RugbyRebels

WaspInWales wrote:Trump on Iran:

I met with Bibi Netanyahu the other day, believe me, he's not a happy camper

Wonder what else Donald can help Bibi with?

Well if the $40bn military aid package isn't enough maybe Trump can get him a place on Celebrity Apprentice

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

rowan wrote:I think the main point of that analysis was that Lester Holt's questioning was not only biased against Trump but - if we are honest about it - completely sexist against Trump. Holt wanted Trump to go into detail on his taxes, but did he ask Clinton to go into detail on her missing emails? No, instead it was Trump who was accused of lack of transparency!! Neither was there any intense questioning on her support for wars in the Middle East and donations her foundation has received from America's fellow protagonists in those conflicts. But Americans clearly don't care about the countries they've destroyed or Clinton wouldn't even be a candidate. Instead it was Trump who was treated as the potential warmonger; Trump who was interrogated like a criminal while Clinton received the kid-glove treatment. But the whole thing is a charade anyway. It's all going according to the script - written upstairs a long time ago.

Ah so it's basic misogyny that drives your hatred of Hillary. It all becomes clear.

No, it would simply make me a racist apologist for her war crimes if I didn't loathe her. That's very clear.

I also loathe G W Bush and Tony Blair and have come to despise Obama as well - not because I'm racist, only a racist apologist for warcrimes themselves would come to that conclusion, but because he's a war criminal.

rowan wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

rowan wrote:I think the main point of that analysis was that Lester Holt's questioning was not only biased against Trump but - if we are honest about it - completely sexist against Trump. Holt wanted Trump to go into detail on his taxes, but did he ask Clinton to go into detail on her missing emails? No, instead it was Trump who was accused of lack of transparency!! Neither was there any intense questioning on her support for wars in the Middle East and donations her foundation has received from America's fellow protagonists in those conflicts. But Americans clearly don't care about the countries they've destroyed or Clinton wouldn't even be a candidate. Instead it was Trump who was treated as the potential warmonger; Trump who was interrogated like a criminal while Clinton received the kid-glove treatment. But the whole thing is a charade anyway. It's all going according to the script - written upstairs a long time ago.

Ah so it's basic misogyny that drives your hatred of Hillary. It all becomes clear.

No, it would simply make me a racist apologist for her war crimes if I didn't loathe her. That's very clear.

On a list of say 500 people most responsible for the current mess in the middle east where would you be placing Hillary Clinton?

I don't doubt the current situation is making you very angry, but it does also seem an odd target to pick on. There have been 4 Secretaries of State since we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq, the Secretaries of State are by no means the strongest voice in such actions, the main decisions all took place years before Hillary arrived on the scene, and it's just one government office of the many offices of the many governments involved.

It'd be akin to looking at the resignation of Fat Sam from the England football job and seeking to put the blame on Karen Brady.

Digby wrote:

rowan wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
Ah so it's basic misogyny that drives your hatred of Hillary. It all becomes clear.

No, it would simply make me a racist apologist for her war crimes if I didn't loathe her. That's very clear.

On a list of say 500 people most responsible for the current mess in the middle east where would you be placing Hillary Clinton?

I don't doubt the current situation is making you very angry, but it does also seem an odd target to pick on. There have been 4 Secretaries of State since we went into Afghanistan and then Iraq, the Secretaries of State are by no means the strongest voice in such actions, the main decisions all took place years before Hillary arrived on the scene, and it's just one government office of the many offices of the many governments involved.

It'd be akin to looking at the resignation of Fat Sam from the England football job and seeking to put the blame on Karen Brady.

Firstly, it's topical. There's an election going on right now, in case you didn't happen to notice it, and even though I don't personally think it has any credibility, it is something I am reading about every day.

Secondly, it is the defense of Hillary Clinton and excuse-making for her war crimes that is itself sexist. Nobody would get upset if I were ranting on about Bush, Blair, Cheney, or Rumsfield. They might play the racist card if I were banging on about Obama, yes, but they would be wrong. I was the guy's biggest fan when he came to office. But if he were running for office now I'd been on his case big time.

Thirdly, what really gets my goat about this current election is how an obvious actor is being used to make the democratic nominee look good. You ask where I would rate her in terms of responsibility, and I would have to say very highly, due to the fact she was Secretary of State at the time of the Libyan invasion, due to the fact she is deeply involved in arms sales negotiations with the Saudis, and due to the adamant support I have heard her giving to Israel while trying to blackmail opponents of the regime into silence with claims of 'anti-Semitism.'

Finally, it is totally ridiculous that I even have to explain all this and field accusations from those who would wish to silence others in their criticisms of an undeniable war criminal who is currently running for the presidency of the most powerful nation on the planet, and who is being ushered in as supposedly the 'lesser of two evils' in this childish charade.

If you're going to get het up about her support for war mongering given she's now running for office it might be an idea of have a take on and feel for just how responsible she is. And when her opponent has come out with many barking ideas, and too is a (these days) member of the more militaristic of the two main parties why one would get so worked up about questions being sexist in not focusing on just one candidate isn't clear, unless we just suppose such vexations stem from sexism.

I made my observations about the biased nature of the questioning during the opening round of the debate. In fact, I was commenting on an analysis of the debate and actually agreeing with the observations made therein. Trying to blackmail people into silence on a current election in the world's most powerful country is a cowardly, narrow-minded tactic designed to stifle freedom of opinion. It is also extremely sexist to try and defend an undeniable war criminal of criticism of her war crimes simply because she is a woman, because you know as well as I do that you would not play the gender card to get the likes of Bush or Blair off the hook. It is your view, therefore, which is sexist, and that is because you have been educated to think in sexist terms.This is an election, it gets down and dirty, the gloves are off, and if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Simple as that.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/12191766?

Exactly, you've been brainwashed by propaganda. Why do you think they chose Hillary Clinton? Why do you think they chose Barack Obama? So that they could carry on with their mass-murdering antics in the Middle East and then accuse anyone who criticizes them of racism and now sexism. And you guys are so dumb you actually buy into this.

So we can hate Bush and we can hate Blair, but we must not hate Hillary Clinton, we must praise her every move or else we are sexists. Never mind the fact she voted for a genocidal war (that I myself actively protested against), don't worry about the fact that as Secretary of State she oversaw the invasion of Libya and murder of its leader - which she laughed about, don't worry about her deals with the Saudis, her blind support for Israel nor her backing for a murderous dictatorship in Honduras. If anyone criticizes her just blackmail them into silence with childish accusations; just as the Israelis still try to blackmail their critics into silence with the term 'anti-Semitism.'

You have walked straight into the trap the American government has laid out for you. Doh!

I wasn't making any attempt to defend the actions of Bush or Blair on the basis of their sex, nor was I doing so for Clinton. What I thought was odd was your seeming concern that someone who served as SoS for Obama's first term, and Obama basically being against major moves on the international scene, draws such concern from you when there are much bigger players at work than Clinton, there have been much bigger events which took place outside her tenure as SoS, and to place her front and centre of your opprobrium and claim her not getting questioned in sufficiently harsh manner warrants claiming the questions were sexist.

Digby wrote:I wasn't making any attempt to defend the actions of Bush or Blair on the basis of their sex, nor was I doing so for Clinton. What I thought was odd was your seeming concern that someone who served as SoS for Obama's first term, and Obama basically being against major moves on the international scene, draws such concern from you when there are much bigger players at work than Clinton, there have been much bigger events which took place outside her tenure as SoS, and to place her front and centre of your opprobrium and claim her not getting questioned in sufficiently harsh manner warrants claiming the questions were sexist.

You obviously don't understand what's been going on, that's why. Anyway, it's an election. If I cannot criticize one of the candidates, who I have very good reasons for opposing, then I must discontinue my participation in this thread. The reason being that I object to this kind of tactic, which is not about the election or the candidates at all, but simply a shoot the messenger approach.

rowan wrote:Exactly, you've been brainwashed by propaganda. Why do you think they chose Hillary Clinton? Why do you think they chose Barack Obama? So that they could carry on with their mass-murdering antics in the Middle East and then accuse anyone who criticizes them of racism and now sexism. And you guys are so dumb you actually buy into this.

So we can hate Bush and we can hate Blair, but we must not hate Hillary Clinton, we must praise her every move or else we are sexists. Never mind the fact she voted for a genocidal war (that I myself actively protested against), don't worry about the fact that as Secretary of State she oversaw the invasion of Libya and murder of its leader - which she laughed about, don't worry about her deals with the Saudis, her blind support for Israel nor her backing for a murderous dictatorship in Honduras. If anyone criticizes her just blackmail them into silence with childish accusations; just as the Israelis still try to blackmail their critics into silence with the term 'anti-Semitism.'

You have walked straight into the trap the American government has laid out for you. Doh!

It still seems barking mad to me that someone is choosing Hillary to be the poster child for war, or at least some specific wars. Okay post 9/11 she speaks very differently on foreign interventions and probably thinks quite differently about it too, but there'd be many more pro war candidates who'd be more easily elected than Hillary to get behind.

Somehow you seem to think someone who can't even keep their emails secure is involved in and behind what would have to be one of the largest and most complex frauds ever undertaken. And there's just no way such an undertaking wouldn't involve a huge number of people, and with that many people involved it would've gotten out by now, somebody always talks. It'd just be so much easier to find a Democrat who was for example from Florida and a former General and get them elected than it would be Hillary, it'd be a lot cheaper too.

rowan wrote:

Digby wrote:I wasn't making any attempt to defend the actions of Bush or Blair on the basis of their sex, nor was I doing so for Clinton. What I thought was odd was your seeming concern that someone who served as SoS for Obama's first term, and Obama basically being against major moves on the international scene, draws such concern from you when there are much bigger players at work than Clinton, there have been much bigger events which took place outside her tenure as SoS, and to place her front and centre of your opprobrium and claim her not getting questioned in sufficiently harsh manner warrants claiming the questions were sexist.

