Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

well she was on record asking to "drone" him, so there's that.

Sigh... http://www.snopes.com/julian-assange-drone-strike/

so the article source is her 'not recalling' telling it? she hasn't the best memory these days.

... no? Read the snopes thing. Like, in full? The source of the drone claim itself was unverifiable, coming from unnamed "sources" in the state department. The "corroborating" emails could be summed up as "cannot into English" in terms of how much they supported the claim. Clinton noting she can't recall even joking about it is tertiary to what makes the claim effectively empty. There's not actually record of her saying it, just some rando claiming she did, and then citing emails as back up evidence that were nothing of the sort.

[Rolan7]

oh jeez do we really need to have that sexism "discussion"?  Here?
And that's not really much of a prompt, no offense...

I'm more worried about this Scott Foval thing from Project Veritas.  So yeah, Project Veritas is absolutely untrustworthy, that was easy to verify.  They basically just lie using clips from people.

However...  It does seem like Americans United for Change has been "picking fights", right?  And I'm wondering, is that bad?  I'm not sure it is, really, because I don't think they're throwing the first punch...  Just finding situations where aggressive Trump supporters will start shit.  For instance, wearing a "Planned Parenthood" shirt

It sounds kinda cool, honestly.  Liberal activism where you expose the other side's belligerence by standing in harms way.

(I'm worried because my brother wants to talk about it later, and I want to be ready.  Naturally his perspective is "See, Clinton is a cheating cheater who cheats!"  Whereas I don't believe Veritas has shown any link between the DNC and Americans United for Change...  That was all *very* short or vague clips)

[Starver]

Interesting thing about 'artificial' support for candidates, on top of actual genuine people expressing their opiniins: http://politicalbots.org/?p=711

[Dorsidwarf]

Interesting thing about 'artificial' support for candidates, on top of actual genuine people expressing their opiniins: http://politicalbots.org/?p=711

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-37684418

[Neonivek]

oh jeez do we really need to have that sexism "discussion"?  Here?
And that's not really much of a prompt, no offense...

Well it isn't so much that I am trying to have a sexism discussion.

So much that I remember the people saying Racism was over because Obama got elected... and I was like "Ugh, I just know that will happen again"

[Spehss _]

Trump has released a statement on his "Five Point Plan for Ethics Reform".

So that's kinda neat. Not sure if it would work to really change any "corruption" in practice but it sounds respectable on paper.

[Frumple]

At least until you realize it kinda' shits all over the first amendment, heh.

[smjjames]

Trump has released a statement on his "Five Point Plan for Ethics Reform".

So that's kinda neat. Not sure if it would work to really change any "corruption" in practice but it sounds respectable on paper.

Already mentioned a couple pages back. Seems overly focused on the executive branch which isn't the majority source of the lobbyist issue.

At least until you realize it kinda' shits all over the first amendment, heh.

Not sure how it 'kinda shits all over the first amendment'.

[Neonivek]

At least until you realize it kinda' shits all over the first amendment, heh.

Not sure how it 'kinda shits all over the first amendment'.

I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government

[smjjames]

At least until you realize it kinda' shits all over the first amendment, heh.

Not sure how it 'kinda shits all over the first amendment'.

I am going to issue a lifetime ban against senior executive branch officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government

I wonder who he had in mind when he put that one in.

Again, it seems overly focused on the executive branch and leaves the legislative branch (where the majority of the problem is) alone.

[milo christiansen]

Wow, I finally saw a (single) clinton/whatsisface sign in a yard!

Around here you only see trump/somedude signs, and not as many as you would see in most election years either...

Personally I would prefer for Hillary to win, but only if she get impeached for something about a month later

[RedKing]

I think even Redking can agree completely with mainiac there.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I think the tsundere romance has cooled off, now that we have other people to focus our lazors on.

[mainiac]

Story romance isn't very endearing in real life.

[Spehss _]

At least until you realize it kinda' shits all over the first amendment, heh.

"Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

I don't see what the problem is here. Government officials had their chance to influence government decisions and policies while they were working in the government. Once a new guy is elected and power is peaceably transferred to new officials, why should the old officials be able to continue to influence government decisions?

The fifth point at least sounds reasonable. The Constitution and Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non US citizens. First amendment doesn't apply to them, they have their own nation's rules to follow. And why allow foreign groups to donate money or raise money for US elections?

[Sergarr]

Wow, I finally saw a (single) clinton/whatsisface sign in a yard!

Around here you only see trump/somedude signs, and not as many as you would see in most election years either...

Personally I would prefer for Hillary to win, but only if she get impeached for something about a month later

What, you don't want the McMullin to win? Just imagine - a POTUS elected with less than 10% of the popular vote! Mass joint riots from both Democrats and Republicans! It would immediately enter the political textbooks and become one of the most well-studied and notable political events of 21st century!