Half-baked Republican Presidential Fruitcakes (and fellow confections)

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the claim that "a muslim wife doesn't speak out when in the same room as her husband" doesn't even have that kind of foundation. It's just something that someone pulled out of his DailyMailhole and Rec, poor sap, fell for it.

I said "A Muslim wife is not expected to speak out when in the same room as her husband". It may be a generalisation, but its not an insult IMO. Anyway that was my own words (ie not taken from The Daily Mail, which BTW has some remarkably insightful articles in the online edition, for example the Doggerland article indirectly explains the existence of Lusitanian fauna and flora of Kerry and why the Kerry Red Deer are related to a very ancient strain of deer whose bones are also found along the Waterford coast; they once grazed the area between Ireland and Portugal... but I digress)

I see Hillary's campaign managers are now saying she was diagnosed with pneumonia, and the diagnosis was made well before she stood outside the daughter's apartment and told everybody there was nothing wrong with her.
That is often a secondary infection in older people. The primary problem could be just stress, but it also seems plausible in my completely unqualified opinion that she has been having a series of mini strokes.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

The primary problem could be just stress, but it also seems plausible in my completely unqualified opinion that she has been having a series of mini strokes.

It's amazing what can seem plausible in an unqualified opinion.

FA Hayek

recedite wrote: »

I see Hillary's campaign managers are now saying she was diagnosed with pneumonia, and the diagnosis was made well before she stood outside the daughter's apartment and told everybody there was nothing wrong with her.
That is often a secondary infection in older people. The primary problem could be just stress, but it also seems plausible in my completely unqualified opinion that she has been having a series of mini strokes.

Another notch on her bed of lies.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

Any evidence of that insult yet BTW? Or can we take it the allegation here has been withdrawn?

I see another poster has provided a link above - Trump claimed that the wife wasn't allowed to speak. This, on top of a broad range of other crazy allegations and insults about muslims (and hispanics) including various unhinged threats to do various things to them which are incompatible with law, human rights and the US constitution.

Though - before you ask me to cite again - as you're no doubt well aware, precise details on his intentions are hard or impossible to establish since every time he opens his mouth he says something different, he displaces his comments by the trite mechanism of using a "lots of people are saying" form in order to assert deniability. And, other than his crazy Mexican Wall notion, he seems incapable of saying something clear, consistent and unambiguous and instead, prefers to contradict himself left, right and center in the full knowledge that Fox news and other gutter news outlets will headline his nonsense and present it in the same uncritical sense with which it will be consumed by its deplorable consumer base.

Trump - youtube comments come to life.

BTW, I'm with Pherekydes - are you actually being serious in this discussion? I'm having some difficulty in believing that you are - I hope you're not offended by this

recedite

robindch wrote: »

I hope you're not offended by this

Not at all. Nor am I surprised that the wife let the husband do the talking. I just thought there might be some more substantial issue that you knew about and I had missed it.

Links234

recedite wrote: »

The Trump supporters must have been too polite to take up the offer.

You know, flippant comments like this are why I rarely bother engaging with you. You made a statement, you were shown to be wrong, and without even acknowleding or conceding the point, you dance to another point. Your behaviour here is just like Jimitime and the rest of the true believers who sometimes frequent A&A, the only difference is what you're dogmatic about.

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's amazing what can seem plausible in an unqualified opinion.

Unqualified opinion myself but my mother had 2 mini strikes, and there's no way in hell anybody would be up walking 2 hours later.

It would require a hospital stay of a couple of days minimum for tests, care etc.

recedite

K-9 wrote: »

Unqualified opinion myself but my mother had 2 mini strikes..

It would require a hospital stay of a couple of days minimum for tests, care etc.

It all depends on the severity; sometimes people lie down for an hour or two and then carry on without ever seeing a doctor or being aware what has occurred.
In the case of Clinton, she would have the best of medical care and tests etc. but might choose to just soldier on, and not disclose anything. That's all speculation though, obviously.

recedite

Links234 wrote: »

flippant comments like this are why I rarely bother engaging with you. You made a statement, you were shown to be wrong, and without even acknowleding or conceding the point, you dance to another point.

