Gyroscopic Investing

And now there are rumors about Bloomberg, who supposedly despises Hillary, running for President as a Democrat. Now that would be interesting!

Reub wrote: And now there are rumors about Bloomberg, who supposedly despises Hillary, running for President as a Democrat. Now that would be interesting!

Bloomberg is a Democrat.  And I would vote for him!!!  I love BusinessWeek.  I've got about 9-months worth to read through and still growing.

The most striking thing about Hillary, to me, is her complete lack of ANY charisma.  I just don't sense any warmth in her at all.  She's like a political version of the villain in Terminator III.





Bill Clinton, OTOH, strikes me as an immensely warm and friendly person, even if you don't like his politics and think he is a sleazy liar (which he is, of course).

I don't know how you get elected President with no charisma.

If you want to know just how weak Hillary really is as a candidate, think back to 2008.  She somehow let a charismatic no-name/no-experience liberal black dude from Chicago outmaneuver her in the primaries.  Think about that.  What does that say about her as a candidate?

If the Republicans wanted to win in 2016, they would nominate a John Kasich/Marco Rubio ticket (instant traction in Ohio AND Florida).  That's a Republican ticket that could win.  When I see people like Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin on Presidential ballots and I hear about gadflies like Ted Cruz being talked about as serious candidates, I wonder if the Republicans have a secret death wish.

If the Rs want to win, they will nominate Rand Paul. He's the only candidate they have who can appeal to independents, including anyone who is against the "war on some drugs" and the "war on terism".

As to how you get elected President with no charisma, that's easy. All you have to do is get the nomination of one of the major parties and have the other major party nominate someone even more repellent to the electorate!

MediumTex wrote: The most striking thing about Hillary, to me, is her complete lack of ANY charisma.  I just don't sense any warmth in her at all.  She's like a political version of the villain in Terminator III.

...

Bill Clinton, OTOH, strikes me as an immensely warm and friendly person, even if you don't like his politics and think he is a sleazy liar (which he is, of course).

I met Bill Clinton very briefly during his '92 campaign and would agree, he has a certain aura about him.  However, the thing I remember most is being incredibly disappointed in his soft, weak handshake.  Perhaps it was just a campaign-mode handshake... when you're shaking hundreds of hands a day you probably can't give every one a good firm confidence-inspiring shake.  I have never met Hillary and don't particularly care to at this point... a lot of things have changed in the intervening 23 years.  Kind of funny to think about actually.

Libertarian666 wrote: If the Rs want to win, they will nominate Rand Paul. He's the only candidate they have who can appeal to independents, including anyone who is against the "war on some drugs" and the "war on terism".

As to how you get elected President with no charisma, that's easy. All you have to do is get the nomination of one of the major parties and have the other major party nominate someone even more repellent to the electorate!

Rand Paul: I stopped the NSA phone spying for 3 days so send me money. No thanks.

Kasich/Rubio is strong but Rubio/Kasich is even stronger.

Reub wrote: Kasich/Rubio is strong but Rubio/Kasich is even stronger.

What about Lindsey Graham? I briefly saw him on FoxNews last night and he basically stated that a vote for him was a vote for the defeat of ISIS because he assured that he absolutely would take them out.

Given that McCain who was basically his twin brother got the nomination against Obama the first time around I wonder if we should count him out? If ISIS keeps up the attacks he might become more and more relevant. Which might actually be what ISIS wants.

madbean2 wrote: What about Lindsey Graham? I briefly saw him on FoxNews last night and he basically stated that a vote for him was a vote for the defeat of ISIS because he assured that he absolutely would take them out.

Graham would absolutely turn us into theocracy.  He's one of those.  <shudder>

Why can't we have RINO's that actually have a backbone instead of the religious rightnuts?

I believe that Kasich could handle the pressure of a long and bruising campaign, plus he has a record, unlike many of the other Republican candidates.

Kasich has been a committee chairman in Congress, he has hosted a national TV show, and he has been governor of a large state.  Anyone who can do those things can be President.

TennPaGa wrote:

MachineGhost wrote:

madbean2 wrote: What about Lindsey Graham? I briefly saw him on FoxNews last night and he basically stated that a vote for him was a vote for the defeat of ISIS because he assured that he absolutely would take them out.

Graham would absolutely turn us into theocracy.  He's one of those.  <shudder>

I doubt that any of the current crop of presidential candidates truly has designs on turning the U.S. into a theocracy.  To me, it's all campaign bluster -- dog whistles to the base.  It's part of the WWE show.  Sure, there might be changes made around the edges, but not much more than that.  The office doesn't have that much power. 

This is not to say I think Graham would make a good president, however.

That said, I'm curious... How, exactly, would Graham turn the U.S. into a theocracy?  And what would this theocracy look like?

Pat Robertson would be Secretary of Defense and one of his first orders would be to rename all of the U.S. weapons systems after biblical characters or events.

M-16 Rifle ---> David's Full Metal Jacket Sling of Glory (aka "The DFMJSOG Personal Weapon System")

Bradley Fighting Vehicle ---> The Holy Chariot of Righteousness (aka "The HCOR Ground Combat Engagement Vehicle")

B-2 Bomber ---> The Back to B.C. Bomber (aka "Low Radar Signature Airborne Weapons Delivery Platform That's Gonna Send Yo Ass Back to the Stone Age, Bitch!")

Etc.

TennPaGa wrote: That said, I'm curious... How, exactly, would Graham turn the U.S. into a theocracy?  And what would this theocracy look like?

You obviously haven't seen what comes out of his mouth in terms of Congressional lobbying and extremist legislation that he believes in.  You can kiss your Bill of Rights completely goodbye if he ever got his way.  He's like a bad joke from the Inquisition.

He and Santorum are two of a feather.  How people like that exist in the 21st century boggles my mind.

TennPaGa wrote: I'm still curious to get your thoughts on (i) how Graham would turn the U.S. into a theocracy and (ii) what the U.S. would look like after he does.

I'd say the first thing he would do is suspend Habeus Corpus and then take it from there.  I don't know what drives people like this that they're so extremely narrow in their world view that they can't perceive unintended or intended consequences.  It's always interesting the huge contrast...  you have charismatic whores like the Clintons and then you have repressive head-up-ass "can't get pregnant from no rape" evil war mongers like Graham.  Maybe it is all an act...  except when they get into power, they tend to put it into practice (see Hitler).

If anything, Graham and his ilk are truly unAmerican and traitors.  They make a completely mockery of what this country was fought for.  But sad as it may be, we have to deal with these cretins becuase it would just never do to stoop to their level and use a drone on them.

TennPaGa wrote:

MediumTex wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: That said, I'm curious... How, exactly, would Graham turn the U.S. into a theocracy?  And what would this theocracy look like?

Pat Robertson would be Secretary of Defense and one of his first orders would be to rename all of the U.S. weapons systems after biblical characters or events.

M-16 Rifle ---> David's Full Metal Jacket Sling of Glory (aka "The DFMJSOG Personal Weapon System")

Bradley Fighting Vehicle ---> The Holy Chariot of Righteousness (aka "The HCOR Ground Combat Engagement Vehicle")

B-2 Bomber ---> The Back to B.C. Bomber (aka "Low Radar Signature Airborne Weapons Delivery Platform That's Gonna Send Yo Ass Back to the Stone Age, Bitch!")

Etc.

Actually, it might be kind of fun if part of a new administration's job was to rename various government programs or products.

Especially if the new President is "the man".    Gn 2:19

... Mountaineer

[quote=http://americanfreepress.net/trips-to-p ... troubling/]In early January news broke around the world that former President Bill Clinton had traveled extensively with Wall Street billionaire and pedophile Jeffrey Edward Epstein, even to Epstein’s private Caribbean island for a party that involved girls under the age of 17-years-old.

Although Hillary Clinton has not been directly implicated in the Epstein underage sex trafficking scandal, if her 2016 presidential aspirations stand any chance of getting off the ground, she may be forced to once again fulfill her role as “fixer” to cover up the criminal actions of her husband, Bill.

On January 15, this reporter spoke with political historian Robert Morrow to get the inside scoop on this sordid story. “Jeffrey Epstein still is a billionaire,” Morrow began, “who provided girls between the ages of 12 and 15 to VIP elites in politics, business, the media and Hollywood.”

In 2005, police in Palm Beach, Florida began investigating Epstein for trafficking in high school-aged girls. Epstein hired a dream team of lawyers who successfully fought all charges except for one count of soliciting prostitution. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison, of which he only served 13 months.

Offering details from which other news outlets shy away, Morrow continued: “We know who many of Epstein’s pals were because his house manager in Palm Beach stole a contact book that was filled with names. This butler then circled the names of all those whom he considered to be pedophiles.”

Here’s where Bill Clinton entered the picture.

According to Morrow: “Epstein’s black book should be seen as a Holy Grail of sorts, and in it he listed 21 different ways of contacting Bill Clinton. These were personal phone numbers and email addresses that hardly anybody else in the world possesses. In addition, after Clinton left the White House he made 17 trips with Epstein on his personal jet, 10 of those to what is known as Pedophile Island.”

Certain that nobody misconstrues his words, Morrow clarified. “None of the girls who’ve gone public about Epstein being a pedophile ringmaster have specifically named Bill Clinton, but one of their attorneys has implied that he pandered to underage girls. I see it as such: Bill Clinton was close friends with the biggest VIP pedophile peddler in the world. That’s kind of like being friends with the biggest drug dealer in town.”

That’s why Hillary’s talents as a political fixer may become necessary once again.

Morrow stressed: “Hillary Clinton is married to a rapist and serial sexual predator. Epstein contributed $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation after he’d been indicted in 2006. To me, that was Epstein’s way of sending a message to Hillary saying, ‘If you don’t help me, I’ll name all the women your husband had sex with.’”

Morrow added: “Hillary and Bill are part of a fake marriage. It’s a political arrangement. She’s been running off women for 40 years that could potentially get her husband in trouble. She even had her brothers doing it for her in Arkansas. Historically, Hillary has hired private investigators to initiate nasty terror campaigns against victims like Kathleen Willey and Sally Perdue. By portraying these women as ‘nuts, sluts and liars,’ Hillary does anything she can to shut these women up.”

Another element to this tale has surfaced, according to Morrow.

“Epstein’s number one recruiter of young women was a socialite named Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of billionaire Robert Maxwell, whose corruption infuriated so many people that he was thrown overboard from his yacht and drowned in 1991,” said Morrow. “Ms. Maxwell considers herself close friends with Bill Clinton, even receiving an invitation to daughter Chelsea’s wedding in 2010. Groomed as Epstein’s pimp mama, Ghislaine Maxwell opened doors for lots of VIPs, Prince Andrew [of the British royal family] being one of them. This scenario leads to a 17-year-old girl named Virginia Roberts, who asserts that she had sexual relations with Prince Andrew and eight other women. By the way, Roberts also met on two separate occasions with Bill Clinton. Roberts made it perfectly clear what Epstein’s associates were interested in: ‘Fresh looking, innocent girls not over 17-years-old.’”[/quote]

[quote=https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-medi ... 00058.html]This week, though, the media appeared curiously incurious about the latest tranche of e-mails from the Clinton server. In the largest release yet, State unveiled 7,800 pages of e-mails, of which 328 e-mails were redacted for containing classified information. ABC News dutifully reported on that addition to the refutation of Clinton’s claims, and noted that the number of e-mails that contained classified information has reached 999 in total – with about a third of the communications left unpublished for now.[/quote]

Well, the question there is whether or not those e-mails contained classified information back then.

If things have become classified since then, it's much less of an issue.

jafs wrote: Well, the question there is whether or not those e-mails contained classified information back then.

If things have become classified since then, it's much less of an issue.

Would law enforcement really do that and classify things now as a crime that wasn't back then?  Oh, wait...

jafs wrote: Well, the question there is whether or not those e-mails contained classified information back then.

If things have become classified since then, it's much less of an issue.

What she was discussing in the emails was classified information as deemed by the FBI according to federal  guidelines. Her dissemination of this material in
non-government emails is a crime regardless of whether any of these were marked as classified at the time. In other words, she should have known and was responsible to know that this information was not to be disseminated in this manner.

Well, I'm not at all sure that's true.

It could easily have been determined to be classified well after those e-mails.

We'll see what the FBI investigation concludes - my guess is that she won't be found guilty of any major transgressions.

jafs, I don't think that's how it works.  Yes, there may be an official designation that later comes, but classified information is classified information the moment it's generated.  And the Secretary of State herself is surely qualified to know what's classified.  If not her, then who?

I don't know for sure either way.

But, it seems possible to me that information that was previously not classified later gets classified for any number of reasons.

I had a top security clearance.  The act of disseminating classified/sensitive information is legally prohibited whether it is marked classified on a piece of paper or not. Ask General Petraeus about it.

"Clinton emails contained spy satellite data on North Korean nukes"

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... /?page=all

But who knows maybe she didn't realize that should be considered classified 

Can you imagine what was on the emails that she erased by the tens of thousands which is also a crime?

She may have done something very wrong, but I'll wait for the FBI investigation to conclude before deciding myself.

Something like 8 separate investigations of the Benghazi issue have been completed, led by R, and all concluded no evidence of wrongdoing, and yet there are those who still maintain she did something very wrong there.

And, just a thought for the "anti-Hillary" crowd - if she drops out, that means Sanders will be the most popular D candidate, and I imagine that those who dislike Hillary Clinton dislike Sanders even more.