By the Thorn Queen of Kyonin, Since when did I ever?Sorry, my comments were addressed at the thread in general, not you specifically. I used your post because it was the most recent example of something I have seen many times, especially a few pages back. There seems to be a recurring Disapproval of Hillary is only due to partisan smear campaigns and misogyny, while ignoring many legitimate criticisms. I should have been more clear about that in attempting to make my point.
I have noticed your criticisms, and I wish to give credit where it is due. With that said, I genuinely don't know what you mean by this: " You need to break out of this absolutist mindset where you see any divergence from your own narrow viewpoint as a 180 degree anti-christ opposite."
Could you give me an example?
Your very assumption that those who are stating their preference for Clinton are turning as you put it, "a blind eye" to her faults. Just then, on the basis of what the candidates appeal to should be enough to turn down Trump in a fit of disgust? His entire campaign is built to appeal to the worst parts of human nature, fear, misogyny, racial and religous bigotry, his message is that America is fallen. Clinton and especially Michelle Obama for all their faults are appealing to what's great about this nation, it's traditions, and the multi-ethnic nature of it's people. Even the Republicans themselves have said in comparing the two conventions, kept asking themselves. "When did we give the Democrats OUR convention?"
As far a smear campaigns go, the charge is not without justification, over a dozen Congressional hearings on the same subject, millions of dollars spent without coming up with a SINGLE smoking gun to shoot her with. Plus frank admissions by the committee heads that the expected main effect of the hearings is negative publicity as opposed to actually finding anything of worth to charge her with.... the blatant double standard by FBI Director Chemey, and the ongoing witch hunts of Fox News.
As anyone should realize... the most effective lies are the deliberate edits of the truth.
All-in-all, Gore and Nader share the blame for that mess. Actually, there was probably voting fraud going on there, so maybe Gore, Nader and Bush should share it. :PThat I can fully agree with. The myriad faults of the Gore campaign were lampshaded hilariously on Doonesbury, from renderings of the Gore Bot to Gore trying to figure out if this was a week to praise Clinton or bury him in his campaign strategy.
I'd leave out blaming Bush. It was after all his JOB to win the race.
Can I blame Jeb Bush for his attempts to throw the state to his brother? And his Secretary of the State, Katherine Harris, for doing the dirty work. Mostly voter purges and the like?
Absolutely.. you can throw in as many villains as you want and and find evidence for.
But no matter how many you throw in, that does not absolve Nader for his part, unless you can prove that his influence on the vote total was a significantly neutral one, and that's a hard sell.
Let me add this in further. Neither Nader nor the Green Party had any intention on being a neutral third party in the elections. IT WAS THE STATED DESIRE by both Ralph Nader and the Greens, that they would be spoilers to block a Gore victory. The Green Party has just announced that they would be quite happy spoiling for Clinton as well. The Greens believe that only a truly apocalyptic Republican Presidency would bring about the intellectual purification of the Democratic Party to the left. So while they have not "endorsed" Donald Trump, they have stated that they would prefer a Trump victory over a Clinton one.
If you think there's any valid comparison between her and Trump though, you're either so far from the mainstream that all American politics blurs into one evil...
I think this seems to be the heart of the issue.
I think that Clinton can be viewed and critiqued based on what she (and Bill, due to Hillary's past support of his policies) have done, while it seems that others require a comparison to Trump or Sanders.
I would also point out that a great number of people (especially in my 40 year old age group) don't like the Clinton's due to their trade policies, specifically NAFTA and extending favored nation status to China. I think ignoring this is a fundamental mistake that many people make in attempting to understand resentment towards the Clintons.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Second thejeff, but I'd like to add: If you have a candidate who is truly prefect for you; who has never made (what you judge to be) a wrong call, who seems to genuinely believe all the right things...but can't get elected into office, what good are they? Idealism without pragmatism is toothless, it's just wishful thinking. We don't need any help to think up ways any given candidate could be better, they will be flawed in every election year under any system, pointing out that they're flawed isn't very helpful.
So yeah, I voted for Clinton, knowing that she will maintain out relationship with the vile Saudi regime, and will not work very hard to hold Israel accountable for their abuses of Palestinians, and will almost certainly maintain the semi-secret drone wars, etc etc. But a Republican would also give me all of that and more. By voting for Clinton (& a Democratic congress!) I see a reasonable shot at giving SCOTUS a leftward push, filling ~95 federal judgeship vacancies, strengthening protections for my LGBTQ friends, restoring and strengthening the VRA to protect Americans of color, maybe "reform" the ACA closer to German-style single payer, etc etc. None of that is remotely on the table if the Republicans win.
So yeah, I'll take my half loaf and wish it was more, but I won't screw over my chance to get it either.
She really doesn't represent the status quo. She's a woman for one and would be the first female president in the country's history.
Kaine represents the status quo just as much, if not more than Clinton.
(Emphasis added)
What are the other ways the former Secretary of State, Senator from Wall Street, most hawkish member of Obama's cabinet who is running on "America Is Already Great" doesn't represent the status quo?
Eh, I was going to interact, but I'm getting kind of tired of your high horse lately. Whatever, you're absolutely correct and nothing I ever have to say is of any value. Just consider that my standard response to you for a while.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, I was going to interact, but I'm getting kind of tired of your high horse lately. Whatever, you're absolutely correct and nothing I ever have to say is of any value. Just consider that my standard response to you for a while.She really doesn't represent the status quo. She's a woman for one and would be the first female president in the country's history.
Kaine represents the status quo just as much, if not more than Clinton.
(Emphasis added)
What are the other ways the former Secretary of State, Senator from Wall Street, most hawkish member of Obama's cabinet who is running on "America Is Already Great" doesn't represent the status quo?
Passive-aggression doesn't become you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clinton is a career politician, with all the baggage (and experience) that that implies.
Trump is a manifest misogynist, racist, and demagogue.
You don't have to love Clinto to realize that it is irrational to equate the two. Don't fall for it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Clinton can be viewed and critiqued based on what she (and Bill, due to Hillary's past support of his policies) have done, while it seems that others require a comparison to Trump or Sanders.
Please put me down as one of those others; in fact, i think that to treat this in any other way is the mark of an irrevocable fool, to put it bluntly.
Barring an act literally unprecedented in the history of the United States, the next president will be either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump. I don't expect, for example, a military coup and for General Dunford to announce that he's taking over the country to preserve the smooth-running order of the United States. But neither do I expect a revolution by the Sanders Liberation Front or a sudden restoration of the Hanovrian dynasty. Even less do I expect a meteor strike to eliminate the city of DC,... and the possibility of a third party victory comes in even behind the meteor strike.
So I don't know what good it does to complain about how Clinton is a lousy candidate, since, unless your preferred candidate is Mr. Trump, your preferred candidate is not even in the race.
Given the very real possibility that the real candidate you find even worse might win, voting for an imaginary candidate like Frodo Baggins, Jill Stein, or Bernie Sanders is at best foolish and at worst grossly negligent. Even staying home is irresponsible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since I have never told anyone NOT to vote for Clinton, I think some of you might be getting a little dramatic. I would also remind those speaking about 'foolish voting' that my home state of New York's electoral votes are ALL going to Clinton, regardless of how I, or a couple million of my friends vote. But you are still welcome to call me a fool for a variety of other reasons.
Eh, I was going to interact, but I'm getting kind of tired of your high horse lately. Whatever, you're absolutely correct and nothing I ever have to say is of any value. Just consider that my standard response to you for a while.She really doesn't represent the status quo. She's a woman for one and would be the first female president in the country's history.
Kaine represents the status quo just as much, if not more than Clinton.
(Emphasis added)
What are the other ways the former Secretary of State, Senator from Wall Street, most hawkish member of Obama's cabinet who is running on "America Is Already Great" doesn't represent the status quo?
Ha. Coming from you, I find that pretty rich.
Anyway, I gather from the responses that, other than her sex, she doesn't represent anything other than the status quo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Comrade Fergie, you might recall mention of Adolph Reed, the guy who quipped that identity politics is the left wing of neoliberalism.
