• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The Official Paracast Political Thread!

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeff Davis said:
The bottom line: Hillary is a life long career criminal politician with a record that's as clear as the nose on anyone's face that has posted in this forum. If you possess one shred of either honesty, or integrity, you can no more deny this than you can the fact that Trump @Tyger has never been an active politician prior to this election. Make of that what you will, but no, Trump has absolutely no history of being an Oligarchic puppet. The money over which he has sole command is far and away substantial enough to maintain a separate posture from them.

If you you want things in the USA to progressively continue into the nearest toilet as they have been for the last 60 years, vote for Hillaryous. If you don't want matters to continue as they have, vote for Trump. Whether or not anything changes for the better is a complete uncertainty. However, not voting for him is an absolute assurance of matters getting worse. If a person has "faith" in what is the basic current state of political affairs in the USA you are indeed a VERY sad case.

Most Fear Voter Fraud, Say Candidates Shouldn't Accept Early Results - Rasmussen Reports™
Click to expand...
Her record is clear.

The online distortions of her record are clear too.
 
Wait a minute, Gene. Her 'participation' in the Bin Laden operation was not anything to give her that kind of credit. I gotta raise the bullshit flag on that one. Those of us who have done operational work take a dim view of weenies who shoplift, or even take a pinch of, a particular type of honor. Just clarifying. :)
 
This is all a very, very sick joke. There are tons of sites online with nonsense about hitmen, and bizarre sexual encounters, and so on and so forth. But I also listened to the playback of a cable TV documentary the other day (I'll post a like when I have the time). It was about her history, entering the old boys' club of politicians in the deep south as a modern female lawyer with an Ivy League education. You cannot imagine the gender discrimination she confronted, the suspicions even her most innocuous actions generated. This is part of what's at play here, decades of it from the days she merely wanted to use her own last name rather than her husband's as he entered Arkansas politics. She had to use his name and cut her hair because of their attitude. Seriously.

When you consider the background, the social situation involving older white men who want to live in the 1950s — when women and Blacks knew their place — you can see where all this started. It reached a point where lies took the place of facts and more and more insane rumors were promoted.

I've done enough research to see where Clinton has made her share of mistakes over the years. But she is blamed for things a male politician will do routinely as a matter of course without criticism. She is also blamed for the things she didn't do, and that will probably only get worse after she is elected. Or maybe people will come to their senses, but I doubt it.
 
Do you recall when I was down on a guest a couple of years back because he said he depended on the Internet for his research?

By the way, if we're looking into voting machine conspiracies, what about the one about Diebold devices and the company's ties to Republicans? Let's be equal opportunity offenders here. Or maybe this one is true.
 
I remember, although, I cannot place the name. I also remember that for 5 bucks a month, most anyone can create their very own news source.
 
Here's my take as a Canadian.

Hillary is a career politician who works well in what is a pretty wacky and distorted version of "representative democracy." She's tough, scary, willing to lie to get her way, and invokes enough fear that nobody's taken her down yet.

Which is pretty much what it seems to take to work in the US Government.

Trump is just a loudmouthed, misogynistic narcissist that doesn't bother to inform himself well enough to even back his shooting from the hip. He just shoots and moves on without bothering to think about what he just said.

Which is pretty much what it seems to take to work as a CEO for a fortune 500 company in America... who's stock has been in double digit declines for a few years running.

I know who I'd vote for.
 
There's one other thing that people don't want to admit. It goes back to her stint in the U.S. Senate. She is a policy wonk, steeped in the fine details of policy and process. That doesn't work well in our short attention span theater reality show atmosphere, but it also means she knows how to navigate her way through Congress. Even her most rabid Congressional opposition knows that she, like Reagan, knows how to reach across the isle and work with both sides to get things done. Assuming the House remains Republican, she will know how to deal with Paul Ryan to bypass his "obstruction caucus" and make deals both sides can live with. This is the nuts and bolts stuff that Obama couldn't/wouldn't do.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
There's one other thing that people don't want to admit. It goes back to her stint in the U.S. Senate. She is a policy wonk, steeped in the fine details of policy and process. That doesn't work well in our short attention span theater reality show atmosphere, but it also means she knows how to navigate her way through Congress. Even her most rabid Congressional opposition knows that she, like Reagan, knows how to reach across the isle and work with both sides to get things done. Assuming the House remains Republican, she will know how to deal with Paul Ryan to bypass his "obstruction caucus" and make deals both sides can live with. This is the nuts and bolts stuff that Obama couldn't/wouldn't do.
Click to expand...

Well, I will admit that she's Wonky alright. As far as being "steeped", yep, so is one's boot after stepping in the fine details of a cow pie. The truth is that Hillary's a professional politician, and as such, she's a professional liar. It's a tradition thing Gene, and really for them, just a means to an ends. Hillary is constantly attempting to sell confidence. She has to considering what a great job she's done showing everyone just how little good health, honesty, and integrity she really has. A career politician like her learns very early on that if you want to garner support, you gotta give 'em welcomed lip service above all. That means telling them what they want to hear. Same exact method a slight of hand artist uses to achieve misdirection, while getting their audience to think they saw what they never did. Just like that good 'ol Chicago political traditionalist Obozo the kid did. It's just more smoke and mirrors from the political lifer elite as always Gene, and this time around, I'm thinking, or at least I'm hoping, that the people are feeling just a little bit wiser. Even sheep resent being sheered, let alone twice in a row.

This is an excellent and well written editorial piece Gene. I hope you will enjoy it as much as I did because it's more of that boring and far less sensationally appealing stuff called simply, the plain truth.

Some of Clinton's pledges sound great. Until you remember who's president | Thomas Frank
 
Last edited:
The article is fundamentally flawed by the fact that the writer doesn't understand the optics in the U.S. Congress, how Republican leaders gathered at the beginning of Obama's term and vowed to obstruct everything he tried. And they did even when Obama introduced bills that were, in previous years, readily supported by the other party.

Here Clinton may do better. She has a record of working with Republicans, and after the expected disastrous defeat of Trump, and an uncertain situation in the Senate, they might be willing to behave responsibly.
 
Gene Steinberg said:
The article is fundamentally flawed by the fact that the writer doesn't understand the optics in the U.S. Congress, how Republican leaders gathered at the beginning of Obama's term and vowed to obstruct everything he tried. And they did even when Obama introduced bills that were, in previous years, readily supported by the other party.

Here Clinton may do better. She has a record of working with Republicans, and after the expected disastrous defeat of Trump, and an uncertain situation in the Senate, they might be willing to behave responsibly.
Click to expand...

Gene, remember that cow pie I just referenced? Did you just step in it again, or is that just more baseless politically rhetorical nonsense that I smell? Do you even have a microbe of veridical evidence to substantiate that claim? Show me Obozo's REAL effort and determination to do what he promised he would do and not just more of the typical excuses that the dems love to make in his favor.

How can Clinton do better when she's already PROVED that she's as irresponsible and dishonest as she has shown herself to be?
 
Since little of what you say actually conforms to the facts, I have no further comment. You have been corrected time and time again, yet you live in a different reality.
 
The Presidential elections and history repeating regards US Empire looking at other former empires had to deal with collapsing economy , constant conflicts and its military overstretch . While China and Russia play puppet masters at US expense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top