yes, Comey mentioned them weeks ago and the FBI went through them and found nothing nefarious to charge her with...
How can you in good conscience
- Thread starter TemplarKormac
- Start date
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #42
Um, he acknowledged that she violated statute. Then he turned around and gave a sham of an excuse as to why "no reasonable prosecutor" would file charges. You see and hear only what you want.
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
Simple solution. Don't vote for either of them.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #44
Don't tempt me.
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
The email thing is the lamest reason to disqualify Clinton. Obviously she learned a lot about how NOT to communicate via the internet. Water under the bridge. There are plenty of real actual issues Clinton claims to be for and against that are troubling. All this whining about emails is a waste of time and MOST Americans don't give a shit. The way some of these RWers desperately cling to stupid issues makes Trump look even worse. If these people could articulate intelligent vetting I would listen.. They don't...it's always the same old tired stupid shit. I am simply not attracted to a candidate with such a low information core of supporters.
candycorn
Diamond Member
Was it criminal?
Trump did this:
Hillary did not.
There was never a reason to consider him after that.
Thanks for playing.
Don't care. It was cruel and intentional. Far below my standards.
Mac1958
Diamond Member
This really isn't all that complicated.
From the aspect of personality flaws, both "major" candidates are relatively repulsive, so that's essentially a wash.
So that essentially leaves us on the issues, what they would actually do, how they would actually react, while in office.
I agree with Clinton on more issues than with Trump.. Or, perhaps more accurately, I disagree with Clinton on fewer issues than with Trump.
So there ya go. For some reason, Trump's fans appear able to see only Hillary's flaws, not his.
.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #48
Well, he didn't have to go far to set the bar. Lol.Was it criminal?
Trump did this:
Hillary did not.
There was never a reason to consider him after that.
Thanks for playing.
Don't care. It was cruel and intentional. Far below my standards.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
The short answer I have to your thread question is that the nature of Trump's failings -- both those you included in your OP and the ones you did not -- are unacceptable to me, not only because they are ethically/morally reprehensible, but also because in several instances they manifest themselves such that their sole purpose is for his personal financial gain.
That personal financial gain is the impetus for a lot of what he's done that strikes me as ethically turpitudinous is critical. Why? Because Trump is on record as being all about winning and he's on record as stating that money is the scorecard by which one measures who won. So, along with being on record as having said those things, he's also made it clear he'll say pretty much anything if he thinks it's what folks want to hear, and given the nature of some of the things you've you cited below, it's clear the man lacks an ethical/moral compass and he lacks true integrity even though he sounds "real." Therein is the problem; he's too real, as in Ryan Lochte "it's all about me, so if X keeps me "looking good" in folks' mind, it's okay" real.
In contrast, I look at what I find "shady" about Mrs. Clinton's actions/remarks and I see some of the same flaws, but they are less severe in nature. For one thing, I don't know of her acting in a shady way for her own personal financial gain. The Clintons didn't receive money because Mrs. Clinton was SecState. Maybe The Clinton Foundation did, but the financial beneficiaries of the foundation are not the Clintons, their friends, or other people in their economic class. Compare that with Trump's having already used his campaign to direct purchases toward himself and toward his friends.
Let's try to be clear on on just what is and is not "new" about these 14.9K emails:
.
While I'm not 100% sure about your tabulation and classification, I'm not 100% of mine either. The one thing I'm not uncertain about, based on what I saw on the news and discussion yesterday is that the 15K emails the FBI just turned over to State were among the emails the FBI reviewed during its investigation.
As much as I'd like to have a clear, complete and accurate accounting of just how many emails there were, from where the respective batches came/were found, and so on, at this point, FBI have determined that Mrs. Clinton didn't break any laws and that makes it moot point in my mind. I trust the FBI and it's judgement. I have absolutely zero credible basis for asserting or even believing that it and its Director didn't know what they were doing. Nor do I have any basis for thinking that Dir. Comey was particularly generous to Mrs. Clinton for during his hearing and statement the day before, he was not.
Yes, it's embarrassing for the Clinton campaign to have "email this" and "email that" come up, but that's it. It's just embarrassing. The one thing it isn't is a behavior that can or will be repeated if Mrs. Clinton becomes President.
(see last paragraph above.) I can't find anything from the FBI indicating she deleted 45K emails. What I can find that is credible (rather than a slated editorial) is what I've noted above. The quantity of deleted and recovered work-related emails is 14.9K, AFAIK, not 45K.
It means that there's a time and a place for everything and the time for her to be in that place, making a photo opportunity out of the misfortune of flood victims, was not right in the midst of first responders getting their job done. You see Mrs. Clinton, unlike her rival and many other casual thinkers and opportunists, knows what kind of logistical headache a current or former President, First Lady or presidential candidate causes in situations like that.
Every single person here knows what's that like too, albeit on a smaller scale. Think about a time when you had something you needed to get done and a VIP figure of some sort, a person whose presence simply could not be ignored by you or by the other folks around you, showed up or summoned you. Surely you've been in a situation when that happened, whether the "VIP" was:
You know the temporal importance of which I write, for now we're seeing more reports of bodies being found than we are of victims being rescued. Remember, people on average can survive without potable water for about three days, and without food for about five days. Being stuck in the water for protracted periods, even 70 or 80 degree water, can cause hypothermia and death.
I'm not sure why you think this is a concern. Are you not among the crowd that says "Obama = Clinton; Clinton = Obama?"
Blue:
Trump did not attack the ethnicity of a sitting judge. He asserted that the judge was incapable of doing his job -- part of which, as for every judge, is ignoring his personal feelings and focusing only on the legal merits of the arguments presented before him -- merely because he is of Mexican ancestry.
We call that remark a racist one because asserting or believing that one's race/ethnicity alone is a reason why someone is less fit for performing a given task is the very definition of racism, not the definition of discrimination, but the definition of racism. We also call one who sincerely makes such remarks a racist.
So you ask "How in good conscience can [we] vote for Hillary Clinton?". Well, I'll give you two answers that pertain to one's doing so instead of voting for Donald Trump.
The first answer is quite simple:
Trump also inaccurately called the man a Mexican when he is not at all a Mexican.
For me, even if I had no other reason, merely being a part of "whatever" it be that contributes to preventing a racist from ever again occupying the White House, that is enough for me to vote against Trump.
Red:
If the ruling to hear the case is what you think constitutes ruling against Trump, fine, but don't you dare let me find you have posted a thing advocating for the rights of "the little guy," so to speak. I will call you a hypocrite in an instant.
Have you really so much "Taylor Coleridge" in you that you actually think the Judge as having ruled against Trump by setting the trial date for after the general election, which is what Trump's attorney requested, rather than before it, you need to read something other than the "Gospel According Trump." The plaintiffs asked for a July trial date.
Additionally:
"Unflattering" is how you see them? "You look fat in that dress" is unflattering. In response to a woman asking, "Does my ass look big in these jeans?", "Uh....no, not really," is unflattering. What Trump said was way beyond unflattering.
Really? You truly don't see anything intemperate and dangerous about a would-be President even jokingly inciting people to acts of violence, namely assault? That Trump's remarks carry the most weight among males makes the issue all the more dangerous. (Race Matters: Study Claims White Men Are More Likely To Commit Mass Murders Than Blacks Or Any Other Racial Group)
??? What sort of man attacks a woman? Moreover, what kind of man attacks a quiescent woman? 'Nough said, I think.
That personal financial gain is the impetus for a lot of what he's done that strikes me as ethically turpitudinous is critical. Why? Because Trump is on record as being all about winning and he's on record as stating that money is the scorecard by which one measures who won. So, along with being on record as having said those things, he's also made it clear he'll say pretty much anything if he thinks it's what folks want to hear, and given the nature of some of the things you've you cited below, it's clear the man lacks an ethical/moral compass and he lacks true integrity even though he sounds "real." Therein is the problem; he's too real, as in Ryan Lochte "it's all about me, so if X keeps me "looking good" in folks' mind, it's okay" real.
In contrast, I look at what I find "shady" about Mrs. Clinton's actions/remarks and I see some of the same flaws, but they are less severe in nature. For one thing, I don't know of her acting in a shady way for her own personal financial gain. The Clintons didn't receive money because Mrs. Clinton was SecState. Maybe The Clinton Foundation did, but the financial beneficiaries of the foundation are not the Clintons, their friends, or other people in their economic class. Compare that with Trump's having already used his campaign to direct purchases toward himself and toward his friends.
Let's try to be clear on on just what is and is not "new" about these 14.9K emails:
- Clinton turns over 55K emails to state which in turn passes them to the FBI
- FBI investigates and finds thousands more mails via fragments and content in the slack space on the server. The quantity was originally identified as 30K emails including those that Mrs. Clinton's attorney's deemed personal in content. The subset of that 30K that were by the FBI found to be work-related were unspecified at the Comey Congressional Hearing, but it is now known the quantity is 14.9K.
- FBI reviews all emails -- the 30K found by FBI ones and the 55K turned over by HRC ones.
- FBI returns the initial batch of 55K emails to State.
- State reviews them and releases some 30K of them pursuant to FIOA requests.
- 22-August-2016: FBI discloses that that the quantity of work-related emails recovered from slack space and fragments is ~15K. That the quantity the FBI recovered through its own forensic techniques is 14.9K is a piece of new information.
- Judge orders that the 14.9K emails that the FBI pieced together/recovered from fragments and slack space must also be reviewed and released between now and October.
- FBI returns to State the 14.9K emails it pieced together from slack space and fragments, emails that it reviewed as part of its investigation.
.
While I'm not 100% sure about your tabulation and classification, I'm not 100% of mine either. The one thing I'm not uncertain about, based on what I saw on the news and discussion yesterday is that the 15K emails the FBI just turned over to State were among the emails the FBI reviewed during its investigation.
As much as I'd like to have a clear, complete and accurate accounting of just how many emails there were, from where the respective batches came/were found, and so on, at this point, FBI have determined that Mrs. Clinton didn't break any laws and that makes it moot point in my mind. I trust the FBI and it's judgement. I have absolutely zero credible basis for asserting or even believing that it and its Director didn't know what they were doing. Nor do I have any basis for thinking that Dir. Comey was particularly generous to Mrs. Clinton for during his hearing and statement the day before, he was not.
Yes, it's embarrassing for the Clinton campaign to have "email this" and "email that" come up, but that's it. It's just embarrassing. The one thing it isn't is a behavior that can or will be repeated if Mrs. Clinton becomes President.
(see last paragraph above.) I can't find anything from the FBI indicating she deleted 45K emails. What I can find that is credible (rather than a slated editorial) is what I've noted above. The quantity of deleted and recovered work-related emails is 14.9K, AFAIK, not 45K.
It means that there's a time and a place for everything and the time for her to be in that place, making a photo opportunity out of the misfortune of flood victims, was not right in the midst of first responders getting their job done. You see Mrs. Clinton, unlike her rival and many other casual thinkers and opportunists, knows what kind of logistical headache a current or former President, First Lady or presidential candidate causes in situations like that.
Every single person here knows what's that like too, albeit on a smaller scale. Think about a time when you had something you needed to get done and a VIP figure of some sort, a person whose presence simply could not be ignored by you or by the other folks around you, showed up or summoned you. Surely you've been in a situation when that happened, whether the "VIP" was:
- a parent who insisted you clean your room,
- a summons to appear for jury duty when you are bearing down on an important deadline,
- a boss who called you to their office or toured your facility,
- a government official who was driving through and streets were blocked to allow them to pass and you had to just sit there in traffic until they finally went by,
- a flight you were taking to get to a meeting and a passenger has a medical emergency causing the plane to divert and land at the nearest airport.
You know the temporal importance of which I write, for now we're seeing more reports of bodies being found than we are of victims being rescued. Remember, people on average can survive without potable water for about three days, and without food for about five days. Being stuck in the water for protracted periods, even 70 or 80 degree water, can cause hypothermia and death.
I'm not sure why you think this is a concern. Are you not among the crowd that says "Obama = Clinton; Clinton = Obama?"
- What exactly is there to discover from a press conference?
- What do you want to know that hasn't been asked of Mrs. Clinton over the past 30 years, 30 months, or 30 days?
- What are you looking for her to say that she's not discussed before?
Blue:
Trump did not attack the ethnicity of a sitting judge. He asserted that the judge was incapable of doing his job -- part of which, as for every judge, is ignoring his personal feelings and focusing only on the legal merits of the arguments presented before him -- merely because he is of Mexican ancestry.
We call that remark a racist one because asserting or believing that one's race/ethnicity alone is a reason why someone is less fit for performing a given task is the very definition of racism, not the definition of discrimination, but the definition of racism. We also call one who sincerely makes such remarks a racist.
So you ask "How in good conscience can [we] vote for Hillary Clinton?". Well, I'll give you two answers that pertain to one's doing so instead of voting for Donald Trump.
The first answer is quite simple:
- If one is an American who is of racial or ethnic minority descent, one would vote for Mrs. Clinton instead of Trump because at the very least she has not willfully and sincerely shown herself to harbor, air and promote racist ideas. At the very least she still deserves the benefit of the doubt, whereas Trump has removed all doubt about the fact that he is quite capable and willing to hold opinions and advocate for decisions that accrue from racist lines of thought. No minority in their right mind is going to choose Trump over anyone of whom that is not "from the horse's mouth" certain.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller
Trump also inaccurately called the man a Mexican when he is not at all a Mexican.
For me, even if I had no other reason, merely being a part of "whatever" it be that contributes to preventing a racist from ever again occupying the White House, that is enough for me to vote against Trump.
Red:
If the ruling to hear the case is what you think constitutes ruling against Trump, fine, but don't you dare let me find you have posted a thing advocating for the rights of "the little guy," so to speak. I will call you a hypocrite in an instant.
Have you really so much "Taylor Coleridge" in you that you actually think the Judge as having ruled against Trump by setting the trial date for after the general election, which is what Trump's attorney requested, rather than before it, you need to read something other than the "Gospel According Trump." The plaintiffs asked for a July trial date.
Additionally:
- Trump’s own defense team said that Curiel “is doing his job” and that it had no plans to file a motion for the judge to be recused. Lead defense attorney Daniel Petrocelli told reporters after a May 6 pre-trial hearing in San Diego that Curiel was doing a “good job of trying to balance out competing interests” by pushing the trial date to the end of November so that the case does not interfere with Trump’s campaign, Yahoo News reported.
- Curiel actually granted partial summary judgment for Trump, in the 44-page ruling published November 2015.
- Trump can disagree with the judge’s decision all he wants, but Curiel didn’t really have a choice: The students provided evidence that could dispute Trump’s reason for requesting a summary judgment. So Curiel had to do his job — and let the case go forward to a jury.
"Unflattering" is how you see them? "You look fat in that dress" is unflattering. In response to a woman asking, "Does my ass look big in these jeans?", "Uh....no, not really," is unflattering. What Trump said was way beyond unflattering.
Fat. Pig. Dog. Slob. Disgusting animal. That's well past "unflattering." Those are just some of the names that Donald Trump has called women over the years. Yes, a man who's hoping to become President of the United States and presumably persuade a few women to vote for him, too.
The billionaire has been widely called out for his objectification of women -- he has a lifelong record of aspersing women for their looks -- and sexist remarks. From saying no one would vote for his former rival Carly Fiorina because of her face to saying women should be "punished" for having abortions and "joking" that he'd date his daughter. One can't make this stuff up.
Well, if you just can't get enough of Trump-grade sexism, it's your lucky day. Brace yourself...this is 25+ years of berating and objectifying women, and from the Kelly remarks, we know what "object" he has in mind.
The billionaire has been widely called out for his objectification of women -- he has a lifelong record of aspersing women for their looks -- and sexist remarks. From saying no one would vote for his former rival Carly Fiorina because of her face to saying women should be "punished" for having abortions and "joking" that he'd date his daughter. One can't make this stuff up.
Well, if you just can't get enough of Trump-grade sexism, it's your lucky day. Brace yourself...this is 25+ years of berating and objectifying women, and from the Kelly remarks, we know what "object" he has in mind.
- 1990: Belittled his wife In an interview with Vanity Fair
While married to Ivana, Trump said: “I would never buy Ivana any decent jewels or pictures. Why give her negotiable assets?”
- 1991: When he called women ‘beautiful pieces of ass’
Back when George HW Bush was US President, Trump spoke to Esquire magazine about the media: "You know, it doesn't really matter what [they] write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass." - 1997: When he said all women are goldiggers
From seminal tome, Trump: The Art of the Comeback on prenuptial agreements:
"There are basically three types of women and reactions.- One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else.
- The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp.
- There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her."
- 2006: When he slagged off Rosie O’Donnell part one
It’s no secret that there’s no love lost between Trump and comedian O’Donnell. Perhaps his most notorious rant against her came on American TV show Entertainment Tonight in 2006, when he said: “Rosie O'Donnell is disgusting, both inside and out. If you take a look at her, she's a slob. How does she even get on television? If I were running The View, I'd fire Rosie. I'd look her right in that fat, ugly face of hers and say, 'Rosie, you're fired.'
"We're all a little chubby but Rosie's just worse than most of us. But it's not the chubbiness — Rosie is a very unattractive person, both inside and out."
He also took a job at her love life and managed to offend the LGBT community at the same time: "Rosie's a person who's very lucky to have her girlfriend. And she better be careful or I'll send one of my friends over to pick up her girlfriend, why would she stay with Rosie if she had another choice?" - 2007: When he called Angelina ‘not beautiful’
On Larry King’s CNN show, Trump addressed Jolie’s falling out with her father Jon Voight, saying:
“I really understand beauty. And I will tell you, she's not—I do own Miss Universe. I do own Miss USA. I mean I own a lot of different things. I do understand beauty, and she's not".
- March 7, 2006: When he cracked an incest gag
According to ABC News, back in 2006 Trump said “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” - 2011: When he called a female journalist a ‘dog’
After New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote about rumours of Trump’s bankruptcy, he sent her a copy of her own article, with her picture circled and ‘the face of a dog!’ scrawled across it. - April 3, 2012: When he joked about his penis (Yes, Trump's penis is has been featured in the press even before the GOP Primary debate season.)
In 2012, transgender Miss Universe contestant Jenna Talackova was kicked out of the contest for not having declared her trans status in her entry (the pageant does now accept trans people). Talackova’s lawyer, Gloria Allred, angrily said that no one had asked Trump to ‘prove’ he was a man by showing his anatomy. In response, Trump called in to TMZ Live and said of his penis: “I think Gloria would be very impressed”. - March 3, 2013 : When he made an oral sex joke
Former Playboy playmate Brande Roderick was a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice in the US. During a tense boardroom battle, she knelt in front of Trump – who takes the Alan Sugar role – to ask him whether she could be the next project manager. After a six second silence (an eternity on TV), during which Trump presumably willed some blood to return to his head – he said: “It must be a pretty picture. You dropping to your knees”. - May 7, 2013: When he blamed sex assault on cohabitation
Rather than, say, questioning why so many assaults go unreported or why so few perpetrators are brought to justice. Nope, it must be down to the fact that women and men just can’t share the same living quarters.
"26,000 unreported sexual assults [sic] in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?" - April 16, 2015: When he said Hillary couldn’t ‘satisfy’
…and therefore couldn’t satisfy America, in a thinly veiled reference to his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Where most of Trump’s sexist tweets remain, this one has mysteriously disappeared from the social media site. His office said one of the 10 staff who runs his Twitter account was responsible.
- August 8, 2015: When he used the word 'bimbo'
Kelly recently hosted the first Republican debate of the US Presidential campaign and gave Trump a tough time over previous accusations of sexism against him (really, we can’t imagine why). After the debate, he responded by seeming to call her a ‘bimbo’ on Twitter.
"@timjcam: @megynkelly @FrankLuntz @realDonaldTrump Fox viewers give low marks to bimbo @MegynKelly will consider other programs!"
And in a later CNN interview suggested her questioning was a result of her menstruating: "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever." Trump has denied this was his intention.
- September 9, 2015: When he insulted Carly Fiorina
Fiorina is the former Hewlett Packard boss and Trump’s Republican candidate rival. According to Rolling Stone, he said: "Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that?
"Can you imagine that, the face of our next next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?" - November 10, 2015: When he insulted Fiorina part two
Trump singled out his female Republican rival for a dressing down, ignoring the fact his male counterparts were also talking over one another. His comment - "Why does she keep interrupting everybody?" - was immediately called sexist on social media. - May 8, 2016: When he called Clinton an 'enabler'
After Clinton criticised his stance his stance on women's issues, Trump hit back the only way he knows how: by accusing her of being an “enabler” of her husband's affairs by destroying the lives of his mistresses. At a rally, he said: “Bill Clinton was the worst in history and I have to listen to her talking about it?" he said in Eugene, Oregon. “Just remember this: She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler.
"And what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful. So put that in her bonnet and let's see what happens." - May 18, 2016: When he 'apologised' to Megyn Kelly
Nine months after suggesting Fox presenter Kelly was on her periods, after she took him to task over previous sexist comments, the Republican candidate apologised. Or tried to. When asked about calling Kelly a 'bimbo', Trump replied: "did I say that? Excuse me."
But he couldn't resist adding another jibe: "Over your life, Megyn, you've been called a lot worse, wouldn't you say?" - July 2015: Calls requesting a breast pump disgusting:
Donald Trump had an "absolute meltdown" when a lawyer requested a break from a 2011 deposition to pump breast milk. "He got up, his face got red, he shook his finger at me and he screamed, 'You're disgusting, you're disgusting,' and he ran out of there," attorney Elizabeth Beck told CNN's Alisyn Camerota on Wednesday morning.
Really? You truly don't see anything intemperate and dangerous about a would-be President even jokingly inciting people to acts of violence, namely assault? That Trump's remarks carry the most weight among males makes the issue all the more dangerous. (Race Matters: Study Claims White Men Are More Likely To Commit Mass Murders Than Blacks Or Any Other Racial Group)
??? What sort of man attacks a woman? Moreover, what kind of man attacks a quiescent woman? 'Nough said, I think.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #51
Who said I supported special interests?
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #52
What woman allows her husband to prey on other women without any appreciable consequences?
Tell me what's worse.
- Thread starter
- Moderator
- #53
As for the rest of this monologue, you seem to have gotten the impression that I approve of Trump's behavior. Well you'd be sorely mistaken. Because I don't. But the things he has done pale in comparison to the wide scale corruption and criminal misconduct she has engaged in throughout her political career. Not even close. And I surmise that there are people like yourself willing to defend her.The short answer I have to your thread question is that the nature of Trump's failings -- both those you included in your OP and the ones you did not -- are unacceptable to me, not only because they are ethically/morally reprehensible, but also because in several instances they manifest themselves such that their sole purpose is for his personal financial gain.
That personal financial gain is the impetus for a lot of what he's done that strikes me as ethically turpitudinous is critical. Why? Because Trump is on record as being all about winning and he's on record as stating that money is the scorecard by which one measures who won. So, along with being on record as having said those things, he's also made it clear he'll say pretty much anything if he thinks it's what folks want to hear, and given the nature of some of the things you've you cited below, it's clear the man lacks an ethical/moral compass and he lacks true integrity even though he sounds "real." Therein is the problem; he's too real, as in Ryan Lochte "it's all about me, so if X keeps me "looking good" in folks' mind, it's okay" real.
In contrast, I look at what I find "shady" about Mrs. Clinton's actions/remarks and I see some of the same flaws, but they are less severe in nature. For one thing, I don't know of her acting in a shady way for her own personal financial gain. The Clintons didn't receive money because Mrs. Clinton was SecState. Maybe The Clinton Foundation did, but the financial beneficiaries of the foundation are not the Clintons, their friends, or other people in their economic class. Compare that with Trump's having already used his campaign to direct purchases toward himself and toward his friends.
Let's try to be clear on on just what is and is not "new" about these 14.9K emails:
As much as I want to try to be clear and quantitatively accurate on the email thing, it's not easy. The whole email matter is stupidly confusing and it's been made/left unnecessarily difficult to get what is clearly a straightforward and precise accounting of the email messages that are/were "in play" over the life of the FBI's investigation. I'll admit that.
- Clinton turns over 55K emails to state which in turn passes them to the FBI
- FBI investigates and finds thousands more mails via fragments and content in the slack space on the server. The quantity was originally identified as 30K emails including those that Mrs. Clinton's attorney's deemed personal in content. The subset of that 30K that were by the FBI found to be work-related were unspecified at the Comey Congressional Hearing, but it is now known the quantity is 14.9K.
- FBI reviews all emails -- the 30K found by FBI ones and the 55K turned over by HRC ones.
- FBI returns the initial batch of 55K emails to State.
- State reviews them and releases some 30K of them pursuant to FIOA requests.
- 22-August-2016: FBI discloses that that the quantity of work-related emails recovered from slack space and fragments is ~15K. That the quantity the FBI recovered through its own forensic techniques is 14.9K is a piece of new information.
- Judge orders that the 14.9K emails that the FBI pieced together/recovered from fragments and slack space must also be reviewed and released between now and October.
- FBI returns to State the 14.9K emails it pieced together from slack space and fragments, emails that it reviewed as part of its investigation.
.
While I'm not 100% sure about your tabulation and classification, I'm not 100% of mine either. The one thing I'm not uncertain about, based on what I saw on the news and discussion yesterday is that the 15K emails the FBI just turned over to State were among the emails the FBI reviewed during its investigation.
As much as I'd like to have a clear, complete and accurate accounting of just how many emails there were, from where the respective batches came/were found, and so on, at this point, FBI have determined that Mrs. Clinton didn't break any laws and that makes it moot point in my mind. I trust the FBI and it's judgement. I have absolutely zero credible basis for asserting or even believing that it and its Director didn't know what they were doing. Nor do I have any basis for thinking that Dir. Comey was particularly generous to Mrs. Clinton for during his hearing and statement the day before, he was not.
Yes, it's embarrassing for the Clinton campaign to have "email this" and "email that" come up, but that's it. It's just embarrassing. The one thing it isn't is a behavior that can or will be repeated if Mrs. Clinton becomes President.
(see last paragraph above.) I can't find anything from the FBI indicating she deleted 45K emails. What I can find that is credible (rather than a slated editorial) is what I've noted above. The quantity of deleted and recovered work-related emails is 14.9K, AFAIK, not 45K.
It means that there's a time and a place for everything and the time for her to be in that place, making a photo opportunity out of the misfortune of flood victims, was not right in the midst of first responders getting their job done. You see Mrs. Clinton, unlike her rival and many other casual thinkers and opportunists, knows what kind of logistical headache a current or former President, First Lady or presidential candidate causes in situations like that.
Every single person here knows what's that like too, albeit on a smaller scale. Think about a time when you had something you needed to get done and a VIP figure of some sort, a person whose presence simply could not be ignored by you or by the other folks around you, showed up or summoned you. Surely you've been in a situation when that happened, whether the "VIP" was:
Now the thing that differs between all those situations and the one in LA is that the people who are depending on regular folk first responders -- because neither Trump nor Clinton is going to be in a position to save anyone who's in danger from the flood waters -- have their lives hanging in the balance rather than a meeting or a presentation. Slowing or impeding a first responder getting to that "life on the limb" is the potential impact of VIPs like Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump showing up so soon after the flood.
- a parent who insisted you clean your room,
- a summons to appear for jury duty when you are bearing down on an important deadline,
- a boss who called you to their office or toured your facility,
- a government official who was driving through and streets were blocked to allow them to pass and you had to just sit there in traffic until they finally went by,
- a flight you were taking to get to a meeting and a passenger has a medical emergency causing the plane to divert and land at the nearest airport.
You know the temporal importance of which I write, for now we're seeing more reports of bodies being found than we are of victims being rescued. Remember, people on average can survive without potable water for about three days, and without food for about five days. Being stuck in the water for protracted periods, even 70 or 80 degree water, can cause hypothermia and death.
I'm not sure why you think this is a concern. Are you not among the crowd that says "Obama = Clinton; Clinton = Obama?"
- What exactly is there to discover from a press conference?
- What do you want to know that hasn't been asked of Mrs. Clinton over the past 30 years, 30 months, or 30 days?
- What are you looking for her to say that she's not discussed before?
Blue:
Trump did not attack the ethnicity of a sitting judge. He asserted that the judge was incapable of doing his job -- part of which, as for every judge, is ignoring his personal feelings and focusing only on the legal merits of the arguments presented before him -- merely because he is of Mexican ancestry.
We call that remark a racist one because asserting or believing that one's race/ethnicity alone is a reason why someone is less fit for performing a given task is the very definition of racism, not the definition of discrimination, but the definition of racism. We also call one who sincerely makes such remarks a racist.
So you ask "How in good conscience can [we] vote for Hillary Clinton?". Well, I'll give you two answers that pertain to one's doing so instead of voting for Donald Trump.
The first answer is quite simple:
The second answer I'll offer using Martin Niemöller's poetry and leave you to figure it out.
- If one is an American who is of racial or ethnic minority descent, one would vote for Mrs. Clinton instead of Trump because at the very least she has not willfully and sincerely shown herself to harbor, air and promote racist ideas. At the very least she still deserves the benefit of the doubt, whereas Trump has removed all doubt about the fact that he is quite capable and willing to hold opinions and advocate for decisions that accrue from racist lines of thought. No minority in their right mind is going to choose Trump over anyone of whom that is not "from the horse's mouth" certain.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-- Martin Niemöller
Trump also inaccurately called the man a Mexican when he is not at all a Mexican.
For me, even if I had no other reason, merely being a part of "whatever" it be that contributes to preventing a racist from ever again occupying the White House, that is enough for me to vote against Trump.
Red:
If the ruling to hear the case is what you think constitutes ruling against Trump, fine, but don't you dare let me find you have posted a thing advocating for the rights of "the little guy," so to speak. I will call you a hypocrite in an instant.
Have you really so much "Taylor Coleridge" in you that you actually think the Judge as having ruled against Trump by setting the trial date for after the general election, which is what Trump's attorney requested, rather than before it, you need to read something other than the "Gospel According Trump." The plaintiffs asked for a July trial date.
Additionally:
- Trump’s own defense team said that Curiel “is doing his job” and that it had no plans to file a motion for the judge to be recused. Lead defense attorney Daniel Petrocelli told reporters after a May 6 pre-trial hearing in San Diego that Curiel was doing a “good job of trying to balance out competing interests” by pushing the trial date to the end of November so that the case does not interfere with Trump’s campaign, Yahoo News reported.
- Curiel actually granted partial summary judgment for Trump, in the 44-page ruling published November 2015.
- Trump can disagree with the judge’s decision all he wants, but Curiel didn’t really have a choice: The students provided evidence that could dispute Trump’s reason for requesting a summary judgment. So Curiel had to do his job — and let the case go forward to a jury.
"Unflattering" is how you see them? "You look fat in that dress" is unflattering. In response to a woman asking, "Does my ass look big in these jeans?", "Uh....no, not really," is unflattering. What Trump said was way beyond unflattering.
Fat. Pig. Dog. Slob. Disgusting animal. That's well past "unflattering." Those are just some of the names that Donald Trump has called women over the years. Yes, a man who's hoping to become President of the United States and presumably persuade a few women to vote for him, too.
The billionaire has been widely called out for his objectification of women -- he has a lifelong record of aspersing women for their looks -- and sexist remarks. From saying no one would vote for his former rival Carly Fiorina because of her face to saying women should be "punished" for having abortions and "joking" that he'd date his daughter. One can't make this stuff up.
Well, if you just can't get enough of Trump-grade sexism, it's your lucky day. Brace yourself...this is 25+ years of berating and objectifying women, and from the Kelly remarks, we know what "object" he has in mind.
- 1990: Belittled his wife In an interview with Vanity Fair
While married to Ivana, Trump said: “I would never buy Ivana any decent jewels or pictures. Why give her negotiable assets?”
- 1991: When he called women ‘beautiful pieces of ass’
Back when George HW Bush was US President, Trump spoke to Esquire magazine about the media: "You know, it doesn't really matter what [they] write as long as you've got a young and beautiful piece of ass."- 1997: When he said all women are goldiggers
From seminal tome, Trump: The Art of the Comeback on prenuptial agreements:
"There are basically three types of women and reactions.
- One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else.
- The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp.
- There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her."
- 2006: When he slagged off Rosie O’Donnell part one
It’s no secret that there’s no love lost between Trump and comedian O’Donnell. Perhaps his most notorious rant against her came on American TV show Entertainment Tonight in 2006, when he said: “Rosie O'Donnell is disgusting, both inside and out. If you take a look at her, she's a slob. How does she even get on television? If I were running The View, I'd fire Rosie. I'd look her right in that fat, ugly face of hers and say, 'Rosie, you're fired.'
"We're all a little chubby but Rosie's just worse than most of us. But it's not the chubbiness — Rosie is a very unattractive person, both inside and out."
He also took a job at her love life and managed to offend the LGBT community at the same time: "Rosie's a person who's very lucky to have her girlfriend. And she better be careful or I'll send one of my friends over to pick up her girlfriend, why would she stay with Rosie if she had another choice?"- 2007: When he called Angelina ‘not beautiful’
On Larry King’s CNN show, Trump addressed Jolie’s falling out with her father Jon Voight, saying:
“I really understand beauty. And I will tell you, she's not—I do own Miss Universe. I do own Miss USA. I mean I own a lot of different things. I do understand beauty, and she's not".
- March 7, 2006: When he cracked an incest gag
According to ABC News, back in 2006 Trump said “If Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”- 2011: When he called a female journalist a ‘dog’
After New York Times columnist Gail Collins wrote about rumours of Trump’s bankruptcy, he sent her a copy of her own article, with her picture circled and ‘the face of a dog!’ scrawled across it.- April 3, 2012: When he joked about his penis (Yes, Trump's penis is has been featured in the press even before the GOP Primary debate season.)
In 2012, transgender Miss Universe contestant Jenna Talackova was kicked out of the contest for not having declared her trans status in her entry (the pageant does now accept trans people). Talackova’s lawyer, Gloria Allred, angrily said that no one had asked Trump to ‘prove’ he was a man by showing his anatomy. In response, Trump called in to TMZ Live and said of his penis: “I think Gloria would be very impressed”.- March 3, 2013 : When he made an oral sex joke
Former Playboy playmate Brande Roderick was a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice in the US. During a tense boardroom battle, she knelt in front of Trump – who takes the Alan Sugar role – to ask him whether she could be the next project manager. After a six second silence (an eternity on TV), during which Trump presumably willed some blood to return to his head – he said: “It must be a pretty picture. You dropping to your knees”.- May 7, 2013: When he blamed sex assault on cohabitation
Rather than, say, questioning why so many assaults go unreported or why so few perpetrators are brought to justice. Nope, it must be down to the fact that women and men just can’t share the same living quarters.
"26,000 unreported sexual assults [sic] in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?"- April 16, 2015: When he said Hillary couldn’t ‘satisfy’
…and therefore couldn’t satisfy America, in a thinly veiled reference to his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Where most of Trump’s sexist tweets remain, this one has mysteriously disappeared from the social media site. His office said one of the 10 staff who runs his Twitter account was responsible.
- August 8, 2015: When he used the word 'bimbo'
Kelly recently hosted the first Republican debate of the US Presidential campaign and gave Trump a tough time over previous accusations of sexism against him (really, we can’t imagine why). After the debate, he responded by seeming to call her a ‘bimbo’ on Twitter.
"@timjcam: @megynkelly @FrankLuntz @realDonaldTrump Fox viewers give low marks to bimbo @MegynKelly will consider other programs!"
And in a later CNN interview suggested her questioning was a result of her menstruating: "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever." Trump has denied this was his intention.
- September 9, 2015: When he insulted Carly Fiorina
Fiorina is the former Hewlett Packard boss and Trump’s Republican candidate rival. According to Rolling Stone, he said: "Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that?
"Can you imagine that, the face of our next next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?"- November 10, 2015: When he insulted Fiorina part two
Trump singled out his female Republican rival for a dressing down, ignoring the fact his male counterparts were also talking over one another. His comment - "Why does she keep interrupting everybody?" - was immediately called sexist on social media.- May 8, 2016: When he called Clinton an 'enabler'
After Clinton criticised his stance his stance on women's issues, Trump hit back the only way he knows how: by accusing her of being an “enabler” of her husband's affairs by destroying the lives of his mistresses. At a rally, he said: “Bill Clinton was the worst in history and I have to listen to her talking about it?" he said in Eugene, Oregon. “Just remember this: She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler.
"And what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful. So put that in her bonnet and let's see what happens."- May 18, 2016: When he 'apologised' to Megyn Kelly
Nine months after suggesting Fox presenter Kelly was on her periods, after she took him to task over previous sexist comments, the Republican candidate apologised. Or tried to. When asked about calling Kelly a 'bimbo', Trump replied: "did I say that? Excuse me."
But he couldn't resist adding another jibe: "Over your life, Megyn, you've been called a lot worse, wouldn't you say?"- July 2015: Calls requesting a breast pump disgusting:
Donald Trump had an "absolute meltdown" when a lawyer requested a break from a 2011 deposition to pump breast milk. "He got up, his face got red, he shook his finger at me and he screamed, 'You're disgusting, you're disgusting,' and he ran out of there," attorney Elizabeth Beck told CNN's Alisyn Camerota on Wednesday morning.
Really? You truly don't see anything intemperate and dangerous about a would-be President even jokingly inciting people to acts of violence, namely assault? That Trump's remarks carry the most weight among males makes the issue all the more dangerous. (Race Matters: Study Claims White Men Are More Likely To Commit Mass Murders Than Blacks Or Any Other Racial Group)
??? What sort of man attacks a woman? Moreover, what kind of man attacks a quiescent woman? 'Nough said, I think.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
Blue:
I will not attempt to argue that a wealthy and ostensibly respectable man's acts over 25+ years, right up to the present, to malign women, very accomplished women no less, whose sole mistakes are that they (1) found themselves in his presence or (2) challenged him, is somehow anything other than outright sexism, especially given the long standing history of women having inferior status to men.
That the man in question's "Father Knows Best" provincialism rears its head more often and more reliably than the Energizer Bunny exacerbates the severity of any given event or barb by making it yet another illustration that none of them is merely gaffe. Moreover, as outright sexism, the same poem I offered in the post you quoted applies to how I adjudge Trump's sexist behavior and remarks. Accordingly, I feel no differently about it than I do about racism, and neither should any one but the basest of proles, cretins, curs and cads.
How is it you have so little rectitude that you would deign to offer a comparison that, but for the context, is no different than asking whether a date rapist is a better or worse offender than an opportunistic rapist, whether a the racist who tars and feathers someone is better than the one who draws and quarters the object his hatred, whether the murderer who allows his victim to dessicate be better than the one who sinks the cadaver?
I truly think you have no idea of the level of degeneracy indicated in your presenting the question you did. Have you really that little respect for women? Truly, I cannot fathom how you abide the ineffably execrable vermin, the fiendish dull-witted deplorable calamity of birth that from the cheval glass gawps.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Very easily.
You guys nominated a crazy person with no impulse control.
someone who should never, ever have control of the Nuclear Weapons.
So frankly, I don't care what you CLAIM Hillary did, I like to keep on living, thanks.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Tampon, some day you'll grow up and realize that we all deal with a little "corruption" every day.
Frankly, unless Hillary does something like send out a hit team to whack Monica Lewinsky, I kind of don't care about the 'She arranged a meeting with a diplomat after someone made a contribution." or some such shit.
Tell me how that makes my life better or worse.
Then we can have a discussion.
Trump has the potential to make all of our lives a lot worse. Jesus Christ, the man can't go two days without doing something whacky.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
Perhaps it might be the direct statement below....
That is clearly not the most resounding form of approbation one might deliver, but approbation it is all the same.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
The 50% of women in marriages where the husband cheats... obviously.
hello, grow up, little boy.
Five myths about cheating
Estimates today find married men cheating at rates between 25 percent and 72 percent. Given that many people are loath to admit that they cheat, research on cheating may underestimate its prevalence. But it appears that cheating is as common as fidelity.
So what you are saying is that Hillary is bad because she didn't throw the guy out when he cheated, but Trump has kicked two wives to the curb, has made shitloads of misogynistic statements about women, and this is all okay by you?
Seems to me that your arguments against Hillary say more about your misogyny than her sins.
AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 38,821
- 12,142
- 1,560
Yes, if you love your country you must help thoroughly embarrassing buffoon like Trump into high office! Oh yes, America is going to do great as soon as that happens.
If you do not we will have another Clinton Presidency. OH NO! OH MY! WHAT A DISASTER GREAT ECONOMY, NO WARS AND LIBERAL/CENTRIST SC JUDGES WOULD BE FOR OUR COUNTRY!
Last edited:
Similar threads
