Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
U.S. Elections 2016
578 views
Skip to first unread message
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Aug 22, 2016, 3:07:52 PM8/22/16
to
Trump is the first US presidential candidate in 40 years
to refuse to make his tax returns public. He claims it's
because he's under audit by the IRS. However...
CNN recently confirmed for a fact that Trump is NOT
being audited for any years 2008 or earlier. That
revelation opens Trump’s campaign up to new questions.
If Trump’s primary reason to not release any information is
to wait for his audit to be completed, why won’t he release
any information from 2008, or 2007? Or 1999? Or earlier?
He still refuses to release ANY tax returns.
The simple and obvious conclusion:
Trump has things to hide in his tax returns -
things that would seriously damage his campaign.
Equally obvious, Trump and his campaign have concluded
that the criticism and loss of support he's encountering
for not releasing ANY tax returns will still be far less
than the devastation would be if he did reveal any of his
tax information.
Man, I bet Trump pulls every trick in the book on taxes,
and sure as hell doesn't want to let everyone see that.
It's pretty much guaranteed he's hiding things he knows
would hurt him BAD. It's obviously that simple - which
in turn merely confirms once again what a selfish
power-hungry shithead the guy is...
***
Here's the latest thing I'm pissed at Republicans for.
The current Republican platform dismisses the EPA's
Clean Power program as "the President's war on coal".
Well, here's just one of the little problems with that
kind of idiocy...
A new major study in Sweden has linked air pollution
to significantly increased mental illness in children:
http://tinyurl.com/z8qqhdn
***
Today's GOP - ya gotta love 'em. :)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tevk6n7yopvdrki/Dems%202016.jpg?dl=0
to refuse to make his tax returns public. He claims it's
because he's under audit by the IRS. However...
CNN recently confirmed for a fact that Trump is NOT
being audited for any years 2008 or earlier. That
revelation opens Trump’s campaign up to new questions.
If Trump’s primary reason to not release any information is
to wait for his audit to be completed, why won’t he release
any information from 2008, or 2007? Or 1999? Or earlier?
He still refuses to release ANY tax returns.
The simple and obvious conclusion:
Trump has things to hide in his tax returns -
things that would seriously damage his campaign.
Equally obvious, Trump and his campaign have concluded
that the criticism and loss of support he's encountering
for not releasing ANY tax returns will still be far less
than the devastation would be if he did reveal any of his
tax information.
Man, I bet Trump pulls every trick in the book on taxes,
and sure as hell doesn't want to let everyone see that.
It's pretty much guaranteed he's hiding things he knows
would hurt him BAD. It's obviously that simple - which
in turn merely confirms once again what a selfish
power-hungry shithead the guy is...
***
Here's the latest thing I'm pissed at Republicans for.
The current Republican platform dismisses the EPA's
Clean Power program as "the President's war on coal".
Well, here's just one of the little problems with that
kind of idiocy...
A new major study in Sweden has linked air pollution
to significantly increased mental illness in children:
http://tinyurl.com/z8qqhdn
***
Today's GOP - ya gotta love 'em. :)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tevk6n7yopvdrki/Dems%202016.jpg?dl=0
allreadygone
Aug 22, 2016, 4:00:20 PM8/22/16
to
dude the other runner has some new
troubles with 14,000 e-mails that slipped by.
what now?
the dog ate my homework?
she ain't out trouble yet but
more than likely she will have immunity.
troubles with 14,000 e-mails that slipped by.
what now?
the dog ate my homework?
she ain't out trouble yet but
more than likely she will have immunity.
Jeremy H. Donovan
Aug 22, 2016, 5:07:12 PM8/22/16
to
wildheart
Aug 23, 2016, 10:41:04 AM8/23/16
to
Jer, video no longer available due to copyright by HBO
I find it so funny the way Trump is trying to do damage control, "yes I support Ryan and McCain" etc. etc.
He is supposedly on a rampage against his people blaming them for his falling numbers, what an ass.
I am not at all worried about Hillary's emails, big deal, I trust her and don't believe there is anything
so bad in the emails.
I find it so funny the way Trump is trying to do damage control, "yes I support Ryan and McCain" etc. etc.
He is supposedly on a rampage against his people blaming them for his falling numbers, what an ass.
I am not at all worried about Hillary's emails, big deal, I trust her and don't believe there is anything
so bad in the emails.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Aug 23, 2016, 1:23:17 PM8/23/16
to
If you can find that video where John Oliver urges
Trump to 'drop out' in order to become a 'legend',
watch it - it's hilarious.
Try this one:
http://tinyurl.com/hnc87w8
And yeah, related to Clinton's e-mails, the FBI did not
find any criminal intent, nor has anything damaging been
revealed, nor was evidence of any *actual* security breach
found. Republicans are managing to keep the thing alive
only over the potential it had for security breaches.
Here's the most important thing:
The original batch of 30,000 e-mails already released
included 8 "top secret" and 36 "secret" threads.
In this new batch of 15,000 e-mails there's only
one "secret" thread and no "top secret" threads.
http://tinyurl.com/h4qbsrz
So I really doubt that it's important
other than as a talking point for Republicans.
Trump to 'drop out' in order to become a 'legend',
watch it - it's hilarious.
Try this one:
http://tinyurl.com/hnc87w8
And yeah, related to Clinton's e-mails, the FBI did not
find any criminal intent, nor has anything damaging been
revealed, nor was evidence of any *actual* security breach
found. Republicans are managing to keep the thing alive
only over the potential it had for security breaches.
Here's the most important thing:
The original batch of 30,000 e-mails already released
included 8 "top secret" and 36 "secret" threads.
In this new batch of 15,000 e-mails there's only
one "secret" thread and no "top secret" threads.
http://tinyurl.com/h4qbsrz
So I really doubt that it's important
other than as a talking point for Republicans.
allreadygone
Aug 23, 2016, 3:15:06 PM8/23/16
to
well as a democrat let's hope you are correct.
Me? i could care less because i don't have
a dog in the race. Better you have to admit
this is one hell of a year for elections. Full
of surprises, not knowing what is behind door #3.
Me? i could care less because i don't have
a dog in the race. Better you have to admit
this is one hell of a year for elections. Full
of surprises, not knowing what is behind door #3.
allreadygone
Aug 31, 2016, 10:09:12 AM8/31/16
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USh-cvBCLcw
a tip of the hat to the Russians for
taking out this doucher Mohammad al-Adnani
adios loser, we didn't even have to
waste a bullet on his ass. With friends
like this who needs enemies?
a tip of the hat to the Russians for
taking out this doucher Mohammad al-Adnani
adios loser, we didn't even have to
waste a bullet on his ass. With friends
like this who needs enemies?
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Aug 31, 2016, 2:11:14 PM8/31/16
to
It isn't clear that the Russians killed him.
Our state department disputed their claim
in that regard, calling it "laughable",
while holding that the strike was ours.
Pentagon says results are still being assessed.
What is your source stating the Russians did it?
Our state department disputed their claim
in that regard, calling it "laughable",
while holding that the strike was ours.
Pentagon says results are still being assessed.
What is your source stating the Russians did it?
allreadygone
Aug 31, 2016, 3:12:00 PM8/31/16
to
yeah i see that there is beef about this.
somebody killed him (maybe)
actually it is not 100% the fucker is dead.
but let's go ahead and celebrate anyways?
it don't matter to me who killed the prick.
but for the record we will give credit to
those who did. Stay tuned, more is coming.
somebody killed him (maybe)
actually it is not 100% the fucker is dead.
but let's go ahead and celebrate anyways?
it don't matter to me who killed the prick.
but for the record we will give credit to
those who did. Stay tuned, more is coming.
allreadygone
Sep 1, 2016, 12:26:53 AM9/1/16
to
i guess we'll see what country they smack
hard to avenge the doucher's death.
seldom (if ever) do you hear or see anything
about terrorism in Russian. Perhaps now
the world is shooting these dopes like fish
in a barrel. the world's dumbest clowns
go to war, only to hope they get vaporized.
Let's not disappoint them. do you feel sorry
for them? About as much as i feel sorry for
Nazi's dying in WWII. It's good to be a disbeliever.
hard to avenge the doucher's death.
seldom (if ever) do you hear or see anything
about terrorism in Russian. Perhaps now
the world is shooting these dopes like fish
in a barrel. the world's dumbest clowns
go to war, only to hope they get vaporized.
Let's not disappoint them. do you feel sorry
for them? About as much as i feel sorry for
Nazi's dying in WWII. It's good to be a disbeliever.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 1, 2016, 11:45:59 AM9/1/16
to
extreme dangers of fundamentalist religions.
allreadygone
Sep 1, 2016, 2:30:46 PM9/1/16
to
el ron jeremey sez:
> It certainly is a perfect example of the
> extreme dangers of fundamentalist religions.
believing is the danger.
> It certainly is a perfect example of the
> extreme dangers of fundamentalist religions.
they are hell-bent on killing disbelievers.
I say fuck you to them. And fuck their mothers.
Or as George Lopez would say: "fuck that puto"!
allreadygone
Sep 6, 2016, 2:16:32 PM9/6/16
to
IF Mrs. Clinton can make it to November 8th,
she will be doing good. These last two months
look very difficult. Trump is all over the place.
This is gonna be very very interesting race.
I don't know who is going to be the winner.
Looks like alot of freakin' work to become a President.
she will be doing good. These last two months
look very difficult. Trump is all over the place.
This is gonna be very very interesting race.
I don't know who is going to be the winner.
Looks like alot of freakin' work to become a President.
allreadygone
Sep 6, 2016, 9:51:17 PM9/6/16
to
"what are the chances here"?
that the original start-up money that was used
to start this country is still in power today 2016?
Not an accident either, they still call the shots.
Some very rich fuckers in England with a boatload of
money got this party started. Who are they? You'll
never find them.
that the original start-up money that was used
to start this country is still in power today 2016?
Not an accident either, they still call the shots.
Some very rich fuckers in England with a boatload of
money got this party started. Who are they? You'll
never find them.
allreadygone
Sep 11, 2016, 11:58:31 AM9/11/16
to
mrs. clinton on the ropes this morning?
what up? que paso? oh it's nothing.
just the media making stuff up. sure.
what up? que paso? oh it's nothing.
just the media making stuff up. sure.
allreadygone
Sep 11, 2016, 7:34:28 PM9/11/16
to
bullpen telephone rings:
"get Bernie up, start warming up dude".
you may get your chance (yet) to be a starter here.
lord have mercy, nothing is final is it?
"get Bernie up, start warming up dude".
you may get your chance (yet) to be a starter here.
lord have mercy, nothing is final is it?
allreadygone
Sep 12, 2016, 4:25:26 PM9/12/16
to
slider
Sep 12, 2016, 4:34:56 PM9/12/16
to
### - do they still actually count the votes anymore?
i thought they stopped doin' that ages ago lol ;)
i thought they stopped doin' that ages ago lol ;)
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 12, 2016, 5:49:32 PM9/12/16
to
slider
Sep 13, 2016, 6:13:18 AM9/13/16
to
Jeremy, incapable of ordinary conversation anymore, mutters discontentedly
from the sidelines heh...
### - (laughing...) just can't let it go huh, burns does it? lol (gud :)
i stopped voting a very long time ago so am with gc on this one heh...
you, however, are a sucker to the end jeremy... a mealy-mouthed 'terminal
fart' as someone once quite accurately described you hah... and sooo
'petty' you're an idiot!
so run out and buy a half dozen more stuffed teddies already!
it wont help the world any BUT it'll make you FEEL better LOL (maybe you
can hug them:)
(sheesh what a complete asshole YOU turned out to be! duh :)))))
on another note entirely: sales of 'the book' are up! (cool...)
19 sold last month! + discussions about WILDs & WILDing on FB starting to
rival the DILD-doers!
interest in WILDs noticeably increasing, as indeed are the number of
members to the WILDs& WILDing group i've started on there heh (currently
41 members, 7 new...) and set to rise as more and more peeps come around
to realising that not only are WILDs far more viable than DILDs to get
into lucid dreaming with, but that quite a few (a lot surprisingly) have
already actually 'been' WILDing without even realising it and thinking it
was normal lucid dreaming! only yesterday some young lady reporting that
she started lucid dreaming while riding on the bus to work, and is this
normal?? LOL (no luv, not at the moment, but may become so one day for
everyone... except jeremy of course ha!)
yep, no doubt about it folks, WILDs are definitely on the rise and are
likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future... people 'love'
WILDs!
good eh? so eat your heart out already jeremy! (roaring lols :))))
Ps. fyi: 3 peeps apparently found your amazon review very useful and were
persuaded to buy the book! LOL (a nice touch or irony there methinks,
maybe even a poetic kind of justice...)
cheers jeremy! you've genuinely added 'years of enjoyment' to my life! :P
from the sidelines heh...
i stopped voting a very long time ago so am with gc on this one heh...
you, however, are a sucker to the end jeremy... a mealy-mouthed 'terminal
fart' as someone once quite accurately described you hah... and sooo
'petty' you're an idiot!
so run out and buy a half dozen more stuffed teddies already!
it wont help the world any BUT it'll make you FEEL better LOL (maybe you
can hug them:)
(sheesh what a complete asshole YOU turned out to be! duh :)))))
on another note entirely: sales of 'the book' are up! (cool...)
19 sold last month! + discussions about WILDs & WILDing on FB starting to
rival the DILD-doers!
interest in WILDs noticeably increasing, as indeed are the number of
members to the WILDs& WILDing group i've started on there heh (currently
41 members, 7 new...) and set to rise as more and more peeps come around
to realising that not only are WILDs far more viable than DILDs to get
into lucid dreaming with, but that quite a few (a lot surprisingly) have
already actually 'been' WILDing without even realising it and thinking it
was normal lucid dreaming! only yesterday some young lady reporting that
she started lucid dreaming while riding on the bus to work, and is this
normal?? LOL (no luv, not at the moment, but may become so one day for
everyone... except jeremy of course ha!)
yep, no doubt about it folks, WILDs are definitely on the rise and are
likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future... people 'love'
WILDs!
good eh? so eat your heart out already jeremy! (roaring lols :))))
Ps. fyi: 3 peeps apparently found your amazon review very useful and were
persuaded to buy the book! LOL (a nice touch or irony there methinks,
maybe even a poetic kind of justice...)
cheers jeremy! you've genuinely added 'years of enjoyment' to my life! :P
Boris
Sep 13, 2016, 1:09:59 PM9/13/16
to
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 4:13:18 AM UTC-6, slider wrote:
>only yesterday some young lady reporting that
> she started lucid dreaming while riding on the bus to work, and is this
> normal?? LOL (no luv, not at the moment, but may become so one day for
> everyone... except jeremy of course ha!)
"Had a transcendental storm of colour visions today in the bus going to Marseille. We ran through a long avenue of trees and I closed my eyes against the setting sun. An overwhelming flood of intensely bright patterns in supernatural colours exploded behind my eyelids: a multidimensional kaleidoscope whirling out through space. I was swept out of time. I was in a world of infinite number. The vision stopped abruptly as we left the trees. Was that a vision? What happened to me?" (Brion Gysin, 21 December 1958)
>only yesterday some young lady reporting that
> she started lucid dreaming while riding on the bus to work, and is this
> normal?? LOL (no luv, not at the moment, but may become so one day for
> everyone... except jeremy of course ha!)
Strobic effects of flickering light and shadow while moving, creating a flood of hypnagogia, leading to a wakeful dream state. Not so uncommon. Nor revolutionary. BTDT.
As a part time reader here I think that slider's ongoing flaunt that he is some lucid dreaming messiah of a coming evolutionary wave is very tiring. It is an ongoing ego stroke. Over and over and over. I'm not saying this so much as an attack on slider who I sympathize with but more as an objective observation. Also since I am commenting, whenever Jerry says something that slider feels crosses slider's messianic status as a guru of WILD's slider attacks him viciously in an abusive and overblown manner. Sad. Seems like a big case of insecurity. Which slider offsets by continually re-reminding of his book and his small but always increasing pack of followers. Slider, as a now accomplished author, could have more balance and self respect in my opinion. He wrote a book. It won't change the world. But it is a genuine contribution. No good will come from milking it like a prize cow. It is just another cow in the herd. It has some value, particularly for him since it is his cow, but he is here going "my cow" "my cow" "My cow" day after day. Adding that to his attacks on Jerry whenever Jerry points out how WILD's are not god's gift, it seems pretty juvenile. Growing beyond that kind of childish character quirks is part of real success in life, don't you think?
allreadygone
Sep 13, 2016, 2:23:13 PM9/13/16
to
Boris observes:
> As a part time reader here I think that slider's ongoing flaunt that he is some lucid dreaming messiah of a coming evolutionary wave is very tiring. It is an ongoing ego stroke. Over and over and over. I'm not saying this so much as an attack on slider who I sympathize with but more as an objective observation. Also since I am commenting, whenever Jerry says something that slider feels crosses slider's messianic status as a guru of WILD's slider attacks him viciously in an abusive and overblown manner. Sad. Seems like a big case of insecurity. Which slider offsets by continually re-reminding of his book and his small but always increasing pack of followers. Slider, as a now accomplished author, could have more balance and self respect in my opinion. He wrote a book. It won't change the world. But it is a genuine contribution. No good will come from milking it like a prize cow. It is just another cow in the herd. It has some value, particularly for him since it is his cow, but he is here going "my cow" "my cow" "My cow" day after day. Adding that to his attacks on Jerry whenever Jerry points out how WILD's are not god's gift, it seems pretty juvenile. Growing beyond that kind of childish character quirks is part of real success in life, don't you think?
Yes, you are right on. IF Slides would just lay low like some of the
presidential candiates need to do, everything would just pan out fine.
True things don't need defending.
> As a part time reader here I think that slider's ongoing flaunt that he is some lucid dreaming messiah of a coming evolutionary wave is very tiring. It is an ongoing ego stroke. Over and over and over. I'm not saying this so much as an attack on slider who I sympathize with but more as an objective observation. Also since I am commenting, whenever Jerry says something that slider feels crosses slider's messianic status as a guru of WILD's slider attacks him viciously in an abusive and overblown manner. Sad. Seems like a big case of insecurity. Which slider offsets by continually re-reminding of his book and his small but always increasing pack of followers. Slider, as a now accomplished author, could have more balance and self respect in my opinion. He wrote a book. It won't change the world. But it is a genuine contribution. No good will come from milking it like a prize cow. It is just another cow in the herd. It has some value, particularly for him since it is his cow, but he is here going "my cow" "my cow" "My cow" day after day. Adding that to his attacks on Jerry whenever Jerry points out how WILD's are not god's gift, it seems pretty juvenile. Growing beyond that kind of childish character quirks is part of real success in life, don't you think?
presidential candiates need to do, everything would just pan out fine.
True things don't need defending.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 13, 2016, 3:36:13 PM9/13/16
to
On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 3:13:18 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> Jeremy, incapable of ordinary conversation anymore, mutters discontentedly
> from the sidelines heh...
>
>
> > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:34:56 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeMGqTwWA6U
> >> >
> >> > what do you have to show for your vote?
> >>
> >> ### - do they still actually count the votes anymore?
> >>
> >> i thought they stopped doin' that ages ago lol ;)
> >
> > No, they just stopped counting yours ages ago.
>
> ### - (laughing...) just can't let it go huh, burns does it? lol (gud :)
>
> i stopped voting a very long time ago so am with gc on this one heh...
Carlin was great as a young comic but turned bitter.
> Jeremy, incapable of ordinary conversation anymore, mutters discontentedly
> from the sidelines heh...
>
>
> > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:34:56 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeMGqTwWA6U
> >> >
> >> > what do you have to show for your vote?
> >>
> >> ### - do they still actually count the votes anymore?
> >>
> >> i thought they stopped doin' that ages ago lol ;)
> >
> > No, they just stopped counting yours ages ago.
>
> ### - (laughing...) just can't let it go huh, burns does it? lol (gud :)
>
> i stopped voting a very long time ago so am with gc on this one heh...
Watch early Carlin, and ignore his dull old-man rants.
Voting remains an important right to be exercised.
If we end up with a shit-head like Trump as a leader
just because not enough people vote to keep him out,
you'll find out how important it is - if you're
really so dumb as not to realize already (like
after 8 years of Dubya w world crash at the end).
> you, however, are a sucker to the end jeremy... a mealy-mouthed 'terminal
> fart' as someone once quite accurately described you hah... and sooo
> 'petty' you're an idiot!
You so seldom get anything right. :)
> so run out and buy a half dozen more stuffed teddies already!
>
> it wont help the world any BUT it'll make you FEEL better LOL (maybe you
> can hug them:)
>
> (sheesh what a complete asshole YOU turned out to be! duh :)))))
>
> on another note entirely: sales of 'the book' are up! (cool...)
>
> 19 sold last month! + discussions about WILDs & WILDing on FB starting to
> rival the DILD-doers!
>
> interest in WILDs noticeably increasing, as indeed are the number of
> members to the WILDs& WILDing group i've started on there heh (currently
> 41 members, 7 new...) and set to rise as more and more peeps come around
> to realising that not only are WILDs far more viable than DILDs to get
> into lucid dreaming with, but that quite a few (a lot surprisingly) have
> already actually 'been' WILDing without even realising it and thinking it
> was normal lucid dreaming! only yesterday some young lady reporting that
> she started lucid dreaming while riding on the bus to work, and is this
> normal?? LOL (no luv, not at the moment, but may become so one day for
> everyone... except jeremy of course ha!)
>
> yep, no doubt about it folks, WILDs are definitely on the rise and are
> likely to continue to rise for the foreseeable future... people 'love'
> WILDs!
>
> good eh? so eat your heart out already jeremy! (roaring lols :))))
It's just not important to me.
> Ps. fyi: 3 peeps apparently found your amazon review very useful and were
> persuaded to buy the book! LOL (a nice touch or irony there methinks,
> maybe even a poetic kind of justice...)
> cheers jeremy! you've genuinely added 'years of enjoyment' to my life! :P
Here, for some more enjoyment, listen carefully to this one.
River Man:
http://tinyurl.com/zm498lp
***
Betty came by on her way
Said she had a word to say
About things today
And fallen leaves.
Said she hadn't heard the news
Hadn't had the time to choose
A way to lose
But she believes.
Going to see the river man
Going to tell him all I can
About the plan
For lilac time.
If he tells me all he knows
About the way his river flows
And all night shows
In summertime.
Betty said she prayed today
For the sky to blow away
Or maybe stay
She wasn't sure.
For when she thought of summer rain
Calling for her mind again
She lost the pain
And stayed for more.
Going to see the river man
Going to tell him all I can
About the ban
On feeling free.
If he tells me all he knows
About the way his river flows
I don't suppose
It's meant for me.
Oh, how they come and go
Oh, how they come and go.
slider
Sep 14, 2016, 8:53:05 AM9/14/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 20:36:12 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 3:13:18 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
>> Jeremy, incapable of ordinary conversation anymore, mutters
>> discontentedly
>> from the sidelines heh...
>>
>>
>> > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:34:56 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:
>> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeMGqTwWA6U
>> >> >
>> >> > what do you have to show for your vote?
>> >>
>> >> ### - do they still actually count the votes anymore?
>> >>
>> >> i thought they stopped doin' that ages ago lol ;)
>> >
>> > No, they just stopped counting yours ages ago.
>>
>> ### - (laughing...) just can't let it go huh, burns does it? lol (gud :)
>>
>> i stopped voting a very long time ago so am with gc on this one heh...
>
> Carlin was great as a young comic but turned bitter.
> Watch early Carlin, and ignore his dull old-man rants.
>
> Voting remains an important right to be exercised.
> If we end up with a shit-head like Trump as a leader
> just because not enough people vote to keep him out,
> you'll find out how important it is - if you're
> really so dumb as not to realize already (like
> after 8 years of Dubya w world crash at the end).
### - riiight, like i really don't need a lecture on political awareness
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 3:13:18 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
>> Jeremy, incapable of ordinary conversation anymore, mutters
>> discontentedly
>> from the sidelines heh...
>>
>>
>> > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:34:56 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:
>> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeMGqTwWA6U
>> >> >
>> >> > what do you have to show for your vote?
>> >>
>> >> ### - do they still actually count the votes anymore?
>> >>
>> >> i thought they stopped doin' that ages ago lol ;)
>> >
>> > No, they just stopped counting yours ages ago.
>>
>> ### - (laughing...) just can't let it go huh, burns does it? lol (gud :)
>>
>> i stopped voting a very long time ago so am with gc on this one heh...
>
> Carlin was great as a young comic but turned bitter.
> Watch early Carlin, and ignore his dull old-man rants.
>
> Voting remains an important right to be exercised.
> If we end up with a shit-head like Trump as a leader
> just because not enough people vote to keep him out,
> you'll find out how important it is - if you're
> really so dumb as not to realize already (like
> after 8 years of Dubya w world crash at the end).
from you jeremy?? i've forgotten more than you'll ever know in that
direction heh...
>> you, however, are a sucker to the end jeremy... a mealy-mouthed
>> 'terminal
>> fart' as someone once quite accurately described you hah... and sooo
>> 'petty' you're an idiot!
>
> Actually, in CC typology I'm quite clearly 'a puke'.
> You so seldom get anything right. :)
bored enough to leave well alone or shut up about it no lol, you're a
fucking hypocrite!)
>
>
>> Ps. fyi: 3 peeps apparently found your amazon review very useful and
>> were
>> persuaded to buy the book! LOL (a nice touch or irony there methinks,
>> maybe even a poetic kind of justice...)
>
> I told you it wasn't bad. It was a balanced review.
spreading misinformation (lies!) and by injecting your own worthless bored
opinion on dreaming only being dreaming, a completely disingenuous review
to match a totally disingenuous 'you' all along! who gives a shit what YOU
believe! the book is ABOUT a single method you prick! (didn't give any
other methods duh...)
i mean damn, a 3 star review of your so far 18 reviews at that time (your
lowest star review to date!) in which you even gave some sex lube that
only your girlfriend liked: 4 stars?? you're a shit jeremy, clearly a
shit, and are sooo obviously turning green about the whole thing that you
just can't keep it to yourself and it leaks out like stale piss lol, i
'knew' you'd give it only 3 stars before you'd even fucking read it! AND i
was right hah... you weren't exactly trying to be helpful to either the
public or to me were ya (riiight...)
>> cheers jeremy! you've genuinely added 'years of enjoyment' to my life!
>> :P
>
> Good to know. :)
now fuck off you 'little shit' and go screw your fucking self, i have no
more patience for ya whatsoever, nada! we done!
adios asshole! (or as bill hicks would say: enjoy the lake of fire fucker!)
slider
Sep 14, 2016, 8:59:47 AM9/14/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:09:57 +0100, Boris <borisbla...@gmail.com>
wrote:
### - and you can fuck off too lol if you're gonna 'defend' that 'little
shits' loony behaviour?? defend it and you're the same as it afaic...
besides which, being passive-aggressive really doesn't suit you, so there
;)
wrote:
shits' loony behaviour?? defend it and you're the same as it afaic...
besides which, being passive-aggressive really doesn't suit you, so there
;)
slider
Sep 14, 2016, 9:14:52 AM9/14/16
to
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:23:13 +0100, allreadygone <cr...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
### - (what, you want some too?? lol:)
do i tell 'you' what to do??
i realise you're often just standing up for your loony friend (i would
likely do the same too...) only you are, in effect, actually encouraging
him to do it... and 'what' he does isn't actually very nice on sooo many
occasions to date...
so, anyone else want an ass-kickin' too? today's the day apparently haha!
come and get some! LOL :))))
wrote:
do i tell 'you' what to do??
i realise you're often just standing up for your loony friend (i would
likely do the same too...) only you are, in effect, actually encouraging
him to do it... and 'what' he does isn't actually very nice on sooo many
occasions to date...
so, anyone else want an ass-kickin' too? today's the day apparently haha!
come and get some! LOL :))))
allreadygone
Sep 14, 2016, 9:32:09 AM9/14/16
to
### - (what, you want some too?? lol:)
do i tell 'you' what to do??
tell me again?
i realise you're often just standing up for your loony friend (i would
likely do the same too...) only you are, in effect, actually encouraging
him to do it... and 'what' he does isn't actually very nice on sooo many
occasions to date...
so, anyone else want an ass-kickin' too? today's the day apparently haha!
come and get some! LOL :))))
thank you Jesus, may i have another? lol! :)
slider
Sep 14, 2016, 10:31:15 AM9/14/16
to
> do we have to be 'nice' all the time here? let's get nice.
lot...
but i never make it personal (why would i do that?) 'unless' it's in
protecting myself from personal attack...
NEVER otherwise! i NEVER start it! someone launches an attack on me
completely out of the blue like that, right in the middle OF a fairly
reasonable conversation no less, thus attempting (in my book anyway...) to
blindside me! and no one says fuck all about it??
and when i answer for myself in kind; i'm now suddenly the villain of the
whole peace?? bah humbug! (and it ain't even xmas yet!)
well, we ain't gonna take it, never have and never will, lol let the
ass-whuppin' begin!:)
> so, anyone else want an ass-kickin' too? today's the day apparently haha!
>
> come and get some! LOL :))))
>
> get in line and take a number? oh shit my lucky day,
> thank you Jesus, may i have another? lol! :)
in-line with the rest, or risk having to come back tomorrow hah...
(mama told there's be days like these heh:)
slider
Sep 14, 2016, 12:11:52 PM9/14/16
to
### - considering the current fiasco, is it 'possible' that obama could
even end up serving another 4 years??
i hope so! (how strange!)
even end up serving another 4 years??
i hope so! (how strange!)
allreadygone
Sep 14, 2016, 12:45:36 PM9/14/16
to
mrs. clinton will be just fine.
she'll be back next week ready for freddy once again.
all she has to do is shut the fuck up for a few more
weeks. play the 'silent' game. bingo! she's president !
she'll be back next week ready for freddy once again.
all she has to do is shut the fuck up for a few more
weeks. play the 'silent' game. bingo! she's president !
slider
Sep 14, 2016, 12:55:42 PM9/14/16
to
### - the First American Woman President...
that 'would' be something (so what does her husband get called under such
circumstances; the first man?)
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:45:35 +0100, allreadygone <cr...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
that 'would' be something (so what does her husband get called under such
circumstances; the first man?)
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:45:35 +0100, allreadygone <cr...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
allreadygone
Sep 14, 2016, 1:07:21 PM9/14/16
to
ease your mind into some allan watts for today slider.
make sure you have set aside enough time to listen
before you hear this. your teaching for the day from
one of the absolute best teachers i've ever heard.
{perhaps you have already heard this one}
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlp7YDVkAfM
make sure you have set aside enough time to listen
before you hear this. your teaching for the day from
one of the absolute best teachers i've ever heard.
{perhaps you have already heard this one}
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlp7YDVkAfM
slider
Sep 14, 2016, 2:58:00 PM9/14/16
to
allreadygone wrote...
### - have always liked him, very 'British' voice heh, as in old british
movies and news reels?
have heard and read quite a bit of his stuff (i like the way he talks...)
hadn't heard this particular one but am fairly familiar with his themes
and this one's discourse on the nature of duality... he's very good at
that, and at making confusing things easier to understand in simple
layman's terms...
the 'outsider' is, or course, all these things... the living, natural man
so to speak; agenda-less, ego-less, self-less... outside of the main
community, awareness that acts without any a-priori... average human
pursuits and concerns drop away... he just... is... in real time... and
not even measuring that time... he's here but he's not here, a certain
IS-ness prevails... a BE-ness... no analysis... ("beware the dark analysis
that hides and kills the light..." --unknown poet
at which point, jean paul sartre looked up amazed to see the world-alive
as never before, surrounded by nameless, label-less familiar things that
were all alive and present in the now: the world of the surreal (the
super-real...)
and for some people that's it... the end of one road and the beginning of
another, no going back...
other's though get to keep both and can be in either world at will and by
choice (those with trained minds tend to go this route and apparently can
handle both...) the others (the vast majority of the untrained
intellectually) go on and are usually never heard of again... and are
probably ultimately the better-off by comparison to the poor bastards who
remain behind; bleeding hearts and arists, more often than not "banging
their hearts against some mad buggers wall..." ---pink floyd heh ;
movies and news reels?
have heard and read quite a bit of his stuff (i like the way he talks...)
hadn't heard this particular one but am fairly familiar with his themes
and this one's discourse on the nature of duality... he's very good at
that, and at making confusing things easier to understand in simple
layman's terms...
the 'outsider' is, or course, all these things... the living, natural man
so to speak; agenda-less, ego-less, self-less... outside of the main
community, awareness that acts without any a-priori... average human
pursuits and concerns drop away... he just... is... in real time... and
not even measuring that time... he's here but he's not here, a certain
IS-ness prevails... a BE-ness... no analysis... ("beware the dark analysis
that hides and kills the light..." --unknown poet
at which point, jean paul sartre looked up amazed to see the world-alive
as never before, surrounded by nameless, label-less familiar things that
were all alive and present in the now: the world of the surreal (the
super-real...)
and for some people that's it... the end of one road and the beginning of
another, no going back...
other's though get to keep both and can be in either world at will and by
choice (those with trained minds tend to go this route and apparently can
handle both...) the others (the vast majority of the untrained
intellectually) go on and are usually never heard of again... and are
probably ultimately the better-off by comparison to the poor bastards who
remain behind; bleeding hearts and arists, more often than not "banging
their hearts against some mad buggers wall..." ---pink floyd heh ;
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 14, 2016, 8:18:14 PM9/14/16
to
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:53:05 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 20:36:12 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 20:36:12 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 3:13:18 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> >> Jeremy, incapable of ordinary conversation anymore, mutters
> >> discontentedly
> >> from the sidelines heh...
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:34:56 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> >> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeMGqTwWA6U
> >> >> >
> >> >> > what do you have to show for your vote?
> >> >>
> >> >> ### - do they still actually count the votes anymore?
> >> >>
> >> >> i thought they stopped doin' that ages ago lol ;)
> >> >
> >> > No, they just stopped counting yours ages ago.
> >>
> >> ### - (laughing...) just can't let it go huh, burns does it? lol (gud :)
> >>
> >> i stopped voting a very long time ago so am with gc on this one heh...
> >
> > Carlin was great as a young comic but turned bitter.
> > Watch early Carlin, and ignore his dull old-man rants.
> >
> > Voting remains an important right to be exercised.
> > If we end up with a shit-head like Trump as a leader
> > just because not enough people vote to keep him out,
> > you'll find out how important it is - if you're
> > really so dumb as not to realize already (like
> > after 8 years of Dubya w world crash at the end).
>
> ### - riiight, like i really don't need a lecture on political awareness
> from you jeremy?? i've forgotten more than you'll ever know in that
> direction heh...
Maybe you just need to remember then... :)
>
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2016 at 3:13:18 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> >> Jeremy, incapable of ordinary conversation anymore, mutters
> >> discontentedly
> >> from the sidelines heh...
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Monday, September 12, 2016 at 1:34:56 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> >> >> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeMGqTwWA6U
> >> >> >
> >> >> > what do you have to show for your vote?
> >> >>
> >> >> ### - do they still actually count the votes anymore?
> >> >>
> >> >> i thought they stopped doin' that ages ago lol ;)
> >> >
> >> > No, they just stopped counting yours ages ago.
> >>
> >> ### - (laughing...) just can't let it go huh, burns does it? lol (gud :)
> >>
> >> i stopped voting a very long time ago so am with gc on this one heh...
> >
> > Carlin was great as a young comic but turned bitter.
> > Watch early Carlin, and ignore his dull old-man rants.
> >
> > Voting remains an important right to be exercised.
> > If we end up with a shit-head like Trump as a leader
> > just because not enough people vote to keep him out,
> > you'll find out how important it is - if you're
> > really so dumb as not to realize already (like
> > after 8 years of Dubya w world crash at the end).
>
> ### - riiight, like i really don't need a lecture on political awareness
> from you jeremy?? i've forgotten more than you'll ever know in that
> direction heh...
...
> >> Ps. fyi: 3 peeps apparently found your amazon review very useful and
> >> were
> >> persuaded to buy the book! LOL (a nice touch or irony there methinks,
> >> maybe even a poetic kind of justice...)
> >
> > I told you it wasn't bad. It was a balanced review.
>
> ### - BS! you deliberately attempted to sabotage it by accusing me of
> spreading misinformation (lies!) and by injecting your own worthless bored
> opinion on dreaming only being dreaming, a completely disingenuous review
> to match a totally disingenuous 'you' all along! who gives a shit what YOU
> believe! the book is ABOUT a single method you prick! (didn't give any
> other methods duh...)
>
> i mean damn, a 3 star review of your so far 18 reviews at that time (your
> lowest star review to date!) in which you even gave some sex lube that
> only your girlfriend liked: 4 stars?? you're a shit jeremy, clearly a
> shit, and are sooo obviously turning green about the whole thing that you
> just can't keep it to yourself and it leaks out like stale piss lol, i
> 'knew' you'd give it only 3 stars before you'd even fucking read it! AND i
> was right hah... you weren't exactly trying to be helpful to either the
> public or to me were ya (riiight...)
showing, mine. It indicates that 5 other people found it
helpful so far too. I thought you'd have more reviews by now...
So you say it sucks, but 5 people found it "helpful". Huh.
Dude, can't you get any of your other readers to review it?
And can I help it if it's not as good as sex lube?
Gosh, but you've asked so nicely, so I went back to see if
maybe I could add another star to your rating - without
altering any of the words, which I stand by - but there
doesn't seem to be any way to modify it now. Oh well,
I guess you'll just have to keep on being an ego-less,
self-less being whose human pursuits and concerns have
dropped away - so that only a certain IS-ness prevails...
you know, a BE-ness, which rhymes with penis, which
reminds me of what a clueless dick head you are. Yeah,
there's still that for you to be though, eh? :)
> >> cheers jeremy! you've genuinely added 'years of enjoyment' to my life!
> >> :P
> >
> > Good to know. :)
>
> ### - your idiocy is such that this IS actually true! so i MEANT thanks!
>
> now fuck off you 'little shit' and go screw your fucking self, i have no
> more patience for ya whatsoever, nada! we done!
>
> adios asshole! (or as bill hicks would say: enjoy the lake of fire fucker!)
Now I'm not implying all your promises are empty,
but if I "genuinely added years of enjoyment",
as you insisted, why do want me to fuck off? :)
And sorry, but to offer more constructive criticism,
you're sounding a bit redundant. I mean, telling me
to fuck off AND go screw my fucking self?
But then, that's probably just another one of the
inscrutable lessons of an egoless, selfless being.
Guess I'll go see if I can spot the answer in that
lake of fire you so selflessly offer. Yep, sure enough,
there it is, right along with Alan Watts, and Zen,
and lucid dreaming, and CC. It's all burning right
to nada, there in that human lake of fire. Go figure.
It all fell into a burning lake of fire.
They preached more, more, more,
and the flames climbed higher.
And it burns, burns, burns - the lake of fire.
The lake of fire.
And thank you for playing! For extra credit,
and a coupon for $10 off The Astral Museum
Of Inconsequential Ideas and Pursuits, please
visit psychtest.com today, and select all
relevant tests for your own personal maladies.
Remember kids, that's... psychtest.com.
slider
Sep 15, 2016, 12:01:21 AM9/15/16
to
### - have given you more chances that anyone else, probably ever!
BUT... i forgive you asshole!
now all ya gotta do is somehow learn to forgive yourself hah!
(what a fucking lunatic 'you' turned out to be lol :)
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 01:18:13 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
nada! and bored me and everyone else stupid yet again...
SNIP!
BUT... i forgive you asshole!
now all ya gotta do is somehow learn to forgive yourself hah!
(what a fucking lunatic 'you' turned out to be lol :)
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 01:18:13 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
nada! and bored me and everyone else stupid yet again...
SNIP!
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 15, 2016, 1:50:18 PM9/15/16
to
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 9:01:21 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> ### - have given you more chances that anyone else, probably ever!
Yes! And you've probably written me off, like... nada, done...
> ### - have given you more chances that anyone else, probably ever!
more times than anyone else. Hmmm. Is that what you mean
by "chances"?
I'm just curious - has that sort of thing ever worked
with your girlfriends (assuming you had any)? You know,
screaming fuck you asshole and you little shit and
enjoy the lake of fire fucker, etc... over and over,
then say you "forgive them" and are willing to "give
them other chances"... did that ever work for you? :)
> BUT... i forgive you asshole!
it doesn't even look in any way like real forgiveness
when you call the person an asshole in the same sentence
and then a 'fucking lunatic' afterward. So... if you
insist on bolstering your self-less self-image by
pretending to forgive people, you should probably
leave out those parts. :) It leaves me to wonder
if I'm still relegated to the lake of fire or not?
You'll have to forgive me again for wondering if
it's all rather meaningless either way...
> now all ya gotta do is somehow learn to forgive yourself hah!
>
> (what a fucking lunatic 'you' turned out to be lol :)
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 15, 2016, 1:53:24 PM9/15/16
to
176 Reasons Donald Trump Shouldn't Be President
BY KEITH OLBERMANN
In the debut episode of his new series, "The Closer," GQ's Keith Olbermann tallies the most outrageous of Donald Trump's offenses in what is now his 15-month assault on American democracy.
Every few generations, we Americans are called upon to defend our country. To defend it not so much from foreign dictators or war or terrorism, but from those here who have no commitment to progress or democracy or representative government—no commitment to anything except their own out-of-control minds and the bottomless pits of their egos.
Our society has thrown up these people before: Joseph McCarthy. George Wallace. Father Coughlin. Jefferson Davis. Aaron Burr. The Know-Nothings. The Blacklisters. The America-Firsters. And we have always thrown them out.
And now our generation has its own: the most dangerous individual ever nominated by a major party for the highest office in this country.
His base wants few details and fewer facts; they just want to burn it down and blame their failures on the collective other. And Donald John Trump is their demonic messiah in Oompa Loompa's clothing.
We must stop him. It is not pleasant. It is not fair that we have to do this. But it is our turn.
The Emperor's New Clothes quality to the Trump campaign has survived these 15 months because, as we react to each outrage, our shock and revulsion have been refracted like light through a prism.
But these outrages are not separate events, not even a pattern. They are, simply, Donald Trump. Seen all at once, they—and he—are horrifying. You must see them "all at once." Thus—in brief—the story so far:
The Republican party has actually nominated for president a man who attacked the Pope.
Who attacked John McCain for being captured by the North Vietnamese.
Who attacked Gold Star parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan and then juxtaposed their names with the phrase "Radical Islamic Terrorism."
Who attacked Hillary Clinton as a "bigot." Who attacked her as "brainwashed." As "unhinged." As "a monster." As "the devil." As "the most corrupt candidate ever"—showing her face on piles of hundred-dollar bills and the Star of David.
Who attacked her as someone whom "Second Amendment people" should do something about. As someone whose religion "we don't know anything about"—after he explained he had never asked God for forgiveness.
Who attacked President Obama and implied he was a traitor. Who attacked him as having been complicit in the Orlando terrorist attack. Who attacked him for having lower approval ratings than Vladimir Putin, as if Putin's could be trusted. Who attacked him as being born in another country. Who attacked him as the founder of ISIS, then said it was sarcasm, then said it wasn't sarcasm, then attacked him again as the founder of ISIS.
Who attacked Carly Fiorina for her face; Hillary Clinton for her non-presidential "look"; Heidi Cruz for her appearance; Megyn Kelly for having "blood coming out of her wherever"; Mika Brzezinski as "crazy and very dumb," "neurotic," "not very bright."
Who attacked the women who accused Roger Ailes of harassment.
Who attacked the women who choose abortion—and said there should be punishments.
Who attacked a New York Times reporter because he had a condition that made his arms look atypical; who attacked Judge Gonzalo Curiel because he was of Mexican descent; who attacked Senator Elizabeth Warren over allegedly lying about her heritage to get into Harvard when she never went to Harvard; who attacked Senator Jeff Flake by saying he won't be re-elected this year, when he isn't up for election until 2018.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who attacked U.S. troops in Iraq and claimed they stole millions; who has attacked Ted Cruz's father and claimed he was connected to the assassination of President Kennedy; attacked Bill Clinton and claimed he was a rapist.
Who attacked Mexicans as rapists, bringing drugs and crime; who attacked African-Americans and claimed they were all living in poverty with no jobs and schools that were no good; who attacked Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as a "war zone" and attacked the United States of America and claimed it is in a "death spiral."
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who lied about opposing the war in Iraq, when there is a tape of him supporting it. A tape recorded on the first anniversary of 9/11…
Who lied about opposing the war in Iraq during a speech in which he insisted, "I will never lie to you."
Who lied about six million dollars in charitable donations to veterans’ groups from his telethon; who lied about donating his profits from The Apprentice, about charitable donations from The Celebrity Apprentice, and from "Trump the Game" to St. Jude Cancer Center.
Who lied about a plan to debate Bernie Sanders for charity.
Who lied about why he wouldn't release his taxes, because he was being audited and proved himself a liar by saying he would release his taxes if Hillary Clinton released her e-mails; who lied about how much money his father gave him or helped him get, coming out of college; who lied about sending his private jet to ferry stranded U.S. servicemen; who lied about talking to the Attorney General of Florida, who declined to investigate Trump University after she was given a campaign donation; who lied about his business in Russia; who lied about meeting Russian president Putin; who lied about offering child care to his employees, when it was child care for his hotel guests; who lied about "some people" wanting a moment of silence for the murderer of five Dallas policemen; who lied about seeing thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11; who lied about 9/11 hijackers sending their wives and girlfriends home to Saudi Arabia.
Who lied about thousands of Syrian refugee terrorists being secretly admitted to this country; who lied about the Chicago police urging him to cancel a rally; who lied about the Chicago police saying they could solve crime there with "tough police tactics"; who lied about how there was no drought in California, how he never said Japan should have nuclear weapons, how he opposed the ouster of Egyptian president Mubarak, how the unemployment rate is 42 percent.
Who lied about ISIS making millions a week selling Libyan oil; who lied about dozens of secret terrorist cases in this country; who lied that a protester who tried to rush onto his stage had "ties to ISIS"; who lied last May and again last week about refugees entering this country carrying cell phones with "ISIS flags on them" and phone plans pre-paid by ISIS!
Can you hear me now?
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who congratulated himself in two tweets and a press release for predicting terrorist attacks like Orlando, while bodies still lay in the Pulse nightclub…
Who congratulated himself after the killing of Dwyane Wade's cousin.
Who congratulated himself on predicting Brexit, even though three weeks earlier he had never heard of Brexit.
Who congratulated himself on Republican Convention TV ratings, even though those for his closing speech were lower than for John McCain's.
Who congratulated himself by disseminating a video showing how much of that speech's total running time was taken up…by applause.
Who congratulated himself on having "the world's greatest memory," then three weeks later testified in a deposition he had no memory of saying that.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who has proposed that Russia or China should enact a Watergate-like hacking of Hillary Clinton's e-mails; who has proposed banning Muslims from entering the country, then said it was only a suggestion, then proposed it again; whose running mate has proposed banning members of other religions; who has proposed open racial profiling; who has proposed banning people from "terror nations," saying, "Look it up, they have a list"; who has proposed "ideological certification" for immigrants; who has proposed worse than waterboarding while praising how Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-un handled protest and terrorism; who has proposed that American civilians be tried by military commissions at Gitmo; who has proposed killing the families of terrorists or suspected terrorists.
A man who has proposed teaching mandatory patriotism in schools; proposed that his supporters appoint themselves as election-day voting monitors; proposed making American protection of fellow NATO members C-O-D; whose campaign proposed purging the government of all Obama appointees; proposed avoiding government debt by printing more money; proposed reducing national debt by paying less than we agreed to; proposed forestalling new financial regulations by executive order—and then in the same speech proposed eliminating…some executive orders.
A man who proposed a wall along the Mexican border to keep out undocumented immigrants; proposed mass deportation of undocumented immigrants; proposed a smaller wall and fewer deportations during a taped television interview that played at the same moment he was giving a speech in Phoenix insisting on a larger wall and more deportations.
A man who has proposed immediately expelling at least two to three million undocumented immigrants, even though this would be like trying to evacuate the city of Chicago in one day; proposed immediately expelling any others not convicted—but merely accused—of a crime.
A man who has proposed to enact all this by executive action, bypassing Congress, even though he employed undocumented immigrants in the building of Trump Tower; even though those immigrants say he not only knew of them but hired them personally; even though his own modeling agency and television shows enabled and employed undocumented immigrants; even though his own wife may have worked here without proper documentation; even though his own grandfather was reportedly not merely a fraudulent emigrant to this country but was also denied re-entry to Germany because he was a draft-dodger.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who has claimed he understood the sacrifice of losing a child in war because he had spent money to hire employees; who has claimed he understood prejudice against African-Americans because the system is also rigged against him; who claimed the election will be rigged against him; claimed the opinion polls are rigged against him, then praised one of the exact same polls when it favored him; claimed he would be leading those rigged polls by 20 points but for the rigged media; claimed Democrats are voting ten times each; claimed that his crowd in Colorado Springs would've been larger, but the fire marshal was a Democrat; claimed that his speech in Washington would have drawn as many as Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, but "nobody would let them in."
A man who has claimed he was his own best foreign-policy adviser; claimed that Putin will not go into Ukraine when he already invaded Ukraine in 2014; claimed the U.S. is paying rent for a military base in Saudi Arabia when the last one there closed in 2003; claimed that to avoid hacking, the military should stop communicating "on wires" and return to using messengers.
A man who has claimed that any candidate using a teleprompter should be ineligible, and then himself began using a teleprompter; claimed that he doesn't use notes for speeches during a speech he gave primarily from notes; claimed he will fix the problems of African-Americans, then days later suggested that an African-American athlete protesting police shootings should leave this country.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who was revealed to have asked his foreign-policy advisers three times in one hour why this country can't use nuclear weapons if we have nuclear weapons—after having asked a television interviewer the same question; who was revealed to have not known what the "nuclear triad" was.
A man who was revealed to have been the political beneficiary of fake Internet accounts underwritten by the Kremlin; revealed to have improperly sought campaign contributions from foreign nationals, including officials of foreign governments.
A man who was revealed to have erased all his e-mails, including those sought in a lawsuit, for five years; revealed to have plagiarized 20 pages in his Trump Institute handbook; revealed to have employed the purported author of his wife's Convention speech, which plagiarized part of a speech written for Michelle Obama by Hillary Clinton's former speechwriter; revealed to have said on his 2008 radio show that Hillary Clinton would "make a good president."
A man who was revealed to have admitted using the pseudonyms "John Barron" and "John Miller" while pretending to be his own press spokesman and boasting of his sexual conquests in the 1990s; revealed to have used the pseudonym "John Baron" while his company threatened its undocumented workers; revealed to have telephoned one television network to alert it to something positive being said about him on another television network.
A man revealed to have millions in outstanding loans to the Bank of China; revealed to have tried to make investment deals with Muammar Gaddafi; revealed to have once kept a book of Hitler's speeches in a cabinet near his bed.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who has allied himself with his campaign adviser and delegate, who said Hillary Clinton should be shot by firing squad for treason; who has allied himself with another campaign adviser who mused about waterboarding Hillary Clinton; who has allied himself with an African-American pastor who disseminated an image of Hillary Clinton in blackface; who has allied himself with his own son, who follows a series of white-supremacist Twitter accounts…
A man who has allied himself with at least seven campaign staffers who have disseminated racist and/or violent messages on social media; who has allied himself with a state campaign co-chairman who tweeted, "Lynch Loretta Lynch"; who has allied himself with an Illinois Trump delegate who is a white supremacist; a California Trump delegate who is a white-nationalist leader; a former personal butler who wrote on Facebook that President Obama should be "hung for treason."
A man who has allied himself with three different campaign chiefs: the first who manhandled a woman reporter, then lied about it; the second who was listed to receive $12 million from a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine; the third who has been accused under oath of anti-Semitic comments and domestic violence.
A man who has allied himself with a foreign-policy adviser accused under oath of anti-Semitic comments; with a New York State co-chair who suggested Khizr Khan supports ISIS and is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood; with a close adviser who says a Clinton aide could be a "Saudi spy" or "terrorist agent."
A man who has allied himself with a former campaign state chairman accused of drawing a gun on another campaign staffer; with a conspiracy-theorist radio host who claims the Newtown school shootings were a hoax; with a political operative so corrupt he was once fired—by Republicans—for falsifying evidence…against Hillary Clinton.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who has offered to pay the legal fees of any supporter who becomes physically violent against a heckler; who encouraged crowd members to harass and threaten a reporter, whom he called out by name and who then needed Secret Service protection; who accepted a military medal from an audience member and said, "I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier"; who conducted a news conference to introduce his running mate, only to spend the first 25 minutes talking only about himself; whose prominent Latino surrogate warned Mexican immigration would put "taco trucks on every corner"—four months after the nominee commemorated Cinco de Mayo by tweeting a photo of himself eating from a taco bowl.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who tweeted thanks to singer Billy Joel for dedicating a song to him, never realizing Joel was, by doing so, mocking him; who gave a trade speech in Monessen, Pennsylvania, standing in front of a wall made out of bales of compressed garbage; who bragged during a presidential debate about the size of his genitalia; who gave a television interview while seated in front of a photograph of himself wearing the same suit, shirt, and tie; who appeared, in a joint news conference with the president of Mexico, with two bobby pins visible, holding his hairdo in place.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president an irresponsible, unrealistic, naive, petulant, childish, vindictive, prejudiced, bigoted, racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, fascistic, authoritarian, insensitive, erratic, disturbed, irrational, inhuman individual named Donald John Trump.
This…is madness. Any questions?
Keith Olbermann is GQ’s new special correspondent.
BY KEITH OLBERMANN
In the debut episode of his new series, "The Closer," GQ's Keith Olbermann tallies the most outrageous of Donald Trump's offenses in what is now his 15-month assault on American democracy.
Every few generations, we Americans are called upon to defend our country. To defend it not so much from foreign dictators or war or terrorism, but from those here who have no commitment to progress or democracy or representative government—no commitment to anything except their own out-of-control minds and the bottomless pits of their egos.
Our society has thrown up these people before: Joseph McCarthy. George Wallace. Father Coughlin. Jefferson Davis. Aaron Burr. The Know-Nothings. The Blacklisters. The America-Firsters. And we have always thrown them out.
And now our generation has its own: the most dangerous individual ever nominated by a major party for the highest office in this country.
His base wants few details and fewer facts; they just want to burn it down and blame their failures on the collective other. And Donald John Trump is their demonic messiah in Oompa Loompa's clothing.
We must stop him. It is not pleasant. It is not fair that we have to do this. But it is our turn.
The Emperor's New Clothes quality to the Trump campaign has survived these 15 months because, as we react to each outrage, our shock and revulsion have been refracted like light through a prism.
But these outrages are not separate events, not even a pattern. They are, simply, Donald Trump. Seen all at once, they—and he—are horrifying. You must see them "all at once." Thus—in brief—the story so far:
The Republican party has actually nominated for president a man who attacked the Pope.
Who attacked John McCain for being captured by the North Vietnamese.
Who attacked Gold Star parents Khizr and Ghazala Khan and then juxtaposed their names with the phrase "Radical Islamic Terrorism."
Who attacked Hillary Clinton as a "bigot." Who attacked her as "brainwashed." As "unhinged." As "a monster." As "the devil." As "the most corrupt candidate ever"—showing her face on piles of hundred-dollar bills and the Star of David.
Who attacked her as someone whom "Second Amendment people" should do something about. As someone whose religion "we don't know anything about"—after he explained he had never asked God for forgiveness.
Who attacked President Obama and implied he was a traitor. Who attacked him as having been complicit in the Orlando terrorist attack. Who attacked him for having lower approval ratings than Vladimir Putin, as if Putin's could be trusted. Who attacked him as being born in another country. Who attacked him as the founder of ISIS, then said it was sarcasm, then said it wasn't sarcasm, then attacked him again as the founder of ISIS.
Who attacked Carly Fiorina for her face; Hillary Clinton for her non-presidential "look"; Heidi Cruz for her appearance; Megyn Kelly for having "blood coming out of her wherever"; Mika Brzezinski as "crazy and very dumb," "neurotic," "not very bright."
Who attacked the women who accused Roger Ailes of harassment.
Who attacked the women who choose abortion—and said there should be punishments.
Who attacked a New York Times reporter because he had a condition that made his arms look atypical; who attacked Judge Gonzalo Curiel because he was of Mexican descent; who attacked Senator Elizabeth Warren over allegedly lying about her heritage to get into Harvard when she never went to Harvard; who attacked Senator Jeff Flake by saying he won't be re-elected this year, when he isn't up for election until 2018.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who attacked U.S. troops in Iraq and claimed they stole millions; who has attacked Ted Cruz's father and claimed he was connected to the assassination of President Kennedy; attacked Bill Clinton and claimed he was a rapist.
Who attacked Mexicans as rapists, bringing drugs and crime; who attacked African-Americans and claimed they were all living in poverty with no jobs and schools that were no good; who attacked Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as a "war zone" and attacked the United States of America and claimed it is in a "death spiral."
