Welpee wrote:I love how people like to romanticize about what the country "used to stand for" and "we used to be great" etc. You can go all the way back to the John Q. Adams vs Andrew Jackson election in the 1800s and see crooked politics and dirty elections taking place. This is still the greatest country on earth but pretending that at any point we were on this moral pedestal some want to put us on is dishonest or at minimum uninformed. We used to perform some of the same human rights atrocities we criticize other countries for engaging in. I think the sooner we appreciate who we are (flaws and all) and continue to improve versus trying to live up to this unobtainable myth we've created about this country, the better off we'll be. We also won't be susceptible to con-men like Trump selling us on something that never existed.

What Trump is selling is important and needs to be looked at it. Gov corruption, poor trade deals, politicians with their hands in the Fed... there are many many things Trump has touched on that should and need to be addressed. However Trump himself is a total joke and not electable.

Welpee wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Welpee wrote:I love how people like to romanticize about what the country "used to stand for" and "we used to be great" etc. You can go all the way back to the John Q. Adams vs Andrew Jackson election in the 1800s and see crooked politics and dirty elections taking place. This is still the greatest country on earth but pretending that at any point we were on this moral pedestal some want to put us on is dishonest or at minimum uninformed. We used to perform some of the same human rights atrocities we criticize other countries for engaging in. I think the sooner we appreciate who we are (flaws and all) and continue to improve versus trying to live up to this unobtainable myth we've created about this country, the better off we'll be. We also won't be susceptible to con-men like Trump selling us on something that never existed.

Feelings... nothing more than FEEEEELINGS

What Trump is selling is important and needs to be looked at it. Gov corruption, poor trade deals, politicians with their hands in the Fed... there are many many things Trump has touched on that should and need to be addressed. However Trump himself is a total joke and not electable.

Agreed. But the thought that we ever had a country in which we didn't have gov corruption, poor trade deals, politicians with their hands in the Fed is a myth. The whole "make America great again" is an empty slogan. Unfortunately our "greatness" is usually associated with being at war. I would rather have what we have now versus being in a full fledged war to recreate the post WWII euphoria when most thought we were at our "greatest."

I think what politicians refer to as when America was great is the filtered childhood memories of white baby boomers in the suburbs in the 50s/early 60s. Literally the "Happy Days" and later, "The Wonder Years".

fishmike wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Even if everything about Hillary is true......
Even if she is dead........

she is still a better candidate than Trump for 100 reasons.
Mainly, the man is basically a narcissistic sociopath who cannot focus and lacks basic skills regarding leadership and decision making.
He is impulsive and too focused on himself and his image to consider the big picture. He would be a fine dictator. His skill set is very good for that.

Basically uneducated white males want to vote in a dictator.

BIGLY

I will defend Trump on this point:

It's "big league"!

DrAlphaeus wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Even if everything about Hillary is true......
Even if she is dead........

she is still a better candidate than Trump for 100 reasons.
Mainly, the man is basically a narcissistic sociopath who cannot focus and lacks basic skills regarding leadership and decision making.
He is impulsive and too focused on himself and his image to consider the big picture. He would be a fine dictator. His skill set is very good for that.

Basically uneducated white males want to vote in a dictator.

BIGLY

I will defend Trump on this point:

It's "big league"!

Don't be so certain.

It isn't because our imagination or bias that he comes off speaking like a child.

https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2016/march/speechifying.html

DrAlphaeus wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Nalod wrote:
Even if everything about Hillary is true......
Even if she is dead........

she is still a better candidate than Trump for 100 reasons.
Mainly, the man is basically a narcissistic sociopath who cannot focus and lacks basic skills regarding leadership and decision making.
He is impulsive and too focused on himself and his image to consider the big picture. He would be a fine dictator. His skill set is very good for that.

Basically uneducated white males want to vote in a dictator.

BIGLY

I will defend Trump on this point:

It's "big league"!

Either way we added it to "disaster" for words Trumps says that you have to take a drink for every time you hear them. Needless to say I was trashed in an hour and had to catch the 2nd half the next day on DVR

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:No good points? lol, Did you really forget that recent conversation regarding this? Your story has somewhat changed.

It has not. And good thing it's all a matter of public record and just a few pages back available for review.

earthmansurfer wrote:Regarding "packaged", I thought you were talking about the "packaging" of the video from Veritas (i.e. - How the video portrayed things, was cut, etc.) You know, the video that has caused the firing and resignation of a higher up in the DNC. That long post was just a reminder of the corruption from the Clintons.

Knickoftime wrote:And I'll ask for the third time now. Do you recognize the manipulative methodology in the "reminder" you posted? Again, it's a simple yes or no answer.

earthmansurfer wrote:I see nothing wrong in how I asked the question. Again, let's not twist this into being about me. It is about the corrupt actions of the DNC (and Hillary Clinton.)

Knickoftime wrote:There is presently no connection to Hilary Clinton. The "case" (to be generous) to even suggest Clinton herself or her campaign was directing or even aware of what we don't actually know even happened is (again to the generous) circumstantial.

That's what's wrong with the question.

earthmansurfer wrote:And the charges are serious, no reason to *****foot around. It wasn't that long ago that the rage on the forum, and with lot's of emotion, was about what Trump said 11 years ago.

Knickoftime wrote:That's correct. Because the candidate himself said it.

You're unable to make that distinction? Between what a candidate himself claimed and what a couple of super pac field operatives claimed?

Really?

I can't really compare saying Pu$$y in a lewd manner 11 years ago when not holding public office, in a private conversation, vs. the email leaks that show otherwise with Hillary.
Regarding your main point, again, Hillary is at the top of this pyramid. It is on her watch. And it appeared to occur all over the place, so I really doubt one or two people alone, were responsible, and without Hillarys knowledge, that is a tough one to believe.

At this point in time, a few emails here and there to show corruption is one thing, sure, it is a worry. But we are passed that point. We are at the point of... deep systemic corruption.

Knickoftime wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:Not sure what you mean about skipping ahead.

See last post. Connecting this to Clinton and the DNC directly. That's the leap you've made here.

earthmansurfer wrote:I'm an ex-IT guy. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to actually know where a hack of this nature actually came from? It borders on the ridiculous.

Knickoftime wrote:Ah, so you think you're on the cutting edge of the technology and information gather operatives available to the intelligence community?

Got it.

The better question is why is the stance to dismiss the possibility of the Russians rather than entertain the possibility. Trump and now you seem to reject the idea, rather than acknowledge the potential.

It's an interesting choice.

You continually try to degrade in your language. And I really don't understand why, unless this is both personal and perhaps you do not have the control (re Hillary) you profess to have.

I don't dismiss that the Russians could be involved, or the Chinese, or the Koreans, etc. But for the government, well, rather Hillary (first), to come out and say it was the Russians, that is shifting blame. "Hey, here are my emails showing Quid Pro Quo between me and the FBI but let's not question that, let's go after those dangerous Russians!" Lets not confuse the two. Both are valid and one should not be replaced with the other. Let the intelligence communities do their job in private and not become a part of the presidential debate.

earthmansurfer wrote:And an entire intelligence community is NOT a bunch of IT experts, not sure how you can make a blanket statement like that as it sort of makes no sense.

Knickoftime wrote:No they are not. But whoever is doing it are people. People talk, people communicate. That is the nature of hack in fact, revealing otherwise private communication.

The intelligence is more than just tracking computer code and you're being ignorant if you believe otherwise.

This is exactly why what she did was against National Security. She opened us up to the world. And that involves: names, relationships, connections, technology, and on and on.

earthmansurfer wrote:I love America and what it (used to) represent (and somewhat still does), just think the government got away from us (as do most Americans, apparently, not to mention some presidential candidates.)

Knickoftime wrote:If the government got away from us, it's because we gave it away.

The House is fully elected every 2 years. The President every 4. The senate every 6.

The people have every power to change it. They choose what we have.

This is my biggest issue with conspiracy theorist such as yourself.

It is the repudiation of any responsibility for their lot in life. It is apathy is another forum. It is the definition of irresponsible.

It is unAmerican.

I would agree that we got ourself in this situation, but your answer lacks any sense of compassion. We are talking about the lives of millions, many due to this very same corruption. (Just as a quick example I'd say look at the information received via the FOIA regarding the vietnam war - as one "small" example.") We can't break this down to only "The House is fully elected every 2 years. The President every 4. The senate every 6. The people have every power to change it. They choose what we have. "

You also need to include that people have been systematically lied to and those who have tried to expose it have been silenced/killed time and time again. It is not like we can just go to the Whistle Blowing section of our local government. The corruption is deep and vast. There is no easy answer outside of an absolute systematic purging - and that might not even work.

So, when I say I am worried about Hillary Clinton, she is a clearly a part of this widespread corruption. She is one of them, you know, elites, who don't care about the means, only the ends. Trump may want to be, perhaps he is, but just going on his record, I see him as being less dangerous (but also wanting to do more for the common person) than Hillary. He is not perfect, has some worry problems, but even then, I am magnitudes more afraid for the life of this planet with Hillary. It is sad that it comes down to a lesser of two evils (if indeed he is that - I just am not sure yet.) Hillary is as clear to me as day, only requires connecting the dots, some mathematical probability and using your intuition and heart.

Don't cheapen a person with titles like "conspiracy theorist". The term was created/popularized by the CIA as too many were questioning the Kenned assassination. There are many links regarding this, even pointing to the original CIA document (#1035-960 - "Countering the criticism of the Warren Report"). This information is via a 1976 FOIA request. Using the term is basically following in the CIA's footsteps in "silencing" dissenters regarding the Kennedy Murder. Further, back in my studies I remember an FBI statistic that showed most crimes are indeed conspiracies (individuals conspiring together to commit and hide their crime). All you are trying to do with that word is discredit. Just stick to the facts without name calling.

Condensed version, my words - Creamer says pretty clearly where certain orders came from. (e.g. the Donald Duck costumes.) That is not illegal.
The funding of the Ducks campaign is clearly illegal. They also directed the actions of a Super Pac.
There is a separation that is supposed to exist between candidates and Superpacs.

Hillary Clinton Broke 52 USC 30116(a)(7)(B)(i)-(ii) (prohibits coordination)- This was created right after Watergate.
3 requirements:
1- Payment - by someone else other than the candidate
2- Conduct - A campaign being materially involved in shaping by 3rd party groups
3- Content - Running electoral advocacy close to an election