2016 US Presidential election thread

[U505995]

I'm still wondering why the black lives matter crowd and Hispanics keep accusing Trump of being racist. I don't recall a single instance where he said he hated either of the two groups. He did say some rough things about illegal immigrants but wasn't talking about hispanics as a whole. I remember him saying that blacks and hispanics loved him a while back. Although it's clear at this point the great majority of them either don't support or hate the guy. I guess I wouldn't take what the blm movement has to say seriously as they have degenerated into a cancerous, white hating, social justice cult. As for Hispanics I think it has to do with how the media twists and contorts things to make him look bad.

[STEED]

https://memecrunch.com/meme/BG55J/line-up-the-beers/image.jpg?w=480&c=1

[Skybird]

https://memecrunch.com/meme/BG55J/line-up-the-beers/image.jpg?w=480&c=1
Smart as he is he probably lands in India.

[Platapus]

There's nothing in the Constitution that says they would be disqualified from holding office.


:hmmm:
Can the president pardon itself?


No, but if the president is convicted under a state law, the appropriate governor could pardon the president.

As for crimes commuted by a person who is or will be a president, it gets a lot more confusing.

First and foremost, of course, is that in the United States a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court. This is often miss-quoted as a person is innocent until proven guilty which is silly when you think about it.

Second, a sitting president is generally presumed to have immunity from civil court actions until the president leaves office. Generally, now that's an interesting word.

Up until Bill Clinton, this immunity was absolute. However, the SCotUS ruled that this immunity should only apply to those civil cases that were challenging an action the president took as part of his official duties. Since the sexual harassment civil case against Bill Clinton did not involve an official duty, the civil case was allowed to proceed during Bill Clinton's term.

So in a Trump/Clinton administration, any civil cases that are not due to official actions, could proceed. Whether any civil cases could be taken against president H. Clinton based on her official performance as SoS is unknown. We don't really have a precedent on this. Congress would have to decide and that decision would be reviewed by the SCotUS.

That's civil cases, how about criminal cases?

Well, we don't know. The Constitution only describes the method of removing a president through impeachment and conviction. The constitution is lacking in documenting any other penalties against a sitting president. So, like most things, it goes to the SCotUS and their interpretation. One such interpretation occurred 1838


The executive power is vested in a President; and as far as his powers are derived from the constitution, he is beyond the reach of any other department, except in the mode prescribed by the constitution through the impeaching power.” Source 37 U.S. (12 Peters) 524, 609 (1838)

This is based, in part, on a long established concept of "Parliamentary Immunity" The US Senate (but oddly not the House) is protected under the auspice of Parliamentary Immunity. An elected Senator has the right to attend congress when it is in session. If a Senator were to be convicted of a crime and serve time in jail, they would have to be released any time the Senate was in session and then returned to Jail when it is out of session. This is to prevent anyone from trying to phony up convictions to keep opposing senators from being able to cast votes.

So what about the president. The president is not a member of the Senate. By tradition, the president enjoys Parliamentary Immunity, but not by law. The attitude as always been that if the actions of the president do not meet the level of impeachment, the president is immune during his term. After his term, he would be liable.

But this is all tradition, the ultimate decision would be up to congress. And as illustrated by history, the Senate takes this decision very seriously. The Senate is, rightfully, concerned with making a decision where the person the citizens wanted as president is kicked out.

It better be for something really important and for something that really impairs the president from conducting his or her duties.


A good but lengthy read on this topic can be found at http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/39.pdf

[Sailor Steve]

@ Platapus: Good article. I learned a couple of things I did not understand before. Thanks for that link.

[vienna]

Ditto, Platapus; you can always be relied upon to provide clear, well cited answers... :up:



<O>

[mapuc]

Same here-Great information you have given us/me.

If you wanna know

Here in Denmark a member of the Danish Parliament can, if having commit a crime, be removed, from his or her job, if a majority in the parliament vote for this, in other word removing his or her Parliamentary Immunity. Thereafter the person can prosecuted by the laws


When it comes to a minister its more complicated- even here a majority of the parliament has to vote for removing his or her Parliamentary Immunity. Thereafter the parliament hire the the Attorney General to investigate the minister and if found enough prove of a crime an impeachment is set
Sometime the Parliament even engage the the Attorney General to investigate a minister.

Back to American politics

Marku

[Oberon]

Similar to a vote of no-confidence I guess, which we have in our parliament, and which we might see in action at some point in the next couple of months depending on how the 23rd goes. :doh:

[Jimbuna]

Similar to a vote of no-confidence I guess, which we have in our parliament, and which we might see in action at some point in the next couple of months depending on how the 23rd goes. :doh:

More a vote against the PM than his party I suspect.

[GT182]

If Trump doesn't smarten up and quit with the rampages, his mouth will be his doom. I thought he was smart enough to not go off half-cocked, but the more I hear him speak, it doesn't seem to be the case. He's smart and on the right track, but these past few days are what's killing him. The way it looks now is he's lost his bid to be president.

[vienna]

http://assets.amuniversal.com/232742d0efc701335857005056a9545d



<O>

[August]

Thought this was an interesting take:

This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization — incredibly — conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it’s only fitting that its nomination process ends with such an ignominious, awkward, and undemocratic sputter.

https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/

[em2nought]

I'm wondering if the media is using this type of lense on one party, but not on the other? http://articles.latimes.com/1994-11-26/entertainment/ca-1794_1_news-anchors

[Bilge_Rat]

If Trump doesn't smarten up and quit with the rampages, his mouth will be his doom. I thought he was smart enough to not go off half-cocked, but the more I hear him speak, it doesn't seem to be the case. He's smart and on the right track, but these past few days are what's killing him. The way it looks now is he's lost his bid to be president.

That is what the mainstream media is saying, but they have been writing him off since day one. The only numbers that count are the polls and Trump and Clinton are still tied, including in key battleground states. The talking heads can talk all they want, but its the silent majority that will decide this one.

[Jimbuna]

That is what the mainstream media is saying, but they have been writing him off since day one. The only numbers that count are the polls and Trump and Clinton are still tied, including in key battleground states. The talking heads can talk all they want, but its the silent majority that will decide this one.

On that we both agree....interesting times ahead.

[STEED]

Had a chat with a American woman at the bus stop and she thinks Trump would upset countries but it wolud all blow over and Clinton would increase the number of body bags. As she put it Clinton is a cold warmonger.

[Onkel Neal]

Well, so much for the Libertarian Party, destroyed any credibility (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d45x4OpMoow) they could have had.

[Armistead]

I'm still wondering why the black lives matter crowd and Hispanics keep accusing Trump of being racist. I don't recall a single instance where he said he hated either of the two groups. He did say some rough things about illegal immigrants but wasn't talking about hispanics as a whole. I remember him saying that blacks and hispanics loved him a while back. Although it's clear at this point the great majority of them either don't support or hate the guy. I guess I wouldn't take what the blm movement has to say seriously as they have degenerated into a cancerous, white hating, social justice cult. As for Hispanics I think it has to do with how the media twists and contorts things to make him look bad.

We are a very politically correct nation now, even liberal comedians fear making jokes using race, etc...much less someone running for office. I don't think Trump is a racist, he's actually or was socially liberal before this, but he is old school white and that will always come across as bigotry to today's generation. He has to be smart enough to know not to be, but he still doesn't seem to get it. He's clearly a narcissist, but that can often work when you're president. Trump can't help but dig and cut with words when he feels attacked and unlike most politicians, he can't be politically ...sensitive....I think if he keeps it up he's doomed. I really thought most of his rants getting the nom were to hide his social liberalism to secure the nom, seems not.

One thing for sure, our nation will be divided unlike before with either of these candidates and I suspect if Hillary wins she's gonna go through a bunch of executive pens cuz my guess is congress will remain GOP and 4 more years of nothing getting done. I won't vote for her regardless, she is the typical corrupt politician that will continue the madness, I'll take my chances on the bigot.

[Reece]

Well as much as I don't like Trump I dislike Hillary even more. One things for sure, if Trump gets in things will be interesting!:yep:

[Torplexed]

I wish Bernie would call it a campaign and concede. This will likely be his only presidential run and you get the feeling that it's more about the hanging on to the national attention, the adoring crowds, and the media spotlight than any principal or chance of winning at this point. :-?

[em2nought]

One thing for sure, our nation will be divided unlike before with either of these candidates and I suspect if Hillary wins she's gonna go through a bunch of executive pens cuz my guess is congress will remain GOP and 4 more years of nothing getting done.

With a gov't so vast I figure nothing getting done is the best you can hope for. Anything they do will be botched, corrupt, and over budget anyway. At best maybe The Donald can slow the inevitable decline, giving some temporary hope that we can control our obese gov't, instead of it controlling us.

[eddie]

All these great promises Trump has made, he has never even given a hint on how he could do any of it.

[Reece]

Interesting isn't it?:03:

[em2nought]

All these great promises Trump has made, he has never even given a hint on how he could do any of it.

Probably by believing in America instead of hating it for a start. :03:

[Torplexed]

All these great promises Trump has made, he has never even given a hint on how he could do any of it.

You're just gonna have to take his word for it. :O:

https://i.imgflip.com/10bkki.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

All these great promises Trump has made, he has never even given a hint on how he could do any of it.

Just like Trump University. He's a huckster, a salesman, which is as bad as a politician. I doubt he can do much more than run his mouth.

...but if he does get elected President, I will be at the White House with a sign "Where's the Wall?":shifty:

[Oberon]

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tnWBbODKZ54/hqdefault.jpg

[mapuc]

All these great promises Trump has made, he has never even given a hint on how he could do any of it.

I think Mr Trump have been studying the Danish Politicians, they are expert in saying what many Danish voters want to hear And after the Danish politicians got his or her vote and are elected-they forget everything they have promised to the Danish voters

Markus

[vienna]

From the current Mad Magazine:


https://peskytruth.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/mad-magazine-trump-university-diploma-1024x817.jpg?w=1032



<O>

[Platapus]

Well, so much for the Libertarian Party, destroyed any credibility (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d45x4OpMoow) they could have had.


I seriously looked into the Libertarian Party. I was thinking that that party may be the moderate party. I was mistaken. :nope:

I just want a moderate candidate. I don't do the extremes.

[Sailor Steve]

From the current Mad Magazine:

Vienna...




YOU'RE FIRED! :O:

[vienna]

Ya can't fire me!...I'm HUUUGE!!... :haha:

...and if you sign this blank check, I'll show you how to be HUUUGE, too... :D


<O>

[Nippelspanner]

I seriously looked into the Libertarian Party. I was thinking that that party may be the moderate party. I was mistaken. :nope:

I just want a moderate candidate. I don't do the extremes.
Just... why. Why, why, why. Also: Why!? :dead:

[August]

http://16005-presscdn-0-36.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Branco-Trump-and-Hillary.jpg

[August]

http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq193/rdsterling/Vote%20for%20Red%20Forman_zpsa7pzguag.jpg

[Onkel Neal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxFRqNmXKg

While researching for a wrap-up on the June 7 Presidential Primaries, we discovered evidence that Google may be manipulating autocomplete recommendations in favor of Hillary Clinton. If true, this would mean that Google Searches aren’t objectively reflecting what the majority of Internet searches are actually looking for, possibly violating Google’s algorithm. According to a research paper cited in this video, that kind of search result manipulation has the potential to substantially influence the outcome of actual elections.

Hillary Clinton India?.....:nope:

[STEED]

Well, so much for the Libertarian Party, destroyed any credibility (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d45x4OpMoow) they could have had.

:huh:

If you are going to do that sort of thing join a clown party.

[Jimbuna]

Whatever must Putin and Xi Jinping be thinkin? :o

[vienna]

For the political news media (and for comedians), Trump is the gift that keeps on giving. There have been the recent revelations of Trump being sued hundreds of times for not paying debts owed for services rendered by small businesses and workers:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwju05Xt-53NAhWFMGMKHf0eDvUQqQIIHigAMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2F2016 %2F06%2F10%2Fdozens-lawsuits-accuse-trump-not-paying-his-bills-reports-claim.html&usg=AFQjCNHaMH0emy00mHLnfNQcuE3ufp2F2w

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwju05Xt-53NAhWFMGMKHf0eDvUQu4gBCB8oATAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessinsider.com%2Fbusines ses-and-employees-accuse-donald-trump-of-not-paying-them-2016-6&usg=AFQjCNE3vTtMiNJWvgr71vRvQ247Gc4g4Q

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwju05Xt-53NAhWFMGMKHf0eDvUQu4gBCCAoAjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnymag.com%2Fdaily%2Fintelligencer %2F2016%2F06%2Ftrump-didnt-pay-his-bills-for-decades.html&usg=AFQjCNFqywG1OwvLxsgYLRQ0wr99YoiwyQ

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=14&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwju05Xt-53NAhWFMGMKHf0eDvUQqQIIVSgAMA0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fdonald-trumps-business-plan-left-a-trail-of-unpaid-bills-1465504454&usg=AFQjCNFRPnU9-6mCYb8iPCMmEUcL92IxGg

Notable among his unpaid creditors are the law firms Trump hired to defend against the lawsuits who have yet to see a dime for their efforts. All this kind of makes one wonder if those checks to the veteran charities would have ever been cut if the media had not brought the issue to light...

...and, in an appalling lack of political savvy, Trump stands accused, with proof, of paying the his women campaign workers about 2/3 of what he is paying the male workers:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/06/04/donald-trump-campaign-pays-women-less-than-men/VIu0v2MUJiHqhvc5C0W5dO/story.html

I do believe, given how these sorts of matters are coming to public notice, the worst for Trump is yet to come. Hopefully, Trump will get torpedoed and the GOP will have the opportunity to put up a real, viable candidate for the election...


<O>

[vienna]

Whatever must Putin and Xi Jinping be thinkin? :o

I think they're laughing too hard to form any cogent opinion...



<O>

[Rockstar]

http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa408/jky242/95e1e0782a5b5784cf3e5657f1015849.jpg

[August]

http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq193/rdsterling/america_zps3nahpwqb.jpg

[Jimbuna]

^ True that :yep:

Now that Obama has declared who he is supporting (no surprises there), the gloves should now come off and the entertainment level should sky rocket.

[Torplexed]

Now that Obama has declared who he is supporting (no surprises there), the gloves should now come off and the entertainment level should sky rocket.Speaking of entertainment, after watching Barack Obama slow jam the news with Jimmy Fallon on the Tonight Show, I'm convinced that the job of POTUS is quickly devolving from commander to entertainer-in-chief.

Trump would certainly have an edge there. :-?

[STEED]

Stick them both in the boxing ring. :know:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Speaking of entertainment, after watching Barack Obama slow jam the news with Jimmy Fallon on the Tonight Show, I'm convinced that the job of POTUS is quickly devolving from commander to entertainer-in-chief.

Trump would certainly have an edge there. :-?Intresting point of view but yes, Trump certainly has an edge here.

Imagine The White House Apprentice where Secretary-of-hopefuls would compete who gets the cabinet seat of the season. There could be two starting teams, The Grand Old Fools and The Lemoncrats, who would embark on completing task testing their skills on political skulduggery.

:D

[Torplexed]

Imagine The White House Apprentice where Secretary-of-hopefuls would compete who gets the cabinet seat of the season. There could be two starting teams, The Grand Old Fools and The Lemoncrats, who would embark on completing task testing their skills on political skulduggery.

:D

As a Trump White House consultant...

YOU'RE HIRED! :D

https://s.graphiq.com/sites/default/files/stories/t4/Donald_Trump_Offensive_Quotes_4067_5187.jpg

[August]

This woman just can't stop shooting her self in the foot.


