2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

He recommended that somebody shoot Hillary...

He actually said that in those words? Google
doesn't know about it, I looked.

Quote: RonC

Democraps always want to have things both ways...they say that Hillary's experience includes her time as First Lady (when she was indeed involved in various policy issues and obviously had access to Bill most did not have). Then someone brings up something potentially negative about Hillary and all the sudden that experience does not count.

No memes necessary; they are fun, but usually inaccurate and believed by way too many who are gullible on both sides. There is actually proof of this out there; I would bet that you don't care to read it. If you do read it, please don't forget that I said "partially" and not "only" because of that bill. I can see how that part could easily be forgotten.

Spouses of Presidents have no executive power, even if you want to blame one of them for something that happened while her husband was President. Sorry. Not even "partially."

Obviously, being First Lady does allow some insight into and perhaps influence on policy, but it's a loooooooong stretch from that to any inference that she helped make policy on any given issue...lacking PROOF of such. Republiholes want to have things both ways--her extensive experience in government doesn't count for anything, but when something they disapproved of happened in the past, she was the evil puppet master who hypnotized Bill.

Quote: EvenBob

He actually said that in those words? Google
doesn't know about it, I looked.

No, I'm not quoting him verbatim. He said something about someone should take away her Secret Service detail's guns and then "let's see what happens."

Now, I'm sure that you want to apologize for him and say that he wasn't saying that anybody should try to assassinate Hillary. But the implication was there, and yes, he's responsible for misinterpretations of anything he says, even if that's not what he really meant. Trump continually says pulled-pit-of-his-ass things and then backpedals: "That's not what I really meant." "I was kidding." Nobody's buying that this time. Except maybe you, Bobby.

I can only imagine the reactions of his lackeys, covering their faces with their hands as he makes another unforced error. Really, do we want someone in the Oval Office who can't control his mouth? (I know you do, Bobby.)

He might actually have been making some kind of asinine Second Amendment reference, but if he was, he sure hasn't told us--he just went off on a storm of Twitter rants about how the biased media was screwing him over.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

No, I'm not quoting him verbatim.

Didn't Hillary say she's a neurological basket
case? (I'm not quoting her verbatim)

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

No, I'm not quoting him verbatim. He said something about someone should take away her Secret Service detail's guns and then "let's see what happens.

He was replying to her gun-grabbing position. And he is right! If she wants guns taken away she should lead by example.

I guess you missed the point.

Quote: AZDuffman

He was replying to her gun-grabbing position. And he is right! If she wants guns taken away she should lead by example.

I guess you missed the point.

Most of his writings miss the point...I am beginning to wonder if even believes any of the things he writes.

Only someone wishing that Trump had such a thing can turn it into that; clumsy as his wording may have been, he most certainly has not advocating the assassination of his opponent. The whole idea that he may have meant that is a stretch to to attempt to win a news cycle. It didn't work.

Ed Klein says people have been telling
him for 2 years that when they visit
Hillary at her residence they frequently
see her faint or swoon. How does anybody
in Hillary's insider circle think somebody
like this is qualified to hold any kind of
responsible position, let alone be president.
This whole thing is just insane.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Spouses of Presidents have no executive power, even if you want to blame one of them for something that happened while her husband was President. Sorry. Not even "partially."

Obviously, being First Lady does allow some insight into and perhaps influence on policy, but it's a loooooooong stretch from that to any inference that she helped make policy on any given issue...lacking PROOF of such. Republiholes want to have things both ways--her extensive experience in government doesn't count for anything, but when something they disapproved of happened in the past, she was the evil puppet master who hypnotized Bill.

