Isn't it funny how Trump has been a public figure for decades, and running for office for over a year, and suddenly, just a couple months before the election, all of these women come out of nowhere to make claims that can't possibly be defended against in time for the election.
Clue...Your taxes don't show your net worth. You'd have to see his company's taxes to know anything about their debt, it wouldn't show up on his, even if he's 100% owner.
When the west bargained from a position of strength, we ended the Cold War. And when Obama thought we could just all sing Kumbaya, Russia took that as a sign of weekness...as did N. Korea, Iran, and others, and they took advantage of it. So if, by "fuck with Russia" you mean let them do what they want, you're an idiot.
More seriously, if you were running a bank, and had reason to suspect that one of your clients might be funneling funds through that weren't quite on the up and up, would you want to run the risk of it coming out in the press that you were supporting them? Even if you didn't have proof, just a reasonable suspicion, isn't that good enough for you to ask them to take their business elsewhere?
With RT being nothing but a propaganda machine, I wouldn't want my bank to be supporting them, and I certainly wouldn't support a bank that did.
So you do blame RT then. Because if you've ever watched it for any length of time, you'd know that broadcasts nothing but anti-western stories. There is literally nothing of general interest, and every story has a pro-Russian taint to it. And while some of those stories are true, many are not. And while CNN and others have their own "taints", they're nowhere near as slanted. You'll frequently hear stories not in a positive light about western politics and culture. Complete apples and oranges, so don't even try to claim they're equivalent.
While there may be no precedent for prosecution, there's plenty of precedent for people having access removed, as well as losing their jobs. The approving authorities get funny about anything considered to be "adverse information".
Anyway, I'm much more concerned with what HRC has done when compared with what DT has said.
That depends upon what you consider to be "bigger and more prolific". I, for one, will not tolerate someone who's lied about national security, and put peoples lives at risk. HRC has done just that. But, if you can live with that, I hope I don't have to come back in a couple years to say I told you so. I fully expect HRC to win at this point, and I'll wish her well.
You've got yourself befuddled as to what this conversation is about.
Read the context. The OP is claiming that Hillary committed a crime, that makes innocence a matter of law, not morality. The OP claimed that she could be tried by the ballot box, I generously embraced that concept. My generosity doesn't imply a misunderstanding of the way the law works.
Wow, you've got some comprehension issues. I said we all judge at the ballot box...that's not equivalent to "tried by the ballot box,". And you're flat out wrong about innocence with regard to law and morality.
Yes, let's shoot the messenger. Which is nothing but an alleged boogeyman distraction from the evidence presented. Don't like what it's laid out?...distract. Typical tactic.
We all judge at the ballot box. We all know she's lied. The FBI decided they didn't have enough evidence for a conviction doesn't make her less of a liar. She flat out stated she hadn't be subpoenaed, when she had. She claimed she didn't know what a "C" meant on portion marked classified documents, and anyone who's ever worked with classified documents knows she lied about that. That she wasn't convicted doesn't make it any less criminal. She's lied about everything from the source of her name (Sir Edmund Hillary) to being shot at in Bosnia. She lied about the video being the reason behind the Benghazi attack. She lied about being broke leaving the White House. She even lied about being turned down to be a Marine. These are well documented facts that every voter should judge her upon.
Since when do you need to be a judge or jury to make the determination that someone has lied, or broken the law. Plenty of people have gotten away with both w/o an indictment or conviction. Stop being naïve. We all judge with our votes.
* Compromised national security by keeping classified on a private server, then lying about it, and deleting emails when subpoenaed. * Says she's a champion for women, yet attacked the women who her husband screwed. * Voted for the war in Iraq * Complete failure in the handling of the Arab Spring, leaving voids in Libya and Egypt * Pay for play with the Clinton Foundation * * This list goes on and on.
Yes, Trump said some stupid shit that would normally disqualify him, but there's been no evidence, only speculation, that he's actually done anything criminal. And suddenly, a few weeks before the election, we're supposed to believe a bunch of women who come out at the last minute to make claims against him that he's got no chance to defend against...not buying it w/o evidence.
See, this is where your parents screwed up. They let you get away with doing whatever the hell you wanted, and being disrespectful. Hopefully, you're an only child. Go find a safe space loser.
Slashdot Mirror
If he were smart, he would have been much more careful with what he said while wearing a mic.
Yeah, because smart people never do that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03...
Wow, and I thought the left claimed the right was anti-LGBT. Try hating less, you'll live a longer happier life.
We don't have a huge illegal immigration issue over the Canadian border. Nor do we have a huge drug supply coming over the Canadian border.
But, I suppose you're okay with those issues.
Isn't it funny how Trump has been a public figure for decades, and running for office for over a year, and suddenly, just a couple months before the election, all of these women come out of nowhere to make claims that can't possibly be defended against in time for the election.
Show some actual evidence, or STFU.
