BigRedBuster Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 http://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11818964/trump-judge-university-mexican Trump University is on trial for fraud. Whether he legally swindled large sums from vulnerable people or not, Trump's likely to be called to testify. As is his way, and the way of his parroting supporters, he's reflexively gone ad hominem to try and dismiss and discredit a threat. In this case that's a federal judge, and the threat is that a trial he stands a chance of losing might go forward. Leaving aside policy altogether, this November is a straightforward referendum on norms. What kind of norms would you like to see prevail? Sanity, or Turkey? How nice that Trump and his campaign have nakedly made clear what it is they stand for. Let's see what you got, America. It's Hillary that should be in prison though. Don't forget that, otherwise you'll be biased too. We have no proof that either of them should be in prison. There is plenty showing that Hillary should have went to prison. The latest is her email issues, no they are not the same as what other people did. They didn't use their personal email for official government business. Let alone their own personal server that wasn't cleared for top secret or classified work which she also had. We all know why she did it, which is why it is illegal for every government employee, if you use your own server, then you don't fall under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) among two others which means that she was free to delete email to hide whatever she wanted to hide. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law There's a lot of "could be" and "probably" in Grassley's statement. He is a Republican who, I'm sure, would love to not see her elected. Hmmmm.....so.....what would you expect him to say? Link to comment
teachercd Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 "I was expecting you to send me more money, but you didn't..." I mean, clearly she needs more money to combat the billionaire right? Oh wait. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trumps-campaign-dwarfed-by-clintons-223438 That's not real...is it? Link to comment
AFhusker Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 http://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11818964/trump-judge-university-mexican Trump University is on trial for fraud. Whether he legally swindled large sums from vulnerable people or not, Trump's likely to be called to testify. As is his way, and the way of his parroting supporters, he's reflexively gone ad hominem to try and dismiss and discredit a threat. In this case that's a federal judge, and the threat is that a trial he stands a chance of losing might go forward. Leaving aside policy altogether, this November is a straightforward referendum on norms. What kind of norms would you like to see prevail? Sanity, or Turkey? How nice that Trump and his campaign have nakedly made clear what it is they stand for. Let's see what you got, America. It's Hillary that should be in prison though. Don't forget that, otherwise you'll be biased too. We have no proof that either of them should be in prison. There is plenty showing that Hillary should have went to prison. The latest is her email issues, no they are not the same as what other people did. They didn't use their personal email for official government business. Let alone their own personal server that wasn't cleared for top secret or classified work which she also had. We all know why she did it, which is why it is illegal for every government employee, if you use your own server, then you don't fall under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) among two others which means that she was free to delete email to hide whatever she wanted to hide. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law There's a lot of "could be" and "probably" in Grassley's statement. He is a Republican who, I'm sure, would love to not see her elected. Hmmmm.....so.....what would you expect him to say? The truth which is that she should go to jail for what she did. It doesn't matter what side of the isle the person is from. If you don't want to hear it from a Republican, then read the 83 page IG document from a guy who was appointed by a Democratic President who rips her to shreds for breaking laws and lying about it. What lame excuse are you going to try to use to protect her now? Link to comment
AFhusker Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 "I was expecting you to send me more money, but you didn't..." I mean, clearly she needs more money to combat the billionaire right? Oh wait. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trumps-campaign-dwarfed-by-clintons-223438 That's not real...is it? You know she will never apologize for being a lying, deceitful, and downright evil human being right? Link to comment
QMany Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Not to mention the Syrian refugees that Obama just wants to allow in the country without background checks. Are you going to address/rescind this comment or just continue posting other blatant misrepresentations? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 LOL..... So, the numb nuts comes out bragging that his charity event raised OVER $6,000,000 for vets. brag brag brag brag....after all....he constantly tells us how much vets love him he loves vets. So...time goes on and Washington Post starts snooping around and asking questions about what "Vet organizations" did the money go to? Well...of course the amazing human being himself scoffed at the idea anyone would question him and they must just be "haters". Well.....so.....today he gives out a list of organizations that received the money. Obviously by doing this it proves he is such a great guy. Honestly....I just can't believe how awesome he is. He was able to time the donations perfectly to coincide with the day the article came out. Oh...and....little tid bit of info......he didn't come close to the WAY over 6,000,000 that he claimed he raised. But...hey....that's just one of those little tid bits of info that is meaningless. After all.....he only speaks the truth.....you know....... There was actually a vet on the podium wearing a MAGA hat that came up and yelled at the media for "using veterans as political pawns." I about lost my sh#t at that moment. But, you know, the media need to be ashamed of themselves. HOW DARE THEY DO THEIR JOB!? The media in this country hasn't "done their job" in decades due to their liberal agenda. The Washington Post lost all legitimacy when they put 20 people to look up any skeletons in Trumps past and failing to do the same for Hillary. Just like the protest that wasn't staged by the Clinton Campaign today...well upon further review.... https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/05/24/here-we-go-again-clinton-campaign-busted-manufacturing-astroturf-protest-against-trump/ The Clinton campaign swiftly organized a conference call for Saturday, led by the Clinton campaign’s veterans and military families outreach director, Jonathan Murray. According to one of the people on that call, participants were told that the Clinton campaign should not be seen viewed as behind the organizer of the protest. At Monday’s protest, Marine veteran and Clinton supporter Alexander McCoy served as a spokesman for the demonstrators—and went to great lengths to hide the Clinton campaign’s involvement with organizing the demonstration. “We’re not affiliated with any campaign, we’re not affiliated with any organization,” McCoy told reporters, saying the protesters used “grassroots organizing techniques, we came together over social media.” McCoy later told The Daily Beast he reached out to the Clinton campaign to obtain press contacts but denied that Clinton staffers had been involved in organizing the event. Then, reached by phone after the event, McCoy acknowledged that the Clinton campaign organized the conference call bringing together possible attendees to the protest. I have stated over and over and over again that I believe the media in this country are way more dangerous than any one person in Washington. That's because most of it is bought and paid for by one side or the other. I say most. I personally think CNN is the most middle ground option. But....here's my problem with your post. You say they haven't done their job because of their "liberal agenda". So....what does everyone do? They cling to whatever news outlets spews the crap they agree with. It's seen on here all the time. Conservatives will use conservative web sites to prove their points and liberals will use liberal web sites to prove theirs. Have you ever purposely read the other side's media outlets with an open mind that maybe...just maybe you might learn something? That just isn't done anymore. So, these outlets just keep spewing the crap over and over again. So.....I'm kind of changing my tune here. Yes, I still believe the media is dangerous. But, they are just doing what the public allows them to do to make more money. That said....the vet that's pissed off at the media because they "use the vets for political gains" is just laughable as he's standing behind a Presidential candidate that CLEARLY used the vets for political purposes when he constantly talked about how he was not doing the debate and instead doing a "fund raiser for the vets". If that isn't using vets for political purposes...what is? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I'm honestly curious: for the people who think Obama has been a disaster, what exactly did he do that prevented you from your own pursuit of life, liberty and happiness? The question at this point is typically "are we better off than we were 8 years ago" and the answer is yes, of course, no question about it. And with genuine collaboration and debate rather than mere obstructionism, it could have been better. The things going wrong with America are many years in the making, involve the exponential growth of income disparity and have been fed by both parties. But it seems pretty clear to me the last thing we need right now is a thin-skinned billionaire who wants to take America back to a time that didn't exist. He mandated that PUBLIC SCHOOLS be forced into having gender neutral LOCKER ROOMS. While that doesn't affect me. It affects my neices, and my potential future daughters. If schools don't comply then federal funding goes out the window? This has gone from absurd to just down right biased and stupid Can you give us a link to this? I googled it and came up with a transgender issue where he said transgender kids should use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. I'm not coming up with where he directed schools that it should just be a free for all with one big locker room with both boys and girls basketball teams changing together and using the same showers. LINK Here is a link to an article about the directive the Obama administration issued to our schools. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/politics/obama-administration-to-issue-decree-on-transgender-access-to-school-restrooms.html?_r=0 If your only concern is about the possibility of one big free for all, common locker room with boys and girls teams changing and showering together, you're being purposefully obstinate about the repercussions of this. I too thought you had more on the ball. So, I guess you support this ruling and have plenty of good reasons why it is necessary. I would be most interested to know how you think hormonal teenage boys will not abuse this open invitation to enter girls bathrooms and locker rooms. Please share.......the reasons and/or whatever it is you may be smoking. My personal opinion is that (just like allowing Syrian Muslim terrorists into the country with no back ground checks) this issue is blown so out of proportion that it's unrecognizable. This isn't just a free for all where every boy who wants to can just go mingle with the girls while they are pissing. It's been pointed out already that this has to start with a guardian giving the school notice the kid is transgender. Also, it's been pointed out, what boy in HS is going to act transgender just to get into take a peek at the girls? As for the point Coach Power T is trying to make that all of a sudden this is going to allow so many more molestations because horrible men will have access to girls bathrooms. How come nobody is concerned about the same thing happening with men using bathrooms with little boys? Aren't there lots of incidents where men molest boys? If so, what is preventing that? This entire issue us hysteria created around politics by one side wanting to paint the other side as some horrible decision maker that is endangering our kids. In our school, I think we have had one transgender kid since I can even remember. It was CLEAR that this kid was different than the rest. The other kids just accepted her as who she was and it wasn't an issue. It's not like all of a sudden your school is going to have to deal with 30 kids who all of a sudden have decided to be transgender. 2 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 "I was expecting you to send me more money, but you didn't..." I mean, clearly she needs more money to combat the billionaire right? Oh wait. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trumps-campaign-dwarfed-by-clintons-223438 That's not real...is it? I have no idea if it's real or not but I do know it would be pretty easy to make a fake graphic like that. Link to comment
AFhusker Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Congrats on your retirement, Shark. Hope you're spending your free time doing something you find enjoyable. Since we've seen plenty of scrutiny of Clinton on the emails thing (deservedly so), here's a pretty fair defense of here I found tonight. Now, this guy is a lawyer who advised Bill, but he also served under Bush. He graduated from Yale and contributes content all across the ideological gamut from HuffPo to FoxNews. He's a pretty reputable source, IMO. I don't think it's just some cheeky Clinton shill trying to pull a fast one on you. She undoubtedly exercised poor judgment in not clearing this server explicitly with anyone. But the funny thing this article points out is that it was likely MORE secure than the State Department servers themselves. There's no evidence her server was hacked, but we KNOW the State Dept ones have been. So the whole "jeopardized national security" thing doesn't really hold a whole lot of water. That's a rather scathing review of government cybersecurity as a whole, IMO. I'll shut up now and let you reach your own conclusions. You may want to do some more research before you claim someone not to be a "cheeky Clinton shill" because that is exactly what he is. To even say that her server was more secure than a government one is ludicrous. It shows the depth people will go to defend someone when they have been caught red handed and still will try to spin their way out of trouble. Below are numerous articles that show that he is just a special interest with very close ties to the Clinton's. The last article also has some of the same lies about this subject. Not to mention that he is a self proclaimed liberal democrat. One who is nothing more than a spin doctor for hire. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/31/world/31davis.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.weeklystandard.com/lannys-letter-to-hillary-is-d.c.s-most-cringe-inducing-document-ever/article/1023960 https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/lanny-davis-spin-doctor-for-hire/2013/10/21/1780e402-3814-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/26/chris_wallace_grills_lanny_davis_on_clinton_cash_except_for_a_few_inadvertent_errors_the_clintons_have_been_transparent.html Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Congrats on your retirement, Shark. Hope you're spending your free time doing something you find enjoyable. Since we've seen plenty of scrutiny of Clinton on the emails thing (deservedly so), here's a pretty fair defense of here I found tonight. Now, this guy is a lawyer who advised Bill, but he also served under Bush. He graduated from Yale and contributes content all across the ideological gamut from HuffPo to FoxNews. He's a pretty reputable source, IMO. I don't think it's just some cheeky Clinton shill trying to pull a fast one on you. She undoubtedly exercised poor judgment in not clearing this server explicitly with anyone. But the funny thing this article points out is that it was likely MORE secure than the State Department servers themselves. There's no evidence her server was hacked, but we KNOW the State Dept ones have been. So the whole "jeopardized national security" thing doesn't really hold a whole lot of water. That's a rather scathing review of government cybersecurity as a whole, IMO. I'll shut up now and let you reach your own conclusions. You may want to do some more research before you claim someone not to be a "cheeky Clinton shill" because that is exactly what he is. To even say that her server was more secure than a government one is ludicrous. It shows the depth people will go to defend someone when they have been caught red handed and still will try to spin their way out of trouble. Below are numerous articles that show that he is just a special interest with very close ties to the Clinton's. The last article also has some of the same lies about this subject. Not to mention that he is a self proclaimed liberal democrat. One who is nothing more than a spin doctor for hire. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/31/world/31davis.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.weeklystandard.com/lannys-letter-to-hillary-is-d.c.s-most-cringe-inducing-document-ever/article/1023960 https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/lanny-davis-spin-doctor-for-hire/2013/10/21/1780e402-3814-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/26/chris_wallace_grills_lanny_davis_on_clinton_cash_except_for_a_few_inadvertent_errors_the_clintons_have_been_transparent.html Agree. Kind of like what Trump supporters do. Link to comment
AFhusker Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Not to mention the Syrian refugees that Obama just wants to allow in the country without background checks. Are you going to address/rescind this comment or just continue posting other blatant misrepresentations? The article that was given shows that people were pushing for more strict process to let them in, while the Obama administration wants to keep the status quo because they think that it is sufficient. It made my point already, so you may want to read the article before trying to call people out. Link to comment
AFhusker Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Congrats on your retirement, Shark. Hope you're spending your free time doing something you find enjoyable. Since we've seen plenty of scrutiny of Clinton on the emails thing (deservedly so), here's a pretty fair defense of here I found tonight. Now, this guy is a lawyer who advised Bill, but he also served under Bush. He graduated from Yale and contributes content all across the ideological gamut from HuffPo to FoxNews. He's a pretty reputable source, IMO. I don't think it's just some cheeky Clinton shill trying to pull a fast one on you. She undoubtedly exercised poor judgment in not clearing this server explicitly with anyone. But the funny thing this article points out is that it was likely MORE secure than the State Department servers themselves. There's no evidence her server was hacked, but we KNOW the State Dept ones have been. So the whole "jeopardized national security" thing doesn't really hold a whole lot of water. That's a rather scathing review of government cybersecurity as a whole, IMO. I'll shut up now and let you reach your own conclusions. You may want to do some more research before you claim someone not to be a "cheeky Clinton shill" because that is exactly what he is. To even say that her server was more secure than a government one is ludicrous. It shows the depth people will go to defend someone when they have been caught red handed and still will try to spin their way out of trouble. Below are numerous articles that show that he is just a special interest with very close ties to the Clinton's. The last article also has some of the same lies about this subject. Not to mention that he is a self proclaimed liberal democrat. One who is nothing more than a spin doctor for hire. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/31/world/31davis.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all http://www.weeklystandard.com/lannys-letter-to-hillary-is-d.c.s-most-cringe-inducing-document-ever/article/1023960 https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/lanny-davis-spin-doctor-for-hire/2013/10/21/1780e402-3814-11e3-8a0e-4e2cf80831fc_story.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/26/chris_wallace_grills_lanny_davis_on_clinton_cash_except_for_a_few_inadvertent_errors_the_clintons_have_been_transparent.html Agree. Kind of like what Trump supporters do. I agree with that too. Link to comment
AFhusker Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I'm honestly curious: for the people who think Obama has been a disaster, what exactly did he do that prevented you from your own pursuit of life, liberty and happiness? The question at this point is typically "are we better off than we were 8 years ago" and the answer is yes, of course, no question about it. And with genuine collaboration and debate rather than mere obstructionism, it could have been better. The things going wrong with America are many years in the making, involve the exponential growth of income disparity and have been fed by both parties. But it seems pretty clear to me the last thing we need right now is a thin-skinned billionaire who wants to take America back to a time that didn't exist. He mandated that PUBLIC SCHOOLS be forced into having gender neutral LOCKER ROOMS. While that doesn't affect me. It affects my neices, and my potential future daughters. If schools don't comply then federal funding goes out the window? This has gone from absurd to just down right biased and stupid Can you give us a link to this? I googled it and came up with a transgender issue where he said transgender kids should use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. I'm not coming up with where he directed schools that it should just be a free for all with one big locker room with both boys and girls basketball teams changing together and using the same showers. LINK Here is a link to an article about the directive the Obama administration issued to our schools. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/us/politics/obama-administration-to-issue-decree-on-transgender-access-to-school-restrooms.html?_r=0 If your only concern is about the possibility of one big free for all, common locker room with boys and girls teams changing and showering together, you're being purposefully obstinate about the repercussions of this. I too thought you had more on the ball. So, I guess you support this ruling and have plenty of good reasons why it is necessary. I would be most interested to know how you think hormonal teenage boys will not abuse this open invitation to enter girls bathrooms and locker rooms. Please share.......the reasons and/or whatever it is you may be smoking. My personal opinion is that (just like allowing Syrian Muslim terrorists into the country with no back ground checks) this issue is blown so out of proportion that it's unrecognizable. This isn't just a free for all where every boy who wants to can just go mingle with the girls while they are pissing. It's been pointed out already that this has to start with a guardian giving the school notice the kid is transgender. Also, it's been pointed out, what boy in HS is going to act transgender just to get into take a peek at the girls? As for the point Coach Power T is trying to make that all of a sudden this is going to allow so many more molestations because horrible men will have access to girls bathrooms. How come nobody is concerned about the same thing happening with men using bathrooms with little boys? Aren't there lots of incidents where men molest boys? If so, what is preventing that? This entire issue us hysteria created around politics by one side wanting to paint the other side as some horrible decision maker that is endangering our kids. In our school, I think we have had one transgender kid since I can even remember. It was CLEAR that this kid was different than the rest. The other kids just accepted her as who she was and it wasn't an issue. It's not like all of a sudden your school is going to have to deal with 30 kids who all of a sudden have decided to be transgender. You are right, the transgender issue has been blown way out of proportion, but that is the President's fault for singing in a law that isn't needed. Being "transgender" is a mental illness that doesn't need a law to allow mentally ill people to choose which bathroom they want to use. I do watch both sides (when I can stand to watch MSNBC or Fox that is) to see where they are coming from. As a vet I personally thought that MSNBC was disgusting in not even acknowledging memorial day. They spent half the day talking about a stupid Gorilla in Chicago instead of honoring those who have died for this country. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Not to mention the Syrian refugees that Obama just wants to allow in the country without background checks. Are you going to address/rescind this comment or just continue posting other blatant misrepresentations? The article that was given shows that people were pushing for more strict process to let them in, while the Obama administration wants to keep the status quo because they think that it is sufficient. It made my point already, so you may want to read the article before trying to call people out. Can you please inform us on what the "status quo" is as far as allowing these refugees into the country? 1 Link to comment
QMany Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Can you please inform us on what the "status quo" is as far as allowing these refugees into the country? I'll help AFhusker out: Do the refugees get background checks? The refugees admissions program, created in 1980 and retooled after 9/11, does actually perform background checks on all refugees, to the extent possible. Before refugees face U.S. screening, they must get a referral from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (or occasionally a U.S. embassy or another NGO). The UN refers about 1 percent of refugees for resettlement through its own vetting process, which takes four to 10 months. During that process, UN officials decide if people actually qualify as refugees, if they require resettlement, and which country would accept them. Once the cases are passed along to the United States, the refugees undergo security clearances. Their names, biographical information and fingerprints are run through federal terrorism and criminal databases. Meanwhile, the refugees are interviewed by Department of Homeland Security officials. If approved, they then undergo a medical screening, a match with sponsor agencies, "cultural orientation" classes and one final security clearance. Syrian refugees in particular must clear one additional hurdle. Their documents are placed under extra scrutiny and cross-referenced with classified and unclassified information. The process typically takes one to two years or longer and happens before a refugee ever gets onto American soil. 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts