- 4,722
- United Kingdom
I think @TenEightyOne's post above has better detail than I can provide but I was about to mention that the embassy sale was agreed before Obama was President.
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,022 comments
- 1,698,206 views
- 29,704
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
I used to do that.
I also used to be convinced that he was capable of doing something good, something that helps people without alienating his own party or sending the left into a tizzy.
I no longer feel that way. His only interest is destabilizing as much as he possibly can, overstating or just plain lying about events and circumstances, and when anyone points out any sort of inaccuracy in his descriptioning, responding in the most childish manner possible--firing back with a [hopefully] insulting nickname.
I used to hope that he'd come out with some wildly offensive remark that nobody but he and his idiot Trumpeters could defend, resulting in actual impeachment proceedings backed by both sides of the aisle, but he's done exactly that and it doesn't seem to have led to much of anything.
Now my hope is--and that I'm thinking this disgusts me--that his "covfefe" and his slurred speech are indicative of an aggressive, malignant inoperable brain tumor that soon puts him in a vegetative state.
He's not scum, he's the stuff beneath the scum for which there is no name. Oh wait, there is: Donald J. Trump.
Edit: "Descriptioning."
I'm not even going to fix it...it's levity, for which the post is desperately wanting.
Last edited:
- 13,850
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I'm not even sure about that. I think he's just an insecure guy who has gotten a long way in life thanks to inheritance, stubbornness and the good fortune to have people around him that know enough to avoid driving his businesses into the ground. Clearly he surrounds himself with yes men, and clearly it's not that hard to paint him a rosy picture while you get on with ignoring his suggestions.
Put him in office where intelligence and people skills are actually required, and he struggles. You can see how his team tries to cover for him and carry him, but he's so very visible that it's hard. A hotel with a manager that doesn't know his arse from his elbow can work just fine with some good middle managers. That's less true of a country and it's president, although credit to the Republican party for trying.
Trump clearly isn't the sort that sees that he's out of his depth and turns the effort up to 11 to learn the skills he needs. He watches TV and tweets. I think an outsider who was really passionate about engaging with the political process could really bring some interesting things. Trump unfortunately isn't that guy, he seems to try to get away with minimum effort and simply says either the first thing that comes to mind (which is often a mistake) or whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. Neither of these are good politics.
Ultimately, he wants the credit and adulation without any of the hard work that goes into it. I could well believe the stories from around the inauguration that Trump really had no idea what went into running a country. He may well have thought that it was essentially a ceremonial post.
- 4,013
- Derbyshire, UK
- DG Silva
Not really pertinent to this discussion, but I'd like to point out that it does seem to be indicative of the current generation of left-wing liberalism - I don't agree with you, so you're going to agree with me. That's wrong, facist, and smacks of the thought police so prevalent through Labour's last rule.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,396
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
He was talking in the context of playing his role in meeting with Trump, not a you have to agree with me if we meet. Rather what's the point in meeting someone who isn't interested in dialog.
That you are happy to take it out of context while conflating left wing liberalism with fascism is however far more informative.
I don't see the Daily Stormer saying Khan is talking their kind of language, Trump however is with his **** hole line (and that's not an assumption on my part, but the Daily Stormers view on it).
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-********-comment-white-nationalists-praise-779958
That or Trump's repeated stated desire to strengthen libel laws to shut down what he sees as commentary that is critical of him.
Last edited:
- 13,850
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Uh, what? I feel like that went from 20 to facist thought police in record time.
Even outside this particular example, refusing to meet with someone who isn't willing to consider that they might be wrong is pretty standard practise, if only for your personal mental health. No point banging your head against a brick wall. I don't see where the facist thought police come into it at all.
- 3,023
- Massachusetts
- GBO-Possum
One would maybe assume that being "deeply religious" might correlate negatively with support of Trump if there's a generally positive correlation between religiosity and morality/ethics.
According to Gallup research, the reverse is true, with Mormons coming out as the most Trump-supportive religious group, surprisingly besting the Evangelicals.
http://news.gallup.com/poll/225380/trump-approval-highest-among-mormons-lowest-among-muslims.aspx
My guess is that Trump's ability to con people correlates positively with their tendency to "believe" bizarre stuff rather than make decisions based on facts.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,364
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Hmm, that's strange to me, but I can't really argue with the data since all I really have to go on it a few local news articles and anecdotal evidence. I wonder if it also has to do with Senator Orrin Hatch's chumminess of Trump?
I know Trump's approval rating did go up in Utah when he reduced the size of Bear's Ears. The overall sentiment here is that feds should quit taking away land from the state.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Or one might assume that a person's religion is only one aspect of their personality and, like other folks, they vote in their personal self interest and in the broader policy positions. What would your guess be about the Jews since Trump is widely assumed to be for the wealthy first and foremost and he's moving the Embassy to Jerusalem?
In other news, Fiat Chrysler is crediting Trump's tax reform for a $1 Billion capital investment in Michigan in moving a truck plant from Mexico, along with bonuses of $2000 to all U.S. hourly and salaried employees, with no bonuses for senior execs. Probably just a coincidence though...or something...
Last edited:
- 4,013
- Derbyshire, UK
- DG Silva
Maybe I've encountered the wrong kind of left-wingers, but why should it be the case that 'my view is the only correct view'? I've yet to encounter one left-winger who is willing to move from their standpoint at all, playing the man instead of the ball - 'you're a facist, a nazi' and plenty more besides. They only seem interested in dialogue if there's a chance they can 'win'. This does also come from the Right - 'you're a terrorist', etc.
The current political thinking is so far to the left in the majority of wealthy countries, especially when it comes to immigration, that the country suffers from a lack of controls. But the Left have an absolute wet dream over it so will refuse to enter into compromise; they only indoctrinate - hence the 'Thought Police' comments.
I'd like to think that I'm pretty neutral when it comes to my politics, and I can see the pros and cons of both arguments. But the shaming has got to stop, from both sides.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,396
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
I'm left wing.
A democratic socialist to be exact.
Have I thrown those accusations at you, have I refused to engage in dialog unless I can 'win' it?
I also come from one of the countries and a claim of lack of controls about immigration is wildly inaccurate, to the point of being fantasy (nor has the country suffered as a result of it despite claims to the contrary), or do you believe the claims of 'no-go areas', the videos of the likes of Britain First (the ones that Trump re-tweeted and kicked this off) or the absurd claims made by your own ambassador to the Netherlands (who is now being taken to task over them by the Dutch press)?
As for the idea of thought police, what are your thoughts on your President attempting to silence those who comment on him with repeated threats of stronger libel laws?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Democratic socialists are committed to replace our capitalist system and private ownership of industry with social ownership and a socialist planned economy. Your vision may embrace revolution. I suppose that's just fine where your own country is concerned. But here in the America thread, I think your philosophy may be held pernicious, dangerous and anathema to the hopes, beliefs and interests of most Americans.
from wiki:
Democratic socialism is a political ideology that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production[1] with an emphasis on self-management or democratic management of economic institutions within a market socialist or decentralized socialist planned economy.[2]
Democratic socialists hold that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the democratic values of liberty, equality, and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can be supportive of either revolutionary or reformist politics as a means to establish socialism.[3]
The term "democratic socialism" is sometimes used synonymously with “socialism”, the adjective “democratic” is often added to distinguish democratic socialists from Marxist–Leninist inspired socialism which is viewed as being non-democratic in practice.[4][5] Democratic socialists oppose the Stalinist political system and Soviet economic model, rejecting the authoritarianform of governance and highly centralized command economy that took form in the Soviet Union in the early 20th century.[6]
Democratic socialism is distinguished from social democracy on the basis that democratic socialists are committed to systemic transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism whereas social democracy is supportive of reforms to capitalism.[7] In contrast to social democrats, democratic socialists believe that reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and state interventions aimed at suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism will only see them emerge elsewhere in a different guise. As socialists, democratic socialists believe that the systemic issues of capitalism can only be solved by replacing the capitalist system with a socialist system; by replacing private ownership with social ownership of the means of production.[8][9]
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,396
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Ohh look Dotini's can quote a Wiki (well as far as the bit he bothered to read)
Very good.