She was the husband of the President. She stood by his positions, well, not all of them...but the non-sexual ones. Why don't you try giving some evidence that she did not support it and was against it? I'll provide just a little proof; I am sure you'll just ramble on about it not being proof:

****************************************
THE WHITE HOUSE

OFFICE OF THE PRESS SECRETARY


For Immediate Release August 10, l994


REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY
TO THE NINTH ANNUAL "WOMEN IN POLICING" AWARDS
NEW YORK, NEW YORK


MRS. CLINTON: Thank you for that spirited
introduction. I appreciated it very much. I want to thank,
too, your mayor for being here and supporting not only the
entire department, but the women in the department. And I
want to say a special word of thanks to the mayor for his
hard work and support of the crime bill.

*****************************************************************
http://clinton4.nara.gov/media/text/1994-08-10-first-lady-remarks-to-the-ninth-annual-women-in-policing-awards.text

You can huff and puff and write a whole lot of stuff, but she supported the bill.

She slept with Bill. Well, she lived in the White House. Who knows who slept with him. She did have influence and she was involved in policy (Health care).

She has a good bit of experience. Trump does not. I don't really think anyone disputes that. The issue is whether her experience proved that she was good or bad at her various government positions. Since she was involved in policy matters, that includes her time as First Lady. It isn't like she stayed in the White House and baked cookies...

Quote: RonC

Most of his writings miss the point...I am beginning to wonder if even believes any of the things he writes.

I don't know where some people get the time to post so much plain anger making so little sense sometimes.

Quote:

Only someone wishing that Trump had such a thing can turn it into that; clumsy as his wording may have been, he most certainly has not advocating the assassination of his opponent. The whole idea that he may have meant that is a stretch to to attempt to win a news cycle. It didn't work.

I would not even say he was trying to win the news cycle. The comment he made is common for those of us who believe in gun rights. Anti-gun celebs have been caught having armed bodyguards while telling the common folk they have no need for a guy. Rosie O'Donnell and Michael Moore to name two. Trump is just saying the same thing. It may not win the news cycle, but neither will it lose one. What it does is keep energy in the base.

Quote: AZDuffman

The comment he made is common for those of us who believe in gun rights..

The rich and famous are usually hypocrites
when it come to their personal protection
and ours. They think they deserve it, a
typical bourgeois attitude.

Let's see, here is Hillary's actual platform for the gun issue.

Quote:

Expand background checks to more gun sales—including by closing the gun show and internet sales loopholes—and strengthen the background check system by getting rid of the so-called “Charleston Loophole.”

Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry’s sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.

Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill by supporting laws that stop domestic abusers from buying and owning guns, making it a federal crime for someone to intentionally buy a gun for a person prohibited from owning one, and closing the loopholes that allow people suffering from severe mental illness to purchase and own guns. She will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/

Not sure why this requires guns to be removed from trained Secret Service agents who are law enforcement. But Trump people seem to buy all this nonsense Trump says.

Quote: rxwine

Not sure why this requires guns to be removed from trained Secret Service agents who are law enforcement. But Trump people seem to buy all this nonsense Trump says.

Nobody really meant that. It was all push back against gun control; not an actual call for disarming the security or the shooting of anyone. This isn't a "Trumper" thing--the NRA has long led the battle against gun control; they started way before Trump decided to run for anything and he is using opposition to gun control to solidify his base.

I am not against all background checks and closing loop holes, but I am pretty sure most of the murderers out there don't give a damn about gun control regulations. Further restrictions may slow someone down, but they aren't going to stop someone determined to kill.

Quote: RonC

Further restrictions may slow someone down, but they aren't going to stop someone determined to kill.

Every time I hear about gun control, I think
about Hitler taking all the guns away from
the people of Germany as soon as he came
to power. Then, once nobody was armed,
came the midnight knocks on doors and
the hauling away to concentration camps.
An unarmed populace is a sitting duck.

Quote: rxwine

Not sure why this requires guns to be removed from trained Secret Service agents who are law enforcement. But Trump people seem to buy all this nonsense Trump says.

Well, just read all the silliness flowing from Ronnie, Duffy, and Bobbie on this thread (I'm no longer going to bother). They are collectively a Niagara of nonsense. But you might ask why they persist in their goofy illogic. The answer is a thing called "selective perception"--a cognitive bias that causes you to perceive only those things that appear to confirm what you want to believe. It's also called "confirmation bias."

Trumpers suffer from the above mental defect--actually, no, it's a bit harsh to call it that, let's say "cognitive error." It actually feels good for those who suffer from this error to perceive the world in their own distorted fashion. There's also an effect called "cognitive dissonance" where you can't reconcile two mutually contradictory facts that you avow to be true. For example:

Trumper: Obama wasn't born in this country! He is a Muslim space alien from the planer Dweemo!
Trumper: Donald Trump is a fountain of truth and wisdom.
Cognitive dissonance trigger: Trump just admitted he's been lying about the birther crap for years.

The classic reaction to cognitive dissonance is to deny some aspect of reality in order to reduce the stress from doublethink. I think this is what's happening with our Titanic Trumper Trio--RonC, AZDuffman, and EvenBob. Guys, I do understand.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

I think this is what's happening with our Titanic Trumper Trio--RonC, AZDuffman, and EvenBob. Guys, I do understand.

Gee whiz, such drama, I'm actually embarrassed
for you. Such a lot of words to make no point
at all. Hillary started the birther crap in 2007-08,
live with it.

MSNBC, Politico, Bloomberg, CNN, McClatchy and More Confirm: Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Campaign Spread ‘Birtherism’ About Barack Obama

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/msnbc-politico-bloomberg-cnn-mcclatchy-confirm-hillary-clintons-2008-campaign-spread-birtherism/

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Well, just read all the silliness flowing from Ronnie, Duffy, and Bobbie on this thread (I'm no longer going to bother). They are collectively a Niagara of nonsense. But you might ask why they persist in their goofy illogic. The answer is a thing called "selective perception"--a cognitive bias that causes you to perceive only those things that appear to confirm what you want to believe. It's also called "confirmation bias."

Trumpers suffer from the above mental defect--actually, no, it's a bit harsh to call it that, let's say "cognitive error." It actually feels good for those who suffer from this error to perceive the world in their own distorted fashion. There's also an effect called "cognitive dissonance" where you can't reconcile two mutually contradictory facts that you avow to be true. For example:

Trumper: Obama wasn't born in this country! He is a Muslim space alien from the planer Dweemo!
Trumper: Donald Trump is a fountain of truth and wisdom.
Cognitive dissonance trigger: Trump just admitted he's been lying about the birther crap for years.

The classic reaction to cognitive dissonance is to deny some aspect of reality in order to reduce the stress from doublethink. I think this is what's happening with our Titanic Trumper Trio--RonC, AZDuffman, and EvenBob. Guys, I do understand.

You are the champion of using big words to either say a whole lot of nothing, say that certain groups of people should be eliminated (like Hitler), or come up with some bull crap arm-chair psychiatrist crap about people who don't bow down to your positions. Your writing style suggests that you are very smart and know a whole lot of words and you do put together some decent contributions in other threads. Here? You just spout the same silliness over and over again, try your best to insult members without crossing the actual personal insult line, and try to end the conversation because, well, you are the only genius here.

I'll admit, it almost worked. I let you get under my skin a bit at first (of course, there was the actual personal insult thing) but then I realized that your rantings from your bomb-proof cave deep in the heart of liberal land contained very little evidence and were just various ways of saying the other side sucks.

I am not speaking for anyone else, but I don't really think the other side, as a whole, "sucks" nor do I think they should be "eliminated." I do sometimes use terms similar to the ones you use to match the tone of your silliness, but I respect just about every liberal here...and I would like them to respect me, but it has little impact on anything real if they don't do so. My positions are not so far right as to be unable to meet in the middle and I have great discussions in real life (instead of this fantasy land we play in here) with the folks who have different opinions. I am respectful enough to know how to agree to disagree without being hateful and nasty.

Thanks, though, for accusing members here of having a mental defect. It says a lot more about you than it does them.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

The answer is a thing called "selective perception"--a cognitive bias that causes you to perceive only those things that appear to confirm what you want to believe. It's also called "confirmation bias."

You mean someone must be a racist if they want immigration law enforced and the borders protected?

Quote: AZDuffman

He was replying to her gun-grabbing position. And he is right! If she wants guns taken away she should lead by example.

I guess you missed the point.

Why doesn't he let people bring guns into his rallies?

If more guns = safer America, surely he is being hypocritical by denying his deplorables the opportunity to open carry in front of him!

He is denying people their 2nd Amendment rights. So un-American.

Quote: EvenBob

Gee whiz, such drama, I'm actually embarrassed
for you. Such a lot of words to make no point
at all. Hillary started the birther crap in 2007-08,
live with it.

MSNBC, Politico, Bloomberg, CNN, McClatchy and More Confirm: Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Campaign Spread ‘Birtherism’ About Barack Obama

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/msnbc-politico-bloomberg-cnn-mcclatchy-confirm-hillary-clintons-2008-campaign-spread-birtherism/

This is typical EvenBob:

Push a lie that has been proven false by every reputable news source. Claim said news sources confirmed lie as true.

Then link to BREITBART.

As Trump would say: Sad!

Quote: EvenBob

Gee whiz, such drama, I'm actually embarrassed
for you. Such a lot of words to make no point
at all. Hillary started the birther crap in 2007-08,
live with it.

EB, I'm actually embarrassed for you
Rommney will beat Obama
Ebola is easy to get and spreads easily
All Muslims want Gays dead, even the non radical ones


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/16/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claim-hillary-clinton-/

Fact-checking Donald Trump's claim Hillary Clinton started Obama birther movement
Our ruling
Trump said, "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy."
There is no evidence to support this. Clinton supporters circulated the rumor in the last days of the 2008 Democratic primary and after Clinton had conceded to Obama. But the record does not show Clinton or her campaign ever promoting the birther theory, let alone starting it.

We rate Trump’s claim False.

Quote: terapined

EB, I'm actually embarrassed for you
Rommney will beat Obama
Ebola is easy to get and spreads easily
All Muslims want Gays dead, even the non radical ones


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/16/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claim-hillary-clinton-/

Fact-checking Donald Trump's claim Hillary Clinton started Obama birther movement
Our ruling
Trump said, "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy."
There is no evidence to support this. Clinton supporters circulated the rumor in the last days of the 2008 Democratic primary and after Clinton had conceded to Obama. But the record does not show Clinton or her campaign ever promoting the birther theory, let alone starting it.

We rate Trump’s claim False.

Facts don't matter to EvenBob, apparently. Breitbart isn't in the fact business, and it's clear that's EB's main news source as of late.

Everyone knows Hillary didn't start the birther thing in 2008. It seems as if Republicans are trying to "smear" her with it - even though they have been pushing it themselves for nearly 8 years.

The birther issue is what brought Trump into the political fray. For 5 years he's tried to delegitimize the first black President. For him to now backtrack on it and try to blame Hillary - it just shows what a spineless monster he really is.

Quote: ams288

Why doesn't he let people bring guns into his rallies?

If more guns = safer America, surely he is being hypocritical by denying his deplorables the opportunity to open carry in front of him!

He is denying people their 2nd Amendment rights. So un-American.

Perhaps because he can't tell the non-deplorables from the deplorables...

He isn't denying anyone their right to open carry. Sometimes the reach of rights gets twisted to make a point; this is one of those times. You have the right to free speech in the public square; not so much in an event where someone has paid for, or been granted use of for free, the venue. The right to open carry, or even concealed carry, has a lot of restrictions that can be put in place. Even if you had the right to open/concealed carry on the National Mall do you really think anyone would let you on Inauguration Day? If the venue restricts you from carrying your weapon, you have the option to decline attendance. No rights violated.

Someone could interpret your quote in the same twisted fashion that they did Trump's.

