The Clinton Discussion Thread

[Captain.Heroin]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...ip-work-thailand-closing-u-s-plant/601033002/

Actually, Trump fucked up man. Maybe his "intentions were well", (nope), but uh...yeah. It didn't work out.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

Sucks if you're one of the Kansas City workers. Wonderful city, great people, great food from what I hear. It sounds like Trump's forgetting about the people he made promises to.

 

[Speed King]

Cross forum post.

I am not bothering to multi quote here.

First, Xorkoth knows his stuff, at minimum to the the issues of common concern.

CH asks great questions and makes excellent points. Educated arguments.


What is illegal?

What?s bad ?

Remember our last president wanted to, or at least entertain. opening the gates on people, or refugees from other countries?

The states said NO.


I here subjective views.

If anyone noticed, state and local governments are different then the federal government?

Who here knows how all state and local governments use any money that they get?

So - Theoretically: Trump could of helprd states and by the time it got to county level, it was used differently then other states?

Anyone notice states which are having a nice time?



We build plenty of jails, but the education for some people is sub par. Becomes part of a system of sorts.

Better standards for education are needed to stay out of jail, prison, court, etc.

You can get that here (various threads) or the hard(er) way. The system!

Industries thive on people that.......
don?t always focus, or are uneducated, in important areas, or don?t care, which is wasteful IMO!


Back OT.

In order to ?Open the borders, IMO,
subjectivity speeking, you would have to set up an education system for new people from questionable places. IMO, in regards to Americans southern border, it would save the majority of folks issues for both country and person a a lot of trouble.


We are all equal, however foreign folks would need to be brought up to speed, to truly reach something that born and raised Americans know based on maturity and experience.


You want change? Get off your ass and
VOTE !!!

For all you haters, Trump ( republican ) kept some thing that was introduced by the Obama ( democrat ) administration. Allowing states to make their own rules concerning Cannabis law.

That is pretty good, for a litany of reasons.

What ? Something both sides can agree on?

Sorry for the rant. Old post or not, good base for comment.

Thanks.

 

[zephyr]

Im not sure wat the above post has to do with any Clinton however the last Clinton than ran for office lost despite going up against a incompetent imbecile and the only conclusion that is drawn by a foreigner who wouldnt really care either way who won (me) is she was obviously set up to fail by some evil underminding tactics or shes a genuine bonafide loser .

Either way, she is corrupt as they come and so is any other politician and the powers that be will have their time come at the hands of future power hungry would be posers.

Happens every election, no body is immune to being dirty .

 

[JGrimez]

she was obviously set up to fail by some evil underminding tactics or shes a genuine bonafide loser

Partly the latter, but also her crew may been under the impression that they were able to somehow fix the general in her favor similar to how they colluded, interfered and influenced the primaries against Sanders.
If she had won presidency like she was supposed to, I dare say all the top FBI brass who've recently been fired would still have jobs.

 

[Xorkoth]

I don't know what you've been told that Trump is doing but he's bringing manufacturing back to America (some of these jobs Obama said were never coming back).
There is a lot of unnecessary rhetoric emanating from the media about trade wars.

I've been told the opposite of what you've been told which is, once again, the entire problem with every conversation between Trump supporters and detractors. Wherever I claim my source to be, you're going to claim it's a corrupted liberal left propaganda machine, and I'm going to claim the opposite with your source. Frustrating. Makes me not even want to try to debate.

Whenever I say the evidence I'm talking about what's publicly available. And they should have presented at least something to the public by now proving that Trump did something illegal. So far there is nothing that been made public. However with Clinton I can safely say that there is enough evidence there to put Hillary, Abedin, Mills, Weiner, Bryan Pagliano, Strzok, Comey, Obama + more in jail. I'm not guessing here about what investigators might have in their back pockets after half a decade, I'm talking today right now. Xorkoth you keep skirting this and saying "but Trump", sorry but there's no solid evidence against Trump. So if you care about the law and justice then you should be rallying for all the above to be tried and if guilty convicted.

I'm saying that in any investigation into crimes, they do not reveal anything to the public until it's over. In fact they are not even allowed to, as that is tampering with the investigation. If they find out Hilary and Obama and everyone else you mentioned is guilty of crimes worthy of prison then they should imprison them too, but that doesn't mean they should stop investigating Trump. I'm just more concerned about Trump at the moment because as I've said, he is still in power and he's continuing to damage our country.

