The OFFICIAL Trump/HRC/2016 General Election Thread...

[T.Lex]

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

Thanks to foszoe for the link to the transcript:

I know nothing about Russia - I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia.

Is this unsettling to anyone else? Anyone?

 

[T.Lex]

Do you think that everyone wearing a 'Hillary for Prison 2016' shirt is also for violating due process simply because they do not overtly mention it?

For those people, it is a fantasy. They have no way of making it happen. No authority, and are not seeking such authority.

Trump is. Maybe it is a fantasy for him, too. Maybe it is just a lever that he's using to get support. Mostly, it was probably a way for him to get the momentary positive reinforcement he craves - laughter and/or applause.

It is not mutually exclusive. He can be both ignorant of the right way of doing things and willing to use the power of the office as a punch line. That's perfectly plausible.

 

[foszoe]

What have you decided? Does he understand, to your satisfaction, how the system is supposed to work?

What I have decided is that your question above is irrelevant to the interpretation of the quoted transcript and your assertion that "You know, the part about sending HRC to jail without regard for any investigation." is a valid interpretation.

 

[printcraft]

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

Thanks to foszoe for the link to the transcript:



Is this unsettling to anyone else? Anyone?

Sigh.

In regards to him having financial dealings with russia, clinton was trying to suggest russian money going to Trump.

Did you watch the debate last evening or MSNBC chuck todds comments today?

 

[foszoe]

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

Thanks to foszoe for the link to the transcript:



Is this unsettling to anyone else? Anyone?

As soon as he said the first sentence, I knew he better walk that line back and I figured I would see it soon in a Clinton commercial. That said, iin context, i do believe he walked it back sufficiently. That will not make the sound bites though. It didn't completely make your citation.

 

[BugI02]

View attachment 50575View attachment 50574

 

[Alpo]

 

[BugI02]

Honestly, I'd accept "fair" by any honest definition.

As your scenarios describe, I do not think he would be fair. I think the professionals working for him would try to be fair, but in the big/close cases where input is needed from the top guy, I have no confidence that he would even try to be fair.

Wait - are you describing Trump ... or Comey ... or Obama?

 

[T.Lex]

In regards to him having financial dealings with russia, clinton was trying to suggest russian money going to Trump.

Did you watch the debate last evening or MSNBC chuck todds comments today?

Ignoring the ignorant attempt at a barb, yes, she harped on that more than was reasonable.

But he didn't have to say that. Did he mean it? Did he mean something different?

He says stupid stuff. He is not good at what he's trying to do.

And go back and read the transcript. She's right about WikiLeaks and Russia trying to influence the election. Or is that part of the conspiracy? By releasing things damning of HRC, they are trying to help her? He didn't have to bring up his taxes in response to that question! He just didn't.

He didn't have to admit ignorance of Russia - especially if he isn't ignorant of Russia.

Anyway, then there's this idea of eliminating "carried interest" from getting a tax break. Anyone have any questions about that? Anyone think that's a good idea?

 

[T.Lex]

As soon as he said the first sentence, I knew he better walk that line back and I figured I would see it soon in a Clinton commercial. That said, iin context, i do believe he walked it back sufficiently. That will not make the sound bites though. It didn't completely make your citation.

He went from there to talking about the Old Post office. If you think he claimed knowledge about Russia, show me where. I don't recall him mentioning anything approaching an informed opinion.

Wait - are you describing Trump ... or Comey ... or Obama?

Yes.

Does it bother you at all that it could describe any of them?

 

[Alpo]

Yeah, carried interest should be ordinary income.

 

[printcraft]

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

Thanks to foszoe for the link to the transcript:

CLINTON: Well, right. As I recall, that was something I said about Abraham Lincoln after having seen the wonderful Steven Spielberg movie called "Lincoln." It was a master class watching President Lincoln get the Congress to approve the 13th Amendment. It was principled, and it was strategic. And I was making the point that it is hard sometimes to get the Congress to do what you want to do and you have to keep working at it.
And, yes, President Lincoln was trying to convince some people, he used some arguments, convincing other people, he used other arguments. That was a great -- I thought a great display of presidential leadership.

She is lying to someone..... Is this unsettling to anyone else? Anyone?

 

[Tombs]

Ignoring the ignorant attempt at a barb, yes, she harped on that more than was reasonable.

But he didn't have to say that. Did he mean it? Did he mean something different?

He says stupid stuff. He is not good at what he's trying to do.

And go back and read the transcript. She's right about WikiLeaks and Russia trying to influence the election. Or is that part of the conspiracy? By releasing things damning of HRC, they are trying to help her? He didn't have to bring up his taxes in response to that question! He just didn't.

He didn't have to admit ignorance of Russia - especially if he isn't ignorant of Russia.

Anyway, then there's this idea of eliminating "carried interest" from getting a tax break. Anyone have any questions about that? Anyone think that's a good idea?

So you're for due process one minute, and the next you're running with the DNC mcarthyism myth they're trying to spin about where the information came from.

 

[T.Lex]

She is lying to someone..... Is this unsettling to anyone else? Anyone?

Hell no.

Public servants are absolutely allowed - even expected - to hold private opinions and public positions. They are supposed to serve the will of the people, regardless whether it coincides with their own. If there is a 180 degree difference, they should say so.

That's part of the reason it ain't as easy as people think.

So you're for due process one minute, and the next you're running with the DNC mcarthyism myth they're trying to spin about where the information came from.

That doesn't make ANY sense.

Are you saying WikiLeaks didn't leak it? Or that Russia wasn't responsible for it? And what's the link to McCarthyism? Does Trump have a list of names or something?

Even Trump called on Russia to release the emails. Or has that been forgotten?

If Assange is charged with anything, he's entitled to due process. Just like HRC or Trump would be.

ETA:
Lincoln had a great line about this. When asked about being described as "two faced" he quipped, "If I had 2 faces, do you think I'd be using this one?"

 

[BugI02]

So, what does "gross negligence" mean? Here's one legal definition.


So disregard of the need to use reasonable care. Assuming there were the normal protections for servers, which there appears to have been, were her servers "extremely" vulnerable?

That's the question the DOJ had to answer regarding Clinton.

Normal "negligence" is (generally) not a crime. And here it isn't either.

What about 793 [f] [2]? Do you think it would be that difficult to prove that she knew that said information had been removed from its proper place (given texts like the one instructing a subordinate (Sullivan), quote “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” That’s an order to violate the laws handling classified material. There is no other way to read that demand.

Same crime, same penalty

 

[foszoe]

He went from there to talking about the Old Post office. If you think he claimed knowledge about Russia, show me where. I don't recall him mentioning anything approaching an informed opinion.

I don't know that I would say he claimed specific knowledge about Russia. His walk back seemed to me more in line with a person trying to stave off two accusations: Putin worship and Business dealings that would influence his dealings with Russia.

I do think lost points on this specific exchange. I usually prefer at least the whole sentence in a citation or at least some ellipses. His complete reply was...

This is definitely more open to interpretation or clarification from the candidate.


But as far as other elements of what she was saying, I don’t know Putin. I think it would be great if we got along with Russia because we could fight ISIS together, as an example. But I don’t know Putin.
But I notice, anytime anything wrong happens, they like to say the Russians are — she doesn’t know if it’s the Russians doing the hacking. Maybe there is no hacking. But they always blame Russia. And the reason they blame Russia because they think they’re trying to tarnish me with Russia. I know nothing about Russia. I know — I know about Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don’t deal there. I have no businesses there. I have no loans from Russia

 

[printcraft]

Hell no.

Public servants are absolutely allowed - even expected - to hold private opinions and public positions. They are supposed to serve the will of the people, regardless whether it coincides with their own. If there is a 180 degree difference, they should say so.

That's part of the reason it ain't as easy as people think.

.

OK so she tells goldman sachs she has their back and will make sure they get what they want for a cash payment to her......

And she tells the American people she is working for them and will punish goldman sachs to get their vote..... and that's ok?

Really?

That's not opinion, that's policy. She is NOT serving the people, she is serving the bankers and herself.

Whom are "public servants" supposed to serve?
(hint: it's right there ^^^^^^ in the name)

 

[T.Lex]

What about 793 [f] [2]? Do you think it would be that difficult to prove that she knew that said information had been removed from its proper place (given texts like the one instructing a subordinate (Sullivan), quote “If they can’t, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” That’s an order to violate the laws handling classified material. There is no other way to read that demand.

Same crime, same penalty

Ok. You made me google it.

That references asking staff to send HER something. Her staff was cleared (allegedly - if he wasn't, then it doesn't make any sense). She was cleared. If there was any classified information, it was distributed by a cleared person to a cleared person.

What's your question?

BTW, as Sec'y of State, I think she could declassify certain things herself.

But again, my bigger point - which is getting lost in this noise about how crappy HRC is - is whether Donald understands any of this. To foszoe, the mention of "special prosecutor" before stating that if he'd been president, she'd be in jail, is sufficient evidence of his understanding. Everyone else satisfied with that?

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, carried interest should be ordinary income.

Thanks for playing.

That's a bad idea.

Forbes Welcome

If this sounds familiar, it’s because Congressional Democrats made a run at this back in 2007 when they took control of Congress. It failed then because conservatives realized that what was at stake here was not “hedge fund guys,” but the tax treatment of capital gains. A longstanding goal of Democrats is to tax ALL capital gains as ordinary income, and this carried interest capital gains tax hike is a prudently chosen tip of the spear. Wise Republicans should want nothing to do with this trap.

It was Dem's idea before it was Trump's.

 

[BugI02]

He went from there to talking about the Old Post office. If you think he claimed knowledge about Russia, show me where. I don't recall him mentioning anything approaching an informed opinion.


Yes.

Does it bother you at all that it could describe any of them?

It bothers me most that it describes Comey. I would not have thought one man could so shamelessly wield the FBI as a partisan tool. Another bad actor confident he will never see the inside of jail cell