You obviously don't understand what's been going on, that's why. Anyway, it's an election. If I cannot criticize one of the candidates, who I have very good reasons for opposing, then I must discontinue my participation in this thread. The reason being that I object to this kind of tactic, which is not about the election or the candidates at all, but simply a shoot the messenger approach.

Criticise away. Just don't perhaps anyone to take you all that seriously, not that I suspect anyone takes anyone that seriously on here.

Sure, Digby, the poor helpless little female didn't have a clue what was going on around her - in your opinion...



G W Bush didn't have a clue either, but I'd still rate him the biggest war criminal since Hitler

Whats great to see is that we can now categorize anyone as being guilty of anything without having to bother ourselves with due legal process or involving the niceties of a trial in a court. Clinton is a war criminal in the same way some nameless celebrity from the 70s is a peado... if you dont just recognize it as fact then the problem is with you and your inherent sexism/racism/whatever-ism. Brilliant way to promote clear objective evidence based thinking.

rowan wrote:Sure, Digby, the poor helpless little female didn't have a clue what was going on around her - in your opinion...

Quite a few concerns when looking at Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya...

At least Libya is more relevant to Clinton. I don't on a personal level mind her language there as the man was an evil and demented arse, though it doesn't add anything to her side and allows some to consider the killing an injustice by the US and on such basis it's daft. We really should've learned many times over in our history that one can't simply involve oneself in the middle east and have the outcome be as was desired, but we haven't and Libya was and is a mess, though not simply a US one, and even within the US then Hillary wasn't alone in supporting those actions they took.

Going further that Russia was so opposed to the actions in Libya gives them the sense they can act with impunity now in other actions when clearly the West went way beyond the mandate they had in Libya, and that's still causing big problems now, and not just in Libya.

But if the concerns are with Hillary that she was pro intervention in Libya, then ignoring a different intervention may have ended differently we'd have to accept that Trump was pro intervention too. Okay Trump wasn't getting the same intelligence briefings, but I've no sense getting more feedback from the military would've led Donald to want to pursue a different strategy.

So it still seems odd that you think Hillary not getting questions on this would be sexist. Okay you may prefer neither of the two candidates on show (join the club) but as there are no other candidates that the Green candidate wasn't there isn't because the major US networks are sexist in the favour Hillary.

Sorry, mate, I'm not going to continue the discussion for the reasons mentioned earlier.

Ooooh, thread flounce. Nice work, leave 'em hanging. You big tease you!

Well that was easy.

She should keep it simple, like the Donald. His one-issue campaign is basically wealth English-speaking white males. Fuck everything else. Genius.

How do thick people become so rich?

He's smart. Remember? He reminded us during the debate.

morepork wrote:She should keep it simple, like the Donald. His one-issue campaign is basically wealth English-speaking white males. Fuck everything else. Genius.

How do thick people become so rich?

Rich parents, low inheritance taxes

Coco wrote:He's smart. Remember? He reminded us during the debate.

Yeah, "bigly".

morepork wrote:

Coco wrote:He's smart. Remember? He reminded us during the debate.

Yeah, "bigly".

That must be one of those" best words" he has.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/12191766?

Nice one, Fella....cracking article. Some of the quotes are quality.

It should at this point be observed that her opponent is a shameless con artist who has built an empire bilking people with fake businesses, fake universities, fake charities and, now, a fake campaign. Last week, he told a lie every three minutes and fifteen seconds. Oh, and did we mention that he, (like so many of his online “supporters,”) is a goddamn Russian stooge? I tried to list all of the dumb, awful stuff that he does every day and I cannot come close to keeping up.
'Voters, it seems, are his easiest marks yet'.

Back in the mid-90s, Clinton’s persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the centre-left establishment out. Michael Moore observed that, “[Maureen Dowd] is fixated on trashing Hillary Rodham in the way liberals love to do, to prove they’re not really liberal.” The bashing slowly morphed into a creepy, extraordinary sort of policing.


Since then, Clinton racked up a Senate voting record more liberal than any nominee since Mondale. Her 2008 platform was slightly to Obama’s left on domestic issues. Her 2016 platform was barely to the right of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders.
Yet, we have all heard and seen countless liberal posers passionately decrying her “far right voting record,” untrustworthy promises or ever-changing policy positions.
Jon Stewart recently called Clinton, “A bright woman without the courage of her convictions, because I don’t know what they even are.”



Most entertaining. You can't guess how history will be written but his analysis sounds reasonable.

Donny osmond wrote:Whats great to see is that we can now categorize anyone as being guilty of anything without having to bother ourselves with due legal process or involving the niceties of a trial in a court. Clinton is a war criminal in the same way some nameless celebrity from the 70s is a peado... if you dont just recognize it as fact then the problem is with you and your inherent sexism/racism/whatever-ism. Brilliant way to promote clear objective evidence based thinking.

That's why it's really important that we do try them all.



Especially the guilty ones. *Kent Brockman voice*