Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
problem is the first time the rape civil case was brought against Trump red flags went flying because there was no physical address tied to it

And? Obviously the person filing the case wanted to protect their identity, and the fact that the case was dismissed over a technicality involving the address listed has nothing to do with the merits of the case.

then how it was dropped from several million to $75K, thats a lawyers trick make the settlement cheap enough that it is cheaper to settle then fight it

I'm sure if the accuser had been asking for more money you'd be talking about how greedy she is and how she's obviously just trying to get rich by blackmailing Trump with a fake accusation. And let's be realistic here, Trump is never going to admit defeat in a case where he's accused of raping a child, no matter how low the financial cost is. Doing anything other than insisting that he is completely innocent would be political suicide even if it only cost $1 to settle it.

the fact you think that there is anything to the case is laughable at best

Did you even read the article about the reasons why the accusation seems believable?

but then again you seem to think I think there is something to the Clinton e-mail gaf, I don't, and for nobody caring about the scandal it sure is front page news all over the place, I can't go a day without hearing something about it on most news agencies, and thats what will kill her, this corruption case will be foremost and in the front of the election.

If you don't think there's anything to the email "scandal" then why do you keep posting about it?

because people like you like to post every little thing about trump so I thought I would even the playing field, and like I said I will go by the lawyers groups which says the case will go nowhere because it is fake. not Trumps cronies but people who deal with the law day in and day out, even Snopes think the case will fail. so protecting their identity by not giving a credible location to the court? furthermore if Trump did it like you seem to think he did, don't you think he would know who it is? seriously your arguments are lacking in basic knowledge even. also why did they not file again in the same state? instead opened a new case across the country? also the case was dropped in California because she did not have an attorney nor the fees to pay one, and let me tell you this if she even had a 5% chance of winning the case attorney's would have been lining up in this state to represent her.

furthermore unlike Clinton's email deal which is featured in national news agencies, not a single one has picked up the trump rape case, so thats saying they don't believe it either.

 Peregrine wrote:
If you don't think there's anything to the email "scandal" then why do you keep posting about it?

I think you know the answer to that question.


Just ignore him... it's the best thing for everybody's sake.

Wait are you really claiming that a presidential candidate being questioned as part of a criminal investigation where she is the primary subject isn't newsworthy, and please don't repeat the dishonest " its not a criminal investigation" or " the server is being investigated" bull that the Clinton camp has put out there multiple times and been shot down on.

Doesn't Trumo also have an email scandal now? Something about asking members of foreign governments to donate money to his campaign? Can't wait for the investigation. Heads will roll. Election called. Just asking questions.

Jerram wrote:
Wait are you really claiming that a presidential candidate being questioned as part of a criminal investigation where she is the primary subject isn't newsworthy, and please don't repeat the dishonest " its not a criminal investigation" or " the server is being investigated" bull that the Clinton camp has put out there multiple times and been shot down on.

It's not newsworthy because it's not new. Going from "the FBI is investigating" to "the FBI is doing the inevitable thing that is guaranteed to happen in an investigation" is not a newsworthy event, it's just repeating the same old stuff we've already been hearing. It's obsessing over every trivial detail of the process and treating it as major breaking news, for the sole purpose of keeping the subject fresh in everyone's mind.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Doesn't Trumo also have an email scandal now? Something about asking members of foreign governments to donate money to his campaign? Can't wait for the investigation. Heads will roll. Election called. Just asking questions.

I assume it will get at least as much coverage in the OT as the latest Benghazi investigation fizzling out while Chris Steven's family said they don't blame Hillary Clinton and that it's wrong to politicize it.

 Ouze wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Doesn't Trumo also have an email scandal now? Something about asking members of foreign governments to donate money to his campaign? Can't wait for the investigation. Heads will roll. Election called. Just asking questions.

I assume it will get at least as much coverage in the OT as the latest Benghazi investigation fizzling out while Chris Steven's family said they don't blame Hillary Clinton and that it's wrong to politicize it.

By all means, start a thread about it.

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Doesn't Trumo also have an email scandal now? Something about asking members of foreign governments to donate money to his campaign? Can't wait for the investigation. Heads will roll. Election called. Just asking questions.

