patrick.net

I think terror threats will be a big issue this election. Democrats suck at keeping anything safe, they are too PC to get anything done since they have to cater to every single jerk off out there, at least via lip service. Republicans seem to be better organized this election, they aren't wasting time on stupid outdated PC crap Democrats are concerned with.

And than there is this little gem.
https://www.rt.com/usa/352934-trump-sanders-wikileaks-dnc/
Democrats are toast if they are publicly known for plotting against their own Bernie Sanders. Who would want to vote in a bunch of backstabbing assholes?

Here's what I get:

1. False
2. False
3. False
4. True
5. True
6. False
7. True
8. False
9. False
10. False
11. True
12. False
13. False

I get 9 False and 4 True, which is supposed to mean that the challenging party will win... Does anyone get more True than False? I tried to answer as objectively as possible.

Foreign policy has been a failure:
1. We have more terrorism than ever before.
2. NK and Iran have not been contained.
3. The Mid East is in flames.

The economy has still not fully recovered:
1. Housing remains a problem.
2. The economy won't grow in spite of low rates.

turtledove says

13 Questions that determine who will be our next President

Most of them are highly disputable. All depends on who you ask.

FortWayne says

Who would want to vote in a bunch of backstabbing assholes?

Strategist says

Most of them are highly disputable. All depends on who you ask.

I gave them that the economy isn't in recession... and that there was a military success under the current party (Osama)... I tried to give the incumbent party as much credit as I could... What do you see as possibly true, here, that I have as false, and why? There is no third party candidate of any interest... even if you think that Hillary has charisma... (stopped to laugh for a moment) and say that there's been no major military failure (presumably because you never read the news), it's still not enough "trues" to outnumber the "falses." Which means we're due for a change... if this 13-question test is all it's cracked up to be.

turtledove says

Strategist says

Most of them are highly disputable. All depends on who you ask.

I gave them that the economy isn't in recession... and that there was a military success under the current party (Osama)... I tried to give the incumbent party as much credit as I could... What do you see as possibly true, here, that I have as false, and why? There is no third party candidate of any interest... even if you think that Hillary has charisma... (stopped to laugh for a moment) and say that there's been no major military failure (presumably because you never read the news), it's still not enough "trues" to outnumber the "falses." Which means we're due for a change... if this 13-question test is all it's cracked up to be.

I disagree with you on #2
2. There was no serious contest between Hillary and Sanders. Sanders never had a chance.
8. Democrats would disagree
9. Democrats would disagree
13. Democrats would disagree

Die hard lefties would disagree on almost everything.

Strategist says

1. We have more terrorism than ever before

Part of the blame the media for that. Terrorism is, after all, a publicity stunt. Still wonder why the party of education and welfare couldn't pull out of Guantanamo and the Middle East. Must be sucking warlord cock. Wonder what percentage of congress has investments in defense contractors and at what amounts .

Still, destabilizing dictators and promoting democracy (sharia) falls mostly on the center right democrats of the last 8 years. not to mention importing Muslims, possibly as a pretext for advancing the agenda of building an enhanced surveillance state

Strategist says

I disagree with you on #2

So why do the Clinton emails show that the DNC was so concerned?

Strategist says

8. Democrats would disagree

Occupy
BLM
Tea Party Movement

Those have been going on a while, now...

Strategist says

9. Democrats would disagree

So, none of this would scandalize the current administration...?

1. IRS targets Obama’s enemies: The IRS targeted conservative and pro-Israel groups prior to the 2012 election. Questions are being raised about why this occurred, who ordered it, whether there was any White House involvement and whether there was an initial effort to hide who knew about the targeting and when.

2. Benghazi: This is actually three scandals in one:
•The failure of administration to protect the Benghazi mission.
•The changes made to the talking points in order to suggest the attack was motivated by an anti-Muslim video
•The refusal of the White House to say what President Obama did the night of the attack

3. Watching the AP: The Justice Department performed a massive cull of Associated Press reporters’ phone records as part of a leak investigation.

4. Rosengate: The Justice Department suggested that Fox News reporter James Rosen is a criminal for reporting about classified information and subsequently monitored his phones and emails.

5. Potential Holder perjury I: Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress he had never been associated with “potential prosecution” of a journalist for perjury when in fact he signed the affidavit that termed Rosen a potential criminal.

6. The ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme: Allowed weapons from the U.S. to “walk” across the border into the hands of Mexican drug dealers. The ATF lost track of hundreds of firearms, many of which were used in crimes, including the December 2010 killing of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.

7. Potential Holder Perjury II: Holder told Congress in May 2011 that he had just recently heard about the Fast and Furious gun walking scheme when there is evidence he may have known much earlier.

8. Sebelius demands payment: HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius solicited donations from companies HHS might regulate. The money would be used to help her sign up uninsured Americans for ObamaCare.

9. The Pigford scandal: An Agriculture Department effort that started as an attempt to compensate black farmers who had been discriminated against by the agency but evolved into a gravy train delivering several billion dollars in cash to thousands of additional minority and female farmers who probably didn’t face discrimination.

10. GSA gone wild: The General Services Administration in 2010 held an $823,000 training conference in Las Vegas, featuring a clown and a mind readers. Resulted in the resignation of the GSA administrator.

11. Veterans Affairs in Disney World: The agency wasted more than $6 million on two conferences in Orlando. An assistant secretary was fired.

12. Sebelius violates the Hatch Act: A U.S. special counsel determined that Sebelius violated the Hatch Act when she made “extemporaneous partisan remarks” during a speech in her official capacity last year. During the remarks, Sebelius called for the election of the Democratic candidate for governor of North Carolina.

13. Solyndra: Republicans charged the Obama administration funded and promoted its poster boy for green energy despite warning signs the company was headed for bankruptcy. The administration also allegedly pressed Solyndra to delay layoff announcements until after the 2010 midterm elections.

14. AKA Lisa Jackson: Former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used the name “Richard Windsor” when corresponding by email with other government officials, drawing charges she was trying to evade scrutiny.

15. The New Black Panthers: The Justice Department was accused of using a racial double standard in failing to pursue a voter intimidation case against Black Panthers who appeared to be menacing voters at a polling place in 2008 in Philadelphia.

16. Waging war all by myself: Obama may have violated the Constitution and both the letter and the spirit of the War Powers Resolution by attacking Libya without Congressional approval.

17. Biden bullies the press: Vice President Biden’s office has repeatedly interfered with coverage, including forcing a reporter to wait in a closet, making a reporter delete photos, and editing pool reports.

18. AKPD not A-OK: The administration paid millions to the former firm of then-White House adviser David Axelrod, AKPD Message and Media, to promote passage of Obamacare. Some questioned whether the firm was hired to help pay Axelrod $2 million AKPD owed him.

19. Sestak, we’ll take care of you: Former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used Bill Clinton as an intermediary to probe whether former Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) would accept a prominent, unpaid White House advisory position in exchange for dropping out of the 2010 primary against former Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.).

20. I’ll pass my own laws: Obama has repeatedly been accused of making end runs around Congress by deciding which laws to enforce, including the decision not to deport illegal immigrants who may have been allowed to stay in the United States had Congress passed the “Dream Act.”

21. The hacking of Sharyl Attkisson’s computer: It’s not clear who hacked the CBS reporter’s computer as she investigated the Benghazi scandal, but the Obama administration and its allies had both the motive and the means to do it.

22. An American Political Prisoner: The sudden decision to arrest Nakoula Basseley Nakoula on unrelated charges after protests in the Arab world over his anti-Muslim video is an extraordinarily suspicious coincidence. “We’re going to go out and we’re going to prosecute the person that made that video,” Hillary Clinton allegedly told the father of one of the ex-SEALs killed in Banghazi.

23. Get rid of inconvenient IGs: Corporation for National and Community Service Inspector General Gerald Walpin was fired in 2009 as he fought wasteful spending and investigated a friend of Obama’s, Sacramento Mayor and former NBA player Kevin Johnson. The White House says Walpin was incompetent.

24. Influence peddling: An investigation is underway of Alejandro Mayorkas, director of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, who has been nominated by Obama for the number two post at the Department of Homeland Security. Mayorkas may have used his position to unfairly obtain U.S. visas for foreign investors in company run by Hillary Clinton’s brother, Anthony Rodham.

turtledove says

Strategist says

I disagree with you on #2

So why do the Clinton emails show that the DNC was so concerned?

Both parties are always concerned about something. I think the Republicans had a far fierce contest for their nomination.
What worries me are the odds of Hillary winning by the bookmakers. They are more frequently right, and they have Hillary as the hot favorite.

turtledove says

Strategist says

9. Democrats would disagree

So, none of this would scandalize the current administration...?

I agree with you, but do the Hillary supporters agree, is what i'm trying to get to?

Strategist says

13. Democrats would disagree

Charisma is a tough one, as it's subjective. Let's start with the definition:

compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.

Inspire devotion in others... He went from having zero chance to winning the Republication nomination... He might not have an effect on Ds... But his ability to forge ahead of all the other candidates meets the very definition of charisma. Hillary, on the other hand, had only one other real candidate... But even if you give her a true on charisma (presumably because you are literally deaf -- and therefore immune to her shrillness when she gets excited), it's still not enough.

Strategist says

I agree with you, but do the Hillary supporters agree, is what i'm trying to get to?

I understand what you are saying, but the fact that the questions leading to the scandals exist means that the administration suffered scandals. Just because Ds don't agree with the facts of the various cases doesn't erase the scandals from reality. The administration was plagued by scandals whether or not you think the facts have merit.

It's over. Get ready for a YUUUGE change! The Orange Revolution is nigh.

Strategist says

NK and Iran have not been contained.

North Korea is a much more recent issue (democratic foreign policy blunder) but Iran has had a nuclear program since the early 80s and it took the United States about 18 years to figure it out. Prob not best allocation of CIA resources, which were being offered to train Osama bin Ladin at the time.

Iran in the long run, cannot be denied because like India, most of the program is home grown, unlike countries, such as Pakistan. Sanctions at best would only delay the inevitable. In other words, if their program is about developing weaponry, then someday they will get it, because they have the brains to do so, unlike Arabs.

Sanctions last time didn't seem to hurt the Iranian elites all that much.

turtledove says

Strategist says

13. Democrats would disagree

Charisma is a tough one, as it's subjective. Let's start with the definition:

compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others.

Inspire devotion in others... He went from having zero chance to winning the Republication nomination... He might not have an effect on Ds... But his ability to forge ahead of all the other candidates meets the very definition of charisma. Hillary, on the other hand, had only one other real candidate... But even if you give her a true on charisma (presumably because you are literally deaf -- and therefore immune to her shrillness when she gets excited), it's still not enough.

I think Trump has more charisma than Hillary. A lot more. But die hard democrats are not gonna agree. In politics there is a bias that is very difficult to overcome.
To me the 2 most important issues are terrorism and economy. I am confident Trump can do a better job on both.

turtledove says

So, none of this would scandalize the current administration...?

Yeah, many good points, but many people even on this site will overlook that and vote for Clinton

turtledove says

Strategist says

I agree with you, but do the Hillary supporters agree, is what i'm trying to get to?

I understand what you are saying, but the fact that the questions leading to the scandals exist means that the administration suffered scandals. Just because Ds don't agree with the facts of the various cases doesn't erase the scandals from reality. The administration was plagued by scandals whether or not you think the facts have merit.

Both parties will find meaningful scandals against each other, though I am prone to believe it's the Democrats who have the most scandals.
Bill Clinton had the Lewinsky scandal.
Bush was accused of lying about Iraqi WMD, just to take revenge on Saddam.
Hillary has her e-mail scandal.
Welcome to politics.

14. The cost of yams.

turtledove says

6.Long-term economy

Wrong. No American thinks long term.

Dan8267 says

Wrong. No American thinks long term.

Perhaps, but this T/F questionnaire has been accurate 7 times in a row.

MMR says

Iran in the long run, cannot be denied because like India, most of the program is home grown, unlike countries, such as Pakistan. S

No country can be denied nuclear weapons if they really want them. Making a nuclear bomb just isn't that hard. The physics was worked out a long time ago and is well known. Processing enough material to make a nuclear bomb is very, very hard and very very expensive. Which is why a country has to really want it.

Why would you think Pakistan didn't grow their own nuclear program. Not only did they grow their own, they sold the technology all around the world. Read up on Munir Ahmad Khan. Pakistan (America's BFF) provided Iran with technology as well as North Korea. https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/Pakistan

MMR says

Strategist says

NK and Iran have not been contained.

North Korea is a much more recent issue (democratic foreign policy blunder) but Iran has had a nuclear program since the early 80s and it took the United States about 18 years to figure it out. Prob not best allocation of CIA resources, which were being offered to train Osama bin Ladin at the time.

Iran in the long run, cannot be denied because like India, most of the program is home grown, unlike countries, such as Pakistan. Sanctions at best would only delay the inevitable. In other words, if their program is about developing weaponry, then someday they will get it, because they have the brains to do so, unlike Arabs.

Sanctions last time didn't seem to hurt the Iranian elites all that much.

Can Islamic nations be trusted with nukes? They are people who put ideology before life.

bob2356 says

No country can be denied nuclear weapons if they really want them.

Islamic countries that pursue nukes must be controlled. There is no other choice.

www.youtube.com/embed/c18TkF5n1UA

Some Hillary v. Trump side-by-side items.

Ironman says

11. True False (there's been no foreign or military successes)

So you don't think the Dems can take credit for Osama? That was a big coup.

FortWayne says

Democrats suck at keeping anything safe, t

Yeah, good thing that bush stopped 9//11.
Thinking. Not a conservative thing. Certainly not a fortwhine thing!

Ironman says

Did you see any of the actual SEAL videos from their body cams during the so called raid, pictures of the dead body or the burial at sea?

Okay, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you. Osama Bin Laden was killed May 2, 2011. Obama was President in 2011, not Bush. Are you suggesting that Osama Bin Laden was killed on a different date, several years before?

Strategist says

bob2356 says

No country can be denied nuclear weapons if they really want them.

Islamic countries that pursue nukes must be controlled. There is no other choice.

Controlled how? We couldn't get Pakistan to tell us where, which they damn well knew, Bin Laden was for 9 years. How are we going to control their nukes? Any practical suggestion? I thought not. Iran? A country as big as the US east of the Mississippi with 80 million people? Should we invade? Nice bit of neocon wet dream though. Change the sheets and go back to sleep.

Any country that really wants to develop nuclear weapons and has the money to pay for it will.

turtledove says

Are you suggesting that Osama Bin Laden was killed on a different date, several years before?

Of course he is, fox told him it's true.

Ironman says

Yes

Bin Laden wasn't in that compound raided by SEAL team 6.

I've been searching for 14 minutes. I cannot find what you are talking about that disputes the date of Osama Bin Laden's death. Could you cite a source?