Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 June 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>

, (new)(back)

Fanatics

Only a fanatical Obama supporter would think, under accepted political classifications, that Senator Clinton is a conservative, especially when this article goes on to say conservatives universally hate Clinton. TheRationalOne 05:13, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

When Bill was President, the Clintons spent an awful lot of time trying to reconciliate with the Republicans. Which suggests they're not quite as savvy as they like to act, seeing how under Newt Gingrich, the GOP was sworn to drive Bill Clinton from office by any means necessary. (Which is ironic, seeing how the only policy successes Clinton had were GOP plans like NAFTA. As Michael Moore once jokes, Bill was the most successful Republican president since Reagan.)

I've heard quite a few Europeans comment on how right-wing ALL American politicians are. The American political spectrum is massively tilted towards the "Right", compared to Europe--they've actually got Green parties that serve as something besides a punchline. (The standing joke is someone trying to explain American political parties to a European: "We have the Republicans, who are the equivalent of your Conservative Party, and then we have the Democrats, who are the equivalent of your Conservative Party.")

Also, it's funny you should say this today. I just today read a rather scary article from a decidedly non-GOP-led source that the church Hillary attends is a bunch of Dominionists. Which will make it very cold comfort if she gets the nomination and then loses in the election--the last thing we want is a bunch of those scary beady-eyed Theocrats anywhere NEAR the White House. Bush was more than bad enough. --Gulik 05:47, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

1. Bill Clinton lost the Congress to the GOP in 1994. Thus, he was forced to compromise on several issues to break the gridlock. This is the hallmark of having checks and balances in our government with the three branches.

2. The United States was one of the first countries to legalize abortion, to ensure the right of free speech and free religion, and to protect other individual rights. Is America perfect? Of course not. However, it's is naive and simplistic to understand global politics in a 1-D spectrum.

3. Even you know Hillary Clinton is not a theocrat. TheRationalOne 00:54, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

image

Can we get a picture of her, you know, smiling, or something for the main image? ħψɱ₦ 23:17, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

conceding...

Several news outlets, including BBC, CBC, Foxnews, and CNN are reporting that the Clinton camp is denying that she is about to concede. Since up-to-the-minute news updates aren't really our mandate, let's wait and see if anything actually happens before dealing with this....PFoster 11:59, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Apparently she is due to "half-concede" tonight, but, yes, let's wait until the facts are in, at least. (half-concede means announcing that Obama has the delegates to be the presumptive nominee, but not actually removing herself from the race, or some such.) We'll see. ħuman 14:37, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Hillary for VP?

Should she be Obama's Vice President?

Aye

• They would be a good pair. (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 15:08, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
• He should offer it, since she ran such a close second. Her acceptance or not might be pre-negotiated behind closed doors, however. ħuman 15:26, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
• She told members of Congress yesterday that she would do it, which means he's gotta offer it to her. And he should, on the principle that one must keep their friends close and their enemies closer. As long as she's on the ticket, she and Bill won't be mouthing off and getting in Obama's way.PFoster 19:43, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

The dems will suddenly start liking Hill & Bill a whole lot more when they are attacking Geohn McShrubbery instead of one of "our" own... they are, after all, skilled and tireless campaigners. Also, it's a natural route to HRC in 2016. ħuman 20:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't it be Chelsea's turn by that date? (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 05:49, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm, in 2016 Hils will be 69; Chelsea 36 - barely old enough. She'd really have to make a mark in the next 8 years to run for president credibly! ħuman 14:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Neigh Nay

• After spending so much time criticising each other, it would look disingenuous. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Holy Roman empire} 15:13, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
• It would just accumulate the huge drawbacks to both candidates. You don't want Rev. Wright and Bosnia, do you? Lyra § talk 15:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
• They're just going to end up at each other's throats. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people resolute on this issue, and who knows what's going to happen. Honestly, I view it like a Schrödinger's Cat right now... There are simply too many unknown variables coming into play. Of course, Bill Richardson is being primed for being President, and being vice-President can help. (As long as you don't go and make a potatoe out of yourself.) --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:21, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Moot point: never gonna happen

• Having Hillary on the ticket would guarantee whole sections of the Republican base turning out to vote purely against her - sections, indeed, that might otherwise stay at home 'cos McCain's not conservative enough for them. It would be a suicidal risk for Obama to take, and he knows it. --Robledo 15:21, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree with that point. Hopefully O and C will put together a "behind closed doors" plan where she gets offered the VP magnanimously and sincerely (O is good at that), and she will then magnanimously and sincerely decline, citing work in the Senate or some such. ħuman 15:37, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

He doesn't even have to do that, fella. Hillary's stock is so low with the Democrat grandees at the moment that she'll take whatever bone Obama or the party throw her. Her future political career now depends on her not doing anything to fuck with the big O's chances in the run-up to the election. --Robledo 16:21, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

True, but he does have to make sure the die-hard Hillary fans are placated well enough to get out and vote for him in the fall. That is of course, partly her job, and that fits in with what you are saying. ħuman 16:42, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Will the extreme republicans go vote for McBain just not to see her as Vice-President? And to compensate, wouldn't she as VP candidate attract some votes for Obama from whites, women, hispanics? (Asking here, not claiming) (Editor at) CP:^{no intelligence allowed} 16:26, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

In order: yes & not in sufficiently large numbers to make it worth the risk. --Robledo 16:40, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Conservative?

I'm sorry, but using the Iraq War as a reason for her being conservative is stupid, considering the Democrats were given false information about Hussein. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Iowa primary

"Clinton placed a dismal third in the Iowa caucus" ?

Not according to Wikipedia. Obama 37.6%, Edwards, 29.7%, Clinton 29.4% . BTW, how in the fuck (in the supposedly "democratic" party) does the third place looser end up with more delegates than the second place finisher? (Obama 16, Edwards 14, Clinton 15) Don't look like third place at all. nobs^{Would you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage?} 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Benghazi

While I appreciate that much of the criticism of Clinton over Benghazi is meaningless bluster, there were some valid points in all of it. As the Secretary of State at the time she was ultimately responsible, which she herself said, and is accordingly at least partly responsible for the subsequent prevaricating and the PR fiasco which resulted. She could have coordinated with the other people in the State Department, to say nothing of the president, so they could make up their minds exactly how they wanted to address the situation; that they didn't do this led to much of the suspicion around it, and in turn has caused the obscene number of investigations into the matter. Even though much of the finger-pointing is without merit, to pretend that she didn't mishandle the situation would be whitewashing to say the least. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

... 24.186.49.177 (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) (Same person as the IP above)

What you're saying sounds like, "Yes, the Benghazi scandal was a PR fiasco, and Hillary Clinton and Obama bear the blame for this", which seems like a pretty accurate description. However, what "caused the obscene number of investigations into the matter" wasn't that the U.S. government messed up the PR on Benghazi, but the ridiculously partisanism infesting U.S. politics in which the GOP has increasingly gone off the deep end (endorsing all kinds of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience). Otherwise, one enquiry would have been quite enough. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So, what are you saying, Bengazi is the last word on incompetence and deception? Dream on. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 19:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Two questions, Rob: Was the comment/question meant for me or the BoN OP? If it was meant for me, what do you mean by "last word"? Is it last word as in final example (then of course no - we'll always have new cock ups), or is it last word as in supreme example (while my answer would still be no, it would be because fumbling public relations in the way it was done here is not actually a major scandal). Anyway, I don't see much in the way of deliberate deception in the ludicrously overblown "Benghazigate". ScepticWombat (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The last word on investigations. What I mean is, foreign policy, and getting a competent commander-in-chief is a huge issue at this moment in the U.S., and likely, unfortunately, to become more pressing in the next few years. That fact that (a) Hillary denied then and denies now that the United States underwent a terrorist attack on her watch as Sec. of State at a crucial moment, and (b) didn't bother to show up in Paris last week can't be hidden. nobs^{It all depends what ISIS is.} 21:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, denying that Benghazi is a terrorist attack is just silly - but if that is her silliest statement, she'd actually be ahead of most other POTUS hopefuls... As for Paris, if she had gone certain U.S. media (and probably more than just them) would've been overflowing with claims that she was "exploiting" the Charlie Hepdo attacks - I'd say it was a "heads you win, tails I lose"-situation for her. Also, which POTUS hopefuls did go to Paris? Hell, even John Kerry was "late to the party", only showing up late last week and he even had a pretty good official reason to go as Secretary of State. So you could very likely add allegations of trying to "upstage her successor" to those of "exploitation" had Hillary Clinton gone to Paris. Finally, I'm a bit puzzled about this emphasis on a "commander-in-chief", could you expand a bit on what this "huge issue" is? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

People in the U.S. are mad as hell. We're in the midst of a crime wave. Then the terror threat. Now, being tax season, people are starting to see the Obamacare "fines". Obamacare caused workers to lose healthcare benefits and paycuts. Then throw in the foreign policy & terrorism issues. Unemployed criminal Democrats may not care about any of this, but trust me, Republicans & Tea Partiers had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 15:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Crime has been in a long-term decline in the US since the 1950s, juvenile crime in particular. There are fewer people without health insurance than there were before Obamacare. I'd agree that many people in the US are mad as hell, in either sense of the word 'mad'.Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Biden was the victim of a terrorist attack routine crime house got shot up last nite, but nobody gives a fuck. nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 15:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it happened because he didn't go far enough, or had nothing to do with Biden since nothing was found around his home. It doesn't say why it happened. You are just seeing what you want to believe in it. Then immediately giving into the perceived threats like a chicken. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you agree if this happened in a less-gun crazed culture, like Canada or the UK, this certainly would be a bigger story? and I'm pointing out how jaded the U.S. public and media have become today -- a private residence gets shot up and it no big deal, happens all the time, thank Allah nobody was home. nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 16:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably only because of the relative rarity of firearms in the UK. Common arson attacks (the nearest parallel), when they happen, generally only make the local news. It takes something like the multiple arson attack on South Oxfordshire council to get nationwide coverage, and even then the private residence that was attacked doesn't always get mentioned. As the article says, no-one knows if the location of that shooting was coincidence or not yet. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

