But some humans are more flawed than others.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Has it not yet been made clear that basically everything he blames someone else for doing is, in fact, what he's done? XD;
Trump's Mirror.*
* Sold separately and in the Trump's Shaving Kit set, which also includes: Trump's Razor, Christie's Reek's 100% Pure Backhair Shaving Brush, Giuliani's Extra-Frothy Rabid Foam, and a travel-sized bottle of Mдпдfoяt's Фwп Дll-Фпe 100 Pяoof "Дftэяshдvэ." Order now and receive a free Newty Newt's Moonbase Pie for your Halloween treat! Offer for these products not valid to any first or second wives.
If it helps, I'm pretty sure he won't be.
That aside, I've been reading the comments on that Newsweek article. Quite a lot of Trump's supporters are going "But Hillary's emails!", and completely ignoring the very serious charges in that article. It's... interesting.
Donna Brazile used her position as a CNN correspondent to leak primary debate questions to Clinton camp.I wonder how many people will click through to realize it was during the primary and no one will care.It's an interesting situation.
First off, Clinton should have sent an email back saying they in no way, no how, would accept that kind of aid and please don't send them that stuff.
Save the email and publish it (how's that for hidden emails) when the press jumps on it.
Secondly, the story is kind of weird. So, she was a CNN contributor, but when the entire DNC thing came down, she separated from CNN.
Now, both when she was at CNN and after, she didn't have access to those questions...
So...
How did she get them???
She was a vice-chair of the DNC while she was a CNN contributor. When she became chair, she stopped being a CNN contributor, but that was after these debates/questions.
I suspect this kind of thing happens more often than we think. There's a lot of crossover between media figures and political consultants and campaigns. CNN hired Corey Lewandowski when he left Trump's campaign but was still getting severance pay and was still under Trump's standard "Don't say anything bad about me" contract.
We're getting glimpses into the nastier parts of the Clinton campaign because Wikileaks is targeting her, but that doesn't mean the others are clean. Just they haven't been exposed.
This is probably ironic considering my thoughts on media bias and corruption in regards to Clinton...but
Sorry for the late response,
But as I said, She (meaning Donna Brazile) didn't have access to the questions in the first place.
Even CNN stated she didn't have access to the questions when she was with them...so...
How did she get them?
The thing I always find interesting about 2000 is that there is no debate that Gore got more votes than Bush, but both our electoral process and our judiciary ensured that the person who didn't get the most votes won. So...Democracy? :PAbsolutely.. you can throw in as many villains as you want and and find evidence for.
But no matter how many you throw in, that does not absolve Nader for his part, unless you can prove that his influence on the vote total was a significantly neutral one, and that's a hard sell.
Republic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pillbug, I don't get it.
Trump's Razor: Determine the stupidest possible scenario that can be reconciled with the available facts, and that answer is likely correct.
Christie's Reek's 100% Pure Backhair Shaving Brush: When Chris Christie first endorsed Trump at Trump's press conference, he literally looked like a broken man endorsing his abuser. Hence Reek, from ASoIaF
Giuliani's Extra-Frothy Rabid Foam: Watch Rudy Guiliani give a stump speech for Trump, and he's practically rabid when spouting angry lies about immigrants, dark-skinned Americans, and other perceived enemies
Mдпдfoяt's Фwп Дll-Фпe 100 Pяoof "Дftэяshдvэ": Evidence continues to mount that Paul Manafort has extensive connections to Russian underworld figures and known individuals "friendly" with Russian intelligence agencies.
I would have worked in a sixPence-none-the-richer dig if I could.
Republic.
Trump would make it a banana republic
Abraham Spalding, rather than trying to be accusatory of me, please listen. I am not aware of most of what you said. I just know what I saw in clips I have seen online, which is kind of equal to what you see on TV as they only show clips as well. I try to find entire things without commentary but I am having difficulty. I do oppose any actual wrongdoing by these people but I am talking about Clinton as it is happening right now and it is quite prevalent. I hope I used that word correctly. I don't think there is anything wrong with the congressperson Gowdy grilling her in the hearing, as that is his job. Ask the hard questions. point out every tiny inconsistency. That is a good thing to do here because the point is to get all the information and get every explanation, then see what matches the evidence and if anything contradicts. There is no room for playing nice in that situation. If her answers are consistent and matches the gathered evidence, including other testimonies, then what is the big deal? She should get no special treatment and should have to explain everything she is involved with as to the best of her ability. I hate question dodging and every time it is done, like in debates, I think there should be some kind of penalty as it just eats up time.
I don't officially agree or disagree with anything Gowdy does outside the hearings. I do agree with him grilling her because there are things that need to be investigated and resolved.
See here's my problem: you have claimed you saw something pointing to her doing criminal activities and that she needs to be held responsible and you knew this because you saw the hearings, and because of this the rest of us obviously needed to go watch the hearings because then we would know what you are talking about.
What you actually meant is you think maybe there is something there because you caught a few clips of the hearings and you haven't actually paid attention at all to what has been going on with the Benghazi hearings.
So basically while your end premise has some merit (that people should be treated the same before the law regardless of status) you look less than honest because in ignorance (I'm assuming) you are ignoring how she has not been treated the same and those "investigating" (a term I use very loosely for these hearings) the situation have actually committed the crime you think she may have committed.
In fact those in the professional know have stated repeatedly that at most this is an administrative situation to clean up due to carelessness and that no crime was actually committed.
But somehow with a few clips you saw you know better. That's stick in my craw more than a bit, because I have been paying attention from the beginning and everything you think you are actually bringing up is old crap that has already been cleared. You are fouling the air with recycled nonsense.
The thing with Hillary is setting precedent I guess so hopefully they are both punished for their actions.No, Colin Powell set the precedent when he was Secretary of State. She did not do anything that her predecessors hadn't already done.
Last I checked, Colin Powell NEVER PUT CLASSIFIED information on his private server.
Clinton did.
That was NOT a precedence Powell set...EVER, as far as I know.
That is solely on Clinton's ignorance.
Just to clarify, if putting classified information on a private server was a precedence that Powell set, Clinton could NOT CLAIM IGNORANCE nor INNOCENCE of intent...as she would have had the intent to do as he had done with precedence.
However...that was obviously NOT what came up. Therefore, as per the idea of intent, she never intentionally put classified on her emails (as per what she claims) in that light, which is where the issue of her innocence lies (if one believes that intent is required or even matters...this is the first time I've ever heard of someone getting off based on whether they intended to disclose classified or not in all honesty). I don't think Powell ever instructed her about classified information and this is how she utilized it on the private server. If she had done that with the intent that she was copying that idea...that would have been included in regards to her Intent.
Last I checked, the REASON it was stated that Clinton was not charged was because she did not have INTENT...which was what was necessary if they were going to charge her with infractions of placing classified on an uncleared server. It is her IGNORANCE of the fact or her claim of such that meant that she would not be charged.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tax experts who reviewed the newly obtained documents for The New York Times said Mr. Trump’s tax avoidance maneuver, conjured from ambiguous provisions of highly technical tax court rulings, clearly pushed the edge of the envelope of what tax laws permitted at the time. “Whatever loophole existed was not ‘exploited’ here, but stretched beyond any recognition,” said Steven M. Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center who helped draft tax legislation in the early 1990s.
Moreover, the tax experts said the maneuver trampled a core tenet of American tax policy by conferring enormous tax benefits on Mr. Trump for losing vast amounts of other people’s money — in this case, money investors and banks had entrusted to him to build a casino empire in Atlantic City.
Regardless of whether the I.R.S. objected, Mr. Trump’s tax avoidance in this case violated a central principle of American tax law, said Mr. Buckley, the former chief of staff for Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, who later served as chief tax counsel for Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee.
“He deducted somebody else’s losses,” Mr. Buckley said. By that, Mr. Buckley meant that only the bondholders who forgave Mr. Trump’s unpaid casino debts should have been allowed to use those losses to offset future income and reduce their taxes. That Mr. Trump used the same losses to reduce his taxes ultimately increases the tax burden on everyone else, Mr. Buckley explained. “He is double dipping big time.”
In any event, Mr. Trump can no longer benefit from the same maneuver. Just as Congress acted in 1993 to ban stock-for-debt swaps by corporations, it acted in 2004 to ban equity-for-debt swaps by partnerships.
Among the members of Congress who voted to finally close the loophole: Senator Hillary Clinton of New York.
All my flaws are due to WoD.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm done.
I don't think Powell ever instructed her about classified information and this is how she utilized it on the private server. If she had done that with the intent that she was copying that idea...that would have been included in regards to her Intent.
It's hard to tell what Powell instructed her on. He refuses to own up to giving her any instruction at all.
Yeah, I'm done.
Happy Halloween Pill! :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kobold Cleaver, I have been trying to find complete hearings on youtube but can only find clips. Can you help me out? I love watching that kind of stuff.
Sorry, I watched it live. If it's not on Youtube, it's probably been taken down.
On another note, while we're talking about how Hillary being investigated is as good as guilt: Donald Trump is actively being sued for sexually assaulting a thirteen-year old.
Who wants to tell me that Hillary is "just as bad"?
Kobold Cleaver, I have been trying to find complete hearings on youtube but can only find clips. Can you help me out? I love watching that kind of stuff.Sorry, I watched it live. If it's not on Youtube, it's probably been taken down.
On another note, while we're talking about how Hillary being investigated is as good as guilt: Donald Trump is actively being sued for sexually assaulting a thirteen-year old.
Who wants to tell me that Hillary is "just as bad"?
Anyone who wants to try the arcane thing called reading here's a full transcript of one of the Benghazi hearings. There's some video there as well.
"Arcane"? You old people never read anymore! You just listen to your precious "telly-phones" and your dagnabbed "books on tape".
Waiting for Comey to break the double standard and talk about the Trump investigation.
I really enjoyed this particular moment from Representative Cummings. Pretty sure there's a transcription error, though—see if you can spot it.
Madam secretary, I want to associate myself with the voice of my colleague, but I want to go back to the ARB. In my 20 years on the Oversight Committee, one of the things that I've tried to do, is try to make sure that I protect the reputations of the people who come before our Committee. Be they Republican witnesses, be they Democrat or independent.
The reason being, that I realize there is life after the hearing. And so often, Madam Secretary, what happens is people come before these hearings, the families watching, colleagues watching. They are torn apart, and then in many instances we -- things are corrected later on instead of it appearing on the front page of the newspaper, it's on page 33 at the bottom in a little paragraph.
And you were talking a little bit earlier about the night of the tragedy. And I've done a lot of depositions in my life as a lawyer, but I can tell you -- and I think you should be very proud of this. When I listened to Cheryl Mills (ph), to Mr. Sullivan (ph), and Ms. Abedine (ph) -- when they talked about this night and what you did that night in their transcribed interviews, all of them were basically bored to tears.
And I -- I remember sitting there saying to myself, you know, if you can create a culture in an organization where people, in talking about their boss, and how she reacted, and what she felt that would bring them to tears, it -- it -- it says a lot. And I realize that you've gone through a lot, but the fact still remains -- and it bothers me when I hear people even imply that you didn't care about your people. That's not right.
And then I sit here and I watch you. And I saw how you kind of struggled when you were talking about that night. And I just for one want to thank you, and I appreciate what you've done. It has not been easy. You're right, it's easy to sit up here under these lights, and Monday morning quarter backing about what could have been, what should have been.
You have laid it out. I think -- you've said -- this has not been done perfectly. You wish you could do it another way, and then the statement you made a few minutes ago when you said, you know, I have given more thought to this than all of you combined. So I don't know what we want from you. Do we want to badger you over and over again until you get tired, until we do get the gotcha moment he's talking about?
We're better than that. We are so much better. We are a better country. And we are better than using taxpayer dollars to try to destroy a campaign. That's not what America is all about.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Republic.Trump would make it a banana republic
Bannana republics produce bananas. I don't think trump knows how to be that productive
Waiting for Comey to break the double standard and talk about the Trump investigation.
Holding your breath much? Why would you expect Comey to break the double standard when NO ONE ELSE is going to do so?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It won't be a banana republic, of course. It would be an orange republic.
It won't be a banana republic, of course. It would be an orange republic.
XD DUH DUH TSS
|
Waiting for Comey to break the double standard and talk about the Trump investigation.
News out today that Comey resisted naming Russia as the source of the DNC hacks... because he didn't want to potentially influence the election. So, double standard alive and well.
DNS server logs show that a Trump Organization server only communicates with a server at a Russian bank. It's the kind of server set up you'd create to hide your communications. When a reporter contacted the bank for comment, the Trump server (they hadn't been contacted for comment) disappeared.
Huh. Interesting. o wo I hope this one works its way into the main talking points.
Or how many people will blow over the fact that I put "primary" in my link description and not care...Donna Brazile used her position as a CNN correspondent to leak primary debate questions to Clinton camp.I wonder how many people will click through to realize it was during the primary and no one will care.
Honestly, in the context, I interpreted "primary" to be main when reading your post and forgot about it by the time I responded.
I'm sorry. I shouldn't say any more. The belief that both the candidates are terrible people prevails in our culture, and I feel nothing can be done to sway those who believe this.
It is terrifying
Just do what I do. Watch cringe videos for hours on end until you're numb to the depths of stupidity to which humanity is capable of stooping.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
More details about how Trump avoided paying taxes
I've hung around the rules forum enough to know that I can't stand such blatant abuse of RAW for personal gain. Especially when the tax RAI is so evident.
Amusingly, the specific tax loophole Trump used to avoid owing income tax on forgiven debt was closed in 2004. Senator Clinton voted to close it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing with Hillary is setting precedent I guess so hopefully they are both punished for their actions.No, Colin Powell set the precedent when he was Secretary of State. She did not do anything that her predecessors hadn't already done.Last I checked, Colin Powell NEVER PUT CLASSIFIED information on his private server.
Clinton did.
That was NOT a precedence Powell set...EVER, as far as I know.
That is solely on Clinton's ignorance.
Just to clarify, if putting classified information on a private server was a precedence that Powell set, Clinton could NOT CLAIM IGNORANCE nor INNOCENCE of intent...as she would have had the intent to do as he had done with precedence.
However...that was obviously NOT what came up. Therefore, as per the idea of intent, she never intentionally put classified on her emails (as per what she claims) in that light, which is where the issue of her innocence lies (if one believes that intent is required or even matters...this is the first time I've ever heard of someone getting off based on whether they intended to disclose classified or not in all honesty). I don't think Powell ever instructed her about classified information and this is how she utilized it on the private server. If she had done that with the intent that she was copying that idea...that would have been included in regards to her Intent.
Last I checked, the REASON it was stated that Clinton was not charged was because she did not have INTENT...which was what was necessary if they were going to charge her with infractions of placing classified on an uncleared server. It is her IGNORANCE of the fact or her claim of such that meant that she would not be charged.
We have no idea if Powell had classified emails because they were never combed in excruciating detail by a 3rd party. It took experts ridiculous man hours to search through Hillary's emails, and in the end all they found a handful of things inappropriately classified before getting to her and some things that were later classified after the fact. In fact, in the FBI director's testimony, he admits that, because of the way things sent to her were labeled, an expert on the classification system would have no reason to believe any of the emails were classified without additional knowledge of the specific programs being discussed. Combine that with a formal disagreement between the State Department and FBI about what level of detail constitutes classified information (Drone program FBI says all emails are classified and State Department says general plan emails are not, IIRC), which accounts for many of the after the fact reclassifications, and there would be no case.
Not only can you not make the case that she knowingly intended to remove classified information, you can't even make the case that she knew she had removed classified information in the first place. That's not even including the perfectly valid arguments she can make about not understanding the technology well enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why HRC gets so much more hate than him... well, if Obama's Presidency re-exposed this country's long-festering racism, HRC's candidacy (and hopefully her Presidency) is slowly peeling back the filthy bandage on the country's deep sexism. The country isn't going to do much of anything about either problem, but it's darn sure gonna complain about the worst of all sins: being called sexist (and racist).
Sexism is absolutely a huge part of the hate for Secretary Clinton.
It's not all of it, any more than all of the hate for President Obama is racism. But it's certainly part of it, and it's most of it from a percentage of her opposition, like it's most of it from a percentage of his.
Besides the fact that she's a woman daring to intrude on the realm of men, one of HRC's major shortcomings is that she's a known commodity in the world of politics. Trump is a known commodity in the world of reality television, but not politically, which is part of his appeal for those who hate politicians (and politics in general): better a misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, thin-skinned narcissist who doesn't know what he's doing than someone who's been in politics all her adult life.
This just in: Hillary puts on her pants....ONE LEG AT A TIME! *gasp*
I hereby predict the collapse of her campaign, followed by her (glorious) incarceration (we get only the best incarcerations, folks).
Any day now...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry to bring it up again but the field organizer in me can't help himself: it's not too late to do some phone banking! We're in the last seven days, could make a big difference in Ohio or Florida.
Also I found THIS and THIS which I'd been looking for for about the last half hour. I love a good kvetch as much as the next person but this thread is just talking itself in circles.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're in the last seven days...
Best news I've heard all week.
|
|
Got my sample ballot today. Pleased to see Democrats running for every position (right down to Borough Council)... not usually the case though getting more common.
Two state ballot questions - Should we allow casinos in two more counties (don't really care, but leaning no) and should we dedicate 100% of the existing gas tax to transportation rather than allowing some of it to be used for other purposes (yes).
Lefty 3rd parties: Green, American Delta, Workers World, Socialism And Liberation, Socialist Workers
Righty 3rd parties: Libertarian, Constitution, Conservative
Best candidate name: Rocky Roque DeLa Fuente
Should we allow casinos in two more counties
Why not?
should we dedicate 100% of the existing gas tax to transportation
Probably.
Should we allow casinos in two more countiesWhy not?
I can't comment on CBD's specific circumstances but there are a few things I can think of.
I can see a case for it either way. On the one hand, it is a blue law where a lot of the motivation for creating it has gone away.
On the other hand, removing it opens up the existing monopolies to competition and may very well sink them, as is happening in to Atlantic City. Since they tend to support the local economies, there is a vested interest in making sure not only that existing casinos remain healthy but that the tourism industry around those casinos stays strong. Expanding casinos really hurts that tourism industry as there is no longer a need to travel to do it.
Back to the case for expansion, neighboring states are likely looking at expansion and you don't want to be the one left out. You want to be importing tourists, not exporting them.
One Tuesday down, only 6 more days left. God help us.
*thinks in 2020 it will be 80 degrees Fahrenheit on November 8th*