The paperback version of Hillary Clinton’s memoir “Hard Choices” fails to include her support of the international trade pact TPP that rivals Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have opposed, raising criticism about Clinton “reinventing herself” for the general election race. The paperback version of Clinton’s 2014 book, which details her work as secretary of state for President Obama, omits the passage in which she touts her efforts to get the country to support the 12-nation trade deal, which she once referred to as the “gold standard” for such agreements.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/11/paperback-version-clintons-hard-choices-omits-her-tpp-trade-pact-support.html

[Sailor Steve]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Choice_zpsugqubzss.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/Choice_zpsugqubzss.jpg.html)

[vienna]

Trump could be facing even more negative flak if the media gets the courts to unseal the video depositions Trump gave in the Trump University lawsuits. There appears to be considerable damning statements made by Trump in the videos regarding the conduct and morality of the TU operations and their scams:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-university-testimony-223908

http://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2016/06/10/attorneys-try-block-video-depositions-trump-university-lawsuit/

Trump has been able, however, to gain a bit of a reprieve:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/06/09/court-shields-donald-trump-deposition-videos.htm

But now the media Majors are joining up to obtain the unedited depositions and transcripts and, if past history holds up, they may very well succeed:

There also appears to have been a rather embarrassing flip-flop by Trump re: the Clintons in the deposition that may come back to bite him:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/06/08/trump-flip-flops-on-clintons-in-lawsuit.htm

Speaking of "foot shooting", The Donald seem s to aim more for his gluteus maximus; while the rest of the nation, and the world, was extending sympathy and condolonces to the victims of the Florida Mass Shooting, Trump took the event as an opportunity to give himself a pat on the back and toot his own horn:

Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism, I don't want congrats, I want toughness & vigilance. We must be smart!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2016 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/742034549232766976)Yeah, it must be great being "right", really more important than showing common civility and empathy towards the suffering of others; imagine how big Trump's pride would be if the toll were higher... :nope:



<O>

[Nippelspanner]

Man, I try to imagine how tough voting must be for you guys over there this time. AIDS or cancer... AIDS or cancer...

Personally, I would probably flip a coin.
"Woohoo! Thank God it's AIDS!"

BTW. Trump said he would deny access to people from countries that support terror or something...
Is this actually legal?
Would it really happen?
Because... that would lead to interesting tensions, I'd assume.

[August]

Looks like Trump isn't the only one with University troubles.

With her campaign sinking in the polls, Hillary Clinton has launched a desperate attack against Trump University to deflect attention away from her deep involvement with a controversial for-profit college that made the Clintons millions, even as the school faced serious legal scrutiny and criminal investigations.

In April 2015, Bill Clinton was forced to abruptly resign from his lucrative perch as honorary chancellor of Laureate Education, a for-profit college company. The reason for Clinton’s immediate departure: Clinton Cash revealed, and Bloomberg confirmed, that Laureate funneled Bill Clinton $16.46 million over five years while Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. pumped at least $55 million to a group run by Laureate’s founder and chairman, Douglas Becker, a man with strong ties to the Clinton Global Initiative. Laureate has donated between $1 million and $5 million (donations are reported in ranges, not exact amounts) to the Clinton Foundation. Progressive billionaire George Soros is also a Laureate financial backer.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-university-bill-clinton-bagged-16-46-million-from-for-profit-college-as-state-dept-funneled-55-million-back/

[Onkel Neal]

Interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuiW_Jagl4U

[Reece]

Well if I was an American I'd vote for him! So would Denny Crane!:yep:

[Platapus]

By this time, each of the candidates can do pretty much anything. Their reputations can't get much lower.

I don't think there are too many voters that are undecided unless you consider disliking both candidates equally.

I think that if either party suddenly puts forward another candidate, that candidate would win.If the GOP were to put up Romney I would probably vote for him as he is way better than the current batch. If the DNC put up Biden, I would vote for him for the same reasons.

I truly don't know who I would vote for between Trump and Clinton. Both are unacceptable to me. I guess I can lean slightly on the Clinton side. If Clinton gets elected we will just have more of the same. If we survived Bush and Obama, we can survive four years of Clinton.

As for Trump... The risk is just too high. :nope:

As I said before, the choice is a wet frying pan or a dry frying pan. :nope::nope:

[vienna]

Looks like Trump isn't the only one with University troubles.



http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/02/hillary-university-bill-clinton-bagged-16-46-million-from-for-profit-college-as-state-dept-funneled-55-million-back/


So, basically, what you're saying is Trump is no better than Hillary...

I can agree with that...

I'm still holding out hope the GOP can find some means of ridding itself of Trump and put up a real, viable candidate...

...and where, oh where, is a new Ross Perot?...



<O>

[August]

So, basically, what you're saying is Trump is no better than Hillary...

Well he's not under criminal investigation by the FBI and he's not calling for gun bans so those are two areas at least where he's better than her.

[vienna]

Well he's not under criminal investigation by the FBI and he's not calling for gun bans so those are two areas at least where he's better than her.

Well, keep in mind this: Trump is currently involved in two civil legal actions, among a very large number of others, having the prospect of his being involved in criminal procedures. The Trump U and ACN cases are currently in progress and the scams involved are of the nature of pyramid schemes, criminal activity, and can be criminally prosecuted. If evidence is presented to validate the criminal nature of the schemes, fraud, etc., it would open Trump to criminal charges with the possibility of some of the evidence in the civil trial being used against him. This is not the best of prospects for him and may account for his vehement and desperate attempts to impugn the judge and the integrity of his court. It is a mighty incentive to keep what is hidden under the stones out of the light lest what is there result in something worse than a financial penalty. Trumps involvement in such fraudulent schemes, while not yet criminal, certainly is reprehensible and certainly not what this country and its citizens deserve, unless, of course, you are comfortable with a crook in the Oval Office, as long as it is a GOP crook...

Yes, Clinton is under criminal investigation, but, thus far, there have been no criminal charges levied. Merely being under criminal investigation does not make anyone an automatic criminal under the US law and this is a basic part of the US justice system, well known even to an elementary school student. You could be under investigation for an alleged crime and yet not be a criminal. Until the investigation is fully complete, the highly touted label of "criminal investigation" is little more than a bit of window dressing to divert attention from real issues; it is a sideshow of a sideshow...

AS far as banning guns is concerned, do you have any proof Clinton is actually positing a ban on guns? Or, is it, in truth the restriction of certain types of weaponry and access to those types by persons who, in common sense, should not have access to those types? There is a distinction and it is not a fine one, it is very broad. The current cries of "gun ban!" does not make the distinction, making it falsely seem there is an effort to take away guns from everyone, which will never happen, not as long as the Second Amendment is in force and the Second Amendment will never be itself amended, much less repealed. Any suggestion that it might is fear-mongering, not in the interest of defending the Constitution, but in the interest of defending whatever the agenda of those making the claims. Short of actually getting both houses of Congress to pass a repeal or amendment of the Second Amendment and getting 3/4 of the individual states to ratify the action, there is no way a full gun ban will ever come to pass. Despite the histrionics and pseudo-anguish of the NRA and others, simple common sense tells even the most rudimentary student of US law and history, "It Ain't Gonna Happen". The time has come to put to rest this non-issue and deal with the real, substantive issues affecting the everyday life of US citizens...

BTW< Bill O'Reilly was on The Late Show with Steven Colbert last night and had some interesting things to say about the issue of guns in the US. It might surprise you that I often find myself in aggreement with miany of his ideas:

http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/stephen-colbert-bill-oreilly-gun-control-late-show

As far as Trump being better, well, as you pointed out, Trump is as bad as Clinton is as bad as Trump. It appears, in this case, there is no zero-sum. Thank you for validating my belief in this matter...



<O>

[vienna]

Just came across this article and found it very interesting, even though I support the idea of Paul Ryan as a viable candidate for President:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mickey-edwards/unlike-paul-ryan-ronald-r_b_10465648.html

...wonder how many other GOP voters are thinking the same thoughts...



<O>

[August]

AS far as banning guns is concerned, do you have any proof Clinton is actually positing a band on guns? Or, is it, in truth the restriction of certain types of weaponry and access to those types by persons who, in common sense, should not have access to those types?

Proof? Where have you been, in a cave?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/clinton-calls-for-a-new-assault-weapons-ban-12-years-after-the-last-one-expired/

[Oberon]

I recall that Trump was also once in favour of that ban, until he moved in with the Republicans anyway. :hmmm:

[August]

I recall that Trump was also once in favour of that ban, until he moved in with the Republicans anyway. :hmmm:

Yeah one says they will and one says they won't and they're both known liars but I don't see any other option here. I have to go with the one currently claiming to support my rights.

The way I see it President Trump would be muzzled by Congress regardless of which party is in charge because both sides already hate his guts whereas if the Dems were to win control of Congress in the next 4-8 years then President Clinton II would have a free hand to really mess things up.

[Oberon]

Yeah one says they will and one says they won't and they're both known liars but I don't see any other option here. I have to go with the one currently claiming to support my rights.

The way I see it President Trump would be muzzled by Congress regardless of which party is in charge because both sides already hate his guts whereas if the Dems were to win control of Congress in the next 4-8 years then President Clinton II would have a free hand to really mess things up.

There's always Executive Orders though, and Proclamations.

[August]

There's always Executive Orders though, and Proclamations.

Those are limited by statute and easily reversible by a hostile congress. Then there is impeachment.

[Catfish]

On a lighter note,
why not an emperor. You could give Trump a uniform, and ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgL2KgqiRJo
:hmmm:

[Oberon]

Those are limited by statute and easily reversible by a hostile congress. Then there is impeachment.

That's true, I wonder how long it'll take before someone tries to impeach Hillary or Trump, perhaps they'll start as soon as they're inaugerated. :haha:

[August]

That's true, I wonder how long it'll take before someone tries to impeach Hillary or Trump, perhaps they'll start as soon as they're inaugerated. :haha:

Trump yes because he'll have no friends on either side of the asile but the Democrats will not allow their president to be impeached regardless of what she does. You can see it now in their slow walking of the FBI investigation and you'll see it with the DOJ's refusal to hand down an indictment.

[Platapus]

That's true, I wonder how long it'll take before someone tries to impeach Hillary or Trump, perhaps they'll start as soon as they're inaugerated. :haha:

Well people have been talking about impeaching Bush when he was in office and for impeaching Obama while he is in office and look what happened?

No impeachment.

It will take probably a day before some people start talking about impeaching President Clinton/Trump... but unless the House votes on an article it is just that... talk.

We can't impeach a president for making decisions we don't like, nor can we impeach a president for being dumb. If we could we would probably be on our 500th president by now.

[vienna]

Proof? Where have you been, in a cave?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/clinton-calls-for-a-new-assault-weapons-ban-12-years-after-the-last-one-expired/

Nope, don't live in cave; I prefer the light of day to the foggy haze so many others seem to live in; my statement still stands: there is no proof of Clinton espousing a blanket ban on all guns, just on certain types of guns. This is factual distinction omitted by the gun lobby and manufacturers and those profiting by gun sales when they make statements and accusations inferring any ban on specific types of guns is a de facto ban on all guns. Remember, there was a federal ban on assault guns in place previously for a period of 10 years and there was no successful SCOTUS challenge to the Constitutional legality of the ban during that time. Just because there is a right in the Constitution does not mean it is an absolute right; such a thing does not exist. As has been proven time and time again, rights are subject to commonsense restraints and limitations. A right to free speech does not allow for unrestricted libel, slander, or incitement to riot; freedom of religion does not allow using religion as a license to persecute those of another religion or to attempt to impose differing religious beliefs on others; a right is not a blank check to do whatever one pleases without consideration of how the exercise of a right affects the rights and/or quality of life of others...

Yeah one says they will and one says they won't and they're both known liars but I don't see any other option here. I have to go with the one currently claiming to support my rights.

The way I see it President Trump would be muzzled by Congress regardless of which party is in charge because both sides already hate his guts whereas if the Dems were to win control of Congress in the next 4-8 years then President Clinton II would have a free hand to really mess things up.

You are putting a lot of faith in a person who has proven again and again to be someone who not only will say anything to get his way, but who will also renege on and or deny promises made. Basically, the Trump who is running is not the Trump you may wind up with in the White House. Some in the GOP may see Trump as their savior, but he may well be their Anti-Christ; IIRC, isn't one of the traits of the Anti-Christ the ability to dissemble and appear to be a savior while being anything but?...

Regarding the Clinton e-mail investigation, that seems to be, like the whole Benghazi whoopla, a dog that won't hunt. The OIG released its report on the issue a a couple of weeks ago and the deafening silence from the Clinton critics speaks volumes. I have read the entire report and I think I know the reason: while it details a sloppiness in the operations of the State Dept. under Clinton, the degree of those actions were not out of the "norm" for the usual general operations of a governmental agency; also, it appears a number of the regulations, although they had been recommended by various entities, did not go into full effect until after Clinton left office; in fact, some do not go into full effect until the end of 2016. If there had been some "smoking gun" or even the slightest hint of a substantive issue, we would have heard it loudly proclaimed by the GOP and, so far, as I said, the silence is deafening. Clinton may yet be subject to criminal prosecution, but, if the OIG report is an indication, it seems a slim chance. Something interesting did come out in the report: according to questionnaires sent out by the OIG, Condoleeza Ric and some of her aides have responded they used neither private email server nor departmental email servers. It beggars the question: exactly how did Rice and her aides communicate?...

I agree with Platapus. Impeachment has been bandied about for decades and nothing has really come of the talk. The closest was Bill Clinton, but that costly, time-wasting farce was more harmful to the GOP than to Clinton; Nixon came very close, but Kissinger and others were able to get Nixon to accept the inevitable. And it's not just Presidents: I grew up hearing repeated calls to "Impeach Earl Warren" and that never happened...

The hits keep on coming for Trump. Even in suits where he is the plaintiff, he can't get his way:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/back-to-court-for-trump-now-in-his-suit-against-chef-zakarian-173052254.html

Maybe trump should run for Chief Justice; he seems to spend an awful lot of time in court...


<O>

[August]

You are putting a lot of faith in a person who has proven again and again to be someone who not only will say anything to get his way, but who will also renege on and or deny promises made.

Other than the gender specific pronoun you could be talking about either of them. I place no faith in Trump at all but feel that he will be kept on a much shorter leash by Congress than she would. That, imo, is a good thing for our nation as far too much power has been ceded to the executive over the years and it's time that was corrected.

[vienna]

Other than the gender specific pronoun you could be talking about either of them. I place no faith in Trump at all but feel that he will be kept on a much shorter leash by Congress than she would. That, imo, is a good thing for our nation as far too much power has been ceded to the executive over the years and it's time that was corrected.

So you're saying an egomaniacal control freak who listens to no other voice or opinion than his own will submit to the restraints of Congress? Good luck with that. For someone like him, the idea of rule by Executive Order and proclamations would be like giving matches to an arsonist. And for those who say, "Well, we can always impeach him", consider what the ramifications of such an action would be: do you think the US public and voters wouldn't turn on the party who put him in power in the first place? And who do you think from that party would, in their right mind, want to run in the wake of having a member of their party impeached. Nixon wasn't impeached and GW Bush wasn't either, but the sum result of their Presidencies was crippling to their party...


<O>

[August]

So you're saying an egomaniacal control freak who listens to no other voice or opinion than his own will submit to the restraints of Congress? Good luck with that. For someone like him, the idea of rule by Executive Order and proclamations would be like giving matches to an arsonist. And for those who say, "Well, we can always impeach him", consider what the ramifications of such an action would be: do you think the US public and voters wouldn't turn on the party who put him in power in the first place? And who do you think from that party would, in their right mind, want to run in the wake of having a member of their party impeached. Nixon wasn't impeached and GW Bush wasn't either, but the sum result of their Presidencies was crippling to their party...


<O>

Then convince the Democrats to dump the criminal and they'll get my vote. I'd even vote for the commie though he's no supporter of the 2nd amendment either, but i am never going to pull the level for her, ever. She typifies everything that is wrong with government.

[vienna]

Then convince the Democrats to dump the criminal and they'll get my vote. I'd even vote for the commie though he's no supporter of the 2nd amendment either, but i am never going to pull the level for her, ever. She typifies everything that is wrong with government.

I've never said you or anyone else should vote for Clinton. I don't like either candidate in this race. I am an independent and have yet to decide. It is far too early to get seriously invested in anyone; there are still the conventions, the debates, and a wide variety of variables still left to contend with before Election Day. Given how this election year has been progressing, anything can happen. Vote for whoever you will; all I seek to do is to keep a level of factual balance rather than partisan hyperbole; accurate cites for accurate facts and considered prognostications based on facts in play...

BTW, speaking of prognostications, here is something to consider about your claim the GOP will be able to keep Trump on a short leash:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-republicans-need-to-get-tougher--or-he-will-have-to-do-it-alone/2016/06/15/d84c0f9e-3326-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html

Like I said; Good luck with that...



<O>

[Oberon]

Presented without comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs

[August]

I've never said you or anyone else should vote for Clinton.

Put the strawman away, I didn't say you did.

[Onkel Neal]

Presented without comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs

I wish I had the skills and resources to make videos like that, I sure wouldn't waste it on goofy crap like that though.

[HunterICX]

Presented without comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbM6WbUw7Bs

http://i.imgur.com/0rtSkfz.gif

If that was his campaign ad, he would get my vote...Trump-uh! :haha:

[Platapus]

It is amusing watching people discuss who is worse, Trump or Clinton.

This is the state of our election. :nope:

[STEED]

It is amusing watching people discuss who is worse, Trump or Clinton.

This is the state of our election. :nope:

Trump would be funny and Clinton would be boring, what you guys need is a good..:haha:

[mapuc]

Saw an interesting feature on the Danish news channel shown a youtube video which was about the US presidential candidates and google. At the beginning of the video the person was trying to write in Clinton and immediately completed the Google point of Indiana, etc. The person on youtube could not get the words "Clinton + investigation"

From Google it was told that it had changed the (can not remember what it was) to protect a public person. thereafter the same male person tried to write Trump + R(I think he was about to write Trump + Republic) and even here Google finished the sentence "Trump racist"

It seems that Google has chosen sides in the US presidential election.

Markus

[Oberon]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/14/6b/5e/146b5e5889cd91a56f8ca2b2287a1ce2.jpg

[vienna]

Put the strawman away, I didn't say you did.

Interesting. Then why did you post this in response to one of my posts?:

Then convince the Democrats to dump the criminal and they'll get my vote.That was your non-response to a point I made and you chose not to answer directly. I do endeavor to provide direct, contextual and cited responses. As far as strawmen go, you have exhibited in the past quite a talent for using them as a means of deflection when cornered...

Meanwhile, back on the Presidential campaign trail, the list of GOP notables either directly moving out of the Trump camp or giving indications they are on the cusp of doing so, continues to grow. How long can the GOP sustain such losses in their camp before they wise up and just dump the Trump. There are far better (actually, even anyone would be better) candidates within the GOP. It is said perception is everything in politics and the perception the voters are getting of the GOP is a party in chaos with no means of righting their ship. Voter lack of confidence in a candidate will not only hurt the GOP in the Presidential race, but also in the "down-ballot" races for the House and Senate; it could also spill over into the state governorship races and/or state legislatures. Is this price really worth the continued backing of Trump? There's an old saying, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas"; the GOP is laying down with Big Dog Trump; they may be doing a lot of itching after election day...

House Speaker Paul Ryan also seems to be concerned about a Trump "imperial presidency":

While Ryan continues to halfheartedly defend the presumptive G.O.P. nominee in public, he appears to be maneuvering to limit Trump’s potential powers, too. On Thursday morning, Ryan released a new 22-page proposal to curb the “fourth branch” of government—the executive bureaucracy—no matter who becomes president. Asked during the presser whether he had any confidence in Trump to respect the separation of powers, especially after the candidate told critical Republicans to “just please be quiet” and “don’t talk,” Ryan evaded the thrust of the question as gracefully as possible. “I’ll just say we represent a separate but equal branch of government,” he said, adding that America could “lose our freedoms in this country, including all of the Bill of Rights, if we don’t robustly defend the separation of powers.”http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/paul-ryan-donald-trump-endorsement

http://time.com/4371758/paul-ryan-donald-trump-be-quiet/



<O>

[August]

Interesting. Then why did you post this in response to one of my posts?:

What does that matter? Where in that statement or in the one it was referring to is there any reference at all to who you are telling me to vote for?

That was your non-response to a point I made and you chose not to answer directly.

Your point is an accusation. I gave more of an answer than it deserved.

I do endeavor to provide direct, contextual and cited responses.

Yeah right. The only thing you endeavor to do is troll for an argument. That and toss snobbish insults. I'm pretty much done with you. bye.

[vienna]

:haha::haha::haha:



<O>

[Reece]

I'll put them in terms of the BMW motorcycle R type:
Donald Trump is an oil-head.
Hillary Clinton is an air-head.

[Oberon]

And Bernie Sanders is a Penny Farthing. :yep:

[Jimbuna]

Come on guys I'm sure you are both a lot better than this.

[Platapus]

It is quite the paradox

At the same time both Clinton and Trump are worse then the other. :doh:

[vienna]

What the US voters need is a viable choice. A big problem is the DEMs are stuck with Clinton. Her party, Sanders not withstanding, is pretty much headed for a unified campaign and will present an impression of some degree of order. The only things the DEMs have to fear is a poor VP candidate choice or a really bad showing at the debates. The only hope is the GOP, if they can find a way to dump Trump and get some one who isn't a raving looney. If they were to run Paul Ryan, I'd vote for him easily, with the only caveat being the choice of a running mate; if they pull another Palin out of the hat, all bets are off...


<O>

[Catfish]

How can it happen that someone like Trump is being nominated, and then being suppported all the way?
Is there no one in the party who said "stop" at some point.
Why are there no other potential candidates than those two, what system is that?

[Von Due]

How can it happen that someone like Trump is being nominated, and then being suppported all the way?
Is there no one in the party who said "stop" at some point.
Why are there no other potential candidates than those two, what system is that?

I said this elsewhere:

That's what you get when you construct a culture of circus, nonsense and crazytalk where all the candidates are full of circus, nonsense and crazytalk. Then one of them points his finger at the others and says "those guys are just circus, nonsense and crazytalk" and the crowd goes "we found an honest guy!", an honest guy who is full of circus, nonsense and crazytalk who is lying through his teeth.

They have one candidate who believes the words of truth comes from a guy from outer space handed to a convicted fraud guy, one guy believes he can learn when his advisors give up in public admitting the guy can't learn a thing if you gave him a million years to study, one thinks all your servers are belong to me, and one believes he is an african president. The last one being Trump who has his speeches copied from Idi Amin's speeches: "I'm the strongest, everyone love me, I am super rich, I have superhuman powers".

A traveling circus, and it veered off the road a looong time ago.

[vienna]

The sad truth is those persons who would make highly suitable candidates for US President won't run because of the machinations of the parties ruling cliques and the influence of outside (very often, wealthy) interests with whom most of those highly qualified persons would rather not have dealings. Added to this is the ever-increasing accessibility to find data on a person's background and dealings. Social media, mainstream press, fringe press, and the host of other entities now have access to growing databases and data sources making it difficult for anyone who may have had a past indiscretion, no matter how relatively benign, held up to the light of public scrutiny and comment. It is very hard to want to seek office when it is so easy for someone to dig up matters you would rather not discuss or reveal. Interestingly, the result of all this scrutiny has been counter-intuitive: it would be imagined the scrutiny would result in a greater number of "good" candidates with clear records running since the "bad" candidates would be screened out, but the same sort of flawed players continue to rise to the vote leaving the voters with the usual "lesser of two evils" choice they have faced in the past; it can only be hoped, as time goes on, the process will weed out the worst and leave a better choice for the voters...

One of the big mistakes the GOP made that led to the ascension of Trump was the "winner take all/winner take most" rules the GOP set up in a large number of the primary states. In those states, the candidate garnering the most votes, but not necessarily the majority of the votes, gets all of the pledged delegates from those states or, in the "winner take most" states, the greatest majority of pledged delegates, not necessarily in proportion to the actual percentage of votes the candidate tallied; often the percentage of pledged delegates far exceeds the percentage of votes won. As an example, say there were five candidates in the primary; three of the candidates get 20% of the vote, one gets 19% of the vote, and the fifth gets 21% of the vote; under "winner take all", the candidate with 21% of the votes gets 100% of that state's pledged delegates, even though 79% of the state's voters did not choose the person as their candidate. This was how Trump was able to run up his delegate tally; even though in those states he may not have had a majority of the votes cast, he still had more votes than the other candidates and thus received all of those states' delegates. The GOP's own delegate rules, ironically, have resulted in the dilemma in which the Party, and the rest of the nation, finds itself. Hopefully, in the future, the GOP will use a delegate assignment method more akin to the DEM primary process where delegates are apportioned according the actual vote percentages...

Here are two links to a very, very informative blog site where the two parties delegate allocation process is described and explained:

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-republican-delegate-allocation-by.html

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-democratic-delegate-allocation.html

The blog site is very interesting and well worth a bit of browsing...



<O>

[Onkel Neal]

How can it happen that someone like Trump is being nominated, and then being suppported all the way?
Is there no one in the party who said "stop" at some point.
Why are there no other potential candidates than those two, what system is that?

Yeah, there are plenty of conservatives and Republicans who tried to stop him but, you know, democracy. :shifty:

[Buddahaid]

Breeders are dumbing down humanity overall. :88) :O:

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Republicans-fertile-future-Through-the-past-2488626.php

[Oberon]

Yeah, there are plenty of conservatives and Republicans who tried to stop him but, you know, democracy. :shifty:

I think Adlai put it best in regards to US elections:

“In America, anybody can be president.
That's one of the risks you take.”

[Torplexed]

Some increasing rumblings of a GOP revolt against their presumptive nominee.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/politics/reince-priebus-donald-trump-republican-convention/index.html

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has been quietly having conversations with state party leaders to discuss the latest push by convention delegates to nominate anyone other than Donald Trump.
Priebus has spoken with GOP party chairmen in multiple states in recent days in part to get a better sense of how large the anti-Trump faction is among their convention delegations, according to two people familiar with the conversations.

While Priebus has made clear in these conversations that he is not spearheading the latest push for a coup, his involvement sends a signal that the RNC is taking this effort to dump Trump seriously even as other movements have fizzled.

[Buddahaid]

I think Adlai put it best in regards to US elections:
“In America, anybody can be president.
That's one of the risks you take.”

That's great.

[em2nought]

Some increasing rumblings of a GOP revolt against their presumptive nominee.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/17/politics/reince-priebus-donald-trump-republican-convention/index.html

Too bad the schmucks didn't go all Brute on their friend Barry instead. :03:

[Platapus]

Technically, there is nothing in either the RNC nor the DNC rules that prohibits either party from nominating an additional candidate.

They would still nominate the candidate that achieved the most delegate vote and by proxy the citizen's vote and nominate a second candidate.

Traditionally, we have had only one Republican and one Democrat running for president in the final election, but that is only by tradition, not by rule.

Most of the time, it is to the party's advantage to have only one candidate running. Most of the time.

I was just thinking, if the RNC were to also nominate Romney, and the Democrats stuck with Clinton, I think Romney would win easily.

The problem may be that neither of the parties wants to be the first one to politically "flinch".

[Dan D]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/picture.php?albumid=995&pictureid=8943

True? If so, where are the middle-class/civic Conservative voters in the US? They are no longer existent? I mean, 8 % for centre-right, C'mon.

[Torplexed]

True? If so, where are the middle-class/civic Conservative voters in the US? They are no longer existent? I mean, 8 % for centre-right, C'mon.

The middle class here is the States is fast eroding. A good portion of what remains blames this on immigration and free trade. They're voting for Trump.

Then, there are the ones that blame the wealthy 1% for their predicament. They were voting for Sanders. Now, they need to decide if they can hold their nose and vote for one of the well-heeled millionaires still running for president.

[vienna]

There is also the factor of polarization: in the discussion of US politics, the moderate political middle is very often overlooked. There is a very large, probably much larger than the more well-touted "liberal v. conservative" factions combined, segment of voters who are not as radicalized as the louder, more visible edges or fringes of the political spectrum. A lot of the these are progressively either going to third parties or gong fully independent (no party preference). it used to be independents were viewed as the fringe, but they now encompass more of the moderates who feel disenfranchised by the two major parties as they drift father towards political extremism and become dominated by party leaders of the more extreme type. Moderate US voters are just becoming more disenchanted with party bickering and the idea of 'business as usual'. Currently, the number of voter describing themselves as independents has grown to be the second largest voter group behind the DEMs as the largest with the GOP running third in voter self-description; additionally, both the DEMs and the GOP have been losing increasing numbers of voters to the ranks of independents...

We just had our state primary here in California a week and a half ago and there was something I found interesting. The CA GOP refused to allow independents (no party preference) vote on their primary ballot while the CA-DEM allowed independents to vote on their ballots. Before the voting, Clinton and Sanders were statistically even; Clinton beat Sanders 55% to 45%, a difference of 10 points. It had been assumed independents would vote for Sanders given his appeal to independent-leaning voters, but he lost by a margin much greater than expected; in fact, there had been some speculation Sanders might pull off a upset with the CA-DEMs allowing independent votes. This could signal that independents are not as left-leaning as some assume since they seem to have chosen a candidate closer to the middle. The implications for the Presidential election could be interesting...


<O>

[vienna]

This just came out today:

"Trump’s top example of foreign experience: A Scottish golf course losing millions"


When Donald Trump arrives this weekend at the golf course he built on the rugged dunes of this remote, windswept corner overlooking the North Sea, he will celebrate it as an example of his international business success.

........

But to many people in Scotland, his course here has been a failure. Over the past decade, Trump has battled with homeowners, elbowed his way through the planning process, shattered relationships with elected leaders and sued the Scottish government. On top of that, he has yet to fulfill the lofty promises he made.


Trump has also reported to Scottish authorities that he lost millions of dollars on the project — even as he claims on U.S. presidential disclosure forms that the course has been highly profitable.

[Italics mine..]



https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-top-example-of-foreign-experience-a-scottish-golf-course-losing-millions/2016/06/22/12ae9cb0-1883-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html


If I recall correctly, Presidential disclosure forms are sworn under penalty of perjury. It will be interesting to see if the issue comes up in the future, particularly in the debates, given Trump's labeling of his opponent as a liar...






<O>

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

^There's that article and then there's this one which was published by USA Today on the 9th of this month.

USA Today
During the Atlantic City casino boom in the 1980s, Philadelphia cabinet-builder Edward Friel Jr. landed a $400,000 contract to build the bases for slot machines, registration desks, bars and other cabinets at Harrah's at Trump Plaza.


The family cabinetry business, founded in the 1940s by Edward’s father, finished its work in 1984 and submitted its final bill to the general contractor for the Trump Organization, the resort’s builder.
Edward’s son, Paul, who was the firm’s accountant, still remembers the amount of that bill more than 30 years later: $83,600. The reason: the money never came. “That began the demise of the Edward J. Friel Company… which has been around since my grandfather,” he said.

In addition to the lawsuits, the review found more than 200 mechanic’s liens — filed by contractors and employees against Trump, his companies or his properties claiming they were owed money for their work — since the 1980s. The liens range from a $75,000 claim by a Plainview, N.Y., air conditioning and heating company to a $1 million claim from the president of a New York City real estate banking firm. On just one project, Trump’s Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City, records released by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission in 1990 show that at least 253 subcontractors weren’t paid in full or on time, including workers who installed walls, chandeliers and plumbing
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/usa-today-exclusive-hundreds-allege-donald-trump-doesn%e2%80%99t-pay-his-bills/ar-AAgR9h6?li=BBnb7Kz

Now Trump claims to support the middle class and to create jobs and so on and that everything will be great and that somehow every problem will be fixed with the snap of his fingers. Yet it seems that any time the middle class does or has done something for The Donald he just doesn't give a crap, and cares more about himself and his brandname then anything else. It's like every time he opens his mouth about something my BS meter blows up. I personally consider Trump to be an egotisical, thin skinned manbaby who threatens to sue anytime he doesn't get his way much like a little kid throws a temper tantrum when they don't get their way and has a childish habit of name calling like some playground bully.:nope: I'll just leave this here.
https://s6.postimg.org/symv5a3i9/tumblr_o2a8ww_J7_Yo1tgi9cuo1_1280_1.jpg

[Nippelspanner]

OK, who here thinks this is actually real?

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

OK, who here thinks this is actually real? If you're refering to the pic I had posted it's fake. This is what happens when anyone can fake stuff with photoshop or any other photo editing software, then post it somewhere and then a bunch of people think it is true.

[August]

OK, who here thinks this is actually real?

The one who posted it i'd imagine.

[Reece]

This is awesome news, I must spread the truth about Donald Trump.:hmmm:

[Jimbuna]

Politics and those who practice it :nope:

[STEED]

https://memecrunch.com/meme/BGSP3/scotland-here-i-come/image.png?w=500&c=1

[vienna]

I wonder if Trump can throw those "haggises" (shouldn't it be "haggi"?) as far as he's been throwing the Bandini in his campaign here in the US?... :hmmm:



<O>

[vienna]

Trump rails against Clinton accepting all the tainted Wall Street money. He raves loudly and with much righteousness. 'Oh!, how evil it is for Clinton to accept money from Wall Street!! How dare she take such tainted money, knowing all along there are strings attached?!? How immoral and unethical!! She's bought by the Wall Street bigwigs!! This is not the sort of person who should sit in the Oval Office!!! How dare she... er...what?...they want to give me money?...er...um...never mind...' :

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-steps-up-wall-street-fundraising-efforts-1466724320

Ah, the sour smell of hypocrisy wafting from the Trump camp. I guess personal integrity and values go away when your campaign can't raise the bucks on the candidate's virtues alone. Wait a minute: Trump?, integrity?, values?, virtues?... Well, then, this was to be expected...



<O>

[August]

Take their money and keep secret what she promised them in those transcripts she refuses to release.

Then again given the millions upon millions she has taken from despotic regimes who like to throw gays off roofs and execute rape victims I guess wall street execs are fairly tame by comparison, but talk about the stench of hypocrisy. whew!

[AndyJWest]

The Scots are laying on a mariachi band to welcome Trump. :yeah: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/24/donald-trumps-flies-in-for-scotland-visit-amid

[eddie]

Trump attacks Clinton for supporting the war in Iraq, but welcomes the endorsement of Rumsfeld,LOL Wonder if Trump is smart enough to figure out what part Rummy Rumsfeld had in that war!!!!

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/284606-trump-hails-rumsfeld-endorsement-despite-criticizing-iraq-war

And another hilarious move by Trump, he has created an Evangelical Advisory Board, first 2 people he appointed to it are, Jerry Falwell Jr, and wait for it- Michelle Bachmann!!!!!!:haha::haha::haha::har::har::har:

[August]

And another hilarious move by Trump, he has created an Evangelical Advisory Board, first 2 people he appointed to it are, Jerry Falwell Jr, and wait for it- Michelle Bachmann!!!!!!:haha::haha::haha::har::har::har:


You think that she's not qualified to advise him on evangelical politics?

[eddie]

That bat-crazy woman isn't qualified to advise anyone on anything!:nope:

[August]

That bat-crazy woman isn't qualified to advise anyone on anything!:nope:

Well that may be, at least according to the Democrats who never saw a Republican they did like, but to me her being elected to Congress several times, her ability to raise money and her prominence in the Evangelical community i'd say she was a pretty astute choice to be on an Evangelical Advisory Board.

Can you name a better choice?

[AndyJWest]

Well that may be, at least according to the Democrats who never saw a Republican they did like, but to me her being elected to Congress several times, her ability to raise money and her prominence in the Evangelical community i'd say she was a pretty astute choice to be on an Evangelical Advisory Board.

Can you name a better choice?

Why does Trump need an 'Evangelical Advisory Board' anyway?

[August]

Why does Trump need an 'Evangelical Advisory Board' anyway?

I dunno but maybe he wants their votes? Don't they make up a fair share of the GoP base?

[Betonov]

The bible belt voters and to convert his catholic wife.

[August]

The bible belt voters and to convert his catholic wife.

Yeah converting Catholics, that's got to be it! :)

[Betonov]

Yeah converting Catholics, that's got to be it! :)

I'll bet you some imported beer that it would sway a few thousand voters to his side.
For some unexplained gut feeling I think that catholics are mostly dem so he won't loose any :hmmm:

[vienna]

That stench of Clinton hypocrisy regarding Middle Eastern personal involvements are seemingly matched and exceeded by the Donald:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/08/news/donald-trump-muslim-countries-business/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/07/donald-trump-loves-muslims-if-they-re-rich.html

http://www.mediamatters.org/research/2016/06/15/fox-overlooks-trump-s-middle-east-business-ventures-while-hyping-his-clinton-foundation-criticism/210974

https://mic.com/articles/130070/here-are-some-of-donald-trump-s-middle-east-business-ventures#.riO9Sj7sm

Like I've said before, neither is better than the other, and I don't really see any valid, sensible reason to vote for either. The big difference is Trump is far more likely to take down his party with him when he flames out than any of the other candidates prior to or up to this time. Is gutting the GOP a price the party wants to pay for continuing to back this very bad joke of a candidate. I'm looking forward, and hoping for, the reported mounting mutiny by some of the delegates at the Cleveland convention...



<O>






<O>

[Aktungbby]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/46/08/b5/4608b5504630639fc8a9cbd2af131e05.jpgvshttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/97/de/9c/97de9c9af6efd4ce73d148de07948163.jpg

[eddie]

You're right August, Bachmann is a great asset for the Trump campaign!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v138/Thony/oops_zpsip2lpbm3.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Thony/media/oops_zpsip2lpbm3.jpg.html)

I agree with vienna, these 2 candidates we have for this election suck!:nope:

[Hottentot]

OK, that was so nonsensical that I had to Google it.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/20/facebook-posts/no-michele-bachmann-did-not-say-there-are-no-illeg/

Carry on, please.

[Platapus]

OK, that was so nonsensical that I had to Google it.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/20/facebook-posts/no-michele-bachmann-did-not-say-there-are-no-illeg/

Carry on, please.


Good for you for having the maturity to do some research on this. Far too many people would just accept it blindly because of confirmation bias. :up:

[Hottentot]

I do not see why I would have any strong opinions or feelings regarding a foreign politician. I was only interested in if I could add that pic to my teaching materials, but as it struck me as a little too made up and weird, I had to check and was a little disappointed to find out that I could not. But fortunately for me, the world is not lacking nonsense that has been verified to be true. :yeah:

[Penguin]

To be fair, given her track record (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/06/16/246618/bachmann-craziest-quotes/), a slight confirmation bias doesn't seem too outlandish.

[Platapus]

I do not see why I would have any strong opinions or feelings regarding a foreign politician. I was only interested in if I could add that pic to my teaching materials, but as it struck me as a little too made up and weird, I had to check and was a little disappointed to find out that I could not. But fortunately for me, the world is not lacking nonsense that has been verified to be true. :yeah:


That particular quote is wrong. But if you want dumb things Bachmann has said, there are plenty to things she actually said.

She is like Palin. There is no need to make up dumb stuff.

[vienna]

Good for you for having the maturity to do some research on this. Far too many people would just accept it blindly because of confirmation bias. :up:

The time to fully research the facts regarding any issue or candidate is before one casts their ballot. This is an example of what can happen when voters rely on slanted, vague, or self-serving data:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/06/24/the-british-are-frantically-googling-what-the-eu-is-hours-after-voting-to-leave-it/

I wonder how many voters for either US Presidential candidate will spend their time in the months after the election Googling the person they voted for in order to determine how they could have made so erroneous a vote?...



<O>

[Mr Quatro]

The time to fully research the facts regarding any issue or candidate is before one casts their ballot. This is an example of what can happen when voters rely on slanted, vague, or self-serving data:

I wonder how many voters for either US Presidential candidate will spend their time in the months after the election Googling the person they voted for in order to determine how they could have made so erroneous a vote?...

<O>

Very true vienna :up:

I don't like Trump or the way he thinks, but yet I am so leary of Hillary Clinton being able to lead a country when she can't even lead her own husband.

One month left to the GOP and Democrat's convention circus with the GOP still worried about Trump being the right man to get behind.

After I just read this report by a Secret Service officer I am leaning towards Donald Trump. If this is true and I know some people just make things up, then Hillary Clinton is not the nicey nice person everyone thinks she is.

Read it for yourselves (The New York Post are they a good news source?)

http://nypost.com/2016/06/25/clinton-white-house-was-a-den-of-cocaine-and-mistresses-ex-secret-service-officer/

I had heard that Hillary and Gore were good friends and that she would cuss like a sailor at her staff and treat the SS like they were bad servants and try to hide from the SS even ... but just tossed it off till this SS man spoke up.

Plus it has been a little up setting to me to hear that she often talks to a pretend person of Eleanor Roosevelt.

NEWS BRIEF:"Hillary Clinton says imaginary talks just 'intellectual exercise', The Providence Journal Bulletin, Tuesday, 6/25/96, p. A3. "Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday her imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt were merely an 'intellectual exercise' ... Trying to douse what she called 'sensational' speculation, the first lady rejected inferences that psychic researcher Jean Houston, who led her in several White House sessions, was her 'spiritual adviser'."

"In a written statement, Mrs. Clinton was firm in her denial that there were any psychic or religious overtones to the sessions.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1018.html

It's an old fashioned con job on both sides ... Here's Donald Trump on one side saying that he is a good guy and that he is going to forgive millions in loans and at the same time thousands of workers saying that he has not paid them for work done.:yep:

[Aktungbby]

Plus it has been a little up setting to me to hear that she often talks to a pretend person of Eleanor Roosevelt.

That's because they had the same problem!:O:She probably talks to Tammy Wynette too! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew)

[August]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/284978-poll-trumps-support-among-white-protestant-republicans-ticks-up

Donald Trump's support among white Protestant Republicans is up one month after becoming the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee.
Trump is now supported by 66 percent of self-identified "highly religious" white Protestant Republicans in Gallup's June tracking poll, compared to 57 percent in February and May

Guess now we know the value of an Evangelical Advisory board.

[Betonov]

What did I say. :know:

[Skybird]

This guy is said to have had a solid hit record in the past, predicting 49 of 50 states right, and he predicts a Clinton win with around 80% probability.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8jlymRjiO8

[Torplexed]

There goes the NASCAR vote.

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Trumpno.jpg

[Reece]

This guy is said to have had a solid hit record in the past, predicting 49 of 50 states right, and he predicts a Clinton win with around 80% probability.
You shouldn't threaten people like that!!!:timeout:

[Mr Quatro]

Who said that Jimmy Carter would beat Ronald Reagan :woot:

The polls don't know till the fat lady sings :up:

[Nippelspanner]

By the way, is it true Trump said he wants to re-activate the Iowa-Class battleships, as in active service?
If so... screw Hillary and I don't care what he screws up, who he bans, how he lies... but that, I wanna see! :haha:

[Torplexed]

By the way, is it true Trump said he wants to re-activate the Iowa-Class battleships, as in active service?

Yeah , he mentioned how he would like to see them back in commission while making a foreign policy speech on the deck of one.

If so... screw Hillary

No thanks. I'd rather roll around in broken glass. :O:

I'm thinking while we are theoretically dragging ships out of museums, why not refit USS Constitution with some cruise missiles? She would be incredibly stealthy due to the lack of metal. And she would be un-hackable due to her not having electronics. No need to refuel either. :D

http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/MoreImages3/USSConstitutionSilhouette.jpg

[Nippelspanner]

Yeah , he mentioned how he would like to see them back in commission while making a foreign policy speech on the deck of one.
Mh, in that case, let them stay museums.
I'd rather not have Trump celebrating himself on those prestigious ships. :shifty:

[Catfish]

Yeah , he mentioned how he would like to see them back in commission while making a foreign policy speech on the deck of one....

I can imagine how Trump refers to Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the USS Missouri, while elaborating about good relations to Japan.

[Nippelspanner]

I can imagine how Trump refers to Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the USS Missouri, while elaborating about good relations to Japan.
:har:

[Onkel Neal]

:o Real news hitting: Attorney general to back FBI and Justice findings in Clinton email server probe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attorney-general-to-back-fbi-and-justice-findings-in-clinton-email-server-probe/2016/07/01/77ce6d8e-3f78-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html)

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch will support the recommendations from prosecutors and others leading probes into the use of a private email server by Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, a Justice Department official said.

Lynch’s statement — expected later Friday during a gathering in Colorado — underscores the intense sensitivity surrounding the FBI and Justice investigations into the past use of an exclusive email server by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

By promising to abide by the recommendations, Lynch would directly address worries by Clinton critics and others that she — as an Obama administration appointee — could ultimately overrule the investigators.

Her expected statement reflects an apparent desire to reinforce a by-the-book approach to the Clinton case, which has already played a dominant role in Republican attacks on the campaign trail.

[Mr Quatro]

:o Real news hitting: Attorney general to back FBI and Justice findings in Clinton email server probe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/attorney-general-to-back-fbi-and-justice-findings-in-clinton-email-server-probe/2016/07/01/77ce6d8e-3f78-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html)

Loretta Lynch has private meeting with Bill Clinton

Trending news along the same lines:http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/

Bill swears that he did not talk about the email server case with Loretta Lynch in his private meeting with her :haha:

[Platapus]

I am glad she came out with that statement. While I am sure the talk was innocent, it did create a poor impression.

One thing to consider. IF Bill Clinton and Lynch were going to meet to cook up a deal, why would they do it in such a public manner?

There are ways to have private communications.

[Oberon]

There are ways to have private communications.

By email? :03: :O:

[em2nought]

By email? :03: :O:

bahahaha :har:

[Catfish]

^ i think using pgp military encryption grade and handing the decoder out manually will probably pose a problem for eMail-listeners.
Or, like with the Engigma, it will take some time to break it. And if you change it every time, using a one-time pad ...

I guarantee i can develop a code no one can crack (using one-time-pads) :O:

[Catfish]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y174/penaeus/Clown%20for%20congress_zpspk5kmrqx.jpg (http://s5.photobucket.com/user/penaeus/media/Clown%20for%20congress_zpspk5kmrqx.jpg.html)

[August]

I am glad she came out with that statement. While I am sure the talk was innocent, it did create a poor impression.

One thing to consider. IF Bill Clinton and Lynch were going to meet to cook up a deal, why would they do it in such a public manner?

There are ways to have private communications.

I have a hard time believing that someone in Lynch's position wouldn't have known beforehand exactly what a private meeting with Bill would look like.

[Onkel Neal]

Here it comes.... FBI Director Comey on live

[Onkel Neal]

Clinton dodge another bullet:-?

[Oberon]

So, I guess now the GOP will move on from this and focus their energies elsewhere on the election campaign...


http://www.libertywritersnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20160126_LAUGHINGimage-696x413.jpg

[August]

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, no reasonable prosecutor would likely bring charges."

Translation: HRC is dirty, but the boss said NO and we would destroy our careers if we recommended charges.

[Mr Quatro]

The FBI director also said that Mrs Clinton was extremely careless: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-comey-no-charges-appropriate-000000895.html

FBI Director James Comey accused former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday of having been “extremely careless” in handling classified information on her private email server but recommended that she not face criminal charges.

You can add that to the list of her many other mistakes like the inaction of the Benghazi attack, which I would blame Obama first just like in a ship wreck the captain gets the blame and especially her wandering husband Bill :yep:

She is not fit to be the President of the United States ... I will have to yield to Donald Trump and the GOP to run our country for the next four years.

GOP convention
Host City: Cleveland, Ohio
Location: Quicken Loans Arena (Venue Link)
Dates: July 18-21, 2016

[Mr Quatro]

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, no reasonable prosecutor would likely bring charges."

Translation: HRC is dirty, but the boss said NO and we would destroy our careers if we recommended charges.

Hillary has already lost her security clearance over this.

The only way she can get it back is to become the next President of the United States :haha:

[eddie]

[QUOTE=Mr Quatro;2416769]The FBI director also said that Mrs Clinton was extremely careless: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-comey-no-charges-appropriate-000000895.html



which I would blame Obama first just like in a ship wreck the captain gets the blame and especially her wandering husband Bill :yep:

I will have to yield to Donald Trump and the GOP to run our country for the next four years.

GOP convention
Host City: Cleveland, Ohio


Then I can surely blame that idiot Reagan for getting over 200 fellow Marines killed in Lebanon, of course I always have blamed that asshat! Just like I blame Bush and the gutless Dick Cheney for 9/11.
I could care less about Hillary, so vote for that chimp Trump, who the hell cares,LOL

[Takeda Shingen]

So, I guess now the GOP will move on from this and focus their energies elsewhere on the election campaign...

The GOP never moves on from anything. Ever. While the people stuck with trying to make The Donald not appear like a choleric racist with laughably thin skin and a set of policies that look like they could have been penned by a 5th grader will spend the bulk of their time pushing forward in vain, the more rigid idealouges will continue to bang the drum. People outside of the DFW probably won't notice. It won't amount to anything more than a continued reduction of their ranks. Such strategy is exactly the sort enacted since the loss in 2008, and is exactly the reason that the Republican Party is relegated to regional party status.

[Platapus]

Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.

Huh? If there was a single E-mail that was properly marked as classified information and that E-mail was intentionally sent over an unsecured network, that IS a violation of the law. It does not matter what percentage of the E-mails was properly marked. One. That's all it takes.

That is like excusing me because only a small number of the gas stations I knocked over actually resulted in my getting money. :doh:

I can just imagine what would happen to a government/military minion who even thought of doing this. They would be gone so fast, it would be like they disappeared.

"Different spanks for different ranks" was something we joked about, but it is really not funny.

I just want to know at what level do the security rules/regulations/laws not pertain? I think many in the government want to know this for career planning purposes.

I am not saying she should be thrown in jail for years nor do I think it should disqualify her from being the DNC nominee. But she should be indicted.. even if it happens after her term (singular I hope)

This sends a very poor message to the troops who are still held accountable for their actions.

[Oberon]

The GOP never moves on from anything. Ever. While the people stuck with trying to make The Donald not appear like a choleric racist with laughably thin skin and a set of policies that look like they could have been penned by a 5th grader will spend the bulk of their time pushing forward in vain, the more rigid idealouges will continue to bang the drum. People outside of the DFW probably won't notice. It won't amount to anything more than a continued reduction of their ranks. Such strategy is exactly the sort enacted since the loss in 2008, and is exactly the reason that the Republican Party is relegated to regional party status.

The GOP is certainly taking a hammering, but the dog whistle politics of Trump has called many to the yard, just as Farages dog whistle has brought out the worst in the UK.
Torplexed made a point a week or so ago about how the growth of UKIP and the likes of the Tea Party and Trump is a sort of push back from the growth of liberalism which, in my opinion, began in the late 1800s and has just continued to get stronger as the years have passed. I think that in the long term they are doomed to failure, because you can't stop change and the world is changing, however there's going to be a lot of suffering in the meantime when there really is no need for it. There is no need for people to hand out threatening leaflets to Polish workers, or anything like that, and yet it has happened and is going to happen.

[August]

The Obama administrations Attorney General meets in secret with the husband of someone who is under criminal investigation. Caught by an eagle eyed ABC affiliate reporter and exposed we're told that it was a totally innocent impromptu meeting, in a private jet, with an army of FBI agents cordoning off the area around it. :hmmm:

Then a few days later the Obama appointed FBI director basically lays out the case that Clinton is guilty of several crimes but still somehow doesn't think that she should face charges, however, anyone else who did what she did probably would. :hmmm:

Within just a few hours of this "nobody knows what I'm going to say" speech Clinton appears with the President disembarking from Air Force One and is giving speeches from a podium decorated with the Presidential Seal. :hmmm:

The Fix Is In.

Anyone who votes for her now votes against just about every social justice principle the Democrats have espoused in the last 50 years. It validates the creation of a super class of citizens who are above the laws that the rest of us must follow. I hope the country sends them packing in November.

Right now my vote goes to the Libertarian Gary Johnson. He's the only viable alternative to the clown or the criminal.

[Oberon]

Right now my vote goes to the Libertarian Gary Johnson.

Interesting candidate, could certainly see him going far if more Republicans broke off from Trump, it could be the first time in a while that a third party gets more than a handful of percentage of the vote.
Not sure I buy the whole cutting spending on the military though, that's generally political suicide in the US, likewise his stance on Israel would also drive off disaffected GOP members.
Socially though he's a very forward thinking person, fiscally I think we would disagree on only a couple of things, some military spending and the role of government primarily. Otherwise, I think that's probably the best idea for anyone who is Republican and doesn't want to vote for Trump or is a Democrat and doesn't want to vote for Hilary. I'm honestly glad that you're one of the GOP who is not reversing their opposition to Trump just because he's the candidate. As Nick Fury put it in the Avengers:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/a6/04/e8/a604e8415dd70d0c30441067d7694d48.jpg

[Mr Quatro]

Right now my vote goes to the Libertarian Gary Johnson. He's the only viable alternative to the clown or the criminal.

Be smarter than that August ... your vote won't defeat Hillary it will just help her. You've constantly pointed out her mistakes to us all and just as I have now decided to be against her you come out with a Libertarian vote.

Vote for Trump to give us four years of laughing and having fun or vote for Hillary to give us four years of excuses for her past and new mistakes. :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Die_zpsghkygq4t.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/Die_zpsghkygq4t.jpg.html)

[AVGWarhawk]

Be smarter than that August ... your vote won't defeat Hillary it will just help her. You've constantly pointed out her mistakes to us all and just as I have now decided to be against her you come out with a Libertarian vote.

Vote for Trump to give us four years of laughing and having fun or vote for Hillary to give us four years of excuses for her past and new mistakes. :yep:

After the past 8 years we could use laughing and having fun. :D

[AVGWarhawk]

Martha Stewart lied to the FBI. Concerned insider trading. She went to prison. Hillary lies about emails concerning top secret intel. She gets a ride in Air Force 1 at the taxpayer expense.

http://www.marthastewart.com/sites/files/marthastewart.com/imagecache/wmax-875/ecl/images/content/web/generic/2013/martha-stewart-kitchen-wisdom-9780307396440_sq.jpg

[August]

Be smarter than that August ... your vote won't defeat Hillary it will just help her. You've constantly pointed out her mistakes to us all and just as I have now decided to be against her you come out with a Libertarian vote.

Vote for Trump to give us four years of laughing and having fun or vote for Hillary to give us four years of excuses for her past and new mistakes. :yep:

I am smarter than you think.

I live in Massachusetts and unless the nether regions should experience a cold snap or swine suddenly sprout wings and take flight the state will almost certainly go to the Democrats regardless of who I vote for.

Johnson however has a chance (especially with Former Mass Gov Bill Weld on the ticket) of carrying the state if enough Bernie Bros can't stomach checking the box for the criminal Clinton whereas Bozo Trump has no chance here, none at all. So if the object is to beat Clinton then this is the only realistic option we have to deny her our 14 electoral votes.

Besides while I'd like to see the Federal Government be knocked down a peg or three putting The Donald in the oval office seems like a very bull in a china shop way of doing it.

[August]

Speaking of the Criminal Clinton this is a pretty decent article from USA Today.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/07/05/fbi-comey-clinton-email-trump-bernie-politics-campaign-column/86712780/


Hillary Clinton got her wish that the FBI would not recommend criminal charges for her homebrew email setup. Now she will suffer the consequences.

On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey announced that although “there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” He cited “a number of factors” in reaching this decision, beyond the possibly criminal acts.


So Hillary skates? Not hardly. In fact, this could be the worst outcome possible.


Had a recommendation for indictment come down, it would not have slowed Hillary’s march to the nomination. Democrats have demonstrated they will support her no matter what. And had actual charges been filed, the process is so slow that she would probably not have faced significant court proceedings before the election. If the topic ever arose on the campaign trail, she would have said it was an ongoing process in the hands of her attorneys and declined to comment.


Instead she is left with an investigation that found her perilously incompetent, calling into question her fitness for office. Director Comey said she and her staff were “were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information” to which “hostile actors (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system)” might have been able to gain access. The FBI did find that "hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account."
So in the view of the FBI, Hillary Clinton is a blundering fool who compromised national security but not a provable arch-criminal. This is not what the country needs in a president. “Dangerously negligent but never indicted” is an extremely low bar to set for the leadership of the free world. And it kills Hillary’s argument that she would be a highly skilled chief executive.

[AVGWarhawk]

This will hound her for sometime and even a lifetime. Sadly her supporters do not appear to care about national security and security of our citizens abroad.

Can't wait for the book. "Hard Choices and How to Lie Without Recourse." We know the ending already.

[August]

This will hound her for sometime and even a lifetime. Sadly her supporters do not appear to care about national security and security of our citizens abroad.

Nope. Neither side is looking beyond winning the election.

[vienna]

I was waiting for the GOP Far Right excoriation of FBI Director James B. Comey to begin and the mud slinging of innuendo has not disappointed. Comey is a lot more than the GOP Far Right would have you believe. Here's he man's own words:



In May 2007, Comey testified before both the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, and the House Judiciary subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law on the U.S. Attorney dismissal scandal. His testimony contradicted that of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who said the firings had been due to poor performance on the part of some of the dismissed prosecutors. Comey stressed that the Justice Department had to be perceived as nonpartisan and nonpolitical in order to function.


"The Department of Justice, in my view, is run by political appointees of the President. The U.S. attorneys are political appointees of the President. But once they take those jobs and run this institution, it's very important in my view for that institution to be another in American life, that—because my people had to stand up before juries of all stripes, talk to sheriffs of all stripes, judges of all stripes. They had to be seen as the good guys, and not as either this administration or that administration."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey

This is a man who made his bones taking on all manner of prosecutions from white-collar swindlers to the Gambino Mafia crime family. He is not a person who is easily intimidated or influenced. Someone brought up Martha Stewart. Who was the Chief Prosecutor in that case? Why, by God, it was James B. Comey, fancy that...

AS far as being one who would succumb to political pressure or compromise his principles, let's look at how he took on the GW Bush White House, as acting USAG, over the issue of Bush's efforts to broaden the scope of NSA's domestic wiretapping and data gathering:



In early January 2006, The New York Times, as part of its investigation into domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency, reported that Comey, who was Acting Attorney General during the March 2004 hospitalization of John Ashcroft, refused to certify the legality of central aspects of the NSA program. The certification was required under White House procedures in order for the program to continue.

After Comey's refusal, the newspaper reported, Andrew H. Card Jr., White House Chief of Staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel and future Attorney General, made a visit to the George Washington University Hospital to attempt to win approval directly from Ashcroft for the program. According to the 2007 memoir of Jack Goldsmith, who had been head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the time, Comey went to the hospital to give Ashcroft support in withstanding pressure from the White House.

Comey confirmed these events took place (but declined to confirm the specific program) in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 16 May 2007. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, like Comey, also supported Ashcroft's decision; both men were prepared to resign if the White House ignored the Department of Justice's legal conclusions on the wiretapping issue. FBI director Mueller's notes on the March 10, 2004, incident, which were released to a House Judiciary committee, confirms that he "Saw [the] AG, John Ashcroft in the room. AG is feeble, barely articulate, clearly stressed." Comey withdrew his threat to resign after meeting directly with President Bush, who gave his support to making changes in the surveillance program.

Source: Ibid

A man who would put his career and reputation on the line for a firmly held sense of legal propriety is someone who should be praised and not slammed by the wretches of the Far Right who are angry because their contrivances did not go as planned and their game plan was ruined by a person who put the law and its proper use above partisan politics. This is a person who faced down the White House, the office of POTUS and did not flinch nor back down; in fact, it was POTUS, in the end, who had to back off. Talk about guts and integrity. Given his background and career history, I would be far more inclined to respect Comey's judgement and rationale than that of the grossly political rantings of the GOP Far Right..

From the same article:



Comey is a registered Republican who donated to U.S. Senator John McCain’s campaign in the 2008 presidential election and to Governor Mitt Romney’s campaign in the 2012 presidential election.

Well, maybe Trump can make something out his Irish ancestry or his Roman Catholicism; those are two groups he has yet to alienate in his crash and burn campaign...



<O>

[Betonov]

This is a man who made his bones taking on all manner of prosecutions from white-collar swindlers to the Gambino Mafia crime family. He is not a person who is easily intimidated or influenced. Someone brought up Martha Stewart. Who was the Chief Prosecutor in that case? Why, by God, it was James B. Comey, fancy that...



You should have him running for office

[Oberon]

You should have him running for office

Nah, he's not qualified enough. Nowhere near enough dirty money involved. :O:

[Betonov]

I blame the media.
An average Yenk (or Reb) would probably choose someone levelheaded if the talking heads wouldn't bombard everyone that the circus fraks are the only choice :nope:

[August]

Comey is an Obama appointee. What party he's registered with means absolutely nothing.

[vienna]

Maybe not, maybe so...

But he was a Bush Administration appointee and a very highly placed one at that:



He was the United States Deputy Attorney General, serving in President George W. Bush's administration. As Deputy Attorney General, Comey was the second-highest-ranking official in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and ran the day-to-day operations of the Department, serving in that office from December 2003 through August 2005.

Italics mine. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey

He was enough of a party person to be considered and appointed to an extremely high and powerful position under the Bush Administration; I seriously doubt GW Bush (or, more likely, Cheney) would have placed a Democrat in that position. He is not a political hack and never has been. What he was, and is, is someone who places the law and its proper administration above partisan politics. It is notable that Obama would select Comey, a staunch GOP member and someone who had shown no fear in speaking his mind and going against even the most powerful office in the world. There is no evidence of his being swayed or influenced at any point in his career and, unless the GOP Far Right has actual proof otherwise, they come across as petty, childish, vindictive partisan schemers who, having failed in getting their way, no matter how wrong, throw very public temper tantrums. I very much look forward to the House and/or Senate hearings into Comey's decision. The Far Right GOP had better be careful what they wish for; Comey is no pushover and is well known to firmly stand his ground. Given how the other GOP-led hearings into other matters they tried to push ended up, the outlook for a good result are slim. The writing was on the wall when the State Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG) report was released regarding the internal investigation of State's e-mail practices and procedures, in general, and the tenure of Hillary Clinton, in particular, in May of 2016. The report covered the entirety of the history of the use of e-mail in the State Department by the Secretaries, from Madeline Albright to John Kerry. I had read the entire report and it was very obvious there would be no way to successfully go forward with a case against Clinton. There were, and are, so many failings in State's e-mail operations it would be impossible to pinpoint exactly who was/is culpable for any of the problems. The ability for Clinton or any of the prior or current office holders to be brought up on charges was negligible. There is enough material in the report for anyone charged to successfully defend and/or mitigate any charges. To have filed charges would have resulted in the sort of grand farce the GOP's attempt to impeach Bill Clinton became; and the GOP really took some severe lumps in that fight, not to mention the waste of time, resources, and taxpayer money. If you don't believe me, just take the time to get the straight facts and read the report:

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf

It's not very long, as government reports go, and is quite readable. There are some very surprising and interesting bits of information; It is no surprise the Far Right GOP remained conspicuously silent after the reports release...

As far as running Comey for public office, a ticket of Paul Ryan and James B. Comey, in either order, would be one I could really vote for...



<O>

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I have a prediction:

If Trump loses, he won't call to concede/congratulate Hillary. He'll whine he was cheated and try to do something in the courts.

Also, he'll say the country failed HIM, rather than taking any responsibility himself.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Gosh, it's sort of funny. Looking through everyone's posts, MANY of you would have diametrically opposed opinions on the things discussed if you simply switched the parties.

Is it possible for those I'm talking about to make some attempt at neutrality?

[AVGWarhawk]

Clinton vs FBI



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

[Nippelspanner]

I have a prediction:

If Trump loses, he won't call to concede/congratulate Hillary. He'll whine he was cheated and try to do something in the courts.

Also, he'll say the country failed HIM, rather than taking any responsibility himself.
He won't, because while he is a narrow minded bigot, he is no idiot.
There would be no possible good outcome for him doing so, everyone would despise him for that (besides the braindead followers) and
everyone who was on the edge with his decision would feel he made the right choice.

He will always do what's best for HIM. Always.

[AVGWarhawk]

He will always do what's best for HIM. Always.

And what have the Clintons done in the past 4 decades? Even at the detriment of the American public/armed forces.

[Nippelspanner]

And what have the Clintons done in the past 4 decades? Even at the detriment of the American public/armed forces.
Oh boy. :nope:
Thank you for giving everyone a perfect example of what is wrong with people (voters) and politics these days!
All you guys do is to focus on bashing "the other side", instead of staying neutral, open minded and by that having the best chances of getting the best candidate for your country (in general, surely not this election).

It is a shame America has to endure this instead of having viable candidates and voters in the first place, who actually care about the issues and not about topless mud fights!
But that's what you get in a system that let's everyone vote with no questions asked.

FYI: I hate Hillary to the moon and back. She is scum, vile, a liar, probably not even a human being - who knows? But that doesn't mean I have to side with Trump, or can't criticize Trump or call him out for what he is - and the other way around.
They both are unfit to rule the country.

And with NO word have I said anything about Hillary that would make anyone think she would have my support - did I?

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh boy. :nope:
Thank you for giving everyone a perfect example of what is wrong with people (voters) and politics these days!
All you guys do is to focus on bashing "the other side", instead of staying neutral, open minded and by that having the best chances of getting the best candidate for your country (in general, surely not this election).

This is so pathetic, it is a shame America has to endure this instead of having viable candidates and voters in the first place, who actually care about the issues and not about topless mud fights!
But that's what you get in a system that let's everyone vote with no questions asked.

FYI: I hate Hillary to the moon and back. She is scum, vile, a liar, probably not even a human being - who knows? But that doesn't mean I have to side with Trump, or can't criticize Trump or call him out for what he is - and the other way around.
They both are unfit to rule the country.

And with NO word have I said anything about Hillary that would make anyone think she would have my support - did I?

And you are not bashing Trump? Where is the open mind concerning Trump the narrow minded bigot?

Hillary lied like a rug. Bill lies like a rug. It is not bashing. It is the facts as presented.

[Nippelspanner]

And you are not bashing Trump? Where is the open mind concerning Trump the narrow minded bigot?

Hillary lied like a rug. Bill lies like a rug. It is not bashing. It is the facts as presented.
What is so hard to understand about "both are scum"?!
How can I make that any clearer? :hmmm:

[AVGWarhawk]

What is so hard to understand about "both are scum"?!
How can I make that any clearer? :hmmm:

Some are scummier than others. Pick the lesser of the two scums. That is all we have.

[Nippelspanner]

Some are scummier than others. Pick the lesser of the two scums. That is all we have.
Did I ever say anything else? No I did not.
All I did was to point out that Trump will not do what one member suggested because Trump will always act in his very own interest. That is all.

That is where you boarded my ship going all "muh but dem Clinturns!" on me.
Why - if not for the reasons I pointed out?
Again: They both are nothing but oxygen thieves, that's it.

America should have went onto the streets and protest, both sides, together, so there would have been new candidates. Simply accepting both of these clowns as a viable option is incredibly sad.
But that could never happen, because all Democrats and Republicans care about these days is bashing the other side no matter what but still claim to be oh so patriotic! What a joke!

A patriot wouldn't accept any of these candidates.
But it is too late now, I guess.

[AVGWarhawk]

Did I ever say anything else? No I did not.
All I did was to point out that Trump will not do what one member suggested because Trump will always act in his very own interest. That is all.

That is where you boarded my ship going all "muh but dem Clinturns!" on me.
Why - if not for the reasons I pointed out?
Again: They both are nothing but oxygen thieves, that's it.

America should have went onto the streets and protest, both sides, together, so there would have been new candidates. Simply accepting both of these clowns as a viable option is incredibly sad.
But that could never happen, because all Democrats and Republicans care about these days is bashing the other side no matter what but still claim to be oh so patriotic! What a joke!

A patriot wouldn't accept any of these candidates.
But it is too late now, I guess.

It appears you have the easy answers. Protest, etc. Check the news my man. There has been protest at every rally. Bernie supporters are going nuts. The up coming conventions are going to be better than reality TV concerning protests. Stay tuned.

[Bilge_Rat]

I have been watching FBI director Comey testimony on and off. Very impressive guy.

I was skeptical, but he has convinced me. The Republicans are grasping at straws now.

[August]

Lying to congress under oath is a felony and guess what Clinton did? :)

[vienna]

No solid evidence of such and no evidence of criminal intent, so a big zero. The House did ask the FBI (you know, the same FBI the Far Right GOP has been claiming is biased and partial) to investigate whether Clinton did, in fact, knowingly lie to Congress, so there is still that investigation to look forward to, although the conviction rate for those who have been proven to have knowingly lied to Congress under oath is somewhere near zero, so don't hold your breath. If everybody who ever lied to Congress under oath were tried, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned, the Federal prison system would be larger than the entirety of the Congress by many multiples...

Say, why don't they call in Trump to testify under oath about some of his dubious business dealings, connections, and other assorted "expansions and contractions" of the truth he has spouted; if we really want to be sure of the veracity, integrity, and moral purity of those seeking the White House, such an investigation would go along way, although how long the country could function with a vacant Oval Office is problematic...



<O>

[August]

I'd say the Democrats and the liberal media has shown themselves quite able to point out every one of Trumps failings. Nothing i've heard so far compares with what their own candidate has done. That's why in spite of a constant assault on him he remains polling within the margin of error in most polls.

Whoever votes for her condones the idea that some people are too big to prosecute. A vote for Clinton promotes the creation of a ruling class who are exempt from our laws. Shame on the Democrats for letting that even get to this point.

[Mr Quatro]

Say, why don't they call in Trump to testify under oath about some of his dubious business dealings, connections, and other assorted "expansions and contractions" of the truth he has spouted; if we really want to be sure of the veracity, integrity, and moral purity of those seeking the White House, such an investigation would go along way, although how long the country could function with a vacant Oval Office is problematic...

<O>

Good point ... I wonder which one will win the first debate probably not till September ...

[em2nought]

Whoever votes for her condones the idea that some people are too big to prosecute.

Some might say that Obama and Hillary promote the idea that all democrats are above the law. Laws only apply to the conservatives who will follow them. :hmmm:

Meanwhile down in Dallas... :o

[Bilge_Rat]

Lying to congress under oath is a felony and guess what Clinton did? :)

I was going to make a long detailed post about how it would be impossible to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt", but actually one could not even make a case that would convince an impartial observer. :ping:

If an indictment had come out, it could have had an impact. Without an indictment, this is all political theater. Trump supporters are convinced she benefited from a double standard. Clinton supporters thinks this is a GOP witch hunt.

Clinton is a weak candidate with a lot of baggage, but so is Trump.

At this point, I would say it is 60/40 that Clinton will win.

[Mr Quatro]

Clinton is a weak candidate with a lot of baggage, but so is Trump.

At this point, I would say it is 60/40 that Clinton will win.

If Hillary picks a woman (like Mrs Warren) then I would say 52% will vote for Trump to 48% for Hillary or you could say it's men vs women or you could say it's rednecks vs women either way Trump has a good chance to win against all of the odds.

[AVGWarhawk]

Let the media keep pushing and bashing Trump. Trump makes good news for the media outlets. Four years of good times for ratings because Trump is busy being abrasive, crazy, brash and full of himself. Where reality tv really is reality tv. That sells for the media. What Hillary is wearing in the oval office on Tuesday not so much.

[Platapus]

Whoever votes for her condones the idea that some people are too big to prosecute.


No, a vote for Clinton is simply an acknowledgement that both parties offered up terrible candidates and that a third party candidate has no chance of being elected. It is simply the voters decision to vote for the lessor of two evils. Due to The Frau's politics, I associate with a lot of hard core democrats and very very few of them are happy with Clinton. It is just that they are very very very unhappy with Trump.

Clinton would not stand a chance if the RNC were to put up a legitimate candidate.

Trump would not stand a chance if the DNC were to put up a legitimate candidate.

But we, the citizens, are stuck with the choice between a despicable candidate and a despicable candidate.

It seems that the only thing the parties can offer is a lame claim that "well our candidate is not as bad as the other party's candidate!". It reminds me of young children trying to avoid punishment from their parents.

So no, a vote for Clinton does not mean that the voter approves of her at all. It means that they have chosen one bad choice out of a pair of bad choices.

[Betonov]

I'm more affraid of Clinton than Trump.

Trump is a loudmouth egotist that's playing every lowbrow popular string on the election guitar.

Clinton on the other hand is amiddle aged woman nearing or reached her menopause and the only thing we need is Bill sticking his saxophone in Melania and there goes Slovakia :nope:

[vienna]

I was going to make a long detailed post about how it would be impossible to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt", but actually one could not even make a case that would convince an impartial observer. :ping:

If an indictment had come out, it could have had an impact. Without an indictment, this is all political theater. Trump supporters are convinced she benefited from a double standard. Clinton supporters thinks this is a GOP witch hunt.

Clinton is a weak candidate with a lot of baggage, but so is Trump.

At this point, I would say it is 60/40 that Clinton will win.

The OIG report I have cited in previous posts actually could be used to back up the idea of there being a reasonable doubt in the case against Clinton, and a very good argument for the idea. It should be noted, if you read the report, the failings ascribed to Clinton were endemic through all the tenures of former and current Secretaries of State and the overall failings of the State Department in the handling of emails and other sensitive documents was endemic to the Department's operation. There is very strong evidence in the report of the Secretaries, acting in good faith, were not made aware of the actual requirements regarding the proper handling and conduct of sensitive documents. Added to this is the woeful lack of State, in particular, and other governmental agencies with a stake in the proper securing of sensitive data, up to and including Congress, to address, in a timely manner and with an eye towards evolving technology, the ever-changing nature of how government business, or any business, for that matter, is now conducted. The laws being cited in the attempt to charge Clinton were first written in 1950 and had not had any major revision until 1995, a period of 45 years. The extent of change in information technology during that period is staggering, but the US government failed to amend the laws to keep up with the changes. In the period after 1995, any efforts to secure or define in detail how to secure sensitive data was a haphazard patchwork of memos, usually issued after the fact, sort closing the barn door after the cattle has gotten out. An actual definitive guideline and detailed requirements regarding sensitive data was not formalized until 2012, seven years after the last revision in 1995. These revisions were made in the last year of Clinton's tenure. The real kicker about the 2012 revisions is they do not go into full affect until December of this year, 2016. What this means is, technically, and legally, any actions taken by Clinton in her last year and Kerry currently that may be deemed as outside of the rules are not really enforceable, in full, since the rules are not fully in force. This four year "grace period" was and is absurd on it's face, but such is the way government business is done. Also, it should be noted, the vast bulk of the revisions being cited as violations aren't actually letter law; they are agency guidelines and requirements...

The task of prosecuting perjury is almost impossible; that is the reason so very, very few criminal perjury cases are ever brought. Nixon received his pardon on the condition he would fully and truthfully cooperate with Federal investigations into criminal activities during his Presidency. Nixon, true to form, lied through his teeth, under oath; there was more than ample recorded evidence to prosecute him for perjury, but it was never done. There are hundreds of other such cases involving perjury either in government legal actions or, most obviously, in testimony before Congress, yet they very, very rarely result in charges. Unless it, the act of perjury, is flagrant and malicious, prosecutors are very reluctant to act. Perjury cases are often classed by lawyers as "bad grounders", referring to the baseball situation where a ball is hit and rolls rapidly across the field and is liable to take a bad bounce or turn making it difficult, if not impossible, for a fielder to properly predict the outcome of the play. If you read the report, any effort to even try to bring action against Clinton would also mean, in a truly equal and impartial application of justice, the prosecution, in addition to Clinton, of Albright, Powell, and Rice since the OIG report cites many of the same failings attributed to Clinton also occured during the other's tenures; in point of fact, using the criteria being used by those seeking action against Clinton, Powell and Rice could be charged with perjury; this particularly true of Rice who maintained in her response to OIG questionnaires that she used, during her tenure, neither State Dept. email servers nor private email servers; this rather stretches credulity and begs the question of how she and her staff actually did conduct their communications. If they didn't use either State or private servers, were they using public email such as GMail or Yahoo to communicate and/or convey State Department documents and data? She, along with Powell and Clinton, was also shown to have made statements about email usage later shown to be false...

The Justice Dept. could, theoretically, bring charges against all four Secretaries and/or their staffs, but the real life chances of anyone actually being convicted is so slim as to make it not worth the effort and expense. The best to be done is for someone, in all rights Congress, to fully and finally revise and formalize the laws regarding classified material and definitively set out the accountability of those involved in the handling of such material. What we have now is a pastiche of outdated laws and Byzantine, often conflicting, regulations that has resulted in the mess the State Department, and other government agencies find themselves...

As far as who will win, I don't really know; I'm still holding out hope the GOP will find some way to dump the Donald and run a reasonable ticket; the DEMs won't back away from Clinton and the GOP has got to have someone better than Trump and some of the others who were in that primary clown car...



<O>

[Platapus]

What I want to know is whether there have been any changes in the regulations/policy to prevent this E-mail thing from happening again.

If you are working as an agent of the government, you should be required to use government owned and operated systems. I frankly don't care if someone prefers their own system or does not want to learn a new system

Fibrous Feces.

It is evident that shady stuff has been done in the past many years. Instead of pointing fingers chanting "you did it first" and "but you did it worst!", how about fixing the problem so it does not happen again.

I am sure the State Department has an IT unit that can set up and operate communication systems for the SoS. It is not like we are asking the SoS to get on all fours and start pulling cable. There are people to do that.

This is what I am expecting Obama to do -- Change the regulations in the Executive Branch. He has that authority. Make these changes firm and public so that the public can have the confidence that this should not happen again and if it does, it will be a clear unambiguous violation of regulations. I have not heard of any change forthcoming. :nope:

I can not see any justification for anyone at the department level not using government controlled equipment while conducting government business.

Many many people have separate systems for professional and personal E-mail. It is really not that hard... even for a politician.

I see a lot of useless finger pointing but no problem solving. That's what's wrong with out system. Too many people are looking for a political solution and not for a problem solution.

[vienna]

What I want to know is whether there have been any changes in the regulations/policy to prevent this E-mail thing from happening again.