It actually does. Because if you break the law trying to bust someone then evidence can be thrown out. You cannot use knowingly false evidence to obtain a warrant (and if you're going to do that, at least be sure that you're going to turn up something illegal!!)

Yes, in court in terms of what is admissible, you're right. However it doesn't change the reality of what someone did or did not do. That's what I was saying.

 

[cduggles]

JGrimez, did Secretary Clinton make Trump falsely state he was canning Comey on national TV while being interviewed by Lester Holt, regardless of whatever cover story the Deep State had cooked up, because of the Russia investigation; or was Trump simply compelled to get the truth out to the American people through the MSM because he's crafty and yet honest like that ?

Did Secretary Clinton have 'her crew' do the firing because she thinks the FBI lost her the election, didn't competently sabotage Trump, or something else nefarious?

Was killing the people who lost her the election too obvious or is it just hard getting an international web of contract killers to risk wetwork on feebs because of the heat?

I'll hold back on my many other questions as to why this makes no sense, in case it's a big secret the world can't handle except for an elite few.

 

[JGrimez]

I'm saying that in any investigation into crimes, they do not reveal anything to the public until it's over.

With something as serious as this, they should have offered some proof to the public by now. It's not a lot to ask.
And what if Trump gets caught doing the same things that Hillary is guilty of? You'd probably say we should charge Trump first because he's in power but that's a faulty argument. Clinton needs to be held accountable or you're basically saying that anyone in power (including Trump or else you're a hypocrite) gets a free pass.

JGrimez, did Secretary Clinton make Trump falsely state he was canning Comey on national TV while being interviewed by Lester Holt, regardless of whatever cover story the Deep State had cooked up, because of the Russia investigation; or was Trump simply compelled to get the truth out to the American people through the MSM because he's crafty and yet honest like that ?

Did Secretary Clinton have 'her crew' do the firing because she thinks the FBI lost her the election, didn't competently sabotage Trump, or something else nefarious?

Suggesting that Trump fired Comey because of the Russia investigation, and that it was therefore obstruction of justice, doesn't make sense. First of all Comey stated under oath that he believed the Russia investigation would continue fine without him at the FBI. Comey also deserved to be fired for a number of reasons, one of them ironically being obstructing justice when it came to the Clinton investigation. He also committed perjury and leaked classified information to the media. What Trump said about it off the record is irrelevant, it's a very complicated situation. However what someone says under oath is very important. Comey and McCabe both committed perjury, therefore they are provable felons.

Was killing the people who lost her the election too obvious or is it just hard getting an international web of contract killers to risk wetwork on feebs because of the heat?

You can't be too obvious.
And her losing the election may have in fact been a military coup.
There are 2 ways to enact a coup - overtly through military seizure, or covertly by winning an election.
Trump obviously has help from somewhere.
It's possible that military intelligence prevented the cabal from rigging the votes for Clinton.

Also why is Clinton rigging the election so preposterous, but people willingly believe that Russia rigged the election with the help of Trump?
Also Clinton rigged the primaries, so it makes perfect sense her crew would attempt to sway the general any way they could.
This also explains Hillary and Obama's attitudes before the voting.

 

[Xorkoth]

With something as serious as this, they should have offered some proof to the public by now. It's not a lot to ask.

Why should they have done this? Why should legal procedure be changed for this case? It's there for a reason, to protect the investigation and prevent the perpetrators from having any clue what is or is not known.

And what if Trump gets caught doing the same things that Hillary is guilty of? You'd probably say we should charge Trump first because he's in power but that's a faulty argument. Clinton needs to be held accountable or you're basically saying that anyone in power (including Trump or else you're a hypocrite) gets a free pass.

It's not a faulty argument. Trump is a more pressing concern, being that he is currently the president. If we have a traitorous criminal in the presidency, don't you think that's more urgent to address than someone who used to be involved in the nation's politics? If anything, I'm saying that people no longer in power should get a free pass (I'm not saying that either).

