re: Lets Talk Politics

quote:

---

Don't care. shite happens. IMO it was clearly a coverup for CIA fricking up while the using the embassy as a front to do happy fun things like rendition.

---

She repeatedly lied under oath on multiple occasions to the house committee.

You should just go ahead and vote for her honestly.

quote:

---

He lies about the dumbest most inconsequential things

---

So this is an issue but you "don't care" about actual security issues like Benghazi and the email scandal?

Wow.

quote:

---

Rand would have been nails. I'd vote for that man if he was still in it, but unfortunately the RNC doesn't like pure, unadulterated conservatism.

---

No, the general voting public doesn't like Rand because he has no charisma and no projection of personality.

As I said on another board: 90% of the voting public are low information voters. The last 10% are a combination of Informed, Intelligent, and Interested. Most of that is just interested.

Men like Ron Paul, Rand Paul, John Kasich, etc are full of ideas and can articulate those intelligent ideas very, very well. If you have the time to listen to them for 30-45 minutes, they can lay out a very convincing argument as to why their idea is a good one and why we should do it.

No one but a very few people are going to sit there and watch an NPR level discussion on South East Asia Policy. Consequently, these men are never going to win on a national level. Ever.

You can pine for a voter base that is intelligent and understands the issues, or you can wake up and realize that public never existed except in fantasy. Presidents have been picked since the beginning of the Republic because of name recognition (John Adams), or military prowess (Washington, Eisenhower), or they were a great speaker and used a lot of platitudes (Reagan, Obama, Nixon, Clinton, JFK, FDR, etc).

quote:

---

Well, it's official. I'm not voting Republican this year. This is a first for me. I'd rather vote in Hillary for 4 years and then get a chance to vote in a real conservative in 2020 than to vote in liberal Trump today and then get stuck voting between Donald and a Democrat again in 2020. Sorry folks, I just can't vote for that man and so many people I know are planning on doing the same thing.

---

You are saying this now, get ready to eat your words in 5 months when Hillary is explaining her plan to have whites celebrate 'check your privilege' day, openly discussing the nationalization of the energy sector, and taking bids from foreign nationals for the Lincoln bedroom.

The sheer incoherence of the Benghazi scandal has worked against conservatives. As far as I can gather there are actually five different Benghazi scandals:

1. Failure to provide requested extra security preceding the attack. This is a real scandal but it doesn't appear to implicate Clinton directly since the calls were made below her.

2. Failure to mount a rescue during the attack. I've seen no really compelling evidence for a "big" stand-down order (originating from DC, as opposed to the "little" stand-down dramatized in the film) or that this was even possible.

3. False statements about the political cause immediately after the attack. This is something that almost certainly goes to Clinton (and Obama). But at the end of the day it's spin, and I'm too much of a cynic to feign outrage at spin. Politicians spin disasters all the time. None of the "Axis of Evil" had shite to do with 9/11.

4. The possible clandestine aspect that RC mentioned. Regardless of the specifics that would've been Intelligence's call not State's, State just would've been providing cover. I don't think we'll know what was going on here for at least a few decades, so call that a wash.

5. The email scandal that has spun off on a solo tour, because unlike the first four it might constitute an actual crime as opposed to simply being the wrong judgment call. Even having a private email server reeks of Clintonian sleaze. But right now it seems to be in a holding pattern where Clinton releases more emails -> Background sources say they contain X number of classified/TS materials -> Clinton asserts when asked that the classification is retroactive -> Repeat

Until and unless a smoking gun shows up in the form of a document that WAS classified at the time, I don't think this is going to really take off. And once Clinton is locked in as the nominee against Trump I don't know that it ever will.

quote:

---

The man claims he had static in his ear piece and didn't hear correctly. I listened to the audio, and I didn't think even that much of a n explanation was warranted.

---

What??? He's full of shite! You know why? Because during the interview, Donald answered back with...

quote:

---

"Just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?"

---

So that means his mic was good enough that he understood the words 'David Duke'.

And yes, he did disavow David Duke in the past, so he completely knew who David Duke was. So why deflect now? What was his game plan on not disavowing a racist?

quote:

---

Rand? Yes. But Cruz? Not really. He seems like the guy who would push for policies that align with his religious views. That's not really conservative. Real conservatism should be free of religious influence, and Cruz doesn't fit that mold for me.

---

Strongly disagree.

Listen to his message and look at what he's actually done. He's not heavy handed pushing his views. He pushes the constitution.

This whole thread deserves a

I'm just glad for my local elections to be over. We have a state rep race that's gone batshit crazy.

Like a campaign manger seeking assault with a deadly weapon charges against the other candidate for him shaking his tent pole at him and telling him to move off to another site in front of the polling station.