Night10194 posted:

Gotta get the sacred dagger hidden in St. Peter's Basilica for that.

Good thing the pope's pretty friendly.

A Winner is Jew posted:

So she's to blame for what happens over a year after she leaves her position as SoS... got it.

Yinlock posted:

CNN in particular has been fellating Trump non-stop.

DemeaninDemon posted:

Secretly Hillary knows that McConnell will burst into flames once he touches it.

Majorian posted:

That does make me pretty mad too, tbh. I've been watching old SNL reruns, and it's amazing how much "Donald Trump" was a byword for "the literal shittiest person on Earth" through so many sketches. And yet we seem to have forgotten that. I guess part of the reason why it works for him is because so many of us already expected him to be awful, so no one was surprised at the crazy poo poo he was saying.


So when was the last time a mainstream media source featured Benghazi craziness? Bear in mind, I'm not talking about Rudy Guiliani or whoever coming onto CNN and saying, "Well, EMAILS and also BENGHAZI and also MONICA and also WHITEWATER!!!" and then trailing off as everybody else around him rolls their eyes. I'm talking about hosts saying, "Hey, yeah, what ABOUT Benghazi? Let's have a discussion on it!" I'm talking about devoting large parts of a discussion or a full segment to it. I haven't seen anything like that for months.


Network news, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Pretty much everyone who isn't firmly in the Trump camp.


Inside the pro-Trump camp, sure, it's not. Outside of it? I don't think anybody else is all that interested. As for that CNN article, that one seems to benefit Clinton's case, so it's not exactly what I'm talking about.


That's not an "as well" question - it's all part of the same operation. The intervention led directly to the aftermath of the intervention.


Where have I heard that before...

straight up brolic posted:

There are plenty of people in the electorate who are not stupid that the emails, Benghazi, and the Clinton Foundation represent real concerns for.

straight up brolic posted:

CNN has been having a ton of fun with chyrons which is pretty un-CNN like. No one's fellating Trump, they're just trying to go equally hard on both candidates which is unfair given the facts, their qualifications and personal pasts.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

If you say so, but again, if it's not swaying their votes it literally doesn't matter.

Tatum Girlparts posted:

putting aside the fact that a mainstream source allowing a crazy rear end in a top hat like Rudy to rant about benghazi absolutely does count as mainstream talking about it,

quote:

multiple stories this past weekish have been about if Hillary's new released emails 'shed light on Benghazi' (they don't because there's nothing to shed light on) as if there was still some grand plot to find out about, and a good few of them ended with some big 'well nothing in THIS batch but I bet the NEXT one will have some sweet benghazi info'

straight up brolic posted:

CNN has been having a ton of fun with chyrons which is pretty un-CNN like. No one's fellating Trump, they're just trying to go equally hard on both candidates which is unfair given the facts, their qualifications and personal pasts.

Majorian posted:

But even he isn't really ranting about it on mainstream news channels. He'll bring it up occasionally, but won't pursue the point.


The only one I've seen so far is the CNN one, which is, "Hey, those idiots at Judicial Watch sued to look at the emails, and it turns out there's only one about Benghazi, and it's a letter of congratulations after the Senate hearing."

straight up brolic posted:

*looks at polls where Clinton's lead has evaporated after a month of intense scrutiny into these very issues because her voters are dropping out*

Spun Dog posted:

*Interviews a white nationalist on air*

*scratches chin*

*Asks the panel of shills to compare this to coughing *

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Hahaha yeah that's what's happening. But let's play. In the universe where that's true, what's goatee-Hillary supposed to do about it?

OhFunny posted:

Darren Seals. 29-Year-Old Protest Leader Found Shot Dead in Burning Car in St. Louis.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/29-year-protest-leader-found-dead-burning-car/story?id=41915891

I haven't seen this posted yet. Anyone know more about it?

I'm sure the cops are gonna look real hard for the murderer.

straight up brolic posted:

okay tell me what's happening then? Lol

Majorian posted:

When what happens is a direct result of an inadequately-planned operation that she helped champion, yeah, I do. Do you not blame Iraq on Bush and Rumsfeld? They left office eight and ten years ago, respectively.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

Hahaha yeah that's what's happening. But let's play. In the universe where that's true, what's goatee-Hillary supposed to do about it?

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

You guys are really going to hate when she wins and it turns out she intends to be the president of the whole country and not just the cool kids club. She's going to take meetings with Republicans and work together with them on things.

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

No no, you're the author of this sci-fi masterwork, write the next scene.

A Winner is Jew posted:

Jesus gently caress you're dumb.

Iraq went to poo poo while Bush and Rumsfeld were at the wheel. Libya was relatively stable given they just went through a civil war when Clinton stepped down and didn't go to poo poo until over a year later.

Majorian posted:

Actually, Iraq was relatively quiet for several months after the initial invasion. Posters in this very forum were bullish about the country's chances of holding free and fair elections that would turn it into a bastion of democracy. Neocon goons posted photos of Iraqi women with purple smudges on their thumbs, indicating that they had voted. Things only got noticeably worse when it turned out that the rift between Sunni and Shia Iraqs was wider than Bush understood. In both cases, the initial invasion went swimmingly. It was winning the peace that neither administration had prepared for.

But please, continue to tell me how I'm dumb, when you clearly know very little about this topic.

straight up brolic posted:

*looks at polls where Clinton's lead has evaporated after a month of intense scrutiny into these very issues because her voters are dropping out*

NippleFloss posted:

Well, if your post invasion strategy is to let a country descend into violent lawless anarchy then it seems like the invasion didn't really go well at all, unless the point was to have the country descend into violent lawless anarchy. This is like saying "The surgery went very well! Also, the patient died."

Rygar201 posted:

You were saying?

Tiny Brontosaurus posted:

You guys are really going to hate when she wins and it turns out she intends to be the president of the whole country and not just the cool kids club. She's going to take meetings with Republicans and work together with them on things.

Rygar201 posted:

You were saying?

Majorian posted:

Which is precisely my point. From a narrow military standpoint, it was a success. From a broader political standpoint, it was not.

Majorian posted:

Actually, Iraq was relatively quiet for several months after the initial invasion. Posters in this very forum were bullish about the country's chances of holding free and fair elections that would turn it into a bastion of democracy. Neocon goons posted photos of Iraqi women with purple smudges on their thumbs, indicating that they had voted. Things only got noticeably worse when it turned out that the rift between Sunni and Shia Iraqs was wider than Bush understood. In both cases, the initial invasion went swimmingly. It was winning the peace that neither administration had prepared for.

But please, continue to tell me how I'm dumb, when you clearly know very little about this topic.

A Winner is Jew posted:

If by several months you mean less than two.

May was the infamous "mission accomplished" photo.

June was the start of the insurgency, or does the US launching the first of many counterinsurgency missions not count?

grover on March 18th, 2003 posted:

How long will it take to capture Baghdad? 2 days
Will Saddam be killed? Yes
Total Iraqi civillian casualties: 500 dead
Total military casualties Iraq: 3000 dead
Total military casualties U.S.: 15 dead
Will the Iraqi army regulars hold the lines? No
Will the Republican Guard fight to the end? No
Will chem/bio weapons be used on invading troops?: Yes
Will Saddam launch attacks on the Kurds? Yes
Will Saddam launch attacks on Israel? No
-If yes; will Isreal retaliate harshly? Yes
Will Saddam sacrifice Baghdad (gas/nuke it)? No
Will the Kurds make a grab for independence? Yes
Will Iran do anything silly like try for land? Yes
Will Saddam burn the oil fields? Yes
How long will the US be occupying Iraq? ~15 years
Will the Iraq war catalyze increased terrorism in America?No
In the long run, will this war be good or bad for the world? Good


Comments/Thoughts: The most difficult part will be holding Turkey and Iran back from the Kurdish territories after it's all said and done. I think most Iraqis will just surrender. Those that don't are most of the 3,000 dead. I expect hardcore troops to launch chemical attacks, but I expect them to have very limited effeciveness.

Edit- drat, I posted, then went back to read everyone else said- why are you all thinking this'll take weeks and weeks and weeks? Even if there's stiff opposition, the US will be in Baghdhad 24 hours after the first tank rolls into Iraq...

Josef bugman posted:

No, but backing them seems like a bad policy. C.f. Saudi Arabia and the amount of arms deals they get.

International law is a large scale joke. Look at the "Act of Killing" none of the people in that movie are ever going to see the inside of a cell for what they did and we're expected to believe that Justice works on an international scale?

NippleFloss posted:

It was not successful by any measure. We got to Baghdad really quickly...so what? All that did was precipitate supply chain and manpower problems and lead to the eventual chaos. Unless the military goal was to get bogged down in the longest and bloodiest conflict in two generations I'm not sure how it could be a success. Your viewpoint must be REALLY narrow.

A Winner is Jew posted:

If by several months you mean less than two.

May was the infamous "mission accomplished" photo.

June was the start of the insurgency, or does the US launching the first of many counterinsurgency missions not count?

Arzy posted:

Jobs report whiffs hard! Misses by a ton.

Now Roms needs to hit the airwaves and say "look at this malaise, we still aren't adding that many jobs, I can do better".

Obama. Three years past the end of the recession and he's adding less than 100k jobs a month. Pathetic.

Get out there Romney...hammer him on this weaksauce.

ascii genitals posted:

Jesus christ Arzy.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

How are you supposed to call out politicians who are quite deliberately and consciously adopting Goebbel's "Big Lie" tactics, then? There's no other description for what Ryan and Romney are doing.

Joementum posted:

Clint Eastwood has granted his first media interview since the convention speech... to the Carmel Pine Cone.

quote:

“They vett most of the people, but I told them, ‘You can’t do that with me, because I don’t know what I’m going to say,’” Eastwood recalled.

And while the Hollywood superstar has plenty of experience being adored by crowds, he said he hasn’t given a lot of speeches and admitted that, “I really don’t know how to.” He also hates using a teleprompter, so it was settled in his mind that when he spoke to the 10,000 people in the convention hall, and the millions more watching on television, he would do it extemporaneously.

“It was supposed to be a contrast with all the scripted speeches, because I’m Joe Citizen,” Eastwood said. “I’m a movie maker, but I have the same feelings as the average guy out there.”

Obama posted:

"Tax cuts, tax cuts, gut some regulations — oh, and more tax cuts. Tax cuts when times are good, tax cuts when times are bad. Tax cuts to help you lose a few extra pounds. Tax cuts to improve your love life. It will cure anything, according to them."

Axetrain posted:

Goddamn looking at that toxx list if Obama loses this forum will be some sort of post apocalyptic hellscape where only Arzy, Arkane, BoostedC5, and that other guy post.

Joementum posted:

Gary Johnson is not allowed to be on the ballot in Michigan. A judge has ruled that it would violate Michigan's "sore loser" law since Johnson ran in the Republican primary. However, all is not lost! Instead of running Gary Johnson (of New Mexico), the Libertarians may instead run Gary Johnson (of Austin, Texas) who was a delegate to the Libertarian convention and a former party official.

SilentD posted:

Really, I doubt that. Correct me if I'm wrong but top 10% is just north of 100k for a household income, that's a joke. I used to clear that alone before moving to the non profit sector. Top 5% IIRC is just north of 150k per household, very easy with a dual income family.

It's the 1% and up where it gets nuts. The top 10 and 5 aren't all that better off than a few grades lower. Keep in mind it's rated as "household income" which implies dual incomes from the mother and the father. the top 1% doesn't come from "income", my sisters trust fund generates enough for her that working or not she'd be top 1% a year no matter what, to say nothing of the family assets she will get (I'm not included because my family does not pass on wealth to male children, we are expected to earn our way through, they also do not pay for college for males)

A quick look at wiki states that in 2005 top 10% is 118k for a house hold. That's not all that hard.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Majorian posted:

There was limited violence in the months immediately following the first Libyan Civil War too, actually. The point is, your claim that Clinton was in no ways responsible for the violence that took place after 2012 is ludicrous.