, etc - and this
election.
he said: "in the end, we just like who we like. hard to explain why we
like who we like, but once we've picked a favorite, we defend it to
the death for no good reason. we look to the good things they did,
ignore the bad. and opposite for any opponent" - after which he
proceeded to keep posting anti sanders things, to which hundreds of
other agreeable folks chimed in their approval.
his analysis sums up a lot of the voters. i don't dislike hillary
though, for "no good reason." i dislike her lying, fakeness, complete
lack of integrity, covering of fraudulent financial deals, covering of
sexual abuse by her husband, lying about gov't security on her laptop
when everyone else has to follow the rules. but in the end, most
people just "like who they like for no good reason" and as such
hillary will be the next president unless she lets another serious
skeleton slip out.
bob
Court_1
May 1, 2016, 8:55:57 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:42:07 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> So how is he winning all of these Republican primaries? Hard to believe that only men are coming out to vote.
That's what they said on CNN, i.e. that more men are voting in the primaries but in the general election it will be different. They had a breakdown of the numbers.
> So how is he winning all of these Republican primaries? Hard to believe that only men are coming out to vote.
> One would think it's too crazy to be true, yet it wouldn't surprise me much at all if it turned out to be so. As you pointed out, the Clintons have ties to Trump going back decades. These people are like hyenas in their deviousness and cunning. That's what makes them survivors. Trump may be a modern-day Trojan Horse in the Republican machinery.
bob
May 1, 2016, 8:57:41 PM5/1/16
to
this 6 months ago. i scoffed, but who knows.
IMO trump 1st ran for publicity sake and did't really think he'd be
nominated, now realizes how much simple "non PC" can get you.
bob
bob
May 1, 2016, 9:02:46 PM5/1/16
to
On Sun, 1 May 2016 17:55:56 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:42:07 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
>> So how is he winning all of these Republican primaries? Hard to believe that only men are coming out to vote.
>
>That's what they said on CNN, i.e. that more men are voting in the primaries but in the general election it will be different. They had a breakdown of the numbers.
most women are democrats, and only republicans for the most part vote
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:42:07 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
>> So how is he winning all of these Republican primaries? Hard to believe that only men are coming out to vote.
>
>That's what they said on CNN, i.e. that more men are voting in the primaries but in the general election it will be different. They had a breakdown of the numbers.
in a republican primary, as the rules go. depends on the state but
that explains why he's getting so many votes so far.
>> One would think it's too crazy to be true, yet it wouldn't surprise me much at all if it turned out to be so. As you pointed out, the Clintons have ties to Trump going back decades. These people are like hyenas in their deviousness and cunning. That's what makes them survivors. Trump may be a modern-day Trojan Horse in the Republican machinery.
>
>It would be a good deal for both the Clintons and Trump. Good gig if you can get it. Trump will do anything to feed his ego. It's a win-win for him. There's little hope he can win the general election IMO. He's probably shocked he got this far.
> He's probably thinking how dumb can these hicks who vote for me in the US be? Those other Republican candidates are even wore than Trump. How crazy is that? It's the perfect spectacle for the Clintons.
Court_1
May 1, 2016, 9:13:25 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:40:31 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> most young women don't like hillary, it's only the 40+ crowd like
> courty that are in her corner like she's some sort of "feminist."
It's because most younger women(18-28) haven't had to deal yet with the sexism which professional more experienced women have had to deal with to get to where they are. i.e. the struggles with childbirth and having a career, dealing with advancement in a mostly male dominated profession, etc. They haven't had to experience those struggles to a large degree yet. They will if they go the professional or business paths. If you haven't experienced something yet, how can you understand it? With age comes wisdom. It's simple really.
> most young women don't like hillary, it's only the 40+ crowd like
> courty that are in her corner like she's some sort of "feminist."
And I don't want to get into a back and forth dispute on this issue because you don't understand it either.
bob
May 1, 2016, 9:29:25 PM5/1/16
to
On Sun, 1 May 2016 18:13:24 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:40:31 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> most young women don't like hillary, it's only the 40+ crowd like
>> courty that are in her corner like she's some sort of "feminist."
>
>It's because most younger women(18-28) haven't had to deal yet with the sexism which professional more experienced women have had to deal with to get to where they are. i.e. the struggles with childbirth and having a career, dealing with advancement in a mostly male dominated profession, etc. They haven't had to experience those struggles to a large degree yet.
perhaps. but i've heard some young ladies on tv with the opinion
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:40:31 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> most young women don't like hillary, it's only the 40+ crowd like
>> courty that are in her corner like she's some sort of "feminist."
>
>It's because most younger women(18-28) haven't had to deal yet with the sexism which professional more experienced women have had to deal with to get to where they are. i.e. the struggles with childbirth and having a career, dealing with advancement in a mostly male dominated profession, etc. They haven't had to experience those struggles to a large degree yet.
"hillary's feminism isn't my kind of feminism." maybe they just are
more open minded about her behavior.
> They will if they go the professional or business paths. If you haven't experienced something yet, how can you understand it? With age comes wisdom. It's simple really.
>And I don't want to get into a back and forth dispute on this issue because you don't understand it either.
bob
Gracchus
May 1, 2016, 9:37:30 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:13:25 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:40:31 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> > most young women don't like hillary, it's only the 40+ crowd like
> > courty that are in her corner like she's some sort of "feminist."
> It's because most younger women(18-28) haven't had to deal yet with the sexism which professional more experienced women have had to deal with to get to where they are. i.e. the struggles with childbirth and having a career, dealing with advancement in a mostly male dominated profession, etc. They haven't had to experience those struggles to a large degree yet. They will if they go the professional or business paths. If you haven't experienced something yet, how can you understand it?
> With age comes wisdom. It's simple really.
So once a woman hits 29, regardless of her upbringing, subculture, socioeconomic class, education, earlier political leanings, etc., she's finally grown up enough to know what the real world is all about and has the proper good sense to know that Hillary is the way. Wow...that really IS simple.
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:40:31 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> > most young women don't like hillary, it's only the 40+ crowd like
> > courty that are in her corner like she's some sort of "feminist."
> It's because most younger women(18-28) haven't had to deal yet with the sexism which professional more experienced women have had to deal with to get to where they are. i.e. the struggles with childbirth and having a career, dealing with advancement in a mostly male dominated profession, etc. They haven't had to experience those struggles to a large degree yet. They will if they go the professional or business paths. If you haven't experienced something yet, how can you understand it?
> With age comes wisdom. It's simple really.
bob
May 1, 2016, 9:50:21 PM5/1/16
to
they're old enough to remember her actions. plus the fact that she
only was put into any type of political role because her husband was
the president. maybe that's what younger women don't like, having to
ride a guy's coattails, a guy cheating on you publicly no less...
bob
Court_1
May 1, 2016, 10:02:04 PM5/1/16
to
The alternatives to Hillary are much worse IMO.
Court_1
May 1, 2016, 10:08:44 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:50:21 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> she only was put into any type of political role because her husband was
> the president.
???? She has the superior career resume to Bill, wtf are you talking about? She was with the bigger law firms, she was the bigger political activist, etc. Her husband Bill, had the charisma but she had the better credentials and qualifications. They helped each other in different ways. If you look at their career resumes side by side, Hillary blows him out of the water.
> she only was put into any type of political role because her husband was
> the president.
bob
May 1, 2016, 10:26:22 PM5/1/16
to
On Sun, 1 May 2016 19:08:43 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:50:21 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> she only was put into any type of political role because her husband was
>> the president.
>
>???? She has the superior career resume to Bill, wtf are you talking about?
as an attorney or politician? she had NO political career minus being
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:50:21 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> she only was put into any type of political role because her husband was
>> the president.
>
>???? She has the superior career resume to Bill, wtf are you talking about?
his wife.
> She was with the bigger law firms, she was the bigger political activist, etc.
>Her husband Bill, had the charisma
to president. if hillary ran for office from 78-92 she'd be laughed
out of the voting booth.
> but she had the better credentials and qualifications. They helped each other in different ways. If you look at their career resumes side by side, Hillary blows him out of the water.
attorney and there are > 1.5million of them.
bill's personality, coupled with a bad economy in 92', launched the
clintons from governor's house in arkansas. HE did it, she had no role
except to support him. and she rode it since.
bob
Court_1
May 1, 2016, 11:08:14 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:26:22 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> as an attorney or politician? she had NO political career minus being
> his wife.
She was involved in political advocacy from her early college days. I don't know wtf you are talking about but you are obviously not informed on this subject.
> as an attorney or politician? she had NO political career minus being
> his wife.
> > She was with the bigger law firms, she was the bigger political activist, etc.
>
> who cares? you know how many lawyers there are in the USA?
> >Her husband Bill, had the charisma
>
> exactly - which is what was necessary for him to rise from obscurity
> to president. if hillary ran for office from 78-92 she'd be laughed
> out of the voting booth.
> only 1 person can be president out of 300 million. anybody can be an
> attorney and there are > 1.5million of them.
> bill's personality, coupled with a bad economy in 92', launched the
> clintons from governor's house in arkansas. HE did it, she had no role
> except to support him. and she rode it since.
And by the way, Senator Elizabeth Warren, you know your buddy, said the following and gee somehow it made me think about you:
"Donald Trump clearly feels threatened by Secretary Clinton's qualifications to be president so he's attacking Hillary Clinton for being a woman," Warren said in a telephone interview with the Globe. "That's what weak men do. It is an old story, and I don't think the American voters will fall for it."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/04/28/warren-calls-trump-weak-sexist/RHLGHpJbBEs8vg4XLSEzgJ/story.html
Weak insecure men attacking women. Ring any bells?
Gracchus
May 2, 2016, 12:21:43 AM5/2/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:08:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:26:22 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> First of all, not everybody can be an attorney
Well it's a much more achievable goal than becoming a nuclear physicist for example. There are indeed loads of attorneys. Becoming a successful one is another matter.
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:26:22 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> First of all, not everybody can be an attorney
> and guess what, the next president of the US will be Hillary. You better get used to it and stop the sour grapes.
> Weak insecure men attacking women. Ring any bells?
Court_1
May 2, 2016, 2:33:12 AM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 12:21:43 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > First of all, not everybody can be an attorney
>
> Well it's a much more achievable goal than becoming a nuclear physicist for example. There are indeed loads of attorneys. Becoming a successful one is another matter.
Oh don't play that stupid game. No professional occupation is easy. You have to dedicate a lot of time to anything you want to be good at. What illustrious occupation did you hold? Probably a government employee of some sort. Am I warm? Stop being such a grumpy codger! You are acting like a two year old ever since I started to criticize your hero Colonel Sanders.
> > First of all, not everybody can be an attorney
>
> Well it's a much more achievable goal than becoming a nuclear physicist for example. There are indeed loads of attorneys. Becoming a successful one is another matter.
> > and guess what, the next president of the US will be Hillary. You better get used to it and stop the sour grapes.
>
> So what? We've all lived through our share of shit presidents in our lifetimes. She'll just be one more. Got "used to" 8 years of G.W. Bush's idiocy, but that doesn't mean one has to shut up and parrot the party line....not in a nominal democracy anyway. That you even make a statement like this shows what you want to reduce the contest to: "My gladiator is the one who will win." BFD. Some of us care more about the damage she'll do to our country. Americans care, that is.
> > Weak insecure men attacking women. Ring any bells?
>
> This is silly stuff. Personally I'd be much more inclined to vote for Clinton if she chose Warren as her running mate. And that, you might note, would be a "penis-free ticket."