If you want me to elaborate, here's the situation. One of these so-called "protesters" snatched a gun from security and seemingly was about to shoot Trump. If a Trump supporter went to a Clinton rally and did the same, I would hope that the crowd would intervene and that the Clinton campaign would pay any legal bills resulting. But fortunately nobody has been "roughed up" at a rally on either side yet, AFAIK, so the notion of any crowd violence is a moot point so far.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

But fortunately nobody has been "roughed up" at a rally on either side yet, AFAIK, so the notion of any crowd violence is a moot point so far.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLufi33mnsE

silverharp

oscarBravo wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLufi33mnsE

overall though 99% of the violence has been against Trump supporters, its almost socially acceptable to attack them in public.

recedite

OK, I stand corrected. One person punched one other person.

silverharp

here is one reporter's conundrum , funny to read

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

here is one reporter's conundrum , funny to read

Not all that funny - assuming it's genuine, it reads like the diary of some bored, low self-esteem, angsty teenager with nothing better to do than thumb his nose at everybody around him:

Alleged Reporter, 42 wrote:

I believe that sometimes you just have to blow sh*t up in order to build it again, and I think a Trump presidency will do just that.

Which only reminds me of the careless destruction arising from the ongoing brexit debacle.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

Not all that funny - assuming it's genuine, it reads like the diary of some bored, low self-esteem, angsty teenager with nothing better to do than thumb his nose at everybody around him:Which only reminds me of the careless destruction arising from the ongoing brexit debacle.

a lot of how people vote is emotional or based on your instinctual view of the candidate. for some it might come down to what trait you dislike the most and go the other way.

FA Hayek

silverharp wrote: »

a lot of how people vote is emotional or based on your instinctual view of the candidate. for some it might come down to what trait you dislike the most and go the other way.

People will vote a certain way because they themselves will feel like they have nothing left to lose. The common denominator here is the same in places like Sunderland and Ohio. Working class communities being sold out by the elites (hate using that term) to pursue their own pet projects. Still, I suppose its better to talk down to them then try and understand them. That will do the situation the world of good

Peregrinus

"I believe that sometimes you just have to blow sh*t up in order to build it again, and I think a Trump presidency will do just that."

Trump might get half-way there. It is possible to break eggs without making an omelette, remember.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

"I believe that sometimes you just have to blow sh*t up in order to build it again, and I think a Trump presidency will do just that."

Trump might get half-way there. It is possible to break eggs without making an omelette, remember.

Hillary is the neocon candidate here which has had the highest egg to omelette ratio if the middle east is anything to go by

Peregrinus

If so, it's only because Trump has never held any position in government and so has had no chance to break any eggs in the Middle East.

In terms of what he has turned his hand to, he's done an awful lot of egg-breaking and not a lot of omelette-making. He's a businessman who, sooner or later, has walked away from the ruins of every venture he has embarked upon. (Therefore, pay close attention to his vice-presidential candidate!) He's had a succession of bankruptcies, he's been the subject of more than a hundred federal lawsuits and countless hundreds of lawsuits from people who entered into business dealings with him, he's quite open about the fact that he has paid large sums of money to public officials to secure influence and favourable treatment (and in fact sees nothing wrong with this), he's quite open about the fact that he sees bullying contractors and business partners as a legitimate business practice, he still poses as a businessman although for some years now he has been principally employed as a reality television star, and while he lives the life of a wealthy man he flatly refuses to make the financial disclosures normally expected of presidential candidates which would disclose whether he is as wealthy as he claims, or is simply riding on a bubble of debt. He's viewed as "successful" only by those who think notoriety is in itself a form of success.

So, yeah, he's up to his oxters in eggshells.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

If so, it's only because Trump has never held any position in government and so has had no chance to break any eggs in the Middle East.

the professional politician isnt exactly the best type of politicain, gov is full of cliched clones with law degrees who enter politics and so ends their connection with the real world. Hopey changy didnt work for the last 8 years, hillary is more aggro in the middle east and friction with russia so the bar is fairly low.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

the professional politician isnt exactly the best type of politicain, gov is full of cliched clones with law degrees who enter politics and so ends their connection with the real world. Hopey changy didnt work for the last 8 years, hillary is more aggro in the middle east and friction with russia so the bar is fairly low.

But not nearly low enough to make Trump the more attractive option.

FA Hayek

Peregrinus wrote: »

But not nearly low enough to make Trump the more attractive option.

Perhaps in some cases but lets not kid ourselves either that Trump is the war monger here. That award is firmly uneqiviully in the hands of Hillary.

robindch

FA Hayek wrote: »

Perhaps in some cases but lets not kid ourselves either that Trump is the war monger here. That award is firmly uneqiviully in the hands of Hillary.

Could you say which war(s) Hilary has started?

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

[...] Hopey changy didnt work for the last 8 years, hillary is more aggro in the middle east and friction with russia so the bar is fairly low.

Given the considerable instability in the world just now, stable-stable seems like a pretty good option to me.

As for friction with Russia - I'm not quite sure what you mean here since Putin feeds off instability to feed his considerable lust for power and his general fear that he'll be trashed by his successors actions or inactions. Without the US putting some spine into NATO, or indeed without NATO itself as Trump once claimed should be disbanded, it's very possible that Putin would have considered invading more countries than just Georgia and Ukraine, not to mention working behind the scenes with a string of far-right organizations to destabilize others.

FA Hayek

robindch wrote: »

Could you say which war(s) Hilary has started?

Voted for the invasion of Iraq and was quite vocal about it. People have short memories but it was one of the reasons Obama beat her for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

Not to say when she was secretary of state she made a mess of Libya.

robindch

FA Hayek wrote: »

Voted for the invasion of Iraq and was quite vocal about it.

Yes, I know. She's been equally vocal in saying that she got that wrong:

Clinton wrote:

While many were never going to look past my 2002 vote no matter what I did or said, I should have stated my regret sooner and in the plainest, most direct language possible. I’d gone most of the way there by saying I regretted the way President Bush used his authority and by saying that if we knew then what we later learned, there wouldn’t have been a vote. But I held out against using the word mistake. It wasn’t because of political expediency. After all, primary voters and the press were clamoring for me to say that word. When I voted to authorize force in 2002, I said that it was ‘probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make.’ I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong. Plain and simple.

I take it you accept that she has changed her position?

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

Given the considerable instability in the world just now, stable-stable seems like a pretty good option to me.

As for friction with Russia - I'm not quite sure what you mean here since Putin feeds off instability to feed his considerable lust for power and his general fear that he'll be trashed by his successors actions or inactions. Without the US putting some spine into NATO, or indeed without NATO itself as Trump once claimed should be disbanded, it's very possible that Putin would have considered invading more countries than just Georgia and Ukraine, not to mention working behind the scenes with a string of far-right organizations to destabilize others.

if you look at it from the Russian perspective they I believe were promised at the end of the cold war that Nato wouldn't expand East, roll now and its US hardware that sitting near their borders. the choice I see is either work with them as Allies (Europe that is) or the US and the EU dial it down and at a minimum stop trying to influence internal Ukranian politics, there ought not be a single euro or $ going into Ukraine unless they are in tourist's pockets.
At the end of the day the Russian economy is the size of Italy, oil prices are low, why go poke an elderly bear with a stick? In such a situation I could see Trump being less hawkish than Clinton. If there is any hint of the Neocons being toned down then I think Americans should grab it, Lord knows the Neocons havnt got one thing right and Europe is paying the price.

robindch

silverharp wrote: »

if you look at it from the Russian perspective they I believe were promised at the end of the cold war that Nato wouldn't expand East, roll now and its US hardware that sitting near their borders.

No such promise was made - though it's a staple of Russian state-controlled propaganda that such a promise was made, and then broken, thus justifying Russian aggression in "response". Here's Gorbachev speaking in 2014 on the Russian claim that there was a promise:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

BTW, that's to ignore two important facts about the claim:

1. "Promises" count for nothing in international law - there are treaties and that's it. To the best of my knowledge, Russia has never said who made this promise, nor when, nor how, nor anything at all really. It appears to be a complete fabrication.

2. NATO is not a country. It's a military alliance which countries apply to and join for mutual self-defence. While the US can veto any new membership application, just as any other member can, it would be peculiar if some country wished to join and NATO chose to deny them the right of self-protection because of some undocumented promise which a non-member state claims exists.

silverharp wrote: »

[...] the US and the EU dial it down and at a minimum stop trying to influence internal Ukranian politics, there ought not be a single euro or $ going into Ukraine unless they are in tourist's pockets.

Within the general understanding of the term, the EU and US are not interfering in internal Ukrainian politics and are letting them get on with it (or not) as they can. Russia is interfering directly by invading, threatening, murdering and generally sowing mayhem in the country for a wide range of politically fascinating reasons. I take it you condemn Russia's activities there?

silverharp wrote: »

At the end of the day the Russian economy is the size of Italy, oil prices are low, why go poke an elderly bear with a stick?

The EU and the US are not initiating any significant activities which any reasonable country would find "provocative". Russia, however, has a good propaganda machine which it's using with untypical skill to suggest that it is being "provoked", then uses the alleged provocations to justify sowing the mayhem it's been sowing for domestic political reasons. The paranoid, twitchy, fist-wavey approach is common across the Russian military, political and (since the doping scandal) sporting worlds.

silverharp wrote: »

In such a situation I could see Trump being less hawkish than Clinton.

