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

BubBidderskins

Member
Member
If you want to talk about rigged, in my opinion no election has anything on the 1876 election. Hayes lost the popular vote by 3 points, but still became president because of electoral college shenanigans. To put that in perspective, imagine if everybody voted the same in 2012 but Romney won because he convinced all the electors that Obama suppressed the white vote in the Northeast and they assign all those electoral votes to him. Fun times.
 

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
You probably should have read them through. Then you could tell me which of those cases didn't involve clear evidence of "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."

As far as I can see, the Saucier case comes the closest. In that case, though, he didn't just fail to flawlessly uphold the regulations on classified material, but deliberately went out of his way to break them, distributed them to unauthorized personnel, and then made every effort to destroy all evidence and procure none of it, when questioned. And while there may be plenty of reason to suspect that the same (to some extent) applies to Clinton, thorough investigation has not turned up sufficient evidence to support prosecution on that basis. Comey's statement holds true.
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.
Source me stuff about Clinton's devices, destruction of thereof, and what it's all got to do with the email case?
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. :^)
Well, let's examine that.

Florida's attorney general's office reveals that they're looking into joining in on another one of many lawsuits against one of Trump's many fraudulent enterprises. Trump, a man who has repeatedly bragged to the public about his history of contributing financially to politicians' campaigns in exchange for favorable treatment, illegally sends a contribution from his "charity" to said attorney general's campaign. Less than a month later, the case against him is dropped.

On the flip side of things, the Saudi government gives a bunch of money to Clinton's charity in 1997, while she holds no political office, which is used to build a library. More than a decade later, as Secretary of State, she allows American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, (among other allied nations), to go through - which is to say, didn't reject the course of action presented to her office for approval, by the Pentagon departments responsible for proposing and brokering such deals.

Now, granted, that doesn't prove anything in either case. But, that definitely doesn't mean they're both equally suspicious. Not even close.
And sending the money through the Trump Foundation was just an accounting error.
Yeah, I accidentally use other people's money to buy stuff with all the time. Could happen to anyone, really, (provided they're incredibly incompetent and/or dishonest).
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. :^)
Yeah, super nice of him to actually pay the fine he was levied with, when he was caught making an illegal campaign contribution with misappropriated charity funds. A true saint, that man.
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
That's weird, because I went through the list of all Clinton Foundation donors with total contributions of $500,000 or more, and there are only eight foreign governments even on there. Namely: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Australia, Norway, Ireland, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands. Of which, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had both ceased donating well before she became Secretary of State, and from what I've been able to pull up, made no known contributions at all while she was in office.

At the same time, apparently I'm missing quite a lot anyway. Looking through a bunch of the Foundation's tax returns pulled up a bunch of other foreign governments listed as donors, (without specifying amounts), and foreign government contribution totals come out to about $18 million over her term as Secretary. Either way, all showed that the Clintons themselves received no compensation at all from the Foundation, which does beg the question of why any prospective donations, regardless of amount, would have created an incentive for her to provide favorable treatment to any particular foreign nations anyway.

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.
That does look bad. Though, it'd look a lot worse if it had been sent before that arms deal, rather than afterwards.
In fact, I'll come right out and say it. Hillary Clinton caused brexit.
But... Trump's the one who endorsed it.
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.
Apparently, Trump can get money from members of the Saudi royal family, and it just counts as "making money off of individuals of Saudi Arabian descent."

Meanwhile, members of the Saudi royal family can have once given money to a charity that Clinton doesn't even get any money from, and so she must be "selling favours to enemies on the American taxpayers dime."

...you trollin'?
Really? Like they confirmed anthrax and WMDs? Or that a tape caused the attack on Benghazi?
Dunno. Did 16 separate agencies, including the FBI, NSA, and Homeland Security, along with multiple private security firms, all sign off on those?

Granted, the fact that dhs.gov is down right now really does undercut that point.
How did they confirm it?
Dunno that, either; it's really not my area at all. Something about malware analysis and metadata and servers. It is funny that the Russian government hasn't denied that the hacks came from Russia, though - just that they ordered 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."
Yeah, right after "Russia, if you're listening," and before "I think you will be mightily rewarded (by our press)."
Also, every reliable source has suggested that Russia isn't the source of the leaks. Julian Assange himself said the source wasn't Russia.
Yeah - what the heck do information security experts know about hacks 'n' shit?

