I'd vote for Hillary over a pedophile and scam artist

 Ustrello wrote:
I'd vote for Hillary over a pedophile and scam artist

well Clinton is a scam artist too especially after TPP as to the pedophilia remark, if someone brings a civil suit against you for such should we believe it? the suit has already been dropped in one state and shes trying her luck in another state and the overall opinion of it is its BS.

now the thing i'm not happy about Trump is his vetting of Christie, hope he goes with Gingrich.

Except that is hasn't unless you have some proof somewhere because I sure as gak can't find any

 Ustrello wrote:
Except that is hasn't unless you have some proof somewhere because I sure as gak can't find any

proof of what? the one lawsuit being dropped?

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-dismissed/

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

So the lawsuit is thrown out because the victim can't afford to go into a legal battle with a billionaire. Not thrown out because of any other reason, not very good proof

It's also not proof he did it.

Trump has many legitimate reasons to be abhorred, championing one which could be completely false is absurd.

Asterios you should like this one

https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-tweets-apparently-anti-000000428.html

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump drew widespread rebuke on Saturday with a tweet featuring a Star of David while accusing rival Hillary Clinton of corruption.

The star, a symbol of Judaism, was on a backdrop of $100 bills and paired with a Fox News poll in which a majority of respondents described Clinton as corrupt. Next to Clinton’s face was a red Star of David bearing the words “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!”

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
It's also not proof he did it.

Trump has many legitimate reasons to be abhorred, championing one which could be completely false is absurd.

So much like the republicans and benghazi

I think the chances of him even realizing that was a star of David are pretty slim, at least with the idea it was a subtle jab at Hillary being owned by AIPAC or... whatever. In my opinion, Donald Trump is not subtle and more to the point, he knows his supporters are even less so.

He doesn't blow dogwhistles, he uses an air horn.

 Ustrello wrote:

So much like the republicans and benghazi

Yes, and this time you're Whembly.

Or will be if you keep this up for a few years...

 Ustrello wrote:
So the lawsuit is thrown out because the victim can't afford to go into a legal battle with a billionaire. Not thrown out because of any other reason, not very good proof

thats why the new one in New York is for only $75K, it is a joke plain and simple.

you do realize a lawsuit can be brought against anyone for any reason and proof is not needed. furthermore when the paperwork associated with the suit leads to a vacant lot and an answering machine, its validity is dubious at best.

Asterios wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
So the lawsuit is thrown out because the victim can't afford to go into a legal battle with a billionaire. Not thrown out because of any other reason, not very good proof

thats why the new one in New York is for only $75K, it is a joke plain and simple.

you do realize a lawsuit can be brought against anyone for any reason and proof is not needed. furthermore when the paperwork associated with the suit leads to a vacant lot and an answering machine, its validity is dubious at best.

You do realize that the 75k is not part of the main lawsuit correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I think the chances of him even realizing that was a star of David are pretty slim, at least with the idea it was a subtle jab at Hillary being owned by AIPAC or... whatever. In my opinion, Donald Trump is not subtle and more to the point, he knows his supporters are even less so.

He doesn't blow dogwhistles, he uses an air horn.

But he knows jewish people and how good they are with money he said it himself

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

So much like the republicans and benghazi

Yes, and this time you're Whembly.

Or will be if you keep this up for a few years...

Great compliment

 whembly wrote:

Great compliment

You love it.

The point is that saying someone is a pedophile because they've been accused of it is pants on head stupid.

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

So much like the republicans and benghazi

Yes, and this time you're Whembly.

Or will be if you keep this up for a few years...

Great compliment

I don't think I would let myself get that low

 Ustrello wrote:

Asterios wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
So the lawsuit is thrown out because the victim can't afford to go into a legal battle with a billionaire. Not thrown out because of any other reason, not very good proof

thats why the new one in New York is for only $75K, it is a joke plain and simple.

you do realize a lawsuit can be brought against anyone for any reason and proof is not needed. furthermore when the paperwork associated with the suit leads to a vacant lot and an answering machine, its validity is dubious at best.

You do realize that the 75k is not part of the main lawsuit correct?

actually it is. Gone from the new lawsuit is an allegation that Trump threw money at the plaintiff for an abortion when she expressed fear about getting pregnant after being raped. Gone, too, is the allegation that Trump called co-defendant and accused pedophile and sex party host Jeffrey Epstein a “Jew bastard,” and her request for $100 million in damages.

have you even looked into this or just repeating what someone said? cause as it goes believing this case has any validity or even truth concerning a situation which took place over 20 years ago you are sounding worse then me.

http://gothamist.com/2016/06/20/trump_rape_lawsuit.php

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Great compliment

You love it.

The point is that saying someone is a pedophile because they've been accused of it is pants on head stupid.

What about being known to hang with a convicted pedophile who has flown on Lolita express????

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Great compliment

You love it.

The point is that saying someone is a pedophile because they've been accused of it is pants on head stupid.

What about being known to hang with a convicted pedophile who has flown on Lolita express????

don't think anyone has even brought that up here I think?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Lookup Kjeff Epstein and his Lolita express.... Then look at Bill Clinton and trumps connection...

I'm on vaycay and on the phone...

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Lookup Kjeff Epstein and his Lolita express.... Then look at Bill Clinton and trumps connection...

