Cliff Varnell Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: To name just one scandal. I will never understand the love for and defense of the Clintons. But this kind of thing has happened before, in Argentina with Juan and Eva Peron. (Complete with sexual perversion. Juan had a 13-year-old mistress. When someone pointed out to him that she was 13, Juan said, "Yes, but I'm not superstitious.") I'm sure there will soon be an opera "Hillary," with the Hillary character singing, "Don't Cry for Me, America." It's not Clinton I love. I love facts. If you have anything to indicate "pay for play" with the Clinton Foundation I'm all ears. Not "pay for having a sit down," but actual quid pro quo. I defend Clinton on the Benghazi/e-mail thing because it's ginned up garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: 12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: This bullxxxx has been going on since "Travelgate." To name just one scandal. Not a single one of the Republican-made faux scandals worked out for them. Isn't that right Ron? I will never understand the love for and defense of the Clintons. Because you don't know the truth about the Clintons, and you don't bother to know the truth. You believe what you want to believe. I defend the Clintons because they are constantly being slandered by their opponents. But this kind of thing has happened before, in Argentina with Juan and Eva Peron. (Complete with sexual perversion. Juan had a 13-year-old mistress. When someone pointed out to him that she was 13, Juan said, "Yes, but I'm not superstitious.") What does that have to do with Hillary? I'm sure there will soon be an opera "Hillary," with the Hillary character singing, "Don't Cry for Me, America." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: If you have anything to indicate "pay for play" with the Clinton Foundation I'm all ears. Not "pay for having a sit down," but actual quid pro quo. I defend Clinton on the Benghazi/e-mail thing because it's ginned up garbage. I've heard or read that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation. But who knows what to believe anymore. Benghazi, emails, the Clinton Foundation. All just the latest, relatively speaking. The Clintons have a very long history. I could say something like where there are years of smoke there must be fire. But what's the point? It's all those damn Republicans. The Clintons are as innocent as newborn babes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: I've heard or read that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation. But who knows what to believe anymore. Benghazi, emails, the Clinton Foundation. All just the latest, relatively speaking. The Clintons have a very long history. I could say something like where there are years of smoke there must be fire. But what's the point? It's all those damn Republicans. The Clintons are as innocent as newborn babes. So you're okay with a two party system where all one party does is investigate the leaders of the opposition? That's fascism, Ron! Whatever Hillary did -- and I'm still waiting to hear of it -- it pales in comparison to Republican treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 10 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Because you don't know the truth about the Clintons, and you don't bother to know the truth. You believe what you want to believe. Yeah, I don't bother to know the truth, as much as I've looked into the scandals, I just believe what I want to believe. You know the truth that I don't bother to know, right? You're smarter and more educated, and may even have supernatural mental powers when it comes to the Clintons. Good for you, pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: So you're okay with a two party system where all one party does is investigate the leaders of the opposition? The two party system is a bunch of politicians out to get all they can and to keep others from getting it. While the powers that be sit back and laugh their butts off. Am I okay with the system? Hell no. What do you think I should do about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 I'm not sure Trump is going to survive to the Inaugural. He doesn't have the skill set to govern and his advisors battle for access and influence. This is looking like an unfolding black comedic disaster of un-paralleled dimensions. Trump team rivalries spark infighting http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-team-rivals-231277 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 4 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: The two party system is a bunch of politicians out to get all they can and to keep others from getting it. While the powers that be sit back and laugh their butts off. Am I okay with the system? Hell no. What do you think I should do about it? I'm not talking about business as usual. When the Dems had the House they didn't investigate the Goopers. When the Goopers have the House and there is a Dem President all they do is investigate. We can't fix a problem until we see it clearly. And clearly what we're dealing with is Republican treason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said: I'm not sure Trump is going to survive to the Inaugural. I heard somewhere on the news tonight that there's an online petition to get the electoral college to vote for Clinton. Imagine it happening. Would that be a Constitutional crisis or what? Or dare I say civil war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Just now, Ron Ecker said: I heard somewhere on the news tonight that there's an online petition to get the electoral college to vote for Clinton. Imagine it happening. Would that be a Constitutional crisis or what? Or dare I say civil war? She wouldn't be able to govern. Since we're entering into an era of extreme governmental dysfunction better it be a Gooper at the helm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Trump suddenly sounds very un-Trumpish. Like, maybe he wont' repeal Obamacare after all. I have an hypothesis (not yet a full-fledged theory) that Trump really didn;'t expect to win, and is starting to ask himself, "What the hell have I gotten into?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 5 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said: Trump suddenly sounds very un-Trumpish. Like, maybe he wont' repeal Obamacare after all. I have an hypothesis (not yet a full-fledged theory) that Trump really didn;'t expect to win, and is starting to ask himself, "What the hell have I gotten into?" I think he's soiling himself over the complexities he now faces with no preparation whatsoever. The protests will only grow as the scum crawl out from the rock Trump kicked over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 And that's the way it is, Saturday, November 12, 2016 (EST). Go Gators! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Maybe Trump's current demeanor is in part because he sees that there is a nest of viper insiders surrounding him and trying to manipulate him. Too much to hope for probably. Funny how I found myself agreeing alternately with Cliff and Ron while they face off. The exchange seems like a microcosm of the inability to communicate across a cultural divide that is very complex. Sources of facts are hard to come by in this media driven environment. One thing I notice is that when progressives criticize Clinton it's because she seems wedded to policies we don't agree with. The Republican criticisms are more like a witch hunt, and on the far right the demonization takes extraordinary leaps into complete fabrications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said: Yeah, I don't bother to know the truth, as much as I've looked into the scandals, I just believe what I want to believe. You know the truth that I don't bother to know, right? You're smarter and more educated, and may even have supernatural mental powers when it comes to the Clintons. Good for you, pal. I study it. I know you don't because of the things you've claimed. I can tell that Cliff studies it too. I don't know that much about the pay for play allegations. But I trust what Cliff says on that issue because he's been 100% right on other things I have studied, like Benghazi and the e-mail server issue. And besides Ron, it's painfully obvious that the Right makes a gigantic deal out of every tiny thing that happens with the Clintons. It surprises me that people don't see through it. They are blinded by their ideology IMO. And BTW, I remember defending G.W. Bush when I saw Democrats unfairly demonizing him. So Democrats are guilty too. But the Republicans are in a league of their own. Democrats are neophytes, and I hope they stay that way. I wish we all had the class Barack Obama has. Edited November 12, 2016 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now