[rtpoe]

So now Drumpf is blaming the GOP for the poor ratings of RepubliCon 2016, and griping about the scheduling of the presidential debates (even though the schedule was set last year), which are going to be up against a couple of football games.

Do you think that this worrying over TV ratings - appearance over substance - is another sign that he's only really in this for his ego?

[TheZookie007]

So now Drumpf is blaming the GOP for the poor ratings of RepubliCon 2016, and griping about the scheduling of the presidential debates (even though the schedule was set last year), which are going to be up against a couple of football games.

Do you think that this worrying over TV ratings - appearance over substance - is another sign that he's only really in this for his ego?

Remember Andy Kaufman and how he wouldn't break character, whether it was "Tony Clifton" or whatever? While there's a part of me that wonders if this entire campaign isn't his attempt to play the role of "Presidential Candidate" to the hilt, I wonder...

[TheZookie007]

In a letter published by Syracuse.com on Aug. 1, Richard Hanna, a US congressman from the state of New York, became the first federal Republican lawmaker to publicly endorse Hillary Clinton. “While I disagree with her on many issues, I will vote for Mrs. Clinton,” he wrote. “I will be hopeful and resolute in my belief that being a good American who loves his country is far more important than parties or winning and losing.”

Hanna has publicly criticized Trump on numerous occasions, and vowed in March not to support him.

“My reasons were simple and personal,” he wrote in his Aug. 1 commentary. “I found him profoundly offensive and narcissistic but as much as anything, a world-class panderer, anything but a leader. Little more than a changing mirror of those he speaks to. I never expect to agree with whoever is president, but at a minimum the president needs to consistently display those qualities I have preached to my two children: kindness, honesty, dignity, compassion and respect.”

[TheZookie007]

"Scotty, you're doing a heckuva job..."

[TheZookie007]

NYTimes Op-Ed: "I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton.", by Michael J. Morrell
Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.

During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties — three Republicans and three Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush’s side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.

I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.

No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.

Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief. I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president — keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.

...In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.

These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.

The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump’s character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging our national security.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation...

My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing now. Our nation will be much safer with Hillary Clinton as president.

[StrikezOne]

Very important video. Exposes and tells a lot. Put political parties aside for this one. Worth a watch!

[TheZookie007]

The only thing that video actually exposes, is the hard-on these people have for trying to pin anything and everything on Hillary Clinton. Strange how they all seem to forget that it was a Republican-led Congress which actually withheld funding for security in the first place. Also, the Benghazi hearings never were about determining the truth of what happened (which wasn't a grand secret in the first place); they were only meant to try in some way to throw dirt on HRC's campaign. Don't take my word for it: Kevin McCarthy said so himself:

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable right? But we put together a Benghazi Special Committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping," McCarthy said. "Why? Cause she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen,”

Meanwhile, in actual, factual political news:


The Telegraph, Aug. 8, 2016: "Donald Trump 'dangerous' say 50 Republican major US national security figures"

Fifty senior US Republican national security officials have said Donald Trump would be "the most reckless president in American history" as the billionaire's opponents within the party launched a former CIA officer as an alternative candidate.

In a letter to the New York Times a group including people who served in George W Bush's cabinet, said Mr Trump lacked the "character, values and experience" needed for the White House and would "put at risk our country’s national security and well-being."

They said the the Republican nominee had little understanding of complex diplomacy, democratic values, or the importance of allies, and had shown "no interest in educating himself."

While expressing doubts about Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, the signatories said none of them would vote for Mr Trump.

They included Michael Hayden, former director of the CIA and the National Security Agency, John Negroponte, former director of national intelligence, former homeland security secretaries Tom Ridge and Michael Chertoff, and William Taft, former ambassador to Nato.

A similar letter was released in March but this time the condemnation was stronger and the list of names longer.

Get ready for his acolytes to try and say that somehow HRC bribed all of these people to say this, etc.

[StrikezOne]

The only thing that video actually exposes, is the hard-on these people have for trying to pin anything and everything on Hillary Clinton.

The only thing your response proves is the die hard Hillary lackeys will try to defend/justify anything and everything that they think is "aimed" at her. One can lead Hillary supporters to the truth but one cannot make Hillary supporters think. This is pretty in your face mind control and people will simply not accept the facts.

Did you even watch the video? Like I mentioned as the name of the link, put political parties aside. Remember? They actually criticized both parties. And all the evidence provided in the video is in PDF format. RIGHT HERE.

And oh yeah....

Meanwhile, more anti-Trump political opinions:

The Telegraph, Aug. 8, 2016: "Donald Trump 'dangerous' say 50 Republican major US national security figures"

....FIFY.