What're the odds Hillary will be well enough (or rather, not deathly sick enough) to make it to inauguration (if, somehow, she were to win)? How long until she has a giant seizure (or whatever it's technically called) while speaking at a press conference rally only for her to say she had a small muscle spasm or something stupid like that? If you're voting for HRC, you're really voting for Tim Kaine.

Quote: RonC

Perhaps because he can't tell the non-deplorables from the deplorables...

There is a simple way to determine this:

Upon entering his rallies, simply have security ask everyone, "Have you visited Breitbart.com in the last 7 days?"

Quote: RS

What're the odds Hillary will be well enough (or rather, not deathly sick enough) to make it to inauguration (if, somehow, she were to win)? How long until she has a giant seizure (or whatever it's technically called) while speaking at a press conference rally only for her to say she had a small muscle spasm or something stupid like that? If you're voting for HRC, you're really voting for Tim Kaine.

Are you such a Trumper that you're fastening on the "Hillary health" issue to the exclusion of everything else? What are the odds that Hillary will be well enough? Pretty good actually. a 68-year-old woman who's been roaring around the country for months is probably in better shape than you or I. So she caught a cold and had to rest for a few days. What of it?

And in order for her to have a "giant seizure," there has to be a giant nearby to grab her. As long as she stays away from huge people, no giant seizures.

This is like the EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS "issue." There really isn't all that much to criticize Hillary about, so Trumpers have been fastening on this latest so-called controversy like dogs chewing on an old bone. It also helps to deflect criticism of their tin god. Imagine if Hillary had recommended that Donald Trump be assassinated! Imagine if Hillary accused Trump of starting the birther movement! Oh, wait...

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

[<snip>Imagine if Hillary had recommended that Donald Trump be assassinated!<snip>

Did Trump actually say that someone should make an attempt on Hillary? Of course not...

Quote: ams288

There is a simple way to determine this:

Upon entering his rallies, simply have security ask everyone, "Have you visited Breitbart.com in the last 7 days?"

Good idea! Then we can take the other poster's idea and ship all of the non-deplorables off to Baffin Island and we'll have a horrid country filled with just the deplorables!

Quote: RonC

Good idea! Then we can take the other poster's idea and ship all of the non-deplorables off to Baffin Island and we'll have a horrid country filled with just the deplorables!

I believe we already have that. It's called "Mississippi."

Quote: ams288

I believe we already have that. It's called "Mississippi."

That is where non-deplorables should head off to, then...

Quote: EvenBob

Every time I hear about gun control, I think
about Hitler taking all the guns away from
the people of Germany as soon as he came
to power. Then, once nobody was armed,
came the midnight knocks on doors and
the hauling away to concentration camps.
An unarmed populace is a sitting duck.

When Hitler rose to power, the guns his goons had were the same guns that the populace had. That's not true today. The guns that you are legally permitted to own could not hold off even your local SWAT team, let alone a federal military special forces team. If the overarching purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide the populace with a check on the power of a government Militia, that purpose has been lost for decades. To use your phrase, today, even an armed populace is a sitting duck.

I don't know how to get back to the state of affairs wherein an armed populace could effectively resist a government militia that was determined to enslave them, but I do know that relative to where we are right now, an expansion of background checks or further restrictions on owning assault rifles won't move the needle at all.

My God men! Have you all lost your minds?
Both sides.

ME, to your question of a minimally armed populace 'gainst the big bad bogeyman. Think Vietnam.

To anyone wanting to dispute any drivel written by JoeBot, good luck. I'll just have to read some more BS posts.

Apparently the Mods have decided to let this run without moderation. That is the only conclusion I can draw.

<Edit > maybe Zuga is posting as JoeBot, then I could try to understand ;-)

In the end, it will always come down to which administration you believe can best implement the policies and stances that you are most passionate to reform and restructure. Your vote should be your own.

Twitter is going crazy with the #zombiehillary hashtag.
Remember when she said in 2008 'who do you want
taking that 3am call'? This is what waking drugged
up Hillary looks like at 11pm. Do you really want
a person like this making judgements that effect
millions of people?