I'm on vaycay and on the phone...

Yes, we can pretty safely assume that Bill Clinton and Trump are very deeply shady people to put it mildly.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about.

Lookup Kjeff Epstein and his Lolita express.... Then look at Bill Clinton and trumps connection...

I'm on vaycay and on the phone...

Yes, we can pretty safely assume that Bill Clinton and Trump are very deeply shady people to put it mildly.

Pretty much this.

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.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/07/01/we_re_being_played_by_the_clintons

We're Being Played by the Clintons

Okay, folks, I'm gonna tell you what I think is actually going on here. I think we are being played in the standard, common, everyday way the Clinton team plays the American people. It has happened, I can't count the number of times, dating back to when Bill Clinton was in the White House.



Essentially what this is -- and the Lynch-Clinton meeting is the latest ingredient -- we're being set up for massive disappointment, depression, and dispiritedness. They're making it look like, and they have all along, very possible Hillary Clinton could be indicted. They are toying with us. They're dangling this carrot in front us. "This could be the time. This could be it when we finally get the Clintons once and for all."

They drag it out, and they do things like this meeting that apparently compromises the whole thing and jeopardizes the whole thing, release information on all the emails they're finding and Hillary's IT takes the Fifth 125 times. Ask yourself, how many times do people ask you, "Do you really think Hillary's gonna be indicted?" And they say it with anticipation and excitement. How many times do people ask you that? They ask me that all the time.

My answer, by the way, from the get-go has always been, "She's not gonna be indicted. There's no way it's gonna happen. You don't understand the Democrat Party and their use of power if you think their presidential nominee is gonna be indicted by an Obama DOJ. Ain't gonna happen."

But they got a lot of people thinking it will, and when she skates, they want you depressed, they want you down in the dumps, they want you giving up, they want you thinking there's no way you can win. They want you thinking they can get away with everything. That's the Clinton MO, and we are right smack-dab in the middle of another such play. Don't doubt me.

Rush goes on to talk about Loretta Lynch, her policies and duties as an administration loyalist, and also previous examples of the Clintons making themselves looking guilty as hell and then having nothing come of it.

evidently the FBI has questioned Hillary over her e-mails:

http://fox40.com/2016/07/02/clinton-interviewed-by-the-fbi-about-private-email-server/

 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.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/07/01/we_re_being_played_by_the_clintons

We're Being Played by the Clintons

Okay, folks, I'm gonna tell you what I think is actually going on here. I think we are being played in the standard, common, everyday way the Clinton team plays the American people. It has happened, I can't count the number of times, dating back to when Bill Clinton was in the White House.



Essentially what this is -- and the Lynch-Clinton meeting is the latest ingredient -- we're being set up for massive disappointment, depression, and dispiritedness. They're making it look like, and they have all along, very possible Hillary Clinton could be indicted. They are toying with us. They're dangling this carrot in front us. "This could be the time. This could be it when we finally get the Clintons once and for all."

They drag it out, and they do things like this meeting that apparently compromises the whole thing and jeopardizes the whole thing, release information on all the emails they're finding and Hillary's IT takes the Fifth 125 times. Ask yourself, how many times do people ask you, "Do you really think Hillary's gonna be indicted?" And they say it with anticipation and excitement. How many times do people ask you that? They ask me that all the time.

My answer, by the way, from the get-go has always been, "She's not gonna be indicted. There's no way it's gonna happen. You don't understand the Democrat Party and their use of power if you think their presidential nominee is gonna be indicted by an Obama DOJ. Ain't gonna happen."

But they got a lot of people thinking it will, and when she skates, they want you depressed, they want you down in the dumps, they want you giving up, they want you thinking there's no way you can win. They want you thinking they can get away with everything. That's the Clinton MO, and we are right smack-dab in the middle of another such play. Don't doubt me.

Rush goes on to talk about Loretta Lynch, her policies and duties as an administration loyalist, and also previous examples of the Clintons making themselves looking guilty as hell and then having nothing come of it.

That seems vastly overcomplicated. If someone wanted to manipulate people's emotions for their own personal gain, wouldn't it be easier to just get a talk radio show?

Asterios wrote:
if someone brings a civil suit against you for such should we believe it?

That depends, do I have a record of behavior in the past that makes the lawsuit believable, or is it a clear out of nowhere thing? In Trump's case I think the answer here is pretty obvious: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
evidently the FBI has questioned Hillary over her e-mails:

http://fox40.com/2016/07/02/clinton-interviewed-by-the-fbi-about-private-email-server/

And? Do you understand the difference between "questioned" and "guilty" or even "likely to be charged"? This kind of stuff is why the only people who care about the email "scandal" are conservatives who aren't going to vote for her no matter what, it's just one "BREAKING NEWS: EMAIL SCANDAL STILL EXISTS AND HAD A MINOR EVENT" post after another.

 Spinner 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.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2016/07/01/we_re_being_played_by_the_clintons

We're Being Played by the Clintons

Okay, folks, I'm gonna tell you what I think is actually going on here. I think we are being played in the standard, common, everyday way the Clinton team plays the American people. It has happened, I can't count the number of times, dating back to when Bill Clinton was in the White House.



Essentially what this is -- and the Lynch-Clinton meeting is the latest ingredient -- we're being set up for massive disappointment, depression, and dispiritedness. They're making it look like, and they have all along, very possible Hillary Clinton could be indicted. They are toying with us. They're dangling this carrot in front us. "This could be the time. This could be it when we finally get the Clintons once and for all."

They drag it out, and they do things like this meeting that apparently compromises the whole thing and jeopardizes the whole thing, release information on all the emails they're finding and Hillary's IT takes the Fifth 125 times. Ask yourself, how many times do people ask you, "Do you really think Hillary's gonna be indicted?" And they say it with anticipation and excitement. How many times do people ask you that? They ask me that all the time.

My answer, by the way, from the get-go has always been, "She's not gonna be indicted. There's no way it's gonna happen. You don't understand the Democrat Party and their use of power if you think their presidential nominee is gonna be indicted by an Obama DOJ. Ain't gonna happen."

But they got a lot of people thinking it will, and when she skates, they want you depressed, they want you down in the dumps, they want you giving up, they want you thinking there's no way you can win. They want you thinking they can get away with everything. That's the Clinton MO, and we are right smack-dab in the middle of another such play. Don't doubt me.

Rush goes on to talk about Loretta Lynch, her policies and duties as an administration loyalist, and also previous examples of the Clintons making themselves looking guilty as hell and then having nothing come of it.

That seems vastly overcomplicated. If someone wanted to manipulate people's emotions for their own personal gain, wouldn't it be easier to just get a talk radio show?

Not overly complicated and we're not talking about manipulating people's emotions. We're talking about how the Clintons have handled scandals ever since they hit the campaign trail in 91. Go back and watch the first season of 24. President Palmer's wife was modeled after Hillary and the showrunners weren't kool-aid drinking conservatives.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
if someone brings a civil suit against you for such should we believe it?

That depends, do I have a record of behavior in the past that makes the lawsuit believable, or is it a clear out of nowhere thing? In Trump's case I think the answer here is pretty obvious: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-bloom/why-the-new-child-rape-ca_b_10619944.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
evidently the FBI has questioned Hillary over her e-mails:

http://fox40.com/2016/07/02/clinton-interviewed-by-the-fbi-about-private-email-server/

And? Do you understand the difference between "questioned" and "guilty" or even "likely to be charged"? This kind of stuff is why the only people who care about the email "scandal" are conservatives who aren't going to vote for her no matter what, it's just one "BREAKING NEWS: EMAIL SCANDAL STILL EXISTS AND HAD A MINOR EVENT" post after another.

did I say guilty? or even interrogated? no I said questioned, it was a statement of fact from the Clinton party even.

as to the rape case it is one accuser, unlike Cosby who they are associating it with who had several accusers. furthermore as usual with the Huffington Post they are making assumptions and such, as it goes doubt it will go anywhere since most legal sites have even said its a joke.

as to Hillary I hope they don't bring charges against her since it will doom her election. as it goes never see anything happening with this as far as charges go. but it will be seen as a corruption of government and that is what will be seen.

Asterios wrote:
did I say guilty? or even interrogated? no I said questioned, it was a statement of fact from the Clinton party even.

No, but you posting it implies that it's actually a newsworthy event. Unless you want to admit to posting "BREAKING NEWS: A PIECE OF MEANINGLESS PAPERWORK WAS FILED IN THE CLINTON EMAIL 'SCANDAL' TODAY" non-stories just to keep the so-called scandal prominent in discussion?

as to the rape case it is one accuser, unlike Cosby who they are associating it with who had several accusers.

And? Rape is still rape even if you only rape one child instead of several. There are plenty of people in prison who only committed one major felony and didn't have multiple accusers. And "at least Trump is probably not a mass-rapist" is hardly a convincing defense.

furthermore as usual with the Huffington Post they are making assumptions and such, as it goes doubt it will go anywhere since most legal sites have even said its a joke.

Ah yes, the classic "LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS" response without bothering to explain what unjustified assumptions are being made. I guess we're just supposed to assume that "lol Huffington Post lol liberal media" is all we need to know to dismiss the whole case?

as to Hillary I hope they don't bring charges against her since it will doom her election. as it goes never see anything happening with this as far as charges go. but it will be seen as a corruption of government and that is what will be seen.

The thing you keep missing here is nobody cares about this "scandal". Is there corruption? Possibly. Does anyone with any sense at all believe that this is something unique to Clinton, or even the democrats in general? Of course not. Trump and the republican party are no better, so in a choice between two different corrupt politicians you have to vote based on something other than corruption. This will continue to be a non-story where the only people who really care about it are conservatives who were never going to vote for the democrat no matter what and just want some excuses to press "R" in november. And let's be honest here, if it was a republican candidate with an email scandal in their past those conservatives wouldn't be spending nearly as much time on the story.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asterios wrote:
did I say guilty? or even interrogated? no I said questioned, it was a statement of fact from the Clinton party even.

No, but you posting it implies that it's actually a newsworthy event. Unless you want to admit to posting "BREAKING NEWS: A PIECE OF MEANINGLESS PAPERWORK WAS FILED IN THE CLINTON EMAIL 'SCANDAL' TODAY" non-stories just to keep the so-called scandal prominent in discussion?

as to the rape case it is one accuser, unlike Cosby who they are associating it with who had several accusers.

