2 anti-clinton activists dead in 2 days

[F3SS]

17 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

It might indeed be curious, if it were true: http://www.snopes.com/un-official-john-ashe-killed-the-day-before-he-was-to-testify-against-hillary-clinton/

--Jaylemurph

Snopes discredits every Clinton related death there is. They have a huge page about it. One thing is that Snopes isn't the be all end all fact checker and is known to have a left wing bias at times. Next thing is that the Clinton/death conspiracy consists of nearly 90 people iirc. Now I'm not saying that the Clintons have ordered hits on 90 people or have anything to do with all of them but all of them were in some way associated with the Clintons and I don't care how many people you know but to have 90 people you've had dealings with in 30 years die in every fashion imaginable just defies odds.

[jaylemurph]

25 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Snopes discredits every Clinton related death there is. They have a huge page about it. One thing is that Snopes isn't the be all end all fact checker and is known to have a left wing bias at times. Next thing is that the Clinton/death conspiracy consists of nearly 90 people iirc. Now I'm not saying that the Clintons have ordered hits on 90 people or have anything to do with all of them but all of them were in some way associated with the Clintons and I don't care how many people you know but to have 90 people you've had dealings with in 30 years die in every fashion imaginable just defies odds.

If you think that's a reasonable conclusion to come to and reasonable sources to cite, then there's no way we can have a reasonable discussion on the subject. (Although if you're seriously suggesting 90 people have died, I'd need something better than a "iirc" as proof. For all I know, you also "recall" discussions with the lizard people from Doctor Who or Eumaeus the pig-keeper equally well.)

--Jaylemurph

[Vorg]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-05/lead-attorney-anti-clinton-dnc-fraud-case-mysteriously-found-dead

 

Let's add another. Lead Attorney In Anti-Clinton DNC Fraud Case Mysteriously Found Dead.

[F3SS]

41 minutes ago, jaylemurph said:

If you think that's a reasonable conclusion to come to and reasonable sources to cite, then there's no way we can have a reasonable discussion on the subject. (Although if you're seriously suggesting 90 people have died, I'd need something better than a "iirc" as proof. For all I know, you also "recall" discussions with the lizard people from Doctor Who or Eumaeus the pig-keeper equally well.)

--Jaylemurph

The pig keeper told me to google Clinton death list. It ranges from dozens to 90 on the first page depending on the source. All I said was that it defies odds that so many people involved with 2 people have died unnatural deaths. I drew no conclusions. I'm With Her!

[Sundew]

On August 5, 2016 at 1:25 PM, and then said:

While my choice was either Cruz, Carson or Rubio, I WILL vote for the Republican nominee because it's the only effective choice against that lying toadstool of a Clinton but I pity the Hildebeast fan that tried to shame ME on my choice.  One ANGRY white male right here!

An insult to fungi everywhere. 

[Space Commander Travis]

21 hours ago, Obviousman said:

His total disregard for anything other than himself?

and who the **** does Clinton have regard for?

Oh yes, that's right, the neoconservatives whose agenda she promotes, that's right.

You really don't believe she cares deeply for minorities and the LGBTQ community and whatever else, do you? 

[Space Commander Travis]

6 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

I think, first and foremost, she's a politician, with all that implies. But she's also the only actual choice in an election against Trump, which alone is reason enough to vote for her.

Personally, I respect her and think she's done an outstanding job as a senator (for whom I voted) and Secretary of State, who's had to deal with more than her fair share of people out and out lying about her out of misogyny, ignorance or whatever. I'm excited to vote for someone who could be the first female American president, even though I'd vote for anyone with her party's nomination -- it's the Democrats who have supported and expanded my rights as an LGBT person time and again as the Republicans have consistently worked against them.

--Jaylemurph 

So you're not concerned that she'll try to fight Assad as well as ISIS (or perhaps instead of, since she doesn't seem particularly bothered about them)? That she'll try to continue the idiotic policy of supporting one bunch of "Moderate" Rebels while trying to (pretending to) fight another lot, and at the same time make her priority defeating the government who all these rebels/terrorists are fighting? That her policy regarding Israel will be "do what you like, if other countries* did what you do we'd be calling down the retributive angels of Regime Change upon you"? And above all else, her utterly idiotic belligerence towards Russia? None of that is cause for concern? I suppose you might think that Assad Must Go, and that Putin is a tyrant, but surely you must appreciate how utterly stupid these policies are. Does that fact she (possibly, we only have Bill's word for it) has female sexy parts compensate for all that? And as i said a moment ago, do you really think she gives two hoots for minorities or the LGBT community, except insofar as she realises that there's lots of votes from them for her? 

* just as long as they're ruled by Tyrants, of course

Edited August 7, 2016 by Grand Moff Tarkin

[jaylemurph]

1 hour ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

 And as i said a moment ago, do you really think she gives two hoots for minorities or the LGBT community, except insofar as she realises that there's lots of votes from them for her? 

* just as long as they're ruled by Tyrants, of course

She's not merely a presidential candidate but one of the leaders of her party. That party, if not she herself, has demonstrated over and over again its commitments to expanding civil rights coverage for more and more people. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous, give the GOP's current platform. Because I'm not a naive fourteen-year-old, I expect the party and the candidate to pander to constituent groups. And as long as they continue to deliver increasing civil rights protections, I'm happy to vote for them. Particularly given the other option.

I have trouble understanding your position, unless you want people to vote for Trump, which to me is almost literally unthinkable. There is no other serious option, it's either her or him, and the world will be in a far worse position with a Trump president -- serious people have seriously discussed it as an end-of-the-world scenario. Do you seriously think she's a worse choice?

--Jaylemurph

[Space Commander Travis]

What about my position do you have trouble understanding? She's utterly ruthless and utterly driven by ambition for the ultimate power, who has expressly stated that her policy is an utterly imbecilic one of intensifying an already unwinnable conflict, and utter indifference to whether she might provoke much greater conflicts with much more significant powers. Her claimed policies about ethnic minorities and LGTB rights are just a smokescreen to reel in the votes of people who might otherwise be horrified at her ruthlessness. She is very possibly a genuine psychopath.  

You didn't actually mention her horrifying foreign policies, which are not purely speculative or mere fearmongering, since she's already demonstrated that she's capable of that in her bearing the responsibility for America's involvement in the Libya disaster. Did her reaction to Gadaffi's murder not alarm you in any way? 

Edited August 7, 2016 by Grand Moff Tarkin

[Obviousman]

4 hours ago, Grand Moff Tarkin said:

and who the **** does Clinton have regard for?

Oh yes, that's right, the neoconservatives whose agenda she promotes, that's right.

You really don't believe she cares deeply for minorities and the LGBTQ community and whatever else, do you? 

I don't say that Hillary Clinton is a great person, etc. I don't posit anything about her views, beliefs, etc.

My own opinion is that Donald Trump is a far worse choice as a presidential candidate. I will also reiterate that I am not a US citizen, not a US voter and my opinion is mine only and anyone can disagree with me.

[+and-then]

13 hours ago, Wes4747 said:

With all due respect to LGBT folks everywhere... How enjoyable will those new found liberties be in a country overrun with those who hate this country as well as the lgbt community? Does Hillary not call for open borders? How have refugees all over the world impacted their newfound communities?

The formula goes like this, Wes4747, The Democrats HELP everyone.  The evil Republicans set out to enslave and create misery on all levels.  If any bad thing happens it MUST be the Republicans who caused it.  An illegal kills an innocent young woman on a city street in San Francisco?  Damned Republicans caused it!  These people set aside all rationality to vote consistently for a party that is destroying our nation.  Hillary will win.  She will further cripple the economy through middle class tax hikes while increasing spending at every opportunity.  The only satisfaction I will take from her election is that these sycophants will be crushed, just like the rest of us.  They really seem to believe that we can continue to spend magic money forever and the world will go along for the ride.  

[GlitterRose]

On 8/5/2016 at 8:44 AM, and then said:

Reminds me of those who inconvenienced Putin.  The Dems are so drunk with power that they seem to forget political assassination is an uncontrollable tool at best.  It tends to get out of hand.

And now the Republican nominee is his best buddy. 

The profound changes started two weeks ago, during the drafting of the official Republican platform. The Trump campaign remains skeletal, and it did not take an active interest in many aspects of the drafting process. The one area where Trump’s aides were extremely active was in the Party’s position on Ukraine and Russia. For years now, the consensus view among senior Republicans has been that the United States should provide lethal aid to the Ukrainian government, which since 2014 has been under constant harassment by Russian-backed separatist forces.

But then Trump made an even more jaw-dropping policy announcement: he told the Times that he would not necessarily defend NATO countries if they were attacked by Russia. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiQgf_ew6_OAhXKSyYKHbZuB6wQFgghMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newyorker.com%2Fnews%2Fnews-desk%2Fhow-the-republican-establishment-lost-to-trump-on-russia&usg=AFQjCNExQYL3IUXIIArQE_UK9q8ONqlp5g

[GlitterRose]

So you have one suicide and one where the cause of death hasn't even been released yet...but we're already on...it must have been Hillary. 

[GlitterRose]

14 hours ago, F3SS said:

Snopes discredits every Clinton related death there is. They have a huge page about it. One thing is that Snopes isn't the be all end all fact checker and is known to have a left wing bias at times. Next thing is that the Clinton/death conspiracy consists of nearly 90 people iirc. Now I'm not saying that the Clintons have ordered hits on 90 people or have anything to do with all of them but all of them were in some way associated with the Clintons and I don't care how many people you know but to have 90 people you've had dealings with in 30 years die in every fashion imaginable just defies odds.

That whole "left-wing" bias is often just the truth being inconvenient for those on the right. 

[F3SS]

3 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

That whole "left-wing" bias is often just the truth being inconvenient for those on the right. 

Says the woman who thinks there's a red nuclear bomb button on the Oval Office desk and still thinks Palin said she could see Russia from her backyard. 

[GlitterRose]

Just now, F3SS said:

Says the woman who thinks there's a red nuclear bomb button on the Oval Office desk and still thinks Palin said she could see Russia from her backyard. 

 

[GlitterRose]

No one thinks the president has a red button on his nightstand, but we know this. He will have the codes. And people who know a great deal about the program say it is built for expediency. 

 

[Wes4747]

Should we rise to defend every nation protected by NATO? In fact, by any action the U.S. might take in these situations, historically comparative examples suggest little long term improvements in the region we are assisting and exponential casualties. NATO offers no benefit to the United States, rather I would see there role as ultimate diplomats. Not involving third party countries in war...

[F3SS]

1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

 

But it's true. What is not true is that she said she can see Russia from her house. 

[+and-then]

3 hours ago, Wes4747 said:

Should we rise to defend every nation protected by NATO? In fact, by any action the U.S. might take in these situations, historically comparative examples suggest little long term improvements in the region we are assisting and exponential casualties. NATO offers no benefit to the United States, rather I would see there role as ultimate diplomats. Not involving third party countries in war...

NATO may have outlived it's usefulness but I think it's role as a stabilizing force in Europe is still necessary.  If it isn't then we should clearly state we are OUT.  If Putin decides to move into any of the Baltic states that joined NATO and we do not respond then that is effectively the end of NATO.  The rumors about Germany and France building some "Superstate" military may HAVE to come true.  That'd be fine with me.  The world needs another option when America's entitlement class decides to elect a coward to the job.  

[Abaddonire]

4 hours ago, Wes4747 said:

Should we rise to defend every nation protected by NATO? In fact, by any action the U.S. might take in these situations, historically comparative examples suggest little long term improvements in the region we are assisting and exponential casualties. NATO offers no benefit to the United States, rather I would see there role as ultimate diplomats. Not involving third party countries in war...

You are referring to NATO's article 5, requiring other members to come to the aid of any member who is attacked.

That has been invoked only once by a member under attack seeking the aid of the other members.

What country was that? you may ask.

It was the United States of America.

[Wes4747]

Right, in response to 9/11. And the support rendered to the States had what effect? However, what has been the result of the united states going to war on another countries behalf? Without NATO coordination? Would it be any different with said treaty? I thinks not.

[Beefers]

On 6-8-2016 at 9:15 AM, Obviousman said:

As an outsider and non-American, I cannot understand how US voters even consider voting for Trump. Even if they considered that Clinton was the devil herself, voting for Trump is like voting for Hitler.

The sane voters won't vote for either Trump or Clinton, but then again, I don't know how many people are smart enough.

[Wes4747]

I think its refreshing to see a potential leader on even ground with a potential threat, or ally, rather than a leader who demonizes and fears opposition and foreign strength. Plus if it is thought the little kid on the playground will use his pocket knife to cut you in front of the teacher, likely a bully will leave him alone?

[Abaddonire]

1 minute ago, Wes4747 said:

Right, in response to 9/11. And the support rendered to the States had what effect? However, what has been the result of the united states going to war on another countries behalf? Without NATO coordination? Would it be any different with said treaty? I thinks not.

The Invasion of Afghanistan is the effect it had.

If the US chooses to go to war on another countries behalf then what is that to NATO? For example, suppose the US were to invade the Philippines at the request of the Chinese. Would the other NATO member be required to assist? Nope.

Suppose the US invaded the Philippines because of the imminent threat of the Chinese. Would the other NATO members be required to assist? Nope.