Hillary Clinton

[cannon_fodder]

Database of immigrants from Muslim nations.  Same as the databases of immigrants from England, Mexico, or the Cayman Islands.

You are doing nothing but trying to spread unfounded fear.

Facts matter.

Hell yes, facts matter. It appears Trump may not have never advocated for a registry of all Muslims, as the campaign says. But in his rants, digressions, and interruptions much was lost in translation. The problem is Trump won't be clear on the issue, reporters have tried to pin him down but he leaves it intentionally vague. Trump himself is creating an atmosphere of xenophobia and fear, it has to be intentional. He doesn't want to alienate rational people but he doesn't want to alienate the "hail President Trump" fascists either. 

"You did stir up a controversy with those comments over the database. Let's try to clear that up. Are you unequivocally now ruling out a database on all Muslims?"

"No, not at all," Trump responded.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/

He then goes on a rant about Syrian refugees. But they couldn't get him to confirm that it wasn't a database requiring all Americans Muslims to go register.

A few days later:

Asked on Fox News Channel whether he would support a "full Muslim database," he said: "Basically the suggestion was made and [is] certainly something we should start thinking about. ...

Followed by a rant about refugees from Syria
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/17/the-evolution-of-donald-trump-and-the-muslim-database/

Just two days ago his administration again refused to rule out requiring every Muslim in the United States to register: 

Look I'm not going to rule out anything....

Reince Priebus said just Sunday, before going on to specifically talk about immigrants again.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2016/1120/Will-Trump-s-plan-to-register-Muslims-make-it-to-The-White-House

You can't blame people for being fearful of President Trump requiring government registration of all Muslims when his administration has never "ruled it out" when asked directly, repeatedly. This isn't a hard issue to close the door on: "No, we are talking about careful registration of immigrants from countries with higher incidents of terrorism and extremism."

Do I think government registration of religious minority likely to happen? No, I don't. But it's pathetic that the issue keeps being asked directly and the administration keeps it alive. Team Trump is happy to use it to create fear and xenophobia so the extreme right rallies behind him and the left is relieved when its just religious based immigration policy as opposed to a national registry of all Jews Muslims. Like most of Trumps bullsh!t, I suspect he will revert to policies that we basically already have or have had in the recent past.  We just phased out a program to carefully screen and then monitor visitors or immigrants from countries on the terrorist watch list, he will likely bring it back.

[Red Arrow]

It appears Trump may not have never advocated for a registry of all Muslims, as the campaign says.

Intentional double negative?

[davideinstein]

Database of immigrants from Muslim nations.  Same as the databases of immigrants from England, Mexico, or the Cayman Islands.

You are doing nothing but trying to spread unfounded fear.

Facts matter.

Get your facts straight. He has directly said a database for Muslims. He did not specify the country tidbit you decided to add while trying to call me out. Here's the video straight out of his mouth: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4SDWMnjak

[Conan71]

Get your facts straight. He has directly said a database for Muslims. He did not specify the country tidbit you decided to add while trying to call me out. Here's the video straight out of his mouth: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8Q4SDWMnjak

I'm repeating text which was in the article swake had posted which stated "immigrants from Muslim nations".  Trump has been all over the place on every issue and he's an impulsive speaker.  There's a recent NY Post interview stating as much that he's been on about every side of every issue.

Candidate Trump knew a "database of Muslims" would never fly and it won't.  The ACLU would be all over that in an instant.

And guess what, David?  You are in government databases, many of them.  Everyone has lost their sh!t over this without even beginning to realize every American citizen and legal immigrant is in one or more databases.  Woooooo.... bogeyman stuff!

[Red Arrow]

Everyone has lost their sh!t over this without even beginning to realize every American citizen and legal immigrant is in one or more databases.  Woooooo.... bogeyman stuff!

Might be better to be a "non-documented" immigrant than a citizen.

[davideinstein]

I'm repeating text which was in the article swake had posted which stated "immigrants from Muslim nations".  Trump has been all over the place on every issue and he's an impulsive speaker.  There's a recent NY Post interview stating as much that he's been on about every side of every issue.

Candidate Trump knew a "database of Muslims" would never fly and it won't.  The ACLU would be all over that in an instant.

And guess what, David?  You are in government databases, many of them.  Everyone has lost their sh!t over this without even beginning to realize every American citizen and legal immigrant is in one or more databases.  Woooooo.... bogeyman stuff!

You're making light of someone that will be in the Oval Office saying he wants a database for people of a particular religion. That's on you, I'll fight that fight if it comes to fruition with or without you.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Let's not blame Hillary or anything by making the monumentally bone headed move that let herself be open to these very types of attacks. Just saying.

That might actually be meaningful if hers was an isolated action that only she had been doing.  But since literally everyone else was using private servers, including all the big Republicontin names, but most especially Bush using one in the White House and deleting 22 million emails...how many of those were classified? - this is just the RWRE witch hunt BS that the Murdochian Clown Show and Company have been engaged in for many years.

Where exactly is that "fair and balance" look at the facts??

[erfalf]

That might actually be meaningful if hers was an isolated action that only she had been doing.  But since literally everyone else was using private servers, including all the big Republicontin names, but most especially Bush using one in the White House and deleting 22 million emails...how many of those were classified? - this is just the RWRE witch hunt BS that the Murdochian Clown Show and Company have been engaged in for many years.

Where exactly is that "fair and balance" look at the facts??

Proved wrong again by the "Bush did it too" defense. Well, he must have been the most prepared, most over qualified candidate on the face of the earth then. History books will be praising his name. Oh wait, they won't. That's right. It was bone headed then, and bone headed when Clinton did it too.

And you have the nerve to come on here saying that everybody is repeating the Faux News talking points.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Proved wrong again by the "Bush did it too" defense. Well, he must have been the most prepared, most over qualified candidate on the face of the earth then. History books will be praising his name. Oh wait, they won't. That's right. It was bone headed then, and bone headed when Clinton did it too.

And you have the nerve to come on here saying that everybody is repeating the Faux News talking points.

No, not wrong at all.  And yours IS the classic Faux News deflection technique, so you either are fooling yourself about the ultimate source of your responses, or are engaging in a flat out lie...and just to be crystal clear, I don't believe you are a liar at all just based on my reading of all the various posts you have made!  

Boneheaded is probably true - but it is also a 'hindsight' evaluation.  Large numbers of people with no technical background or knowledge of computer security engaged in what is now known to be foolhardy action.  No illegal then, just stupid.  Not illegal now, if one believes the RWRE that Obama overreaches too much with his executive actions...

The issue here that is repeatedly and predictably (with the RWRE Faux News points understanding) pursued - going after Clinton's with NO corresponding outrage for actions by the 'other' side that are 100 times worse.  Goes to the whole topic of perspective that I have talked about many times.  For every 1 time Clintons did something, Bush, Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, Trump have done worse things 100+ times each.  

How could Hillary be guilty of criminal action for 1 thing and Bush was not guilty for 666 of the same thing?  Notice the symbolism hidden in the email numbers straight out of Revelation?!!   Bush's 22 million to Hillary's 30,000 is 666!!   There is a message straight from God there, if one is able to comprehend....

Things like emails.  Lack of monogamy.  Embassy attacks.  Budget effects.  Tax cuts for the 1%'ers.   To name just a very few where the differing response is so overwhelmingly disproportionate and intellectually dishonest.

The Clintons have had every possible type of probing possible, including oral, anal, oral again, and probably everything in between, and NO evidence of anything even approaching criminal wrongdoing has ever been unearthed.  And if there were anything at all, do you honestly believe even for a millisecond that the latest Trey Gowdy mad-dog BS attack would hesitate to jump all over that??  (His response by that way was, "Nope, nothing there...")  Or any of those before now?   Or that the two main attack dogs from years ago would have recanted and said their attacks were unwarranted and wrong and recanted every lie they admitted to making while being on the payroll of the RNC??   If you are interested in a little intellectual honesty, check out what Kenneth Starr and David Brock say now.  Or start a steady diet of NPR, PBS, OETA, CPB, etc.  Or preferably both!

If you have been paying attention, you will also know that I have NO hesitation in going after the left when they are out of line, too.  If not, review my various posts on the 2nd Amendment.  Yep, the Clintons are not the kind of people I would want to socialize with, but if there was a mandatory requirement, I would absolutely take them over the crew mentioned above.  Or occupying the office of the Presidency.


And no, not everyone is repeating Faux News talking points - there are some who take a measured balanced view of these situations just like I do.  But when the Faux News quotes end up here - or in other places - with people who say they "never watch Faux News", well, I call BS.  They are getting the script somewhere - either directly through Faux minions or one of the millions of other fake new outlets we have been hearing so much about lately.

[erfalf]

No, not wrong at all.  And yours IS the classic Faux News deflection technique, so you either are fooling yourself about the ultimate source of your responses, or are engaging in a flat out lie...and just to be crystal clear, I don't believe you are a liar at all just based on my reading of all the various posts you have made! 

The issue here that is repeatedly and predictably (with the RWRE Faux News points understanding) pursued - going after Clinton's with NO corresponding outrage for actions by the 'other' side that are 100 times worse.  Goes to the whole topic of perspective that I have talked about many times.  For every 1 time Clintons did something, Bush, Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, Trump have done worse things 100+ times each. 

How could Hillary be guilty of criminal action for 1 thing and Bush was not guilty for 666 of the same thing?  Notice the symbolism hidden in the email numbers straight out of Revelation?!!   Bush's 22 million to Hillary's 30,000 is 666!!   There is a message straight from God there, if one is able to comprehend....

Things like emails.  Lack of monogamy.  Embassy attacks.  Budget effects.  Tax cuts for the 1%'ers.   To name just a very few where the differing response is so overwhelmingly disproportionate and intellectually dishonest.

The Clintons have had every possible type of probing possible, including oral, anal, oral again, and probably everything in between, and NO evidence of anything even approaching criminal wrongdoing has ever been unearthed.  And if there were anything at all, do you honestly believe even for a millisecond that the latest Trey Gowdy mad-dog BS attack would hesitate to jump all over that??  (His response by that way was, "Nope, nothing there...")  Or any of those before now?   Or that the two main attack dogs from years ago would have recanted and said their attacks were unwarranted and wrong and recanted every lie they admitted to making while being on the payroll of the RNC??   If you are interested in a little intellectual honesty, check out what Kenneth Starr and David Brock say now.  Or start a steady diet of NPR, PBS, OETA, CPB, etc.  Or preferably both!

If you have been paying attention, you will also know that I have NO hesitation in going after the left when they are out of line, too.  If not, review my various posts on the 2nd Amendment.  Yep, the Clintons are not the kind of people I would want to socialize with, but if there was a mandatory requirement, I would absolutely take them over the crew mentioned above.  Or occupying the office of the Presidency.


And no, not everyone is repeating Faux News talking points - there are some who take a measured balanced view of these situations just like I do.  But when the Faux News quotes end up here - or in other places - with people who say they "never watch Faux News", well, I call BS.  They are getting the script somewhere - either directly through Faux minions or one of the millions of other fake new outlets we have been hearing so much about lately.

You're projecting.

And yours IS the classic Media Matters/Huffington Post/Slate/boogy man of the day deflection technique, so you either are fooling yourself about the ultimate source of your responses.

Excuse me for not posting my rage on this board back when bush did it. I was still in college for most of it and I honestly don't know the age of this board. It was wrong then, wrong now.

Fair and balanced doesn't necessarily mean pointing out other people that did it to vindicate or absolve them of stupidity.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You're projecting.

And yours IS the classic Media Matters/Huffington Post/Slate/boogy man of the day deflection technique, so you either are fooling yourself about the ultimate source of your responses.

Excuse me for not posting my rage on this board back when bush did it. I was still in college for most of it and I honestly don't know the age of this board. It was wrong then, wrong now.

Fair and balanced doesn't necessarily mean pointing out other people that did it to vindicate or absolve them of stupidity.

Lol....nice try.  But repetitive.  Keep working on your technique!

It wasn't wrong then.  And again, if one believes the RWRE, it isn't wrong now - it's just a case of Obama Presidential overreach!!

As for posting your rage then...well, nothing is stopping you right now!  The RWRE is still going on and on with their lies about the Clintons today, and Trump has given us a steady diet of lies and BS going back way more than 8 years on a wide variety of topics, including birth certificates, p*ssy grabbing, and active discrimination against brown races to keep them out of his business' home rental units.  Where is your "current event" outrage?

How about Trumps latest BS about widespread voter fraud?  Pretty serious insult to voting authorities that have been repeatedly shown to be upright, honest, competent agencies...what is your take on that, his latest verbal vomit? 


I did hear that Trump will be adding a new cabinet post;  Secretary of P*ssy Wrangling.

[erfalf]

How above board of you. You act as if you are above it all, but you are right down in the weeds with then.

It was stupid. Arguable whether anything Bush or Clinton did was illegal. The office of the President obviously affords quit a bit of leeway that a mere mortal like you or I would not be afforded.

While Fox news is really easy to criticize, justly so, that doesn't mean they are wrong about 100% of what they talk about. Same for the likes of Slate and similar outlets.

[heironymouspasparagus]

While Fox news is really easy to criticize, justly so, that doesn't mean they are wrong about 100% of what they talk about. Same for the likes of Slate and similar outlets.

You just did this;

"Proved wrong again by the "Bush did it too" defense."

Only the other direction....

[erfalf]

You just did this;

"Proved wrong again by the "Bush did it too" defense."

Only the other direction....

By pointing out that broken clocks are right twice a day. What are you reading? Stop projecting.

[heironymouspasparagus]

By pointing out that broken clocks are right twice a day. What are you reading? Stop projecting.

The projecting is what the RWRE does when they ascribe tendencies/characteristics/actions of their own to others.  As you are doing....straight from the Murdochian Clown Show play book and script.