Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Sep 2016, 2:09 pm

freeman3 wrote:But is he doing what is necessary to combat Islamic terrorism? Yes.


False. It is spreading.

Has he kept America safe during his presidency? There have been some attacks but nothing like 9-11.


That's the standard? That there's been no attack that has killed thousands?

He has set such a PC culture in our national security forces and in our nation that attacks continue with jarring frequency. That began when he sought to have the Ft. Hood massacre classified as "workplace violence."

Is he carrying the war to ISIS? Yes.


No. He created ISIS. He then called them the JV team. He and his national security team have continuously downplayed the threat and we have watched it spread.

Has the economy recovered during his presidency? Yes.


The worst recovery since WW2.

Is the average person better off now economically than when he took office? Yes.


Even if you could prove this, you are aiming at the low point and saying, "Gee whiz, it's not as bad as it was."

Worst recovery in nearly 70 years.

Are deficits under control? Yes.


:laugh: It's $500B this year. "Under control???"

Are military casualties much lower under Obama than in the previous eight years?


He has reduced the number of potential targets and let our enemies run wild.

The suicide rate is way up among our veterans. Despite many promises, Obama has done squat for them.

Yes. So what exactly are people so mad about.


They can't get jobs and/or the available jobs are well below their qualifications.

And why are people so mad at Hillary? If it wasn't email it would be something else--you know that right?


She's a liar and a thief. Oh, and her "qualifications" are only slightly less of a joke than Trump's. She set the Middle East ablaze, caved into Russia, and generally botched everything she touched.

We can work together to solve what are not unsolvable problems or we can pull apart. The white police officer should imagine what it's like to be a black man, a black man should imagine what it's like for a white police officer dealing with the black community that is suspicious of white police officers, the evangelical Christian should imagine what it's like for an atheist or gay or transgendered person and those groups should imagine what it's like for Christians whose views are mocked sometimes. Come together and solve problems. Come together and reach a reasonable compromise on things.


This has nothing to do with Hillary, but it's not unreasonable. Engaging on all these subjects would take hours.

If someone is a Trump supporter and is a white male and has only a high school education, Trump is not going to magically solve their problems. Their essential problem is that a high school education is not good enough in today's globalized economy. Being a white male is not enough anymore. Get over it and compete like everyone else.


This is bunk. Being young and black means being unemployed, forget about "white privilege." In this economy, having a good job is a "privilege."

We live in a free country where someone from anywhere, male or female, any religion, whatever their color of their skin, can succeed if they have the intelligence and drive to succeed.


Watch out! That's my mantra!

You can think and say what you want. The 11 million illegal immigrants do not threaten that in the least nor does gay marriage, or the transgendered bathroom issue. These are ridiculous issues. Trump does pose an existential threat to our country. If people are going to be so concerned about such minor issues and risk our great country created by our ancestors, well, I just don't know what to say.


This is a wonderful collection of straw men. However, as the weather is quite dry in SoCal, please burn them somewhere else.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 07 Sep 2016, 2:11 pm

rickyp wrote:Worth considering...
compare the Trump Foundation with the Clinton Foundation...

The Question No One's Asking About the Clinton Foundation
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ctual-work

DONALD TRUMP’S CHARITABLE GIVING CLAIMS SURE LOOK LIKE A SHAM
The real estate mogul has contributed hardly any of his fortune to his own foundation, which spends millions on society galas and institutions tied to friends and family.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/ ... ity-giving

Dag, why do you persist in calling H. Clinton "the criminal"?


No, it's not worth considering. It's a diversion.

The Clinton Foundation exists for one reason: to enrich the Clintons.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 07 Sep 2016, 8:55 pm

Tom wrote:

Why is it a shock to think CNN is biased?


It's not a shock. It is biased beyond belief and as left as can be.

The only news publication that I believe does a good job of actually reporting news and not creating news or pushing an agenda is The Christian Science Monitor. But let me be precise. I like the CSM for its world reports. They are not as strong on national news.

In fact, I don't know of any news publication that does real reporting on a national level. All of it has been polluted thanks to partisan politics in my opinion and so called "journalism" in America is dead.

What a waste of time and money pursuing a journalism degree has become These lemmings graduate and run off to feed what's become America's information caste, working for whoever is paying and pushing the various talking heads as if they were brands.
Last edited by dag hammarsjkold on 07 Sep 2016, 9:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 07 Sep 2016, 8:55 pm

And Ricky, she walks and talks like a duck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-xjiXfJ58Q

Whitewater
Travelgate
Vince Foster
Cattlegate
Filegate
Clinton Legal Defense Fund
Chinagate
IRS Abuses
FALN Terrorists
Campaign Finance Abuses
Benghasi
Clinton Foundation
Home Server

it just goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 09 Sep 2016, 12:41 pm

Dag its interesting comparing your link (from anonymous)
and your previous comment decrying the lack of objective journalism.

I'm sure in the interests of seeking objectivity you might find another source?
Here's one...
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... zi/396182/
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 09 Sep 2016, 1:26 pm

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/12/bill-clinton-hillary-clinton-scandals-ranked-from-/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

Considering the biased sources you have provided, I would think there is little room to talk...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 09 Sep 2016, 2:33 pm

I have to say Comey is losing legitimacy as more and more info leaks out about the investigation:

Comey declared the investigation free of undue influence three days after his agents interviewed Clinton at FBI headquarters under special terms.

What’s more, Comey made the two FBI agents who interviewed Clinton — along with all agents and forensic analysts involved in the so-called investigation — sign non-disclosure agreements gagging them from talking about the case even with other employees.

Comey even let Clinton’s State Department aides Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson sit in on the interview with Clinton’s other lawyers, despite the glaring conflict of interest. FBI documents make clear Mills and Samuelson led the effort to search for and destroy Clinton’s subpoenaed emails and should’ve been prime targets of the investigation.

. . .

When Clinton claimed she couldn’t recall “ever contacting” the government computer specialist who set up her unsecured home email server, Comey could’ve produced the same evidence the State inspector general found showing Clinton had in fact paid the aide, Bryan Pagliano, “by check or wire transfer in varying amounts between 2009 and 2013.”

Pagliano was a critical witness. But instead of pressuring him to sing on Clinton and other higher-ups, Comey agreed to give him immunity from criminal prosecution.

Nor did Comey squeeze the Platte River Networks engineer who agents complained gave them “inconsistent statements over the course of three interviews regarding from where on the server he extracted Clinton’s emails.”

Comey also failed to push back against Mills’ claims of “attorney-client privilege” when she refused to divulge details about how she sifted through Clinton’s emails. Her name was on many of the emails containing classified information. At the time, she was Clinton’s chief of staff, not her lawyer. Agents agreed to drop the line of questioning when she threatened to walk out of the interview.

Ron Sievert, a former assistant director at the Justice Department and member of the DOJ’s National Security Working Group, said Comey easily could’ve gone to court to challenge Mills’ privilege claim. He didn’t.


It all stinks.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 11 Sep 2016, 10:05 pm

Didn't know any of this. Unbelievable.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Sep 2016, 7:59 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Didn't know any of this. Unbelievable.


Whenever a Democrat is asked about the email situation, they say "It's been investigated. The FBI cleared Secretary Clinton of any wrongdoing."

Actually, it was "somewhat" investigated and she wasn't charged. However, that narrative is hardly compelling.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 13 Sep 2016, 11:37 am

Enter Justin Cooper...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 11 Oct 2016, 3:15 pm

What is the difference between these two people's actions.

Harold Thomas Martin III
Hillary Rodham Clinton

It looks the same to me. One is in jail, one is not.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Oct 2016, 6:54 am

bbauska
It looks the same to me.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

Sure.
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/6/12774948/fb ... ton-report
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Oct 2016, 7:48 am



Translation: "I'll cut and paste some links, but leave the work to you."

The more things change, the more they stay the same.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Oct 2016, 7:58 am



No. What is the difference between these two. You you thoughts, and not link to others. Someone as bright as you can be should be able to present cogent positions.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Oct 2016, 12:05 pm

fate
Translation: "I'll cut and paste some links, but leave the work to you."


If reading a comprehensive analysis, that offers a complete understanding of the failings of both ....
is work. Then its work that should be done.
You complain often about the uninformed electorate. And then criticize an effort to offer BBauska
views that should help him understand - if not the reasons why equivication of Clinton and Trumps failings is just wrong - then at least a different view that he hasn't been exposed to...

bbauska
No. What is the difference between these two.

If you invest in 15 minutes you'll better understand the differences.

Hillary Clinton is probably the best prepared person to be President in decades. her experience is vast, and her understanding of the legilsative and executive beanches is first hand. She is respected by her peers in the Senate, and by the International Community.
She has limitations. First among them apparently an older persons understanding of technology which lead to her email problems.
But then she's hardly alone in coming to grips with the issue of cyber security.
She is however, up to the task of being President.

But to even countenance that she is as unqualified and reprehensible as Donald Trump suggests you have been exposed to little media other than that which carry on laregly unsubstantiated conspiracies about her... including her health.
I offered you a quick read that I thought would be useful. If you don't care to invest the time in exploring an informed point of view from credible journalists, I'll understand.