Trump runs for POTUS/ Trumped Up! Part VII

acbytesla said:
It's usually not done in any circumstance, let alone when elections are involved. As the allusion of wrongdoing is damaging and is never completely undone even with a full exoneration. What's bizarre about Comey's letter to Congress is that he suggests that we shouldn't jump to conclusions about the new information.

And what does everyone do? EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS NOT TO DO. He basically was appeasing Republican leaders but doing it in such a way he could claim innocence. Hey everybody, Hillary didn't do anything illegal that justifies charges but that doesn't mean I think she should be President so I'll just innocently remind voters that we're not done. Not that we have found anything more incriminating than all the crap we've already looked through.

This is the second time he jumped into this election. He did it also when he criticized Clinton. This is not his job as a law enforcement officer.
Click to expand...

I'll admit that I don't know whether the FBI normally would make such an announcement, so let me give a tentative opinion.

If normally the FBI would make such an announcement, then they shouldn't postpone it for the sake of the election. If normally they wouldn't make such an announcement, then they shouldn't have done so this time.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Simply that they are announced will hurt her. The fact they nominated someone with such a self inflicted vulnerability is a problem.
Click to expand...

I suspect reporters are tripping on their own - can I say the word dicks? - on this story.

Also, I can't tell who "they" is supposed to be in your post.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Simply that they are announced will hurt her. The fact they nominated someone with such a self inflicted vulnerability is a problem.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that. This may be why we'll never see a SecState ever run in the future.

The bizarre part of all this is that Hillary probably understood the dangers of having every communication available for people to read and spin for their own political purposes and calculated that she could avoid that by having a private email server and still the world is reading everyone. Can you imagine if other elected leaders like Congressmen and Senators had to face similar scrutiny?
 
So are the only really good hackers Russian? I want to see Trump's tax return leaked. But no matter what that did to Donald, it would also make the Democrats look bad because it would show that the government can't keep information secure.
 
acbytesla said:
I agree with all of that. This may be why we'll never see a SecState ever run in the future.

The bizarre part of all this is that Hillary probably understood the dangers of having every communication available for people to read and spin for their own political purposes and calculated that she could avoid that by having a private email server and still the world is reading everyone. Can you imagine if other elected leaders like Congressmen and Senators had to face similar scrutiny?
Click to expand...

Americans are stupid. They want input transparency when only output transparency works.
 
BobTheCoward said:
First emails. Second Democrats.
Click to expand...

Well, the 2nd "they" applies equally to Republicans.

I'm not really sure the magnitude of Hillary's errors in judgment. Conservative talk radio hosts think it's horrible, obviously. I've heard others say that other government figures have had similar issues with intermingling personal/public devices. I don't really care. I'm a devil-you-know advocate. Not that I'm saying Hillary literally is the devil.

Wait, this is the Trump thread. Or has it morphed into Hillarump? Trumpary? Donhill?
 
Minoosh said:
Well, the 2nd "they" applies equally to Republicans.

I'm not really sure the magnitude of Hillary's errors in judgment. Conservative talk radio hosts think it's horrible, obviously. I've heard others say that other government figures have had similar issues with intermingling personal/public devices. I don't really care. I'm a devil-you-know advocate. Not that I'm saying Hillary literally is the devil.

Wait, this is the Trump thread. Or has it morphed into Hillarump? Trumpary? Donhill?
Click to expand...

Absolutely the same for Republicans. That is why, by some miracle, libertarians hit all the good pre-campaign check boxes: governor, successful boot strap businessman, ethical, etc.
 
phiwum said:
I'll admit that I don't know whether the FBI normally would make such an announcement, so let me give a tentative opinion.

If normally the FBI would make such an announcement, then they shouldn't postpone it for the sake of the election. If normally they wouldn't make such an announcement, then they shouldn't have done so this time.
Click to expand...

They dont. If you get a chance, watch the Paul Newman movie, Absence of Malice. It's about a rogue FBI lawyer wrongfully leaking that Paul Newman's character is a target of investigation by an organized crime task force and the ramifications of the media attention. Basically the issues we're discussing.

But here's the thing about Comey's letter. If I undersand correctly, Comey didn't make the letter public, the Republican controlled Congress did. As the head of the FBI, Comey can just claim that he's just keeping them informed.

It's all just political.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Americans are stupid. They want input transparency when only output transparency works.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what that means.

PS
While I don't believe in American exceptionalism in terms of excellence, I also don't believe in it in terms of stupidity.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Absolutely the same for Republicans. That is why, by some miracle, libertarians hit all the good pre-campaign check boxes: governor, successful boot strap businessman, ethical, etc.
Click to expand...

But ... "What's Aleppo?" Really?
 
Minoosh said:
So are the only really good hackers Russian? I want to see Trump's tax return leaked. But no matter what that did to Donald, it would also make the Democrats look bad because it would show that the government can't keep information secure.
Click to expand...


Well if this CNN story is accurate, the method used is far from hi-tech. Just a basic phishing email where someone fell for it and clicked a link that did not go where it was advertised to go.
 
phiwum said:
If normally the FBI would make such an announcement, then they shouldn't postpone it for the sake of the election. If normally they wouldn't make such an announcement, then they shouldn't have done so this time.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure the FBI actually announced it. An LA Times story said the letter "emerged."

This is so freakin' tedious. As I said in that other thread, this is manufactured news. (Which does not speak to its value.) News organizations are very sensitive to search-engine optimization. They would be derelict not to get the words "Hillary email server FBI" into the current crop of stories.
 
Minoosh said:
I'm not sure the FBI actually announced it. An LA Times story said the letter "emerged."

This is so freakin' tedious. As I said in that other thread, this is manufactured news. (Which does not speak to its value.) News organizations are very sensitive to search-engine optimization. They would be derelict not to get the words "Hillary email server FBI" into the current crop of stories.
Click to expand...

Yea, Comey sent it to Congress, which basically means the world. It's not classified. It probably gets distributed to all 535 members of which more than half have solid reasons tI forward it to every reporter they know.
 
acbytesla said:
....
Can you imagine if other elected leaders like Congressmen and Senators had to face similar scrutiny?
Click to expand...

That's the "everybody does it" defense. But there really is no evidence that everybody does do it. Clinton's position is unique in that she helps run a multi-billion-dollar family foundation and was soliciting contributions for it from the same international sources that she dealt with officially as SecState, and at the same time that her former president hubby was soliciting tens of millions of dollars in payments for personal services. At times, her closest advisors at State were also on the foundation payroll. The lines between her official business, foundation business, hubby's personal business and her personal business are vague and gray -- when they can be discerned at all.

Clinton is better than Trump. Clinton will always be better than Trump. But that doesn't mean that her conduct has been above reproach, or that legitimate questions can't be raised.
 
Bob001 said:
That's the "everybody does it" defense. But there really is no evidence that everybody does do it. Clinton's position is unique in that she helps run a multi-billion-dollar family foundation and was soliciting contributions for it from the same international sources that she dealt with officially as SecState, and at the same time that her former president hubby was soliciting tens of millions of dollars in payments for personal services. At times, her closest advisors at State were also on the foundation payroll. The lines between her official business, foundation business, hubby's personal business and her personal business are vague and gray -- when they can be discerned at all.

Clinton is better than Trump. Clinton will always be better than Trump. But that doesn't mean that her conduct has been above reproach, or that legitimate questions can't be raised.
Click to expand...

He was not making a populist tu quoque argument... "everybody does it". He was expressing the same sentiments I've expressed. Congress is immune to FOIA requests. How would Gowdy's emails and appointment log look over the past 18 months? We'll never know, I guess. But you're generally a political realist. Don't you think there are probably a few (thousand) emails from the RNC to various Congressional leaders talking about how and what to do to make the DNC, POTUS and Nominee-in-Waiting look bad? I'd also love to see ALL Congress/Senate communications with their financiers and with lobbyists.... ALL. Both parties.
 
Bob001 said:
That's the "everybody does it" defense. But there really is no evidence that everybody does do it. Clinton's position is unique in that she helps run a multi-billion-dollar family foundation and was soliciting contributions for it from the same international sources that she dealt with officially as SecState, and at the same time that her former president hubby was soliciting tens of millions of dollars in payments for personal services. At times, her closest advisors at State were also on the foundation payroll. The lines between her official business, foundation business, hubby's personal business and her personal business are vague and gray -- when they can be discerned at all.

Clinton is better than Trump. Clinton will always be better than Trump. But that doesn't mean that her conduct has been above reproach, or that legitimate questions can't be raised.
Click to expand...

Do what? What exactly has Hillary done? What I have learned about Hillary from all these emails is that she is calculating and presents different faces to different constituencies and she knows it. Show me a politician or a successful business person who doesn't.

Her husband is a private citizen and not a public servant and there isn't a god damn thing wrong with him raising money for charity AND HIMSELF! You can't show a single Quid Pro Quo from Secretary Clinton.. And so what that some of her advisors were also interested in charity. What the hell is wrong with that?
 
acbytesla said:
Do what? What exactly has Hillary done? What I have learned about Hillary from all these emails is that she is calculating and presents different faces to different constituencies and she knows it. Show me a politician or a successful business person who doesn't.

Her husband is a private citizen and not a public servant and there isn't a god damn thing wrong with him raising money for charity AND HIMSELF! You can't show a single Quid Pro Quo from Secretary Clinton.. And so what that some of her advisors were also interested in charity. What the hell is wrong with that?
Click to expand...

This ^ :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Trump is right about one thing: "the polls are rigged".

A Des Moines woman has been charged with Election Misconduct, a Class D felony, after allegedly voting twice for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. Terri Rote says she was afraid her first ballot for Trump would be changed to a vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

"I wasn't planning on doing it twice, it was spur of the moment," says Rote. "The polls are rigged."

http://iowapublicradio.org/post/des...twice-trump-because-polls-are-rigged#stream/0
Click to expand...
 
Minoosh said:
So are the only really good hackers Russian? I want to see Trump's tax return leaked. But no matter what that did to Donald, it would also make the Democrats look bad because it would show that the government can't keep information secure.
Click to expand...
I'm sure it isn't only stored on government hardware, there will be copies on Trump's own hardware and we know the security is crap on a lot of that. Seems strange that the hackers haven't hacked Trump's systems doesn't it...
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Unless you've seen them all, that assuredly assumes a fact not in evidence.

As an aside, they do not have to be from or to Hillary, or even from her server, to have probative value.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why the discovery of new emails might prompt you to abstain.

Here's what I think I know: the FBI discovered emails on a laptop used by Huma, and these emails may have something to do with the previous investigation. Hence, it is reasonable to think that this includes emails to and from Hillary.

That's it. There are some more emails. There might be something damning in there, but we don't know that there is.

So, why consider abstaining instead of voting for Hillary on the basis that there are more emails?
 
Bob001 said:
That's the "everybody does it" defense. But there really is no evidence that everybody does do it. Clinton's position is unique in that she helps run a multi-billion-dollar family foundation and was soliciting contributions for it from the same international sources that she dealt with officially as SecState, and at the same time that her former president hubby was soliciting tens of millions of dollars in payments for personal services. At times, her closest advisors at State were also on the foundation payroll. The lines between her official business, foundation business, hubby's personal business and her personal business are vague and gray -- when they can be discerned at all.

Clinton is better than Trump. Clinton will always be better than Trump. But that doesn't mean that her conduct has been above reproach, or that legitimate questions can't be raised.
Click to expand...

But there is also no evidence lines were crossed, correct?
 
BobTheCoward said:
And he still managed to reach the best Syrian policy (don't kill syroansz. Don't stop them from immigrating).

I think that makes him the smartest candidate.
Click to expand...


Don't be stupid. That he aligns with you on a single issue does not make him "the smartest candidate". He has serious gaps in his knowledge of current world events and U.S. history.

That he's completely ignorant of Aleppo would mean that he has failed to incorporate potentially useful information into his "Syrian policy". Your simplified explanation of that policy is almost uselessly generic.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Don't be stupid. That he aligns with you on a single issue does not make him "the smartest candidate". He has serious gaps in his knowledge of current world events and U.S. history.

That he's completely ignorant of Aleppo would mean that he has failed to incorporate potentially useful information into his "Syrian policy". Your simplified explanation of that policy is almost uselessly generic.
Click to expand...

We don't just align on a single issue. We align on nearly issue.

The policy is simple....take no action.
 
Firestone said:
Trump is right about one thing: "the polls are rigged".

I wasn't planning on doing it twice, it was spur of the moment,"​
Click to expand...

She cast her ballot at one early-voting location and then at a later time, drove to another early voting location to cast a second ballot. How is that spur of the moment?
 
Ladewig said:
She cast her ballot at one early-voting location and then at a later time, drove to another early voting location to cast a second ballot. How is that spur of the moment?
Click to expand...

"Spur of the moment" is gulty-ese for "I guess I didn't think that through."
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Unless you've seen them all, that assuredly assumes a fact not in evidence.

As an aside, they do not have to be from or to Hillary, or even from her server, to have probative value.
Click to expand...

But it also doesn't mean it's not benign or exculpatory. All it is is new data. Comey himself warned about reading something into it. That it gives you pause or makes you hesitant now to vote for her means that you are.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
...But that doesn't mean that [Clinton's] conduct has been above reproach, or that legitimate questions can't be raised.
Click to expand...

Agree, and if that was all we were seeing very few people would have a problem with it. But that's not what we're seeing. We're seeing a witch hunt, we're seeing people who are determined to get her anyway they can, and if they can't find something solid they'll manufacture something and pretend it's solid. The hell with the country, the hell with the rest of us. It's all about them and what they think, what they want. The best interests of the U.S.A and the American people are a distant second. Example: yesterday GOP Chairman Reince Priebus called on Hillary Clinton to withdraw from the race. Priebus says if what the FBI has found is so damaging -- despite the Director's clear statement they haven't even looked at the emails yet -- they had to make an announcement eleven days before the election then Clinton is clearly not qualified to be president.

We know what Trump is saying. Never seen this level of criminal conduct before. She must go to prison.

It becomes depressing. :(
 
Ladewig said:
She cast her ballot at one early-voting location and then at a later time, drove to another early voting location to cast a second ballot. How is that spur of the moment?
Click to expand...

And if she believed that one of her ballots might be changed for Hillary, why would she think that the other one wouldn't also be changed? Maybe the other polling place was in a "good" neighborhood.

Steve S
 
Never seen this level of criminal conduct before.

And his buddy Putin has had political opponents thrown in prison on bogus charges, has had people murdered -- Senator McCain said he "knew some of them" -- but that's not the "same level of criminal conduct" he sees in Hillary Clinton. The same Hillary Clinton that Trump said in 2008 would make "a great president."

To people around the world it looks like Americans are losing their collective minds. Very sad.
 
All talk of damning emails that nobody knows what the contents are, but whatever they are it's super evil, reminds me of another politician, one who said he had in his hand a list of State Department employees who were communists (shock gasp reaction). Of course he actually didn't, he was holding a blank sheet of paper, but enough people fell for it that it caused a lot of fuss and enormous damage to the entire country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom