Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Rory » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:30 pm

https://shadowproof.com/2016/11/02/clin ... gulations/

Memos prepared by legal counsel for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign reveal how the campaign developed workarounds so it could coordinate with a network of pro-Clinton super political action committees or Super PACs. The memos were explicitly developed to ensure regulators at the Federal Election Commission (FEC) would not detect any signs of unethical practices.

While the workarounds may not necessarily be illegal as a result of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, they clearly undermine campaign finance law, and for those concerned about the influence of money in politics, the policies developed show how candidates can easily game the system.

The documents, produced by Marc Elias of Perkins Coie LLP, were attached to emails from the Clinton campaign, which were published by WikiLeaks. They were drafted on April 1, 2015, before Clinton officially launched her presidential campaign.

Perkins Coie recommended, “Secretary Clinton and her agents to make a hard solicitation for $5,000,” when discussing any Super PAC with prospective donors. Super PACs and their personnel would be free to “follow up with the donor—that day or at any other time of their choosing – to ask for additional funds, without any participation by Secretary Clinton or her agents.”

The campaign also asked for a procedure that would permit Clinton and anyone working for her to “discuss Super PACs with prospective donors without making a solicitation for money.” But the law firm the campaign hired advised against this approach and noted there was a “legally prescribed way for the Secretary and her agents to attend Super PAC fundraising events.”

In this “alternative approach,” Clinton and “her agents” could appear at fundraising events and openly discuss the “political objectives” of the Super PAC. Clinton and anyone representing the campaign would be “featured speakers” or “special guests.” They would not directly solicit contributions for the Super PAC. They would not publicize fundraising events.

“To avoid any risk that the statement made by the Secretary or her agents would be construed as a solicitation, a notice should be prominently displayed at the entrance to the event or a card placed on every table,” Elias advised.

The developed disclaimer read:

Solicitations by federal candidates and officeholders are limited by federal law. Any federal candidates or officeholders speaking tonight will not be soliciting donations, or will be soliciting only donations of up to $5000 from individuals and multi-candidate political committees. They will not be soliciting donations of any amount from corporations, labor organizations, foreign nationals, federal contractors, or national banks.

In a separate memo, “Super PACs,” Elias contended the mere fact that a disclaimer was displayed made it possible for Clinton to “make a general request for funds without reference to any dollar amount or source.”

“While the Secretary does not have to repeat this disclaimer in one-on-one conversations with event guests, the Secretary may not encourage them to disregard the notice nor may the Secretary ever ask for contributions in excess of the applicable limit or from prohibited sources.”

This way, if a donor who attended a fundraising event donated far more than $5,000, the act could not be directly connected to the remarks of Clinton, even though that fundraising event may have played a critical role in that donor’s decision to support Clinton substantially.

Despite the historical nature of meetings between potential donors and presidential candidates, Elias maintained the campaign could avoid scrutiny by insisting contributions were not expected as a “condition” or “appropriate response” to the “opportunity to meet with the Secretary or her agents for this political discussion.”

It would be made clear there was no “expectation whatsoever by the Secretary or her agents that the donor make a contribution of any amount to the PAC” or that the meeting was a “fundraising meeting organized to support the fundraising objectives of the PAC.”

Through this arrangement, influential and wealthy people, with or without ties to corporations, might engage in the same actions that they would if Clinton directly solicited contributions at these fundraisers or meetings. The culture of electoral politics would lead such individuals to recognize these interactions as a means to convince them to make contributions. They know the sensitivity around making certain a candidate they support does not draw attention from regulators. But because Clinton did not say words, which explicitly represent a request for funds, this is supposed to be considered acceptable.

In the “Super PACs” memo, Elias contended Clinton and “her agents” will inevitably “find themselves talking to prospective donors about Super PACs. The conversation might be initiated by the Secretary or her agents. Or, more likely, it might be initiated by the prospective donor.”

“Common questions include, ‘Secretary, the Super PAC has asked for my support. Should I contribute?” or ‘I want to give a million dollars to support your campaign—to which organization should I write my check?’” Elias outlines. “There will be hundreds of variants. In these types of interactions, it is not reasonable to expect the Secretary or her agents to make snap-determinations about whether their statements of political support for a Super PAC amount to a solicitation or direction of funds in the context of the particular conversation.”

“Accordingly, our strong recommendation is that the Secretary and her agents make a hard ask for $5,000 or less for the Super PAC in any conversation with a donor in which the Super PAC is discussed,” Elias adds.

The memo further indicated, “The Secretary and her agents should not tell donors that someone from the PAC will be following up with them and should not ask donors to take a call from PAC personnel. Nonetheless, it is permissible for the Secretary and her agents to provide donors with contact information of a PAC representative, so that the donors can execute the $5,000 contribution or learn more information about the PAC if they choose to do so.”

Or, if the donor contacted the PAC representative, the PAC would now be able to solicit much more than a $5,000 contribution, even though that donor may have never contacted the PAC if they had not been introduced to Clinton.

The law firm additionally advised, “The Secretary and her agents may suggest particular donors to Super PAC personnel. Specifically, the Secretary and her agents may provide the names, contact information, and donor history (if any) of potential donors.”

“A Super PAC soliciting funds outside of federal limits should not tell the donor that the Secretary or her agents provided the PAC with the donor’s name and contact information,” according to the memo.

“To reduce the risk of impermissible coordination, it would be prudent for the Super PAC to place a firewall between its fundraising personnel and its ‘creative’ personnel (e.g. those involved in the creation, production, or distribution of communications and in the strategic discussions informing such communications),” Elias recommended. “And, likewise, the campaign ought to designate a handful of fundraising staff and consultants to liaise with the Super PAC’s fundraising personnel.”

“Beyond this small handful of fundraising staff, there is no need for the Secretary or her agents to interact with Super PAC personnel except for when they are appearing as ‘special guests’ at a Super PAC event.”

It is all a rather elaborate scheme to ensure millions of dollars can be funneled into the coffers of a presidential campaign without having to be inhibited by campaign finance law supposedly in force to provide some regulation of the influence of money.

Perkins Coie explicitly set out to develop guidelines that would make it possible for individuals to wear “two hats,” as in raise money and also serve the campaign in some manner. However, Elias cautioned, “We may decide that some of our fundraising agents are too risky—either because we don’t trust them to follow these guidelines or because we do not think it is credible that they are raising in a capacity other than as a campaign agent—and tell Priorities that they cannot use them to raise.”

As previously reported by the Wall Street Journal, Elias sent a memo on interactions with the Clinton Super PAC, Priorities USA, on April 21, 2015. The memo was attached to an email published by WikiLeaks. It instructed the campaign to make sure the Clinton campaign never explicitly asked Priorities USA to raise “soft money,” which the Sunlight Foundation describes as “cash contributed to a party, candidate, or outside group without being subject to limits.”

The campaign could say, “Donor A works in financial services and has been a long-time contributor. I think she’d be willing to do six figures for Priorities,” but it could not say, “I want you to call Donor A and ask for $250,000.”

Priorities USA has raised over $175 million, according to the Sunlight Foundation, which is more than any Super PAC in history.

The Clinton campaign has faced criticism for its coordination with David Brock’s Correct the Record Super PAC. Brock believes the Super PAC can legally coordinate with the campaign because all the content it produces is posted for free online and exempt from the FEC’s ban on “coordinated communications.”

Sunlight Foundation points out, “Its whole apparently legal existence depends on it not making independent expenditures, because it openly coordinates with the Clinton campaign, which is otherwise forbidden for a super PAC.” Nonetheless, there has been no action by the FEC to shut down this coordination.

The FEC, according to the Washington Post, has yet to “open an investigation into alleged illegal super PAC coordination, closing 29 such complaints,” since 2010. Nevertheless, the campaign was concerned it may engage in activity that could spur an investigation if they were not careful and had Perkins Coie help them avoid any potential scandals.

The New York Times reported, “Democrats have built the largest and best-coordinated apparatus of outside groups operating in the 2016 presidential campaign,” and raised funds at a 2-to-1 rate when compared to Donald Trump.

“There’s no question that we need to make Washington work much better than it does today,” Clinton said in June. “And that means, in particular, getting unaccountable money out of our politics.” She added, “That’s why I’m so passionate about this issue, and I will fight hard to end the stranglehold that the wealthy and special interests have on so much of our government.”

Clinton has openly supported overturning the Citizens United decision. However, she has accepted countless amounts of “unaccountable money” in the 2016 presidential election, and her campaign has pioneered new methods for circumventing regulations against super PAC coordination in order to bring more money into her campaign.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:31 pm

don't worry Rory impeachment starts in less than 3 months ...can you wait that long?

President Kaine :yay :yay :yay :yay

who would Rory like to have impeached more Trump or Clinton?

Would you love to have a homophobic for president?

picking the next 4 supremes?

yea let's go with the racists...don't forget their emails ..they love to suppress the vote ...they really don't like black people to vote
Emails show how Republicans lobbied to limit voting hours in North Carolina
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/03/emails-s ... olina.html


America Is Already in the Midst of a Voter Suppression Crisis
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... erica.html


Trump's 'Voter Suppression Operation' Targets Black Voters

PRO-TRUMP WHITE NATIONALISTS PLAN MASS VOTER-SUPPRESSION EFFORT

Newsflash: Donald Trump Doesn't Want You To Vote — Here's Why
http://www.refinery29.com/2016/10/12791 ... d-strategy
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby divideandconquer » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:51 pm

seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 03, 2016 11:08 am wrote:
This election is a huge psyop!


what a lovely cop out

Yea there is no racism in America.....

ask a black person if their vote matters

ask a woman if her vote matters


Sure, people think their vote matters. That's important to maintaining the status quo. And on the local level, your vote might matter. But on the national level, the proof is there for anyone who cares to look. With every new president, the agenda is forwarded to one degree or another. How can you not see that? Obama is no different than Bush. Clinton carried forth the agenda from Reagan/Bush and so on...

And of course there is racism--systemic racism-- in America but thanks to the politically correct movement, we're blind to it. Now racism is invisible, insidious, which makes it worse....how do you fight something you can't see.

Blacks voted for Obama thinking things would get better for them. If anything, it's worse. In fact, name one thing that's any better under Obama.

Healthcare? Hardly. It's more fascist and unaffordable than ever.

Jobs? Only if you think the proliferation of part time name tag jobs is a good thing.

Peace? Ask the people being massacred by predator drones. Surges in Afghanistan. Bombing campaigns in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Libya. Defense spending increasing.

Freedom? Acts, Acts and more Acts ...Patriot Act extension, Freedom Act, National Defense Authorization Act., etc. Ramped up TSA. Police state is growing every day.

Transparency? Most secretive presidency on record.

False Flags? Exponential increase. Even if you do not believe they're false flags, there has been an exponential increase in the number of these events.

I don't blame Obama. He's merely a puppet, probably a mind controlled one who was selected to accelerate this agenda into overdrive for obvious reasons.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. -- Edward Bernays
'I see clearly that man in this world deceives himself by admiring and esteeming things which are not, and neither sees nor esteems the things which are.' — St. Catherine of Genoa
User avatar
divideandconquer
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:51 pm

hey you forgot to mention how Trump has made lynching fashionable again!

and don't you just love the child rape trial starting in Dec?

Image


VOTER SUPPRESSION IS THE REAL ELECTION SCANDAL
Alice Speri
October 27 2016, 11:46 a.m.
THE INTEGRITY OF this year’s election is under attack — but not in the way Donald Trump claims it is. Ahead of last week’s final debate, the Republican nominee called the election “rigged” dozens of times — in at least 20 tweets sent in the course of a single weekend as well as at rallies across the country in which he called on supporters to show up in “certain areas” and watch the polls.

“And when I say ‘watch,’ you know what I’m talking about, right?” he told supporters in Ohio. “Go to your place and vote. And go pick some other place and go sit there with your friends and make sure it’s on the up and up,” he encouraged supporters in Michigan. “The only way we can lose, in my opinion — and I really mean this, Pennsylvania — is if cheating goes on.”

Trump’s comments, as well as those made by some of his supporters who more explicitly voiced the racism behind his call to watch the polls, sent chills down the spines of many Americans, conjuring up visions of civil rights-era violence and voter harassment that’s not unheard of even in more recent elections.

But the real problems with this year’s vote will be largely invisible on Election Day. Three years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a major section of the Voting Rights Act, opening the doors to new efforts to restrict voting. The impact of that decision will be felt at the polls for the first time this year. Measures passed in the aftermath of that decision — restrictive voter ID laws, new requirements for voter registration, cuts to early voting options and polling sites, and other schemes — are the real threat to the November 8 vote, civil rights advocates say. And these procedural obstacles to the polls pose more insidious, large-scale challenges to suffrage than the more egregious and illegal harassment of the sort Trump has repeatedly advocated.

“This is an unfortunate part of our history,” Leah Aden, a senior counsel with the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, told The Intercept. “People are acutely aware of the changing demographics in this country and while we should all be working towards more people participating, there’s always been this segment of our country that has wanted to limit who is part of the political process.”

Voter intimidation, Aden noted, has traditionally gone hand in hand with the growing political participation of minorities. This election is slated to be the most racially diverse in U.S. history, a reality that’s already beginning to tip the scales in some swing states. One in three eligible voters is a member of a minority group, and minorities also make up 43 percent of new voters.

The growing diversity of the electorate, coupled with the uniquely racist and incendiary rhetoric of the Trump campaign, has fueled fears of widespread intimidation. Responding to Trump’s call to watch the polls, a supporter at a recent Ohio rally told the Boston Globe that he planned to look for “Mexicans. Syrians. People who can’t speak American.”

“I’m going to go right up behind them. I’ll do everything legally,” he said, describing a practice that’s unequivocally illegal under federal law. “I want to see if they are accountable. I’m not going to do anything illegal. I’m going to make them a little bit nervous.”

The specter of voter intimidation and growing fears of violence at the polls have led some local officials to add “active shooter training” to Election Day preparation, and the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented growing threats of “civil war” from white supremacists should Hillary Clinton win.
ST. PETERSBURG, FL - OCTOBER 24: An early voting sign points voters to the polling station at the Pinellas County Election Services office on October 24, 2016 in St. Petersburg, Florida. Today early general election voting started in the state of Florida and ends on either Nov 5 or Nov 6th. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) An early voting sign points voters to the polling station at the Pinellas County Election Services office on Oct. 24, 2016, in St. Petersburg, Florida. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

“It’ll be bloody but I think if enough heads are busted the will become loud and clear” a commenter wrote on the alt-right website the Daily Stormer. “They want violence? Just let the try declaring Hillary winner,” another user wrote. “Enough of being tough in the blogs, be tough in real life,” wrote a commenter in one of 240 militia group Facebook pages that are open to the public.
The Trump campaign has called on volunteers to sign up as election observers. To lead the effort, the campaign reportedly recruited Mike Roman, a Republican who in 2008 helped promote a video showing two members of the New Black Panthers, one with a billy club, outside a Philadelphia polling site. That isolated incident fueled months of media frenzy over voter intimidation and prompted two DOJ investigations. Trump adviser Roger Stone told The Guardian that 1,300 volunteers from the grassroots Citizens for Trump group planned to conduct exit polls in nine swing-state cities with large minority populations — a plan resembling voter intimidation more than traditional exit polling. The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment on these reports.

But despite the incessant rhetoric of election fraud coming from Trump’s camp, some remain skeptical that significant Election Day intimidation will actually take place. A Republican election official in Philadelphia — one of the cities that Trump, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich all singled out as being rife with fraud — told the New York Times that his office hadn’t received “a single call from somebody outside Philadelphia looking to be a poll watcher.”

Trump himself seems to be hazy on the details. In Pennsylvania, for instance, poll monitors have to be registered to vote in the county they are monitoring. “So when Trump goes to rural Pennsylvania and says I want you to go to certain parts of Philadelphia and watch the polls, he is telling them to do something illegal,” said Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s voting rights project. “Everyone agrees that the parties are entitled to and should have people watch the polls. We want certified poll monitors. We don’t want these broad, blanket calls for random people to show up at the polls in places they’re not familiar with and look for anything that they think is suspicious.”

But even alarmism is a form of voter intimidation — and it cuts both ways. Researchers have suggested that Trump’s insistence that the election is rigged might be discouraging his own supporters more than his opponents. And civil rights advocates are taking the threats of intimidation seriously while warning against the inhibiting impact of hyped-up speculation about Election Day disturbances.

“It’s tough, because I don’t want voters to be afraid, I don’t want them to think that this is something that’s very common,” said Ho. “But at the same time, people need to know that this is something that happens from time to time, and when it does, they need to know their rights and they need to report what they see.”

In fact, while voter intimidation and harassment have become far more rare than subtler and more insidious assaults on voting rights, there are plenty of precedents, and one does not need to travel too far back in history to find them.

In 1964, Republican Party lawyers, including future Supreme Court justice William Rehnquist, demanded that black and Latino voters in Arizona read out sections of the U.S. Constitution to prove their citizenship. In 1966, a year after the Voting Rights Act was signed into law, white teenagers in Georgia harassed black voters in line at the polls as police watched; white election officials inspected black voters’ ballots in Alabama; and Mississippi plantation workers were forced to cast their ballots in plantation stores as their bosses watched. The list goes on and on.

Fast forward to 2004, when University of Pittsburgh students were held up for hours at the polls as Republican Party lawyers challenged the credentials of “pretty much every young voter who showed up.” That same year, in Harris County, Texas, local police officers showed up at an early voting site and demanded to see IDs, saying anyone with an outstanding warrant would go to jail. In 2012, an organizer with the right-wing poll-watching group “True the Vote” told volunteer monitors that the voters they targeted should be made to feel “like driving and seeing the police following you.”

Civil rights advocates fear that Trump’s call for his supporters to watch the polls might lead to more incidents of that nature this year. Fliers circulating on social media have been reminding voters of their rights, calling on anyone experiencing intimidation or obstruction to take photos and report the incident to authorities. And in addition to the parties’ and campaigns’ official poll monitors — which must be pre-registered with local election officials — independent observers will also be watching the polls and fielding calls from voters about any irregularities.

One such initiative is the National Lawyers’ Committee’s “election protection” program, a nonpartisan effort that will dispatch trained monitors to 27 states. The group has also worked to remove barriers to the polls ahead of the vote: It recently filed suit in Virginia after the state’s online registration tool crashed, causing eligible voters to miss the deadline, and it successfully fought to extend the registration deadline in North Carolina areas affected by Hurricane Matthew.

Kristen Clarke, president of the committee, told The Intercept she fears the impact of both those procedural obstacles and the prospect of more blatant harassment. “We want a democracy where people feel they are free and able to participate,” she said. “My hope is that people will not be discouraged and stay at home, that’s just not a healthy outcome for our democracy.”
MIAMI, FL - OCTOBER 01: Dorothy Torrence, from the Miami-Dade Elections Department, helps Alvaro Arochena fill out his registration form on October 1, 2012 in Miami, Florida. With the October ninth deadline for people to register to vote in the upcoming election approaching, the Florida Department of State says the number of people registering to vote is now averaging between 1,500 and 3,000 a day. Democrats have been questioning the motives of the Republican led legislator's plan to purge alleged non-citizens from the voting lists and roll back early voting. According to reports, the Republican Party fired a voter registration contactor last week after allegations that the firm, Strategic Allied Consulting, turned in incorrect and falsified voter registration forms to Florida election officials. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) Dorothy Torrence, from the Miami-Dade Elections Department, helps Alvaro Arochena fill out his registration form on Oct. 1, 2012 in Miami, Florida. Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images
“Legal” Obstacles to Voting

But even with the potential for intimidation at the polls, by far the greatest challenge to this year’s election will come from state and local governments themselves. The widespread, unfounded talk of election fraud pushed by Trump has been “a distraction from the real problems that voters face in communities around the country,” Clarke said. “There are voters in certain communities that are particularly vulnerable this election cycle in the wake of the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.”

This election marks the first presidential race since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which struck down a provision of the Voting Rights Act that required nine states and several jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to secure federal approval before changing election laws and procedures.

That decision was followed by a rash of measures across the country — some proposed within hours of the court’s ruling — restricting voting access for the minority voters the Voting Rights Act was originally intended to protect. Many of those measures have been challenged in court, some successfully, but uncertainty over the new election rules has left voters confused and voting rights advocates scrambling to litigate every new attempt at restrictions.

At least 14 states have new restrictions in place this year, including voter ID laws, changes in registration requirements, and cuts to early voting options. In Maricopa County, the largest county in Arizona, officials closed 70 percent of the polling sites, causing long delays during the primaries and prompting a DOJ investigation. In Florida and Ohio, officials tried to purge thousands of mostly black voters from their rolls. As The Intercept has reported, Missouri legislators even proposed changing the state’s constitution — which unlike the federal one includes an affirmative right to vote — in an effort to pass stricter voter ID laws. The proposed amendment will be on the ballot on November 8. The NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund maintains a regularly updated tally of voter suppression efforts that is more than 100 pages long.

Not incidentally, the states that in recent years have been most adamant about restricting access to the polls are those that were previously covered by the Voting Rights Act’s federal oversight, as well as those seeing the growing political participation of minorities. According to research compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice, of the 11 states with the highest African-American turnout in 2008, six have new restrictions in place, and of the 12 states with the largest Hispanic population growth between 2000 and 2010, seven passed laws making it harder to vote.

In light of the Shelby County decision, the DOJ has significantly scaled back its election monitoring. In 2012, the agency’s observers monitored elections in 13 states. This year, they will be inside polls in only four states, only one of which, Louisiana, is in the South, where historically the federal government exercised broad oversight over voting rights.

The Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe, one of the world’s largest human rights and security groups and a monitor of elections across the world, plans to dispatch nearly 500 observers to the U.S. The organization has been sending observers to monitor U.S. elections since 2004, but this year is different.

“I have often heard claims of fraud by electoral contestants,” wrote Christine Muttonen, the mission’s coordinator, in an op-ed for CNN. “But these tend to be in countries emerging from authoritarianism and in post-conflict scenarios; they are somewhat surprising to hear in the world’s oldest constitutional republic.”

Election fraud, the ostensible motivation between both Trump’s “rigged vote” rhetoric and voter restriction measures across the country, has repeatedly been debunked as a myth. What can’t be debunked is this country’s history of discrimination and repression of communities of color, and that shameful legacy remains the most enduring threat to the integrity of the November 8 vote.
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/27/vot ... n-scandal/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby dada » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:17 pm

Rory » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:19 pm wrote:
This is the only way The Office of the President of the United States, and the US political system as a whole, can be expected to retain, or regain, the respect it badly needs to command, both domestically and on the international front. It is for this very reason that on the political scene, actors need to “do the right thing”, or “draw the consequences”, when the situation so demands. Respect for the office must always come before personal gain, or the whole edifice will crumble.


Have no fear, journalism is here to stop the edifice from crumbling.

You know what I'm noticing as we get into the final stretch of this, is all the authoritarians crawling out of the woodwork now, from every ideological direction. All pretending that politics is like we were taught in grade school. Sacred institutions, great statesmen and bunting.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Luther Blissett » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:33 pm

I added it to the Prediction Data Dump: only conservative justices from here on out.

I weep for how difficult life will be for women under Clinton's patriarchal Supreme Court appointees.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Rory » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:34 pm

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/02/louis ... mon-video/

“You don’t even realize that you [the media] are no longer in power,” he stated. “Can’t you see you’ve failed?”

“My dear brothers and sisters, this is serious,” Farrakhan told his congregation. “Her husband and Joe Biden were the authors of the crime bill that put tens of thousands of black brothers and sisters in prison.”

“Mrs. Clinton backed the crime bill and then called our young people super predators. Of course she apologized, but just a minute. See Hitler could’ve said to the Jews after Auschwitz, ‘I’m so sorry.’ Would that be enough to satisfy you?”

“Look at this award that she got,” he continued. “In 2009 Hillary Clinton received the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood. It was Mrs. Sanger who advocated population control of black and poor people.”

“In a 1939 letter, Sanger wrote about getting the black preachers to help with her efforts. She said, ‘we don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.’ … And when Mrs. Clinton received the award, [she said] I admire Margaret Sanger enormously. Her courage. Her tenacity. Her vision.’ Now they have to admit that the war on drugs was a war on black people.”


Video at link
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:49 pm

Donald Trump’s New Anti-Abortion Letter Should Terrify You
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thecut/do ... 86874.html

Donald Trump Is Forming an Anti-Abortion Coalition

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/09/donald- ... post_women


Donald Trump Promises Unprecedented Abortion Crackdowns if He’s Elected
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... ected.html


Trump And GOP's Ignorance About Abortion Will Kill Women
http://www.forbes.com/sites/judystone/2 ... 020bda330f
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby NeonLX » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:52 pm

Luther Blissett » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:33 pm wrote:I added it to the Prediction Data Dump: only conservative justices from here on out.

I weep for how difficult life will be for women under Clinton's patriarchal Supreme Court appointees.


Green font? I have color blindness.

But there's other stuff, like dada posted above.
America is a fucked society because there is no room for essential human dignity. Its all about what you have, not who you are.--Joe Hillshoist
User avatar
NeonLX
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Enemy Occupied Territory
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Rory » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:53 pm

dada » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:17 am wrote:
Rory » Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:19 pm wrote:
This is the only way The Office of the President of the United States, and the US political system as a whole, can be expected to retain, or regain, the respect it badly needs to command, both domestically and on the international front. It is for this very reason that on the political scene, actors need to “do the right thing”, or “draw the consequences”, when the situation so demands. Respect for the office must always come before personal gain, or the whole edifice will crumble.


Have no fear, journalism is here to stop the edifice from crumbling.

You know what I'm noticing as we get into the final stretch of this, is all the authoritarians crawling out of the woodwork now, from every ideological direction. All pretending that politics is like we were taught in grade school. Sacred institutions, great statesmen and bunting.


He's a blogger, rather than a 'Member of the profession of Journalism'. And yes, it is rather twee and idealistic. A hangover (in his case, perhaps) of post WWII European social democratic ethics that underpinned state education in Northern Euro countries. How very cynical we've all become in life.

And it does make a certain amount of sense: The social contract where civic governance is effected in the spirit of at least some semblance of integrity and honesty. There's a difference between stealing a few items of stationary from the office supply room, and brazenly bending the company apparatus to enact a pay to play, personal money making scheme, and having your "boss" effectively condone it by speaking out to shout down your accusers.

Power corrupts, and all that jazz. Authority (in the complex form it holds in the modern neoliberal West) is indeed losing its sheen, and naturally evoking a nostalgia in some. The next wave of authority will be simpler to understand both in motivation and execution. Tyrants and warlords have a certain time tested charm, for want of a better word.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:56 pm

The scariest thing about Donald Trump’s abortion comments

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/31/the_sca ... _comments/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby backtoiam » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:01 pm

I have seen this posted around the internet but I cannot verify if the video actually was shot in the places indicated. It does appear to be people stuffing ballot boxes but the when and where I am not sure of. I have not seen it grabbing any traction such as people being arrested for it. It is actually comical the way they go about stuffing the boxes.

https://youtu.be/8YsRU0TFQTY

"A mind stretched by a new idea can never return to it's original dimensions." Oliver Wendell Holmes
backtoiam
 
Posts: 2101
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:22 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby MacCruiskeen » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:06 pm

It's all over. Lena Dunham has just ensured victory for Trump.

“Sensual Pantsuit Anthem”
Last edited by MacCruiskeen on Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:09 pm

what do you think of what Trump did in Scotland?

Filmmaker, Defying Threats, to Air Documentary Alleging Donald Trump Made Life in Scottish Town ‘Hell Over The Years’
http://people.com/politics/filmmaker-de ... the-years/

Image

Image
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Hillary Clinton is Seriously Dangerous

Postby Rory » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:14 pm



That's...something. She's a repulsive human being. Her passive aggressive air of superiority and entitlement is nauseating.

And her much lauded show 'White Girls' is complete and utter shite.
Rory
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 2:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 150 guests