Hillary blames FBI Director Comey for her loss

[Cliff Varnell]

33 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Kirk, agree with what you said.

Sandy, agree about WWII.  You may want to read this though as the hegemony with the US started before WWII:

https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/COPA1998VJS.html

The funny thing about this though is people can be patriots and love their country but still offer dissent with how things are run.  But according to the "true" patriots (the flag-on-their-lapel kind) any kind of dissent is deemed traitorous. Like SL said above, I'm very grateful for being born in the USA but we mustn't forget that governments are run by people...and we know over the course of history the terrible things *people* not governments can do to others.

 

 

When the Republicans are in power situational patriots are pro-government.

When the Democrats are in power situational patriots are anti-government.

1% of Trump voters, according to a poll I saw, think Trump's win is illegitimate.

The other 99% are hypocrites, given that Trump would not have conceded had he won the popular vote by 2.5 million.

[Glenn Nall]

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

American Exceptionalism

The end of World War Two left America in a particularly strong position among nations.

The CIA was created and one of its goals ever since has been to keep America at the top. At any cost, including influencing elections in other countries and sponsoring assassinations of certain leaders.

I love America and I feel blessed to have been born here. But I want nothing to do with CIA tactics designed to maintain America's power or economic advantage over other nations. What some might call American Exceptionalism.

The role of the CIA should be limited to protecting America (and possibly other nations) from aggressive forces and nations. And that's all.

IMO.

 

(P.S. Yes, I do know that there are other definitions for American Exceptionalism. I am picking on one in particular).

i fully agree.

as i said: warts and all.

to love your country does not mean to love the CIA, or the way we treated the Native Americans who were here first, or Common Core or NAFTA. or even the President.

it's to love your country warts and all.

and to be aware that it is still, warts and all, an exceptional nation.

[Michael Walton]

I just don't get the "exceptional" thinking.  Yes, it's a great country.  But I would love to see you in a room full of people, Glenn, with folks from England, France, Rio, Africa.  And you're sitting around talking about world affairs and you at one point, look them all in the eye and say, "You know, our country, the US of A...we're Exceptional."  After some polite and slightly awkward laughing from them, you continue to just stare at them until they stop laughing.  And then:

"We are.  We ARE Exceptional."

I just don't get that kind of thinking.

[Paul Brancato]

Yeah, like when a crowd starts chanting USA USA, I feel sick. 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/24/2016 at 9:19 AM, Paul Brancato said:

Yeah, like when a crowd starts chanting USA USA, I feel sick. 

I guess it's a competitive versus cooperative thing. Competitive folks would chant "USA," and cooperative folks be put off by it.

Though maybe some chanting "USA" are just expressing their love of country.

[Glenn Nall]

well, at least you guys got to keep Pelosi.

yummy.

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 11/18/2016 at 3:20 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Yeah Glenn, I would probably like someone who was a little more in touch with the common man as the Democrats were from FDR to about Clinton. But on the other hand, whatever high profile tweets Trump can do to save some jobs. Without an overall policy change, those same forgotten people will still be forgotten in 4 years. Because you have to notice the Wall Street insiders Trump's putting into critical economic posts. And that says more than anything.

Oh, Glenn, I thought you were going to respond to Sandy's list of appalling, sexist, false accusations, scare mongering, denigration of sacrifices of war heroes like  John Mc Cain, and vets in general like yourself and just general lame ass comments Trump made throughout the campaign with your own list of Hillary's similar dirty campaign rhetoric, but we've yet to hear it yet. I assume your still researching?

Sandy said,

Some of the appalling things Trump said during his campaign.

 

• “If I were running ‘The View’, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’”
   
• [John McCain's]  not a war hero... He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured." 
   
• “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. ... They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists… And some, I assume, are good people.”
   
• "Look at [Carly Fiorinas] face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"
   
• "I would bring back waterboarding and I'd bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding."
   
• "[Ford is] going to build a plant [in Mexico] and illegals are going drive those cars right over the border ... And they'll probably end up stealing the cars."
   
• "And, I would say the co-founder [of ISIS] would be crooked Hillary Clinton."
   
• Written statement from the Trump campaign: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

 

Not exactly presidential material.

 

de·test·a·ble

diˈtestəbəl/

adjective: detestable

1. deserving intense dislike.

    

 

[Glenn Nall]

On 11/30/2016 at 10:10 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

meant to respond the other day, Kirk, just now getting around to it.

Yes, you're right, I did "promise" such a list, and in fact have half of one that i slapped together one free quarter-of-an-hour i happened to have weeks ago. I have honest;ly had very few since; have been flat out swamped with a couple of projects for a while now.

nearing an end, though, and have no problem posting some of Hillary's more colorful eloquence. There's plenty of it, it's just that the salivating and star-crossed media won't have anything to do with it. It's stuff objective people actually have to look for.

But it's there to be found.

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/russian-interference-could-give-courts-legal-authority_us_584be136e4b0151082221b9c

[Glenn Nall]

ok, so here's my question; perhaps an attorney might see the logic here - Hillary supporters will not:

So I rob a convenience store. Which is against the law.

I'm not caught, and i get away with 17 cases of Miller Light, a carton of Newports and $49.26 - my priorities being what they are as an armed robber of convenience stores.

I tell my best friend about it.

He snitches.

I'm busted. With a case and a half of Miller Lite as the only evidence. My priorities being what they are...

Is it the snitch's fault that I'm busted?

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 12/10/2016 at 3:31 PM, Glenn Nall said:

ok, so here's my question; perhaps an attorney might see the logic here - Hillary supporters will not:

So I rob a convenience store. Which is against the law.

I'm not caught, and i get away with 17 cases of Miller Light, a carton of Newports and $49.26 - my priorities being what they are as an armed robber of convenience stores.

I tell my best friend about it.

He snitches.

I'm busted. With a case and a half of Miller Lite as the only evidence. My priorities being what they are...

Is it the snitch's fault that I'm busted?

??? No, It's your fault and probably would say something about your character that you couldn't even trust your best friend.

So Hillary willfully told who? who told everyone else, but it's not his fault? 

Glenn, it probably took Sandy all of 10 minutes to come up with his list of appalling campaign rhetoric by Trump. (Which honestly Glenn, having followed the election process most all of my life was by far the most appalling,not to mention the bullxxxxted  campaign I can ever remember.)
And you've made the case that Hillary's rhetoric was as bad and now it's taken you 3 weeks and you still haven't come up with anything! My guess is your best point will be the "deplorables" comment and you're not going to stack up in quality or quantity to Sandy's list.

[Glenn Nall]

6 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

??? No, It's your fault and probably would say something about your character that you couldn't even trust your best friend.

So Hillary willfully told who? who told everyone else, but it's not his fault? 

Glenn, it probably took Sandy all of 10 minutes to come up with his list of appalling campaign rhetoric by Trump. (Which honestly Glenn, having followed the election process most all of my life was by far the most appalling,not to mention the bullxxxxted  campaign I can ever remember.)
And you've made the case that Hillary's rhetoric was as bad and now it's taken you 3 weeks and you still haven't come up with anything! My guess is your best point will be the "deplorables" comment and you're not going to stack up in quality or quantity to Sandy's list.

this little bit screams for so many comments. it's 9.30 in the morning; let me sober up and i will write some.

[Glenn Nall]

wow. where to start...

the point i'm making is - and it seems that you almost got it, but are still letting good, solid leftist self-righteous resentment cloud your judgement - very simply that, outside of our rights as guaranteed by, (and NOT created by), the 4th amendment as they are applied in a courtroom, the value of evidence in and of itself has nothing to do with the source of the evidence.

I have a "mean streets" history. (i have no problem sharing this here because a- those who are prone to pass judgement already have, and b- those who aren't probably won't, even on such an admission - and just might find my story a bit interesting, care they to ask, and c- it gives me insight that few in here have) I know "criminalist" behavior. it is my conclusive experience that perhaps nine out of ten criminals caught will blame a snitch for the situation they're in, or the cop that busted them, or their probation or parole officer, or their mom and dad, or their boss, or the position of Capricorn...

I'd ask someone, "what are you here for," and he'd respond, "probation violation," which is patently false on its face. They are there for being guilty of committing the crime for which they were originally charged, convicted and then given probation. And i have failed repeatedly to convey this concept to almost any i've tried to explain this to. So many (people) don't get it.

WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS. PERIOD. NO ONE ELSE EVER IS.

EVER.

So If I robbed a store (I never have) and get snitched out and go to prison, or suffer whatever consequences, then it's not the snitch's fault. You got that part right.

But it's also NOT because I willfully told my best friend the professional snitch and fellow criminal (there are no best friends in the armed robbery community, by the way, Kirk), or didn't tell him. Separate issues. It's clearly not because he snitched - regardless of his motives, how much money he made, or what his own crimes are.

I suffer consequences, be they legal or social or electoral, based on the perception (and in a court of law, the available evidence) of my own guilt in the "crime." Many people don't realize that as thinking human beings we are not bound to the "innocent until proven guilty" maxim. I'm pretty sure that the phrase concludes with "in a court of law," but I could be wrong. Doesn't matter.

I knew OJ was guilty - and said so - long before a jury was bound to the selective evidence which forced them to find him, officially, not guilty. The majority of America did. and it didn't matter the source of the evidence. I'm not particularly concerned with the 4th amendment in my own living room watching snakes and slugs writhe on TV. And neither are  you, unless you're one of 6 Billion who can refrain from opinion and trust every decision every jury has ever made.

And so Hillary Clinton suffered the consequences of her (perceived by an enormous number of Americans) actions. To discuss Russia's probable involvement in the release of perfectly valid emails is most certainly a discussion that's necessary and valuable to a particular end - but it has nothing to do with whether or not Hillary's a snake.

The voting public's perception of her behaviors, as exhibited by herself for two years - or for twenty-five years, depending on the impetus of the voter - and as revealed by so much documentation, is the only thing that's pertinent. As witnessed in November.

Popular vote vs. electoral college argument aside, if Hillary had had something to offer besides her own entitlement, she'd have won the more important tally. And she didn't.

There's no blaming Russia. There's investigating Russia, and Wikileaks and the NSA dude, etc, for other reasons, but Hillary's loss can only be chalked up to the fact that her secrets were revealed, and that her lies were blatant and pathetic. Even HL Mencken's American public saw through them.

Now.

You've compared me to Sandy. Neato.

Unless you've been stalking me, you have no idea - no right - to be so presumptuous. It's as if you think you know what my time consists of, what I do all day, whether my computer's hard drive has failed and my data lost, what I do for a living -

- it's also as if you presume that access to Hillary's every word is on every news webpage on the planet like Trump's is and is simply a matter of copying and pasting.

- it's even as if you know for certain how long it took Sandy to put that together (and I'd guess about the same, 10 minutes, since it really isn't that much of a list) - but I'm only guessing - you asserted it and then used it to compare my argument with his. That's pretty dumb, technically.

But there's another perspective that you've (predictably) failed to recognize. 

You've categorized the election as "appalling" (x2) and "bull***ted" (did I get my stars right?). And in general, you're probably right. But you present your reason for this as definitive, as if there can be no one who might think it appalling for very different reasons. It was, in your opinion, appalling. Cool.

And it was, in mine, also appalling. So what do we do here. evaluate opinions? does yours trump mine? does mine trump yours?

does it matter that one group of voters' opinions carried more weight than the other's?

Perhaps "in my opinion" was implied. in which case it's hardly an argument, since I already know what your opinion is, and it has nothing to do with mine.

For just a moment, let's assume that BOTH candidates are equally guilty of all the things of which they've been accused. The real point, in my opinion (clearly) is that some people in the world think that racism (and I really hate to write this, because there's little in the world I hate more than racism) and mysogeny and self-important lying, and civil lawsuits - for a Presidential candidate - is worse than national security apathy and negligence, and boldly failed foreign policies which led to rampant international terrorism, and bold-faced lying to the country in the face of criminal accusations, and a lengthy history of criminal investigations and charges - and evidence of so many more; and some do not.

You've decided that Trump's crimes are worse than Hillary's.

My choice is the opposite.

Now, if you can go find something else to obsess over, I'll post this list when i effin' post it. It's not as important to me as it might be to you. But I did say I will, so I will. 

and no, you guessed wrong. although that certainly did her some real damage - in the public's eyes, not just mine.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Glenn,  It sounds like you lost focus on Sandy's issue of campaign rhetoric and now you're trying to make this about Hilary's lies or alleged improprieties. But we've already had this debate in great detail a while back. I contributed what I could. I'm not sure where you were but I personally see no reason to re- litigate it.

[Glenn Nall]

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Glenn,  It sounds like you lost focus on Sandy's issue of campaign rhetoric and now you're trying to make this about Hilary's lies or alleged improprieties. But we've already had this debate in great detail a while back. I contributed what I could. I'm not sure where you were but I personally see no reason to re- litigate it.

I'm pretty sure I just referred to things that Hillary has said overall, not to her "campaign speak."

In fact I, and then even Sandy, mentioned her 30+ year history...read it again, Kirk. It's on page 15.

"I contributed what I could."

Oh I'm sure you did.

"I'm not sure where you were but I personally see no reason to re- litigate it."

I was asked by Sandy to produce a list. I offered to do so. That's all.

You're the one keeps pushing it.

obsess much?

Edited December 15, 2016 by Glenn Nall