US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5898

On November 04 2016 04:45 xDaunt wrote:


And you don't think that covering up for potential crimes is interference in the democratic process? How about Obama's lies about being unaware of Hillary's server? Where exactly do you want to draw the line?

Here's the important question that we have to ask ourselves: regardless of the pure and strict legality of whatever the Clintons have done with their foundation, they very clearly have created a new business model that lets them sell their influence in exchange for their own personal aggrandizement. Again, and regardless of its legality, do really want to tolerate this kind of apparent impropriety from our politicians?

On November 04 2016 04:45 xDaunt wrote:


And you don't think that covering up for potential crimes is interference in the democratic process? How about Obama's lies about being unaware of Hillary's server? Where exactly do you want to draw the line?

Here's the important question that we have to ask ourselves: regardless of the pure and strict legality of whatever the Clintons have done with their foundation, they very clearly have created a new business model that lets them sell their influence in exchange for their own personal aggrandizement. Again, and regardless of its legality, do really want to tolerate this kind of apparent impropriety from our politicians?

On November 04 2016 04:52 Gorsameth wrote:

As I said a dozen times now, if they have evidence then show it. Including now a week before the election.
But if you have no evidence then you keep your mouth shut and you don't interfere based on gut feelings.

And no I dont believe they are selling influence unless I see evidence. And no I dont have a problem with the legal Clinton Foundation.

On November 04 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:


The Clintons had no money when they left the White House. Now they have in excess of $300 million. Where do you think that came from?

On November 04 2016 04:55 xDaunt wrote:


The Clintons had no money when they left the White House. Now they have in excess of $300 million. Where do you think that came from?

On November 04 2016 04:59 Plansix wrote:
We have seen their tax returns for the last 20 years. We know exactly where the money came from. Book sales and speeches.

If the polls are correct, many disaffected Republicans are making their peace with Donald Trump in the final hours of the 2016 campaign. The usual term for this process is “returning home.” This time, we need a new phrase. The familiar Republican home has been bulldozed and replaced by a Trump-branded edifice. It will require long and hard work to restore and rebuild what has been lost.

...

Yes, I fear Clinton’s grudge-holding. Should I fear it so much that I rally to a candidate who has already explicitly promised to deploy antitrust and libel law against his critics and opponents? Who incited violence at his rallies? Who ejects reporters from his events if he objects to their coverage? Who told a huge audience in Australia that his top life advice was: "Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it”? Who idealizes Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, and the butchers of Tiananmen as strong leaders to be admired and emulated?

Should I be so appalled by the Clinton family’s access-selling that I prefer instead a president who boasts of a lifetime of bribing politicians to further his business career? Who defaults on debts and contracts as an ordinary business method, and who avoids taxes by deducting the losses he inflicted on others as if he had suffered them himself? Who cheated the illegal laborers he employed at Trump Tower out of their humble hourly wage? Who owes hundreds of millions of dollars to the Bank of China? Who refuses to disclose his tax returns, perhaps to conceal his business dealings with Vladimir Putin’s inner circle?

To demonstrate my distaste for people whose bodies contain mean bones, it’s proposed that I give my franchise to a man who boasts of his delight in sexual assault? Who mocks the disabled, who denounces immigrant parents whose son laid down his life for this country, who endorses religious bigotry, and who denies the Americanism of everyone from the judge hearing the fraud case against Trump University to the 44th president of the United States?

...

Above all, [Hillary] can govern herself; the first indispensable qualification for governing others.

So I will vote for the candidate who rejects my preferences and offends my opinions. (In fact, I already have voted for her.) Previous generations accepted infinitely heavier sacrifices and more dangerous duties to defend democracy. I’ll miss the tax cut I’d get from united Republican government. But there will be other elections, other chances to vote for what I regard as more sensible policies. My party will recover to counter her agenda in Congress, moderate her nominations to the courts, and defeat her bid for re-election in 2020. I look forward to supporting Republican recovery and renewal.

This November, however, I am voting not to advance my wish-list on taxes, entitlements, regulation, and judicial appointments. I am voting to defend Americans' profoundest shared commitment: a commitment to norms and rules that today protect my rights under a president I don’t favor, and that will tomorrow do the same service for you.

Vote the wrong way in November, and those norms and rules will shudder and shake in a way unequaled since the Union won the Civil War.

On November 04 2016 05:04 ticklishmusic wrote:


oh come on, thats just flat out misinformation. they earned maybe 200m over the course of 15 years, but thats very different from net worth.

On November 04 2016 04:56 Gorsameth wrote:

People make money, Famous people make more money
More news at 11

Show
Me
Factual
Solid
Evidence

On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:
And you do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements?

On November 04 2016 04:52 xDaunt wrote:

No, see point Number 2.

On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:

And you do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time.

On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:

And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time.

On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:

And you do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time.

On November 04 2016 05:07 oneofthem wrote:
that is the point. field office team made their presentation, got turned down.

they have to defer to rank in this kind of policy decision.

On November 04 2016 05:05 xDaunt wrote:

And why do you think that people paid the Clintons multi-six figure sums for short speaking engagements? And that's before we even touch all of the other gifts and ancillary benefits that the Clintons receive like free travel via private planes all of the time.

On November 04 2016 04:44 Blisse wrote:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/03/federal_judge_slams_north_carolina_voter_purge.html

Jesus Christ this is getting out of hand

On November 04 2016 05:10 xDaunt wrote:

Don't be so obtuse. You know what my point is. The FBI agents aren't deferring to their superiors because they are convinced that their superiors are deliberately obstructing the investigation for corrupt reasons.