|
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. |
On October 29 2016 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:32 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first. On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly? I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen. On counts of displaying gross negligence, or intent to transmit classified information illegally, take your pick. How does one break the law and receive absolutely no penalty? Not even a fine or restriction on dealing with classified information or restriction from running for any position that handles classified information. We don't need to do this dance again though, it is clear it won't change anyone's mind. Here we go again. Congress has the power to assign a Special Prosecutor to go after Hillary for Emailghazi. It has not done. Why?
You asked this question before, and there is no point in doing this again since I said last time I don't know. My question is how are there no civil penalties, she still broke the law. Not a lawyer and I am asking out of genuine curiosity here.
|
On October 29 2016 07:40 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:32 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first. On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly? I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen. On counts of displaying gross negligence, or intent to transmit classified information illegally, take your pick. How does one break the law and receive absolutely no penalty? Not even a fine or restriction on dealing with classified information or restriction from running for any position that handles classified information. We don't need to do this dance again though, it is clear it won't change anyone's mind. Here we go again. Congress has the power to assign a Special Prosecutor to go after Hillary for Emailghazi. It has not done. Why? You asked this question before, and there is no point in doing this again since I said last time I don't know. My question is how are there no civil penalties, she still broke the law. Not a lawyer and I am asking out of genuine curiosity here.
Civil penalties are for civil cases brought by citizens, not the goverment. They don't apply to what you are talking about. And she didn't break the law. She violated a state department rule, which is not the same thing and does carry any criminal liability on their own.
|
On October 29 2016 06:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 06:35 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2016 06:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 06:12 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2016 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 05:59 oBlade wrote:
That's a rich tweet, Donald Trump, who everyone knows is a Russian puppet being propped up by Vladimir Putin and his global alt-right network, is McCarthyist. If you don't think Trump reaches conclusions and spreads innuendo based on a total lack of evidence, like McCarthy did, I have a bridge to sell you. Edit: And that's exactly what the tweet says. Not that he hates commies. Keep the bridge and get over it. Also, work on some new and original lines, this thread has enough bridge salesmen. What McCarthy did was use authority and pretense as tools to actually imprison people and destroy their careers and lives. It's not McCarthyist simply to say something you disagree with. Trump doesn't spread innuendo and reach conclusions with 0 evidence because he says things I disagree with. He spreads innuendo and reaches conclusions with 0 evidence because he tweets things are terror attacks before any official confirmation, says these emails are worse than Watergate, says judges are unfit to preside over his cases when they are Mexican, and believes he knows better than U.S. military intelligence. Oh, and says over and over again that HRC coordinated his accusers with 0 evidence about that, too. And that there are tens of thousands of dead people voting. Those are all McCarthyist to you, then? They're all spreading innuendo and reaching conclusions with 0 evidence, yes. Which is exactly what the tweet you called "rich" said Trump does, and then draws the similarity to McCarthy. Or are you contesting that McCarthy built a career on spreading innuendo about his political opponents and reaching conclusions with 0 evidence? I can never tell what your point is.
I am asking if you personally think that Donald Trump saying he's smarter than someone else is McCarthyist, because it's an example you brought up. My posts aren't hard to follow.
|
On October 29 2016 07:40 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:32 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first. On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly? I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen. On counts of displaying gross negligence, or intent to transmit classified information illegally, take your pick. How does one break the law and receive absolutely no penalty? Not even a fine or restriction on dealing with classified information or restriction from running for any position that handles classified information. We don't need to do this dance again though, it is clear it won't change anyone's mind. Here we go again. Congress has the power to assign a Special Prosecutor to go after Hillary for Emailghazi. It has not done. Why? You asked this question before, and there is no point in doing this again since I said last time I don't know. My question is how are there no civil penalties, she still broke the law. Not a lawyer and I am asking out of genuine curiosity here.
A.) What law was broken?
B.) What proof is there it was broken?