If you are working as an agent of the government, you should be required to use government owned and operated systems. I frankly don't care if someone prefers their own system or does not want to learn a new system

Fibrous Feces.

It is evident that shady stuff has been done in the past many years. Instead of pointing fingers chanting "you did it first" and "but you did it worst!", how about fixing the problem so it does not happen again.

I am sure the State Department has an IT unit that can set up and operate communication systems for the SoS. It is not like we are asking the SoS to get on all fours and start pulling cable. There are people to do that.

This is what I am expecting Obama to do -- Change the regulations in the Executive Branch. He has that authority. Make these changes firm and public so that the public can have the confidence that this should not happen again and if it does, it will be a clear unambiguous violation of regulations. I have not heard of any change forthcoming. :nope:

I can not see any justification for anyone at the department level not using government controlled equipment while conducting government business.

Many many people have separate systems for professional and personal E-mail. It is really not that hard... even for a politician.

I see a lot of useless finger pointing but no problem solving. That's what's wrong with out system. Too many people are looking for a political solution and not for a problem solution.

I absolutely agree with the above. The sad truth is there has been no proactive move to change the basic flaws in the State Dept. and in pretty much other areas of the Federal Government. No one really seems to want to be the person or agency responsible for establishing and enacting changes. This not new: in 1982, President Reagan, faced with an ever-increasing deficit and rampant government waste and over-spending, issued an Executive Order establishing the Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (PSSCC) also known as the Grace Commission Report, named after the Commission's Charirman, J. Peter Grace, CEO of W.R. Grace & Co. The Commission was comprised of the leading business and economic personages of the era and was tasked with executing a comprehensive review and overview of almost all of the Federal government's procurement, spending and system's operations. The final report outlined a broad and sweeping plan to streamline operations and reduce waste in government. It emphasized a modernization and adoption of the newest technologies to expedite operation, record keeping, and accountability. The main selling point was the economies and improvements could mainly be enacted by tightening up existing regulations, issuance of Executive Orders to enforce compliance and, aside from future savings, could be implemented without raising existing taxes and would actually result in sizable immediate savings. Reagan accepted the final report and promptly shelved it and let it collect dust. The result of this "benign neglect" by Reagan has been, in the ensuing 34 years, an ever-increasing government with attendant ever-increasing waste, federal agencies floundering about, as has been seen with the State Department, and systems so archaic as to be virtual museum pieces. Why Reagan didn't act on the recommendations, given his much vaunted public persona as "some one who got things done", is unknown, but that Commission report was the last major effort to even try to break the stagnation and apathy surrounding Federal operations. Maybe it is time for another comprehensive evaluation, this time with some teeth and enforcement; however, I don't see either of the two candidates as being capable or willing to take on the task...

You may have noted the mention of "a comprehensive review and overview of almost all of the Federal government's procurement, spending and system's operations" above. In tasking the Commission, Regan specifically put the Defense Department off-limits to the Commission's scrutiny; no reason was ever given. However, J. Peter Grace did delve into Defense's operation, as much as he could, and did make an informal recommendation for economies and improvements. This, too, was ignored by Reagan; speculation at the time was, if the Report's recommendations were acted on, many of the big money contractors and providers would find themselves either severely curtailed or completely out of the picture in regards to government contracts and monies. Since these interests comprised some of the wealthiest and most politically powerful entities and individuals with vast pockets of lobbying cash, it was politically expedient to stay with status quo, regardless of the inanity of having a cure to a great deal of the problems plaguing the Federal government rather than "cowboy up" and actually do something. This is a major reason why the US nuclear missile defense system is currently being run on computer systems still using COBOL and FORTRAN programming and 12-inch floppy disks...



<O>

[Torplexed]

What Hillary is wearing in the oval office on Tuesday not so much.


What she will be wearing Monday through Sunday is not a difficult guess. It's gonna be the Pantsuit Presidency if she wins.

http://cdn-img.instyle.com/sites/default/files/styles/684xflex/public/images/2015/06/061715-hillary-clinton-pantsuits-lead.jpg?itok=cS52k7ef

[August]

What she will be wearing Monday through Sunday is not a difficult guess. It's gonna be the Pantsuit Presidency if she wins.

http://cdn-img.instyle.com/sites/default/files/styles/684xflex/public/images/2015/06/061715-hillary-clinton-pantsuits-lead.jpg?itok=cS52k7ef

http://patriotretort.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Mao-02.jpg

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Lying to congress under oath is a felony and guess what Clinton did? :)

How's that stack up against lying about evidence to go to war?

What's your opinion on taxpayer funds being blown on political fishing expeditions?

[Torvald Von Mansee]

I'd say the Democrats and the liberal media has shown themselves quite able to point out every one of Trumps failings. Nothing i've heard so far compares with what their own candidate has done. That's why in spite of a constant assault on him he remains polling within the margin of error in most polls.

Whoever votes for her condones the idea that some people are too big to prosecute. A vote for Clinton promotes the creation of a ruling class who are exempt from our laws. Shame on the Democrats for letting that even get to this point.

That's your absolutely non-partisan, absolutely neutral point of view? :D

[vienna]

The real big problem with almost all the polls regarding the Presidential race is the very large number of undecided voters; even with the margins of error, any large swing in the undecided toward either candidate effectively wipes out the margin. This is why it is still too early to invest in a candidate; there are still the conventions to go through and the debates; either of these two situations could sway the vote significantly either way. As these are major touchstones in the Presidential process, their importance in swaying the large undecided block is something to watch; if the number of undecided lessens significantly and it appears they are going heavily towards a particular candidate, then we will know who really has the best shot at winning. Until then, it is all just numbers and guesses...



<O>

[JU_88]

Take it from us British - that polls can be horribly wrong :)

I am predicting Trump will might actually win this by the skin of his teeth, I'm basing this on that 8 years tends to be about the limit of the voters patience, The U.S just had 8 years of the Dems, so I think its kind of unlikely they will usher in another four.
When there is as much discontent, unrest and uncertainty, as there is now, people tend to opt for a change of direction rather than more of the same.
I think come the election a slim and more silent majority will probably lean towards Mr bombastic borderline bigot over Ms two faced psychopath.
But beyond that, its really Libertarianism Vs Progressivism, and i think its pretty obvious which way the wind is blowing right now. The Progressives have overplayed their hand over the past decade and are now facing a backlash like never before.

[Mr Quatro]

When do we get to pick our predictions again? You know that old thread that got locked?

Three days till the GOP convention ... :o

I am leaning towards Trump, but mostly due to fear of Hillary and her husband being back in power. I just can't see past their blemishes anymore.

What would've been neat is if Donald and Sanders had of run as independents, but of course that won't happen now.

The Clintons have way too much to hide, but I'm sure Donald Trump will bring those secrets out in the next 3 and 1/2 months :yep:

[August]

That's your absolutely non-partisan, absolutely neutral point of view? :D

Pretty much. FWIW I can't stand the Republicans pick for president either but at least he isn't held above the laws of the country he wants to lead.

As I have said before, of the two Trump or Clinton, it's Trump who is less likely to be able to cause harm to the nation. He has no friends on either side of the aisle and if he steps out of line they will be itching to lower the impeachment boom on him in a bipartisan way.

Clinton on the other hand will always have one party on her side willing to excuse anything she does because she is one of their own. They're willing to ignore incompetence, mishandling classified material, you name it because she has a (D) after her name.

[vienna]

When do we get to pick our predictions again? You know that old thread that got locked?

Three days till the GOP convention ... :o

I am leaning towards Trump, but mostly due to fear of Hillary and her husband being back in power. I just can't see past their blemishes anymore.

What would've been neat is if Donald and Sanders had of run as independents, but of course that won't happen now.

The Clintons have way too much to hide, but I'm sure Donald Trump will bring those secrets out in the next 3 and 1/2 months :yep:

The big problem is Trump also has a great many secrets regarding his questionable business dealings and associations. It is natural to assume the DEMs will focus on them and probably have an inventory of allegations to unload on Trump as soon as he gets the official nod at the convention, but there is also the prospect of some GOP members, disgruntled about the whole tenor and tone of the Trump campaign, may seek to torpedo his run by digging up some of the dirt and releasing it as the campaign progresses; some of those disenchanted GOP members are also some of the wealthiest and influential persons in the party and have vast resources to mount an effective clandestine anti-Trump effort...



<O>

[em2nought]

What would've been neat is if Donald and Sanders had of run as independents, but of course that won't happen now.

It would have been so fun to see Trump offer Sanders the VP slot, oh the wailing and gnashing of teeth! :D

[Onkel Neal]

When do we get to pick our predictions again? You know that old thread that got locked?

Three days till the GOP convention ... :o







Soon as the conventions are over, I will reopen and move the thread back here :)

[mapuc]

A plan for some road rage on Monday when Trump is elected as the Republican candidate ?

When going through my newsfeed on FB I saw a comment here what it said

Great weekend and on Monday at the GOP's convent when Trump is elected as their candidate there will be street riots/road rage.

I don't know if this is what he want or if he know something.

I presume the police are ready for everything.

Markus

[Torplexed]

I presume the police are ready for everything.

Markus

I'm sure in the wake of the Nice truck attack, they'll have the anti-vehicle jersey barriers in place at the convention center if they don't already.

[Mr Quatro]

“Of two evils the lesser is always to be chosen.”
Thomas á Kempis (ca. 1380–1471)


GOP nomination Donald Trump
Host City: Cleveland, Ohio
Location: Quicken Loans Arena (Venue Link)
Dates: July 18-21, 2016


Democrats nomination Hillary Clinton
Host City: Philadelphia
Location: Wells Fargo Center and the Pennsylvania Convention Center
Dates: July 25-28, 2016

[mapuc]

I'm sure in the wake of the Nice truck attack, they'll have the anti-vehicle jersey barriers in place at the convention center if they don't already.

Sorry for this late reply

The Danish word "Gade optøjer" can be translated to either Road Rage or Street riots and it means a group or groups of people start to throw stones or other things against the police or against big windows(stores) as we have seen in London and other summit.

Markus

[Oberon]

I hear the RNC has started well.

[August]

I hear the RNC has started well.


Almost as boisterous as your regular sessions of Parliament! :)

[Oberon]

Almost as boisterous as your regular sessions of Parliament! :)

We'll have to give you Dennis Skinner on loan for a couple of months, get things rocking. :rock:

[Betonov]

Let me just add that Melanias plagiarism of Michelles speech does not represent the cultural norm of my nation.
We are creators of art, poetry and books and we don't need to copy/paste others people work.

But then again, that airhead harlot probably had a speech writter and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same person as Michelle

[Mr Quatro]

Let me just add that Melanias plagiarism of Michelles speech does not represent the cultural norm of my nation.
We are creators of art, poetry and books and we don't need to copy/paste others people work.

But then again, that airhead harlot probably had a speech writter and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same person as Michelle

The $2,200 dress Melanias wore sold out in a matter of minutes ... that tells me something that the rich female partners of the givers cared enough to watch her.

Fifty fifty chance she's going to be in the White House come January 2017 :yep:

[Betonov]

The $2,200 dress Melanias wore sold out in a matter of minutes ...

$2,200 dress, sounds a lot on my pay but I think Donald decided to go cheap this time :haha:
Melania probably didn't spent enough time on her knees ''inflating'' Donalds ego these past weeks :hmm2:

[Mr Quatro]

Melania probably didn't spent enough time on her knees ''inflating'' Donalds ego these past weeks :hmm2:

Mr Crude:o I forgive you :oops:

[Betonov]

Mr Crude:o I forgive you :oops:

I'm from the Balkans. This is afternoon coffee talk.
You should hear us barbarians in the evening over a beer :arrgh!:

[AVGWarhawk]

Let me just add that Melanias plagiarism of Michelles speech does not represent the cultural norm of my nation.
We are creators of art, poetry and books and we don't need to copy/paste others people work.

But then again, that airhead harlot probably had a speech writter and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same person as Michelle

The mainstream media is up in arms about similarities between passages found in the speech delivered by Melania Trump during Monday's Republican National Convention and a few lines from the 2008 Democratic Convention speech delivered by Michelle Obama. However, it wasn't too long ago that the media turned a blind eye when President Barack Obama was busted plagiarizing some of the most memorable lines from his speeches.

http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/flashback-obama-was-busted-plagiarizing-governor-14922331/

[August]

Melania probably didn't spent enough time on her knees ''inflating'' Donalds ego these past weeks :hmm2:

that airhead harlot


Is this sexist drivel really necessary?

[Betonov]

Is this sexist drivel really necessary?

It's an occupational hazzard golddigers should accept.
If the she would be a lady of a more productive background, maybe a scholar, scientist or factory worker then I would not have been as crude as petrolium.
But she is where she is becasue her ass just got the most attention in Donalds eye.

So spare me the moralisation, if I went on about Bills ego being inflated by Hillary you'd applaud me.

[Platapus]

Since they both used speech writers and speech writers have the same training of taking concepts and translating them into emotionally charged wordings.

Since both speeches were full of vapid generalities, is it really that hard to believe that out of a long speech there won't be repeats of trite phrases?

There are a finite number of cliches out there.

[August]

So spare me the moralisation, if I went on about Bills ego being inflated by Hillary you'd applaud me.

Not if you used similar sexist and demeaning verbiage.

[vienna]

Here's an interesting link to a site that deals primarily with isuues of plagiarism with a very good analysis on the Melania Trump speech scandal:

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2016/07/19/melania-trump-plagiarism-scandal/

The extent of plagiarism by the Trump Camp is not limited to Melania; from the same site:

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2016/03/18/donald-trump-plagiarism-controversy/

It is Speechwriting 101 to not use text from a source without at least referring to the source and not pass it off as whole-cloth self-inspiration; even if you don't specifically cite the source, you at least acknowledge it is from an external source, e.g., "As someone once said...", "As the old saying goes...", etc. Failure to do so opens the speechwriter/speaker open to such charges of plagiarism; it is not only ethically to make reference, it is basic common sense. I used to write speeches for public speaking competitions, not only for myself, but, also, for others, and I know full well there are people out there who, for whatever reason, are only to happy to pick apart a speech to find a fatal flaw such as plagiarizing text. I actually feel sorry for Melania; I do not for a minute believe she actually wrote the bulk of the speech just by herself and whoever it was, the GOP handlers or Trump himself, who hung her out to dry are despicable people. Honesty, integrity, and ethics, not to mention simple human kindness are indeed foreign and lacking concepts to the Trump camp and to those in the GOP who are trying to foist off this Trump con game on the American nation. It seems Hillary is not the only crooked candidate...

Melania was set up by the Trump camp to be sort of the GOP's version of Ariana Huffington; she in no Ariana. Where Ariana is a very intelligent, tough person who took an adverse situation in the collapse of her marriage, where she proved she was the real brains of the union, and turned the embarrassment with a head-on counter and built for herself a new career and respectability, Melania is who she is: another trophy wife of another wealthy egoist who is out of her depth in the cutthroat world of politics; Trump did not marry Melania because of the possibility her IQ would exceed the sum of her measurements, he did so because he wanted another bit of arm-candy as a visible evidence of his putative manhood. But what kind of man sets up his own wife for public humiliation? Probably not the kind of man you'd want to hold the highest office in the US...



<O>

[vienna]

BTW, the best line I heard to day about the speech is a tweet from a comedian who said 'Well, at least she didn't go with her original opening of "Hello, I'm Michelle Obama..."'... :haha:



<O>

[Torplexed]

Thanks, Ms. Obama. :O:

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Cnw5hAFUIAEDupu.jpg

[August]

Charges of plagiarism is an old Clinton tactic.

In 2008, then-candidate Obama was found to have plagiarized the speeches of former Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick on a number of occasions. "I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me, I'm asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations," Patrick said in a speech delivered in June of 2006. Obama repeated the line verbatim in a speech in South Carolina in November of 2007. In addition, Obama's famous refrain of "just words" in a 2008 speech was lifted directly from a speech Governor Patrick delivered in October of 2006.
When the Clinton campaign cried foul, The New York Times reported:


With the next round of voters set to weigh in on the Democratic presidential race, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign on Monday accused Senator Barack Obama of committing plagiarism in a weekend speech. Mr. Obama dismissed the charge as absurd and desperate.
Mr. Obama told reporters he should have credited Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, a friend, for a passage in a speech he delivered on Saturday in Milwaukee. But Mr. Obama said his rival was "carrying it too far."
http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/flashback-obama-was-busted-plagiarizing-governor-14922331/

[Bilge_Rat]

Personally, this whole "plagiarism scandal" would actually make me more inclined to vote for Trump.

Melania Trump is not a candidate, she is family, she is not fair game. She is only involved because her husband is running.

All the media pounding on this like it will derail the Trump campaign is ridiculous, if anything it will create sympathy for mrs. Trump and for Trump himself.

In the latest polls, Trump and Clinton are tied so the election is back to 50/50 chance either way.

[AVGWarhawk]

Personally, this whole "plagiarism scandal" would actually make me more inclined to vote for Trump.

Melania Trump is not a candidate, she is family, she is not fair game. She is only involved because her husband is running.

All the media pounding on this like it will derail the Trump campaign is ridiculous, if anything it will create sympathy for mrs. Trump and for Trump himself.

In the latest polls, Trump and Clinton are tied so the election is back to 50/50 chance either way.

To be fair, Michelle Obama was blasted when she said in a speech, "For once I'm proud of America." Or similar. She claims to have "misspoke". Personally I do no believe Michelle is proud of America and never has been.

Anyway, anything to take the attention off the real issues...ANYTHING. It is a sad state of affairs. No wait...that was Bill's state.

[vienna]

You can cite allegations of Obama's plagiarism all you want, but Obama's gone after the Inauguration in January 2017, so it is basically a moot point having no bearing on the fact the voters will be selecting who will serve from Inauguration Day and the four years following. Let's focus on those candidates who are going to have a possible effect on those four years...

There has been a long, highly visible, pattern in the conduct of Donald Trump, in general, and the Trump campaign, in particular, to do something questionable or unethical, then deny, even in the face of obvious evidence, he or the campaign actually did the act(s) in question. This is troubling when one considers this is the man and his cohorts the GOP is asking the voters to whom to turn over control of the nation and its affairs for the next four years. Is this the best the GOP could come up with: a egoist and pathological liar who disregards the simplest forms of ethics, honesty and integrity so long as it serves his ends; someone who eschews all responsibility for his questionable acts and, once caught, seeks to deflect accountability for his actions; someone with a very long and well-documented track record of actions that would have resulted in very dire consequences if he was not a wealthy elitist with a choice of "whipping boys" to take the heat for him? If this is the "best and the brightest" the GOP produce as a candidate for the highest office in the land, with the highest standard of honesty, integrity, ethics, and personal responsibility, then the fact the GOP is the smallest registered voter bloc (third behind the DEMs and independents, in that order) is most well deserved and the GOP can probably look forward to shrinking even more in the future. The GOP had a very big chance to remake its image and to reestablish itself as a growing force in US politics, but, instead, it has chosen to present to the voters yet another choice as bad and, arguably, even worse than the DEM candidate. We, the voters, are given a dismal choice; worse or worst. I haven't really decided what I'm going to do in the November Election; I'm still holding out hope one or both of the choices will do something to totally screw up their campaign and the party/parties will be given the chance to run real candidates, but that is a very long shot. I would choose not to vote at all, but that goes against my grain; perhaps I'll just write in a name; it may not have an effect on the election, but at least I'll be able to live with my action and choice...

At least the whole Melania issue did result in a great piece of satire:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wh1wctQNKRM



<O>

[August]

Typical Democrat tactic. Do far worse then deny that it matters any more. Then launch a rant against one person for something that another person did or said. :roll:

[vienna]

Well, since I am not a Democrat, you are, as usual, very wrong again. I know it serves your rather factually weak narrative(s) to wish it so that I were a Democrat, but I'm not, although I'm sure you, like your boy Trump, will not let a simple thing like the facts get in the way of trying to sell the Bandini. Of course, you could prove you assertions of my alleged political affiliations, but I really doubt you have the capacity to do so. So, I remain, as always, an independent, who has voted for for candidates from both parties over the decades, and even once for Perot, and have voted in favor of both conservative and/or liberal issues, so long as I am presented with good, sensible, factual arguments on which to base my vote. Independent thought is actually quite a good thing and makes one feel so much better...

Typical Trump and Trump follower tactic. Be presented with verifiable truths and facts, deny they exist, and when that doesn't work, launch personal attacks to deflect from the paucity of their stance. On the whole, a pathetic way to conduct ones self; perhaps it can all be blamed on Melania's speechwriter or some other poor sap who will take the bullet for the Chum...I mean, Trump. So far, I have not heard one convincing logical, sensible, articulate or factual argument to compel me to vote for Trump, and I am not hearing any better from the Clinton camp. What upsets the Trump campaign in particular, and the GOP in general, is there are so very many independent voters like myself who might probably either sit out the Election or do something like a write in or null vote. Considering the number of registered independent or undecided voters ranges from 15%-22% or more of the total voters likely to vote in the Election, both parties stand to lose out in a very big way, but the general consensus, even among GOP strategists, is the GOP will very most likely suffer the most, particularly in the 'down ballot' Congressional and gubernatorial races, All the GOP has to do is come to their senses, dump the Trump, and run a candidate who will actually wind up attracting voters rather than alienating vast blocs of voters. Clinton can be beaten, but, as time wears on, Trump is whittling away at the GOP chances. The GOP may be a circus, but what they really, really need is a good ringmaster and a lot less clowns...



<O>

[AVGWarhawk]

You can cite allegations of Obama's plagiarism all you want, but Obama's gone after the Inauguration in January 2017, so it is basically a moot point having no bearing on the fact the voters will be selecting who will serve from Inauguration Day and the four years following. Let's focus on those candidates who are going to have a possible effect on those four years...

<O>

Sir, if it was a moot point then why the media frenzy about the speech? It is a less than stellar talking point for the talking heads at CNN and other major networks.

[AVGWarhawk]

Typical Hillary and Hilary follower tactic. Be presented with verifiable truths and facts(FBI), deny they exist(emails), and when that doesn't work, launch personal attacks(what does it matter anyway) to deflect from the paucity of their stance.(get off on all charges)



<O>


Fixed it for you. :D See the difference in the candidates? I sure don't. Your suggestion on who to vote for?

[vienna]

Fixed it for you. :D See the difference in the candidates? I sure don't. Your suggestion on who to vote for?

Oh, the facts are truly there, but the one really big fact is there really was no way to get a conviction. Remember, the decision to not indict was not just Comey's or Lynch's alone; the case was reviewed by the Senior investigators and Prosecutors of the FBI and the Justice department and it was a unanimous decision to not indict by all the reviewers. As I pointed out in previous posts, the OIG report by State pretty much sealed the fate of any future prosecution with its findings; there was no way logically or legally a guilty verdict could have been reached if a trial was held; at best, it would be a hung jury situation. It is unconscionable to justify the time, expense, and effort to try a very much lost cause to the taxpayers for what, if pursued, would only be a political gesture to satisfy the agenda of the GOP. Now, if the GOP is willing to foot the bill, in place of the taxpayers, for the full cost of a prosecution, and eat the cost if there is a not guilty or hung jury, then I might be interested. Instead what this is is a sideshow of a sideshow, the flagellation of defunct equines. Even the GOP higher-ups have moved on; perhaps so should the rest of us...

I'm not arguing about Clinton or her lackings: there are plenty of others here to take up that slack. I do, however, see an even greater evil in putting someone in the oval office who has exhibited so great a lacking in even the most basic concepts of honesty, ethics, integrity, or common morality. This is, of course, my opinion, but it seems to be shared by an awful lot of other voters, by estimates, from one in five to one in four voters. As I pointed out, this does not bode well for either party, but even less well for the GOP. If the GOP loses, they have only themselves to blame. If my pointing out the flaws, and there are very many, in the GOP candidate happens to put speed bumps in the hard, fast sell for Trump, then so be it. If you don't like the condition of the road, make a better one...

For those who are pushing heavily for Trump, I have yet to hear one good, solid, logical, viable reason to vote for him from any one yet; and, voting for Trump just to keep Clinton out of the White House just doesn't cut it or meet the criteria I have. Trump is sleaze of the highest order, no better than Clinton; give me some really good, supportable reasons and even i may vote for him; but, so far, I ain't hearing any really good, convincing arguments in favor...

See the difference in the candidates? I sure don't. Your suggestion on who to vote for?

I don't give suggestions; vote for whoever you like, just as I will or won't on election day. I've already indicated what I feel are my options and I will exercise one of them on Election Day as I then see fit. You exercise yours as you see fit; it is your right. I intend to make my choice after I have all the facts, both good or bad, about the candidates or issues I will be asked to vote upon; I will not form my choices based on one or another party's 'voter's guides', the ranted recommendations of talk show hosts, the cheerleading of party operatives of any stripe, or a "my party, right or wrong!" sort of lemming-like mindlessness. My vote is, essentially, my opinion. I do not denigrate, dictate or try to manipulate the votes or opinions of others. They will do as they will as will I. The voting booth on election day is a bit like a coffin: there is only one of you in there and it is a final judgement...

Do I see a difference in the candidates? No, not really. That is why a couple of my options are a write-in or a null vote. Again, do as you please...



<O>

[Platapus]

Typical Democrat tactic. Do far worse then deny that it matters any more. Then launch a rant against one person for something that another person did or said. :roll:

Charges of plagiarism is an old Clinton tactic.



Typical Republican tactic. No matter what is said about the Republican candidate, immediately deflect to "well the democratic candidate did it first/more/worse/ect". As if this has anything to do with the topic.

See how easy that was to type? See how silly and useless this type of argument is? See how reducing comments to this level adds nothing to the discussion?

Has the politics of the US really devolved into nothing more than

"He did it!"
"Well she did it too!!"
"Well He did it first!!!"
"Well she did it worst!!!!"

Crikey! sometimes I feel like I am reading texts from school kids at recess.

:nope:

Wouldn't be more productive to discuss the platforms?

The RNC just published their 2016 platform and the DNC will be publishing theirs probably this weekend.

[Mr Quatro]

In the latest polls, Trump and Clinton are tied so the election is back to 50/50 chance either way.

I wonder if they are just making that up? Sounds like a way to get viewers interested in their debating who is leading who.

I don't trust polls or Amazon reviewers :D

[vienna]

I wonder if they are just making that up? Sounds like a way to get viewers interested in their debating who is leading who.

I don't trust polls or Amazon reviewers :D

The way the polls are presented is a bit disingenuous and, yes, are probaly little better than Amazon review. Take a recent NBC poll which showed Clinton and Trump as tied: that was the headline, "Clinton and Trump tied", as if there was a real battle. However, they were tied with voter responding to the poll favoring their candidate only making up 39% of the voter for each of the candidates. This made only 78% of the respondents making a choice. The real story was in the fact a whopping 22%, almost a quarter of the voters, with a 4% margin of error accounted for, not yet making a choice for the upcoming election. This is what I have been trying to point out since the beginning: there is too much of bloc of undecideds or independents to make the Election, at this point, a certainty for either candidate. Having so large a percentage as to reflect one in every four voters makes it imperative for the parties to wake up and make efforts to make their platforms and candidates appealing to the voters at large, and the independents, in particular, instead of just trying to preach to the choir. The very fact so many voters are as yet undecided reflects the frustration and dissatisfaction with either party's business as usual stances; it also reflects those voters are also think about the election with more care than the "party people" and the party that presents them with something more substantive than slogans or pandering will most likely be the winner. As a previous poster said, the platforms and their specifics are more important than anything else, especially more so than the political posturing and finger-pointing we have seen thus far in the campaigns...



<O>

[August]

Typical Republican tactic. No matter what is said about the Republican candidate, immediately deflect to "well the democratic candidate did it first/more/worse/ect". As if this has anything to do with the topic.

See how easy that was to type? See how silly and useless this type of argument is? See how reducing comments to this level adds nothing to the discussion?

Has the politics of the US really devolved into nothing more than

"He did it!"
"Well she did it too!!"
"Well He did it first!!!"
"Well she did it worst!!!!"

Crikey! sometimes I feel like I am reading texts from school kids at recess.

:nope:

Wouldn't be more productive to discuss the platforms?

The RNC just published their 2016 platform and the DNC will be publishing theirs probably this weekend.

I respect your opinions Platapus but frankly with the two major party candidates equally repugnant there is little else to talk about. As for the party platforms they only repeat what the parties have been spouting all along, any fine points or slight adjustments are meaningless, especially given these two particular candidates penchant for lying and cutting back room deals.

[AVGWarhawk]

Oh, the facts are truly there, but the one really big fact is there really was no way to get a conviction. Remember, the decision to not indict was not just Comey's or Lynch's alone; the case was reviewed by the Senior investigators and Prosecutors of the FBI and the Justice department and it was a unanimous decision to not indict by all the reviewers. As I pointed out in previous posts, the OIG report by State pretty much sealed the fate of any future prosecution with its findings; there was no way logically or legally a guilty verdict could have been reached if a trial was held; at best, it would be a hung jury situation. It is unconscionable to justify the time, expense, and effort to try a very much lost cause to the taxpayers for what, if pursued, would only be a political gesture to satisfy the agenda of the GOP. Now, if the GOP is willing to foot the bill, in place of the taxpayers, for the full cost of a prosecution, and eat the cost if there is a not guilty or hung jury, then I might be interested. Instead what this is is a sideshow of a sideshow, the flagellation of defunct equines. Even the GOP higher-ups have moved on; perhaps so should the rest of us...

I'm not arguing about Clinton or her lackings: there are plenty of others here to take up that slack. I do, however, see an even greater evil in putting someone in the oval office who has exhibited so great a lacking in even the most basic concepts of honesty, ethics, integrity, or common morality. This is, of course, my opinion, but it seems to be shared by an awful lot of other voters, by estimates, from one in five to one in four voters. As I pointed out, this does not bode well for either party, but even less well for the GOP. If the GOP loses, they have only themselves to blame. If my pointing out the flaws, and there are very many, in the GOP candidate happens to put speed bumps in the hard, fast sell for Trump, then so be it. If you don't like the condition of the road, make a better one...

For those who are pushing heavily for Trump, I have yet to hear one good, solid, logical, viable reason to vote for him from any one yet; and, voting for Trump just to keep Clinton out of the White House just doesn't cut it or meet the criteria I have. Trump is sleaze of the highest order, no better than Clinton; give me some really good, supportable reasons and even i may vote for him; but, so far, I ain't hearing any really good, convincing arguments in favor...



I don't give suggestions; vote for whoever you like, just as I will or won't on election day. I've already indicated what I feel are my options and I will exercise one of them on Election Day as I then see fit. You exercise yours as you see fit; it is your right. I intend to make my choice after I have all the facts, both good or bad, about the candidates or issues I will be asked to vote upon; I will not form my choices based on one or another party's 'voter's guides', the ranted recommendations of talk show hosts, the cheerleading of party operatives of any stripe, or a "my party, right or wrong!" sort of lemming-like mindlessness. My vote is, essentially, my opinion. I do not denigrate, dictate or try to manipulate the votes or opinions of others. They will do as they will as will I. The voting booth on election day is a bit like a coffin: there is only one of you in there and it is a final judgement...

Do I see a difference in the candidates? No, not really. That is why a couple of my options are a write-in or a null vote. Again, do as you please...



<O>

And this should and will bury her.

[AVGWarhawk]

Can't wait for the debates!!! WWF cage match!!!!