Also, note that Assange can only testify as to who provided him with the documents. Which isn't necessarily the same as testifying as to who hacked them. See?
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?
Actually, Comey was pretty clear on there not being any way to rule out the possibility an outside party managed to access them at some point.
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?
No, but investigations on that sort of thing shouldn't be treated as political tools either. Especially when the matter has already been fully investigated. And then re-investigated. And then investigated another five times. That's just a gross misuse of administrative resources and taxpayer's money.
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.
While it's clear that a number of DNC officials did conspire to rig the nomination in her favor, none of the information leaked, to date, actually implicates Clinton herself. The closest thing to a direct link is how she immediately hired Wasserman-Schultz after her resignation, and DWS herself hasn't been shown to have taken any part in coordinating against Sanders. (Although a bunch of what she wrote about his campaign was certainly inappropriately dismissive and/or disdainful, given her position.)
She's now been unwittingly implicated by Bob Creamer with inciting violence at Trump rallies, election fraud, and coordinating with super-PACs.
Nnnnot really. Cherry-picked footage provided by discredited filmmakers is pretty worthless. (Here's an example of: why.) Even if it weren't, Hillary herself still wouldn't be implicated at all.
Bob Creamer by the way, has been to the White House over 300 times.
...which is irrelevant information, and still wouldn't mean anything even if Project Veritas actually had any credibility left, to speak of. On top of which, I'm guessing Zero Hedge is your best source for this - correct?
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.
In terms of criminality, she's got a better record than Trump does, on the basis that he's actually been found guilty of breaking the law before. In terms of hypocrisy, there's just no contest at all. She's practically the poster girl for political hypocrisy and yet, somehow, that buffoon's actually managed to contradict himself more in the last year than she's done herself over the last thirty of them.
She has almost never voted against war.
I absolutely agree that it's terrible that she's actually put a vote to all those wars, that Trump himself merely spoke out in favor of, at the time.
How so? He's running on the platform of eliminating those types of loopholes and simplifying tax law.
Yeah, he says that. (And if it was one of his tax attorneys running, I might actually expect that he had the qualifications to do so.) Of course, he's been more consistently running in favor of "cutting taxes" as his primary approach to economic stimulus, which just doesn't at all line up with an intention to increase effective tax burden on the wealthy by eliminating such loopholes.
Bill Clinton flew on Jeffery Epstein's "Lolita Express" 26 times.
To be honest, I could look up what that is, what it implies, and where the story comes from. But I've already spent several hours today looking through the Clinton Foundation's tax forms in an attempt to substantiate some Zero Hedge documents (without success). Source me?
I can assure you, I believe you more than them. Politifact's bias is very well-known.
You've demonstrated that, in a particular sample group, more people have been caught lying on one side than the other. Can you also demonstrate that this result, and Politifact's methodology as a whole, is actually tied to having targeted that side unfairly?

If Dumbass Donald and Lyin' Ted tell more lies in public than their political opponents, should Politifact be digging more deeply into said opponent's speeches, by comparison, in an effort to balance the overall results between them?
 
Last edited:

Anatronman

Well-Known Member
Member
Well that's not intimidating to post after at all.

I felt like dropping in briefly because I've followed this election pretty closely and I figured I'd lay out my thoughts for anyone who had similar ideas.

Trump has faced enormous pressure to attack Hillary rather than forward his own policy to the American people. I believe this pressure comes from three sources;

1. His campaign team. They've seen him talk policy, they've seen him slug it out, and numbers go up when he's on offense, not when he's explaining himself.
2. The Republican Party. Sorry to people that believe in him when I say that from the moment he accepted the Republican nomination, he has been obligated to Chris Christie himself all over Hillary for better laid groundwork in 2020.
3. His general ability. I don't know if I really need to explain this one, but historically Donald Trump has been unable to explain the finer points of any of his policies at any point in the last 25 years. It may be how he was so easily able to avoid his liberal record.

As has been mentioned, points against Trump apparently must precede points against Hillary, being that her laugh is weird and there's a 10-40% chance she got away with the crime of the century.
 

BubBidderskins

Member
Member
Honestly, I don't know how much that matters at this point. Most people have already made up their minds and know that Hillary's sleezy with emails. Not a great look for Clinton to be sure, but it might be too late to have an impact.
 

Anatronman

Well-Known Member
Member
It is not too close to the election for a federal investigation into a candidates possible criminal wrongdoing to have an effect.

Strong Hillary supporters don't support her despite evidence, they believe that being thrice exonerated means that the issue has been put to bed. She could be charged this time.
 

BubBidderskins

Member
Member
Well, first of all it's looking like the whole "FBI reopening investigation" was overblown quite a bit. The FBI was investigating Wiener, and found some emails that could be related to the Clinton case, so the FBI director sent a note (as required) to congress explaining that there and was new evidence. Plus, Clinton supporters are questioning the motives of Comey, understand it as a political hit piece, etc.

On the other side, Trump supporters (and Anti-Clinton people) have been cooking up conspiracies about Clinton forever. This won't stop them.

In my mind, the main effect of this is to rile Trump supporters up even more, potentially boosting their turnout numbers. Keep in mind that Trump's relying on some unlikely voters in his base (a lot of low-information, less-educated voters). I don't think this is going to change too many people's minds, as many had already decided to vote for one candidate as a vote AGAINST the other candidate.

Moreover, Clinton has a substantial enough lead at this point (5-7 percentage points nationally) that she can afford to take a bit of a hit and still win the election.
 

Anatronman

Well-Known Member
Member
That's a well reasoned point, at this point the most upsetting thing is that Carlos Danger is an even bigger menace to society than previously understood.
 

Tag_Ross

Well-Known Member
Member
Here's a conspiracy theory/clairvoyancy test for you.

The new investigation only became public because the FBI are afraid Trump might actually win the election and fuck up their entire operation. the investigation is clearly not going to turn anything up until after we know who will be the best president. In the time between November 9th and January 20th the FBI will tell us something that complies with the thoughts of the President Elect.

Anyways, I've already given up this year, plus I live in California so I'm just gonna throw my vote at some nobody, vote on the propositions, and call it a day. Hopefully we survive till 2020 so we can do things less shittily.
 

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
You probably should have read them through. Then you could tell me which of those cases didn't involve clear evidence of "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."

As far as I can see, the Saucier case comes the closest. In that case, though, he didn't just fail to flawlessly uphold the regulations on classified material, but deliberately went out of his way to break them, distributed them to unauthorized personnel, and then made every effort to destroy all evidence and procure none of it, when questioned. And while there may be plenty of reason to suspect that the same (to some extent) applies to Clinton, thorough investigation has not turned up sufficient evidence to support prosecution on that basis. Comey's statement holds true.
I read multiple ones that fit, that include the individuals involved being indicted, losing security clearance, losing rank, or even being jailed. Almost all of them show Clinton got off easy.
Source me stuff about Clinton's devices, destruction of thereof, and what it's all got to do with the email case?
Like I said my facts here are a bit messy. Apparently it was 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads. Here's CNN, obviously a very pro-Clinton media outlet, talking about it:

This is an article from something called CNSNews, and is pretty much the most fleshed out one I can find on the matter:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/fbi-unable-acquire-any-clintons-13-mobile-devices-aide-says-he-smashed-2
If the phones were smashed before the subpoena - the issue would be that only two were destroyed, and the rest lost. And the ones that were destroyed don't sound to have been destroyed very thoroughly. These devices may have contained, and had access to, classified material.
If the phones were smashed after the subpoena - the problem is pretty obvious.

Well, let's examine that.

Florida's attorney general's office reveals that they're looking into joining in on another one of many lawsuits against one of Trump's many fraudulent enterprises. Trump, a man who has repeatedly bragged to the public about his history of contributing financially to politicians' campaigns in exchange for favorable treatment, illegally sends a contribution from his "charity" to said attorney general's campaign. Less than a month later, the case against him is dropped.

On the flip side of things, the Saudi government gives a bunch of money to Clinton's charity in 1997, while she holds no political office, which is used to build a library. More than a decade later, as Secretary of State, she allows American arms sales to Saudi Arabia, (among other allied nations), to go through - which is to say, didn't reject the course of action presented to her office for approval, by the Pentagon departments responsible for proposing and brokering such deals.

Now, granted, that doesn't prove anything in either case. But, that definitely doesn't mean they're both equally suspicious. Not even close.
Trump scenario seems spot on.

They have given, as a government, up to $25mil to her foundation over the span of years. They only stopped when she was Sec of State and gave another contribution after she resigned. Contractors, that made a lot of money off of these deals going through, gave a lot of money to her foundation while she was Sec of State, in some cases just months before a deal would go through. She had access to the 28 pages. She increased arms sales to Saudi Arabia 97% in her time as Sec of State. This is only one of the many atrocious countries to whom she's granted weapons deals after coincidentally receiving donations from multiple parties that would profit from them. That's a very different picture than you paint.
Yeah, I accidentally use other people's money to buy stuff with all the time. Could happen to anyone, really, (provided they're incredibly incompetent and/or dishonest).
It was one of his accountants who took responsibility. If your job is to input three variables onto pieces of paper all day, it's understandable that you'd fuck one of them up eventually. If we're being for realsies though, obviously it was a bribe.
Apparently, Trump can get money from members of the Saudi royal family, and it just counts as "making money off of individuals of Saudi Arabian descent."

Meanwhile, members of the Saudi royal family can have once given money to a charity that Clinton doesn't even get any money from, and so she must be "selling favours to enemies on the American taxpayers dime."

...you trollin'?
He sold a portion of something he owned to a Saudi prince. I think he has some hotels in Saudi Arabia or something too. I'm actually not trolling. I really don't consider that to be an indication his relationship with Saudi Arabia is anywhere near the Bush/Clinton level.
Dunno. Did 16 separate agencies, including the FBI, NSA, and Homeland Security, along with multiple private security firms, all sign off on those?
Two agencies put out a JOINT statement on behalf of 16 agencies that said that the leaks "are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts". Literally nothing, and like all the other times it was literally nothing, Hillary will lie to find a way to start a war over it. What she's doing here is actually pretty disgusting, and pushing it just helps show everyone how disgusting of a person she is.

It could be Russia, but there's no evidence, and it wouldn't matter. The leaks are showing corruption in American politics. The only reason Hillary is afraid is because she is corrupt.
Yeah, right after "Russia, if you're listening," and before "I think you will be mightily rewarded (by our press)."
I think he was being sarcastic on that last part there, suggesting the American press would do their job, but other than that I see no questions being asked, no demands being made, nor, discounting that last bit, anything nonfactual about what he said. The DNC had already been "hacked". He did not ask them to do it like you said.
Also, note that Assange can only testify as to who provided him with the documents. Which isn't necessarily the same as testifying as to who hacked them. See?
I was also wrong. He never said it wasn't Russia, only made indications to it not being Russia.
Actually, Comey was pretty clear on there not being any way to rule out the possibility an outside party managed to access them at some point.
If Clinton's mismanagement allowed classified material to get, not only into the wrong hands, but into the hands of what is apparently America's number one threat, then that is a much bigger problem than the one they sold. Comey actually approached that from the opposite way, saying there is no way to prove classified material was ever compromised, not that there was no way to prove it wasn't.
No, but investigations on that sort of thing shouldn't be treated as political tools either. Especially when the matter has already been fully investigated. And then re-investigated. And then investigated another five times. That's just a gross misuse of administrative resources and taxpayer's money.
They didn't re-investigate the same aspects of the case. Each investigation led to more questions than answers and they kept finding legitimate need to reopen the investigation. Even the whole email thing, the need for a completely separate investigation, spawned as a result of the Benghazi investigation. Had they not kept reopening the investigation, Hillary's server may have never been found.
Nnnnot really. Cherry-picked footage provided by discredited filmmakers is pretty worthless. (Here's an example of: why.) Even if it weren't, Hillary herself still wouldn't be implicated at all.
I don't see what your examples have to do with anything. Did you watch the videos? Also, I made a post in the O'Keefe thread in relation to this. The onus is on the doubters to provide evidence that O'Keefe hired body doubles or something to say the shit they did in the video.

You are right though. The scheme is designed to keep all blame off Hillary. The faces you can put to the crimes will be arrested or fired, new ones will be brought in, and the whole thing will continue uninterrupted. Her campaign staff are fucked though, since there are emails showing them coordinating with Creamer. I wonder which ones she'll have to throw under the bus.
...which is irrelevant information, and still wouldn't mean anything even if Project Veritas actually had any credibility left, to speak of. On top of which, I'm guessing Zero Hedge is your best source for this - correct?
Not really aware of that site, but I might have been to it before.

But no. And it matters a lot. The implication is that this guys job is to be the communication between various democratic super-PACs, which they can't do legally. He has ties to Clinton's campaign, and has already been shown to communicate with them regularly. He has ties to the White House and even Obama. I'd recommend actually watching the videos.
In terms of criminality, she's got a better record than Trump does, on the basis that he's actually been found guilty of breaking the law before. In terms of hypocrisy, there's just no contest at all. She's practically the poster girl for political hypocrisy and yet, somehow, that buffoon's actually managed to contradict himself more in the last year than she's done herself over the last thirty of them.
Contradiction isn't hypocrisy. And you are right, you don't have to search hard to find that Trump is a huge hypocrite. I just wouldn't say he's the "defend a pedophile by telling the victim he raped into a coma for five days she was asking for it, stick by your pedophile, rapist husband while abusing his victims, get in bed with some of the worst women's rights abusers in the world, all while pretending to be a champion for 'victims should be heard'" type of hypocrite. Hell, he's maybe even close. Just not quite there.
I absolutely agree that it's terrible that she's actually put a vote to all those wars, that Trump himself merely spoke out in favor of, at the time.
He's been in favor of some of them, certainly no where near to all of them. If you're referring to that "he supported Iraq" thing Clinton's been doing to Trump, I am well aware of the story. It's a good troll on Trump.
Yeah, he says that. (And if it was one of his tax attorneys running, I might actually expect that he had the qualifications to do so.) Of course, he's been more consistently running in favor of "cutting taxes" as his primary approach to economic stimulus, which just doesn't at all line up with an intention to increase effective tax burden on the wealthy by eliminating such loopholes.
How does "eliminate the need for loopholes by lowering corporate tax rates" not line up with eliminating loopholes? I really don't get your argument at all. If it's that he won't be able to get his policies passed the way he's outlined them, that's probably true. But that'd be true of anyone that is elected.
To be honest, I could look up what that is, what it implies, and where the story comes from. But I've already spent several hours today looking through the Clinton Foundation's tax forms in an attempt to substantiate some Zero Hedge documents (without success). Source me?
Jeffery Epstein is a famous wealthy pedophile who owned an island and a jet he or others started referring to as the "Lolita Express". He was convicted in 2008.

Bill Clinton flew on the Lolita Express 26 times.

The woman that came forward and said Trump raped her when she was 13 years old also claimed it happened at an Epstein party.

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years," - “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” - Trump, 2002
You've demonstrated that, in a particular sample group, more people have been caught lying on one side than the other. Can you also demonstrate that this result, and Politifact's methodology as a whole, is actually tied to having targeted that side unfairly?

If Dumbass Donald and Lyin' Ted tell more lies in public than their political opponents, should Politifact be digging more deeply into said opponent's speeches, by comparison, in an effort to balance the overall results between them?
See, we can't know how much Drumpf(lulz) or Lyin' Ted lied based on Polifacts facts, because they lied about Lyin' Ted lying.

For example, in that very first Cruz "lie", the reasoning they gave was that transgender boys aren't girls, clearly attempting to imply he was using identifiers of gender. When Cruz said what he said, it should be clear to absolutely any sane minded English speaking individual that he meant boy and girl as sexual identifiers. Now they have this counted against him as a lie, when it was clearly either a mistake, or willful bias on their part.

The very concept of politifact's meter is flawed and inherently not only opens itself up to opinion based outcomes, it pretty much necessitates them. Things are either right or wrong. True or false. They designed their meter to have the wiggle room to input their own narrative and bias. Their meter makes it necessary for them to discern the intention behind the inaccurate statement.
Well, first of all it's looking like the whole "FBI reopening investigation" was overblown quite a bit. The FBI was investigating Wiener, and found some emails that could be related to the Clinton case, so the FBI director sent a note (as required) to congress explaining that there and was new evidence. Plus, Clinton supporters are questioning the motives of Comey, understand it as a political hit piece, etc.

On the other side, Trump supporters (and Anti-Clinton people) have been cooking up conspiracies about Clinton forever. This won't stop them.
Don't fear Anti-Clinton people so much you become like them. There is no reason to assume this is overblown and no reason to assume this is some "conspiracy". The fact that Weiner had Clinton's emails on one of his devices is BAD in itself.

As for the whole FBI discussion, I don't think there was anything we could have said in this thread that is not succinctly discussed here between Giuliani and Cuomo.
 
Last edited:

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
That's weird, because I went through the list of all Clinton Foundation donors with total contributions of $500,000 or more, and there are only eight foreign governments even on there. Namely: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Australia, Norway, Ireland, Germany, Canada, and the Netherlands. Of which, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia had both ceased donating well before she became Secretary of State, and from what I've been able to pull up, made no known contributions at all while she was in office.
I wasn't aware they ever publicly released the dates of the donations. Only who provided what. Not even what they specifically provided, moreso a bracket they fall into.
At the same time, apparently I'm missing quite a lot anyway. Looking through a bunch of the Foundation's tax returns pulled up a bunch of other foreign governments listed as donors, (without specifying amounts), and foreign government contribution totals come out to about $18 million over her term as Secretary. Either way, all showed that the Clintons themselves received no compensation at all from the Foundation, which does beg the question of why any prospective donations, regardless of amount, would have created an incentive for her to provide favorable treatment to any particular foreign nations anyway.
Directly? No.
 
Last edited:

Easy

Right Honorable Justice
Member
Im'a respond to that other post in a few days, but... well, it's just gonna be that long before I'm likely to come across enough free time to do so. Real quick, though, right now I feel comfortable enough to just spend a minute few minutes or so on...
I wasn't aware they ever publicly released the dates of the donations. Only who provided what. Not even what they specifically provided, moreso a bracket they fall into.
For this, I spent much of the aforementioned "several hours" hella time going piece-by-piece through the released tax returns for each year during which HRC was Secretary of State. They don't provide a breakdown on which foreign government provided what amount, but you can find a list of foreign governments that contributed (which, weirdly enough, did appear to include a number that weren't on the publicly-released donor list - at least not directly, distinctly, and/or by name and title). I also came across a couple of fringe sites claiming to have "leaked documents" showing otherwise, which, on looking through everything, apparently just took the biggest number they could find on the tax return from a given year, and then listed it under "foreign government donations" on a separate, unverified, "leaked supplementary form."
Directly? No.
...right.

If we were to just go around accusing people of conflict of interest based on them getting some indirect and intangible benefit from outside parties, based on a conclusion that can only be reached by tangential and speculative reasoning, then nobody would be safe.
 

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
For this, I spent much of the aforementioned "several hours" hella time going piece-by-piece through the released tax returns for each year during which HRC was Secretary of State. They don't provide a breakdown on which foreign government provided what amount, but you can find a list of foreign governments that contributed (which, weirdly enough, did appear to include a number that weren't on the publicly-released donor list - at least not directly, distinctly, and/or by name and title). I also came across a couple of fringe sites claiming to have "leaked documents" showing otherwise, which, on looking through everything, apparently just took the biggest number they could find on the tax return from a given year, and then listed it under "foreign government donations" on a separate, unverified, "leaked supplementary form."
Nice. I've heard some people say they were withholding donors but nothing ever came of it.They probably have an easy explanation for it.

Unfortunately, doesn't really help on the Saudi front. They stopped donating when she became SoS and started again when she stepped down. A lot of people that profited off of the Saudi arms trades still did however.
...right.

If we were to just go around accusing people of conflict of interest based on them getting some indirect and intangible benefit from outside parties, based on a conclusion that can only be reached by tangential and speculative reasoning, then nobody would be safe.
As much as I hate The Young Turks, and I really, really hate The Young Turks, they've had a few good videos out lately.
 
Last edited:

Lumpy

Well-Known Member
Member
In other news, Assange has now confirmed the Russian government is not the source of the Podesta leaks.
 
Last edited:

BubBidderskins

Member
Member
Looks like the whole FBI "reopening" the investigation was a big ball of nothing. In my opinion, the FBI has be completely unprofessional this election cycle. First of all, they dragged their feet on investigating Clinton. This stuff happened years ago and it took them this long to go through it? Secondly, they clearly did not do a thorough investigation of Clinton as they missed a whole bunch of emails that they found from the Weiner investigation. Was their no communication between investigations? Did the people investigating Clinton never think to send a memo to the people investigating Weiner saying: "Hey, Carlos Danger's wife was Clinton's aid, mind checking her comp for suspicious emails? kthx." Then the vague statements made about "re-opening" the investigation when in reality they had no idea what they were going to find.

Come on, this is absolutely ridiculous. I firmly believe that the FBI can investigate politicians to give Americans important info about the candidates without influencing the election result through vague non-statements about almost investigations.

If Clinton clearly broke the law, she should face serious repercussions. If she didn't, then she shouldn't have to go through this bullshit that could affect her campaign. The FBI fucked up on one of those two counts (maybe both).
 
Top Bottom