Independent Runner?

Bedford Mike P

5/31/2016 8:05 PM

So there's speculation about a possible third party candidate, running independent.
I have my thoughts :mrgreen:

Good? Bad? What do y'all think?

Sandy Clark

0 posts

6/1/2016 9:06 AM

Unless she is indicted, it will give Hillary the election and that would be horrible for America in so many ways.

Trevor Monreal

5 posts

6/1/2016 11:06 AM

THIS GUY??
[img">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/30950781/Jesse.jpg[/img">
Not going to get my vote

[img">https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e9/a4/0d/e9a40dcd3d0ec0d7c8f90e4efecf1cf8.jpg[/img">
She would...but not going to happen

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

6/1/2016 2:06 PM

Trevor Monreal said: THIS GUY??
[img">http://c10.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/page_2014_200_french-d_A.jpg[/img">
Not going to get my vote

[img">https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e9/a4/0d/e9a40dcd3d0ec0d7c8f90e4efecf1cf8.jpg[/img">
She would...but not going to happen

You would vote for Secretary Rice, who I believe has the same email problem that Secretary Clinton has? Was involved with what I consider worse then Benghazi, getting us involved in starting a war with Iraq, yea I know she wasn't Secretary of State yet at that time, but was part of the war mongers in the White House. Although depending on some of her other positions on issues, I guess I might vote for her over Clinton, would have to see. Dang sure I would vote for her over Trump.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Curtis Nickerson

0 posts

6/1/2016 3:06 PM

Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
Trevor Monreal said: THIS GUY??
[img">http://c10.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/page_2014_200_french-d_A.jpg[/img">
Not going to get my vote

[img">https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e9/a4/0d/e9a40dcd3d0ec0d7c8f90e4efecf1cf8.jpg[/img">
She would...but not going to happen

You would vote for Secretary Rice, who I believe has the same email problem that Secretary Clinton has? Was involved with what I consider worse then Benghazi, getting us involved in starting a war with Iraq, yea I know she wasn't Secretary of State yet at that time, but was part of the war mongers in the White House. Although depending on some of her other positions on issues, I guess I might vote for her over Clinton, would have to see. Dang sure I would vote for her over Trump.

So Mel, its ok for Hilary, just not Rice?...but you know "there confidential and then theres confidential"... and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Hilary vote FOR the war in Iraq?...

Mel

Steven Huffstutler

11 posts

6/1/2016 4:06 PM

If Connie is qualified( and she is), then so is Hillary. The Velveeta Badger is not.
I would vote for Connie. She's not running.

Clay Putnam

33 posts

6/1/2016 5:06 PM

Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
Trevor Monreal said: THIS GUY??

You would vote for Secretary Rice, who I believe has the same email problem that Secretary Clinton has? Was involved with what I consider worse then Benghazi, getting us involved in starting a war with Iraq, yea I know she wasn't Secretary of State yet at that time, but was part of the war mongers in the White House. Although depending on some of her other positions on issues, I guess I might vote for her over Clinton, would have to see. Dang sure I would vote for her over Trump.

Mel

Not even a close comparison, Mel. Rice did not have her own server, Hillary did. Rice did not conceal her correspondence until forced to turn over her emails, Hillary did. Rice cooperated with the investigation by allowing herself to be interviewed, Hillary did not even though Hillary said she (paraphrasing) "looked forward to telling her story". And, you're drawing an awfully crooked line to connect Rice as a war monger.

Bedford Mike P

6/1/2016 5:06 PM

Steven Huffstutler, CGCS said: If Connie is qualified( and she is), then so is Hillary. The Velveeta Badger is not.
I would vote for Connie. She's not running.

"Velveeta Badger"?! I just shot a gulp of coffee out of my nose, Steve. You made my day! I agree, I've always been a Connie fan. And too many people seem to forget that Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction. Murder, imprisonment, rape, torture, genocidal policies.... remember the gas attacks on Halabja? My only regret was not rolling through Baghdad.

Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: You would vote for Secretary Rice, who I believe has the same email problem that Secretary Clinton has?

Rice had a private server? I hadn't heard that before.

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

6/2/2016 8:06 AM

Mike P Bedford said:
Steven Huffstutler, CGCS said: If Connie is qualified( and she is), then so is Hillary. The Velveeta Badger is not.
I would vote for Connie. She's not running.

"Velveeta Badger"?! I just shot a gulp of coffee out of my nose, Steve. You made my day! I agree, I've always been a Connie fan. And too many people seem to forget that Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction. Murder, imprisonment, rape, torture, genocidal policies.... remember the gas attacks on Halabja? My only regret was not rolling through Baghdad.
Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: You would vote for Secretary Rice, who I believe has the same email problem that Secretary Clinton has?

Rice had a private server? I hadn't heard that before.

Mike, your right, I googled it and she used a state department server, but rarely used email. I assumed, (I know what that means, but I don't get it, I think it only applies to me, since I was the one who assumed) she had the same set up that Secretary Powell had. It is known that Secretary Powell used private email according to most news sources, I did find a CNN story from February, that did say both Powell and top aides for Rice used personal emails to send classified information.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Clay Putnam

33 posts

6/2/2016 10:06 AM

Melvin Waldron, CGCS said:
Mike P Bedford said:
Steven Huffstutler, CGCS said: If Connie is qualified( and she is), then so is Hillary. The Velveeta Badger is not.
I would vote for Connie. She's not running.

"Velveeta Badger"?! I just shot a gulp of coffee out of my nose, Steve. You made my day! I agree, I've always been a Connie fan. And too many people seem to forget that Hussein himself was a weapon of mass destruction. Murder, imprisonment, rape, torture, genocidal policies.... remember the gas attacks on Halabja? My only regret was not rolling through Baghdad.
Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: You would vote for Secretary Rice, who I believe has the same email problem that Secretary Clinton has?

Rice had a private server? I hadn't heard that before.

Mike, your right, I googled it and she used a state department server, but rarely used email. I assumed, (I know what that means, but I don't get it, I think it only applies to me, since I was the one who assumed) she had the same set up that Secretary Powell had. It is known that Secretary Powell used private email according to most news sources, I did find a CNN story from February, that did say both Powell and top aides for Rice used personal emails to send classified information.

Mel

Again, the comparisons, be it with Powell or Rice, aren't close with Clinton. Remove "Rice" from my previous post and insert "Powell"...

Melvin Waldron

43 posts

6/2/2016 11:06 AM

Clay can you point out the differences you think exist between them that causes you the concern?

Both Powell and Rice pushed for war, so did Clinton, Powell and Clinton use private servers, Rice's top aides used private accounts, (this is where my lack of technology eludes me somewhat, "what's the difference between servers and accounts?) I don't see much of a difference between the 3 in public life, in these regards. I know Benghazi gets brought up, and the loss of life is tragic, but what is the difference between 4 people killed there and almost 5,000 in Afghanistan and Iraq? (I contend Libya is Obama's Iraq in some regards), all three were involved in putting our military's lives in danger in situations we didn't belong in. Yea I get it Saddam was a bad man, so are many other leaders and we aren't going to war with them.

I'm sure they all give speeches for money to all sorts of firms and groups.

I do know there are some differences, Of course Secretary Powell also served in the Military, I also believe he is more middle of the road on many other issues, I believe Secretary Rice, is somewhat right of Powell, more of a hawk, maybe because she hasn't served? Clinton in regards to foreign policy I believe is somewhat middle of the road, this is where she is so much of a better choice than Senator Sanders. I do believe Secretary Clinton being a Senator and being in the White House, along with First Lady of Arkansas, creates a little more of a perception of career politician and that works against her.

I could go on, but those seem to be the main points against Clinton, so I addressed them.

Quite honestly I would have no problem voting for Powell, I would want to see where Rice stands on some of the social issues before I would vote for her over Clinton. All three are much better choices then Mr. Trump. And believe me I am not a Clinton fan, it is just the choices we have been given.

Mel

Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO

Clay Putnam

33 posts

6/2/2016 2:06 PM

Mel,

Quite honestly, the Middle East dust-ups that can be attributable to Powell and Rice are a non-issue with me so I will stick with the email issue. But characterize Rice or Powell as war mongers is a large stretch.

I'm far from a IT person but I am somewhat familiar with servers. A server is used to send, receive, and store data such as email, files, documents, records, etc. A person that has her (Hillary) own server can store the content that is sent and received via email. A person sends an email and that email passes through the server then the email is routed from the server to the recipient of the email. Conversely, an incoming email passes through the server before it is delivered to her in-box. Therefore, every email that passes through the server is stored in the server. Think of it as a holding tank. The owner of the server (Hillary) can manipulate what is saved and/or deleted from the server, she can destroy the server or do whatever she pleases with the server. The owner of the server is also responsible to maintain safeguards (firewalls) to prevent hackers from gaining access to the information stored on the server (sensitive emails/information/pass codes/etc). A general email account is what we all have; i.e., mel@yahoo.com, clay@gmail.com, and so on. We do not own, operate, and maintain the server. Yahoo, google, and the like do. We are simply the end user of a email account. We can delete email from our in-box, junk box, and so on. However, we do not access to the server therefore, we cannot delete the emails from the server. The emails are forever stored in the server.

Bedford Mike P

6/2/2016 5:06 PM

Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: I did find a CNN story from February, that did say both Powell and top aides for Rice used personal emails to send classified information.

I bet it happens more often than we will ever know, Melvin. It's just that Hillary took it to a whole new level. The only reason she would have her own server (Rice and Powell didn't) would be to hide what you're doing. She works for us.
When you send a crew member out to mow greens, and radio out asking where they're at, I bet a "None of your business, it's personal" response would cause at least a slight elevation in blood pressure?

Sandy Clark

0 posts

6/7/2016 9:06 AM

One big difference bet Powell, Rice and Clinton is that for years, everything around her has smelled of corruption. You never heard a word about anything unethical with the other two. Hillary has sounded dirty since her days in Arkansas. Sure, a novice futures trader just happens to make a killing on cattle futures. Check her entire career. It isn't the vast right wing conspiracy. She has been a part of Bill's cover up forever. They had a political marriage of convenience and power. The woman is unethical, dirty and I don't understand the adoration from her own part over her. Any one of us would have been in jail years ago if we had her history. If the Clinton foundation is fully vetted, you will find she did work favors for other countries that are related to her and Bill's speaking arrangements. Why anyone supports this woman for anything is beyond me. She is hideous to listen to and as corrupt or more so than any politician I am aware of. Horrible temper, treats secret service and military like crap and is as elitist as you can get. We would all be in prison if we did half of what she has done. Different rules for the Clinton's I guess.

Stephen Okula

3 posts

6/7/2016 11:06 PM

Sandy Clark, CGCS said: One big difference bet Powell, Rice and Clinton is that for years, everything around her has smelled of corruption. You never heard a word about anything unethical with the other two.

Promoting the trumped up war in Iraq was beyond unethical. It was criminal.

Sandy Clark

0 posts

6/8/2016 10:06 AM

Stephen, I will not defend any decision on the war in Iraq but we all have to remember, hindsight is 20-20. None of us will ever know the intelligence they were looking at. There were WMD's in Iraq, just not nukes, even though they did find yellow cake uranium. There also were aerial photos of truckloads of something heading to Assad in Syria. I don't think it was popcorn and candy. I won't defend or be a detractor of what they did since I have no clue what they saw. I will never believe the Bush did it out of corruption. Intelligence may have been wrong but a lot of other countries had the same info. We can look back at any war in history and come up with why it was wrong in our eyes now. I can't judge because the last I knew, none of us were on the inside. We look back at all the conquest over history and pick and choose which ones we think were terrible. Truth is, man has been barbaric and conquered each other since the beginning of time. Are any of them right or wrong or more or less moral than the other? Horrible things have happened and it is called history.

Larry Allan

0 posts

6/8/2016 1:06 PM

Sandy Clark, CGCS said: Stephen, I will not defend any decision on the war in Iraq but we all have to remember, hindsight is 20-20. None of us will ever know the intelligence they were looking at. There were WMD's in Iraq, just not nukes, even though they did find yellow cake uranium. There also were aerial photos of truckloads of something heading to Assad in Syria. I don't think it was popcorn and candy. I won't defend or be a detractor of what they did since I have no clue what they saw. I will never believe the Bush did it out of corruption. Intelligence may have been wrong but a lot of other countries had the same info. We can look back at any war in history and come up with why it was wrong in our eyes now. I can't judge because the last I knew, none of us were on the inside. We look back at all the conquest over history and pick and choose which ones we think were terrible. Truth is, man has been barbaric and conquered each other since the beginning of time. Are any of them right or wrong or more or less moral than the other? Horrible things have happened and it is called history.

Sandy, you have to check the facts. Hindsight is 20/20 but my God, They didn't find ANY WMD period. and I would have to verify the Yellow Cake but I seem to remember that being false as well. Sadam was a dick and so was Kadafi but quite honestly you can't say either country is better off now then under those regimes. They were stable if not democratic. I'll take stable any day
Bushs advisors fucked up the entire region and now the outcome is ISIL. There is no defence of what happened. He and his buddy from England and was it Tonga?, should face charges in International Court.
It's good you have a big military budget because eveytime you go in to do the right thing, it turns out for the worst. Do what George Costanza did. Think about what you think you should do and then do the opposite

Larry Allan

0 posts

6/8/2016 1:06 PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

Keith Lamb

3 posts

6/8/2016 3:06 PM

Larry Allan said: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

[youtube">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIdUlp3QAsk[/youtube">

Bedford Mike P

6/8/2016 6:06 PM

Larry Allan said: Sadam was a dick and so was Kadafi but quite honestly you can't say either country is better off now then under those regimes. They were stable if not democratic. I'll take stable any day

Stable? They were regimes that held their people in check with homicide, genocide, rape torture and imprisonment.
That kind of stable I want no part of.
I think it's pathetic that we not only allow dictators like this to exist, but actually cut them checks so they can continue their "stability" programs.
While our military weakens, we send money to the very people who will attack us.
I'm Israel all the way, our only solid friend in the region. If it's bad for Israel, crush it.

Larry Allan

0 posts

6/8/2016 8:06 PM

Mike, if it was a true issue you would have invaded China, North Korea and the list goes on. Don't preach! Don't be selective! You guys pick out easy targets with no concern about the outcome. Why is ISIL a concern? Lack of American foresight ( intelligence)

Stephen Okula

3 posts

6/9/2016 6:06 AM

China, North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, all run by evil dictators, just like Iraq, but the difference is they had no oil and Iraq was sitting on a world supply. Even so, the U.S. had no problem with Saddam and his brutal regime and all those crimes against humanity until he stopped doing what we wanted by fighting Iran and instead charged into Kuwait. Remember thosa photos of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein? That was during the magnificent Reagan administration that the conservatives worship so much.

Also, Iraq was weak enough militarily that we could take it pretty easily (holding it was another story). Russia has an evil dictator and lots of oil and doesn't cooperate with us but we're either too chicken or too smart to invade Russia. Suadi Arabia has more oil than God, would be a military pushover, and is not at all democratic, but they play ball with us so it's okay.

Before anyone reminds me that Hillary voted for the war - and she did - that's her disgrace, but there's a big difference between those who perpetrate a fraud and those who are conned by it. Hillary is of the latter type, Condi, the former.

And Sandy, before you claim it's all hindsight, there were many of us who protested long and loud against that invasion before it happened. I did so here on his forum, and for that I was accused of being a terrorist.

Curtis Nickerson

0 posts

6/9/2016 8:06 AM

Talk about "being selective" ironic you mention Hilary and fraud in the same sentence? All politicians are liars and crooks, both sides of the isle, all looking to benefit themselves. How do these people work in jobs that pay less than $200K have net worth's of several million...while "working for the people" and preach about income inequality? Its all garbage and is inexcusable for either party, period!

Sandy Clark

0 posts

6/9/2016 9:06 AM

Stephen, I do remember you being against it and never had a problem with anyone disagreeing with the war. Those countries were horrible due to their leaders but from a purely political balance of power issue, they kept the lid on each other and caused the world no problem beyond the immediate area. Horrible and brutal to their people. Unfortunately, the world for years has ignored some while going after others. Larry, they did find a boat load of chemical agents in Iraq and remnants of some being hid and destroyed. They count as WMD"s. Sadaam had already poisoned his own people so he did have them and had no problem using them. I stand by my 20-20 hindsight comment since none of us had access to the intelligence. Decisions were made based on information we will never see. Obviously much of it was inaccurate because Sadaam wanted everyone to think he had all this stuff to cause fear and act like he had strength. I have my strong opinions just as all of you do. Maybe time will bring out all the facts and we will all know the full truth.

Larry Allan

0 posts

6/9/2016 11:06 AM

Sandy, if you look it up the chemical weapons that Iraq had were originally produced in conjunction with the US to be used against Iran during that war. Iraq did use them on the Kurds but their intended target was Iran. They were documented well before the Call to war took place. They were not under secret development. The UN knew they existed, as well as the US and most of the world powers. That is why the so few countries were willing to join Coalition of the Willing

Clay Putnam

33 posts

6/9/2016 3:06 PM

Currently reading this. The author clearly has an agenda but it's an interesting read nonetheless. Ironically, the author scorns Bush Jr. for going into Iraq and criticizes Bush Sr. for pulling out of Iraq during the 1st Gulf War. Moral of the story is every president dating back to Carter is in a no win game when it comes to the middle east. Damned if you do and damned if you don't...

[url=http://s191.photobucket.com/user/cbputnam/media/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-09%20at%203.13.09%20PM_zpsnxqjn4dn.png.html">[img">http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z176/cbputnam/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-09%20at%203.13.09%20PM_zpsnxqjn4dn.png[/img">

Bedford Mike P

6/9/2016 7:06 PM

Larry Allan said: Mike, if it was a true issue you would have invaded China, North Korea and the list goes on. Don't preach! Don't be selective! You guys pick out easy targets with no concern about the outcome. Why is ISIL a concern? Lack of American foresight ( intelligence)

I don't believe I was being selective at all, Larry.
I don't advocate a smart bomb through every doorway, but I do think that all counties, large or small, should be held to at least a minimum moral standard.
Failure to meet those standards should have consequences, be they economic or military.
Did you really mean ISIL? Do you consider, based on the borders of the Levant, that Israel is a terrorist state?
To me that term ISIL has always been one of the scarier terms used by Obama, especially considering his obvious disdain for our chief ally in that region.

Larry Allan

0 posts

6/10/2016 4:06 AM

Mike P Bedford said:
Larry Allan said: Mike, if it was a true issue you would have invaded China, North Korea and the list goes on. Don't preach! Don't be selective! You guys pick out easy targets with no concern about the outcome. Why is ISIL a concern? Lack of American foresight ( intelligence)

I don't believe I was being selective at all, Larry.
I don't advocate a smart bomb through every doorway, but I do think that all counties, large or small, should be held to at least a minimum moral standard.
Failure to meet those standards should have consequences, be they economic or military.
Did you really mean ISIL? Do you consider, based on the borders of the Levant, that Israel is a terrorist state?
To me that term ISIL has always been one of the scarier terms used by Obama, especially considering his obvious disdain for our chief ally in that region.

Why is it your job to decide what is a minimum moral standard? Child labour and slavery were standards in American history as they now are in other countries. There is a natural progression to democracy that happens in any oppressed society. It happens at its own pace and in the end there is nothing beneficial to be gained in trying to speed it up. You guys took a decades and decades to eventually realize slavery was not democratic but you eventually got there without some outside army coming in to force you. I have always believed that if we all lived by the Star Trek Prime Directive, prohibiting Starfleet personnel (insert US, Russia, China etc here) from interfering with the internal development of alien civilizations, the world would be a better place

Stephen Okula

3 posts

6/10/2016 4:06 PM

Mike P Bedford said:
Larry Allan said: Mike, if it was a true issue you would have invaded China, North
I don't believe I was being selective at all, Larry.
I don't advocate a smart bomb through every doorway, but I do think that all counties, large or small, should be held to at least a minimum moral standard.
Failure to meet those standards should have consequences, be they economic or military.
Did you really mean ISIL? Do you consider, based on the borders of the Levant, that Israel is a terrorist state?
To me that term ISIL has always been one of the scarier terms used by Obama, especially considering his obvious disdain for our chief ally in that region.

So who decides the "minimum moral standards"? And who delivers the "consequences"? You? Me? Donald Trump? What you're suggesting is that the U.S should be judge, jury, and executioner of every other country on the planet.

How is Israel an "ally"? We give them 3 billion in military aid and they give us what? People spying on us?
http://wearechange.org/us-officials-isr ... ng-levels/

Stephen Okula

3 posts

6/10/2016 4:06 PM

Clay Putnam, CGCS said: Currently reading this. The author clearly has an agenda but it's an interesting read nonetheless. Ironically, the author scorns Bush Jr. for going into Iraq and criticizes Bush Sr. for pulling out of Iraq during the 1st Gulf War. Moral of the story is every president dating back to Carter is in a no win game when it comes to the middle east. Damned if you do and damned if you don't...

[url=http://s191.photobucket.com/user/cbputnam/media/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-09%20at%203.13.09%20PM_zpsnxqjn4dn.png.html">[img">http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z176/cbputnam/Screen%20Shot%202016-06-09%20at%203.13.09%20PM_zpsnxqjn4dn.png[/img">

I haven't read the book, though it's one I'm going to find.

Before I read it, I'd like to know what is the author's agenda?

I hope it's the truth.

Forum Groups

Independent Runner? Cancel

Forum Groups

Independent Runner? Cancel The title field is required!

Independent Runner? Cancel