If I did a tenth—a tenth—of what she did, I would be in jail today. LOCK HER UP!

Michael Flynn, as recorded for posterity

during the Republican National Convention, he stated: “I have called on Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race! We do not need a reckless president who believes she is above the law… If I did a tenth—a tenth—of what she did, I would be in jail today,” before leading “Lock her up” chants.

The sheer hypocrisy of it all is so outsized it beggars description.

Voiceover: "Instead, they locked him up."

I'd take 100/1 odds against that happening.

I'll bet that's what Liddy thought too.

HRC and WJC have engaged in criminal activity for decades and have escaped prosecution or paying any price for their misdeeds. Some people deny this. So Fuck You. You don't know shit.

But this is water under the bridge now. The Clintons, if there is a god, have gone away for good now. We do not have them to kick around anymore. In the name of JESUS - Let It Be So.

The focus now is on the incompetent, out-of-control super narcissist crook who presently occupies the WH. One can only hope - and pray if you are like that- that half or more of the republicans in the Senate will see him as a political albatross at some point in the near future and join with the democrats in getting rid of him.

If this does not happen then who the fuck knows what will happen. The donald is like a duck - he wakes up in a new world every morning. No one else in the world has any educated guess as to what he might do next as he himself does not know in the A.M. what will strike his fancy to do in the P.M. of any particular future day.

The concern now is all about the asswipe in the WH. Forget the god damn Clintons. They're yesterday's newspapers.

> 6

As an e.g. among dozens to which I could refer you - Look up "Travelgate". HRC spread lies about a half dozen career government employees and had them fired, and then she lied under oath that she had nothing to do with their firing. Lying under oath is a criminal offense.

You are one of those who don't know shit about the Clintons. Educate yourself and spare embarrassing yourself.

BTW, unless we can accept the "dozens of women lied" defense, WJC is a serial rapist. Is that a criminal offence where you reside? Or is it OK because trump is probably a rapist also?

Just a head's up, Stormy - do not defend rape and avoid appearing to downplay rape. The many feminists on LT forums REALLY hate that.

>6 StormRaven:

All you've got is a pile of innuendo and rumor to back you up.

Lol, the local Killary chapter is still going on? With this unspeakable farce in the White House mortally threatening the US and the world, someone STILL is braying to "burn the witch"?

I think we can forget innuendo and rumours as playing any role in it. Scumbaggery of that kind is clearly rooted in something beyond all reason--a pathological fear and hatred of women.

Lol, the local Killary chapter is still going on?

Yep. JGL53 is still peddling conspiranoid theories about Clinton that make the "Pizzagate" claims look like the work of a sane and stable person.

>5 JGL53: The Clintons, if there is a god, have gone away for good now.

Wow. Everyone always forgets poor Chelsea... Never know, she may one day attempt what her mom couldn't accomplish...

> 11

There is that. But I will probably be dead or in a nursing home by the time Chelsea gets ready to run for POTUS. lol.

BTW, did you notice that when I gave a perfect example of both HRC and WJC scumbaggery Stormy ignored it and just accused me of being part of the giant right wing conspiracy? LOL. And then of course we had an inane follow-up comment of the typical feminist bullshit alleging or implying that all those with vajayjays are beyond moral reproach and question, with all the evil of the world lying one hundred per cent at the feet of the penis people. Fucked up shit, fer sure.

There seem to be more than just a few folks, both vajayjay people and penis people, who are convinced ALL criticism of the wonderful Clintons are just completely made up out of whole cloth by members, both secret and out, of the great right wing conspiracy - with ALL criticism of HRC being engendered in ALL cases by sexism, and nothing but sexism.

What can one do - these people are just fucked in the head.

I counter-flagged both of JGL53's flaggy posts as they seem no different in TOS violational essence than #6.

And you can't formulate greater violations of the TOS, such as the smarmy and holier than that guy back and forth #8-#10.

I have to say I'm all for sticking Michael Flynn in a prison cell. If for no other reason than guilt by association. Fuck him.

Then again it's not that I'm sorry that Hillary lost but that I'm sorry that Trump won. Two fucking awful choices. One worse than the other for sure but even so.....awful. And the winner loses by 2.8 million votes. Loser gets 48% of the popular vote and 40% of the electoral vote. Winner gets 45% of the popular vote and 60% of the electoral vote. Some system we got, huh? Let's keep the undemocratic electoral college though.

The Senate democrats--they have to be told by thousands of their own constituents not to vote for Trump's cabinet choices before they actually start doing that. They have to be told. Let that sink in. What the fuck? Kudos to Sen. Gillibrand from my own state for at least voting against most of them without being told. There were only a couple others like her.

> 13

You are actually what Fox Noise Channel only claims to be - fair and balanced. Kudos.

> 14

"... it's not that I'm sorry that Hillary lost but that I'm sorry that Trump won. Two fucking awful choices. One worse than the other for sure but even so.....awful...."

That tracks my attitude toward the 2016 Presidential race 100 per cent - you are obviously a smart feller, Iriley - as opposed to being a fart smeller. lol.

But to be crystal clear - for the record - like many, many lefties, I had not so much hoped as assumed HRC would win, i.e., the lesser of evils would triumph. Alas, we are stuck with the worst evil imaginable, short of course of an actual card-carrying member of the KKK who is willing to go full racist - like a David Duke.

One thing up with which I will not put is being accused of helping trump by not voting for HRC. Those who allege such are cordially invited to hum Dixie on my pet Aussie's balls.

#15--the future of the left in American politics IMO is anti-capitalist. At least if that's where the millennials stay which I suspect they will as the economy is rigged against them and they know it. The democrats need to connect with younger voters and with Main St. and to do that they have to disconnect from Wall St.

Slovenia has just had a week like it may never have had outside war time and fascist occupation. A murder here in Izola, a domestic, the man, 36, killed his partner, 53, dragged her body at 3 am across the main square in the old town and left her near some garbage bins. Down the coast in Ankaran two Roma beat an 88 and crippled 50 year old severely, at the behest of someone inland 90 kilometers, an attempted robbery. But the worst was only fit for the US: 20 year olds beat a 'friend' to death, filming the aftermath, providing twisted, eerie narration. I saw bits of the film: only a cop or sadist, when there is a difference, could watch the whole of it, the buy completely out, blood as if his throat had been slit (though the film began with a shot of the bloodied knuckles of the narrator's hands). Finally after being nudged to his side by a foot the guy on the ground breathed bloody and laboured. He died in the hospital. All perpetrators were arrested. But the feeling is of a poor country with little sense of a future among young people. High unemployment, low wages. Taking the US route via the EU, cutting the best of the Yugoslav out, eroding the sense of security people here are so nostalgic for.

Anti-capitalist? If it isn't, it isn't left. Liberal isn't left. Though if I lived in the US I would take the liberal of the 70s as a purely pragmatic measure. Progressive income tax, welfare, Roe v.Wade, etc. Though after Nixon and the fall of Saigon the giant mad infant that is the US was devouring bonbons to gain brute brainless strength for the 80s...

>14 lriley:

Two fucking awful choices.

"Hillary is awful" is bullshit opinion, not fact. And even as opinion, after Sanders dropped out, it became utterly irrelevant. You all weren't asked to pick her out of a million, you were asked to choose between her and Trump.

You want to see something awful, here's what's awful: the 63% of white men and 53% of white women who brought the neo-Nazis into the White House without giving a shit for what this is doing to women, blacks, immigrants, refugees, the poor, the sick. And the worst of them are superannuated dickbags filled with alcoholic visions of '68 hoping for a "revolution" they want to pay in other people's blood. Always yapping about some greater good deferred, never a care for the people suffering in the moment.

>18 LolaWalser: Agree. I don't care what your opinion of Hillary is, there is no way we'd be seeing these levels of assault on minorities, on women's rights, on worker's rights, on access to health care, and on the environment just one month into her presidency. We'd have a stable government, we'd have people who know what they're doing on the cabinet, and we sure as hell wouldn't have a president who's apparently selling favors to foreign governments.

> 18

More radical feminist blather from our favorite radical feminist who apparently can only think in black and white, the nuances of the real world entirely escape her, men = bad, women = good (except for those women who don't hate men and are thus traitors to the one true cause of radical feminism).

Iriley's point was that we had a shitty choice. That is a fact. If some people are too warped or too ignorant to grok this then they are part of the problem and not of any solution.

HRC and WJC are evil people. Get used to people stating this FACT. It will not go away just because you are too lame to grok it. Quit being like the republicans - creating your own reality from made up "facts" just does not work (especially the "fact" that HRC was just a wonderful person above reproach).