How about you ask me rather than tell me, as you will generally find that most people prefer that approach (and you tend not to end up making an arse of yourself that way as well).
Unless that is you are also of the mind that only one version of Capitalism exists!
Last edited:
- 4,013
- Derbyshire, UK
- DG Silva
Nope, not at all. Like I said it might just be the ones I've met. But the quote from Sadiq Khan has said that, or at least implied.
I think I might need to make it clear. I come from the UK, which makes my knowledge about the US law process a little thin, but it's wrong that a President should use laws for his own personal gain, and will get thrown out by the law-makers. No self-respecting country should ever deny freedom of speech, whichever side it comes from.
Regarding the no-go areas in the UK, I've seen it; signs up in certain, mainly Muslim, areas in Birmingham saying 'No whites allowed after 6' in every shop window; gangs of men trying, sometimes successfully, to overturn buses in these areas because of Britain's involvement in Iraq. I've been attacked, verbally and physically, because I was changing my tyre when it was flat - I was told by a Pakistani-origin male that I '[should leave] this area, white b******, because it was their area; it's not safe to be here too long'. I had a friend who was attacked by six Pakistani-origin men simply because he was a white man waiting for a bus in an Asian area. The police have had to remove all of the CCTV in public in this area because 'they're spying on us, it's evil and infringes our rights'. There's more than one area in Birmingham like this, and they all have one thing in common. Leicester and other areas have it too.
That said, I know of areas where it is not safe to be an Asian in Birmingham, so there is guilt from both sides of the racial divide. However, to bury your head in the sand and say it doesn't exist, is just wrong.
Still, I must have been imagining it....
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,396
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Odd. I have a friend who lives in Small Heath, he's very white.
Now to address some of the more specific claims. I can find no evidence at all about every shop in areas having no whites after 6. The closest one would be some grafetti that was removed and denounced by the local community. In regard to the CCTV camera issue, they were never switched on and removed after it was discovered that no one locally had been consulted about them and on the advice of an independent review.
Nor do Birmingham police agree that no go areas exist.
Now does Birmingham have areas of social deprivation and occasional unrest? Yes it does, but that is as much a product of socioeconomic factors than anything else, and I don't see any proven causal link to the UKs immigration policy (or as was claimed lack of).
This is demonstrably true in the case of Small Heath as it's always been an area of social unrest, they even based a TV drama about it (complete with a lack of Asian immigrants).
- 14,006
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
I'd say his conning ability correlates more positively with the conned's desire for the state to impose their morality (i.e. abortion, LGBT rights, sex education).
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
The first in an expected wave of indictments next week?
An indictment was handed out Friday in relation to bribery scheme connected to the Uranium One scandal. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Feds announce indictment in massive bribery scheme connected to Hillary Clinton’s Uranium One deal
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...heme-connected-to-uranium-one-hillary-clinton
A federal indictment connected to the infamous “Uranium One” deal facilitated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration was announced Friday.
What happened?
The Department of Justice announced an 11-count indictment against Mark Lambert in connection to a Russian bribery scheme involving the Uranium One sale. Lambert is the “former co-president of a Maryland-based transportation company that provides services for the transportation of nuclear materials to customers in the United States and abroad,” the DOJ said in a statement.
He was charged with one account of conspiracy to violate the the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and to commit wire fraud, seven counts of violating the FCPA, two counts of wire fraud and one count of international promotion money laundering, the DOJ said.
What is the Uranium One scandal?
The Uranium One scandal is a controversy in which the Obama administration permitted “the sale of U.S. uranium mining facilities to Russia’s state atomic energy company,” according to NBC News. Multiple government agencies had to approve the sale and the Clintons were key players in securing the deal.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions initiated further investigation into the scandal last month. He has even looked into the possibility of opening a separate probe to investigate Clinton’s involvement in the deal.
