Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Madiel]

No danger of the Trumps stealing furniture from the White House, however.

You are a real piece of work. It's amazing how good you are at insinuating that someone other than the Trumps posed a danger to White House furniture, even after another forum member demonstrated that there is no evidence of any theft by anyone.

Let's create a list of other things that the Trumps aren't at risk of doing. I'm fairly confident in saying that there's no danger of the Trumps converting the White House into a casino. I don't foresee any danger of them selling the White House to the Chinese. I don't think there's any danger of the Trumps forcing White House housekeepers to perform sadomasochistic sex acts for the Trumps' viewing pleasure.

[zamyrabyrd]

You are a real piece of work. It's amazing how good you are at insinuating that someone other than the Trumps posed a danger to White House furniture, even after another forum member demonstrated that there is no evidence of any theft by anyone.

Let's create a list of other things that the Trumps aren't at risk of doing. I'm fairly confident in saying that there's no danger of the Trumps converting the White House into a casino. I don't foresee any danger of them selling the White House to the Chinese. I don't think there's any danger of the Trumps forcing White House housekeepers to perform sadomasochistic sex acts for the Trumps' viewing pleasure.

You must really be burning the midnight oil over there, just for a chance to throw another barb at me. I am not impressed by anyone who has to descend to ad hominem or in this case, ad mulierem arguments. That's why I don't like talking to you or reading your scurrilous comments. However, if the newspapers only come on packet ships, you might find a back issue of ABC news that wouldn't have published this allegation if there weren't something to it:

"After they were criticized for taking $190,000 worth of china, flatware, rugs, televisions, sofas and other gifts with them when they left, the Clintons announced last week that they would pay for $86,000 worth of gifts, or nearly half the amount.
Their latest decision to send back $28,000 in gifts brings to $114,000 the value of items the Clintons have either decided to pay for or return. McDaniel discussed the matter Wednesday with Betty Monkman, the White House curator, and Gary Walters, the chief usher, or executive manager of the White House.

They were reviewing the gifts the Clintons chose to keep after $28,000 worth of items were found on a list of donations the Park Service received for the 1993 White House redecoration project. The Washington Post this week quoted three people who said that they assumed the furnishings they donated for the project would stay in the White House."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856&page=1

[André]

Gary Johnson's Aleppo moment...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo-moment.html?_r=0

There's at least ONE world leader Trump can name without hesitation 

[Madiel]

You must really be burning the midnight oil over there, just for a chance to throw another barb at me.

Yes, yes, the ONLY reason I am still up at this hour is you. Reading your material is that alluring and my life revolves around the experience.

PS I am secretly in love with you. Let's get married.

[zamyrabyrd]

Yes, yes, the ONLY reason I am still up at this hour is you. Reading your material is that alluring and my life revolves around the experience. PS I am secretly in love with you. Let's get married.

I'm already taken. You would have never had a chance in the world. In fact, I would have rather been a nun instead.

[Madiel]

Already married? Don't let that be a barrier. Look at Trump. Or Muslims.

[zamyrabyrd]

Gary Johnson's Aleppo moment...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/gary-johnson-aleppo-moment.html?_r=0
There's at least ONE world leader Trump can name without hesitation 

We already had a cretin for two terms! (There must be a reverse sifting process in politics so only the wealthiest, sneakiest, stupidest people get chosen!)

Walking down memory lane with George W:

20. "Those who enter the country illegally violate the law." - Nov. 28, 2005

19. "We don't believe in planners and deciders making the decisions on behalf of Americans." - Sept. 6, 2000

18. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - Dec. 19, 2000

17. "Well, I think if you say you're going to do something and don't do it, that's trustworthiness." - Aug. 30, 2000

16. "I think we agree, the past is over." - May 10, 2000

15. "I understand small business growth. I was one." - Feb. 19, 2000

14. "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." - April 23, 2002

13. "I want everybody to hear loud and clear that I'm going to be the president of everybody." - Jan. 18, 2001

12. "One of the great things about books is sometimes there are some fantastic pictures." - Jan. 3, 2000

11. "I was proud the other day when both Republicans and Democrats stood with me in the Rose Garden to announce their support for a clear statement of purpose: you disarm, or we will." - Oct. 5, 2002

10. "I just want you to know that when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." - June 18, 2002

9. "I'm honored to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein." - May 25, 2004

8. "I firmly believe the death tax is good for people from all walks of life all throughout our society." - Aug. 13, 2002

7. "There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." - Sept. 17, 2002

6. "The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off." - Oct. 8, 2004

5. "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - Sept. 29, 2000

4. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - Aug. 5, 2004

3. "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" - Jan. 11, 2000

2. "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." - Jan. 27, 2000

1. "They misunderestimated me." - Nov. 6, 2000

https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=41606

[zamyrabyrd]

Already married? Don't let that be a barrier. Look at Trump. Or Muslims.

