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.

Mitochondria wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Yeah right. Grabbing women from certain parts without asking is sexual assault.

Also what you have to say about him lying compulsively all the time, deleting records requested by court, proposing spread of nukes and USING nukes and policies that are designed to ensure rich pay even less taxes?

When the women are seeking those situations with the intent of improving/strengthening/promoting their lifestyle/position by engaging in sexual congress with the rich and powerful, guess what, sexual things happen.

By you definition everytime I pat my wife on the ass without permission, I am sexually assaulting her.

As to the rest, Clinton has engaged in the exact same practices.

The only difference is I expect that type of behavior from a New York billionaire not some career, "public servant".

A public servant by the way who has become a multi-millionaire in the last 30 years of public service. Pretty funny that everyone is cool with that.

Do you really not understand how incredibly awful this is?

I want to say any number of things in response.

Can't, though. Red text a couple pages back says otherwise.

Know what? I'm just about done. Three days from now, I'm putting my vote in, then I'm going to work, then I'm taking a half day the day after so I can get super drunk.

Here's the thing. I didn't really want Clinton to be president; I'm sure a lot of people felt the same way, but the alternative has been shown over and over to be objectively worse in every way.

Every time someone comes out with a new Clinton scandal, real or manufactured, you can point at a time where Trump has done the same thing. Doesn't even have to be a Hillary scandal, either - Bill's work fine.

And the party halfheartedly backing him isn't much better. I've got some respect for the Republicans who jumped ship, but this has been building; when your party sees facts as the enemy, you're doing it wrong.

Donald Trump is the world's worst Oompa-Loompa, and he cannot be elected to pretend to lead the United States.

Mitochondria wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Howabout this: Instead of complaining others get rich work on getting rich yourself.

If only Democrats would follow this advice.

It is physically impossible for everyone to be rich. There aren't enough resources in the world. Nor are there enough social positions that can give you the opportunity to attain wealth.


Just for starters.

 whembly wrote:


Occam's Razor is that they wanted to keep it out of oversight's reach to facilitate pay-to-play schemes with their Foundation.

Is that really how you think Occam's Razor work?

@Rosebuddy

So rich people are fine as long as they ther "right" kind of rich?

Mitochondria wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Oh man, an actual "why was she dressed like that in that neighborhood" defense.

Hey quit being sexist.

If a woman wishes to dress provocatively, arrange to be in close proximty to someone rich and powerful, and then engage in sexual relations, that is her choice.

Quit retarding her sexual agency.

a) what women wears is her priority
b) work takes person close to various people. Most you don't even know before.
c) one of those persons without asking groping IS NOT ENGAGING IN SEXUAL RELATIONS!

NOTHING WHATSOEVER gives men right to start groping or raping without women giving her permission. End of story. Clothing, location etc are not excuses. End of story. Anybody with half a sense knows this.

Steelmage99 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Occam's Razor is that they wanted to keep it out of oversight's reach to facilitate pay-to-play schemes with their Foundation.

Is that really how you think Occam's Razor work?

The simplest explanation for, "why" she used a private email server in the manner she did was to avoid oversight.

Unless you have a simpler explanation?

Rosebuddy wrote:

Mitochondria wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


Howabout this: Instead of complaining others get rich work on getting rich yourself.

If only Democrats would follow this advice.

It is physically impossible for everyone to be rich. There aren't enough resources in the world. Nor are there enough social positions that can give you the opportunity to attain wealth.


Just for starters.

well I guess on the road to follow trump's get rich scheme, when you go out to eat, never pay for your bill. Look at that saved $50.00. Eat out every night and never pay for groceries again. Look at the savings pilling up.

Mitochondria wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Occam's Razor is that they wanted to keep it out of oversight's reach to facilitate pay-to-play schemes with their Foundation.

Is that really how you think Occam's Razor work?

The simplest explanation for, "why" she used a private email server in the manner she did was to avoid oversight.

Unless you have a simpler explanation?

That isn't what Whembly said, though. I'm pretty sure he was referring to the second half of that statement, which ignores that avoiding oversight for no other reason than personal pride/arrogance would be the most simple explanation.

No comment on the rest of what you've said the last few pages, its worth a giggle here and there but there's no logical reasoning to respond to.

