Off Topic Thread 4.0

thomond2006

The NFL returns next week and the Bears just traded for Khalil Mack!

CatFromHue

Deleted User wrote: »

Trump coming to Ireland apparently.

Not big on the protests but I'll make an exception. An ignorant, racist, bigoted, selfish, sexist, deceitful imbecile and a wannabe fascist.

We can't refuse him because he is the leader of America and we need to maintain relations with America, but I have a seething hate for anyone who commits or sanctions violence or cruelty against Children and it's not something I can get beyond.

Now to decide what to put on my sign.

Any ideas?

The thing I have about Trump is that him being elected is never put in the context of who he was running against.

Clinton seemed to be raised up as this great candidate as she was a woman, there wasn't much other reason to vote for her. As in reasons to actually vote for somebody without looking at their opposition.

Even Richard Boyd Barrett seemed to struggle with it. He was on The Last Word the day of Trump's inauguration and Matt asked who he'd have voted for. He said he'd have voted for Sanders..........

Since then Cllinton seems to have been seen as a wronged person or viewed somewhat heroically when she really should be seen as someone who committed the biggest fumble of all time.

irishbucsfan

CatFromHue wrote: »

The thing I have about Trump is that him being elected is never put in the context of who he was running against.

Clinton seemed to be raised up as this great candidate as she was a woman, there wasn't much other reason to vote for her. As in reasons to actually vote for somebody without looking at their opposition.

Even Richard Boyd Barrett seemed to struggle with it. He was on The Last Word the day of Trump's inauguration and Matt asked who he'd have voted for. He said he'd have voted for Sanders..........

Since then Cllinton seems to have been seen as a wronged person or viewed somewhat heroically when she really should be seen as someone who committed the biggest fumble of all time.

Nah, she ran on pretty clear policies when she was actually asked about them.

One of the problems she had, that any mainstream democratic candidate will have, is that her policies seem boring now. Sensible drug policy, sane economic policies, decent immigration policies. All of that is just boring when you're running against Bernie Sanders followed by Donald Trump. So the media would have no intention of framing her campaign in that way.

And then Trump could just say "typical politician" and go on to threaten to put her in jail. She did absolutely nothing to combat any of that, which is why her campaign will go down as historically inept, but to claim she only ran on being a woman is totally wrong, she didn't even really lean on that fact.

Dubinusa

The failure of the administration to help the Benghazi people was a huge factor. Clinton ran the state dept. The warning signs were there and no action was taken. The e-mails and the destruction of the mobile phones, the home based computer system. Then she is hated by approximately 40% of the people. Her perverted creepy oul fella was also a negative. She had more negatives than Trump. Also the DNC appears to be corrupt and did everything to ensure she beat Sanders. Remember, she was defeated by Obama when she was a big favorite in 08. She can't run a winning campaign.

CatFromHue

CatFromHue wrote: »

The thing I have about Trump is that him being elected is never put in the context of who he was running against.

Clinton seemed to be raised up as this great candidate as she was a woman, there wasn't much other reason to vote for her. As in reasons to actually vote for somebody without looking at their opposition.

Even Richard Boyd Barrett seemed to struggle with it. He was on The Last Word the day of Trump's inauguration and Matt asked who he'd have voted for. He said he'd have voted for Sanders..........

Since then Cllinton seems to have been seen as a wronged person or viewed somewhat heroically when she really should be seen as someone who committed the biggest fumble of all time.

Clinton was the victim of an unprecedented 20 year smear campaign. She was an average candidate with little charm or charisma but she capable and not embarrassing.

Maybe there isn't a lot to say about her but that's not a bad thing.

Either way she's probably better off, republicans would have completely neutered her presidency.

Dubinusa

Dubinusa wrote: »

The failure of the administration to help the Benghazi people was a huge factor. Clinton ran the state dept. The warning signs were there and no action was taken. The e-mails and the destruction of the mobile phones, the home based computer system. Then she is hated by approximately 40% of the people. Her perverted creepy oul fella was also a negative. She had more negatives than Trump. Also the DNC appears to be corrupt and did everything to ensure she beat Sanders. Remember, she was defeated by Obama when she was a big favorite in 08. She can't run a winning campaign.

She was investigated for months over Benghazi and answered questions in front of Congress and was cleared so stop spreading mindless propaganda.

There is a list of 100 republicans including congressmen, senators, former nsa directors, Mike pence and plenty more who used private emails. Colin Powell sent classified material from a yahoo account.

The email issue with Clinton is the real witch hunt. Not that anyone doing it is right, but it was common.

She's not great, she's a world apart from Trump and America is a laughing stock due to her not being elected.

Dubinusa

Who's spreading propaganda? The facts are the facts. It hung over her like a dark cloud as did her husband. She was running against 2 untested political neophytes and lost. She has no one to fault but herself.
She was a poor candidate end of story.

Dubinusa

Dubinusa wrote: »

Who's spreading propaganda? The facts are the facts. It hung over her like a dark cloud as did her husband. She was running against 2 untested political neophytes and lost. She has no one to fault but herself.
She was a poor candidate end of story.

Facts are clearly not the issue here. "Help the Benghazi people"... Do you even know what the investigation was about...?

Dubinusa

Yes. I am talking about the embassy staff. The ambassador and the C.I.A staff. They need not have been in such a volatile situation and should have been evacuated when the British left.
Instead it was a clusterfcuk and the result was a spin on a you tube video.

Dubinusa

I was not referring to Libyans. Sorry for the mix up.