The fact that trump is evil does not prove shit about the Clintons. They are judged by their own separate "merits" and those merits SUCK.

All the radical feminists - who helped defeat HRC inadvertently with their evil bigoted attitudes displayed quite publicly throughout the campaign - need to get over the fact that their great feminist icon slipped in her own shit and fell backwards into it. As I stated before, if there is a (benevolent) god we the people will never have the stinking Clintons to bother us again. That is the one good thing that came out of the election.

The U.S. will survive mr. trump - or it won't. Let's wait and see. We fucking survived Nixon and we survived Bush, Jr. I will predict that most republicans in the senate will see their way to getting rid of trump at the rate he is going.

In the meantime this handwringing and this calling out all of the people of the U.S.A. who did not vote for HRC as some sort of lesser beings are and will continue to be BULLSHIT.

Such continued spewing out of this BULLSHIT is just an embarrassment to you yourselves. Do yourselves a favor and cut out the whining and the self-righteous insults directed at your presumed moral and/or intellectual lessers, i.e., those who don't idolize HRC.

The HRC dream is dead. Get the fuck over it and focus on the god damn problem at hand.

> 19

So who on this thread said anything different? Lesser of evils, dude. Is this concept over your head?

> 12

It's funny. Every time I see that - I am instantly reminded of Waugh's book "Put Out More Flags".

LOL.

>18 LolaWalser: Berniebros are still nursing hurt feelings.

>21 JGL53: I'm not a dude, the concept is not over my head, and Hillary Clinton is not evil. Dude.

> 23

So -the voters can easily be divided into BernieBros vs. the learned, intelligent and morally-superior people who loved and supported HRC. All others need not apply as they simply don't exist.

Right. Genius! Thank yo! - Please take a bow.

> 24

You are not a dude and you are actually quite smart. OK .

And, OK, HRC is not evil in any literal ontological sense. I do tend to wax poetic at times. I invite you to forgive me.

-------

HRC and WJC are professional liars, influence-peddlers, corrupt career politicians, narcissistic and accomplished actors. They managed to fool many if not most of the people most of the time. And they were indeed "successful" for the most part in their various "evil" machinations. I suppose lesser accomplished crooks look up to them.

As another e.g. - HRC stuck to Bill like glue and never dreamed of divorcing him even though she knew he had fucked - and no doubt continues to fuck - hundreds of women during their marriage. She KNEW that he had raped more than just a couple or three. 99 per cent of all other women would have divorced such an irredeemable scumbag, but she hasn't - why? Because their "love" conquered all that evil? LOL. That she thought she could change him in time? LOL. That she is - still - really ignorant of his filthy habits? LOL.

She has held on to him because it was judged by her to be to her political advantage. Period. IOW, she has stayed married to him for the filthiest (i.e., selfish) of all reasons. She looks out for number one, and it is always been priority number one. She is going to get hers, come hell or high-water, and others are not her concern.

HRC is moral filth. She herself has helped to cover up WJC's many rapes. WJC is a sadist who has actually physically abused his victims. HRC knows this. And she doesn't fucking care. What does she really care about? Six figure speaking fees. And always staying in Presidential suites when she travels. You know - herself and her personal well-being.

The Clintons have one thing over trump which I had thought would get them by - they know how to pretend to be decent caring people while in public. trump of course has no clue about that. trump in fact may be mental as many people are now alleging. Could be he is crazy. But HRC is crazy - like a fox. She has had her evil plan well thought out since day one. And fuck us all if it didn't work like a charm - right up until the night of November 8, 2016.

The price we paid and are still paying does seem to be too great does it not? But, in the final analysis, too many people could look into HRC's soulless face and intuitively - finally - see what she really is. With trump - too many people thought he was not serious - they thought he would be a harmless clown president - turns out he is a killer clown from outer space. Not so LOL.

So who is to blame? Did trump win the election - or did HRC lose it?

The latter. She has feet of clay and couldn't do the distance. She thought being the lesser of evils was her ticket to her ultimate narcissistic dream-come-true.

WRONG!

"The best laid schemes o' mice an' women gang aft a-gley.”

HRC and WJC are evil people. Get used to people stating this FACT.

Continuing to whine about how evil Clinton is with nothing but innuendo to support your claims just makes you look silly. It isn't "fact". It is a collection of unsubstantiated and quite frankly ridiculous rumors, innuendo, and manufactured lies. Peddling such unadulterated bullshit as you do doesn't make Clinton evil, but it does show what your true colors are, and they aren't pretty.

BTW, did you notice that when I gave a perfect example of both HRC and WJC scumbaggery Stormy ignored it and just accused me of being part of the giant right wing conspiracy?

I ignored it because it is just another example of the idiotic claims your spew on a regular basis.

Look up "Travelgate". HRC spread lies about a half dozen career government employees and had them fired, and then she lied under oath that she had nothing to do with their firing. Lying under oath is a criminal offense.

This is a perfect example of the complete bullshit you peddle. The actual story is nothing like your claim, and in fact, both Bill and Hillary were investigated and exonerated. The longer you keep at this, the more ridiculous you will look.

> 27

There has been a lot of unsubstantiated rumors and manufactured lies and innuendo circulating for some time now concerning Bill Cosby too. Oh when will the vicious gossip and character assassination stop!?

I suppose you are equally upset about all those unsubstantiated rumors and manufactured lies and innuendo going about concerning Scientology too, right? You are indeed a fair-minded person, are you not?

LOL.

From the wiki site on Travel Gate:

"Hillary Clinton gradually came under scrutiny for allegedly having played a central role in the firings and making false statements about her role in it. In 2000, Independent Counsel Robert Ray issued his final report on Travelgate. He sought no charges against her, saying that while some of Clinton's statements were factually false, there was insufficient evidence that these statements were either knowingly false or that she understood that her statements led to the firings."

In other words they know perfectly well what she did and she got off. She spread lies, had Bill approve their firing, then when the fired career members in the WH travel office stood up to them the Clintons backed off and say "Who? What? Me? No, I don't know anything, it didn't happen, and no underling of ours will testify to the opposite, all a big misunderstanding, so there."

What a fucking goddam joke. There is always "insufficient evidence" of actual criminal intent with the rich and powerful. Who has anything to gain to rat them out? Their underlings and sycophants know what the deal is. Do you think Nixon would have been outed as the paranoid scumbag criminal he was if he had not stupidly taped everything said - and then kept all the tapes - and then turned them over? The Clintons didn't fucking tape anything. Duh.

Nixon, in the end, was not very smart. I have never alleged the Clintons are dumb. They are smart, too god damn smart.

You can fucking believe anything you want. Knock yourself out. Believe the Clintons have family devotionals every night before bed if you want. No one has proved that they don't.

You can doubt the word of the women alleging Bill Cosby raped them also. At this point, it is merely innuendo, is it not? Nothing proved in court, right? Keep giving him the benefit of the doubt. When it is proved in court then we can talk, right?

For a self-recognized genius you sure are naïve, Stormy. Or is it you are just a wannabe democratic operative? Political winning and avoiding losing is the bottom line - and concepts of moral vs. immoral can go fuck themselves, right?

Rave on, Stormy. Continue to share your "logical mind" with us all. Jebus knows what we can learn from you - other than the fact that 100 per cent of all criticism of the Clintons are just false allegations from BernieBros and republicans. Do you have anything of value to offer? Other than obfuscation?

28: Keep wailing. The actual truth is that your bullshit is just too stupid to bother with most of the time, and the longer you bang this drum, the more you make yourself look like a whiny loser peddling Pizzagate quality claims.

> 29

You keep saying I am whining - and now I am "wailing"?

I did not start this thread on the Clintons. To me they are truly part of history now. Fuck them and all that dwell in them.

I am just commenting on this subject as another started a thread on it. I am willing to let it die but others are obviously not so willing.

If from this day forward you and the millions of your ilk decide to forget the god damn Clintons and focus your criticism only on the scumbag presently residing in the WH then I will endorse that decision.

Will it happen? Apparently never. You and yours will continue to whine, wail, rant and rave about how terrible it is that the wonderful HRC could not become POTUS - that all who criticize her, at any time, are just sexist, secret republicans or mindless trump supporters, or - the ultimate evil, apparently - BERNIEBROS - who have made EVERYTHING UP and that she is guilty of NOTHING but being a wonderful loving person who REALLY CARES.

LOL X infinity.

30: Wail more.

> 31

No, I think I have sufficiently and accurately identified you for what you so obviously are.

My job is done.

I'm going to stop crying now.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LOL.

32: Keep crying.

> 33

Stormy - you are slowly, slowly..... too slowly - fading away. The last of you to go "poof" will be your Cheshire cat smile....