I assume it will get at least as much coverage in the OT as the latest Benghazi investigation fizzling out while Chris Steven's family said they don't blame Hillary Clinton and that it's wrong to politicize it.

By all means, start a thread about it.

It was already brought it up but it was seemingly ignored due to the constant gak-posting from some other posters. Also, we don't need a separate thread about it because we already have a thread dedicated to US politics.

One can only hope that Rush Limbaugh talks about it so you'll have something to contribute to conversation.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Doesn't Trumo also have an email scandal now? Something about asking members of foreign governments to donate money to his campaign? Can't wait for the investigation. Heads will roll. Election called. Just asking questions.

I assume it will get at least as much coverage in the OT as the latest Benghazi investigation fizzling out while Chris Steven's family said they don't blame Hillary Clinton and that it's wrong to politicize it.

By all means, start a thread about it.

It was already brought it up but it was seemingly ignored due to the constant gak-posting from some other posters. Also, we don't need a separate thread about it because we already have a thread dedicated to US politics.

One can only hope that Rush Limbaugh talks about it so you'll have something to contribute to conversation.

But then you'd have to find something else to complain about.

While this kind of persiflage is highly amusing, it's off topic.

 Peregrine wrote:

Jerram wrote:
Wait are you really claiming that a presidential candidate being questioned as part of a criminal investigation where she is the primary subject isn't newsworthy, and please don't repeat the dishonest " its not a criminal investigation" or " the server is being investigated" bull that the Clinton camp has put out there multiple times and been shot down on.

It's not newsworthy because it's not new. Going from "the FBI is investigating" to "the FBI is doing the inevitable thing that is guaranteed to happen in an investigation" is not a newsworthy event, it's just repeating the same old stuff we've already been hearing. It's obsessing over every trivial detail of the process and treating it as major breaking news, for the sole purpose of keeping the subject fresh in everyone's mind.

So if she was to get indicted it wouldn't be news either ? Since under normal circumstances that would be the inevitable thing that would happen based on the publicly released information (The emails themselves, not even the leaks about what was in the redacted portion of the emails) or would it would be news because the DoJ actually did its job ?

As far as the But, but Trump interjection, yeah it demonstrates the amateurishness of his campaign still, if he had the type of machine the Clintons and Obama soliciting donation from foreign nationals would be much more skillfu and indirect and not come out till later. (people really should stop assuming Trump support from those who point out Hillary's criminal behavior, luckily my state isnt in play so I don't have to agonize whether to vote for the amateur or indirectly support the criminal)

Ouze please stop trying to intermingle the ineptness of our government investigation (Congressional oversight focus on what to do better in future) with the FBI mishandling classified information investigation (Criminal focusing on potential charges being filed)

I'm not sure what I'm being accused of intermingling here, exactly. I'm simply surprised that after literally hundreds, if not thousands of posts on Benghazi, people are so disinterested now that Clinton has been cleared. I mean, there was some posters in the OT that were really concerned about the situation, so I'm confused by why they weren't interested in that Chris Steven's family doesn't blame Hillary Clinton. Why aren't these seekers of truth championing the cause of the family - who they care about deeply and remind you that 4 Americans died - that their deaths not be politicized? It's perplexing.

I don't think I ever said Hillary Clinton's email situation wasn't newsworthy, or shouldn't be investigated. I'm sure I said it didn't really matter from an electoral perspective, and that the voting populace at large doesn't really give a gak, which is true, and I stand by. I think I need you to tell me more specifically what intermingling I am guilty of.

The newsworthy discussion is in response to Peregrine (The part in quotes). The intermingling accusation is because we went from Hillary's criminal investigation to the But Trump email discussion to Benghazi pretty quickly and her paid operatives often try to conflate the two in interviews since it allows them to spin the DoJ investigation as a partisan witchhunt. If that was just a natural flow of the conversation and not an intentional mix I apologize.

As far as Chris Stevens family, sorry but there opinion holds no more weight than the other families involved who she directly lied to in the immediate aftermath who don't have such a favorable view. "Cleared her" is an interesting spin it lays out the incompetence of her State Dept and even the democrats softened version admits that (they just point at her underlings as being incompetent)

The only investigation that hasn't cleared her was the one held by the partisan group that said from the very beginning that they would never accept any result that cleared her. Every other investigation into Benghazi has reached the exact same conclusion: nothing was done wrong.

Well, the answer to that is obvious to have another investigation.

 d-usa wrote:
The only investigation that hasn't cleared her was the one held by the partisan group that said from the very beginning that they would never accept any result that cleared her. Every other investigation into Benghazi has reached the exact same conclusion: nothing was done wrong.

There's so many half truths and obfuscation in those statements that unpacking it would take far too long so lets just address your final point. "Every other investigation into Benghazi has reached the exact same conclusion: nothing was done wrong"

"But even House Democrats' version of their report acknowledges that "security measures in Benghazi were woefully inadequate," pointing the finger at the security and law enforcement arm of the State Department rather than Clinton. Ambassador Stevens was at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi with only two official bodyguards even after other Western diplomats had left the country."

From https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/28/the-5-most-serious-accusations-from-republicans-benghazi-report/

Of course you'll say it was her incompetent subordinates and I'll reply if she wasn't so busy flying around trying to buff her resume she would have actually you know, led the state dept and understood what was going on and then tried to fix what was broke afterwards instead of being decietful about what actually happened but maybe I just expect too much.

Man, you should send that post to all the investigators that ever looked at this. You just blew the case wide open.

 Ouze wrote:
I'm not sure what I'm being accused of intermingling here, exactly. I'm simply surprised that after literally hundreds, if not thousands of posts on Benghazi, people are so disinterested now that Clinton has been cleared. I mean, there was some posters in the OT that were really concerned about the situation, so I'm confused by why they weren't interested in that Chris Steven's family doesn't blame Hillary Clinton. Why aren't these seekers of truth championing the cause of the family - who they care about deeply and remind you that 4 Americans died - that their deaths not be politicized? It's perplexing.

I don't think I ever said Hillary Clinton's email situation wasn't newsworthy, or shouldn't be investigated. I'm sure I said it didn't really matter from an electoral perspective, and that the voting populace at large doesn't really give a gak, which is true, and I stand by. I think I need you to tell me more specifically what intermingling I am guilty of.

Clinton was cleared??? Says who??

Oh... You mean the AMB board that was supposed the be non-partisan?

If so, why was Cheryl mills heavily involved? Why DID'T this board interview Clinton and her top flunkies???

It was a whitewash designed to deflect criticisms.

I agree with the Stevens family...It was lack of funding for embassy security. Of course, since that funding comes from congress, Republican congressmen will never accept the blame that should be rightly theirs.

Plenty of funding for enquiries into why the State Department did wrong, though.

So...HelmetGate?

Jerram wrote:
So if she was to get indicted it wouldn't be news either ? Since under normal circumstances that would be the inevitable thing that would happen based on the publicly released information (The emails themselves, not even the leaks about what was in the redacted portion of the emails) or would it would be news because the DoJ actually did its job ?

Yes that would be news, and no it is not inevitable. Let's just use some common sense about what is "breaking news" and what is "obsessing over minor details just to keep discussion of the 'scandal' on the front page".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jerram wrote:
Of course you'll say it was her incompetent subordinates and I'll reply if she wasn't so busy flying around trying to buff her resume she would have actually you know, led the state dept and understood what was going on and then tried to fix what was broke afterwards instead of being decietful about what actually happened but maybe I just expect too much.

Alternatively, Clinton is not a security expert and responsibility for security failures should be placed on the people who are security experts. It's not like a non-expert is going to be able to look at a security plan and say "this is clearly not enough" if the experts are saying "this is what we need". The secretary of state's job does not include micro-managing the exact details of every security job at every US embassy in every country.

Prestor Jon wrote:
True. Pretty soon Trump is going to have to deploy a ground game and start spending money if he wants to convince any of the big donors to give him any. Doing nothing but stump speeches isn't going to convince people to throw significant amounts of money into his campaign.

Why bother with all that when you can just tweet pictures of Hillary Clinton next to piles of money and a Star of David?

But yeah, Trump is starting to wake up to what the GOP has been telling him - stump speeches and crazy nonsense on the nightly news can score you a win in a primary, but it won't work in a general. You need a serious ground game, and you need a serious presence on TV ads... and all of that requires money.

And I think people are probably still understating Trump's problem with money. There's an assumption that once he starts to seriously chase big donors then the money will just appear. But there's two reasons that people will give money to a campaign - because they want a friendly ear when the person is in office, and because they are loyal to the cause and to the candidate. Trump is not likely to win, and he's aggressively campaigned against most issues that are important to the big money element of the Republican party... so the guy is 0/2 on big money fundraising appeal.

He's a presidential candidate so of course more money will flow in, but I suspect it will be nothing like the huge amounts of cash that is the norm for presidential campaigns these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
or the TPP which is basically telling companies it is cheaper to do business overseas?

You don't know what you're talking about. There's actually very little reduction in trade protection in the TPP, for the simple reason that almost all trade protection was removed by earlier trade agreements.

The TPP is actually mostly about establishing international legal frameworks. There's nothing wrong with opposing TPP, but please learn what it is actually about.




Consistent enforcement of IP laws is good, but it seems like they're locking in to place IP laws that are badly in need of reform. And the powers granted to companies to sue governments for the effects of harmful legislation seem very problematic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
I know many of you don't care for Rush Limbaugh but I thought I'd post a link to his transcript regarding how the Clintons are playing us regarding this whole email thing.

That's some fething crazy bs is what that is. At no point does Limbaugh ever even consider the likelihood that Clinton won't get indicted because people very rarely get indicted for failing to properly secure their emails. And certainly not people at the most senior levels of government.

There should be a term to describe that particular kind of broken logic where you go off on all kinds of tangents and complex thoughts while just refusing to even acknowledge the simple and obvious answer. The 9/11 Truther thing is a classic, you can find hour long documentaries talking about how jet fuel can't melt steel beams, and none of them will ever even consider the simple and obvious point that the beams didn't have to melt, they just had to be weakened enough that they couldn't hold millions of tons of weight any more.

Does that kind of logic fail have a name? If it doesn't, should we give it one?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jerram wrote:
Wait are you really claiming that a presidential candidate being questioned as part of a criminal investigation where she is the primary subject isn't newsworthy, and please don't repeat the dishonest " its not a criminal investigation" or " the server is being investigated" bull that the Clinton camp has put out there multiple times and been shot down on.

Clinton talking to investigators is a real story. But we've had multiple updates every week for two years on the email thing, and maybe two or three of them were newsworthy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jerram wrote:
(people really should stop assuming Trump support from those who point out Hillary's criminal behavior, luckily my state isnt in play so I don't have to agonize whether to vote for the amateur or indirectly support the criminal)

As much as I know you just plain don't give a gak, but in order for someone to be a criminal, they have to be convicted of a crime. Having a 25 year long whisper campaign of insane Republican conspiracy nonsense doesn't make you a criminal, it just lets the true believers pretend it is true.

 sebster wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jerram wrote:
Wait are you really claiming that a presidential candidate being questioned as part of a criminal investigation where she is the primary subject isn't newsworthy, and please don't repeat the dishonest " its not a criminal investigation" or " the server is being investigated" bull that the Clinton camp has put out there multiple times and been shot down on.

Clinton talking to investigators is a real story. But we've had multiple updates every week for two years on the email thing, and maybe two or three of them were newsworthy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jerram wrote:
(people really should stop assuming Trump support from those who point out Hillary's criminal behavior, luckily my state isnt in play so I don't have to agonize whether to vote for the amateur or indirectly support the criminal)

As much as I know you just plain don't give a gak, but in order for someone to be a criminal, they have to be convicted of a crime. Having a 25 year long whisper campaign of insane Republican conspiracy nonsense doesn't make you a criminal, it just lets the true believers pretend it is true.

That would be incorrect, that's why we have the phrase convicted criminal, Committing a crime makes you a criminal, and while I'm focused on the topic I understand (her criminally negligent mishandling of classified information) its interesting you bring up the far past undoubtedly referring to whitewater, where the official records show the prosecution records state they thought she was guilty but they only thought there was a 10% chance of conviction because of who she was and that given that it wasn't worth the trial. So yeah I know you don't give a gak that she's a criminal but if she gets away with this crime it will be the second time she skates because of who she is.

That's a lot of bold talk coming from a criminal.

Jerram wrote:
That would be incorrect, that's why we have the phrase convicted criminal, Committing a crime makes you a criminal,

And now deciding whether you've committed a crime or not is decided by random people on the internet.

undoubtedly referring to whitewater, where the official records show the prosecution records state they thought she was guilty but they only thought there was a 10% chance of conviction

And if random people on the internet is just a bit too loose, then we can always rely on speculative odds given the prosecutors. There's no reason to ever doubt that prosecutors might be more convinced of their case than, say, a judge or 12 randomly selected people from the community.

 sebster wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
I know many of you don't care for Rush Limbaugh but I thought I'd post a link to his transcript regarding how the Clintons are playing us regarding this whole email thing.

That's some fething crazy bs is what that is. At no point does Limbaugh ever even consider the likelihood that Clinton won't get indicted because people very rarely get indicted for failing to properly secure their emails. And certainly not people at the most senior levels of government.

No, it's just a theory, one based on past experience of how the Clintons handle scandal, and not every theory you disagree with is some sort of logic fallacy. Let's assume that nothing is there with this whole email server story, then why all the obfuscation on Clinton's part and those who work for her? She could have put everything to rest quickly, quietly, and easily. But she didn't. Why not? We already know that the Republicans readily whip themselves into a frenzy over every stupid little thing the Clintons do, so is it so hard to believe that the Clintons would help that along? Make a tempest in a teapot so when all is said and done and people see the truth, the Republicans look like fringe idiots and she continues to look the victim of a continuing "vast right-wing conspiracy"?

The principle questions we get from this theory (if true) are, can she deflate the hopes and expectations of the Republican base enough to affect the election? Or can the Republicans use her past obfuscations and uncooperativeness in this scandal to rally the base and convince the uncommitted that she's corrupt to the core and cannot be trusted to be Commander in Chief? It's a big gamble either way for both parties. We'll have to see how it all pans out over the next few months.

 sebster wrote:
At no point does Limbaugh ever even consider the likelihood that Clinton won't get indicted because people very rarely get indicted for failing to properly secure their emails. And certainly not people at the most senior levels of government.

She won't get indicted because there no criminal act to indict her for. Unless there is proof that classified material was compromised, she probably won't even be reprimanded.

 Breotan wrote:
No, it's just a theory, one based on past experience of how the Clintons handle scandal, and not every theory you disagree with is some sort of logic fallacy.

No, but this one does. Or at least it would if there was a logic fallacy about ignoring simple and direct solutions will applying massive levels of thinking to increasingly abstract maybes.

Let's assume that nothing is there with this whole email server story, then why all the obfuscation on Clinton's part and those who work for her?

Because there is something wrong. Think about it like spending an afternoon at work on the internet - getting caught won't get you fired, but it still isn't good to get caught so if your boss suspects something you'll probably try to avoid them finding out.

We already know that the Republicans readily whip themselves into a frenzy over every stupid little thing the Clintons do, so is it so hard to believe that the Clintons would help that along?

Because Benghazi was happening already, so she already had a witch hunt to make the Republicans look bad. And another 20 years of nonsense conspiracies against her and her husband before that. If there's a single vote out there that could be won by making Clinton look like a victim of silly Republican attacks, she would have won that vote 20 times over.

The principle questions we get from this theory (if true) are, can she deflate the hopes and expectations of the Republican base enough to affect the election? Or can the Republicans use her past obfuscations and uncooperativeness in this scandal to rally the base and convince the uncommitted that she's corrupt to the core and cannot be trusted to be Commander in Chief?

Or like Benghazi it will end in no action against Clinton, at which point some Republicans will make noise for somewhere up to a week about how it was all corrupted and dishonest, and then they'll move on to something else. Maybe Clinton's birth certificate.

This guy right here.... Nailed it.

https://medium.com/@therickwilson/an-open-letter-to-reince-preibus-669321e2867c#.ut148sv3h

A funeral pyre indeed...

Well Christie and Gingrich are being vetted by Trump's people for VP would rather have Gingrich, and rumor has it Cory Booker is being vetted by Clinton's team (who is he?)