- This topic has 128 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 6 months ago by
njtosd.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 1, 2016 at 7:11 AM #801711October 1, 2016 at 7:14 AM #801712
SK in CV
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
The “Faustian bargain” refers to the several that HRC made with her so-called “spouse” over the years. Certainly, you knew that. But maybe not. Maybe you’re not as smart as I originally thought you were, SK.[/quote]There is zero chance that you were referring to Hillary Clinton making a faustian bargain. But great deflection there.
And you really can’t help yourself, can you? You can’t write a comment without insulting women. You and Trump are made for each other.
October 1, 2016 at 7:17 AM #801713Anonymous
Guest[quote=bearishgurl]It’s not just me, pri_dk. It’s SK at CV. He appears to have a LOT at stake in this issue. After all, it’s “personal” with him. He said so.[/quote]
SK is talking about the issue of women’s rights.
You (and Trump) are talking about an individual person.
“Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”
October 3, 2016 at 11:37 AM #801735FlyerInHi
GuestBG, here’s an interview from 1997 where 19yo Machado stands up for herself against Trump. Remember has Trump has a lot more power.
You should watch Machado on Spanish language TV. She’s well spoken. Some immigrants just don’t learn English that well.
BTW, Trump never took care of himself and went downhill fast. he’s a 4 in that video.
Edit:
Here’s John Oliver”s take.
https://youtu.be/LXb0dui43dAOctober 3, 2016 at 9:18 PM #801776njtosd
Participant[quote=SK in CV]
To steal another’s words, she had the grace to hold herself, while those around her crawled.[/quote]
Now you’ve become entirely maudlin. That’s one of the most cringe-inducing lines I’ve seen in these threads. She’s a better choice than Trump, but she’s no prize pig, She also stood by while her husband did many of the things you accuse Trump of.
October 3, 2016 at 9:47 PM #801777Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=SK in CV]
To steal another’s words, she had the grace to hold herself, while those around her crawled.[/quote]
Now you’ve become entirely maudlin. That’s one of the most cringe-inducing lines I’ve seen in these threads. She’s a better choice than Trump, but she’s no prize pig, She also stood by while her husband did many of the things you accuse Trump of.[/quote]
Look, I disagree with a lot of her politics, and seriously question whether she will be the president of the policies that are currently part of her platform. But the woman has spent three decades being hounded by the press. She’s the most vetted candidate to ever run for president. She’s been accused of scores of things that either never happened, or what she did do has been twisted into something that wasn’t even close to the truth. Yet she stands there and still takes it. She doesn’t lose her cool. And she is always prepared.
Yeah, she stood by her husband. Trump never had a wife that thought he was good enough to fight for. If anyone thinks faults shared by Trump and Clinton make them equal, they’ve missed a lot. Those faults are the worst thing about Bill Clinton. They don’t even make the top 10 for Trump.
And yeah, I threw up a little bit as I typed that line. But that doesn’t mean they’re not true.
October 4, 2016 at 11:26 AM #801802Participant[quote=SK in CV] . . . . She’s been accused of scores of things that either never happened, or what she did do has been twisted into something that wasn’t even close to the truth. Yet she stands there and still takes it. She doesn’t lose her cool. And she is always prepared.
Yeah, she stood by her husband. Trump never had a wife that thought he was good enough to fight for. If anyone thinks faults shared by Trump and Clinton make them equal, they’ve missed a lot. Those faults are the worst thing about Bill Clinton. They don’t even make the top 10 for Trump.
And yeah, I threw up a little bit as I typed that line. But that doesn’t mean they’re not true.[/quote]
She’s not squeaky clean. She’s a scrapper and frankly, does have a lot of “stamina.” But that doesn’t make her a girl scout. In my opinion, the cattle futures trading issue was HIGHLY unlikely to have been legit. She made the equivalent of $330,000 in 2016 dollars in *10 months* on a $3000 (in 2016 dollars) investment. Many of the investment laws and regs were not scrupulously followed, although that was not terribly unusual at the time. From wikipedia: “The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, “This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks.”
You seem to have an emotional attachment to Hillary that keeps you from seeing her “warts and all” as the saying goes. There are no politicians out there that are worth quoting Elton John over. They have their goals, and we vote for the ones whose goals come closest to ours. But that doesn’t make any of them Mother Theresa.
October 4, 2016 at 12:09 PM #801803Participant[quote=njtosd]
She’s not squeaky clean. She’s a scrapper and frankly, does have a lot of “stamina.” But that doesn’t make her a girl scout. In my opinion, the cattle futures trading issue was HIGHLY unlikely to have been legit. She made the equivalent of $330,000 in 2016 dollars in *10 months* on a $3000 (in 2016 dollars) investment. Many of the investment laws and regs were not scrupulously followed, although that was not terribly unusual at the time. From wikipedia: “The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, “This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks.”You seem to have an emotional attachment to Hillary that keeps you from seeing her “warts and all” as the saying goes. There are no politicians out there that are worth quoting Elton John over. They have their goals, and we vote for the ones whose goals come closest to ours. But that doesn’t make any of them Mother Theresa.[/quote]
It’s funny, I don’t actually have any kind of emotional attachment to her. 18 months ago I was hoping it would be almost anyone but her. Almost any Dem would have supported the political issues I care about most. She adapted her platform sufficiently to become acceptable to me.
The cattle futures thing was a long time ago. She made no claims that she did it by herself, she was getting advice from a professional. It wasn’t overnight, it was 10 months and dozens and dozens of trades. The only accusations of wrong doing was that profitable trades were made and then subsequently put into her account. Except there was no evidence this ever happened, and quite a bit of evidence that in some of her most profitable trades, it couldn’t have happened. And that she had some margin concessions that weren’t given to everyone. Investigations found no wrongdoing. Like every single investigation into her and her husband, no finding of wrongdoing, with the exception of a blow job.
October 4, 2016 at 4:14 PM #801810Participant[quote=SK in CV]. Investigations found no wrongdoing. Like every single investigation into her and her husband, no finding of wrongdoing, with the exception of a blow job.[/quote]
My impression was that there was never an official investigation – if you are aware of something I would be curious. Unofficial investigations are limited in their ability to unearth info that the investigated person doesn’t want to turn over. Both the Washington Post and the NYT, usually very pro Dem, were pretty critical, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/30/us/hillary-clinton-turned-1000-into-99540-white-house-says.html?pagewanted=all
They are a slick couple – both very bright. But I don’t trust them – there’s too much smoke for there to be no fire at all, although I don’t know whether they are any worse than any others. I get the feeling that they both think they are smart enough to misdirect or befuddle the average American.
October 4, 2016 at 4:44 PM #801811Guest[quote]They are a slick couple – both very bright. But I don’t trust them […][/quote]
So you’ll choose the platter of shit because you aren’t sure how the chicken was prepared?
What’s the Clintons’ objective in being “slick?”
Personal wealth? Sure they’ve made a bunch. They aren’t the wealthiest, but they’re comfortable. Of course they worked their way from middle class to perhaps the most powerful couple alive, so it’s rather incidental that they made some money along the way.
You don’t trust them to do what? … implement the policies they say they’re going to implement? They have a thirty year record of implementing these policies – do you think Hillary was just trying to trick us all along until the day she gets in the White House?
The Clintons’ record of abusing power is nonexistent relative to their legislative and public service record. They’ve accomplished a tremendous amount – as much as anybody alive today – and the worst they did along the way is pass out a few favors to friends and make a few million dollars through connections. All pretty benign for someone who was the most powerful man on the planet for nearly a decade.
Now what the fuck is Trump going to do? God only knows. Literally, because I doubt even Trump himself knows. He has no track record except to collect as much wealth and power as possible, flaunt it with gaudy trophies, and obsess over how he is perceived.
Clinton’s worst trait is that her agenda is predictable to the point of being boring. But it’s an agenda that will continue down the same path of steady progress we’ve seen from the last administration.
Trump’s agenda is no doubt more interesting since nobody has a clue what it really is. There’s a real chance he could do some absurdly dangerous things. But there’s that hope again…
October 4, 2016 at 4:46 PM #801812bearishgurl
Participant[quote=SK in CV] . . . with the exception of a blow job.[/quote]Umm, make that hundreds (thousands?) of blow jobs over a period of at least 22 years. Actually, I haven’t read Stone’s latest book. They could be ongoing for all we know.
And no, I don’t blame Hill for any of this as she wasn’t involved … :=0
Does any Pigg know if there are at least two MBR suites in the White House that the Clinton’s could avail themselves of . . . that is, should they ever find themselves moving back in?
October 4, 2016 at 5:08 PM #801813Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV] . . . with the exception of a blow job.[/quote]Umm, make that hundreds (thousands?) of blow jobs over a period of at least 22 years. [/quote]
No, a single blow job. That’s it.
October 4, 2016 at 5:10 PM #801814zk
Participant[quote=njtosd]
Both the Washington Post and the NYT, usually very pro Dem
[/quote]
and
[quote=njtosd]
But I don’t trust them – there’s too much smoke for there to be no fire at all, [/quote]Wow. Here is the right-wing noise machine working its magic.
They tell you over and over again that the msm is “very pro dem.” So you believe it.
They have no fire to show you, so they use innuendo and half-truth to create the illusion of smoke, and you say there must be fire.
If you get trump, you deserve him.
October 4, 2016 at 5:11 PM #801815Participant[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV] . . . with the exception of a blow job.[/quote]Umm, make that hundreds (thousands?) of blow jobs over a period of at least 22 years. [/quote]
No, a single blow job. That’s it.[/quote]If you say so . . . :=]
October 4, 2016 at 5:27 PM #801816Participant[quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl][quote=SK in CV] . . . with the exception of a blow job.[/quote]Umm, make that hundreds (thousands?) of blow jobs over a period of at least 22 years. [/quote]
No, a single blow job. That’s it.[/quote]If you say so . . . :=][/quote]
You’re aware of formal investigations that came up with blow jobs other than Monica Lewinsky? Is it material if there were more? Is it more material if a spouse of a candidate got blow jobs or the actual candidate himself? Because Trump has dozens of stories, including many he’s admitted to himself, both while he was married, and with married women. I’m pretty sure neither one has any effect on my vote. But i’m pretty sure it would on other people’s. We’ll probably find out in the next 2 weeks.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.