Jump to content

Cuz Merica

Ratwagon1600

By Ratwagon1600
in General Discussion

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 28k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • KoHeartsGPA

    2561

  • datzenmike

    2330

  • Draker

    2054

  • a.d._510_n_ok

    2012

Top Posters In This Topic

Draker Proficient

Draker

Posted
Posted

From: Brent Budowsky <brentbbi@webtv.net>
To: "john.podesta@gmail.com" <john.podesta@gmail.com>,
"roy.spence@gsdm.com" <roy.spence@gsdm.com>
Subject: Bernie, Elizabeth and de Blasio


Sometime soon I am going to suggest that Bernie, Elizabeth Warren and Bill =
de Blasio create the equivalent of a People's PAC to raise huge amounts of =
money from small donors---after the convention---to support electing libera=
ls at all levels....including but far beyond Hillary assuming she is nomina=
ted.....

Beyond this Hillary should stop attacking Bernie, especially when she says =
things that are untrue, which candidly she often does. I am one of the peop=
le with credibility to suggest Bernie people support her in November, and s=
he and Benenson and others have no idea of the damage she does to herself w=
ith these attacks, which she does not gain by making.

Instead the smart move would be to look for issues where she can dovetail w=
ith Bernie. One I am definitely going to suggest would be to take his prop=
osal for a free public college education paid for by a transaction tax on W=
all Street speculation and add one new dimension....that to receive this be=
nefit young people should devote one year to some form of community or publ=
ic service....
There is no reason Hillary cannot not support this....

Right now I am petrified that Hillary is almost totally dependent on Republ=
icans nominating Trump....she has huge endemic political weaknesses that sh=
e would be wise to rectify.....even a clown like Ted Cruz would be an even =
money bet to beat and this scares the hell of out me.....



Sent from my iPad=

  • Like 2
Link to comment
125 CSL Newbie

125 CSL

Posted
Posted

What?!!  How do you figure?  Read back the excerpts from Trump's rebuttals, most of them are stammering half-spoken sentences relying on the playground bully argument of, oh yeah, well I'm gonna!  Hillary, as much as she might be evil, has experience and a game plan for what she would do.  All Trump ever does is bellow about how things are horrible, bad, just plain stupid, and then says, "I'm gonna fix it."  And then offer ZERO explanation of how he plans to do it.  He's a playground bully, quite simply, those following him are the real sheep.  Trump had some good digs, definitely, but most of his answers looked like straight out of idiocrasy.  (Oh, and I'd totally vote for Terry Crews for president.)

Don't know what the heck you were watching, but the only people that saw it that way are in the media. The guy was calm cool in the middle of an all out attack from every side. Even the worst of his answers beats Hildabeasts standard answer, "the fact checkers on my website will be checking into that"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Draker Proficient

Draker

Posted
Posted

Why the iran deal was bad.. yet Hillary supported it. Reasons explained in email and shows what stance she should take.. and what stance to take when she runs for president.

 

 
 
 
Re: Iran Nuclear Deal
 
 From:seizenstat@cov.com To: Jake.Sullivan@gmail.com  Date: 2015-06-22 17:07 Subject: Re: Iran Nuclear Deal 
    
 Jake, You are right. We should be more generic, like giving all our allies in the region all the means they need to defend themselves against any Iranian provocation, threat or attack.  If you want to talk now about BDS I am up. You could call at either 202-549-4454 or 202-549-5776.
Thanks and best wishes,  
Stu  
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Jake Sullivan [mailto:jake.sullivan@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 02:05 PM To: Eizenstat, Stuart Cc: John.Podesta@gmail.com <John.Podesta@gmail.com>; huma@hrcoffice.com <huma@hrcoffice.com>; tom.nides@morganstanley.com <tom.nides@morganstanley.com>
 
Subject: Re: Iran Nuclear Deal  
 
Stu - I would characterize the terms of the deal a bit differently from how you have, but my bottom line is the same as yours. My only question about your six points at the bottom is whether we should go there on bunker busters.   >
 
On Jun 22, 2015, at 2:23 AM, Eizenstat, Stuart <seizenstat@cov.com> wrote: >  >
 
Dear Jake, >  > I have sent several detailed notes on the Iran nuclear deal, and will avoid repetition. But with the June 30 deadline fast approaching (although it may be extended), and with Hillary certain to be pressed on whether she supports the deal and will urge Congress not to disapprove it, I wanted to share a few thoughts. >  >
 