Gracchus
May 2, 2016, 3:33:30 AM5/2/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 11:33:12 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 12:21:43 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > > First of all, not everybody can be an attorney
> > Well it's a much more achievable goal than becoming a nuclear physicist for example. There are indeed loads of attorneys. Becoming a successful one is another matter.
> Oh don't play that stupid game. No professional occupation is easy. You have to dedicate a lot of time to anything you want to be good at.
I acknowledged that with my last sentence, did I not? Never said the profession was easy, just that there are lots of lawyers.
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 12:21:43 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > > First of all, not everybody can be an attorney
> > Well it's a much more achievable goal than becoming a nuclear physicist for example. There are indeed loads of attorneys. Becoming a successful one is another matter.
> Oh don't play that stupid game. No professional occupation is easy. You have to dedicate a lot of time to anything you want to be good at.
> She will probably do a lot less damage than that joke of a candidate Bernie Sanders would with his magical formula to "break up the banks." "I'd sit them down and yada yada yada, they'll be broken up." Idealistic fool.
> And what about Trump? What good things would he do for the US?
> I didn't think Bill Clinton was a bad president overall and I doubt Hillary will be a bad president.
> I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about Bob. We know, you wouldn't vote for Hillary, so go vote for Trump. He's the bigger evil of the two.
Whisper
May 2, 2016, 7:47:20 AM5/2/16
to
Sounds plausible?
Whisper
May 2, 2016, 7:53:58 AM5/2/16
to
gut instinct/intuition etc. Most people sum you up in the 1st minute or
so of meeting.
It's like when you find someone attractive immediately - it's not a
conscious decision, & you can't really talk yourself into being
attracted to someone physically. The brain is a complex thing, & your
cousin is right. You can be a great actor/liar, but the brain picks up
all kinds of cues you may not really notice.
Whisper
May 2, 2016, 7:58:15 AM5/2/16
to
'anyone but Hillary' & 'anyone but Trump' - lesser of 2 devils.
Gracchus
May 2, 2016, 10:55:24 AM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 4:47:20 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> Trump said if Hillary was a man she wouldn't be getting 5% of the vote.
> Sounds plausible?
There's no reason to believe that's true. There are foolish women who vote for Hillary because she's a woman and foolish men who don't vote for her for the same reason. So I think that factor cancels itself out. The true source of her support is that she's a Clinton. For better or worse, there's no way you can separate Bill & Hillary, because they are two sides of the same coin. So older voters, minorities, and most importantly, old-guard Democratic leaders that still believe in the Clinton "brand" were already with Hillary before the race began, and that gave her an enormous head-start. The sad fact is, there are an awful lot of people who reflexively trust what's familiar because they're scared of anything else. If they'd had gangrene before, they would probably welcome that too.
> Trump said if Hillary was a man she wouldn't be getting 5% of the vote.
> Sounds plausible?
soccerfan777
May 2, 2016, 12:41:01 PM5/2/16
to
Guypers
May 2, 2016, 1:16:01 PM5/2/16
to
Court_1
May 2, 2016, 1:59:20 PM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 7:47:20 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
>
> Trump said if Hillary was a man she wouldn't be getting 5% of the vote.
> Sounds plausible?
No, it's not plausible. It's the exact opposite. I have said this a few times and I'll say it again, IMO, if Bill Clinton were running in this race against these incapable clowns such as Trump and Cruz on the Republican side and head in the clouds Colonel Sanders on the Democratic side he would have won the nomination months ago. Trump saying that Hillary wouldn't be getting 5% of the vote if she were a man is not only disingenuous but it reeks of Trump's desperation and insecurity running against a more capable and qualified woman. It is what it is.
>
> Trump said if Hillary was a man she wouldn't be getting 5% of the vote.
> Sounds plausible?
Court_1
May 2, 2016, 2:14:36 PM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:55:24 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> There's no reason to believe that's true. There are foolish women who vote for Hillary because she's a woman and foolish men who don't vote for her for the same reason. So I think that factor cancels itself out. The true source of her support is that she's a Clinton. For better or worse, there's no way you can separate Bill & Hillary, because they are two sides of the same coin. So older voters, minorities, and most importantly, old-guard Democratic leaders that still believe in the Clinton "brand" were already with Hillary before the race began, and that gave her an enormous head-start. The sad fact is, there are an awful lot of people who reflexively trust what's familiar because they're scared of anything else. If they'd had gangrene before, they would probably welcome that too.
Just because you think voting for Hillary is foolish doesn't make it a universal fact Gracchus. You have a bad habit of thinking that your opinion is the only right opinion. As I said before, there are intelligent people voting for Hillary and dumb people voting for Hillary just as there are intelligent/dumb people who support Sanders or Trump. I have to say though that some of those Sanders fanatics on social media are insane. They seem like the most passionate and crazed, maybe because many are quite young? Speaking of crazed Sanders supporters, where is that RST nut PAUL now? He sure is awfully quiet. :)
Did it ever occur to you that many people don't want Sanders to win the nomination because many of his ideas seem flawed and unrealistic? I think he's done a very good job to get as far as he has but I think a lot of his policies seem weak and unsound for many different reasons, some of which I have discussed over and over ad nauseam in various threads.
It's ok that you support Sanders and oppose Clinton but don't go around making it seem like Cliinton is some kind of unqualified candidate compared to Sanders because the complete opposite is true. She's far from a perfect candidate but put her next to flighty Colonel Sanders and egomaniac Trump and she looks pretty good in comparison IMO.
Gracchus
May 2, 2016, 2:48:40 PM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:14:36 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:55:24 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > There's no reason to believe that's true. There are foolish women who vote for Hillary because she's a woman and foolish men who don't vote for her for the same reason. So I think that factor cancels itself out. The true source of her support is that she's a Clinton. For better or worse, there's no way you can separate Bill & Hillary, because they are two sides of the same coin. So older voters, minorities, and most importantly, old-guard Democratic leaders that still believe in the Clinton "brand" were already with Hillary before the race began, and that gave her an enormous head-start. The sad fact is, there are an awful lot of people who reflexively trust what's familiar because they're scared of anything else. If they'd had gangrene before, they would probably welcome that too.
> Just because you think voting for Hillary is foolish doesn't make it a universal fact Gracchus. You have a bad habit of thinking that your opinion is the only right opinion.
I'm sure that more than a few RST members will look at these lines and see a screaming case of POT-->KETTLE. Hilarious.
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:55:24 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > There's no reason to believe that's true. There are foolish women who vote for Hillary because she's a woman and foolish men who don't vote for her for the same reason. So I think that factor cancels itself out. The true source of her support is that she's a Clinton. For better or worse, there's no way you can separate Bill & Hillary, because they are two sides of the same coin. So older voters, minorities, and most importantly, old-guard Democratic leaders that still believe in the Clinton "brand" were already with Hillary before the race began, and that gave her an enormous head-start. The sad fact is, there are an awful lot of people who reflexively trust what's familiar because they're scared of anything else. If they'd had gangrene before, they would probably welcome that too.
> Just because you think voting for Hillary is foolish doesn't make it a universal fact Gracchus. You have a bad habit of thinking that your opinion is the only right opinion.
> As I said before, there are intelligent people voting for Hillary and dumb people voting for Hillary just as there are intelligent/dumb people who support Sanders or Trump. I have to say though that some of those Sanders fanatics on social media are insane. They seem like the most passionate and crazed, maybe because many are quite young?
> Did it ever occur to you that many people don't want Sanders to win the nomination because many of his ideas seem flawed and unrealistic? I think he's done a very good job to get as far as he has but I think a lot of his policies seem weak and unsound for many different reasons, some of which I have discussed over and over ad nauseam in various threads.
> It's ok that you support Sanders and oppose Clinton but don't go around making it seem like Cliinton is some kind of unqualified candidate compared to Sanders because the complete opposite is true.
calim...@gmx.de
May 2, 2016, 3:02:37 PM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 2:30:05 AM UTC+2, *skriptis wrote:
> bob <b...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:
> > On Sun, 1 May 2016 15:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> > <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:25:04 PM UTC-4, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> >>
> >>> Still Hillary is better than a fascist!
> >>
> >>
> >>She'll crush that circus jester Trump. Bet on it.
> >
> > i don't doubt she'll win, she tells everyone what they want to hear
> > and most people are dumb enough to believe it.
> >
> > bob
> >
>
>
>
> Still it's going to be fun if she wins. Bad, but fun.
>
> Imagine the reputation USA will enjoy over the world?
>
> 12 years of Bush as president and vice president.
> 8 years of Bill and Hillary.
> 8 years of Bush's son.
> 4 years Hillary as #2 or #3 under Obama.
> Pause 4 years with no members of these families.
> Hillary and Bill again, perhaps 8 years.
>
> In a country with over 330 million people, members of two families
> could be in charge for up to 4 decades.
>
> No wonder max supports Hillary. He wants the worst for USA.
>
I would support Trump if I wanted that.
> bob <b...@nospam.net> Wrote in message:
> > On Sun, 1 May 2016 15:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
> > <olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 6:25:04 PM UTC-4, calim...@gmx.de wrote:
> >>
> >>> Still Hillary is better than a fascist!
> >>
> >>
> >>She'll crush that circus jester Trump. Bet on it.
> >
> > i don't doubt she'll win, she tells everyone what they want to hear
> > and most people are dumb enough to believe it.
> >
> > bob
> >
>
>
>
> Still it's going to be fun if she wins. Bad, but fun.
>
> Imagine the reputation USA will enjoy over the world?
>
> 12 years of Bush as president and vice president.
> 8 years of Bill and Hillary.
> 8 years of Bush's son.
> 4 years Hillary as #2 or #3 under Obama.
> Pause 4 years with no members of these families.
> Hillary and Bill again, perhaps 8 years.
>
> In a country with over 330 million people, members of two families
> could be in charge for up to 4 decades.
>
> No wonder max supports Hillary. He wants the worst for USA.
>
BTW, I would not support Hillary either.
Hopefully conservatives nominate an independent candidate.
Max
--
Stop Trump, stop fascism!
bob
May 2, 2016, 9:11:51 PM5/2/16
to
On Sun, 1 May 2016 20:08:12 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:26:22 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>
>> as an attorney or politician? she had NO political career minus being
>> his wife.
>
>She was involved in political advocacy from her early college days. I don't know wtf you are talking about but you are obviously not informed on this subject.
she was a poly sci major like countless others, and was a republican
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:26:22 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>
>> as an attorney or politician? she had NO political career minus being
>> his wife.
>
>She was involved in political advocacy from her early college days. I don't know wtf you are talking about but you are obviously not informed on this subject.
- then a democrat - then a republican - then a democrat - then a
republican - then a democrat.
in other words, she was a flip flopper based on the fairest winds from
day 1 of her life.
>> > She was with the bigger law firms, she was the bigger political activist, etc.
>>
>> who cares? you know how many lawyers there are in the USA?
>
>She was involved in political activism pre Bill's presidency. Find her resume online and educate yourself.
party. she attended the 68 miami nixon convention for god's sake.
>> >Her husband Bill, had the charisma
>>
>> exactly - which is what was necessary for him to rise from obscurity
>> to president. if hillary ran for office from 78-92 she'd be laughed
>> out of the voting booth.
>
>That's a ridiculously false statement.
just one of them. bill clinton is the president - elected as 1 of 300
mil people. we dont' have 1.5 mil presidents.
