ImageImageImageImage

OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread

Moderators: Knightro, Howard Mass, UCFJayBird, Def Swami, ChosenSavior, SOUL, UCF

flying_mollusk
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,575
And1: 798
Joined: May 21, 2005

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#641 » by flying_mollusk » Tue May 23, 2017 6:07 pm

PennytoShaq wrote:
JF5 wrote:
Blue_and_Whte wrote:Oh look another attack by Islamic terrorists. Obamas fight was getting transgender men into the girls bathroom. Good for him. Lol

We need to eradicate Islamic extremism at any cost.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums


It starts with not destabilizing countries (Leaving destruction and thousands of citizens dead while taking resources which spawns Anti-American/Anti-West sentiment) + leaving potential power vacuums and or supporting gorilla/extremist groups to fight our battles for us. Because usually these extremist groups like Al-Queda or ISIS are/were previously funded by western groups. That's how they're able to grow into these global terror organizations.


ISIS grew into a global terror organization largely based off them regrouping out of Iraq and taking over oil supplies to raise quick capital. They started as an uprising group against the Iraqi PM.

Obama had the chance to destroy them when they were headed across the desert, but he did not because he did not like the Iraqi PM and didn't want to help him out.

That's what happened. Again, covered on PBS Frontline - a rare, non biased media source.



Actually, they grew in Syria, then came across the border. As I recall, this is what Trump said about Syria pre-ISIS:

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.

If Obama attacks Syria and innocent civilians are hurt and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad!

What I am saying is stay out of Syria.

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

President Obama, do not attack Syria. There is no upside and tremendous downside. Save your "powder" for another (and more important) day!
OrlMagic05
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,871
And1: 1,066
Joined: Aug 01, 2014
 

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#642 » by OrlMagic05 » Tue May 23, 2017 6:21 pm

Blue_and_Whte wrote:Oh look another attack by Islamic terrorists. Obamas fight was getting transgender men into the girls bathroom. Good for him. Lol

We need to eradicate Islamic extremism at any cost.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums


Blame everything on Obama lol Didn't Trump say he would defeat ISIS in 30days? Um its been over 100.
PennytoShaq
Magic Forum Mock Draft Co-Champ
Posts: 7,381
And1: 5,218
Joined: Jan 24, 2016
 

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#643 » by PennytoShaq » Tue May 23, 2017 6:28 pm

MagicFan101 wrote:
PennytoShaq wrote:
MagicFan101 wrote:
lol. You're cute. Don't forget to leave that tooth under your pillow tonight!


Cool, a snarky personal attack with zero relevance to my post or any facts given. Sounds about right.


The eventual formation of groups like ISIS was set in motion long before Obama ever ran for president. You can't summarize this crisis by a single decision made by a single person. This is far more complex than that.

ISIS is more an idea than an entity. You can't destroy them in a single swoop as you claim Obama should have.

I obviously don't blame Obama for this situation. I don't blame Bush for this either. I blame the United States.


You misunderstand. Yes the formation was set in motion before that. We all know this. And the swingle swoop attack would have taken out their core leadership. This is all documented and verified in on camera interviews with multiple direct sources. Feel free to watch it yourself. It is not Obama's fault that ISIS was formed. But his indecision to take them out early cost us dearly.
MagicFan101
RealGM
Posts: 11,103
And1: 6,498
Joined: Jul 04, 2012
 

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#644 » by MagicFan101 » Tue May 23, 2017 6:34 pm

PennytoShaq wrote:
MagicFan101 wrote:
PennytoShaq wrote:
Cool, a snarky personal attack with zero relevance to my post or any facts given. Sounds about right.


The eventual formation of groups like ISIS was set in motion long before Obama ever ran for president. You can't summarize this crisis by a single decision made by a single person. This is far more complex than that.

ISIS is more an idea than an entity. You can't destroy them in a single swoop as you claim Obama should have.

I obviously don't blame Obama for this situation. I don't blame Bush for this either. I blame the United States.


You misunderstand. Yes the formation was set in motion before that. We all know this. And the swingle swoop attack would have taken out their core leadership. This is all documented and verified in on camera interviews with multiple direct sources. Feel free to watch it yourself. It is not Obama's fault that ISIS was formed. But his indecision to take them out early cost us dearly.


I misunderstand nothing. Like their formation, their current existence is not the fault of any one person.

ISIS is an idea. If you kill the current leadership and only give more purpose to that idea.

The end of ISIS and groups like it will come from time and trust; not bombs.

Much like ISIS, the United States has an idea of what it is both at home and around the world. That idea is neither a purely conservative or liberal view as this country is part both. But that idea is what caused ISIS and continues to empower them.
User avatar
JF5
RealGM
Posts: 11,423
And1: 3,883
Joined: Jul 23, 2010
Location: Disney World, Florida

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#645 » by JF5 » Tue May 23, 2017 6:51 pm

BadMofoPimp wrote:
JF5 wrote:
BadMofoPimp wrote:
Still even better than Hillary! For many of us, anybody was a better choice than a true crook being put into presidency.


But how exactly? Trump is as much of a "crook" as Clinton... Lawsuits of Fraud/Illegal Business Practices were up the wazoo for him as he was the first president ever to be elected while in the middle of legal troubles . The argument that he's cleaner than Clinton doesn't really make any sense to me. Plus adding the fact he openly admitted to grabbing women without their consent. If that was any other politician they would be catching absolute hell if they admitted to doing that.

Other than your dislike for Clinton, I want to know as to why you supported Trump.


