RugbyRebels

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 34796.html

I really don't know which is worse, Clinton or Trump.

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 34796.html

I really don't know which is worse, Clinton or Trump.

Really? Hillary, according to this article, wants to appoint a man who has experience running the American economy to help run the american economy. In what Universe is that even vaguely comparable to Trump?

She's a vicious warmonger and shameless sycophant. She'll be a terrible president, but this was already decided long ago. Trump is only there to try and make her look like the lesser of two evils, but I'm not sure he's quite managed it. At least Trump doesn't hate Russia and China so much he'd start WWIII. At least he's admitted Iraq was a huge mistake. Clinton's views on Israel and Palestine are at least as racist and hypocritical as anything Trump's spouted off about.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 34796.html

I really don't know which is worse, Clinton or Trump.

Really? Hillary, according to this article, wants to appoint a man who has experience running the American economy to help run the american economy. In what Universe is that even vaguely comparable to Trump?

When Hillary first began to campaign for the Democratic nomination to try to succeed Bush, I asked an American constitutional expert what would happen if Hillary was elected as President having appointed Bill as VP and then stepped down. Apparently, the way the US Constitution is worded means it's actually not clear whether the two-term limit imposed on Presidents would apply in that situation.

How's that for a LifeHack?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 34796.html

I really don't know which is worse, Clinton or Trump.

Really? Hillary, according to this article, wants to appoint a man who has experience running the American economy to help run the american economy. In what Universe is that even vaguely comparable to Trump?

Help run it into the ground more like, and the world economy for that matter. Ever heard of the Glass–Steagall Act?

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 34796.html

I really don't know which is worse, Clinton or Trump.

Really? Hillary, according to this article, wants to appoint a man who has experience running the American economy to help run the american economy. In what Universe is that even vaguely comparable to Trump?

Help run it into the ground more like, and the world economy for that matter. Ever heard of the Glass–Steagall Act?

Sorry, but you seem to have missed my point. how the hell does that make her even vaguely comparable to Trump?

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Really? Hillary, according to this article, wants to appoint a man who has experience running the American economy to help run the american economy. In what Universe is that even vaguely comparable to Trump?

Help run it into the ground more like, and the world economy for that matter. Ever heard of the Glass–Steagall Act?

Sorry, but you seem to have missed my point. how the hell does that make her even vaguely comparable to Trump?

It's irrelevant, the point was the dearth of hope.

The Clinton administration did more to screw the US and global economy on behalf of the ruling class than Reagan did.

He killed as many Iraqis as Bush did.

He and his heinous wife should be burning in hell somewhere.

Trump couldn't possibly be as dangerous as those two evil scumbags.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 34796.html

I really don't know which is worse, Clinton or Trump.

Really? Hillary, according to this article, wants to appoint a man who has experience running the American economy to help run the american economy. In what Universe is that even vaguely comparable to Trump?

Maybe you should toddle off to Haiti to see the result Bill Clinton's expertise in improving the economies of 'depressed areas' at its best.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Really? Hillary, according to this article, wants to appoint a man who has experience running the American economy to help run the american economy. In what Universe is that even vaguely comparable to Trump?

Help run it into the ground more like, and the world economy for that matter. Ever heard of the Glass–Steagall Act?

Sorry, but you seem to have missed my point. how the hell does that make her even vaguely comparable to Trump?

I don't like either of them, but when you say comparable to Trump, what do you mean? He hasn't done anything yet, just shot his mouth to garner support of the Republicans he needed to court which he is already backtracking on now he is in the general race.

He'll cause a lot of internal strife in the US, he is divisive, but personally I don't see much difference between a policy wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country from Trump and a sustained policy of wanting to invade, bomb and wipe off the face of the earth Muslims in the middle east from Clinton.

I've said elsewhere, the scariest thing about Donald Trump is the press using him to make Clinton look electable. Any half decent candidate would have shown her for the war-mongering, error-ridden, flip flopping politician she really is.

jared_7 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
Help run it into the ground more like, and the world economy for that matter. Ever heard of the Glass–Steagall Act?

Sorry, but you seem to have missed my point. how the hell does that make her even vaguely comparable to Trump?

I don't like either of them, but when you say comparable to Trump, what do you mean? He hasn't done anything yet, just shot his mouth to garner support of the Republicans he needed to court which he is already backtracking on now he is in the general race.

He'll cause a lot of internal strife in the US, he is divisive, but personally I don't see much difference between a policy wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country from Trump and a sustained policy of wanting to invade, bomb and wipe off the face of the earth Muslims in the middle east from Clinton.

I've said elsewhere, the scariest thing about Donald Trump is the press using him to make Clinton look electable. Any half decent candidate would have shown her for the war-mongering, error-ridden, flip flopping politician she really is.

Trump's actually stated he wanted to kill more IS people and their families - whether involved or not - as well as banning Muslims from the US just because. This is the diplomatic genius so admired by UG and Zhivago. This man without even the basic concept of the rule of law apparently is the person who couldn't be worse than Clinton.

Jesus wept.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Sorry, but you seem to have missed my point. how the hell does that make her even vaguely comparable to Trump?

I don't like either of them, but when you say comparable to Trump, what do you mean? He hasn't done anything yet, just shot his mouth to garner support of the Republicans he needed to court which he is already backtracking on now he is in the general race.

He'll cause a lot of internal strife in the US, he is divisive, but personally I don't see much difference between a policy wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country from Trump and a sustained policy of wanting to invade, bomb and wipe off the face of the earth Muslims in the middle east from Clinton.

I've said elsewhere, the scariest thing about Donald Trump is the press using him to make Clinton look electable. Any half decent candidate would have shown her for the war-mongering, error-ridden, flip flopping politician she really is.

Trump's actually stated he wanted to kill more IS people and their families - whether involved or not - as well as banning Muslims from the US just because. This is the diplomatic genius so admired by UG and Zhivago. This man without even the basic concept of the rule of law apparently is the person who couldn't be worse than Clinton.

Jesus wept.

That's just stupid. Even by your standards.

Trump's policy on Muslim immigration if enacted would be identical to that of Israel. Hillary being a slavish follower of the colonist 'state's' diktats.

You really are a retard, Eugene. Truly retarded.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Sorry, but you seem to have missed my point. how the hell does that make her even vaguely comparable to Trump?

I don't like either of them, but when you say comparable to Trump, what do you mean? He hasn't done anything yet, just shot his mouth to garner support of the Republicans he needed to court which he is already backtracking on now he is in the general race.

He'll cause a lot of internal strife in the US, he is divisive, but personally I don't see much difference between a policy wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country from Trump and a sustained policy of wanting to invade, bomb and wipe off the face of the earth Muslims in the middle east from Clinton.

I've said elsewhere, the scariest thing about Donald Trump is the press using him to make Clinton look electable. Any half decent candidate would have shown her for the war-mongering, error-ridden, flip flopping politician she really is.

Trump's actually stated he wanted to kill more IS people and their families - whether involved or not - as well as banning Muslims from the US just because. This is the diplomatic genius so admired by UG and Zhivago. This man without even the basic concept of the rule of law apparently is the person who couldn't be worse than Clinton.

Jesus wept.

I have contempt for Trump. I just also have contempt for Clinton. Like I said, already he has begun swinging away from his more extreme views which were clearly stated to court the extremists of the Republican party to get the nomination. Its sad thats whats needed but it is worked and his foreign policy now, limiting free trade to wanting to make friends with Russia to wanting to step back from bankrolling NATO, seems much more reasonable than Clinton's.

Yeah his views on torture were terrible, I'm pretty sure he will backtrack on that as well, but he has also said he is going to make it a priority to get rid of IS which is a hell of an improvement over Clinton who has actively funded them as a means of getting rid of Assad so they can get their little gas pipeline.

You can't seriously believe Clinton has followed international law in her foreign policy actions? All I'm trying to point out is people get up and arms because a guy mentions torturing a few individuals, while another has sanctioned dozens of wars, tens of thousands of drone strikes, a number of overthrown governments all resulting in possibly millions of innocent deaths but thats fine?

As for your last comment, Trump is like the policeman who pulls you over on the side of the road and asks for a bribe otherwise he beats you, while Clinton is the head of the police force taking bribes to ignore corrupt politicians, gangsters and their drug trades. Yeah, the policeman is the easy target to say he has "no concept for the rule of law" but the fact remains both of them are crooks.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: Sorry, but you seem to have missed my point. how the hell does that make her even vaguely comparable to Trump?

I don't like either of them, but when you say comparable to Trump, what do you mean? He hasn't done anything yet, just shot his mouth to garner support of the Republicans he needed to court which he is already backtracking on now he is in the general race.

He'll cause a lot of internal strife in the US, he is divisive, but personally I don't see much difference between a policy wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country from Trump and a sustained policy of wanting to invade, bomb and wipe off the face of the earth Muslims in the middle east from Clinton.

I've said elsewhere, the scariest thing about Donald Trump is the press using him to make Clinton look electable. Any half decent candidate would have shown her for the war-mongering, error-ridden, flip flopping politician she really is.

Trump's actually stated he wanted to kill more IS people and their families - whether involved or not - as well as banning Muslims from the US just because. This is the diplomatic genius so admired by UG and Zhivago. This man without even the basic concept of the rule of law apparently is the person who couldn't be worse than Clinton.

Jesus wept.

What kind of perverse logic is it that means that a dislike for Clinton means I admire Trump.

Both will cause great suffering, I'm just not sure which will cause more.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

jared_7 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Jesus wept.

Clinton killed 50,000 Libyans.

Did you weep?

There is now talk of tooling up Lybia to "fight extremism" in the region. Genius. Level with bombs, utterly destroy infrastructure, pick a group of dissaffected people from the rubble, arm them to the teeth, then set them loose in the region. That's a sound and novel template. What could possibly go wrong?

morepork wrote:There is now talk of tooling up Lybia to "fight extremism" in the region. Genius. Level with bombs, utterly destroy infrastructure, pick a group of dissaffected people from the rubble, arm them to the teeth, then set them loose in the region. That's a sound and novel template. What could possibly go wrong?

What's in it for Halliburton?

The problem jared is that you appear to assume that Trump will be much less bad than his stated policies, whilst Clinton will be much worse than hers. Contempt for both is absolutely fine, though not based on Hillary potentially hiring Bill as economy tsar and proclaiming that Trump would be better or no worse is insane.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The problem jared is that you appear to assume that Trump will be much less bad than his stated policies, whilst Clinton will be much worse than hers. Contempt for both is absolutely fine, though not based on Hillary potentially hiring Bill as economy tsar and proclaiming that Trump would be better or no worse is insane.

Mate, they idolise Putin and his blatant contempt for war crimes committed by his troops in Syria, Georgia and Chechnya, not to mention his support for Assad. War crimes are fine, provided they aren't committed by the western establishment.


Trump is like because he isn't seen as establishment, and I suspect they remain hopeful that he will do a lot of damage to the US internally. As a president, trump is a wildcard. If he enacts half of what he says he will, expect some fireworks.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The problem jared is that you appear to assume that Trump will be much less bad than his stated policies, whilst Clinton will be much worse than hers. Contempt for both is absolutely fine, though not based on Hillary potentially hiring Bill as economy tsar and proclaiming that Trump would be better or no worse is insane.

Mate, they idolise Putin and his blatant contempt for war crimes committed by his troops in Syria, Georgia and Chechnya, not to mention his support for Assad. War crimes are fine, provided they aren't committed by the western establishment.


Trump is like because he isn't seen as establishment, and I suspect they remain hopeful that he will do a lot of damage to the US internally. As a president, trump is a wildcard. If he enacts half of what he says he will, expect some fireworks.

Laughable drivel. You're just reversing your own black and white stances. Maybe you just don't understand actual thinking.

And nobody here 'likes' Trump' as far as I can see. He and Clinton are far closer to your extremist right wing tendencies.

http://www.inspiretochangeworld.com/201 ... ialnetwork

As the Syrian army is closing in on ISIL militants in Aleppo, a victory that will undoubtedly restore Damascus' authority over Syria, Washington is leveling charges of 'war crimes' to politically discredit President al-Assad.

While the move is not exactly surprising, Western powers have been painfully predictable in their hypocrisy and political maneuvering against President Bashar al-Assad. And Washington's latest stunt shows just how far down the rabbit hole the US will go to eliminate the competition.

I say 'competition' because America's ambitions in Syria, and beyond the Middle East, have nothing to do with counter-terrorism. What Washington is pursuing in the Mid-East is an asymmetrical war of neo-colonialization. Within this dynamic, Terror has served both as a convenient alibi and a political rationale.

Both a political and militarily roadblock, President al-Assad has been a thorn in the West's military complex's thigh in more ways than one. A tower of resistance against Western imperialism, President al-Assad has managed not only to retain his people trust, he asserted himself as a keen military strategist. How many heads of state can claim to have raised a regional resistance movement against both Terror and imperialism, and live to tell the tale?

I'm not trying to sing President al-Assad's praise here, I'm only stating facts. Truth be told, political analysts do not exactly make a name for themselves by swimming against mainstream narrative. Still, some feel compel to tell the truth. Truth is what I'm trying to establish - however imperfectly.

Today, Washington has cried wolf against Damascus, alleging the Syrian government is carrying out a genocidal campaign against its people in Aleppo to speed its return to power. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights - an NGO which it needs to be said is being run by one shadowy individual from a house somewhere in the United Kingdom, President al-Assad ordered the killing of his own people... to which end no one can really say. As for proofs no one really has any, save of course from the public outrage US and UN officials have fronted.

My first question is: Who is this so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and where does it get its information? The Observatory is actually a one-man show run by Rami Abdul Rahman from a two-bedroom flat in Coventry - whose information is being relayed by a network of "trusted sources" in Syria. In other words the whole organization is a sham, designed to spit and spread propaganda the, mainstream media then sell as truths to feed, support and prop Western capitals' anti-Assad campaign. Don't take my word for it, research it for yourself. The Observatory is not a very difficult nut to crack when it comes to seeing through the crude political manipulation. It is the United Nations' and Washington's eagerness to hold its lies as undeniable truths, which is a bit more difficult to stomach.

https://www.sott.net/article/317919-US- ... s-on-Assad

More on Britain's White Helmet operation .......

http://www.greanvillepost.com/2015/10/2 ... ecutioner/

White Helmets: War by way of Deception Part II ~ “If it looks like an executioner..

WaspInWales wrote:

morepork wrote:There is now talk of tooling up Lybia to "fight extremism" in the region. Genius. Level with bombs, utterly destroy infrastructure, pick a group of dissaffected people from the rubble, arm them to the teeth, then set them loose in the region. That's a sound and novel template. What could possibly go wrong?

What's in it for Halliburton?

Free cocaine and hookers, with discounted gas for the family. There is also an opportunity for a regular editorial piece in a major mainstream news periodical, subject to selective editing of course. Maybe even a lecture circuit gig, with photo opportunities with the Clit and Bush dynasties.

As amusing as this thread has become, its also a little depressing to realize the modern affliction of hysteria really is a bottomless pit. Just when you think its reached its nadir, it just keeps on going. It reaches a neo-nadir, to use the Very Clever modern lexicon.

Sent from my XT1052 using Tapatalk

rowan wrote:

http://www.inspiretochangeworld.com/201 ... ialnetwork

As the Syrian army is closing in on ISIL militants in Aleppo, a victory that will undoubtedly restore Damascus' authority over Syria, Washington is leveling charges of 'war crimes' to politically discredit President al-Assad.

While the move is not exactly surprising, Western powers have been painfully predictable in their hypocrisy and political maneuvering against President Bashar al-Assad. And Washington's latest stunt shows just how far down the rabbit hole the US will go to eliminate the competition.

I say 'competition' because America's ambitions in Syria, and beyond the Middle East, have nothing to do with counter-terrorism. What Washington is pursuing in the Mid-East is an asymmetrical war of neo-colonialization. Within this dynamic, Terror has served both as a convenient alibi and a political rationale.

Both a political and militarily roadblock, President al-Assad has been a thorn in the West's military complex's thigh in more ways than one. A tower of resistance against Western imperialism, President al-Assad has managed not only to retain his people trust, he asserted himself as a keen military strategist. How many heads of state can claim to have raised a regional resistance movement against both Terror and imperialism, and live to tell the tale?

I'm not trying to sing President al-Assad's praise here, I'm only stating facts. Truth be told, political analysts do not exactly make a name for themselves by swimming against mainstream narrative. Still, some feel compel to tell the truth. Truth is what I'm trying to establish - however imperfectly.

Today, Washington has cried wolf against Damascus, alleging the Syrian government is carrying out a genocidal campaign against its people in Aleppo to speed its return to power. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights - an NGO which it needs to be said is being run by one shadowy individual from a house somewhere in the United Kingdom, President al-Assad ordered the killing of his own people... to which end no one can really say. As for proofs no one really has any, save of course from the public outrage US and UN officials have fronted.

My first question is: Who is this so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and where does it get its information? The Observatory is actually a one-man show run by Rami Abdul Rahman from a two-bedroom flat in Coventry - whose information is being relayed by a network of "trusted sources" in Syria. In other words the whole organization is a sham, designed to spit and spread propaganda the, mainstream media then sell as truths to feed, support and prop Western capitals' anti-Assad campaign. Don't take my word for it, research it for yourself. The Observatory is not a very difficult nut to crack when it comes to seeing through the crude political manipulation. It is the United Nations' and Washington's eagerness to hold its lies as undeniable truths, which is a bit more difficult to stomach.

https://www.sott.net/article/317919-US- ... s-on-Assad

I can see why you like her. Ive just read some of her blogs, the use of stats to provide support fo Assad is interesting. I like the spontaneous demonstrations of support (common in dictatorships) and the use of election results, again not uncommon for high level of support to be shown for the man in charge. Im curious how shielded she has been during her visits to Syria. Media minders have probably showed her exactly what they want her to see. Has she spent time with the opposition? Nothing in her blogs suggests that she has.

SHe is very good at providing the regime perspective. I rather suspect that the truth is somewhat different. There are simply too many report, backed up by video footage, of war crimes to be so easily dismissed.