http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/t...ary-clinton-wrongful-death-defamation-n625861
Love the dismissal of everything Hillary has done by her die hard fans. Delusion at its finest
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious US Election Thread (read post #2014)
- Thread starter Bughouse
- Start date
- Status
Love the dismissal of everything Hillary has done by her die hard fans. Delusion at its finest
Emphasis mine.
30,000 deleted emails that contained state department emails confirmed by the fbi director leaves a lot to assume. When it goes to he said she said, proving that everything she has said on this has been a lie isn't that hard to do. I mean you would have to suspend reality to have believe she is honest
Been there, done that. That alone would justify me not voting for her. Her die hard fans are a bunch of gutless, uninformed, brainwashed sheep. At times, they can be just as bad as Trumpets!
I wish either Trump or Hillary would drop out, or drop dead, and end this problem of the prospect of either one of the become President, it's just stressful for me. Does that make me a bad person (let alone a disloyal American)?
In the meantime, I have run into more evidence of election...complications. And they are different from hacked machines.
We even have one reputable mainstream media covering one instance. Can't ignore The Los Angeles Times.
I'm posting them here, and then, as always, reading them for myself. Sorry Bughouse, but I keep finding more evidence in support that the election was rigged.
Broken machines, incomplete voter rolls, and over all chaos, oh my!
Voter purging in The Big Apple affecting 100,000 voters
The Secretary of State of Arizona confirming the occurrence of election fraud
More discussion on how party elites purge unwanted voters on Larry King
This Greg Palast seems to have some hefty credentials too.
And of course, Uncounted: The True Story of the California Primary
Meta Source:
https://www.facebook.com/9266504307...650430723985/1033911779997849/?type=3&theater
Still think we have a democracy? I think it's a sham, and have found no evidence to calm my fears.
Last edited:
man if u read the entirety of the article you'd prolly come to the conclusion it's just a baseless case to a) influence people politically towards a specific conclusion (man i wonder how effective that is...), and b) prolly just create some new right wing talking points
though i do enjoy how we're also gonna get (already got?) c) this case will be dismissed or she'll be found not-guilty and all these well-informed individuals will probably scream collusion! CORRUPTION!
edit: ftr the entirety of the above is why i wrote "cuz lol"
though i do enjoy how we're also gonna get (already got?) c) this case will be dismissed or she'll be found not-guilty and all these well-informed individuals will probably scream collusion! CORRUPTION!
edit: ftr the entirety of the above is why i wrote "cuz lol"
Except according to politifact she IS just as honest as Obama and other democrats and that her problem is that she's TOO honest and the republicans and right wing propaganda are turning it against her just like they did with John Kerry in 2004 (regarding turning strengths into weakness's). Again, nobody can actually PROOVE anything she did because there is no proof out there only accusastions from Republicans and other right wing people. It's just like how nobody can actually find any proof any of her voting in the senate was influenced by wall street or how she was bought out by coorporations etc, etc, cause there is none.
It's funny because if a republican was in control when Benghazi happened it wouldn't be a scandal but since it was Obama/Hillary........ You don't see democrats still talking about the embassy bombing under Reagan (that btw killed 300 people vs the 4 people that died in benghazi aka more people die in many mass shootings a year then in Benghazi). I'd even go so far to say that Benghazi is THE stereotypical right wing scandal/witch hunt in an attempt to give a Democrat negative press (and they've admitted that was the point of Benghazi) just like the birther movement and other scanadals Obama faced on the campaign trail.
oh and JES, people sue all the time just as a "statement" it doesn't actually mean it'll go to trial or that she'll be convicted. People do it all the time in our system.
It's funny because if a republican was in control when Benghazi happened it wouldn't be a scandal but since it was Obama/Hillary........ You don't see democrats still talking about the embassy bombing under Reagan (that btw killed 300 people vs the 4 people that died in benghazi aka more people die in many mass shootings a year then in Benghazi). I'd even go so far to say that Benghazi is THE stereotypical right wing scandal/witch hunt in an attempt to give a Democrat negative press (and they've admitted that was the point of Benghazi) just like the birther movement and other scanadals Obama faced on the campaign trail.
oh and JES, people sue all the time just as a "statement" it doesn't actually mean it'll go to trial or that she'll be convicted. People do it all the time in our system.
I guess that's true. We'll see.
Honestly, I don't even know much about the case, and she has been caught doing things that are worse and more obvious, such as ensuring the installment of a right-wing corrupt leader in Honduras (I refuse to call him President purposefully). From then on, the human rights in Honduras has deteriorated into the bowels of authoritarian hell. And this is for 2009 human rights report. And I'm sure with more time, I could find more instances where she has done things that are...well, inappropriate. Of course, due to the Republicans trying to nail her for years, it can be difficult to tell the plausible from the crap without doing some homework.
Unfortunately, I have to admit that suspicions that she has only gotten away with scandals such as Travelgate because of political clout, or even because key persons were bribed, blackmailed, or threatened into pardoning her, is perhaps unfounded, but reasonable. Let me put it this way: if proof were found she got out via illegitimate reasons, it would hardly surprise me.
And which things did Politifact say about her? I'm just asking because it will help make it easier for me to Google it. I'm also busy researching...well, all sorts of things about the election (currently reading an article about the DNC walkout. I thought it was only 100-200 delegates who walked out, but I guess it was actually closer to 700!).
"only the things she said that i don't like count"
edit: wrt the wrongful death suits: trump is being sued over allegations of child sexual assault. no one's talking about tgat either. lawsuits don't mean shit until they go to court
Last edited:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-2016-democratic-presidential-candida/
you can click on the different ratings to find them.
Also we established the double standard so the only things that i don't like count comment is sad
Yo, 30000 emails, there could be some crazy shit in there. I personally bet she had a lengthy exchange with like Hitler about something, lol, and probably told Osama to order the hit on bengazi. Too bad they're deleted right next to b hussiens birth certificate
Look she made a tremendous blunder in using that email server. It was a careless move and she was reprimanded harshly for it. But that's about it, that's how the story goes and ends - if they were going to find actual nefarious shit on her, they would have, both wrt Benghazi or the emails. Hearing about it instead of real issues makes me want to kill myself
Look she made a tremendous blunder in using that email server. It was a careless move and she was reprimanded harshly for it. But that's about it, that's how the story goes and ends - if they were going to find actual nefarious shit on her, they would have, both wrt Benghazi or the emails. Hearing about it instead of real issues makes me want to kill myself
Uh
1) Evidence of election fraud that might very well have handed Clinton the election. Why should we reward such behavior?
2) The Democratic Party establishment were bastards when it comes to any form of protest at the Democratic Convention (seriously? Using police to stunt the growth of delegate walk out protests?)
3) Not liking the Military Industrial Complex
4) Hating the mass surveillance state. Considering the NSA spies on internet conversations, they could be spying on this very discussion, and we'd never know about it. I like knowing when I'm being listened to, okay?
5) Not liking fracking
6) Not liking the TPP, and Clinton has yet to say she won't pass it.
7) Evidence she has connections with Wall Street
8) Evidence she is Monsanto's pockets, who are poisoning the country with their GMO sh•t, while the wealthy elites avoid it like the plague, and the government refuses to even label what they claim is perfectly safe.
9) She lies. Sure Trump has turned lying into an art form, but Hillary isn't an angel. We can't be sure she'll carry out her campaign promises. We're not even sure if we could make her carry out her promises as constituents.
Need I go on? The Democratic Party asks for unity, but is unwilling to serve our needs, but they sure as hell are more than happy to serve their own desires, and then use Trump as a Damocles sword hanging over our head, and the only way to do it is to bow our heads and vote for their chosen Empress!
So yeah, you'll understand why we're pissed, and don't want to vote for her!
I'm still trying to find a way to get out of voting for her, while also making sure Trump doesn't become President!
No surprise on that. On both accounts. Since neither party wants to stand up to the NSA's activities. In fact, they support them. And the Republicans supporting most of it just shows how flawed our two party system is. It also shows how corrupt the two party system is.
I honestly don't expect either major party to do anything about mass survellience, which is disturbing, as is the fact that we wouldn't even know we were living in an Orwellian Big Brother state if not for Edward Snowden. This is a clear violation of our rights to our privacy without our consent, but that is another discussion entirely. To be fair, Sanders didn't talk about it, so even though it's super bad, it isn't like there is any guarantee it would stop if he were the nominee, and that is a fair point to make.
And time to do another Google search, especially regarding GMOs.
http://responsibletechnology.org/10-reasons-to-avoid-gmos/
Why else do you think well informed wealthy elite avoid GMOs like the plague (and I suggest you do too)?
And it is hard to trust any pro-GMO studies, because they might be one of the studies paid by the GMO monopoly giant Monsanto to write articles to favoring GMOs. So you'll forgive me if stick to avoiding GMOs, and consider it to be poison, and distrust anyone who tells me otherwise.
And Monsanto does have a monopoly on GMO seeds, which is where their excuse to attack organic farmers, and force them into buying their seeds comes from (it's either that, or out of the farming business, or else!).
And if GMOs were safe, then there would be no lobbying against labeling GMOs. Ask yourself this: if they were so safe, why don't they want you to know if you're eating GMO products? Why waste millions of dollars for something, if they are perfectly safe? They should be labeled, as if they are wearing a badge of honor!
The number of polling places dropped in Arizona was becuase of republicans wanting to supress the vote, it has nothing to do with the DNC. New York is also once again a local thing and people could recast a provisonal ballot to fix it. Again since it happened in Brooklyn a high minority area it probably impacted Clinton more because she does better with minorities then Sanders did.
Again, none of these things were controlled by the DNC (they do not control the state elections) but instead by local officials. You're going to have to come up with better "examples" then that.
Again, none of these things were controlled by the DNC (they do not control the state elections) but instead by local officials. You're going to have to come up with better "examples" then that.
You ready to go down the rabbit hole? Poll spots being dropped (and you're right about not blaming the Arizona incident on the Democrats. Republican officials were the ones to blame in this case) and voter purges is bad enough, but if that is true, it might just be the tip of the iceberg, but then I've been saying that all along. But before we do that, there is also evidence that not all provisional ballots are even counted, and Greg Palast has even gone as far as calling them "placebo ballots".
Now, if these means of voter suppression are real, then perhaps we shouldn't be discounting the possibility that the primaries are being rigged in other, much more effective ways. And even then, this is unacceptable, because every vote should count, and that is not the case.
I'll be fair, though, and give the benefit of the doubt, and say that state officials have nothing to do with this. I have more research to do (and due to it getting late, it will probably be incomplete, or have to wait for tomorrow). I can't discount the possibility that Clinton might have been more affected by the voter purge than Sanders. That is an area I'm not well informed of in.
Last edited:
They are real and they are almost exclusively done in Republican states in an attempt to control the vote and dissuade as many potential Democrat voters as possible. Photo I.D laws and other polling place cuts and restrictions on early voting are done in many Republican states and it has effected turnout. That's why they purposefully lower the amount of polling places in high minority areas (such as Maricopa county in Arizona) to try and discourage people from waiting in line hours on hours to vote.
Voter suppression is certaintly very real, it's not being used in the way you think it is though. Luckily, some sort of high court ruled against North Carolina's voter ID law, you can see what it did here though http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article94651907.html which is why the importance of controlling the courts is so huge.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gmoanswers/2016/05/20/gmos-are-safe/#5c733285119d
https://authoritynutrition.com/gmos-good-or-bad/
if we are gonna link drop and not actually provide any real thought
yeah because wealthy people are always so fucking well informed like jenny mccarthy and jim carrey on vaccines
or you could just trust the majority of scientists
because morons like you will still believe they arent safe and it will hurt sales?
Whoever said it was the Democrats who always has to do the voter suppression? Again, this is an area that I admit I have under-researched. To be fair, I think the election machine hacking either makes of the lion's share of the fraud, or all these different forms of voter suppression and fraud just builds on top of one another. Kind of like the Titanic, and how one compartment flooded into the next. And the next. I suspect the provisional allots being uncounted is only a small part of the problem. Add up all the votes that are uncounted, or even flipped or purged, and that can easily make the difference between a candidate winning and loosing, especially in a close primary like this year.
I suppose I could try getting you to watch and read a couple of relevant articles. I'm still determined to turn you into an intrigued skeptic at least, and quite frankly, I think articles and this one excellent video I'm thinking of right now will probably explain it to you better than I ever could. I think I'll do that tomorrow. Besides, it's 40+ minutes long, but I think it will make a lot of difference in at least intriguing you, and that is all I can ask for.
I want to try to do some more research regarding provisional ballots tomorrow. I just came up with the idea that Republicans doing their thing, and Democratic party elites purging voters is part of the problem. Speaking of voter purging, I'd like to see you explain that.
How about tomorrow? It's getting late, isn't it? We have a lot to do. But I like this discussion.
Did I fail to read the links I dropped as I intended? Yes, I've been so busy (with this thread alone). I'll still try to find the time to read both yours and mine, which I assume you've already read. It's times like this I wish I had a time dilation device. :/
But the Obama's family, Barrack Obama of whom he said would label GMOs (and then failed, and appointed former Monsanto Vice President and lobbyist Michael Taylor to the FDA!) does not eat GMOs. What does that tell you? Hell, Monsanto's own products aren't served in their cafeterias! Same for the White House!
Guess they must be morons, like me! On second thought...sorry for the sarcasm. I'll make a deal with you: you don't call me a moron again, and I won't insult you with sarcasm. Deal? I don't like being rude. I find it...distasteful.
But using the excuse "but it will hurt sales!!!" is not an effective argument. If studies show that they are safe, that should be good enough, and then consumers should have a right to make their own damned decision. It's their body, and they have a right to know, plain and simple.
So you'll have to forgive me if I only take pro-GMO articles with a grain of salt. There is just so much evidence that not only are GMOs unsafe, but there is this massive effort to fool us into thinking they are!
Hey, maybe we should start a GMO thread. This is getting fun (and maybe you'll turn me into a Pro-GMOer yet, or vice versa), but this could easily drag the thread off topic!
I'm not saying GMOs can't be a good thing. I love the idea of french fries made out of potatoes that have the vitamins of green vegetable, but the same great taste (or, well good enough!)! But I see no evidence that this is what GMOs are being developed for. To be fair, I should take the time to at least read the articles you posted tomorrow, even though I find them suspect, and contrary to what I know. It is only fair.
If only I had a time dilation device, I would read all those articles now, and still be able to go to bed at 11:20 PM! Oh well, good night!
You should look up Golden Rice, its produced because 1-2 million people in Africa and Asia die from Vitamin A deficiency every year. They genetically modified rice so that it includes Vitamin A which would / does greatly reduce the number of these deaths.
Your post also manages to link no scientific evidence that there is anything wrong with GMO foods, where as macle linked several articles based on scientific studies (and scientific opinions). At the end of the day GMO foods are just foods with a genetic sequence inserted into their DNA which alters their nutritional value or makes them resistant to certain pests (so you can use fewer chemicals), as a food company your goal is to sell more food, the best way to do this is by ensuring people live a longer life, purposely altering food to make it less healthy would be an objectively dumb business model. As for the inserted DNA sequence itself, it has no negative effect on the human body, it gets treated like the rest of the DNA (you poop it out).
By bringing up the Obama's you completely missed macle's point, Michelle Obama is a smart lady in a lot of areas, but I'm am relatively confident I know more about GMOs than Michelle Obama (I took an ethics of biology class as a lib ed. it was really interesting), and I am certain that she does not know as much about GMOs as the average scientist (which as macle pointed out think GMOs are safe). I also think its hilarious that GMOs aren't considered organic considering that previous to their existence organic meant lacking in the use of man-made chemicals / pesticides / etc. and now they aren't considered organic even though they consist entirely of organic material, and its not like GMOs are the first thing human's have altered the DNA of (we were selectively breeding for a long time, ex. bananas now vs the 50s).
This is getting extremely off topic considering this is the 2016 election thread, but I will say that I generally value scientific competence very highly when I'm considering a candidate. Thus its very difficult for me to consider voting for people who deny climate change (Republicans - or you know trying to fund conversion therapy with tax payer money (shout outs Mike Pence)) and makes me think the green party is an absolute joke. A party that was literally formed because of the scientific evidence for climate changes holds anti-vaccination (not Jill Stein afaik) and anti-GMO (yes Jill Stein) beliefs in spite of the fact that scientific evidence is pretty conclusive that vaccines do not cause autism and GMO foods are safe, but hey who cares that measels and whooping cough are coming back and that millions of lives could be saved by GMOs. Its utterly baffling to me when politicians and vast swaths of the population think that they are more informed than people that have spent years of their lives researching these topics.
- Status