RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Fri Jul 20, 2018 1:07 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 836 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 34  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:30 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:12 pm
Posts: 6342
Location: Inland Northwest
Drumpf Pants on Fire
http://www.politifact.com/personalities ... re/?page=1

Hillary Pants on Fire
http://www.politifact.com/personalities ... ants-fire/

_________________
E pluribus unum
In God We Trust


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 8:45 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11210
Location: Sunny South Florida
The thing about the PolitiFact methodology, which I agree is not flawless, is that basically they only check statements by politicians that have attracted a lot of challenge and/or controversy as to their "truthiness". They don't check everything they say. With some rather routine, humdrum stuff no one's likely to lie about, why bother?

Let's say Tweedledee has said 20 controversial things that a lot of people were very skeptical of. They checked them all out, and found 10 were abject "Pants on Fire" lies. 50%.
Let's say Tweedledum just isn't in the habit of doing the same thing. However, they made 10 statements that their opponents were very skeptical of. They examined them, and found around 4 were "Pants on Fire". So only 40%.

I understand they haven't checked the same number of statements for Dee and Dum, and I agree that this isn't the most scientific sampling method, but we're dealing with human behavior in naturalistic settings where you can't do controlled experiments. ;)

I still think it's fair to note the differences between Dee and Dum. ;)

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 04, 2016 9:24 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 12178
Watching Hillary speaking, SS rushes the stage for some reason, she doesnt flinch



http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016 ... ly-sot.cnn
If that happened to idiot boy he would have cowered instantly
Jesus, watched again, this Woman is fearless. Has that look on her face, that incident and that look just sold me if I wasnt already.

_________________
trea·son - the crime of betraying one's country
pa·tri·ot·ism - the quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 10:39 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 6478
Poll finds Clinton has widened lead ahead of Trump to 8 points

By Dan Balz and Scott Clement

Hillary Clinton has emerged from the two major party conventions and their aftermath with an eight-point lead over Donald Trump, aided by a consolidation of support among Democrats and a failure so far by Republicans to rally equally behind their nominee, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2016 6:45 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 6478
Ex-Mich. GOP Gov. Milliken endorses Clinton over Trump

Lansing — Former Michigan Gov. William Milliken, a Republican who in recent years has increasingly backed Democrats, is endorsing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for president.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/p ... /88386972/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:22 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:12 pm
Posts: 6342
Location: Inland Northwest
Send in the trolls. Now I'm seeing posts in other forums that are saying that Hillary has epilepsy. And at the campaign event (where the Secret Service rushed the stage) one of her staff had an injectable pen and that it's full of Diazepam. They're pushing that she's unfit because of that.

I nailed one asshat. I told him that the 1st use for Diazepam is for anxiety, not epilepsy. And that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. I asked him if he has epilepsy. Crickets. IOW, he's full of shit.

_________________
E pluribus unum
In God We Trust


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:31 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 12178
Send in the trolls. Now I'm seeing posts in other forums that are saying that Hillary has epilepsy. And at the campaign event (where the Secret Service rushed the stage) one of her staff had an injectable pen and that it's full of Diazepam. They're pushing that she's unfit because of that.

I nailed one asshat. I told him that the 1st use for Diazepam is for anxiety, not epilepsy. And that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. I asked him if he has epilepsy. Crickets. IOW, he's full of shit.

Look, they hate her and they are willing to end all life on the planet to see a frown on her face on election night.

We are a deeply, severely, badly, probably suicidal society.
And the reason that is a big deal is we have THOUSANDS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

_________________
trea·son - the crime of betraying one's country
pa·tri·ot·ism - the quality of being patriotic; vigorous support for one's country.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 12:51 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:46 pm
Posts: 5100
Location: Treasure Coast, Florida & Fairfield County, Connecticut
Poll finds Clinton has widened lead ahead of Trump to 8 points

By Dan Balz and Scott Clement

Hillary Clinton has emerged from the two major party conventions and their aftermath with an eight-point lead over Donald Trump, aided by a consolidation of support among Democrats and a failure so far by Republicans to rally equally behind their nominee, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html


:arrow: One thing we cannot do is be too complacent right now. Sure Hillary is ahead by double digits in the polls and all, but we have to keep our eye on the ball....as an example Michael Dukakis was ahead by upwards of 18 pts at this point in the 1988 election, and we all know what happened there.

_________________
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.
~Franklin D. Roosevelt~


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:06 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16646
IliseHD wrote:
:arrow: One thing we cannot do is be too complacent right now. Sure Hillary is ahead by double digits in the polls and all, but we have to keep our eye on the ball....as an example Michael Dukakis was ahead by upwards of 18 pts at this point in the 1988 election, and we all know what happened there.


Who is "we"? I thought you're no longer associated with us D reprobates.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 2:00 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10084
Carmenjonze, one could get a mite bit carried away with that petty kind of carrying on.

Welcome back IliseHD. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 3:21 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:46 pm
Posts: 5100
Location: Treasure Coast, Florida & Fairfield County, Connecticut
Carmenjonze, one could get a mite bit carried away with that petty kind of carrying on.

Welcome back IliseHD. :)



:arrow: Thank you Sam. ;)

_________________
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.
~Franklin D. Roosevelt~


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 5:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16646
Carmenjonze, one could get a mite bit carried away with that petty kind of carrying on.

Welcome back IliseHD. :)


Why not let her answer for herself without an interloper?

It's a valid question, since not too much earlier IliseHD just made a big show of proclaiming to leave the D's for the I's.

Instead of threatening to leave, just leave and be done with it, cripes.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 6:33 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:12 pm
Posts: 6342
Location: Inland Northwest

Why not let her answer for herself without an interloper?

It's a valid question, since not too much earlier IliseHD just made a big show of proclaiming to leave the D's for the I's.

Instead of threatening to leave, just leave and be done with it, cripes.
Who died and made you Queen?

_________________
E pluribus unum
In God We Trust


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 6:56 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16646
I don't remember needing a claim to royalty to state an opinion. If disaffected Bernie voters want to leave the party, no one is making them stay, TMK.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:57 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10084

Why not let her answer for herself without an interloper?

It's a valid question, since not too much earlier IliseHD just made a big show of proclaiming to leave the D's for the I's.

Instead of threatening to leave, just leave and be done with it, cripes.


I didn't answer, or prevent her from answering your stupid question.

You got your "bye" in over in the Sanders thread at 10:03: viewtopic.php?p=313691#p313696 Your point was made.

What I was doing was busting your chops for moving that snipe over into this thread at 10:06 to troll a fellow member.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 8:11 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16646
You got your "bye" in over in the Sanders thread at 10:03: viewtopic.php?p=313691#p313696 Your point was made.


Yes, I made it again in this thread too, with a question. And?

You don't have to agree with either the point or the asking of the question.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 8:24 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36035
Who died and made you Queen?

Out of bounds, Izzy.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 9:44 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 16646
Thomas Frank poisons the well

With Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton - Guardian

Quote:
As leading Republicans desert the sinking ship of Trump’s GOP, America’s two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Party office-holders selected Clinton as their candidate long ago, apparently determined to elevate her despite every possible objection, every potential legal problem. The Democratic National Committee helped out, too, as WikiLeaks tells us. So did President Barack Obama, that former paladin for openness, who in the past several years did nearly everything in his power to suppress challenges to Clinton and thus ensure she would continue his legacy of tepid, bank-friendly neoliberalism.

My leftist friends persuaded themselves that this stuff didn’t really matter, that Clinton’s many concessions to Sanders’ supporters were permanent concessions. But with the convention over and the struggle with Sanders behind her, headlines show Clinton triangulating to the right, scooping up the dollars and the endorsement, and the elites shaken loose in the great Republican wreck.

She is reaching out to the foreign policy establishment and the neocons. She is reaching out to Republican office-holders. She is reaching out to Silicon Valley. And, of course, she is reaching out to Wall Street. In her big speech in Michigan on Thursday she cast herself as the candidate who could bring bickering groups together and win policy victories through really comprehensive convenings.

Things will change between now and November, of course. But what seems most plausible from the current standpoint is a landslide for Clinton, and with it the triumph of complacent neoliberal orthodoxy. She will have won her great victory, not as a champion of working people’s concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all, as the leader of a stately campaign of sanity and national unity. The populist challenge of the past eight years, whether led by Trump or by Sanders, will have been beaten back resoundingly. Centrism will reign triumphant over the Democratic party for years to come. This will be her great accomplishment. The bells will ring all over Washington DC.

In this ironic and roundabout way, Trump may prove to be a disaster for the reform politics he has never really believed in. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a leader who could discredit populism more thoroughly than this compassion-free billionaire. For Friedman’s beloved “elites”, I predict that Trump will come to serve an important symbolic purpose. Trump loves to boast that he is immune to the scourge of money in politics, that he’s nobody’s puppet, and from his coming ruin and disgrace we will no doubt be told to draw many lessons about how money in politics actually helps prevent the rise of people like Trump and makes the system more stable.

For decades, the Davos set have told us that doubt about “globalization” was a species of racism, and soon Trump, as a landslide loser, will confirm this for them in overwhelming terms.

My friends and I like to wonder about who will be the “next Bernie Sanders”, but what I am suggesting here is that whoever emerges to lead the populist left will simply be depicted as the next Trump. The billionaire’s scowling country-club face will become the image of populist reform, whether genuine populists had anything to do with him or not. This is the real potential disaster of 2016: That legitimate economic discontent is going to be dismissed as bigotry and xenophobia for years to come.


This is an odd claim. Economic discontent can't ever be divorced from demographics, because it never has been. All those anti-Black race riots in the 20th century where whites torched Black parts of town were ostensibly about white class mobility anxiety and having to compete with African Americans. But they were invariably started with some rumor about some Black guy and a white woman.

Analyses like Franks do a lot to sidestep the Confederate flags that keep popping up at these rallies and the Kla and white nationalists who see an opportunity in a Trump presidency. But evidently, some corners still don't have an adequate analysis of bigotry, xenophobia, demographics, perceived sexuality, and economics.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 13, 2016 9:50 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36035
Thomas Frank poisons the well

With Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton - Guardian



This is an odd claim. Economic discontent can't ever be divorced from demographics, because it never has been. All those anti-Black race riots in the 20th century where whites torched Black parts of town were ostensibly about white class mobility anxiety and having to compete with African Americans. But they were invariably started with some rumor about some Black guy and a white woman.

Analyses like Franks do a lot to sidestep the Confederate flags that keep popping up at these rallies and the Kla and white nationalists who see an opportunity in a Trump presidency. But evidently, some corners still don't have an adequate analysis of bigotry, xenophobia, demographics, perceived sexuality, and economics.

I disagree with Thomas Frank. Too bad, he's a friend of mine.

_________________
glenfs, July 4, 2018:

"You would think that after 8 years of hearing allegations against Bill C and another 8 against President Obama you people would have learned that 90% of those types of allegations just aren't true."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:45 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11210
Location: Sunny South Florida
Trump only discredits right populism, but then it never had much going for it.

Progressive populism is still alive, but then this is why we need to differentiate one from the other.

Accurate terminology matters, especially in politics, because we need to be clear on what various faction's positions actually are.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 4:24 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 5475
Location: San Francisco
Speaking of terminology, saw this circulating on FB. I find this to be apologist nonsense.

https://www.brookings.edu/2016/08/12/wh ... president/
Quote:
In the end, Clinton as president will likely continue to defy the labels of hawk or dove and continue to annoy advocates of both approaches. She may at times be more tempted than her predecessor to reach into the tool kit and pull out a military instrument to push back on enemies and adversaries.

But like her predecessor, she will not risk her political standing unless she is convinced that there is a strong case for how such an intervention will both improve the situation on the ground and meet with the approval of the American public. In the next four years, such cases will be few and far between.


I think it's a bridge too far to start calling her a "war monger," or anything of the sort, but she is certainly relatively hawkish as far as the Democratic orthodoxy goes. The article asserts that because she wants to be a domestic President, she will reserve her political capital.

I don't think anybody really intends to be a foreign policy President, but, shit happens. She's made the no fly zone a substantial part of her foreign policy comments in this campaign. Something which is by definition, an escalation of force over the Obama policy. And something which could bring military conflict with Russia if (somehow) implemented.

It's also odd to give Clinton the credit for negotiating with Iran, when as Sec. State she acts at the behest of President; it's literally the job description to be the chief diplomat; but more importantly it was a policy she opposed while running as a candidate in 2007/8.

FB comments, in all their wisdom, were saying things like "a man with her record wouldn't face any criticism." This is mind numbingly stupid and intellectually lazy. How many male politicians have been criticized for supporting the Iraq war? Was that criticism not a central pillar of Sen. Obama's primary campaign?

Moreover, the convention's focus on American exceptionalism makes me more inclined to be cautious regarding a Clinton foreign policy outlook. I understand the drift to the right in the context of trying to woo Republican voters uneasy with Trump, but let's not go overboard.

Also, I'm not so sure I'd be so eagerly passing around Brookings material after the recent NYT allegations.

_________________
'''Greed: It ain't goin anywhere,' they should have that across a big billboard in Times Square!"
Joe Strummer
1952-2002


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:00 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:12 pm
Posts: 6342
Location: Inland Northwest
^ I don't watch TYT. What did they say about Brookings?

_________________
E pluribus unum
In God We Trust


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:15 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11210
Location: Sunny South Florida
*N*YT, Izzy. He was probably referring to this story from the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/us/po ... .html?_r=0

Well, all I can say is, if she's the war hawk, she's not the one proposing to send several thousand ground troops to fight ISIS on the basis of a secret plan to wipe them out which won't be revealed until after the election. (Now, look, I get it. You don't say exactly what divisions you're sending to what targets on what day. I absolutely get that, loose lips sink ships and all that. But, not even the general outlines of this plan? Reminds me of Nixon's "secret" plan to win the Vietnam war - he didn't have one, except to bomb the crap out of North Vietnam, and neighboring countries.)

Or that the DoD authorize use of torture (again) and killing of terrorist family members and further violations of the Geneva Conventions.

The biggest irony? Just about all of his plans to go after ISIS are already being done by "ISIS' Founder" :roll: Barack Obama.

Now, there was a real gem in there. Anybody think there might have been a problem if the U.S. seized all of Iraq's oil in 2011 before we removed troops? That was what Trump said we should have done -- taken all of Iraq's oil under our possession/control before leaving. I'm glad he's the anti-imperialist. :roll:

Don't know why he keeps lying about opposing the Iraq War in 2002-3, when it's clear he didn't, his first negative statements are from 2004, when things were starting to go south. Or forgetting his running mate supported it.

Trump's foreign policy speech was - probably under "orders" from Manafort - for once delivered in the voice of a statesman, with a minimum of petty insults, bombast, and spurious reality invention. It's only when you get to the details that you realize it's the same old crap, just dressed to sound a bit more reasonable. So we are going to give everyone entering the U.S. from unspecified Muslim countries some kind of "ideological test" to get in? The devil is definitely in those details.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2016 3:43 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 6478
Do it!

FBI Just Threatened The Entire Republican Party With Prosecution

The Republican Party has been squirming to find anything incriminating on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in order to derail her presidential campaign and their obsession with her emails is now the stuff of legends. Despite the fact the the FBI has conducted an investigation and found no criminal intent by Clinton, the Republican Party continues to come after her, especially in the wake of Trump’s miserably failing campaign.

http://newcenturytimes.com/2016/08/17/f ... osecution/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 6:46 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:45 am
Posts: 6478
:evil:

Richardson Couple: Someone Killed Our Dog Over Clinton Sign

RICHARDSON (CBSDFW.COM) – A Richardson couple thinks a series of cruel attacks on their home is the result of a Hillary Clinton campaign sign in their front yard.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/08/23/crue ... c.facebook


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 836 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 ... 34  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group