Hillary Clinton predicted THAAD deployment in Korea

>Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category “may” publish unverifiable information that is “not always” supported by evidence. These sources “may” be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

>Factual Reporting: LOW

>Notes: The Trunews radio program is hosted by Rick Wiles a far right Christian Fundamentalist. His show has a strong right wing bias that supports conspiracy theories. The most common theme is End of Times.

>>135540
Could I get a sauce on where you got that, not OP just genuinely curious.

>>135543
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

>>135539
wow it's almost like she knew things

If you supported Hillary you will say "wow she's so smart to predict that"
If you oppose Hillary you will say "wow it sounds like she was involved in this"
Partisanship killed the people

>>135540
You do realize people who make that stuff up are anti-Christian bigots

As long as they report the facts, they are journalists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4P1jKnOmDk#t=15s

>>135539
This is just so fucking stupid. Why couldn't we have had Hilary instead. Trump is just doing the same exact shit she was going to do, except he's doing it a lot fucking worse, flushing our reputation down the toilet with his incompetency and he can't even get jack shit done back home, oh boy, sign me up for some goberment shut downs in a couple days, he's going to kick and piss his pants when his budget flops, god forbid that monstrosity of meme legislature actually passes.
>We're going to cut healthcare for millions
>They can live without that
>But we're exempt from that cut lol
>We totally need that unlike you
Shove a bicycle for dicks up your ass

>>135565
It's called the 'Deep State' which Trump apparently has surrendered to

http://www.trunews.com/listen/abrupt-change-did-the-deep-state-overthrow-president-trump

>>135565
>Implying a Republican majority house and Senate would allow hillary to do anything were she president.
Trump got Gorsuch in. That is all that really matters for me. Everything else hillary would have done so I consider it a win to have him in for that alone.

>>135576

>Supreme Court

Of all the things in the election, the one thing that pissed me off the most was intentionally keeping a SC seat empty for a pure political gamble. If anyone actually cared about making sure the court was fair and balanced and serving the American people, they would have at least given Merrick a hearing before rejecting him and asking for someone more like Scalia. Instead they hedged bets on gaining control of both the senate and the presidency and kept the seat open for over a year. In that time several cases hit 4-4 deadlock.

At least try to hide your partisan intentions. And don't give me "but the Democrats threatened to do it!" Threaten to do and actually doing are two separate things. You can't try someone for threatening to rob someone (technicality: unless you have credible threat), they have to actually rob someone to get charged. They're still an asshole for threatening, but that also doesn't excuse you for robbing someone. Even if they actually did rob someone, two wrongs don't make a right, and the moral high ground is still a thing you can take (and could even win you political points in the long run).

So I'm happy for you that you got your guy, but I am very unhappy with the method to which he got there (especially since they did the whole "nuclear option" of simple majority in the end just to ice the cake some more and generally make the process worse).

>>135565
>This is just so fucking stupid. Why couldn't we have had Hilary instead
You do realize that some problems have the same logical solutions? Or perhaps that the same action can be taken at different escalation points triggering a totally different set of events?Or do you expect different administrations to do the exact opposite on every possible issue or scenario?

>>135539
At this point, what difference does it make??

>>135539

Any country that understands flight and servo's can hit the US.

rocket tech is a meme too start wars

>>135577
>At least try to hide your partisan intentions.
>And don't give me "but the Democrats threatened to do it!" Threaten to do and actually doing are two separate things.

Speak for yourself.

>>135539
>>135558
Either way the source is a rule violation (apart from the article premise being moronic no matter how neutrally it's written). If /news/ is to be maintained the moderators have to be strict with the rules on OPs.

>>135565
Your writing indicates that you're having a temper tantrum, in no way did you articulate any points in that inchorent dribble that you call an argument

>>135624
> Blogs and editorial articles are not acceptable news sources.

I don't see any rule violations here. TRUNEWS isn't a blog nor an editorial, it's a news organization. I see far worse infractions on this board than this source

>>135539
How is this news. There are people literally paid to make guestimetes on Korea's military projection power based on timelines and what ifs. There are even more people who come up with counter scenarios to stop this shit in its place.

And being in the state department at the time, having access to those people would be in the job description.

>>135642
By your logic, over half of news posted on this board is irrelevant, yet I don't see you complaining when somebody posts about a fat monkey from HuffPo

>>135650
What are you talking about? Someone complains every time HuffPo is posted, just like they complain if Breitbart or Buzzfeed The DailyMail gets posted. Source: -I'm one of the people who complains.

>>135659
Very well, carry on then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1CSnqBeCX0

>>135577
I openly admit that I want a more conservative court, constitutionalist court. The idea of Congress passing progressive laws and the courts reigning them in when they go too far is rather appealing. Having a court which legislates from the bench really does not sit well with me. If that is partisan in your eyes then so be it, but if Hillary were to have nominated a similar justice I would have been equally happy with her.

And yes, I really disliked the bullshit Congress pulled in order for the seat to remain vacant during the Obama administration and the nuclear option being used.

>>135577
>they did the whole "nuclear option" of simple majority

You mean the Harry Reid method?
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters

>>135622

Again, threaten=/=actually doing. Politicians "threaten" all the time as either rhetoric or a negotiating tactic, hoping to get what they want without actually carrying through, like how the mere threat of filibuster causes things to get shut down or renegotiated in the Senate without having to actually do the filibuster. Normally when the cards actually hit the table, the more extreme bluffs (like shutting down the government) get called, and then mercilessly mocked by the other party. It becomes another thing entirely when someone takes the bluff and uses that as precedent to actually do the thing.

Had the Democrats actually done it, then I would be complaining about both parties even harder than I am now.

>>135680

>but if Hillary were to have nominated a similar justice I would have been equally happy with her.

Given that she would have had a conservative senate, it probably would have been either Merrick again or someone similar to Gorsuch. None of these guys seemed to have anything particularly offensive about them (given that both would have had to have bipartisan support to be passed), it's just that the Republicans were playing with fire during Merrick's nomination and then Democrats, be offended by the Republican's actions, decided to play with fire and overplay their hand when Gorsuch was nominated. It's two sides who are unable to take the moral high ground just driving shit into the mud and we're all worse off for it.

Speaking of being unable to take the moral high ground, >>135786
This was also a bad decision, but playing tit-for-tat in politics has a habit of just making things worse and worse until everyone is drowning in shit. For once I'd like politicians to take the actual high ground (not just talk about the high ground, but actually make decisions that would benefit the nation at the loss to the party), maybe having nation-before-party policies would actually benefit a party.

>>135834
>Again, threaten=/=actually doing.

Hey there fuckface, did you read the article? He /did/ do it in order to pass a bunch of nominations and a few bills. The ones who threatened and didn't follow through were the Republicans in 2005.

If you can't bother to read and work within the confines of really and history, your arguments do not matter and will be ignored.

>>135877
>>135834
Guys, guys... Let's try to be civil here. We can argue but no need to call each other names

>>135880
>Guys, guys... Let's try to be civil here. We can argue but no need to call each other names

I provide him with facts. He chooses to completely ignore them and continue with his screed like some soap box huckster. He thereby completely devalues my time and effort. It is flagrant disrespect. So I see no reason to continue to be civil. When he can behave like a gentleman, he'll be treated as one. And you, sir, can shelve your holier-than-thou, ego-inflating referee attempt and sit back down in the peanut gallery until such time as you have something constructive to add.

>>135886

I was talking about the Democrats threatening to hold an SC seat open during an election year, a threat which they never carried out. Sorry if this wasn't clear in my original post, I thought the order of topics made it clear I was talking about threats about holding up an SC seat during an election year, which was often cited by the Republicans as precedent despite the Democrats never carrying through. (I also sort of appended the rules change at the very end after writing everything else as a side note, which in retrospect made my original frustration less clear since I find the delay generally more egregious than the rule change).

Obviously Reid changed the rules for lower court nominations, which set the precedent for the Republicans to change the rules for the SC years later (personally I think the Republicans should have put out one more nominee to fully bury the Democrats as being obstructionist if they also rejected him or get the next guy through without needing to change the rules).

>>135877

Also if you note the order in which I replied, that first part wasn't even directed at you, but another guy (>>135622) who did not specify which section he was talking about, as such I assumed he was talking about the SC election delay which didn't happen.

>>135916 adding something else I just realized,

>>135877

For someone accusing me of not reading, you also didn't read the rest of my post, in which I specifically quoted your post and noted that was also a bad decision on the part of the democrats:
>Speaking of being unable to take the moral high ground, >135786
>This was also a bad decision,

>Look, if you wanna rank "evils", the US and Britain are so far higher than anyone else in the history of the world that we can put all the others to the side.
-Noam Chomsky

>>135565
we shouldnt have wither you dumb fuck