Who Ya Voting For?

Who are you voting for?

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 8 33.3%
  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • I'm going to throw my vote away on a third party/independent

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • I stand above you all because I realize that voting never changes anything

    Votes: 5 20.8%

  • Total voters
    24

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
...

Naw, you're bein' dumb.
 

Tirin

God-Emperor of Tealkind
Moderator
No, see, to be courageous you need to have things you're afraid of. I submit that there's nothing that your lore counterpart could be afraid of (barring me) without being a massive pussy, so either you have no fear and thus no courage, or you're a big baby who gets scared o' stuff for no reason and is decidedly less of a hero than presented.
 

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
My lore counterpart has actively and willingly fought yours a number of times, which really undercuts your entire argument. Unless you consider your forum counterpart to be so trivial a threat, that no courage is required to engage in single combat against you.

And of course, I wasn't always so powerful, but became so through years of willpower, effort, and determination, on the road to Free Roller, a path that can only be followed by facing down and overcoming one's reservations, weaknesses, and fears.

Besides, there's plenty of things to be afraid of that don't necessarily pose a real threat to me, personally, although personal failure may be an integral feature. And unlike you, I also place great value on the lives and general well-being of others.
 

Tirin

God-Emperor of Tealkind
Moderator
My lore counterpart has actively and willingly fought yours a number of times, which really undercuts your entire argument. Unless you consider your forum counterpart to be so trivial a threat, that no courage is required to engage in single combat against you.
The word for that isn't courage, it's "stupidity".

And of course, I wasn't always so powerful, but became so through years of willpower, effort, and determination, on the road to Free Roller, a path that can only be followed by facing down and overcoming one's reservations, weaknesses, and fears.
Yeah, yeah, whatever, old blood. That's sure workin' out for TC.

Besides, there's plenty of things to be afraid of that don't necessarily pose a real threat to me, personally, although personal failure may be an integral feature. And unlike you, I also place great value on the lives and general well-being of others.
Pfft. You aren't afraid of people dying or gettin' hurt, just of failing to live up to your fancy good guy reputation that y'didn't even work for.
 

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
The word for that isn't courage, it's "stupidity".
The conclusion "Easy must be too stupid to understand how dangerous Tirin is" flies right in the face of all existing lore regarding both characters. Which is to say that you've just come up with a convoluted, unsupported, and fundamentally flawed explanation, for a phenomenon that was perfectly explicable in the first place. Why bother?
Yeah, yeah, whatever, old blood. That's sure workin' out for TC.
You think so?

Well, after all, you're the ones guiding his way on the Road to Free Roller. I'm just there showing you what that's like.
Pfft. You aren't afraid of people dying or gettin' hurt, just of failing to live up to your fancy good guy reputation that y'didn't even work for.
Hey.

Just cause I have it, and you don't, doesn't mean that I didn't work for it.
 

Tirin

God-Emperor of Tealkind
Moderator
The conclusion "Easy must be too stupid to understand how dangerous Tirin is" flies right in the face of all existing lore regarding both characters. Which is to say that you've just come up with a convoluted, unsupported, and fundamentally flawed explanation, for a phenomenon that was perfectly explicable in the first place. Why bother?
Fighting to prove a point when you've got no hope of winning is stupid as hell 'cause you ain't hopped up on Spiral power, and that's exactly what you did in your own damn CYOA. It's ignorance not to understand the danger; the stupidity is understanding and wasting your life anyway.

Hey.

Just cause I have it, and you don't, doesn't mean that I didn't work for it.
Yeah, but it also doesn't mean that you did. Y'didn't.
 

Walrus

Well-Known Member
Member
Tirin's derailing slander of the honorable Easy Rider is far more heinous than anything put out by the Rogue Tusk.
 

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
Fighting to prove a point when you've got no hope of winning is stupid as hell 'cause you ain't hopped up on Spiral power, and that's exactly what you did in your own damn CYOA. It's ignorance not to understand the danger; the stupidity is understanding and wasting your life anyway.
That you don't understand how wrong this is...
Yeah, but it also doesn't mean that you did. Y'didn't.
...is, in itself, enough to discredit your opinion on the matter of righteousness, heroism, and valor.
 
