Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[unbillievable]

How many times has a political convention been held where the party actually loses support in the polls?

 

The level of ineptitude we're seeing from the Democrats is historic.

[/dev/null]

 

Uh...no. It's a common nickname for the Blackberry.

I called them Dingleberries

[Juror#8]

 

No, I do not. And I'm saying that as someone who's routinely briefed and "trained" on the legal importance of record retention in the government, who has heard stressed repeatedly "Do not user personal equipment for government work, because it removes federal records from government oversight," and who has seen people escorted out of offices for violating such rules, I understand that what she did is a REALLY big deal for which she would have been indicted if, as the FBI Director said, she were anybody else.

I think that we agree on this more than you realize. I'm not questioning the "big deal" of what she did or didn't do. Nor am I questioning your background or your capacity to know the significance of her actions. I'm on record as saying that it's a big deal and her feckless handling of the email server is an issue of national security. What I am saying is that it's gotten very good spin in the national media and was a staple of cable news for months. Even pundits who are traditionally left-leaning called what she did bone-headed over and over again while the issue was getting spins in the media cycle.

 

Back to your original point, you're saying that she is "beautified" in the media. I'm saying that it's anything else but. She was pilloried around the server stuff and every cable news program after 6pm included some segment around Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness. It's been a theme.

 

There is nothing "doll baby" about that kind of image or querying in the national media.

 

Unfortunately I think that the the right of center dolt factions (not you included but you may be an audience to it) are so obsessed with this idea of the "national liberal media" that they've convinced themselves that it's always at work res ipsa loquitur.

 

The only person who is getting a pass is Donald Trump. He hasn't been vetted in any way to the level that Hillary has. He has more skeletons in his closet that the media won't touch. Arguably, he ran afoul of the Logan Act with his comments on Russia but you see the apologists here in full force already explaining his comments as "trolling." This even though using trendy social media language isn't a pass or a defense to communicating with Russian State actors around actions that could be detrimental in any manner to United States interests (I guess if it could be proven that he knew Russia was behind the initial hack which there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they were).

 

If that were Hillary who had made those comments, unbellieveable, doc, boyst, and a host of others on this board would know Francis Flournoy's name and be calling for Hillary's indictment.

 

Trump gets entertainer treatment in the media. Hillary gets dissected down to the cackle in her laugh.

 

Nope. The media bias is against Hillary, not in her favor this go round.

 

Really? Did he not submit the required tax records? Or is this one of those "Republicans have to go well above and beyond requirements" like Romney was fallaciously hammered with?

No. He still hasn't released them. By my count he has said four separate times that he would release them. I heard him say it to Hugh Hewitt last year. Then he said a few months later that he would release them during the summer. Then before the convention. Then after the election but as soon as practicable. I honestly believe that it shows his connections and dealings with a lot of unsavory foreign governments.

 

Where are the junior investigators here and research into that? And why is the media giving him a pass.

 

Where are the returns Donald?

 

If this were Obama or Hillary, it would be a 55 page thread on just that subject with all kinds of innuendo and salaciousness around why they hadn't been released.

 

It's seriously the worst type of double standard and shows that there is more interest here in denigrating politically than sincerely having some principal basis around what we expect from our political leaders.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Juror#8

[Doc]

No, I do not. And I'm saying that as someone who's routinely briefed and "trained" on the legal importance of record retention in the government, who has heard stressed repeatedly "Do not user personal equipment for government work, because it removes federal records from government oversight," and who has seen people escorted out of offices for violating such rules, I understand that what she did is a REALLY big deal for which she would have been indicted if, as the FBI Director said, she were anybody else.

I'd really like to know if Hillary supporters truly believe her/their excuses for her homebrewed server, or if they know in their heart of hearts that she was engaging in highly questionable activities?

 

Really? Did he not submit the required tax records? Or is this one of those "Republicans have to go well above and beyond requirements" like Romney was fallaciously hammered with?

They're somehow hoping to find that he's not worth as much as he says, which is dumb. Forbes estimates his wealth at $4.6 billion, which is more than enough money. They also want to hammer him on his effective tax rate. By the way, did anyone see what LIAR's effective tax rate was?

[Nanker]

I think the tax records business started with Romney... George Romney. When he ran for President he was criticized for being "rich" (which never bothered the Dems about the Kennedys, by the way). He (George) released his lifetime tax records - just to clear the air about his wealth from running American Motors.

