Print

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

[Rolan7]

Which is particularly hilarious when Trump took a quarter million out of his "charity" to pay legal fees.
Whereas the Clintons only use their foundation's money to look good by helping people...  AKA charity
Chelsea doesn't even take a salary.  Not that she needs one, but still...  kinda illustrates the difference.

[Max™]

I'm saying I have been unable to find any source to corroborate the claims of any sort that any funding from the Saudi royals went to the Clinton Campaign rather than the Foundation. This would actually be a crime, and no doubt a campaign ender if it were true.

I don't like to rely on one source for something, so I banged around on duckduckgo to find more info but the search terms bring up billions of hits tying back to Trump talking about it as though it were a fact, so I instantly discredit those hits, and after a while I sigh and go see what politifact has to say which is less sexy and salacious but it's just tiresome digging through page after page of foxnews.com/zomg-hillary-is-in-saudi-pockets-says-trump and the like.

[Wolock]

And Rolan, that's a somewhat slanted picture you're painting. The accusation (which is still disputed, as far as I can tell) is that Trump used money from his charity to make charitable donations that he agreed to make as part of a lawsuit settlement. One to a veteran's charity, and I can't find information on which charity it was in the second case other than it was 'the plaintiff's choice'.

Trump Foundation also gave 10k to an organization name Project Veritas. I'm sure I saw that name somewhere...

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-foundation-paid-activist-filmmaker-james-o-keefe-n670381

[Max™]

Yes well, a lack of opportunity to obtain credible confirmation in a story means something, I feel.

Not sure what though.

[Wolock]

And Rolan, that's a somewhat slanted picture you're painting. The accusation (which is still disputed, as far as I can tell) is that Trump used money from his charity to make charitable donations that he agreed to make as part of a lawsuit settlement. One to a veteran's charity, and I can't find information on which charity it was in the second case other than it was 'the plaintiff's choice'.

Trump Foundation also gave 10k to an organization name Project Veritas. I'm sure I saw that name somewhere...

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-foundation-paid-activist-filmmaker-james-o-keefe-n670381

See, this is something worth posting. It does cast doubt on O'Keefe's reliability.

Not enough for me to discount people caught admitting on camera to their wrongdoing, but I can certainly credit a decent argument when I see one.

Well let's see where we can go from there.

The guy who made the video is closely associate to Breitbart.

In January 2010, O'Keefe began a column on Breitbart's website, BigGovernment.com. Breitbart stated in an interview that he paid O'Keefe a salary for his "life rights" to gain release of O'Keefe's videos first on his website.[27] In 2010 O'Keefe formed his own organization, Project Veritas, whose stated mission is "to investigate and expose corruption, dishonesty, self-dealing, waste, fraud, and other misconduct in both public and private institutions in order to achieve a more ethical and transparent society."[28]

Which from March 2012 to August 2016 was headed by Stephen Bannon, now CEO of Trump's campaign.

On August 17, 2016, he was appointed Chief Executive of Donald Trump's campaign to become President of the United States of America.[3] He went on leave from Breitbart in order to take the new job.[15][17]

To resume : James O'Keefe's organization received money from Trump's Foundation. Trump has Bannon in is campaign staff. O'Keefe has a close business relationship with Breitbart\Bannon. And O'Keefe released a video attacking Clinton.

The links between them is so obvious it's hard to lend any credibility to that video and that's before adding the fact that the guy was caught doing ''creative'' editing to get what he wanted in his video.

[Max™]

Oh good lord, so I heard that Gaga had been dressed like a Nazi or something and my first glance I was very confused.

Then I saw another link about what was going on: https://twitter.com/derrickg1126/status/795859429501628416/photo/1

She bought Michael Jackson's jacket and wore it as a tribute.

[Powder Miner]

Reading the 538 summary before I go to sleep... Looked at Utah; McMullin you absolute madman hahaha

[Max™]

https://twitter.com/Scout_Finch/status/795770967960059904

'I will remember you... will you remember me?'
"...says who?"
'Uh... Sarah Maclachlan?'

[spümpkin]

As a new zealander, seeing all this on the news and everything it's honestly kinda just... I'm not gonna input on it.

I will say though, that I might have to cross America off my itenirary in the future if Trump gets elected, as I don't think *he'll* do anything, but him being elected is basically a green light for his supporters. As both a transfemale, and a lesbian, visiting in that time without any prior contacts seems like a frightening idea.

I digress, though. I wasn't really planning on going to 'Murica anyway :p

[Powder Miner]

this isn't the philippines/duterte, he doesn't literally have the ability to authorize the police to go "nah bro it's cool go ahead and do hatecrimes" it'll still be illegal, and it's not like the country would suddenly turn into a hatecrime hell for his term

[martinuzz]

After hearing a female Trump supporter say to a dutch reporter, when asked why Trump's remark about groping women did not change her mind about voting Trump "it just shows how much he loves women. He really loves women", I do wonder. Would it be legally okay to grope this woman, since she publicly declared she consideres it an act of affection? Or would she still be protected under laws considering those mentally unfit to represent themselves?

[Powder Miner]

I don't think "she was asking for it" is an acceptable defense no

[UXLZ]

What's y'all's opinion on NYP?

[Sergarr]

Such policy will, ironically enough, result in much higher chances of nukes actually being used, and used successfully. If the enemy gets to nuke you without getting nuked back, they've fucking won, and won big.

They don't.
Nobody wins in that case. Mutated dogs and other Fallout/Metro fantasy aside, MAD is still the most likely way humanity goes extinct.

But you've just said that nuking back is verboten, you've destroyed the main assumption of MAD - that the enemy will nuke you back! What if the aggressor country fully known about what kind of pacifists there are in control of nukes in your country? And you better believe they'll know about that, because that's why both NATO and USSR have been spreading pacifist bullshit propaganda across each other during Cold War - for that very small chance that the enemy will indeed become stupid enough not to nuke back!

And no, it'll be waaaay less than "half the world" in such situation. India, Africa and Latin America are not likely to be nuked in most scenarios which don't involve indiscriminate world depopulation due to being neutral players in NATO-Red Dragons conflict, and those already make about half of the world in population.

They also lost. Nuclear winter, radiation, economy getting fucked over, starvation, so on. Humanity will proably survive this way but we'd be blown back to medieval at best.

Nuclear winter happens only if you do counter-value strikes (i.e nuke the shit out of enemy population, igniting cities and producing firestorms), which are not necessary if you know that the enemy is a bunch of nuke-averse pacifists - you just do a counter-force one, leave enemy without strategic nukes to retaliate, then go through their military and cities at your leisure, while always having an option to obliterate whatever hard opposition you might have by the atomic light.

And radiation? Nuclear explosives produce remarkably little long-term radiation, and most of the fallout is only dangerous on direct contact (alpha/beta radiation). Ever thought why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are nowadays big, populated cities? It's because of that.

So yeah, while usually nuclear war isn't winnable, if you continue to insist that nuking enemy back is always unacceptable, it just might become like that. Hence why retaliation should always happen.

[spümpkin]

this isn't the philippines/duterte, he doesn't literally have the ability to authorize the police to go "nah bro it's cool go ahead and do hatecrimes" it'll still be illegal, and it's not like the country would suddenly turn into a hatecrime hell for his term

i mean, i don't think the fact that it'd be illegal would stop anyone :p

it hasn't before, and it's just a push that some people need to take drastic action

although, that was a generalisation on my part, and i realise that it wouldnt change the country on a whole.

Also, you might want to talk with Tiruin about Duterte, because she has a lot of info on him, to quell any highlighted bad-things.