Last edited:

Tag_Ross

Well-Known Member
Member
We should vote walrus for president, we know he'll fuck it up, but then we can Lynch him for real.
 

The Hound

Just Monika
Member
If Walrus couldn't handle the position of Mayor what makes you think he's... Actually that would make him adequately qualified to run for President. Plus with his recent court case he's even more of a shoe in.
 

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
There was pretty reasonable expectation of a rezz, at the time. And it was readily apparent that if I wasn't able to keep your ego in check, then it was better for the forums if I died taking you out, instead.

Besides, Mumen Rider didn't fight the Sea King to protect all those civvies. He never even thought he could possibly accomplish that, anyway. He did it because someone had to - whether he actually stood a chance, or not.
 
Last edited:

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
Yeah, well. Fuckin' Stealthy, am I right?
 

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
Holy fucking shit, thank Jesus tap dancing Christ on a goddamn Ritz cracker for TC. This whole clusterfuck of a thread was on the verge of giving me an aneurism. I know it's the Discussion and Debate section and you're supposed to argue or whatever, but shit, you people were tearing into each other as if this were some kind of political battle royale. Is that what this election is doing to people? Jesus Christ.
We weren't even discussing the election. It was just a side discussion about negative attitudes. Coming into "serious discussion and debate" with a "you can't fix stupid" kind of attitude is dumb, useless, and inherently aggressive. That's all I was trying to get across.

Im'a go all retro with the piece-by-piece:
You son of a bitch.
Well, no. He said that there was no precedent for anyone successfully pursuing criminal charges against anybody, ever, with as little evidence as they'd been able to find against her, for any of the applicable charges. Then he added that people who did similar things in similar circumstances did "often" get formally reprimanded by their superiors (without ever being convicted of anything).
The legal precedent for mishandling classified documents is a loss of security clearance and possible charges of criminal negligence. Negligence, by the way, does not require intent. A reason many people were upset that there was a need to prove intent at all. Most people that aren't part of ruling class would not have gotten the same leniency.

You could argue that there is no standard of behaviour she could have followed considering her position, but obviously it would have been reasonable to expect her to apply standards of behaviour that all handlers of classified material follow. Like, for example, by following the law.
Plus, he said that there was no evidence at all of criminal intent, and that the inappropriately processed emails - including those that she'd only received, as well as those that she'd actually sent - together comprised about 00.1% of the total. Doing things by the book 99.9% of the time doesn't sound all that unreasonable to me. That's literally multiple orders of magnitude more by-the-book than Donald Trump.

Sure, there's always the "governmenting is serious business, (unlike rich people-ing), so we expect you to take it more seriously" point, but let's be real. That's a good point, really. Yeah, that's how it should be. We really should hold politicians to that kind of standard.

...but you're not gonna hold fuckin' Donald Trump to anywhere near that kind of standard. You were never going to. Not even close.
He said there was no evidence of criminal intent, and then proceeded to provide blatant evidence of criminal intent. Hillary and her staff made MULTIPLE false exculpatory statements. That's not including anything found in the leaked emails.

If you go 999 days without killing someone, you don't get a freebie. If a soldier goes 999 days without criminally mishandling classified documents, he doesn't get a free chance to commit treason. It doesn't matter what percentage of "by the book" a crime is, it's still a crime.
Hadn't heard. Though, the aforementioned FBI head did say that there was every reason to believe that there was no intention to withhold evidence, and that her legal team really did make a good-faith effort to provide all the documents called for.
And how exactly does that correlate with holding back emails, attempting to permanently delete the emails, and using a hammer to smash two devices? The only reason she didn't smash the rest of the thirteen devices is because she frequently loses them. In fact, I don't even think all of them have been recovered yet. Is that not INSANE incompetency with multiple classified documents?
Was there a felony? Hadn't heard, wasn't aware that either candidate had been convicted of a felony. But, since you bring it up, Im'a guess... possession? Tax evasion? Statutory rape?
I assumed you meant thorough investigation of Trump's alleged criminal activity has succeeded in justifying rulings against him. We can agree it hasn't.

Possession of?

Tax documents that leaked shows he would have had very little need for tax evasion. That's why everyone stopped talking about it. He admitted to taking advantage of loopholes.

I mean, there's no real evidence of statutory rape yet. Barely even a story that the public can judge, let alone a fair trial. If you want to get into that kind of shit, there's a much longer standing story accusing Hillary of sexual assault. Should that be automatically believed as well?
On the contrary. If anything, I consider that to be a useful primary indicator for the lack of such.
A lack of a main measure, huh?
Hillary Clinton said:
But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.
That's what I was getting at. Clinton will flipflop depending on what room she's talking to.
 

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
The legal precedent for mishandling classified documents is a loss of security clearance and possible charges of criminal negligence. Negligence, by the way, does not require intent. A reason many people were upset that there was a need to prove intent at all. Most people that aren't part of ruling class would not have gotten the same leniency.
You misunderstand. "No precedent for successfully pursuing criminal charges on that kind of evidence. As in, no convictions, ever, even while arguing gross negligence. (Which, yes, was mentioned specifically.) Not for the ruling class, or anyone else at all.

According to said head of FDI man, anyway.
You could argue that there is no standard of behaviour she could have followed considering her position, but obviously it would have been reasonable to expect her to apply standards of behaviour that all handlers of classified material follow. Like, for example, by following the law.
Since at least some (unspecified number) of the emails in question had been sent to her private email, rather than from it, it's pretty clear that not all handlers of classified material do, in fact, always do so. Nor are they typically tried in court of law, for such.
He said there was no evidence of criminal intent, and then proceeded to provide blatant evidence of criminal intent.
?

Can you quote that?
Hillary and her staff made MULTIPLE false exculpatory statements. That's not including anything found in the leaked emails.
Dunno anything about that. What do you mean?
If you go 999 days without killing someone, you don't get a freebie.
While that's true, the only connection it has to this discussion is that it has three 9's in it.
If a soldier goes 999 days without criminally mishandling classified documents, he doesn't get a free chance to commit treason. Nor is he tried for "gross negligence," if he does so.
Of course not. When's the last time an American soldier was charged with "gross negligence" for anything? That straight-up just wouldn't even be affordable, for you guys.
And how exactly does that correlate with holding back emails, attempting to permanently delete the emails, and using a hammer to smash two devices? The only reason she didn't smash the rest of the thirteen devices is because she frequently loses them. In fact, I don't even think all of them have been recovered yet. Is that not INSANE incompetency with multiple classified documents?
Enlighten me.
I assumed you meant thorough investigation of Trump's alleged criminal activity has succeeded in justifying rulings against him. We can agree it hasn't.
Oh, no. We can't agree on that. That'd be stupid.

Though, far as I know, it'd be pretty reasonable to agree that thorough investigation of Trump's alleged criminal activity has succeeded in justifying rulings against him - just not necessarily any felony convictions. Kinda like with Clinton, if she was also fined and sanctioned multiple times for conspiracy to break the law, gross negligence regarding the upholding of the law, and/or deliberate and intentional disregard of the law.

But then, I guess maybe Trump's just not part of the ruling class? Though, I have some trouble coming up with an objective assignment of the term "ruling class," in such a way as to exclude him.
Possession of?
Tax documents that leaked shows he would have had very little need for tax evasion. That's why everyone stopped talking about it. He admitted to taking advantage of loopholes.
I mean, there's no real evidence of statutory rape yet. Barely even a story that the public can judge, let alone a fair trial. If you want to get into that kind of shit, there's a much longer standing story accusing Hillary of sexual assault. Should that be automatically believed as well?
The best thing about this is that I was literally guessing*.

*(Albeit neither seriously, nor randomly.)
A lack of a main measure, huh?
...a lack of integrity. (Dude, read the context.)
But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.
That's what I was getting at. Clinton will flipflop depending on what room she's talking to.
What, that's what you're getting at?

Didn't you want a candidate who actually tells it like it is, instead of a candidate who tells it like average people think it is, (but nothing like it actually is)?
 

Anatronman

Well-Known Member
Member
I want a candidate who will fight to the death over whether or not his reality television program was robbed of an Emmy.
 