So if unknown persons fired shots or tossed a molotov cocktail at Nick Clegg's country estate over this past weekend, in the current environment and tensions, it would be considered routine hooliganism with no media panic or speculation about AQAP terrorists? nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 17:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

What's your point here? You start off with contrafactual blathering about a crimewave and more people lacking health insurance, then when called on it abandon it completely and segue into some vague ramblings how it's a bigger deal than people seem to think. For the record, the Oxfordshire arson was a political act - it seems that the culprit had some grievance about planning permission. If this shooting was an act of terrorism, it was far more likely to be a teabagger culprit than a Islamist one. After all, since 9/11, there have been more terrorist acts committed on American soil by WASPs than by Muslims. Where are you trying to go with this? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously; all I wanted was some input on some disputed text, not... whatever this has degenerated into. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's nobby. It's all tangents from here. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to any conversation involving nobs. It's like a full body dry heave and a head injury at the same time. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You are all correct, and I do apologize. As to being a Commander-in-Chief, I ask all my Democrat friends, "Who has more cahoonies, Obama or Hillary?", and an overwhelming consensus (which includes unaffiliated moderates & Republicans as well) seems to indicate Hillary does. nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 22:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That, if I recall correctly, was also the general opinion way back in 2008, yet Obama won both the Democratic nomination and the presidency - which suggests that U.S. voters care about other things besides the "I'm a tough Commander-in-Chief" spiel...

PS. Not that this tangent of yours is actually relevant to the original topic of this thread. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. She was "Inevitable" then, too and the Democrats rejected her. What makes her "inevitable" now, other than her donor list, lots of cash, and rich friends? nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 14:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ As has already been noted, Rob, you're off on a tangent. This latest question of yours is yet another entirely new topic/tangent, which I think is more fittingly discussed on Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination, where I'll happily indulge you - at least for a time. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Susan Rice

Here's an interesting little tidbit, and Wikipedia seems to expose more than the 9/11 Report or any Benghazi investigation could bring to light: Susan Rice, Hillary's would be successor and at the center of the storm for spreading disinformation, lies and bullshit over Bengahzi, according to Wikipedia overruled Madeline Albright when she wanted the Clinton administration to arrest Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1995. God damn. Is Obama's National Security Adviser on the Bush family payroll or just a closet jihadi? nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 20:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm uninterested in conspiracy mongering, but to pretend that Clinton and her staff didn't fall down on the job hard core here is simply denying reality. The point above is that while there have been a ludicrous number of investigations, Republicans wouldn't have the ammunition to conduct them if the State Department hadn't blown it so huge in the first place. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. On to another Hillary point: Americans only now are being introduced to Line 61 Form 1040, 2014. 1% of your income upto a max of $285 per household, guaranteed to rise in 2015 and 2016 when it'll be 2.5% of you income ($695 per adult and $347.50 per child with limits). This is (a) sure to piss people off, and (b) entirely, solely, without any remotely credible hint of innuendo a Democrat doing. Guaranteed, as Chuck Schumer said, this will do serious, longterm, and permanent damage to the Democratic party and its constituent base demographics. What's Hillary gonna argue, that she should be trusted? that her plan should of passed (that her own party rejected in 1993-94)? that she's a knowledgeable expert? People will be so pissed, I seriously doubt right now she is a shoo-in for the nomination. nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 01:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, people will be pissed because they don't have to pay a tax because they have health insurance? They'll be upset that, unless they have an income tax refund, not having health insurance won't even cost them anything? I'm sure they'll be angry about that. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 02:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

They're already pissed; this family of 4 had coverage for $380 month; now it's $828.26. Now the Democrats got more people pissed. Like Shumer said, only 30% of the uninsured vote, so the other 70% who have to pay a $700 a year fine ($2100 per family of four) the Democrats will gain no good will from. Not only are the 40 million uninsured pissed off, the whole damn workforce and country is pissed off. nobs^{ISIS is SISI spelled backwards.} 03:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, if only there was some way to guarantee that everyone in the country had health care without having to pay ruinous amounts of money for it. God damn it Hillary and Obama, why are you trying to stop the Republicans from giving people health care?! --Ymir (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand

The question above still stands. Basically, I'm arguing that we include 1 sentence explaining how Hillary Clinton did a decidedly less-than-optimal job handling Benghazi and how the legitimate criticism turned into wingnut hysteria. If you like, I can directly link to the text I'm thinking about. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that was pretty much the gist of my original reply to you (i.e. pre-sidetracking by nobs). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to make sure. I'll work on it when I get access to a full keyboard. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Hillary Clinton

abounds, but needs to be sifted. For instance, FedTruther decided to insert the following criticism: "Clinton has also been receiving large amounts of criticism due to recent allegations that she was giving favors to foreign entities who made large payments to the Clinton Foundation and Bill Clinton while she was secretary of state", citing this NYT book review. However, even the review itself highlights the iffy nature of the book, the timing its publication, and how it's being fed into a Republican anti-Clinton campaign advance copies sent to GOP operators and a pre-packaged strategy for GOP-friendly media, such as Fox. These questions over provenance and the fact that the book isn't even unpublished yet makes it a pretty dubious source.

So, please do include criticism (it's not that it's hard to find), but try to sift and cut out the more obvious negative campaigning stuff. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You’re attacking the messenger rather than the actual claims that are being made. Ad hominem circumstantial. See my earlier revision for more information to address your other concerns about it: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&oldid=1459319#2016_presidential_run

Schweizer is a credible researcher and his previous work on insider trading in Congress sparked a successful congressional investigation.--FedTruther (talk) 07:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

You cherry picked only the criticism without including the review's rather worried tone about the character and style of publication and marketing. No, it's not an ad hominem, let alone circumstantial, it's reflecting the actual contents of the source. If the criticism raised in the book turns out to be valid and salient, we can include it when the book is actually published. As I, and the article, said, there are good reasons to be cautious about the book and it's claims. And no, Peter Schweizer hardly sounds like the bastion of independent, fair minded investigation (though his CV and bibliography does sound very Fair and Balanced...); Breitbart "News", Editor-at-Large, really? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't cherry pick the criticism because the "character and style of publication and marketing" has not to do with the actual allegations against Clinton.

The facts are again and again being reported. Can you disprove them?

I don't see anything wrong with Schwiezer's CV or biliography. If you want to wait for the book to be released before something about it can be posted here I don't mind. The scandals are coming out.--FedTruther (talk) 08:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

If "scandals" were really coming out, you'd be able to find much better sources. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

"I don't see anything wrong with Schwiezer's CV or bibliography." I think we're beginning to home in on some of the problems, then...

Seriously, would you also cry "Ad hominem! Circumstantial!" if someone pointed out that William Lane Craig's claims to have "debunked" atheism and successfully defended the cosmological argument or Ken Ham's claims to have "debunked" evolution stemmed from some rather dubious sources? Schweizer's background reads like that of a latter day David Brock.

Schweizer's shenanigans include some interesting SDI conspiracy bunk along with more general Saint Ronnie worship, a host of contributions to wingnut media, (ex-)membership of the Hoover Institute and being the current President of the very similar sounding Government Accountability Institute.

I don't think that being cautious about a book written by this guy and not even published yet is unreasonable hyperscepticism. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

1968

Um, the stretches to paint Repubs as racist are bordering on the ridiculous. If want to make the case, make sure you have facts. (a) Anyone who knows anything about the 1968 election (I know, I worked it) knows the racist vote went for George Wallace--that was his platform; (b) RW's own Southern Strategy says this same thing: that Nixon in 1972 appealed racists who voted for Wallace. So it is pretty FUCKING obvious by now the racist Democrats either remained loyal to the party in '68, or voted Wallace; (c) Goldwater was the only GOP Senator to vote with Democratic Senators against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in an effort to court Southern Democratic voters. And it worked. The Southern Democratic states are the only states Goldwater carried. Hillary describes herself as "a Goldwater Girl down to my boots". (d) So, when the GOP candidate openly appealed to racists, Hillary was on board, and the GOP lost big; when the racist Democrats of the South formed a 3RD party, and the GOP base showed up, the GOP won. (e) Hillary was a racist in 1964, and the party did better without her in 1968. Somebody please fix this glaring example of bullshit. It does neither Hillary, nor RW any good. nobs^{I was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag.} 21:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Foundation Donations

May I ask what is wrong exactly with my addition? I understand that some people didn't like that I used breitbart as a source. It's not an issue, I'm willing to change it (although there was nothing wrong with it, but never mind that), but it was entirely unnecessary undo my revision or lock the page because of the source used.

I have included Clinton's response to the accusations so people don't get the impression that I am trying to create a biased statement. These accusations are very much relevant to Hillary's campaign because they have been causing a lot of damage to her public perception, otherwise they wouldn't be receiving so much attention and she wouldn't be inclined to have it be written about on her website.--FedTruther (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's because we are tired of your constant worthless edits that we locked it? You aren't a particularly likable person, your abrassiveness has worn our patience thin, so if your edits even LOOK like they might be nonsense they are going to be reverted. Life Lesson; if you are an asshole, no one will listen to your arguments regardless of their validity. CorruptUser (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the actual reason is that FT's source is a soon-to-be published book by a Breitbarfer Breitbarter with a history of crap publications and plenty of wingnut credentials. Unless there's actually some reason to suspect that this isn't a blatant attempt at negative campaigning in book form (Unfit for Command, anyone?) no one but FT has yet seen fit to include it.

Note that FT apparently doesn't see any problem in citing an NYT (p)review of the book for the allegation without mentioning either the less than salubrious source or the review's raised eyebrow in its emphasis on the problematic nature of the source and publication and (pre)distribution process.

In sum, FT seems to have trouble distinguishing between sources and good sources and either doesn't realise, or deliberately ignores, that playing the pro et contra game with what is so far mere allegations from a dubious source is somewhere between just asking questions and the balance fallacy. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The "problematic nature of the source and publication and (pre)distribution process" is not really emphasized in that NYT article. It's mostly a promotion for his book.

The book is already published since three days ago. I'm not trying to exclude any information about the motive, I have mentioned the criticisms of the book (directly from Hillary Clinton's website) in my previous revision http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Hillary_Clinton&oldid=1465292#2016_presidential_run It seems like the reason you do not want this on the page is because you don't want anything that suspects corruption on it, regardless of the actual relevance to her campaign.--FedTruther (talk) 02:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Most people here largely seem to prefer other people to hillary, js.--Miekal 02:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

FT, there are good reasons not to start including allegations of the "some people say"-variety until we actually have others than some wingnut hatchet man's say so on it. Considering all the conspiracy theories and allegations against the Clinton's during Bill's time in office, this sounds like reheated Arkansas Project style mud slinging.

Also, even if there's anything to these allegations, such activities are hardly unusual in Washington, considering that such "I scratch your back, you'll scratch mine"-stuff is pretty much how D.C. works (and, according to the SCOTUS this is how it's supposed to work) and it seems rather odd to single out Hillary Clinton. Does this make it okay? No, of course not, but neither is it worth singling out and a attacking her for. As the priest and army chaplain told me back when I was preparing for confirmation: Remember that when you point the finger at others, three of your fingers are pointing at yourself... ScepticWombat (talk) 08:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not of the "some people say"-variety, and we DO have others than this "wingnut hatchet man's" say on it. Many researchers have confirmed the particular alarming patterns of behavior that are presented in Schweizer's book (which has caused her poll numbers to wane), and both Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Ted Poe have called for a Congressional investigation. I don't see a good reason to exclude this information while leaving in other less-damaging criticism.--FedTruther (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Also note that evidence revealed in his previous works have led to new ethics laws and Congressional resignations.--FedTruther (talk) 11:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any further disagreements?--FedTruther (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you expect, RW holds much higher standards for candidates like this while unjustly criticizing certain Republican candidates and Republicans. This is a much more accurate account of Hillary Clinton.--70.176.186.251 (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Drink! Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sláinte mhath! Though our resident PaulBoN above can pay for his own dram - hey it's dog-eat-dog libertarian world out there, so no mooching drinks off others or run crying to the nanny state (unless it's about states' rigths, then it's all good). ScepticWombat (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna take another drink because I have no way of following that. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Mona gonna Mona

User:-Mona- is nuking "large scale edits" (not really, just filling in the urls) to curb the tone of the article her way, same behavior she derides in other people. I know, surprise. Plutoniumboss (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

You've been vandal-binned -- and not by me but by David Gerard -- for extensive bullshit reverting of the sort you've been doing to this article. In fact, it was your massive, repeated reverts and/or bullshit edits that triggered the binning. That's all anyone needs to know.---Mona- (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually siding with Mona on this one. Hold on, it appears a piglet just crashed into my window even though I'm on the top floor... CorruptUser (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Between this one and Aneris, the whole wiki is gonna break out into a soothing, deeply moving rendition of Kum Bah Ya.---Mona- (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not even trying to hide the slant

Seriously guys? I mean I understand there are real criticisms of her and that Sanders has a "legitimate criticisms" subsection but the hillary article gets subsections for every little issue and has NO mention of any positive qualities. The "criticisms" of sanders, which are worded vaguely apologetically, are presented in almost gish gallop form to minimize them. Can't rationalwiki at least try to do better?

Meh. I don't think the article is that unfactual. Sure it may be biased, but many articles here are, as RationalWiki does not follow the NPOV that Wikipedia does. Hillary has more baggage than the airlines, and I think documenting that here follows the mission quite well. OK so you want the Sanders article to be less favorable. Why? Why don't you take the liberty to rewrite the sections of the Sanders article you disagree with and then we'll have a discussion. Or we can have it here if that is what the community decides. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

This is interesting because according to gators, you can't be anti-GG – which automatically makes you a "whiny SJW" – and at the same time anti-Hillary and pro-Bernie (like a reasonable person, apparently). IMPOSSIBRU! SJWs are all doing left-wing politics completely wrong (they supposedly engage in "identity politics", which allegedly means "supporting Hillary only because she is a woman"), unlike Bernie, so they are supposedly all rabidly pro-Hillary and attack all Bernie supporters as "Bernie bros" and call them sexist. Right: If you oppose GG, you must claim that all Bernie supporters are MRAs and despise Hillary only because she's a feeeeemale. RationalWiki is not allowed to support Bernie and criticize Hillary because it would totally flip this narrative! ZOMG! I thought this was the SJW wiki! You're supposed to have a pro-Hillary bias, not an anti-Hillary slant! WAT R U DOIN STAHP

Dear gators: Here (and over at FreeThoughtBlogs) you have SJWs criticizing Hillary and supporting Bernie. You can't explain that! (Gawd, I can't stop talking in memes. HALP) --91.7.10.190 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Whooooooooooo are you? Who who? Who who? I'd personally enjoy it if you registered an account instead of IP editing, but hey we all make mistakes. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I'm not sure ... should I take this as a compliment? I dunno, I'm not that interesting ... Hrm, I guess I should finally make an account. --91.7.10.190 (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon's edits

Now Typhoon apparently is a bigger supporter of Hillary Clinton than of Bernie Sanders - which is fine - and it shows in these edits. What do you say? Should we hash out some compromise? By the way, similar things have happened on the Bernie Sanders page. Pizzameister (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Is what he's saying a lie or somehow untrue? --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Part of it is hard to verify and some of it are just accusations against Sanders and/or his followers... Pizzameister (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I have removed part of the first line as it was clearly partisan opinion. The rest, you fact check if you want. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with that part being removed, even though it's pretty obvious to see in any discussion with Bernies' fans. What I'm more interested is what problems Pizzameister has with the rest? Typhoon (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks ok. There's a lot worse crap in this article and elsewhere. Personally, I find the pervasive negative tone of every article tiresome. Read-Write (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by pervasive negative tone? Pizzameister (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Scandals and abstinence

Why is there a quote about hilary and support for abstinence opening a section about scandals? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Because abstinence only is pretty much the stupidest thing you can tell horny teenagers... Pizzameister (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

if thats the stupidest thing you can think off, you are lacking somewhat in imagination. And not really scandalous though is it. Fairly mainstream for the us it seems. So why is there, other than to paint hilary in bad light? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's the stupidest thing one can say/do to complete the intended goal of stopping teenage pregnancies, and it is pretty mainstream in the US (see the current speaker de jour Bristol Palin). I think it's taking it a bit to the absurd to assume that's the stupidest thing to say out of infinite possibilities when you already set the subject. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of coke enemas and anything PUAs might tell you. Abstinence isn't really a stupid idea either. It makes good sense to tell kids to wait. Abstinence only education though... Besides all of that, the quote is out of place in a section about scandals, and is not even referred to in that section. It is not remotely scandalous. It is like someone was determined to have a negative quote in each section. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Unannotated floating quotes are a poor substitute for analysis. It's frustrating how popular they seem to be with RW editors. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I am removing the quote. Its not relevant, not scandalous, and has no context. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned and/or dealt with in the article. But not necessarily there. And even "abstinence also" education which says "please wait with the sex thing" is not really a good idea. Just imagine how a bunch of horny teenagers reacts when some tattering teacher fool tells them "Just wait with the sex thing, mkay...!" Pizzameister (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

So telling kids that not having sex is still pretty much the only 100% certain way not to catch STDs or get pregnant (I'm excluding rape from this conversation, because that's not what it's really about) is a bad idea ? I mean, I'm all for allowing teenagers to explore their blossoming sexuality if they're responsible enough, but the truth is that some of them really should wait for some time before starting to become sexually active - teenage pregnancies and STDs aren't really fun or enriching experiences, no matter how much you try to tell the kids that they're no big deal. It's not so much "sex is bad" as "sex is potentially dangerous"... NewFrenchHotness (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Well sure there is nothing wrong with telling teens the dangers of sex, but pushing abstinence isn't going to stop them. Teens want to be treated like adults so telling that sex is something to wait for makes it sound like sex is to "adult" for them. If you are telling them that they should wait for the "right one" then they will be ashamed of having sex with someone who wasn't "the one". Teens will withhold sex if they are educated about the dangers of STDs and the chances of pregnancy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC) 05:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

(EC)The problem is that abstinence "education" doesn't work and makes it more likely that the teenagers almost inevitably do have sex they don't use condoms which have a pretty good track record of preventing both STDs and pregnancies. It's simply a rerun of Nancy Reagan's "Just say no". The only part of abstinence that makes sense is a focus on not letting yourself be pressured into having sex due to either the insistence of a partner or peer pressure. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that abstinence-only education is dumb - that's why I'm against it, and that's why I'm not in favor of "pushing" abstinence on everyone either. Sex is a part of life, there's nothing fundamentally unhealthy or immoral about teenagers exploring that side of the human experience. But I do reiterate that we should also teach that abstinence is the safest way to avoid STDs or teen pregnancy, and that magical thinking along the line of "oh, it won't happen to me because (insert here bullshit logic)" is something teenagers are rather good at. Let kids be aware of the efficacy and the risks of every single solution - you seem to treat abstinence as if its mere mention as an effective way of avoiding these problems will lead to disaster. NewFrenchHotness (talk) 06:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but in her view she sees abstinence education to be a moral issue. This encourages abstinence to be stressed over contraceptives which will repress sexually behavior.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 07:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC) 07:51, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it kinda ironic that the US, where abstinence education is mainstream, has the highest ratio of teenage pregnancies compared to all other developed nations, where abstinence is possibly not mentioned at all during sex education (it definitely wasn't covered in the German school which I attended)? I think that the overemphasis on abstinence in sex education which makes intercourse seem like a desirable forbidden fruit and the conflicting religious messages which tell that you should procreate as much as possible is possibly to blame here. ∈ NameThatNobodyTakes (✎) 08:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hillary's hypocrisy on abstinence is scandalous. She preaches abstinence to teens, practices it in her own life, sleeps in separate beds from Bill, and Bill goes out catching STDs from bimbos which she defends, then reconciles with him as he spreads more STDs. And abstinence is suppose to stop the spread of STDs. Another example of the predatory nature of the Clinton's corrupting the minds of naive children.nobs^{Lewinsky 2020} 10:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit wars

Typhoon and mona, you need to stop the editwarring, talk about it here, i personally support typhoon's revision over mona's, but it should probably be discussed instead of needlessly edit warring Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 19:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This has become unnecessarily hostile. I don't considered Goodman's analysis Sacred Scripture, and do not see why we cannot do an "on the one hand, and on the other" about the outlook for the nomination?---Mona- (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous balance fallacy attempt from you. Fivethirtyeight is much more better, since it actually works with numbers instead of just cheering for one candidate like Goodman does. Typhoon (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It is honestly mona's fault. She is power hungry and continuously shows she just wants to have complete control over this article and the sanders article, even going as far as to protect the article so that nobody but her can edit it. All Typhoon is doing is taking out speculation and unsourced comments. Sandflapjack (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

You are utterly ridiculous. Almost everyone regular is a sysop and able to edit sysop-protected pages. You were editing last nite while repeatedly refusing to state reasons for edits, at first refusing to go to the talk page.---Mona- (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I wasnt a syop until 2 hours ago. Fuck off mona you know what you're doing and I'm not having it. I gave you my reasons but you stuck your fingers in your ears and refused to listen. Dont you know you're not supposed to fit anything bigger then your elbow in your ear? You can blow an eardrum. Sandflapjack (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Typhoons revision

1. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 19:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Mona's Revision

1. --Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 19:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

   Very likely I should have realized I was wrong when I found that YOU agreed with me.---Mona- (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

   Thanks, I like you, too, cutiepie.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 09:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 09:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

2. Ha! This has to be a first!---Mona- (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
3. Caveat: First paragraph only. Little to no Goodman, or find a different source. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

   I dropped the Goodman quote into a note, and removed some of him. Do you have a better source in mind?---Mona- (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

   Noir LeSable Wouldn't that belong into the Goat section--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 19:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

4. Me. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Goat

Sigh. Goodman is an overly-optimist hack. He loudly boasted about voting Rand Paul while attacking Hillary, only to later join the Sanders bandwagon while continuing to attack Hillary. He believes that the FBI nonsense will destroy her and that even before that Superdelegatees will switch to Bernie. Instead of this blatant fanboyism (which even the Sanders subreddit found wayyy too much for them), I added a link to Fivethirtyeight that actually went through the data and from that made predictions about how the race will go (and so far it looks that Bernie will lose to Hillary). Typhoon (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree he's wrong about the FBI thing. But I don't care if he was a Rand Paul voter. He was right last September as to how the primary trajectories were going to unfold, and 538 was less so. 538 got caught with its pants down on Michigan. ---Mona- (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sanders Will Dominate Super Tuesday and Defeat Clinton in Southern States . - By totaly rational person H.A. Goodman. Typhoon (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

And 538 owned up to Michigan, explaining possible reasons why the polls didn't match up. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Ssssh Typhoon, youre ruining the narrative! Sandflapjack (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Typhoon. It's well-documented that Goodman is heavily biased towards Sanders. When /r/SandersForPresident, possibly the single most bro-y-est BernieBro brofest that ever bro'd, debates stopping spam of one's articles, with a positive Karma score... I think that's saying something. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Subreddit's don't impress me, but Typhoon showed me his prediction about Sanders sweeping the South. Er, no. Ok. THAT DOCUMENTATION convinces me I should not rely on Goodman. I do respond to reasoned, well-sourced criticisms of my edits, and that is one. So, I agree the Goodman source is not a good idea.---Mona- (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, didn't really think you needed any further documentation since Typhoon had already posted that when I added my comment in. I could've cited how he predicted Hillary would finish behind O'Malley in Iowa and how Sanders would go on to win all four first states, but since that was an incredibly early race, I decided not to. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Typhoon had already posted that when I added my comment in" I didn't read that until she posted it on my talk page. When things are happening very fast, and there's more than one contested issue going on, I have some trouble focusing. Also, Typhoon and I have a history, and I sensed she was just picking on my edit because, well, because it was my edit. Between my leap to suspicion, and my not catching that link to the absurd Goodman Southern win story, I didn't catch up to the fact that she was right as quickly as I normally would. But when I see I am wrong, I admit it.---Mona- (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. Given all the drama that's been going on lately, I'd say being suspicious is entirely warranted. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandersforpresident is fucking garbage Sandflapjack (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That was the point. It's like finding a source that NaturalNews wouldn't publish. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't rely on a sub-reddit pro or con. I almost never participate at reddit and don't think too much of it per se. But I should have known better about Goodman because of how I learned of him, and more importantly, who wasn't tweeting him. A guy I just began following, who I saw to be credible on a particular issue, tweeted that Goodman piece. However, I should have realized, when I didn't see any of my (very smart) tweeps doing the same, that something was amiss. I really hate finding that a source I've used actually is awful, and it's a while since I've been burned. It's a good reminder to be as careful as I usually am.---Mona- (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't let it get you down -- it happens to the best of us. I mean, heck, Andrew Wakefield got published by the fucking Lancet, remember? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Mona's edits would be better under a new section on electability under the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination page.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 02:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It Takes A Village

It's 20 years old. Still representative of her views? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 15:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Not at all, and it should be toned down. But then again, people who hate Hillary love to dig up ancient shit on her. Remember the "Clinton body count"? Typhoon (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

It's funny because the sander's page has a section of his faults but every statement ends with "well you see he said sorry", yet hillary's page is basically "YAAASS HUNNTYYY DRAG HER DRAGH ER HUNTTTYYYY" Sandflapjack (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

(Apparently I don't understand that reference.) Has HRC ever walked back any of the prissy stuff she or her ghostwriter put into Iyt Takes a Village? The only one I'm aware of is her support for three strikes legislation, which she has not rejected entirely but wants to mollify a little. The page already reflects that, too. As far as I know she still thinks you ought to stay away from the devil's weed marijuana because you might get laid. That's the sort of thing you can't take back without alienating someone else, and I don't see her doing that. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Having encountered people high on marijuana I have to say I'm not entirely clear on why it's become such a cause célèbre (I don't happen to take kindly to people assaulting me, whether or not the reason they're doing so is that a substance is impairing their judgment), but the substance (har!) of what you say is entirely correct. That's why I recently readded the note on her role in the Whitewater ridiculousness, it requires a degree of reasoning and leadership to be up front about your view instead of trying to find whatever the most convenient position of the moment happens to be and pretending that was your view all along. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It is, for better or worse, a part of her public record now. If nothing else, it shows her prim and officious mindset, and also illustrates how she modulates her views according to her perception of the prevailing mood. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it fair game then to dig up Sanders' views and public statements from the 1980s and 1970s? Pizzameister (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Haven't we mentioned his rape fantasy satire? I know he was against public schools back then because of some Freudian quackery.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC) 17:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Those were better times than we have now. Sanders's remarks on rape fantasy were actually about how people's lives are impacted by gender stereotypes. And biting satire was more fashionable at the time as well. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, better times? You know, we do still have the ability to downgrade all technology, law, and culture back to 1972 standards and leave it there. I mean, if that's the Golden Age you prefer. --Castaigne2 (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

We can also pick and choose; reviving the financial regulations of 1972 would certainly help. The world needs a whole lot less "agility" and "disruption" in any case. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. We need to accelerate the agility and disruption in order to finish birthing the new economy into being, at which point the obsolete can go the way of the buggy whip makers and the rest can get on with civilization. --Castaigne2 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If she said some things that are currently unpopular in Village, yeah, include it. It's part of her public record. If she's repudiated, then include that as well.---Mona- (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

So what are the odds

That this page flips from being pro-Bernie to actually pro-Hillary once she wins the nomination? Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Zero. Too many Sanders supporters -- some 25-33% -- have vowed they will not vote for her under any circumstances. Moreover, of those who will, they continue to find her, at best, deficient, at worst, malignant.---Mona- (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Not every Sanders supporter is as unreasonable and revert-happy as you are. Typhoon (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Not quite sure why it would. It's more likely they're gonna add jabs against the Republican nominee (most likely Fuckface von Clownstick).--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 00:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 00:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if -- especially if -- Hillary is the nominee (and though it grieves me to say so, the odds are in her favor), her feet will still need to be held to the fire. Speaking as a lifelong Republican, my party has gone off the deep end. The first task, and I hope the two candidates will make common cause of this, is to remove as many Republicans from Congress as possible. After a decade of RINO hunts, the reasonable Republicans are mostly extinct. And if my state is in play in the general election, I will hold my nose and vote for her. If not, which is likelier, I will vote for the Green or Libertarian, or just write in Gus Hall. That doesn't mean that I will like her, or trust her. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I personally will support an extraordinarily imperfect candidate(let's be honest, the Bern ain't too great either) over an evangelical or neo-nazi, without a second of hesitation. I do not consider this hypocrisy on my part, but sanity. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

What's so bad about Bernie? Pizzameister (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

He's far more hawkish than I like to see. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That's only because he talks to birds. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 22:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah he has said that he supports the drone assassination program and has called Obama's foreign policy constitutional. He is basically a realist.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, I don't think Trump is a neo-nazi. He really can't do anything that the previous three presidents have already done. We already have tortured, kidnnapped, and assassinated people. We spy on oursleves and Obama has participated in mass deportation. Obama also pursued journalists using the espionage act so opening up libel laws isn't "radical". Compared to Clinton he couldn't get anything he wanted done since bith Republicans and Democrats and their donors hate him. Clinton, on the otherhand, would lose everything in the midterm and get whatever she wanted done with little opposition from Democrats; my biggest fear is that she will remove the last of the progressive Democrats. You just need to look at the opposition to Donna Edwards' and Alan Grayson's Senate races to see they don't want them in the party.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 18:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Mona will see to it that it will be spun that bernie won even when hillary will. Also, too many #bernieorbust peeps on RW. Sandflapjack (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh stop complaining about her. She's gone for a bit, just edit. If it turns into an edit war later, then complain. StickySock (talk) 21:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

SFJ is just complaining about being desysopped when they were edit warring with multiple users.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

--JorisEnter (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Sanders New York & Pennsylvania polling - two big states, it's impressive for a non-party outsider in an important Democratic presidential primary. This opposition could remain a thorn in the flesh for Hillary beyond a general election. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 17:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hillary just isn't electable.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 18:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

While I agree in a broad sense, a golden retriever would be a better option than Trump. At least it wouldn't go on national TV and advocate war crimes. It would also have the best photo ops. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hillary and Nixon

Hillary reminds me of Nixon, a policy wonk, a political genuis, a survivor, but a total clutz on the campaign trail with bad press, baggage, and enemies. Barbara Olsen first outlined the similarities in Hell to Pay[1]. It's obvious she read all Nixon's books, as I have and hear her use comments direct!y out of those books. Bernie Sanders' Kissinger reference I think is a partially a veiled reference to what many of us who remember Nixon think. Even her mannerisms and phrasing in speeches evoke Nixon. Somewhere this is going to be further explored, especially ifshe wins the General Election. nobs^{Dump Trump} 21:00, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Whitewatergate? StickySock (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It goes back to her father as a hardcore conservative Republican, her days as a Goldwater girl "right down to her boots", and her internship on the Nixon impeachment committee wher she learned and studied first hand, close up, inside White House power politics and Nixon's way of thinking. It melded her own "how to" approach, only as a Republican convert to the Democrats, which were embracing people like her and Bill in the new system the McGovern-Fraser commission was welcoming for rapid advancement in the internal party structure. nobs^{Dump Trump} 21:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

It would seem to me that there are a number of edit wars going on here. The page currently boosts the opinion of Michael Fortner that Blacks had nothing against mass incarceration in the 1990s, when in fact there is substantial evidence that they opposed it. Also, apparently there's a dispute about her level of support for the Iran nuclear deal. Probably ought to be talking about this rather than simply reverting. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 16:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

There were blacks that opposed it, but not in the numbers that mona's revisionist narrative paints. This is the article people should read about it, if they want a full picture, without pro-Bernie propaganda. And the nuclear deal thing, well that is pretty much based on Owlman's ignoring of an entire NYT article that literally has in its title that Hillary backs the deal, and instead pushing Owlman's own spin to claim the exact opposite. I'm willing to bet any amount of money that once Hillary becomes president, she will NOT scrap or in any way damage the nuclear deal. Typhoon (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Here's a damn good piece about Hillary from the New Republic worth reading I'm using for some background on the DLC as it relates to the McGover-Fraser reforms and the Hunt Commission's rescinding of some. When Black Lives Didn't Matter. nobs^{Dump Trump} 17:19, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course she won't scrap the Iran deal because that would jeopardize our global standing and she isn't stupid. She wants to add new sanctions on Iran under the guise that they need to get rid of their ballistic missles which isn't going to happen. The Russians and Chinese are going to push Iran to do that and Iran won't do it either which is why it wasn't apart of the deal. She advocated for new sanctions after the Iran deal was signed so don't give me bullshit about how she supports it. She supported bombing Iran in 2008 if they attacked Israel; she has always been a hawk.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 17:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

What about North Korea? nobs^{Dump Trump} 17:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Well the edit war was on Iran but her policy on just about every country is stupid. Her belief that Russia must be challenged by NATO will result in a new cold war at best. I mean we already have the biggest build up of military forces on Russia's border since WWII yet Russia has taken territory in both Ukraine and Georgia and has scared Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Ironically, her husband signed the Agreed Framework with North Korea.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC) 18:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Russia must be challenged by NATO? She hit the "Reset button", didn't she? And BINGO, Bill & Hillary Paid North Korea to build its first nuke, so long as they rolled it out after the '96 elections and tested it on the next president's watch, not theirs. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 18:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances guaranteeing assistance in the case of "threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine" if Ukraine gave up its nukes, which the Obama administration & Hillary's State Department violated and remains in violation now. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 18:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, China promised the to protect Ukraine against any invasion by a nuclear power but sat back as Russia encroached on their territory. I know that a lot of people on the political fringe said Yanukovych was coup by Neo-nazis which I disagree with but there are a lot of Neo Nazis there; the new speaker of parliament is apparently himself a Neo-Nazi.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 18:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, any opponent of Putin is a Neo-Nazi. That would include Obama, Hillary, Condoleeza Rice, GW Bush, Western jounalists, the Gay Rights movement and the Islamic State. So it all depends what you mean by Neo-Nazi. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 00:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well sure but this guy, Andriy Parubiy, started the Social-National Party of Ukraine, a Neo-Nazi party. The Azoz Battalion also uses Nazi imagery.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 01:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

None of what you said disproves the claim that Hillary supports the nuclear deal, as reported in various media. Typhoon (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Then you are in denial. I will restate my point that if I say that I support gay rights but then I publicly state that people should have the "religious liberty" to discriminate against LGBT people then I don't actually support gay rights.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC) 19:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonsensical comparison. Removing sourced information is vandalism, and I will treat it like it from now on. Every time you erase this I will add another source to it. Until you stop being in denial. Typhoon (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

How is that nonsensical? She wants to put new sanctions on Iran. Why else would she want to do that unless she is against the deal?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC) 18:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

She's a war hawk no doubt, and terribly misguided as well. Sanctioning Iran is a terrible idea, Iran is needed to balance out its main religious and political rival, Saudi Arabia. But of course the U.S. loves the Saudis, so it's no surprise they work to suppress the Shias so the Wahhabi propaganda can continue to spread Salafism all over the world. Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Right. So once the Ayatollah gets the nuke, what are the chances of Iran becoming democratic and freeing its own people in the next 100 years? nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 00:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No worse than they are now, with the new benefit of lots of pressure on the Saudis. The Soviet Union had plenty of nukes and still collapsed when the people got fed up, so the state's power is hardly an indicator of anything. Also, the sanctions don't really discourage Iran anymore than they do North Korea, but what they *do* do is allow the Saudis an even stronger influence on the region. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, this deal helps to slowdown the possibility that Iran can get a nuke. It isn't perfect, and I don't what a perfect deal would look like, but it is better then letting stay completely unaccountable. The more trade Iran engages in the more likely they will not be able to survive sanctions.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 01:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 01:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

True, and the ideal would be to sanction both Iran and Saudi Arabia in all honestly. But since the West loves the Saudis and their oil, I'm just pointing this out. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes the USSR w/nukes collapsed on its own volition; but Vladimir Lenin & Leonid Brezhnev weren't shahids, either. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 01:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Face it: Iran HAS nukes, or at least the ability to field one by next Tuesday if is so desires. 13 years is not far off, at all. Saudi Arabia, in the interim couldn't build a nuke that fast (odds are, Saudi Arabia, Eygpt, and Turkey are now beginning a joint nuke program). If Saudi Arabia enjoys some momentary position as a regional power, they still lack the manpower to enforce regional stability outside their borders (hell, according to much evidence, they have serious threats inside their borders they may need help with if the House of Saud is to survive). There is a growing consensus throughout the world, everywhere except in Washington DC which is always in denial of reality, that the Saudi Regime might not last another 13 years. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 01:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The old faith of the Clintonites was that trade and economic liberalization would help bring democracy to countries like Iran. An end to the sanctions makes for an interesting test case. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It didn't work when the Clinton's expanded trade with Russia in the '90s and got worse after the Hillary hit the reset button. Somebody should tell Hillary now the 1980s are calling and they want their foreign policy back. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 02:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

They were saying the House of Saud would collapse within 13 years...13 years ago. And how long has North Korea been about to fall? Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The 2003 Atlantic link, about 3 months into the Iraqi operation is very relevant, indeed. If you can get around some its partisan slant, you can see (1) some of the pro-Iraq war sentiments expressed because of the US over-dependence on Saudi Arabia; (2) why Saudi Arabia today has the forth largest military budget on the planet compared to where it was in 2003; (3) the unforeseen consequences of "the social and economic fallout of its demise could be calamitous" mention in the Intro; (4) the unforeseen rise of Daesh being one of them; (5) the West acquiescing to Iranian hegemony & nuclear power being another consequence of departing from the original 2003 game plan to stabilize Saudia Arabia and the region (the unstable region being Iraq & Iran in 2003; today we can include what's left of Syria; Yemen as well). nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 02:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

As to N Korea, we could always apply the "cut 'n run" strategy to S Korea that worked so well in Saigon in 1975, Teheran in 1979, and Baghdad in 2011). nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 02:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I am a bit of a neo-realist on the issue of nuclear proliferation so I beloeve that Iran still wants a nuclear weapon but that this deal lowers the need for the construction of a nuclear weapon. I agree that if Iran goes nuclear then it will cause a mini cold war with Israel and possibly lead to the Saudis going nuclear which would be more dangerous in my opinion. I think that if Iran is smart they will trade with North Korea which would threaten security in the Pacific, where the US has a major presence, by creating the possbility that they will give enriched uraniums to the Kim dynasty. I doubt that Russia and China would alliw this to actually happen but the mere threat of it occuring would give them an upperhand in negotiations. Also, how long should we have occupied those countries then?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 02:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I can agree wholly with about 85%-90% of your observations. But a nuclear armed Iran (which we can assume is all but an official fait accompli now) is entrenched permanently - with no hope of democratization & friendlier relations as a tradeoff. Entrenched meaning the ruling powers firmly secure from threats, internal and external (the Iranian regime feels more threatened internally than externally). Yes, the results of Obama's deal is likely to be expanded nuclear proliferation arms race between Iran and Saudia Arabia with its Turkish & Eygptian allies. If by some miracle Iran could recognize Israel, that would solve many problems elsewhere, but the crazed loonie Sunnis of the ISIS already accuse Shi'a of being in bed with Zionists, so the only way Iran gains street cred in the Islamic world is to trash-talk the Zionist boogeyman.

Iran, Russia, China & N Korea will never allow NATO to rule the world as it did from 1945 - c. 2012. Each has it's own territorial designs (Russia on Ukraine & the Baltics, China on Taiwan, Iran on Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and eastern Saudia Arabia, N Korea on S Korea). All are tired of asking permission from the US, EU, NATO, the IMF, etc etc to do anything. They have their own non-democratic agendas. This is this the realities of the age we live in today.nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 03:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Idk if the deal guarantees that they will go nuclear but everyone who likes it and hates it agree that Iran could go nuclear whenever it wanted it's just the hope of the administration and its allies that they can slow it down and destabilize the Ayatollahs before they can become a major threat. Sanctions only work against oligarchies so the hope is that trade and economic liberalization leads to more of a "hybrid democracy" like the Kuwait and not a "true" democracy; Russia became an oligarchy and the sanctions on them have been effective for the most part but Putin has centralized more power than previously assumed.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 03:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Iran accepts this deal on their terms. There is no Walk in the Woods now, or likely anytime in the foreseeable future with this regime. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 03:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the US has the upperhand but that merely neoliberals are unconcerned by "promoting" democracy in a traditional sense. Hurting capital in an oligarchy is far more effective than it will ever be in a dictatorship since oligarchs are somewhat accountable to the people's will but more concerned with their wallets. I am curious, though, on what you suggest is the best solution.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 03:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

As an Islamic state under shariah law for nearly 40 years now, Iran is not about to abandon the foundation of its power and make peace with infidel nations as it stands at the threshold of a regional and global hegemon. Forget democracy. Obama/Kerry sold out a bit too early to the new realities. Iran, at a minimum, wants to be treated as an equal to the US, Russia, China, and the EU. That being said, is a little more reasonable than DAESH's demands. So in Iran's "sphere of influence", they are the one's who have to either make (people like) DAESH see reason, or enforce order. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 04:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying Iran is going to become a democracy in the same sense of Europe but that Obama's administration hopes that Iran becomes more like Kuwait. I will reiterate my question to you, what else were we supposed to do?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC) 04:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Pray. The criticism of the Obama/Kerry deal is that they sold out too soon for too little. In the long run, an Iranian-dominated middle east is probably not only inevitable, but desirable compared to other options. That NATO is weakened by this Russian/Iranian alliance is one such apparent undesirable consequence. That North Korea, China, Russia & Iran have become emboldened is another consequence. Kuwait accepted some Westernization cause it needs protection; Iran is a big boy, it can take of itself. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 05:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh don't get me wrong I wasn't accusing of being against the Iran deal, I was just curious what alternatives you would've suggested. I think it is a good deal but, obviously, I would've wanted more. I agree that Russia and Iran will have a stronger alliance now that Iran will be able to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization since the alliance won't accept countries that have been sanctioned by the international community. I don't think it is that bad to have a shift from US hegemony to a mix of Iranian, Turkish, Egyptian, Israeli, and Gulf state spheres of influence. The mini cold war between Pakistan and India hasn't led to any open confrontation in the Kashmir dispute, though, it has led to state sanctioned terrorism.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC) 23:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It's an issue to be seen with a great deal of ambivalence. On the one hand there's a need for a regional, Islamic hegemon to keep peace and order. Iran wants that role and feels they've earned it. On the other hand, can 10% of Shi'ites gain the respect necessary for that role on the international stage from the 90% Sunni majority, or will this perpetual animosity & warfare go on another 1400 years requiring alliances and outside intervention. At this point Iran wants to be accepted as an equal among the Superpowers, which Russia & China have essentially done; one prerequisite to admission to the Superpower nuclear club is to get the US & EU to drop their constant demands to change and accept them as they are, just as we accept Russia & China as the way they are. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 03:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's seemed to me that with Obama, at least, we're making tentative steps toward pivoting away from the Saudis and towards Iran. Iran seems stable and democratic after a fashion compared to the Saudi royals, who still don't even have a real law of succession, and will soon face a generational transition. It's the Saudi version of Islam that stirs up shit in the Muslim world, not the Iranian version. It's hard to politically sell this in the USA, since the hostage crisis lives on in song and story. And pivoting towards Iran also means pivoting away from Israel.

And what's the issue about Hillary receiving donations from state Democratic parties? If Lois Lane says so, it must be so. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, she is getting around her campaign finance cap but mentioning it is particularly mean that it is wrong it just means that it is happening.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC) 03:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Smerdis, I can agree w/ most of that, except the part about stirring up shit. The Islamic Republic of Iran IS the largest terrorist organization on the planet, not ISIS or al Qaeda. As to Saudia Arabia, to paraphrase what an old professor of mine said about the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Saudia Arabia is a dinosaur that somehow survived into the 21st century. nobs^{Dump Trump looks like the sleezebag got it} 04:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't disagree that Iran provides a massive amount of resources to terrorist organizations but so do the Gulf states and Pakistan. I'd say the Saudis sanction more terrorism by encouraging such ideologies.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC) 04:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Both sponsor terrorism, the Saudis do it more-or-less unofficially, Iran does it very officially. Both are Islamist shitholes with Saudi Arabia being worse.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 16:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon continues to edit war by inserting sources about Clinton 's support for the Iran; this isn't wrong but Typhoon insists on inserting as a retort to why neocons support. Now, I personally don't believe she does but even if I accept that she does inserting those links there instead of under the earlier paragraph on her foreign policy effectively handwaves neoconservative support for her.

The other argument is over the Hillary Victory Fund. I have cited CounterPunch because they are the original. I agree that they are cranks but we have cited them on Ayn Rand's page where they found out who was funding the Ayn Rand Institute.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC) 13:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Counterpunch is a well respected left-wing rag with a long history of being a watchdog on issues like this; why shouldn't it be used? nobs^{Mr. Gorbachev Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 22:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying it is well respected but we have used it before. My point is that it should be used since it is the original source.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 00:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It's utterly shameless how your hatred of Clinton is letting you embrace conspiracy-mongering "news" sites. How about you find a better source? Is it that hard? Typhoon (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

yah yah yah, it's all a vast left-wing conspiracy out to destroy Clinton... nobs^{Mr. Gorbachev Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 16:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, then the war goes on.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 16:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The reply literally from the nutcase kicked out of conservapedia loony bin putting more fuel on the fire. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

RobSmith was an editor at Conservapedia?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 17:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to make a few more sarcastic replies but it's not me who has wasted portions of my life over a week warring over this shit as he really obviously adds fuel to the fire. I'd prefer not to have another angry coop and angry ex-user that might be back making life even more miserable editing. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic I don't know anything about RobSmith.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 19:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh shit, my apologies, I made an assumption I shouldn't have and that is entirely my fault. Here's a link to his conservapedia sysop page at RW. He is consistently likely wrong, and biased in ways that are even too weird for them, though he usually has good intentions. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Look, I'm not here to throw gas on the fire. I don't subscribe to Vince Lombardi's axiom, "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing". Like Hillary, I'm a student of Nixon. Like Nixon & Hillary, I enjoy the game. I'm here to sharpen your wits for the long-haul; it's a long way off to the convention and November. Issues I raise the Hillary campaign must address sooner or later. Let's all be friends, cause we all know in the end, whatever happens, we're all fucked. nobs^{Mr. Gorbachev Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 19:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, and I know I've made it repeatedly clear how creepy your behavior has been towards me that's not friendly, but I think of you like a toddler at a remodel project. 90% of the time they just get in the way, ask silly questions, and make everything take much longer than it should even with the best of intentions. The longer this goes the less nice it seems to be getting. I agree we're all in the same boat of pretty well fucked-ville when our normal presidential roster is so poor it's losing to a pathological liar with road kill stapled to his head. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

They are saying "Bernie or bust"? By "bust", do they mean "Clinton"?*rimshot*--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC) 20:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That one rape case from 1975

Should we talk about/include this? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Idk if it is relevant but if it is a common meme shared among the right wing then we should probably add it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 18:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would say no. She was a criminal defense lawyer doing her job. If there's anything to talk about there, it's the disturbing assumption that people accused of sex crimes aren't allowed to attack the complainant's credibility. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It is rather ironic that this appears to be endorsed by those on the right since there is a tendency to blame victims for crimes committed against them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC) 19:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Of all the potentially controversial things about Hillary, this is not one of them. She fulfilled her responsibility as a public defender on a case that was assigned to her. She was laughing about the fact that polygraph machines are clearly unreliable. Nothing to see here. Petey Plane (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Good. Sit on it til the victim speaks out in October on mainstream airwaves in the midst of Hillary's "pro-woman" theme. nobs^{Mr. Gorbachev Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 20:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand what lawyers do? Her doing her job as a public defender is neither anti or pro-woman.Petey Plane (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

When the victim speaks publicly, we can have that debate then. And that, incidentally, isn't the issue; it is her laughing about him passing a lie detector test. Also, it is not a "rape case", it is a "child rape case" nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 01:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The story itself has been around for at least a year. If it's trending once more, perhaps it ought to be mentioned somehow. But at least as far as I'm concerned, this incident does not reflect unfavorably on HRC, and should be treated as a canard to refute. The only things it reflects on Hillary are her intelligence and professionalism; those aren't her failings. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

There's an issue here (and I'm not trying to drag this out). Let's assume the Clinton campaign has already drafted contingencies as this comes out. Here's the issue: (1) Clinton portray's herself as an advocate of women's rights. (2) Clinton Foundation has accepted donations from Saudia Arabia where rape victims are regularly flogged. (3) Her role in defending a child rapist where the victim is still alive and as a rational adult has the right to speak about it. Now, If you were advising the Clinton campaign now or for the past year, what contingencies would you develop to deal with this ongoing issue? nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 02:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Counterpunch

It's both good and bad. When it was under the direction of Alexander Cockburn it was quite reliable; good, fact-based reporting not generally found elsewhere. More lately, I'm selective in what and who I will quote if they are published there. Rather like Salon, Slate and various sites, it depends on the writer. All three have some excellent journalists and/or writers, but one must separate wheat from chaff.---Mona- (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Lock

If the intent of the lock was to avoid "hit pieces" then it failed horribly, because Owlman has full rights to edit mod locked pages. And he went and reinserted his cranks website while removing properly sourced text. Typhoon (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I've undone his last edit/revert which was made after the lock, & suggest that you both discuss the changes you want to make here. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Owlman is reinserting BLP violating stuff

moved from my talk, I don't care - David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Owlman, suffering from Hillary derangement syndrome, has ramped up the insertion of attacks and smears into her article by linking a screencap of a deleted wikipedia article. Clinton isn't mentioned in the Panama papers, yet for a very short while there was a clumsy attempt to link her with it. The article was quickly deleted due to violating COATRACK, POVFORK and BLP, but not before a screencap was made of it, and now Owlman is edit warring to keep this screencap of it on Rationalwiki. I'm no fan of Hillary, and there's plenty to criticize her (and our article indeed does!) without resorting to Republican talking points and wacky conspiracy theories, which is why we shouldn't allow this shit in here. Typhoon (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, he got scared of my above post and stopped reinserting that one link, switching instead to reinserting a link to Counterpunch, a crank website with links to other cranks such as Infowars and globalresearch. He's also removing properly sourced information just because it isn't attacking Hillary. Typhoon (talk) 16:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

You are reading that kinda suspiciously vague chart backwards. Imagine if rationalwiki had to take credit for every site that linked to us. Not to defend a rag that describes itself as partisan muckraking, buuuuut, maybe you're going a bit too far throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't get scared. I removed for now until I have time to read more in depth on why they removed it. I thought you wanted me to do that.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 17:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, maybe have this argument on the talkpage rather than crying to Gerard about it. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 17:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Why did you locked the page, saying you want to avoid it being a hit piece, when Owlman can freely edit mod locked pages? He went and readded his crank website while erasing properly sourced text. And no one can do anything about it because of your lock. Typhoon (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

So Typhoon is accusing me of violating BLP for reinserting a link that AOAPJM which was an archive of a deleted WP page on Clinton donors implicated in the Panama Papers; if you are curious here is the discussion on why they deleted the article itself. Typhoon also insists on deleting the CounterPunch link, even though, as detailed above, we have cited them before and they are the original reporters. Lastly, also detailed above, Typhoon is trying to handwave neocon support for Hillary by inserting links that explain that she supports the Iran nuclear deal next to a neocon WaPo writer who supports her foreign policy and despises the Iran deal. Dick Cheney support, for example, is also mentioned but there is no implication that this means Hillary supports torture so why would we need links showing her opinion on torture?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC) 22:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that you're also erasing one sentence that is directly lifted from a cited Washington post article. Anyway, why are we not allowed to point out the irony of a anti-nuclear deal republican supporting pro-nulcear deal Hillary? Is it that hard to find a non-consipracy rag to source information? And why the hell are we supposed to use a shitty wikipedia article that got deleted for being incredibly shity? Oh, could it be because the deleted wikipedia article has a six-paragraph-long "The administrator" section, which says that a friend of Hillary's campaign manager from 16 years ago has an offshore account with some of the friend's family members, the account has no money in it, and the friend has donated all of $250-to-1,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Owlman completely fell for wacky anti-hillary conspiracies. Typhoon (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh I know I have been consistently posting right wing media sources... Oh wait I haven't. I have never once brought up one of the wingnut conspiracies against her. We don't point out every single postion those who support Trump would disagree with him on so we shouldn't do it her; these pages are about the specific politicians and not their supporters. I am sure that the "vast left-wing conspiracy" against her policies of cutting welfare, supporting war and repressive regimes, and her positions on the death penalty and criminal justice are all hit pieces. We should cite original sources no matter what because they are the original soure; if I find a National Review article that shows Trump's hypocrisy I would cite it.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC) 17:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, Typhoon is winning this one ATM... Insults and hyperbole don't beat refuing the sources. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 05:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

What insults? Typhoon hasn't said that the CounterPunch article isn't factual rather that it comes from a "crank website" but they were the original source; we have cited their research before. I have removed the soures on her views on the Iran agreement because they aren't relevant to the specific paragraph.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 05:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hell, Typhoon has added the statement "one of the world’s fastest-growing charities, which supports health, education and economic development initiatives around the globe" right after the claim that the Clinton Foundation has taken $2 billion from corporate donors and autocratic governments which isn't a relevant statement; this is clearly handwaving the amount of money raised by the Foundation in order to gain political favors.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 05:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

CounterPunch has also published a lotta noncredible stuff. Weakens their credibility a bit.

In general, this article is shittily written -- because the authors can't tell whether they're gonna hate on Clinton and love Bernie or love Clinton and hate Trump. That section is fucking contradictory and uninformative unless you already know the facts -- a reason, I think, that RW shouldn't even fucking discuss these politicians except for the conspiracies about them. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

So I assume you agree that the WP archive is a BLP violation. Also, I agree that the CounterPunch article isn't well written but I never said it was only that they were the original source and it appears factual. So, I don't like doing this, but would you prefer this Daily Kos link that mentions the CounterPunch source but summarizes it?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 18:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Protection lifted

Just play nice. Please. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 18:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Woo

Considering this is rationalwiki, we should cover Clinton's beliefs in ETs and spiritualism. I made a new section, if these fit better into another section feel free to move. --Frybread (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hillary and Sanders articles.

Im just making the observation that in our articles we treat Hillary like Satan, and Sanders like Jesus Christ. I see one positive statement on the entire article, and even that is laced with hate. Im not arguing for neutrality, im arguing that Hillary isnt Satan, and there are pluses to her becoming president. One of those are breaking the gender barrier in the presidency. The political compass shows her as equally as socially liberal as obama if not more, yet we treat her as if she is some uber wingnut. I do not see a single positive thing on the 2016 campaign section, while sanders article is covered in praise and near worship. I think we need to make these two articles less biased, not saying we cant point out the negatives, Sander's article has one tiny section on his bads, its like 1 paragraph, and half the article is dedicated to his positives, while hillary's article is wholly dedicated to her negatives. I think both articles need an overhaul, maybe even a start from scratch if we cannot fix them. Bubba41102^{The place where you can scream at me} 19:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, some of that has to do with Mona's edits. I am not opposed to your suggestion but Sanders's page doesn't have a any specific area of criticism that could be turned into a section. I am not saying that there is no criticisms of him that couldn't be turned into a section, though.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 19:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 19:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I guarantee that after the convention, this page will become pro-Clinton. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Trump article that does a 180. Vulpius (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• there are pluses ...One of those are breaking the gender barrier...