1. This could well be a voting issue for many moderates in the Jewish community. The mainstream organized leadership will almost certainly oppose the deal, along with Israel and all the Republican candidates, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, and perhaps Egypt. >  >
 
2. While we cannot be sure until there is a final agreement, it appears that many of the open issues since the preliminary accord, may be resolved in Iran's favor: >  >
(1) Enriched uranium will stay in Iran for dilution, rather than be sent to Russia or France for reprocessing. >  >
(2) Sanctions will not be phased-out commensurate with compliance, as the US Fact Sheet indicated after the last "agreement", but may come off more quickly. This will transfer billions to Iran and enhance its funding for terrorism and its efforts to gain hegemony in the region. >  >
(3) It is not clear what Iran will be required to do on PMD, if anything. This was required of Iraq by the UNSC in September 2002. Iran should be held to the same standard. They have yet to answer 11 of the 12 IAEA questions, yet UN sanctions will be lifted. >  >
(4) Russia, China and Iran itself may be able to block "snapback" sanctions if there is a violation of the agreement. US companies will be disadvantaged compared to European companies, since many US non-nuclear sanctions will remain, while all EU sanctions are nuclear-related. >  >
(5) Military sites (Parchin) are likely to be off the table for inspections. >  >
(6) Iran will likely be able to do research on advanced centrifuges, which enrich more uranium more rapidly than the current generation. This would markedly reduce the breakout time in the last years of the accord. Presidenr Obama has conceded this point (e.g. David Sanger article in NYT, April 8, 2015) >  >
(7) Iran will have an industrial size nuclear program, and will be left as a "nuclear capable state". >  >
(8) Iran will be able to keep 1000 centrifuges at Fordo. >  >
(9) Nothing in the agreement will limit its support for terrorism. >  >
 
3. That said, there are likely to be positive aspects to the agreement. >  >
(1) The Arak plutonium plant will be effectively dismantled. >  >
(2) There will be more intrusive IAEA inspections, since Iran will sign the Additional Protocol of thr NPT. >  >
(3) The number of centrifuges will be cut by 2/3. >  >
(4) Iran will be a year away from breakout. It would still need to develop a nuclear weapon that can fit on a missile. >  >
(5) Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium from 10 tons to 700 pounds. >  >
(6) Ten years is a long time and Iran's conduct may moderate. >  >
 
4, Hillary cannot oppose the agreement given her position as the President's Secretary of State and should urge its approval by Congress under Corker-Cardin. But she can and should point out concerns with it (as she did, unfortunately from my perspective, on TPP/TPA). More broadly, she should appear more muscular I her approach than the President's. The statement I suggested a few months ago still would be appropriate. But she should also say the following: >  >
(1) As President, she would never consider Iran a strategic partner in the region. Quite the contrary, she would do all she can to oppose Iranian misconduct. >  >
(2) Our allies in the region must know that we will stand behind them and supply them with the means to defend themselves and avoid the region tilting to Iran, including bunker-busting bombs Bush and Obama refused to provide to Israel.. Defense treaties should be considered so any attack by Iran would be considered an attack against the US. >  >
(3) Bibi should be invited for early talks on how the partnership with Israel can be strengthened to combat Iran and Israel's other avowed enemies.  >  >
(4) A common agenda should be forged with Israel and our Arab allies. >  >
(5) If the US itself believes Iran has cheated, as President, she would reimpose US sanctions, even if Russia-China-Iran say there was no violation. She would work to get the EU to also reimpose their sanctions. >  >
(6) It is just as unacceptable for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon after the expiration of the agreement, as it is during the agreement, given the nature of the regime. Therefore, while she would not be president, all means should be used to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. >  >
 
Best wishes, >  >
Stu Eizenstat
Link to comment
Draker Proficient

Draker

Posted
Posted

Here is a bombshell from Sidney Blumenthal.

 

Sidney quote several articles regarding Benghazi.. then notes the following:

 

 

 

Subject: The truth...

"One important point has been universally acknowledged by the nine previous reports about Benghazi: The attack was almost certainly preventable. Clinton was in charge of the State Department, and it failed to protect U.S. personnel at an American consulate in Libya. If the GOP wants to raise that as a talking point against her, it is legitimate."

