morepork wrote:"her critics dismissed as sexists".
Balls. No individual is that fucking simple. Not even orange smeg face. You've taken the focus of media on Trump's in your face sexism (grab them by the pussies fat white men of the world!) and conflated that to some grand evil master plan founded mainly on some laughable sexist smokescreen. I'm no fan of Clinton but, again, she fucking lost, so lets try and move on shall we. Obama has not got away with anything based on the colour of his skin either. He has bitched out on a lot of things but at least he has risen above being called a foreginer/muslim (Trump saying he has nothing against coloured people because "my president is one of the blacks") in his time in office. You are swallowing some double-irony reverse counter non-PC is the new PC bullshit like a muthafucker.
Trump is an unmitigated fuckwit and your continued attempts to make Clinton look bad by measuring her up against him are just tragic. Yes, Clinton is a ruthless money grubbing bitch. She is not in power, so do what any sane person would do given the current context and mock that jowled used prophylactic sheath of a man like a ginger step child.
Preach brother.
Right, so why hasn't Trump got a Nobel Peace Prize yet? Doh!
Of course being the first African-American president smoke-screened a lot of the war crimes which occurred under Obama. Any other president and the international press would have savaged him. & of course the race card was played many times by the media, just as the gender card was played many times by the media to defend Clinton - and condemn her critics - during campaigning. The very fact you have entered into a fit of frothing contortions in response to my post is evidence of its accuracy. & I'm not defending Trump, as you seem to believe. Quite the opposite. The point of my post was that now the mask is off, we see American politics for what it really is - wars and all. No one's going to be fooled nor blackmailed into silence over Trump, regardless how hard you and your ilk may try . . .
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
kk67 wrote:
I'd prefer Rufus Hound or Owen Jones.
No sexism involved,......I just don't think Louise Mensch or Katie Hopkins understand what Humanity entails.
Glenda Slagg is supposed to be a caricature.
Have you heard the theory/rumour that these extreme characters such as Katie Hopkins and Joey Essex are a group of comedians playing an incredibly long practical joke - TV's incarnations of Glenda Slagg. I hope it to be true but, sadly, I doubt it.
Yeah,...sadly there really are people who are that thick.
Katie is ex-military so her brainwashing was state sponsored and in that respect it's at least understandable.
rowan wrote:Nothing like an open-minded, mature discussion on international politics, eh
This from Mr. 'I'm right everyone else is wrong & what you have to say is irrelevant'. I don't know whether he is
being sarcarstic/ironic or just doesn't read the stuff he posts in response to other posters
So remind me who's the one that keeps bringing up Clinton and attempting justification through comparison again?
Bottom line is it was always a choice between a proven warmonger and a potential one. But it's good to see the mask off, anyway. No charm offensive nor smokescreens here. Fire away . . .
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Yeh, but he didn't mention her by name. & my post count is generally much higher. & the number of times mentioned gives no indication of the context. So that was a pointless exercise, sorry to inform you.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
No, it means we had long-running debates about Clinton and Trump during campaigning and I contributed very actively to them. It gives zero indication of who has been bringing up Clinton most often since the election, let alone in the justification through comparison context which seems to be the point you are attempting to make here, in your own confused sort of way.
Oops, just added 2 more to the count. 202, I guess
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
My, my, what an astonishing hypocrite you are! Scroll back and you will find that it was not me who put the record on - but Eugene. I merely responded to it.
Doh! Don't you feel really, really stupid now, Cashead?
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Grow up and admit you got it wrong, Cashead. Anybody can scroll back and see who put the record on in this instance and it was not me. I responded to the person who put the record on. You got it wrong so at least be adult enough to admit it.
& speaking of broken records, attacking every single comment I make is not especially clever either. It only indicates that you are somehow quite afraid of my viewpoints.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
cashead wrote:Your ratio of posts that mention Clinton or responding to ones that mention her:ones that are neither goes to 1:11. Eugene goes to 1:23.
I'm looking at it holistically, and while I don't pretend that this isn't entirely a scientific or robust measurement, the numbers speak for themselves.
rowan wrote:Grow up and admit you got it wrong, Cashead. Anybody can scroll back and see who put the record on in this instance and it was not me. I responded to the person who put the record on. You got it wrong so at least be adult enough to admit it.
& speaking of broken records, attacking every single comment I make is not especially clever either. It only indicates that you are somehow quite afraid of my viewpoints.
It's an interesting position that Obama is creating for Trump with the expulsion of the Russia diplomats. Really Trump should be able to keep separate his election win being homologated by the electoral college with the actions of Russia in the elections of a sovereign nation, especially with a view to upcoming elections in France, in Germany and so on that Russia may also care to interfere with.
Perhaps, but I'm not sure he had much of a choice, taking into account that Russia has a vital base in the port of Tartus. In that respect it was quite similar to Sevastopol. If you back the guy into a corner, of course he's going to make a move, and America should've known it wasn't going to have things all its own way in Syria, the way it did in Iraq and Libya.
If they're good enough to play at World Cups, why not in between?
Perhaps, but I'm not sure he had much of a choice, taking into account that Russia has a vital base in the port of Tartus. In that respect it was quite similar to Sevastopol. If you back the guy into a corner, of course he's going to make a move, and America should've known it wasn't going to have things all its own way in Syria, the way it did in Iraq and Libya.
I was referring to Putin not playing tit for tat diplomacy in response to the US expelling a number of Russian diplomats. The expected move was for Russia to respond in kind.
Putin invited US diplomats and their families to the Kremlin to see in the new year.
As if that wasn't enough, he went a step further by wishing Obama a happy new year.
Back in the real world getting caught interfering in the election of another security council member doesn't constitute a masterstroke. It's maybe not a bad response to the diplomats getting kicked out, and of course the USA can't get too strident about people meddling in other nations, but still.
I did like the Russian line about the absurdity of the outgoing President making a mess for the incoming president, as in fairness Putin probably does think it absurd one might change a president.
Doh! 