Muslim women get only one husband. It's that or nothing.
One of the wives of King Hussein of Jordan thought she could have a little hanky-panky on the side.
She died in a helicopter accident that practically everyone knew why and how it happened...

[Madiel]

I think a majority of voters want a departure from the kind of politics that has been going on for decades.  What Trump represents to many voters is an opprotunity of breaking the lock on the legislative agenda that is determined by elected officials in bed with corporate donors and their lobbyists, goaded along by media assumptions about what is doable or preferable according to elitist thinking.

The big problem with this is that the "normal" legislative agenda doesn't get replaced with anything.

Some months ago I read an article that discussed the rise of "non-establishment" candidates rather well. Some of it referenced Trump but it was mostly looking further, at Tea Party candidates that have been elected because they were going to shake up the order of things replacing establishment Republicans who were seen as a problem because they were a part of the system.

But those candidates didn't create a new legislative direction. They created gridlock. Standing in the way of things getting done the "old" way didn't result in things being done a new way, it resulted in things not being done at all.

And so voters, frustrated by this and correctly perceiving that Congress wasn't achieving the results they wanted, reasoned that the solution was to elect people who were even MORE non-establishment, who promised even more to shake things up.

Who created even more gridlock as they refused to negotiate or compromise in the traditional way. And so voters picked candidates who made even greater promises to "shake things up" in the belief that this would create desirable action...

You can no doubt see where I'm going with this. Trump undoubtedly promises to not be an establishment politician. But that doesn't translate into getting things done. The President of the United States doesn't have power to get done whatever he wants, because the United States is not a dictatorship. It is quite consciously and deliberately designed NOT to be a dictatorship, because the founders of the United States were breaking away from a system they perceived as capable of dictatorship.

And so you have separation of powers, and a system that is quite deliberately designed to require people to compromise and negotiate.

I've got no argument with the basic proposition that the direction of government ought to be determined by the people far more than it is determined by corporate donors. But that isn't going to be solved by electing a very rich man whose money is based very much on who he knows and can do deals with. It's going to be solved by campaign finance reform and finding a way to get rid of the truly ridiculous decision (Citizens United I think it's called) that asserted that somehow corporations have the same rights to participate in the political process as individuals, even though corporations cannot register to vote, and that somehow money is speech.

[zamyrabyrd]

Billionaires running for president was tried with Ross Perot in 1992. But as a third party candidate he didn't have a chance. This lesson was not lost on Donald Trump who was toying with the idea in 1996 but the time was not ripe apparently for him to run as the Republican nominee in a two way race.

The bizarre part is he was actually quite cozy with the Clinton's for a long time. He even donated more money to the Democrat party! So he is not a grass-roots Republican at all!

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432444/donald-trump-donated-democrats-crooks
In New York State between January 29, 1999, and March 1, 2015. Trump gave a total of $601,411.66. These dollars were divided around 58% to Dems, 40% to R's and the rest to independent parties.

I really don't have time for either of the two candidates and as I said before DT is the least worst choice.

[San Antone]

I've got no argument with the basic proposition that the direction of government ought to be determined by the people far more than it is determined by corporate donors. But that isn't going to be solved by electing a very rich man whose money is based very much on who he knows and can do deals with. It's going to be solved by campaign finance reform and finding a way to get rid of the truly ridiculous decision (Citizens United I think it's called) that asserted that somehow corporations have the same rights to participate in the political process as individuals, even though corporations cannot register to vote, and that somehow money is speech.

You act as if Hillary Clinton isn't a very rich woman.   

Well, corporations do have a right to contribute to campaigns and lobby elected officals; they have been treated as "persons" under the law for a long time.  And, corporations more than the average voter, are effected by what these politicans do.   However, the main kind of reform I support is absolute and instantaeous transparency so voters see who gave what to whom and what they got.  Regulation by the ballot box.



Trump, as non-politician, promises at least the chance for change.  Presidents have the power to set the agenda, access to a bully pulpit and, if voted in with enough of a mandate, they drive the legislative bus. Not so for a member of the House of Representatives, which is where most of the Tea Party candidates are you mention.

But, why am I talking about this election with you?  Are you even a citizen of the US?

[North Star]

Somehow I don't think there's going to be more transparency if the man who doesn't publish his tax returns is elected.

[Parsifal]

You act as if Hillary Clinton isn't a very rich woman.   ;DBut, why am I talking about this election with you?  Are you even a citizen of the US?

Citizens of other developed counties do not labor under the misconception that what goes on in other countries doesn't matter. After all, the US is the largest economy in the world, and when the US had a banana-republic style financial crisis in September 2008 the entire global economy suffered the consequences.

[San Antone]

Somehow I don't think there's going to be more transparency if the man who doesn't publish his tax returns is elected.

I know you are being facetious, but the two issues are not related.  People are making a big deal out the tax returns, but really they are only of benefit to journalists who wish to write about how much charity he gave, his income, and use the returns as a cudgel.  I think he is smart not to release them; there is no legal requirement for a candidate to do so.

If the press wish to take his refusal to release them as evidence he has something to hide - sure, okay, maybe he does; maybe he wishes to retain some competitive edge as a businessman.  But the press is more than ready to tolerate what Hillary wants to hide by deleting 33,000 emails

[Karl Henning]

Somehow I don't think there's going to be more transparency if the man who doesn't publish his tax returns is elected.

He'll be "more presidential" any day now!

[Rinaldo]

But the press is more than ready to tolerate what Hillary wants to hide by deleting 33,000 emails

Yeah, because the press totally gave her a free pass on that..

[PerfectWagnerite]

Yeah, because the press totally gave her a free pass on that..

Now its the press again...

So what, they were her emails and she can delete them anytime she wants. Its not like she had a court order to turn them over and then deleted them.

[Parsifal]

If the press wish to take his refusal to release them as evidence he has something to hide - sure, okay, maybe he does; maybe he wishes to retain some competitive edge as a businessman.  But the press is more than ready to tolerate what Hillary wants to hide by deleting 33,000 emails.

This is what FBI director Comey said about the "missing" emails:

With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been "up-classified."

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton's system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

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

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton's personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

...

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

The FBI point of view seems clear to me. Clinton failed to follow rules for curation of her email correspondence, but there is no evidence of an attempt to conceal, and only 3 emails that Clinton failed to turn over were at all sensitive. I can live with that.

[Karl Henning]

But the press is more than ready to tolerate what Hillary wants to hide by deleting 33,000 emails

Actually, a number of journalists have in fact pressed upon this issue.

I'm sure you agree that El Tupé's "I'll release my tax returns when she releases her e-mails" was lame at best.

[San Antone]

The FBI point of view seems clear to me. Clinton failed to follow rules for curation of her email correspondence, but there is no evidence of an attempt to conceal, and only 3 emails that Clinton failed to turn over were at all sensitive. I can live with that.

Afterwards the FBI admitting to finding 30 emails related to Benghazi.  One canonly assume how many emails related to pay-for-access via the Clinton Foundation (which the FBI was not interested in) were deleted.

The law she violated does not require any intent, the mere act of removing or destroying is a violation of the statute.  The fact that the FBI chose not recommend indictment was within their discretion, but no indication of innocence on her part.  The FBI makes judgment calls all the time, as they did with David Pretreous, who similarly mishandled government documents and was forced to plead guilty, which ended his career.

To the degree someone accepts her explanations with a straight face is the degree they are viewing her behavior through a partisan lens.  She famously stated that she had not deleted any email "labeled classified".  Well, that is technically correct, government documents are not labeled "Classified",  they are labeled with the level of classification, e.g., Top Secret; Secret; Confidential; Restricted; Official - one of the five levels of classfication. And even if they had not been labeled, State Dept. employees with security clearance are trained to recognize by the content s when a document should b etreated as classifed.

Hillary's use of language is classically Clintonian.