He wrote an article that was being passed around by the Facebook Far Left. I don't agree with its conclusion, obviously, but I have to admit that I appreciate his honesty.
Since I have never told anyone NOT to vote for Clinton, I think some of you might be getting a little dramatic.
They did this four years ago when it got down to the last week before Obama v. Romney, too.
Whatever.
Actually, I think it is kind of hilarious to be called a foolish ultra-leftist when I agree with Ross Perot on an issue.
Vote for the Lying Neoliberal Warmonger: It’s Important
That's pretty good. He uses big words and more parliamentary language to say some of the things I've been saying in this thread:
I want to stress that voting is an instrumental act, not a domain for pronouncement of essential principles. [...]By contrast, Jill Stein and Greens typically proceed from a quite different view of electoral politics, one that has much more in common with bearing witness or taking a personal stand on principle than with seeing it as an essentially instrumental activity. The Greens’ approach generally, and Stein has shown that she is no exception, is that all that is necessary to make a substantial electoral impact is to have a strong and coherent progressive program and to lay it out in public. That view is fundamentally anti-political; it seeks to provide voters an opportunity to be righteous rather than to try to build deep alliances or even short-term coalitions. It’s naïve in the sense that its notion of organizing support reduces in effect to saying “It’s simple: if we all would just…” without stopping to consider why the simple solutions haven’t already been adopted.
I'd go further, though, and point out that not only is the view "fundamentally anti-political," but it's also wrong, because the US political system doesn't work that way. In fact, no actual government that I'm familiar with works that way.
He's correct that Sanders' organization may have long-term impact on the political landscape in the United States -- "The Labor for Bernie initiative, for example, has constructed a loose network of many thousands of union activists around the country. [...] The Sanders campaign was tremendously successful at what it could do. Its real payoff will come as the movement-building initiatives bear fruit over the next several years." -- but only if the activists show up with enough votes to make them a voting bloc worth courting.
If the Sanders bloc doesn't turn out in 2018, the 2019 Congress will simply pander to the winners who did turn out the vote. Indeed, if the Sanders bloc doesn't turn out for the 2016 general election, there's no reason for the President, whether Clinton or Trump, to take their policy proposals seriously, since the Bernie supporters can't deliver support to the President as the traditional quid pro quo. And if they show up for the 2020 presidential primaries, drive the candidate too far too the left to earn any centrist votes, and then bail on the candidate at the general -- well, that will simply guarantee a right-wing presidency in 2021.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since I have never told anyone NOT to vote for Clinton, I think some of you might be getting a little dramatic. I would also remind those speaking about 'foolish voting' that my home state of New York's electoral votes are ALL going to Clinton, regardless of how I, or a couple million of my friends vote. But you are still welcome to call me a fool for a variety of other reasons.No you didn't.
But you have made a habit of responding to any discussion of any other problems facing Clinton with things like "There seems to be a recurring Disapproval of Hillary is only due to partisan smear campaigns and misogyny, while ignoring many legitimate criticisms." Doing so in a way that seems to dismiss any such effects, much like you claim we dismiss your criticism.
Let me ask straight out, your own issues with her aside, do you think either misogyny or the decades of smears are hurting her campaign? Do you think more people are swayed by those than by the kinds of things you object to about her?
Can't answer for Fergie, but saying "There seems to be a recurring Disapproval of Hillary is only due to partisan smear campaigns and misogyny, while ignoring many legitimate criticisms" is 100% not an implication that those partisan smear campaigns and/or misogyny aren't real or a factor. I too have noticed that when people such as Comrade Ankelbiter and Fergie (not including other users as there have been a wide array of arguments raised, with varying levels of legitimacy) bring up points targeting Clinton's character, professional history, or whatever, that the response often involves the assumption that misogyny is inherently involved in the argument. This is similar to when, many pages ago during a discussion on firearms, accusations where thrown around stating roughly that a person must feel some way/hold some opinion due to them being a straight, white male, as though it were inherently a significant, contributing factor.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not usually aimed directly at such posts, but at more general "what's causing Clinton problems" discussion, like the "her biggest problem is that she represents the status quo" bit that kind of started this latest go around. I really do see those as by far her biggest issues. Without widespread sexism and without the decades of propaganda, this would be a completely different campaign.
I agree with this, for what it's worth.
I'd also like to point out that "representing the status quo" is not a bad thing in American politics.
First, despite ceaseless and baseless whinging by Fergie et al., the status quo in the United States is pretty good right now. Unemployment is relatively low, especially compared to what it was a mere seven years ago. Violent crime is near a multidecade low, and quality of life is near the top of the world's league tables. The financial system is stable; inflation is, if anything, too low. Almost all of the US health problems are self-inflicted lifestyle choices (drug abuse, obesity, smoking, and so forth).
Secondly, this means that for the vast majority of people in the United States, incrementalism, not saltationism, is the way forward. Radical changes of any sort tend to make people nervous, and for good reason -- radical changes tend to be strongly subject to the Law of Unintended Consequences and often result in breaking equilibria that people didn't even know existed. That's one very strong reason that no actual economist supported Sanders, Stein, or Johnson; if you look at the so-called policy behind their various proposals, they'd simply drive the US economy -- and by extension, the world's economy -- into a ditch.
So the effect of those two factors is that one of the most effective slogans in US politics is "tomorrow will be pretty much like today, only better," which is more or less what Clinton is promising.
As a simple example of what I'm talking about, let's look at the ACA (Obamacare). Single payer is a nice idea; it's worked out well in most of Europe, and I'm a big fan. But I also don't see a path to get it, especially in the teeth of a House of Representatives that will, in all probability, still be controlled by the Republicans and a particularly uncompromising bunch of Republicans at that.
So the ultra-left screams at Clinton because she won't promise them UK-style single payer. Sanders promised single payer, but provided no road map to get there. Clinton, instead, promises to keep ACA and expand it (for example, by bending the curve on drug prices). She's fairly specific about how she's going to do that, too:
Her plan will demand a stop to excessive profiteering and marketing by denying tax breaks for direct-to-consumer advertising and demanding that drug companies invest in R&D in exchange for taxpayer support – rather than marketing or excessive profits. She will encourage competition to get more generics on the market and create a Federal backstop for when there are excessively high-priced drugs that face no competition. And for Americans struggling with prescription drug cost burdens, she will cap what insurers can charge consumers in out-of-pocket costs, putting money back in the family wallet.
It's not clear she'll be able to get all of that through, but it's much easier to push Republican Congressmen on "vote against higher drug company profits due to direct-to-consumer advertising" than it is to push them on single payer.
But let's take Sanders at his word. How will he get single-payer through? Will he even spend political capital to defend it if the Republicans push another repeal bill through? Or will he instead push to have the ACA re-written in full, and we get to roll the dice to see what happens when the bill gets out of the sausage factory?
I don't want health care rewritten in full, because Obamacare is a huge step forward, and it's far too easily lost. I don't want saltationism, because I don't trust it. I do, however, trust, "Obamacare, but better." Which is, again, what Clinton is promising and what she has a road map to provide.
And then, of course, let's look at Trump. He's promised to call a special session of Congress just to repeal the ACA, and there's no mention at all of what the replacement, if any, will be. But is there anyone who really thinks that UK-style single payer would be on the table under a Trump presidency? We don't really know what it would be, but no rational person would think it was anything other than bad. Again, I don't want saltationism. I want "what we have, but better."
And once again, Clinton's opponents are in the position of arguing that Clinton might not be able to fulfill all her campaign promises, while ignoring the possibility that Trump might be able to fulfill all of his.
If you want what we have, but better, the first step is to preserve what we have instead of allowing it to be replaced with something abruptly worse.
I think that Clinton can be viewed and critiqued based on what she (and Bill, due to Hillary's past support of his policies) have done, while it seems that others require a comparison to Trump or Sanders.Please put me down as one of those others; in fact, i think that to treat this in any other way is the mark of an irrevocable fool, to put it bluntly.
