(09-28-2016 04:13 PM)heavy Wrote:  Forgive me if there is an actual video of naked Katy Perry, but...

I see all these Katy Perry getting naked in video for Hillary. Obviously my first reaction is to search for the unrated video, which doesn't exist. I'm frustrated for two reasons:

1. All these headlines say she got naked for Hillary (most of them, some do imply it's just a funny promo video). She didn't get naked.
2. I can't be the only guy who thought this, searched around, and was frustrated to find out I was terribly mislead. There has to be forums or blogs where guys have addressed the fact that [Google: "Katy Perry" "didn't really get naked" "did not really get naked" "did not get naked" "not naked"] or some variation thereof. Why the hell can't I find somebody like me annoyed at the misdirection.

I try to stay an arms length away from this political shit (because if I'm not campaigning or try to overthrow the government, who cares except to actually vote), but this really pissed me off.

Oh, and I'm not interested in seeing Madonna naked in 2016. Why...why would she ever think that would help.

I looked at least two different times after seeing the news stories. I feel ripped off. Oh, and I agree, nobody wants to see Madonna naked now!

I watched a video on my phone earlier today of Dick Morris postulating that Hillary was threatening Putin during the debates with her talking about cybersecurity.

In the video he gives a short history of how Bill Clinton and he coached Boris Yeltsin to reelection and beat Putin's KGB candidate and that he likely never forgot.

He thinks Putin has ALL of her emails.

Edit - Basically, he may take revenge on her for meddling in the Russian elections while she bitches about them meddling in this one.

Honestly if he has that kind of leverage over her, I wonder if he would use it to have her lose. Then the leverage goes away.

(09-28-2016 05:15 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I watched a video on my phone earlier today of Dick Morris postulating that Hillary was threatening Putin during the debates with her talking about cybersecurity.

In the video he gives a short history of how Bill Clinton and he coached Boris Yeltsin to reelection and beat Putin's KGB candidate and that he likely never forgot.

He thinks Putin has ALL of her emails.

Edit - Basically, he may take revenge on her for meddling in the Russian elections while she bitches about them meddling in this one.

Honestly if he has that kind of leverage over her, I wonder if he would use it to have her lose. Then the leverage goes away.

can you link the video? I've been compiling videos that go against the standard leftists views lately:

1. Trump is liar! (8 minute video of hillary saying one thing, cutlting to her saying another)
2. Trump is a racist! (4 minute video of hillary saying racist things/getting chummy with KKK leaders ).
3. Trump has property all over the world! Major conflict of interest! (video detailing foreign national donations to hillary)
4. Trump is unfit to be president! (2 minute video of obama slamming hillary and her interests)
5. Trump wants his supporter to harm HIllary (2008 video where hillary stays with her failing campaign citing the possibility of assignation).
6. Trump interrupts during debates! How childish! (2008 video where Obama and Hillary interrupt each other and attack each other)

Seriously, doing some "2008 Obama vs Hillary" searches give you some pretty hilarious results.

I think that video would be a good addition, something for when the leftists go "Russia is meddling with our elections!"

I think I found it.





It's very interesting if true.

(09-28-2016 05:08 PM)RoastBeefCurtains4Me Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 04:13 PM)heavy Wrote:  Forgive me if there is an actual video of naked Katy Perry, but...

I see all these Katy Perry getting naked in video for Hillary. Obviously my first reaction is to search for the unrated video, which doesn't exist. I'm frustrated for two reasons:

1. All these headlines say she got naked for Hillary (most of them, some do imply it's just a funny promo video). She didn't get naked.
2. I can't be the only guy who thought this, searched around, and was frustrated to find out I was terribly mislead. There has to be forums or blogs where guys have addressed the fact that [Google: "Katy Perry" "didn't really get naked" "did not really get naked" "did not get naked" "not naked"] or some variation thereof. Why the hell can't I find somebody like me annoyed at the misdirection.

I try to stay an arms length away from this political shit (because if I'm not campaigning or try to overthrow the government, who cares except to actually vote), but this really pissed me off.

Oh, and I'm not interested in seeing Madonna naked in 2016. Why...why would she ever think that would help.

I looked at least two different times after seeing the news stories. I feel ripped off. Oh, and I agree, nobody wants to see Madonna naked now!

Maybe 25 years ago, but not these days. (Besides, one can find nudes of Madonna in her prime online). Says a lot about her delusions...

Dick Morris is going to end up with two shots in the back of his head. He has a youtube channel and he is spilling his guts on it. He used to be an advisor to Bill Clinton. Wasn't it Hillary that brought him to Bill? He must hate Hillary really badly for some reason. That's not hard to imagine, but it's kinda odd. He seems like he is using his channel to push his books for the most part.

Like this one. He dropped some funny insider info at the end of this one.





or this vid:





He reminds me of certain guys on Counterpunch, like Cockburn or Ray McGovern or someone like that.

He seems to want to help Trump out badly. He advised Republicans in the past, but I don't know if that is a guy he wants in his camp of advisors. He's got some baggage and a long rap sheet of being a little bit cold and calculating (like Karl Rove kinda). Other than that, his intel and advice is pretty damn legit.

Face to Face: Is any historical model predicting a Hillary win?

Quote:To keep folks from getting too emotionally invested in the debates and media polling as we head down the home stretch, it's worth asking what the long-term perspective suggests.

Political scientists say that the consensus of researchers is that campaigns don't matter -- debates, polls, ads, rallies, etc. -- and that the general election is a referendum on the incumbent party in the White House. There is either a demand for more of the same, or a desire for changing the guard, and this mood about the past four years has already formed by the time the general campaign season begins, so that its myriad happenings will not shift the mood by Election Day.

This standard view rarely gets a hearing in the media, whose profits come from micro-obsessing over the speeches, polls, gaffes, etc. Nor is the public very interested -- there's nothing exciting about historical models, when there's so much relatable stuff going on every day during election season, and you want to be part of the buzz in social settings.

However, this year is different because most of the media and nearly half the country want to allay their fears that Trump could actually win the election. If the normally overlooked historical models were predicting a victory for Hillary, then for once they too would be endlessly discussed and dissected, as yet another source of confirmation that "Trump can't win (he just can't)".

An honest political scientist came out way back in the early stage of the primaries and said Trump is all but a guaranteed win. Helmut Norpoth was basing this off of the performance of his primary model, which has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote since 1996, and retrospectively makes the correct call back to the beginning of the data-set in 1912, aside from 1960 (which was a coin flip in the popular vote).

The model is a simple theory of the electoral pendulum: it awards points to the incumbent party after one term, penalizes the incumbent party after two terms, and favors the stronger candidate in their respective primary contest. After Trump won New Hampshire, South Carolina, and cleaned up on Super Tuesday, Norpoth felt comfortable to call it then. Hillary lost the key early battle of New Hampshire, and was saddled with the burden of running for a third consecutive term of the incumbent party.

Another political scientist whose model has successfully predicted the outcome for even longer -- back through 1984, and retrospectively back to 1860 -- has taken far longer to admit that his model, too, is predicting a win for Trump. He's a hardcore Hillary supporter, and was holding out for nearly a year in an attempt to soothe his cognitive dissonance. But even they have had to concede that Crooked Hillary's candidacy is doomed.

Allan Lichtman's 13 keys to the Presidency is starting to make the rounds in the media now, although he discussed it with The Fix (WaPo) back in May, and even as far back as last December in a faculty research profile at his university. It asks 13 questions about the past four years -- economic trends, foreign policy successes, scandals, etc. -- and about the candidates themselves -- incumbency, hero status, facing third-party splitters, etc. If 6 or more of the 13 go against the incumbent party, they are out, and the opposition party is in.

By these measures, it was already clear last December that the Democrats would not keep the White House, although you could have debated a point here or there. But certainly by mid-May, when Lichtman was interviewed for The Fix, it was guaranteed. He was still delusionally insisting that it remained an open question whether or not there was a serious contest for the nomination in the incumbent party, which hurts the party in the general -- yeah, that whole Bernie phenomenon was all in our imaginations. This guy had his head buried deeper in the sand than the Cruz Cult.

At any rate, both of these respected academics with solid track records are predicting a win for Trump. Neither has mentioned alternative models that also have solid track records, both predictive and retrospective, which are however predicting the Democrats to go three in a row. Lichtman especially ought to be hyping those up, if they existed, since he's so desperate for Trump to lose.

If there are any political science nerds out there, let us know.

Otherwise, take comfort in what the long-term, big-picture data are predicting, and don't obsess so much over what the micro-term, info-overload of BIG DATA are predicting. All signs point to the incumbent party not holding on for another term.

But wait, there's more!

The author of the blog post linked above replies to a commenter who's worried about the left pulling tricks in order to steal the election:

Quote:Not to jinx it, but we've dodged plenty of Establishment bullets for over a year.

First they tried to ostracize him at the opening debate (pledge), then vilify him with the initial attack about fat pigs, etc.

Then they tried to caricature him in the media.

Then Lyin' Ted set him and Carson up in the first caucus.

Then ol' Dubya was trotted out to condemn Trump before South Carolina.

Then the Pope, then the sitting President, then Barbara and HW Bush, then the Speaker of the House, then this person, then that person.

Then we were going to get up-staged at the Convention. Then there was going to be a delegate revolt. Then there was going to be a splitting of the Party. On and on and on.

The only major coup that the Establishment scored was that rat Kasich coercing Democrat voters in Ohio to turn out for him in the primary, or else. But he didn't resort to rigging the machines, or electronically intercepting the data and altering it.

In the general, he won't be able to force Democrats to vote against Trump -- they're already going to. And those that are not voting partisan, cannot be bullied -- see Kasich's losses in Appalachia, including Mahoning County, which is filled to the brim with Trump Democrats.

I'm not saying we don't have to raise these issues and threaten the Establishment in case they try to fight dirty. But so far we've dodged all sorts of bullets, and the highest ranking members of Trump's party, including the RNC, are on our side.

Look at the Democrats if you want to see the Establishment getting away with whatever the hell it wants. Bernie wasn't as popular on their side as Trump was on ours.

With the polling, rallies, etc., all showing how well we're going to do, they can't plausibly steal entire states like Ohio and think no one will notice it's bullshit.

(09-28-2016 05:15 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I watched a video on my phone earlier today of Dick Morris postulating that Hillary was threatening Putin during the debates with her talking about cybersecurity.

In the video he gives a short history of how Bill Clinton and he coached Boris Yeltsin to reelection and beat Putin's KGB candidate and that he likely never forgot.

He thinks Putin has ALL of her emails.

Edit - Basically, he may take revenge on her for meddling in the Russian elections while she bitches about them meddling in this one.

Honestly if he has that kind of leverage over her, I wonder if he would use it to have her lose. Then the leverage goes away.

He wouldn't need it anymore if she lost. She will have little reason to live and will fall apart over the next 2 years.

I don't get how after The Fappening the prospect of (insert random celebrity here) getting naked can get anyone excited.

Anyone has that photo of Hillary, Chelsea and Web Hubbell (possibly on the stage after the debate) where they look glaringly similar?

Larry from The Huffington Post claims that the people who don't want to vote for Hilary are misogynists who can't handle a women being US president. Also the Clinton foundation is fantastic and the e-mail scandal argument is hypocritical because the Bush administration wiped emails too as did Romney and nobody cared about that. Also the article claims that's she's super honest.

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

Quote:THE BLOG
Stop Pretending You Don’t Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton
2 days ago | Updated 1 day ago
Larry Womack Writer, layabout and all-around nogoodnik; web publisher; former Associate News Editor, The Huffington Post

BRIAN SNYDER / REUTERS
“Why Is Clinton disliked?”

“Why the hate for Hillary?”

“Why do people hate Hillary Clinton so much?”

Is it because of partisanship?

Or a hard-fought primary?

Maybe, NBC once suggested, it’s because “she’s not a train wreck.”

Funny how the answers seem to be everything but the obvious.

We go on endlessly about how “untrustworthy” she is, while fact checkers rank her as the second-most honest prominent politician in the country. (And her opponent as by far the least.)

We say that she has trouble with transparency, while her opponent refuses to release his taxes and the current administration sets records for secrecy.

We decry her ties to corporations and the financial industry, while supporting a walking tax shelter or mourning the exit of a president whose re-election was funded by a record-shattering Wall Street haul.

We list so very many explanations, all of them complete bullshit.

In truth, the Hillary haters seem to resent her more than disagree with her. They demand to be humored and catered to. They hold her to wildly different standards than her male counterparts. They regard her with an unprecedented degree of suspicion. Above all, they really, really want to see her punished. And an aggressive male presence—even if dangerously incompetent—seems to comfort a great many of them.

Everyone but them knows damn well why.

Bad news for the haters: History is decidedly unafraid of “the woman card.” It doesn’t care how many people will stand on tables today and swear they’d feel the same if she were a man. It will see us for what we are—a sick society, driven by misogyny and pathetically struggling to come to terms with the fact that women do not exist solely to nurture.

If that answer isn’t as nuanced as the average thinkpiece, that’s because we, as a people, are not. No matter how many branches have formed, they all emerged from the same seed, planted way back when Bill Clinton first ran for governor. She wouldn’t be so suspicious of the press, or so measured in her presentation, or so any one of a thousand other things, if she had been born a man.

The lengths we go to in order to rationalize this all will be seen, in retrospect, as extraordinary.

When the Bush administration was discovered to have erased millions of emails illegally sent by 22 administration officials through private, RNC-owned accounts, in order to thwart an investigation into the politically motivated firing of eight US attorneys, just one talk show covered it that Sunday.

When Mitt Romney wiped servers, sold government hard drives to his closest aides and spent $100,000 in taxpayer money to destroy his administration’s emails, it was barely an issue.

When Hillary Clinton asked Colin Powell how he managed to use a Blackberry while serving as Secretary of State, he replied by detailing his method of intentionally bypassing federal record-keeping laws:

I didn’t have a Blackberry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.
... There is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it it [sic] government and you are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law.
Yet the fact that Hillary Clinton emailed through a private server and didn’t use it to cover anything up is somehow the defining issue of her campaign. “My God,” people cry, “anyone else would be in jail!”

Or is the real scandal that her family runs but does not profit from a charitable foundation awarded an A grade by Charity Watch, a four out of four star rating by Charity Navigator and responsible for helping 435 million people in 180 countries get things like clean drinking water and HIV medication? Because the AP seems super concerned that she encountered people who donated to it—specifically Nobel Peace Prize-winning economist Muhammad Yunus—in her official capacity as Secretary of State.

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.

And it isn’t just Republicans. The double standards are even more transparent on the left.

Back in the mid-90s, Clinton’s persistent unwillingness to hide the fact that she was a thinking human female really freaked the center-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.” Because if he doesn’t know, she must not have any, right?

In fact, there is a very lengthy trail of public records all pointing in the same direction. If you can’t figure out which, maybe the problem is you.

Yet, many on the left who gladly voted for John Kerry, two years after he voted to authorize the Iraq war, now say they couldn’t possibly vote for Clinton, because she did, too.

And view her with contempt for opposing same-sex marriage in 2008, while fawning over men like Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, who held the same position at the same time.

It’s time to stop pretending that this is about substance. This is about an eagerness to believe that a woman who seeks power will say or do anything to get it. This is about a Lady MacBeth stereotype that, frankly, should never have existed in the first place. This is about the one thing no one wants to admit it’s about.

Consider, for a moment, two people. One, as a young woman at the beginning of a promising legal career, went door to door searching for ways to guarantee an education to the countless disabled and disadvantaged children who had fallen through the cracks. The other, as a young millionaire, exacted revenge on his recently deceased brother’s family by cutting off the medical insurance desperately needed by his nephew’s newborn son, who at eighteen months of age was suffering from violent seizures brought on by a rare neurological disorder.

What kind of a society treats these two people as equal in any way? What kind of society even considers the latter over the former for its highest office?

Generations from now, people will shake their heads at this moment in time, when the first female major party presidential nominee—competent, qualified and more thoroughly vetted than any non-incumbent candidate in history—endured the humiliation of being likened to such an obvious grifter, ignoramus and hate monger.

We deserve the shame that we will bear.

I'm starting to be real annoyed at so called "fact checkers" lately.

"Fact-checking" is one of the biggest scams in recent history. In 99% of cases it amounts to nothing more than an uneducated biased cretin claiming to be the be-all-end-all authority on every possible subject matter and then claiming that you're racist/sexist/bigoted/xenophobic when you point out their errors and bias.

(09-29-2016 05:34 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  "Fact-checking" is one of the biggest scams in recent history. In 99% of cases it amounts to nothing more than an uneducated biased cretin claiming to be the be-all-end-all authority on every possible subject matter and then claiming that you're racist/sexist/bigoted/xenophobic when you point out their errors and bias.

It's total bullshit.

Just like "peer reviewed papers" in science.

The fuckery runs deep man.

Pretty sure I remember seeing among Soros' hacked files that he deliberately 'weaponized' fact checking, but can't find the documents in question to be sure.

Seeing some of the things politifact classify as "pants on fire", their intent is pretty obvious, but only because I'm looking at it critically. Maybe 1% of people would bother fact checking, and only 1% of those would fact check the fact check.

(09-29-2016 05:21 AM)Poker Wrote:  Larry from The Huffington Post claims that the people who don't want to vote for Hilary are misogynists who can't handle a women being US president. Also the Clinton foundation is fantastic and the e-mail scandal argument is hypocritical because the Bush administration wiped emails too as did Romney and nobody cared about that. Also the article claims that's she's super honest.

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

Quote:THE BLOG
Stop Pretending You Don’t Know Why People Hate Hillary Clinton
...
We deserve the shame that we will bear.

More guilt tripping.

More appeals to shame.

Pathetic.

There is only one valid response.

That entire article amounts to the written version of this



For me I am completely honest why I hate her. It's because she's gotten a lot of people in my profession and people in the middle east killed through her corruption, and because if elected she will get many, many, more killed by starting a war with Russia.

Trump is atrocious in a lot of ways (like his civil liberties positions) but even his worst areas are ones where he is at parity with Hillary.

(09-28-2016 11:36 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 05:15 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I watched a video on my phone earlier today of Dick Morris postulating that Hillary was threatening Putin during the debates with her talking about cybersecurity.

In the video he gives a short history of how Bill Clinton and he coached Boris Yeltsin to reelection and beat Putin's KGB candidate and that he likely never forgot.

He thinks Putin has ALL of her emails.

Edit - Basically, he may take revenge on her for meddling in the Russian elections while she bitches about them meddling in this one.

Honestly if he has that kind of leverage over her, I wonder if he would use it to have her lose. Then the leverage goes away.

He wouldn't need it anymore if she lost. She will have little reason to live and will fall apart over the next 2 years.

That's not my point. My point is he has leverage over a sitting president if she get's elected. If Mr. Trump is elected he has nothing. So he has to weigh whether having that leverage is more valuable when having a corrupt globalist in power or not having leverage over a brilliant nationalist that is planning to do what Putin has done in Russia. Does he choose to deal with Hillary and a weak America or does he choose to deal with Mr. Trump and a Strong America that will fuck you up.

(09-29-2016 09:52 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 11:36 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 05:15 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I watched a video on my phone earlier today of Dick Morris postulating that Hillary was threatening Putin during the debates with her talking about cybersecurity.

In the video he gives a short history of how Bill Clinton and he coached Boris Yeltsin to reelection and beat Putin's KGB candidate and that he likely never forgot.

He thinks Putin has ALL of her emails.

Edit - Basically, he may take revenge on her for meddling in the Russian elections while she bitches about them meddling in this one.

Honestly if he has that kind of leverage over her, I wonder if he would use it to have her lose. Then the leverage goes away.

He wouldn't need it anymore if she lost. She will have little reason to live and will fall apart over the next 2 years.

That's not my point. My point is he has leverage over a sitting president if she get's elected. If Mr. Trump is elected he has nothing. So he has to weigh whether having that leverage is more valuable when having a corrupt globalist in power or not having leverage over a brilliant nationalist that is planning to do what Putin has done in Russia. Does he choose to deal with Hillary and a weak America or does he choose to deal with Mr. Trump and a Strong America that will fuck you up.

Yeah, but a weak America still has nukes. I think Putin has already decided against her.

(09-29-2016 10:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 09:52 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 11:36 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 05:15 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I watched a video on my phone earlier today of Dick Morris postulating that Hillary was threatening Putin during the debates with her talking about cybersecurity.

In the video he gives a short history of how Bill Clinton and he coached Boris Yeltsin to reelection and beat Putin's KGB candidate and that he likely never forgot.

He thinks Putin has ALL of her emails.

Edit - Basically, he may take revenge on her for meddling in the Russian elections while she bitches about them meddling in this one.

Honestly if he has that kind of leverage over her, I wonder if he would use it to have her lose. Then the leverage goes away.

He wouldn't need it anymore if she lost. She will have little reason to live and will fall apart over the next 2 years.

That's not my point. My point is he has leverage over a sitting president if she get's elected. If Mr. Trump is elected he has nothing. So he has to weigh whether having that leverage is more valuable when having a corrupt globalist in power or not having leverage over a brilliant nationalist that is planning to do what Putin has done in Russia. Does he choose to deal with Hillary and a weak America or does he choose to deal with Mr. Trump and a Strong America that will fuck you up.

Yeah, but a weak America still has nukes. I think Putin has already decided against her.

And a strong America causes a rising tide of worldwide prosperity that raises all boats. Putin is a smart guy. He gets this. He wants Russia's boat raised.

(09-29-2016 10:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 09:52 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 11:36 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 05:15 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I watched a video on my phone earlier today of Dick Morris postulating that Hillary was threatening Putin during the debates with her talking about cybersecurity.

In the video he gives a short history of how Bill Clinton and he coached Boris Yeltsin to reelection and beat Putin's KGB candidate and that he likely never forgot.

He thinks Putin has ALL of her emails.

Edit - Basically, he may take revenge on her for meddling in the Russian elections while she bitches about them meddling in this one.

Honestly if he has that kind of leverage over her, I wonder if he would use it to have her lose. Then the leverage goes away.

He wouldn't need it anymore if she lost. She will have little reason to live and will fall apart over the next 2 years.

That's not my point. My point is he has leverage over a sitting president if she get's elected. If Mr. Trump is elected he has nothing. So he has to weigh whether having that leverage is more valuable when having a corrupt globalist in power or not having leverage over a brilliant nationalist that is planning to do what Putin has done in Russia. Does he choose to deal with Hillary and a weak America or does he choose to deal with Mr. Trump and a Strong America that will fuck you up.

Yeah, but a weak America still has nukes. I think Putin has already decided against her.

Way to think down the road.

(09-29-2016 10:22 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 10:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 09:52 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 11:36 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 05:15 PM)Fisto Wrote:  I watched a video on my phone earlier today of Dick Morris postulating that Hillary was threatening Putin during the debates with her talking about cybersecurity.

In the video he gives a short history of how Bill Clinton and he coached Boris Yeltsin to reelection and beat Putin's KGB candidate and that he likely never forgot.

He thinks Putin has ALL of her emails.

Edit - Basically, he may take revenge on her for meddling in the Russian elections while she bitches about them meddling in this one.

Honestly if he has that kind of leverage over her, I wonder if he would use it to have her lose. Then the leverage goes away.

He wouldn't need it anymore if she lost. She will have little reason to live and will fall apart over the next 2 years.

That's not my point. My point is he has leverage over a sitting president if she get's elected. If Mr. Trump is elected he has nothing. So he has to weigh whether having that leverage is more valuable when having a corrupt globalist in power or not having leverage over a brilliant nationalist that is planning to do what Putin has done in Russia. Does he choose to deal with Hillary and a weak America or does he choose to deal with Mr. Trump and a Strong America that will fuck you up.

Yeah, but a weak America still has nukes. I think Putin has already decided against her.

And a strong America causes a rising tide of worldwide prosperity that raises all boats. Putin is a smart guy. He gets this. He wants Russia's boat raised.

Putin is a smart guy, but he has to WEIGH the choices, as I ONLY pointed out.

(09-29-2016 10:32 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 10:22 AM)Ghost Tiger Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 10:03 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

(09-29-2016 09:52 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(09-28-2016 11:36 PM)Jaydublin Wrote:  He wouldn't need it anymore if she lost. She will have little reason to live and will fall apart over the next 2 years.

That's not my point. My point is he has leverage over a sitting president if she get's elected. If Mr. Trump is elected he has nothing. So he has to weigh whether having that leverage is more valuable when having a corrupt globalist in power or not having leverage over a brilliant nationalist that is planning to do what Putin has done in Russia. Does he choose to deal with Hillary and a weak America or does he choose to deal with Mr. Trump and a Strong America that will fuck you up.

Yeah, but a weak America still has nukes. I think Putin has already decided against her.

And a strong America causes a rising tide of worldwide prosperity that raises all boats. Putin is a smart guy. He gets this. He wants Russia's boat raised.

Putin is a smart guy, but he has to WEIGH the choices, as I ONLY pointed out.

Yes, thinking in a conventional way, a weak America is good for America's competency and "opponents" on World stage.

But Hillary would bring more and worse than a weak America: a global chaos, a full-fledged BLM race war, re-ignited war in Donbass, maybe even nuking of Al-Assad... events so catastrophic that even the classic competency of America (Russia, China, France even) do not want them to happen.

Also, Putin certainly has a physical, instinctive, Russian and unshakable hatred of that old, smug SJW woman. Even if he needed to, he couldn't bring himself to help her in any way.

Hillary is like boiled spinach. Even if they might serve you in some way, you can't bring yourself to like or eat them. Well, Huma can, but Vladimir certainly can't.

Video of Clinton straight up admitting that the Council on Foreign Relations tells her what to do and how to think: