I would trust Trump at the helm more than I would Scooter.
[QUOTE=c.captain;191644]listen out your windowâŚare those helicopter blades thumping?[/QUOTE]
Says the man who threatened to mow down peaceful free range Canadians with a QUAD 50.
[QUOTE=Lee Shore;191646]Says the man who threatened to mow down peaceful free range Canadians with a QUAD 50.[/QUOTE]
and laugh maniacally as I did!
[QUOTE=AHTS Master;191645]I would trust Trump at the helm more than I would Scooter.[/QUOTE]
of course you would
Trump as the only alternative to Clinton? I wouldnât hesitate to hire him. However, Iâd sooner sail with/under just about any other sailor Iâve met.
I suppose itâs like choosing a captain with a record of nothing but collisions and poor shiphandling (Clinton) or a Captain that has hardly any record and no sea time. Iâll take the chance with the latter. Assuming, again, that there are only two choices.
Johnson? As long as he doesnât have to sail to Aleppo⌠
[QUOTE=Lee Shore;191631]Still, it would take lot of stamina to make that second trigger pull.
-
-
- Updated - - -
-
You donât have to be a master researcher to discover how this power couple operates. Their modus operandi starting with the Whitewater scandal and what followed is well documented.
You doubt they could suborn State Troopers? What the troopers saw and were subjected to while assigned to the Clintons when he was governor of Arkansas is on record.
The Clintons were more circumspect back then but they were just getting started. They have since become so brazen and arrogant, they no longer bother to hide their machinations.
The list of âcoincidencesâ to benefit them is long and varied so Iâll just hit on the latest bit of good fortune to come their way.
You dismiss the idea that they could suborn the Justice Dept and the FBI? Do you seriously believe it was just a coincidence when Slick Willyâs aircraft just happened to be parked next to Attorney General Loretta Lynchâs airplane on the tarmac in Phoenix back in July? His wife was under investigation by the FBI for ignoring communication protocols and compromising classified material while she was Secretary of State but Slick Willy decided on the spur of the moment that it would be cool to saunter over and say hi. He stays on Lynchâs plane for 20 to 25 minutes. When questioned, Lynch dismisses the meeting saying something to the effect that âOh, we just chatted about our grandkidsâ. Stay with me now, it gets better; within a few days, Hillary announces sheâd like Lynch to stay on as Attorney General if sheâs elected and FBI director Comey declares that yes, the former Secretary of State did violate federal law and compromised national security but hey, she didnât do it on purpose so itâs not illegal, she was merely âextremely careless.â (Since when did willful ignorance of the law come with a âget out of jail freeâ card?)
Please⌠if you subscribe to this charade, I have some great ocean front property in Nevada for you to invest in.
Iâve held a high level security clearance and anyone who has will tell you that if they had done what Hillary did, theyâd have been escorted to the parking lot without delay holding a cardboard box with their personal desk trash in it and into the custody of FBI agents.[/QUOTE]
For the most part, you and I are on the same page. No argument with most of what you say. Just calibration, for those readers out there without our blinding genius, which are manyâŚ
My question still remains: where are the Clintons on the villainy scale? Near the SPECTRE/evil genius scale, or near the sticky finger Rube scale? Because if theyâre Rubes, how have they evaded convictions for 30 years, when a brilliant man like Richard Nixon was quickly booted from office after a far less heinous crime than that the Clintons have been accused of? So the Clintons must be all-powerful. But if the Clintons are evil geniuses, why are they always in trouble for doing the stupidest things?
The odor rising from the Clintons began with the Whitewater Scandal of the 1990âs . What was the Whitewater Scandal, you youngâuns ask? Depends when you looked at it, because it lasted for years, and everyone agrees it began with one thing and then ended with another.
It started with the investigation of a dodgy real estate dealing from before Clinton was president. Ken Starr, the special prosecutor appointed to look into the matter, investigated for years. Conclusion: exoneration for Clinton. SEC investigated. Same result
However during the real estate deal investigation another scandal came up, over the firing of employees in the White House travel agency (BIG YAWNâsorry). The legal question: was it ethical or not to fire them? Money, murder or sex involved? No (âŚjust got me a Starbucks vente, Iâm good now, caffeine-wiseâŚ). Investigatorâs conclusion: legal. Thank God that was sorted out! On yeahâthe Clintons hid some files and looked like Rubes, though.
During the investigation into the real estate and the travel agent Crisis, the presidentâs White House counsel, Vince Foster, committed suicide, owing to depression. Certain persons accused Clinton of having Foster murdered for [fill-in conspiracy theory] The matter was investigated. As quoted from Wikipedia: âFosterâs death was concluded to have been a suicide by inquiries and investigations conducted by the United States Park Police, the Department of Justice, the FBI, the United States Congress, Independent Counsel Robert B. Fiske, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.â Quite a few agencies and investigators, all coming up with same conclusion. So again, were the Clintons Borgias or boobs? Because if you are that all-powerful how do you get nailed on what is the âclimaxâ of the Whitewater Investigationâ (yes, I went thereâŚ)?
The result of four years of gumshoeing, jaw-flapping, and incidentally, millions spent, was that, here and there, on and off, Bill Clinton had a few gals on the side. And that he fancied knobbers in the Whitehouse with a gal of legal age. And that he lied about all that to the prosecutors who couldnât nail him on dodgy real estate deals, and who couldnât keep from falling asleep from boredom during the travel agency thing. And who were pissed off about all the bush-league lying and file-hiding. How does Dr. No go down on that? (I did it again). Must SUCK, for a real Satvro Blow-fledâŚ(two for one , there).
Did âWhitewaterâ start about gals-on-the-side and knobbers? No. But it ended up the reason why articles of impeachment were brought against Clinton in Congress. Perjury and obstruction of justice re: gals-on-the-side and knobbers were the âhigh crimes and misdemeanorsâ required by the Constitution to nail a president. And maybe they were high crimes and misdemeanors. All in how you look at it, I guess. The House of Reps looked at it and said, with a straight face. âOh, yeah, you betcha!â The Senate looked at it and said âAre you kidding?! Half of us can get nailed for the same thing!â The Senate voted Not Guilty, and Clinton was acquitted.
Now, if someone thinks 4 years of investigations and millions of dollars are justified by the result of that steaming pile of litigation, I canât argue with them. Thatâs their opinion. I do propose this analogy however: Imagine thinking your house is infested by termites, and you hire a special exterminator , who spends a month and $5,000 looking for them . In the end he finds nothingâbut he did step on a black widow spider he found behind the hot water heater. Would you say the $5,000 and a house turned inside-out was worth it? All a matter of opinion, I guess.
What the Whitewater Investigation DID turn up is the fact that the Clintons, when faced with scrutiny, lie, dissemble, and hide stupid things really poorly. Nothing even close to SPECTRE-level misinformation and psyops. More like Barney Fife Breaking Bad. The talking-to-the-attorney-on-a-jet-waiting-on-the airport tarmac-thing? What kind of evil genius DOES that? Rubes, hayseeds do that. Which is why the Clintons have never been nailed. Lying is a crime only when done under oath (as Bill found out). How many people reading this lie and dissemble? You expect more from presidents, of course. But then a lot of people look at the countryâs finances at the end of Clintonâs office and call it good.
If you donât like liars, itâs hard to honestly like the Clintons. But then lying, like the rest of human nature, should be judged on a sliding scale. Everyone lies. Politicians lie most. So when is it too much? I find it amusing when Trump calls his opponent âLying Hillaryâ when, in statistical terms, fact-checkers routinely find Trumpâs pronouncements to be lies at a rate of 4 to 1 to Hillaryâs pronouncements.
what are âknobbersâ?
.
We have some interesting years ahead of us.
[QUOTE=Kraken;191663]We have some interesting years ahead of us.[/QUOTE]
Yes, now that this election is more or less decide, we will have 2 years of speculations on who will run in 2020, followed by 2 years of âanalyzingâ by political experts and discussions on television ad nausea of their chances of winning.
This will run parallel with âcampaigningâ (I.e. insulting each other, verbally and in TV ads)
Meanwhile, nothing constructive can be done in Government, or in the Congress
Electioneering is one of the few growth industries in the US, worth in the Billions of $$$ and employing thousands.
Unfortunately little need or space for experienced mariners in that industry. Or are there??
There MUST be a better, cheaper and more efficient way of electing a President.
Trump would be like Captain Queeg from the [I]The Caine Mutiny [/I]. I can see him loosing his shit when he sees the helmsman with his shirt untucked and running over his own tow wire.
[QUOTE=c.captain;191660]âŚbut what are âknobbersâ?[/QUOTE]
Itâs an English term for what politicians do for campaign contributors.
[QUOTE=c.captain;191660]the takeawayâŚHillary Clinton is really a Black Widow spider!
but what are âknobbersâ?[/QUOTE]
Youâre kidding, right?
[ATTACH]4509[/ATTACH]Maritime-related election cartoons.
[QUOTE=Steamer;191670]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=knob%20job
Itâs an English term for what politicians do for campaign contributors.[/QUOTE]
Not to be confused with knockers.
Freighterman, You asked the question: " where are the Clintons on the villainy scale? ". I believe you are thinking all wrong about this! They are not sitting back wring their hands with a miniacle laugh!
They have become a political machine. The Democratic Party has been the driving factor in this. Starting with Tammany Hall in New York. Then there was the Chicago Machine ran by the Daily Family. Now going into the 21st century we have the Political Machine that is Bill and Hillary Clinton!
[QUOTE=ombugge;191665]There MUST be a better, cheaper and more efficient way of electing a President.[/QUOTE]
I wish weâd figure it out. Maybe ban all ads and campaigning? Everyone gets an equal amount of air time, paid for by the government or required of the networks by law, and a set number of debates and thatâs it. Other than that you have the persons voting record from their time in lower offices to go off of. (I really want to find a way to eliminate all campaign contributions.)
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;191699]I wish weâd figure it out. Maybe ban all ads and campaigning? âŚ[/QUOTE]
Unless the (short-handed) Supreme Court does something that changes their past ruling on [I]Citizenâs United v. Federal Election Commission[/I], this would have a serious first amendment problem. But, passing such a law might be a way to get this back to the Supreme Court, a 4-4 decision from a divided Court might mean the law stands, but a divided Court might also decide to deny certiorari (take the case).
[QUOTE=Sailor24;191687]Freighterman, You asked the question: " where are the Clintons on the villainy scale? ". I believe you are thinking all wrong about this! They are not sitting back wring their hands with a miniacle laugh!
They have become a political machine. The Democratic Party has been the driving factor in this. Starting with Tammany Hall in New York. Then there was the Chicago Machine ran by the Daily Family. Now going into the 21st century we have the Political Machine that is Bill and Hillary Clinton![/QUOTE]
Of course itâs a machine, itâs always been a machine.
The old Dem machine was gritty, dirty, street level run by so-called bosses and thugs. Grubby paper money literally changed hands. Now itâs out of sight, a slick well produced show run by men in expensive suits. No more dirty wads of cash, instead, powerful computer programs that can make pensions disappear with the blink of an eye.
Of course itâs a machine, it would be a naive for working people to go alone, up against the machine, aka taking a knife to a gun fight.
Not that itâs any consolation but while weâre on the subject of our political system and how long the shenanigans have been going on, the dithering self serving ways of our Congress are nothing new.
In our early history, before we had a navy, governors issued letters of marque to private citizens so they could equip and arm ships and legally capture enemy shipping. Congressmen appointed cronies as agents to handle the disbursement of funds in order to take possession of the captured prizes and compensate the privateers.
The privateers had to wait for months and sometimes years and had to fight to get just compensation for the ships and cargos they submitted. They put up with the delays and the hassles because the profits were enormous.
It was common for these agents to scam the system by fraudulently inflating the value of the prizes they handled so they could earn larger commissions. They also played three card monte with the money entrusted to them, investing it for their own profit, sometimes funding their own privateers. Congress turned a blind eye. It would be naive to think that the agents didnât funnel some of that cash into the pockets of those who appointed them.
War means obscene profits for some at the expense of those for whom it is hell. As a satirical Frog once said: the more things change, the more they stay the same.
[QUOTE=Capt. Phoenix;191699]I wish weâd figure it out. Maybe ban all ads and campaigning? Everyone gets an equal amount of air time, paid for by the government or required of the networks by law, and a set number of debates and thatâs it. Other than that you have the persons voting record from their time in lower offices to go off of. (I really want to find a way to eliminate all campaign contributions.)[/QUOTE]
Here is an article from Singaporeâs Straits Times re: how to elect a President, or leader: http://www.straitstimes.com/politics/lessons-on-how-not-to-pick-a-leader
Singapore is struggling with revising the way their President is elected, but because of the need to ensure that minorities have a possibility to be elected, provided they meet certain âqualitiesâ.
FYI: Singapore has a Parliamentary system inherited from the British and is a meritocracy.
[QUOTE=jdcavo;191704]Unless the (short-handed) Supreme Court does something that changes their past ruling on [I]Citizenâs United v. Federal Election Commission[/I], this would have a serious first amendment problem. But, passing such a law might be a way to get this back to the Supreme Court, a 4-4 decision from a divided Court might mean the law stands, but a divided Court might also decide to deny certiorari (take the case).[/QUOTE]
Ban contributions to the candidate themselves. This gives the candidates no money to embezzle and gives donors no way to legally bribe politicians. Since PACs are supposed to be separate from the campaign the candidates wouldnât know whoâs donating to provide false in return.