People weren't saying the stuff about her that they're saying now when Clinton was in power. No one was investigating her or talking about investigating her. Legions of people weren't calling for her to be imprisoned. That happened during the presidential race. Which I find quite telling. It was quite an effective smear campaign. And now, the obsession over it is a big distraction for those who support Trump. Keeps the focus off of his actions. It's a convenient set of blinders. Is she corrupt? Yes. many, many politicians are, in fact I would say most, at the state and national level. Is she the bogeyman that she's being made out to be? I doubt it. For the record, I don't think Trump is the bogeyman either, I just think he needs to be removed from office because he's doing damage. But he's far from the worst that we have in power. He just happens to be terrible at diplomacy and not have the necessary experience and skill set to be the president, and he's probably a traitor as well. But I guess time will tell.

This also explains Hillary and Obama's attitudes before the voting.

I think their attitudes are explained the same way you explain why the media was reporting a 99% chance of Hilary winning, and why non-Trump supporters assumed there was no way he'd be elected. Because it seemed preposterous that a reality TV star with no political experience whatsoever would actually win.

 

[JGrimez]

Why should they have done this? Why should legal procedure be changed for this case? It's there for a reason, to protect the investigation and prevent the perpetrators from having any clue what is or is not known.

When you accuse a commander-in-chief of the serious crimes of treason and conspiring with a foreign state to rig an election, you better show something to assure the public that your investigation is not a witch hunt or a distraction.
How long has it been since these accusations first began? The indictments are a joke.
Even Watergate began with an observable crime (the break-in).

It's not a faulty argument. Trump is a more pressing concern, being that he is currently the president. If we have a traitorous criminal in the presidency, don't you think that's more urgent to address than someone who used to be involved in the nation's politics? If anything, I'm saying that people no longer in power should get a free pass (I'm not saying that either).

I keep asking this. What if Trump and his people were caught doing the exact same thing Hillary and co. got away with? Who do we prosecute first? Hillary was supposed to win so shouldn't justice be carried out swiftly and evenly?

People weren't saying the stuff about her that they're saying now when Clinton was in power. No one was investigating her or talking about investigating her. Legions of people weren't calling for her to be imprisoned. That happened during the presidential race. Which I find quite telling. It was quite an effective smear campaign. And now, the obsession over it is a big distraction for those who support Trump. Keeps the focus off of his actions. It's a convenient set of blinders. Is she corrupt? Yes. many, many politicians are, in fact I would say most, at the state and national level. Is she the bogeyman that she's being made out to be? I doubt it.

Actually it happened as soon as they found the evidence of all the felonies. As more people became aware of what happened, word spread. Yes there were smear campaign elements but it was based on fact.

For the record, I don't think Trump is the bogeyman either, I just think he needs to be removed from office because he's doing damage. But he's far from the worst that we have in power. He just happens to be terrible at diplomacy and not have the necessary experience and skill set to be the president, and he's probably a traitor as well. But I guess time will tell.

Doing damage how? You mean effective governing with policies you disagree with or don't understand?
Should we have removed Obama since he was doing the same thing in the eyes of many?

I think their attitudes are explained the same way you explain why the media was reporting a 99% chance of Hilary winning, and why non-Trump supporters assumed there was no way he'd be elected. Because it seemed preposterous that a reality TV star with no political experience whatsoever would actually win.

Because a lot of people ignored the MSM nonsense on Trump and actually listened to his words. Whether he's selling snake oil or not it seems as if he actually cares about fixing the country.

 

[alasdairm]

When you accuse a commander-in-chief of the serious crimes of treason and conspiring with a foreign state to rig an election, you better show something to assure the public that your investigation is not a witch hunt or a distraction.
How long has it been since these accusations first began? The indictments are a joke.

you complain about lack of results and, two sentences later, brush off the already-public results of the investigation as a joke. you won't be satisfied either way.

mueller's remit was investigate (and, as appropriate) prosecute "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump," as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" and any other matters within the scope of 28 CFR 600.4

the indictments seem well within the scope of the (admittedly wide) remit.

...it seems as if he actually cares about fixing the country.

that's your opinion. and the opinion of many trump supporters. a lot of other people disagree.

alasdair

 

[Xorkoth]

Indeed, to me, nothing whatsoever from the guy has ever made it seem like he cares about fixing the country. He's in it for himself and the people he is beholden to. That's what his body language, tone of voice and facial expressions indicate to me when I watch him speak. He screams disingenuity. And I understand his policies... I understand what it means that he wants to build a border wall, for example. I just disagree. I've disagreed with some things every president in my lifetime has done. That's doesn't mean we should remove them. I think we should remove Trump because:

• He is inept and has made so many fumbles and foibles that have hurt our country's reputation in the eyes of the world - if not inept, the it's on purpose which is worse - don't believe this, ask almost anyone from any other country
• He has a long list of absolutely awful appointments to important positions. People who are unqualified and/or actually have made a career standing against the mission of the office to which they are appointed (Scott Pruitt for example)
• He has turned the people against one another (admittedly not his doing but he's sure helping it along) and against the media by purposely undermining the public's faith in their source of information, while quietly, behind the scenes, allowing the media to be bought up by Sinclair group by removing protections against media monopolies. This is such a huge red flag, look at authoritarian/autocratic governments emerging throughout history and around the world now... control of the media and making the media public enemy #1 is the classic first step.

These are just the things I can point to that are facts. There are a lot of other things that I think, but there's no point listing those as it's best to make an argument stand on facts.

I fail to see how the indictments that have happened already as a result of the investigation are "a joke". People have pled guilty already. The investigation is not specifically about Trump, but a number of his close people have been indicted and/or pled guilty. I think that should be enough to satisfy the public that the investigation should continue. Unless, of course, you think it's all bullshit, in which case regardless of what happens, you won't be satisfied.

 

[JGrimez]

you complain about lack of results and, two sentences later, brush off the already-public results of the investigation as a joke. you won't be satisfied either way.

Hang on, first we need to define what "results" are. Because for myself and many others, results = evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russians to unlawfully influence the US presidential election. They haven't produced a shred of this yet. None of the charges are even close to that. I'm happy for Manafort to get locked up for stuff he did a decade ago with Ukraine and the Podestas, and honestly I couldn't give a fuck if some Russian trolls ran some meme-farms during the election. I'm not surprised at all that this was happening and it is insignificant when it comes to altering results.

mueller's remit was investigate (and, as appropriate) prosecute "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump," as well as "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation" and any other matters within the scope of 28 CFR 600.4

So will you admit that this is basically a fancy way of saying "if we don't find any evidence of links/coordination between Trump/Russia - we will then just look for literally anything at all to remove Trump" ?

that's your opinion. and the opinion of many trump supporters. a lot of other people disagree.

Not even really my opinion just said it seems that way, I could be completely wrong about Trump's motives and I am more than expecting that eventuality, however as things looks now things are improving. Obviously not everything such as social cohesion but I do feel I'm being a bit more realistic than most people here concerning Trump's successes. Again if you're only exposed to media run by his opponents then of course every positive is able to be spun negatively somehow.

 

[JGrimez]

That's what his body language, tone of voice and facial expressions indicate to me when I watch him speak. He screams disingenuity.

Irrelevant. People get spellbound by psychopaths all the time and consider them charming and trustworthy. Analyze someone's actions not words. Your bias will cloud your analysis also.
And it's not hard to come across as less shady or conniving than your average career politician.

I think we should remove Trump because:

• He is inept and has made so many fumbles and foibles that have hurt our country's reputation in the eyes of the world - if not inept, the it's on purpose which is worse - don't believe this, ask almost anyone from any other country

That's not very specific for justification of removal from office. Can you give his top 5 foibles that are serious enough to warrant removal?
Oh and I speak to many people from other countries that like, support or cautiously respect what Trump's doing (obviously many disagree also)

He has a long list of absolutely awful appointments to important positions. People who are unqualified and/or actually have made a career standing against the mission of the office to which they are appointed (Scott Pruitt for example)

Not impressed by this reason at all. The media said a Trump win would sink stocks, crash the economy, nuclear war etc. Things are improving by quite a few markers. He's stripping a lot of bureaucratic fat from the government but you yourself cannot categorically prove or say that it is having such a negative effect that he should be removed from office. Maybe it's possible that some of these institutions are entrenched with corruption or bureaucracy and could do with a bit of a shakeup. I can't take anyone serious that says things were going fine before Trump came along.