Edit:
Also, http://thehill.com/policy/internati...maryland-executive-in-uranium-one-deal-report
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2018/01/13/russian-bribery-indictment-n2434083
"Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
An indictment was handed out Friday in relation to bribery scheme connected to the Uranium One scandal. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Feds announce indictment in massive bribery scheme connected to Hillary Clinton’s Uranium One deal
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...heme-connected-to-uranium-one-hillary-clinton
A federal indictment connected to the infamous “Uranium One” deal facilitated by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration was announced Friday.
What happened?
The Department of Justice announced an 11-count indictment against Mark Lambert in connection to a Russian bribery scheme involving the Uranium One sale. Lambert is the “former co-president of a Maryland-based transportation company that provides services for the transportation of nuclear materials to customers in the United States and abroad,” the DOJ said in a statement.
He was charged with one account of conspiracy to violate the the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and to commit wire fraud, seven counts of violating the FCPA, two counts of wire fraud and one count of international promotion money laundering, the DOJ said.
What is the Uranium One scandal?
The Uranium One scandal is a controversy in which the Obama administration permitted “the sale of U.S. uranium mining facilities to Russia’s state atomic energy company,” according to NBC News. Multiple government agencies had to approve the sale and the Clintons were key players in securing the deal.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions initiated further investigation into the scandal last month. He has even looked into the possibility of opening a separate probe to investigate Clinton’s involvement in the deal.
Edit:
Also, http://thehill.com/policy/internati...maryland-executive-in-uranium-one-deal-report
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2018/01/13/russian-bribery-indictment-n2434083
"Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
Last edited:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I'm guessing that a lot of your post was just copied/pasted from a website without quote marks?
I'm a little confused about the huge photo of Clinton when the indictment refers to a guy running a nuclear transportation company. If the whole Uranium One deal was corrupt (and there's nothing from the Canadians to suggest it was) then it's Obama's head on the block, not any of the nine-or-ten people on the committee that exist to automatically pass that kind of deal (they have no power to stop it according to Federal guidelines).
The deal explicitly stated that none of the uranium mined in the US could be exported (as we said last time this came around) so one can reasonably wonder if this new indictment is related to that transport. I don't see how it would relate to anything Clinton did?
- 7,815
- Horbury, West Yorkshire
- GTP_Sprite
To be honest I don’t know too much about Birmingham (having only been clubbing in Digbeth a few times) but two colleagues who I work with one white with white family members and the other of Northern Pakistani Origin but considers himself English first both confirm the city still has segregation issues not just Asian vs English but most minorities have some kind of an issue with each other. From my limited knowlage of large cities; isn’t this a similar deal across the UK?
As for Leicester, I lived there for 3 years mainly in the City Centre around my University Campus and around the Narborough Road area and I never saw any issues or heard of specific areas of “No Go”. I never saw many problems at all apart from your basic car and robbery type crimes. I’m sure there are areas of concern but nothing major.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
The Clinton Foundation remains under active FBI investigation for "pay for play" corruption. A grand jury has been empaneled in Little Rock. More indictments are expected. The committee were beholden to the Clintons and Obama. Over $100,000,000 in Russian money linked to the uranium deal went to the Clinton Foundation.
Note, any material I post under the heading of a link should be taken as a quote from that link. I have gone back in an edit and italicized that material to make it even more clear.
- 13,850
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I think that's probably not a reasonable assumption without further information. A religion is something that is generally first and foremost in people's lives. It and it's rules take precedence over just about everything. Some people are willing to put their religion aside to serve the people that elected them, but most don't. I'd think most would take the fact that they've been elected as a sign that their voters want them to use their religion as part of their policy decisions.
Hi. It's nice to meet you too. Lovely weather we're having. What do you think of that local sports team?
