Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 10:49am PT
|
Why am I not 50 points ahead you might ask.......^^^^^^
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 10:52am PT
|
To put it mildly, that's a pretty inaccurate list, sparky.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 10:53am PT
|
Why am I not 50 points ahead you might ask.......^^^^^^
Because she's 75 points ahead?
Curt
|
|
Bullwinkle
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 10:58am PT
|
He lied about a sex tape.
He lied about his lies about ‘birtherism.’
He lied about the growth rate of the American economy.
He lied about the state of the job market.
He lied about the trade deficit.
He lied about tax rates.
He lied about his own position on the Iraq War, again.
He lied about ISIS.
He lied about the Benghazi attack.
He lied about the war in Syria.
He lied about Syrian refugees.
He lied about Russia’s hacking.
He lied about the San Bernardino terrorist attack.
He lied about Hillary Clinton’s tax plan.
He lied about her health care plan.
He lied about her immigration plan.
He lied about her email deletion.
He lied about Obamacare, more than once.
He lied about the rape of a 12-year-old girl.
He lied about his history of groping women without their consent.
Finally, he broke with basic democratic norms and called on his political opponent to be jailed — because, in large part, of what he described as her dishonesty.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 10:59am PT
|
No one "won" that debate..I think we all lost and can't even believe the political reality in our country today...it's shameful really and this applies to both candidates--though I'm somewhat biased and think Trump is the stinkier of the two turds...just absolutely depressing.
I was a little disappointed in the tenor of the debate, however, that was determined in advance by Trump---his scandal, and his approach to debating. How do you debate someone civilly, who spends their time---even their supposed apologies---in personal attacks upon you and your family?
If you think I'm being unfair to Trump, and overly supportive of Clinton, look at the primary debates: Trump was the same with his fellow Repubs, and Clinton was nothing but civil with Sanders, although they powerfully disagreed.
John E, were you as bothered as I was by Trumps assertion that he would direct his AG to appoint a Special Prosecutor (although the law to appoint them no longer exists), and put her in jail? This apparent subversion of the criminal justice system to political ends seems very scary to me.
That seems to me to be unprecedented, and sounds more like a third-world gov't that puts the loser of an election in the slammer. (only because they cannot plausibly execute them). Will he order the head of the IRS to investigate Mark Cuban? Megyn Kelly? All the retired generals who opposed him? Will we see a new Enemies List consisting of anyone who posted anything against him? Will those people experience life as though they are on a terrorist watch list?
What he seems to advocate is a total repudiation of legal process.
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 11:08am PT
|
Sparky
That is the perfect name for you
You are nun to bright
Your sheet don't Burn or light
it is just crap smoldering
till a breath of oxygen enters into the steeled up
gumball machine you live in
Then the flash burn leaves nothing but
Stench
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 11:14am PT
|
Interesting posts this morning. Fortune had an article on Hillary Clinton's economic poicy in this month's edition. The message was that business needn't fear her administration, because everything she said in the primary, and is saying now, concerning her economic policy is a lie. When elected, she will support economic sanity. In a normal year, that would be a most unusual endorsement of a candidate's policy, but with Trump, nothing remains normal.
And Ken, I'm having a bit of difficulty with your logic. Clinton was Secretary of State during Obama's infamous "red line," and during his backing away from it. In particular, she was SofS when official U.S. policy became "Assad must go." As soon as that happened, the Armenian Missionary Association of America, as well as the Armenian Missionary Association in the Middle East, started making urgent, emergency plans for the safety of the Armenian community in Syria, a large number of which were in Aleppo.
If the State Department had access to the information known generally to the Armenian community both in the Middle East and here, they would have known their policy would lead to a humanitarian disaster because of which groups were likely to fill the void left by a toppled Assad regime. And I rather doubt that the Armenians were the only ones who knew the likely chaos and destruction U.S. policy would bring about.
In any case, saying that Clinton has no responsibility for the situation is Syria because it's been almost four years since she resigned strikes me as a flawed argument. We set the disastrous U.S. policy in motion under her watch, and the tragic consequences we see now resulted directly from that mistake.
Ironically, I have maintained both on this forum and elsewhere that backing away from the "red line" was one of the Obama administration's best moves for that very reason. We were obviously (to me) acting on incomplete intelligence. While we identified a bloody regime, Assad is hardly the only "bad guy" in Syria.
All of this leads to what should be the crucial questions for both candidates on foreign policy: (1) What will you do to improve U.S. intelligence gathering? and (2) How aggressive should the U.S. be where our intelligence is, at best, incomplete. Johnson's partly facetious statement, "What's A Leppo?" [misunderstood by the media, but instantly understood by me, who doesn't take that sort of thing at face value] reflects an overlooked truth. Our foreign intelligence leaves a lot to be desired, so we should act carefully before we target a country for regime change. Understood in this sense, Johnson's implied criticism hits both the Obama and, even more severely, the Bush administrations.
Edit: Ken, Trump's statement about appointing a special prosecutor to "get" Hillary should bother anyone who understands the criminal justice system and who understands the American government, for at least the following reasons:
1. Our government changes hands peacefully. We don't arrest and/or liquidate the losers of elections, nor do we do so for previous administrations except for the most egregious crimes;
2. The only justification for a special prosecutor comes when the target has a connection to the current administration. There should have been one for the investigation of Clinton conducted by the current administration, because of the obvious conflict of interest. We have no need of one if (heaven forbid) Trump gets elected.
3. All of that said, the more information comes forward on the emails, the more smelly the whole situation becomes. It reminds me of a Thomas Nast cartoon, contrasting retail theft by a common criminal (dealt with harshly) and wholesale theft by the Tweed Ring and Tammany Hall (ignored). An ordinary person gets his computer siezed. When it contains classified information, he ends up in the slammer. In the Clinton "investigation" (read cover-up), her aides get immunity in exchange for turning over their laptops (apparently after they were cleansed), Clinton never turns over hers, her tech advisor, even after a grant of immunity, refuses to appear to testify, and no one gets indicted. If the Obama administration wanted to demonstrate that this matter didn't deserve prosecution, it's hard to imagine doing less to convince skeptics.
John
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 11:25am PT
|
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Hey Escopeta, are you one of those guys who says women are to be seen and not heard? Perhaps you haven't considered before that a woman's vocal chords are on average short than a man's so they resonate at a shorter wavelength which generates a higher audio frequency. What manner of speaking do you think she should use to deal with the obnoxious interrupting nature of Trump? It's a bit of a murky science learning to speak to a wide variety of folks who process information very differently. Some people like rational arguments supported by data. Hillary is actually pretty darn good at that. Some people aren't able or interested in processing logical arguments, and just respond to primitive shows of power such as raising voice and interrupting and escalating to physical violence if necessary.
Would you call Hillary a cold lifeless robot if she keeps her cool and lets Trump walk all over her? Or would she just be a good little woman if she did that?
Out of all the range of substantive issues you could comment on, and in light of Hillary showing just last night how she can grow and change and respond to feedback on how to communicate more effectively to a broader audience, to tread the fine line between being not being powerful enough and also to not seem too "bitchy" or "shrill" or whatever. Is this is the best you can do?
You are just showing that you are a person with whom it is not worth investing effort in logical discourse. You are like that guy in the Monty Python's argument room. I guess that kind of attention and interaction is better than being totally isolated, but I suspect that if you share something heartfelt and authentic and make an attempt to connect with people you will be more satisfied with your interactions.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 11:29am PT
|
If the State Department had access to the information known generally to the Armenian community both in the Middle East and here, they would have known their policy would lead to a humanitarian disaster because of which groups were likely to fill the void left by a toppled Assad regime. And I rather doubt that the Armenians were the only ones who knew the likely chaos and destruction U.S. policy would bring about.
John, I accept that you have sources of which most Americans are unaware.
But I don't quite understand what you advocate as the right move at the time.
Do you advocate that Syrian Armenians are staunch supporters of Assad, and as such have suffered because of American support against Assad?
When Assad launched a widespread genocide on the Syrian people, presumably including the Armenian community, including the use of weapons of mass destruction on that community, you now advocate that America should have stood down and applauded the extermination of the Armenians? I can't fathom that you do.
In retrospect, everyone knows exactly what the US should have done----except that they appear to have great difficulty writing that perfect policy down. I certainly can't fathom what the right thing to do would have been. Would we have been better off if we'd followed McCain's advocacy, and inserted our military in great force? Would we now have a "hot" war with Russia?? Would that have been a good gamble?
What there is no doubt of is that it is a mess. I don't know that it could have been a better mess. I'm fairly sure it could have been a worse mess.
|
|
7SacredPools
Trad climber
Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 11:32am PT
|
Russ Walling
Social climber
from Poofters Froth, Wyoming
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 9, 2016 - 08:42pm PT
Canada: STFU
this is a USA issue. Thank you.
If the USA didn't regularly involve itself with regime change and bombing sovereign nations etc., the rest of the world could safely ignore your political circus. Although we'd might still tune in for the hilarity...
Peace all,
Garry Reiss
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 11:32am PT
|
Jim, that Bill Maher clip is hilarious.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 11:33am PT
|
Johnson's partly facetious statement, "What's A Leppo?" [misunderstood by the media, but instantly understood by me, who doesn't take that sort of thing at face value] reflects an overlooked truth.
That's pretty disingenuous, John.
An interesting interpretation of his remark, but apparently not one that has occurred to, nor been claimed by, Johnson.
Nice lifeline, though. He should listen to you more......
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 11:37am PT
|
Ken M, do some reading before you make stoopid statements. We were involved in Syria
for TWO YEARS under Hillary's SOS tenure. IF things had gone swimmingly you know she
would be claiming all sorts of credit. Nothing we have done there has helped.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 11:40am PT
|
"Johnson's partly facetious statement, "What's A Leppo?" [misunderstood by the media, but instantly understood by me, who doesn't take that sort of thing at face value] reflects an overlooked truth."
Seriously, John?
You think Johnson's Aleppo moment was him being 'partly facetious'?
That guy was completely, 100%, deer in the headlights about that.
And as Ken has said, he made no claim to the contrary.
Look, Johnson's ok in a Libertarian kinda way (certainly WAAAAAY more acceptable than Trump), but that isn't saying much of anything. Rationalizing that moment so you can feel better about voting for him is pretty disingenuous, and not at all what I would expect from you.
|
|
Sparky
Trad climber
vagabond movin on
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 11:41am PT
|
Sparky
That is the perfect name for you
You are nun to bright
Your sheet don't Burn or light
it is just crap smoldering
till a breath of oxygen enters into the steeled up
gumball machine you live in
Then the flash burn leaves nothing but
Stench
Gnome,
You had a chip on your shoulder when I met you years ago at Stoney. Still got one I see.
Lemmings. Every last one of you who think that list isn't up to snuff.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 11:46am PT
|
So Reilly, you are advocating for the extermination of the Syrian people under Assad?
Or do you advocate that when a popular uprising occurs in a country which is a well established enemy of ours, we should support that uprising?
Do you advocate that we should have done nothing when the clear evidence of widespread use of poison gas was being used against Syrian citizens? There may have been instances of this being used since, but not in the widespread way that was starting to happen. Would you advocate that the effort to destroy the poison gas stockpiles, which internationally was generally thought to be effective, was a waste of time and weapons, which would have much better have been used on the Syrians?
Tell us what you would have done, mr expert? This is the second time I've asked you for your expert strategy and alternatives. So far, you only seem to support the extermination of Syrians, and support of America's enemy Assad.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2016 - 11:49am PT
|
Do you advocate that Syrian Armenians are staunch supporters of Assad, and as such have suffered because of American support against Assad?
The Assad regime protected the Armenians, and and not just the Armenians. For that reason, the situation in Syria wasn't nearly as black-and-white as the American press and the "red line" made us think. If anything, it resembled Iraq in that we knew that Saddam Hussein was murderous, but we had no apparent plan for what to do when we ousted him. In Syria, we knew the Assad regime was murderous (I'm not so sure about genocidal, though. Which racial or ethnic group was he trying to exterminate?). We had no idea who would fill the vacuum, and whether the situation would end up better or worse than before.
In that situation, the best thing the U.S. can do is stay away unless and until we know more, and have a clear, clearly achievable post-inetervention plan. That would be Johnson's foreign policy, and should be ours now. I don't discern that acknowledgment of how our lack of intelligence limits our choices, but I can understand that, too. After all, do we want our commander-in-chief to tell the world "We don't know enough to do anything?"
Still, I'd rather see us refrain from acting when we have no clue what the action would bring. I suppose that last sentence sums up why no one should vote for Trump.
;>)
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!