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
Sorry for taking so long to reply. I had a busy week.
You misunderstand. "No precedent for successfully pursuing criminal charges on that kind of evidence. As in, no convictions, ever, even while arguing gross negligence. (Which, yes, was mentioned specifically.) Not for the ruling class, or anyone else at all.

According to said head of FDI man, anyway.
That's simply not true. Many soldiers and agents have been jailed or at the very least indicted for mishandling even a small handful of classified documents. It is true however, that it rarely if ever happens with the people in higher positions, they still at the very least suffer some kind of occupational penalty. Whether that be that they are fired, demoted, or lose security clearance. Comey implied that had Hillary been anyone else, or had she been working under him, there would have been consequences for her actions.
Since at least some (unspecified number) of the emails in question had been sent to her private email, rather than from it, it's pretty clear that not all handlers of classified material do, in fact, always do so. Nor are they typically tried in court of law, for such.
They aren't liable for Hillary's actions. She was the one to mishandle the information.
?

Can you quote that?

Dunno anything about that. What do you mean?
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her classified email, was that true?

COMEY: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

GOWDY: ...Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received, was that true?

COMEY: That's not true...

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material," was that true?

COMEY: There was classified material emailed.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said she used just one device, was that true?

COMEY: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said all work-related emails were returned to the State Department, was that true?

COMEY: No, we found work-related emails--thousands--that were not returned.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account, was that true?

COMEY: ...There's no doubt there were work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive, did her lawyers read the email content individually?

COMEY: No.

GOWDY: …I’m going to ask you to put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements — they are used for what?

COMEY: Well, either for a substantive prosecution, or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Of course not. When's the last time an American soldier was charged with "gross negligence" for anything? That straight-up just wouldn't even be affordable, for you guys.
They are usually charged with worse.
Enlighten me.
An IT guy named Paul Combetta was granted immunity for his actions related to destroying material under a federal preservation request. He used a file shredding program called BleachBit to permanently delete her emails. He originally denied being aware of the preservation request, and then later admitted he was. He did claim to act alone.

Only two of her 13 devices have been accounted for. They've been accounted for because a Clinton aide used a hammer to smash them. I did believe that they were smashed after the subpoena was issued, which isn't necessarily true. It's not known when they were destroyed. The other 11 devices are unaccounted for. It's not even known what information is on them or can be accessed with them, because they're whereabouts are still unknown. Even the ones smashed with a hammer might have had recoverable information on them.

It was my understanding that she was subpoenaed for all work related emails on her server. Her lawyers then went through her 60k emails, determining about half of them were personal and subsequently deleting them for funsies before turning over the other half. Then the State Department found an additional 15k she had not turned over and had been removed from her server. Some of that 15k included what were personal emails to Sydney Blumenthal that they had to retroactively mark as classified because Hillary for whatever reason thought it was cool to share confidential information with him. Any of that inaccurate? Because with all the lies the Clinton campaign has told, I'll admit it's hard to get it all straight.
Oh, no. We can't agree on that. That'd be stupid.

Though, far as I know, it'd be pretty reasonable to agree that thorough investigation of Trump's alleged criminal activity has succeeded in justifying rulings against him - just not necessarily any felony convictions. Kinda like with Clinton, if she was also fined and sanctioned multiple times for conspiracy to break the law, gross negligence regarding the upholding of the law, and/or deliberate and intentional disregard of the law.

But then, I guess maybe Trump's just not part of the ruling class? Though, I have some trouble coming up with an objective assignment of the term "ruling class," in such a way as to exclude him.
I dunno man. I doubt Trump could get away with actually and openly committing felonies. I really can't imagine him getting away with a scot-free public image if a foundation he ran got massive donations from foreign powers, and he then used his position in a political office to supply arms to those foreign powers' respective countries. I mean, his actions didn't directly lead to the creation and armament of yet another perpetual enemy of the US. He didn't fight to keep political and economic ties with a country that he knows is supporting that enemy. He certainly didn't give them arms deals for donations. Yet I'd say his public image has been far more tarnished than Hillary's.

You pointed it out yourself really. The fact that he has had so many legal problems and reported scandals through his life just goes to show the divide between himself and the real ruling class.
The best thing about this is that I was literally guessing*.