To the rest of us, I'l say that Mitochondria's posts here should serve as a good reminder of how much of a problem rape culture still is in this country, on top of the standard willfully misinformed (willformed?) republican stuff. The extreme case in the latter reminds me of my comment from the other page talking about how Whembly's views were at least in the realm of sanity.

Mitochondria wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Occam's Razor is that they wanted to keep it out of oversight's reach to facilitate pay-to-play schemes with their Foundation.

Is that really how you think Occam's Razor work?

The simplest explanation for, "why" she used a private email server in the manner she did was to avoid oversight.

Unless you have a simpler explanation?

First of all, I do not need to present a simpler explanation in order to apply Occam's Razor. I simply need to point out that entities have been multiplied beyond necessity.
Understand that first! There is no default position that automatically "wins" if no alternative is presented - least of all a position that requires the invention of unfounded nefarious and evil *Insert Mr. Burns here* schemes.

Second;

Convenience? Efficiency? Manageability?

Indicated by how she asked Colin Powell how he managed all those mails when he was Secretary of State, and that was his answer....

These are all explanations that doesn't require us to add unnecessary or unfounded entities and thus are more parsimonious.

Please, notice that I simply pointed out a blatant misuse of Occam's Razor......nothing more.
I am not arguing for ANYTHING beyond the issue of referring to Occam's Razor.
Any attempt to imply that anything beyond the use of Occam's Razor (be it political stance or defense of individuals) has been presented will be meet with scorn
,and a questioning of intelligence and/or reading comprehension.

Hahaha. "Rape Culture".

Today I learned when a woman wants to pursue a rich or famous man, arranges, to be around him, gives off the appropriate signals, and engages in sexual congress it is not her choice.

She had to have been coerced.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Convienence. Manageability. Efficiency.

All accomplished by allowing her private server to be house and maintained in a secure government facillty, just like Powell's was.

She chose to maintain outside of the borders of oversight.

Mitochondria wrote:
It's quite simple. We have someone at the federal level who, whether there was intent or not, is up to her eyballs in nefarious schemes to avoid accountability at any cost.

Not to mention her questionable health and her decades long cover up of her husband's dalliances.

And on the other hand...

We have someone who said rude things.

Up to his, you mean.

Trump is a man.

Mitochondria wrote:
Hahaha. "Rape Culture".

Today I learned when a woman wants to pursue a rich or famous man, arranges, to be around him, gives off the appropriate signals, and engages in sexual congress it is not her choice.

She had to have been coerced.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Convienence. Manageability. Efficiency.

All accomplished by allowing her private server to be house and maintained in a secure government facillty, just like Powell's was.

She chose to maintain outside of the borders of oversight.

Hoo boy this newbie is off to a great OT start, but will he follow the same path as old newbies and start spewing anti semitic phrases?

Today I learned that 'being a waitress', 'writing an article', or 'having your seat on an airplane changed' qualify as 'appropriate signals'.

I can't decide if I'd rather that people who think like this crawl back under their rocks when Trump isn't plastered all over the news any more, or if it's best to get it all out on the open and pop that cultural zit.

I wonder how Trump's child rape hearing is going to turn out?

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Occam's Razor is that they wanted to keep it out of oversight's reach to facilitate pay-to-play schemes with their Foundation.

And yet somehow these emails were very much within oversight's reach when oversight decided to investigate.

Yeah... when they were subpoena'ed, these jokers deleted 'thousands' and when given to the oversight, they were fething PRINTED, not kept in electronic medium.

Even today, they're STILL finding deleted emails that should've been turned over originally.

"oops" is NOT acceptable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
BigWaaagh, I wish I could exalt that post more than once. I cannot comprehend how people even can compare the two candidates.

Because, at the end of the day, Hillary is a Democrat, and the only thing that has historically united the disparate groups within the GOP is not policy, not ideology, but simply opposing the Democrats.

That works in both direction Tanner...

Funny how that wasn't your response when LordofHats said the same thing some time back.

eh?

Care to find that argument because maybe you or me misunderstood that conversation.

In fact, the DEMOCRATS are really good at banding together to stop the Republicans.

Trump deleted 2 million emails that had been subpoenaed.

Whoah!

Is it a rule now not to band together with your fellows?

Steelmage99 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Occam's Razor is that they wanted to keep it out of oversight's reach to facilitate pay-to-play schemes with their Foundation.

Is that really how you think Occam's Razor work?

It's the simplest, reasonable explanation.

 whembly wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Occam's Razor is that they wanted to keep it out of oversight's reach to facilitate pay-to-play schemes with their Foundation.

Is that really how you think Occam's Razor work?

It's the simplest, reasonable explanation.

Which is not how Occam's Razor works.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump deleted 2 million emails that had been subpoenaed.

Really bad case of whataboutism here...

But yeah, Trump should've suffered some sanctions there.

Mitochondria wrote:
Hahaha. "Rape Culture".

Today I learned when a woman wants to pursue a rich or famous man, arranges, to be around him, gives off the appropriate signals, and engages in sexual congress it is not her choice.

She had to have been coerced.

Actually, I was referring that when a woman is sexually assaulted by a rich or famous man, people will assume what you wrote. On a certain level I appreciate your response since it confirms exactly what I was saying, even if such a jump to victim-blaming is the problem itself. While I doubt you will change your views regardless this demonstration shows exactly the kind of thinking that is still all too common, and I hope others reading this will keep that in mind

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Occam's Razor is that they wanted to keep it out of oversight's reach to facilitate pay-to-play schemes with their Foundation.

Is that really how you think Occam's Razor work?

It's the simplest, reasonable explanation.

Which is not how Occam's Razor works.

Yeah... well... it was an inelegant use of that terminology. My bad.

My point was that the most reasonable reason why she did all that, was so that she can merge State Department functions with her Foundation activities discreetly.

The Clinton email argument seems to have detoured to a vague discussion of if/how she did something wrong, which I don't think anyone actually disagrees with. The original point was that her activities were also performed by her opponent, and that she has gotten far more flak for doing it. Is anyone still contesting this? If not I think we can move on.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
The Clinton email argument seems to have detoured to a vague discussion of if/how she did something wrong, which I don't think anyone actually disagrees with. The original point was that her activities were also performed by her opponent, and that she has gotten far more flak for doing it. Is anyone still contesting this? If not I think we can move on.

They both violated subpoena request.

What makes Clinton's case worst, was that it was to hide violations with respect to laws governing classified information and shady foundation activities.

If he flubs the child rape hearing there could be a bit more than some sanctions involved.

Trump could be the first US president in history who is a child rapist as well as a sex assaulter, a tax cheat, a charity scammer, a multiple adulterer, a contract welcher, Good God, it's hard to know when to stop.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If he flubs the child rape hearing there could be a bit more than some sanctions involved.

Absolutely.

Trump could be the first US president in history who is a child rapist as well as a sex assaulter, a tax cheat, a charity scammer, a multiple adulterer, a contract welcher, Good God, it's hard to know when to stop.

He won't win next Tuesday.

Oh FFS, have we really sunk to the level of "if she didn't want it then why was she wearing such a short skirt?" as a defense for Trump? Nothing at all in what he said suggested that the groping was consensual, that he was asking first, or that he even cared about whether or not the woman wanted it. He was very clear about it being "I'm rich and powerful, and I take what I want".

No.

Trump's defence is that he wouldn't bother to grope fat, ugly women, so obviously he wouldn't have done it.

 Peregrine wrote:
Oh FFS, have we really sunk to the level of "if she didn't want it then why was she wearing such a short skirt?" as a defense for Trump? Nothing at all in what he said suggested that the groping was consensual, that he was asking first, or that he even cared about whether or not the woman wanted it. He was very clear about it being "I'm rich and powerful, and I take what I want".

Well, no , we haven't, just one person has. Which is still bad enough, really.

By the way, anyone else see Paul Ryan's piece on CNN?
The blatant, insulting hypocrisy and pot-calling-the-kettle-black is just outrageous. Is he really just that completely out of touch with reality?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

By the way, anyone else see Paul Ryan's piece on CNN?
The blatant, insulting hypocrisy and pot-calling-the-kettle-black is just outrageous. Is he really just that completely out of touch with reality?

er... what specifically do you have a problem with?

It's really light on details...

I find it difficult to disagree with what Ryan is saying because it's a very brief message. However, I don't feel like the main issues confronting the US were included in that message; wealth gap, unsustainable spending (including the idea that our military needs to be 'rebuilt'), and the sheer amount of hatred and obstructionism being thrown around in our politics. So aside from the generic Republican BS I find the overall message both lacking and hypocritical.