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.
If you thought Congress was done probing Hillary Clinton's email scandal, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, of Utah, has some news for you.
The Republican chair of the House Oversight committee told Fox News that new evidence turned over by the FBI pointed to a "quid pro quo" arrangement between the FBI and the State Department and that was grounds for at least "four new hearings" after Congress comes back from recess.
"This is a flashing red light of potential criminality," Chaffetz said.
The allegations emerge after the FBI gave lawmakers a third tranche of documents related to their investigation into Clinton's use of a personal email server during her time as secretary of state. Those documents have not been made public, but some lawmakers have been given access and Chaffetz said he was briefed on the matter.
According to Fox News, State Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy may have asked an FBI official to change the classification of an email in exchange for space at foreign postings for extra FBI agents.
In a statement, the FBI tells a different story. They say all of this happened before the FBI started investigating Clinton. The agency says a State Department official asked the FBI to give an email a second look. The official wanted the FBI to make sure it was supposed to be classified and if it wasn't, the State Department official wanted to know whether the email could still be protected from public disclosure.
The FBI said that one of its agents, who was not involved in the Clinton investigation, had been trying to get in touch with the State Department official on another matter, so he took the opportunity to talk to him.
"The FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad," the FBI said in a statement.
After the conversation, the FBI decided that the email should remain classified at the Secret level.
"The classification of the email was not changed, and it remains classified today," the FBI said. "Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review."
The third batch of emails could be made public soon. According to Fox, they include interviews with State Department officials about the possibility of a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
Apparently Jason Chaffetz hasn't had enough of making a huge fool out of himself. Seriously is going after Clinton the only thing he does?
He was the idiot who tried talking about the nonsensical abortion "graph" at the Planned Parenthood hearing, right? My statistics students had a field day with that.
On October 17 2016 03:09 RealityIsKing wrote: Yeah out of everybody that I want to be president, Trump is not in my top 10 list.
But to all Leftists, let's not spread misinformation that Hillary is someone decent.
Her and Trump in terms of character are just as shady as each other.
But Trump will most likely prioritize American needs than Hillary.
i'm willing to accept the first 3 (not that I agree, but there's a passable case for them), but the 4th I don't. As a politician who's powerbase is in america, it's in her interest to focus on american needs, and all the evidence indicates she'll focus on american needs. She may have different opinions than you about what those are, but those're certainly what her focus will be. Both of them woudl focus on america because they're politicians from america. Just because trump talks a lot of useless blather doesn't mean his focus is anymore beneficial to america than hers will be.
Ok, we can agree to disagree on that.
I still think that Trump will probably put America first more than Hillary.
on what basis? why wouldn't both put america first all the time? who are they putting america behind?
On the basis that Trump's plan of making companies to create more jobs in America than elsewhere or giving them more incentive to create jobs on American soil.
To be honest, I don't think Nixon did your average Americans any favor by signing that deal with China.
Cutting taxes on companies does not create more jobs. Trickle down economics does not work.
It just means more money vanishes in the boards pockets.
You're wrong. Corporate taxes are harmful for economic growth and cutting them increases both productivity and job growth. Cutting corporate taxes has nothing to do with trickle down economics. Trickle down economics is cutting taxes for the rich expecting it to trickle down to the rest which is something else entirely.
Evidence in this study suggests that lowering statutory corporate tax rates can lead to particularly large productivity gains in firms that are dynamic and profitable, i.e. those that can make the largest contribution to GDP growth. It also appears that corporate taxes adversely influence productivity in all firms except in young and small firms since these firms are often not very profitable.
As far as mutual absolute comparison of taxation impact on economic growth is concerned, it is obvious that corporate taxation harms the most, and is followed by personal income taxes and social security contributions. In the case of World Tax Index, it is followed by value added tax.
The paper indicates that corporation tax has negative effects on economic growth generally and that the reduction of the corporation tax rate in Ireland increased economic activity post-1990s. Empirical work estimating the relationship between corporation taxes and economic growth indicates a negative relationship of between 0.6% and 1.8% of economic growth for each 1% change in the statutory corporate tax rate.
The modelling suggests that the tax reductions will increase investment by between 2.5 per cent and 4.5 per cent in the long term (equivalent to £3.6 billion – £6.2 billion in today’s prices) and GDP by between 0.6 per cent and 0.8 per cent (equivalent to £9.6 billion - £12.2 billion). Lower Corporation Tax will also increase the demand for labour which in turn raises wages and increases consumption. Given the share going to labour this equates to between £405 and £515 per household.
