US Presidential Candidates

1343 posts • Page 75 of 135 • 1 ... 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 ... 135

Re: US Presidential Candidates
by Tenshinai » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:48 pm
Tenshinai Admiral Posts: 2893 Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm Location: Sweden	And a huge +1 to Eyal´s post.
Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates

by Tenshinai » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:48 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

And a huge +1 to Eyal´s post.

Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates
by smr » Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:16 am
smr Vice Admiral Posts: 1522 Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:18 pm	Question: "Where did the source material come from that landed in the FBI's lap?" Answer: The New York Police Department had been investigating Weiner. Their was agreement made between the FBI and NY police Department concerning the emails on Huma's/Weiner's laptop. One, the emails had to be released after the election. Two, Congress had to be informed in a timely manner before the election or the NYPD would call a conference and release the emails or they would give a copy to wikileaks. The FBI wanted the laptop because they are quietly investigating the multiple Clinton foundations. Also, they were unsure whether their was new emails on Huma/Weiner's laptop. New emails were found and the relevant departments are determining whether their classified or not. That takes at least a couple of months for that to be checked. (I think the Dallas office of the IRS has taken over part of the case from the FBI. The IRS is investigating whether the charity is doing work outside their prescribed incorporation mandate. They are focusing of WJC foundation for a variety of reasons.) According to unnamed Congressman HRC will not be charged in the email scandal because both sides do not want weaponize this issue for later elections! However, the investigations are not going to stop because lessor folk might be going to jail!(probably are going to jail) Most likely HRC will not be charged or will be pardoned. So if HRC had not setup an email server to conduct government business, she would have probably won the election. However, she is on video telling State department employees that they must NOT use private emails to conduct government business in 2009! HRC has only one person to blame...Herself! For those people that are upset...did anyone read any of top 100 emails? Well, I read the top 100, She is a crook and good riddance to white trash. Before replying to my criticism, read the top 100 emails. Eyal wrote: PeterZ wrote:Eyal, If the organization the judge belonged to was something more benign than the more renowned La Raza, does that not argue for making assumptions based on affiliation and NOT race? Also, how often do people use sloppy language. Referring to someone of Mexican decent as Mexican is inaccurate, but is it by definition racist? I maintain that the charge of racism is unproven. Did Trump ever mention La Raza? AFAIR his argument consisted of "he's Mexican...and I'm building a wall!". To the best of my recollection La Raza was brought up by Trump supporters to try to explai his statements. Now, I have no idea whether or not Trump is personally racist. But at least as seen in his campaign, he seems to have no problem playing along with racists (for another example see his comment which started the whole Khan storm). Even if , as you suggested, he only did it for the press attention, is that much better? Does it matter whether he's racist if he's willing to cater to racist supporters? As for your concern with regards to Trump's kleptocratic tendencies, pleas help me be vigilant. I am sure more eyes will follow his every move than would have followed Clinton. The forces of kleptocracy face a more inhospitable environment now than it would have under Clinton. Why would they? Trumps misdeeds re his foundation and so on are a lot more clear-cut than Clinton's (doesn't he have something like 70 upcoming court cases?), yet the voters chose him anyway. I have little faith his supporters would turn on him for that (if they even believed allegations against him). And I don't hold much faith in the legislature as a check either, since while Trump got less of the vote than Romney did he still has a good chunk of the Republican base; do you think any of them will risk their seat to go against their own party's President? Especially since gerrymandering has given them a lot of secure seats in Congress but conversely makes them more vulnerable to the fanatical portions of the base. To be honest, What I find most distressing about the current situation is that you have a party and candidate (and yes, I know the Democrats have also engaged in their shenanigans, but over the last decade it's been more on the Republican side and gotten worse) which are quite willing to challange the basic foundations of your political system. While I'm more sympathetic to the Democrat's platform in most ways, I'm not passionate about it. But in this case you have a party which has turned the Supreme Court appointment process blatently partisan (prior to his nominations, there's at least one Republican Senator who gave Garland as an example of a candidate which would be perfectly acceptable but wehich Obama would never nominate), who've openly used the Congressional oversight functions and wasted millions on a political witch hunt (the 9 Benghazi investigations which found nothing except the emails, which are a tangential matter, and which Republican legislators explicitly stated were intended to politically harm Clinton), among other things (e.g. Gingrich suggesting the reformation of HUAC). And as for Trump, leaving aside his policies (which for the most part were never particularly clear in the first place, and I understand he's already backtracking on a lot of his platform), you have a candidate who's proposed a string of proposals which would violate the first, second, fourth, fifth and several other amendments of the Constitution, who has utterly no experience at government (remember when lack of experience was a major Republican attack against Senator Obama?), who's expressed his intention to jail his opposite number, who comes off as less coherent and consistent than a five-year-old, who accuses his opponent of masive dishonesty and corruption while being massively corrupt himself and lying about pretty much everything, who frankly spits on your military (his comments re POWs and the effectivity of generals in Mosul) and who bluntly appears to be completely ignoratn on much of what he needs to do (Msoul again for just one example). Who is vindictive (see for ex the analyst who - correctly, in retrospect - said the Taj Mahal would be unsuccessful, upon which Trump got him fired) and unable to resist being baited and get's into fights he doesn't need to (for example the affairs with the Khan's and Machado, both of which would have been forgotten within 24 hours if Trump had ignored them). And the American electorate just validated all of this. Sooner or later, the Democrats will be in power again. It's quite possible that the lesson they take from this election os to forget policy and go as dirst as you can for the heartstrings; forget good governance and go to for the jugular. Do you really want US politics to descend into an orgy of mutual scorched-earth tactics? Because that's where I see this headed if not repudiated. This is without mentioning the FBI's conduct which AFAIK Trump didn;t have anything to do with but undermines the credibility - hard-won after Hoover - of one of your major law enforcement agencies. Frankly, depending on what you believe his motives were, Comey's conduct towards the end of the election indicates he was either playing partisan politics or lsot control of his underlings, and either way he should lose his seat, although I imagine he dodged that particular bullet. EDIT - which is not to say I'm particularly for Clinton. I wouldn't be this irate if, say ROmney or McCain had won in the previous elections. But even taking the worst allegations about Clinton as true well, apart from the outlandish ones like toe Clinton Murder Machine), she'd have done a lot less (or at least more easily repairable) damage to basic American institutions. dscott8 wrote:Please remember that this is a son of privilege, who has never lived among common folk. He may have had no real understanding of the consequences when he retweeted that stuff, and because he didn't know, he didn't care. I'm not excusing him, just trying to explain him. Presidential material, there.
Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates

by smr » Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:16 am

smr
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1522
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:18 pm

Question: "Where did the source material come from that landed in the FBI's lap?"

Answer: The New York Police Department had been investigating Weiner. Their was agreement made between the FBI and NY police Department concerning the emails on Huma's/Weiner's laptop. One, the emails had to be released after the election. Two, Congress had to be informed in a timely manner before the election or the NYPD would call a conference and release the emails or they would give a copy to wikileaks. The FBI wanted the laptop because they are quietly investigating the multiple Clinton foundations. Also, they were unsure whether their was new emails on Huma/Weiner's laptop. New emails were found and the relevant departments are determining whether their classified or not. That takes at least a couple of months for that to be checked. (I think the Dallas office of the IRS has taken over part of the case from the FBI. The IRS is investigating whether the charity is doing work outside their prescribed incorporation mandate. They are focusing of WJC foundation for a variety of reasons.) According to unnamed Congressman HRC will not be charged in the email scandal because both sides do not want weaponize this issue for later elections! However, the investigations are not going to stop because lessor folk might be going to jail!(probably are going to jail) Most likely HRC will not be charged or will be pardoned. So if HRC had not setup an email server to conduct government business, she would have probably won the election. However, she is on video telling State department employees that they must NOT use private emails to conduct government business in 2009! HRC has only one person to blame...Herself! For those people that are upset...did anyone read any of top 100 emails? Well, I read the top 100, She is a crook and good riddance to white trash. Before replying to my criticism, read the top 100 emails.

Eyal wrote:
PeterZ wrote:Eyal,
If the organization the judge belonged to was something more benign than the more renowned La Raza, does that not argue for making assumptions based on affiliation and NOT race? Also, how often do people use sloppy language. Referring to someone of Mexican decent as Mexican is inaccurate, but is it by definition racist?

I maintain that the charge of racism is unproven.

Did Trump ever mention La Raza? AFAIR his argument consisted of "he's Mexican...and I'm building a wall!". To the best of my recollection La Raza was brought up by Trump supporters to try to explai his statements.

Now, I have no idea whether or not Trump is personally racist. But at least as seen in his campaign, he seems to have no problem playing along with racists (for another example see his comment which started the whole Khan storm). Even if , as you suggested, he only did it for the press attention, is that much better? Does it matter whether he's racist if he's willing to cater to racist supporters?

As for your concern with regards to Trump's kleptocratic tendencies, pleas help me be vigilant. I am sure more eyes will follow his every move than would have followed Clinton. The forces of kleptocracy face a more inhospitable environment now than it would have under Clinton.

Why would they? Trumps misdeeds re his foundation and so on are a lot more clear-cut than Clinton's (doesn't he have something like 70 upcoming court cases?), yet the voters chose him anyway. I have little faith his supporters would turn on him for that (if they even believed allegations against him). And I don't hold much faith in the legislature as a check either, since while Trump got less of the vote than Romney did he still has a good chunk of the Republican base; do you think any of them will risk their seat to go against their own party's President? Especially since gerrymandering has given them a lot of secure seats in Congress but conversely makes them more vulnerable to the fanatical portions of the base.

To be honest, What I find most distressing about the current situation is that you have a party and candidate (and yes, I know the Democrats have also engaged in their shenanigans, but over the last decade it's been more on the Republican side and gotten worse) which are quite willing to challange the basic foundations of your political system. While I'm more sympathetic to the Democrat's platform in most ways, I'm not passionate about it. But in this case you have a party which has turned the Supreme Court appointment process blatently partisan (prior to his nominations, there's at least one Republican Senator who gave Garland as an example of a candidate which would be perfectly acceptable but wehich Obama would never nominate), who've openly used the Congressional oversight functions and wasted millions on a political witch hunt (the 9 Benghazi investigations which found nothing except the emails, which are a tangential matter, and which Republican legislators explicitly stated were intended to politically harm Clinton), among other things (e.g. Gingrich suggesting the reformation of HUAC).

And as for Trump, leaving aside his policies (which for the most part were never particularly clear in the first place, and I understand he's already backtracking on a lot of his platform), you have a candidate who's proposed a string of proposals which would violate the first, second, fourth, fifth and several other amendments of the Constitution, who has utterly no experience at government (remember when lack of experience was a major Republican attack against Senator Obama?), who's expressed his intention to jail his opposite number, who comes off as less coherent and consistent than a five-year-old, who accuses his opponent of masive dishonesty and corruption while being massively corrupt himself and lying about pretty much everything, who frankly spits on your military (his comments re POWs and the effectivity of generals in Mosul) and who bluntly appears to be completely ignoratn on much of what he needs to do (Msoul again for just one example)*. Who is vindictive (see for ex the analyst who - correctly, in retrospect - said the Taj Mahal would be unsuccessful, upon which Trump got him fired) and unable to resist being baited and get's into fights he doesn't need to (for example the affairs with the Khan's and Machado, both of which would have been forgotten within 24 hours if Trump had ignored them).

And the American electorate just validated all of this.

Sooner or later, the Democrats will be in power again. It's quite possible that the lesson they take from this election os to forget policy and go as dirst as you can for the heartstrings; forget good governance and go to for the jugular. Do you really want US politics to descend into an orgy of mutual scorched-earth tactics? Because that's where I see this headed if not repudiated.

*This is without mentioning the FBI's conduct which AFAIK Trump didn;t have anything to do with but undermines the credibility - hard-won after Hoover - of one of your major law enforcement agencies. Frankly, depending on what you believe his motives were, Comey's conduct towards the end of the election indicates he was either playing partisan politics or lsot control of his underlings, and either way he should lose his seat, although I imagine he dodged that particular bullet.

EDIT - which is not to say I'm particularly for Clinton. I wouldn't be this irate if, say ROmney or McCain had won in the previous elections. But even taking the worst allegations about Clinton as true well, apart from the outlandish ones like toe Clinton Murder Machine), she'd have done a lot less (or at least more easily repairable) damage to basic American institutions.

dscott8 wrote:Please remember that this is a son of privilege, who has never lived among common folk. He may have had no real understanding of the consequences when he retweeted that stuff, and because he didn't know, he didn't care. I'm not excusing him, just trying to explain him.

Presidential material, there.

Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates
by Relax » Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:46 am
Relax Fleet Admiral Posts: 3214 Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm	Eyal wrote:SNIP Sooner or later, the Democrats will be in power again. It's quite possible that the lesson they take from this election os to forget policy and go as dirst as you can for the heartstrings; forget good governance and go to for the jugular. Do you really want US politics to descend into an orgy of mutual scorched-earth tactics? Because that's where I see this headed if not repudiated. To start with neither candidate this election said one thing about policy. Not one. Ok, they both said some outright whopper lies that we all know will never happen. Obama likewise said NOTHING about policy when he ran. They all ran on touchy feely moralistic crap as if that has ANYTHING to do with foreign policy or signing/vetoing the budget passed by congress. When we have massive debt, as the boondoggle was kicked down the road for the last 20 years and the BOOMERS are retiring with massive increases in Social security and Medicare are forthcoming without a generation of workers much larger than them in the pipeline which those programs assumed was ALWAYS going to be true. Even if our defense budget is ZERO for the next decade, we would still have a budget deficit EVERY YEAR! Did ANYONE bring this up? Hell no they did not. Did anyone bring up that interest rates are at zero and anyone who saves money is SCREWED? Hrmm, lets see, boomers retiring, the biggest generation ever in the USA, and interest rates at zero... Yea, that is going to end well... Horrors someone would speak up and tell the Boomers, that NO, their social security/Medicare benefits will not be what was promised as those who set up the system a long time ago SCREWED THE POOCH and made giant ass whopper promises which were and still are lies. Second of all, there is a very simple reason this was the second lowest presidential voter turnout in the history of our nation. Both candidates were two sides of a lying turd sandwich. No matter which side of the sandwich is up, you bite(vote) on the "nice looking" exterior of bread, but the inside of the sandwich is still a complete pile of $hit... The only difference I could see, is that Trump ran as a centrist reality star who wants to destroy our freedoms(has said so publicly), namely the 1st amendment with curbs to journalist safeguards and Hillary who ran as a fool Bernie regressive leftist who believes if you are taxed $5000, the government will magically turn $5000 into $10,000 and "give" it back to you while also destroying our constitutional freedoms, namely the 1st, 2nd, etc amendments with hate speech laws, ALA Canada, EU, Australia have where you literally cannot say anything without being sued, curbs on journalists etc. Oh yes, and Clinton had a side helping of corruption where people pay money to her foundation and they magically get access to the Secretary of the State... Oh yes and Clinton also had a brilliant side helping of being caught having a private email server when she told others in the state department in 2009!~, DO NOT DO THIS!..... Absolutely brilliant. So; vote for, a douche bag in his personal life who openly states; destroy the constitution or a corrupt insider who also will destroy the constitution. So, when I did vote, I had to ask myself who is worse as NEITHER said diddly about policy. A douche bag who I get to vote out of office, or a corrupt official who will spread corruption throughout the government for 4 years and even if in 4 years I get to vote her ass out of office, the corruption will remain. Corruption spreads. Both have said they will destroy the constitution. What a choice. We are still chewing on a turd sandwich. Who knows, maybe Trump won't kill too many puppies along the way while trying to destroy our freedoms. I doubt it. What I don't understand, is why it wasn't THE LOWEST voter turnout EVER. EDIT: Sorry, had this in my original and then when copy/paste... Anyways. Yes, I am aware that Previous Secretaries of State had private email servers. Why? Because supposedly the government servers were atrociously bad. Now if that isn't a condemnation on how pathetic the government is at almost everything I don't know what is. PS. You do this as a private citizen on a black box military project and YOU GO TO JAIL. I personally know people WHO DID GO TO JAIL who lost a LAPTOP containing classified information which was not supposed to go to Farnborough AirShow in France!!!!!!! And NO, it was nothing drastic. In fact most of the information was complete crap which was stolen as the specs we had given to the Vice President was crap and we knew it was crap because the VP was a complete Jack Ass and we didn't trust him not to tell the whole world about how good our stuff actually was... Which frankly was the ONLY reason he did not go to jail for the full term. The info stolen was ~~ false to some degree. _________ Tally Ho! Relax
Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates

by Relax » Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:46 am

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Eyal wrote:SNIP

Sooner or later, the Democrats will be in power again. It's quite possible that the lesson they take from this election os to forget policy and go as dirst as you can for the heartstrings; forget good governance and go to for the jugular. Do you really want US politics to descend into an orgy of mutual scorched-earth tactics? Because that's where I see this headed if not repudiated.

To start with neither candidate this election said one thing about policy. Not one. Ok, they both said some outright whopper lies that we all know will never happen. Obama likewise said NOTHING about policy when he ran. They all ran on touchy feely moralistic crap as if that has ANYTHING to do with foreign policy or signing/vetoing the budget passed by congress.

When we have massive debt, as the boondoggle was kicked down the road for the last 20 years and the BOOMERS are retiring with massive increases in Social security and Medicare are forthcoming without a generation of workers much larger than them in the pipeline which those programs assumed was ALWAYS going to be true.

Even if our defense budget is ZERO for the next decade, we would still have a budget deficit EVERY YEAR! Did ANYONE bring this up? Hell no they did not. Did anyone bring up that interest rates are at zero and anyone who saves money is SCREWED? Hrmm, lets see, boomers retiring, the biggest generation ever in the USA, and interest rates at zero... Yea, that is going to end well... Horrors someone would speak up and tell the Boomers, that NO, their social security/Medicare benefits will not be what was promised as those who set up the system a long time ago SCREWED THE POOCH and made giant ass whopper promises which were and still are lies.

Second of all, there is a very simple reason this was the second lowest presidential voter turnout in the history of our nation. Both candidates were two sides of a lying turd sandwich. No matter which side of the sandwich is up, you bite(vote) on the "nice looking" exterior of bread, but the inside of the sandwich is still a complete pile of $hit...

The only difference I could see, is that Trump ran as a centrist reality star who wants to destroy our freedoms(has said so publicly), namely the 1st amendment with curbs to journalist safeguards and Hillary who ran as a fool Bernie regressive leftist who believes if you are taxed $5000, the government will magically turn $5000 into $10,000 and "give" it back to you while also destroying our constitutional freedoms, namely the 1st, 2nd, etc amendments with hate speech laws, ALA Canada, EU, Australia have where you literally cannot say anything without being sued, curbs on journalists etc. Oh yes, and Clinton had a side helping of corruption where people pay money to her foundation and they magically get access to the Secretary of the State... Oh yes and Clinton also had a brilliant side helping of being caught having a private email server when she told others in the state department in 2009!~, DO NOT DO THIS!..... Absolutely brilliant.

So; vote for, a douche bag in his personal life who openly states; destroy the constitution or a corrupt insider who also will destroy the constitution.

So, when I did vote, I had to ask myself who is worse as NEITHER said diddly about policy. A douche bag who I get to vote out of office, or a corrupt official who will spread corruption throughout the government for 4 years and even if in 4 years I get to vote her ass out of office, the corruption will remain. Corruption spreads. Both have said they will destroy the constitution.

What a choice. We are still chewing on a turd sandwich.

Who knows, maybe Trump won't kill too many puppies along the way while trying to destroy our freedoms. I doubt it.

What I don't understand, is why it wasn't THE LOWEST voter turnout EVER.

EDIT: Sorry, had this in my original and then when copy/paste... Anyways. Yes, I am aware that Previous Secretaries of State had private email servers. Why? Because supposedly the government servers were atrociously bad. Now if that isn't a condemnation on how pathetic the government is at almost everything I don't know what is. PS. You do this as a private citizen on a black box military project and YOU GO TO JAIL. I personally know people WHO DID GO TO JAIL who lost a LAPTOP containing classified information which was not supposed to go to Farnborough AirShow in France!!!!!!! And NO, it was nothing drastic. In fact most of the information was complete crap which was stolen as the specs we had given to the Vice President was crap and we knew it was crap because the VP was a complete Jack Ass and we didn't trust him not to tell the whole world about how good our stuff actually was... Which frankly was the ONLY reason he did not go to jail for the full term. The info stolen was ~~ false to some degree.

_________
Tally Ho!
Relax

Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates
by Tenshinai » Sun Nov 13, 2016 4:33 am
Tenshinai Admiral Posts: 2893 Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm Location: Sweden	Relax wrote:to Farnborough AirShow in France! Eh, unless Hampshire suddenly became part of France, the Farnborough airshow is in England... Relax wrote:In fact most of the information was complete crap which was stolen as the specs we had given to the Vice President was crap and we knew it was crap because the VP was a complete Jack Ass and we didn't trust him not to tell the whole world about how good our stuff actually was... Which frankly was the ONLY reason he did not go to jail for the full term. The info stolen was ~~ false to some degree. If that is actually true, then whoever gave that information to the VP is in serious legal trouble. Giving false information up the chain of command is a major offense. And really, the F-35 isn´t going to magically become a good airplane no matter how you try to polish it. Relax wrote:with hate speech laws, ALA Canada, EU, Australia have where you literally cannot say anything without being sued That´s just rubbish. Such laws exist here and lots of people say many many things, many of which would likely cause half the yanks on this forum to pass out from pure indignation, yet the amount of people sued for breaking those laws is counted in single numbers per year. Because freedom of speech does not have to be in opposition to laws against hatespeech. Being prevented from talking about exterminating ethnicity X or Y does not limit your freedom of speech to any appreciable degree. Relax wrote:To start with neither candidate this election said one thing about policy. Not one. Exaggeration. Both DID, Clinton much more so than Trump, but they mostly avoided going into details about potential policies(Trump almost completely). Relax wrote: Ok, they both said some outright whopper lies that we all know will never happen. Problem is, you can´t decide what of what they said were lies until their time in office is over and you KNOW what happened or not, because a lot of candidates really do believe some of those "whoppers".
Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates

by Tenshinai » Sun Nov 13, 2016 4:33 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Relax wrote:to Farnborough AirShow in France!

Eh, unless Hampshire suddenly became part of France, the Farnborough airshow is in England...

Relax wrote:In fact most of the information was complete crap which was stolen as the specs we had given to the Vice President was crap and we knew it was crap because the VP was a complete Jack Ass and we didn't trust him not to tell the whole world about how good our stuff actually was... Which frankly was the ONLY reason he did not go to jail for the full term. The info stolen was ~~ false to some degree.

If that is actually true, then whoever gave that information to the VP is in serious legal trouble. Giving false information up the chain of command is a major offense.

And really, the F-35 isn´t going to magically become a good airplane no matter how you try to polish it.

Relax wrote:with hate speech laws, ALA Canada, EU, Australia have where you literally cannot say anything without being sued

That´s just rubbish. Such laws exist here and lots of people say many many things, many of which would likely cause half the yanks on this forum to pass out from pure indignation, yet the amount of people sued for breaking those laws is counted in single numbers per year. Because freedom of speech does not have to be in opposition to laws against hatespeech.

Being prevented from talking about exterminating ethnicity X or Y does not limit your freedom of speech to any appreciable degree.

Relax wrote:To start with neither candidate this election said one thing about policy. Not one.

Exaggeration. Both DID, Clinton much more so than Trump, but they mostly avoided going into details about potential policies(Trump almost completely).

Relax wrote: Ok, they both said some outright whopper lies that we all know will never happen.

Problem is, you can´t decide what of what they said were lies until their time in office is over and you KNOW what happened or not, because a lot of candidates really do believe some of those "whoppers".

Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates
by Relax » Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:07 am
Relax Fleet Admiral Posts: 3214 Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm	Tenshinai wrote: Relax wrote:to Farnborough AirShow in France! Eh, unless Hampshire suddenly became part of France, the Farnborough airshow is in England... Relax wrote:In fact most of the information was complete crap which was stolen as the specs we had given to the Vice President was crap and we knew it was crap because the VP was a complete Jack Ass and we didn't trust him not to tell the whole world about how good our stuff actually was... Which frankly was the ONLY reason he did not go to jail for the full term. The info stolen was ~~ false to some degree. If that is actually true, then whoever gave that information to the VP is in serious legal trouble. Giving false information up the chain of command is a major offense. Here are a few facts of life regarding working in a business of more than 20 people. Life is not black and white when dealing with people. When you know someone, you also know their foolish tendencies. A one word answer would be TRUST. Fools who get in position via nepotism have to be worked around to save the company. This guy was not in via nepotism, but it happens sometimes. Likewise fools who get in positions of power if you even give them a hint of what is possible, instead of what is actual, then the fool will shout to the world they can do what is hinted at. This guy was the later. Know your people. And No, there is no legal trouble. Which you should know if you had ever worked in a business, but you may be fired, though doubtful. To alleviate being fired you let everyone know what is going on whom you trust. R&D departments this is common knowledge of how to operate and maneuver around ignorant financial big wigs at the top. _________ Tally Ho! Relax
Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates

by Relax » Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:07 am

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Tenshinai wrote:
Relax wrote:to Farnborough AirShow in France!

Eh, unless Hampshire suddenly became part of France, the Farnborough airshow is in England...

Relax wrote:In fact most of the information was complete crap which was stolen as the specs we had given to the Vice President was crap and we knew it was crap because the VP was a complete Jack Ass and we didn't trust him not to tell the whole world about how good our stuff actually was... Which frankly was the ONLY reason he did not go to jail for the full term. The info stolen was ~~ false to some degree.

If that is actually true, then whoever gave that information to the VP is in serious legal trouble. Giving false information up the chain of command is a major offense.

Here are a few facts of life regarding working in a business of more than 20 people.

Life is not black and white when dealing with people. When you know someone, you also know their foolish tendencies. A one word answer would be TRUST. Fools who get in position via nepotism have to be worked around to save the company. This guy was not in via nepotism, but it happens sometimes. Likewise fools who get in positions of power if you even give them a hint of what is possible, instead of what is actual, then the fool will shout to the world they can do what is hinted at. This guy was the later. Know your people.

And No, there is no legal trouble. Which you should know if you had ever worked in a business, but you may be fired, though doubtful. To alleviate being fired you let everyone know what is going on whom you trust. R&D departments this is common knowledge of how to operate and maneuver around ignorant financial big wigs at the top.

_________
Tally Ho!
Relax

Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates
by Relax » Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:10 am
Relax Fleet Admiral Posts: 3214 Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm	Tenshinai wrote: Relax wrote: Ok, they both said some outright whopper lies that we all know will never happen. Problem is, you can´t decide what of what they said were lies until their time in office is over and you KNOW what happened or not, because a lot of candidates really do believe some of those "whoppers". Here is reality: You, as a rational human being, can easily use logic when knowing which lies told will NEVER happen as they are physically, financially, emotionally, mentally impossible. Dead On Arrival. If you believe otherwise, I guess you are a typical voter who never looks at the policy to begin with other than if they tickle your ears. _________ Tally Ho! Relax
Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates

by Relax » Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:10 am

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Tenshinai wrote:
Relax wrote: Ok, they both said some outright whopper lies that we all know will never happen.

Problem is, you can´t decide what of what they said were lies until their time in office is over and you KNOW what happened or not, because a lot of candidates really do believe some of those "whoppers".

Here is reality: You, as a rational human being, can easily use logic when knowing which lies told will NEVER happen as they are physically, financially, emotionally, mentally impossible. Dead On Arrival. If you believe otherwise, I guess you are a typical voter who never looks at the policy to begin with other than if they tickle your ears.

_________
Tally Ho!
Relax

Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates
by Relax » Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:16 am
Relax Fleet Admiral Posts: 3214 Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm	Tenshinai wrote: Relax wrote:with hate speech laws, ALA Canada, EU, Australia have where you literally cannot say anything without being sued That´s just rubbish. Such laws exist here and lots of people say many many things, many of which would likely cause half the yanks on this forum to pass out from pure indignation, yet the amount of people sued for breaking those laws is counted in single numbers per year. Because freedom of speech does not have to be in opposition to laws against hatespeech. WHO determines what subjects are hate speech? That is the problem. As soon as you go down the road of labeling certain subjects as "HATE", then the next time you LOSE an election, YOUR issue which YOU want protected will be labeled "HATE" speech. Pretty soon you do not have ANY speech freedoms at all. For instance in Australia, you cannot talk about muslim immigrants and the completely opposite ideas via their culture they bring with them. I don't know about you, but Sweden essentially has the exact same moronic law which is turning your country into a pile of garbage. Bravo, your own laws are destroying your country. Bravo. Ideas matter. Everyone needs to be offended. There are no "safe zones". It often is the fastest way to get to the heart of a subject and sometimes can ONLY be heard in this fashion. _________ Tally Ho! Relax
Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates

by Relax » Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:16 am

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Tenshinai wrote:
Relax wrote:with hate speech laws, ALA Canada, EU, Australia have where you literally cannot say anything without being sued

That´s just rubbish. Such laws exist here and lots of people say many many things, many of which would likely cause half the yanks on this forum to pass out from pure indignation, yet the amount of people sued for breaking those laws is counted in single numbers per year. Because freedom of speech does not have to be in opposition to laws against hatespeech.

WHO determines what subjects are hate speech? That is the problem. As soon as you go down the road of labeling certain subjects as "HATE", then the next time you LOSE an election, YOUR issue which YOU want protected will be labeled "HATE" speech. Pretty soon you do not have ANY speech freedoms at all.

For instance in Australia, you cannot talk about muslim immigrants and the completely opposite ideas via their culture they bring with them. I don't know about you, but Sweden essentially has the exact same moronic law which is turning your country into a pile of garbage. Bravo, your own laws are destroying your country. Bravo.

Ideas matter. Everyone needs to be offended. There are no "safe zones". It often is the fastest way to get to the heart of a subject and sometimes can ONLY be heard in this fashion.

_________
Tally Ho!
Relax

Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates
by Daryl » Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:43 am
Daryl Fleet Admiral Posts: 3562 Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am Location: Queensland Australia	Wrong and wrong again. In Australia we can and do talk about muslim immigration, and the potential for terrorists infiltration. Both journalists in major newspapers and blog commenters do so all the time. We can't write hate speech, and I'm ok with that and its definition. As an example I could write a letter to the editor, asking about the checks and balances on immigrants and whether or not it is likely that some ISIS terrorists are sneaking in. But I couldn't and shouldn't write an article claiming that all muslims are terrorists, or even a significant percentage of them, as it is just not true, and incites hatred. You shouldn't depend on ultra right publications for your information, as they only tell what you want to hear. We currently have a spirited public debate about sharia law and halal food certification. The ultra right warble on about it taking over our country, while the mainstream point out that we only have 2.2% muslims, most of whom just want a peaceful life. Relax wrote: WHO determines what subjects are hate speech? That is the problem. As soon as you go down the road of labeling certain subjects as "HATE", then the next time you LOSE an election, YOUR issue which YOU want protected will be labeled "HATE" speech. Pretty soon you do not have ANY speech freedoms at all. For instance in Australia, you cannot talk about muslim immigrants and the completely opposite ideas via their culture they bring with them. I don't know about you, but Sweden essentially has the exact same moronic law which is turning your country into a pile of garbage. Bravo, your own laws are destroying your country. Bravo. Ideas matter. Everyone needs to be offended. There are no "safe zones". It often is the fastest way to get to the heart of a subject and sometimes can ONLY be heard in this fashion.
Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates

by Daryl » Mon Nov 14, 2016 6:43 am

Daryl
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3562
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:57 am
Location: Queensland Australia

Wrong and wrong again. In Australia we can and do talk about muslim immigration, and the potential for terrorists infiltration. Both journalists in major newspapers and blog commenters do so all the time. We can't write hate speech, and I'm ok with that and its definition.
As an example I could write a letter to the editor, asking about the checks and balances on immigrants and whether or not it is likely that some ISIS terrorists are sneaking in. But I couldn't and shouldn't write an article claiming that all muslims are terrorists, or even a significant percentage of them, as it is just not true, and incites hatred.
You shouldn't depend on ultra right publications for your information, as they only tell what you want to hear. We currently have a spirited public debate about sharia law and halal food certification. The ultra right warble on about it taking over our country, while the mainstream point out that we only have 2.2% muslims, most of whom just want a peaceful life.

Relax wrote:
WHO determines what subjects are hate speech? That is the problem. As soon as you go down the road of labeling certain subjects as "HATE", then the next time you LOSE an election, YOUR issue which YOU want protected will be labeled "HATE" speech. Pretty soon you do not have ANY speech freedoms at all.

For instance in Australia, you cannot talk about muslim immigrants and the completely opposite ideas via their culture they bring with them. I don't know about you, but Sweden essentially has the exact same moronic law which is turning your country into a pile of garbage. Bravo, your own laws are destroying your country. Bravo.

Ideas matter. Everyone needs to be offended. There are no "safe zones". It often is the fastest way to get to the heart of a subject and sometimes can ONLY be heard in this fashion.

Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates
by PeterZ » Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:07 am
PeterZ Fleet Admiral Posts: 6432 Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm Location: Colorado	Will you be ok with any new definition of hate speech? Suppose you get a Trump-esque Prime Minister and he changes the definition to make it more flexible and hence more likely to offend various groups. Will you be ok with that definition? Suppose that future Ptimr Minister gets rid of hate speech laws altogether? Would that be ok? Daryl wrote:Wrong and wrong again. In Australia we can and do talk about muslim immigration, and the potential for terrorists infiltration. Both journalists in major newspapers and blog commenters do so all the time. We can't write hate speech, and I'm ok with that and its definition. As an example I could write a letter to the editor, asking about the checks and balances on immigrants and whether or not it is likely that some ISIS terrorists are sneaking in. But I couldn't and shouldn't write an article claiming that all muslims are terrorists, or even a significant percentage of them, as it is just not true, and incites hatred. You shouldn't depend on ultra right publications for your information, as they only tell what you want to hear. We currently have a spirited public debate about sharia law and halal food certification. The ultra right warble on about it taking over our country, while the mainstream point out that we only have 2.2% muslims, most of whom just want a peaceful life. Relax wrote: WHO determines what subjects are hate speech? That is the problem. As soon as you go down the road of labeling certain subjects as "HATE", then the next time you LOSE an election, YOUR issue which YOU want protected will be labeled "HATE" speech. Pretty soon you do not have ANY speech freedoms at all. For instance in Australia, you cannot talk about muslim immigrants and the completely opposite ideas via their culture they bring with them. I don't know about you, but Sweden essentially has the exact same moronic law which is turning your country into a pile of garbage. Bravo, your own laws are destroying your country. Bravo. Ideas matter. Everyone needs to be offended. There are no "safe zones". It often is the fastest way to get to the heart of a subject and sometimes can ONLY be heard in this fashion. Last edited by PeterZ on Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates

by PeterZ » Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:07 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Will you be ok with any new definition of hate speech? Suppose you get a Trump-esque Prime Minister and he changes the definition to make it more flexible and hence more likely to offend various groups. Will you be ok with that definition? Suppose that future Ptimr Minister gets rid of hate speech laws altogether? Would that be ok?

Daryl wrote:Wrong and wrong again. In Australia we can and do talk about muslim immigration, and the potential for terrorists infiltration. Both journalists in major newspapers and blog commenters do so all the time. We can't write hate speech, and I'm ok with that and its definition.
As an example I could write a letter to the editor, asking about the checks and balances on immigrants and whether or not it is likely that some ISIS terrorists are sneaking in. But I couldn't and shouldn't write an article claiming that all muslims are terrorists, or even a significant percentage of them, as it is just not true, and incites hatred.
You shouldn't depend on ultra right publications for your information, as they only tell what you want to hear. We currently have a spirited public debate about sharia law and halal food certification. The ultra right warble on about it taking over our country, while the mainstream point out that we only have 2.2% muslims, most of whom just want a peaceful life.

Relax wrote:
WHO determines what subjects are hate speech? That is the problem. As soon as you go down the road of labeling certain subjects as "HATE", then the next time you LOSE an election, YOUR issue which YOU want protected will be labeled "HATE" speech. Pretty soon you do not have ANY speech freedoms at all.

For instance in Australia, you cannot talk about muslim immigrants and the completely opposite ideas via their culture they bring with them. I don't know about you, but Sweden essentially has the exact same moronic law which is turning your country into a pile of garbage. Bravo, your own laws are destroying your country. Bravo.