Quote: EvenBob

Twitter is going crazy with the #zombiehillary hashtag.

If by "going crazy" you mean "hasn't been in the top 10 trends at all in the past day," then yes, you are correct.

http://trends24.in/united-states/

#zombiehillary not anywhere in sight.

Poor Evenbob, always making things up.

Quote: ams288

Why doesn't he let people bring guns into his rallies? If more guns = safer America, surely he is being hypocritical by denying his deplorables the opportunity to open carry in front of him! He is denying people their 2nd Amendment rights. So un-American.

Trump policy does not ban guns at rallies. It depends on the locale.

"It's open carry season for gun owners at Trump's Dallas rally

By ANNA GIARITELLI (@ANNA_GIARITELLI) • 6/16/16 10:44 PM

Gun owners chose to exercise their Second Amendment rights Thursday night at Donald Trump's rally in Dallas, Texas. Rally attendees were seen outside the Gilley's South Side Ballroom bearing arms, both literally with firearms and physically, in cut-off shirts.

Licensed gun owners took full advantage of the state's open carry laws, a bold move days after a mass shooting in Orlando left 49 people dead and tighter gun control laws up for debate.

An estimated 100 to 200 protesters showed up to face-off with the Trump supporters, far fewer than the 1,000 protesters police had expected." washington examiner

Quote: JoelDeze

In the end, it will always come down to which administration you believe can best implement the policies and stances that you are most passionate to reform and restructure. Your vote should be your own.

Our votes will be our own. No one here has to post their vote and there is no obligation to disclose your vote or to tell the truth about that disclosure, should one want to lie. This is just a discussion...

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

He recommended that somebody shoot Hillary...AGAIN.

Advocates of Second Amendment rights do more than shoot. They also just happen to vote in a large and strong bloc.

Quote: ams288

This is typical EvenBob:
Push a lie that has been proven false by every reputable news source. Claim said news sources confirmed lie as true.
Then link to BREITBART. As Trump would say: Sad!

Here are links on the subject with not even one from a conservative group.

“She is the furthest thing from a Rove-like strategic genius (Mark Penn inhabits that role for Hillary). . .” huffpost

Referring to Penn, the Atlantic reported,

“He also called Obama "unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun," and wrote, "I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Penn proposed targeting Obama's "lack of American roots.”

Penn was intent on spreading the impression that Obama was not in any way completely American:

“It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.

“Penn also suggested how the campaign might take advantage of this. “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century,” he advised Clinton. “And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.” He went on: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].” Bloomberg

“Steve Heilemann, author of the insider account of the 2008 election Game Change, said it was the case that Clinton spread the rumors. “It was the case,” he said. “I’m affirming the Scarborough-Brzezinski assertion.” Mediate

The Clinton machine took its sweet time in taking action against the anti-Obama rumores, according to the beloved but hardly impartial Politifact:

“On Dec. 5, 2007, the online magazine Politico posted the text of an email that had been forwarded by Judy Rose, the volunteer chair of the Clinton campaign in Jones County Iowa on Nov. 21, 2007. The email was a quintessential smear that offered a distorted biography of Obama’s early years. . . .

“Rose, sent this to eight of her fellow Democrats. One of them was Clinton campaign staffer Ryan Callanan who replied to the email on the same day in November. . .
“The public airing of the email brought a quick reaction from the Clinton campaign. On Dec. 6, 2007, the Associated Press reported that Rose had resigned as chair of her county committee. . . .

“A few days later, a second volunteer in a different county stepped down when it was learned that she had forwarded a similar email in October.”

And not least of all is Clinton’s most loyal confidant, Sid Blumenthal, whose role in the birther episode surely figured in the White House’s banning him from the State Department:

“Former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher tweeted Friday that Blumenthal had “told me in person” that Obama was born in Kenya.

“During the 2008 Democratic primary, Sid Blumenthal visited the Washington Bureau of McClatchy Co.,” Asher said in an email Friday to McClatchy, noting that he was at the time the investigative editor and in charge of Africa coverage." mcclatchy

Quote: SanchoPanza

Here are links on the subject with not even one from a conservative group.

“She is the furthest thing from a Rove-like strategic genius (Mark Penn inhabits that role for Hillary). . .” huffpost

Referring to Penn, the Atlantic reported,

“He also called Obama "unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun," and wrote, "I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values." Penn proposed targeting Obama's "lack of American roots.”

Penn was intent on spreading the impression that Obama was not in any way completely American:

“It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values.

“Penn also suggested how the campaign might take advantage of this. “Every speech should contain the line that you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century,” he advised Clinton. “And talk about the basic bargain as about [sic] the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child, and that drive you today.” He went on: “Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t … Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds [of campaign events].” Bloomberg

“Steve Heilemann, author of the insider account of the 2008 election Game Change, said it was the case that Clinton spread the rumors. “It was the case,” he said. “I’m affirming the Scarborough-Brzezinski assertion.” Mediate

The Clinton machine took its sweet time in taking action against the anti-Obama rumores, according to the beloved but hardly impartial Politifact:

“On Dec. 5, 2007, the online magazine Politico posted the text of an email that had been forwarded by Judy Rose, the volunteer chair of the Clinton campaign in Jones County Iowa on Nov. 21, 2007. The email was a quintessential smear that offered a distorted biography of Obama’s early years. . . .

“Rose, sent this to eight of her fellow Democrats. One of them was Clinton campaign staffer Ryan Callanan who replied to the email on the same day in November. . .
“The public airing of the email brought a quick reaction from the Clinton campaign. On Dec. 6, 2007, the Associated Press reported that Rose had resigned as chair of her county committee. . . .

“A few days later, a second volunteer in a different county stepped down when it was learned that she had forwarded a similar email in October.”

And not least of all is Clinton’s most loyal confidant, Sid Blumenthal, whose role in the birther episode surely figured in the White House’s banning him from the State Department:

“Former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher tweeted Friday that Blumenthal had “told me in person” that Obama was born in Kenya.

“During the 2008 Democratic primary, Sid Blumenthal visited the Washington Bureau of McClatchy Co.,” Asher said in an email Friday to McClatchy, noting that he was at the time the investigative editor and in charge of Africa coverage." mcclatchy

Too long, didn't read.

Could you do me a favor and just highlight the ones where the Hillary Clinton (not Sid Blumenthal, not Mark Penn) pushed the birther theory? I'll wait.

Wrong, and wrong, and wrong again.

NEVER did the Hillary Clinton campaign of 2008 focus on Barack Obama's birth as a means of attacking his candidacy. There is absolutely NO evidence that suggests this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-on-birtherism-wrong-and-wrong/

Mark Penn didn't push the birther theory.

Trump, again, proves how disgraceful a human being he truly is.

He holds a "press conference" to "apologize" for lying about his birther conspiracy theory. Turns out, it wasn't a press conference, he didn't apologize about lying, and in the process, lied AGAIN about who started birtherism.

It's unbelievable he is where he is. The biggest con artist of our time pulling the biggest con of our time. Shameful.

Quote: Steverinos

Wrong, and wrong, and wrong again.

NEVER did the Hillary Clinton campaign of 2008 focus on Barack Obama's birth as a means of attacking his candidacy. There is absolutely NO evidence that suggests this.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-on-birtherism-wrong-and-wrong/

She tried to portray him as "other," or foreign and attacked him on racial and religious grounds. So, she wasn't a birther, but she helped lay the groundwork for it.

It's almost a comedy at this point. For every disgusting thing Trump does, it turns out the Clintons did something as bad, worse, or almost as bad in the same area.

Quote: Rigondeaux

She tried to portray him as "other," or foreign and attacked him on racial and religious grounds. So, she wasn't a birther, but she helped lay the groundwork for it.

So... if this were true... which it's not.... shouldn't the righties be celebrating her?

When did she attack him on religious and racial grounds?? (Hint: never).

Quote: MathExtremist

TPeople tend to hoard cash when they're uncertain of the future, and at least one billionaire (Mark Cuban) is on the record as saying a Trump victory will tank the markets:
http://fortune.com/2016/09/16/donald-trump-mark-cuban-twitter-fight/

I can't wait until Trump wins and the markets tank. I've got solid 10-20 years of buying in front of me, a stock market crash right now would be aces! I only wish I had scrimped and saved more from 2007-2009 and bought more index funds at a discount.

Quote: RS

If you're voting for HRC, you're really voting for Tim Kaine.

A fact that will dissuade not one single person, I reckon.

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

Apparently the Mods have decided to let this run without moderation. That is the only conclusion I can draw.

When guys like RonC and ME post bannable offenses, I can only assume it is me and not they who has things wrong. Consider this thread an experiment.

Quote: MathExtremist

When Hitler rose to power, the guns his goons had were the same guns that the populace had. That's not true today. The guns that you are legally permitted to own could not hold off even your local SWAT team, let alone a federal military special forces team. If the overarching purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide the populace with a check on the power of a government Militia, that purpose has been lost for decades. To use your phrase, today, even an armed populace is a sitting duck.

I don't know how to get back to the state of affairs wherein an armed populace could effectively resist a government militia that was determined to enslave them, but I do know that relative to where we are right now, an expansion of background checks or further restrictions on owning assault rifles won't move the needle at all.

Finally someone who understands me! Yes, the needle has swung wayyy too damn far. The conversations we ARE having about semi auto rifles is one we SHOULD be having about artillery and propelled explosives. I agree, ME. It's time to narrow that gap ;)

And yes, I'm serious (except for the twisting of ME's words. That was my feeble attempt at humor =p)

But also on the real, I don't believe it has tipped as far as you seem to. After all, it's not about "winning" necessarily, and there's still enough of us out here to make any .gov attempt Pyrrhic as f#$%. Especially since there's no "class"; .gov is made up of you and me, our mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers. Be pretty tough for any would-be Amin to encourage our forces to turn on We the People (just look at our military's response about Don's nuke comments, and consider he was talking about our enemies, let alone us).

And again, I feel you are putting too much value into the arm itself. I have a weapon that a layman would consider "superior" to that of any constabulary, and indeed many of the military weapons. And as I've said before, come the revolution, it'd never see daylight. REAL effectiveness comes from myriad sources and relies heavily on tactics and strategery. A house surrounded by grunts in gear would be quite a pickle for Johnny Gangbanger. Not so much when you're looking at them from atop a knoll 600yds away.

And yes, I'm still serious.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Advocates of Second Amendment rights do more than shoot. They also just happen to vote in a large and strong bloc.

The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with individual gun ownership, though that moronic gun fetishist bloc that you mention misreads it as such.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not scientific, but a measure of energy. Was out for a convertible ride yesterday, mostly rural but some suburban. 7 Trump lawn signs to 1 Hillary. Thought a second was a Hillary sign but it was Hillary for Prison, with Trump signs nearby.

It's score 18 to 2 up here. Just finally saw my second Hil sign not a mile from home today. I'll even call it the second and give credit to the first, even though it was tucked on a porch behind a swing on a dead end road with but 7 houses. If I decide to do my brakes today and run through town, there'll be about 7 more for Trump by the end of that ride.

It is weird though to see the complete lack of participation by both sides. I mean, to put those numbers in perspective, I saw FORTY SEVEN (47!) signs just TODAY to repeal the SAFEAct, a wholly unConstitutional bill jammed into reality some 4+ years ago.

Bless my neighbors. They still have their priorities straight =D

Quote: Face

Quote: RS

If you're voting for HRC, you're really voting for Tim Kaine.

A fact that will dissuade not one single person, I reckon.

It actually might persuade people...