On October 17 2016 04:42 TheTenthDoc wrote: I think you're being awfully generous unless you have a loose interpretation of trying harder. I don't doubt Trump would sell out America in an instant if it would increase his own personal fortune and power.
In his own personal version of reality, that's part of "making America great again".
If you thought Congress was done probing Hillary Clinton's email scandal, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, of Utah, has some news for you.
The Republican chair of the House Oversight committee told Fox News that new evidence turned over by the FBI pointed to a "quid pro quo" arrangement between the FBI and the State Department and that was grounds for at least "four new hearings" after Congress comes back from recess.
"This is a flashing red light of potential criminality," Chaffetz said.
The allegations emerge after the FBI gave lawmakers a third tranche of documents related to their investigation into Clinton's use of a personal email server during her time as secretary of state. Those documents have not been made public, but some lawmakers have been given access and Chaffetz said he was briefed on the matter.
According to Fox News, State Undersecretary for Management Patrick Kennedy may have asked an FBI official to change the classification of an email in exchange for space at foreign postings for extra FBI agents.
In a statement, the FBI tells a different story. They say all of this happened before the FBI started investigating Clinton. The agency says a State Department official asked the FBI to give an email a second look. The official wanted the FBI to make sure it was supposed to be classified and if it wasn't, the State Department official wanted to know whether the email could still be protected from public disclosure.
The FBI said that one of its agents, who was not involved in the Clinton investigation, had been trying to get in touch with the State Department official on another matter, so he took the opportunity to talk to him.
"The FBI official asked the State Department official if they would address a pending, unaddressed FBI request for space for additional FBI employees assigned abroad," the FBI said in a statement.
After the conversation, the FBI decided that the email should remain classified at the Secret level.
"The classification of the email was not changed, and it remains classified today," the FBI said. "Although there was never a quid pro quo, these allegations were nonetheless referred to the appropriate officials for review."
The third batch of emails could be made public soon. According to Fox, they include interviews with State Department officials about the possibility of a quid-pro-quo arrangement.
Apparently Jason Chaffetz hasn't had enough of making a huge fool out of himself. Seriously is going after Clinton the only thing he does?
He was the idiot who tried talking about the nonsensical abortion "graph" at the Planned Parenthood hearing, right? My statistics students had a field day with that.
I then asked my students to go online to news sites and find other misleading or incorrect graphs, and the next day all my students asked me why 90+% of them were all from Fox News... Well...
On October 17 2016 02:32 farvacola wrote: It should be clear by now that ImFromPortugal has no interest in actually delving into Trump's proposed plans; he's comfortable taking Trump's words at face value while many of us are not. I doubt much more will come of this exchange lol
To be clear i don't think Trump will win and i think the guy is not very smart or he would have approached this election differently.
I just wanted hillary to lose, but it's your country you vote for what you believe i'm mostly against her foreign policies that would have a bigger impact on the world, you guys are free to vote for her home policies and that's fair.
Withdraw from wars? He claims he will defeat ISIS. Cant not fight wars and 'defeat ISIS' (which btw will just free up their resources to take revenge on the west through terrorist actions).
Attacking ISIS does not "free" them to attack the west.
It's foolhardy to be a dogmatic pacifist. Wars happen whether you cross your fingers or not. Both candidates will probably end up doing something in Syria, which is good, and it was a mistake for the current administration to ignore it. What Trump is against is spurious wars, and directionless proxy wars. If you're looking for a candidate who eschews war entirely, you have to go to another planet, because on this one you can't outlaw war just by who you elect. Hillary on the other hand is a neocon who didn't learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan - we know this from the events in Libya during her tenure.
On October 17 2016 03:08 Gorsameth wrote: Europe? Ask how Eastern Europe feels about the prospect of the US withdrawing from NATO.
We're not going to leave NATO. But Russia's not thrilled about the eastward creep of the EU.
Trumps statement that the US will no longer unequivocally defend NATO countries ends it. The entire premise of the NATO defense treaty is based on the assurance that all will defend if 1 is attacked.
Your cant have a defensive alliance where you say 'Maybe I will help you, maybe I won't. I'll let you know when the enemy tanks start rolling across your border"
Okay Gorsameth: Trump's primary campaign shitposting is a binding act of national policy and Congress no longer has the ultimate say on the declaration of war by the USA, despite what's in the Constitution.
So the defense to 'Trump's FP will be worse then Hillary' is that he was shitposting and that Congress will stop him.
How enlightening.
And ofcourse this defense will not work for Hillary, because Congress will not stop here because???
You failed to understand, which is no longer unexpected. Congress decides whether the US declares war, meaning in the event the evil bald man Trump - no, the Russian one, Putin, tries to invade Estonia, the duty to answer that has always rested with Congress. That's in the Constitution and isn't superseded by any international agreement.
Nobody's leaving NATO, Trump's not going to start a nuclear war, the planet isn't going to turn into Venus in 4 years, and Russia isn't going to take over Europe if we don't elect HRC to protect it from the red menace. But the US could flat out leave NATO and nobody would start a war with the remainder of it.
Congressional power to declare war is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about Trumps statement which undermines the entire premise of NATO. the mutual defense agreement. No one else anywhere, that I am aware of, has questioned their commitment to that defense.
If you think that the US president (should Trump win) openly questioning his desire to uphold said treaty has no effect on international relations and tensions I have a bridge to sell you.
On October 17 2016 03:15 RealityIsKing wrote: I still think that Trump will probably put America first more than Hillary.
I think he will try harder to put America first than Hillary. But I think his lack of experience and how prone he is to irrationality means that the outcome won't necessarily be better for America. And I care more about the likely result more than I care about who tries harder.
For better or for worse, Hillary Clinton has a better idea of how Washington works. So even if she's selfish and corrupt, on expectation she's less likely to cause a major fuckup than someone who has no experience in politics and has shown himself to be prone to irrational outbursts and illogical decision making in the face of high pressure situations.
I give Trump credit for speaking to the problems of a lot of people that mainstream politics ignores. If we're being really generous, he might actually have some good ideas. But having good ideas and being able to speak to those ignored by the mainstream is so far from what can actually be considered qualified to be president of the United States. Maybe if he'd shown himself to be at least somewhat competent at selecting intelligent and experienced advisers, I'd have more confidence, but given how much of a trainwreck his campaign has been the entire season, I have zero confidence in him to do that.
Well Hillary wants to implement awful ideas and she actually have the background of implementing those awful ideas such as driving away businesses.
On October 17 2016 03:15 RealityIsKing wrote: I still think that Trump will probably put America first more than Hillary.
I think he will try harder to put America first than Hillary. But I think his lack of experience and how prone he is to irrationality means that the outcome won't necessarily be better for America. And I care more about the likely result more than I care about who tries harder.
For better or for worse, Hillary Clinton has a better idea of how Washington works. So even if she's selfish and corrupt, on expectation she's less likely to cause a major fuckup than someone who has no experience in politics and has shown himself to be prone to irrational outbursts and illogical decision making in the face of high pressure situations.
I give Trump credit for speaking to the problems of a lot of people that mainstream politics ignores. If we're being really generous, he might actually have some good ideas. But having good ideas and being able to speak to those ignored by the mainstream is so far from what can actually be considered qualified to be president of the United States. Maybe if he'd shown himself to be at least somewhat competent at selecting intelligent and experienced advisers, I'd have more confidence, but given how much of a trainwreck his campaign has been the entire season, I have zero confidence in him to do that.
Well Hillary wants to implement awful ideas and she actually have the background of implementing those awful ideas such as driving away businesses.
So not supporting that.
which particular awful ideas are you talking about?
On October 17 2016 03:15 RealityIsKing wrote: I still think that Trump will probably put America first more than Hillary.
I think he will try harder to put America first than Hillary. But I think his lack of experience and how prone he is to irrationality means that the outcome won't necessarily be better for America. And I care more about the likely result more than I care about who tries harder.
For better or for worse, Hillary Clinton has a better idea of how Washington works. So even if she's selfish and corrupt, on expectation she's less likely to cause a major fuckup than someone who has no experience in politics and has shown himself to be prone to irrational outbursts and illogical decision making in the face of high pressure situations.
I give Trump credit for speaking to the problems of a lot of people that mainstream politics ignores. If we're being really generous, he might actually have some good ideas. But having good ideas and being able to speak to those ignored by the mainstream is so far from what can actually be considered qualified to be president of the United States. Maybe if he'd shown himself to be at least somewhat competent at selecting intelligent and experienced advisers, I'd have more confidence, but given how much of a trainwreck his campaign has been the entire season, I have zero confidence in him to do that.
Well Hillary wants to implement awful ideas and she actually have the background of implementing those awful ideas such as driving away businesses.
So not supporting that.
Which of Hillary's ideas do you deem awful?
There are a lot but let's start with Obamacare.
Businesses' group health insurance costs have increased by 30%, it closed the IRS tax loophole that allowed us to reimburse employee's (much cheaper and with greater coverage) personal insurance costs, and the stupid law placed health insurance companies into an incredibly privileged market position for very little gain.
The "success" is in the number of insured people ... nevermind that insurance costs more, the coverage is much worse, and so many more people have to cover larger and larger deductible gaps out of pocket accordingly.
It was a stupid compromise that put health insurance companies into an even greater position of power and privilege. Good fucking riddance to it and our business' backbreaking group insurance costs.
On October 17 2016 02:32 farvacola wrote: It should be clear by now that ImFromPortugal has no interest in actually delving into Trump's proposed plans; he's comfortable taking Trump's words at face value while many of us are not. I doubt much more will come of this exchange lol
To be clear i don't think Trump will win and i think the guy is not very smart or he would have approached this election differently.
I just wanted hillary to lose, but it's your country you vote for what you believe i'm mostly against her foreign policies that would have a bigger impact on the world, you guys are free to vote for her home policies and that's fair.
Withdraw from wars? He claims he will defeat ISIS. Cant not fight wars and 'defeat ISIS' (which btw will just free up their resources to take revenge on the west through terrorist actions).
Attacking ISIS does not "free" them to attack the west.
It's foolhardy to be a dogmatic pacifist. Wars happen whether you cross your fingers or not. Both candidates will probably end up doing something in Syria, which is good, and it was a mistake for the current administration to ignore it. What Trump is against is spurious wars, and directionless proxy wars. If you're looking for a candidate who eschews war entirely, you have to go to another planet, because on this one you can't outlaw war just by who you elect. Hillary on the other hand is a neocon who didn't learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan - we know this from the events in Libya during her tenure.
On October 17 2016 03:08 Gorsameth wrote: Europe? Ask how Eastern Europe feels about the prospect of the US withdrawing from NATO.
We're not going to leave NATO. But Russia's not thrilled about the eastward creep of the EU.
Trumps statement that the US will no longer unequivocally defend NATO countries ends it. The entire premise of the NATO defense treaty is based on the assurance that all will defend if 1 is attacked.
Your cant have a defensive alliance where you say 'Maybe I will help you, maybe I won't. I'll let you know when the enemy tanks start rolling across your border"
Okay Gorsameth: Trump's primary campaign shitposting is a binding act of national policy and Congress no longer has the ultimate say on the declaration of war by the USA, despite what's in the Constitution.
So the defense to 'Trump's FP will be worse then Hillary' is that he was shitposting and that Congress will stop him.
How enlightening.
And ofcourse this defense will not work for Hillary, because Congress will not stop here because???
You failed to understand, which is no longer unexpected. Congress decides whether the US declares war, meaning in the event the evil bald man Trump - no, the Russian one, Putin, tries to invade Estonia, the duty to answer that has always rested with Congress. That's in the Constitution and isn't superseded by any international agreement.
Nobody's leaving NATO, Trump's not going to start a nuclear war, the planet isn't going to turn into Venus in 4 years, and Russia isn't going to take over Europe if we don't elect HRC to protect it from the red menace. But the US could flat out leave NATO and nobody would start a war with the remainder of it.
Congressional power to declare war is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about Trumps statement which undermines the entire premise of NATO. the mutual defense agreement. No one else anywhere, that I am aware of, has questioned their commitment to that defense.
If you think that the US president (should Trump win) openly questioning his desire to uphold said treaty has no effect on international relations and tensions I have a bridge to sell you.
Trump's provocative campaign to get voters to like him by saying he's going to get foreign countries pay more, because we don't win anymore, we don't make great deals, etc., will not affect anything - because what's not getting through to you is that it's Congress who declares war. Now, if he follows through, it may have an effect on the world, if the US were to have other members pay more or mobilized NATO to deal with Syria (or some other crisis) or even left NATO. But it's not going to result in Russian invasions or whatever you're scaremongering about: allot yourself 5 seconds to ask whether it makes sense that anyone would start a war with an alliance containing two nuclear weapon states but not three.
You have to at some point grow up and realize people who disagree with you aren't trolls, unless you are suggesting that I jump off the bridge, in which case I won't continue to bother.
Trump's gaffe about abandoning NATO allies is no more than just a display of his ignorance and unpreparedness in terms of understanding what the purpose of said strategic alliances is. I wouldn't read any more into that, and I'm not going to say it means he's endangering out allies by saying things like that, but that ignorance and unpreparedness itself is enough reason to criticize that statement.
for all the talk about how bad trump supporters are, I would definitely expect a partially violent backlash from trump winning as well. (Difference is I wouldn't consider Hillary herself responsible to even nearly the same magnitude, and I think this is becoming increasingly hypothetical cause I can't imagine Trump winning anymore). But yeah, I'm kinda assuming that some people will be killed in the election aftermath..
On October 17 2016 02:32 farvacola wrote: It should be clear by now that ImFromPortugal has no interest in actually delving into Trump's proposed plans; he's comfortable taking Trump's words at face value while many of us are not. I doubt much more will come of this exchange lol
To be clear i don't think Trump will win and i think the guy is not very smart or he would have approached this election differently.
I just wanted hillary to lose, but it's your country you vote for what you believe i'm mostly against her foreign policies that would have a bigger impact on the world, you guys are free to vote for her home policies and that's fair.
Withdraw from wars? He claims he will defeat ISIS. Cant not fight wars and 'defeat ISIS' (which btw will just free up their resources to take revenge on the west through terrorist actions).
Attacking ISIS does not "free" them to attack the west.
It's foolhardy to be a dogmatic pacifist. Wars happen whether you cross your fingers or not. Both candidates will probably end up doing something in Syria, which is good, and it was a mistake for the current administration to ignore it. What Trump is against is spurious wars, and directionless proxy wars. If you're looking for a candidate who eschews war entirely, you have to go to another planet, because on this one you can't outlaw war just by who you elect. Hillary on the other hand is a neocon who didn't learn anything from Iraq and Afghanistan - we know this from the events in Libya during her tenure.
On October 17 2016 03:08 Gorsameth wrote: Europe? Ask how Eastern Europe feels about the prospect of the US withdrawing from NATO.
We're not going to leave NATO. But Russia's not thrilled about the eastward creep of the EU.
Trumps statement that the US will no longer unequivocally defend NATO countries ends it. The entire premise of the NATO defense treaty is based on the assurance that all will defend if 1 is attacked.
Your cant have a defensive alliance where you say 'Maybe I will help you, maybe I won't. I'll let you know when the enemy tanks start rolling across your border"
Okay Gorsameth: Trump's primary campaign shitposting is a binding act of national policy and Congress no longer has the ultimate say on the declaration of war by the USA, despite what's in the Constitution.
So the defense to 'Trump's FP will be worse then Hillary' is that he was shitposting and that Congress will stop him.
How enlightening.
And ofcourse this defense will not work for Hillary, because Congress will not stop here because???
You failed to understand, which is no longer unexpected. Congress decides whether the US declares war, meaning in the event the evil bald man Trump - no, the Russian one, Putin, tries to invade Estonia, the duty to answer that has always rested with Congress. That's in the Constitution and isn't superseded by any international agreement.
Nobody's leaving NATO, Trump's not going to start a nuclear war, the planet isn't going to turn into Venus in 4 years, and Russia isn't going to take over Europe if we don't elect HRC to protect it from the red menace. But the US could flat out leave NATO and nobody would start a war with the remainder of it.
Congressional power to declare war is not what we are talking about.
We are talking about Trumps statement which undermines the entire premise of NATO. the mutual defense agreement. No one else anywhere, that I am aware of, has questioned their commitment to that defense.
If you think that the US president (should Trump win) openly questioning his desire to uphold said treaty has no effect on international relations and tensions I have a bridge to sell you.
Trump's provocative campaign to get voters to like him by saying he's going to get foreign countries pay more, because we don't win anymore, we don't make great deals, etc., will not affect anything - because what's not getting through to you is that it's Congress who declares war. Now, if he follows through, it may have an effect on the world, if the US were to have other members pay more or mobilized NATO to deal with Syria (or some other crisis) or even left NATO. But it's not going to result in Russian invasions or whatever you're scaremongering about: allot yourself 5 seconds to ask whether it makes sense that anyone would start a war with an alliance containing two nuclear weapon states but not three.
You have to at some point grow up and realize people who disagree with you aren't trolls, unless you are suggesting that I jump off the bridge, in which case I won't continue to bother.
To me, it comes down to one essential question: do I want the US to go into a pointless war with nuclear equipped Russia over YET ANOTHER Middle Eastern country that we should've never meddled with in the first place (also supporting rebels who are as barbaric as--and likely some actually are--Isis, beheading children and eating the hearts of their enemies)?
The answer is no.
Trump said he would actually be open to working WITH Russia to fight Isis. Even Jill Stein has said that Trump's stance regarding Russia/Syria is better than Hillary's, since she seems to be going the route of Obama in her campaign rhetoric, and continuing down that path will undoubtedly lead to WW III.
EPT![[image loading]](http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/politifact/photos/mega-center-release-graphic.jpg)