[Juror#8]

I think the tax records business started with Romney... George Romney. When he ran for President he was criticized for being "rich" (which never bothered the Dems about the Kennedys, by the way). He (George) released his lifetime tax records - just to clear the air about his wealth from running American Motors.

True.

 

I'm pretty sure that there is no law mandating the release of tax returns but it's absolutely a tradition dating back 50 years. Every major candidate has. Bush went after Reagan to release his fully during the primary in 1980 to highlight the money that he made in acting a decade earlier.

 

It just demonstrates transparency.

 

Of course, the treasonous scum, Donald Trump, who I'm beginning to realize is fundamentally unfit to seek the office, hasn't released his tax returns. But that's just one thing in a long line of things that he has done to put the country last and his own self first. And I believe that it's because his returns show interests and dealings with countries that, let's just say, don't comport with his "America first" slogan that some idiots here are eating up like candy.

 

Just like when I went to a Trump rally a few months back. "What the !@#$ is going on here; I came to see a political rally and I'm in the middle of a fucccccing monkey orgy at the zoo and it's feeding time." I thought at one point.

 

That experience and the the idiot Trump supporters here remind me of that great Reck-Malleczewen quote that's often mentioned on the History channel:

 

"I witnessed the festivities [Hitlers 50th birthday 1939]. I heard the clamour. I saw the enraptured faces of the women. Through it all this moronic roar of Heil! Hysterical females. Adolescents in a trance. An entire people in the spiritual state of whirling dervishes. These people are insane."

Edited July 28, 2016 by Juror#8

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

True.

 

I'm pretty sure that there is no law mandating the release of tax returns but it's absolutely a tradition dating back 50 years. Every major candidate has. Bush went after Reagan to release his fully during the primary in 1980 to highlight the money that he made in acting a decade earlier.

 

It just demonstrates transparency.

 

Of course, the treasonous scum, Donald Trump, who I'm beginning to realize is fundamentally unfit to seek the office, hasn't released his tax returns. But that's just one thing in a long line of things that he has done to put the country last and his own self first. And I believe that it's because his returns show interests and dealings with countries that, let's just say, don't comport with his "America first" slogan that some idiots here are eating up like candy.

 

Just like when I went to a Trump rally a few months back. "What the !@#$ is going on here; I came to see a political rally and I'm in the middle of a fucccccing monkey orgy at the zoo and it's feeding time." I thought at one point.

 

That experience and the the idiot Trump supporters here remind me of that great Reck-Malleczewen quote that's often mentioned on the History channel:

 

"I witnessed the festivities [Hitlers 50th birthday 1939]. I heard the clamour. I saw the enraptured faces of the women. Through it all this moronic roar of Heil! Hysterical females. Adolescents in a trance. An entire people in the spiritual state of whirling dervishes. These people are insane."

 

Again, I'm no fan of Trump. But to call him treasonous while simultaneously supporting someone WHO BROKE NATIONAL SECURITY LAW is a bit disingenuous.

[keepthefaith]

I think that we agree on this more than you realize. I'm not questioning the "big deal" of what she did or didn't do. Nor am I questioning your background or your capacity to know the significance of her actions. I'm on record as saying that it's a big deal and her feckless handling of the email server is an issue of national security. What I am saying is that it's gotten very good spin in the national media and was a staple of cable news for months. Even pundits who are traditionally left-leaning called what she did bone-headed over and over again while the issue was getting spins in the media cycle.

 

Back to your original point, you're saying that she is "beautified" in the media. I'm saying that it's anything else but. She was pilloried around the server stuff and every cable news program after 6pm included some segment around Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness. It's been a theme.

 

There is nothing "doll baby" about that kind of image or querying in the national media.

 

Unfortunately I think that the the right of center dolt factions (not you included but you may be an audience to it) are so obsessed with this idea of the "national liberal media" that they've convinced themselves that it's always at work res ipsa loquitur.

 

The only person who is getting a pass is Donald Trump. He hasn't been vetted in any way to the level that Hillary has. He has more skeletons in his closet that the media won't touch. Arguably, he ran afoul of the Logan Act with his comments on Russia but you see the apologists here in full force already explaining his comments as "trolling." This even though using trendy social media language isn't a pass or a defense to communicating with Russian State actors around actions that could be detrimental in any manner to United States interests (I guess if it could be proven that he knew Russia was behind the initial hack which there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they were).

 

If that were Hillary who had made those comments, unbellieveable, doc, boyst, and a host of others on this board would know Francis Flournoy's name and be calling for Hillary's indictment.

 

Trump gets entertainer treatment in the media. Hillary gets dissected down to the cackle in her laugh.

 

Nope. The media bias is against Hillary, not in her favor this go round.

 

No. He still hasn't released them. By my count he has said four separate times that he would release them. I heard him say it to Hugh Hewitt last year. Then he said a few months later that he would release them during the summer. Then before the convention. Then after the election but as soon as practicable. I honestly believe that it shows his connections and dealings with a lot of unsavory foreign governments.

 

Where are the junior investigators here and research into that? And why is the media giving him a pass.

 

Where are the returns Donald?

 

If this were Obama or Hillary, it would be a 55 page thread on just that subject with all kinds of innuendo and salaciousness around why they hadn't been released.

 

It's seriously the worst type of double standard and shows that there is more interest here in denigrating politically than sincerely having some principal basis around what we expect from our political leaders.

We all know why Donald hasn't released tax returns. The left simply wants them because he is in a business (real estate) which is tax advantaged through the application of capital gains tax, depreciation and 1031 exchanges. His tax returns probably reveal that his effective federal tax rate is similar to what Romney's was and the left will make this a big story that Donald Trump uses loopholes and pays less tax than a secretary which is of course B.S. That he's an evil rich guy even though he has been audited continuously and that his taxes are most likely done to the letter of the law. The fact that Trump is on record saying that he and other wealthy people should pay more in tax and that he has donated $ millions to charity (of his own money or raised on his show) won't be aired. The media will mostly fall in line with the left and promote the story of evil. That and there is still time for Harry Reid to stand up and say that Trump doesn't pay his taxes and cheats the system. I'm sure you remember the Reid bit and how widely what he said was reported and how almost none of the media reported the real story which was that Reid made knowingly ridiculous and false statements about a presidential candidate solely for the benefit of his party.

 

So at the end of the day, Trump probably won't release tax records because the children can't be trusted with them.

Edited July 28, 2016 by keepthefaith

[Chef Jim]

I'd really like to know if Hillary supporters truly believe her/their excuses for her homebrewed server, or if they know in their heart of hearts that she was engaging in highly questionable activities?

 

 

They're somehow hoping to find that he's not worth as much as he says, which is dumb. Forbes estimates his wealth at $4.6 billion, which is more than enough money. They also want to hammer him on his effective tax rate. By the way, did anyone see what LIAR's effective tax rate was?

People have no idea how these things work. You could have a net worth of a $100 billion and have an effective tax rate of zero. I, and most peole, pay zero income taxes on a vast majority of our net worth seeing a very large percentage of that is in non-income generating assets like retirement accounts and home equity.

[TH3]

We all know why Donald hasn't released tax returns. The left simply wants them because he is in a business (real estate) which is tax advantaged through the application of capital gains tax, depreciation and 1031 exchanges. His tax returns probably reveal that his effective federal tax rate is similar to what Romney's was and the left will make this a big story that Donald Trump uses loopholes and pays less tax than a secretary which is of course B.S. That he's an evil rich guy even though he has been audited continuously and that his taxes are most likely done to the letter of the law. The fact that Trump is on record saying that he and other wealthy people should pay more in tax and that he has donated $ millions to charity (of his own money or raised on his show) won't be aired. The media will mostly fall in line with the left and promote the story of evil. That and there is still time for Harry Reid to stand up and say that Trump doesn't pay his taxes and cheats the system. I'm sure you remember the Reid bit and how widely what he said was reported and how almost none of the media reported the real story which was that Reid made knowingly ridiculous and false statements about a presidential candidate solely for the benefit of his party.

 

So at the end of the day, Trump probably won't release tax records because the children can't be trusted with them.

 

Wha? If Trump released his tax returns and HC didn't ...surely you would be using the same logic to.....

[Juror#8]

 

Again, I'm no fan of Trump. But to call him treasonous while simultaneously supporting someone WHO BROKE NATIONAL SECURITY LAW is a bit disingenuous.

Dude I called Hilly exactly what she is in multiple posts in this thread, a pompous conniving scumbag. I shouldn't need to repeat it to fuel anyone's right wing appetite or demonstrate that I'm giving equal time to criticizing one candidate or another. They're both bad for their own reasons. She tried to usurp best practices and jeopardized national security towards the goal of her own convenience.

 

Trump called on Russia to hack government ****.

 

His words were borderline treasonous. Step back and call a spade a spade, irrespective of politics. What he said, in my estimation, was treasonous. And I believe that arguably it violated the Logan Act.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Juror#8

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Dude I called Hilly exactly what she is in multiple posts in this thread, a pompous conniving scumbag. I don't need to repeat it to fuel your right wing fervor and demonstrate that I'm giving equal time to criticizing one candidate or another. They're both bad for their own reasons. She tried to usurp best practices and jeopardized national security towards the goal of hernown convenience.

 

Trump called on Russia to hack government ****.

 

That to me is treasonous. Step back and call a spade a spade, irrespective of politics. What he said, in my estimation, was treasonous. And it I believe that arguably it violated the Logan Act.

 

I've already said I'm not voting for nor do I admire or respect Trump. You must have missed that.

[Juror#8]

 

I've already said I'm not voting for nor do I admire or respect Trump. You must have missed that.

No I didn't. And I amended my initial post. My bad if I said something to suggest you were supporting him.

 

I'm saying why I think that what Trump said was treasonous. Don't make what Hilly did better or worse. I've said what I've had to say on her. His comments though were treasonous and unAmerican.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Juror#8

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

No I didn't. And I amended my initial post.

 

I'm saying why I think that what Trump said was treasonous. Don't make what Hilly did better or worse. I've said what I've had to say on her. His comments though were treasonous and unAmerican.

 

I agree. I also think they were unnecessary, considering both Russia and China have already shredded our national security electronically.

[grinreaper]

Dude I called Hilly exactly what she is in multiple posts in this thread, a pompous conniving scumbag. I shouldn't need to repeat it to fuel anyone's right wing appetite or demonstrate that I'm giving equal time to criticizing one candidate or another. They're both bad for their own reasons. She tried to usurp best practices and jeopardized national security towards the goal of hernown convenience.

 

Trump called on Russia to hack government ****.

 

His words were borderline treasonous. Step back and call a spade a spade, irrespective of politics. What he said, in my estimation, was treasonous. And I believe that arguably it violated the Logan Act.

No, Trump did not call for Russia to hack anything. If the 30,000 emails have already been deleted they can't be hacked. He sarcastically said that if they already had them they should release them.

[IDBillzFan]

I shouldn't need to repeat it to fuel anyone's right wing appetite

 

I think the most interesting part of the Trump scam is that people like myself and JSP, who were always considered here far right wing partisans, have shaken that label off of us, if for no other reasons than because we consider Trump a bridge too far...mostly because while he's a lot of things, a Republican ain't one of them.

[keepthefaith]

 

Wha? If Trump released his tax returns and HC didn't ...surely you would be using the same logic to.....

No, I don't care about Hillary's tax returns except to know that she follows the tax code and frankly I don't care that much to see hers or Trump's. I care about which candidate will tackle the big issues that the Federal Government owns and how they will go about tackling them. In Hillary's case, she isn't even talking about the big issues. She's been dragged so far left and is so bound up in BLM, $15 minimum wage, climate change, the war on women, free college and a host of other pandering that she can't even see the likes of debt, national security, illegal immigration, entitlements and growing an economy.

 

Edited July 28, 2016 by keepthefaith

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

I think the most interesting part of the Trump scam is that people like myself and JSP, who were always considered here far right wing partisans, have shaken that label off of us, if for no other reasons than because we consider Trump a bridge too far...mostly because while he's a lot of things, a Republican ain't one of them.

 

Labels are useless. I have a number of positions that would be considered leftist.

[Juror#8]

No, Trump did not call for Russia to hack anything. If the 30,000 emails have already been deleted they can't be hacked. He sarcastically said that if they already had them they should release them.

Emails are never really "deleted." Fairly certain they can be "grave dug up" by enterprising hackers.

 

And either way, whether he is saying "see if you can resurrect them" or "check to see if there actually deleted because I don't believe her claim," the effectuation and accomplishment of either option would be an action against our (read: United States) interests.

 

And even the attempt to do so could potentially involve finding or discovering things that is sensitive in nature.

 

It's treasonous. Very treasonous.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Juror#8

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Emails are never really "deleted." Fairly certain they can be "grave dug up" by enterprising hackers.

 

And either way, whether he is saying "see if you can resurrect them" or "check to see if there actually deleted because I don't believe her claim," the effectuation and accomplishment of either would be an action against us interests.

 

And even the attempt to do so could potentially involve finding or discovering things that is sensitive in nature. It's treasonous. Very treasonous.

 

While I agree on the recklessness of the statements, it wouldn't be an issue if the emails hadn't been created and stored on a private server in a blatant violation of the law. THAT is the bottom line.