Dubinusa

Dubinusa wrote: »

Yes. I am talking about the embassy staff. The ambassador and the C.I.A staff. They need not have been in such a volatile situation and should have been evacuated when the British left.
Instead it was a clusterfcuk and the result was a spin on a you tube video.

Dubinusa wrote: »

I was not referring to Libyans. Sorry for the mix up.

There were ten investigations into the Benghazi matter: one by the FBI; one by an independent board commissioned by the State Department; two by Democrat-controlled Senate Committees; and six by Republican-controlled House Committees. After the first five Republican investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing by senior Obama administration officials, Republicans in 2014 opened a sixth investigation, the House Select Committee on Benghazi, chaired by Trey Gowdy. This investigation also failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing by senior Obama administration officials. A possible political motive for the investigation was revealed on September 29, 2015, when Republican House majority leader Kevin McCarthy, then vying to become Speaker of the House, told Sean Hannity on Fox News that the investigation was part of a "strategy to fight and win,' adding "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.

I'd just like to know what you think Clinton did that all these investigations failed to uncover? I'd also like to know why during a house speaker contest a leading challenger admitted that the investigations were politically motivated.

Like I said, Clinton wasn't a great candidate. Not because she isn't capable, nor because she is guilty of anything in relation to the 2012 incident, but because the US presidency is a popularity contest and she wasn't a good contestant for that.

I've no idea what you read, but the reason I say 'propaganda' is because you are spouting the same crap you occasionally see on facebook and often see on fox news and other right wing publications and all of that is propaganda and far removed from 'facts'.

Tyrone are not winning any hearts or minds here.

The Lost Sheep

Deleted User wrote: »

Tyrone are not winning any hearts or minds here.

great. Nothing better than Tyrone/Mickey Harte losing.
Hopefully Dubs can score a few more goals and really finish them off

Synode

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Tyrone are not winning any hearts or minds here.

Like a walk in the park for Dublin now after their initial sloppiness

Stheno

Synode wrote: »

Like a walk in the park for Dublin now after their initial sloppiness

Complete procession at the minute

The wides from Tyrone were shocking too

Dubinusa

I didn't say anything about what she did. I stated she was weighted down by it and the lies about the you tube video. She also had her disgusting husband front and center which also is an easy target. I also referred to the fact that she lost to 2 political newcomers and that she ran a poor campaign.

Dubinusa

Dubinusa wrote: »

I didn't say anything about what she did. I stated she was weighted down by it and the lies about the you tube video. She also had her disgusting husband front and center which also is an easy target. I also referred to the fact that she lost to 2 political newcomers and that she ran a poor campaign.

Dubinusa wrote:

The failure of the administration to help the Benghazi people was a huge factor. Clinton ran the state dept

So what you meant was, the perceived failure then, is that it?

awec

Tyrone looked decent for 15 minutes, then the Dubs turned it on and that was that. Tyrone cast aside like many before them.

mfceiling

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

great. Nothing better than Tyrone/Mickey Harte losing.
Hopefully Dubs can score a few more goals and really finish them off

.

mfceiling

mfceiling wrote: »

.

That's a joke by the way in case any offence is taken!!

Dubinusa

The failure was not perceived. Maybe by you. There was a reason why other nations closed their embassies and consulates in Benghazi. Of course, the U.S administration did'nt perceive the threat, although ambassador Stephen's requested additional support were ignored and not acted on.
Hillary Clinton was part of the administration and shares responsibility.

stephen_n

Just when you think people can’t get any stupider

Neil3030

stephen_n wrote: »

Just when you think people can’t get any stupider

The new party’s spokesman is Mr Kelly, who now is head of communications for a Brussels-based Eurosceptic group comprising 40 MEPs.

First order of business once Ireland leaves the EU will be finding a new job!

Buer

awec wrote: »

Tyrone looked decent for 15 minutes, then the Dubs turned it on and that was that. Tyrone cast aside like many before them.

As I said, the only team that was going to stop Dublin was Dublin themselves. It looked like that was almost a possibility for the first 20 minutes. Dublin were appalling in front of goal; Rock, Small and Jack Mc all missed shots I would stick over myself.

But once they found their form, it was one way traffic. What has happened this season is that we've seen more new players become fixtures in the side than previous years. Lads like Brogan, Andrews, Flynn, Fitzsimons and MDMC have all slipped out of the team completely. Now we have a handful of new stars slotting in without any issue.

It's very hard to see them not breaking the record next season. Even as it stands, it's hard to argue against them being the best team ever seen in the sport.

awec

They'll get 5 no bother. Then 6.

Are Tyrone the best of the rest? Maybe, I'm not entirely sure. But either way, they're miles off the Dubs.

Dave_The_Sheep

Dubinusa wrote: »

She also had her disgusting husband front and center which also is an easy target.

Just out of curiousity, what is so disgusting about her husband?

I'd like if the answer was in two parts. In isolation, and then in comparison to the current incumbent of the Oval Office.

I don't think he's an angel by any stretch, but I am curious as to your answer.

errlloyd

@ dubinusa

I know it's huff post, and it'll be dismissed for being Liberal mouthpiece, but at some point I think it needs to be accepted.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/12191766

Zzippy

After a feed of pints, I only have one thing to say.


FOUR!

Dubinusa

He's sleazy. He's predatory. He's the Harvey Weinstein of politics. He's a serial pervert. But, he likes cigars!

Dubinusa

That's my opinion only. Trump is also sleazy and disgusting