You may be right there - Trump would be a gift for Putin and vice versa - both are uncultured, vain, selfish, violent and dangerous men and both would happily play to each other's vanities with little respect for the rest of the world or law or precedent or anything else. Under Trump, the US could well enter a superficially positive-seeming relationship with Russia, but it's a relationship which would, at best, be poisonous.

Christy42

robindch wrote: »

No such promise was made - though it's a staple of Russian state-controlled propaganda that such a promise was made, and then broken, thus justifying Russian aggression in "response". Here's Gorbachev speaking in 2014 on the Russian claim that there was a promise:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

BTW, that's to ignore two important facts about the claim:

1. "Promises" count for nothing in international law - there are treaties and that's it. To the best of my knowledge, Russia has never said who made this promise, nor when, nor how, nor anything at all really. It appears to be a complete fabrication.

2. NATO is not a country. It's a military alliance which countries apply to and join for mutual self-defence. While the US can veto any new membership application, just as any other member can, it would be peculiar if some country wished to join and NATO chose to deny them the right of self-protection because of some undocumented promise which a non-member state claims exists.Within the general understanding of the term, the EU and US are not interfering in internal Ukrainian politics and are letting them get on with it (or not) as they can. Russia is interfering directly by invading, threatening, murdering and generally sowing mayhem in the country for a wide range of politically fascinating reasons. I take it you condemn Russia's activities there?The EU and the US are not initiating any significant activities which any reasonable country would find "provocative". Russia, however, has a good propaganda machine which it's using with untypical skill to suggest that it is being "provoked", then uses the alleged provocations to justify sowing the mayhem it's been sowing for domestic political reasons. The paranoid, twitchy, fist-wavey approach is common across the Russian military, political and (since the doping scandal) sporting worlds.You may be right there - Trump would be a gift for Putin and vice versa - both are uncultured, vain, selfish, violent and dangerous men and both would happily play to each other's vanities with little respect for the rest of the world or law or precedent or anything else. Under Trump, the US could well enter a superficially positive-seeming relationship with Russia, but it's a relationship which would, at best, be poisonous.

I don't think Putin would help Trump too much unless it suits his own needs. I agree that they are similar but Putin's intellegence is a big difference between them. I feel like it would be hard to play off of Putin's vanities which is part of what makes him so dangerous.

Trump playing nice with Putin does seem like a disaster for eastern Europe ad that is what Russia will want out of the arrangement.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

BTW, that's to ignore two important facts about the claim:

1. "Promises" count for nothing in international law - there are treaties and that's it. To the best of my knowledge, Russia has never said who made this promise, nor when, nor how, nor anything at all really. It appears to be a complete fabrication.

True, but international law counts for nothing when a war starts. The Nato/coalition wars on Iraq and Libya were never sanctioned by the UN and were illegal under international law. But nobody actually enforces "international law" unless the most powerful want to do it themselves. Powerful countries behave towards each other on the basis of mutual understandings and threats, and that was the basis of the understanding that Nato would not attempt to expand eastwards if the former USSR relaxed its grip on the former East Germany.

robindch wrote: »

2. NATO is not a country. It's a military alliance which countries apply to and join for mutual self-defence. While the US can veto any new membership application, just as any other member can, it would be peculiar if some country wished to join and NATO chose to deny them

But no need for the US to actively pump money into the military of countries bordering Russia such as Ukraine and Georgia. The US encouraged a war that resulted when Georgia invaded Ossetia. It was a total disaster for Georgia when the Russians came to the aid of their protegees and whipped the Georgians asses. The US slinked away temporarily.

3. Bush/ Blair/Clinton incorrectly identified Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as the main enemy after 9/11. They failed to act on the obvious fact that most of the hijackers were Saudis, that Saudis had been exporting extremist Salafist teachings for years, and that the Al Quaeda compound in Afghanistan was staffed by foreign Salafists, a good number of them Saudis, including the leader Bin Laden.

The subsequent US/coalition wars have been like throwing petrol on a fire. The Salafists have spread throughout Iraq, Syria and Libya. Islamic State which was a direct offshoot of Al Queda now controls territory in each country.

Obama came along then. He didn't make many mistakes or do anything major at all really. He'll be remembered as the first black US president, and that's about it.

Now Hillary is ranting on about Russia being public enemy number one. Again, completely the wrong target. Russia is helping to clean up the mess in Syria.

Trump comes along, and says Islamic State is the real enemy. Just leave those Russians alone, they are not the problem, he says.

Hillary's answer to that is that Trump is a deplorable hateful racist who is treacherous to America. If he gets in control, he could turn things around.