What's new

US Politics

This whole thing is like an endless pit of corruption that keeps giving. And this is just the tip of the ice berg.

If Hillary comes to power, I think there is no parallel to the amount of sleaze the public knows about from day one. It should mark for a very "interesting" first year.
 
.
If Hillary comes to power, I think there is no parallel to the amount of sleaze the public knows about from day one. It should mark for a very "interesting" first year.

I don't think we'll survive her first 100 days in office, let alone a year.
 
.
From reddit:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/31077#efmAABABT

In early March 2015 Barack Obama made a statement that he only learned about Hillary's private email use from news reports at the same time everyone else learned of them. That immediately caused concern inside the Hillary campaign.

*From:* Josh Schwerin <joshschwerin@gmail.com>
*Date:* March 7, 2015 at 6:33:44 PM EST
*Subject:* *POTUS on HRC emails*

Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he
found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it in the news.

...

From:cheryl.mills@gmail.com
To: john.podesta@gmail.com
Date: 2015-03-07 21:41
Subject: Fwd: POTUS on HRC emails

we need to clean this up - he has emails from her - they do not say state.gov

They immediately knew that Obama lied and they will have to clean up the lie somehow..
If so, she/they protected POTUS i.e. did her job
 
.
The point here is that when it comes issues that have great variations in perspectives and interpretations, such as ideologies, politics, and assorted 'soft sciences', dangers increases when we try to impose a 'universal' standard and assign an enforcement authority.


My point was only that the media is not checked by any entity, in any way. Even when they deliberately mislead people.

Just as the people get the politicians they deserve, so do the people get the kind of media they deserve. In a functional democracy like ours, the people have no one to blame but themselves if they do not perform due diligence and fact check the media, the same media that their ancestors fought to make free from government restraints and that the people insisted today, even to the point of bearing arms, to remain so. What was the old Latin saying: " Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? " Who guards the guardians ? The answer is the people.

I feel that strongly about my freedom to knowledge and information that the idea is permanently etched on my body.


I couldn't agree more. But that's my point, though. The media will tell people what they want to hear. They are financially incentivized to do whatever will bring them the highest ratings, and generate the most revenue.This is their goal. Not to be as fair, accurate, thorough, and responsible as possible. They are biased because of the people. And if the people are unwilling to demand a fair and accurate media, or aren't willing vote with their remotes and mouses and stop watching and reading biased and inaccurate media, little can be done about it.

We fought to keep the media free because we are willing to take the media at its words that it will be 'fair and balanced', to quote Fox News of itself again. My point was that if a reporter like Halperin, regardless of his intelligence or biases, is willing to make a public declaration as to why he does not vote, even though the chance exist that he could be lying about it, we should take Halperin and the media at their words and hold them against what they publicly claimed to be.


Agreed. But again, what do you propose we do if most people are unwilling to demand that from the media, or don't keep up with current events at all?
 
.
CvpaFeaXgAAsIMH.jpg


Donald Trump Rally in Sanford, FL 10/25/16


Donald Trump Rally in Tallahassee, FL 10/25/16

 
.
My point was only that the media is not checked by any entity, in any way. Even when they deliberately mislead people.

Agreed. But again, what do you propose we do if most people are unwilling to demand that from the media, or don't keep up with current events at all?
We suffer because of our own complicity. Am not being melodramatic here. I am a product of the Cold War. I fled communism in 1975. Then once I got my citizenship, I did my part in being a member of the NATO line. I have literally touched live nuclear weapons as part of a Victor Alert crew. I played tourist in East Berlin when it existed. I do not want the government to be the final arbiter of what I may read or express.

It is only when we reach bottom that we realize how wrong we have been. The American people know how dishonest and corrupt their media, reaching the bottom is when the media no longer have any shame and that point is not yet here. As a whole, the American people is generous, or too generous in my opinion, with forgiveness. We have to suffer the arrogance of the American media all the way until the bottom.
 
. .
Lol, don't be so dramatic bro. I'm sure you'll end up loving a president Trump administration. Besides, it'd be a shame if PDF lost its only Romanian member.

Indeed... we wouldn't want to lose him because he's the lone representative here from a country that was once home to the world's most powerful being.

A mighty being that to this modern-day, still might roam the Earth.
 
.
awesome, and were you ever tasked with deploying/flown with one ? AGM/69-SRAM ? :D
Victor Alert was basically Alert 60, meaning 60 minutes away from your jet. VA jets are loaded with two B61 free fall nuclear bombs and two 600 gallons external fuel tanks.

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/March 2011/0311victor.aspx

The VA jets are in specially designated hardened aircraft shelters (HAS) assigned to VA alert status. VA crews can go anywhere on base as long as they are in duty uniform and can get to their jets in one hr or less. In heightened alert status, that time could be shortened to 15 minutes if necessary. During my time at RAF Upper Heyford, we never had to actually launched, but there were several times when we were restricted to being around the jets.
tell us moar !:bounce:
It sounds 'scarier' than it actually was. Berlin, as a whole city, was actually easier to access as a tourist destination than people thought in light of the Cold War. But the tours were very controlled. We were escorted everywhere. Nevertheless, the closer to the West, the more lax the security measures and I actually had the chance to interact with some East Berliners. One was an attractive gal. She may have been a 'working girl', for all I know. Anyway, I was propositioned by a guy for my Levi's jeans. East Berliners wanted anything that was 'Western' and the more American it is, the more desirable.

What they said the about the differences between the two Berlins are true. The difference was not like day vs night. That is too much an exaggeration. But the differences, from the buildings to the people, were noticeable. West Berlin's atmosphere was more cheerful, for lack of a better word. East Berlin's attitude was more subdued, low keyed, and the people more reserved. There were less choices in shopping compared to West Berlin. There were no mistaking about that. Overall, the experience was eye opening. We were discouraged from taking pictures, otherwise I would have a lot of pictures to remember.
 
.
I couldn't agree more. But that's my point, though. The media will tell people what they want to hear. They are financially incentivized to do whatever will bring them the highest ratings, and generate the most revenue.This is their goal. Not to be as fair, accurate, thorough, and responsible as possible. They are biased because of the people. And if the people are unwilling to demand a fair and accurate media, or aren't willing vote with their remotes and mouses and stop watching and reading biased and inaccurate media, little can be done about it.


I think you are wrong on this count. I have not seen any news network make a profit or even break even from revenues ,subscription or advertising.All of them ,bar some alternate media houses, are dependent on some business-house or charity for writing off their losses.

I think that this is the reason why there is uniformity in American media's content. They need to sing to the tune of their paymasters. This is a commonly observed phenomenon in India too, where most of media houses are part owned by a political party (congress) and interests aligned with that party. It is just that social media is a much bigger competitor of conventional media in India than it is in USA.

I would also like @gambit 's opinion on this as he too is a participant in this media debate.
 
.
America totally screwed if Hillary becomes president :mad:. God help us if a we have a stroke patient in the white house. Special interests and Neocons will destroy the country.

You are screwed either way.

Some fools here think that Trump is their next messiah who only speaks the truth. They are wrong. Trump or Hillary won't make an iota of difference. A politician is just that. There are no good politicians.
 
Last edited:
.
You are screwed either way.

Some fools here think that Trump is their next messiah who only speaks the truth. They are wrong. Trump or Hillary won't make an iota of difference. A politician is just that. There are no good politicians.

Not really interested in voting for either of them quite frankly. And when I do walk into the voting booth, I'm going to write in my vote for Admiral William Adama.
 
.
Or is that what you feel?
Most Americans don't support Hillary. And the only people trying to prevent Trump from getting elected are the corrupt elites.
Trump was popular before few months, but when his mentality exposed, his popularity is declining. Look at all recent surveys. And henry exposed his past when trump was found groping woman.
 
Last edited:
.
Trump was popular before few months, but when his mentality is exposed, his popularity is declining. Look at all recent surveys. And henry exposed his past when trump was found groping woman.


Trump was Trump, and he was an even bigger boor few months ago than he is today. Any poll depicting him losing support on that count is obviously lying. There is a big chance that he didn't had too big a support to begin with.

He may still lose, and I think he would lose, but the reason for that loss ,if happens, would be block voting by blacks,hispanics, and wimmins for Hillary. Hillary does not come out as a likable character. She has an aura of fakeness created by lot of scandal associated with her, and she has hitched he wagon to "Ze ebil males are oppressing wimmins" poll plank. And contrary to what talking heads believe; males despise feminists, and women who are in relationship and satisfied from it hate feminists too. Only people who love dykes are champagne liberals, lesbians, and miserable middle aged women with cropped hair who blame males for their lovelorn life.

Her being perceived as a feminists form a very big reason why males despise her.
 
.
Trump was popular before few months, but when his mentality exposed, his popularity is declining. Look at all recent surveys. And henry exposed his past when trump was found groping woman.
The surveys are over sampled in Hillary's favor since the media is heavily biased against Trump and is actively colluding with the Clinton campaign in an effort to demoralize Trump supporters. Regarding the whole dirty talk tape by Trump, nobody really cared about that. Little kids in America talk way worse than the things Trump said. It's not as if everyone but Trump is a saint.

Indeed... we wouldn't want to lose him because he's the lone representative here from a country that was once home to the world's most powerful being.

A mighty being that to this modern-day, still might roam the Earth.
Dracula?

you should consider joining us on the international Trump train here on PDF, 2 Indians, a Pakistani and a Romanian, it'll be fun :enjoy:
@flamer84 definitely bro, come join us.


trump-train-1[1].jpg
 
.
Back
Top Bottom