C.) What proof is there of her intent to break it?
|
On October 29 2016 07:40 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:32 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first. On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly? I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen. On counts of displaying gross negligence, or intent to transmit classified information illegally, take your pick. How does one break the law and receive absolutely no penalty? Not even a fine or restriction on dealing with classified information or restriction from running for any position that handles classified information. We don't need to do this dance again though, it is clear it won't change anyone's mind. Here we go again. Congress has the power to assign a Special Prosecutor to go after Hillary for Emailghazi. It has not done. Why? You asked this question before, and there is no point in doing this again since I said last time I don't know. My question is how are there no civil penalties, she still broke the law. Not a lawyer and I am asking out of genuine curiosity here.
because she's no longer in the position of sec of state, or any other gov't post with security clearance. Otherwise she could be fired from the position or have her clearance revoked.
|
On October 29 2016 07:40 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:32 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first. On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly? I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen. On counts of displaying gross negligence, or intent to transmit classified information illegally, take your pick. How does one break the law and receive absolutely no penalty? Not even a fine or restriction on dealing with classified information or restriction from running for any position that handles classified information. We don't need to do this dance again though, it is clear it won't change anyone's mind. Here we go again. Congress has the power to assign a Special Prosecutor to go after Hillary for Emailghazi. It has not done. Why? You asked this question before, and there is no point in doing this again since I said last time I don't know. My question is how are there no civil penalties, she still broke the law. Not a lawyer and I am asking out of genuine curiosity here.
Yes I asked the question before and I will ask it every time someone brings up that the FBI should have prosecuted Hillary.
She is not getting prosecuted because they cannot prove that she did something that she can be convicted for.
Now you can believe that what she did should have been criminal, but its not. Men far more knowing of such things then you or I have decided so and those with the power to overrule them (Congress) have not done so.
And 9 Benghazi investigations don't give me the idea that Congress lacks the will to go after Hillary if they think they have something.
|
On October 29 2016 07:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:40 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:32 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first. On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly? I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen. On counts of displaying gross negligence, or intent to transmit classified information illegally, take your pick. How does one break the law and receive absolutely no penalty? Not even a fine or restriction on dealing with classified information or restriction from running for any position that handles classified information. We don't need to do this dance again though, it is clear it won't change anyone's mind. Here we go again. Congress has the power to assign a Special Prosecutor to go after Hillary for Emailghazi. It has not done. Why? You asked this question before, and there is no point in doing this again since I said last time I don't know. My question is how are there no civil penalties, she still broke the law. Not a lawyer and I am asking out of genuine curiosity here. Civil penalties are for civil cases brought by citizens, not the goverment. They don't apply to what you are talking about.
So if someone does the exact same thing as hrc, and "accidentally" (no intent) transmits classified information the same way, there won't be any consequence other than him/her being fired, even if it was top secret information. Sounds about right.
|
On October 29 2016 07:47 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:42 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 07:40 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:32 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first. On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly? I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen. On counts of displaying gross negligence, or intent to transmit classified information illegally, take your pick. How does one break the law and receive absolutely no penalty? Not even a fine or restriction on dealing with classified information or restriction from running for any position that handles classified information. We don't need to do this dance again though, it is clear it won't change anyone's mind. Here we go again. Congress has the power to assign a Special Prosecutor to go after Hillary for Emailghazi. It has not done. Why? You asked this question before, and there is no point in doing this again since I said last time I don't know. My question is how are there no civil penalties, she still broke the law. Not a lawyer and I am asking out of genuine curiosity here. Civil penalties are for civil cases brought by citizens, not the goverment. They don't apply to what you are talking about. So if someone does the exact same thing as hrc, and "accidentally" (no intent) transmits classified information the same way, there won't be any consequence other than him/her being fired, even if it was top secret information. Sounds about right.
Yes. That is literally what the FBI director told congress. They would be in trouble or lose their job.
|
Just saw a wells fargo ad; they're pushing some new plans to atone and try to recover their reputation. they mention a few of the changes they making.
details @
https://www.wellsfargo.com/commitment
if anyone cares to read more.
|
On October 29 2016 07:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:40 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:32 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first. On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly? I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen. On counts of displaying gross negligence, or intent to transmit classified information illegally, take your pick. How does one break the law and receive absolutely no penalty? Not even a fine or restriction on dealing with classified information or restriction from running for any position that handles classified information. We don't need to do this dance again though, it is clear it won't change anyone's mind. Here we go again. Congress has the power to assign a Special Prosecutor to go after Hillary for Emailghazi. It has not done. Why? You asked this question before, and there is no point in doing this again since I said last time I don't know. My question is how are there no civil penalties, she still broke the law. Not a lawyer and I am asking out of genuine curiosity here. A.) What law was broken? B.) What proof is there it was broken? C.) What proof is there of her intent to break it?
A) The statute that speaks of "gross negligence" when handling classified information. (Comey said "extremely careless" which is the exact same shit)
B) FBI investigation showed the emails
C) Her repeated lies (not under oath) when discussing the investigation. There was also the 33,000 deleted emails, and that dude on reddit who was HRC's tech guy asking about how to delete emails, who then started deleting his posts about deleting emails. Basically what I learned is intent is incredibly difficult to prove unless you have some hacked email situation directly showing that to be the case, but obstruction of justice or lying in an attempt to cover up is just as good as 'intent'. The only reason HRC lucked out apparently is because she just lied while not under oath.
|
A special reminder that George W Bush and his administration deleted 22 million emails, mostly relating to the lead up to the Iraq war. Weirdly Republicans are not very invested into looking into that. And Bush's SOS used a private email account for all his communication. And again, no one seems to mind or even bother looking into it.
|
On October 29 2016 07:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 06:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 06:35 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2016 06:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 06:12 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2016 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 05:59 oBlade wrote:
That's a rich tweet, Donald Trump, who everyone knows is a Russian puppet being propped up by Vladimir Putin and his global alt-right network, is McCarthyist. If you don't think Trump reaches conclusions and spreads innuendo based on a total lack of evidence, like McCarthy did, I have a bridge to sell you. Edit: And that's exactly what the tweet says. Not that he hates commies. Keep the bridge and get over it. Also, work on some new and original lines, this thread has enough bridge salesmen. What McCarthy did was use authority and pretense as tools to actually imprison people and destroy their careers and lives. It's not McCarthyist simply to say something you disagree with. Trump doesn't spread innuendo and reach conclusions with 0 evidence because he says things I disagree with. He spreads innuendo and reaches conclusions with 0 evidence because he tweets things are terror attacks before any official confirmation, says these emails are worse than Watergate, says judges are unfit to preside over his cases when they are Mexican, and believes he knows better than U.S. military intelligence. Oh, and says over and over again that HRC coordinated his accusers with 0 evidence about that, too. And that there are tens of thousands of dead people voting. Those are all McCarthyist to you, then? They're all spreading innuendo and reaching conclusions with 0 evidence, yes. Which is exactly what the tweet you called "rich" said Trump does, and then draws the similarity to McCarthy. Or are you contesting that McCarthy built a career on spreading innuendo about his political opponents and reaching conclusions with 0 evidence? I can never tell what your point is. I am asking if you personally think that Donald Trump saying he's smarter than someone else is McCarthyist, because it's an example you brought up. My posts aren't hard to follow.