Get ready for the Hillary acolytes to try and say that somehow shes this divine figure.
See how easily one can say this too? There seems to be a lack of being impartial when it comes to liberals. Theyd be all over Trump for some of this crap Hillary gets defended for.

And this right here is more light hearted, dont take it seriously. I repeat, do not take this seriously. After all, Hillary herself says its a "fun deficit." Lets have a listen at Hillary saying we need camps for adults! How fun!

[rtpoe]

As of right now (11:30 PM EDT, 8/9/16):

At 270 to Win, the front page base map is giving Clinton 308 electoral votes (more than enough to win) to Trump's 180.

Real Clear Politics has it at 246 for Clinton, 154 for Trump. If you go with the "No Tossups" option, the numbers shift to 362 - 176.

The "Polls Plus Forecast" ("What polls, the economy and historical data tell us about Nov. 8") at FiveThirtyEight gives Clinton a 78.9% chance of winning. It's 93.9% if you just look at the polls as they are right now.

And Trump has just shot at his foot - AGAIN:

He said at a rally that if Clinton "gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people maybe there is, I don’t know."

So you tell me. Does that sound like he's advocating violence against elected and appointed officials? Or, as he later tried to explain, he meant that 2A supporters should vote against her in November.

Time to reset the "Days Since Last Trump Gaffe" sign......

[TheZookie007]

The Telegraph, Aug. 8, 2016: "Donald Trump 'dangerous' say 50 Republican major US national security figures"

....FIFY.

Get ready for the Hillary acolytes to try and say that somehow shes this divine figure.

How is that non sequitur at all relevant to what those Republicans said though? No one is saying that HRC is "a divine figure", not even her most rabid supporter, and if they do, then quite frankly they are idiots. This is similar to how right-wingers keep on referring to the current POTUS as "a dictator", "king", "Sainted Obama", etc. when he is nothing of the sort. Not only is such talk disingenuous (and a continuation of the campaign of calumny against him) but it says a lot more about the person saying it than it does about the current POTUS.

HRC is a flawed candidate on quite a number of levels, but the issue is and should always be that in comparison to the Republican nominee she is miles better on pretty much every metric. A President Hillary Clinton will make stupid mistakes in office, because she is a human being. But none of the stupid mistakes she makes will have rational human beings' hearts fall to the pit of their stomach in fear of the hugely negative consequences for the nation and the world, unlike the Republican candidate. You're not going to wake up in the morning to get the newspaper wondering what fool thing she said this time that puts the lives of Americans in danger, or hear her say some fool thing on Monday only for her on Tuesday to imply that she was "joking" or "being sarcastic". Such "jokes" do not translate well overseas, not even in Moscow.

The "anything that is critical of him must be blindly countered by 'but what about this irrelevant thing that mentions Hillary!'" game is useless.

Please stop with this knee-jerk stuff. Please.

It would also be nice if you could stop with the Benghazi conspiracy theories. That horse is so dead that not even Dr. Frankenstein can revive that.

[StrikezOne]

And Trump has just shot at his foot - AGAIN:

He said at a rally that if Clinton "gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people maybe there is, I don’t know."

So you tell me. Does that sound like he's advocating violence against elected and appointed officials? Or, as he later tried to explain, he meant that 2A supporters should vote against her in November.

Time to reset the "Days Since Last Trump Gaffe" sign......

This is just another clear cut example of the liberal hogwash media and their bias and hypocrisy. Or did Hillary NOT say something similar in 2008?

Lets have a look. Or in most peoples cases, let's just ignore this.

How is that non sequitur at all relevant to what those Republicans said though? No one is saying that HRC is "a divine figure", not even her most rabid supporter, and if they do, then quite frankly they are idiots. This is similar to how right-wingers keep on referring to the current POTUS as "a dictator", "king", "Sainted Obama", etc. when he is nothing of the sort. Not only is such talk disingenuous (and a continuation of the campaign of calumny against him) but it says a lot more about the person saying it than it does about the current POTUS.

HRC is a flawed candidate on quite a number of levels, but the issue is and should always be that in comparison to the Republican nominee she is miles better on pretty much every metric. A President Hillary Clinton will make stupid mistakes in office, because she is a human being. But none of the stupid mistakes she makes will have rational human beings' hearts fall to the pit of their stomach in fear of the hugely negative consequences for the nation and the world, unlike the Republican candidate. You're not going to wake up in the morning to get the newspaper wondering what fool thing she said this time that puts the lives of Americans in danger, or hear her say some fool thing on Monday only for her on Tuesday to imply that she was "joking" or "being sarcastic". Such "jokes" do not translate well overseas, not even in Moscow.

The "anything that is critical of him must be blindly countered by 'but what about this irrelevant thing that mentions Hillary!'" game is useless.

This is ALL your opinion but yet you speak so "matter of factly."

It would also be nice if you could stop with the Benghazi conspiracy theories. That horse is so dead that not even Dr. Frankenstein can revive that.

It would be nice if you stopped with all this pro Hillary and defend her to your grave nonsense.

I'll stop with Benghazi and you stop with the pro Hillary. Deal? Okay. Deal.

[rtpoe]

This is just another clear cut example of the liberal hogwash media and their bias and hypocrisy. Or did Hillary NOT say something similar in 2008?

Lets have a look. Or in most peoples cases, let's just ignore this.

OK, I had a look - and actually listened to what Clinton was saying.

And there's not a single word in there that even remotely suggests that she might even possibly be thinking of advocating the assassination of Barack Obama.

What she WAS talking about was more along the lines of "I'm staying in the race because anything can happen. Remember back in 1968, when Bobby Kennedy was killed in June during the primary season?"

A poor choice of an example, but there's no way in hell anyone can rationally say she's asking that Obama should be shot.

Unlike all the calls from Trump's supporters to "lock her up" or that she should be executed for treason.

And such talk IS dangerous. We've got enough nutjobs in this country that someone might actually decide to pull a Yigal Amir.....

[TheZookie007]

It would be nice if you stopped with all this pro Hillary and defend her to your grave nonsense.

Like I said, it says more about his supporters than it does about the other person, when one of his supporters puts words into the other person's mouth, or projects their own attitudes towards him onto the other person. I'm not "pro-Hillary and defend her to my grave", not at all. If you have at all been following what I write here, you would have long since discovered that when it came to the choice between HRC and Bernie Sanders, I supported Bernie.

However, now that the choice has become between HRC and DJT (because no third-party candidate for president is at all viable or serious, and in general a vote for a third-party candidate does nothing more than to siphon off votes from the weaker candidate), in this election HRC gets my vote. It's not even close.

So, please, don't put words into my mouth. Instead, if you are unclear about a position that I might hold, ask for clarification or confirmation. Or as the old folks say: "never assume, because it makes an ass out of u and me."

I'll stop with Benghazi and you stop with the pro Hillary. Deal? Okay. Deal.

There is no there there. This is as bad as the 60+ attempts to defund/revoke the Affordable Care Act without positing an alternative solution. It's just heat, when what we deserve is light. There's a large problem when one has nothing to say and yet continues to shout about it.



I would disagree with you slightly, rtpoe. What HRC said then was as much of a dogwhistle as what DJT said now. For that is what a dogwhistle is: it has an overt message ("remember Bobby Kennedy?") and a covert message ("can someone take this black dude out please, and thank you") at one and the same time. It wasn't the first such dogwhistle that she and her husband (aka the Campaigner-in-Chief) floated during the very rough 2008 election cycle, and was condemned then as well as it should have been.

But I also agree with you when you said:

And such talk IS dangerous. We've got enough nutjobs in this country that someone might actually decide to pull a Yigal Amir.....

We do have far too many nutjobs in this country, and these nutjobs fetishize gun ownership and use to such an extent that there's no telling what could happen. And that is wrong. Inciting of physical violence against a politician or a candidate for office or a current holder of a political office is wrong, dangerous and uncalled-for.

[rtpoe]

By an interesting coincidence...

AUGUST 11, 1984:

[StrikezOne]

Pentagon Can Not Account For $6.5 Trillion This Year

Finding

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management & Comptroller) (OASA[FM&C]) and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis (DFAS Indianapolis) did not adequately support $2.8 trillion in third quarter journal voucher (JV) adjustments and $6.5 trillion in yearend JV adjustments1 made to AGF data during FY 2015 financial statement compilation.2 The unsupported JV adjustments occurred because OASA(FM&C) and DFAS Indianapolis did not prioritize correcting the system deficiencies that caused errors resulting in JV adjustments, and did not provide sufficient guidance for supporting system‑generated adjustments.

In addition, DFAS Indianapolis did not document or support why the Defense Departmental Reporting System‑Budgetary (DDRS-B), a budgetary reporting system, removed at least 16,513 of 1.3 million records during third quarter FY 2015. This occurred because DFAS Indianapolis did not have detailed documentation describing the DDRS-B import process or have accurate or complete system reports.

As a result, the data used to prepare the FY 2015 AGF third quarter and yearend financial statements were unreliable and lacked an adequate audit trail. Furthermore, DoD and Army managers could not rely on the data in their accounting systems when making management and resource decisions. Until the Army and DFAS Indianapolis correct these control deficiencies, there is considerable risk that AGF financial statements will be materially misstated and the Army will not achieve audit readiness by the congressionally mandated deadline of September 30, 2017.