Jump to content

U.S. Politics


maqroll

Recommended Posts

so much is focussed on the president, but because everything is so partisan, the checks and balances ensure very little is ever actually done if the democrats don't have majorities in both senate and congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if you look beyond Facebook you can find quite a few more scandals associated with the Clintons.

Quote

During his 1992 campaign for the presidency, Bill Clinton was fond of promising America, “You get two for the price of one,” indicating Hillary Clinton would act as his co-president.

But the nation got much more than it bargained for, as the top power couple brought a load of baggage with them into the White House from their days in Arkansas.

After the Clintons moved into the presidential mansion, the political scandals multiplied – from use of the IRS and FBI to target political opponents to stalking and harassing subjects of Bill Clinton’s sexual advances and even attempts to loot taxpayer-funded items from the White House. Americans also witnessed capers such as Travelgate, Chinagate, Filegate and Pardongate.


 

http://tinyurl.com/l6855gh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That website is run by Joseph Farah, who denied that Barrack Obama was a US citizen, and called for him to release his birth certificate. When he did so, he then wanted to see the long form version. When Obama released that, Farah claimed it was a forgery.

I'll take anything on that clearing in the woods's website with an industrial vat of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Travelgate, Chinagate, Filegate and Pardongate'

One rule of politics - not sure if it's totally 'iron' or not yet, but I'm increasingly convinced - is that scandals that are actually scandalous don't need the suffix '-gate' after them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised he's leading in the polls since yesterday and still such long odds at the bookies. Rumours of more damaging releases from Wikileaks to come this week as well.

I've dropped a few quid on him winning just to ease the despair if it happens.

Hillary's knack of winning votes in areas that that use voting machines by suspicious margins ought to see her through though.

Edited by Davkaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's half a chance that if that Evan McMullin fella does well in a couple of other states ( Idaho and Wyoming I think ) then neither Hillary nor Trump may reach 270 electoral votes - in which case The House of Representatives declares the winner. :o It's dominated by Republicans. That becomes a popcorn moment then. All those prime republicans refusing to endorsing him as a candidate then possibly being responsible for selecting him directly. What a system. There's presumably no chance they'd choose Hilary. Imagine if they chose an Independent :crylaugh: 

 

That said, the poll figures are twitchy bum time. The most offensive candidate / human being nominated in a western democracy in modern times on the verge of being elected... if it happens I think we should just inform Americans that the independence experiment has failed and take back our colony. It's the most reasonable response. 240 years to get your shit together, and you do this. 

Edited by Rodders
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LakotaDakota said:

Anyone else think Trump is going to win this?

I think it's much closer than most people realise. 

Clearly the momentum is hugely in his favour this week. Time will tell if it stalls now, with him slightly behind, or keeps going and he edges ahead. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This morning there was a brief vox pop of young american voters and the UK radio journalist asked why they were all so unimpressed with the two candidates. They didn't like Trump due to all the reasons we are all well versed in via our media. They didn't like Hilary because of the constant undercurrent of dodgy deals and 'not quite' lies, a constant whiff of something as yet unproven.

The radio presenter basically said, 'oh you mean the e-mails?'. To which they responded, 'no, pay to play'. I'd never heard of it so I've done a little googling, When Secretary of State it looks very much like donors to the Clinton Foundation got disproportionately more grants and contracts to 'help rebuild' Haiti. No donation, no government contract.

She was quizzed at the third presidential debate on this. Trump didn't raise it, the moderator did. He asked about pay to play, she gave the answer that she never did anything that didn't further America. The moderator asked again, she said 'there was no evidence'. Trump weighed in with accusations about Saudi Arabia, focus was gone and Hilary was off the hook.

Then there's the private and paid for speeches she gave that she didn't want publicised. Telling big business that politicians had to have two positions on big issues, the position they tell the voters, and their actual position.

Then there's the non-counting of Bernie Sanders votes with HC declared winner with millions of votes extrapolated out from a sample that favoured HC.

Secret deals with the media to drip feed them exclusive content in exchange for being able to veto unfavourable counter stories.

So there is more (or less) to Clinton than just e-mails. She's just very lucky that she is up against Trump.

Trump is, by some margin, the stinkier and stickier of two turds.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Then there's the non-counting of Bernie Sanders votes with HC declared winner with millions of votes extrapolated out from a sample that favoured HC.

It's also incredibly troubling that in a number of states, she beat Sanders by 10%+, which was not reflected by exit polls. This happened in several states, all of which have unvetted electronic voting machines with no paper trail. Not only did Sanders win overall in states without the machines, the results closely matched the exit polls in those states.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't the accusation that Clinton is a puppet of the world order conspiracy of the Bilderburg group (aka the Rothchilds) and that some of the private server emails highlight this close relationship?

I don't much buy into conspiracy theories but I'm very intrigued by Bilderburg and the Rothchilds family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TrentVilla said:

Isn't the accusation that Clinton is a puppet of the world order conspiracy of the Bilderburg group (aka the Rothchilds) and that some of the private server emails highlight this close relationship?

I don't much buy into conspiracy theories but I'm very intrigued by Bilderburg and the Rothchilds family.

errr... and Russia is getting so much grief 'cause they recently paid off their Rothschild loans :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

This morning there was a brief vox pop of young american voters and the UK radio journalist asked why they were all so unimpressed with the two candidates. They didn't like Trump due to all the reasons we are all well versed in via our media. They didn't like Hilary because of the constant undercurrent of dodgy deals and 'not quite' lies, a constant whiff of something as yet unproven.

The radio presenter basically said, 'oh you mean the e-mails?'. To which they responded, 'no, pay to play'. I'd never heard of it so I've done a little googling, When Secretary of State it looks very much like donors to the Clinton Foundation got disproportionately more grants and contracts to 'help rebuild' Haiti. No donation, no government contract.

She was quizzed at the third presidential debate on this. Trump didn't raise it, the moderator did. He asked about pay to play, she gave the answer that she never did anything that didn't further America. The moderator asked again, she said 'there was no evidence'. Trump weighed in with accusations about Saudi Arabia, focus was gone and Hilary was off the hook.

Then there's the private and paid for speeches she gave that she didn't want publicised. Telling big business that politicians had to have two positions on big issues, the position they tell the voters, and their actual position.

Then there's the non-counting of Bernie Sanders votes with HC declared winner with millions of votes extrapolated out from a sample that favoured HC.

Secret deals with the media to drip feed them exclusive content in exchange for being able to veto unfavourable counter stories.

So there is more (or less) to Clinton than just e-mails. She's just very lucky that she is up against Trump.

Trump is, by some margin, the stinkier and stickier of two turds.

I posted an msnbc vid about the pay-to-play the other day and they referenced Doug Band as being the Clintons, and the looks on their faces talking about his was amazing. They were truly disgusted. What a sorry state this country is in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â