Huh? That doesn't appear anywhere in this conversation string at all, unless knowing better than military intelligence is being smarter than someone else? That's certainly making conclusions on 0 evidence and spreading innuendo though.
|
On October 29 2016 07:57 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 29 2016 07:40 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:36 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:32 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 07:25 Plansix wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. The President can't be charged with a crime. Congress has to remove them from office first. On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly? I don't think Bio really cares. Something. Anything. Just charge her because he feels she did something criminal and it should happen. On counts of displaying gross negligence, or intent to transmit classified information illegally, take your pick. How does one break the law and receive absolutely no penalty? Not even a fine or restriction on dealing with classified information or restriction from running for any position that handles classified information. We don't need to do this dance again though, it is clear it won't change anyone's mind. Here we go again. Congress has the power to assign a Special Prosecutor to go after Hillary for Emailghazi. It has not done. Why? You asked this question before, and there is no point in doing this again since I said last time I don't know. My question is how are there no civil penalties, she still broke the law. Not a lawyer and I am asking out of genuine curiosity here. A.) What law was broken? B.) What proof is there it was broken? C.) What proof is there of her intent to break it? A) The statute that speaks of "gross negligence" when handling classified information. (Comey said "extremely careless" which is the exact same shit) B) FBI investigation showed the emails C) Her repeated lies (not under oath) when discussing the investigation. There was also the 33,000 deleted emails, and that dude on reddit who was HRC's tech guy asking about how to delete emails, who then started deleting his posts about deleting emails. Basically what I learned is intent is incredibly difficult to prove unless you have some hacked email situation directly showing that to be the case, but obstruction of justice or lying in an attempt to cover up is just as good as 'intent'. The only reason HRC lucked out apparently is because she just lied while not under oath.
No, all of this is false. It's not the exact same shit, and the jurisprudence tells us she wouldn't be found guilty under that statute. This was already covered extensively in the thread.
|
United States43938 Posts
On October 29 2016 07:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:21 biology]major wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 29 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:
Time for the hyperventilation regarding polling to start again For those worried that Trump is going to win 7 of the 6 close races, sure. In which case I hope she gets charged after being elected and Tim Kaine takes over. Charged with what exactly?
Four counts of first degree Benghazi, two counts of second degree Benghazi and nine counts of conspiracy to Benghazi. Bake them away toys.
|
The reason why Comey didn't say "Gross Negligence" is because legal terms have very strict definitions, unlike English language. Would be the same as saying a person was "extremely menacing" but did not commit Assault, or something similar.
It means that something can be bad or dumb without being criminal.
|
Death by a thousand cuts.
Good timing on this one and there's still over 10,000 Podesta emails to be released so plenty more potential criminal activity for the FBI to investigate.
|
Keep wishing, because if there was any juice behind those emails, they would be out by now. October Surprise is best served in early October.
|
On October 29 2016 08:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 07:44 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2016 06:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 06:35 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2016 06:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 06:12 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2016 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 05:59 oBlade wrote:
That's a rich tweet, Donald Trump, who everyone knows is a Russian puppet being propped up by Vladimir Putin and his global alt-right network, is McCarthyist. If you don't think Trump reaches conclusions and spreads innuendo based on a total lack of evidence, like McCarthy did, I have a bridge to sell you. Edit: And that's exactly what the tweet says. Not that he hates commies. Keep the bridge and get over it. Also, work on some new and original lines, this thread has enough bridge salesmen. What McCarthy did was use authority and pretense as tools to actually imprison people and destroy their careers and lives. It's not McCarthyist simply to say something you disagree with. Trump doesn't spread innuendo and reach conclusions with 0 evidence because he says things I disagree with. He spreads innuendo and reaches conclusions with 0 evidence because he tweets things are terror attacks before any official confirmation, says these emails are worse than Watergate, says judges are unfit to preside over his cases when they are Mexican, and believes he knows better than U.S. military intelligence. Oh, and says over and over again that HRC coordinated his accusers with 0 evidence about that, too. And that there are tens of thousands of dead people voting. Those are all McCarthyist to you, then? They're all spreading innuendo and reaching conclusions with 0 evidence, yes. Which is exactly what the tweet you called "rich" said Trump does, and then draws the similarity to McCarthy. Or are you contesting that McCarthy built a career on spreading innuendo about his political opponents and reaching conclusions with 0 evidence? I can never tell what your point is. I am asking if you personally think that Donald Trump saying he's smarter than someone else is McCarthyist, because it's an example you brought up. My posts aren't hard to follow. Huh? That doesn't appear anywhere in this conversation string at all, unless knowing better than military intelligence is being smarter than someone else?
Obviously.
On October 29 2016 08:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
That's certainly making conclusions on 0 evidence and spreading innuendo though.
To think I gave you a perfectly good opening for a straight answer. If I write an article saying Gary Johnson gives speeches, which is not unlike Hitler, who also gave speeches, you'd presumably object to the comparison. Maybe this way you'll see what I was talking about with McCarthy.
|
Also, how is it legal for that reporter to release details of an ongoing investigation, did he have direct permission from the FBI to do so? This doesn't make sense, do you guys see Comey clarifying in the next 11 days?
|
On October 29 2016 08:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 08:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 07:44 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2016 06:39 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 06:35 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2016 06:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 06:12 oBlade wrote:On October 29 2016 06:02 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 29 2016 05:59 oBlade wrote:
That's a rich tweet, Donald Trump, who everyone knows is a Russian puppet being propped up by Vladimir Putin and his global alt-right network, is McCarthyist. If you don't think Trump reaches conclusions and spreads innuendo based on a total lack of evidence, like McCarthy did, I have a bridge to sell you. Edit: And that's exactly what the tweet says. Not that he hates commies. Keep the bridge and get over it. Also, work on some new and original lines, this thread has enough bridge salesmen. What McCarthy did was use authority and pretense as tools to actually imprison people and destroy their careers and lives. It's not McCarthyist simply to say something you disagree with. Trump doesn't spread innuendo and reach conclusions with 0 evidence because he says things I disagree with. He spreads innuendo and reaches conclusions with 0 evidence because he tweets things are terror attacks before any official confirmation, says these emails are worse than Watergate, says judges are unfit to preside over his cases when they are Mexican, and believes he knows better than U.S. military intelligence. Oh, and says over and over again that HRC coordinated his accusers with 0 evidence about that, too. And that there are tens of thousands of dead people voting. Those are all McCarthyist to you, then? They're all spreading innuendo and reaching conclusions with 0 evidence, yes. Which is exactly what the tweet you called "rich" said Trump does, and then draws the similarity to McCarthy. Or are you contesting that McCarthy built a career on spreading innuendo about his political opponents and reaching conclusions with 0 evidence? I can never tell what your point is. I am asking if you personally think that Donald Trump saying he's smarter than someone else is McCarthyist, because it's an example you brought up. My posts aren't hard to follow. Huh? That doesn't appear anywhere in this conversation string at all, unless knowing better than military intelligence is being smarter than someone else? Obviously. Show nested quote +On October 29 2016 08:08 TheTenthDoc wrote:
That's certainly making conclusions on 0 evidence and spreading innuendo though. To think I gave you a perfectly good opening for a straight answer. If I write an article saying Gary Johnson gives speeches, which is not unlike Hitler, who also gave speeches, you'd presumably object to the comparison. Maybe this way you'll see what I was talking about with McCarthy.
The statement that was made is possibly unclear, or on the other hand maybe it's imprecise enough to be vulnerable to malicious nitpicking. I'm not sure.
McCarthy did think he knew better than military intelligence (presumably, that area of history is not my strongest suit) but that isn't inherently bad, nor is it when Trump does it.
The associated fact that he abused that belief into accusing people who should not have been accused, and whom the military would not have accused, and doing improper things in general which would not have been done had he not believed he knew better than military intelligence, is the part where Trump being similar to McCarthy is a bad thing.
(EDIT: In my opinion talking about military intelligence is over-specific in this case. Trump flying in the face of all legal and judicial opinion on the matter to say that he's going to jail Clinton, or however it was he chose to word that, seems like the most reminiscent comparison to me.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