FYI. Hillary had $1 Billion dollars in donations for her campaign funded by Big Business, Big Pharma and many foreign politicians. All who would have gotten rewarded if she got elected. She didn't bring her campaign to the American people, but mainly to rich and powerful people behind closed doors. I bet she made them plenty of promises. The corruption in government was getting out of control and the American people have suffered enough except those who are so dilluted by whatever the media tells us, that they sometimes become raving lunatic mad and most of the time, the news is freaking fake!


So pretty much it was deciding on a crook that you knew of who made a ton through lobbying during her political career, and an unknown crook who was an outsider with no political experience...

Yeah, her campaign was terrible. She didn't connect well enough with middle America as she relied on "look at this bumbling idiot trying to be president" and the elitist sort of mindset reiterating "We're better than this", rather than "this is how I can help you" and "screw him, I care about you". Trump was pretty much an underdog which the people connected with and looked like everything Clinton wasn't in terms of politics and stature. He spoke in simple sentences and broad terms in which people could understand, and had a catchphrase of nostalgia which brought back the "good ol' days" that resonated with his followers. Also, he went to battleground states a lot earlier and consistently than Clinton did so it made him look like he cared a lot more than the "elitist".

The news in general is not fake... I believe they're more infatuated with getting the news first rather than reporting it correctly. Plus the initial sensationalism sells more than the truth which gets more publicity for publications. Even if it pisses you off that it happens, you're still looking at it and the most time taking it at face value. If people got the "truth" in most cases they would realize that more often than not most news is benign outside of a small percentage.

This is why I hold out of making a complete analysis of a situation before I actually make an opinion. That's what I don't get with these guys who do support Trump. If all news is fake news, then why believe it if its coming from him as well? Why even believe Hilary is taking billions of dollars from lobbyist since it could be fake as well? He's not an robot who spews unbiased information, he's a human with an agenda. The way he's gone about saying every news outlet that has a critical opinion of him or his policies is a "fake news" is cult like. That gives him the ability to manipulate his followers and mislead them about the overall performance of the country (like someone stated earlier).

I'm not saying he should be completely friendly to the media... But he should try to at least be more open to have a relationship with them and they would give him the benefit of the doubt. Threatening them and banning them from press conferences gives them more ammunition to have these biased "hit" pieces on him, and the impression of a man who can't handle or not open to dialogue unless he's able to control it.
PennytoShaq
Magic Forum Mock Draft Co-Champ
Posts: 7,381
And1: 5,218
Joined: Jan 24, 2016
 

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#646 » by PennytoShaq » Tue May 23, 2017 6:52 pm

MagicFan101 wrote:
PennytoShaq wrote:
MagicFan101 wrote:
The eventual formation of groups like ISIS was set in motion long before Obama ever ran for president. You can't summarize this crisis by a single decision made by a single person. This is far more complex than that.

ISIS is more an idea than an entity. You can't destroy them in a single swoop as you claim Obama should have.

I obviously don't blame Obama for this situation. I don't blame Bush for this either. I blame the United States.


You misunderstand. Yes the formation was set in motion before that. We all know this. And the swingle swoop attack would have taken out their core leadership. This is all documented and verified in on camera interviews with multiple direct sources. Feel free to watch it yourself. It is not Obama's fault that ISIS was formed. But his indecision to take them out early cost us dearly.


I misunderstand nothing. Like their formation, their current existence is not the fault of any one person.

ISIS is an idea. If you kill the current leadership and only give more purpose to that idea.

The end of ISIS and groups like it will come from time and trust; not bombs.

Much like ISIS, the United States has an idea of what it is both at home and around the world. That idea is neither a purely conservative or liberal view as this country is part both. But that idea is what caused ISIS and continues to empower them.


You misunderstood what I said. I clarified it.

And yes, ISIS is not just an idea.It is an organization that needs weapons and funding and a network just like anyone else. Once that is gone, they will be weakened. Again, this is all covered in lots of excellent documentary.
User avatar
JF5
RealGM
Posts: 11,423
And1: 3,883
Joined: Jul 23, 2010
Location: Disney World, Florida

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#647 » by JF5 » Tue May 23, 2017 10:33 pm

PennytoShaq wrote:
JF5 wrote:
Blue_and_Whte wrote:Oh look another attack by Islamic terrorists. Obamas fight was getting transgender men into the girls bathroom. Good for him. Lol

We need to eradicate Islamic extremism at any cost.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums


It starts with not destabilizing countries (Leaving destruction and thousands of citizens dead while taking resources which spawns Anti-American/Anti-West sentiment) + leaving potential power vacuums and or supporting gorilla/extremist groups to fight our battles for us. Because usually these extremist groups like Al-Queda or ISIS are/were previously funded by western groups. That's how they're able to grow into these global terror organizations.


ISIS grew into a global terror organization largely based off them regrouping out of Iraq and taking over oil supplies to raise quick capital. They started as an uprising group against the Iraqi PM.

Obama had the chance to destroy them when they were headed across the desert, but he did not because he did not like the Iraqi PM and didn't want to help him out.

That's what happened. Again, covered on PBS Frontline - a rare, non biased media source.


Just watched the documentary...