Trump has a failing tower built with debt. You need to go to bed kid.
Trump owes more in debt than he has in assets. How much of that debt is Russian? Tax returns will tell.
His tax returns wouldn't show that at all because it's part of a business, not his personal returns.
Trump has a failing tower built with debt. You need to go to bed kid.
Oh please. What percentage of skyscrapers have been built without debt? Clue: It's less than 1%
Clue...Your taxes don't show your net worth. You'd have to see his company's taxes to know anything about their debt, it wouldn't show up on his, even if he's 100% owner.
When the west bargained from a position of strength, we ended the Cold War. And when Obama thought we could just all sing Kumbaya, Russia took that as a sign of weekness...as did N. Korea, Iran, and others, and they took advantage of it. So if, by "fuck with Russia" you mean let them do what they want, you're an idiot.
Vlad?
More seriously, if you were running a bank, and had reason to suspect that one of your clients might be funneling funds through that weren't quite on the up and up, would you want to run the risk of it coming out in the press that you were supporting them? Even if you didn't have proof, just a reasonable suspicion, isn't that good enough for you to ask them to take their business elsewhere?
With RT being nothing but a propaganda machine, I wouldn't want my bank to be supporting them, and I certainly wouldn't support a bank that did.
So you do blame RT then. Because if you've ever watched it for any length of time, you'd know that broadcasts nothing but anti-western stories. There is literally nothing of general interest, and every story has a pro-Russian taint to it. And while some of those stories are true, many are not. And while CNN and others have their own "taints", they're nowhere near as slanted. You'll frequently hear stories not in a positive light about western politics and culture. Complete apples and oranges, so don't even try to claim they're equivalent.
Really? When did they get to set up shop in Russia? Oh, that didn't happen? Guess it's not quite the same then.
While there may be no precedent for prosecution, there's plenty of precedent for people having access removed, as well as losing their jobs. The approving authorities get funny about anything considered to be "adverse information".
Anyway, I'm much more concerned with what HRC has done when compared with what DT has said.
That depends upon what you consider to be "bigger and more prolific". I, for one, will not tolerate someone who's lied about national security, and put peoples lives at risk. HRC has done just that. But, if you can live with that, I hope I don't have to come back in a couple years to say I told you so. I fully expect HRC to win at this point, and I'll wish her well.
You've got yourself befuddled as to what this conversation is about.
Read the context. The OP is claiming that Hillary committed a crime, that makes innocence a matter of law, not morality. The OP claimed that she could be tried by the ballot box, I generously embraced that concept. My generosity doesn't imply a misunderstanding of the way the law works.
Wow, you've got some comprehension issues. I said we all judge at the ballot box...that's not equivalent to "tried by the ballot box,". And you're flat out wrong about innocence with regard to law and morality.
Innocence was a moral concept before it ever became a legal one. What do you think the legal system was based upon in the first place?
No you're lying. I said no such thing.
I'd argue that the decline started a decade earlier.
Yes, let's shoot the messenger. Which is nothing but an alleged boogeyman distraction from the evidence presented. Don't like what it's laid out?...distract. Typical tactic.
We were buying VWs and Toyotas by the early 60s. What's your point?
We all judge at the ballot box. We all know she's lied. The FBI decided they didn't have enough evidence for a conviction doesn't make her less of a liar. She flat out stated she hadn't be subpoenaed, when she had. She claimed she didn't know what a "C" meant on portion marked classified documents, and anyone who's ever worked with classified documents knows she lied about that. That she wasn't convicted doesn't make it any less criminal. She's lied about everything from the source of her name (Sir Edmund Hillary) to being shot at in Bosnia. She lied about the video being the reason behind the Benghazi attack. She lied about being broke leaving the White House. She even lied about being turned down to be a Marine. These are well documented facts that every voter should judge her upon.
Please point to anything incorrect. We'll wait.
Since when do you need to be a judge or jury to make the determination that someone has lied, or broken the law. Plenty of people have gotten away with both w/o an indictment or conviction. Stop being naïve. We all judge with our votes.
Let's see...
* Compromised national security by keeping classified on a private server, then lying about it, and deleting emails when subpoenaed.
* Says she's a champion for women, yet attacked the women who her husband screwed.
* Voted for the war in Iraq
* Complete failure in the handling of the Arab Spring, leaving voids in Libya and Egypt
* Pay for play with the Clinton Foundation
*
*
This list goes on and on.
Yes, Trump said some stupid shit that would normally disqualify him, but there's been no evidence, only speculation, that he's actually done anything criminal. And suddenly, a few weeks before the election, we're supposed to believe a bunch of women who come out at the last minute to make claims against him that he's got no chance to defend against...not buying it w/o evidence.
See, this is where your parents screwed up. They let you get away with doing whatever the hell you wanted, and being disrespectful. Hopefully, you're an only child. Go find a safe space loser.
+1 Bravo
And yes, I blame the parents.