*2016 US Presidential Elections* - Candidates, Statistics, Campaign Timelines, Debates

Yep. That's always going to be an issue and a concern
But it's actually one of the considerations for using drones, being as we're talking about 273 civilian deaths in the "drone era" as opposed to tens of thousands of them when we invaded/occupied Iraq.


Nearly 90% Of Those Killed By US Drones Were Not Intended Targets During Five-Month Span: Report

Nearly 90 percent of the people killed by U.S. drone strikes in Afghanistan over a five-month period were not the intended targets. The Pentagon internally admitted in 2013 that U.S. drone strikes are often carried out based on faulty intelligence. Even when drone strikes do kill the intended target, the Pentagon found, the killing may compromise more valuable intelligence-gathering operations.

Those are among the key revelations of a bombshell report published by the Intercept Thursday. The report, based on information passed along from a source involved in the operations, provides a rare glimpse into the classified U.S. drone operations throughout the Middle East between 2011 and 2013. The Obama administration has consistently declined to discuss drone operations publicly other than to tell the public that each strike is the targeted killing of a person who constituted an imminent threat to U.S. national security.

Documents published by the Intercept contradict those assurances.

One 2013 document circulated by the Pentagon’s Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance unit details how the U.S. government continuously updates a profile on potential targets. They’re each assigned a number, colloquially known as the terror suspect's “baseball card,” at which point it took President Obama an average of 58 days to approve a strike on that person.

“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source told the Intercept. If “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate … so it’s a phenomenal gamble.”

Strikes are carried out faster in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. warzones, than in Yemen and Somalia.

Previous reports revealed that the U.S. assumes all military-age males in a strike zone are potential enemy combatants. Former drone operators have also come forward to say many of the hundreds of strikes carried out since 2004 were based on metadata intercepted from a target’s phone. This remained true even after targets learned of the operational strategy and handed off their phones to unwitting strangers, the ex-drone operator said.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimated in April that 522 strikes have killed 3,852 people, including 476 civilians, though estimates vary widely.

"These eye-opening disclosures make a mockery of U.S. government claims that its lethal force operations are based on reliable intelligence and limited to lawful targets," Hina Shamsi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project, said in a statement. "In fact, the government often claims successes that are really tragic losses. The Obama administration's lethal program desperately needs transparency and accountability because it is undermining the right to life and national security."

The civilian toll has also turned the local population against U.S. forces, undercutting many of the military’s goals in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon, attempting to rectify the dichotomy, has pushed for more advanced surveillance drones and recommended capturing more suspects rather than killing them.

“The military is easily capable of adapting to change, but they don’t like to stop anything they feel is making their lives easier, or is to their benefit. And this certainly is, in their eyes, a very quick, clean way of doing things” compared to putting American soldiers in danger, the source told the Intercept. “But at this point, they have become so addicted to this machine, to this way of doing business, that it seems like it’s going to become harder and harder to pull them away from it the longer they’re allowed to continue operating in this way.”
http://www.ibtimes.com/nearly-90-th...tended-targets-during-five-month-span-2142183

90%.
I don't know how you guys are accurate when practicingh target shooting with your gun but imagine thid : you buy a new gun and, with that new gun, only 1 out of 10 shots are on target. Would you keep that gun. Would you trust that gun to protect your loved ones ?
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
It's easy to define terrorism in such diverse ways when the situation under which you experience it and the manner to which it affects your everyday existence is taken into account.
 
Clinton and Trump both held campaign events in North Carolina today. Battleground state WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
 
Quick Question -

I'm an American Catholic whose grandparents were born in Ireland. I'm a registered Independent that is taking a good look at the Libertarians and who is done with the Republican and Democratic parties.

With all of that said,

If I wanted to draw a star with 6 points, a hexagram either a line drawing or filled in with any color, do I need permission on usage or am I just allowed to draw it?

Can I only draw in in certain contexts or can I draw the shape with my own intentions?
 

Mayhem

Banned
Quick Question -

I'm an American Catholic whose grandparents were born in Ireland. I'm a registered Independent that is taking a good look at the Libertarians and who is done with the Republican and Democratic parties.