One day, when the wind blows through the trees, how will we know it is really just the wind - or if it is the lonesome wail of some banshee....... Chief of the Storm Raven clan - who melted in the sunlight one day.... and now only exists as an apparition, an evil manifestation, a nebulous image whose ghostly macabre yodel haunts the lonely nights - "HILLARY, my HILLARY, Oh, Lorelei.....uh, no, I mean HILLARY....where have you gone, My Love? Please, Come back to me.....HILLARY, Oh HILLARY, my sweet, sweet HILLARY!"

May Cthulhu have mercy on his immortal soul. May he find peace one day, immortal timeless peace, that passeth all understanding.

>18 LolaWalser: ' "Hillary is awful" is bullshit opinion, not fact.' And the rest of your post is fact, not opinion? What is more typically fascist on the personal level than telling someone their decision making in the democratic process is wrong when they vote for a clearly anti-fascist opponent?

#18--FWIW I did say two awful choices--(but that) one (was) worst than the other and hey she won NYS and she won the popular vote quite handedly. These things I think I mentioned...as well as the undemocratic electoral college system of negating a popular vote. I did say she was awful but not as awful as the clown who is now president and that is an opinion I suppose and you can say that she's not awful and guess what?---that's an opinion too...but it's not a fact. I don't hate you for disagreeing with me you know, but you don't get to decide all your opinions are facts and all those you don't agree with aren't. Sorry.

I had no problem voting for Jill Stein by the way. I voted for her in 2012 as well. I like voting for people I actually like.

Anyway again the younger people are getting screwed. There is a distinct anti-capitalist vibe going on with them. Hillary and Bill and most of the democratic party are absolutely capitalists. They are dinosaurs.

We all know what the Clintons are about. We've had decades to witness it. Now people have had enough. To keep defending Mrs. Clinton because she's female is both sexist and pathetic. There are plenty of female Democrats you could support and defend.

By the way, I didn't care much for the informality of the press during this election, when candidates were called by their first names: Hillary, Bernie, Marco, The Donald.

>37 barney67: You are Mr. Barney...

>36 lriley:

you don't get to decide all your opinions are facts and all those you don't agree with aren't.

Show me where I did this or own to more bullshit.

Your freedom of choice and privileging your own good opinion of yourself over everything else are not in question. The only thing that matters is what you are owning responsibility for. If your state was one of Clinton's important losses, then voting for Trump, Stein, Mickey Mouse or not voting at all, all contributed to that loss in the same way.

Anyway again the younger people are getting screwed.

Yes they are and quite a few bastards on the "left", mostly old fucks, but some not so old, are hoping the young, the women, the blacks, the immigrants etc.--everybody except THEM--gets screwed so badly blood will flow and a Great Revolution come to pass, to hell with what it takes because it doesn't take from them. Will they lift a finger to help? Will they march, protest, agitate, actively support resistance? Well, I don't know, but how much solidarity with anyone who's not an old white dickhead in a Che Guevara T-shirt did they show in the past? That's a hint, I think, and it's not encouraging.

>39 LolaWalser:

'Show me where I did this or own to more bullshit.'

here: "Hillary is awful" is bullshit opinion, not fact.'

i say go with it untill it end then say the bad stuff

it is a bad book if read better

34: Keep wailing. Let's break down your claims.

"HRC spread lies about a half dozen career government employees"

There is no evidence that this is true. There is absolutely nothing supporting this assertion. It is simply a bald-faced lie. You're not off to a good start.

and had them fired

No, she did not. She wrote a memo saying they should be fired, but the First Lady has no power to fire anyone. Further, the reason that she (and several other people) believed they should be fired was that an outside auditor had investigated the office and found that they kept an off-the-books ledger and had thousands of dollars worth of unaccounted for checks. One of the fired office staff was later prosecuted (albeit unsuccessfully) for embezzlement.

This claim of yours is also a lie.

and then she lied under oath that she had nothing to do with their firing

This is a gross mischaracterization of the conclusion that the special prosecutor came to. He said that she had made false statements, but there was insufficient evidence that the false statements were made knowingly, which is a critical element of showing that she "lied under oath". The real weakness, if one takes the time to look, is that all of the "evidence" that she made false statements under oath stemmed from hearsay allegations, which are inadmissible in court as they are little better than rumor.

So that's strike three.

But keep whining. You do more to discredit your claims against Clinton by talking than anything else could. The patent stupidity and ridiculousness of your bloviating just makes everything you say look like the ranting of a fool.

>43 StormRaven: There seems to need a great deal of true believing and stretching of credulity to find your Lady squeaky clean. None of this has ever bothered me, I mean none of the Clinton accusations, but reading the arguments here it becomes apparent that those who defend her are extremely defensive and find themselves in contortions that likely exceed the modulus of elasticity.

On the other hand, I do recall the early Clinton years as, I thought at the time, unparalleled in my lifetime as revenge politics, which I read then and still do as panic that what Wreagan wrought would be rolled back. The attacks began early and never seemed to let up.

That said, I was rather disgusted at the cowering from the promises to fight for health care form.

> 43

Oh - so you are still the white knight fighting for your lady's honor. OK

"She wrote a memo saying they should be fired, but the First Lady has no power to fire anyone."

Piss-poor apologetics. She didn't fire them, she just conspired to have them fired. The dragon lady had no actual power? LOL

" Further, the reason that she (and several other people) believed they should be fired was that an outside auditor had investigated the office and found that they kept an off-the-books ledger and had thousands of dollars worth of unaccounted for checks."

Never heard that. Sounds like a filthy lie to me. Reference?

"One of the fired office staff was later prosecuted (albeit unsuccessfully) for embezzlement."

One? Just one? And he or she was never proven guilty?

What about the other ones? If they were so guilty then why were they not prosecuted also?

More piss-poor apologetics.

I look forward to your explaining away WJC's several dozen rapes. You obviously believe the women lied, right. And the one that said HRC threaten her in an attempt to keep her quiet - she especially lied, right. But that woman was a life-long democrat. Why the fuck would she lie?

And while you are at it you can explain away Cattle Gate and Whitewater. All lies, right? They are completely innocent, right? And all the tens of million of dollars the Clintons got in bribes from various big money firms - in the convenient form of "speaking fees" - e.g., 45 minutes of talk worth $500,000. And no one is allowed to hear the tapes or read the transcripts of any of it, to see how she - or he - used that time to plead for corporate America to give the little guy a break. No doubt you think that was what both of them spoke about, right? LOL.

I think maybe you are the victim here of the right wing conspiracy. The tons of lies they have pumped out over the years has confused you into thinking that anything and everything ever said in criticism of the Clintons must be 100 per cent lies. But there is plenty the Clintons are guilty of - WJC lying under oath about the exact nature of his relationship with an intern is not the only time a Clinton has lied under oath.

------
When rudely asked in one interview during the campaign if she had ever lied HRC did not say "No". She said something like she didn't think she had or that she tried not to - some mealy-mouthed dodge like that.

The fact is she is a proven liar. She lied - and repeated the lie in several venues - about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. You can't spin that away. Go ahead and try. That was a Bryan Williams/Bill O'Reilly type of lie. The type of lie only a self-aggrandizing ass would tell.

She lied about always being for gay rights to the absolute utmost. She has denied she was ever against gay marriage. But we have her on tape saying exactly that - that she thought marriage was only between one man and one woman - sure, a ubiquitous expressed opinion by all politicians up until the early 2000's, but she is the only one I know of who lies about it. Obama admits the change of his position on this - but then he is not a liar.

I remember HRC browbeating some young woman interviewer who had the gall to ask her about her change in position on gay marriage. HRC talked to her like she was a dog and accused her of lying about her - HRC. Absolutely fucking disgusting.

Yet you think HRC is above reproach and you will defend her against all charges that she is an extremely morally-flawed individual.

Do you want to marry her or something. Now that he is of no real use she might divorce Bill - which will leave an opening for you. Do that idea excite you, Stormy? Is there a Storm arising in your pants as you fantasize about the ultimate narcissistic marriage?

LOL.

There seems to need a great deal of true believing and stretching of credulity to find your Lady squeaky clean.

I'm not saying she's squeaky clean, but JGL's accusations against her wildly mischaracterize her history. There is no way that any of the things he has brought up amount to a conclusion that she or her husband are "evil", or even that they have done anything particularly wrong beyond some relatively minor missteps that mostly amounted to public perception problems.

For example, with Travelgate, JGL made up a bunch of claims that don't match the actual events, are unsupported by evidence, and some of which are directly contradicted by the available evidence. Travelgate was the perfectly legal firing of a collection of people who worked in an office that an outside auditor had found engaged in questionable financial practices. According to JGL, this is evidence that she is "evil". Only a loon could come to such a conclusion based upon the actual evidence at hand.

> 46

Bullshit. As explained in post #45.

BTW, all the original staff was reinstated - and the Arkansas firm with whom the Clintons were buddies did not get the plum jobs. The Clinton lies did not work.

From the Wiki link - an explanatory sentence that Stormy conveniently left out:

"Heavy media attention forced the White House to reinstate most of the employees in other jobs and remove the Clinton associates from the travel role."

A vast left-wing conspiracy by the evil media, Stormy - or the media actually doing its job?

Jesus H. Christ, Stormy, you are naïve. Either that or are you perhaps Bill Clinton's illegitimate son? Which is it?

Wow, did Donald Trump lie?

No, Hillary Clinton did not "give Russia 20 percent of the uranium” in the US

Speaking of uranium, Trump is currently pelting Syria with depleted uranium, which is a war crime.

Tennis, anyone?

> 48

We have plenty of threads on the subject of the currant occupant of the WH and his many insanities.

This thread concerns the loser in the 2016 Presidential race.

Nice try, though, to change the subject. I can understand why you would want to. But understanding who and what the Clintons are goes a long way to understanding why the beloved HRC failed to grasp the golden ring.

If you have nothing to contribute to this effort then just read this thread and do your posting elsewhere. Hijacking threads does not become you.

BTW, all the original staff was reinstated

No, all were not. None of them were placed back in the travel office. Several, including those prosecuted, were not reinstated to any federal position. Your own quoted link contradicts your claim saying: "reinstate most of the employees". You lie about the affair even when you are quoting material directly.

The quote also points out that it was due to "heavy media pressure", not because there was any actual wrongdoing. The Clinton's problem was one of public perception, not one of actual illegality. The GAO investigated and concluded that the White House did have legal authority to terminate the Travel Office employees even without cause, because they served at the pleasure of the president.

These were perfectly legal firings of people from an office that an independent auditor found was engaged in questionable accounting practices including off the books ledgers and thousands of dollars of unaccounted for expenses.

But keep banging this drum. It makes you look stupider every time you do.

> 50

"But keep banging this drum. It makes you look stupider every time you do."

Right. Not just me but most of the Washington intelligentsia and most of the national news media are all just stupid.

Everyone is stupid who does not agree with Sir Stormy Crapalot's prejudices.

So it wasn't all the travel office personnel, it was merely most. Gee. Nit pick a lot, Stormy?

You keep referring to the " independent auditor found was engaged in questionable accounting practices including off the books ledgers and thousands of dollars of unaccounted for expenses."

I followed this controversy from day one and I recall no such thing. If it happened then explain why only one person out of the many WH travel personnel was prosecuted and then was not convicted. Sounds like to me someone was trying to frame someone and it didn't work out so well.

The consensus of the news media was this was an egregious case of cronyism at best and was possibly as case of criminal intent at worst. As I said, actually catching the cagy Clintons with their pants down was near impossible. They were excellent at covering their tracks. Except for HRC lying like a dog on several occasions - proven by comparing video tapes, and WJC with his lie under oath concerning one of his hundreds of paramours, yeah, we have nothing on the Clintons, also except all the evidence of play-for-pay concerning the "charity" called the Clinton Foundation.

BTW, HRC lied like a dog about both NAFTA and the Keystone Pipeline -again, a matter of just viewing video tapes side by side as the proof. Sure, not criminal, but how many lies does a person have to tell before you think they are eligible for some constructive criticism?

So what is your precise position on all this proven lying by the Clintons - that she never lied, somehow, someway, despite the overwhelming evidence - or that her lies were of no importance - something we should just ignore because, what, they were not criminal offences, or that other politicians lie all the time too, or.....what?

It is quite obvious now that you are balls to the wall for your precious Hillary - that she is your one and only and you will not stand idly by while her name is tarnished by renditions of the embarrassing and inconvenient facts. LOL.

Why don't you just marry your blow-up Hillary doll and make a nice love nest somewhere and quit bothering normal people here on LT forums - Christ on a crutch, haven't you made enough of an ass of yourself by now?

>51 JGL53: except all the evidence of play-for-pay concerning the "charity" called the Clinton Foundation.

What evidence? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/sep/01/fact-checking-clinto... and following links says there were problems, but it was a serious charity, and there were no clear examples of pay-to-play.

HRC lied like a dog about both NAFTA and the Keystone Pipeline -again, a matter of just viewing video tapes side by side as the proof.

When? Did she change her public position, yes, she did. At least in part, that's part of the difference between acting as a representative for someone else (the President) and speaking on your own behalf. In other parts, she may have changed her mind. Reasonable people do, especially after (in the case of NAFTA) 20 years of evidence appear on the record.

So what is your precise position of all the lies

That when it comes down to it, Politifact rated fewer of her statements as false then most other politicians. She scores a 26% Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire, the same as Obama. Bernie Sanders scores a 27% and Joe Biden a 33%. From the Republican side, Donald Trump scores a 70%, Ted Cruz a 66%, and John Kasich a 32%. Gary Johnson had a 30% False and Mostly False (no Pants for him.) (Jill Stein had a False, Pants on Fire, and a True, so 66%, but not really enough to compare.) So yes, I believe we should challenge false claims from Clinton, but treating her as a liar is unfair treatment for someone who was arguably the most honest person seriously competing in the 2016 Presidential election.

52 'In other parts, she may have changed her mind. Reasonable people do...' I don't believe you have owned up to being wrong and changing your mind on this venue.

> 52

You are not a very close reader, are you prosfilaes? E.g.,

"When? Did she change her public position, yes, she did. At least in part, that's part of the difference between acting as a representative for someone else (the President) and speaking on your own behalf. In other parts, she may have changed her mind. Reasonable people do, especially after (in the case of NAFTA) 20 years of evidence appear on the record."

I was not taking her to task for changing her position. I was pointing out that, like most narcissists, she can not admit error (e.g., the landing under sniper fire in Bosnia as the most egregious example).

HRC denied that she changed positions on NAFTA, Keystone, gay marriage, etc.
E. g., Obama has never done anything like that. But then he is not a shitass of a narcissist.

As for Politifact - who the fuck died and made them god of deciding who lied and who didn't?

I will go with Rachel Maddow on the assessment of Poitifact's accuracy on lying. She demonstrated, more than once on her show, that Politifact, if they were honest, should change their name to Politimadeupfact, or maybe PolitiLie. She advised us all not to take anything they said as true. I will go with her. You go with Politi-cantgetshitright. lol.

BTW - I don't think Rachel Maddow is part of the vast right wing conspiracy. I will leave that for you to investigate using your steel-trap of a mind. lol.

52: Asking JGL "what evidence" is a lost cause. As has been amply demonstrated in this thread, JGL's claims aren't based on evidence, but are instead a collection of distortions, exaggerations, and outright lies. JGL complains that Clinton is a liar, but the reality is that JGL is the liar on this subject.

Look, if you disagree with Clinton on policy issues - like being too ill-informed to realize that NAFTA is what props up the U.S. agricultural industry, and that the Trans-Pacific Partnership was going to be a tremendous boon to industries like the American beef industry - that's fine. JGL's screeds about Clinton, however, are nothing more than invented lies that aren't worth bothering with any more. Literally everything JGL has claimed about Clinton in this thread has been false.

> 55

OK. You can start with demonstrating that I lied about HRC lying (in several venues) about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.

Then you can demonstrate that I lied about HRC lying about her being for gay marriage from day one.

Then you can demonstrate how I lied about HRC browbeating a female reporter when she was asked about her (HRC) lying about never changing her position on gay marriage, reversing roles and accusing the female reporter herself of lying about her (HRC) instead.

After you have demonstrated how I lied about HRC in the examples above then I have 7 or 8 other examples of HRC lying that I would like to run by you for you to debunk, showing that it is me instead rather than Hillary doing all the lying.

Knock yourself out, genius. The masses are no doubt on pins and needles waiting to experience your world-class apologetics which will show me up for the lying liar that I am - and how HRC is in fact perfectly innocent.

>54 JGL53: You are not a very close reader

Always the refuge of someone who doesn't write what they mean.

HRC denied that she changed positions on NAFTA, Keystone, gay marriage, etc.

Cite needed.

As for Politifact - who the fuck died and made them god of deciding who lied and who didn't?

They have several people with journalist degrees, so in general, I'm going to go with them instead of a random Internet arguer who doesn't seem to have done any sort of large-scale study. Arguing against Politifact here doesn't make your case; it at best leaves us with no evidence one way or the other.

>55 StormRaven: the Trans-Pacific Partnership was going to be a tremendous boon to industries like the American beef industry

It was also going to extend copyright durations in many of the signing countries, and that eventually would have been part of a justification to try and lengthen copyright durations in the US, as if 95 years was not long enough.

> 57

"Always the refuge of someone who doesn't write what they mean."

I stated what I meant to say the first time, pointing out how you misstated what I say, either due to disingenuousness or lack of intelligence, and then restated the exact same thing again which you still have trouble reading correctly.

"Cite needed."

No it isn't. The information is all over the internet. Do the research yourself. I am not your paid teacher.

"They have several people with journalist degrees, so in general, I'm going to go with them instead of a random Internet arguer who doesn't seem to have done any sort of large-scale study. Arguing against Politifact here doesn't make your case; it at best leaves us with no evidence one way or the other."

Oh, so a journalist degree guarantees honesty, accuracy, integrity and lack of agenda? LOL - you seem as naïve as Stormy.

So Rachel Maddow is just some random internet arguer? You either have zero knowledge of Rachel Maddow and her show or you are just being disingenuous - again? I suspect Maddow has a journalist degree from some accredited university. But since she has investigated and exposed the falsely-named "Politifact" for what they are then she is must be wrong - because you trust them implicitly - even though they don't show their work?

You could easily google Rachel Maddow and her many criticisms of Politico to actually find out if I am full of shit or, conversely, you are the one full of shit.

But you obviously have absolutely no interest in something like. Just espousing your genius opinion is your main goal in life, right? Who the hell has time for research?

I've become bored with your obfuscation and utter lack of knowledge of any political fact. You and Stormy are like republicans - you design your own facts to your specifications. HRC is not and cannot be a liar because - well, such in a fact, by definition, in your fact-free world of imagination.

It was also going to extend copyright durations in many of the signing countries, and that eventually would have been part of a justification to try and lengthen copyright durations in the US, as if 95 years was not long enough.

That's mostly speculation. Congress wouldn't need any justification to lengthen corporate copyright durations.

OK - I hope and pray to the unknown god that two certain people will block me soon and spare me any further disingenuous and inane spoutings that have bored me to tears. Their false and disgusting defense of a proven liar does them no credit and does not change one god damn fact of reality.

Moving on - I understand some may be honestly ignorant of who and what HRC really is - for their benefit I post this one video below - out of hundreds which I could post on this subject.

Most such videos on youtube and elsewhere on the internet consist mainly of juxtapositions of videos of HRC speaking, in a previous one stating her position X and then in a subsequent one denying she ever held position X but was always for position Y.

IOW, flat out lying.

Just watch the first 2 minutes of this video - especially at the end of this sequence wherein HRC accuses a fellow woman (an NPR host) of lying about her (HRC) lying. It is fucking disgusting. HRC gives a whole new filthy meaning to the term "political animal" -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

>60 StormRaven: That it was going to extend copyright durations was not speculation, and basically every time copyright durations have been extended in the US, part of the argument has been longer copyright durations abroad.

62: The part i was referring to as speculation was that it would be used to justify extending copyright durations in the U.S. Congress has never really needed such justifications to pass bills extending copyright - and if they are inclined to do so, they will do so whether or not the TPP passed. The only thing the TPP actually directly would have done with copyright duration would have been to bring author copyright for other nations into line with what the U.S. has currently (life of the author plus 75 years).

> 62, 63 - More obfuscation and gnostic apologetics from the usual two sources.

But, really - is Hillary Clinton in favor of the TPP or against the TPP? (see video below and you tell me.)

It seems that first she was for it, then she was against it, then she is kinda for it, but not really - Terry McAuliffe got it wrong and another surrogate had to, as is said, walk it back.

But one thing Hillary is sure of- she has never flip-flopped regarding the TPP - her position has been consistent from the start. Hillary is never wrong and Hillary does not lie. Hillary says so.

Except she is a god damned liar and she has flipped-flopped on TPP, just like Keystone and NAFTA and gay marriage, etc., etc. Another lie to add to the long list.

Here's the funny part - the biggest liar alive on earth today - donald trump - called her out on her lie about TPP. And CNN says trump is right. Is CNN part of the vast right wing conspiracy? Jesus, let us hope not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTXOX-Z2CTQ - the CNN video

And these two young men - they seem very nice and really seem to care. Surely they are not knowing members of the vast right wing conspiracy - if so then that would be sad, I guess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgJvDdd0f4E

And here we have another goofball - quite obviously a member of the vast right wing conspiracy. - In fact, I think I remember seeing him at one of our meetings - I think he sat next to Robert Reich. LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA1dl36zV3k

>63 StormRaven: Congress has never really needed such justifications to pass bills extending copyright

That's also speculative, because they've always had such justifications. I'm not familiar with any recent copyright extension that hasn't had as part of the argument for it bringing us into parity with international norms.

with what the U.S. has currently (life of the author plus 75 years).

No. 75 years instead of 70 is a minor error, but in practice, life+70 has little to do with US copyright law. http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm has all the gooey details, but basically works published 1923-1977 get 95 years from publication and works published 1978-2002 get the greater of life+70 or until 2047. Until 2072, there will always be works in the public domain in the US and not in a life+70 nation, or vice versa, and thus (especially with the rule of the shorter term) an excuse to lengthen copyright durations.

65: I don't recall a treaty being needed to justify the 1998 extension of copyrights. In any event, life plus seventy (or seventy-five) is the international norm, and the U.S. is in line with it, so it is hard to see how the TPP would be justification for extending the duration of copyright effectively beyond international norms.

Life plus seventy is the only duration affected by the terms of the TPP - the durations of works of corporate authorship are unaffected by the treaty.

The quirk of having the 95 year duration apply to works that don't have corporate authorship is due to the switch from the 1976 change in the law when the U.S., for the most part, adopted the terms of the Berne Convention and extended (or revived) some copyrights of authors who had lapsed but would still have been valid if the newly adopted law had been in effect when their copyrights had lapsed - essentially a form of retroactivity in the law.

>66 StormRaven: I don't recall a treaty being needed to justify the 1998 extension of copyrights.

US works that lost copyright in foreign nations due to losing copyright in the US and the rule of the shorter term were a big part of that argument.

life plus seventy (or seventy-five) is the international norm ...

Seventy; Guatemala, Honduras, Samoa and St. Vincent and the Grenadines are the only nations with life+75 terms.

And how do you define the international norm? The Berne Convention is life+50. One hundred and sixteen nations have life+50 terms.* More than half of humanity lives in countries with life+50 or life+60 (India, basically) copyright terms. This idea that life + 70 is the international norm, or should be, is one that I object to, and TPP moves it closer to reality by moving several of the large life+50 nations to life+70. Japan, in particular, is important as an industrialized rich nation that's a major producer of copyrighted works.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_lengths

67: Life plus seventy is the standard for the EU plus Australia and most of South-America (the term is longer in some of those countries).

The question is, how will moving to life plus seventy-five for other nations change things significantly for the law in the U.S.? The U.S. is pretty much already there. The claim that the TPP will cause U.S. copyrights to be extended for some substantially longer time period doesn't really seem to hold up, since the U.S. already has a copyright duration that is in the range outlined in the TPP. It certainly seems like an odd thing to fixate upon as the problem with the TPP.

>68 StormRaven: Life plus seventy is the standard for the EU plus Australia and most of South-America

And it wasn't in Australia until the US pushed it as part of a trade deal. Which is part of why I oppose this part of the TPP; because every nation that goes from life+50 to life+70 makes it easier to claim that life+70 is an international norm, and makes it hard for any country to buck that norm. Life+70 is too long, meaning as it does that the readers of a work when it first comes out will likely never see it enter the PD, and life+70 being an international norm means that life+80 or life+90 no longer sounds as excessive. I don't see any reason to concern myself only with the effects on the US, but I certainly do see that US terms are more likely to go up in a world where everyone is at least at life+70 than the world where we can still point to major life+50 nations. I'll cite https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp for a more general discussion of the problems with the IP parts of the TPP.

Is it an odd thing? I've spent close to the last twenty years scanning and transcribing public domain works. It's a narrow focus, but if I don't focus on things I care about, who will?

Which is part of why I oppose this part of the TPP; because every nation that goes from life+50 to life+70 makes it easier to claim that life+70 is an international norm

It was established as the international norm when the EU adopted it, and they did that on their own. Many EU nations even made the change retroactive, which the 1998 revision to U.S. copyright law did not do. As long as the EU has life plus seventy, that will be the international norm, no matter how much you want to say otherwise, at least in part because it was the nations that now make up the EU that spearheaded the creation of the Berne Convention to begin with.