*(Albeit neither seriously, nor randomly.)
Oh. Well, yeah. They've been getting everything they can out there now that the election is almost over. The tax one is the only really interesting one, but that's because it showed the exemptions he could take advantage of to get out of paying them. He majorly exploited a tax loophole and did so legally. The Epstein child rape one is also interesting to me, but that's because I've always just assumed it was true, even before a victim came forward. Bill Clinton ABSOLUTELY fucked some kids.
Didn't you want a candidate who actually tells it like it is, instead of a candidate who tells it like average people think it is, (but nothing like it actually is)?
How is getting caught telling private donors that you lie to the public telling it like it is?


So, a new development. It seems Bill Clinton's old chief fundraiser, and longtime friend and ally of the Clintons, donated over half a million dollars to an FBI agents' wife's senate campaign. That FBI agent, within about the span of a year, then received two separate promotions going from heading a department in Washington, to Deputy Director, second in command for all of the FBI, overseeing many aspects of the Clinton email case.

Then Comey recommended no charges. (While saying there would be consequences for anyone doing what she did under him)
 
Last edited:

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
Sorry for taking so long to reply. I had a busy week.

That's simply not true. Many soldiers and agents have been jailed or at the very least indicted for mishandling even a small handful of classified documents. It is true however, that it rarely if ever happens with the people in higher positions, they still at the very least suffer some kind of occupational penalty. Whether that be that they are fired, demoted, or lose security clearance. Comey implied that had Hillary been anyone else, or had she been working under him, there would have been consequences for her actions.
...
They are usually charged with worse.
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

An IT guy named Paul Combetta was granted immunity for his actions related to destroying material under a federal preservation request. He used a file shredding program called BleachBit to permanently delete her emails. He originally denied being aware of the preservation request, and then later admitted he was. He did claim to act alone.

Only two of her 13 devices have been accounted for. They've been accounted for because a Clinton aide used a hammer to smash them. I did believe that they were smashed after the subpoena was issued, which isn't necessarily true. It's not known when they were destroyed. The other 11 devices are unaccounted for. It's not even known what information is on them or can be accessed with them, because their whereabouts are still unknown. Even the ones smashed with a hammer might have had recoverable information on them.

It was my understanding that she was subpoenaed for all work related emails on her server. Her lawyers then went through her 60k emails, determining about half of them were personal and subsequently deleting them for funsies before turning over the other half. Then the State Department found an additional 15k she had not turned over and had been removed from her server. Some of that 15k included what were personal emails to Sydney Blumenthal that they had to retroactively mark as classified because Hillary for whatever reason thought it was cool to share confidential information with him. Any of that inaccurate? Because with all the lies the Clinton campaign has told, I'll admit it's hard to get it all straight.
I'm not sure how accurate or inaccurate that is, cause it's unsourced, and Comey's statement included:
"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server." -Comey
I dunno man. I doubt Trump could get away with actually and openly committing felonies.
Like using charity funds to bribe judges into dropping his lawsuits?
I really can't imagine him getting away with a scot-free public image if a foundation he ran got massive donations from foreign powers, and he then used his position in a political office to supply arms to those foreign powers' respective countries.
Maybe, but as far as I'm aware, nobody's ever been able to at all demonstrate that Clinton Foundation donations ever swayed state department action or policy at all.
I mean, his actions didn't directly lead to the creation and armament of yet another perpetual enemy of the US.
What?
He didn't fight to keep political and economic ties with a country that he knows is supporting that enemy.
It kinda looks like he has done. Not to mention that US Intelligence has long since confirmed that the Russian government has actively hacked American sites, accounts, and institutions to help Trump get elected, and video footage confirms that Trump has personally asked them to do so.
He certainly didn't give them arms deals for donations.
Can you demonstrate that Hillary's ever done that?
Yet I'd say his public image has been far more tarnished than Hillary's.
His public image gets tarnished by him opening his mouth. Hillary's gets tarnished by political opponents abusing their powers to do so.
You pointed it out yourself really. The fact that he has had so many legal problems and reported scandals through his life just goes to show the divide between himself and the real ruling class.
It... really just looks like he's less prone to prosecution than other people are, to the extent that he's even less prosecutable than Hillary goddamn Clinton is. I mean, he's the one for whom there's actual evidence of criminal misuse of charity funds.

In other words, Hillary scandals seem to generally follow the pattern: 1) Evidence of wrongdoing appears. 2) Hillary is thoroughly investigated for criminal charges. 3) All legal authorities involved, after thousands of man-hours of review, determine that the evidence does not support prosecution. 4) Trump fans refuse to accept that result, because fuck 'em, what do those guys know? She's obviously guilty.

Whereas Trump scandals seem to generally follow the pattern: 1) Evidence of wrongdoing appears. 2) Investigation is stalled, prolonged, or otherwise fails to occur - quite possibly with financial contributions to political figures taking place in the meantime. 3) Trump fans ignore any concerns, because fuck 'em, what do those guys know? He's obviously not guilty.

Latter one seems effectively more ruling-class, to me.
Oh. Well, yeah. They've been getting everything they can out there now that the election is almost over. The tax one is the only really interesting one, but that's because it showed the exemptions he could take advantage of to get out of paying them. He majorly exploited a tax loophole and did so legally.
Trump being incompetent enough to rack up a billion-dollar deficit running a casino in Atlantic City, and still not having to lose anything himself as a result, is really more a testimony of how the current system, which Trump feels is not favorable enough for rich people like himself, is already far too rigged in favor of rich people like himself. Never claimed that particular bit of fuckery was illegal.
The Epstein child rape one is also interesting to me, but that's because I've always just assumed it was true, even before a victim came forward. Bill Clinton ABSOLUTELY fucked some kids.
Dunno anything about that.
How is getting caught telling private donors that you lie to the public telling it like it is?
Because it's a generally well known and accepted fact that politicians regularly lie in public. Don't believe me? Check out Politifact, regarding Trump.

(Holy shit, turns out he literally lies in public more often than not.)
 
Last edited:

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."
https://www.google.ca/search?q=soliders+charged+with+mishandling+classified+documents&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=SrwPWN_4AqPYjwTx9ZyIBQ#q=soldiers+charged+with+mishandling+classified+material
https://usuncut.com/politics/clinton-email-secrecy-double-standard/
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/27/mishandling-classified-information-leads-to-jail-time-if-your-name-is-not-clinton/
http://www.dailywire.com/news/7213/naval-reservist-sentenced-mishandling-classified-amanda-prestigiacomo
http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2016-01-30/a-look-at-federal-cases-on-handling-classified-information
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437595/military-prosecutions-show-gross-negligence-prosecution-would-not-unfairly-single-out

I'll be honest, I didn't even read them all in full. Just enough to know what Comey said was dishonest.

Sidenote: I like that Snowden tweet in the first article.

I'm not sure how accurate or inaccurate that is, cause it's unsourced, and Comey's statement included:
I can tell you the stuff related to Paul Combetta I know to be accurate. The fact that Clinton used 13 devices and could only account for the two of them that her aide smashed with a hammer is also accurate. In fact, from what you posted yourself there, I'm pretty confident it's all accurate.

What part are you unsure of? I can likely find a source for it or at the very least the source of any confusion.
Like using charity funds to bribe judges into dropping his lawsuits?
There is about as much correlation between the lawsuit being dropped and Trumps donation as there is between Hillary's repeated foundation donations and her boosts in arms trading. :^)

And sending the money through the Trump Foundation was just an accounting error. It's been made up for, Trump paid his fine to the IRS, was refunded by Bondi's PAC, and was such a nice guy he decided not to cash the refund and reimburse the foundation himself with his own money. :^)
Maybe, but as far as I'm aware, nobody's ever been able to at all demonstrate that Clinton Foundation donations ever swayed state department action or policy at all.
Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department between 2009 and 2012.
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/emails-show-clinton-foundation-donor-reached-out-hillary-clinton-arms-export-boost
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774#efmBBMBDe
Hillary knew Saudi Arabia and Qatar were aiding ISIS when she granted them weapons deals. An $11 billion arms deal was granted to Qatar a month before that email was sent. A lot of weapons and equipment have been sold to both countries since. A lot of money has been donated to Clinton's foundation by these countries, their leaders, their ally's, and the contractors they're purchasing the weapons from.

In fact, I'll come right out and say it. Hillary Clinton caused brexit.
Yup, Trump made money off of individuals of Saudi Arabian descent. Is that comparable to the relationship Clinton has with multiple countries that she knows to have aided American enemies? She gets donations, and sells favours to enemies on the American taxpayers dime. Favours that will ultimately hurt the Americans she's meant to protect.
Not to mention that US Intelligence has long since confirmed that the Russian government has actively hacked American sites, accounts, and institutions to help Trump get elected, and video footage confirms that Trump has personally asked them to do so.
Really? Like they confirmed anthrax and WMDs? Or that a tape caused the attack on Benghazi? How did they confirm it?

Russia was accused of perpetrating the hack attack before Trump's statement, so there is in fact no video evidence showing Trump asking them to do so. I'm very confident of this. His statement was also, by the way, a statement, not a question. He said "I hope you are able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

Also, every reliable source has suggested that Russia isn't the source of the leaks. Julian Assange himself said the source wasn't Russia. Even if it were, that doesn't nullify the information found in them. Also, if Russia is such a big bad hack master, why should anyone believe Clinton's claim that her email server was always secure, especially considering she can't account for 11 of the devices she used?
Can you demonstrate that Hillary's ever done that?
Nope. :^)
His public image gets tarnished by him opening his mouth. Hillary's gets tarnished by political opponents abusing their powers to do so.
Investigating an incident that began with the State department immediately lying about the reasoning for said incident, that involved 4 Americans being killed, some of whose presence in the area was entirely unexplained at the time, and the ignored requests for extra security spanning across months. That's an abuse of power? Should stuff like that go without any sort of investigation or oversight in order to prepare for similar events in the future?
It... really just looks like he's less prone to prosecution than other people are, to the extent that he's even less prosecutable than Hillary goddamn Clinton is. I mean, he's the one for whom there's actual evidence of criminal misuse of charity funds.

In other words, Hillary scandals seem to generally follow the pattern: 1) Evidence of wrongdoing appears. 2) Hillary is thoroughly investigated for criminal charges. 3) All legal authorities involved, after thousands of man-hours of review, determine that the evidence does not support prosecution. 4) Trump fans refuse to accept that result, because fuck 'em, what do those guys know? She's obviously guilty.

Whereas Trump scandals seem to generally follow the pattern: 1) Evidence of wrongdoing appears. 2) Investigation is stalled, prolonged, or otherwise fails to occur - quite possibly with financial contributions to political figures taking place in the meantime. 3) Trump fans ignore any concerns, because fuck 'em, what do those guys know? He's obviously not guilty.

Latter one seems effectively more ruling-class, to me.
There are clear issues with Hillary that span far past her two most recent scandals. She secretly coordinated with the DNC to rob Bernie Sanders of the nomination. She's now been unwittingly implicated by Bob Creamer with inciting violence at Trump rallies, election fraud, and coordinating with super-PACs. Bob Creamer by the way, has been to the White House over 300 times.

From her actions in Haiti, to arms sales to American enemies, to her hypocritical support of her pedophile husband, to the sharing of classified and confidential material, to the political divisiveness the Clinton's impose even through misuse of government resources, to Filegate, to Watergate, to Whitewater. There are probably a hundred examples showing Hillarys corruption, carelessness and criminality. Many of them involve abusing the role she's been privileged with, and directly selling out her own peoples interests for political or financial gain. She has almost never voted against war.
Trump being incompetent enough to rack up a billion-dollar deficit running a casino in Atlantic City, and still not having to lose anything himself as a result, is really more a testimony of how the current system, which Trump feels is not favorable enough for rich people like himself, is already far too rigged in favor of rich people like himself. Never claimed that particular bit of fuckery was illegal.
How so? He's running on the platform of eliminating those types of loopholes and simplifying tax law.
Dunno anything about that.
Bill Clinton flew on Jeffery Epstein's "Lolita Express" 26 times.
Because it's a generally well known and accepted fact that politicians regularly lie in public. Don't believe me? Check out Politifact, regarding Trump.

(Holy shit, turns out he literally lies in public more often than not.)
I can assure you, I believe you more than them. Politifact's bias is very well-known.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom