Hillary's new book: "It Was My Turn"
Posted: Thu Aug 31, 2017 6:43 pm
I can't wait for it to come out!
Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9163
You're not the only one! It would be a much better, and more popular, book than any of her actual ones!eufo wrote:I opened this thread hoping that was a real book... very disappointed.
Libertarian666 wrote:I'm very appreciative for the election's revelation of exactly how insane so many people are.Michellebell wrote:I think the Democratic Party at this point would be so much better off if she would just STFU. Although now, I'm so fed up with Democratic politicians that maybe she's doing me a favor
Including some family members and in-laws.
That is one person. Surely there are others, but it's not surprising. Also, this...Maxine Waters calling for impeachment, for no specific reason that she can name.
CNN found in July 2014 that 57% of Republicans supported efforts while about two thirds of adult Americans in general disagreed.
This stuff is not new. I'm frankly surprised that anyone is surprised.At a 2013 town hall meeting with constituents, two years after Obama had released his long-form birth certificate to the public, Congressman Blake Farenthold said that Obama should be impeached due to conspiracy theories relating to Obama's birth certificate. Farenthold said that he thinks that "the House is already out of the barn on this, on the whole birth certificate issue."
Bloviation about non-issues in the media has always been a trait. This is on the media. And I'd hardly say this is the first thing that makes them "insane." Or the largest. How the media approaches war is perhaps the single-best example, IMO. See their fawning over Trump's strikes against Syria.The "Russia-Trump conspiracy theorists" bloviating all over the media, on the basis of absolutely nothing.
Ok this seems like more than a bit much, though I haven't researched it. But I don't see it as an indication of a unique tilt of "insanity" by the U.S. public.The Unitarian-Universalist national group UUWorld talking about how they themselves are guilty of white supremacy.
You don't think there are legitimate "actual facts" being brought up by anyone in holding Trump accountable? Or are you just purposefully focusing on the idiotic ones?Libertarian666 wrote:I'm in favor of holding power accountable. But it should be based on actual facts, not made up conspiracy theories.moda0306 wrote:
Your other two examples are personal in nature, so I can't speak much to them other than I could write a book about the level of unbalanced vitriol hurled at Obama, not just by big players in the mainstream media, but by friends and colleagues on FB (to speak to your personal examples). While I've seen quite a bit of mud slung at Trump, most of it is accurately disassembling his constant stream of bullsh!t. Some of it is pure partisan drivel and vitriol, sure. But if we are going to encourage actually holding power accountable (something that any free-thinker or anarchist leaning individual should appreciate), then I'm not going to worry about the noise.
Of course he has committed war crimes. Every President since at least Abe Lincoln has done that.moda0306 wrote: You still seem more concerned with ridiculing Hillary than the buffoon with the nukes in the White House who's already committed war-crimes and seems very anti-civil-libertarian to say the least.
And of course he isn't a civil libertarian. But compared to Hillary, he looks like Thomas Jefferson.
That's why they have chocolate and vanilla ice cream.moda0306 wrote: It seems we agree pretty closely on Hillary. It seems weird to me that we disagree so much on Trump & the nature of the "insanity" of the public in-general.
What are they?moda0306 wrote: You don't think there are legitimate "actual facts" being brought up by anyone in holding Trump accountable?
Simply any topic where one would believe he has opinions or will make decisions that are dangerous for this country. For the most part, I'm talking about foreign policy, war powers, and law enforcement agency civil liberties issues where he has the most authority. But someone might disagree with me that these are extra important areas considering the president's outsised unilateral influence, or they might just care more about other issues.farjean2 wrote:What are they?moda0306 wrote: You don't think there are legitimate "actual facts" being brought up by anyone in holding Trump accountable?
Hmmm. I don't think you really mean what you are saying, that a president should be held accountable for opinions that he holds that might lead to making decisions that are dangerous for this country in your opinion. I'll chalk that up to the kind of brain fart that we all have from time to time.moda0306 wrote: Simply any topic where one would believe he has opinions or will make decisions that are dangerous for this country.
Half of my examples were actual actions and not just opinions. Try them.Libertarian666 wrote:No one can be held accountable for their opinions or decisions that people believe he would make. That doesn't even make sense.moda0306 wrote:Simply any topic where one would believe he has opinions or will make decisions that are dangerous for this country. For the most part, I'm talking about foreign policy, war powers, and law enforcement agency civil liberties issues where he has the most authority. But someone might disagree with me that these are extra important areas considering the president's outsised unilateral influence, or they might just care more about other issues.farjean2 wrote:
What are they?
So the facts might be simply the very unbalanced things he's said about these topics. Perhaps it's just facts about his apparent mental state when he controls our nuclear arsenal. Do I need to go re-find the quote where he suggested we surround ISIS in Iraq with troops and have our oil companies take all the oil? Suggesting executing Snowden? Suggested we kill families of terrorists? Suggested he's going to "do a lot worse" than waterboarding for torture? Killing civilians at a far-higher rate than Obama?
How about making nice with Henry Kissinger or the Saudis? How about the war crimes he's already commited? How about simply having a gross anti-civil libertarian like Sessions as attorney general? Bombing Syria? Continuing the war in Yemen?
These are just simple facts in a pretty narrow area of policy.
How about you folks... what things would you like to see Trump held accountable? Perhaps some of his promises, his general decorum or domestic policy priorities?
Or are we just going to sit here and bash Hillary's books?
Of course you can always have an opinion that someone else's opinion is wrong.
But that's not holding that person accountable; it's just your opinion.
Actions are the only thing for which anyone can be held accountable.
Yes, speech is a form of action, but it in itself does nothing unless it is a legal command to someone else to do something.
So then we have to ask which of Trump's actions he should be held accountable for.
Go ahead and let us know which actions you think he should be held accountable for; then we can have a possibly fruitful discussion.
Google "Africom." Then take a look at the roster of private military, security, and natural resource-based monopoly corporations with a permanent footprint on that new frontier of economic resources. Finally, Google "General Wesley Clark" and look for the little bombshell he dropped in 2007 regarding the plan for establishing western hegemony in the mideast by eradicating seven specific nation states and their nationalistic leaders who are standing in the way of this plan.TennPaGa wrote:Libertarian666 wrote: He authorized whatever was going on in Niger that ended up with 8 US military personnel getting killed. I thought Trump was going to keep the US out of that stuff. (I'm ashamed to admit that, for a time last summer, I actually believed he would follow through on getting the U.S. out of the Middle East. Boy, was I gullible.)
That's all well and good... But on the other hand, someone defriended me.TennPaGa wrote:Donald Trump is President of the United States. Of course he is running the show.Maddy wrote:Google "Africom." Then take a look at the roster of private military, security, and natural resource-based monopoly corporations with a permanent footprint on that new frontier of economic resources. Finally, Google "General Wesley Clark" and look for the little bombshell he dropped in 2007 regarding the plan for establishing western hegemony in the mideast by eradicating seven specific nation states and their nationalistic leaders who are standing in the way of this plan.TennPaGa wrote:
The consider whether it's logical to believe that Trump is running this show.
Trump absolutely could get the U.S. out of Niger -- if he wanted to. But he doesn't want to, obviously.
+2 re. Michellebell's post, and +1 for the Simonjester post. I may be all wet on this, but I think most, if not all, of the media is geared to appeal to EMOTION (aka sensationalism) rather than to diligently dig for facts and truth and then report objectively. I tend to put the media in the same box as soap opera, professional wrestling, and the evening "news" talking heads - not worth listening to or watching. As for the politicians, they are mainly just a bunch of self-serving narcisistic lost souls. Having said all that, the media and politicians are just serving up what most of the people want, and can't help wanting - entertainment that requires no effort other than picking up the remote. Some people excessively drink to escape, some do drugs, some are addicts of other flavors, some are even addicted to internet forums, some to TV, and some just stick with matters of personal importance.Simonjester wrote:+ 1 wonderful post.
i have a similar on the fence view of trump, i am not a strong supporter, i question whether the in your face New yorker attitude (seldom understood outside NY city) works as presidential, i don't believe he is ANY of the things the media say about him, and i LOVE that the establishment (both sides) are having apoplectic fits over his very existence, regardless if he is a good bad or indifferent president, i think any even the smallest of pullback from the politics as usual that Hillary and his establishment republican enemies represent will be a good thing..
It's just a great example of him not being anti-establishment or a threat to the deep state. One of many.Xan wrote:Moda, you seem to be trotting out Henry Kissenger as some kind of boogeyman on a regular basis. Can you describe your thinking on that?
Then it remains a real head-scratcher how the Pentagon could simply deny his request for information about foreign military involvements, as was reported to have occurred shortly after his inauguration.TennPaGa wrote:Trump absolutely could get the U.S. out of Niger -- if he wanted to. But he doesn't want to, obviously.
Taking this at face value...Simonjester wrote:nobody is a threat to the deep deep state they are way too firmly in control, at best trump can be a threat to the politics as usual government expansionist establishment and the surface level deep state corruption and incompetence (and i hope he ends up being so and not just another empty political promise maker) hoping he can take on the banks and the MIC directly is completely unrealistic. working around the edges by keeping some of his promises would be the best realistic turnout we could hope for.moda0306 wrote: This is about the areas where Trump is corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, bombastic, dangerous or nefarious in his intentions.
Unless we really want to pretend Trump is an anti-establishment threat to the deep-state or corruption, let's cut the f'king sh!t, shall we?
while i agree he is bombastic and that all politicians have their moments of incompetence trump included, (though i wouldn't begin to describe him as being incompetent in general..)
i don't see any evidence of him being the following, as an individual or a president
corrupt
dangerous
nefarious in his intentions
Actually I saw some interviews of women who worked for Trump who said that he was a very fair and kind person to work for. With all the media craziness, it was really surprising for me to see that. But really they seemed very genuine. When I thought about it some more, I thought about how his businesses have been very successful. I think that a lot of people assume rich people only get rich through corruption, and of course there are many who have done that. But I also think that for a lot of them, they become rich because they are smart, fair, good bosses, inspire hard workers, and provide services or goods that are a benefit to people.WiseOne wrote:
How do you find out about areas where Trump is corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, etc, when the main source of information you have is the media?
It takes a lot of effort to sift through the garbage to pull out nuggets of truth. I wish I had more time and energy for that, but my impression so far is that while Trump is not someone I would ever want to work for and at times has conducted himself in a manner unbefitting his office, he's not nearly as bad as the portrayal suggests.
Sound familiar?
I understand some of your frustration, but you are essentially saying that there is NO news source that is accurately calling Trump out in negative ways that you can identify. You aren't trying. Probably because you're not emotionally motivated to give liberals any sort of gratification when they hit a few decent points against the utter buffoon in control of nukes right now while you complain about "the media."WiseOne wrote:Taking this at face value...moda0306 wrote:Anyone with the ability to think freely is annoyed and sickened by "the media." Enough using that as an excuse! Talk about a red-herring. "The media" may be informing establishment liberals and establishment conservatives. WHO CARES!? This isn't about "the media." This is about the areas where Trump is corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, bombastic, dangerous or nefarious in his intentions.
How do you find out about areas where Trump is corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, etc, when the main source of information you have is the media?
What is "the media?" If there's no source of current events you trust, then why do you come to arguments with facts about anything? You never seem to be quite this skeptical of the media on any other topic du jour... why now so much?
It takes a lot of effort to sift through the garbage to pull out nuggets of truth.
I totally agree. Trump makes it harder by telling so many lies so fast that his supporters don't even seem to care about what comes out of his mouth anymore.
I wish I had more time and energy for that, but my impression (Impression from what? What "the media" has shown you? Have you met the president or are you gleaning what you know from "the media?) so far is that while Trump is not someone I would ever want to work for and at times has conducted himself in a manner unbefitting his office, he's not nearly as bad as the portrayal suggests. What portrayal?
Is there only one? Does "authoritarian sexual-assaulting buffoon" count?
Oddly, I've been thinking more about this since I start plowing through Ken Burns' "Vietnam" series on PBS. It is outstanding and well worth watching. The presentation paints a rather shocking portrait of self-delusion, rationalization, and gamesmanship in the US government & media that is if anything worse than what's going on today. The basis for the war was essentially made up. Originally it was about Vietnam trying to win independence from France, and the U.S. started out as - and could have remained - an ally. The "communism" label which somehow came into the picture turned out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You realize that "the media" essentially produced that documentary, right? Why believe one thing in it that so-called "documentary"? It's either hearsay or facts that "we don't have the time to pull out the nuggets of truth" out of.
Sound familiar?