|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Donald Trump adviser Ben Carson on Tuesday said the Republican presidential nominee should apologize for questioning whether President Obama was born in the United States.
"I think that would be a good idea, absolutely," Carson said on CNN's "The Lead" when asked if Trump should admit a mistake over the "birther" attacks and apologize to African-American voters.
"I suggest that on all sides," Carson continued, pushing back on the "hate" and "rancor" in politics.
Trump repeatedly questioned whether Obama was born in Hawaii, eventually goading the White House into releasing the president's long-form birth certificate in 2011.
Asked Monday in a gaggle with reporters whether he thinks Obama was born in the U.S., Trump responded, "I don't talk about it."
Source
Obviously Hillary is more crooked than someone who so willingly lies...
|
United States43746 Posts
On September 07 2016 22:13 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2016 14:09 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 07 2016 14:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2016 13:46 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 07 2016 11:11 biology]major wrote:On September 07 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
He lies about being a charitable billionaire. Just like everything else. Well you are in luck! the opposing candidate is a shining example of truth and honesty. you're in luck! the clinton is one of the biggest charities in the world, and beyond that you can see clinton's personal giving because she released about a decade's worth of tax returns and they have itemized donations. good god man, it's like you don't know how to internet or something. I mean she's not as petty with her lies as Trump usually, but it's starting to look crazy to pretend that she's a shining example of truth and honesty. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but does the Clinton foundation list Bill and Chelsea as "independent" board members? www.clintonfoundation.org i recommend you look up what independent in this context means. hint: it says at the bottom of the page Oh I'm aware what it means. I was just making sure that's what they were saying. Honest question, do you think they follow the letter or the spirit of those rules? the rules are pretty clear cut. let me ask you this: have you ever filed taxes or any other IRS/government-type form? there are very clear instructions on what to do and how each box is calculated from other boxes. you're about half a step from arguing if 1+1 = 2, and you probably would be if that came out of clinton's mouth at this point.
This is the case. The forms are actually kinda fun in a "this is how you would explain maths to someone who had never heard of it" way. They're all framed in terms of "add the number in B to the number in C, write that here, in H", "now add the number in D to the number in E, write that here, in I", "now add the number in F to the number in G, write that here, in J", "add the number in H to the number in I, write that here, in K", "add the number in J to the number in K, write that here, in L", "minus the number in L from the number in A, write that here, in M".
You do all those steps and then you go "wait a fucking minute, you just had me work out A minus B minus C minus D minus E minus F minus G".
|
On September 07 2016 23:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 22:13 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 07 2016 14:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2016 14:09 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 07 2016 14:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2016 13:46 ticklishmusic wrote:On September 07 2016 11:11 biology]major wrote:On September 07 2016 11:04 Plansix wrote:
He lies about being a charitable billionaire. Just like everything else. Well you are in luck! the opposing candidate is a shining example of truth and honesty. you're in luck! the clinton is one of the biggest charities in the world, and beyond that you can see clinton's personal giving because she released about a decade's worth of tax returns and they have itemized donations. good god man, it's like you don't know how to internet or something. I mean she's not as petty with her lies as Drumpf usually, but it's starting to look crazy to pretend that she's a shining example of truth and honesty. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but does the Clinton foundation list Bill and Chelsea as "independent" board members? www.clintonfoundation.org i recommend you look up what independent in this context means. hint: it says at the bottom of the page Oh I'm aware what it means. I was just making sure that's what they were saying. Honest question, do you think they follow the letter or the spirit of those rules? the rules are pretty clear cut. let me ask you this: have you ever filed taxes or any other IRS/government-type form? there are very clear instructions on what to do and how each box is calculated from other boxes. you're about half a step from arguing if 1+1 = 2, and you probably would be if that came out of clinton's mouth at this point. This is the case. The forms are actually kinda fun in a "this is how you would explain maths to someone who had never heard of it" way. They're all framed in terms of "add the number in B to the number in C, write that here, in H", "now add the number in D to the number in E, write that here, in I", "now add the number in F to the number in G, write that here, in J", "add the number in H to the number in I, write that here, in K", "add the number in J to the number in K, write that here, in L", "minus the number in L from the number in A, write that here, in M". You do all those steps and then you go "wait a fucking minute, you just had me work out A minus B minus C minus D minus E minus F minus G".
I believe one of the guys I met when i lived in DC who worked at the IRS mentioned that during orientation they were repeatedly told that the process goals with respect to these are to make them "idiot proof" official words no joke.
|
On September 07 2016 23:50 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 22:13 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Unfortunately cherrypicking is the new way to communicate negative information. It's pretty sad people would bother doing it when you really don't have to cherrypick/take Trump out of context to make him look truly ridiculous and/or asinine. This has been going on for ages. Information communicated with an agenda in mind will quite often be obfuscated (am I using that word right?) with the intent of warping the mind of the person receiving the information. This happens everywhere all the time, but it is especially prevalent from people who have been trained to convince/argue/debate such as lawyers and people involved in marketing. Two professions that I thoroughly dislike for this very reason. Just list the facts as completely as possible and allow people to draw their own conclusions. Sigh.
Sadly that isn’t possible. Reporters tall about this all the time, that the act of picking out the facts already infuses whatever information you provide with bias. That objectivity is not obtainable from a single reporter and not that useful to their readers. That the reporters should attempt to report the perspective they feel represents the event they are reporting on and rely on their peers to provide other perspectives. That any event would need to be viewed from several perspectives to provide a complete picture.
|
On September 07 2016 23:29 xDaunt wrote:
It's starting to look like obstruction of justice.
And yet we know* that Clinton used other people to handle the tagging of documents. Can you unequivocally say that she did not write the email contents (and thus signed it with her name) and then had one of the people working for her tag it before it got send?
*from the FBI disposition.
|
On September 08 2016 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 23:29 xDaunt wrote:
It's starting to look like obstruction of justice. And yet we know* that Clinton used other people to handle the tagging of documents. Can you unequivocally say that she did not write the email contents (and thus signed it with her name) and then had one of the people working for her tag it before it got send? *from the FBI disposition.
Of course not, which is why I didn't say that it unequivocally was obstruction of justice.
|
On September 08 2016 00:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2016 23:29 xDaunt wrote:
It's starting to look like obstruction of justice. And yet we know* that Clinton used other people to handle the tagging of documents. Can you unequivocally say that she did not write the email contents (and thus signed it with her name) and then had one of the people working for her tag it before it got send? *from the FBI disposition. Of course not, which is why I didn't say that it unequivocally was obstruction of justice.
aka this is non-news. Its a document that the FBI saw during their investigation and that is easily explained.
It doesn't look like obstruction of justice at all.
|
On September 08 2016 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 00:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2016 23:29 xDaunt wrote:
It's starting to look like obstruction of justice. And yet we know* that Clinton used other people to handle the tagging of documents. Can you unequivocally say that she did not write the email contents (and thus signed it with her name) and then had one of the people working for her tag it before it got send? *from the FBI disposition. Of course not, which is why I didn't say that it unequivocally was obstruction of justice. aka this is non-news. Its a document that the FBI saw during their investigation and that is easily explained. It doesn't look like obstruction of justice at all.
Isn't there also the better safe than sorry approach with regards to claiming that you know something. A "C" could mean a lot of things, and if you were to claim it meant "Clinton" because you assumed it would, and then it turns out to be something else, you'd be wrong which is of course also a terrible thing in the eye of the public. How dare politicians be wrong or change their minds when presented with new evidence!
|
On September 08 2016 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 00:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2016 23:29 xDaunt wrote:
It's starting to look like obstruction of justice. And yet we know* that Clinton used other people to handle the tagging of documents. Can you unequivocally say that she did not write the email contents (and thus signed it with her name) and then had one of the people working for her tag it before it got send? *from the FBI disposition. Of course not, which is why I didn't say that it unequivocally was obstruction of justice. aka this is non-news. Its a document that the FBI saw during their investigation and that is easily explained. It doesn't look like obstruction of justice at all.
Of course it's a story. It is simply incredible to think that thousands of documents could be sent out under her signature that were labeled confidential, yet she did not know what the markings meant. And if we are to accept her story as true, then there's no other conclusion to come to than Hillary is an idiot. So we're right back to "stupid or liar." I'm putting my money on the latter.
|
On September 08 2016 00:19 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2016 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:On September 08 2016 00:12 xDaunt wrote:On September 08 2016 00:07 Gorsameth wrote:On September 07 2016 23:29 xDaunt wrote:
It's starting to look like obstruction of justice. And yet we know* that Clinton used other people to handle the tagging of documents. Can you unequivocally say that she did not write the email contents (and thus signed it with her name) and then had one of the people working for her tag it before it got send? *from the FBI disposition. Of course not, which is why I didn't say that it unequivocally was obstruction of justice. aka this is non-news. Its a document that the FBI saw during their investigation and that is easily explained. It doesn't look like obstruction of justice at all. Isn't there also the better safe than sorry approach with regards to claiming that you know something. A "C" could mean a lot of things, and if you were to claim it meant "Clinton" because you assumed it would, and then it turns out to be something else, you'd be wrong which is of course also a terrible thing in the eye of the public. How dare politicians be wrong or change their minds when presented with new evidence!
It was a deposition, so the standard response if you do no remember is “I don’t recall.” If she didn’t know what the “C” meant, she would only say that and not speculate. Speculating what she believed it would mean nearly four years later wouldn’t be helpful to her, wouldn’t reflect what she thought at the time and would imply she was aware of the symbol and thought about it. From the deposition, she received almost all her classified documents in person. The few that were sent via email with the “C” marking were either mislabeled or shouldn’t have been sent in that manner by the sender.
|
United States43746 Posts
Does this fall under the umbrella of emailghazi or is this a new ghazi?
|
I think it is more email garbage. We are going to be harping on the issue of the “C” forever, while Trump bribes DAs and tries to defraud single parents seeking education.
|
This falls under the category of SlayersGanzi.
|
So xDaunt, how do you feel about the Trump Foundation's donations to 2 state AG's? IANAL, but to use the legal turn of phrase it "looks like" bribery to me.
|
|
|
On September 08 2016 00:35 ticklishmusic wrote:
So xDaunt, how do you feel about the Trump Foundation's donations to 2 state AG's? IANAL, but to use the legal turn of phrase it "looks like" bribery to me.
Not to mention the fact that one of those AGs happens to be Pam Bondi, one of the dumbest and most spiteful people to ever be given such an office.
|
United States43746 Posts
On September 08 2016 00:35 ticklishmusic wrote:
So xDaunt, how do you feel about the Trump Foundation's donations to 2 state AG's? IANAL, but to use the legal turn of phrase it "looks like" bribery to me.
As I recall he explained a few years ago that it was all above board and legitimate and intentional and then explained a month ago that it was actually a mistake and that he meant to give the money to a charity with a similar name and therefore it can't have been a bribe because he didn't even mean to give them money in exchange for them not looking into Trump University. He then paid the fine for accidentally bribing an Attorney General when you mean to give money to an unrelated charity and everything was above board if you can manage to completely disengage your critical thinking.
|
Many people are saying it looks like Trump is an orangutan born high in a tree in Africa.
|
On September 08 2016 00:35 ticklishmusic wrote:
So xDaunt, how do you feel about the Trump Foundation's donations to 2 state AG's? IANAL, but to use the legal turn of phrase it "looks like" bribery to me.
I don't know. I haven't looked at the details.
|
By the way how about these revelations about how filthy Roger Ailes and Fox News are? Is Ailes advising Trump but Trump is lying about it? Dude is on tape being guilty as hell?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