Ideas matter. Everyone needs to be offended. There are no "safe zones". It often is the fastest way to get to the heart of a subject and sometimes can ONLY be heard in this fashion.

Last edited by PeterZ on Mon Nov 14, 2016 10:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates
by Relax » Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:14 am
Relax Fleet Admiral Posts: 3214 Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm	Daryl wrote:Wrong and wrong again. In Australia we can and do talk about muslim immigration, and the potential for terrorists infiltration. Both journalists in major newspapers and blog commenters do so all the time. We can't write hate speech, and I'm ok with that and its definition. As an example I could write a letter to the editor, asking about the checks and balances on immigrants and whether or not it is likely that some ISIS terrorists are sneaking in. But I couldn't and shouldn't write an article claiming that all muslims are terrorists, or even a significant percentage of them, as it is just not true, and incites hatred. You shouldn't depend on ultra right publications for your information, as they only tell what you want to hear. We currently have a spirited public debate about sharia law and halal food certification. The ultra right warble on about it taking over our country, while the mainstream point out that we only have 2.2% muslims, most of whom just want a peaceful life. Relax wrote: WHO determines what subjects are hate speech? That is the problem. As soon as you go down the road of labeling certain subjects as "HATE", then the next time you LOSE an election, YOUR issue which YOU want protected will be labeled "HATE" speech. Pretty soon you do not have ANY speech freedoms at all. For instance in Australia, you cannot talk about muslim immigrants and the completely opposite ideas via their culture they bring with them. I don't know about you, but Sweden essentially has the exact same moronic law which is turning your country into a pile of garbage. Bravo, your own laws are destroying your country. Bravo. Ideas matter. Everyone needs to be offended. There are no "safe zones". It often is the fastest way to get to the heart of a subject and sometimes can ONLY be heard in this fashion. And you reinforced my point for me. Brilliant! And naturally went to ISIS instead of the real issue and because of your hate speech laws can't even discuss it. Brilliant! Can't write it. That is speech. In fact, that is the most persuasive form as you can make a detailed argument that isn't forgotten 2s later, or on a discussion panel interrupted for a red hearing "issue" that has nothing to do with what is being discussed because the opposition doesn't like discussing the subject to start with and therefore never gets discussed at all. Such programs are a 100% complete waste of time and utter garbage. A debate is viable where interruption is NOT allowed. Next they, whoever is in power and has an axe to grind, will "hem in" whatever subject is their pet peeve at the moment. Government regulations NEVER decrease. They just increase until the government in question is destroyed, usually by a coup or a giant war where the country is conquered. Question: What is governance if not ones religion in action? PS. There is no such thing as an unbiased person or a "neutral" party. _________ Tally Ho! Relax
Top

Re: US Presidential Candidates

by Relax » Mon Nov 14, 2016 9:14 am

Relax
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3214
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:18 pm

Daryl wrote:Wrong and wrong again. In Australia we can and do talk about muslim immigration, and the potential for terrorists infiltration. Both journalists in major newspapers and blog commenters do so all the time. We can't write hate speech, and I'm ok with that and its definition.
As an example I could write a letter to the editor, asking about the checks and balances on immigrants and whether or not it is likely that some ISIS terrorists are sneaking in. But I couldn't and shouldn't write an article claiming that all muslims are terrorists, or even a significant percentage of them, as it is just not true, and incites hatred.
You shouldn't depend on ultra right publications for your information, as they only tell what you want to hear. We currently have a spirited public debate about sharia law and halal food certification. The ultra right warble on about it taking over our country, while the mainstream point out that we only have 2.2% muslims, most of whom just want a peaceful life.

Relax wrote:
WHO determines what subjects are hate speech? That is the problem. As soon as you go down the road of labeling certain subjects as "HATE", then the next time you LOSE an election, YOUR issue which YOU want protected will be labeled "HATE" speech. Pretty soon you do not have ANY speech freedoms at all.

For instance in Australia, you cannot talk about muslim immigrants and the completely opposite ideas via their culture they bring with them. I don't know about you, but Sweden essentially has the exact same moronic law which is turning your country into a pile of garbage. Bravo, your own laws are destroying your country. Bravo.

Ideas matter. Everyone needs to be offended. There are no "safe zones". It often is the fastest way to get to the heart of a subject and sometimes can ONLY be heard in this fashion.

And you reinforced my point for me. Brilliant! And naturally went to ISIS instead of the real issue and because of your hate speech laws can't even discuss it. Brilliant!

Can't write it. That is speech. In fact, that is the most persuasive form as you can make a detailed argument that isn't forgotten 2s later, or on a discussion panel interrupted for a red hearing "issue" that has nothing to do with what is being discussed because the opposition doesn't like discussing the subject to start with and therefore never gets discussed at all. Such programs are a 100% complete waste of time and utter garbage. A debate is viable where interruption is NOT allowed. Next they, whoever is in power and has an axe to grind, will "hem in" whatever subject is their pet peeve at the moment. Government regulations NEVER decrease. They just increase until the government in question is destroyed, usually by a coup or a giant war where the country is conquered.

Question: What is governance if not ones religion in action?

PS. There is no such thing as an unbiased person or a "neutral" party.

_________
Tally Ho!
Relax

Top

1343 posts • Page 75 of 135 • 1 ... 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 ... 135

Return to Politics

Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

US Presidential Candidates