Author Topic: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.  (Read 45317 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13756
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #70 on: August 11, 2016, 01:47:02 PM »
How is it determined whether or not Johnson will get to participate in the debate(s)?

I'm going to guess he needs to hit a certain % in polling that is determined by the network airing the debate.  Just a guess though, I believe that's how it was done for the primaries.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18239
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #71 on: August 11, 2016, 01:51:54 PM »
How is it determined whether or not Johnson will get to participate in the debate(s)?

I'm going to guess he needs to hit a certain % in polling that is determined by the network airing the debate.  Just a guess though, I believe that's how it was done for the primaries.

He needs 15%

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3133
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #72 on: August 11, 2016, 01:53:27 PM »
How is it determined whether or not Johnson will get to participate in the debate(s)?

I'm going to guess he needs to hit a certain % in polling that is determined by the network airing the debate.  Just a guess though, I believe that's how it was done for the primaries.

That's what my guess was as well, but I thought I'd ask because I honestly don't know how all that works. If it's just a poll percentage threshold or if something else factors into.

He needs 15%

Gotcha, thanks Chino.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18239
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #73 on: August 11, 2016, 01:53:28 PM »
If Hillary debates Trump more than once (and even that is just to say she did) then she's a fucking idiot.  And if there is anything that Hillary is NOT, it's a fucking idiot.    The debates are a way of keeping Trump in line, and that's the last thing Hillary wants.  Let him run off full cocked and say stupid shit.   Don't actually get on stage and try to reign him in.   That's dumb.

I believe they are scheduled for three debates. There's one the last week of September, and then there are two in October. The VP debate is in October as well. I'm guessing that Trump is going to be made a fool of following the first debate, and then he'll blow off the two in October.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13756
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #74 on: August 11, 2016, 02:09:01 PM »
If Hillary debates Trump more than once (and even that is just to say she did) then she's a fucking idiot.  And if there is anything that Hillary is NOT, it's a fucking idiot.    The debates are a way of keeping Trump in line, and that's the last thing Hillary wants.  Let him run off full cocked and say stupid shit.   Don't actually get on stage and try to reign him in.   That's dumb.

I believe they are scheduled for three debates. There's one the last week of September, and then there are two in October. The VP debate is in October as well. I'm guessing that Trump is going to be made a fool of following the first debate, and then he'll blow off the two in October.

I'm already losing steam on the Trump train.  If he blows off a debate, unless some extraordinary reason (a grudge against Megyn Kelly would not qualify) I won't vote for him.  It's too important now.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9213
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #75 on: August 11, 2016, 02:19:49 PM »
If Hillary debates Trump more than once (and even that is just to say she did) then she's a fucking idiot.  And if there is anything that Hillary is NOT, it's a fucking idiot.    The debates are a way of keeping Trump in line, and that's the last thing Hillary wants.  Let him run off full cocked and say stupid shit.   Don't actually get on stage and try to reign him in.   That's dumb.

I believe they are scheduled for three debates. There's one the last week of September, and then there are two in October. The VP debate is in October as well. I'm guessing that Trump is going to be made a fool of following the first debate, and then he'll blow off the two in October.

I'm already losing steam on the Trump train.  If he blows off a debate, unless some extraordinary reason (a grudge against Megyn Kelly would not qualify) I won't vote for him.  It's too important now.

The debates are Trumps only chance to win. Only he is going to call Hillary out on her repeated failures in every position she's held....and he should just rail on those from now until November every chance he gets. There are plenty to choose from. From Benghazi, to the e mails to her poor Senate showing, just keep reminding people that she really isn't that good at anything she's done.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39609
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #76 on: August 11, 2016, 03:47:21 PM »
He's too busy calling her the co-founder of ISIS and saying that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment to say anything substantive about her.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9213
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #77 on: August 11, 2016, 04:00:06 PM »
He's too busy calling her the co-founder of ISIS and saying that she wants to abolish the Second Amendment to say anything substantive about her.

Amendments are real easy to abolish.  :lol
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Elite

  • The 'other' Rich
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9523
  • Gender: Male
  • Inventory!
    • Overhaul
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #78 on: August 11, 2016, 05:12:13 PM »
How is it determined whether or not Johnson will get to participate in the debate(s)?

Exactly what I was wondering. This is a man running to probably become president in the country (even though his chances are slim compared to Trump's or Clinton's). Why should he NOT be included?
Hey dude slow the fuck down so we can finish together at the same time.  :biggrin:

My band, Overhaul! Releasing a debut album soon!!

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 15442
  • Gender: Male
  • Resident Tolkien Geek
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #79 on: August 11, 2016, 05:15:39 PM »
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 15442
  • Gender: Male
  • Resident Tolkien Geek
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #80 on: August 11, 2016, 05:16:39 PM »
How is it determined whether or not Johnson will get to participate in the debate(s)?

Exactly what I was wondering. This is a man running to probably become president in the country (even though his chances are slim compared to Trump's or Clinton's). Why should he NOT be included?

Because if they just let any member of any party on the debate stage, without having some sort of requirement, there would be something akin to the Republican primaries.

Offline Adami

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 23653
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #81 on: August 11, 2016, 05:20:53 PM »
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

His success (and failures) prior to this are in a completely private field. None of it involved being huge in the public, except for things like The Apprentice, and then he was more successful, the bigger douche he was.
fanticide.bandcamp.com

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9213
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #82 on: August 11, 2016, 05:31:45 PM »
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

What's off is the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for not adjusting and evolving with the political pulse of the country and not having a single appealing candidate that could have quashed this whole Trump thing.

I'm not talking selling out conservative values....just talking having a candidate that can appeal to people and inspire them. Instead, they stuck with the old mold politician and essentially handed the White House to the Dems this year when it was RIPE for the taking. This was set up and should have been a Republican slam dunk Presidential victory after the past 8 years but they F'd themselves.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #83 on: August 11, 2016, 10:14:07 PM »
Rather than the Clinton plant theory I think the theory that Trump never really expected to get this far and certainly does not actually want to be president is most likely. After all how much time will he have to build the best buildings if he has to be president? Better try to derail this train now.

...my name is Araragi.

Offline pogoowner

  • Pancake Bunny
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 2634
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #84 on: August 11, 2016, 10:35:52 PM »
The Clinton Foundation is under investigation.

Quote
The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bharara’s prosecutorial aggressiveness has resulted in a large number of convictions of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street insiders.
 
The official said involvement of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York “would be seen by agents as a positive development as prosecutors there are generally thought to be more aggressive than the career lawyers within the DOJ.”

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/11/exclusive-joint-fbi-us-attorney-probe-of-clinton-foundation-is-underway/

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 18239
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #85 on: August 12, 2016, 04:35:46 AM »
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

I think Trump is as successful as he is because 1) he knows how to read people and knows how to command a conversation, and 2) he's mastered the buying and selling of real estate and businesses. To be successful (have ton of money), all he had to do was master that one topic/trade/business. he could be the best real estate negotiator in history, but that doesn't mean he knows a damn thing about foreign policy, current educational standing in the country, etc.. The only real difference between Trump and Carson (another brilliant guy but only in one specific area) is that Trump can command the room. He can get you to listen and he can sway you by controlling his tone.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 15442
  • Gender: Male
  • Resident Tolkien Geek
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #86 on: August 12, 2016, 05:13:39 AM »
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

I think Trump is as successful as he is because 1) he knows how to read people and knows how to command a conversation, and 2) he's mastered the buying and selling of real estate and businesses. To be successful (have ton of money), all he had to do was master that one topic/trade/business. he could be the best real estate negotiator in history, but that doesn't mean he knows a damn thing about foreign policy, current educational standing in the country, etc.. The only real difference between Trump and Carson (another brilliant guy but only in one specific area) is that Trump can command the room. He can get you to listen and he can sway you by controlling his tone.

I'm not talking about his political knowledge. I'm pretty sure most of us have a better idea of foreign policy than he does. What I'm saying is that his actions and his words are completely belying of a successful man. He's almost acting like a spoiled child in some instances. It just doesn't seem like his character.

Rather than the Clinton plant theory I think the theory that Trump never really expected to get this far and certainly does not actually want to be president is most likely. After all how much time will he have to build the best buildings if he has to be president? Better try to derail this train now.

That's another thought I had.

Offline kaos2900

  • Posts: 1633
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #87 on: August 12, 2016, 06:45:45 AM »
If Trump truly wants to make america great again then he should drop out because more than likely if they can get even a mediocre replacement Clinton probably loses. Maybe that was his intent. Take all of the media heat to deflect from the real nominee.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7310
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #88 on: August 12, 2016, 07:15:24 AM »
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

His success (and failures) prior to this are in a completely private field. None of it involved being huge in the public, except for things like The Apprentice, and then he was more successful, the bigger douche he was.


This.  I say this half tongue in cheek, but not totally, but the people saying "oh, Trump was successful [here], therefore he'll be successful [there]", where "here" is the boardroom and "there" is national politics, have never been in a boardroom.   It's a totally different environment, in the same way that football in the NFL Pro Bowl is different than football in the preseason.  Yeah, it has some base similarities, but the essence of the game is totally different.   

Honestly, I think the last two months are very informative, and not in a good way for Trump.  He is out of his element.  He is in uncharted territory.  Yet, he is smart, smart enough to know he has to rely on his skill set and yet do something different.  So he's reaching into his bag of tricks, going with what he knows, and it's the thing that got him the most broad appeal:   acting like "The Boss", and being controversial.  The last two months have basically been the last three episodes of any season of "The Apprentice" and his last three appearances on the Howard Stern Show all wrapped up in one.    The problem is, he isn't playing to the people that were watching The Apprentice or those that were listening to The Howard Stern Show.    He's playing to real-life Waldorfs and Statlers that aren't on the bandwagon yet, and it's not resonating.   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7310
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #89 on: August 12, 2016, 07:19:25 AM »
I feel like something is off. Trump isn't stupid. He has been extremely successful in his life, and he certainly didn't get where he got by acting like this. The whole plant for Hillary thing, while seemingly ridiculous, could have some truth to it, or maybe it's something similar.

I think Trump is as successful as he is because 1) he knows how to read people and knows how to command a conversation, and 2) he's mastered the buying and selling of real estate and businesses. To be successful (have ton of money), all he had to do was master that one topic/trade/business. he could be the best real estate negotiator in history, but that doesn't mean he knows a damn thing about foreign policy, current educational standing in the country, etc.. The only real difference between Trump and Carson (another brilliant guy but only in one specific area) is that Trump can command the room. He can get you to listen and he can sway you by controlling his tone.

And real estate at his level is not really a "people skill" business.  It's not like "Flip This House!" on TV, or the quintessential idea of a cute sexy real estate agent selling a young couple who look like a deer in headlights a home they can't afford.  It's a lot of tactics, it's a lot of jockeying of sub-experts ("That's MOLD!"; "No it's not, it's a stain from when the boiler blew up!") and it's educated risk-taking ("I can clean this property for half of what my competitors say, because I own part of the Environmental Remediation firm, and the site supervisor used to work for my competitor until he was fired").   


Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9213
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #92 on: August 12, 2016, 08:15:44 AM »
It amazes me that people really buy into the Clinton Body Count nonsense. Sane, rational people who don't go in for the conspiracy theory nonsense, even. Seriously, people.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Podaar

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4603
  • Gender: Male
  • Looks like Fish, tastes like chicken
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #93 on: August 12, 2016, 08:18:53 AM »
Too many Breaking Bad episodes, me thinks.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #94 on: August 12, 2016, 08:26:25 AM »
More like too much confirmation bias.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 3133
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #95 on: August 12, 2016, 08:32:43 AM »
Oh, I'm not saying that Clinton definitely ordered this dude to be killed or anything. I just remember the conversation occurring around here so I thought I'd link the article.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13253
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #96 on: August 12, 2016, 09:45:06 AM »
Trump refers to his "Obama founded ISIS" remark as sarcasm.  I saw this on FB today:

Quote
God, I wish two giant Olympic weightlifters from Muslim countries would hold Donald Trump down and take turns violating him in the mouth.

LOLOLOL JUST KIDDING! IT WAS "SARCASM" SO IT'S OK!

Someone commented that they're not allowed to touch pigs.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 15442
  • Gender: Male
  • Resident Tolkien Geek
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #97 on: August 12, 2016, 11:31:23 AM »
It amazes me that people really buy into the Clinton Body Count nonsense. Sane, rational people who don't go in for the conspiracy theory nonsense, even. Seriously, people.

Right, because people in the world who have power, and try to portray a clean public image, just don't do that sort of thing. What is your rational reason for her or her husband not having it in them to do something like that? Because they're all smiles when they see balloons? I bet if you heard Bush did something like that you would eat it up with a spoon. The media is clearly steering the bus on this one for most people.

Do you think the Vatican hasn't committed sexual crimes against children just because of who they are? Do you think the Vatican has never ordered the death of people as part of some power play? Or are only people like the mafia and drug kingpins capable of ordering the death of those who choose to betray them? I feel like you're being exceedingly hypocritical about this, and slightly naive to think it's just not possible. Coincidences can only go so far before you realize something is truly fucked up. This trail of death with the Clintons isn't something that just started recently.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #98 on: August 12, 2016, 11:59:06 AM »
It amazes me that people really buy into the Clinton Body Count nonsense. Sane, rational people who don't go in for the conspiracy theory nonsense, even. Seriously, people.

Right, because people in the world who have power, and try to portray a clean public image, just don't do that sort of thing. What is your rational reason for her or her husband not having it in them to do something like that? Because they're all smiles when they see balloons? I bet if you heard Bush did something like that you would eat it up with a spoon. The media is clearly steering the bus on this one for most people.

Do you think the Vatican hasn't committed sexual crimes against children just because of who they are? Do you think the Vatican has never ordered the death of people as part of some power play? Or are only people like the mafia and drug kingpins capable of ordering the death of those who choose to betray them? I feel like you're being exceedingly hypocritical about this, and slightly naive to think it's just not possible. Coincidences can only go so far before you realize something is truly fucked up. This trail of death with the Clintons isn't something that just started recently.
First off, there is a Bush Body Count list, and I find it equally stupid. Interestingly, there's at least one name that features prominently on both. Presumably one side would have never whacked William Colby while the other side are just depraved enough to do it. Second, I do think they probably have it within them to whack somebody. Personally, I'd find a former CIA head more inclined, but I don't buy those claims, either. Finally, those lists are full of very loose affiliations, facts that fall somewhere between misinterpretation and outright lying, and more weasel words than a human could count. All airplane crashes are "suspicious." Very few of them are murders.

I'm actually very interested in finding out if there's somebody that was murdered on behalf of the Clinton's, Bushes, or even Van Burens. I'm just of the opinion that if you go around accusing somebody of committing 93 murders, you should damn well have something better to offer than "So And So, who might have been called to testify against Clinton, died in a mysterious plane crash." Particularly when "mysterious" actually translates as "flew into fucking mountain!"

The problem is, people who look for these sorts of things are taking the back-assward approach. They look for things that might support their beliefs. Moreover, they're a house of cards. The only way you think death number 91 is possible is if you think the Clintons are capable of the 90 that preceded it. Stunningly bad logic.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 15442
  • Gender: Male
  • Resident Tolkien Geek
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #99 on: August 12, 2016, 12:15:10 PM »
It amazes me that people really buy into the Clinton Body Count nonsense. Sane, rational people who don't go in for the conspiracy theory nonsense, even. Seriously, people.

Right, because people in the world who have power, and try to portray a clean public image, just don't do that sort of thing. What is your rational reason for her or her husband not having it in them to do something like that? Because they're all smiles when they see balloons? I bet if you heard Bush did something like that you would eat it up with a spoon. The media is clearly steering the bus on this one for most people.

Do you think the Vatican hasn't committed sexual crimes against children just because of who they are? Do you think the Vatican has never ordered the death of people as part of some power play? Or are only people like the mafia and drug kingpins capable of ordering the death of those who choose to betray them? I feel like you're being exceedingly hypocritical about this, and slightly naive to think it's just not possible. Coincidences can only go so far before you realize something is truly fucked up. This trail of death with the Clintons isn't something that just started recently.
First off, there is a Bush Body Count list, and I find it equally stupid. Interestingly, there's at least one name that features prominently on both. Presumably one side would have never whacked William Colby while the other side are just depraved enough to do it. Second, I do think they probably have it within them to whack somebody. Personally, I'd find a former CIA head more inclined, but I don't buy those claims, either. Finally, those lists are full of very loose affiliations, facts that fall somewhere between misinterpretation and outright lying, and more weasel words than a human could count. All airplane crashes are "suspicious." Very few of them are murders.

I'm actually very interested in finding out if there's somebody that was murdered on behalf of the Clinton's, Bushes, or even Van Burens. I'm just of the opinion that if you go around accusing somebody of committing 93 murders, you should damn well have something better to offer than "So And So, who might have been called to testify against Clinton, died in a mysterious plane crash." Particularly when "mysterious" actually translates as "flew into fucking mountain!"

The problem is, people who look for these sorts of things are taking the back-assward approach. They look for things that might support their beliefs. Moreover, they're a house of cards. The only way you think death number 91 is possible is if you think the Clintons are capable of the 90 that preceded it. Stunningly bad logic.

I'm not saying I think the list is that high. I'm sure some can be explained away quite logically, but to rule them all out completely, for whatever reasons you have, is just as illogical as automatically assuming all 91 are possible beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm just keeping an extremely open mind towards the fact that they are people with a lot of power, which means they have a lot to lose, more than the average person. The more you have to lose, the more you will do to fight for it. Nobody can sit there with a straight face and say the Clintons aren't corrupt and expect people to look upon them with any degree of sanity. I'm not saying Trump is incapable of that and I'm not saying Bush is incapable of that, but sometimes too many coincidences add up to something bigger.

The fact that you said you would "find a former CIA head more inclined" to do something like that is getting to the heart of the matter here. There are different degrees of people, so rationalizing complete innocence on the part of the Clintons because you can't see them having someone killed is not rationalizing it on the part of the Clintons. You're rationalizing it based on your own convictions and how you view Bill and Hillary, not how they really are.

Again, I'm not saying that they had 91 people killed. I'm saying I lean more towards the side of the fence where it's possible they've had people rubbed out to save their own asses.

I'd kill someone who did something to my daughter, or at least come very close to. Now picture how much the Clintons have to lose, including what they provide for in regards to Chelsea. If you push a man against a fence and exploit his mortality and innocence, you will see what a man will sometimes do to fight for his survival.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7310
  • Gender: Male
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #100 on: August 12, 2016, 12:17:40 PM »
el Barto is right about one thing:  you can't use the existence of the event as proof of the event itself.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 17752
  • Bad Craziness
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #101 on: August 12, 2016, 12:37:06 PM »
I'm not saying I think the list is that high. I'm sure some can be explained away quite logically, but to rule them all out completely, for whatever reasons you have, is just as illogical as automatically assuming all 91 are possible beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm just keeping an extremely open mind towards the fact that they are people with a lot of power, which means they have a lot to lose, more than the average person. The more you have to lose, the more you will do to fight for it. Nobody can sit there with a straight face and say the Clintons aren't corrupt and expect people to look upon them with any degree of sanity. I'm not saying Trump is incapable of that and I'm not saying Bush is incapable of that, but sometimes too many coincidences add up to something bigger.
I haven't ruled them all out completely. I'm saying that the list itself is fucking stupid. By all means, please, point out a reasonable example that can stand on its own with out the presumption of them being murders.

And by the way, as somebody who's convinced that Hillary just got away with treason, despite the evidence being presented for all to see, why do feel they need to have people killed to cover up their wrong-doings?

Quote
The fact that you said you would "find a former CIA head more inclined" to do something like that is getting to the heart of the matter here. There are different degrees of people, so rationalizing complete innocence on the part of the Clintons because you can't see them having someone killed is not rationalizing it on the part of the Clintons. You're rationalizing it based on your own convictions and how you view Bill and Hillary, not how they really are.
Nope. Never said anything of the sort. I said I didn't suspect Bush of any murders. I haven't cleared the Clintons of anything. I said that they probably are capable of it. I think they're bad people. I'm just not accusing them of numerous murders on the basis of their lack of ethics and some poorly written conservative jackoff fodder.

Quote
Again, I'm not saying that they had 91 people killed. I'm saying I lean more towards the side of the fence where it's possible they've had people rubbed out to save their own asses.
I agree. But I'm not making claims about any murders, though. I'm also suggesting that assuming some must have happened because others must have happened is Gomer Pyle level logic.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 39609
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #102 on: August 12, 2016, 12:50:29 PM »
It amazes me that people really buy into the Clinton Body Count nonsense. Sane, rational people who don't go in for the conspiracy theory nonsense, even. Seriously, people.
I agree.

Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13756
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #103 on: August 12, 2016, 01:14:15 PM »
The one death that I do find interesting is the one shown here earlier:

In regards to the Clinton body count that has been discussed here...

Any one hear about Seth Rich?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/

I'll throw in a more "mainstream" news source as well:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/wikileaks-offers-reward-in-killing-of-dnc-staffer-in-washington/2016/08/09/f84fcbf4-5e5b-11e6-8e45-477372e89d78_story.html

Not so much as in "clintons are behind it" but because of the whole whistleblower aspect of it and the danger these people put themselves in. 

Personally, I feel like the Clintons themselves likely have nothing to do with any of the deaths.  They are too high up the chain to be involved in things like that, however, I do believe it's conceivable that others within the realm of the Clintons (or Bushes from the past) were involved in some way, but there is no reason for me to think the Clintons have any real associations with any of the deaths that have been talked about.

Offline Prog Snob

  • Posts: 15442
  • Gender: Male
  • Resident Tolkien Geek
Re: 2016 Presidential Race v2.0: Post convention discussion.
« Reply #104 on: August 12, 2016, 01:20:02 PM »
I'm not saying I think the list is that high. I'm sure some can be explained away quite logically, but to rule them all out completely, for whatever reasons you have, is just as illogical as automatically assuming all 91 are possible beyond any reasonable doubt. I'm just keeping an extremely open mind towards the fact that they are people with a lot of power, which means they have a lot to lose, more than the average person. The more you have to lose, the more you will do to fight for it. Nobody can sit there with a straight face and say the Clintons aren't corrupt and expect people to look upon them with any degree of sanity. I'm not saying Trump is incapable of that and I'm not saying Bush is incapable of that, but sometimes too many coincidences add up to something bigger.
I haven't ruled them all out completely. I'm saying that the list itself is fucking stupid. By all means, please, point out a reasonable example that can stand on its own with out the presumption of them being murders.

And by the way, as somebody who's convinced that Hillary just got away with treason, despite the evidence being presented for all to see, why do feel they need to have people killed to cover up their wrong-doings?

I will give a good example when I get home. I don't have the time at the moment to go through my bookmarks and pull them out.

People keep saying there is no evidence against Hillary yet that has never been said. How many times has it been repeated in the other thread that evidence was actually found?
Quote
Quote
The fact that you said you would "find a former CIA head more inclined" to do something like that is getting to the heart of the matter here. There are different degrees of people, so rationalizing complete innocence on the part of the Clintons because you can't see them having someone killed is not rationalizing it on the part of the Clintons. You're rationalizing it based on your own convictions and how you view Bill and Hillary, not how they really are.
Quote
Nope. Never said anything of the sort. I said I didn't suspect Bush of any murders. I haven't cleared the Clintons of anything. I said that they probably are capable of it. I think they're bad people. I'm just not accusing them of numerous murders on the basis of their lack of ethics and some poorly written conservative jackoff fodder.

I quoted you word for word and inferred the rest of the first sentence based on what you said. The sentences after that, which you have bolded, are what your words are showing me, and you have implied a couple of times already.

Quote
Quote
Again, I'm not saying that they had 91 people killed. I'm saying I lean more towards the side of the fence where it's possible they've had people rubbed out to save their own asses.
I agree. But I'm not making claims about any murders, though. I'm also suggesting that assuming some must have happened because others must have happened is Gomer Pyle level logic.

Why is it "Gomer Pyle level logic" to assume a criminal will repeat a crime? Again, not saying they repeated it 90 times, but it's not foreign to assume that someone who would have someone killed once would shy away from doing it a couple of more times. I think there's a big difference in having it done a few times as opposed to a hundred.