Life+70 is too long, meaning as it does that the readers of a work when it first comes out will likely never see it enter the PD

I don't see this as a problem.

>70 StormRaven: It was established as the international norm when the EU adopted it

I think defining something as the "international" norm by the EU is quite problematic and exclusionary. The EU represents less than half the people that India does, for example.

I don't see this as a problem.

If you want a work that's not commercially valuable to be preserved, the people who first read it are the most likely to be interested. If you depend on the next generation, it's more likely to be lost. Maybe what's important is just the amount of time, whether any copies exist and are easily available to be copied by the time they're in the public domain. Many movies have degraded, a lot of books have virtually disappeared, and the digital age looks to just accelerate that.

Wild accusations flung back and forth, finally a direct and easy to watch piece of evidence...what happens? Subject changed. JGL53 ignored so that the conservatives can speak of...copyright. This is a microcosm of the US 'democratic' process as it is practiced.

> 72

There is no blame to assign to Frick and Frack ignoring me - I am actually flattered. I take it as their admission of defeat.

They have no answer to the videos of HRC I posted. What could they say, really - that they each don't believe what their lying eyes are telling them? They will always love HRC too much to believe she is as bad a person as her husband. As is said, love is blind. LOL.

Those two geniuses never got pass the childish concept that to criticize a democrat is the same as promoting republicans - that trump is so horrifying that no criticism not directed toward him alone is to his advantage and thus I and others who seek the truth about HRC or other democrat politicians are somehow secret agents of the trump regime. LOL.

Let them create their own little "Get Smart" Cone of Silence wherein they can talk to one another and ignore the rest of the world. In Freudian terms they wish to return to the womb where all was nice and cozy all the live-long day.

I for one sure won't miss them. They are dead to me - I hope. LOL.

>73 JGL53: Well, I visit this site for amusement and contact with people in the US; so I expect the occasional loon, the occasional vitriol, but hope for arguments among adults with some degree of self-introspection. I even learn a lot here from a few people, from a few links. But there is a lot of errant egotism that serves to cut off constructive debate. I would, for instance, be interested in knowing what the Clintons are truly guilty of, but also some analysis of the ability of those in power to evade press scrutiny. I'd like to see what people think of the degredation of the press. That kind of thing.

> 74

"... I would, for instance, be interested in knowing what the Clintons are truly guilty of..."

For sure - a dream of many people - the desire to be a fly on the wall just for few minutes.

It takes some considerable time to study the question and tease out all the relevant facts, regarding both sex and money, the sine qua non(s) of the Clintons' raison d'être.

For the non-paranoid/non-conspiracy freak/non-republican sycophant, it is relatively easy to cull out the insanely inprobable accusations and hyperbole. What is left is a lot to deal with - what is true and what is not - what is the best evidence - is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and so forth.

I don't think the Clintons have had anyone murdered. LOL. Of course that opinion makes me look the fool to millions of republican geeks but it is what it is. I also don't believe WJC is a cokehead who is deeply involved with the drug cartels. And I know of no real evidence that WJC has sexually abused any underage girls - like 13 yr-olds

These are some of the wilder accusations one can come across, mainly on the internet but also tons books.

That WJC is a sex pervert - of the sadist and rapist variety - that he is hypersexual - a male nymphomaniac - that does seem clear - Unless a whole lot of people for a whole lot of time have completely make up all this and he is really rather monogamous. LOL. I don't think any of the women who have made statements about him are liars. I really can't see how they are. The asshole is a serial rapist.

And I think the evidence is quite convincing that HRC knows exactly who and what WJC is and has helped cover up his criminal behavior for decades now - even going so far as to personally (in person) threaten at least one of his victims in an attempt to intimidate and shut her up.

This is really sick stuff. I may be no paragon of virtue myself but, jesus christ in hell, I think the Clintons behavior, on this issue alone, puts the both of them beyond the pale and utterly remote from any kind of acceptable human foibles.

And the evidence of their over-the-top influence-peddling and money grubbing is overwhelming. No hundreds of a cabal of conspiracy could just make up all those videos and paper trails to frame them. That is as unbelievable as the idea that NASA never sent anyone to the moon, or that the Jews just made up all the Holocaust stuff about the Nazis, etc. I mean, come on.

The Clintons, in short, are nasty narcissists. So is trump, yes. And trump appears to be totally out of control and possibly crazy and existentially dangerous. The Clintons do their best to behave in public. They are crazy like a fox, not out-of-control crazy.

Yes, it would have been far better for HRC to be President than d. trump. I have never indicted otherwise. But understanding who and what the Clintons are - when behind closed doors mainly - goes a long way to explaining why so many people could not bring themselves to vote for her. It was not sexism, or even believing republican lies. It was the horrible truth about the Clintons that is known beyond all reasonable doubt.

So trump got elected. Because the other party effed up royally - in nominating the second most distrusted extant politician.

Unfortunately, outside of New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Mass. and most of the New England states, Hillary was much more disliked and distrusted than even d. trump. So that is why she lost.

Literally any other major democrat party politician would have been better. But the dice were thrown and the democrats crapped out. Unfortunately by doing so they utterly crapped on the U.S.A.

trump did not win so much as HRC lost. If the democrats don't figure that out and stop whining about the electoral college and the Russian hackers and the stupid third party voters and all that horrible anti-woman sexism, then trump or some other republican maniac may win in 2020.

IOW my main message to the democrats is: quit blaming others for your own god damn stupid mistake.

Part of it is--George W. Bush crashed the economy. Between his and WJClinton's deregulation schemes but still it was W. holding the bag when it all collapsed. Obama was expected to fix it. He seemed to have the ideas, the integrity, the persuasiveness. The thing is he didn't fix anything. Whatever wealth that was generated in his 8 years all went to the super wealthy. Along comes primary season and Hillary is like 'everything's fine--incremental changes--I'll be just like Barack'. She just didn't seem to get what a disappointment Barack had been on the economy. Donald meanwhile is telling people the economy sucks. He doesn't have any coherent solutions mind you but as much as he doesn't have a clue he at least admits the patient is sick. And Hillary's all tied up with Wall St. Donald is too but it doesn't hurt him as much. Well he's not got to explain $500,000 one hour speeches or a Clinton foundation's nefarious shenanigans with foreign dictatorships.

It comes down to two awful candidates.

>76 lriley: It's not just the distribution of new wealth that's the problem. It's the derivatives casino that continues unabated and guarantees that there will be another crash. If you don't understand derivatives (at least at a high level), you don't understand the problem. If you do understand derivatives, you might be at risk of developing a drinking problem.

Read this: Traders, Guns, and Money

I think defining something as the "international" norm by the EU is quite problematic and exclusionary.

The EU nations have been at the forefront of copyright issues for the better part of two centuries. Like it or not, they set the international norms.

If you want a work that's not commercially valuable to be preserved, the people who first read it are the most likely to be interested.

And shortening the time period of copyright is going to make more works less commercially valuable and render them subject to the whims of volunteers to preserve them. I'm sorry but I just don't find the "we should rely upon volunteers to keep works alive" argument very convincing.

>75 JGL53: I recall that free 90 minute speech Hillary Clinton gave at the University of Wisconsin while on the campaign trail in 2000, how she promised to stick to copyright infringement laws and international versus national regulations, and how she kept her promise. It was fucking fascinating.

> 79

Did that speech have any bearing on NAFTA or on any international agreement since 2000 on copyright laws?

Obama was expected to fix it. He seemed to have the ideas, the integrity, the persuasiveness. The thing is he didn't fix anything.

You've always been long on talk and pretty short on solutions. What, exactly, could Obama have done to "fix" the economic recession more than he did? Note: You're going to have to make practical suggestions, that could have passed through Congress during his administration.

>80 JGL53: No, you're thinking of the month before in Creighton, the free 3 hour speech, that ended with 45 minutes on copyright.

>76 lriley: Hey long tongue, no savvy, or solvy: Where's your cred, dude? How the fuck do you expect a president of the US to DO something to FIX something. Can't be done. Can't close Guantanamo, can't stop droning, can't get out of Afghanistan, can't put bankers in jail, can't get them out of his administration, can't help setting funding records in Tel Aviv, can't stop loving Saudi wars, can't settle for peace in the one place in nearer Asia where the people seem to want it (Iran). You're going to have to do what you're told, buddy, or no more poopy talk about Obama.

How the fuck do you expect a president of the US to DO something to FIX something.

You're not very good at reading, are you? The challenge was to explain what more Obama could have done to "fix" the economic recession. Only two of your "points" have anything to do with economics, and neither of them actually demonstrate that you have any clue what could have been done to "fix" the economic situation.

can't put bankers in jail

You can't just prosecute people because you don't like them. They have to have committed a crime. Prosecuting for financial misdeeds is notoriously difficult. Giuliani made a name for himself by, among other things, prosecuting bankers. What he doesn't tell anyone is that every one of the convictions of those bankers that he secured was overturned.

Of course, even if you put a bunch of bankers in jail, you won't fix the economy, so this is essentially a non-sequitur you threw out.

can't get them out of his administration

I guess you find it odd that the Federal Reserve Bank has bankers in it. No matter what you feel about bankers, you have to have people in the administration who understand how the system works in order to do anything at all - even if your solution is to overhaul the entire system (although you have to propose an actual plan to do that, just saying it needs to be changed isn't enough - what is better that you would replace the banking system with).

>83 StormRaven: The challenge was to explain what more Obama could have done to "fix" the economic recession.

I think you're reading >76 lriley: too narrowly. What he said was:

Part of it is--George W. Bush crashed the economy. Between his and WJClinton's deregulation schemes but still it was W. holding the bag when it all collapsed. Obama was expected to fix it.

I think the "it" could refer to fixing the problem that caused the recession in which case prosecuting bankers (or changing the laws to make it easier to prosecute bankers) and not putting bankers in top regulatory jobs make sense.

>83 StormRaven: I'm just a dipshit and feel more at home with those you consider dipshits. I'm dumb enough to think that blind adherence to a politician is a derivative mental state that involves deleting one's own freedom of thought. I'm not dumb enough to have expected different from an establishment politician like Obama, though--I was dead on with that one. He had me for a moment, though, when he declared he would close Guantanamo, but within a couple weeks he had committed war crimes by ordering drone strikes in Pakistan, and I was back in the world I knew. As for my poor reading, I'm terribly sorry that I have taken the liberty to broaden the topic. Being a poor reader, I took your assault on Iriley to be rather weak, blaming a timid president's problems entirely on a hostile congress. I am, again, stupid enough to have wanted a strong president who would shame congress, going straight to the people on health care instead of working with major insurance companies, going straight to the people loudly and forcefully on issues such as DAPL...stupid enough to have wanted that, but not stupid enough to have expected it. As for financial issues...I'm stupid enough to believe there was a great deal of criminal action leading up to the crash that went not only unpunished, but actually rewarded. And I am stupid enough to believe that rich people should be under assault from Democrats and poor people buttressed by that party, yet smart enough to expect the oligarchic rule to maintain.

>78 StormRaven: The EU nations have been at the forefront of copyright issues for the better part of two centuries. Like it or not, they set the international norms.

I do not accept that any small group of nations can set the international norms without the international community following along.

And shortening the time period of copyright is going to make more works less commercially valuable

To a first approximation, no. Most books are never reprinted. Even those that are briefly popular mostly fall out of print long before the 50 year point, which is the first point that the difference between life+50 and life+70 might matter. A handful of books are still in print at the 50 year mark, and it does no social good to protect those by copyright; the social value is preserved by the number of reprinters willing to get in on the act, and enhanced by the ability of all and sundry to make derivative works. No one creates anything because 50 years after the author died someone might be getting royalties, especially since the odds of that are pretty minute.

render them subject to the whims of volunteers to preserve them.

There are a number of groups sitting on the last copies of films that are in copyright, but they can't afford to restore them because they couldn't commercially show or sell the restored version. A huge percentage of PD works are online because of either Google working with university libraries, or various European projects to digitize their national libraries (one might even say Europe is setting an international norm here.) What's missing is pulp works that aren't kept by major libraries, stuff that's kept mainly by collectors.

In any case, for works where preservation is a concern, copyright holders frequently do a horrible job of preserving them. For any company producing modern works, reprinting old ones is a tiny sideline. Jim Baen mentioned that he bought the rights to an entire author's oeuvre for the same amount he gave David Weber as an advance on a new book. Paizo Publishing used to reprint old science fiction, but gave up, because books in their house setting, Golarion, sold way better, and no matter how much they loved the old stuff, it wasn't worth the cost of devoting an editor's time to reprint them. Most copyrighted works are going to be out of print long before they're PD, even under a flat 50 year system.

I think the "it" could refer to fixing the problem that caused the recession in which case prosecuting bankers (or changing the laws to make it easier to prosecute bankers) and not putting bankers in top regulatory jobs make sense.

Changing the laws to make it easier to prosecute bankers requires Congress. There was no way that such laws could have been passed through even the friendliest Congress Obama had to deal with. Even the most prosecutor-leaning laws in U.S. history have not made it easy to prosecute bankers in most cases, because business decisions are hard to prosecute and make it very easy to show reasonable doubt.

In any event "fixing" the economic recession would not have been accomplished in any way by prosecuting bankers. That's a retroactive action, not one that will prospectively make things better.

Obama's Secretary of the Treasury during the most critical period was Geithner, whose background was in the Federal Reserve. Who would you have selected who would have had similar expertise to deal with fiscal issues and less of a connection to the banking industry? What regulatory job do you think was controlled by a banker who was compromised by industry connections?

I am, again, stupid enough to have wanted a strong president who would shame congress, going straight to the people on health care instead of working with major insurance companies

So your answer is that you have no idea what Obama did, and have no idea how one would get legislation passed, and you would like Obama to have sprinkled magic pixie dust to get laws passed. That's not how Congress works. Your prescription would have resulted in even less getting done, so I'm thinking that your prescriptions on political matters can be safely ignored forever.

As for financial issues...I'm stupid enough to believe there was a great deal of criminal action leading up to the crash that went not only unpunished, but actually rewarded.

You're going to have to cite specific criminal laws you think were violated. Prosecution isn't a matter of "belief", but rather a matter of facts, law, and evidence. So go ahead, identify specific perpetrators, cite the sections of the U.S. Code you think they violated, and lay out the evidence that they did so. Note: You can only use evidence that was available in 2009-2010 or so.

I do not accept that any small group of nations can set the international norms without the international community following along.

It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, that's the reality we live in.

To a first approximation, no.

It is very nice that you are so free with other people's property. And I still disagree with you.

There are a number of groups sitting on the last copies of films that are in copyright, but they can't afford to restore them because they couldn't commercially show or sell the restored version.

So, contrary to your claims, those things do still have commercial value. You do realize that you are making contradictory arguments here, don't you?

Jim Baen mentioned that he bought the rights to an entire author's oeuvre for the same amount he gave David Weber as an advance on a new book.

So, once again, it does still have value. Less value than it had before, but it still has value.

>88 StormRaven: I told you I was stupid....'so I'm thinking that your prescriptions on political matters can be safely ignored forever.' As I would have advised. I would prescribe egalitarianism, economic democracy. Bad for the health. I would prescribe universal health care in the wealthiest country in the world, too, but that would be bad for your blood pressure, also a health issue.

As for the identification of perpetrators and sections of the US code, sorry, I am not a lawyer. If you honestly believe that no crimes were committed, tell me so and I will do my best to believe it. If you honestly believe that both Obama and Clinton work independent of the interlocking directorates of the US oligarchy, please do tell me so and I will know not to disturb you with such views again.

>87 StormRaven: In any event "fixing" the economic recession would not have been accomplished in any way by prosecuting bankers.

It seems you didn't read my post. Fixing the economic recession wasn't necessarily what iriley was talking about. He could equally have been referring to fixing the causes of the recession.

>87 StormRaven: Changing the laws to make it easier to prosecute bankers requires Congress. There was no way that such laws could have been passed through even the friendliest Congress Obama had to deal with.

But he could have attempted it (ETA: passing a law) and kept it in front of the people in speeches. If he had done that he would have put the Democrats on the side of the people instead of Wall Street and possibly changed future elections. Just throwing up your hands and saying that it would never had made it through Congress is just defeatist.

>89 StormRaven: It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, that's the reality we live in.

That has nothing to do with reality; it has to do with the definition of "norm", about whether you can declare an "international norm" that the majority of nations and the majority of people reject.

It is very nice that you are so free with other people's property.

International norms say that this isn't permanent property, that copyright is something that people get for a limited time set by the nation. We've established they're not going to keep it forever, now we're just arguing about how long they get to keep it.

So, contrary to your claims, those things do still have commercial value.

They have no commercial value. The gross sales of these works in the next few years will be $0. In fact, even if it goes into the public domain, it's likely the cost of restoring them will exceed the value of producing them. Even if the net sales for the work exceed the cost of restoring them, it's entirely possible that a commercial entity who couldn't depend on donations and charity purchases couldn't make a net profit on the work. And if these are works where there's no copyright holder locatable, nobody will even try.

So, once again, it does still have value.

Yes, some works by living authors still have value. But not the works next them in the magazine that Baen didn't buy. And quite possibly not those works he did buy in another thirty years when the difference between life+50 and life+70 might matters.

And you skipped the comment about Paizo Publishing, about how they found works by living and recently dead authors, including moderately big names like Gary Gygax, Robert Silverberg and C. L. Moore, didn't have commercial value.

>92 jjwilson61: There's what I mean.

Maybe nothing will be done about the bankers in collusion with various types of multi-billion dollar and multination corporation - credit card companies, hedge funds and so forth. Maybe nothing can be done. Maybe Obama could have done more, maybe not.

But someone needs to stand up like a real man (or real woman) and speak truth to power when and if he or she gets a chance.

Oh, wait - there are two such people, at least. Elizabeth Warren is one - although she sold us out by supporting HRC and pretty much acting like a fool while doing it - all that spouting about "nasty women" and shit - but the other is Bernie Sanders, who may be the only honest politician in the whole god damn country. I am not exaggerating.

And why can't there be more like him instead of being the filthy bribe-takers that nearly all republicans and democrats are at high levels of government? Here are some examples of Sanders is in action, standing up for the American people - actually doing so beyond the average politician's campaign promises to do so, promises never kept):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWXrMCGJT4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJaW32ZTyKE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GHSrySrn4U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-BlKGU-NEs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muni7-dNKTg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pywl64Pif4k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UejWRNvIBk

An important part of what i was trying to get across in #76 was that Hillary did almost nothing to separate herself from Barack's 8 years of running the economy and IMO it's important to remember that Barack ran as a left wing populist and governed as an economic centrist and his 8 years were great for the rich and not so great for most everyone else. And there were a lot of people who voted for Barack and 8 years later voted for Trump and for millions of voters 'it's the economy, stupid' message in '08 and in '16 as the winner turns out in either case to be the one with the most populist connective message. Hillary and her team didn't seem to understand that and all the influence peddling she got tagged with didn't help her case either. As for Donald is he going to improve the economy for the masses instead of the rich--the answer to that is almost certainly he's not. All the above are fine with neoliberal/conservative economic policy though it seems that many of those who voted for Trump don't realize that he's fine with it too.

So 4 years from now I suspect if the democrats can come up with someone who can sincerely make their case with a more populist economic message that person should be able to unseat the orange headed orangutan that's currently our POTUS.

It's worth pointing out though that the Republican party was able to continually push Obama to the right on economic policy. They accomplished that mainly through their obstructionism and because of Barack's unwillingness to seriously take them on. When you have the power of the presidency even if you don't have majorities in either or both houses you have a hammer that you can use and you go public if necessary.

Trump has spent more taxpayers' money in less than one month than Obama did in a year:

President Trump’s trips to Mar-a-Lago have cost taxpayers an estimated $10 million

That's not counting the cost--to taxpayers, again--of his sons' business trips. Whatcha gonna do? Gotta protect the presidential spawn and their worldwide profiteering.

More bills to come:

Eric and Donald Jr. are overseeing resorts still underway in places such as the Philippines and Indonesia.

Trump's Sons Heading To Dubai As Business Interests Continue To Expand Overseas

Hillary!--LOCK HER UP!

Someone do let me know when we reach "a tenth--a TENTH" of "what Hillary has done".

>97 LolaWalser: Not to mention the costs to local business owners:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/donald-trump-visits-mar-a-lago-businesses....

Even some club members would rather he stayed away:

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/local/will-trump-bad-for-business-the-winter...

The annals of hypocrisy continued--the man who boasted on air about importuning naked women, including underage girls, in dressing rooms at his pageants takes away federal protection from transgender kids:

Trump revokes Obama guidelines on transgender bathrooms

Who will rid us of this gigantic asshole?

>100 LolaWalser: After he specifically said that he would protect the GLBT community. And he apparently strong-armed his Dept. of Education chair into going along with it. She opposed the measure.

> 100

LolaWalser, 2017: "Who will rid us of this gigantic asshole?"

King Henry II, 1170: "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?"

-------------------------------------

History buffs know what eventuated because of Henry's rash outburst. So, what exactly is LolaWalser proposing? Are we speaking here of a "Second Amendment remedy"?

Well - IF Lola lived in my neighborhood THEN every time I saw her coming I would prudently run in the opposite direction, then duck and cover. As all my friends and acquaintances can testify, I am no hero.

>101 sturlington:

Opposed up to a point, from what I understand. Which is already more than people expected from her, but in the end what does it matter if they all bend? Like McCain. A few talk the talk but they end up supporting any old garbage Trump throws up. It doesn't look as if the Republicans will mount any serious resistance to Trump--and why should they? The lunacy may be an embarrassment to some but he's delivering everything they ever wanted and did since Reagan. Cutting taxes for the rich, deregulating government oversight, getting rid of protections of the environment obstructing exploitation by big business, draining every last cent from public services, privatizing everything... It's robber baron orgy time.

there have been cases where the United States government (or its leaders) have opted for violent means to attain certain ends up to and including regime change. If the same were to happen here in the case of the present occupier in power and he was bumped off I don't think I'd be shedding any tears. C'est la vie. Everybody has to die some time anyway. I would say though that his replacement has a real chance of being even worse and his replacement is not and has never been an outlier as far as his political party is concerned. He is a real right winger and a respected member of the gang. A very strong likelihood that his political party would be much happier with him.

>103 LolaWalser: Exactly. The only ray of hope I see right now are the angry town halls, which of course the Republicans are trying to dismiss as "paid protesters" and "outside agitators." I saw video from one last night in Colorado where everyone held up their driver's license to prove they were constituents! In my state, our senators are too cowardly to even have town halls, and people have advertised them as "missing" in the newspapers and on billboards. I've also seen "missing senators" on milk cartons.

I really hope this kind of grassroots protest continues and even increases, as it is the only thing that might get through to these numbskulls. There is two years until the next election, and gerrymandering has made a lot of them meaningless anyway, unless they are challenged successfully at the primary level, which they might be. This happened in Kansas because of very unhappy voters.

Anyway, the point I'm laboring to make is that "sit down and shut up" and "don't hurt Trump voters' feelings" are messages that must be ignored if we have any hope of reducing the damage that is being done.

>104 lriley:

Yes, I wouldn't have thought it at all likely that they'd want to "bump off" Trump, but the man is proving so uncontrollable I'm beginning to wonder. Lesson: if you use a rabid hippo to get you somewhere, have a plan for what to do with the still rabid hippo still with you once destination reached and said hippo keeps rabidly pooing on carpets, chewing up furniture, farting at everyone...

>105 sturlington:

Totally. I saw clips of those meetings, it's getting harrowing. There was one where the rep started saying "all of you here were damaged (? or "affected"?) by ACA..." and people shouted him down with "helped! Helped by ACA!"

I didn't hear so much about "Obamacare". Goes to show, among other things, how "Obama" itself was made into this slur, and used to discredit and antagonise.

>106 LolaWalser: Yes, that is evident. However, I feel hopeful that they will not be able to avoid the ACA now that people have experienced the benefits and are angrily protesting those being taken away. It is ironic that it took the Republicans getting put into power for people to realize this. It's true that the Republicans own everything now, and those tired arguments about what Obama/Hillary did or didn't do or may have done have no more meaning. They can't hide behind those boogeymen anymore.

The joke making the rounds is that the Republicans are going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with ACA.

>108 jjwilson61: They probably will do absolutely nothing and claim they fixed it.

>108 jjwilson61: That would be fairly easy to do.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont-know-obamacare-and-affo...

#106--With great power comes great responsibility...a person who has such power and uses it to damage the lives of millions--really there should be no pity for whatever happens to that person...though people like GW Bush, Cheney, Kissinger have destroyed millions of lives and yet are looked at as heroic by a lot of Americans. To me that's sickening. Trump seems to be bent on the same course.

> 111

You know, if Vegas is not taking bets on exactly when Agent Orange will be forced to resign to avoid impeachment and conviction then they should be.

At the rate he is going I think the odds are against him right now that he will even make it to the end of the calendar year.

I am not much of a drinker but there is a day marked for me in the future when I will be knocking down four or five hard ciders in only a couple of hours. I bet I won't even get a headache afterwards I'll be so god damn happy.

oh lulz

Disgraced Trump adviser Mike Flynn admits he worked as a “foreign agent” for the Turkish government

LOCK HER UP, MIKEY!!!!