Kalbear Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 A huge important piece - a precise example of how Russia is attempting to influence the election. http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Quote It's like... Trump is willing to screw over everyone he ever did business with, for personal gain, or something... Though it'll be interesting to see if Conway and the rest of the operation suffer any career consequences for this reckless campaign. I don't think so. I think she is showing potential future employers, such as Cruz who she worked for before, the lengths she will go and her absolute loyalty to employer. Although certainly Trump will screw anyone over he no longer needs. Thus Paul Ryan's torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Martell Spy said: GOP ex-prosecutors slam Trump over threat to 'jail' Clinton 'The Justice Department isn't a political tool and it ought not to be employed that way.' http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/trump-clinton-jail-ex-prosecutors-slam-229547 Trump's comment is incrediblely disturbing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 34 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said: Yep. I had a long drive recently and spent a few hours actually listening to The Right Stuff, The Daily Shoah, and Fash the Nation podcasts on the advice of a friend. It's terrifying stuff. And it's there, in the campaign. I used to think it was just his sons who were adherents to this Nazi garbage, but no longer. There are too many similarities. The way the alt-right argues that they'd be better for the black community than paternalistic white liberalism sounds *just like* the Great Orange One. Now I'm just waiting to hear those dog whistles. You have 1488 ways to Make America Great Again? He's been careful (about appearing like a full-on white nationalist if nothing else), but he'll slip. Not that it will matter to his supporters. Oh god, how in the hell did you do that? Also, fuck all of them. Oh and his supporters will love that even more. I am sure even the ones that don't align with white nationalists will find a way to spin it to justify still sticking with the orange shit stain. 15 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said: [mod] 1) Do not feed the trolls 2) please keep it classy 3) please stick to topic -- and, further, stop talking about Bill Clinton. He's not the one on the ballot. Thank you. [/mod] But Hilary is responsible for Bill's actions twenty years ago and needs to answer for his actions that he as his own person committed. 9 minutes ago, Kalbear said: A huge important piece - a precise example of how Russia is attempting to influence the election. http://www.newsweek.com/vladimir-putin-sidney-blumenthal-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-benghazi-sputnik-508635 A part of me can't help but think that the US is getting a dose of it's own medicine, but fuck Putin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Y'all think trump is the end of the repubs - it might just be the beginning. Right now that base is far stronger than the sane ones. Priebus, pence, and big donors just threw their hat in with trump. And while they may never win an election without being centrist, they can't obliterate their base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 So, one of the things Trump was bellowing about last night was that Clinton has been in public service for 30 years and yet, she doesn’t seem to have made life better for anyone and has few accomplishments. The more I thought about this today the more I realized he was right, so I though I would make a list to keep track of it all. Major Not-Accomplishments She never told us what really happened at Area 51 She let Al Gore invent the internet. If he hadn’t done that, she never would have had that ‘little email problem.’ Spam, the faux-meat product, still exists Sarah Palin could see Russia from her house and Hilary did nothing! Romney’s dancing horse didn’t win a gold medal in the 2012 Olympics, that’s on you Hilary. Prevented the Chicago Cubs from winning a World Series in the last 30 years. Minor Not-Accomplishments The Dean Scream Jeb! Is a thing now, <<shudder>> Why are there still monkeys?…..Oh shit, sorry, wrong argument. And All The Little Things Lite beer Velour jogging suits Spandex Sharknado films New Coke And Lastly: Franco Francisco Franco is still dead! * I think I’ll email this list to the Trump campaign and suggest they use it as his screeching/interrupting points for the next debate. *Could have mentored Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepStark Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 19 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Trump's comment is incrediblely disturbing What's disturbing for me is this idea that whoever loses the presidential race should never be investigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 17 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said: Oh god, how in the hell did you do that? Also, fuck all of them. It super-sucked, not gonna lie. They had this dude from Gawker on who did alright, but was mostly just shocked silent and I was thinking, gods, we gotta do better than that against these people. Or we'll just see more candidates like this asshat. I guess I'm saying I know it's a new thing for us and it's easy to laugh it off and not take it seriously. But it's not a new thing in history and we were all raised to never forget, and to fight this. So let's do that already instead of laughing it off while racism is polling 40%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The guy from the Vale Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 2 minutes ago, StepStark said: What's disturbing for me is this idea that whoever loses the presidential race should never be investigated. The disturbing part is not the idea that losing candidates might be under investigation at some point for some suspected crime or another. The disturbing part is that who gets investigated should not be a decision for the president to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 4 minutes ago, StepStark said: What's disturbing for me is this idea that whoever loses the presidential race should never be investigated. Because Cliton hasn't been investigated by the FBI already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariadne23 Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 14 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Y'all think trump is the end of the repubs - it might just be the beginning. Right now that base is far stronger than the sane ones. Priebus, pence, and big donors just threw their hat in with trump. And while they may never win an election without being centrist, they can't obliterate their base. Basically I'm saying I agree with this. I don't think it's going away on its own, or with Trump's defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepStark Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 1 minute ago, theguyfromtheVale said: The disturbing part is not the idea that losing candidates might be under investigation at some point for some suspected crime or another. The disturbing part is that who gets investigated should not be a decision for the president to make. But if he comes up with a reasonable suggestion? Is that allowed? Like, if he sees that the prosecutor is failing at his job for some reason, and makes a suggestion who to investigate? Or perhaps because he knows some things and wants to report them. Shouldn't that be allowed, even for president? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepStark Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 3 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said: Because Cliton hasn't been investigated by the FBI already? "At this point what does it even matter?" Are we talking about investigations in which the investigated party is allowed to defend like that? Not the shiniest examples of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Just now, StepStark said: But if he comes up with a reasonable suggestion? Is that allowed? Like, if he sees that the prosecutor is failing at his job for some reason, and makes a suggestion who to investigate? Or perhaps because he knows some things and wants to report them. Shouldn't that be allowed, even for president? Who are we talking about, Trump? Because if we are, Trump has no grounds to make a suggestion with who to investigate since he is not and never was a lawyer and clearly does not know law. He has also shown he has horrible judgement when it comes to who is doing their job correctly and who is not. He also has shown he is incredibly bias and vindictive which means he would be compromised with it not being a personal vendetta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 1 minute ago, StepStark said: "At this point what does it even matter?" Are we talking about investigations in which the investigated party is allowed to defend like that? Not the shiniest examples of justice. Again, did the FBI not investigate her already? I just see another person that can't deal with the outcome of the FBI's findings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepStark Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Daniel Plainview said: Who are we talking about, Trump? Because if we are, Trump has no grounds to make a suggestion with who to investigate since he is not and never was a lawyer and clearly does not know law. He has also shown he has horrible judgement when it comes to who is doing their job correctly and who is not. He also has shown he is incredibly bias and vindictive which means he would be compromised with it not being a personal vendetta. What are we talking about, the legal system in USA and the way it treats political figures like Hillary? Because if we are, that system is definitely not something that doesn't need serious improvement. And the improvement can come even from those who aren't lawyers. Maybe even especially from them because at least they weren't involved in creating the problem. About judgement, people who continue to see nothing wrong in the actions of State Department under Hillary Clinton, especially regarding The Middle East, are hardly fit to judge anything and anyone. About Trump, he pointed to legal reasons why Hillary should be prosecuted, and not personal reasons. I don't know if he is biased and vindictive in real life, but his remark from the debate was pretty fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepStark Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 7 minutes ago, Daniel Plainview said: Again, did the FBI not investigate her already? I just see another person that can't deal with the outcome of the FBI's findings. If you think that Hillary Clinton had the same treatment any other citizen would have under same or similar accusations, then your view on the US legal and political system is too naive for my taste, sorry to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 1 minute ago, StepStark said: About judgement, people who continue to see nothing wrong in the actions of State Department under Hillary Clinton, especially regarding The Middle East, are hardly fit to judge anything and anyone. About Trump, he pointed to legal reasons why Hillary should be prosecuted, and not personal reasons. I don't know if he is biased and vindictive in real life, but his remark from the debate was pretty fair. Wait, wait. What are we talking about here? What Hillary did in Libya or her email scandal. Seems like you are trying to conflate the two. Look, I was not a fan of Hillary's actions in Libya. Nor am I a fan of her interventionist inclinations. But, with regard to those matters, Trump's charges were what again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris the Blade Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 8 minutes ago, StepStark said: What are we talking about, the legal system in USA and the way it treats political figures like Hillary? Because if we are, that system is definitely not something that doesn't need serious improvement. And the improvement can come even from those who aren't lawyers. Maybe even especially from them because at least they weren't involved in creating the problem. About judgement, people who continue to see nothing wrong in the actions of State Department under Hillary Clinton, especially regarding The Middle East, are hardly fit to judge anything and anyone. About Trump, he pointed to legal reasons why Hillary should be prosecuted, and not personal reasons. I don't know if he is biased and vindictive in real life, but his remark from the debate was pretty fair. Yea I totally think a corrupt fuck with multiple law suits against him, one of which is for raping a child is the one to help fix the fucking system. The same person that thinks an american judge of mexican decent is incapable of being objective and only was going after him for that Trump university fraud case because of what he said about mexicans. The same one that paid off Pam Bondi to not investigate him for Trump university fraud down in Florida. If you don't know if Trump is biased and vindictive in his personal life, you must have been living under a rock. And his remarks are hypocritical and laughable given the legal history against him in the past and currently. I also think the director of the FBI would know the law better than some orange fucking hack businessman and know what he can and can not prosecute. Are you one of those whiny Benghazi types? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepStark Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said: Wait, wait. What are we talking about here? What Hillary did in Libya or her email scandal. Seems like you are trying to conflate the two. Look, I was not a fan of Hillary's actions in Libya. Nor am I a fan of her interventionist inclinations. But, with regard to those matters, Trump's charges were what again? I wasn't conflating the two. We were discussing judgement. He said that Trump's judgement is poor. And maybe it is. But I wanted to point to great many other people whose judgement is never or seldom questioned, even though their judgement is certainly not less problematic than Trump's. With regards to emails, I'm not a US citizen so I'm not personally invested in the issue, but speaking as an outsider, if there really were 30.000 emails that were erased then it's a big problem for which someone has to answer. If nobody answered for 30.000 missing emails, then the investigators failed at their job. It's really simple as that. Public officials shouldn't be allowed to lose or erase public documents like that. Those emails are public documents. Not public like ready to be published, but they aren't personal either. If I were a US citizen, I would be very upset that someone destroyed public documents and nobody was found accountable for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.