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.
Realistically though, when you say crap like "Clinton Crime Syndicate™", it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
Realistically though.... they have money trees growing in their back yard.
How else did they massive make their wealth?
Oh... wait, large donors and foreign governments just loves to give money for altruistic reasons.
Right?
I know it's strict Republican thinking to say "I'm all right Jack, feth you," but actually yes, rich people and governments do sometimes give money for altruistic reasons.
Realistically though, when you say crap like "Clinton Crime Syndicate™", it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
Realistically though.... they have money trees growing in their back yard.
How else did they massive make their wealth?
Oh... wait, large donors and foreign governments just loves to give money for altruistic reasons.
Right?
I know it's strict Republican thinking to say "I'm all right Jack, feth you," but actually yes, rich people and governments do sometimes give money for altruistic reasons.
Interesting but irrelevant. One of the distinctively curious features of the this election is that Clinton has been held to very high standards while Trump has been allowed to get away with practically anything.
I wish Howard Stern would release his Trump sex tapes, but he promised not to in order to avoid biasing the election. It's come to something when a rather scurrilous shock jock has higher ethical standards than the head of the FBI.
It's not a stretch to imagine there is enough wealthy donors hoping to curry favour with such an influential family like the Clintons. The Rodhams and the Clintons were born to wealth as well IIRC.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Could you imagine the gak storm that waiting until after the election to announce there are more emails would be like.
Trump is already calling the validity of the process into question.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/04 09:07:04
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
Interesting but irrelevant. One of the distinctively curious features of the this election is that Clinton has been held to very high standards while Trump has been allowed to get away with practically anything.
The sad part is the whole email thing would have been an utter nonissue if she had just fessed up to it at the very beginning "sorry, had a private email server, shouldn't have done that, had stuff on there that shouldn't have been there, working now to sort it all out, sorry" and nothing would have happened.
But, yeah, the fact that Trump can still say what he's said about women, veterans, the disabled, etc., and still get the vote from the people who ask but clearly do not really care about the answer to "What Would Jesus Do?" is just mind-boggling.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
feeder wrote: The Rodhams and the Clintons were born to wealth as well IIRC.
You recall incorrectly. Bill Clinton was raised in a pretty poor family, and raised by his grandparents. His childhood home:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/04 00:04:30
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It's not a stretch to imagine there is enough wealthy donors hoping to curry favour with such an influential family like the Clintons. The Rodhams and the Clintons were born to wealth as well IIRC.
Curring favor while monetizing access to the Secretary of State?
Tannhauser42 wrote: The sad part is the whole email thing would have been an utter nonissue if she had just fessed up to it at the very beginning "sorry, had a private email server, shouldn't have done that, had stuff on there that shouldn't have been there, working now to sort it all out, sorry" and nothing would have happened.
I doubt it. It would have been "Clinton admits she betrayed America and gave her emails to the communists", over and over again. Because it was never about a rational argument about guilt or innocence, it was about finding evidence to "prove" that Clinton is Satan incarnate and justify voting for Trump.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
It's not a stretch to imagine there is enough wealthy donors hoping to curry favour with such an influential family like the Clintons. The Rodhams and the Clintons were born to wealth as well IIRC.
Curring favor while monetizing access to the Secretary of State?
There's a word for that...
the supreme court disagrees with you. that's why citizens united is a thing.
It's not a stretch to imagine there is enough wealthy donors hoping to curry favour with such an influential family like the Clintons. The Rodhams and the Clintons were born to wealth as well IIRC.
Curring favor while monetizing access to the Secretary of State?
There's a word for that...
the supreme court disagrees with you. that's why citizens united is a thing.
It's not a stretch to imagine there is enough wealthy donors hoping to curry favour with such an influential family like the Clintons. The Rodhams and the Clintons were born to wealth as well IIRC.
Curring favor while monetizing access to the Secretary of State?
There's a word for that...
the supreme court disagrees with you. that's why citizens united is a thing.
Huh? That's not what Citizens United was about.
it allows the creation of super pacs, which are non profit charities to receive unlimited donations. like adelson giving 50 million to elect trump, and the kokh borthers with their americans for prosperity. Then oddly enough when the kokh brothers give billions to elect climate change deniers, nothing gets done about climate change. It's the very pay for play you think is illegal, yet the supreme court made it very legal.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/04 00:35:47
It's not a stretch to imagine there is enough wealthy donors hoping to curry favour with such an influential family like the Clintons. The Rodhams and the Clintons were born to wealth as well IIRC.
Curring favor while monetizing access to the Secretary of State?
There's a word for that...
the supreme court disagrees with you. that's why citizens united is a thing.
Huh? That's not what Citizens United was about.
it allows the creation of super pacs, which are non profit charities to receive unlimited donations. like adelson giving 50 million to elect trump, and the kokh borthers with their americans for prosperity. Then oddly enough when the kokh brothers give billions to elect climate change deniers, nothing gets done about climate change. It's the very pay for play you think is illegal, yet the supreme court made it very legal.
You're conflating the citizens united case with the McCutcheon case.
It's not a stretch to imagine there is enough wealthy donors hoping to curry favour with such an influential family like the Clintons. The Rodhams and the Clintons were born to wealth as well IIRC.
Curring favor while monetizing access to the Secretary of State?
There's a word for that...
the supreme court disagrees with you. that's why citizens united is a thing.
Huh? That's not what Citizens United was about.
it allows the creation of super pacs, which are non profit charities to receive unlimited donations. like adelson giving 50 million to elect trump, and the kokh borthers with their americans for prosperity. Then oddly enough when the kokh brothers give billions to elect climate change deniers, nothing gets done about climate change. It's the very pay for play you think is illegal, yet the supreme court made it very legal.
You're conflating the citizens united case with the McCutcheon case.
I might be, but ya McCutcheon had the quote I was looking for:
Roberts went on to write, “Congress may target only a specific type of corruption—‘quid pro quo’ corruption . . . Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner ‘influence over or access to’ elected officials or political parties.”
See whem, if donating directly to the person running means there is no possibility of gaining influence over the person running, then surely anyone donating to a charity is just as innocent and altruistic as it's a real charity doing good work throughout the world. Unlike Trumps foundation.
So essentially, she'd be engaging in an activity that flies in the face of her husband who relishes and has a history of very publicly engaging in cyberbullying.
BigWaaagh wrote: So essentially, she'd be engaging in an activity that flies in the face of her husband who relishes and has a history of very publicly engaging in cyberbullying.
She might be the best person to understand the problem. Like all? almost all? AA groups having a recovering alcoholic running them. So let's have someone whos probably bullied daily lead a discussion on it
Easy E wrote: Now we are starting to see the R's get in line, and the looseness of the D coalition become a bit of an issue.
I find it amazing how the FBI letter basically with no new content is moving the polls as much as DT's tape about sexual assault.
It's unclear how much the FBI memo has impacted the polls. They were already moving towards Trump before the memo. Whether it increased the trend or helped sustain it is unknown.
Its also actually kind of unclear how much of an impact the recording of Trump bragging about sexual assault moved the polls - at that time polls were already moving in Clinton's direction after Trump's woeful first debate performance.
I think probably what's happened is that after Trump showed he is a terrible presidential candidate (the debates) and a terrible person (bragging about sexual assault), it managed to tip a lot of likely Clinton voters in to definite Clinton voters. But after that a lot of Republican voters have decided to have just short enough memories to pretend that didn't happen, and are instead just returning home, voting for Trump no matter how horrible he is, because tribal loyalty is strong enough that they just will not ever vote for the Democratic candidate. Whether the FBI memo has helped that process is unsure, if it has it was probably just because it helped give the media some narrative for why polls were swinging towards Trump.
That's not what that expression means. Speaking truth to power means standing directly in front of powerful people, and telling them truths that they will likely find challenging or a threat to their authority.
NinthMusketeer presented his argument to us, a bunch of political nerds posting on a wargaming forum. He spoke truth to irrelevant people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: The FBI is doing what it is supposed to do. It found additional evidence and they promised to advice the committees if additional evidence appeared. It was the committees that leaked the letter.
There is not one person on the planet who thinks that a memo two weeks before the election, about potential new information on Clinton's emails, from the FBI to a committee with Republicans on it wouldn't get leaked.
Proper information security includes assessing whether the recipient of a message can be relied on to maintain security. It's ironic that you'd feign ignorance about that when this issue is all about being so concerned about whether Clinton might have potentially risked information security.
If it came out that the FBI found it had possession of the emails with incriminating evidence under wraps then there would be hell to pay, and thats what the Democrats are actually arguing for.
Why couldn't announcement wait until after the election? Because as yet there's nothing to say, except that emails have been found that might possibly be relevant. And so there's nothing for the committee to do on the matter, except leak the memo.
When there's no possible effect other that a leak to the public which we all agree is manifestly unfair that close to an election... well fething figure it out.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: There are now rumors floating that there may be indictments shortly related to the "charity" coming.
Oh there's rumours are there. Well we better fething believe them right away.
I can't believe I still get amazed when I see this kind of shameless information control, where a partisan will just so readily believe the vaguest accusation against the other side. But despite having seen it so many times, it still kind of amazes me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Hillary's going to be elected while being investigated by the FBI for serious crimes.
Nice job 'Murrica.
Or you're going to have Donald Trump. Who isn't just being investigated or speculated about, but has an actual court hearing for raping a child on December 8.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Realistically though.... they have money trees growing in their back yard.
How else did they massive make their wealth?
Oh... wait, large donors and foreign governments just loves to give money for altruistic reasons.
Right?
Dude, I like you but what you've posted here is absolutely fething bonkers. Your thought process here is that you don't know what's happened, and you are happy to fill in all the blanks with assumptions of evil and corruption.
In 2000 Bill Clinton was an ex-president, and a very popular one overseas. The six figure speaking engagements that have caused so much speculation - these are standard for people with celebrity of the Clinton's. And concluding that you'd only pay that money in order to buy favours is hopelessly ignorant. First up the Clinton war chest for this campaign was $1.3 billion. $200k buys you diddly squat. Second up, these speaking tours are rarely single company events, almost all are run by event managers, who will pay a speaker their hefty fee, then sell 30 or more tables at prices starting at $10k, generating something north of $400k. No-one buying those tables thinks that their $10k is going to buy them access to the Clintons, they do it because that's how it works at the top end of the corporate world.
You give 25 talks in a year and you've made more than $5m. You consider that both Clintons can make that kind of money and you're looking at $10m a year between them. You add in some very lucrative consulting work, where you are selling your name more than any actual contribution and so you can book out to a lot of projects, and you can quickly push that number out to $15m. And that's without actually using up that much of your time. Do that for 10 years and you've got an incredible fortune.
Who in the feth would bother trying to cheat in California? It's one of the five safest Clinton seats. She's going to win it by 20 points at a minimum.
You're getting things confused. The Clinton's are rich because of speaking fees and consulting fees. The Clinton Foundation is the one that is given money, and that money remains with the Clinton Foundation and is spent on its charities, it doesn't make the Clintons any money for themselves.
Possibly you're getting confused with Donald Trump, because he has a record of using his charities funds on paintings and hotel renovations.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: It's not a stretch to imagine there is enough wealthy donors hoping to curry favour with such an influential family like the Clintons.
It's possible that some people giving money hoped that it would lead to a favour or two down the track. It's been interesting to then look through the released emails and see no such favours actually granted, though a few appear to have been pursued.
The Rodhams and the Clintons were born to wealth as well IIRC.
No really. Hillary Clinton's parents were owned a pretty successful business, but it was a long way from serious money. Bill Clinton's dad was a travelling salesman who died a few months before he was born, he was raised by his single mum, who worked as a nurse.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Interesting but irrelevant. One of the distinctively curious features of the this election is that Clinton has been held to very high standards while Trump has been allowed to get away with practically anything.
There's something of a pattern in this campaign, anything Clinton is accused of we will shortly thereafter find Trump actually guilty of. And Trump's guilt will be largely ignored, meanwhile the accusation against Clinton will drag for ages.
Maybe it's because the accusations against Clinton actually get contested, people argue the other side and a debate happens, so the amount of time given to the issue implies it has some kind of scale. Whereas Trump just ignores it, his defenders just don't make a comment on it, and then focus on the issue goes away after a day or two. And so it just gets buried in the pile of Trump scandals.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2016/11/04 03:09:36
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Let's put to bed the idea that Clinton's email situation while Secretary of State is in any way comparable to the email situation of a private citizen, which Trump very much is.
As private citizens we can do a great many things with our email as it is private.
Clinton knowingly and deliberately utilized a privately administered and privately housed personal email server with the express intent of avoiding FOIA requests and sidestepping document archival regulations.
Mitochondria wrote: Let's put to bed the idea that Clinton's email situation while Secretary of State is in any way comparable to the email situation of a private citizen, which Trump very much is.
As private citizens we can do a great many things with our email as it is private.
A private citizen violating a court order makes it a legitimate issue, and when it comes to violating court orders it doesn't really matter if you are working for the government or a private citizen. It becomes even more of an issue for that private citizen when said private citizen makes such a big deal out of how other people deleted emails while he is in the backroom shredding his own in violation of a court order.
Mitochondria wrote: As private citizens we can do a great many things with our email as it is private.
Unless you are under a court order to preserve and present emails related to an ongoing legal case, as Trump was. This is a case of (potentially) illegal destruction of evidence, not a private citizen deciding to delete their junk mail folder.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Mitochondria wrote: Let's put to bed the idea that Clinton's email situation while Secretary of State is in any way comparable to the email situation of a private citizen, which Trump very much is.
As private citizens we can do a great many things with our email as it is private.
If you'd read the article you'd have understood that Trump deleted emails that he had been requested by a court to turn over. Why didn't you read the article? Why did you come in here and give an opinion when you've never bothered to read the article?
Clinton knowingly and deliberately utilized a privately administered and privately housed personal email server with the express intent of avoiding FOIA requests and sidestepping document archival regulations.
As did the Bush administration. The Bush administration had a bit over 300 stories written on that. Clinton's email deletion has had more than 500,000 stories. It is quite telling how something can be not that big of a deal when done in one administration, and the scandal of the century when done by the next.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Mitochondria wrote: Find an instance where a private email server from the Bush administration was housed and maintained outside of a government facility.
During the 2007 Congressional investigation of the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, it was discovered that administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee, for various official communications. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The use of this email domain became public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas. Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc.") and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee").
Mitochondria wrote: Find an instance where a private email server from the Bush administration was housed and maintained outside of a government facility.
Google finds this from Fox News talking about Colin Powell using private, non state department email.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Mitochondria wrote: Find an instance where a private email server from the Bush administration was housed and maintained outside of a government facility.
I wonder if you're genuinely unaware of the private servers used by the Bush administration, and the 22 million emails lost, or if you're playing some bs around where the server was housed, as if that was relevant.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
In the damning announcement, Department of Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul revealed that Hillary Clinton clearly acted against the multiple security warnings she received while Secretary of State.
Furthermore, he went on to release that Hillary Clinton took multiple devices overseas. Not only that, these devices were proven to be hacked by China, Russia, and the Islamic State of Iran.
The intent is clear. Hillary Clinton used the secret server to hide her actions from the American People. She committed pure treason against the United States.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/04 08:35:43
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