Sure enough all the anti-Palin bigots come crawling out of the woodwork now. nobs^{Mr. Trump, tear down this wall...} 02:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't find either page that bad. If this page is negative, it mostly simply reports what she has said and done. The issue isn't so much with the page as with her record. There is really not a whole lot of editorializing or even snark here. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 01:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the page, people. It's not too mean towards her. The Sanders article has a lot of negative aspects too. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate if we didn't resort to conspiracy websites as sources. Also, gotta love how Owlman is removing stuff cited from a WaPo link just because it explains what the purpose of her foundation is. Typhoon (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh gotta love how Typhoon removes links unrelated to CounterPunch in order to justify neocons supporting. Also, what her foundation does is unrelated to the subject.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 13:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

What her foundation does is 100% related, especially since the source article itself goes to mention it. Typhoon (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The statement "one of the world’s fastest-growing charities, which supports health, education and economic development initiatives around the globe" makes it seem like the all those repressive Gulf regimes care so much about women's right.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 13:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

It's lifted directly from the referenced WaPo article. Stop being so triggered by it. Typhoon (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

So you prefer to edit war instead of talking it out? This is vandalism from you. Typhoon (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You are removing links about neocons supporting.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 14:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 14:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to re-add them. Oh wait, you're incapable of doing that without removing all of my edits too. And if I re-add those links you'll just resume removing my edits as usual. Typhoon (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

You have one cite on the Clinton page making a comment about her support for the Iran deal right next to a bunch of neocons who support her. Your edit is shit.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 15:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

All I did was point out the hilarious irony of anti-iran deal neocons supporting pro-iran deal Clinton. This triggered you. Typhoon (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Why, oh why should I feel bad about removing your stuff, when you're doing literally the same to me, blanking every single one of my additions? Typhoon (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

If we're gonna mention Clinton's supernatural woo

Are we gonna mention that both candidates -- especially Sanders -- love altmed?

Both:

• http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/02/19/hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-embracing-integrative-medicine-pseudoscience/

Sanders:

• http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/bernie-sanders-embraces-alternative-medicine/
• https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/integrative-medicine-invades-the-u-s-military-part-one/
• https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/legislative-alchemy-revisited-naturopathy-in-vermont-and-colloidal-silver/
• http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/9/1498831/-Bernie-Sanders-embraces-alternative-medicine
• http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/18/bernie-sanders-veterans-health-care-uvm/27534441/
• http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/sanders-remarks-on-complementary-and-alternative-health-care

(And this is not to mention his waffling on GMO's.)

Or shall Saint Sanders stand tall over Crooked Hillary? FuzzyCatPotato of the Fickle Sharks (talk/stalk) 22:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Spare no-one.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 22:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC) 22:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I really do think that the mob here prefers Sanders to Clinton. And, well, the way things run around here is the way things run around here. I prefer a slight pro-Sanders bias. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The Sanders article already mentions his pro-CAM stance.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 02:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I frankly don't care about her wooey stances. I'm more worried about they money she's taken from the CEO of Oxycontin, and how that donation money will cause her to oppose marijuana legalization. Weed will still be less legal, and more people will die due to opiate drug overdose. Great job, Hillary! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

More head up her ass bullshit

Article says she describes herself as having the "mind of a conservative and the heart of a liberal"; she also calls ed herself "agnostic intellectual liberal, emotional conservative.” Now which is it? It's doubtful she even knows. nobs^{Trump/Sanders 2016} 00:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Owlman and Typhoon could you please stop reverting each other?

It is really embarrassing to watch you revert each other instead of talking it out and getting to some agreement like sane adult people... Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 19:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

^This, essentially.--JorisEnter (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to politics on RationalWiki.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 19:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Which only gives us more reason to stop this shit.--JorisEnter (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

As if I hadn't tried that. Just look at Owlman's talkpage, I've brought up almost every edit war on it. The result was him accusing me of helping a murderer. And now he's called me a racist after I pointed out that Cornel West is an Obama-hating nutjob. Apparently, it's racism to point out that Sanders has embarrassingly low support from African-americans, but it's totally not racism to be all buddy with a guy who called Obama a "niggerised president". Typhoon (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"If you don't see why choosing an Obama-bashing nutjob when the overwhelming majority of black voters have a very positive view of Obama and want to secure his legacy instead of "Berning it down" then you just might be a white, male Bernie zealot." - Typhoon being unbiased, and reaching an agreement like a "sane adult." Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Don't see the world in terms of "minorities." It's a common SJW mistake. Muslims are not minorities in the countries they came from, they are majorities and they are used to behaving like oppressive majorities usually behave. The SJW mindset is based on the idea that the West somehow oppresses everyone at once, but this doesn't make sense in most of the world."..."We should put all the Muslims and Chirst-worshippers in a single country, watch how fast it tears itself apart and takes care of the Abrahamic problem. Might as well heavily armed Israel in there too, just to mix things up lol" - Aeonian, not acting like a regressive asshole, with a lust for bloodshed. Typhoon (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

You apparently don't see irony, even it it teabags you in broad daylight.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 20:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to be banned, Arisboch? Typhoon (talk) 20:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Already responded to this BS on the regressive left talk page. You're desperate, arn't you? Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Dude, you're desperate for butting into this discussion when the only thing you care is because you hate me. Typhoon (talk) 20:42, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Me hating you? After ad hominem straight to persecution complex, huh? Keep it coming, it'll sure convince anyone.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 20:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I never called you a murder so quite the victim complex. You have been removing cites without sources for weeks and your edits usually amount to whitewashing. You don't support purity tests but if you criticize progressive politicians and activists you are wrong; just look at this quote "Also, if you consider Barbara Boxer, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Dolores Huerta, Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List, Barney Frank, Harry Reid and John Lewis to be Enemies of your State, you probably need to sit down with a mug of Ovaltine and give your animal farm and Four Legs Bad Two Legs Better a super double plus good unthink." - Typhoon. You dislike when Barbara Boxer gets heckled but you supported a more nuanced article on no platform. You have accused me and Old guard of being white cishets when we aren't because we disagree with you. So, again, you are a fucking racist.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 20:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, you said that I support people who "have helped kill people". Nice pendantism from you. Also, that quote of yours that triggered you so much is from this spicy Wonkette article. Also, Pot called kettle, for you to accuse me of whitewashing when you're busy all this time tho whitewash criticism of West for being a racist against Obama. Typhoon (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Give me the link to said comment. I don't care where the quote is from it is still a "purity test". This idea that Cornel sitting on a commission is somehow relevant to the general election is stupid and I have responded to it before. He is making a common critique of within identity politics; that WaPo article gives context to why West made the comment whici is that he believes Obama was brought up with white privilege.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 20:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to recognize sarcasm, when you see it?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 20:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to stay banned instead of evading, Arisboch? Typhoon (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The tactic of sticking your fingers in the ears and yelling "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" is of course useful to you, since it helps you to call Aeonian "regressive" for being sarcastic.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 20:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Just get back to being banned, Arisboch. I don't care about your whining noises. Typhoon (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"LALALALA-SOCKPUPPET-LALALALA" Keep it coming, I wanna be entertained.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 20:53, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder, Owlman edit warred to keep an archive of a BLP violating hitpiece that was deleted from Wikipedia for being a BLP violating hitpiece. He kept reinserting it here until I brought it up to the mods, only then did he ceased edit warring. There's no reasoning with someone who suffers from such rampant Hillary hatred that they're willing to fall for Republican smears. Typhoon (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

No I reversed it until others in the community commented and no one ever did. AOAPJM inserted that link. I doubt it is a Republican tactic to point out her donors in the Panama Papers. But y'know Typhoon is one who can easily refute facts which is why he is inserting this character assassination attempt instead of responding to me above.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 20:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 20:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"AOAPJM inserted that link" <- Irrelevant. Your reinsertion of it means you supported it. Typhoon (talk) 20:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I did support it but removed in order to defer to others' opinions on it but no one ever commented about it even after Gerard removed from his page.--Owlman (talk)(mail) 20:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 20:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Could it be because it was obious it was a BLP violating hit piece? I mean, there was an entire talkpage on wikipedia where that conclusion was reached.Typhoon (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Then wouldn't someone comment about that or tell me I was wrong. It doesn't matter anyways becuase it isn't even there anymore.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 21:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC) 21:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Lmfao I don't "hate" you Typhoon, ignorant Westerners aren't worth it. I just added some balance to the discussion when your own behavior contracted your claims. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

How do we stop this?

I don't care about either side, but this is getting too bad to bear. How do we stop this? Either one side stops, or both sides stop. The former is unlikely, so how can we ensure the latter? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you edit the article with quality sources yourself, instead of waiting on consensus here? Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

And get involved in the fight myself? The thing is: I don't are about the disagreements Typhoon and Owlman have. What I care about is the fact that it is all over Recent Changes and shows no sign of ever being resolved. And that two (presumably) adults with access to all the knowledge in the world (via their PC) are engaged in childlike sandbox shovel throwing. Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 23:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)