With all of that said,

If I wanted to draw a star with 6 points, a hexagram either a line drawing or filled in with any color, do I need permission on usage or am I just allowed to draw it?

Can I only draw in in certain contexts or can I draw the shape with my own intentions?

1st Amendment guarantees your right to do anything you want with it. And for other parties to comment on your use of it.





I will not be one of those parties.
 
1st Amendment guarantees your right to do anything you want with it. And for other parties to comment on your use of it.





I will not be one of those parties.

Thanks...that was my point.
 
Corker floats Ivanka for Trump’s VP


Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has a suggestion for Donald Trump's running mate — his daughter Ivanka.

“His best running mate, by the way, would be Ivanka,” Corker said Wednesday after removing himself from consideration to be Trump’s vice presidential pick.

"I know that wouldn’t pass muster, probably, but I don’t know that I’ve met a more composed, brilliant, beautiful-in-every-way person," he continued, adding that Trump's son Eric is "equally impressive."

The U.S. Constitution requires a person to be at least 35 years to be president or vice president. Ivanka will turn 35 on Oct. 30, a little more than a week before Election Day.

She’s expected to take a prime speaking spot at the Republican National Convention later this month and has frequently appeared with her father on the campaign trail.

Corker dropped out of the VP competition one day after campaigning with the presumptive GOP presidential nominee in Tennessee.

“There are people far more suited for being a candidate for vice president, and I think I’m far more suited for other types of things,” Corker told The Washington Post.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/286698-corker-floats-ivanka-as-trumps-running-mate



If he can, Trump might chooses his own daughter for VP ; the simple fact of printing Trump/Trump 2016 bumper-stickers would satisfy his monumental ego.

ivanka_final_65176308-4a5c-4906-b9ee-272672886faa_large.jpg
 
Democratic lawmaker says Trump could be a secret Clinton plant: Bill and Donald ‘are buddies’


For a long time, there’s been a conspiracy theory floating around that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump decided to run for office at the behest of the Clinton family as a way to destroy the GOP and pave the way for Hillary Clinton’s presidency.
Now at least one Democratic congresswoman is openly musing about the idea that this conspiracy has some truth to it.

In an interview with The National Review, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) talks about rumors she’s heard about Trump being a secret Clinton plant — and she can’t dismiss the idea entirely.
“There are some theories on the internet that this is Bill Clinton’s best political deal,” says Kaptur, who supported Hillary Clinton’s rival Bernie Sanders in this year’s Democratic primary. “That he and Donald are buddies, and they have a lot of similar friends in New York, and he has masterfully selected a friend who maybe by October will say, ‘You know, this is very boring. And I’m going to get out.’ Do I believe it 100 percent, do I believe it 2 percent? You know, you really wonder.”

While it’s unlikely that Trump is in cahoots with Bill Clinton to ensure a Hillary Clinton victory this fall, it is true that Trump has acted exactly as you’d expect a pro-Clinton plant to act. After all, he’s sown division and chaos within the Republican Party and has also helped drive the GOP’s favorable ratings to their lowest ever.
In other words, even if he’s not a plant, he’s doing a really good job of acting like one.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/dem...et-clinton-plant-bill-and-donald-are-buddies/





These rumors have been here for monthes. I used to consider them as bs from republicans frustrated by the fact tht Trump did so well in the GOP primaries. But now, looking at how Trump is running his campaign, it doesn't looks like he's trying his best to win...
 

BCsSecretAlias

Closed Account
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/06/dem...et-clinton-plant-bill-and-donald-are-buddies/





These rumors have been here for monthes. I used to consider them as bs from republicans frustrated by the fact tht Trump did so well in the GOP primaries. But now, looking at how Trump is running his campaign, it doesn't looks like he's trying his best to win...
Trump is a progressive/populist. Not a Clinton plant. Democrats are desperate running with this crap. That "plant" could very well stomp her in November as not. Not very smart on the Clinton's part if so.
 
And if Trump were a plant, you'd think he'd be more scripted and not say things like "He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren't captured" in reference to John McCain. That would've sunk anyone else's campaign immediately.
 
It's simple for me...Trump wins = Trump isn't a plant. If Trump doesn't win, nothing you can tell me will ever convince me he wasn't a plant.


It's that simple for me. And I don't know if I'll ever vote for president in this country ever again...
 

Mayhem

Banned
I've been leaning both ways and the article speaks for me. I dunno how much I think he's a "plant", but I'm not discounting it.

I don't think he's a Clinton secret agent though. I said elsewhere, I just think that somewhere in his deranged mind, running for Prez helps his legal issues and/or gives him a new reality show and/or feeds his hangar sized ego and/or (possibly) he's doing his part as a closet Democrat to fuck over a Republican Party that's too stupid to spot it.

His entire life has been devoted to suckering the gullible, he's even said so. If all of this is a sham, he'll have his own wing in the Con Man Hall of Fame.

Right now I wouldn't bet 50 cents either way.
 
On the subject of Trump being a plant:

I like to think that was the plan initially. The Clintons wanted Trump to run and turn the Republican nomination process into a circus and Trump was up for the idea because his celebrity was on the wane and he wanted to re-enter the public conscienceness. But a funny thing happened and Trump started winning. Now he's off his leash and running wild to the equal chagrin of the Clintons and the Republican establishment. This plan also did not anticipate Bernie Sanders and the expectation was that Hillary would waltz to the nomination virtually unopposed which would have cast her in a much more favorable light when compared to the designed sideshow that the Republicans were going through. It's like a House of Cards episode.
 

BCsSecretAlias

Closed Account
On the subject of Trump being a plant:

I like to think that was the plan initially. The Clintons wanted Trump to run and turn the Republican nomination process into a circus and Trump was up for the idea because his celebrity was on the wane and he wanted to re-enter the public conscienceness. But a funny thing happened and Trump started winning. Now he's off his leash and running wild to the equal chagrin of the Clintons and the Republican establishment. This plan also did not anticipate Bernie Sanders and the expectation was that Hillary would waltz to the nomination virtually unopposed which would have cast her in a much more favorable light when compared to the designed sideshow that the Republicans were going through. It's like a House of Cards episode.
He considered running in 2012 too but didn't. He could have just as easily created chaos then too. If Democrats think this is going to work and damage turnout on the GOP side they'd better think again. 13 million voted for the guy in the primaries and caucuses and the Democrat candidate is so awful that most would vote for a "plant" over her. Including myself.
 
I became disillusioned with the whole president process back in '08 in college when I (and many like me) were Dr. Ron Paul supporters and how he was so viciously attacked/smeared/vilified (by both democrat and republican alike) in the MSM. It was at that point that I really began to believe the whole ordeal was a big sham, and when I finally became more open to conspiracy theories and the NWO and that really we're all just pawns.


Trump has been a tough one for me...I was a Rand Paul supporter first and foremost, but when Trump took his Tom Tancredo stance on immigrants and then his stance on Muslims I was all-in for Trump.


But some of his antics I can't help but think they are self-defeating to the point of it being questionable if he is indeed the real thing...or a plant.


Nevertheless, I support the man for the simple fact that his Supreme Court nominations will absolutely be the end-all, be-all of this country's future, and because of his stance on immigrants (to a lesser extent the wall) and Muslims...and the cherry on top is all the lefty quacks that will leave if he's elected. That in itself - to see the likes of all these hollow-rhetoric shit talking Hollywood types GTFO - that would be pure GOLD. :D


But, as I said, this election will confirm for me once and for all (if Trump doesn't win, against a piece of shit asshole like HIllary, who the book out now exposes as a real piece of white trash shit who has treated people - namely her security detail - like absolutely pieces of shit beneath her) whether or not the system is flat our rigged by Illuminati crazies bent on our complete destruction.


The Supreme Court nominations that Trump will get in are beyond critical...the nation in its entirety literally hang in the balance.
 
Top