>> only 1 person can be president out of 300 million. anybody can be an
>> attorney and there are > 1.5million of them.
>
>First of all, not everybody can be an attorney and guess what, the next president of the US will be Hillary. You better get used to it and stop the sour grapes.
president, no doubt. good thing she "stood by her man."
>> bill's personality, coupled with a bad economy in 92', launched the
>> clintons from governor's house in arkansas. HE did it, she had no role
>> except to support him. and she rode it since.
>
>LOL. What a misery you are. She hasn't exactly sat around knitting booties while he was off with Monica Lewinsky. She has her own distinguished career.
the career of using her husband's connections for fraudulent land
deals? or the career of senator (after being 1st lady)? or the career
or sec of state (after being 1st lady)?
no, sorry, she is what she is because her husband ran a good campaign
and became president. otherwise she'd be one of many many thousands of
arkansas lawyers trading pork bellies under advice of the chair of
tyson foods.
> The fact that you dislike her so doesn't invalidate that. But I am getting a real charge out of your contempt for her. I'm counting the days until her nomination is secured and her countdown to the presidency begins. It's nice to see you squirm.
something she'll support extremely well. feel sorry for rest of the
country when the flip flopping liar starts making bad decisions, which
she'll do.
>And by the way, Senator Elizabeth Warren, you know your buddy, said the following and gee somehow it made me think about you:
>"Donald Trump clearly feels threatened by Secretary Clinton's qualifications to be president so he's attacking Hillary Clinton for being a woman," Warren said in a telephone interview with the Globe. "That's what weak men do. It is an old story, and I don't think the American voters will fall for it."
>https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/04/28/warren-calls-trump-weak-sexist/RHLGHpJbBEs8vg4XLSEzgJ/story.html
>Weak insecure men attacking women. Ring any bells?
like many of her her principles. BTW, she hasn't supported hillary yet
even though hillary has the nomination. wonder why.
as much as i like warren's platform, she shouldn't have claimed her
lilly white self to be a minority when she was looking for work at
harvard. i mean, since when does harvard hire any white folks wiith a
UHouston degree? kind of shameful what she did, but i've no problem
with her criticizing trump.
bob
bob
May 2, 2016, 9:15:56 PM5/2/16
to
On Sun, 1 May 2016 21:21:41 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:08:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:26:22 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> First of all, not everybody can be an attorney
>
>Well it's a much more achievable goal than becoming a nuclear physicist for example. There are indeed loads of attorneys. Becoming a successful one is another matter.
>
>> and guess what, the next president of the US will be Hillary. You better get used to it and stop the sour grapes.
>
>So what? We've all lived through our share of shit presidents in our lifetimes. She'll just be one more. Got "used to" 8 years of G.W. Bush's idiocy, but that doesn't mean one has to shut up and parrot the party line....not in a nominal democracy anyway. That you even make a statement like this shows what you want to reduce the contest to: "My gladiator is the one who will win." BFD. Some of us care more about the damage she'll do to our country. Americans care, that is.
my fear is that when she makes mistakes, something she does often,
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:08:14 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 10:26:22 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> First of all, not everybody can be an attorney
>
>Well it's a much more achievable goal than becoming a nuclear physicist for example. There are indeed loads of attorneys. Becoming a successful one is another matter.
>
>> and guess what, the next president of the US will be Hillary. You better get used to it and stop the sour grapes.
>
>So what? We've all lived through our share of shit presidents in our lifetimes. She'll just be one more. Got "used to" 8 years of G.W. Bush's idiocy, but that doesn't mean one has to shut up and parrot the party line....not in a nominal democracy anyway. That you even make a statement like this shows what you want to reduce the contest to: "My gladiator is the one who will win." BFD. Some of us care more about the damage she'll do to our country. Americans care, that is.
she'll not have the character to own it and try to rectify. she'll
either (a) cover it - something she's literally done all her life - or
(b) blame someone else. in the meantime it'll escalate.
i'm telling you she's nixon in personality, or worse.
>> Weak insecure men attacking women. Ring any bells?
>
>This is silly stuff. Personally I'd be much more inclined to vote for Clinton if she chose Warren as her running mate. And that, you might note, would be a "penis-free ticket."
bob
bob
May 2, 2016, 9:22:17 PM5/2/16
to
union no doubt. you've no business talking serious things with reputed
attorneys like courty. or any of the other >1.5 million of them in the
USA. lol.
bob
bob
May 2, 2016, 9:28:13 PM5/2/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 21:57:44 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
this is absolutely spot on analysis. people literally hate hillary and
hate trump. never saw something so severe before. and they're the last
2 standing.
i don't love trump, but the thing about him, IMO, is some of the stuff
he said early in the campaign isn't anything close to how he lived his
69yrs of life. kind of weird to hear him say stuff he never said
before, but he got lots of votes from it. i'd expect a 69 yr old who's
been in public eye for 35 yrs, someone would've called him a 'racist'
before last year at some pt?
hillary, otoh, we've watched her in politics with her husband for
40yrs, we KNOW for a fact what we're getting from her, and it isn't
pretty. oops, that sounded sexist. how bout, it isn't legit.
bob
wrote:
hate trump. never saw something so severe before. and they're the last
2 standing.
i don't love trump, but the thing about him, IMO, is some of the stuff
he said early in the campaign isn't anything close to how he lived his
69yrs of life. kind of weird to hear him say stuff he never said
before, but he got lots of votes from it. i'd expect a 69 yr old who's
been in public eye for 35 yrs, someone would've called him a 'racist'
before last year at some pt?
hillary, otoh, we've watched her in politics with her husband for
40yrs, we KNOW for a fact what we're getting from her, and it isn't
pretty. oops, that sounded sexist. how bout, it isn't legit.
bob
bob
May 2, 2016, 9:30:46 PM5/2/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 21:47:14 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
i think what trump meant to say was if she was just another dude and
not married to a former president, she'd be a nobody and get 5% of the
vote. and 5% seems high to me...
bob
wrote:
not married to a former president, she'd be a nobody and get 5% of the
vote. and 5% seems high to me...
bob
bob
May 2, 2016, 9:33:12 PM5/2/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 10:15:59 -0700 (PDT), Guypers <gap...@gmail.com>
what are you talking about? bill had a war and hillary is a hawk. and
bill had chances to kill bin laden and didn't.
bob
bill had chances to kill bin laden and didn't.
bob
bob
May 2, 2016, 9:41:39 PM5/2/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 11:48:39 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:14:36 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:55:24 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
>> > There's no reason to believe that's true. There are foolish women who vote for Hillary because she's a woman and foolish men who don't vote for her for the same reason. So I think that factor cancels itself out. The true source of her support is that she's a Clinton. For better or worse, there's no way you can separate Bill & Hillary, because they are two sides of the same coin. So older voters, minorities, and most importantly, old-guard Democratic leaders that still believe in the Clinton "brand" were already with Hillary before the race began, and that gave her an enormous head-start. The sad fact is, there are an awful lot of people who reflexively trust what's familiar because they're scared of anything else. If they'd had gangrene before, they would probably welcome that too.
>
>> Just because you think voting for Hillary is foolish doesn't make it a universal fact Gracchus. You have a bad habit of thinking that your opinion is the only right opinion.
>
>I'm sure that more than a few RST members will look at these lines and see a screaming case of POT-->KETTLE. Hilarious.
i call pots and kettles!!!
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:14:36 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:55:24 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
>> > There's no reason to believe that's true. There are foolish women who vote for Hillary because she's a woman and foolish men who don't vote for her for the same reason. So I think that factor cancels itself out. The true source of her support is that she's a Clinton. For better or worse, there's no way you can separate Bill & Hillary, because they are two sides of the same coin. So older voters, minorities, and most importantly, old-guard Democratic leaders that still believe in the Clinton "brand" were already with Hillary before the race began, and that gave her an enormous head-start. The sad fact is, there are an awful lot of people who reflexively trust what's familiar because they're scared of anything else. If they'd had gangrene before, they would probably welcome that too.
>
>> Just because you think voting for Hillary is foolish doesn't make it a universal fact Gracchus. You have a bad habit of thinking that your opinion is the only right opinion.
>
>I'm sure that more than a few RST members will look at these lines and see a screaming case of POT-->KETTLE. Hilarious.
>> As I said before, there are intelligent people voting for Hillary and dumb people voting for Hillary just as there are intelligent/dumb people who support Sanders or Trump. I have to say though that some of those Sanders fanatics on social media are insane. They seem like the most passionate and crazed, maybe because many are quite young?
>
>"Passionate and crazed" is damn refreshing after decades of public apathy, saddest of all among the young. But I guess your view is that they're insane for not immediately turning from Sanders and having the "good sense" to get behind Hillary as her delegate lead mounts. I told you that it was a faulty assumption.
>> Did it ever occur to you that many people don't want Sanders to win the nomination because many of his ideas seem flawed and unrealistic? I think he's done a very good job to get as far as he has but I think a lot of his policies seem weak and unsound for many different reasons, some of which I have discussed over and over ad nauseam in various threads.
>
>Of course. Once I saw that a guy identifying as "socialist" in any way was running, I thought he would quickly become roadkill on the political landscape. Though it turns out the USA has come further than I thought since the red-baiting era, lots of people still wouldn't vote for him for that reason alone, or because he looks old and rumpled, etc. So in every case of course it's not people choosing Clinton for the Clinton brand alone...I just believe it's the biggest factor.
>
>> It's ok that you support Sanders and oppose Clinton but don't go around making it seem like Cliinton is some kind of unqualified candidate compared to Sanders because the complete opposite is true.
>
>Sanders called her unqualified, I didn't. I just think she'll pick up where Bill left off in 2000...acting out of self-interest, without principle or conviction, in incremental half-measures, favoring cronies. Yes, she's qualified to take the reins of power, she just won't lead the country toward meaningful change, which is what I think it needs.
problem. she reminds me of a kid who gets caught lying, cheating or
stealing and 1st reaction is "how can i cover it up" and 2nd reaction
is "how can i blame someone else." wonder how long her pardon list
will be 8 yrs into her term.
bob
bob
May 2, 2016, 9:45:25 PM5/2/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 21:53:54 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
he is right, he said it in simple terms, but people just "like who
they like" and so be it. it can change, but not often, not easily.
bob
wrote:
they like" and so be it. it can change, but not often, not easily.
bob
bob
May 2, 2016, 9:47:27 PM5/2/16
to
convention? well he's going to. the republicans would love to pick an
independent, maybe they will run a 3rd party. then you can campaign
for your man jeb bush.
bob
Court_1
May 2, 2016, 9:58:55 PM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> > Just because you think voting for Hillary is foolish doesn't make it a universal fact Gracchus. You have a bad habit of thinking that your opinion is the only right opinion.
>
> I'm sure that more than a few RST members will look at these lines and see a screaming case of POT-->KETTLE. Hilarious.
No,I don't think my opinion is the right opinion for everybody. I think my opinion is the right opinion for me(which is all I care about to be honest.) That's the difference. If you like Sanders and what he stands for that's your right but you can't expect everybody to agree with your belief that Sanders is the be all and end all. Many of his policies don't work for me and seem naive and idealistic and for some reason you hold that against me. What may work for you, may not work for me and vice versa. That's why discussing politics can be a dangerous thing because it really gets to the core of what a person is about in many cases. It's difficult not to become impassioned when discussing politics.
> > Just because you think voting for Hillary is foolish doesn't make it a universal fact Gracchus. You have a bad habit of thinking that your opinion is the only right opinion.
>
> I'm sure that more than a few RST members will look at these lines and see a screaming case of POT-->KETTLE. Hilarious.
> "Passionate and crazed" is damn refreshing after decades of public apathy, saddest of all among the young. But I guess your view is that they're insane for not immediately turning from Sanders and having the "good sense" to get behind Hillary as her delegate lead mounts. I told you that it was a faulty assumption.
> So in every case of course it's not people choosing Clinton for the Clinton brand alone...I just believe it's the biggest factor.
> Sanders called her unqualified, I didn't. I just think she'll pick up where Bill left off in 2000...acting out of self-interest, without principle or conviction, in incremental half-measures, favoring cronies. Yes, she's qualified to take the reins of power, she just won't lead the country toward meaningful change, which is what I think it needs.
Court_1
May 2, 2016, 10:05:38 PM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:11:51 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> 1.5 million people can be - and more if they chose to. she will be
> president, no doubt. good thing she "stood by her man."
How many engineers are there in the US? Over 2 million? More engineers in the US than lawyers so I wouldn't talk smarty pants.
> 1.5 million people can be - and more if they chose to. she will be
> president, no doubt. good thing she "stood by her man."
> no, sorry, she is what she is because her husband ran a good campaign
> and became president. otherwise she'd be one of many many thousands of
> arkansas lawyers trading pork bellies under advice of the chair of
> tyson foods.
Guypers
May 2, 2016, 10:07:35 PM5/2/16
to
Court_1
May 2, 2016, 10:12:43 PM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:28:13 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
> i don't love trump, but the thing about him, IMO, is some of the stuff
> he said early in the campaign isn't anything close to how he lived his
> 69yrs of life. kind of weird to hear him say stuff he never said
> before,
Trump hasn't been making sexist comments for the better part of his public existence? That's false and is easily verified online where almost every single public sexist comment he has made has been archived. He is a major TOOL, a fraud and a grandstanding clown. You are supporting a guy who said that if Ivanka wasn't his daughter he would be dating her? Nice.
>
> i don't love trump, but the thing about him, IMO, is some of the stuff
> he said early in the campaign isn't anything close to how he lived his
> 69yrs of life. kind of weird to hear him say stuff he never said
> before,
bob
May 2, 2016, 10:14:11 PM5/2/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 18:58:54 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
>> > Just because you think voting for Hillary is foolish doesn't make it a universal fact Gracchus. You have a bad habit of thinking that your opinion is the only right opinion.
>>
>> I'm sure that more than a few RST members will look at these lines and see a screaming case of POT-->KETTLE. Hilarious.
>
>No,I don't think my opinion is the right opinion for everybody. I think my opinion is the right opinion for me(which is all I care about to be honest.) That's the difference. If you like Sanders and what he stands for that's your right but you can't expect everybody to agree with your belief that Sanders is the be all and end all. Many of his policies don't work for me and seem naive and idealistic and for some reason you hold that against me. What may work for you, may not work for me and vice versa. That's why discussing politics can be a dangerous thing because it really gets to the core of what a person is about in many cases. It's difficult not to become impassioned when discussing politics.
>
>> "Passionate and crazed" is damn refreshing after decades of public apathy, saddest of all among the young. But I guess your view is that they're insane for not immediately turning from Sanders and having the "good sense" to get behind Hillary as her delegate lead mounts. I told you that it was a faulty assumption.
>
>Many Sanders supporters will eventually get behind Hillary because the alternative (that nasty Trump) is the greater evil. But of course the real Sanders nutters won't vote for Hillary.
in 1 sentence you say "what works for one, doesn't work for another."
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 2:48:40 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
>> > Just because you think voting for Hillary is foolish doesn't make it a universal fact Gracchus. You have a bad habit of thinking that your opinion is the only right opinion.
>>
>> I'm sure that more than a few RST members will look at these lines and see a screaming case of POT-->KETTLE. Hilarious.
>
>No,I don't think my opinion is the right opinion for everybody. I think my opinion is the right opinion for me(which is all I care about to be honest.) That's the difference. If you like Sanders and what he stands for that's your right but you can't expect everybody to agree with your belief that Sanders is the be all and end all. Many of his policies don't work for me and seem naive and idealistic and for some reason you hold that against me. What may work for you, may not work for me and vice versa. That's why discussing politics can be a dangerous thing because it really gets to the core of what a person is about in many cases. It's difficult not to become impassioned when discussing politics.
>
>> "Passionate and crazed" is damn refreshing after decades of public apathy, saddest of all among the young. But I guess your view is that they're insane for not immediately turning from Sanders and having the "good sense" to get behind Hillary as her delegate lead mounts. I told you that it was a faulty assumption.
>
>Many Sanders supporters will eventually get behind Hillary because the alternative (that nasty Trump) is the greater evil. But of course the real Sanders nutters won't vote for Hillary.
next sentence you say "..sanders nutters." try to stay consistent eh.
and actually there is a very large group of people who like sanders or
trump as their top 2, with hillary down the list. seems strange, but
all people want is someone to shake up the system because it has
become pathetically stagnant and corrupt.
> If you look on social media, you really see a cross-section of nutters supporting all candidates. Social media can be scary as hell. A lot of loose cannons.
woulda guessed.
>> So in every case of course it's not people choosing Clinton for the Clinton brand alone...I just believe it's the biggest factor.
>
>And that's ok if that is what somebody wants to do.
>
>> Sanders called her unqualified, I didn't. I just think she'll pick up where Bill left off in 2000...acting out of self-interest, without principle or conviction, in incremental half-measures, favoring cronies. Yes, she's qualified to take the reins of power, she just won't lead the country toward meaningful change, which is what I think it needs.
>
>Ok fine. Again it's your right to have that view but I don't necessarily agree with it. When you are talking about meaningful change that's a loaded topic as it can mean so many different things.
of wealth in a more equitable way. that's what clinton wouldn't change
in a million yrs and why warren can't really stand her. you don't live
here so you don't understand what it's about. your parents live a few
months in palm beach and you live in canada, apples/oranges.
> There are many positive ways the country can and should change
bob
bob
May 2, 2016, 10:20:19 PM5/2/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 19:05:37 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:11:51 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> 1.5 million people can be - and more if they chose to. she will be
>> president, no doubt. good thing she "stood by her man."
>
>How many engineers are there in the US? Over 2 million? More engineers in the US than lawyers so I wouldn't talk smarty pants.
not sure, millions i suppose. not too many with PE licenses though.
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:11:51 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> 1.5 million people can be - and more if they chose to. she will be
>> president, no doubt. good thing she "stood by her man."
>
>How many engineers are there in the US? Over 2 million? More engineers in the US than lawyers so I wouldn't talk smarty pants.
but 1 president.
>> no, sorry, she is what she is because her husband ran a good campaign
>> and became president. otherwise she'd be one of many many thousands of
>> arkansas lawyers trading pork bellies under advice of the chair of
>> tyson foods.
>
>Not only is that false
she knew nothing about, never did it before, after her husband was
governor of arkansas and friends with the chair of the largest poultry
producer in the country. sheesh courty, grow up.
> but it's a vile point of view which shows your true character yet again. I am not even going to try and dignify that nastiness with any type of detailed response. What for? It won't change your ignorant opinion and you won't change mine.
anyway, i'm not telling you about trudeau.
how is it nasty to expose (well, that which has been exposed for
decades) something she did fraudulently in the financial sector?
courty have you ever been to arkansas? i have at least 5 times in the
past 2 yrs. the type of "deals" that go on there are backyard
handshake frauds. it's laughable.
bob
bob
May 2, 2016, 10:23:36 PM5/2/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 19:12:42 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:28:13 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>>
>> i don't love trump, but the thing about him, IMO, is some of the stuff
>> he said early in the campaign isn't anything close to how he lived his
>> 69yrs of life. kind of weird to hear him say stuff he never said
>> before,
>
>Trump hasn't been making sexist comments for the better part of his public existence?
trump obviously loves beautiful women and says very non PC things
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:28:13 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>>
>> i don't love trump, but the thing about him, IMO, is some of the stuff
>> he said early in the campaign isn't anything close to how he lived his
>> 69yrs of life. kind of weird to hear him say stuff he never said
>> before,
>
>Trump hasn't been making sexist comments for the better part of his public existence?
about that toic - like, "hey beautiful." wow. little different than
smearing rape vics.
> That's false and is easily verified online where almost every single public sexist comment he has made has been archived. He is a major TOOL
ooops, you're talkiing about bill clinton, not donald trump. a guy who
had dozens, perhaps hundreds, of affairs, some of them coerced and
physically forced. talk about a "tool."
bob
Court_1
May 2, 2016, 10:24:24 PM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:14:11 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> it means 1 thing specifically in this yr's election - the distribution
> of wealth in a more equitable way. that's what clinton wouldn't change
> in a million yrs and why warren can't really stand her.
And yet Warren couldn't commit publicly to supporting her "buddy' Sanders. *rolls eyes* She would support Hillary over Trump and her latest anti-Trump rampages on Twitter show that clearly. She despises Trump.
> it means 1 thing specifically in this yr's election - the distribution
> of wealth in a more equitable way. that's what clinton wouldn't change
> in a million yrs and why warren can't really stand her.
> you don't live
> here so you don't understand what it's about. your parents live a few
> months in palm beach and you live in canada, apples/oranges.
I understand completely what it's about. We do a ton of business in the US and I have spent a lot of time in the US. I know exactly what Hillary is about and I would take her over Sanders and Trump.
bob
May 2, 2016, 10:29:57 PM5/2/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 19:07:34 -0700 (PDT), Guypers <gap...@gmail.com>
tried to tell you guys months ago, republicans despise trump. hate
him.
republican establishment would much rather see hillary win than trump.
he's out to bring the bullshit in the system down, including both
parties. that's what every washington insider lifer politician hates,
no matter which party. i wish you'all would understand what's going
here and quit reading the silly establishment press' quips and start
to think about it on your own a bit. don't be a sheeeeeep.
bob
him.
republican establishment would much rather see hillary win than trump.
he's out to bring the bullshit in the system down, including both
parties. that's what every washington insider lifer politician hates,
no matter which party. i wish you'all would understand what's going
here and quit reading the silly establishment press' quips and start
to think about it on your own a bit. don't be a sheeeeeep.
bob
bob
May 2, 2016, 10:35:41 PM5/2/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 19:24:23 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:14:11 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> it means 1 thing specifically in this yr's election - the distribution
>> of wealth in a more equitable way. that's what clinton wouldn't change
>> in a million yrs and why warren can't really stand her.
>
>And yet Warren couldn't commit publicly to supporting her "buddy' Sanders. *rolls eyes*
because she, as a mathematician, knows he has no chance of being
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:14:11 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> it means 1 thing specifically in this yr's election - the distribution
>> of wealth in a more equitable way. that's what clinton wouldn't change
>> in a million yrs and why warren can't really stand her.
>
>And yet Warren couldn't commit publicly to supporting her "buddy' Sanders. *rolls eyes*
nominated and supporting sanders would be supporting trump. her lack
of a clinton endorsement, by now, says volumes.
> She would support Hillary over Trump and her latest anti-Trump rampages on Twitter show that clearly. She despises Trump.
>> you don't live
>> here so you don't understand what it's about. your parents live a few
>> months in palm beach and you live in canada, apples/oranges.
>
>Don't presume to know about my knowledge of the US as you would be mistaken.
>I understand completely what it's about. We do a ton of business in the US and I have spent a lot of time in the US. I know exactly what Hillary is about and I would take her over Sanders and Trump.
your basement in canada. you're kinda clueless abou what's going on
here. as i am in moose jaw.
bob
Court_1
May 2, 2016, 11:04:19 PM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:35:41 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> > She would support Hillary over Trump and her latest anti-Trump rampages on Twitter show that clearly. She despises Trump.
>
> of course she'll support anybody over trump. your pt?
My point is that she despises Trump and was dead on about her comment that Trump is an insecure and weak man who can only feel good about himself when he is degrading women such as Hillary(just like a certain RST poster.) Is that a tough one for you?
> > She would support Hillary over Trump and her latest anti-Trump rampages on Twitter show that clearly. She despises Trump.
>
> of course she'll support anybody over trump. your pt?
Trump's derogatory comments about Hillary will be his downfall. That and his entire carnival act.
> >Don't presume to know about my knowledge of the US as you would be mistaken.
>
> listening to your posts, i'm not mistaken.
> >I understand completely what it's about. We do a ton of business in the US and I have spent a lot of time in the US. I know exactly what Hillary is about and I would take her over Sanders and Trump.
>
> that's fine, vote for whoever you want in your fictitious election in
> your basement in canada. you're kinda clueless abou what's going on
> here. as i am in moose jaw.
Court_1
May 2, 2016, 11:17:55 PM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:14:11 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> in 1 sentence you say "what works for one, doesn't work for another."
> next sentence you say "..sanders nutters." try to stay consistent eh.
That's right asshole, cherry-pick part of my post. I said ALL candidates have complete nutter supporters on social media just like there are complete fools on tennis groups who are overly passionate about a favorite tennis player. I don't support Sanders and don't like a lot of his policies but if other people like Gracchus wish to do so that's fine. Gracchus seems to have a bigger problem with the fact that I don't support Sanders than I do with the fact that he does support Sanders. Just like he doesn't understand how I could support both Federer and Nadal he has trouble accepting that I don't support Sanders. Not my problem really.
> next sentence you say "..sanders nutters." try to stay consistent eh.
bob
May 2, 2016, 11:23:02 PM5/2/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 20:04:18 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:35:41 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>
>> > She would support Hillary over Trump and her latest anti-Trump rampages on Twitter show that clearly. She despises Trump.
>>
>> of course she'll support anybody over trump. your pt?
>
>My point is that she despises Trump and was dead on about her comment that Trump is an insecure and weak man who can only feel good about himself when he is degrading women such as Hillary(just like a certain RST poster.) Is that a tough one for you?
i'm sure she despises trump, she hates wealthy people in general. i
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:35:41 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>
>> > She would support Hillary over Trump and her latest anti-Trump rampages on Twitter show that clearly. She despises Trump.
>>
>> of course she'll support anybody over trump. your pt?
>
>My point is that she despises Trump and was dead on about her comment that Trump is an insecure and weak man who can only feel good about himself when he is degrading women such as Hillary(just like a certain RST poster.) Is that a tough one for you?
still don't get your pt? she had a chance to run herself and chose to
stay in the background, i don't care either way.
>Trump's derogatory comments about Hillary will be his downfall. That and his entire carnival act.
>> >Don't presume to know about my knowledge of the US as you would be mistaken.
>>
>> listening to your posts, i'm not mistaken.
>
>You are very mistaken. Didn't I say I think Trump is probably a Clinton plant?
>> >I understand completely what it's about. We do a ton of business in the US and I have spent a lot of time in the US. I know exactly what Hillary is about and I would take her over Sanders and Trump.
>>
>> that's fine, vote for whoever you want in your fictitious election in
>> your basement in canada. you're kinda clueless abou what's going on
>> here. as i am in moose jaw.
>
>I am far from clueless about what's going on in the US. We do a lot of business in the US and I have spent a lot of time there over the years. It is in my best interest to follow what's going on in the US political world as it affects me personally. I don't live in Moose Jaw and have never been there. I live in a metropolitan city.
i'm sure it's a very nice cosmopolitan place.
bob
bob
May 2, 2016, 11:30:34 PM5/2/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 20:17:53 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:14:11 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> in 1 sentence you say "what works for one, doesn't work for another."
>> next sentence you say "..sanders nutters." try to stay consistent eh.
>
>That's right asshole, cherry-pick part of my post.
? you said it 2 sentences back to back ? try to stay consistent and on
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:14:11 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>> in 1 sentence you say "what works for one, doesn't work for another."
>> next sentence you say "..sanders nutters." try to stay consistent eh.
>
>That's right asshole, cherry-pick part of my post.
message, at least a little.
> I said ALL candidates have complete nutter supporters on social media just like there are complete fools
talk about a sexist comment. you're rather sexist courty.
> on tennis groups who are overly passionate about a favorite tennis player. I don't support Sanders and don't like a lot of his policies but if other people like Gracchus wish to do so that's fine.
you call anyone supporting sanders "nutters." i don't criticize people
supporting hillary or call the nutters, it's their right. i criticize
hillary herself.
> Gracchus seems to have a bigger problem with the fact that I don't support Sanders than I do with the fact that he does support Sanders.
sorry.
bob
Court_1
May 3, 2016, 12:00:08 AM5/3/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:23:02 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
> i'm sure she despises trump, she hates wealthy people in general.
Oh I see, so now her Trump wrath has nothing to do with Trump himself or Trump's character? She doesn't dislike him because he's wealthy, she dislikes him because he is an insecure man who feels he can only win points in the campaign by bullying Clinton for being a woman. But that will backfire on him.
>
> i'm sure she despises trump, she hates wealthy people in general.
> still don't get your pt? she had a chance to run herself and chose to
> stay in the background, i don't care either way.
> i think the media has already caused his downfall, long ago.
> >You are very mistaken. Didn't I say I think Trump is probably a Clinton plant?
>
> have no idea, i heard dozens of people say it 6-9 months ago.
> when i need to know what's going on in moose jaw, i'll give a shout.
> i'm sure it's a very nice cosmopolitan place.
Gracchus
May 3, 2016, 12:04:57 AM5/3/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 7:24:24 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:14:11 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> > it means 1 thing specifically in this yr's election - the distribution
> > of wealth in a more equitable way. that's what clinton wouldn't change
> > in a million yrs and why warren can't really stand her.
> And yet Warren couldn't commit publicly to supporting her "buddy' Sanders. *rolls eyes* She would support Hillary over Trump and her latest anti-Trump rampages on Twitter show that clearly. She despises Trump.
Uh....yeah, she'd support Clinton over Trump, being a Democrat and all that. Hardly a ringing endorsement, once again. She should have had the guts to back Sanders, but I can understand why opted to stay out of it.
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:14:11 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> > it means 1 thing specifically in this yr's election - the distribution
> > of wealth in a more equitable way. that's what clinton wouldn't change
> > in a million yrs and why warren can't really stand her.
> And yet Warren couldn't commit publicly to supporting her "buddy' Sanders. *rolls eyes* She would support Hillary over Trump and her latest anti-Trump rampages on Twitter show that clearly. She despises Trump.
Gracchus
May 3, 2016, 12:09:22 AM5/3/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:00:08 PM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:23:02 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> > when i need to know what's going on in moose jaw, i'll give a shout.
> > i'm sure it's a very nice cosmopolitan place.
> I don't live in Moose Jaw!
So is something wrong with Moose Jaw? I'll bet many very nice people live in Moose Jaw, even if they are only Canadians.
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:23:02 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> > when i need to know what's going on in moose jaw, i'll give a shout.
> > i'm sure it's a very nice cosmopolitan place.
> I don't live in Moose Jaw!
The city I live in is a lot nicer and more cosmopolitan than where you live (outside of the beautiful palm trees that is.) Most of Florida isn't really that pretty to look at (again outside of the ocean and palm trees.)
> All of the business fronts look the same and aren't that interesting. An exception to that would be South Beach which is very lovely with all of the pastels.
Court_1
May 3, 2016, 12:10:36 AM5/3/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:30:34 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >> in 1 sentence you say "what works for one, doesn't work for another."
> >> next sentence you say "..sanders nutters." try to stay consistent eh.
> >
> >That's right asshole, cherry-pick part of my post.
>
> ? you said it 2 sentences back to back ? try to stay consistent and on
> message, at least a little.
I said many of the Sanders supporters are nutters but I also said ALL candidates have nutter supporters. Don't try and twist it. There was nothing inconsistent about it.
> >> in 1 sentence you say "what works for one, doesn't work for another."
> >> next sentence you say "..sanders nutters." try to stay consistent eh.
> >
> >That's right asshole, cherry-pick part of my post.
>
> ? you said it 2 sentences back to back ? try to stay consistent and on
> message, at least a little.
> > I said ALL candidates have complete nutter supporters on social media just like there are complete fools
>
> no, you consistently refer to "nutters supporting colonel sanders."
> talk about a sexist comment. you're rather sexist courty.
> i don't have any problem with your right to like anyone you want. but
> you call anyone supporting sanders "nutters." i don't criticize people
> supporting hillary or call the nutters, it's their right. i criticize
> hillary herself.
> gracchus seems much more knowledgable about american issues than you,
> sorry.
Gracchus
May 3, 2016, 12:15:38 AM5/3/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 8:30:34 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> i don't have any problem with your right to like anyone you want. but
> you call anyone supporting sanders "nutters." i don't criticize people
> supporting hillary or call the nutters, it's their right. i criticize
> hillary herself.
Yes, fair point. C1 talks about valuing the "right" to everyone's opinion and the "right" to support their candidate of choice, etc. But how is it more respectful to characterize people you disagree with as "nutters" than it is for me to argue strongly against a candidate I oppose? Doesn't quite jibe....IMHO.
> i don't have any problem with your right to like anyone you want. but
> you call anyone supporting sanders "nutters." i don't criticize people
> supporting hillary or call the nutters, it's their right. i criticize
> hillary herself.
TT
May 3, 2016, 12:20:02 AM5/3/16
to
3.5.2016, 5:35, bob kirjoitti:
> listening to your posts
Goddamn your newsreader is advanced!
> listening to your posts
Goddamn your newsreader is advanced!
Court_1
May 3, 2016, 12:22:22 AM5/3/16
to
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 12:09:22 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
> So is something wrong with Moose Jaw? I'll bet many very nice people live in Moose Jaw, even if they are only Canadians.
Nothing is wrong with Moose Jaw. I'm just trying to say I don't live there.
> So is something wrong with Moose Jaw? I'll bet many very nice people live in Moose Jaw, even if they are only Canadians.
> Florida is a nice place to visit for a couple weeks. I lived there for years, and the novelty wore off quickly. True that most of it doesn't look like the pretty postcards.
> > All of the business fronts look the same and aren't that interesting. An exception to that would be South Beach which is very lovely with all of the pastels.
>
> Only trouble is that most people who live there wear pastels too.
The Iceberg
May 3, 2016, 5:06:52 AM5/3/16
to
On Monday, 2 May 2016 01:27:45 UTC+1, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 7:57:14 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
> > Yep, no point in messing with a formula that won her husband two elections. Soon it will be 2.5
>
> Surely by now you'd agree that Trump is worse than Clinton? I mean Trump can't possibly believe the things he's putting out there lately especially about Clinton and women are going to get him the win in the general election? Women do make up 53% of the electorate. He can't possibly be that stupid so I have to question whether his entire run for the race is legit or if the Clintons put him up to it just as Jeb Bush, Glenn Beck, etc. have suggested. Who the hell knows.
VOTE TRUMP! VOTE TRUMP!
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 7:57:14 PM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
> > Yep, no point in messing with a formula that won her husband two elections. Soon it will be 2.5
>
> Surely by now you'd agree that Trump is worse than Clinton? I mean Trump can't possibly believe the things he's putting out there lately especially about Clinton and women are going to get him the win in the general election? Women do make up 53% of the electorate. He can't possibly be that stupid so I have to question whether his entire run for the race is legit or if the Clintons put him up to it just as Jeb Bush, Glenn Beck, etc. have suggested. Who the hell knows.
VOTE TRUMP! VOTE TRUMP!
The Iceberg
May 3, 2016, 5:08:32 AM5/3/16
to
On Monday, 2 May 2016 03:08:44 UTC+1, Court_1 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:50:21 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
> > she only was put into any type of political role because her husband was
> > the president.
>
> ???? She has the superior career resume to Bill, wtf are you talking about? She was with the bigger law firms, she was the bigger political activist, etc. Her husband Bill, had the charisma but she had the better credentials and qualifications. They helped each other in different ways. If you look at their career resumes side by side, Hillary blows him out of the water.
LOL he was President of the USA for 2 terms and incredibly popular!
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:50:21 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
> > she only was put into any type of political role because her husband was
> > the president.
>
> ???? She has the superior career resume to Bill, wtf are you talking about? She was with the bigger law firms, she was the bigger political activist, etc. Her husband Bill, had the charisma but she had the better credentials and qualifications. They helped each other in different ways. If you look at their career resumes side by side, Hillary blows him out of the water.
LOL he was President of the USA for 2 terms and incredibly popular!
Whisper
May 3, 2016, 7:14:55 AM5/3/16
to
On 3/05/2016 3:59 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 7:47:20 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
>
>>
>> Trump said if Hillary was a man she wouldn't be getting 5% of the vote.
>> Sounds plausible?
>
> No, it's not plausible. It's the exact opposite. I have said this a few times and I'll say it again, IMO, if Bill Clinton were running in this race against these incapable clowns such as Trump and Cruz on the Republican side and head in the clouds Colonel Sanders on the Democratic side he would have won the nomination months ago. Trump saying that Hillary wouldn't be getting 5% of the vote if she were a man is not only disingenuous but it reeks of Trump's desperation and insecurity running against a more capable and qualified woman. It is what it is.
>
I think Gracchus said it cancels out in his post - that made sense.
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 7:47:20 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
>
>>
>> Trump said if Hillary was a man she wouldn't be getting 5% of the vote.
>> Sounds plausible?
>
> No, it's not plausible. It's the exact opposite. I have said this a few times and I'll say it again, IMO, if Bill Clinton were running in this race against these incapable clowns such as Trump and Cruz on the Republican side and head in the clouds Colonel Sanders on the Democratic side he would have won the nomination months ago. Trump saying that Hillary wouldn't be getting 5% of the vote if she were a man is not only disingenuous but it reeks of Trump's desperation and insecurity running against a more capable and qualified woman. It is what it is.
>
I think Gracchus said it cancels out in his post - that made sense.
Whisper
May 3, 2016, 7:16:54 AM5/3/16
to
On 3/05/2016 4:48 AM, Gracchus wrote:
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:14:36 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:55:24 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
>>> There's no reason to believe that's true. There are foolish women who vote for Hillary because she's a woman and foolish men who don't vote for her for the same reason. So I think that factor cancels itself out. The true source of her support is that she's a Clinton. For better or worse, there's no way you can separate Bill & Hillary, because they are two sides of the same coin. So older voters, minorities, and most importantly, old-guard Democratic leaders that still believe in the Clinton "brand" were already with Hillary before the race began, and that gave her an enormous head-start. The sad fact is, there are an awful lot of people who reflexively trust what's familiar because they're scared of anything else. If they'd had gangrene before, they would probably welcome that too.
>
> Of course. Once I saw that a guy identifying as "socialist" in any way was running, I thought he would quickly become roadkill on the political landscape. Though it turns out the USA has come further than I thought since the red-baiting era, lots of people still wouldn't vote for him for that reason alone, or because he looks old and rumpled, etc. So in every case of course it's not people choosing Clinton for the Clinton brand alone...I just believe it's the biggest factor.
>
>> It's ok that you support Sanders and oppose Clinton but don't go around making it seem like Cliinton is some kind of unqualified candidate compared to Sanders because the complete opposite is true.
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:14:36 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
>> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 10:55:24 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>
>>> There's no reason to believe that's true. There are foolish women who vote for Hillary because she's a woman and foolish men who don't vote for her for the same reason. So I think that factor cancels itself out. The true source of her support is that she's a Clinton. For better or worse, there's no way you can separate Bill & Hillary, because they are two sides of the same coin. So older voters, minorities, and most importantly, old-guard Democratic leaders that still believe in the Clinton "brand" were already with Hillary before the race began, and that gave her an enormous head-start. The sad fact is, there are an awful lot of people who reflexively trust what's familiar because they're scared of anything else. If they'd had gangrene before, they would probably welcome that too.
>
>> Just because you think voting for Hillary is foolish doesn't make it a universal fact Gracchus. You have a bad habit of thinking that your opinion is the only right opinion.
>
> I'm sure that more than a few RST members will look at these lines and see a screaming case of POT-->KETTLE. Hilarious.
>
>> As I said before, there are intelligent people voting for Hillary and dumb people voting for Hillary just as there are intelligent/dumb people who support Sanders or Trump. I have to say though that some of those Sanders fanatics on social media are insane. They seem like the most passionate and crazed, maybe because many are quite young?
>> Just because you think voting for Hillary is foolish doesn't make it a universal fact Gracchus. You have a bad habit of thinking that your opinion is the only right opinion.
>
> I'm sure that more than a few RST members will look at these lines and see a screaming case of POT-->KETTLE. Hilarious.
>
>
> "Passionate and crazed" is damn refreshing after decades of public apathy, saddest of all among the young. But I guess your view is that they're insane for not immediately turning from Sanders and having the "good sense" to get behind Hillary as her delegate lead mounts. I told you that it was a faulty assumption.
>
>> Did it ever occur to you that many people don't want Sanders to win the nomination because many of his ideas seem flawed and unrealistic? I think he's done a very good job to get as far as he has but I think a lot of his policies seem weak and unsound for many different reasons, some of which I have discussed over and over ad nauseam in various threads.
> "Passionate and crazed" is damn refreshing after decades of public apathy, saddest of all among the young. But I guess your view is that they're insane for not immediately turning from Sanders and having the "good sense" to get behind Hillary as her delegate lead mounts. I told you that it was a faulty assumption.
>
>
> Of course. Once I saw that a guy identifying as "socialist" in any way was running, I thought he would quickly become roadkill on the political landscape. Though it turns out the USA has come further than I thought since the red-baiting era, lots of people still wouldn't vote for him for that reason alone, or because he looks old and rumpled, etc. So in every case of course it's not people choosing Clinton for the Clinton brand alone...I just believe it's the biggest factor.
>
>> It's ok that you support Sanders and oppose Clinton but don't go around making it seem like Cliinton is some kind of unqualified candidate compared to Sanders because the complete opposite is true.
>
> Sanders called her unqualified, I didn't. I just think she'll pick up where Bill left off in 2000...acting out of self-interest, without principle or conviction, in incremental half-measures, favoring cronies. Yes, she's qualified to take the reins of power, she just won't lead the country toward meaningful change, which is what I think it needs.
>
Let's hope she takes in a male intern & gives him a good rogering.
> Sanders called her unqualified, I didn't. I just think she'll pick up where Bill left off in 2000...acting out of self-interest, without principle or conviction, in incremental half-measures, favoring cronies. Yes, she's qualified to take the reins of power, she just won't lead the country toward meaningful change, which is what I think it needs.
>
Whisper
May 3, 2016, 7:42:59 AM5/3/16
to
On 3/05/2016 11:28 AM, bob wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2016 21:57:44 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It's not about being pro Hillary or Trump. The biggest groups are the
>> 'anyone but Hillary' & 'anyone but Trump' - lesser of 2 devils.
>
> this is absolutely spot on analysis. people literally hate hillary and
> hate trump. never saw something so severe before. and they're the last
> 2 standing.
Trump laugh when they realize they'll vote for him just because they
hate Hillary even more.
> he said early in the campaign isn't anything close to how he lived his
> 69yrs of life. kind of weird to hear him say stuff he never said
> before, but he got lots of votes from it. i'd expect a 69 yr old who's
> been in public eye for 35 yrs, someone would've called him a 'racist'
> before last year at some pt?
Trump only cares if you can make him a profit - he's too smart to be a
racist. Race goes out the window when it come to maximizing business.
Would you hire Tiger/Serena/Beyonce to endorse your products? A dumb
(racist) businessman maybe wouldn't.
>
> hillary, otoh, we've watched her in politics with her husband for
> 40yrs, we KNOW for a fact what we're getting from her, and it isn't
> pretty. oops, that sounded sexist. how bout, it isn't legit.
>
> bob
>
While I agree it's tougher for women in politics or business, I don't
think Hillary is the right woman for president (though she most likely
will be). It would take someone truly exceptional to fit the bill -
thick skinned, smart, emphatic, appear trustworthy etc. Condoleezza
Rice comes to mind as better option imo.
I've had a feeling Hillary will get it in the end, but it will be by
default as there are no viable alternatives.
It would be a riot if Trump somehow does win : )
> On Mon, 2 May 2016 21:57:44 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> It's not about being pro Hillary or Trump. The biggest groups are the
>> 'anyone but Hillary' & 'anyone but Trump' - lesser of 2 devils.
>
> this is absolutely spot on analysis. people literally hate hillary and
> hate trump. never saw something so severe before. and they're the last
> 2 standing.
>
> i don't love trump, but the thing about him, IMO, is some of the stuff
I find that a very common sentiment. A lot of people who don't like
> i don't love trump, but the thing about him, IMO, is some of the stuff
Trump laugh when they realize they'll vote for him just because they
hate Hillary even more.
> he said early in the campaign isn't anything close to how he lived his
> 69yrs of life. kind of weird to hear him say stuff he never said
> been in public eye for 35 yrs, someone would've called him a 'racist'
> before last year at some pt?
Trump only cares if you can make him a profit - he's too smart to be a
racist. Race goes out the window when it come to maximizing business.
Would you hire Tiger/Serena/Beyonce to endorse your products? A dumb
(racist) businessman maybe wouldn't.
>
> hillary, otoh, we've watched her in politics with her husband for
> 40yrs, we KNOW for a fact what we're getting from her, and it isn't
> pretty. oops, that sounded sexist. how bout, it isn't legit.
>
> bob
>
While I agree it's tougher for women in politics or business, I don't
think Hillary is the right woman for president (though she most likely
will be). It would take someone truly exceptional to fit the bill -
thick skinned, smart, emphatic, appear trustworthy etc. Condoleezza
Rice comes to mind as better option imo.
I've had a feeling Hillary will get it in the end, but it will be by
default as there are no viable alternatives.
It would be a riot if Trump somehow does win : )
Whisper
May 3, 2016, 7:57:36 AM5/3/16
to
relations.
Trump is anti establishment & there is a huge groundswell of support for
someone like that. People are sick of the same old bs - Trump isn't
owned by anyone & has no fear & says exactly what he thinks, & it
matches what many ordinary voters think. That's refreshing & attracts a
lot of support.
Of course his negative aspects will outweigh the positive in totality,
but that's something that's not really apparent right now.
In a way I'd really like to see Trump win & ram it up Hillary - but if
it does happen I'm predicting a very short honeymoon period with the
voters when reality really sinks in - fast : )
bob
May 3, 2016, 8:31:01 AM5/3/16
to
On Tue, 3 May 2016 21:42:54 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
i've been hoping for a while trump asked condoleeza to be his VP. but
the press has smeared trump to such a level, i doubt anyone will want
to associate with him.
>I've had a feeling Hillary will get it in the end, but it will be by
>default as there are no viable alternatives.
>It would be a riot if Trump somehow does win : )
i give it 3/4 chance for hillary - unless more of her fraudulent BS
comes out in the next 6 months.
people glaze over her email scandal as if it's no big deal. but in
reality it is the same personality trait nixon had. it's not only the
fact of the willful lawbreaking she did with the server, it's that it
goes to a much deeper personality flaw that's always there and affects
everything she does.
it's like with OJ simpson murdering 2 people, then being dumb enough
to get busted for armed robbery trying to get some of his stolen
memorabilia back - it's the trait that killed 2 people that never went
away, that's why he couldn't control himself 10 yr later.
bob
wrote:
the press has smeared trump to such a level, i doubt anyone will want
to associate with him.
>I've had a feeling Hillary will get it in the end, but it will be by
>default as there are no viable alternatives.
>It would be a riot if Trump somehow does win : )
comes out in the next 6 months.
people glaze over her email scandal as if it's no big deal. but in
reality it is the same personality trait nixon had. it's not only the
fact of the willful lawbreaking she did with the server, it's that it
goes to a much deeper personality flaw that's always there and affects
everything she does.
it's like with OJ simpson murdering 2 people, then being dumb enough
to get busted for armed robbery trying to get some of his stolen
memorabilia back - it's the trait that killed 2 people that never went
away, that's why he couldn't control himself 10 yr later.
bob
bob
May 3, 2016, 8:36:37 AM5/3/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 21:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:23:02 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>>
>> i'm sure she despises trump, she hates wealthy people in general.
>
>Oh I see, so now her Trump wrath has nothing to do with Trump himself or Trump's character? She doesn't dislike him because he's wealthy, she dislikes him because he is an insecure man who feels he can only win points in the campaign by bullying Clinton for being a woman. But that will backfire on him.
i'm sure she hates him for all of those reasons.
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:23:02 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>
>>
>> i'm sure she despises trump, she hates wealthy people in general.
>
>Oh I see, so now her Trump wrath has nothing to do with Trump himself or Trump's character? She doesn't dislike him because he's wealthy, she dislikes him because he is an insecure man who feels he can only win points in the campaign by bullying Clinton for being a woman. But that will backfire on him.
>> still don't get your pt? she had a chance to run herself and chose to
>> stay in the background, i don't care either way.
>
>?? Once again, my point is she despises him. What is there not to get?
>> i think the media has already caused his downfall, long ago.
>
>No. He will be the cause of his own downfall in the end.
>
>> >You are very mistaken. Didn't I say I think Trump is probably a Clinton plant?
>>
>> have no idea, i heard dozens of people say it 6-9 months ago.
>
>On this ng, I was the first one to say Trump just may be a Clinton plant after all. It just happened yesterday, don't play ignoramus.
>> when i need to know what's going on in moose jaw, i'll give a shout.
>> i'm sure it's a very nice cosmopolitan place.
>
>I don't live in Moose Jaw! The city I live in is a lot nicer and more cosmopolitan than where you live (outside of the beautiful palm trees that is.) Most of Florida isn't really that pretty to look at (again outside of the ocean and palm trees.) All of the business fronts look the same and aren't that interesting. An exception to that would be South Beach which is very lovely with all of the pastels.
time all around the USA much of the past 20 yrs. california, texas,
ohio, georgia, michigan, the caribbean and small stints in about10
other states.
like i said, when i need to know what's up in moose jaw i'll give u a
shout.
bob
bob
May 3, 2016, 8:38:57 AM5/3/16
to
about fashion.
bob
bob
May 3, 2016, 8:41:07 AM5/3/16
to
bob
bob
May 3, 2016, 8:50:24 AM5/3/16
to
just 1 of them. but she has every right to like who she wants.
bob
bob
May 3, 2016, 8:53:39 AM5/3/16
to
On Mon, 2 May 2016 10:59:19 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 7:47:20 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
>
>>
>> Trump said if Hillary was a man she wouldn't be getting 5% of the vote.
>> Sounds plausible?
>
>No, it's not plausible. It's the exact opposite. I have said this a few times and I'll say it again, IMO, if Bill Clinton were running in this race against these incapable clowns such as Trump and Cruz on the Republican side and head in the clouds Colonel Sanders on the Democratic side he would have won the nomination months ago. Trump saying that Hillary wouldn't be getting 5% of the vote if she were a man is not only disingenuous but it reeks of Trump's desperation and insecurity running against a more capable and qualified woman. It is what it is.
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 7:47:20 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
>
>>
>> Trump said if Hillary was a man she wouldn't be getting 5% of the vote.
>> Sounds plausible?
>
times have changed and the things bill clinton did in 1978-1992
wouldn't fly well today, no matter how well he can bullshit people.
the democrats threw bill up there in 92 as a sacrificial lamb cause
nobody wanted to lose, and it just so happened fortunately for him
that the economy tanked the yr of the election and bush ran a very
poor campaign. and hillary jumped on those coattails ever since....
bob
Whisper
May 3, 2016, 9:08:55 AM5/3/16
to
any typos are not his doing.
bob
May 3, 2016, 9:54:27 AM5/3/16
to
On Tue, 3 May 2016 23:08:52 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
wrote:
they're not to bright, but they look good while mispronouncing
"djokovic."
bob
wrote:
"djokovic."
bob
Gracchus
May 3, 2016, 10:37:13 AM5/3/16
to
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 5:31:01 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
> On Tue, 3 May 2016 21:42:54 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
> On Tue, 3 May 2016 21:42:54 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
> >While I agree it's tougher for women in politics or business, I don't
> >think Hillary is the right woman for president (though she most likely
> >will be). It would take someone truly exceptional to fit the bill -
> >thick skinned, smart, emphatic, appear trustworthy etc. Condoleezza
> >Rice comes to mind as better option imo.
> i've been hoping for a while trump asked condoleeza to be his VP. but
> the press has smeared trump to such a level, i doubt anyone will want
> to associate with him.
Sarah Palin gladly would, but I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to pick her as a running mate again. As for Condy, I'm not a huge fan--considering that she helped engineer the Iraq war and to this day maintains the Bush admin lie that it happened because of faulty intelligence on WMDs ("Of COURSE, if we knew then what we know now, we never would have...") Yeah, right. She may speak Russian and and play the piano beautifully, but certainly not the best choice for a more trustworthy alternative to the Clintons.
> >think Hillary is the right woman for president (though she most likely
> >will be). It would take someone truly exceptional to fit the bill -
> >thick skinned, smart, emphatic, appear trustworthy etc. Condoleezza
> >Rice comes to mind as better option imo.
> i've been hoping for a while trump asked condoleeza to be his VP. but
> the press has smeared trump to such a level, i doubt anyone will want
> to associate with him.
bob
May 3, 2016, 10:51:29 AM5/3/16
to
On Tue, 3 May 2016 07:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Gracchus
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 5:31:01 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2016 21:42:54 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
>
>> >While I agree it's tougher for women in politics or business, I don't
>> >think Hillary is the right woman for president (though she most likely
>> >will be). It would take someone truly exceptional to fit the bill -
>> >thick skinned, smart, emphatic, appear trustworthy etc. Condoleezza
>> >Rice comes to mind as better option imo.
>
>> i've been hoping for a while trump asked condoleeza to be his VP. but
>> the press has smeared trump to such a level, i doubt anyone will want
>> to associate with him.
>
>Sarah Palin gladly would, but I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to pick her as a running mate again.
god forbid!
<grac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 5:31:01 AM UTC-7, bob wrote:
>> On Tue, 3 May 2016 21:42:54 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com.au>
>
>> >While I agree it's tougher for women in politics or business, I don't
>> >think Hillary is the right woman for president (though she most likely
>> >will be). It would take someone truly exceptional to fit the bill -
>> >thick skinned, smart, emphatic, appear trustworthy etc. Condoleezza
>> >Rice comes to mind as better option imo.
>
>> i've been hoping for a while trump asked condoleeza to be his VP. but
>> the press has smeared trump to such a level, i doubt anyone will want
>> to associate with him.
>
>Sarah Palin gladly would, but I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to pick her as a running mate again.
> As for Condy, I'm not a huge fan--considering that she helped engineer the Iraq war and to this day maintains the Bush admin lie that it happened because of faulty intelligence on WMDs ("Of COURSE, if we knew then what we know now, we never would have...")
recanted other than implicitly denouncing republicans by liking obama.
> Yeah, right. She may speak Russian and and play the piano beautifully, but certainly not the best choice for a more trustworthy alternative to the Clintons.
last 2 standing. and warren lied about her ethnic background and has
milked it a long time now - no way on earth harvard hires a white
woman from UHouston - so everyone has somethiing.
i guess with condi, i wouldn't say lying/scheming in nixonlike fashion
would be a daily character trait, but yeah, she was complicit in that
war and it's agenda so by no means innocent.
bob
soccerfan777
May 3, 2016, 11:12:01 AM5/3/16
to
TT
May 3, 2016, 12:44:25 PM5/3/16
to
TT
May 3, 2016, 12:53:17 PM5/3/16
to
3.5.2016, 15:30, bob kirjoitti:
> people glaze over her email scandal as if it's no big deal. but in
> reality it is the same personality trait nixon had. it's not only the
> fact of the willful lawbreaking she did with the server, it's that it
> goes to a much deeper personality flaw that's always there and affects
> everything she does.
What the heck did she do anyway... used wrong email account... big
> people glaze over her email scandal as if it's no big deal. but in
> reality it is the same personality trait nixon had. it's not only the
> fact of the willful lawbreaking she did with the server, it's that it
> goes to a much deeper personality flaw that's always there and affects
> everything she does.
fucking deal.
TT
May 3, 2016, 12:58:26 PM5/3/16
to
controversy issue to impeach him. If you're most powerful man in the
world then you SHOULD have your dick sucked by hot trainees on the side.
*skriptis
May 3, 2016, 1:01:03 PM5/3/16
to
Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:
>
What's wrong with that? You really do have fucked up mind.
It's a way of complimenting his daughter. Great father. Instills
self-confidence in his children.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 9:28:13 PM UTC-4, bob wrote:
>>
>> i don't love trump, but the thing about him, IMO, is some of the stuff
>>
>> i don't love trump, but the thing about him, IMO, is some of the stuff
>> he said early in the campaign isn't anything close to how he lived his
>> 69yrs of life. kind of weird to hear him say stuff he never said
>> before,
>
> Trump hasn't been making sexist comments for the better part of his public existence? That's false and is easily verified online where almost every single public sexist comment he has made has been archived. He is a major TOOL, a fraud and a grandstanding clown. You are supporting a guy who said that if Ivanka wasn't his daughter he would be dating her? Nice.
>> 69yrs of life. kind of weird to hear him say stuff he never said
>> before,
>
>
What's wrong with that? You really do have fucked up mind.
It's a way of complimenting his daughter. Great father. Instills
self-confidence in his children.
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
Court_1
May 3, 2016, 1:25:36 PM5/3/16
to
Again, that's why discussing politics is ill-advised. If you want to learn about the core of a person, discussing politics is the fastest way to do it. Look at Bob for example, supporting and defending that fraud/egomaniac/sexist Trump. Didn't you tell me in my early days on RST that Bob didn't like women?(you did because I found the post in the archives and posted it recently.) Well, isn't it obvious with his constant posts on RST and his support of Trump? He's an insecure man who only feels good about himself when he degrades smart women just like Trump does.
bob
May 3, 2016, 1:26:51 PM5/3/16
to
in that type of environment and don't care. it's just email, right?
after asked if it was wiped clean, "you mean with a cloth?" she
replied laughing? she's thumbing her nose at the rest of the law
abiding people - she's above it - just like her and bill always have
been.
for your background, in the gov't, particularly the military or
foreign relations sector (like her), or even working for a contractor
(like me), there are serious rules about maintaining security of
classified documents, electronic documents or any type of information.
they use completely closed networks for the purpose of preventing
infiltration. everybody working there - many thousands and thousands
of people - play by the rules. if not, you are either terminated or
prosecuted.
what did hillary do wrong?
she setup her own email server, at her own location, not secure and
unrelated to the official state dept gov't computer system. it's
against the law and she knew it and she communicated numerous
conversations classified top secret, something other people in this
sytem would never dream of doing.
why did she do it?
because she has some nixon in her - she's secretive, paranoid, power
thirsty and says lots of things in emails and otherwise that she'd not
like the public to ever be able to find out. on her home server,
nobody knew about it and nobody could get into it, but her. "problem
solved" she figures.
why is the home server a problem?
because it is easily hacked, it's against the law and against protocol
of not using gov't secure systems for gov't secure conversations, plus
the gov't loses control of all gov't related conversations that may or
may not have legal ramifications down the road. hillary controls it,
not the gov't.
this is a flagrant and intentional ignoring of the law, and the
biggest problem is it goes to her entire life and character - it's a
pattern for her. her and bill are 2 of the most crooked business
people you've ever seen. it's a trend, it's what she is, it's been
going on 30+ yrs. to be honest, i don't even mind hillary's so called
"policies" - her views (or the ones she spews, then changes every yr)
are fine with me. it's her CHARACTER that is despicable.
and, like you say, nobody knows, nobody cares, it's "just an email." i
can guarantee you if obama weren't president, and if she weren't the
establishment darling, jim comey would've recommended her indicted
already. or at very least before election. instead, FBI will drag its
feet til December, guarantee it, even though they know what's up
already.
bob
bob
May 3, 2016, 1:33:06 PM5/3/16
to
school and a social outcast. no - bill didn't have high standards,
never did. :-)
bob
Court_1
May 3, 2016, 1:36:57 PM5/3/16
to
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 7:57:36 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> Trump is anti establishment
Bullshit!
> Trump isn't
> owned by anyone
He's got a deal set up with the Clintons. It's pretty evident. Mostly uneducated hicks/KKK members take him seriously.
> & has no fear & says exactly what he thinks,
You don't want a world leader to act like a clown and be ready to implode at any moment. He also is not qualified in foreign policy.
> Of course his negative aspects will outweigh the positive in totality,
> but that's something that's not really apparent right now.
It's very apparent IMO unless you live under a rock.
> In a way I'd really like to see Trump win & ram it up Hillary
Dream on. She'll be doing the ramming. :)
> Trump is anti establishment
Bullshit!
> Trump isn't
> owned by anyone
> & has no fear & says exactly what he thinks,
> Of course his negative aspects will outweigh the positive in totality,
> but that's something that's not really apparent right now.
> In a way I'd really like to see Trump win & ram it up Hillary
Court_1
May 3, 2016, 1:41:45 PM5/3/16
to
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 8:31:01 AM UTC-4, boOn Tue, 3 May 2016 21:42:54
> people glaze over her email scandal as if it's no big deal. but in
> reality it is the same personality trait nixon had. it's not only the
> fact of the willful lawbreaking she did with the server, it's that it
> goes to a much deeper personality flaw that's always there and affects
> everything she does.
Oh please!
> it's like with OJ simpson murdering 2 people, then being dumb enough
> to get busted for armed robbery trying to get some of his stolen
> memorabilia back - it's the trait that killed 2 people that never went
> away, that's why he couldn't control himself 10 yr later.
That's a stupid analogy. Comparing what OJ did (murder) to what Hillary did with the emails?
> people glaze over her email scandal as if it's no big deal. but in
> reality it is the same personality trait nixon had. it's not only the
> fact of the willful lawbreaking she did with the server, it's that it
> goes to a much deeper personality flaw that's always there and affects
> everything she does.
> it's like with OJ simpson murdering 2 people, then being dumb enough
> to get busted for armed robbery trying to get some of his stolen
> memorabilia back - it's the trait that killed 2 people that never went
> away, that's why he couldn't control himself 10 yr later.
bob
May 3, 2016, 1:41:51 PM5/3/16
to
On Tue, 3 May 2016 10:25:35 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 12:15:38 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 8:30:34 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
>>
>> > i don't have any problem with your right to like anyone you want. but
>> > you call anyone supporting sanders "nutters." i don't criticize people
>> > supporting hillary or call the nutters, it's their right. i criticize
>> > hillary herself.
>>
>> Yes, fair point. C1 talks about valuing the "right" to everyone's opinion and the "right" to support their candidate of choice, etc. But how is it more respectful to characterize people you disagree with as "nutters" than it is for me to argue strongly against a candidate I oppose? Doesn't quite jibe....IMHO.
>
>I said some Sanders supporters on social media are nutters
quit lying, we know what you said.
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 12:15:38 AM UTC-4, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 8:30:34 PM UTC-7, bob wrote:
>>
>> > i don't have any problem with your right to like anyone you want. but
>> > you call anyone supporting sanders "nutters." i don't criticize people
>> > supporting hillary or call the nutters, it's their right. i criticize
>> > hillary herself.
>>
>> Yes, fair point. C1 talks about valuing the "right" to everyone's opinion and the "right" to support their candidate of choice, etc. But how is it more respectful to characterize people you disagree with as "nutters" than it is for me to argue strongly against a candidate I oppose? Doesn't quite jibe....IMHO.
>
>I said some Sanders supporters on social media are nutters
> and so are some of the supporters of other candidates on social media. I'm not calling you a nutter for supporting Sanders (although we clearly have different political agendas and support different candidates.) I'm saying that you seem to have a bigger problem with me since you have learned some of my political views than I do of you and your supporting of Socialist candidates.We're not married, we don't have to have the same political views.
i can't speak for gracchus, but your view of "lazy bum working class
people" wanting "handouts from the hard working rich" is likely what
he found offensive, anyone would. not your love of hillary.
>Again, that's why discussing politics is ill-advised. If you want to learn about the core of a person, discussing politics is the fastest way to do it. Look at Bob for example, supporting and defending that fraud/egomaniac/sexist Trump.
didn't work out. i prefer trump - or anybody - to hillary.
> Didn't you tell me in my early days on RST that Bob didn't like women?(you did because I found the post in the archives and posted it recently.) Well, isn't it obvious with his constant posts on RST and his support of Trump? He's an insecure man who only feels good about himself when he degrades smart women just like Trump does.
sorely mistaken. i like equality for everyone. i'd love a woman
president, just not a lying lawbreaking scum like *this* woman. i'd
prefer you, nonsensical arguments and all. if only you weren;t born in
canada like ted cruz. :-)
bob
Court_1
May 3, 2016, 1:45:59 PM5/3/16
to
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 8:36:37 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> >On this ng, I was the first one to say Trump just may be a Clinton plant after all. It just happened yesterday, don't play ignoramus.
>
> this has been a common theme since last summer, my gosh.
Not on this ng! I don't recall ever seeing it discussed on this ng before!
> >On this ng, I was the first one to say Trump just may be a Clinton plant after all. It just happened yesterday, don't play ignoramus.
>
> this has been a common theme since last summer, my gosh.
> florida is a very ugly state IMO. the ugliest i've been. i work part
> time all around the USA much of the past 20 yrs. california, texas,
> ohio, georgia, michigan, the caribbean and small stints in about10
> other states.
bob
May 3, 2016, 1:46:15 PM5/3/16
to
the same thing that allowed hillary to accept insider trading to make
some $, allows her to have home email servers, allows her to lie to
the public about benghazi while telling her daughter the truth, yada
yada yada.
bob
Guypers
May 3, 2016, 1:47:27 PM5/3/16
to
People who dont like Clinton are like that, she lied about whitewater! Fukkmesideways!!!
Court_1
May 3, 2016, 1:47:32 PM5/3/16
to
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 8:53:39 AM UTC-4, bob wrote:
> times have changed and the things bill clinton did in 1978-1992
> wouldn't fly well today, no matter how well he can bullshit people.
I don't agree with you. Easy win for Bill if he ran today.
> times have changed and the things bill clinton did in 1978-1992
> wouldn't fly well today, no matter how well he can bullshit people.
bob
May 3, 2016, 1:47:40 PM5/3/16
to
On Tue, 3 May 2016 10:36:56 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 7:57:36 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
>
>> Trump is anti establishment
>
>Bullshit!
>
>> Trump isn't
>> owned by anyone
>
>He's got a deal set up with the Clintons. It's pretty evident. Mostly uneducated hicks/KKK members take him seriously.
i never knew the KKK was so prevalent in NY and california!
<olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 7:57:36 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
>
>> Trump is anti establishment
>
>Bullshit!
>
>> Trump isn't
>> owned by anyone
>
>He's got a deal set up with the Clintons. It's pretty evident. Mostly uneducated hicks/KKK members take him seriously.
>> & has no fear & says exactly what he thinks,
>
>You don't want a world leader to act like a clown and be ready to implode at any moment. He also is not qualified in foreign policy.
>
>
>> Of course his negative aspects will outweigh the positive in totality,
>> but that's something that's not really apparent right now.
>
>It's very apparent IMO unless you live under a rock.
>
>> In a way I'd really like to see Trump win & ram it up Hillary
>
>Dream on. She'll be doing the ramming. :)
bob
Court_1
May 3, 2016, 1:50:33 PM5/3/16
to
On Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 1:01:03 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:
> > Trump hasn't been making sexist comments for the better part of his public existence? That's false and is easily verified online where almost every single public sexist comment he has made has been archived. He is a major TOOL, a fraud and a grandstanding clown. You are supporting a guy who said that if Ivanka wasn't his daughter he would be dating her? Nice.
> >
>
>
> What's wrong with that? You really do have fucked up mind.
>
> It's a way of complimenting his daughter. Great father. Instills
> self-confidence in his children.
That is not an appropriate comment for any father to make about his daughter, I'm sorry. Instills confidence. *eye-roll* Please slither away and leave me alone. Thanks kindly.
> > Trump hasn't been making sexist comments for the better part of his public existence? That's false and is easily verified online where almost every single public sexist comment he has made has been archived. He is a major TOOL, a fraud and a grandstanding clown. You are supporting a guy who said that if Ivanka wasn't his daughter he would be dating her? Nice.
> >
>
>
> What's wrong with that? You really do have fucked up mind.
>
> It's a way of complimenting his daughter. Great father. Instills
> self-confidence in his children.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages