Hillary Clinton will eat whatever Republican candidate for breakfast

[cragganmor]

There are two enormous myths at work in this election - Bill Maher zombie lies

1- Hillary is dishonest. It started with a baseless Bill Saffire editorial a while back that was ultimately shown to be 100% bullshit. Politifact rated her the MOST honest candidate running in either primary. Hillary is not getting "taken down." Its been investigated for a long ass time. If indictments were coming it would have happened.

2- Trump is a good businessman. First of all, its hella easy to make money in real estate if you have the cash. According to Forbes, Trump would be worth more now just investing in index funds from the beginning. Shouldn't that be the measure of a "successful" business man - you have to do better than safe investments?

Trumps business reputation is that he screws his partners. Trump Palace being the most notorious example. Now its Trump University - he's not going to be able to run from that snake oil fallout. He's a scumbag and that scam is going to eat him alive.

Trumps biggest success is convincing people that his name is worth something. How's that for the biggest scam in the world - no product, no guidance - just pay me gobs for adding my name and my name is worth something because thats what he keeps telling everybody. PT Barnum and there's a sucker born every minute.

he's not even the top performer in the sector that launched him. as a real estate developer, his peers are far more successful than trump.

his casino properties in ac went into bankruptcy 4x and each time, he made sure to dump a few mil of his personal debt into each casino so that the bailout would trim off some of his own expenses. none of the major investment banks will do business with him, they got burned too badly in that debacle; wall st came to the conclusion that his balance sheet is awful but his name and market accumen have considerable value. since then, he only engages in businesses that generate fees and involve sinking very little of his own money into any business venture.

the guy is a sham, just like the 2 leading asshats (johnson and farage) that heavily promoted brexit; they have absolution no plan to govern and are completely unprepared to run a country.

[washingtonparkjones]

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/h ... th-warren/

/thread

The minute he mentioned Bengazi /credibility. That's been investigated how many times now? Four years later they've come up with 0, but this chump thinks that suddenly its going to surface as an issue?

How much anyone want to bet when this guys prediction come up flat wrong we don't see a mea culpa?

And yeah

No charges over emails. An endless stream of wrong

[cragganmor]

trump ranges from innuendo to outright lies, anything he can do to keep the simmer going or hit the hot button...

[dcapodic]

trump ranges from innuendo to outright lies, anything he can do to keep the simmer going or hit the hot button...

With respect, where you are coming from I have no idea. The email stuff has zero to do with Trump. You seem to be allowing you hatred of Trump to blur your vision of seeing Hillary clearly.

Be that a sit may, this has nothing to do with Trump.

[dcapodic]

And yeah

No charges over emails. An endless stream of wrong

WPJ, you are the lawyer here, correct? Take your dislike of Trump and any prejudice towards Hillary out of the equation, I know you are capable of this. From what I understand, it is the FBI that does the investigation and all that happened today was that despite all the worng and all the mistakes they are acknowledging that Hillary made, they are recommending that charges not be filed. So, 2 things:

1. The FBI only recommends right, it is still the DIJ that has the final determination of charges?

2. It seeem from much I have seen and especially from the FBI statement that the letter of law was broken many times over. So, why no charges? It seem to fit the fact that it does not matter whether you do it intentionally or "by accident", if you allow "top secret" info to be exposed, you are breaking the law.

I am really asking for clarification from someone that knows better, not stirring the pot

[washingtonparkjones]

In short intent is normally part of the evaluation of any alleged criminal act. It's called mens rea. It is a constitutionally required element of every act defined to be criminal.

Yes the doj determines whether charges are pursued. Law enforcement brings the charges and advises as to whether there is sufficient factual basis for prosecution.

It was highly unusual and somewhat unethical for the director to offer commentary beyond the decision not to prosecute and he said some pretty slippery shady things. He said that "very few" emails had any marking indicating classified material. Nyt follow up indicates that very few was two emails mismarked confidential. The report actually indactes that no classified material was sent. However there were eight threads were information designated secret was discussed. The director stated that the idea that hackers obtained access was pure speculation and then said they wouldn't expect to find evidence while simultaneously stating that they did find evidence of other outside people's emails being hacked. This is why investigators don't normally comment like that.

[dcapodic]

In short intent is normally part of the evaluation of any alleged criminal act. It's called mens rea. It is a constitutionally required element of every act defined to be criminal.

Yes the doj determines whether charges are pursued. Law enforcement brings the charges and advises as to whether there is sufficient factual basis for prosecution.

It was highly unusual and somewhat unethical for the director to offer commentary beyond the decision not to prosecute and he said some pretty slippery shady things. He said that "very few" emails had any marking indicating classified material. Nyt follow up indicates that very few was two emails mismarked confidential. The report actually indactes that no classified material was sent. However there were eight threads were information designated secret was discussed. The director stated that the idea that hackers obtained access was pure speculation and then said they wouldn't expect to find evidence while simultaneously stating that they did find evidence of other outside people's emails being hacked. This is why investigators don't normally comment like that.

Thanks for the info!

Heard an interesting comparison to sports today where the email issue is like "deflate gate". Odds are the reasoning behind Hillary using the separate server were not necessarily what she is claiming but the whole issue itself seems relatively minor in relation to other stuff. Just like with Brady, odds are he did tell the ball guys to keep the footballs at or under inflated but it sunds a lot worse when you talk about it than it actually is.

However, (and hopefully you would agree) this is the case with much with Hillary. Hers and Bill's track record is full of this kinda stuff. I guess if you are in politics long enough that is gonna happen but at the very least, they tend to stretch the rules to fit themselves. Personally, I think it is probably a lot worse, especially with Bill. It is obvious that all of the rumored affairs have a basis. Not sure what people tell themselves that means about Hillary. This backs up pretty much what you have outlined:

Comey told lawmakers his investigators did find evidence that classified State Department information was mishandled and potentially made available to hostile foreign governments, but they found no evidence anyone intentionally sought to violate government secrecy laws, adding the decision not to charge Clinton or any of her aides turned on the latter question of intent.

"What does it take for someone to misuse classified information and get in trouble for it?" asked Rep. Will Hurd, R-Texas, a member of the panel skeptical of the FBI's findings.

"It takes mishandling it and criminal intent," Comey replied.

"And so an unauthorized server in the basement is not mishandling?" Hurd asked.

"Well, no, there is evidence of mishandling here," Comey said. "This whole investigation at the end focused on: Is there sufficient evidence of intent?"

Yea, mishandling but enough evidence of intent, no.

Committee Chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, pressed Comey on whether any of Clinton's statements rose to the level of a crime, including her testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, during which she said unequivocally there were never any emails, sent or received, that were marked classified.

The result of the line of inquiry could mean a new phase in the yearlong Clinton email investigation -- whether she lied under oath before Congress.

"We have no basis to conclude that she lied to the FBI," Comey said.

"Did she lie to the public?" Chaffetz asked.

"That's a question I'm not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI," Comey responded. Chaffetz then asked Comey whether the FBI investigated Clinton for perjuring herself before Congress.

"Not to my knowledge. I don't think there's been a referral from Congress," Comey said.

"Do you need a referral from Congress to investigate her statements under oath?" Chaffetz asked.

"Sure do," Comey retorted.

"You'll have one," Chaffetz said, laughing. "You'll have one in the next few hours."

What do you think about this, part deux?

[Brooklyn]

We are focused on the wrong issue.

One doesn't have to go to jail to be unfit to be president.

The FBI may have concluded that Hilary should NOT be prosecuted however, it is not their job to decide whether she is fit to hold the highest office in the country. IMO the only thing still keeping her as presumptive nominee is the clown on the opposing end.

People in corporate jobs get fired everyday for sending company data out through personal email. I have seen this with my own two eyes. Don't you think that the same if not a stricter code of conduct should apply for the Secretary of State - the person with the highest level of intelligence regarding foreign affairs?

Moreover, she had her staff delete these emails in an obvious attempt to cover up what she was doing. This is the equivalent of destroying evidence after wrong-doing which exposes that her office was aware that what she was doing was NOT allowed/acceptable.

So yes, maybe she should NOT go to jail per the FBI, but the question still remains: should she be president?

And the only answer that I can come up with is YES because the alternative is far far scarier.

[Irv]

And the only answer that I can come up with is YES because the alternative is far far scarier.

And this is why people have tuned out and/or hate politics more than ever.

I wouldn't trust that self-serving, elitist, power-tripping asshole with moderating this forum. Can't tell who I'm talking about? Exactly. So to hell with letting him/her represent the country as its highest elected official.

[Brooklyn]

I am on board 100% Irv...not sure how we got here.

I don't want to overreact or be overdramatic but this feels like a turning point for America, the country I love - the country my father and mother risky their lives to get to, the country that once was the envy of the world. There has been huge scandals in the past and gross mistreatment of citizens but, in public at least, there was a guise of punishment for wrong-doing.

I am sure that these types of things have been happening in politics for a LONG LONG time however, its one thing to be a liar and a cheater privately and its another thing to be that publicly and go on without any repercussion.

[Mr. Glass]

Slightly OT - When you're talking about people and corporations investing millions per month in these or any candidate, expect a significant amount dedicated to slander. I find it funny hearing either candidate talking about the other's corruption, but that's all you see.

This election cycle is so much bigger than that. Americans have been divided since 2008. Blame who you want but who do you trust of the two to unite us? We've seen what Congress has done the last 8 years...jack shit. A Clinton win will mean more of the same unless they can win a majority of seats/votes. A Trump win would obviously garner the same results from his opposition, with the additional hurdle of in-party resistance. Jack shit for Americans once again.

[Irv]

I'm going to attempt to put this shitfest into some better context, and for the record, I am being extremely unfair to the former Knicks in this comparison. I would choose either one of these former Knicks for President, legally qualified or not, over the actual big party candidates in this year's election.

Clinton: Jose Calderon
Trump: Jeremy Lin

[shakespeare]

I wouldn't trust that self-serving, elitist, power-tripping asshole with moderating this forum. Can't tell who I'm talking about? Exactly. So to hell with letting him/her represent the country as its highest elected official.

I need to apologize for creating this thread. Ever since Irv made this statement I research Clinton and she's actually a pretty scandalous politician. The difference between her and Trump?

Not much.

I understand everyone's entitled to their opinions, but I swear President Obama seemed pretty genuine even when he did something he said he wouldn't do after elected. He could be the world's best liar for all I know, but to me, his reversal appeared to be a case of underestimating whatever situation.

[Irv]

I think it's safer to assume that a politician will disappoint you rather than impress you. I was skeptical of Obama in 2008, but based on his platform, I felt like at least he wouldn't be an embarrassment to the presidency. Some of what transpired in the past eight years was him underestimating difficult situations, but at the same time, I do think he's been disingenuous about a number of things with the American public. All that being said, he would still easily win a third term if he were permitted to run again.

Unless a third party pulls off an absolute miracle this year, this is the first presidential election that I can preemptively declare #NotMyPresident without waiting for the results in November. Hell, never in my life have I thought about putting those three words together (in regular or hashtag form) until this year. Even when the choices weren't great in the past, at least the leading candidates weren't absolutely reprehensible human beings that two-thirds of Americans don't trust.

[shakespeare]

True. I'm almost to the point where I expect disappointment from all politicians. Today, I read where Trump's wife stole an excerpt from Michelle Obama's speech last night. Then I read where Obama stole from a previous Bill Clinton speech. Not to mention how Michelle's speech was written by a writer for Hillary Clinton. And I'm like, this is all a game. I like nothing about Guiliani's character, yet he actually appeared respectable compared to the vibes received from Trump/Clinton, and that freaks me out.

I just don't know anymore. I'm feeling the hashtag, though.

[mbn007]

I didn't read all the posts here, but I have 1 simple question:

We are a great country of over 300 million people. Are these 2 folks the best we could come up with to "face-off" for the highest position in the USA?

[thewatcher]

It's official, Bernie was robbed, and now his supporters won't vote for Hillary. Get ready for a Trump presidency. I'm really frightened of Trump and his boys Christie and Gulliani. Hillary shouldve offered Bernie VP, she really fcked up. This DNC fck up and Bill's "clandestine" meeting with the Attorney general are way bigger than any Trump fck up.

Wasserman is toxic radioactive sludge and The democrats were way too slow in understanding this, it's over IMO.

[Irv]

Anyone who has followed this thread knows that I respected Bernie far more than Trillary, but I also had issues with a few of his policies. That said, the President can only do so much in terms of shaping policy when it's up to Congress to pass the laws, so I was less concerned about some of his less viable ideas because collectively, 535 people have a bigger role in shaping the country's future than one, even if the one is the POTUS. I felt that at least Bernie wouldn't make two out of three branches of federal government utterly toxic, and he was also the least likely to Executive Order the shit out of everything.

Trillary is what the American people either want or accept. Egomaniacal lying asshole versus egomaniacal lying asshole. Fuck 'em and fuck their fans.

[Irv]

I'm going to bring up a couple of bigger issues for consideration, because they really go to the heart of the problem with presidential voting in this country, primaries aside.

The presidential election system that we have in place today and have not fundamentally changed since the founding of this country is a complete shitshow. The population of the United States in 1780 was 2.78 million and not everybody had full voting rights. When women finally got the right to vote in 1920, the population was 106 million.

Today, the popular vote for the presidency might be one of the biggest shams in voting because not only is it essentially irrelevant, the winner-take-all electoral vote distribution dictates that, in a two-party race, you can theoretically disenfranchise 50% of the state of California's population minus one vote. Why is the system allowed to screw over 19.4 million people who voted one way and tell them their vote doesn't count for shit because 19.4 million plus one in the same state voted for the other candidate?

As the population of the country continues to increase, your popular vote becomes increasingly worthless. Next time someone tells you that your vote for POTUS is important because if you don't vote for Trillary, you'll hand the presidency over to Trillary, tell them to fuck off and take a course in statistics.

Also, on the topic of only having two "visible" parties, presidential debates used to be moderated by the League of Women Voters until prior to 1988. They were not happy with the demands of the Democrats and Republicans to "perpetrate a fraud on the American voter" so they bowed out of hosting the debates altogether. Since 1987, the Commission for Presidential Debates, a committee jointly run by the Democrats and Republicans in collusion, work to stifle real candidate competition and prevent other voices from being heard, thus strengthening the two dirty incumbent political parties. The only time this plan failed was in 1992 due to unforeseen circumstances that allowed Ross Perot to get on stage, but they made sure to pull all the strings to keep him out in 1996.

Even if Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green candidate Jill Stein get past the arbitrary 15% polling threshold to be invited to the debates that CPD televises, do you think disingenuous assholes like Trillary would agree to debate them on actual issues when their only debate tactics involve dodging questions, lying, and mudslinging? They'd probably just excuse themselves from the debate and the CPD would do all they could to televise it on a channel nobody watches, like ESPN 8 The Ocho, or better yet, C-SPAN.

I don't want apologists to tell me that this is just politics. I don't remember reading where the qualifications of being a public servant included being a delusional, elitist, self-serving prick.

[Mr. Glass]

Excellent post Irv, I wanted to comment on this portion:

Today, the popular vote for the presidency might be one of the biggest shams in voting because not only is it essentially irrelevant, the winner-take-all electoral vote aud on the American voter" so they bowed out of hosting the debates altogether. Since 1987, the Commission for Presidential Debates, a committee jointly run by the Democrats and Republicans in collusion, work to stifle real candidate competition and prevent other voices from being heard, thus strengthening the two dirty incumbent political parties. The only time this plan failed was in 1992 due to unforeseen circumstances that allowed Ross Perot to get on stage, but they made sure to pull all the strings to keep him out in 1996.

Even if Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green candidate Jill Stein get past the arbitrary 15% polling threshold to be invited to the debates that CPD televises, do you think disingenuous assholes like Trillary would agree to debate them on actual issues when their only debate tactics involve dodging questions, lying, and mudslinging? They'd probably just excuse themselves from the debate and the CPD would do all they could to televise it on a channel nobody watches, like ESPN 8 The Ocho, or better yet, C-SPAN.

I don't want apologists to tell me that this is just politics. I don't remember reading where the qualifications of being a public servant included being a delusional, elitist, self-serving prick.

In this country we look at politics on a spectrum scale ranging from left to right. In reality that may be all we need, but I've tried considering the issues using a "compass style" form of evaluation. In other words, do we have more than two stances on our country's major issues? Do we possess 3rd and 4th ideas that solidly stand up to the stances of the left and right? If so then yes, one could lean left or right, or "up" and "down". Take gun rights as an example - You're either a card carrying NRA member or you want regulation reform. What would a third party's stance be? What lobbyists would support that stance?

Personally I believe that MOST Americans are Libertarians with either the big "L" or the small "L". "Malleable Centrist" in you will. But since there are no major news outlets identifying with this demographic, we decide which of the two existing parties best describes us. Party narratives also sway the average American voter because the average American voter is simply ignorant or uncaring. I don't mean that in an insulting way - my father never cared because he was too busy busting his ass to take a stance on transgender bathrooms and shit.

Consider this - Minorities really don't have major financial backers/lobbyist in DC. If they did things would be very different in the inner cities. This is the same reason why The Green party has no real power in DC. Sucks but the rich and powerful make the rules.

"In America, first you get the sugar. Then you get the power. Then you get the women." Homer Simpson