Hillary Clinton

Money in politics is problematic, there is no denying, but it's still an easy choice. Someone that may be lobbied or cutting the middleman and putting some self serving moron at power (exhibit A: tax plan, exhibit B: shitty advisors that we can even confirm have influenced the candidate).

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

innervation wrote:

The insinuation of danger isn't so much on a 'was Soros right/wrong evil/good' spectrum. The problem is that he's not our Secretary of State, and has no business telling the actual Sec State how to conduct international affairs.

Really?

Well, I guess we need to shut down the Feedback forum immediately. The danger of Feedback threads isn't so much on a right/wrong good/evil spectrum. The problem is that those who post them aren't developers, and have no business telling actual developers how to conduct their affairs. [/sarcasm]

I'm not saying I want a president who listens to Soros, but I do want a President who listens. So no. Hell no. It's entirely on a Soros was/is right/wrong good/evil spectrum. And what Ms. Clinton would do if his advice was wrong and/or evil.

If.

Holy fucking shit.

That's an incredibly tall strawman you've built there. I agree that major political officeholders should listen to people. I just happen to believe those people should be professionals, trained and on the payroll of the US government. People whose job it is to digest news reports and listen to CIA or other relevant bureau briefings, then relay advice based on their deliberation and consideration of other historical, economic, and socio-political factors. Not George Soros or David Koch.

What do you think Soros' job is then?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

What do you think Soros' job is then?

There is no job. There are two teams pulling on one rope, and in neither of these teams does it actually matter who donated how much to whom, or who excercised his or her influence in favour of whomever, or who gave a job to anyone's cousin or nephew or son - what matters is, there is team A, and there is team B, and they fight each other.

And what they do is engage in a game of constantly shifting their pieces according to their agenda and their self-interests, and most likely they cannot distinguish between either of them.

That is their game, and we are just the onlookers. We can read shit, and watch shit, and educate ourselves, but in the end we will always be powerless, and all we can do is give a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down. That's the reality of things.

My point was that Soros' job is to digest news reports and listen to relevant briefings, then relay advice based on their deliberation and consideration of other historical, economic, and socio-political factors.

The motherfucker doesn't work with his hands.

"

innervation wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

You say orders, I read suggestion for diplomacy (no, seriously, the word is explicitly said). So much for the destroyer of the western world. Seriously, too much tinfoil hat on this. You are grasping at straws.

I'm going to be impressed if the suggestion is about something shady or outright illegal, which this is not (and yes, I know who is Soros).

Ironically Trump may end in a situation like that (saying that the elections were rigged and generating a climate of distrust and violence, although it may make sense in Albania if there are actual problems, still diplomacy is a better option that violence if possible) so this may apply to US in the future.

The insinuation of danger isn't so much on a 'was Soros right/wrong evil/good' spectrum. The problem is that he's not our Secretary of State, and has no business telling the actual Sec State how to conduct international affairs. Those should be conducted in the interest of the citizen's greater good, not Soro's individual good.

Much as criminal aliens have no business involving themselves in our domestic politics, and certainly NOT at the direct behest of a presidential candidate. For all those poo-pooing the article I posted, how would you feel (assuming you live outside the US), if foreign nationals, in your country illegally, attempted to affect your elections?

Consider the question rhetorical, as I have no interest engaging with those who are likely to want to answer. ='[.]'=

Yeah, those russian hackers and Manafort (as a proxy) are surely interfering a lot lately, ;).

"

Antnee wrote:

You're making me defend Hillary Clinton. Stop. If we're gonna talk about shit she's done that's horrible, can we either paint all politicians with that same brush (deserved) or can we come up with something that's unique to her?

We can paint just about all of them with that brush. At least some of them pretend to not be owned, or at least flinch a little and try to distance themselves. What concerns me is that Hillary acts as if there isn't a thing in the world wrong with it.

It isn't unseen in a presidential candidate, but her cavalier attitude towards any rules that she believes she is above (those rules are for little people) is so presumptuous that even Warren Harding would blush. Considering that she is campaigning, and should be on her best behavior, it makes me wonder what tyranny she will unleash once in office.

I don't know if this rampant nonchalance for authority came from her political upbringing while in Arkansas, or if it emerged while she was with Bill while he was President, and she has been imagining herself in that seat of power so long that she's internally assumed the mantle of divinity.

Two terms in office, and she will likely usurp Elon Musk on Forbe's list of Billionaires. We might be missing a state or two that got sold to China or Indonesia, but hey, that's OK - at least our leader will be the very best at something, even if it is corruption.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

No one is ever completely owned.

Agreed. Hillary is leased, with an option to buy being passed around.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Even if you have a gun literally pointed at your head, telling its wielder to go fuck themselves is an option. Sometimes the best one.

That takes guts. Hillary and most politicians fear election failure worse than anything else.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I'm not saying this to say coercion doesn't exist. Of course it does. Instead I'm pointing out that our societal attitudes towards those who would coerce us is getting soft.

The money is so prevalent and laundered through legal dodges that it is like trying to fence with the wind. With "grass roots" efforts able to cover the tracks, even if we could lock up a few of the worst bribers they would just be replaced in a heartbeat.

I don't think there is anything remotely like a simple legal fix for this. I think it would take a carefully constructed and length constitutional amendment to properly allow free speech, yet limit the effect that money has on elections. I'm not saying it is impossible to do, but I haven't seen anything remotely like a decent comprehensive solution proposed.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

Yeah, those russian hackers and Manafort (as a proxy) are surely interfering a lot lately, ;).

What Russian hackers? It was a leak from within the DNC (RIP Seth Rich).

Since this is a Hillary thread - looks like she's taking weekends off. Her health is deteriorating really fast.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/hillarys-taking-weekends-off/