Hillary Clinton

"

Xavderion wrote:

The bombshell here is not that they might be doing this, but that they might be doing this in fucking Commiefornia. Them internal polls must look real bad...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGXzRwMnR74

You should be ashamed of how gullible you are. Jesus.

"

Jennik wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

The bombshell here is not that they might be doing this, but that they might be doing this in fucking Commiefornia. Them internal polls must look real bad...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGXzRwMnR74

You should be ashamed of how gullible you are. Jesus.

She regreted not rigging the Palestine vote. She's a smart woman, she won't make the same mistake twice :^)

Dude, it's California. If Trump wins there, I'll at least briefly entertain the notion of election fraud in the opposite direction.

The :^) means I'm half serious at most and that I'm also baiting a bit.

Well stop it. Getting a hook out of one's cheek is annoying.

The most DAMAGING Wikileaks?

YOU be the judge:

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

Dive in, have fun, and remember: Bitching about the source doesn't make what has been revealed any less damaging. =^[.]^=

I don't remember where I read it, but someone recently pointed out a form of media bias that I hadn't heard before:

Throughout this campaign cycle, whenever Trump says something outrageous, House and Senate Republicans got immediately blitzed by reporters saying 'omg Trump said <xyz> what is your comment? Do you still support him?'. But when Clinton does something outrageous, House Democrats aren't even asked to comment, let alone have the implication floated that they should be withdrawing their support from her campaign.

At this point, you wonder if Dems aren't just holding out hope to win the election 51-49, turning on Clinton during an impeachment, and getting the consolation prize of a Senate majority and a President Kaine (which isn't so bad of a consolation prize when you zoom out to the big picture).

Another contradiction I've noticed today:

Comey months ago: Clinton violated the spirit of the law*, and if anyone else did this, they would lose their job as a government employee, at least. But we're not prosecuting.

Everyone without cement for a brain: wtf? That's not justice. The FBI/DoJ is corrupt.

Libs: Criticizing the FBI and DoJ is conspiratorial and threatens democracy.

-Fast forward to this week-

Comey: The FBI is reviewing new evidence per Clinton emails.

Everyone without cement for a brain: Good, have some integrity this time please.

Libs: WTF FBI/DOJ YOU'RE UNDERMINING OUR DEMOCRACYYYYYYY THIS IS A CONSPIRACY FIRE COMEY!!

(* Also the letter, likely, but that would be a matter for lawyers to argue about, and a judge/jury to decide. Were our politicians actual citizens and not a unique privileged class of demi gods, we would, today, be enraptured by proper justice - either arguments in front of a grand jury, or in front of a trial jury.)

It would be great if trump was assassinated and while Hilary is making her speech about it she too gets taken out.

Oh yes, the presidential cleansing :)


Why is it americans are so gullible? Why is it the whole world has forgotten that power to the masses and systems of taxes, sharing, lifting each others burdens and in general solidarity is what made us reach the heights of society of the western world. You fucking Americans and your fear of communism.. you have fucked yourself up and much of the world too. This far too much capitalism is undermining the health of our society you dumbasses, people are too selfish the construction of our society is all about material wealth and much less about emotional wealth, as such a mostly capitalistic society will always be a low level of vibration in terms of the human spectrum. Capitalism is ego driven. Assuming capitalism and communism to be opposites, which they aren't, then you must have great parts of both things for any society to function, both capitalism and communism or sharing if we should call it that.

Why has everyone forgotten that the power resides with the people in a democracy. Why do american votes and also elsewhere just not stop voting for these imbecile types of corrupted fuckers who will abuse their positions and to whom honor doesn't mean as much as their own ego.

Really why does no one give a shit? It's so frustrating that no one gives a shit until the state of society has deteriorated so far that is becomes obvious - only then can you make people care, if the problems arent very clear they will just live by ignorance is bliss in the fullest sense.

I am happy to live in one of the most advanced societies in the world, and our taxes have always been high. This, the reason that we all contribute to society is what makes our society great and we even have lowest rates of corruption, among highest standards of living and whatever factors you name it. Trust(as meansured by people locking their doors at night), etc. Compare this to these fucking ego driven societies with jerks in high position everywhere abusing everyone because the people cannot collect themselves to stand up... We used to believe in solidarity in my country, and we still are unified but we have taken so much character from the global movements in the world like ego, everything in society being all about yourself and setting you up for you you you you... we stuff our elderly people in a old peoples home so they won't hinder our daily lives and we don't have to look at them while in other cultures they are welcomed by their families.. i feel so low when i think about that and how much i am product of that myself as well.. to live so fucking all about myself that i can't see what really matters is fucking sad.

Fuck all stupid ego motherfuckers and all those in positions of power who do not take responsibility and either abuse or let others abuse the system without the consequence that should go along with it. There is a reason laws are in place against abusing your power/influence in high position and whatnot, and it is because it leads down the path of wrong and also any step itself is wrong, anyone should be help accountable and in particular in the most important positions if people do that they are not worthy to hold that position.. but people just let it slide like what who cares what some old fools did write in a document we do what we want...

@Crackmonster

I'm not even going to use the word "capitalism" in this post (except obviously this once). I feel it clouds the concepts by adding baggage.

Historically, humanity has always been at its best when power - not reward, power - has been concentrated at the hands of the people as a whole - that is, decentralized as much as possible. The individual right to property and free trade has always been the hallmark of economic power at its best, democracy and the rights to free speech and self-defense hallmarks of political power at its best.

The problem with this is that human nature abhors a power vacuum. Where you have many decentralized powers, one tends to grow slightly bigger than the others and either kill or dominate the others. Complicating this is the fact that not all power is evil; for example, being able to sell an item cheaper than anyone else. When within each cluster a dominant force emerges, it then repeats this process with nearby clusters, etc. Only some of these conglomerates are enemies of liberty, but any could become such an enemy, therefore all are threats.

Decentralization depends upon rights to life, liberty, and property. However, these are not natural rights. An example of natural rights is: the thug killed you, so he has a right to your stuff. To protect against this brutish nature, we create laws and governments to enforce such laws; the economic principle of "there's no such thing as a free lunch" applies, so these governments cost time and effort (aka money). What's important here is: the glorious artifice of the practiced rule of law must be properly respected, never taken for granted as a gift from either nature or god.

Therefore, to prevent the powerful private or foreign conglomerate from controlling us all, we must create a government, controlled by some democratic method, which has the power to stand up to any such conglomerate (or alliance thereof, to the extent possible). And just as importantly, to prevent the numerous tiny would-be dominators from attacking us, government needs broad and deep coverage to deter them throughout its borders.

Furthermore, to decentralize the power of government within itself, the best solution is a democratic republic.

I'm not against big government really. As I've said, a government (or alliance thereof) is at the utter mercy of any corporation or foreign government of greater power, and threatened by any such alliance as may realistically form against it. However, I am staunchly against this trend of expanding government's role beyond that of a protector (while still recognizing its need for funding). If you realized your local police patrolman was on his phone all day watching Netflix, you'd have a problem with it, even if you have no particular issue with Netflix; he's supposed to be busy protecting you. When government has its attention drawn away from threats to our liberty, the result is the erosion of liberty, through neglect if nothing else.

So, in conclusion, the best government is that of the minimum size (meaning minimum cost) which achieves its function - protecting people against the enemies of liberty through the rule of law - while maintaining the structure of a democratic republic. Given the threat of corporatism, this size is substantial, and government's regulatory and military might must be almost totally focused on the enormity of this one sacred task.

Therefore fuck socialism.

So I've only been reading the Scott Adam's blog for a couple of weeks now, and this is the first time I disagree with him on something bigly.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152531307171/james-comey-as-seen-through-the-persuasion

His post is predicated on the idea that people don't act wildly out of character:

"

I start by assuming Comey is the same man now as the one who was carefully vetted before being hired to protect the integrity of one of our most important institutions. And even Comey’s critics concede he’s smart.

So…

The way you know the new emails are disqualifying for Clinton is because otherwise our hero would have privately informed Congress and honored the tradition of not influencing elections. Comey is smart enough to know his options. And unless he suddenly turned rotten at his current age, he’s got the character to jump in front of a second bullet for the Republic.

[...]

In my movie, Comey[’s] has a consistent personality from start to finish. He starts out his career as a smart, competent patriot and he later proves it by taking two bullets for the Republic. If your movie script has Comey suddenly changing his basic character for this election season, don’t expect an Oscar.

But this isn't true in all situations. Sadly (or perhaps he knows and doesn't care) Adams has fallen victim to the Boogeymonster he seems to always be warning about: confirmation bias.

I don't act dramatically out of character from day to day or week to week so James Comey doesn't either

Consider the times you have acted out of character. Perhaps you said something that for the next week, or even year(s) you think 'wow I can't believe I said that, I was so stupid. That's not like me at all'. Or consider the times when you saw someone being bullied, physically or verbally, and you think after the situation has diffused 'man, I should have done/said something. I wanted to...normally I would have...why didn't I?'

You could pick all kinds of other examples. Do you sit up straight and stop swearing when around formal company? Do you try and smoke less around a couple of close friends/family who you know it bothers?

Usually these are cases of social pressure. I don't think it's controversial to suggest that social pressure can cause us to act, temporarily, in ways that we otherwise wouldn't define as part of our character if asked on a normal Tuesday evening in a survey.

Now ask yourself - is James Comey under any social pressure? Duh. We know Obama knew about and corresponded with Clinton's private email/server. We know Loretta Lynch and other Obama appointees are partisan hacks quality Democratic team players. We know that the statute in question has the threshold of 'willingly' attached to conceals/removes/destroys the types of govt. documents in question. Of course Lynch and Obama would have known that Clinton's testimony was 'I don't recall' times infinity - they therefore would have been putting a ton of pressure on Comey, saying 'see, you can't say "willfully" because she doesn't remember seeing classified markings'.

To someone who has worked in the business for this long (and was a former US attorney), Comey can easily picture this going to trial, and he can easily anticipate the arguments that both side's lawyers would make. In picturing the case as debatable, he let's the pressure convince him that he's not compromising his integrity to recommend no prosecution.

I think Adams oversimplified the issue and chose the simpler of the options remaining.

This then leaves these reasons he wrote the letter he did to the 8(?) congressmen:

1) He finally came around to the self evaluation that he acted out of character - a realization he came to after taking a ton of heat for his decision from folks in the Bureau, and having to deal with a ton of formal complaints and resignations from his staff. Furthermore, hearing the media talk about the FBI taking a credibility hit weighed on him. We don't often get 'take-backs' or 'do-overs' in life, and Comey wants to take advantage of this opportunity.

2) Comey doesn't see this as making amends at all. But he thinks perjuring himself would be worse than maybe influencing the election a little, or even a lot. (Part of his testimony to Congress included that he would notify them if there were significant further developments).

3) He found out in Thursdays briefing that there is, in fact, some sick shit on that computer, and can't bear the thought of voters going to the polls without having their spidey senses alerted, but still wants to do things by the book, and protect Clinton's rights.

The third is Adam's conclusion, but it may be the weakest one. If Comey truly is a by-the-book full of integrity guy, it doesn't explain how the first investigation was so shoddily run. If the DoJ was pressuring him to softball the investigation, then he should have been a whistle-blower back then.

--

Furthermore, and possibly more importantly - I disagree with Adams on framing. He writes this post having already given into the liberal framing of the issue:

"

no matter who gets elected, we’ll eventually learn of something disqualifying in the Weiner emails.

WE ALREADY FOUND MULTIPLE DISQUALIFYING THINGS IN THE EMAILS WE ALREADY HAVE.

Quid pro quos as Sec State are illegal.
Taking money from foreign governments while Sec State is illegal.
Setting up your own personal email and server so you can facilitate your international money laundering and pay to play schemes is illegal.

The FBI/DoJ are currently investigating the Clinton Foundation, and have been for months (thanks Clinton Cash!). Hopefully justice is served in that investigation.