He has turned the people against one another (admittedly not his doing but he's sure helping it along) and against the media by purposely undermining the public's faith in their source of information, while quietly, behind the scenes, allowing the media to be bought up by Sinclair group by removing protections against media monopolies. This is such a huge red flag, look at authoritarian/autocratic governments emerging throughout history and around the world now... control of the media and making the media public enemy #1 is the classic first step.

Many people are not fans of the mainstream media and that had nothing to do with Trump. If anything Trump simply made more people realize just how full of crap the establishment media is, and most outlets actually destroyed themselves by not giving honest or objective election coverage. Trump simply winning shook a lot of people's faith in cable news, and for very good reason. Maybe you're right about Donald Hitler's end goal of authoritarian propaganda, but to say that Trump has any power at all in the media at the moment is ridiculous (apart from Fox News but who still do not deliver all the real news). Though Trump is definitely winning the alternative/grassroots media battle.

I fail to see how the indictments that have happened already as a result of the investigation are "a joke". People have pled guilty already. The investigation is not specifically about Trump, but a number of his close people have been indicted and/or pled guilty. I think that should be enough to satisfy the public that the investigation should continue. Unless, of course, you think it's all bullshit, in which case regardless of what happens, you won't be satisfied.

It doesn't matter if they pled guilty if the charges have nothing to do with the original stated accusation of conspiring with Russian to alter election results or "influence" (whatever the hell that means? Collusion is not a crime either). You say "pled guilty" as if it automatically legitimizes the Mueller investigation. It doesn't, it actually makes it look like more a joke when he's pulling out indictments on 12 Russian hackers for eg. Maybe Trump paid the Russian troll farm to organize an anti-Trump march?
Embarrassing, desperate farce of an investigation that's in its death throes.

 

[Xorkoth]

That's not very specific for justification of removal from office. Can you give his top 5 foibles that are serious enough to warrant removal?
Oh and I speak to many people from other countries that like, support or cautiously respect what Trump's doing (obviously many disagree also)

No, I just think it's an important factor in the whole picture as to why he's unfit to be president. By itself, this reason is the weakest for removal. But combined with the others it helps to paint the picture.

Not impressed by this reason at all. The media said a Trump win would sink stocks, crash the economy, nuclear war etc. Things are improving by quite a few markers. He's stripping a lot of bureaucratic fat from the government but you yourself cannot categorically prove or say that it is having such a negative effect that he should be removed from office. Maybe it's possible that some of these institutions are entrenched with corruption or bureaucracy and could do with a bit of a shakeup. I can't take anyone serious that says things were going fine before Trump came along.

You appear to not want to actually address my point. What the media expected of Trump in terms of stocks, economy, etc has nothing to do with the point you're attempting to address. I'm saying, it's problematic and concerning that Trump would appoint a guy like Scott Pruitt to the head of the EPA, when Pruitt's entire career beforehand had been spent trying to dismantle EPA protections for the environment. The guy is so clearly and demonstrably in the pocket of big oil. In what universe would it be a good idea to put that guy at the head of the environmental protection agency? Unless, of course, your goal is to say fuck the environment, I am beholden to big oil and I need them to get their way.

And in no way did I say things were fine before Trump. Things haven't been fine for a long time. I'm just saying that Trump is making them even worse.

Many people are not fans of the mainstream media and that had nothing to do with Trump. If anything Trump simply made more people realize just how full of crap the establishment media is, and most outlets actually destroyed themselves by not giving honest or objective election coverage. Trump simply winning shook a lot of people's faith in cable news, and for very good reason. Maybe you're right about Donald Hitler's end goal of authoritarian propaganda, but to say that Trump has any power at all in the media at the moment is ridiculous (apart from Fox News but who still do not deliver all the real news). Though Trump is definitely winning the alternative/grassroots media battle.

Agreed that many people are not fans of the mainstream media... I'm not a fan of the mainstream media, I think it's voyeuristic and promotes hysteria and misdirects on many occasions. But it's not 100% lies, nor is it the enemy of the people. Free media is one of the most important tools a society has to prevent destruction of democracy/freedom. And the quiet removal of media monopoly laws under Trump, and the subsequent buying up of ever more local news stations/newspapers/etc by Sinclair group (the owner of Fox) is a real thing. It's a real thing also that the stations bought up by Sinclair are being required to have regular segments parroting their pro-Trump and general right-wing talking points, regardless of whether they want to or not. These are facts, look it up. To ignore this or say "well gee, maybe it's true but..." is burying your head in the sand. This is something really worth fearing and condemning. These are not the actions of a benevolent leader. They are the actions of someone intending on consolidating power.

It doesn't matter if they pled guilty if the charges have nothing to do with the original stated accusation of conspiring with Russian to alter election results or "influence" (whatever the hell that means? Collusion is not a crime either). You say "pled guilty" as if it automatically legitimizes the Mueller investigation. It doesn't, it actually makes it look like more a joke when he's pulling out indictments on 12 Russian hackers for eg. Maybe Trump paid the Russian troll farm to organize an anti-Trump march?
Embarrassing, desperate farce of an investigation that's in its death throes.

I guess we'll see.

 

[JGrimez]

appointees:
It's hard to find people in positions of power who could actually get things done that are also not part of the swamp/cabal.
I'm waiting to analyze the actions of people under Trump's watch to make an educated assessment.
In my opinion you seem to be viewing this also a bit one-sided, ignoring the problems with bureaucracy, over-regulation etc.
There are massive problems in the government. Trump is making changes. Whether they will be pos/neg we will see. Also getting the real story is almost impossible these days.

And I would agree that the establishment media is the enemy of the people. This doesn't mean that Trump is a savior, but the MSM has been deceiving people on an unimaginable level.

 

[spacejunk]

I think it's a bit ridiculous to accuse trump critics of being "one sided".

A lot of us gave the idiot a chance, and he's far exceeded many of our worst expectations.

The fact that you continue to act the trump apologist smacks of either cognitive dissonance or trolling, frankly.
He's the worst president of the modern age. He makes nixon look competent, coherent and squeaky-clean by comparison.

That's not an exaggeration.

When i suggest you are trolling, this is exactly what i'm talkinng about. There is no more wait and see to make an "educated assessment"
Those of us paying attention see this disaster for what it really is. It's a fucking crisis for america and her allies.

I really dislike this trumpist gaslighting. Stop insulting our intelligence.

 

[swilow]

And I would agree that the establishment media is the enemy of the people. This doesn't mean that Trump is a savior, but the MSM has been deceiving people on an unimaginable level.

I'm not sure if they are the enemy, as much as a body that is focused on profits rather than truth. If you have a discerning reading manner, you can see through much of the shit, and actually reading sources you disagree with helps to broaden your knowledge.

That said, Trump is simply another construct of the media; he has worked with it for many more years than he has tried to attack it. In fact, as someone whose main skillset was that of a media celebrity, I ouldn't be surpised if his current hatred for 'fake news' is just him using his skill at exploiting media for his own ends.

Its kinda funny (but annoying) that so many discussions in CE&P just devolve into asserttions about Trump.

 

[JGrimez]

I think it's a bit ridiculous to accuse trump critics of being "one sided".

90% negative media coverage. Lies, misrepresentations and refusal to identify any positive changes.

The fact that you continue to act the trump apologist smacks of either cognitive dissonance or trolling, frankly.
He's the worst president of the modern age. He makes nixon look competent, coherent and squeaky-clean by comparison.

If you would like to compare the details of Watergate and Russiagate I am down, however you don't want to do that.
Because Obama's unlawful wiretapping of the Trump campaign is in reality the biggest political scandal of all time.
Or it might be Uranium One, or even the Awan brothers having access to Congress' servers.

I really dislike this trumpist gaslighting. Stop insulting our intelligence.

You're the one trolling me here. All you do is follow me around and insult me personally when I am willing to debate the topics. Yelling at someone is not an argument.
Barely any of your posts carry anything of substance, no facts, no evidence, barely a coherent argument except for Trump being evil and that he will die in jail.
I'm still not even sure why you hate Trump so much considering your info is from dubious sources. Trump's support is growing whether you choose to believe it or not (see #walkaway)

If you want to have a real discussion and converse in honest transparency then answer me this, which sources do you use to get your news and information?

 

[swilow]

^How on earth is Spacejunk following you around by debating you in this forum? Isn't it more likely that you both happen to have an interest in the same topics?