Barring an act literally unprecedented in the history of the United States, the next president will be either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Trump. I don't expect, for example, a military coup and for General Dunford to announce that he's taking over the country to preserve the smooth-running order of the United States. But neither do I expect a revolution by the Sanders Liberation Front or a sudden restoration of the Hanovrian dynasty. Even less do I expect a meteor strike to eliminate the city of DC,... and the possibility of a third party victory comes in even behind the meteor strike.
So I don't know what good it does to complain about how Clinton is a lousy candidate, since, unless your preferred candidate is Mr. Trump, your preferred candidate is not even in the race.
Given the very real possibility that the real candidate you find even worse might win, voting for an imaginary candidate like Frodo Baggins, Jill Stein, or Bernie Sanders is at best foolish and at worst grossly negligent. Even staying home is irresponsible.
You don't complain to influence this election. You complain to influence future elections.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the very real possibility that the real candidate you find even worse might win, voting for an imaginary candidate like Frodo Baggins, Jill Stein, or Bernie Sanders is at best foolish and at worst grossly negligent. Even staying home is irresponsible.You don't complain to influence this election. You complain to influence future elections.
No, you don't complain to influence future elections, either. You vote to influence future elections, and you organize to influence future elections, and you campaign to influence future elections.
If you want to see a hard-core left-wing House of Representatives,.... get up early next Wednesday. The 2018 campaign starts one week from today.
Heck, if you want to see a hard-core monarchist House of Representatives, the campaign for that starts at the same time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Rubs chin* One of my problems with Clinton is that there have been so many smears against her that I'm not sure what's my actual objections and what's basically wormed its way into my head because of the barrage of negativity. And... I don't like that very much.
At the moment, though, I'm basically trying to treat any accusation from Republicans as false unless and until they can genuinely prove it. I disagree with her on a number of issues - sometimes strongly - but fundamentally I think she'll be an okay President. She might even be good if she gets a Democrat-controlled Congress.
Also, I've already voted. XD So that helps.
Eh, I was going to interact, but I'm getting kind of tired of your high horse lately. Whatever, you're absolutely correct and nothing I ever have to say is of any value. Just consider that my standard response to you for a while.She really doesn't represent the status quo. She's a woman for one and would be the first female president in the country's history.
Kaine represents the status quo just as much, if not more than Clinton.
(Emphasis added)
What are the other ways the former Secretary of State, Senator from Wall Street, most hawkish member of Obama's cabinet who is running on "America Is Already Great" doesn't represent the status quo?
Ha. Coming from you, I find that pretty rich.
Anyway, I gather from the responses that, other than her sex, she doesn't represent anything other than the status quo.
You're absolutely right, none of my opinions are worth anything.
Someone turn the cold ray gun or something. I'm getting sick with all this warm weather. :p
But you have made a habit of responding to any discussion of any other problems facing Clinton with things like "There seems to be a recurring Disapproval of Hillary is only due to partisan smear campaigns and misogyny, while ignoring many legitimate criticisms." Doing so in a way that seems to dismiss any such effects, much like you claim we dismiss your criticism.Well, I just looked over my last 100 or so posts (all of October), and I don't think I addressed her gender once in that time. I also don't believe I questioned that she has been the target of BS investigations that are a sham distraction. Maybe you have me confused with someone else, or maybe I'm missing your point?
Let me ask straight out, your own issues with her aside, do you think either misogyny or the decades of smears are hurting her campaign?
I don't think it has affected her numbers that much. The people who watch fox and read Breitbart were not going to be voting for her anyway. They would come after her with BS regardless of her gender, race, religion, etc. They went after Obama for being a 'foreign born secret Muslim'. Reality and truth are not their stock and trade, but as in Obama's case, most peoplenon-republicans were not fooled by that stuff.
Do you think more people are swayed by those than by the kinds of things you object to about her?
As I said, there is a good chunk of people who would just never vote without Rush Limbaugh's blessing. As previously mentioned, we are really talking about a small section of "undecided voters" and a large group of people who don't vote. Most of the people I talk to feel like Clinton is untrustworthy, as are most politicians. I don't disagree. I honestly can't separate how much people don't like her because of decades of neo-liberalism, and how much is 'Benghazi-gate' nonsense.
If I was to just throw out a random guess, I would say that it is a very small percentage who are undecided voters, and yet are still swayed by made up scandals. Probably in the 1-2% of voters range.Reminds me of the Dave Chappelle skit- the "I know black people" game show. "Why don't black people trust Ronald Reagan?" I don't recall many wrong answers...
Are you complaining to me that the corporate media doesn't treat your candidate fairly?
Are you complaining to me that the corporate media doesn't treat your candidate fairly?
And your contention is that they treated Clinton equitably? That they held both to the same standards? If so, I must congratulate you indeed on the fine quality of blinders you are wearing.
Are you complaining to me that the corporate media doesn't treat your candidate fairly?And your contention is that they treated Clinton equitably?
My contention is that they haven't treated ANY candidates equitably in the last few decades.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My contention is that they haven't treated ANY candidates equitably in the last few decades.Are you complaining to me that the corporate media doesn't treat your candidate fairly?And your contention is that they treated Clinton equitably?
That's a nonsense statement, it's practically a nonstatement. I on the other hand will talk a bit more relevantly. Lets talk about equitable treatment in the last debate... You might remember.. it was the one where Chris Wallace spent the beginning hammering Clinton on emails, gave softball questions to Trump, and even gave him the opportunity to walk back his egregious assertion on the legitimacy of the electoral process, which Trump still managed to muff.
Next Tuesday is not an election of the last few decades.. it is the election of 2016,and it's going not only determine the nature of the next four years, but it will show this planet what kind of people Americans are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you complaining to me that a fox news anchor didn't uphold the high journalistic standards you expect from the Presidential Debates Commission?
The world knows exactly what kind of people Americans are. That is why we are the most feared country in the world.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The world knows exactly what kind of people Americans are. That is why we are the most feared country in the world.
We agree on this, though perhaps for different reasons.
I need one of those 'America Was Never Great' hats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe she should smile more?Clinton does lack certain qualities present in most presidents, and I'm not just talking about a penis. Excluding both Bushes, the last few presidents have been quite excellent orators (I think she could deliver similar serious speeches like each Bush could fairly well). Even though she's had a life of public service and has stood next to one of the best orators in the country for decades, she still seems stilted and overly rehearsed.
If you look at the list of greatest orator presidents, 5 of them are in the last 70 years and in the era of radio and television (and now the internet) I don't think that is a coincidence. It almost wouldn't matter how good an orator Thomas Jefferson was, very few people would ever hear him speak. Now, the whole country can be reached and the ability to inspire and rouse with a speech is almost required.
HRC is exceptionally intelligent and hard working, but her public speaking leaves a lot to be desired (considering the scope of what she's trying to do). I don't think this makes her a bad candidate, but it leaves her campaigning somewhat lackluster at times.
I know you're joking, but the idea that "Hillary is a weak public speaker" is inherently born from sexism needs to stop. She's not that great a speaker. I'd say she's around the level of Bush Junior, to be honest. It's hard on her because she's coming right after Obama, so the comparisons are a bit unfair, and obviously there are elements of sexism (like people saying she's "shrill"), but Clinton just did not put all her points into Charisma. Or even that many.
Mind you, I don't care if my president has the comforting tones of Morgan Freeman, just like I don't care if they have the pure-hearted integrity of Mister Rogers. I just care about experience and policy.
But let's not kid ourselves here.
nor am I keen on the anti-vaxxer who thinks that wi-fi causes cancer.
Clarification: Jill Stein is a conspiracy theory supporter, not a theorist in her own right. She just panders to whoever she can get, be they anti-vaxxers or 9/11 truthers. Also, she's basically a living embodiment of everything wrong with Autism Speaks.
Two people enter. One person leaves.
Come to think of it, maybe just lock the gate so they both have to stay in there forever and let us get on with our lives.
James Jacobs for President 2016!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two people enter. One person leaves.
Come to think of it, maybe just lock the gate so they both have to stay in there forever and let us get on with our lives.
James Jacobs for President 2016!
I still can't believe Dwarves For Jacobs is a real political movement! Have you heard the elf supremacist rhetoric that candidate has uttered in the last year alone?
Very nasty stuff. Way worse than anything I ever said. I will be, so good for the dwarves. I will put them all, in very safe, boxes, where they belong, we are being overrun—just overrun, it's unbelievable, and the elves tried to warn us, many prominent elves believe, and it's really big to think about, once I went to the dwarven city of Fellstrok—horrible city, slaves everywhere, slaves, way worse than people say I slaved people, I didn't keep any slaves, you can ask Sean Pugwampity, and there was crime, and there were violent dark-skinned elves, and I went to an old business partner of mine, very successful, very upstanding dwarf in that city, and he says, "Kobald, the dwarves are a mess, you need to lock them up for us," and I said I would, and in conclusion, we have got, to do something, about, the dwarves.
People say I hate dwarves, but I have been a very good business friend to the beautiful dwarves of Fellstrok. I will run Paizo like a business, and dwarves will profit, which as we all know is very important to them!
I still can't believe Dwarves For Jacobs is a real political movement! Have you heard the elf supremacist rhetoric that candidate has uttered in the last year alone?Two people enter. One person leaves.
Come to think of it, maybe just lock the gate so they both have to stay in there forever and let us get on with our lives.
James Jacobs for President 2016!
I plan to vote for the candidate promising to endorse aasimar interests on the prime material plane. I know they don't have a snowball's chance in the City of Brass of actually winning the ticket, but I feel like putting my vote there says something about the current dwarf v elf politics as usual.
I miss Aroden. Now there was a candidate you could really get behind.
So we live in the City of Brass? That does explain a few things.
My wife's a half-elf, but she came here legally, okay. She is a very, very classy half-elf.
I'd also like to say that I do not believe that James Jacobs is an elf himself. It was the dwarves who started than rumor to begin with, but I'm the one who ended it. You know what I mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am a half elf, but I honestly believe that you word hard for what you want in life; that your word is your bond and you keep your promise; that you treat people with respect.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is only one who could solve this issue for us. Get the hundred million containers in order. Start counting all the mangoes and citizen initiatives. Take all their women. See society as it is at superposition.
Vote Yellowdingo 2016!
If Trump doesn't win I have to think his tenure as head of the FBI may be coming to a close.
Even if Trump wins, it may be coming to a close. There is an official complaint that has been filed against him that he violated the Hatch Act. When that complaint is investigated, he will be removed from office if it is upheld. There's not actually a lot of wiggle room for Trump to interfere with that process (by design). I'm not even sure that Trump could pardon Comey, since it's an administrative and not criminal procedure.
But my expections are somewhat simpler. Win or lose, on November 9, Obama will call Comey into the White House and explain to Comey that he (Comey) wants to spend more time with his family.
Seems likely, and then he'll have a private sector consultant job, maybe on faux news,
But my expections are somewhat simpler. Win or lose, on November 9, Obama will call Comey into the White House and explain to Comey that he (Comey) wants to spend more time with his family.rewardingMaking use of his government expertise.
Oh, absolutely.
Comey may even have discussed such a job with someone over the past month or so, which would be a violation of a lot more than the Hatch act, but who would be able to prove what was and was not said over a drink in the lobby of the Watergate Hotel?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi again, folks. Just dropping by before Doomsday . . . .
Wow. 60+/- pages of posts . . . . I'm not digging back through all of that. But y'all appear to still be having fun / the same conversations. Congrats!
|
If Trump doesn't win I have to think his tenure as head of the FBI may be coming to a close.Even if Trump wins, it may be coming to a close. There is an official complaint that has been filed against him that he violated the Hatch Act. When that complaint is investigated, he will be removed from office if it is upheld. There's not actually a lot of wiggle room for Trump to interfere with that process (by design). I'm not even sure that Trump could pardon Comey, since it's an administrative and not criminal procedure.
But my expections are somewhat simpler. Win or lose, on November 9, Obama will call Comey into the White House and explain to Comey that he (Comey) wants to spend more time with his family.
I totally agree, Orfamay. That memo Comey released publicly didn't have the words "I am tendering my resignation as Director of the FBI" written on them, but that's what the effect of it will be in my estimation.