I'm not particularly hard left or anything, and I kind of avoid putting myself into political categories as I'd rather evaluate my own feelings on each issue as it comes rather than blanketing my opinion by sticking a massive label on it. But I do tend to in general agree more with the leftist flattening of social structure.
I think you've fallen into the trap of generalising entire groups of millions of people based on what you think you know, not what you've actually observed. I find it hard to believe that you're over 13 and have never met a leftist willing to discuss and compromise. Merely that you've never met one that was both willing to discuss and compromise and aggressively and overtly leftist.
People who are aggressively and overtly anything are probably not the most reasonable and flexible to start with. Perhaps try judging people based on the average member, rather than the extremes. I don't assume that the right wing are all redneck Bible thumping racist child molesters with fetal alcohol syndrome and terrible fake tans. That would be unkind. I assume that they're reasonable people with certain views that they've formed, and that if nothing else we can share our stories and both understand a little more about where we're respectively coming from.
But that's just me.
You think so? Which countries in particular, and what sort of problems are they facing because of this lack of controls? What would a rightist immigration policy look like?
What problems do you think might replace the current ones if, say, immigration was halted completely? If that's unappealing, how does one identify the optimal level of immigration at any given time?
I live in a country where we put legitimate asylum seekers in what amounts to internment camps, for years. They are denied basic care. We'll let people drown instead of letting them into our waters and ports. I struggle to see how that's so far to the left, and so I ask for some insight into how it works elsewhere that I might better understand your view.
Says the guy who just labelled half the political spectrum as the Thought Police. Come on, man. You want the shaming to stop but you can't stop yourself. I think you've just given yourself a perfect example of why the shaming continues.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
In my time I have seen one US president assassinated, one impeached (if not convicted) and one resign in utter disgrace. I have seen the American people divided against themselves during the Vietnam War. I wouldn't be at all surprised for history to repeat, or at least echo. IMO, now we have the unqualified Trump somehow winning office, and the first (putatively) Disclosure head-of-state somehow denied her chance. I am disappointed. IMO what we have also is the government at war with itself. This seems like it might be a war between veteran civil servants and recently elected or newly appointed officials. There is little to be happy about except the entertainment value and those of us invested in popcorn futures. (Tip of the hat to @Dennisch) The article below says we should all root for the truth. But I'm on record as saying that sometimes a beautiful, useful or necessary lie is preferable to an ugly truth.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/as-in...mount-can-hillary-clinton-avoid-jail-cm902103
January 08, 2018, 05:59:22 PM EDT By EDIT2, Investor's Business Daily
Clinton Scandals: As the media focus on Donald Trump's mental condition and whether he can be kicked out of office using the 25th Amendment, something far more significant is taking place: Former slam-dunk-future-first-woman-president Hillary Clinton, after avoiding any serious scrutiny for her misconduct while secretary of state, now sits at the center of a growing number of investigations - any of which might lead to a special counsel and criminal charges.
No doubt, Democrats, who with the leftist media allies have ginned up bogus charges of Russian collusion against Donald Trump, would like the Clinton investigations to go away.
But they won't. In recent weeks, new developments have made it shockingly clear that questions about Clinton's possibly criminal conductare growing. All of these have come in the last month:
Yes, we know. Investigations come and go. They're an inevitable part of the changing of a government. Maybe so.
But unlike past investigations, which covered up the magnitude of Clinton's actions and their likely criminal content, the latest ones are not being conducted by Democratic Party partisans from the Deep State who have, in communications revealed to the public, expressed open disdain for their soon-to-be president Trump and fought a rear-guard action to keep Hillary Clinton out of legal danger.
All Americans should root for the same thing: the truth. Based on current investigations and from what we now know of her past actions, which we have written on extensively here , Hillary Clinton will be very lucky indeed to escape not just prosecution, but incarceration.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/as-in...mount-can-hillary-clinton-avoid-jail-cm902103
January 08, 2018, 05:59:22 PM EDT By EDIT2, Investor's Business Daily
Clinton Scandals: As the media focus on Donald Trump's mental condition and whether he can be kicked out of office using the 25th Amendment, something far more significant is taking place: Former slam-dunk-future-first-woman-president Hillary Clinton, after avoiding any serious scrutiny for her misconduct while secretary of state, now sits at the center of a growing number of investigations - any of which might lead to a special counsel and criminal charges.
No doubt, Democrats, who with the leftist media allies have ginned up bogus charges of Russian collusion against Donald Trump, would like the Clinton investigations to go away.
But they won't. In recent weeks, new developments have made it shockingly clear that questions about Clinton's possibly criminal conductare growing. All of these have come in the last month:
* The Department of Justice is looking into what looks like a pattern of "pay-to-play" surrounding the Russian-linked Uranium One deal and the Clinton Family Foundation.
- DOJ is taking a hard look at Hillary Clinton's clearly illegal use of a home-brew email server to conduct classified State Department business, a decision that opened U.S. secrets to possible hacking by the Russians, Chinese and other potential foes. New revelations from a Judicial Watch report show, for instance, that 18 classified emails were found on the laptop of disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Hillary aide Huma Abedin. That's a clear violation of the law.
- House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, in a deal with the FBI , will get full access to the FBI's Russian collusion investigation, including unedited files and memos, and access to witnesses. Meanwhile, Nunes also gained access to the banking records of opposition research firm FusionGPS, which may show the extent of Hillary Clinton's involvement in funding the so-called Clinton dossier that the FBI used to request surveillance on Trump campaign officials.
- As reported in IBD recently, a new Federal Election Commission complaint filed by the Committee to Defend the President (CDP) claims Clinton's "Hillary Victory Fund" used state chapters of her 2016 campaign to get around campaign donation limits, a violation of the law. "Roughly $84 million may have been laundered in what might be the single largest campaign finance scandal in U.S. history," wrote Dan Backer, a campaign finance and political lawyer who works with CDP.
- Perhaps most devastating for Clinton, an Office of the Inspector General investigation has been ongoing as part of recent congressional probes. That report is due out Jan. 15, but may already be in the hands of Congress. As the financial website ZeroHedge noted , "The OIG report ... is expected to present (OIG's) findings to Congressional investigators regarding a wide variety of alleged bias and malfeasance by the FBI, the Clinton campaign, and the Obama Administration - both during and after the 2016 election."
Yes, we know. Investigations come and go. They're an inevitable part of the changing of a government. Maybe so.
But unlike past investigations, which covered up the magnitude of Clinton's actions and their likely criminal content, the latest ones are not being conducted by Democratic Party partisans from the Deep State who have, in communications revealed to the public, expressed open disdain for their soon-to-be president Trump and fought a rear-guard action to keep Hillary Clinton out of legal danger.
All Americans should root for the same thing: the truth. Based on current investigations and from what we now know of her past actions, which we have written on extensively here , Hillary Clinton will be very lucky indeed to escape not just prosecution, but incarceration.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
- 3,023
- Massachusetts
- GBO-Possum
This may be an oversimplification, however, here goes:-
The ones at the top of the list tend to be white, patriarchal and respond well to being made afraid. Trump has consistently courted their racism and their amygdalas. Click here
The ones at the bottom of the list tend towards being non-white and have been consistently vilified by Trump
Many Jews still remember that a rabid right wing organization which decried the press as fake news didn't work out too well for them a while back
There have been studies revealing that non-religious people tend to be driven to more compassion and less self-serving approaches to the "fellow man"
And this link which I posted above provides some insight
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
First link is behind a paywall. Second link pretty much disproves any notion that Trump's ability to con people correlates positively with their tendency to "believe" bizarre stuff rather than make decisions based on facts. Catholic, Protestant and Mormon are all within reach of 50%, showing only a slight tendency one way or the other which indicates to me at least, that religious beliefs for the majority of voters plays only a small part in their voting decisions. Do you have anything to support your contention that Jews are voting based on fake news claims of a right wing organization?