My takeaway is that what Trump and his supporters wanted is what Obama was obviously trying to implement Post wars in the middle-east (Afghanistan and Iraq). Obama desperately tried to stay out Iraq's political affairs and wanted them to solve their own issues. Its a lose-lose-lose situation. He returns to Iraq to help the Sunni's via political proxy, americans say he's meddling in foreign affairs; or he sends ground troops into ISIL backed areas before they become a legitimate threat people would get pissed fearing another war; or he funds moderate sects of Muslim rebel groups to fight against ISIS, who in turn down the line gain power and turn on the United States and become their newest threat (Citing Al-Queda). Either way I doubt the Republicans in congress would've let him do it anyway given they too didn't want anything to do with dealing with foreign affairs (As they rejected Obama's attempt to intervene in Syria in 2013 after Asad supposed chemical attack on civilians).

And I'm aware of the oil fields as they claimed them and sold the resources to countries like Turkey... But I'm also aware of the groups rise in Syria where the group itself funded by the western influences to fight the Syrian government. That's how they were able to claim their weapons/tanks which were ironically used to fight against the Iraqi government during the time.
PennytoShaq
Magic Forum Mock Draft Co-Champ
Posts: 7,381
And1: 5,218
Joined: Jan 24, 2016
 

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#648 » by PennytoShaq » Tue May 23, 2017 11:51 pm

JF5 wrote:
PennytoShaq wrote:
JF5 wrote:
It starts with not destabilizing countries (Leaving destruction and thousands of citizens dead while taking resources which spawns Anti-American/Anti-West sentiment) + leaving potential power vacuums and or supporting gorilla/extremist groups to fight our battles for us. Because usually these extremist groups like Al-Queda or ISIS are/were previously funded by western groups. That's how they're able to grow into these global terror organizations.


ISIS grew into a global terror organization largely based off them regrouping out of Iraq and taking over oil supplies to raise quick capital. They started as an uprising group against the Iraqi PM.

Obama had the chance to destroy them when they were headed across the desert, but he did not because he did not like the Iraqi PM and didn't want to help him out.

That's what happened. Again, covered on PBS Frontline - a rare, non biased media source.


Just watched the documentary...

My takeaway is that what Trump and his supporters wanted is what Obama was obviously trying to implement Post wars in the middle-east (Afghanistan and Iraq). Obama desperately tried to stay out Iraq's political affairs and wanted them to solve their own issues. Its a lose-lose-lose situation. He returns to Iraq to help the Sunni's via political proxy, americans say he's meddling in foreign affairs; or he sends ground troops into ISIL backed areas before they become a legitimate threat people would get pissed fearing another war; or he funds moderate sects of Muslim rebel groups to fight against ISIS, who in turn down the line gain power and turn on the United States and become their newest threat (Citing Al-Queda). Either way I doubt the Republicans in congress would've let him do it anyway given they too didn't want anything to do with dealing with foreign affairs (As they rejected Obama's attempt to intervene in Syria in 2013 after Asad supposed chemical attack on civilians).

And I'm aware of the oil fields as they claimed them and sold the resources to countries like Turkey... But I'm also aware of the groups rise in Syria where the group itself funded by the western influences to fight the Syrian government. That's how they were able to claim their weapons/tanks which were ironically used to fight against the Iraqi government during the time.


I give you huge respect for going and watching that. It's great info, it's non biased and it's vey interesting stuff. I wish more people watched Frontline, because it is simply what reporting should be about.

You are correct about your interpretation, but there were people who wanted to take out ISIL and the intelligence community was really pushing. At the end of the day, in hindsight, the order should have been made to take them out, IMO. These are tough decisions and the Doc illustrates those well. Foreign diplomacy is a tangled web, and the President who can take all the info and make the right decision is the one who can truly leave a legacy and actually change the world in some way. Obama's mistake, IMO was underestimating what ISIL was becoming right under our watch.
Gomagic44
Head Coach
Posts: 6,132
And1: 2,187
Joined: Jan 05, 2013
Location: Ibaka's Block Party

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#649 » by Gomagic44 » Tue May 23, 2017 11:57 pm

PennytoShaq wrote:
JF5 wrote:
PennytoShaq wrote:
ISIS grew into a global terror organization largely based off them regrouping out of Iraq and taking over oil supplies to raise quick capital. They started as an uprising group against the Iraqi PM.

Obama had the chance to destroy them when they were headed across the desert, but he did not because he did not like the Iraqi PM and didn't want to help him out.

That's what happened. Again, covered on PBS Frontline - a rare, non biased media source.


Just watched the documentary...

My takeaway is that what Trump and his supporters wanted is what Obama was obviously trying to implement Post wars in the middle-east (Afghanistan and Iraq). Obama desperately tried to stay out Iraq's political affairs and wanted them to solve their own issues. Its a lose-lose-lose situation. He returns to Iraq to help the Sunni's via political proxy, americans say he's meddling in foreign affairs; or he sends ground troops into ISIL backed areas before they become a legitimate threat people would get pissed fearing another war; or he funds moderate sects of Muslim rebel groups to fight against ISIS, who in turn down the line gain power and turn on the United States and become their newest threat (Citing Al-Queda). Either way I doubt the Republicans in congress would've let him do it anyway given they too didn't want anything to do with dealing with foreign affairs (As they rejected Obama's attempt to intervene in Syria in 2013 after Asad supposed chemical attack on civilians).

And I'm aware of the oil fields as they claimed them and sold the resources to countries like Turkey... But I'm also aware of the groups rise in Syria where the group itself funded by the western influences to fight the Syrian government. That's how they were able to claim their weapons/tanks which were ironically used to fight against the Iraqi government during the time.


I give you huge respect for going and watching that. It's great info, it's non biased and it's vey interesting stuff. I wish more people watched Frontline, because it is simply what reporting should be about.

You are correct about your interpretation, but there were people who wanted to take out ISIL and the intelligence community was really pushing. At the end of the day, in hindsight, the order should have been made to take them out, IMO. These are tough decisions and the Doc illustrates those well. Foreign diplomacy is a tangled web, and the President who can take all the info and make the right decision is the one who can truly leave a legacy and actually change the world in some way. Obama's mistake, IMO was underestimating what ISIL was becoming right under our watch.


I'm gonna watch when I get off work!



Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums
User avatar
BadMofoPimp
RealGM
Posts: 47,392
And1: 11,599
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
Location: In the Paint

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#650 » by BadMofoPimp » Wed May 24, 2017 12:19 am

flying_mollusk wrote:
BadMofoPimp wrote:
JF5 wrote:
But how exactly? Trump is as much of a "crook" as Clinton... Lawsuits of Fraud/Illegal Business Practices were up the wazoo for him as he was the first president ever to be elected while in the middle of legal troubles . The argument that he's cleaner than Clinton doesn't really make any sense to me. Plus adding the fact he openly admitted to grabbing women without their consent. If that was any other politician they would be catching absolute hell if they admitted to doing that.

Just 2 things quickly found that shows the corruption of this administration. And from Foxnews, since everything else is fake.

Other than your dislike for Clinton, I want to know as to why you supported Trump.


FYI. Hillary had $1 Billion dollars in donations for her campaign funded by Big Business, Big Pharma and many foreign politicians. All who would have gotten rewarded if she got elected. She didn't bring her campaign to the American people, but mainly to rich and powerful people behind closed doors. I bet she made them plenty of promises. The corruption in government was getting out of control and the American people have suffered enough except those who are so dilluted by whatever the media tells us, that they sometimes become raving lunatic mad and most of the time, the news is freaking fake!


Here, Fox News:
The sister of White House senior adviser Jared Kushner reportedly pushed Chinese citizens in a presentation at a Beijing hotel to invest hundreds of dollars in a luxury New Jersey apartment complex that would help them obtain an investor visa.

Nichole Kushner Meyer made the pitch at a Ritz-Carlton in front of wealthy Chinese investors as investors were told to invest sooner rather than later in case the Trump administration changes the visa rules, The Washington Post reported Saturday. A tagline on the brochure reportedly read: “Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/07/sister-jared-kushner-reportedly-pitches-us-visa-in-exchange-for-500g-investment.html

Another Fox news:

SHANGHAI – President Donald Trump is poised to receive something Tuesday that he has been trying to get from China for a decade: trademark rights to his own name. After suffering rejection after rejection in China's courts, he saw his prospects change dramatically after starting his presidential campaign.

Trump's late triumph in the fight to wrest back his brand for construction services could prove to be the first of many intellectual property victories in China during his presidency. Each win creates value for Trump's business empire, and ethics questions about his administration.


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/02/14/recent-trump-win-on-china-trademark-raises-ethics-questions.html


In June 2010, Bill Clinton, along with friend and mining billionaire Frank Guistra, a Canadian, flew into Bogota, Colombia, where, coincidentally, they arrive at about the same time as Secretary Clinton, who flew in on a government plane. In her memoirs, which she wrote after leaving the State Department, she claimed that the meeting between her, her husband and Guistra was just happenstance – as if the two of them had no idea they would both be in Bogota, Colombia at the same time.

In the days that followed, three companies belonging to Guistra received major concessions from the Colombian government. One of the companies, Prima Colombia Hardwood Inc., received permission to cut timber from a rainforest along the Pacific coast.

One more thing: The rainforest timber was not bound for the United States or even Canada; it was exported to China.

For their part, the Clintons have come out in public in support of "sustainable forests" and other environmental causes, but after receiving millions in donations to their foundation – and after Bill Clinton raked in nearly $2 million in speaking fees – their environmentalism took a back seat to their desire for payola.


At that exact time, Bill Clinton received an offer of nearly $2 million to give 10 speeches in Canada – from entities that had never before hired him to speak. The company that offered the deal, TD Bank Investment Group, it turns out, is a major shareholder in the Keystone XL project.

Clinton gave the last speech in May 2011; three months later, Secretary Clinton's State Dept. released an environmental impact letter widely seen as favoring the construction of the pipeline. She had in her hands the power to kill the deal but she, mysteriously, signed it – even though she and her boss, Obama, seemed to be opposed to the pipeline as an environmental issue.


http://www.naturalnews.com/054878_Clinton_Cash_rainforests_Foundation.html
Image

Provin Ya'll Wrong!!!
User avatar
BadMofoPimp
RealGM
Posts: 47,392
And1: 11,599
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
Location: In the Paint

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#651 » by BadMofoPimp » Wed May 24, 2017 12:26 am

JF5 wrote:
BadMofoPimp wrote:
JF5 wrote:
But how exactly? Trump is as much of a "crook" as Clinton... Lawsuits of Fraud/Illegal Business Practices were up the wazoo for him as he was the first president ever to be elected while in the middle of legal troubles . The argument that he's cleaner than Clinton doesn't really make any sense to me. Plus adding the fact he openly admitted to grabbing women without their consent. If that was any other politician they would be catching absolute hell if they admitted to doing that.

Other than your dislike for Clinton, I want to know as to why you supported Trump.


FYI. Hillary had $1 Billion dollars in donations for her campaign funded by Big Business, Big Pharma and many foreign politicians. All who would have gotten rewarded if she got elected. She didn't bring her campaign to the American people, but mainly to rich and powerful people behind closed doors. I bet she made them plenty of promises. The corruption in government was getting out of control and the American people have suffered enough except those who are so dilluted by whatever the media tells us, that they sometimes become raving lunatic mad and most of the time, the news is freaking fake!


So pretty much it was deciding on a crook that you knew of who made a ton through lobbying during her political career, and an unknown crook who was an outsider with no political experience...

Yeah, her campaign was terrible. She didn't connect well enough with middle America as she relied on "look at this bumbling idiot trying to be president" and the elitist sort of mindset reiterating "We're better than this", rather than "this is how I can help you" and "screw him, I care about you". Trump was pretty much an underdog which the people connected with and looked like everything Clinton wasn't in terms of politics and stature. He spoke in simple sentences and broad terms in which people could understand, and had a catchphrase of nostalgia which brought back the "good ol' days" that resonated with his followers. Also, he went to battleground states a lot earlier and consistently than Clinton did so it made him look like he cared a lot more than the "elitist".

The news in general is not fake... I believe they're more infatuated with getting the news first rather than reporting it correctly. Plus the initial sensationalism sells more than the truth which gets more publicity for publications. Even if it pisses you off that it happens, you're still looking at it and the most time taking it at face value. If people got the "truth" in most cases they would realize that more often than not most news is benign outside of a small percentage.

This is why I hold out of making a complete analysis of a situation before I actually make an opinion. That's what I don't get with these guys who do support Trump. If all news is fake news, then why believe it if its coming from him as well? Why even believe Hilary is taking billions of dollars from lobbyist since it could be fake as well? He's not an robot who spews unbiased information, he's a human with an agenda. The way he's gone about saying every news outlet that has a critical opinion of him or his policies is a "fake news" is cult like. That gives him the ability to manipulate his followers and mislead them about the overall performance of the country (like someone stated earlier).

I'm not saying he should be completely friendly to the media... But he should try to at least be more open to have a relationship with them and they would give him the benefit of the doubt. Threatening them and banning them from press conferences gives them more ammunition to have these biased "hit" pieces on him, and the impression of a man who can't handle or not open to dialogue unless he's able to control it.


It is a vicious circle because no matter how hard Trump could ever work with the press in a positive light, they are dead set on taking things out of context in their never ending determination to ruin him. There is no working with people like that. Perhaps, they may earn each others respect some day once the reality of Trump winning the election dies down. I am not a big fan of Trump, but against the same old government business with the good ole boys that Hillary was deeply entrenched with. I would prefer about any candidate over her.
Image

Provin Ya'll Wrong!!!
User avatar
Xatticus
Head Coach
Posts: 6,585
And1: 7,958
Joined: Feb 18, 2016
Location: the land of the blind
         

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#652 » by Xatticus » Wed May 24, 2017 12:29 am

BadMofoPimp wrote:
JF5 wrote:
BadMofoPimp wrote:
Still even better than Hillary! For many of us, anybody was a better choice than a true crook being put into presidency.


But how exactly? Trump is as much of a "crook" as Clinton... Lawsuits of Fraud/Illegal Business Practices were up the wazoo for him as he was the first president ever to be elected while in the middle of legal troubles . The argument that he's cleaner than Clinton doesn't really make any sense to me. Plus adding the fact he openly admitted to grabbing women without their consent. If that was any other politician they would be catching absolute hell if they admitted to doing that.

Other than your dislike for Clinton, I want to know as to why you supported Trump.


FYI. Hillary had $1 Billion dollars in donations for her campaign funded by Big Business, Big Pharma and many foreign politicians. All who would have gotten rewarded if she got elected. She didn't bring her campaign to the American people, but mainly to rich and powerful people behind closed doors. I bet she made them plenty of promises. The corruption in government was getting out of control and the American people have suffered enough except those who are so dilluted by whatever the media tells us, that they sometimes become raving lunatic mad and most of the time, the news is freaking fake!


I understand the disdain for Hillary Clinton. I do not understand championing Donald Trump as a preferable alternative.

When Rome withdrew from Britain, the ruler of the remaining romanized Britons hired Germanic mercenaries to protect against the non-romanized Britons. The Germanic invasions that followed were the darkest period in English history.

I have no affiliation to any political party. I think for myself. I refuse to take marching orders from those that do not represent me. For this reason, I voted for neither. I despise Hillary Clinton, but nothing she has done gives reason to lick the boots of a vile and deplorable human being.
"Xatticus has always been, in my humble opinion best poster here. Should write articles or something."
-pepe1991
User avatar
BadMofoPimp
RealGM
Posts: 47,392
And1: 11,599
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
Location: In the Paint

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#653 » by BadMofoPimp » Wed May 24, 2017 12:35 am

Xatticus wrote:
BadMofoPimp wrote:
JF5 wrote:
But how exactly? Trump is as much of a "crook" as Clinton... Lawsuits of Fraud/Illegal Business Practices were up the wazoo for him as he was the first president ever to be elected while in the middle of legal troubles . The argument that he's cleaner than Clinton doesn't really make any sense to me. Plus adding the fact he openly admitted to grabbing women without their consent. If that was any other politician they would be catching absolute hell if they admitted to doing that.

Other than your dislike for Clinton, I want to know as to why you supported Trump.


FYI. Hillary had $1 Billion dollars in donations for her campaign funded by Big Business, Big Pharma and many foreign politicians. All who would have gotten rewarded if she got elected. She didn't bring her campaign to the American people, but mainly to rich and powerful people behind closed doors. I bet she made them plenty of promises. The corruption in government was getting out of control and the American people have suffered enough except those who are so dilluted by whatever the media tells us, that they sometimes become raving lunatic mad and most of the time, the news is freaking fake!


I understand the disdain for Hillary Clinton. I do not understand championing Donald Trump as a preferable alternative.

When Rome withdrew from Britain, the ruler of the remaining romanized Britons hired Germanic mercenaries to protect against the non-romanized Britons. The Germanic invasions that followed were the darkest period in English history.

I have no affiliation to any political party. I think for myself. I refuse to take marching orders from those that do not represent me. For this reason, I voted for neither. I despise Hillary Clinton, but nothing she has done gives reason to lick the boots of a vile and deplorable human being.


To me, Trump is a better alternative than Hillary, Obamacare, illegal immigration, gun rights and many other things that they stood for beside all the Big Pharma, Big Business and Foreign Interests Hillary owes for financing her campaign. A huge difference in my opinion. Already, I see good things happening with our economy and feel safer with Trump over open borders, sky rocketing Obamacare etc. Of course, changes don't happen overnight, but I suspect in the longer term, people will be better off without the same old slick business that has been going on in the White House. I am sure there will be things we won't like, but I believe it won't be nearly as bad as it coulda been had the election gone the other way. Change takes time, not 100 days. Just like it took years for Obama to make his mark.
Image

Provin Ya'll Wrong!!!
User avatar
Def Swami
Forum Mod - Magic
Forum Mod - Magic
Posts: 25,819
And1: 15,143
Joined: Aug 04, 2008
Location: Huevos Bancheros Brunch
Contact:
   

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#654 » by Def Swami » Wed May 24, 2017 1:08 am

BadMofoPimp wrote:
flying_mollusk wrote:
BadMofoPimp wrote:
FYI. Hillary had $1 Billion dollars in donations for her campaign funded by Big Business, Big Pharma and many foreign politicians. All who would have gotten rewarded if she got elected. She didn't bring her campaign to the American people, but mainly to rich and powerful people behind closed doors. I bet she made them plenty of promises. The corruption in government was getting out of control and the American people have suffered enough except those who are so dilluted by whatever the media tells us, that they sometimes become raving lunatic mad and most of the time, the news is freaking fake!


Here, Fox News:
The sister of White House senior adviser Jared Kushner reportedly pushed Chinese citizens in a presentation at a Beijing hotel to invest hundreds of dollars in a luxury New Jersey apartment complex that would help them obtain an investor visa.

Nichole Kushner Meyer made the pitch at a Ritz-Carlton in front of wealthy Chinese investors as investors were told to invest sooner rather than later in case the Trump administration changes the visa rules, The Washington Post reported Saturday. A tagline on the brochure reportedly read: “Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/07/sister-jared-kushner-reportedly-pitches-us-visa-in-exchange-for-500g-investment.html

Another Fox news:

SHANGHAI – President Donald Trump is poised to receive something Tuesday that he has been trying to get from China for a decade: trademark rights to his own name. After suffering rejection after rejection in China's courts, he saw his prospects change dramatically after starting his presidential campaign.

Trump's late triumph in the fight to wrest back his brand for construction services could prove to be the first of many intellectual property victories in China during his presidency. Each win creates value for Trump's business empire, and ethics questions about his administration.


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/02/14/recent-trump-win-on-china-trademark-raises-ethics-questions.html


In June 2010, Bill Clinton, along with friend and mining billionaire Frank Guistra, a Canadian, flew into Bogota, Colombia, where, coincidentally, they arrive at about the same time as Secretary Clinton, who flew in on a government plane. In her memoirs, which she wrote after leaving the State Department, she claimed that the meeting between her, her husband and Guistra was just happenstance – as if the two of them had no idea they would both be in Bogota, Colombia at the same time.

In the days that followed, three companies belonging to Guistra received major concessions from the Colombian government. One of the companies, Prima Colombia Hardwood Inc., received permission to cut timber from a rainforest along the Pacific coast.

One more thing: The rainforest timber was not bound for the United States or even Canada; it was exported to China.

For their part, the Clintons have come out in public in support of "sustainable forests" and other environmental causes, but after receiving millions in donations to their foundation – and after Bill Clinton raked in nearly $2 million in speaking fees – their environmentalism took a back seat to their desire for payola.


At that exact time, Bill Clinton received an offer of nearly $2 million to give 10 speeches in Canada – from entities that had never before hired him to speak. The company that offered the deal, TD Bank Investment Group, it turns out, is a major shareholder in the Keystone XL project.

Clinton gave the last speech in May 2011; three months later, Secretary Clinton's State Dept. released an environmental impact letter widely seen as favoring the construction of the pipeline. She had in her hands the power to kill the deal but she, mysteriously, signed it – even though she and her boss, Obama, seemed to be opposed to the pipeline as an environmental issue.


http://www.naturalnews.com/054878_Clinton_Cash_rainforests_Foundation.html

I hate to digress from the discussion at hand, but the pop up on the website you cited. :lol:
Image

Never heard of Natural News, so I was curious as to what the deal was and
Yesterday, the website Natural News had roughly 140,000 of its pages de-listed from Google. Now, the site’s owner, Mike “The Health Ranger” Adams, is crying foul. He claims that companies like Google are “anti-Trump globalists” who are waging a war against speakers of truth like Milo Yiannopoulos and InfoWars. But the evidence suggests there’s no anti-conspiracy-website conspiracy here.

Mike "The Health Ranger" Adams?! Is this guy serious? :rofl:

“You are witnessing a modern-day book burning by the internet Gestapo that now decides what knowledge you’re never allowed to access…” wrote Adams in a lengthy blog yesterday. “Especially because much of that knowledge can help set humanity free.”

Natural News no longer shows up in results for the topics it specializes in, such as claiming that the spread of Zika is a government conspiracy or that injecting yourself with Ebola is a great homeopathic vaccine for the disease. Seriously. The post was later taken down, but Natural News once hosted a recipe for a DIY Ebola vaccine that included an Ebola sample people were supposed to inject into their arms.

“The real agenda of the humanity-hating globalist agenda is now on full display,” wrote Adams in his tirade. “It’s about total domination over all information so that humanity never learns that cancer can be prevented with vitamin D, or that glyphosate herbicide causes cancer, or that statin drugs are a multi-billion-dollar medical scam.

:o Not to brag or anything, but I just earned my medical degree on Saturday and can't say this was ever in the curriculum.

Officially, Google won’t say why the site was de-listed from search results, but the company does confirm that it happened.

“We don’t comment on individual sites, but if we find that a site violates one or more of these guidelines we may take manual action against it,” a Google spokesperson told Gizmodo. “Once a site has remedied the problem, the webmaster can submit the site for reconsideration.”

Natural News is notorious for spreading false information about health and wellness.

Well, this is awkward.
It seems more likely that Google is just responding to technical violations of its terms rather than any political agenda. One glaring violation? The mobile version of the site performs redirects prohibited by Google’s terms of service.

That’s a big no-no for Google, and one that you may have encountered on sketchy websites before. When you click on a link, you’re supposed to go to the website you’re expecting, not redirected to something else. That’s kind of a basic part of the social contract online. Don’t take me to places I’m not trying to go to.

But, back to this Health Ranger guy.
If you don’t know who Mike “Health Ranger” Adams is, he may be a steadfast presence in your social media newsfeed without your knowledge. Awarded the top slot on Real Clear Science’s “Worst Websites for Science in 2016” list, and with its founder touted by Dr. Oz as “the Renegade Health Ranger,” Natural News is a thorn in the sides of all who hold legitimate science dear. But bad science isn't Adams' only offense. Natural News is a fake news fixture, with articles on Obama birtherism, HIV/AIDS denialism, and the Sandy Hook tragedy as an elaborate hoax by FEMA to promote gun control. With the current uproar about fake news, the website and its founder should top lists of spurious sources.

:noway:
The journal Vaccine accused Adams of spreading "irresponsible health information" through Natural News. He has also been accused of using "pseudoscience to sell his lies". Adams has described vaccines as “medical child abuse”.

This is just getting downright stupid and dangerous now. I would even go as far to call it quackery.
Adams is listed as a "promoter of questionable methods" by Quackwatch.

I don't know, BMP. I'm not a big media critic or anything, nor have I ever heard of Natural News or The Health Ranger (cannot type that with straight face :rofl: ), but it seems like your news source might be
Image
User avatar
BadMofoPimp
RealGM
Posts: 47,392
And1: 11,599
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
Location: In the Paint

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#655 » by BadMofoPimp » Wed May 24, 2017 1:15 am

Def Swami wrote:
BadMofoPimp wrote:


In June 2010, Bill Clinton, along with friend and mining billionaire Frank Guistra, a Canadian, flew into Bogota, Colombia, where, coincidentally, they arrive at about the same time as Secretary Clinton, who flew in on a government plane. In her memoirs, which she wrote after leaving the State Department, she claimed that the meeting between her, her husband and Guistra was just happenstance – as if the two of them had no idea they would both be in Bogota, Colombia at the same time.

In the days that followed, three companies belonging to Guistra received major concessions from the Colombian government. One of the companies, Prima Colombia Hardwood Inc., received permission to cut timber from a rainforest along the Pacific coast.

One more thing: The rainforest timber was not bound for the United States or even Canada; it was exported to China.

For their part, the Clintons have come out in public in support of "sustainable forests" and other environmental causes, but after receiving millions in donations to their foundation – and after Bill Clinton raked in nearly $2 million in speaking fees – their environmentalism took a back seat to their desire for payola.


At that exact time, Bill Clinton received an offer of nearly $2 million to give 10 speeches in Canada – from entities that had never before hired him to speak. The company that offered the deal, TD Bank Investment Group, it turns out, is a major shareholder in the Keystone XL project.

Clinton gave the last speech in May 2011; three months later, Secretary Clinton's State Dept. released an environmental impact letter widely seen as favoring the construction of the pipeline. She had in her hands the power to kill the deal but she, mysteriously, signed it – even though she and her boss, Obama, seemed to be opposed to the pipeline as an environmental issue.


http://www.naturalnews.com/054878_Clinton_Cash_rainforests_Foundation.html

I hate to digress from the discussion at hand, but the pop up on the website you cited. :lol:
Image

Never heard of Natural News, so I was curious as to what the deal was and
Yesterday, the website Natural News had roughly 140,000 of its pages de-listed from Google. Now, the site’s owner, Mike “The Health Ranger” Adams, is crying foul. He claims that companies like Google are “anti-Trump globalists” who are waging a war against speakers of truth like Milo Yiannopoulos and InfoWars. But the evidence suggests there’s no anti-conspiracy-website conspiracy here.

Mike "The Health Ranger" Adams?! Is this guy serious? :rofl:

“You are witnessing a modern-day book burning by the internet Gestapo that now decides what knowledge you’re never allowed to access…” wrote Adams in a lengthy blog yesterday. “Especially because much of that knowledge can help set humanity free.”

Natural News no longer shows up in results for the topics it specializes in, such as claiming that the spread of Zika is a government conspiracy or that injecting yourself with Ebola is a great homeopathic vaccine for the disease. Seriously. The post was later taken down, but Natural News once hosted a recipe for a DIY Ebola vaccine that included an Ebola sample people were supposed to inject into their arms.

“The real agenda of the humanity-hating globalist agenda is now on full display,” wrote Adams in his tirade. “It’s about total domination over all information so that humanity never learns that cancer can be prevented with vitamin D, or that glyphosate herbicide causes cancer, or that statin drugs are a multi-billion-dollar medical scam.

:o Not to brag or anything, but I just earned my medical degree on Saturday and can't say this was ever in the curriculum.

Officially, Google won’t say why the site was de-listed from search results, but the company does confirm that it happened.

“We don’t comment on individual sites, but if we find that a site violates one or more of these guidelines we may take manual action against it,” a Google spokesperson told Gizmodo. “Once a site has remedied the problem, the webmaster can submit the site for reconsideration.”

Natural News is notorious for spreading false information about health and wellness.

Well, this is awkward.
It seems more likely that Google is just responding to technical violations of its terms rather than any political agenda. One glaring violation? The mobile version of the site performs redirects prohibited by Google’s terms of service.

That’s a big no-no for Google, and one that you may have encountered on sketchy websites before. When you click on a link, you’re supposed to go to the website you’re expecting, not redirected to something else. That’s kind of a basic part of the social contract online. Don’t take me to places I’m not trying to go to.

But, back to this Health Ranger guy.
If you don’t know who Mike “Health Ranger” Adams is, he may be a steadfast presence in your social media newsfeed without your knowledge. Awarded the top slot on Real Clear Science’s “Worst Websites for Science in 2016” list, and with its founder touted by Dr. Oz as “the Renegade Health Ranger,” Natural News is a thorn in the sides of all who hold legitimate science dear. But bad science isn't Adams' only offense. Natural News is a fake news fixture, with articles on Obama birtherism, HIV/AIDS denialism, and the Sandy Hook tragedy as an elaborate hoax by FEMA to promote gun control. With the current uproar about fake news, the website and its founder should top lists of spurious sources.

:noway:
The journal Vaccine accused Adams of spreading "irresponsible health information" through Natural News. He has also been accused of using "pseudoscience to sell his lies". Adams has described vaccines as “medical child abuse”.

This is just getting downright stupid and dangerous now. I would even go as far to call it quackery.
Adams is listed as a "promoter of questionable methods" by Quackwatch.

I don't know, BMP. I'm not a big media critic or anything, nor have I ever heard of Natural News or The Health Ranger (cannot type that with straight face :rofl: ), but it seems like your news source might be
Image


What I meant to clarify is the book Clinton Cash and the movie which the website got their info from. Here is bloomberg link:

Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, Giustra's globe-trotting adventures with Bill Clinton have coincided with lucrative business deals.

In Colombia, where his investments include oil, timber, and coal mines, Giustra dined one evening in 2010 with Bill and Hillary Clinton, who both met with Colombia's president the next day. Soon after, one company in which Giustra holds a stake "acquired the right to cut timber in a biologically diverse forest on the pristine Colombian shoreline," Schweizer writes, and another was granted valuable oil drilling rights.

A similar situation had unfolded in Kazakhstan in 2005. Giustra and Clinton jetted in to dine with the country's authoritarian president, Nursultan Nazarbayev. Days later, Giustra's mining company signed an agreement giving it stakes in three state-run uranium mines in addition to those it controlled in the U.S. After a $3.5 billion merger, the company was eventually acquired by the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom. Because uranium is a strategic asset, the sale required (and received) approval from multiple U.S. agencies, including the Department of State, then run by Hillary Clinton.


https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-07/the-billionaire-whose-clinton-foundation-ties-could-be-trouble-for-hillary-clinton

A chapter obtained by POLITICO zeroes in on the Clintons’ relationship with Giustra — who has pledged over $100 million to the foundation — as it related to his Colombian business interests dating back to 2005.


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/book-alleges-donor-cash-influenced-hillarys-stance-on-colombia-trade-deal-117257
Image

Provin Ya'll Wrong!!!
User avatar
JF5
RealGM
Posts: 11,423
And1: 3,883
Joined: Jul 23, 2010
Location: Disney World, Florida

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#656 » by JF5 » Wed May 24, 2017 3:10 am

This is all besides the point... Both of them seem pretty shady... The real question is who can actually run the country?
Gomagic44
Head Coach
Posts: 6,132
And1: 2,187
Joined: Jan 05, 2013
Location: Ibaka's Block Party

Re: OT: Election/Trump/Clinton thread 

Post#657 » by Gomagic44 » Wed May 24, 2017 2:14 pm

Saw the frontline doc last night. Good watch. Bush and Obama both screwed the pooch. Although I give Obama more leeway because he "thinks 3,4 steps down the line. "We put in a no fly zone, then what"?"

This is why I've been against the Iraq war and all these conflicts from the beginning. There is no end in sight, the Mideast is a quagmire.

God I almost forgot how much of an asshat Cheney and Libby were. What wretched men.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Return to Orlando Magic