And? Rape is still rape even if you only rape one child instead of several. There are plenty of people in prison who only committed one major felony and didn't have multiple accusers. And "at least Trump is probably not a mass-rapist" is hardly a convincing defense.

furthermore as usual with the Huffington Post they are making assumptions and such, as it goes doubt it will go anywhere since most legal sites have even said its a joke.

Ah yes, the classic "LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS" response without bothering to explain what unjustified assumptions are being made. I guess we're just supposed to assume that "lol Huffington Post lol liberal media" is all we need to know to dismiss the whole case?

as to Hillary I hope they don't bring charges against her since it will doom her election. as it goes never see anything happening with this as far as charges go. but it will be seen as a corruption of government and that is what will be seen.

The thing you keep missing here is nobody cares about this "scandal". Is there corruption? Possibly. Does anyone with any sense at all believe that this is something unique to Clinton, or even the democrats in general? Of course not. Trump and the republican party are no better, so in a choice between two different corrupt politicians you have to vote based on something other than corruption. This will continue to be a non-story where the only people who really care about it are conservatives who were never going to vote for the democrat no matter what and just want some excuses to press "R" in november. And let's be honest here, if it was a republican candidate with an email scandal in their past those conservatives wouldn't be spending nearly as much time on the story.

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, the address given was a vacant lot, 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, the fact you think that there is anything to the case is laughable at best, 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.

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?

 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?)

So christie who won't even win NJ because he is pretty hated there, gingrich once again a barrel of contradictions (how many wives has he had when he is so against gay marriage?).

 Ustrello wrote:
So christie who won't even win NJ because he is pretty hated there, gingrich once again a barrel of contradictions (how many wives has he had when he is so against gay marriage?).

and then there is you who is so full of hate, no wonder Clinton will lose with all those haters on her side.

That reply was so well thought out, Trump could have tweeted it.

Not enough white supremacist undertones for it to be a retweet, though.

I don't care how lazy you are about retweeting, if the account is called WhiteGenocideTM, maybe you think twice about repeating what they have to say.

 d-usa wrote:
That reply was so well thought out, Trump could have tweeted it.

Now all he needs is a star of david with the worlds "Ustrello the poster who is so full of hate" and hundred dollar bills behind it.

Based on the candidates we have for president, I am pretty convinced the population at large has passed the ""don't give a gak", point of departure.

 Spinner wrote:
Not enough white supremacist undertones for it to be a retweet, though.

I don't care how lazy you are about retweeting, if the account is called WhiteGenocideTM, maybe you think twice about repeating what they have to say.

was his tweet smart? hell to the "F" no, did he have a clue what it meant? hell no, did the creators who made the meme have a clue what it meant, most likely not, especially if they knew Clinton's stance about Israel and such. so in the end it was an idiot who posted something done by idiots. yes I do think Trump is an idiot at times and so forth, but would rather have him then Clinton.

Asterios wrote:


and then there is you who is so full of hate,.

Welcome to the internet.

If we can avoid the insults and digs , the whole thread , mayhaps the entire forum, will run so much more smoothly.

Who knows, perhaps through some information osmosis via a subconscious process we are, dimly, aware of but cannot quite grasp society -- nay! the world even ! -- will become a better place.

... hmm ? What's that ?

Yeah.

I know.

But maybe there's hope after all.

So, Asterios, you are saying Trump's ignorance is his defense? You think we should not hold blatant, obvious "whistling" against him because he's just too stupid to understand the connotations of the Magen David or the phrase "white genocide"?


Would you really want someone so absurdly clueless to run the country?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, Asterios, you are saying Trump's ignorance is his defense? You think we should not hold blatant, obvious "whistling" against him because he's just too stupid to understand the connotations of the Magen David or the phrase "white genocide"?


Would you really want someone so absurdly clueless to run the country?

as opposed to Clinton? yes.

Asterios wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, Asterios, you are saying Trump's ignorance is his defense? You think we should not hold blatant, obvious "whistling" against him because he's just too stupid to understand the connotations of the Magen David or the phrase "white genocide"?


Would you really want someone so absurdly clueless to run the country?

as opposed to Clinton? yes.

So a man who re tweets neo nazis, fascists like mussolini, thinks he can solve all of the worlds problems with a 30 minute meeting is okay.

Asterios wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Not enough white supremacist undertones for it to be a retweet, though.

I don't care how lazy you are about retweeting, if the account is called WhiteGenocideTM, maybe you think twice about repeating what they have to say.

was his tweet smart? hell to the "F" no, did he have a clue what it meant? hell no, did the creators who made the meme have a clue what it meant, most likely not, especially if they knew Clinton's stance about Israel and such. so in the end it was an idiot who posted something done by idiots. yes I do think Trump is an idiot at times and so forth, but would rather have him then Clinton.

I was referring more to the other retweets. It's not like this is the only sketchy thing he's blasted out across the internet; scroll down a bit for the retweet from WhiteGenocideTM. Once could be an honest mistake, a dumb staffer (except apparently he does the vast majority of his own tweeting), plagiarism without checking the source (and, of course, plagiarism is its own brand of STOP, YOU'RE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT), or an off day, but it's NOT only been once. He's got a pretty distinct pattern of racism and bigotry.

But he's somehow way better than Clinton, right?

Asterios wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, Asterios, you are saying Trump's ignorance is his defense? You think we should not hold blatant, obvious "whistling" against him because he's just too stupid to understand the connotations of the Magen David or the phrase "white genocide"?


Would you really want someone so absurdly clueless to run the country?

as opposed to Clinton? yes.

Didn't you just call someone else a hater?

Even if you think Clinton is unethical as all hell (which I certainly don't grant), you have to admit she knows what she's doing. What are you so afraid of her doing in power than can be worse than giving the levers of power to a sort-of-fascist bigot with a temper, limited attention span, burn-it-down rhetoric and take the money and run tendencies?

 Spinner wrote:

But he's somehow way better than Clinton, right?

yes.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Didn't you just call someone else a hater?

Even if you think Clinton is unethical as all hell (which I certainly don't grant), you have to admit she knows what she's doing. What are you so afraid of her doing in power than can be worse than giving the levers of power to a sort-of-fascist bigot with a temper, limited attention span, burn-it-down rhetoric and take the money and run tendencies?

hate has nothing to do with it, i just do not feel she is best for our countries self interests.

her lack of keeping secure classified intel is one, her involvement of TPP is another and her willingness to allow more illegals into this country that are not properly vetted is another and the list goes on and on.

Can you explain why you think a Trump presidency would be better for our country's interests?

 Spinner wrote:
Can you explain why you think a Trump presidency would be better for our country's interests?

Because he tells it like it is???

Because he appeals to ignorant racist idiots:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/07/04/trumps-white-supremacist-tweets-arent-the-problem-theyre-a-symptom-of-the-problem/?ref=yfp

 Spinner wrote:
Can you explain why you think a Trump presidency would be better for our country's interests?

because his presidency will be a lame duck presidency, at most only enforcing our immigration laws will get done and maybe ACA get reformed, neither side will work with him and nothing else will be done, so our country will be at a standstill with hopes of a better option in 4 years.

Asterios wrote:
so our country will be at a standstill with hopes of a better option in 4 years.

Except that, given the outcome of the primary season for the Republican party.. that hope is an extremely far fetched one. Let's face it, there was a lot that led up to Trump getting the nomination, and NONE of those issues have been addressed, and given how congress works (or, doesnt) these days, I truly doubt any of them will get fixed by the next presidential race.

So he'd get to be one of the most powerful people on Earth, get all the attention his fragile ego wants, get to spout off on TV all the time, gets to draw a significant salary, and he doesn't have to do anything?

And the same goes for Congress?

And that's supposed to be a good thing?

Tall about rewarding bad behavior.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Asterios wrote:
so our country will be at a standstill with hopes of a better option in 4 years.

Except that, given the outcome of the primary season for the Republican party.. that hope is an extremely far fetched one. Let's face it, there was a lot that led up to Trump getting the nomination, and NONE of those issues have been addressed, and given how congress works (or, doesnt) these days, I truly doubt any of them will get fixed by the next presidential race.

but we can only hope, as it goes Trump has hit rock bottom he can only go up from here.

 Spinner wrote:
So he'd get to be one of the most powerful people on Earth, get all the attention his fragile ego wants, get to spout off on TV all the time, gets to draw a significant salary, and he doesn't have to do anything?

And the same goes for Congress?

And that's supposed to be a good thing?

Tall about rewarding bad behavior.

considering what they have done lately, yeah that is a good thing.

Asterios wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Asterios wrote:
so our country will be at a standstill with hopes of a better option in 4 years.

Except that, given the outcome of the primary season for the Republican party.. that hope is an extremely far fetched one. Let's face it, there was a lot that led up to Trump getting the nomination, and NONE of those issues have been addressed, and given how congress works (or, doesnt) these days, I truly doubt any of them will get fixed by the next presidential race.

but we can only hope, as it goes Trump has hit rock bottom he can only go up from here.

...really?

That's what you want in a friggin' President?
"He's only been awful so far; he can only get better from here!"

Asterios wrote:


her lack of keeping secure classified intel is one, her involvement of TPP is another and her willingness to allow more illegals into this country that are not properly vetted is another and the list goes on and on.

How do you have a vetting process for illegal immigrants?

Might as well argue with Trump himself for all the good this discussion will do.

No matter how "lame duck" his presidency is, he will still be involved with foreign relations and impact how other countries view us.

Also, her mishandling of classified information is still unproven, innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Last I heard she was against the TPP. It just seems like you are parroting the same anti-Hillary stuff over and over again.

Asterios wrote:


but we can only hope, as it goes Trump has hit rock bottom he can only go up from here.

Given the +/- margin of error there Trump's actually giving Hilary votes.

Perhaps he can motivate the younger voters to come out for him.

What he needs to do is attract more everyday, completely typical, run of the mill style millennials.



..hmm ....

Asterios wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Asterios wrote:
so our country will be at a standstill with hopes of a better option in 4 years.

Except that, given the outcome of the primary season for the Republican party.. that hope is an extremely far fetched one. Let's face it, there was a lot that led up to Trump getting the nomination, and NONE of those issues have been addressed, and given how congress works (or, doesnt) these days, I truly doubt any of them will get fixed by the next presidential race.

but we can only hope, as it goes Trump has hit rock bottom he can only go up from here.

 Spinner wrote:
So he'd get to be one of the most powerful people on Earth, get all the attention his fragile ego wants, get to spout off on TV all the time, gets to draw a significant salary, and he doesn't have to do anything?

And the same goes for Congress?

And that's supposed to be a good thing?

Tall about rewarding bad behavior.

considering what they have done lately, yeah that is a good thing.

Mostly what they've done is bicker. I think you're the first person I've heard who would like them to be even more useless.

And I don't think it's actually possible for Trump to hit rock bottom. The guy keeps on digging. Guarantee you that by this time next week, he's going to have said or done something dumb/horrifying/racist again.

At this point the best part of this thread is far and away the Trump supporters proving everything you suspect about Trump and the type of person he attracts.

 Ouze wrote:
At this point the best part of this thread is far and away the Trump supporters proving everything you suspect about Trump and the type of person he attracts.

I also enjoy Whembly's occasional HRC email and/or Benghazi story... Those are always pretty fun.

 Ouze wrote:
At this point the best part of this thread is far and away the Trump supporters proving everything you suspect about Trump and the type of person he attracts.

So very true.

 Ouze wrote:
At this point the best part of this thread is far and away the Trump supporters proving everything you suspect about Trump and the type of person he attracts.

Well, if the Hillary supporters would step up and start posting about her, we'd have something else to talk about.

I don't think there are any actual Hillary supporters on this site. >.>

tbh I've never even met a Hillary supporter in real life, and I live in the San Francisco bay area!

BlaxicanX has a point. I've never met a hillary supporter. Just trump haters.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I don't think there are any actual Hillary supporters on this site. >.>

tbh I've never even met a Hillary supporter in real life, and I live in the San Francisco bay area!

Were I Democrat, I would have voted for Hillary as opposed to Bernie in the Primary. Being registered independent, I don't have the option to vote here.

And in other news...Interesting article.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

Some interesting outtakes.

Politifact, the Pulitzer prize-winning fact-checking project, determined for example that Hillary was actually the most truthful candidate (of either Party) in the 2016 election season. And in general Politifact has determined that Hillary is more honest than most (but not all) politicians they have tracked over the years.

Abramson, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal as well as former Executive Editor of the New York Times, had this to say about Hillary’s honesty: “As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.”

So what do we see in this data? What I see is that the public view of Hillary Clinton does not seem to be correlated to “scandals” or issues of character or whether she murdered Vince Foster. No, the one thing that seems to most negatively and consistently affect public perception of Hillary is any attempt by her to seek power. Once she actually has that power her polls go up again. But whenever she asks for it her numbers drop like a manhole cover.

For millions of Americans struggling to pay their bills, the very idea that someone can make $100,000 or more for just giving a speech or hanging out at a Vegas nightclub is obscene. But as Richard Nixon used to say, “don’t hate the player, hate the game.” Hillary didn’t invent the speaking engagement industry, and she isn’t anywhere near the first person to make a lot of money from it. And while her fees are in the upper range of what speakers make, neither they nor the total amount of money she has made are unusual. It’s just unusual FOR A WOMAN.

Yeah, i don't think we have any genuine Hillary supporters here, just Trump/Republican opponents.

So, about that idea that drug testing requirements for welfare are a productive use of government money: http://theintellectualist.co/michigan-drug-testing-program-fails-to-yield-a-single-positive-result/

 Peregrine wrote:
So, about that idea that drug testing requirements for welfare are a productive use of government money: http://theintellectualist.co/michigan-drug-testing-program-fails-to-yield-a-single-positive-result/

Dakka OT already talked this subject into a lock. The general result was that someone who supports the idea of drug testing welfare recipients isn't interested in facts.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
I don't think there are any actual Hillary supporters on this site. >.>

Pretty much.

tbh I've never even met a Hillary supporter in real life, and I live in the San Francisco bay area!

My wife is a Hillary so far as she voted for her in Virginia's primary and will vote for her in the general election.

I voted for Marco Rubio so I'm not sure what I'm going to do in the general, besides not vote for Trump.

 whembly wrote:
This guy right here.... Nailed it.

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

A funeral pyre indeed...

That was a good piece. Thanks for linking it.

I think it's too little too late, because the party isn't willing to split the party by challenging a Trump nomination. But it does a good job of putting blame on one more member of the Republican party for the role they've played in turning over and letting this Trump disaster happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
So, Asterios, you are saying Trump's ignorance is his defense?

This is where we are at. Defence of Trump basically amounts to 'he isn't racist, just really stupid'. Well, that and 'Clinton is worse because emails'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
At this point the best part of this thread is far and away the Trump supporters proving everything you suspect about Trump and the type of person he attracts.

Personally, I was shocked when Trump's only supporter in this thread turned out to have racist views of Jews. Shocked I tell you. Just amazed.

Well, Trump's mistakes aren't enough to stop Hillary's other enemies from piling on. The Littlefinger wanna be, Julian Assange, is releasing more of Clinton's emails and says they'll be very damaging to her. Now I don't know how much of Assange's claims are true (he is a little worm) but I do see it pushing much of Trump's idiocy to the back pages and that certainly can't be helpful to the Clinton campaign.

 Breotan wrote:
Well, if the Hillary supporters would step up and start posting about her, we'd have something else to talk about.

I think she's a perfectly good presidential candidate. Not without issues, like anyone, but I think she'll do just fine in the job.

What should a Clinton supporter post? What new information is there? Right now she's giving speeches that are kind of twee, but also show some of the policy substance she's known for. And those policies are all very well known at this point.

The one making news is Trump, because he keeps doing stuff that would have ended the candidacy of any other politician. Imagine if Romney had posted that Star of David image about Obama? We'd still be talking about it as the moment that Romney killed his campaign. But that thing wasn't even in Trump's shittiest 20 moments. And I think most people here would be confident that Trump will do something worse within the next week or two. That's what is capturing headlines.

 skyth wrote:
And in other news...Interesting article.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

That was a deeply fascinating article. I have to admit that I'm reconsidering some of what I thought I knew based on it.

 skyth wrote:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/11/1537582/-The-most-thorough-profound-and-moving-defense-of-Hillary-Clinton-I-have-ever-seen

This is indeed one of the best articles I've ever read on Hillary. I actually dismissed the sexism bit when a friend suggested it earlier this year, but now I'm rethinking that a bit.

 feeder wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, about that idea that drug testing requirements for welfare are a productive use of government money: http://theintellectualist.co/michigan-drug-testing-program-fails-to-yield-a-single-positive-result/

Dakka OT already talked this subject into a lock. The general result was that someone who supports the idea of drug testing welfare recipients isn't interested in facts.

Yep... people who are "fiscally conservative" tend to be A-OK with this sort of thing, as long as it's their pet thing (for other evidence, look at defense spending, particularly that little black hole of funds called the F-35)

Edit: for me, I can simply add this article/state to the growing pile of evidence for why drug testing for welfare doesnt work (as if Arizona, Florida, Kentucky and, IIRC, Indiana weren't enough)

I'd add it to the list of Republic pet projects that fix problems that do not apparently exist

 sebster wrote:

Personally, I was shocked when Trump's only supporter in this thread turned out to have racist views of Jews. Shocked I tell you. Just amazed.

well if you knew who I was you would know I do not have hate towards the Jewish people(amazing I go from facebook where someone is calling me all kinds of anti-semtic names and such to this site where i'm accused of hating the Jewish people, go figure), but then again ignorance is your lantern and it shall lead you, furthermore never did I say I'm not for Hillary because of some e-mails, but then again that leads back to my first part where ignorance is your lantern and it shall lead you brightly.

as too emails it appears wiki leaks have released a bunch of them:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286444-wikileaks-publishes-clinton-war-emails

furthermore it seems Sander's supporters are crowing about the e-mail releases more then the republican's are on the web.

but remember Sebster let that lantern of ignorance forever light your way.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


How do you have a vetting process for illegal immigrants?

its easy kick them out vetting done.

 Ouze wrote:
That was a deeply fascinating article. I have to admit that I'm reconsidering some of what I thought I knew based on it.

It's a very good article that does a really good job of showing how shallow and hypocritical the attacks against Clinton really are.

I'm not certain I agree with the articles conclusion about why Clinton's ratings drop while she's competing for office, though. Her gender certainly plays a part but there seems a more obvious conclusion - she's a Democrat. Obama's popularity dropped when he competing as well, and throughout his presidency as he was constantly attacked by Republicans, pretty much from his nomination until about late last year when there was no longer anything political to gain from (notice the pivot in the Benghazi hearings to switch from Obama to Clinton). And sure enough in the last year his approval has started to improve. Throughout the attacks on Obama people were keen to blame it on race, but they missed the bigger reality that Republicans will attack with absolutely anything they can think of, no matter how stupid it was.

And before Obama there was Bill Clinton. As the article points out Republicans once spent 140 man hours investigating the Clinton Christmas card list. It wasn't because Bill Clinton was a man, it was because he was a Democrat.

The article raises a good question about why Trump's university scam gets nowhere near as much attention as putting classified emails on a private server. The answer isn't just gender though, but with the bases of the two parties. This appetite for ridiculous mudraking is something Republicans have created within their own party. This new approach was centred around Newt Gingrich, he wasn't alone and it had already started before he got there, but he was the champion for this new method of politics - claim that all politicians are nasty, poo flinging monkeys, then throw as poo as possible and drag everyone down, then declare the original claim was right all along.

It worked, somewhat. Washington is a much nastier place today. But the effect has been heavily one-sided. It is routine among Republicans to trade in bizarro conspiracies, much less so among Democrats. Compare 9/11 trutherism to birtherism. They're both utterly crazy, of course, but while Democrats gave no voice to the anti-Bush conspiracy, the latter was frequently touched on by Republicans. A lot has been made about Trump's birtherism and it's race implications, but the bigger signal was that Trump was the candidate that was finally willing to give a voice to every dingbat conspiracy that was whispered around the fringes of Republican politics.

It's quite fitting that Gingrich is being vetted for VP. He birthed this madness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asterios wrote:
well if you knew who I was you would know I do not have hate towards the Jewish people

I didn't say you hated Jews, I said you had racist ideas about them. I've already explained this to you, but okay let's do it again.

Racism isn't just hating another culture. Racism is whenever you take a generalised trait and assume it must apply to all individuals in group. So assuming a person is a good accountant because they happen to be Jewish is racism, in the exact same way that assuming a black person must be good at basketball must be racist.

Do you get it now? And remember, everyone has racist moments from time to time, that's not a hanging offence. What's problematic is when racist ideas are denied, because that stops people from growing and improving, it's what keeps them racist.

 sebster wrote:

Asterios wrote:
well if you knew who I was you would know I do not have hate towards the Jewish people

I didn't say you hated Jews, I said you had racist ideas about them. I've already explained this to you, but okay let's do it again.

Racism isn't just hating another culture. Racism is whenever you take a generalised trait and assume it must apply to all individuals in group. So assuming a person is a good accountant because they happen to be Jewish is racism, in the exact same way that assuming a black person must be good at basketball must be racist.

Do you get it now? And remember, everyone has racist moments from time to time, that's not a hanging offence. What's problematic is when racist ideas are denied, because that stops people from growing and improving, it's what keeps them racist.

well if you remember correctly I said that is what some people say, also i'm good with money am I a racist stereotype? i'm good with math am I racist stereotype? you should really know what you are talking about or who you are talking about before opening your mouth and inserting your foot into it.

I could lock the thread again. Or I could ban two posters in it who seem to prefer arguing with each other over discussing the actual topic.

Let's see what happens next.

I agree with the conclusions about Hillary;

(1) There isn't anything bad in her past you wouldn't be likely to find in a random average politician's career.
(2) The attacks on her are partly driven by sexism.
(3) They are more driven by her being a Democrat.
(4) Hillary is by far the better candidate, with immense relevant experience.

Nevermind, just Asterios things.

EDIT

I truly have no clue exactly how to go about this anymore. A guy made racist comments. As the only Trump supporter in the thread that's pretty obviously relevant. He's denying that he ever said anything racist. That's a lie, because we have the original statement. Even though it the comment was deleted by a mod it lives in quoted posts. So what are we supposed to do? Pretend the guy isn't racist? Just steer clear of any of the countless things he's said that are wrong, because at any point a mod could come in and blame both the guy making bad claims and the people calling him on them?

How exactly do the mods think we should go about any of this?

Personally I try ignore everything that Asterios posts, unless it is yellow flagged. (I don't have him on Ignore, though if I were not a moderator I certainly would.)

I would advise you to do the same, and not to engage with Asterios in any way.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Personally I try ignore everything that Asterios posts, unless it is yellow flagged. (I don't have him on Ignore, though if I were not a moderator I certainly would.)

I would advise you to do the same, and not to engage with Asterios in any way.

At risk of dragging this off-topic: if you, a forum moderator, are willing to openly say that nothing Asterios posts has any value to you and you won't read it (unless obligated to do so in your duties as a moderator) and suggest that other people do the same then why is he allowed to keep posting here? I'm with sebster on this, I find it incredibly frustrating that he is allowed to post blatantly false statements, open racism, etc, and people who challenge him on it are told to stop and that it's "off-topic". And, besides being personally frustrating, it gives a very skewed and/or incorrect version of the story to anyone who is reading this thread out of genuine interest in US politics when things like that aren't corrected.

For example, the discussion of "what is racism" is entirely relevant in a discussion of US politics given how common the question of "is Trump racist even though he doesn't openly say racial slurs about people he doesn't like" is right now. You aren't going to get accurate information on US politics if one person is allowed to say "the things Trump is doing aren't racist" and then there's a moderator warning to stop discussing the subject.

I would think he would have gotten that suspension he was threatened with if he continued posting threads that immediately get locked. He is up to 5 on the front page now. But hey, whatever.

I agree, in that I no longer have any idea how to participate here - with a noise machine of derp, lies, and nonsense that you aren't allowed to rebut anymore, seemingly. I think all we can do is simply abandon the thread until he eventually gets banned by his own behavior which is something that seems inevitable. If this thread is locked, which also seems inevitable, I imagine there will eventually be another one to discuss the election at some point in the future, and it almost certainly will have a better signal to noise ratio.

And now for once I am going to follow my own advice and find something better to do until that last bit happens.

 Peregrine wrote:
At risk of dragging this off-topic: if you, a forum moderator, are willing to openly say that nothing Asterios posts has any value to you and you won't read it (unless obligated to do so in your duties as a moderator) and suggest that other people do the same then why is he allowed to keep posting here?

If the threshold for being allowed to continue posting here was that the moderators liked how and what you posted, there are various other posters who would be long gone.

Dakka's rules are intentionally low-pass filters.

I'm with sebster on this, I find it incredibly frustrating that he is allowed to post blatantly false statements, open racism, etc, and people who challenge him on it are told to stop and that it's "off-topic". And, besides being personally frustrating, it gives a very skewed and/or incorrect version of the story to anyone who is reading this thread out of genuine interest in US politics when things like that aren't corrected.

And so you should be addressing the points, not the poster. This isn't new folks, and in spite of what modern political "discourse" might have you believe, it IS possible to refute "blatantly false statements" without simply attacking the person who posts them.

For example, the discussion of "what is racism" is entirely relevant in a discussion of US politics given how common the question of "is Trump racist even though he doesn't openly say racial slurs about people he doesn't like" is right now. You aren't going to get accurate information on US politics if one person is allowed to say "the things Trump is doing aren't racist" and then there's a moderator warning to stop discussing the subject.

Sure, "what is racism" is topical. "You're a racist" - "no, YOU are" isn't. We had the latter.

We're going to have a cooling off period now.