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who lied about opposing the war in Iraq, when there is a tape of him supporting it. A tape recorded on the first anniversary of 9/11…
Who lied about opposing the war in Iraq during a speech in which he insisted, "I will never lie to you."
Who lied about six million dollars in charitable donations to veterans’ groups from his telethon; who lied about donating his profits from The Apprentice, about charitable donations from The Celebrity Apprentice, and from "Trump the Game" to St. Jude Cancer Center.
Who lied about a plan to debate Bernie Sanders for charity.
Who lied about why he wouldn't release his taxes, because he was being audited and proved himself a liar by saying he would release his taxes if Hillary Clinton released her e-mails; who lied about how much money his father gave him or helped him get, coming out of college; who lied about sending his private jet to ferry stranded U.S. servicemen; who lied about talking to the Attorney General of Florida, who declined to investigate Trump University after she was given a campaign donation; who lied about his business in Russia; who lied about meeting Russian president Putin; who lied about offering child care to his employees, when it was child care for his hotel guests; who lied about "some people" wanting a moment of silence for the murderer of five Dallas policemen; who lied about seeing thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11; who lied about 9/11 hijackers sending their wives and girlfriends home to Saudi Arabia.
Who lied about thousands of Syrian refugee terrorists being secretly admitted to this country; who lied about the Chicago police urging him to cancel a rally; who lied about the Chicago police saying they could solve crime there with "tough police tactics"; who lied about how there was no drought in California, how he never said Japan should have nuclear weapons, how he opposed the ouster of Egyptian president Mubarak, how the unemployment rate is 42 percent.
Who lied about ISIS making millions a week selling Libyan oil; who lied about dozens of secret terrorist cases in this country; who lied that a protester who tried to rush onto his stage had "ties to ISIS"; who lied last May and again last week about refugees entering this country carrying cell phones with "ISIS flags on them" and phone plans pre-paid by ISIS!
Can you hear me now?
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who congratulated himself in two tweets and a press release for predicting terrorist attacks like Orlando, while bodies still lay in the Pulse nightclub…
Who congratulated himself after the killing of Dwyane Wade's cousin.
Who congratulated himself on predicting Brexit, even though three weeks earlier he had never heard of Brexit.
Who congratulated himself on Republican Convention TV ratings, even though those for his closing speech were lower than for John McCain's.
Who congratulated himself by disseminating a video showing how much of that speech's total running time was taken up…by applause.
Who congratulated himself on having "the world's greatest memory," then three weeks later testified in a deposition he had no memory of saying that.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who has proposed that Russia or China should enact a Watergate-like hacking of Hillary Clinton's e-mails; who has proposed banning Muslims from entering the country, then said it was only a suggestion, then proposed it again; whose running mate has proposed banning members of other religions; who has proposed open racial profiling; who has proposed banning people from "terror nations," saying, "Look it up, they have a list"; who has proposed "ideological certification" for immigrants; who has proposed worse than waterboarding while praising how Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-un handled protest and terrorism; who has proposed that American civilians be tried by military commissions at Gitmo; who has proposed killing the families of terrorists or suspected terrorists.
A man who has proposed teaching mandatory patriotism in schools; proposed that his supporters appoint themselves as election-day voting monitors; proposed making American protection of fellow NATO members C-O-D; whose campaign proposed purging the government of all Obama appointees; proposed avoiding government debt by printing more money; proposed reducing national debt by paying less than we agreed to; proposed forestalling new financial regulations by executive order—and then in the same speech proposed eliminating…some executive orders.
A man who proposed a wall along the Mexican border to keep out undocumented immigrants; proposed mass deportation of undocumented immigrants; proposed a smaller wall and fewer deportations during a taped television interview that played at the same moment he was giving a speech in Phoenix insisting on a larger wall and more deportations.
A man who has proposed immediately expelling at least two to three million undocumented immigrants, even though this would be like trying to evacuate the city of Chicago in one day; proposed immediately expelling any others not convicted—but merely accused—of a crime.
A man who has proposed to enact all this by executive action, bypassing Congress, even though he employed undocumented immigrants in the building of Trump Tower; even though those immigrants say he not only knew of them but hired them personally; even though his own modeling agency and television shows enabled and employed undocumented immigrants; even though his own wife may have worked here without proper documentation; even though his own grandfather was reportedly not merely a fraudulent emigrant to this country but was also denied re-entry to Germany because he was a draft-dodger.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who has claimed he understood the sacrifice of losing a child in war because he had spent money to hire employees; who has claimed he understood prejudice against African-Americans because the system is also rigged against him; who claimed the election will be rigged against him; claimed the opinion polls are rigged against him, then praised one of the exact same polls when it favored him; claimed he would be leading those rigged polls by 20 points but for the rigged media; claimed Democrats are voting ten times each; claimed that his crowd in Colorado Springs would've been larger, but the fire marshal was a Democrat; claimed that his speech in Washington would have drawn as many as Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, but "nobody would let them in."
A man who has claimed he was his own best foreign-policy adviser; claimed that Putin will not go into Ukraine when he already invaded Ukraine in 2014; claimed the U.S. is paying rent for a military base in Saudi Arabia when the last one there closed in 2003; claimed that to avoid hacking, the military should stop communicating "on wires" and return to using messengers.
A man who has claimed that any candidate using a teleprompter should be ineligible, and then himself began using a teleprompter; claimed that he doesn't use notes for speeches during a speech he gave primarily from notes; claimed he will fix the problems of African-Americans, then days later suggested that an African-American athlete protesting police shootings should leave this country.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who was revealed to have asked his foreign-policy advisers three times in one hour why this country can't use nuclear weapons if we have nuclear weapons—after having asked a television interviewer the same question; who was revealed to have not known what the "nuclear triad" was.
A man who was revealed to have been the political beneficiary of fake Internet accounts underwritten by the Kremlin; revealed to have improperly sought campaign contributions from foreign nationals, including officials of foreign governments.
A man who was revealed to have erased all his e-mails, including those sought in a lawsuit, for five years; revealed to have plagiarized 20 pages in his Trump Institute handbook; revealed to have employed the purported author of his wife's Convention speech, which plagiarized part of a speech written for Michelle Obama by Hillary Clinton's former speechwriter; revealed to have said on his 2008 radio show that Hillary Clinton would "make a good president."
A man who was revealed to have admitted using the pseudonyms "John Barron" and "John Miller" while pretending to be his own press spokesman and boasting of his sexual conquests in the 1990s; revealed to have used the pseudonym "John Baron" while his company threatened its undocumented workers; revealed to have telephoned one television network to alert it to something positive being said about him on another television network.
A man revealed to have millions in outstanding loans to the Bank of China; revealed to have tried to make investment deals with Muammar Gaddafi; revealed to have once kept a book of Hitler's speeches in a cabinet near his bed.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who has allied himself with his campaign adviser and delegate, who said Hillary Clinton should be shot by firing squad for treason; who has allied himself with another campaign adviser who mused about waterboarding Hillary Clinton; who has allied himself with an African-American pastor who disseminated an image of Hillary Clinton in blackface; who has allied himself with his own son, who follows a series of white-supremacist Twitter accounts…
A man who has allied himself with at least seven campaign staffers who have disseminated racist and/or violent messages on social media; who has allied himself with a state campaign co-chairman who tweeted, "Lynch Loretta Lynch"; who has allied himself with an Illinois Trump delegate who is a white supremacist; a California Trump delegate who is a white-nationalist leader; a former personal butler who wrote on Facebook that President Obama should be "hung for treason."
A man who has allied himself with three different campaign chiefs: the first who manhandled a woman reporter, then lied about it; the second who was listed to receive $12 million from a pro-Russia political party in Ukraine; the third who has been accused under oath of anti-Semitic comments and domestic violence.
A man who has allied himself with a foreign-policy adviser accused under oath of anti-Semitic comments; with a New York State co-chair who suggested Khizr Khan supports ISIS and is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood; with a close adviser who says a Clinton aide could be a "Saudi spy" or "terrorist agent."
A man who has allied himself with a former campaign state chairman accused of drawing a gun on another campaign staffer; with a conspiracy-theorist radio host who claims the Newtown school shootings were a hoax; with a political operative so corrupt he was once fired—by Republicans—for falsifying evidence…against Hillary Clinton.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who has offered to pay the legal fees of any supporter who becomes physically violent against a heckler; who encouraged crowd members to harass and threaten a reporter, whom he called out by name and who then needed Secret Service protection; who accepted a military medal from an audience member and said, "I always wanted to get the Purple Heart. This was much easier"; who conducted a news conference to introduce his running mate, only to spend the first 25 minutes talking only about himself; whose prominent Latino surrogate warned Mexican immigration would put "taco trucks on every corner"—four months after the nominee commemorated Cinco de Mayo by tweeting a photo of himself eating from a taco bowl.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president a man who tweeted thanks to singer Billy Joel for dedicating a song to him, never realizing Joel was, by doing so, mocking him; who gave a trade speech in Monessen, Pennsylvania, standing in front of a wall made out of bales of compressed garbage; who bragged during a presidential debate about the size of his genitalia; who gave a television interview while seated in front of a photograph of himself wearing the same suit, shirt, and tie; who appeared, in a joint news conference with the president of Mexico, with two bobby pins visible, holding his hairdo in place.
The Republican Party has actually nominated for president an irresponsible, unrealistic, naive, petulant, childish, vindictive, prejudiced, bigoted, racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, fascistic, authoritarian, insensitive, erratic, disturbed, irrational, inhuman individual named Donald John Trump.
This…is madness. Any questions?
Keith Olbermann is GQ’s new special correspondent.
slider
Sep 15, 2016, 3:13:43 PM9/15/16
to
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 18:50:17 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 9:01:21 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:
>> ### - have given you more chances that anyone else, probably ever!
>
> Yes! And you've probably written me off, like... nada, done...
> more times than anyone else. Hmmm. Is that what you mean
> by "chances"?
>
> I'm just curious - has that sort of thing ever worked
> with your girlfriends (assuming you had any)? You know,
> screaming fuck you asshole and you little shit and
> enjoy the lake of fire fucker, etc... over and over,
> then say you "forgive them" and are willing to "give
> them other chances"... did that ever work for you? :)
### - not girlfriends, no, it just works on... you lol :)
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 9:01:21 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:
>> ### - have given you more chances that anyone else, probably ever!
>
> Yes! And you've probably written me off, like... nada, done...
> more times than anyone else. Hmmm. Is that what you mean
> by "chances"?
>
> I'm just curious - has that sort of thing ever worked
> with your girlfriends (assuming you had any)? You know,
> screaming fuck you asshole and you little shit and
> enjoy the lake of fire fucker, etc... over and over,
> then say you "forgive them" and are willing to "give
> them other chances"... did that ever work for you? :)
i.e., whenever you start getting a bit shitty and 'unreasonable' (leaning
too far to the right basically...) i have to whack you over the head a few
times in the correct manner & way and back over the line to the left you
go! virtually every time! i don't know why it works, or care, only that,
for you, it does! and you're nearly always but always far more amenable to
conversation after that... (like always; a bit glum for a day or 2 perhaps
and then you're alright! rational! can converse again!)
i'm guessing you have a certain slight stability prob there, whereby every
now and again you kinda drift over to the right, certain things also cause
it i've noticed (clues call them, saying certain things definitely sends
you more in that direction than saying other things etc...) becoming very
unreasonable and insulting in the process, all high and mighty + looking
down and dishing out the dirt to these perhaps lesser mortals below you
(typical right wing behaviour) slapping them about a bit making you feel
better maybe or whatever (right wing is stronger on authority than on the
left where discussion comes more into things as opposed to edicts handed
down from on high kinda thing) it doesn't really matter, all right wing
peeps are nutters and unreasonable; just look at trump! so yes, have often
had to chase you back over to the left but you usually always do go and we
start all over again... it's happened many many times to date by now...
you could, of course, instead just quite consciously & deliberately decide
to make a stand in just the one position and deliberately + consciously
remain there, but it would have to be a 'conscious' act to counteract
you're more natural tendency to drift off-point unless you're checking
it...
it might all sound a bit odd, but is absolutely the truth as i've seen and
experienced it with you... you do also come back from there all by
yourself too but it takes longer (i've tried both ways) the kick up the
butt et-al/whatever is just faster is all, you come back quicker possibly
wasting less time, i don't argue with it it's just the way things are...
and no, am not being funny haha, condescending or demeaning ya, am
actually being very direct with you for a change because am feeling that
maybe, just maybe this time you might be open to what am saying on another
level/layer OR you can use it to stir up your ire again (as you have done
many times before) am just gamboling that 'this' time you might even hear
it and act on it...
let's see :)
Jeremy H. Donovan
Sep 15, 2016, 6:06:34 PM9/15/16
to
So that's what you do.
And it all seems okay to you. :)
And it all seems okay to you. :)
slider
Sep 15, 2016, 7:37:44 PM9/15/16
to
it's just the way things are as ultimately set by you: you are the way you
are and i don't judge you for it, whatever works is good enough and
everyone is an individual case...
reality decides :)
Jeremy H. Donovan
Sep 16, 2016, 2:33:43 AM9/16/16
to
It has never "worked".
Not with me, or anyone else.
But I forgive you.
Not with me, or anyone else.
But I forgive you.
slider
Sep 16, 2016, 7:55:29 AM9/16/16
to
the same way i exchange with tempy say? you'd consider it far too flowery
or poetic for instance, yet he and i exchanged enormities in only a couple
of messages, most of it personal only to him... crsds and mine exchanges
being different again, i can't ever talk to you the way i talk to him...
everyone's different! plus we've discussed this before on many occasions
actually although usually far more obliquely/indirectly (i mentioned once
in an exchange that i was trying to maybe 'bash you straight' remember?)
the outsider stands apart + there's just no way of dragging you (or
anyone) onto 'my' island, especially over the net (face to face is a bit
different and i could maybe drag you a bit but even then only slightly
away from your own island,in which case you'd maybe catch a glimpse of
mine but only a glimpse... i dunno how else to describe it)
point is, i am not your enemy! (am not anyone's enemy, am an outsider
remember?)
fact is, as far as ordinary average people are concerned, lucid dreaming
adds a new dimension to their lives... an extra area of activity and
experience thus a slight increase in awareness overall, once they can do
it there is now a tiny bit more to their lives and the way they think/feel
about it all...
i.e., you've accused me of doing 'nothing' in the past to do something
about the state of our world and humanity for real, but truth is am out
there 'actively' doing something about it (before just with individuals on
an individual basis, but with this lucid dreaming business: whole batches!)
it's not much i grant you, but it's something more than nothing 'and' it
wont do anyone any harm! people having ordinary non-lucid dreams perhaps
being a reflection of their ordinary, equally + generally speaking
non-lucid waking lives, lives in which they're experiencing total
immersion... (e.g., i think people who were more lucid in their waking
lives would kinda automatically have lucid dreams to go with it rather
than chaotic ones, but it works in reverse too: get lucid in your ordinary
dreams and one's waking life starts becoming more lucid as well...) iow:
there's a corresponding lucidity to be experienced in waking just as there
is in dreaming and vice versa
a corresponding lucidity to be found in waking that changes the way one
feels about it all, everything becoming more at 'arms-length' as opposed
to being right in yer face all the time, an opportunity then to look at
everything again in a slightly new light, thus a more detached approach to
life and living that isn't generally available under normal
circumstances...
it's a 'good' thing if people can take a look at their lives again and
reevaluate it, a chance to step back just a fraction from that total
immersion that makes idiots of us all...
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 16, 2016, 12:32:08 PM9/16/16
to
And I've seen that all along.
There's been some research showing that some brain areas
associated with self-reflection are larger in lucid dreamers.
In fact, I have posted that research here before myself.
But to me, that only suggests that lucid dreamers are
more *introspective* - more prone to monitoring their
own thoughts. But see, in the waking world, there is
also value in being highly observant of *others* as well,
and value in being perceptive of the thoughts and actions
of others, as opposed to being good at monitoring
your own state carefully. What I've observed is that
there are many people who are good at not only observing
other people, but also of effectively interacting
highly effective ways with others. These people are
not focused on being detached or on self monitoring.
They have a different way. Actually, there are lots of
"different ways" - different styles, like a 'spectrum'.
You so often act like you think there's only one
acceptable way for a person to be in this world,
or perhaps a "best" way for a person to be, and I
think holding such an attitude is a mistake, which
misses out on a broader appreciation of 'the spectrum'.
You think you know what "ordinary average people" are.
But I don't see any easy "lines" like that to draw.
To give just two examples in the people close to me,
first, my son's not a dreamer. He seldom recalls
even his ordinary dreams and has never gone lucid,
although he finds it highly fascinating whenever I
talk about it. His girlfriend's also a lucid dreamer.
Yet he's an amazing person, with all kinds of
skills and talents. For example, he's far better
at interacting with other people in harmony than
most people I know. He was a joy to raise and is one
of the most naturally peaceful and mellow human beings
I've ever known. He's a quick learner, and always
observant of what's going on around him in real life.
He's interested in visual arts, writing, and music,
and may well become good at all of those eventually.
He completed a black belt in kung fu, and is now
successful as a partnered streamer on Twitch.
The second example I'll give is my partner. She's
far more accomplished in real life than I am
(for example, she has an MBA from UCLA), and is
also highly skilled at dealing with other people.
She has extremely elaborate and interesting
ordinary dreams which she enjoys a great deal,
yet has little interest in remaining lucid in
her dreaming. In fact, her reaction whenever
she becomes aware that she's dreaming is to say:
"oh, I guess it's time to get up now since
I'm starting to become awake". :)
You see Neo, in real life, there are many different
ways of *being*, and lots of ways to contribute
effectively and profoundly in life. Not everyone
could or should be a lucid dreamer. That is not
the be-all and end-all in life.
You do not seem to realize this, and often espouse
what I perceive to be a narrow, judgmental, and
almost shallow view. But again, I forgive you.
Lucid dreaming is fine and all. I just think you
should be a little less 'fanatical' about it.
allreadygone
Sep 16, 2016, 2:12:06 PM9/16/16
to
say what you want BUT you gonna get your
money's worth with big Dave. Just saying.
Be happy someone would take the time.
Not everyone is so willing to be direct.
Same goes with Slider, he does want to
go the 'distance'. Rarely do you find
people willing to do so.
money's worth with big Dave. Just saying.
Be happy someone would take the time.
Not everyone is so willing to be direct.
Same goes with Slider, he does want to
go the 'distance'. Rarely do you find
people willing to do so.
slider
Sep 16, 2016, 2:22:58 PM9/16/16
to
dream and only that (am only speaking in that context...) and as such;
people who can add an extra dimension to their lives by including it in
their experience garnered from time they'd usually spend fast asleep,
experiences and time they wouldn't otherwise have access to, thus extra!
regardless of what people do or don't do in their waking lives, this extra
area of awareness enhances their intra-personal skills if anything because
'they' are slightly different, slightly extra so to speak, just a little
more rounded-out than before, it doesn't alter their activities so much as
altering their attitude towards them and whatever they're doing, and, if
anything, actually brings more intelligent awareness to bear upon whatever
they're doing...
the neo thing is just a joke for christsakes lol, but appropriate in some
ways (particularly that end speech of his before he takes off flying
hahaha...) i have no personal self importance myself about it; hence the
joke! (i'm taking the piss outta myself and laughing at it lol)
point is... no matter the many different ways of people being during
waking, 'all' of them would only be enhanced by the 'addition' of WILDing
to their daily activities, not diminished...
Jeremy H. Donovan
Sep 16, 2016, 8:02:18 PM9/16/16
to
Let's hear from the liberals...
Howard Dean talks up Hillary
and talks down Trump.
http://on.msnbc.com/2cvbPeF
Bernie cautions against protest votes.
http://on.msnbc.com/2cw3RBV
Obama slams Trump.
http://on.msnbc.com/2cDkehD
Howard Dean talks up Hillary
and talks down Trump.
http://on.msnbc.com/2cvbPeF
Bernie cautions against protest votes.
http://on.msnbc.com/2cw3RBV
Obama slams Trump.
http://on.msnbc.com/2cDkehD
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 22, 2016, 7:18:50 PM9/22/16
to
We gotta dumpsky the Trumpsky.
Donald Trump Doesn't Believe in the Constitution:
http://tinyurl.com/hzf22j2
When talking about the recent bombings in New York and New Jersey, Trump lamented the fact that the Constitution would require suspected bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami to be treated fairly. "He will be represented by an outstanding lawyer. His case will go through the various court systems for years and in the end, people will forget and his punishment will not be what it once would have been. What a sad situation," he said. "We must have speedy but fair trials and we must deliver a just and very harsh punishment to these people." Trump also decried that Rahami would be given "amazing hospitalization" and "a fully modern and updated hospital room."
Putting aside Trump's inaccurate assessment of the quality of medical care prisoners receive and the woefully underfunded public defender system in the U.S., Trump is attacking some of the bedrock principles of American justice. Ever since Gideon v. Wainwright, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution has been understood to require that everyone charged with serious offenses in this country receive defense counsel.
This protection for criminal defendants is cause for celebration, not castigation. Speaking about this right in glowing terms, the Supreme Court has said it is "necessary to insure fundamental human rights of life and liberty" and called this a "noble ideal" without which there can be no fair trial.
Similarly, the Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." We already know from Trump's advocating extreme forms of torture that he is no fan of this part of the Constitution, but his comments Monday make that even clearer. Prisoners' serious medical needs cannot be ignored; doing so would be "cruel and unusual." The Supreme Court has explained that "infliction of such unnecessary suffering is inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency" and outlined the basic principle that "the public be required to care for the prisoner, who cannot, by reason of the deprivation of his liberty, care for himself."
Just this weekend, he once again showed that he couldn't care less about the First Amendment. After The New York Times published a story finding that Trump relied on $885 million in tax breaks to build his real estate empire in New York City, Trump tweeted, "My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting."
Of course, as any middle school student will tell you, the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press. Part of that protection is that no public figure can sue as a result of a bad story without proving malice, meaning that the journalists knew the story was false or demonstrated complete disregard for whether it was true. This standard is crucial in protecting the press from being attacked by people who don't like unflattering coverage. Without this principle, the press would be too scared to write pieces critical of the powerful, and the First Amendment would be virtually meaningless.
It's been clear from other contexts, though, that "virtually meaningless" is how Trump views the First Amendment as a whole. Among other things, he has called for violence against individuals expressing their opinions and advocated for a religious test for those entering the country. These positions fly in the face of the First Amendment's protection of free expression and freedom of religion, as well as its guarantee against an established state religion.
Trump is no fan of the rest of the Constitution either. His recently announced maternity leave plan includes no coverage for fathers, which shows his lack of concern for the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; his insistence that women and doctors should be punished for abortion shows that he doesn't believe in a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause; he has promised to violate treaties, which are constitutionally recognized sources of law; he doesn’t understand the difference between state and federal authority, the basic principle of federalism which underlies the Constitution; nor does he care about separation of powers, the founding constitutional idea that the president, Congress and the courts have different responsibilities in order to prevent tyranny.
In other words, other than his repeated invocation of the Second Amendment, including his not-so-oblique references to one of his supporters shooting Hillary Clinton (something that came up again this weekend), Trump has shown that he disagrees not just with one or two isolated parts of the Constitution – which would be within normal democratic bounds, and is countenanced by the Constitution's amendment process – but rather with the very fabric of the document.
Donald Trump Doesn't Believe in the Constitution:
http://tinyurl.com/hzf22j2
When talking about the recent bombings in New York and New Jersey, Trump lamented the fact that the Constitution would require suspected bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami to be treated fairly. "He will be represented by an outstanding lawyer. His case will go through the various court systems for years and in the end, people will forget and his punishment will not be what it once would have been. What a sad situation," he said. "We must have speedy but fair trials and we must deliver a just and very harsh punishment to these people." Trump also decried that Rahami would be given "amazing hospitalization" and "a fully modern and updated hospital room."
Putting aside Trump's inaccurate assessment of the quality of medical care prisoners receive and the woefully underfunded public defender system in the U.S., Trump is attacking some of the bedrock principles of American justice. Ever since Gideon v. Wainwright, the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution has been understood to require that everyone charged with serious offenses in this country receive defense counsel.
This protection for criminal defendants is cause for celebration, not castigation. Speaking about this right in glowing terms, the Supreme Court has said it is "necessary to insure fundamental human rights of life and liberty" and called this a "noble ideal" without which there can be no fair trial.
Similarly, the Eighth Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." We already know from Trump's advocating extreme forms of torture that he is no fan of this part of the Constitution, but his comments Monday make that even clearer. Prisoners' serious medical needs cannot be ignored; doing so would be "cruel and unusual." The Supreme Court has explained that "infliction of such unnecessary suffering is inconsistent with contemporary standards of decency" and outlined the basic principle that "the public be required to care for the prisoner, who cannot, by reason of the deprivation of his liberty, care for himself."
Just this weekend, he once again showed that he couldn't care less about the First Amendment. After The New York Times published a story finding that Trump relied on $885 million in tax breaks to build his real estate empire in New York City, Trump tweeted, "My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting."
Of course, as any middle school student will tell you, the First Amendment protects the freedom of the press. Part of that protection is that no public figure can sue as a result of a bad story without proving malice, meaning that the journalists knew the story was false or demonstrated complete disregard for whether it was true. This standard is crucial in protecting the press from being attacked by people who don't like unflattering coverage. Without this principle, the press would be too scared to write pieces critical of the powerful, and the First Amendment would be virtually meaningless.
It's been clear from other contexts, though, that "virtually meaningless" is how Trump views the First Amendment as a whole. Among other things, he has called for violence against individuals expressing their opinions and advocated for a religious test for those entering the country. These positions fly in the face of the First Amendment's protection of free expression and freedom of religion, as well as its guarantee against an established state religion.
Trump is no fan of the rest of the Constitution either. His recently announced maternity leave plan includes no coverage for fathers, which shows his lack of concern for the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause; his insistence that women and doctors should be punished for abortion shows that he doesn't believe in a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause; he has promised to violate treaties, which are constitutionally recognized sources of law; he doesn’t understand the difference between state and federal authority, the basic principle of federalism which underlies the Constitution; nor does he care about separation of powers, the founding constitutional idea that the president, Congress and the courts have different responsibilities in order to prevent tyranny.
In other words, other than his repeated invocation of the Second Amendment, including his not-so-oblique references to one of his supporters shooting Hillary Clinton (something that came up again this weekend), Trump has shown that he disagrees not just with one or two isolated parts of the Constitution – which would be within normal democratic bounds, and is countenanced by the Constitution's amendment process – but rather with the very fabric of the document.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 22, 2016, 7:18:55 PM9/22/16
to
allreadygone
Sep 25, 2016, 9:37:11 AM9/25/16
to
debates should be pay-for-view
think of the money they could donate to charity?
think of the money they could donate to charity?
allreadygone
Sep 26, 2016, 10:59:29 PM9/26/16
to
how did the debate play out?
dead heat. no one beat the other .
dead heat. no one beat the other .
allreadygone
Sep 27, 2016, 12:41:00 PM9/27/16
to
i'd say about the only way that mrs. clinton
could lose this thing would be IF enough males
did not want a woman in the white house. there's
no way to tell how those dudes will be voting.
Other than that i'd call the movers and get ready
to move (back) into the whitey house.
could lose this thing would be IF enough males
did not want a woman in the white house. there's
no way to tell how those dudes will be voting.
Other than that i'd call the movers and get ready
to move (back) into the whitey house.
allreadygone
Sep 30, 2016, 2:06:02 PM9/30/16
to
now on another note, i'm tryin' figure out
exactly what is happening in Syria. who is fighting who
there? how many wars are going on. Who's on first?
Geez, how did they keep track of who to shoot?
exactly what is happening in Syria. who is fighting who
there? how many wars are going on. Who's on first?
Geez, how did they keep track of who to shoot?
crazyrainbow
Sep 30, 2016, 2:16:02 PM9/30/16
to
of who to shoot"
slider
Sep 30, 2016, 2:54:48 PM9/30/16
to
allreadygone asks...
### - so just guess where isil came from? syria... who are they?
originally anti-assad rebels keen on deposing assad and thus bringing
syria to erm, democracy in-line with other (now converted...) middle
eastern states like iraq, libya and a few others etc etc (haha, get the
picture?) got hold of millions of bucks worth of ammunitions to help
depose assad with, only they went native and turned into isil and world
terror enemy no 1 almost virtually overnight! the new alqueda! (D'oh!) and
it was all going terribly too, assad wasn't getting deposed and now isil
were running rampant with some beef of their own, syria (a huge place,
bigger than iraq and far more advanced) was getting slowly wrecked, the
russians, old friends of syria and several other middle eastern countries,
were invited by assad to help beat-off all these rebels (like isil) who're
trying to depose him, russia steps in and blasts huge holes in all these
rebels in just a few weeks than the US had accomplished in a year...
russia and america appear to be on the same side against isil but on
opposite pages when it comes to deposing assad... a loose arrangement was
created to stop the americans and the russians flying into each other,
lets go get us some rebels together! yeah! problem is some the rebels
russia's been bombing are rebels the US is backing to depose assad!
(similar to the ones that turned into isil only now no ones sure if
they've turned into isil as well, sheesh it's getting so complex
hahaha...) the russians are just bombing the shit out of all and any
rebels, and very successfully too by all accounts!) the americans want to
be more picky and only bomb particular rebels, which may or may not be
isil now, lol no one's exactly sure any more and now everyone's just
bombing the shit out of everyone else, i think, lol... meanwhile,
america's getting the hump with russia (again...) some agreed ceasefire
breaking down with everyone blaming everyone else, tempers are flaring,
threats being made, peeps walking out of security meetings in disgust at
the other side, kerry basically accusing the russians of living in lala
land (a parallel universe was the way he put it lol) maybe funny to us but
very serious accusations in international matters lol, america actually
threatening to break off relations with russia over this, everyone going:
what? what? what's happening?? b52 bombers making dry runs against russia
in a show of force not seen since the cold war, alert status is on high!
dammit where's OUR nelson mandela when we needs him!?! and....
well your guess is as good as mine and anything could happen in the next
half hour or so!
same as it ever was?
only another rehearsal for the world's end this time hopefully, they may
yet all come to their senses in time to save the day, again, who knows,
all these war games are becoming rather tedious? plus closer to the edge
each time... everyone trying to get an edge... the world losing with each
advance... ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chance, let's spin the
wheel! where she lands nobody knows but it probably ain't gonna be very
good?
assholes! to them all! if artists and poets ('and' writers heh...) ruled
the world there would never be any of this shit, just very craftily worded
swords that cuts their critics to shreds lol :)
so, did ya get all that? slider-style :)
originally anti-assad rebels keen on deposing assad and thus bringing
syria to erm, democracy in-line with other (now converted...) middle
eastern states like iraq, libya and a few others etc etc (haha, get the
picture?) got hold of millions of bucks worth of ammunitions to help
depose assad with, only they went native and turned into isil and world
terror enemy no 1 almost virtually overnight! the new alqueda! (D'oh!) and
it was all going terribly too, assad wasn't getting deposed and now isil
were running rampant with some beef of their own, syria (a huge place,
bigger than iraq and far more advanced) was getting slowly wrecked, the
russians, old friends of syria and several other middle eastern countries,
were invited by assad to help beat-off all these rebels (like isil) who're
trying to depose him, russia steps in and blasts huge holes in all these
rebels in just a few weeks than the US had accomplished in a year...
russia and america appear to be on the same side against isil but on
opposite pages when it comes to deposing assad... a loose arrangement was
created to stop the americans and the russians flying into each other,
lets go get us some rebels together! yeah! problem is some the rebels
russia's been bombing are rebels the US is backing to depose assad!
(similar to the ones that turned into isil only now no ones sure if
they've turned into isil as well, sheesh it's getting so complex
hahaha...) the russians are just bombing the shit out of all and any
rebels, and very successfully too by all accounts!) the americans want to
be more picky and only bomb particular rebels, which may or may not be
isil now, lol no one's exactly sure any more and now everyone's just
bombing the shit out of everyone else, i think, lol... meanwhile,
america's getting the hump with russia (again...) some agreed ceasefire
breaking down with everyone blaming everyone else, tempers are flaring,
threats being made, peeps walking out of security meetings in disgust at
the other side, kerry basically accusing the russians of living in lala
land (a parallel universe was the way he put it lol) maybe funny to us but
very serious accusations in international matters lol, america actually
threatening to break off relations with russia over this, everyone going:
what? what? what's happening?? b52 bombers making dry runs against russia
in a show of force not seen since the cold war, alert status is on high!
dammit where's OUR nelson mandela when we needs him!?! and....
well your guess is as good as mine and anything could happen in the next
half hour or so!
same as it ever was?
only another rehearsal for the world's end this time hopefully, they may
yet all come to their senses in time to save the day, again, who knows,
all these war games are becoming rather tedious? plus closer to the edge
each time... everyone trying to get an edge... the world losing with each
advance... ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chance, let's spin the
wheel! where she lands nobody knows but it probably ain't gonna be very
good?
assholes! to them all! if artists and poets ('and' writers heh...) ruled
the world there would never be any of this shit, just very craftily worded
swords that cuts their critics to shreds lol :)
so, did ya get all that? slider-style :)
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 30, 2016, 2:56:41 PM9/30/16
to
USA Today endorses a president for the first time ever:
http://tinyurl.com/zbp5w7p
"This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency."
They never took sides before. Read what they say now.
***
Arizona Republic endorses a democrat for president
for the first time ever:
http://tinyurl.com/hau9f3n
"Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never...This year is different.
The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.
That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president."
In 125 years, they never endorsed a democrat.
Read what they say now. :)
http://tinyurl.com/zbp5w7p
"This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency."
They never took sides before. Read what they say now.
***
Arizona Republic endorses a democrat for president
for the first time ever:
http://tinyurl.com/hau9f3n
"Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never...This year is different.
The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified.
That’s why, for the first time in our history, The Arizona Republic will support a Democrat for president."
In 125 years, they never endorsed a democrat.
Read what they say now. :)
allreadygone
Sep 30, 2016, 3:24:28 PM9/30/16
to
what a fucking mess in Syria,
how does anyone make any sense out of this?
what side do we root for?
worried about going to "hell"?
i'd say Syria IS Hell.
Can't get no worse. Death might be a better option at this point.
how does anyone make any sense out of this?
what side do we root for?
worried about going to "hell"?
i'd say Syria IS Hell.
Can't get no worse. Death might be a better option at this point.
allreadygone
Sep 30, 2016, 3:29:19 PM9/30/16
to
well we remember what mitchell, nixon, kissassinger
did to Daniel Ellsberg don't we, yeah.
that worked great didn't it?
Nixon became the only president to ever resign.
great, really great effort there tricky dicky.
so the media are gonna nail the Trump meister eh?
i noticed (this is kind of a joke) how many subscribers
cancelled their subscription to the Arizona Republic.
did to Daniel Ellsberg don't we, yeah.
that worked great didn't it?
Nixon became the only president to ever resign.
great, really great effort there tricky dicky.
so the media are gonna nail the Trump meister eh?
i noticed (this is kind of a joke) how many subscribers
cancelled their subscription to the Arizona Republic.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 30, 2016, 3:35:50 PM9/30/16
to
On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 11:54:48 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> allreadygone asks...
>
> > now on another note, i'm tryin' figure out
> >
> > exactly what is happening in Syria. who is fighting who
> >
> > there? how many wars are going on. Who's on first?
> >
> > Geez, how did they keep track of who to shoot?
>
> ### - so just guess where isil came from? syria... who are they?
> originally anti-assad rebels keen on deposing assad and thus bringing
> syria to erm, democracy in-line with other (now converted...) middle
> eastern states like iraq, libya and a few others etc etc (haha, get the
> picture?)
Yes, and that picture of yours is... wrong.
> allreadygone asks...
>
> > now on another note, i'm tryin' figure out
> >
> > exactly what is happening in Syria. who is fighting who
> >
> > there? how many wars are going on. Who's on first?
> >
> > Geez, how did they keep track of who to shoot?
>
> ### - so just guess where isil came from? syria... who are they?
> originally anti-assad rebels keen on deposing assad and thus bringing
> syria to erm, democracy in-line with other (now converted...) middle
> eastern states like iraq, libya and a few others etc etc (haha, get the
> picture?)
ISIL originally came out of Iraq. And it existed for
many years prior to moving into the Syrian conflict.
http://tinyurl.com/p7lt2cz
"The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda and participated in the Iraqi insurgency following the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by Western forces. Joining other Sunni insurgent groups to form the Mujahideen Shura Council, this group proclaimed the formation of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in October 2006. In August 2011, following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, ISI, under the leadership of al-Baghdadi, delegated a mission into Syria, which under the name Jabhat an-Nuṣrah li-Ahli ash-Shām (or al-Nusra Front) established a large presence in Sunni-majority Al-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, and Aleppo provinces."
[...snip...]
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 30, 2016, 3:45:14 PM9/30/16
to
On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 12:24:28 PM UTC-7, allreadygone wrote:
> what a fucking mess in Syria,
>
> how does anyone make any sense out of this?
>
> what side do we root for?
This might help if you're really interested.
> what a fucking mess in Syria,
>
> how does anyone make any sense out of this?
>
> what side do we root for?
But you'll have to read it, and think about it.
The Confused Person’s Guide to the Syrian Civil War
A brief primer:
http://tinyurl.com/pnpm84e
slider
Sep 30, 2016, 4:36:38 PM9/30/16
to
on busy friday allreadygone wrote... (never this busy here on a friday,
what's going on?lol)
### - it certainly looks like hell there anyway, the place is wrecked!
almost unrecognisable!
but then maybe that's want we wanted anyway? chaos in the middle east!
suits our purposes, the oil for example...
the answer? there isn't one just like there wasn't one in south africa
either, yet at the very 'brink' of destruction mandela pulled a blinder
outta his ass and saved the day! it was unprecedented! (the equivalent of
the republicans merging with the democrats is what actually happened: a
trump/clinton united effort!!! lol i can't even imagine such a thing as
that kind of hybrid!, just who gets the top half is what i'd like to know
haha ;)
what's going on?lol)
almost unrecognisable!
but then maybe that's want we wanted anyway? chaos in the middle east!
suits our purposes, the oil for example...
the answer? there isn't one just like there wasn't one in south africa
either, yet at the very 'brink' of destruction mandela pulled a blinder
outta his ass and saved the day! it was unprecedented! (the equivalent of
the republicans merging with the democrats is what actually happened: a
trump/clinton united effort!!! lol i can't even imagine such a thing as
that kind of hybrid!, just who gets the top half is what i'd like to know
haha ;)
allreadygone
Sep 30, 2016, 4:39:28 PM9/30/16
to
> This might help if you're really interested.
> But you'll have to read it, and think about it.
sometimes i'm interested, sometimes not so much.
All these years i never knew what the real reason
why our involvement in Vietnam was deemed illegal.
I just knew it was wrong and totally made up.
The Geneva Accord(s) has it all spelled out, how
many people read those papers? Not I, sorry.
I was busy having fun like riding m/c's, drinking
beer and eating pussy, of course not necessarily in
that order. Lew Black's father worked as a mechanical
engineer for the Dept of the Navy. He made bombs that
float in the harbor. One day he went to the library
(sorry no ez internet stuff back then) and read all the
stuff and discovered this conflict was illegal. WE HAD
no legal basis for getting involved in north or south vietnam.
So pops quit his job and became an artist or something.
Do you know anyone who read the Gemeva Accords? I don't.
What did we learn from all that jazz? Don't be trusting
the 'media'. Not to be trusted, sorry. Should we be putting
our faith in the media now? Yes and maybe no. Who else are we
gonna get the 'story' from? Dan Ellsberg said that at the height
of the Vietnam war there 1000 reporters in country. How could all
of them be so off? Where's Oliver Stone when you need him? :)
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Sep 30, 2016, 6:52:05 PM9/30/16
to
On Friday, September 30, 2016 at 1:39:28 PM UTC-7, allreadygone wrote:
> > This might help if you're really interested.
> > But you'll have to read it, and think about it.
>
> yeah it might help IF i did do some reading,
> sometimes i'm interested, sometimes not so much.
>
> All these years i never knew what the real reason
> why our involvement in Vietnam was deemed illegal.
> I just knew it was wrong and totally made up.
> The Geneva Accord(s) has it all spelled out, how
> many people read those papers? Not I, sorry.
Why change the subject to Vietnam? Oh well...
> > This might help if you're really interested.
> > But you'll have to read it, and think about it.
>
> yeah it might help IF i did do some reading,
> sometimes i'm interested, sometimes not so much.
>
> All these years i never knew what the real reason
> why our involvement in Vietnam was deemed illegal.
> I just knew it was wrong and totally made up.
> The Geneva Accord(s) has it all spelled out, how
> many people read those papers? Not I, sorry.
The Geneva Agreements:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Agreements
"The Geneva Agreements of 1954 (also, "Geneva Accords") arranged a settlement which brought about an end to the First Indochina War... A ceasefire was signed and France agreed to withdraw its troops from the region. French Indochina was split into three countries: Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Vietnam was to be temporarily divided along the 17th Parallel until elections could be held to unite the country. These elections were never held; following repeated refusals to hold nationwide elections by Ngo Dinh Diem and his declaration of leadership of a new state, South Vietnam, the Vietminh established a communist state in the North led by Ho Chi Minh."
The U.S. never signed this agreement.
We gave a statement promising to support free elections
But free elections never happened. We also engaged in
"black propaganda" there and destabilized the Accords,
because we didn't think peace would be honored
(we thought anything less than military victory
would result in communist subversion and takeover,
and that was probably true).
Full declassified Pentagon analysis of Geneva Accords:
http://tinyurl.com/hpr4aeq
Our goal at that time was to:
"...help the nations of that area (Indochina) peace-
fully to enjoy territorial integrity and political
independence under stable and free governments with the
opportunity to expand their economies, to realize their
legitimate national aspirations; and to develop security
through individual and collective defense against aggression,
from 'within and without'. This implies that these
people should not be amalgamated into the Communist bloc
of imperialistic dictatorship."
We were trying to prevent any country from going Communist.
And we decided the only way to protect South Vietnam, Laos,
and Cambodia was decisive military victory by united forces.
Oops.
As I see it, there was no legal basis to get involved there.
But also no legal basis to keep us out of it either.
The war was a tactical error on our part.
***
Vietnam War:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
Note, I expect Crazy Rainbow to read all of this...
crazyrainbow
Sep 30, 2016, 8:24:08 PM9/30/16
to
I kinda looked into it *horror shakes me, not of the content, but of the
masses of information*! I am not really interested too much in the
history of that war, but what sprung from that war and time, namely the
hippy/beatnik/digger movement and their successormovement the
rainbowfamily of living light!
allreadygone
Oct 1, 2016, 12:10:03 PM10/1/16
to
Why change the subject to Vietnam? Oh well...
i had someone explain the syrian war to me on
the way to the airport last evening. he actually
had a good take on it. I let him go into details
and i said un huh, finally i started laughing at trying
to put it altogether, it made no fucking sense unless
you were maybe a Manson family member or something.
There so many fractions fighting there's no way this could
make sense. And yet the beat goes on doesn't it? This
war is no different than other undeclared bogus wars. We should
formally declare war on all shithead terrorists (fill in list)
and proceed to finish them BEFORE they strike at us. Get er done.
Congress should get together with the president and declare war.
Fuck those putos, these guys having been pulling the same shit
for hundreds of years. Doesn't look like muslim countries want
to do anything about it. OK then, sit on the sidelines and play
with your selfs while we and other countries do the work.
crazyrainbow
Oct 1, 2016, 1:03:52 PM10/1/16
to
Am 01.10.2016 um 18:10 schrieb allreadygone:
>
> Why change the subject to Vietnam? Oh well...
That's the way of life, ya know, the direction a discussions flows can
>
> Why change the subject to Vietnam? Oh well...
change in the stream of thoughts and presenting of different facts and
picking them up, like it happened here, don't be sad.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 1, 2016, 6:12:01 PM10/1/16
to
I'm not sad. I'm practically Happy Jack. :)
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 1, 2016, 6:57:28 PM10/1/16
to
Wall Street Journal Columnist backs Hillary:
http://tinyurl.com/zqwcszl
The Wall Street Journal is highly conservative.
And yet... one of their columnists has openly backed
the Democrat. :) That's telling...
Of course, Bernie accused Hillary of being TOO
Wall Street friendly, so maybe not a surprise.
http://tinyurl.com/zqwcszl
The Wall Street Journal is highly conservative.
And yet... one of their columnists has openly backed
the Democrat. :) That's telling...
Of course, Bernie accused Hillary of being TOO
Wall Street friendly, so maybe not a surprise.
crazyrainbow
Oct 2, 2016, 1:06:27 AM10/2/16
to
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 3, 2016, 5:55:48 PM10/3/16
to
I'm saying I would, but if I was to make a "protest vote",
it would be for Zoltan Istvan, The Transhumanist. :)
http://tinyurl.com/hwp4dlb
"Vote for me, and you could live forever":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGbGVGgoSPo
Best quality: he's not the antichrist.
LOL.
Happy Jack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52cQeFBU2Kw
it would be for Zoltan Istvan, The Transhumanist. :)
http://tinyurl.com/hwp4dlb
"Vote for me, and you could live forever":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGbGVGgoSPo
Best quality: he's not the antichrist.
LOL.
Happy Jack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52cQeFBU2Kw
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 3, 2016, 6:03:50 PM10/3/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 2:55:48 PM UTC-7, Jeremy H. Denisovan wrote:
> I'm NOT saying I would, but if I was to make a "protest vote",
Correction above.
:)
> I'm NOT saying I would, but if I was to make a "protest vote",
:)
allreadygone
Oct 4, 2016, 12:12:28 PM10/4/16
to
in the movie "Sully"
there was a joke.
here it is:
this drink is called a Sully
one shot of Grey Goose
and a splash of water.
this guy is a real hero
there was a joke.
here it is:
this drink is called a Sully
one shot of Grey Goose
and a splash of water.
this guy is a real hero
wildheart
Oct 4, 2016, 2:15:04 PM10/4/16
to
On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 5:55:48 PM UTC-4, Jeremy H. Denisovan wrote:
> I'm saying I would, but if I was to make a "protest vote",
> it would be for Zoltan Istvan, The Transhumanist. :)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/hwp4dlb
>
> "Vote for me, and you could live forever":
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGbGVGgoSPo
>
> Best quality: he's not the antichrist.
>
> LOL.
Omg, that is wild! I have never heard of this guy. What a name.
> I'm saying I would, but if I was to make a "protest vote",
> it would be for Zoltan Istvan, The Transhumanist. :)
>
> http://tinyurl.com/hwp4dlb
>
> "Vote for me, and you could live forever":
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGbGVGgoSPo
>
> Best quality: he's not the antichrist.
>
> LOL.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 5, 2016, 1:10:46 PM10/5/16
to
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 5, 2016, 1:53:28 PM10/5/16
to
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 6, 2016, 2:50:01 PM10/6/16
to
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 7, 2016, 4:41:25 PM10/7/16
to
US Formally Accuses Russia of Stealing DNC E-mails
http://tinyurl.com/jru2yok
In a statement from the director of national intelligence, James Clapper Jr., and the Department of Homeland Security, the government said the leaked emails that have appeared on a variety of websites “are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.” The emails were posted on the well-known WikiLeaks site and newer ones that have run under the names DCLeaks.com and Guccifer 2.1.
“We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” the statement said.
...
The statement said that the recent “scanning and probing” of election systems “in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company,” but did not say the Russian government was responsible for those probes.
http://tinyurl.com/jru2yok
In a statement from the director of national intelligence, James Clapper Jr., and the Department of Homeland Security, the government said the leaked emails that have appeared on a variety of websites “are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.” The emails were posted on the well-known WikiLeaks site and newer ones that have run under the names DCLeaks.com and Guccifer 2.1.
“We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities,” the statement said.
...
The statement said that the recent “scanning and probing” of election systems “in most cases originated from servers operated by a Russian company,” but did not say the Russian government was responsible for those probes.
allreadygone
Oct 9, 2016, 10:11:28 AM10/9/16
to
tonight's show (debate) is gonna be a
real lou lou. serious mud slingin'.
will trumpy go the distance or take
the boot? alot of (his) party members want
him gone. Geez, your own people want
you out. could things be more sloppy?
real lou lou. serious mud slingin'.
will trumpy go the distance or take
the boot? alot of (his) party members want
him gone. Geez, your own people want
you out. could things be more sloppy?
slider
Oct 9, 2016, 1:11:15 PM10/9/16
to
allreadygone wrote...
## - a cynic/sceptic/unbeliever like myself, would prolly suggest/say the
whole thing's obviously being engineered to put the lady in the WH from
the off? everything else being just public lip-service hehehe...
so do our votes really even actually count any more?
some peeps still believe so, but who knows! :)
whole thing's obviously being engineered to put the lady in the WH from
the off? everything else being just public lip-service hehehe...
so do our votes really even actually count any more?
some peeps still believe so, but who knows! :)
allreadygone
Oct 9, 2016, 11:18:41 PM10/9/16
to
interesting observation around here,
many are just NOT going to vote, be they a
demo or republican . They are fed up.
That's a choice too.
many are just NOT going to vote, be they a
demo or republican . They are fed up.
That's a choice too.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 10, 2016, 3:52:24 PM10/10/16
to
Of course, any action or non-action is "a choice".
But that particular choice is moronic and lazy.
Even if you are so jaded as not care who the president
and vice president are (or aren't), or so brain-damaged
as to believe the main election is 'rigged' (bullshit),
there are numerous other issues and bills on local ballots.
In my state (California) and District there are:
US Senator
US Representative
State Senator
State Assembly Representative
County Supervisor
Superior Court Judges (4 judge races)
17 State Measures, including measures related to:
* the death penalty
* the legalization of marijuana
* funding K-12 schools, colleges, and hospitals
* taxes supporting healthcare
* rules on criminality, sentencing, and parole
* educational curriculum
* constitutional protections
* political spending restrictions
* prescription drug pricing
* registration of firearms and ammunition
* use of plastic bags
(and others)
Two County Measures related to:
* Parks, Beaches, and Rivers
* Traffic, Roads, and Bridges
A special bill for Community College
repair, maintenance, and classroom safety
Four City Measures related to:
* Housing Homeless
* Affordable Housing
* Water and Power Strategic Planning
* Pensions of Firemen and Police
Each of the above is a separate vote
which requires research and thought.
But that particular choice is moronic and lazy.
Even if you are so jaded as not care who the president
and vice president are (or aren't), or so brain-damaged
as to believe the main election is 'rigged' (bullshit),
there are numerous other issues and bills on local ballots.
In my state (California) and District there are:
US Senator
US Representative
State Senator
State Assembly Representative
County Supervisor
Superior Court Judges (4 judge races)
17 State Measures, including measures related to:
* the death penalty
* the legalization of marijuana
* funding K-12 schools, colleges, and hospitals
* taxes supporting healthcare
* rules on criminality, sentencing, and parole
* educational curriculum
* constitutional protections
* political spending restrictions
* prescription drug pricing
* registration of firearms and ammunition
* use of plastic bags
(and others)
Two County Measures related to:
* Parks, Beaches, and Rivers
* Traffic, Roads, and Bridges
A special bill for Community College
repair, maintenance, and classroom safety
Four City Measures related to:
* Housing Homeless
* Affordable Housing
* Water and Power Strategic Planning
* Pensions of Firemen and Police
Each of the above is a separate vote
which requires research and thought.
allreadygone
Oct 10, 2016, 5:50:15 PM10/10/16
to
> Each of the above is a separate vote
> which requires research and thought.
perhaps you want to post your picks
like the Los Angeles Times does?
not that it matters though right?
slider
Oct 10, 2016, 10:38:00 PM10/10/16
to
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:52:22 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, any action or non-action is "a choice".
> But that particular choice is moronic and lazy.
>
> Even if you are so jaded as not care who the president
> and vice president are (or aren't), or so brain-damaged
> as to believe the main election is 'rigged' (bullshit),
### - so it's never rigged huh? well how do you think kennedy got into
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Of course, any action or non-action is "a choice".
> But that particular choice is moronic and lazy.
>
> Even if you are so jaded as not care who the president
> and vice president are (or aren't), or so brain-damaged
> as to believe the main election is 'rigged' (bullshit),
office then eh?
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 12, 2016, 9:15:04 PM10/12/16
to
On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 7:38:00 PM UTC-7, slider wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:52:22 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 20:52:22 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
> wrote:
>
> > Of course, any action or non-action is "a choice".
> > But that particular choice is moronic and lazy.
> >
> > Even if you are so jaded as not care who the president
> > and vice president are (or aren't), or so brain-damaged
> > as to believe the main election is 'rigged' (bullshit),
>
> ### - so it's never rigged huh? well how do you think kennedy got into
> office then eh?
Okay, fine. Here's how Kennedy got into office:
>
> > Of course, any action or non-action is "a choice".
> > But that particular choice is moronic and lazy.
> >
> > Even if you are so jaded as not care who the president
> > and vice president are (or aren't), or so brain-damaged
> > as to believe the main election is 'rigged' (bullshit),
>
> ### - so it's never rigged huh? well how do you think kennedy got into
> office then eh?
After deciding not to be a journalist, he left the Navy
and - backed by his father’s fortune - won the working
class 11th district by nearly three to one, entering
the 80th Congress in January 1947 at age 29.
He won reelection to the House in 1948 and 1950,
and in 1952 won a Senate seat, defeating popular
Republican incumbent Henry Cabot Lodge Jr.
Then in 1956 he was made the Dem's nominee for
Vice President under Adlai Stevenson (who lost).
Next, he won the 1960 nomination for President
from Hubert Humphrey, mainly by winning one of
the first televised debates.
So this is like... half-a-dozen major positions
Kennedy had to win, over a period of 13 years,
BEFORE ever arriving at his Presidential election.
To belabor the obvious, it was quite a long road
which could not possibly have all been 'rigged'.
After that, he made the very smart choice of
picking Texan Lyndon Johnson for his VP running mate.
A great choice. Johnson got him a lot in the South.
Now he had to battle Nixon for the presidency.
Then came the first major TV debates, watched
by many millions of Americans, where JFK came
off as handsome, energetic, and articulate.
After the first debate, polls showed Kennedy
move from a slight deficit to a slight lead.
Nixon did better in the remaining debates but
fewer people watched, and the damage was done.
Kennedy also made smart moves in favor of Dr. Martin
Luther King to win him a majority of black voters.
And he made smart statements on religious freedom that
impressed a lot of people, including 4-year-old me.
He won total popular vote for Pres by ~120,000 votes,
but Nixon won 26 states to his 22. (If there was some
big conspiracy backing Kennedy, why did Nixon win
more states than he did?)
Now here's where you'll start bullshitting with your
conspiracy theories :), thereby missing the
real point: that he did LOTS OF THINGS to win. :)
Kennedy won a 303 to 219 Electoral College victory.
Really not all that close. As summarized by Wiki:
"Kennedy's campaigning skills decisively outmatched
Nixon's... Nixon's emphasis on his experience carried
little weight and he wasted energy by campaigning
in all 50 states instead of concentrating on the
swing states. Kennedy used his large, well-funded
campaign organization to win the nomination, secure
endorsements, and, with the aid of the last of the
big-city bosses, get out the vote in the big cities.
Kennedy relied on running mate Lyndon B. Johnson
to hold the South and used television effectively."
And that's how Kennedy got elected, Charlie Brown. :)
This is the County Election map:
http://tinyurl.com/h9y89xf
You want to look at that maze and claim it was 'rigged'.
Bullshit.
Of the 3,129 counties/independent cities, Nixon won in
1,857 (59.35%) while Kennedy carried 1,200 (38.35%).
Now... how many of those 3,129 areas will you claim
had 'rigged' elections, and 'rigged' for whom??
California: Nixon's home state. Kennedy seemed to
carry the state by 37,000 votes in all precincts,
but when absentee ballots were counted a week later,
Nixon came from behind to win by 36,000 votes.
Hawaii: it appeared Nixon had won there, but Kennedy
was able to come from behind and win the state by
the extremely narrow margin of 115 votes.
(After a recount.)
Plus, there was all that weird racist crap with "unpledged
electors" in Southern states. Down there, about 15
electoral votes that should have gone to Kennedy just
flat out didn't. So... if you want to play with
"hypotheticals", without those weird shenanigans,
Kennedy could still have won even if BOTH Texas
and Illinois had fallen away from him.
It was all pretty frickin' random. :)
Kennedy carried *12 states* by 3% or less,
while Nixon won *6 states* by similarly narrow margins.
HOW COULD SO MUCH SHIT THAT COMPLEX BE 'RIGGED'?? :)
In spite of that...
Republican National Chairman, Senator Thruston Morton
did challenge the election results in 11 states,
keeping challenges in the courts thru summer 1961.
However, the only result legally was the loss of
Hawaii to Kennedy on a recount.
So... after 11 specific challenges by the RNC Chairman,
all they did was LOSE Hawaii on a recount. :)
Now here's your big damn "controversy". If Nixon had won
BOTH Texas AND Illinois, he could have narrowly squeaked
out the electoral vote. Yet Kennedy won both.
Republicans tried to overturn results in both states.
And they legally failed in both states.
If you're going to claim it was 'rigged',
you have to rely on 'stories' where it has
been legally determined there was not enough
evidence to actually draw the conclusion.
Which is of course what you always do: rely on
some stupid "story" you just want to believe
instead of on hard evidence. That's one of the
main reasons you're an idiot. :)
But Kennedy won Texas because he had Johnson as VP.
And not because of cheating, but because of Johnson.
It wouldn't even have been CLOSE without having
Johnson, so... even if there were maybe a couple
of thousand lousy cheating votes in a few podunk
counties... that's definitely NOT what made the
real difference. There were well over a million
votes for EACH candidate in Texas.
Look at that County map again in Texas. Those few
tiny Counties where there may have been some hillbillies
jacking around with the vote were NOT the big factor.
Kennedy won Texas by over 46,000 votes, and they only
proved possible fraud on maybe 1000 votes at best.
And even most of that may merely have been error.
Nixon lost Texas AGAIN in 1968 even though he won
the presidency that year. :)
The most extensive challenge process was in Illinois
where Pro-Nixon reporters for pro-Nixon papers claimed
voter fraud and gangster involvement in Chicago, but
evidence for the claims wasn't strong. A Republican
controlled newspaper kept claiming fraud, but official
investigations merely found errors on both sides.
Wiki:
"Despite demonstrating net errors... some precincts —
40% in Nixon's case... suggesting error, rather than
fraud... the totals found fell short of reversing the
results for either candidate."
"The Republican-dominated State Board of Elections
unanimously rejected the challenge to the results."
So the Republicans themselves threw out the challenge.
"...a special prosecutor assigned to the case brought
charges against 650 people, which did not result in
convictions."
Hmm. Charges against 650 people yet no convictions. :)
If anything, I bet a lot of people of color were
*prevented* from voting for Kennedy in 1960, since
Johnson didn't sign the Voting Rights Act until 1965.
Until then, there were many ways to turn away blacks.
Also, the Voting Rights Act formulas were changed
in the 1970's because conditions changed.
And that brings us to another major point.
Conditions have continually changed.
Even if a little weird shit went down in 1960
in a few isolated areas (and on BOTH 'sides'), that
was 56 years ago. Conditions have changed in 100 ways
since then. And do you think no one ever does anything
about it in the few places where cheating IS proved?
Of course they do. Wherever it has been proved,
it has been stopped and prosecuted. They did manage
to convict 3 election workers of criminal activity
out of the hundreds investigated in Chicago in 1960.
But it wasn't enough to change the results.
The controversies of each election have always been
*specific*, and always more random than "coordinated".
Such as the famous "hanging chad" problems in Florida
in the 2000 Florida election. This was also more or
less "random". And that method has been *discontinued*.
There are no huge conspiracies behind US Elections.
If you think otherwise, well, you might just be a moron. :)
wildheart
Oct 13, 2016, 1:40:57 AM10/13/16
to
Hillary by a landslide!! Trump is self destructing right before everybody's eyes, what a moron. I already voted by absentee ballot, there were quite a few other offices to vote on including McCain. Of course I voted democrat right down the line. Now there's talk the Seneate and House of Rep. might gain enough democrats to rule again. Yea!
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Oct 28, 2016, 7:19:00 PM10/28/16
to
I have now given the Clinton campaign a total of: $61.
(One dollar for each year of my life so far :) )
Clinton has vowed to try to overturn "Citizen's United",
helping keep big money out of politics and leveling
the playing field for everyone. (Trump would only
create many more conditions favoring the rich.)
Clinton will push to raise the national minimum wage,
as many state and local govts have done already.
This is in line with what I see as a general need to
"raise the floor" for the disadvantaged in our society.
She will also champion better education and child care.
Clinton will protect Roe vs Wade, keeping the
government out of women's childbirth decisions.
(Trump has flip-flopped on this in his life,
now claiming to be pro-life.)
Clinton takes reasonable positions on gun control,
without threatening one's right to bear arms.
***
Trump tells lie after lie almost every time he speaks.
A few examples from the 3rd debate:
He kept saying Clinton wants "open borders" and "amnesty".
No. That isn't her policy at all, which is quite reasonable.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/
Trump also claimed "ICE endorsed me". That's misleading.
A union of immigration and customs officials called
ICE endorsed him, but this is not the federal Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Bureau (ICE). Even the private unions
that endorsed Trump do NOT agree with or support his plan
to build an impenetrable wall between us and Mexico.
Trump said: "they all want the wall". No, they don't.
(On large areas of the border it isn't feasible.)
There are places where a more secure wall makes sense.
Clinton has even supported such measures in the past.
She has long supported bipartisan immigration reform
(as did Bush and Reagan).
The Pew Research Center reports more Mexicans LEFT
the U.S. than entered between 2009 and 2014. :)
And Mexican manufacturing now works together with
American business to create billions in U.S. products.
It's not a bad thing for the most part...
http://tinyurl.com/zl5ecgl
Actually, the Obama administration has done a decent job
on illegal immigration, and Clinton plans to largely
continue his policies, with some improvements. Deportation
*increased* during Obama’s first four years in office
(over what it had been under Bush), peaking in 2012
at nearly 410,000.
Since 2014, the Obama administration has focused on
deporting recent arrivals and criminals, with fewer
deportations of longtime residents whose only crime
was crossing the border. In all, about 2.8 million
people were deported under Obama.
Trump acts like Obama was soft on illegal immigration.
But getting tough on immigrants who have committed
crimes has been Obama administration policy.
Trump makes wild claims about it, like:
“Day one, my first hour in office, those people are gone.
And you can call it deported if you want. … They're gone.”
That's a totally empty promise. He wouldn't be able
to begin to back it up since there are many places
where current laws prohibit just "rounding people up" -
such as schools, hospitals, and churches. US laws would
have to be changed to permit any blanket "rounding up"
of all illegals. What could they do? Go house to house
like the Gestapo or something? Not possible on day one,
and probably not possible at all...
Trump is a hypocrite on illegal immigrants anyway.
In 1980, a contractor working for Trump hired Polish
workers in the country illegally to clear the site
on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan where Trump Tower would
later be built. The contractor was later fined $570,000
by federal regulators. Some published reports suggested
Trump not only knew about the workers’ status but
instigated their hiring. There were also reports that
he threatened to turn the workers in to immigration
authorities after some complained about work conditions.
Maybe the reason Trump is so weird about immigration
is that he has long been and still IS a racist.
In 1973, Trump Management, the real estate company run
by the Trump family, was sued by the Justice Department
for discriminating against African-Americans at its
apartments in Queens. A bitter, lengthy legal fight
ensued and ended with the Trumps signing a consent decree
agreeing not to discriminate. Trump, who was president
of the company at the time, maintains he actually won
the suit because he did not admit guilt.
***
In the 3rd debate, Trump mentioned: "Trump Foundation,
small foundation, people contribute I contribute
the money goes one hundred percent one hundred percent
goes to different charities...I don't get anything..."
In particular, he said: "I contribute".
In fact, it's been 8 years since Trump contributed
anything to his own foundation. Since 2008, ALL
contributions have been from others, not Trump.
And as the Washington Post documented, Trump used
his foundation on multiple occasions to pay legal bills
incurred by Trump’s corporate properties.
http://tinyurl.com/htbkooe
The dude took a quarter of a mill in charitable
donations and used them for his own legal expenses!
By comparison, last year Warren Buffett made
contributions of "$2,858,057,970, of which more
than $2.85 billion were not taken as deductions".
Upon the recent release of his return, Buffett also noted:
"I have paid federal income tax every year since 1944...
Finally, I have been audited by the IRS multiple times
and am currently being audited. I have no problem in
releasing my tax information while under audit. Neither
would Mr. Trump – at least he would have no legal problem."
It's crystal clear that the Trump campaign has decided
it would be disastrous for Trump to release his taxes...
All an intelligent person need ask is... WHY? :)
You know the truth has to be *ugly* indeed
or they would have been released by now...
***
Trump keeps yammering on and on about how bad NAFTA
supposedly was. But NAFTA was signed by George H.W. Bush,
and then ratified by both houses of Congress.
Bill Clinton merely didn't veto it after it passed.
And analysis shows it did not have bad effects anyway.
Most studies show NAFTA had a relatively small impact
on the economy. According to the nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service: "NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses
feared by the critics or the large economic gains
predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of
NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively
modest”.
But do most American people realize that Trump is
merely full of hot air on his talk about "trade deals"?
Of course not. Most don't know shit about trade deals. :)
So they listen to the blowhard lie and lie and think
"oh yeah, Trump stands up for Amuricans!" It's all
empty rhetoric.
As Clinton has correctly noted, China has been
selling steel in the U.S. at less than its free
market value. And Trump had been buying it...
An investigation by Newsweek found that in at least
two of the last three Trump construction projects,
the Trump organization opted to purchase steel and
aluminum from Chinese manufacturers. One of them
was the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas,
which was built in 2008.
http://tinyurl.com/hpwlsam
***
Trump's big claim to fame is in business.
But investors in his first public company,
Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, lost a lot of money,
even as Trump himself was handsomely rewarded.
The public company lost money every year Trump ran it,
loaded up his Atlantic City casinos with costly debt,
and ultimately filed for bankruptcy. Trump has blamed
the downfall on broader forces affecting Atlantic City.
But he also drained cash out of the business to pay
personal debts and support his lavish lifestyle.
Contractors, including small businesses, lost money
along with Trump’s investors.
Trump has been sued by the New York attorney general
for allegedly defrauding students at Trump University,
by investors who bought into failed condominium
projects bearing the Trump name, and contractors who
say he refused to pay them. Trump boasts that he never
settles lawsuits, but in fact he has settled at least
100 lawsuits, as USA Today reports.
http://tinyurl.com/jxl9mtv
Get that. Dude BRAGGED he never settles lawsuits.
But he's settled over 100. I guess that doesn't
seem like many when he's been involved in... thousands.
***
After first praising Putin's "strength" as a leader,
and making a big deal out of his contacts with him...
Trump now just keeps saying "I don't know Putin."
But it's a matter of public record that 4 times
in the last 3 years Trump spoke of having a
relationship with Putin.
Thomas Roberts of MSNBC asked Trump, "Do you have a
relationship with Vladimir Putin? A conversational
relationship or anything that you feel you have sway
or influence over his government?" Trump responded,
"I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that
he's very interested in what we're doing here today."
-- November, 2013
"You know, I was in Moscow a couple of months ago.
I own the Miss Universe Pageant and they treated me
so great. Putin even sent me a present, a beautiful
present." -- address at CPAC conference, March 2014
"I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently and I spoke,
indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could
not have been nicer, and we had a tremendous success.
-- address at the National Press Club, May 2014
"As far as the Ukraine is concerned … if Putin wants to
go in -- and I got to know him very well because we were
both on 60 Minutes. We were stablemates, and we did very
well that night." -- portion of an answer at the Fox
Business News debate, Nov. 2015. (The notion that the
two men appeared together on 60 Minutes was debunked.
As Time magazine put it succinctly, "In fact, they
weren’t even on the same continent."
So in that last one, Trump lied when saying he
DID KNOW Putin in a particular context. :)
In other contexts, he seems to have lied about
NOT knowing him. He lies both ways, as it suits him.
Trump also once claimed Putin "said I'm a genius".
But what Putin actually said was that Trump was...
"flamboyant". :)
Trump continually distorts pretty much everything.
***
Another example...
Trump keeps implying we are getting "ripped off"
by allies for whom we provide military services.
Of course, he claims he'd get us "a better deal".
But the truth is more like the following, for example:
About 28,000 U.S. troops are based in South Korea
and an additional 49,000 in Japan. Japan pays about
$2 billion a year in maintenance and utilities for
American bases. Foreign policy observers argue it’s
cheaper to base American troops in Japan and South
Korea and have them pay the bill than to base them
back home. South Korea paid about $866.6 million in
2014 for the U.S. military presence there, which is
about 40 percent of the cost.
It often just makes good strategic sense for us to
do things as we do, and most of our "deals" aren't bad.
***
Trump's biggest claim is that he'd benefit our economy.
But his published tax plan to cut income tax rates, reduce
the business tax rate, and eliminate estate taxes would
primarily benefit the very wealthy.
It's an even worse version of the trickle down bs
that started with Reagan and failed again miserably at
the end of Dubya's 8 years. That shit just doesn't work.
Obama inherited a rising unemployment rate from Dubya
that began at 7.6 percent and in his 1st year rose to
*10 percent*. It's now 5 percent, half what it was.
For comparison: Jobs per year was strongest under
Bill Clinton (2.8 million), followed by Jimmy Carter
(2.6 million), Ronald Reagan (2 million), President Obama
(1.4 million as of September), George H.W. Bush (659,000),
and George W. Bush (160,000).
It would be a *terrible* mistake to go back to more
trickle down, deregulation, and spending austerity.
That's what caused many of our worst problems,
and that's just what Trump says he would do.
***
Trump lies again regularly when he claims that Obama
and Clinton gave rise to ISIS.
Fact:
The U.S. completed withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2011
under a deal signed by George W. Bush, and at the
insistence of the Iraqis. Obama honored that deal.
Obama has actually done a pretty good job at fighting
ISIS without getting the U.S. mired in the area again.
***
Trump impresses some people when he talks about
how US GDP has been growing at a "slow rate",
and how China and India are growing much faster.
That's just another very misleading argument. There's
tons of room for growth in the Chinese and Indian
economies because they're still immature "emerging"
economies. Those countries also have well over 3 times
our population. The U.S. economy is a mature one that
couldn't ever again grow at such great speeds.
But if you look at GDP PER CAPITA and compare the U.S.,
India, and China, you'll see that we dwarf them.
http://tinyurl.com/azpdjd5
GDP PER CAPITA
U.S.: $51,486
China: $6,416
India: $1,806
Of COURSE the Chinese and Indian economies are growing
at faster rates than ours. There's a great deal more
room for them to modernize and grow. Trump implies he'd
grow our economy that fast, but economists that analyzed
his plans say it's more likely he'd tank our economy.
And there's no way he could grow the U.S. economy
at the speed of an "emerging economy". It's a lie.
***
At the 3rd debate, Trump said:
"she's taking in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees
who probably in many cases -- not probably who are
definitely in many cases ISIS aligned...Lots of luck
Hillary, thanks a lot for doing a great job."
First, Clinton hasn't been Secretary of State since 2013.
Second, the U.S. took in 12,500 Syrian refugees last
year and far fewer in the previous 4 years of the war,
even as millions fled Syria. Third, the refugees who
come to the U.S. go through a lengthy vetting process,
including security and health checks. They aren't
"ISIS aligned". That's bs.
Counts of Syrian refugees taken in by other countries:
Jordan: 620,000 +
Lebanon: over a million (half of them children)
Iraq: 245,000 +
Turkey: over 2.5 million
Germany: 250,000 +
Egypt: 120,000 +
Greece: 50,000 +
Kuwait: 100,000 +
Sweden: 35,000 +
(many other EU countries are taking in 5000 +.
Even Russia took 5000 +.)
Venezuela committed to taking 20,000 refugees.
The tiny country of Austria has accepted 18,000.
Even France committed to accepting 30,000 refugees,
right after they were seriously attacked.
But Trump's going to turn them away. Right...
Worst of all, Trump would be a climate change
and pollution disaster. He has threatened to
roll back all sorts of environmental regulations,
has voiced great support for oil, gas, and coal,
and denies human-caused global warming, in spite
of massive scientific evidence to the contrary.
Clinton otoh has excellent policies on energy
and on climate change.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
Basically, that mofo Trump would destroy not only
the economy, he would burn this whole goddamn planet
to the ground, even if he didn't start some huge war
(which he very likely would do too given his volatility).
Trump has regularly encouraged violence even at his
own rallies. He encouraged violence against his
political opponent Clinton and threatened to have
her jailed (after she was acquitted by the Justice Dept.
and the FBI) as if he thinks he'd be some kind of a
"king" or something.
Trump is a serial liar. In this post, I gave only a
few examples. Dozens more could easily be provided.
He cannot *ever* be relied upon to tell the truth.
Trump is a rampant xenophobe who has said all manner
of ugly things about Latinos, including accusing the
Mexican government of *intentionally* sending criminals
to the U.S.
13 examples of Trump being racist:
http://tinyurl.com/goer44k
18 examples of Trump being misogynist:
http://tinyurl.com/joh7re9
And Trump held onto that "birther" bs like... forever:
http://tinyurl.com/jyn5num
All this is just the tip of an evil, ugly iceberg.
Anyone who votes for Donald Trump is an utter moron
who is incapable of thinking rationally on the matter
of who is fit to lead our great nation.
(One dollar for each year of my life so far :) )
Clinton has vowed to try to overturn "Citizen's United",
helping keep big money out of politics and leveling
the playing field for everyone. (Trump would only
create many more conditions favoring the rich.)
Clinton will push to raise the national minimum wage,
as many state and local govts have done already.
This is in line with what I see as a general need to
"raise the floor" for the disadvantaged in our society.
She will also champion better education and child care.
Clinton will protect Roe vs Wade, keeping the
government out of women's childbirth decisions.
(Trump has flip-flopped on this in his life,
now claiming to be pro-life.)
Clinton takes reasonable positions on gun control,
without threatening one's right to bear arms.
***
Trump tells lie after lie almost every time he speaks.
A few examples from the 3rd debate:
He kept saying Clinton wants "open borders" and "amnesty".
No. That isn't her policy at all, which is quite reasonable.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/
Trump also claimed "ICE endorsed me". That's misleading.
A union of immigration and customs officials called
ICE endorsed him, but this is not the federal Immigration
and Customs Enforcement Bureau (ICE). Even the private unions
that endorsed Trump do NOT agree with or support his plan
to build an impenetrable wall between us and Mexico.
Trump said: "they all want the wall". No, they don't.
(On large areas of the border it isn't feasible.)
There are places where a more secure wall makes sense.
Clinton has even supported such measures in the past.
She has long supported bipartisan immigration reform
(as did Bush and Reagan).
The Pew Research Center reports more Mexicans LEFT
the U.S. than entered between 2009 and 2014. :)
And Mexican manufacturing now works together with
American business to create billions in U.S. products.
It's not a bad thing for the most part...
http://tinyurl.com/zl5ecgl
Actually, the Obama administration has done a decent job
on illegal immigration, and Clinton plans to largely
continue his policies, with some improvements. Deportation
*increased* during Obama’s first four years in office
(over what it had been under Bush), peaking in 2012
at nearly 410,000.
Since 2014, the Obama administration has focused on
deporting recent arrivals and criminals, with fewer
deportations of longtime residents whose only crime
was crossing the border. In all, about 2.8 million
people were deported under Obama.
Trump acts like Obama was soft on illegal immigration.
But getting tough on immigrants who have committed
crimes has been Obama administration policy.
Trump makes wild claims about it, like:
“Day one, my first hour in office, those people are gone.
And you can call it deported if you want. … They're gone.”
That's a totally empty promise. He wouldn't be able
to begin to back it up since there are many places
where current laws prohibit just "rounding people up" -
such as schools, hospitals, and churches. US laws would
have to be changed to permit any blanket "rounding up"
of all illegals. What could they do? Go house to house
like the Gestapo or something? Not possible on day one,
and probably not possible at all...
Trump is a hypocrite on illegal immigrants anyway.
In 1980, a contractor working for Trump hired Polish
workers in the country illegally to clear the site
on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan where Trump Tower would
later be built. The contractor was later fined $570,000
by federal regulators. Some published reports suggested
Trump not only knew about the workers’ status but
instigated their hiring. There were also reports that
he threatened to turn the workers in to immigration
authorities after some complained about work conditions.
Maybe the reason Trump is so weird about immigration
is that he has long been and still IS a racist.
In 1973, Trump Management, the real estate company run
by the Trump family, was sued by the Justice Department
for discriminating against African-Americans at its
apartments in Queens. A bitter, lengthy legal fight
ensued and ended with the Trumps signing a consent decree
agreeing not to discriminate. Trump, who was president
of the company at the time, maintains he actually won
the suit because he did not admit guilt.
***
In the 3rd debate, Trump mentioned: "Trump Foundation,
small foundation, people contribute I contribute
the money goes one hundred percent one hundred percent
goes to different charities...I don't get anything..."
In particular, he said: "I contribute".
In fact, it's been 8 years since Trump contributed
anything to his own foundation. Since 2008, ALL
contributions have been from others, not Trump.
And as the Washington Post documented, Trump used
his foundation on multiple occasions to pay legal bills
incurred by Trump’s corporate properties.
http://tinyurl.com/htbkooe
The dude took a quarter of a mill in charitable
donations and used them for his own legal expenses!
By comparison, last year Warren Buffett made
contributions of "$2,858,057,970, of which more
than $2.85 billion were not taken as deductions".
Upon the recent release of his return, Buffett also noted:
"I have paid federal income tax every year since 1944...
Finally, I have been audited by the IRS multiple times
and am currently being audited. I have no problem in
releasing my tax information while under audit. Neither
would Mr. Trump – at least he would have no legal problem."
It's crystal clear that the Trump campaign has decided
it would be disastrous for Trump to release his taxes...
All an intelligent person need ask is... WHY? :)
You know the truth has to be *ugly* indeed
or they would have been released by now...
***
Trump keeps yammering on and on about how bad NAFTA
supposedly was. But NAFTA was signed by George H.W. Bush,
and then ratified by both houses of Congress.
Bill Clinton merely didn't veto it after it passed.
And analysis shows it did not have bad effects anyway.
Most studies show NAFTA had a relatively small impact
on the economy. According to the nonpartisan Congressional
Research Service: "NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses
feared by the critics or the large economic gains
predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of
NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively
modest”.
But do most American people realize that Trump is
merely full of hot air on his talk about "trade deals"?
Of course not. Most don't know shit about trade deals. :)
So they listen to the blowhard lie and lie and think
"oh yeah, Trump stands up for Amuricans!" It's all
empty rhetoric.
As Clinton has correctly noted, China has been
selling steel in the U.S. at less than its free
market value. And Trump had been buying it...
An investigation by Newsweek found that in at least
two of the last three Trump construction projects,
the Trump organization opted to purchase steel and
aluminum from Chinese manufacturers. One of them
was the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas,
which was built in 2008.
http://tinyurl.com/hpwlsam
***
Trump's big claim to fame is in business.
But investors in his first public company,
Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, lost a lot of money,
even as Trump himself was handsomely rewarded.
The public company lost money every year Trump ran it,
loaded up his Atlantic City casinos with costly debt,
and ultimately filed for bankruptcy. Trump has blamed
the downfall on broader forces affecting Atlantic City.
But he also drained cash out of the business to pay
personal debts and support his lavish lifestyle.
Contractors, including small businesses, lost money
along with Trump’s investors.
Trump has been sued by the New York attorney general
for allegedly defrauding students at Trump University,
by investors who bought into failed condominium
projects bearing the Trump name, and contractors who
say he refused to pay them. Trump boasts that he never
settles lawsuits, but in fact he has settled at least
100 lawsuits, as USA Today reports.
http://tinyurl.com/jxl9mtv
Get that. Dude BRAGGED he never settles lawsuits.
But he's settled over 100. I guess that doesn't
seem like many when he's been involved in... thousands.
***
After first praising Putin's "strength" as a leader,
and making a big deal out of his contacts with him...
Trump now just keeps saying "I don't know Putin."
But it's a matter of public record that 4 times
in the last 3 years Trump spoke of having a
relationship with Putin.
Thomas Roberts of MSNBC asked Trump, "Do you have a
relationship with Vladimir Putin? A conversational
relationship or anything that you feel you have sway
or influence over his government?" Trump responded,
"I do have a relationship, and I can tell you that
he's very interested in what we're doing here today."
-- November, 2013
"You know, I was in Moscow a couple of months ago.
I own the Miss Universe Pageant and they treated me
so great. Putin even sent me a present, a beautiful
present." -- address at CPAC conference, March 2014
"I was in Russia, I was in Moscow recently and I spoke,
indirectly and directly, with President Putin, who could
not have been nicer, and we had a tremendous success.
-- address at the National Press Club, May 2014
"As far as the Ukraine is concerned … if Putin wants to
go in -- and I got to know him very well because we were
both on 60 Minutes. We were stablemates, and we did very
well that night." -- portion of an answer at the Fox
Business News debate, Nov. 2015. (The notion that the
two men appeared together on 60 Minutes was debunked.
As Time magazine put it succinctly, "In fact, they
weren’t even on the same continent."
So in that last one, Trump lied when saying he
DID KNOW Putin in a particular context. :)
In other contexts, he seems to have lied about
NOT knowing him. He lies both ways, as it suits him.
Trump also once claimed Putin "said I'm a genius".
But what Putin actually said was that Trump was...
"flamboyant". :)
Trump continually distorts pretty much everything.
***
Another example...
Trump keeps implying we are getting "ripped off"
by allies for whom we provide military services.
Of course, he claims he'd get us "a better deal".
But the truth is more like the following, for example:
About 28,000 U.S. troops are based in South Korea
and an additional 49,000 in Japan. Japan pays about
$2 billion a year in maintenance and utilities for
American bases. Foreign policy observers argue it’s
cheaper to base American troops in Japan and South
Korea and have them pay the bill than to base them
back home. South Korea paid about $866.6 million in
2014 for the U.S. military presence there, which is
about 40 percent of the cost.
It often just makes good strategic sense for us to
do things as we do, and most of our "deals" aren't bad.
***
Trump's biggest claim is that he'd benefit our economy.
But his published tax plan to cut income tax rates, reduce
the business tax rate, and eliminate estate taxes would
primarily benefit the very wealthy.
It's an even worse version of the trickle down bs
that started with Reagan and failed again miserably at
the end of Dubya's 8 years. That shit just doesn't work.
Obama inherited a rising unemployment rate from Dubya
that began at 7.6 percent and in his 1st year rose to
*10 percent*. It's now 5 percent, half what it was.
For comparison: Jobs per year was strongest under
Bill Clinton (2.8 million), followed by Jimmy Carter
(2.6 million), Ronald Reagan (2 million), President Obama
(1.4 million as of September), George H.W. Bush (659,000),
and George W. Bush (160,000).
It would be a *terrible* mistake to go back to more
trickle down, deregulation, and spending austerity.
That's what caused many of our worst problems,
and that's just what Trump says he would do.
***
Trump lies again regularly when he claims that Obama
and Clinton gave rise to ISIS.
Fact:
The U.S. completed withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2011
under a deal signed by George W. Bush, and at the
insistence of the Iraqis. Obama honored that deal.
Obama has actually done a pretty good job at fighting
ISIS without getting the U.S. mired in the area again.
***
Trump impresses some people when he talks about
how US GDP has been growing at a "slow rate",
and how China and India are growing much faster.
That's just another very misleading argument. There's
tons of room for growth in the Chinese and Indian
economies because they're still immature "emerging"
economies. Those countries also have well over 3 times
our population. The U.S. economy is a mature one that
couldn't ever again grow at such great speeds.
But if you look at GDP PER CAPITA and compare the U.S.,
India, and China, you'll see that we dwarf them.
http://tinyurl.com/azpdjd5
GDP PER CAPITA
U.S.: $51,486
China: $6,416
India: $1,806
Of COURSE the Chinese and Indian economies are growing
at faster rates than ours. There's a great deal more
room for them to modernize and grow. Trump implies he'd
grow our economy that fast, but economists that analyzed
his plans say it's more likely he'd tank our economy.
And there's no way he could grow the U.S. economy
at the speed of an "emerging economy". It's a lie.
***
At the 3rd debate, Trump said:
"she's taking in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees
who probably in many cases -- not probably who are
definitely in many cases ISIS aligned...Lots of luck
Hillary, thanks a lot for doing a great job."
First, Clinton hasn't been Secretary of State since 2013.
Second, the U.S. took in 12,500 Syrian refugees last
year and far fewer in the previous 4 years of the war,
even as millions fled Syria. Third, the refugees who
come to the U.S. go through a lengthy vetting process,
including security and health checks. They aren't
"ISIS aligned". That's bs.
Counts of Syrian refugees taken in by other countries:
Jordan: 620,000 +
Lebanon: over a million (half of them children)
Iraq: 245,000 +
Turkey: over 2.5 million
Germany: 250,000 +
Egypt: 120,000 +
Greece: 50,000 +
Kuwait: 100,000 +
Sweden: 35,000 +
(many other EU countries are taking in 5000 +.
Even Russia took 5000 +.)
Venezuela committed to taking 20,000 refugees.
The tiny country of Austria has accepted 18,000.
Even France committed to accepting 30,000 refugees,
right after they were seriously attacked.
But Trump's going to turn them away. Right...
Worst of all, Trump would be a climate change
and pollution disaster. He has threatened to
roll back all sorts of environmental regulations,
has voiced great support for oil, gas, and coal,
and denies human-caused global warming, in spite
of massive scientific evidence to the contrary.
Clinton otoh has excellent policies on energy
and on climate change.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
Basically, that mofo Trump would destroy not only
the economy, he would burn this whole goddamn planet
to the ground, even if he didn't start some huge war
(which he very likely would do too given his volatility).
Trump has regularly encouraged violence even at his
own rallies. He encouraged violence against his
political opponent Clinton and threatened to have
her jailed (after she was acquitted by the Justice Dept.
and the FBI) as if he thinks he'd be some kind of a
"king" or something.
Trump is a serial liar. In this post, I gave only a
few examples. Dozens more could easily be provided.
He cannot *ever* be relied upon to tell the truth.
Trump is a rampant xenophobe who has said all manner
of ugly things about Latinos, including accusing the
Mexican government of *intentionally* sending criminals
to the U.S.
13 examples of Trump being racist:
http://tinyurl.com/goer44k
18 examples of Trump being misogynist:
http://tinyurl.com/joh7re9
And Trump held onto that "birther" bs like... forever:
http://tinyurl.com/jyn5num
All this is just the tip of an evil, ugly iceberg.
Anyone who votes for Donald Trump is an utter moron
who is incapable of thinking rationally on the matter
of who is fit to lead our great nation.
allreadygone
Oct 28, 2016, 9:22:03 PM10/28/16
to
the man who believes himself said:
Trump is a serial liar. In this post, I gave only a
few examples. Dozens more could easily be provided.
He cannot *ever* be relied upon to tell the truth.
Man he would make a great politician eh ?
Trump is a serial liar. In this post, I gave only a
few examples. Dozens more could easily be provided.
He cannot *ever* be relied upon to tell the truth.
No one cares about what is 'true' anymore.
Bullshit flies, truth walks.
Jeremy H. Donovan
Oct 28, 2016, 11:06:45 PM10/28/16
to
A lot of people care about the truth.
Most people I know do, anyway.
Most people I know do, anyway.
slider
Oct 29, 2016, 7:41:48 AM10/29/16
to
allreadygone wrote...
> Trump is a serial liar. In this post, I gave only a
> few examples. Dozens more could easily be provided.
> He cannot *ever* be relied upon to tell the truth.
>
> Man he would make a great politician eh ?
> No one cares about what is 'true' anymore.
> Bullshit flies, truth walks.
### - politicians are famous for telling the truth now??
riiight ... :)
> Trump is a serial liar. In this post, I gave only a
> few examples. Dozens more could easily be provided.
> He cannot *ever* be relied upon to tell the truth.
>
> Man he would make a great politician eh ?
> No one cares about what is 'true' anymore.
> Bullshit flies, truth walks.
riiight ... :)
Jeremy H. Donovan
Oct 29, 2016, 1:16:11 PM10/29/16
to
Try that mofo on for size...
The first episode is: a royal princess is kidnapped
in an attempt to force the prime minister to have
sexual intercourse with a pig on national television.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=di6emt8_ie8
This shit should suit your cynical views rather well.
I have to admit it is fascinating...
allreadygone
Nov 1, 2016, 1:18:19 PM11/1/16
to
is this for real?
Trump is now leading in the polls?
how can this be?
wtf happened Mrs. Clinton?
Trump is now leading in the polls?
how can this be?
wtf happened Mrs. Clinton?
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Nov 2, 2016, 1:39:29 PM11/2/16
to
Do You Have An Antisocial Disorder?
http://tinyurl.com/j4nzc78
***
Before the Flood, documentary starring Leonardo DiCaprio:
http://tinyurl.com/zgglznb
This documentary is accurate and important.
***
30% of Cancer Deaths Are Due to Smoking
http://time.com/4542672/smoking-cigarettes-cancer-death/
In the U.S. alone, over 167,000 people every single year
die from smoking-caused cancer alone (many more also die
from smoking-caused heart disease) and this latest big
study did not even count mouth or throat cancer.
Be sure to let me know the next time Al Qaeda or ISIS
or the Russians manage to kill 167,000 Americans, okay?
And that many die EVERY year.
What does that have to do with elections?
Some states are proposing new taxes on tobacco products
designed to seriously discourage people from smoking.
California, for example, has a measure on the ballot
to add an additional $2 tax per pack, thus bringing
California more in line with World Health Org guidelines.
Jeremy H. Donovan
Nov 3, 2016, 2:10:58 PM11/3/16
to
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Nov 3, 2016, 7:55:54 PM11/3/16
to
Strange days. My barber is a little 75-year-old woman
who lived in Iran - first under the Shah, then under
Khomeini before immigrating to the U.S.
She told me she values "freedom". Then...
the punchline: she's voting for Trump because
"he'll keep the Muslims out", and she "wants her
grandkids to live in freedom too". She also said
she didn't think "a woman could be a strong leader".
She didn't seem to realize that if "keeping Muslims out"
had been our policy all along SHE may have been kept out
(being from Iran). Nor did she see that if all Muslims
are rejected then what "objectionable" religion might
be next? Until we're... back to 'state religions' and
inquisitions and shit (isn't it odd to hear me the
atheist defend religious freedom? :) ).
I told her that with Trump's support of oil, coal and
climate change denial... if he won, her grandkids may
die from pollution and/or not have a habitable planet
at all anymore. I fear for the human race, as such a
large percentage of it is delusional, possessing not
even the simplest ability to reason or research issues
in any kind of depth. They vote stupidly, for stupid
reasons that don't even make sense.
It's truly scary how many people out there have
some moronic reason why they're voting for Trump.
who lived in Iran - first under the Shah, then under
Khomeini before immigrating to the U.S.
She told me she values "freedom". Then...
the punchline: she's voting for Trump because
"he'll keep the Muslims out", and she "wants her
grandkids to live in freedom too". She also said
she didn't think "a woman could be a strong leader".
She didn't seem to realize that if "keeping Muslims out"
had been our policy all along SHE may have been kept out
(being from Iran). Nor did she see that if all Muslims
are rejected then what "objectionable" religion might
be next? Until we're... back to 'state religions' and
inquisitions and shit (isn't it odd to hear me the
atheist defend religious freedom? :) ).
I told her that with Trump's support of oil, coal and
climate change denial... if he won, her grandkids may
die from pollution and/or not have a habitable planet
at all anymore. I fear for the human race, as such a
large percentage of it is delusional, possessing not
even the simplest ability to reason or research issues
in any kind of depth. They vote stupidly, for stupid
reasons that don't even make sense.
It's truly scary how many people out there have
some moronic reason why they're voting for Trump.
Jeremy H. Denisovan
Nov 3, 2016, 8:01:19 PM11/3/16
to
allreadygone
Nov 3, 2016, 8:31:43 PM11/3/16
to
my barber?
whoa whoa there camper.
so she is conservative, so what?
most everyone over the Cajon Pass in
this country IS conservative.
Pass the ammo mate, vote for Trumpy.
Mrs. Clinton is playing it super safe by
not coming out and taking in public.
But everyone under the sun already knew
she would play the Cleargreen game, "just
be quiet and don't say anything".
Yep it's easy. Just shut the fuck up.
But who cares, we are all gonna die
anyways. Just a question of time.
Tic toc. :)
whoa whoa there camper.
so she is conservative, so what?
most everyone over the Cajon Pass in
this country IS conservative.
Pass the ammo mate, vote for Trumpy.
Mrs. Clinton is playing it super safe by
not coming out and taking in public.
But everyone under the sun already knew
she would play the Cleargreen game, "just
be quiet and don't say anything".
Yep it's easy. Just shut the fuck up.
But who cares, we are all gonna die
anyways. Just a question of time.
Tic toc. :)
slider
Nov 4, 2016, 8:28:49 AM11/4/16
to
On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 23:55:53 -0000, Jeremy H. Denisovan
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's truly scary how many people out there have
> some moronic reason why they're voting for Trump.
### - heh, welcome to wallyworld! :)))
<david.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's truly scary how many people out there have
> some moronic reason why they're voting for Trump.
lol so are you guys seeing 'reds under your beds' yet or what?? :)
anti-russian global hysteria is reaching its peak! even in the uk with an
overnight attack on the russian embassy, a massive protest right here in
london sheesh! with attacks on the embassy phone lines so they couldn't
call out (the 24/7 patrolling police didn't erm, see anything?? lol)
it's just like in orwell's 1984 with the 'hate hour'??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vvvPZd6_D8
is something coming do you think?
may be...
allreadygone
Nov 4, 2016, 8:59:25 AM11/4/16
to
> is something coming do you think?
all in due time, meanwhile have
another beer.
allreadygone
Nov 4, 2016, 9:10:33 AM11/4/16
to
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sources-us-intel-warning-of-possible-al-qaeda-attacks-in-us-monday/
never a dull moment here in America.
slider
Nov 4, 2016, 12:18:03 PM11/4/16
to
allreadygone
Nov 5, 2016, 12:49:24 PM11/5/16
to
let's talk election. this has been
quite a lou-lou, most peeps are
very sick of this one. they just
want the fucker to be over.
looks like mrs. clinton has always
had this thing in the bag.
most people will agree with this.
However, there's always this outside
chance that America can surprise Americans.
Long shot chance for El Trumpy?
would not surprise me but i ain't
puttin' any money on it.
quite a lou-lou, most peeps are
very sick of this one. they just
want the fucker to be over.
looks like mrs. clinton has always
had this thing in the bag.
most people will agree with this.
However, there's always this outside
chance that America can surprise Americans.
Long shot chance for El Trumpy?
would not surprise me but i ain't
puttin' any money on it.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages