with Peter Sinclair
“They both do it.”
No. They don’t.
Between Trump and Clinton, there is no lesser evil. Whichever one wins the presidency, we’re all screwed big time, world-wide.
I am sorry but that is nonsense. In every way that matters, a Trump win would be a disaster for us and for our children. A Clinton win would be have minor blemishes with it.
You’re joking, right? If not, you’re incredibly naive, gullible and badly informed.
Actually, it’s you who is badly informed.
So, in your opinion, the US’ wars and interventions in the Middle East with millions dead and millions displaced are minor blemishes? Because Clinton is largely responsible for them and as president she would wage more and possibly attack Russia and draw it into a full-scale war. Minor blemishes? What planet do you live on?
“US’ wars… in the Middle East… Clinton is largely responsible” Uh, in what capacity? Sorry, Bub, but the MidEast is a basket case, and Climate Change is significantly responsible (also overpopulation and repression of women). There have been two US wars in the Mid-East, and GW Bush started both of them. Clinton’s State policy was to help the rebels in the ‘Arab Spring’ and in that capacity I would only note that the absence of War is not exactly ‘Peace’. The serfs before the Russian Revolution were peaceful because they were mostly dead (politically and economically). Is THAT what you’re angry about?
Actually 3 wars. The first was waged by the elder Bush.
Etc., not that I think Trump is any better. Voting for either is suicidal.
Is this the vierotchka who used to comment at Personal Liberty Digest? Perhaps you should go back there, dear—- you are the one who is “incredibly naive, gullible and badly informed”, and that’s an attribute on that site—-not here on Crock, though. DOG = RBT
I have never heard of “Personal Liberty Digest”, and I am extremely well informed, not one bit naive nor gullible. I’ve been posting here on Crock, on and off, for several years. So go shove your snide remarks and presumptions up where the sun don’t shine. As for your last bit, I don’t speak acronym, so it was just water off a duck’s back.
You certainly wear your handle well.
You say you’re NOT naive and gullible and are EXTREEEEMELY well-informed? Sounds like the kind of bald assertion that Trump would make, followed by a “Believe me!”. Are you as full of yourself and out of touch with reality as he is? (And it’s almost axiomatic that anyone who has to tell us that she is extremely well informed probably isn’t)
If you are not “naive, gullible, and badly informed”, could you explain to us why you would make a statement like: “Between Trump and Clinton, there is no lesser evil. Whichever one wins the presidency, we’re all screwed big time, world-wide”. Really? Another “bald assertion” that, i.e., a mere OPINION that is unsupported by facts or arguments.
Your comment certainly seems to be “gullible, naive, and badly informed” to the great majority of Crockers who bothered to give “thumbs” to your comments here—-FYI, you are getting as many “thumbs down” for them as some of our resident morons normally get.
I apologize for perhaps confusing you with another dottyoldlovelylady (DOLL) that posted on PLD. I often CRS at my age, but I thought she used “vierotchka” or something similar as the Russian/Slavic diminutive for her given name—Vera. Isn’t that your name? I also recall getting into a discussion with her on the meaning of Vera as well—-“Faith”, I believe. Or did that happen here on Crock with you?
Yes, I wear my handle with some small pride, both as a self-deprecatory joke, and in recognition of the fun I have “sheep-dogging” fools on the internet. Anyone who takes it at its literal face value and says “You certainly wear your handle well” is indeed naive and gullible.
So, DOLL—–DOG says WOOF!
PS Anyone who doesn’t “speak acronym” in this modern world is NOT extremely well-informed. FYI, CRS means “Can’t Remember Stuff” (but a bit more vulgar)
Sorry, DOLL, but that’s just evasion and begging the question. Answer the question that was put to you. To repeat:
If you are not “naive, gullible, and badly informed”, could you explain to us why you would make a statement like: “Between Trump and Clinton, there is no lesser evil. Whichever one wins the presidency, we’re all screwed big time, world-wide”?
It would take a long time to explain it to you, and it would require an IQ of above 70 to understand, so in view of these, it would be a colossal waste of my time and effort to do so.
Naive, gullible and badly informed? Maybe. But there’s another side to supporting Trump that you may not have considered.
It hadn’t occurred to me that not being bigoted or prejudiced could finish up making you more morally and ethically deficient than those who are – but it is entirely possible.
Another video clip not available in the UK.
I was able to watch it here in Australia yesterday.
i am surprised that John Oliver would dabble in false equivalence. Surprised and verily pissed off. Really, really stupid.
Did you actually watch the video? If so, you totally missed the point.
Oliver was NOT “dabbling in false equivalencies” in the way you imply—-he was pointing out how so many “Hillary Haters” are the ones who do so, and that there is NO equivalency between the huge pile of lying bullshit and truly scandalous doings that surrounds Trump and the much smaller and less serious pile of “trumped up scandals” that are laid at Clinton’s doorstep.
If you’re pissed ant anything, it should be your failure to see that.
John Oliver is normalizing political bribery here. Just because it’s legal for Exxon and Phillip Morris to donate to Republicans in return for blocking industry regulation doesn’t mean it’s right or optimal. Examining both the geese and gander we have:
Joe Barton, why do you think Big Tobacco gives you money?
Myronn Ebell, why do you think Big Oil gives you money?
Secretary Clinton, why do you think Boeing gave the Clinton Foundation $900,000 two months before you approved a $29B deal to sell Saudi Arabia – another large Clinton Foundation donor and human rights violator, who perpetuates terrorism via the Fatwa Valley propaganda machine and by arming Al Qaeda – Boeing F-15 fighter jets?
The presence of Trump does not nullify the last question in the set.
The optimal situation – the ethical gold standard – is one where there is no real or perceived conflict of interest happening.
Every political ill of the American system – every democratic deficit, where extremely popular policies never come to fruition, climate related or otherwise – can be traced back to money in politics; it is the most significant rate limiting step which culls the implementation of progress. And unfortunately (with regret only for this discrete moment in time) the Clinton’s are the quintessential standard bearers for this broken system, having collected $3 billion in bribes over their careers to transfer middle class wealth to the one percent elites.
There is an experiment in psychology where when people are given a choice between an unfair outcome where they are a lesser beneficiary (say their opponent gets $100 and they get $25 dollars for a similar task) and a fair outcome where they enjoy an even smaller reward (say both they and their partner both get $20 a piece for a similar task), they tend to choose the latter, even though the former would be better for their own personal gain. Some version of this is happening this election cycle where people are willing to let the planet burn to get back at Clinton and the DNC for the rigged primary or for years of throwing the middle class under the bus.
“Boeing gave the Clinton Foundation [money]… two months before… [Clinton] approved a $29B deal to sell Saudi Arabia – another… donor… Boeing F-15 fighter jets” Unlike the Trump Foundation, explain how giving the Clinton Foundation money is the same thing as giving the Clinton’s, or their daughter, money. What money given to the Foundation ends up in the Clinton’s hands? I’m not sure what your understanding of ‘quid pro quo’ is, but that doesn’t meet the normal standard. I like the Democratic Party. If you give money to the Democratic Party, and I subsequently think highly of you and act in your favor, is that ‘quid pro quo’? Cuz to me it sounds like I just found a friend.
Saudi Arabia executes people for ‘witchcraft’, considers all atheists as terrorists, jails people that disrespect their magical sky god on twitter, and participates in public beheadings. You can say you just found a friend in them if you want; I’ll take the contradistinguishing position.
As far as how the Clinton’s benefit from the CF, the algorithm is a bit more complex than one simple if/then statement.
This is one of the more charitable accounts of how they benefit online:
Rat droppings would have been a far better image for his closing analogy.
So, DOLL has now forfeited one of the L’s from the handle I bestowed upon her. That’s the L for “Lovely” because she is proving herself to be a rather nasty individual who can’t hold up her end of a discussion, but instead resorts to petulance, evasion, and insults. I will now think of her as simply “dotty old lady” (DOL).
Yes, I do believe it would take a long time for her to explain it to us, since she would have to get educated on American politics and history herself before she could do so. I wonder if she watched the debate and what American papers and magazines she reads over there in Switzerland to be so “extremely well informed”? She certainly shows some talent for looking up stuff with headlines she likes on the web and giving us links (as she has done in a mini-Gish Gallop of comments here that are nothing but links).
It looks like it would be “a colossal waste of our time and effort” to continue to try to get DOL to respond to intelligent requests for her to explain herself, so we should probably stop trying. As for the rather extreme insult embodied in her “…it would require an IQ of above 70 to understand…” statement, I will go to “acronym speak” to respond in kind—-GFYS, DOL.
My reply did not fall in the right place in the thread—-it was a response to this:
vierotchka Says: September 27, 2016 at 4:13 pm
“It would take a long time to explain it to you, and it would require an IQ of above 70 to understand, so in view of these, it would be a colossal waste of my time and effort to do so”.
Your “mistake” was due to your Old Timer’s Disease, naturally.
Oh, and I can play the acronym game with you too – you GFA and HH!
Maybe in her alternate reality GFA and HH have meaning, but not in any acronym speak I’m aware of—-WTF are you talking about, DOL?
You really don’t want to know.
And with that bit of unresponsive nonsense, I leave the field to Madam V—–maunder on, old girl!
Since you insist — gargantuan fetid anus and hobbling halitosis.
Now, since you obviously are so hopelessly desperate to have the last word, be my guest.
I didn’t watch the so-called debate as I can’t really bear seeing and hearing either of these two.
“For the rest of the wider world, the foreign policy section of the debate will be the most important segment as sadly the US’s relations with the wider world have increasingly been based on the export of warfare rather than the export of Coca-Cola or McDonalds.
Here were the key points:
Hillary Clinton restated the lie that Russia hacked into the computers of the Democratic Party. The words spilled out of her expressionless face, with no sense of irony let alone shame.
Trump responded by saying that the hacker could be anyone, and that there is no evidence that points to Russia more than to anyone else. He said that it could well be ‘someone on their bed who weighs 400 pounds’.
Interestingly, no one mentioned the prominent hacker Guccifer 2.0 who has expressed his disappointment that the President of Russia has received the credit for something he claims responsibility for.
Trump would not be drawn on Hillary Clinton’s accusation that he is colluding with Russia. This of course is nonsense. To say one wants peace and trade with a major world power is not collusion. It’s called being sensible.
Clinton didn’t stop there though. She claimed that whilst she’d prefer not to do so, she is willing to engage in cyber war with any state. This came from someone who pleads cyber ignorance when asked about her copiously deleted emails.
Trump said strong support for US military veterans and other law enforcement bodies is more important than Clinton’s rhetoric, and that he’ll take the advice of military professionals over that of ‘political hacks’ any day.
Turning to ISIS, Hillary Clinton spoke of the US military ‘assisting’ in Iraq, after which it will ‘squeeze them in Syria’. There’s only one problem – Syria doesn’t want this kind of ‘assistance’. However according to an audio recording in Syria’s possession ISIS does want and is receiving US assistance.
Best yet, Hillary Clinton said that ISIS is being aided by foreign money…yes, the foreign money of her Saudi friends. I have to say that when it comes to women’s rights, Hillary Clinton has done well. Never in Saudi history has a woman wheedled so much influence and power over the Wahhabist kingdom as has Hillary Clinton.
Trump responded with largely accurate statements. He repeated his long standing line that Obama and Clinton were the founders of ISIS, and that they did so by creating a power vacuum in an unstable Iraq that America should have never invaded in the first place. Powerful stuff from a man who wants to be the first Republican president since George W. Bush.
Trump went onto say that by not ‘taking the oil’, America left ISIS with their biggest source of revenue.
Trump then went on to blame Hillary Clinton personally for the ‘disaster’ in Libya. The very personal nature of Hillary Clinton’s war on Libya has now been made crystal clear thanks to Wikileaks.
Later Trump stated that under Hillary Clinton ISIS went from being ‘an infant’ to being everywhere.
On NATO, Trump reiterated his stance that the US cannot be the ‘world’s policeman’, especially when many NATO members are not paying their fair share of funds to the organisation as required by formal agreements. The fact NATO is covered by the US to the tune of 73% of its costs will resonate well with ordinary voters who think that Riga is the latest Japanese hybrid car.
Trump also said that it is mindless for America to foot the costs of Saudi Arabian defence given the immense wealth of the corrupt kingdom.
Trump went on to take credit for inspiring NATO to create an anti-terrorism task force, and said that if it had not done so the organisation would have become obsolete. Whilst he did not directly mention NATO’s anti-Russian mission and say that it runs totally contrary to the nature of the modern world, the implication was clear.
Trump concluded by accusing Hillary Clinton of lacking the stamina to be President. Certainly she lacks the inspiration. We all know that working for Hillary Clinton is so depressing that some of her ex-employees commit suicide twice. There is something of the automaton about her, reading from a blood soaked script. By contrast Trump comes over as human, humorous and last night as surprisingly restrained.
Overall on foreign policy Hillary Clinton showed a firm commitment to the US being everywhere save in the US itself. Her foreign policy has destroyed much of the world and a Hillary Clinton presidency would drown even more of the world in blood.
By contrast Trump’s views are best summed up with his own quote, “We spent $6 trillion in the Middle East. We could have rebuilt our country twice!”
For many in the US the issues of tax, wealth, employment and civil strife are the major issues. But for the wider world the question between Trump and Clinton is the question between war and peace.
Hillary Clinton is without doubt the war candidate. Last night’s debate proved it.”
Finally, grow up and get a life.
DOL didn’t watch the debate so that she could form her own conclusions about the candidates and their positions? And how is it a “so-called debate”, DOL?—-it sure looked like all the others I’ve watched since the first was televised in 1960—-nothing “so-called” about it.
Instead of watching, she reads biased bullshit on some obscure site called theduran written by an ignorant nobody named Adam Garrie? And she COPIED IT IN ITS ENTIRETY without any additional comment other than that she “can’t bear seeing and hearing these two” Lord love a duck! Utterly lueless does not begin to describe our DOL.
Poor old GFA & HH, you are pitiful.
Trump and Clinton:
“There was not the slightest intellectual substance or reasoned political content to the so-called “debate.”
“The media apologists of the Democrats and Republicans blabbed both before and after the debate about the need for fact-checking of the candidates. But the entire debate was a lie, from beginning to end. The falsehoods uttered by Trump and Clinton are picayune compared to the overarching lie that these candidates offer a genuine choice to the American people. “Whatever the outcome of the election, whether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton replaces Barack Obama in the White House, the next administration will be the most reactionary government in the history of the country, committed to a program of imperialist war, social austerity and attacks on democratic rights.” http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/27/deba-s27.html
Read more: https://sputniknews.com/columnists/20160927/1045757443/us-clinton-trump-debate.html
Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
"The sharpest climate denier debunker on YouTube."
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 3,198 other followers