 

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/2038

  • Like 1
Link to comment
HRH Newbie

HRH

Posted
Posted

Oh snap, suck on this mofos!!!   :D

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/11/business/buffett-calls-trumps-bluff-and-releases-his-tax-return.html?_r=0

 

And I quote from the article:

 

 

 

Last year, Mr. Buffett paid about 16 percent of his reported income in federal income taxes.

“I have copies of all 72 of my returns,” Mr. Buffett added, “and none uses a carry forward,” the provision that allows taxpayers like Mr. Trump to use losses from one year to avoid paying personal federal income taxes both on some previous tax returns and in future years.

Mr. Trump had previously claimed, without producing any evidence, that Mr. Buffett declared $873 million in losses.

As it turns out, the charitable contributions that Mr. Buffett did deduct from his income make up just a tiny portion of the more than $2.85 billion he donated to charity last year, he said. The reason is that the tax code limits the amount that an individual can claim in charitable deductions. Mr. Buffett, 86, has pledged to give most of his $65 billion fortune away.

By contrast, Mr. Trump’s own charitable foundations — and his claims about his personal contributions — have come under scrutiny. Last week the New York attorney general ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to stop soliciting donations in the state because it lacked the required registration. And many of the donations that Mr. Trump had publicly boasted of turned out to have come from other people’s pockets, like those who had given money to the Trump Foundation.

Link to comment
Draker Proficient

Draker

Posted
Posted

Not quite apples and oranges.. but yeah.

 

Do I think Trump is hiding something.. maybe? Do I think he is more afraid of the media picking his shit apart to death.. yeah. Is it a requirement to release taxes.. no. Why would he do it then?

 

Also Trump holds billions in real estate.. depreciation is a real thing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
paradime Grand Master

paradime

Posted
Posted

We used to judge debates in terms of questions answered with content, and demonstrating an understanding of the important issues.

 

Now we judge the debates in terms of deflecting questions with rhetoric, and demonstrating an aptitude for grade school level insults.

 

What a Country. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Draker Proficient

Draker

Posted
Posted

I'll post the butt hurt from the Clinton campaign in the form of a twitter rant at wikileaks. Butt hurt cause, his emails were dumped.. lol

 

 

Exhibit A. Try to pin this on a state sponsored Russian hack.. which is holds no water.  

 
 
 
 
@brianefallon
If you are going to write about materials issued by @wikileaks, you should at least state they are product of illegal hack by a foreign govt
7:27 PM - 10 Oct 2016
 
@brianefallon
Media needs to stop treating Wikileaks like it is same as FOIA. Assange is colluding with Russian government to help Trump.
7:55 PM - 10 Oct 2016
 
@brianefallon
How about probing possibility of Trump associates directly coordinating with Russia and Wikileaks? That is the thing that shd cause chills
8:04 PM - 10 Oct 2016
 
@brianefallon
Wouldn't it be good reading to see internal discussions abt Trump's taxes? Yes but Wikileaks isnt targeting Trump. That tells you something.
7:57 PM - 10 Oct 2016
 
@brianefallon
Wouldn't it be good reading to see internal discussions abt Trump's taxes? Yes but Wikileaks isnt targeting Trump. That tells you something.

 

@wikileaks
brianefallon Yes. It tells you that we are an award winning media organization and not 'hackers'. We don't "target" anything.
9:18 PM - 10 Oct 2016
 
@brianefallon
wikileaks You are no media organization. You are a propaganda arm of the Russian govt, running interference for their pet candidate, Trump
9:48 PM - 10 Oct 2016
 
@brianefallon
wikileaks You are no media organization. You are a propaganda arm of the Russian govt, running interference for their pet candidate, Trump
 
@wikileaks
brianefallon False. Spewing lies does not increase your campaign's credibility. Who we are is well documented: https://wikileaks.org/What-is-Wikileaks.html…
 
@wikileaks
brianefallon Yes.The Clinton campaign is leaking like the Titanic.
10:22 PM - 10 Oct 2016

 

 

 

Wikileaks putting the hurt on.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Draker Proficient

Draker

Posted
Posted

Clinton Campaign keeping in touch directly with the DOJ

 

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/4178

 

 

 

 

A reminder that DOJ will be making its latest filing in this case later today, proposing a revised schedule for producing the emails -- this time on a rolling basis, in accordance with the judge's order.  

 

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Brian Fallon

<brianefallon@gmail.com> wrote:  

> DOJ folks inform me there is a status hearing in this case this morning, > so we could have a window into the judge's thinking about this proposed > production schedule as quickly as today.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept