Here is what I think. We are being forced into a bi-polar net
yeah - and only since the 1850's.
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by coffin_dodger » Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:29 pm
Here is what I think. We are being forced into a bi-polar net
by RocketMan » Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:46 pm
In just six minutes, Clinton manages to say all of the following:
“Here’s the thing. I like protestors, but the ones that won’t let you answer are afraid of the truth.”
“Hillary spent her time trying to get healthcare for poor kids—and who were they? Their lives matter.”
“I don’t know how you would characterize the gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped up on crack and sent them out into the street to murder other African American children. Maybe you thought they were good citizens—she didn’t.”
“You are defending the people who killed the lives you say matter. Tell the truth.”
“The reason they know it’s true is [the protestors] won’t hush. When somebody won’t hush and listen to you, that ain’t democracy. They’re afraid of the truth. Don’t you be afraid of the truth.”
“I’ll tell you another story about a place where black lives matter: Africa.”
by NeonLX » Thu Apr 07, 2016 5:59 pm
by Rory » Thu Apr 07, 2016 6:46 pm
by zangtang » Fri Apr 08, 2016 6:50 am
by Rory » Fri Apr 15, 2016 1:06 pm
KHALEK: For people who live under a rock but are listening to our show, what we’re talking about is earlier this week Bill Clinton was confronted by a couple black protesters about his wife’s super-predators comment and her support for the death penalty apparently was another sign, and a couple other things like the crime bill and welfare reform. He was disrupted at one of his rallies for her. His response was to defend everything from his presidency, the crime bill and welfare reform, and say this crazy thing about Africa, like that’s where black lives matter to us is Africa. He also defended—I think this is the most insane crazy part—is the defense of the super-predators characterization.
He said, “I don’t know how you would characterize the gang leaders, who got 13 year-old kids hopped up on crack and sent them out in the street to murder other African American children. Maybe you thought they were good citizens. She didn’t,” speaking of Hillary Clinton. Then, he accused them of defending the people, who were taking the lives of people they say matter.
So, it was so messed up and twisted, but some people have theorized it was a political calculation because the narrative has been, oh, Bill Clinton is so old. He’s getting cranky and ruining it for his wife. But there is the fact that Hillary Clinton has not apologized or said anything to address it. And on top of that, Bill Clinton barely apologized for it. He didn’t apologize for anything he actually said. Is this a signaling of the pivot if ends up in the general election towards the right and towards what they’ve always done, basically using racism or the southern strategy to get people to like her? She’s not doing as well with white voters as she was in 2008, and that’s going to be a problem in the general election. Do you think that’s a possibility that this wasn’t an accident?
WILLIAMS: Let’s map out the general election for a second. The whole demographics is destiny argument has really been a sort of linchpin of liberal thinking when it comes to elections, and the future of elections and the future of the Democratic Party, especially in places like Georgia, Texas and Florida, and all these other places. But here’s the deal. You had someone unique in 2008 and 2012. That’s a black person. You had a black person of color that led the Democratic ticket in those years. So, what you saw was not only a greater concentration of votes from black people to Democratic candidates — 95, 96, 97 percent, but you also had a greater volume of black people going out to the polls to vote for Democrats.
With Hillary Clinton on the ballot, with Bernie Sanders on the ballot, that is going to decrease. Hillary Clinton is losing youth by incredible margins to Bernie Sanders. You got to think that will probably decrease. So, you have to think about where Hillary Clinton is going to be able to make up the decline of these core voters in the Democratic coalition. Well, Ed Rendell said in an interview in a couple months ago, where already they’re going to make it up. They’re going to make it up among the country club Republicans, who are like, meh, you know I’m alright with marriage equality but just give me my money. The social issues, like the morality issues, whatever; just give me my money. This is what matters to me.
Those are the kinds of voters Hillary Clinton is going to start targeting because those are the voters, who are going to be repelled by either a Trump candidacy or a Cruz candidacy. So, to me, is this a Sister Souljah moment? For people who don’t know, how would you describe her? Like a black nationalist or whatever, poet, author, commentator from the 1992 election. Bill Clinton repudiated her on the campaign trail and ever since then the Sister Souljah moment has been known as a moment where a candidate for president can repudiate someone viewed as extreme within their party or within voting blocs that are key to their coalition. That repudiation makes him or her look good for moderate middle-of-the-road voters that might have certain concerns about certain ideological leanings.
I don’t necessarily know that this is a sort of flashpoint for that. I think that the campaign itself, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee for the Democratic Party, I think the country club Republican voter is going to get a lot of grist for them to chew on, as far as coming up with reasons to vote for a Democrat as opposed to a right wing sort of Republican.
by stillrobertpaulsen » Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:59 pm
FBI Convinces George Clooney To Wear Wire During Clinton Fundraising Dinner
April 15, 2016
Clooney leans his right lapel closer to Clinton while telling her an anecdote about how he once emailed a screenplay to someone unauthorized to read it, before asking her if she’s ever done anything similar.
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to gather evidence in their investigation of the presidential candidate’s alleged misuse of her private email server when she served as secretary of state, members of the FBI reportedly convinced actor George Clooney to wear a hidden listening device Friday night while attending a campaign fundraising dinner with Hillary Clinton.
Sources confirmed that, following weeks of intense personal lobbying that ultimately persuaded the Hollywood A-lister to secretly record Clinton, a pair of special agents met with Clooney in a dimly lit interrogation room in their San Francisco field office, where they prepared him in the hours leading up to the party. There, sources said, agents stressed to the still-reluctant celebrity that Friday evening’s event represented the government’s best opportunity yet to record the former cabinet official possibly incriminating herself.
“Look, George, I know you’re nervous, but you’re doing your country a big service,” Special Agent Carter Wilson reportedly said to a fidgeting, shirtless Clooney while using medical tape to secure the microphone wire to the actor’s chest. “Mrs. Clinton should be comfortable, relaxed, and talking freely tonight, so this is the perfect environment to get her to slip up. This mic will be recording the entire time, but you need to speak clearly, and make sure she speaks clearly, otherwise the audio might not be admissible in court.”
“And she needs to admit her part in all of it, so keep prodding her until we get what we need—just use your head so she doesn’t catch on, okay?” he continued. “The last thing we want is to have to fish you out of the bay.”
While awaiting Clinton’s arrival at the party several hours later, the visibly anxious two-time Academy Award winner—who kept the listening device concealed beneath a dress shirt and black dinner jacket—reportedly reminded himself again and again of the topics that the FBI requested he discuss with the Democratic frontrunner, as well as the list of specific names and dates they needed to hear her say.
Shortly after 8 p.m., upon spotting Clinton entering the premises, Clooney began making uneasy small talk with the former first lady, witnesses confirmed, asking her on several occasions to repeat herself more slowly while he adjusted the right side of his shirt collar. Clooney, who is said to have grown concerned that the presidential hopeful had yet to say anything revealing after an hour at the fundraiser, reportedly leaned in close to Clinton and mentioned that he had always been fascinated by computer encryption. According to sources, the comment elicited a quizzical glare from the candidate and a moment of prolonged, tense silence, which a panicking Clooney then attempted to awkwardly defuse by explaining how he had been interested in the topic ever since he read the script for his 1997 film The Peacemaker about the high-tech pursuit of nuclear weapons smugglers.
Reports indicate that a sweaty, shaking Clooney then hastily excused himself, retreated to the bathroom, and proceeded to vomit into the toilet.
“I can’t do this, I can’t do this, I can’t do this,” Clooney is reported to have said, as the sound of his hyperventilation resounded in the headphones of the FBI agents monitoring him from a van labeled “Valley Catering & Events” that sat parked outside the party. “Oh, God, she can tell something is up. I know it. I just know it.”
“She’s going to fucking kill me,” Clooney continued.
Sources confirmed that the movie star eventually returned to the party after a brief pep talk from agents speaking to him through his earpiece, a speech that, according to sources, included one agent screaming at Clooney to “fucking pull it together.” Despite steeling his nerves with several drinks and asking at least a dozen more leading questions, Clooney is said to have failed to secure any useful information from Clinton throughout the remainder of the evening and decided to leave the party before arousing any further suspicion.
“Goodbye, Madame Secretary,” Clooney said before hesitantly embracing Clinton, his heart reportedly racing as the former senator’s hand slowly ran along his back just inches from the FBI transceiver. “It’s always a pleasure talking with you.”
“And let me know if you ever want to finish that chat about Libya,” he added.
Witnesses reported that, moments later, a stone-faced Clinton whispered into the ear of her largest Secret Service agent, who intercepted Clooney on his way out and offered to escort him to his car.
by seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:04 pm
by Grizzly » Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:35 pm
by Grizzly » Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:45 pm
by Nordic » Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:46 am
Julian Assange Explains Why Voting for Hillary Clinton Will ‘Spread Terrorism’
Posted on Feb 24, 2016
dedevanderroove / CC BY 2.0
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange tells Americans that his “years of experience in dealing with Hillary Clinton” and the “thousands of her cables” he’s read have led him to a crucial conclusion: Voting for Hillary Clinton “will push the United States into endless wars which spread terrorism.”
From RT News:
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has spoken out against US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, calling her a “war hawk with bad judgment” who gets an “emotional rush out of killing people.”
“A vote today for Hillary Clinton is a vote for endless, stupid war,” Assange wrote via the @wikileaks Twitter account on Tuesday. ... Assange also highlighted Clinton’s “poor policy decisions,” which he said have “directly contributed” to the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL).
Stating that Clinton went above the heads of Pentagon generals when it came to Libya, he wrote: “Libya has been destroyed. It became a haven for ISIS. The Libyan national armory was looted and hundreds of tons of weapons were transferred to jihadists in Syria.”
He went on to state that Clinton did not learn from her mistakes, and set out to repeat history in Syria.
“Having learned nothing from the Libyan disaster Hillary then set about trying do the same in Syria. Hillary’s war has increased terrorism, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians and has set back women’s rights in the Middle East by hundreds of years,” he wrote.
by 8bitagent » Tue Apr 19, 2016 12:59 am
by Luther Blissett » Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:27 am
Release of Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Could End Her Candidacy for President
The reason you and I will never see the transcripts of Hillary Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street fat-cats — and the reason she’s established a nonsensical condition for their release, that being an agreement by members of another party, involved in a separate primary, to do the same — is that if she were ever to release those transcripts, it could end her candidacy for president.
Please don’t take my word for it, though.
Nor even that of the many neutral observers in the media who are deeply troubled by Clinton’s lack of transparency as to these well-compensated closed-door events — a lack of transparency that has actually been a hallmark of her career in politics.
Nor do we even need to take Clinton’s word for it — as we could certainly argue that her insistence that none of these transcripts ever be seen by the public is itself a confession that her words would cause significant trauma to her presidential bid.
In fact, it appears they’d cause enough trauma that Clinton would rather publicly stonewall — to the point of being conspicuously, uncomfortably evasive — in public debate after public debate, to endure damning editorial after damning editorial, and to leave thousands and thousands of voters further doubting her honesty and integrity, all to ensure that no one outside Goldman Sachs, and certainly no voter who wasn’t privy to those closed-door speeches, ever hears a word of what she said in them.
Nor should we do here what Senator Sanders kindly declined to do at the Democratic debate last night, which is mention any of the proof — voluminous as it is, as Sanders conceded in a post-debate interview that cited Elizabeth Warren’s criticisms of Clinton — that during the housing crisis Clinton acted precisely like a politician who’d been bought off by Wall Street.
As Politico has noted, “During 2007 and 2008, when the housing market collapsed and while [Clinton] was also running for president, the Democrats controlled the Senate. Of the 140 bills Clinton introduced during that period, five [3.5%] were related to housing finance or foreclosures, according to congressional records, including one aimed at making it easier for homeowners facing foreclosure to get their loans modified. Only one of the five secured any co-sponsors — New York Senator Charles Schumer signed onto a bill that would have helped veterans refinance their mortgages.”
Two years. One legitimate bill. And even then, only one co-sponsor — a same-state Senator.
When a Congressional bill gets no co-sponsors, either it’s an unserious bill or it’s a bill whose sponsor did nothing to push it. Neither possibility is in Clinton’s favor.
But enough of that.
The real experts on this topic are the friends and acquaintances of Hillary’s who, for whatever reason, have chosen to be candid about what they believe is in those speeches. And it’s only that candor that helps explain the longest-running mystery of the Democratic primary — a mystery that’s been ongoing for over seventy days — which is this: why would anyone pay $225,000 for an hour-long speech by a private citizen who (at the time) claimed to have no interest in returning to politics?
Mr. Sanders has implied that there are only two possible answers: (a) the money wasn’t for the speeches themselves, but for the influence major institutional players on Wall Street thought that money could buy them if and when Clinton ran for President; or (b) the speeches laid out a defense of Wall Street greed so passionate and total that hearing it uttered by a person of power and influence was worth every penny.
Per Clinton surrogates and attendees at these speeches, the answer appears to be both (a) and (b).
Here’s a compilation of what those close to Clinton and/or the institutions that paid her obscene sums to chat with them are saying about those never-to-be-released speeches:
1. Former Nebraska Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey (Clinton surrogate)“Making the transcripts of the Goldman speeches public would have been devastating....[and] when the GOP gets done telling the Clinton Global Initiative fund-raising and expense story, Bernie supporters will wonder why he didn’t do the same....[As for] the email story, it’s not about emails. It is about [Hillary] wanting to avoid the reach of citizens using the Freedom of Information Act to find out what their government is doing, and then not telling the truth about why she did.”
2. Goldman Sachs Employee #1 (present at one of the speeches)“[The speech] was pretty glowing about [Goldman Sachs]. It’s so far from what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a ‘rah-rah’ speech. She sounded more like a Goldman Sachs managing director.”
3. Goldman Sachs Employee #2 (present at one of the speeches)“In this environment, [what she said to us at Goldman Sachs] could be made to look really bad.”
4. Goldman Sachs Executive or Client #1 (present at one of the speeches)“Mrs. Clinton didn’t single out bankers or any other group for causing the 2008 financial crisis. Instead, she effectively said, ‘We’re all in this together, we’ve got to find our way out of it together.’”
5. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From The Wall Street Journal“She didn’t often talk about the financial crisis, but when she did, she almost always struck an amicable tone. In some cases, she thanked the audience for what they had done for the country. One attendee said the warmth with which Mrs. Clinton greeted guests bordered on ‘gushy.’ She spoke sympathetically about the financial industry.”
6. Goldman Sachs Employee #3 (present at one of the speeches)“It was like, ‘Here’s someone who doesn’t want to vilify us but wants to get business back in the game. Like, maybe here’s someone who can lead us out of the wilderness.’”
7. Paraphrase of Several Attendees’ Accounts From Politico“Clinton offered a message that the collected plutocrats found reassuring, declaring that the banker-bashing so popular within both political parties was unproductive and indeed foolish. Striking a soothing note on the global financial crisis, she told the audience, ‘We all got into this mess together, and we’re all going to have to work together to get out of it.’”
Did we, though, “All get into the mess together”?
Would middle-class voters considering voting for Hillary Clinton in New York on Tuesday take kindly to the idea that the Great Recession was equally their own and Goldman Sachs’ fault? How would that play in the Bronx?
Lest anyone suspect that Clinton doesn’t release the transcripts because she’s not permitted to do so under a non-disclosure agreement, think again: Buzzfeed has confirmed that Clinton owns the rights to the transcripts, and notes, moreover, that according to industry insiders even if there were speeches to which Clinton did not hold the rights, no institution on Wall Street would allow themselves to be caught trying to block their release.
And Politico and The Wall Street Journal have reported exactly the same information about Clinton’s ability to release these speech transcripts unilaterally.
The problem with the quotes above is not merely their content — which suggests a presidential candidate not only “gushingly” fond of Wall Street speculators but unwilling to admonish them even to the smallest degree — but also that they reveal Clinton to have been dishonest about that content with American voters.
Last night in Brooklyn Mrs. Clinton said, “I did stand up to the banks. I did make it clear that their behavior would not be excused.”
Yet not a single attendee at any of Mrs. Clinton’s quarter-of-a-million-dollar speeches can recall her doing anything of the sort.
Release of the transcripts would therefore, it appears, have three immediate — and possibly fatal — consequences for Clinton’s presidential campaign:
- It would reveal that Clinton lied about the content of the speeches at a time when she suspected she would never have to release them, nor that their content would ever be known to voters.
- It would reveal that the massive campaign and super-PAC contributions Clinton has received from Wall Street did indeed, as Sanders has alleged, influence her ability to get tough on Wall Street malfeasance either in Congress or behind closed doors.
- It would reveal that Clinton’s policy positions on — for instance — breaking up “too-big-to-fail” banks are almost certainly insincere, as they have been trotted out merely for the purposes of a presidential campaign.
In a nation whose economy nearly collapsed just a few years ago because of precisely the people and institutions Clinton is now “gushy” toward, it’s not hard to imagine the three revelations above being enough to cost Clinton the primary in New York and thereafter, at a minimum, the votes in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and California.
Coupled with the many states remaining that Senator Sanders is expected to win, this could leave Clinton in a situation in which she loses 22 of the final 25 states — enough of a collapse for unpledged super-delegates to abandon her in large numbers at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
Certainly, it’s hard to understand how any super-delegate could cast a ballot for Clinton in Philadelphia without knowing, first, what the candidate actually believes about protecting America from another greed-driven Great Recession — or worse.
by 82_28 » Tue Apr 19, 2016 11:53 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests
