Individual-1 (Donald Trump)

This forum is for discussion about anything else.
Shiro
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: August 08, 2014
Location: Greece

Post Post #4325  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:56 am

In post 4324, Kublai Khan wrote:Wait, what? Trump totally spent charity money on himself. He doesn't even deny it. Scam city.


Huh? He denied it during the debate as far as I recall and the said that he isn't even responsible for it or some shit like that, then in classic Trump fashion said how he gives to charity

And I see, yea Trump is very neglecting of environmental issues but I can't say that I know enough to judge on such manners. Here in Greece environmental problems aren't really a major thing. As in nobody pays attention to it at all or brings it up.
To me:
shiro you are a charmer you were obvscum but for some reason people just wouldn't lynch you ~Antihero
About me:
I stg this is how conversations with Lucifer go. ~Papa Zito

karnos
Mafia Scum
 
Joined: March 05, 2016
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4326  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 8:05 am

In post 4323, chamber wrote:
In post 4322, karnos wrote:Your aren't good with timelines. The FBI made that statement weeks ago. Then they reopened the case.

The case is now open, not closed. No decisions have been officially made, but if you read between the lines you can see something is obviously going to happen.


It wasn't reopened, it was never closed.


Do you even do the most basic level of research before spewing nonsense?

July 6, 2016
Attorney General: Hillary Clinton Email Case Is Closed
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... -is-closed

October 28, 2016
FBI is reopening its Clinton email probe
http://nypost.com/2016/10/28/the-fbi-is ... ail-probe/

randomidget
Jack of All Trades
 
User avatar
Joined: February 08, 2014
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4327  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:18 am

In post 4267, Shaziro wrote:Ok but Moore follows that with talking about how people felt the same way about Brexit and then regretted it. That said...I don't think that's actually true? Are there polls on people who regret their vote for Brexit or something?

It was a protest vote largely. A lot of brexiters were voting out of frustration, not expecting it to go through or consider the consequences.
vonflare (21:40)
you suck randomidget

T S O
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: February 11, 2013
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4328  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:20 am

In post 4255, Kublai Khan wrote:
In post 4248, T S O wrote:We have to have people prepared to go wherever these events are, which means we have to have a central kind of agitator training

Obviously T S O is orchestrating violence at Trump rallies. I'm quoting him saying so! Clearly no other context is possible. :roll:

I know it's probably not the same context as Foval saying it. But that's the beauty of selective editing.

Also, I agree with AniX. I would also love to know more, but I know the O'Keefe's raison d'etre is to damage and embarrass non-conservative people and institutions and he has no problems distorting anything to achieve that goal.


???

What does this mean? You made up an imaginary quote by me. Foval was actually recorded saying this.

My question was what possible context the quote could have. Your response was ...pretending I said it. I don't get how these are remotely related.
"i have the sickest grossest feeling that even if it's my lynch today, my townflip still won't lead to a tso lynch, and then he'll find some bullshit way to reason either shooting or lynching gm tomorrow because if there's anyone who can strongarm a mislynch despite his reads or cases being proved wrong time and again it's tso" -Marquis

T S O
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: February 11, 2013
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4329  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:25 am

In post 4292, Kublai Khan wrote:You don't actually know, do you? You have no idea why you think Hillary Clinton should be jailed, do you? You can't even answer a simply Why? question about your own opinions. Sad.


I really don't think you have the right to be condescending when your previous answer to the O'Keefe tape question was some bullshit deflection about me and an O'Keefe smear at the end. Sad, right?

In post 4328, randomidget wrote:
In post 4267, Shaziro wrote:Ok but Moore follows that with talking about how people felt the same way about Brexit and then regretted it. That said...I don't think that's actually true? Are there polls on people who regret their vote for Brexit or something?

It was a protest vote largely. A lot of brexiters were voting out of frustration, not expecting it to go through or consider the consequences.


I agree to an extent, but a definite majority of the Brexit vote knew what they were voting for. There were some news articles about how they didn't even know what their vote was going towards, but I'm pretty sure they were all debunked.
"i have the sickest grossest feeling that even if it's my lynch today, my townflip still won't lead to a tso lynch, and then he'll find some bullshit way to reason either shooting or lynching gm tomorrow because if there's anyone who can strongarm a mislynch despite his reads or cases being proved wrong time and again it's tso" -Marquis

T S O
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: February 11, 2013
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4330  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:28 am

Back to the polls - Trump up in NH by 2 and by 1, an outlier poll showing him up in Virginia (though that I highly doubt) and the race in Colorado appears to be tightening too. Florida and NC remain virtual toss-ups, but Florida's early voting points to a Trump win. Interestingly, despite a slew of good polls for Trump recently, Nevada early voting points to a Clinton win.
"i have the sickest grossest feeling that even if it's my lynch today, my townflip still won't lead to a tso lynch, and then he'll find some bullshit way to reason either shooting or lynching gm tomorrow because if there's anyone who can strongarm a mislynch despite his reads or cases being proved wrong time and again it's tso" -Marquis

T S O
Survivor
 
User avatar
Joined: February 11, 2013
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4331  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:29 am

I think there was a distinct arrogance in Clinton campaigning at all in Arizona and she would have done far better to consolidate.
"i have the sickest grossest feeling that even if it's my lynch today, my townflip still won't lead to a tso lynch, and then he'll find some bullshit way to reason either shooting or lynching gm tomorrow because if there's anyone who can strongarm a mislynch despite his reads or cases being proved wrong time and again it's tso" -Marquis

theplague42
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: October 31, 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4332  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:45 am

In post 4327, karnos wrote:Do you even do the most basic level of research before spewing nonsense?

Do you?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ton-email/

Or is Politifact too much of a Clinton shill to be trusted?

(FWIW I'm sure the New York Post is a totally reputable news agency /s)
Part of the problem.

theplague42
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: October 31, 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4333  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:48 am

At this point, I don't see why anybody should trust Comey. He originally attempted to indict Clinton in the court of public opinion by having a non-standard press conference where he did everything but actually say she should be indicted (maybe because there was nothing there?) and then sends a letter to Congress less than two weeks before the election about emails that may have zero significance in the investigation that haven't even been looked at yet. Hatch Act, anyone?
Part of the problem.

Panzerjager
Hell in a Cell
 
User avatar
Joined: January 05, 2007
Location: somewhere better than you =*
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4334  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:58 am

In post 4333, theplague42 wrote:
In post 4327, karnos wrote:Do you even do the most basic level of research before spewing nonsense?

Do you?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ton-email/

Or is Politifact too much of a Clinton shill to be trusted?

(FWIW I'm sure the New York Post is a totally reputable news agency /s)



Wall Street Journal said it was reopened. It was front page last week.
Sometimes a sandwich is just a sandwich.

GTKAS

AxleGreaser
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: April 19, 2014
Location: (+10)

Post Post #4335  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:00 am

In post 4325, Kublai Khan wrote:@Axle - BTW, what's your background? You're actually really well versed in environmental ideas, which I find wonderfully refreshing.

Answer by example
I read silent spring, which was old at the time, before many people on the forum were born. Then waited, while fretting, for umpteen years for humans to do anything about it.
So yeah, time when mixed with worry, does that.
Spoiler: lots o stuff
mainly that (your Q), is not any of most peoples beeswax. Some things are important, so at this timeyou get an answer. (I really dont mind or rather I like such questions, its just some I may choose not to answer bcos beeswax) However I will treat this as round of truth or dare from some other thread.

Another example.
I wrote an messed around with a naive population prey simulator before many people on the forum were born. I played around with that and reached conclusions that terrify me to this day. Indeed they are probably at the heart of what just woke me up.
So yeah, time when mixed with worry and an active brain, does that.
Although at times it also does this.
Image
That above was me for a few months after playing around with a predator prey simulator and mapping that back into what geopolitical ramifications of what i was looking at(pretty curves, elegant math, on a screen)
were in terms of humans as either predator or prey. It was scary as FUck, in any situations where the negative feedbacks were slow to act, ours are currently in the >decade range, so we're screwed unless electorate get smarter in how they choose and what time frames they consider, and I see no good sign of that so far in your election cycle.
These days i just get flashbacks of that.

Answer by things I formally studied or practically worked on.
Most stuff.
On paper: Physics, Comp Sci, Math, Biology, Environmental science, Chemistry, Psychology, Geography. (ordered for age as well as depth so a bit fuzzy on what the order means)
What does that actually mean? Yeah I probably still have an old plant press in the shed, have done a transact(here)(not a very good one), and still have my psychology textbooks.

I also know not on paper (unordered), some Machine learning, AI, data Analysis, Software Engineering ... and range of unrelated things.
and then there is the stuff I read somewhere once.

and yeah that's a lot so most experts in any field probably know more than me and can run rings around me in their own paddock.

So basically sometimes I sound like I think I know stuff, because lying that i dont would be ruder.
Last edited by AxleGreaser on Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.

theplague42
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: October 31, 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4336  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:01 am

In post 4329, T S O wrote:My question was what possible context the quote could have.

It could be hypothetical, it could be somebody making shit up while drunk (half the videos were at a bar), or it could be a rogue official talking about a small situation that has little relevance to the rest of the campaign's behavior. But we can't know that without context, can we? It's not as bad as the Wikileaks bullshit (THEY KILLED SCALIA THEY KILLED SCALIA) but O'Keefe has warped stuff horribly in the past (for example, he twisted a story about a black woman overcoming her racial prejudice against an white farmer into a speech about how she was afraid of him; he also twisted ACORN into seeming like they were offering advice to an obvious pimp/trafficker but in reality they were just getting him out of the office to call the police) and I see no reason why he should be trusted now.
Part of the problem.

chamber
Cases are scummy
 
User avatar
Joined: November 20, 2005
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4337  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:02 am

In post 4333, theplague42 wrote:
In post 4327, karnos wrote:Do you even do the most basic level of research before spewing nonsense?

Do you?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ton-email/

Or is Politifact too much of a Clinton shill to be trusted?

(FWIW I'm sure the New York Post is a totally reputable news agency /s)


At the point he responds like that it's not really worth correcting him. The more troubling part of his post was that he highlighted an issue of semantics (it perhaps was closed/reopened in an informal sense) rather than the substance, which is that these 'new' emails are likely not new, and that it doesn't actually indicate anything, which was the point of his post that I was critiquing.
Taking a break from the site.

karnos
Mafia Scum
 
Joined: March 05, 2016
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4338  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:06 am

In post 4333, theplague42 wrote:
In post 4327, karnos wrote:Do you even do the most basic level of research before spewing nonsense?

Do you?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ton-email/

Or is Politifact too much of a Clinton shill to be trusted?

(FWIW I'm sure the New York Post is a totally reputable news agency /s)


Okay, so it's a semantic argument then.

First, the FBI didn’t exactly "reopen" the investigation, as it wasn’t formally closed. We can certainly say the FBI is looking into a case that had previously been inactive.

Lets review what I was responding to:

In post 4321, Accountant wrote:so are you telling the fbi how to do its job

since it clearly says it shouldn't press criminal charges


Does Accountants statement make any sense at all if the case wasn't "closed"?

So the FBI has an ongoing investigation, and says no criminal charges will be pressed, but yet the investigation isn't done yet. In what insane universe does it make any sense to give the results of an investigation (no criminal charges) before the investigation is actually complete? It really only makes sense if there is some major corruption going on.

BTW, that was just the first link. CNN also used the same wording, that the case was reopened. Not that CNN is unbiased, being a major contributor to Clinton's campaign, but they should only be biased IN FAVOR of Clinton, yet they are using the "reopened" phrase too. Funny how that works.

AxleGreaser
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: April 19, 2014
Location: (+10)

Post Post #4339  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:07 am

In post 4326, Shiro wrote:
In post 4324, Kublai Khan wrote:Wait, what? Trump totally spent charity money on himself. He doesn't even deny it. Scam city.


Huh? He denied it during the debate as far as I recall and the said that he isn't even responsible for it or some shit like that, then in classic Trump fashion said how he gives to charity


He write the bloody checks, was photographed in front of the pictures he personally bought. At some point bald lying nope I didnt do it, simply does not fly.

Now I dont know what the legal consequences for what he has as s documented fact done(bought x,y,z with charity money) are, they may only ever be fines.

But his actions in some sense evaded paying tax on his income by doing not legal things. He may or may not have crossed the line on culpability re the tax that was never paid.
and hell that kind of big guy crime only ever gets slapped.

So yeah self dealing, abuse of power, self dealing, only looking out for himself, shafting anyone he can if it enriches him, == scam city == modus operandi. == leopards spots

theplague42
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: October 31, 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4340  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:10 am

In post 4335, Panzerjager wrote:Wall Street Journal said it was reopened. It was front page last week.

That's true, but it could be chalked up to wanting to break the story and not necessarily having the full details before doing so.

In post 4339, karnos wrote:Does Accountants statement make any sense at all if the case wasn't "closed"?
So the FBI has an ongoing investigation, and says no criminal charges will be pressed, but yet the investigation isn't done yet. In what insane universe does it make any sense to give the results of an investigation (no criminal charges) before the investigation is actually complete? It really only makes sense if there is some major corruption going on.

Or because Comey knew that there was not enough evidence to charge Clinton, and he wanted to smear them while he still had the power to do so. (Not that it's necessarily the case; but there are other explanations besides "corruption", whatever that means to you)

BTW, that was just the first link. CNN also used the same wording, that the case was reopened. Not that CNN is unbiased, being a major contributor to Clinton's campaign, but they should only be biased IN FAVOR of Clinton, yet they are using the "reopened" phrase too. Funny how that works.

I think that speaks more to the media being biased towards sensationalism more than anything else. Do you really think that a journalist would rather push a political than break a story that could possibly end the career of one of the most well-known American politicians in recent years?
Part of the problem.

AxleGreaser
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: April 19, 2014
Location: (+10)

Post Post #4341  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:21 am

In post 4316, Shiro wrote:So yea mishandling of classified information.


Do you have any idea how long the list is of times that kind of stuff up has happened? and nothing was done as it wasn't politically expedient to the republicans (or whoever?)

Comeys case that no prosecution should happen was because to do so would be out of line with all the precedents that had come before it.
In post 4314, Shiro wrote:The law, in the same aspect bush shouldn't be either but he already served.

that was just one occasion. It has happned multiple times. that what happens when you have millions of emails and many people all with private servers. Hell it even happens on government servers when they are administered badly.

In post 4310, Shiro wrote:Maybe it had no intent (although some conflicts of interest with the foundation exist imo but let's go by pure facts)

Cool so please do explain to me what the interests of the Clinton Foundation are.
I know the interest of the trump foundation are to enrich himself, but please explain what is nefarious about the Clinton Foundation. Near as i can tell the Clinton foundation objects are indeed all objectives that the US gov might wells pend its own money on. The Clinton foundation got the money to do that stuff from elsewhere. (including their own significant donations to it IIRC)
So you will need actual evidence not inuendo that an actual charity doing actual charitable things with all of its money, bar minimal overheads, is also somehow corrupt.

Now if you want to pin medal on her and laud her for her charitable work that will be more congruent with the facts that i have seen. If you have others you need to show them to me.

AxleGreaser
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: April 19, 2014
Location: (+10)

Post Post #4342  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:33 am

In post 4324, Kublai Khan wrote:The Love Canal was an incident where companies had dumped toxic waste on a site, then buried it and built a suburb on top of it. Then the toxic sewage seeped up and poisoned a lot of people. It's an example of gross corporate indifference to individual and community welfare. It's one of the greatest environmental disasters of the country. Like the trope of a barrel full of chemicals leaking into a pond where kids are playing is literally what was happening.

It has nothing to do with Trump directly, I believe Axle was just invoking it as a reminder that Trump's policies are pro-corporate and anti-environmental. Rolling back environmental regulations pretty much guarantees future environmental disasters.


Yeah sorry i thouhgt I had linked the love cnal thing and as Erin Brochvich was played by Julie Roberts in the film about it I kinda assumed everyone knew.
It was old news to me when I first saw the film.

Well it was one of the most disgusting and arrogant of human life disasters, in your country. And yeah the chemicals leaking were about as nasty as glowing green goop could be. And then they lied a lot. And that was self regulation in action.

Trump as policy wants to take you back there.

Now i know every US life is umpteen times more valuable tot USians than the lives of any other nationality. But also have really good look at Bhopal and all the legal ducking and diving that came after that. If you guys really want Trump to roll back regulations until they are comparable (as sparse (yes that fair description of his actual policy)) to third world environmental and safety and health regulations. Then you better understand his plan is to have as many Bhopals happen as it takes in America for corparuioons to decide without regulation that getting sue is not much fun.
But as trump has shown getting sued into bankruptcy is no impediment to personal wealth creation. So yes in deregulated Trump future your really should be looking forward to multiple Bhopals on US soil.

That is where trump want to take you, he claim it is great. It will be great for him

chamber
Cases are scummy
 
User avatar
Joined: November 20, 2005
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4343  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:38 am

Clinton foundation's corruption is very different from trump's charities. Stuff like keeping campaign staff employeed between election campaigns. And questions about why some people were donating money.
Taking a break from the site.

AxleGreaser
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: April 19, 2014
Location: (+10)

Post Post #4344  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:41 am

In post 4329, T S O wrote:What does this mean? You made up an imaginary quote by me. Foval was actually recorded saying this.


As you asked.
I think I can answer this one from my perspective.

Your quote was taken out of context and that thus greatly changed its meaning.
Okeefe has a history of doing that with his film editing.

You have no way to know he didn't take what you saw Foval say out of context.
You have presented no way for us to know he didn't take Foval out of context.

I am thus totally unimpressed by Okeefe claiming to be showing us a scheme that i think in practice wont work

as it would simply get found out by competent data analysis.

That it hasn't been found out in recent years means it didn't happen as shown in the video.

Ergo the video is not just possibly made up crap but very likely madeup crap.

karnos
Mafia Scum
 
Joined: March 05, 2016
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4345  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:44 am

In post 4341, theplague42 wrote:Or because Comey knew that there was not enough evidence to charge Clinton, and he wanted to smear them while he still had the power to do so. (Not that it's necessarily the case; but there are other explanations besides "corruption", whatever that means to you)


So you think this is some grand conspiracy by Comey to get Trump elected?

As stated earlier in the thread:
Burden of Proof falls on the person making the claim. So theplague42 has to provide evidence for their claim.

Where is your evidence that Comey is corrupt? It seems much more likely to me that he was pressured to stop investigating back in June when he didn't want to, but with the additional evidence supplied by Huma Abedin's husband he had the ability to do the right thing and reopen the investigation.



In post 4341, theplague42 wrote:I think that speaks more to the media being biased towards sensationalism more than anything else. Do you really think that a journalist would rather push a political than break a story that could possibly end the career of one of the most well-known American politicians in recent years?


LOL, you think a journalist decides what is put out? The editors have to agree to allow a story to go out. CNN doesn't stray far from the narrative.

karnos
Mafia Scum
 
Joined: March 05, 2016
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4346  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:46 am

In post 4345, AxleGreaser wrote:
Ergo the video is not just possibly made up crap but very likely madeup crap.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... efe-sting/

Do some fact checking before you spew obvious lies.

AxleGreaser
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: April 19, 2014
Location: (+10)

Post Post #4347  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:50 am

In post 4344, chamber wrote:Clinton foundation's corruption is very different from trump's charities. Stuff like keeping campaign staff employeed between election campaigns. And questions about why some people were donating money.


yes so just handwaving and saying corruption doesn't work.

You can corrupt someone by bribing them. I am not sure how corruption/bribing has been claimed to be done by paying for health care in the third world.

Near as I can tell, almost every beat up of the issue I have seen makes the same butty leap.
They show money going to the entity Clinton foundation and then treat it as if that is bribe paid to the clintons for their personal benefit.

Now if you were an unscrupulous elf dealing entity like the Trump foundation then such claim would have merit as any(most) money that is paid that we have tracked to anywehere esle did indee dget used to benfit trump So
Trump foundation kinda == Trump

Whereas donating to the red cross is not an effective way to bribe or corrupt the Clintons. Donating to the Clinton foundation has about the same efficacy.

So anyone wanting to demonstrate Clinton corruption needs to demonstrate money going to the actual Clintons not some charity that they have leant their name to.

This is the reason the distinction between the Trump and clinton foundations is important.

TLDR:
Donating to Trump Foundation == donating to Trump (he self deals from the foundation)
Donating to Clinton Foundation =/= donating to Clintons (They do not self deal from the foundation)

Wheres the corruption with money actually going to the Clintons.
And yes they got money, for speeches. Peopel do. Some more than others.

theplague42
Mafia Scum
 
User avatar
Joined: October 31, 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4348  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:51 am

I find the irony hilariously strong, that the same people who want the full release of Clinton emails + anything Wikileaks has, go on and accept O'Keefe _not_ releasing his full video, and aren't after Assange for basically saying "Yeah I have Trump info but it's not that important so I won't release it."
In post 4346, karnos wrote:So you think this is some grand conspiracy by Comey to get Trump elected?

As stated earlier in the thread:
Burden of Proof falls on the person making the claim. So theplague42 has to provide evidence for their claim.

Where is your evidence that Comey is corrupt? It seems much more likely to me that he was pressured to stop investigating back in June when he didn't want to, but with the additional evidence supplied by Huma Abedin's husband he had the ability to do the right thing and reopen the investigation.

I don't have any evidence, and I don't necessarily think he's being partisan; what I'm trying to demonstrate is that we can make up any number of explanations for why he behaved like he did, and we cannot actually know with the current information. Saying that I have to provide evidence b/c I suggested a possible alternative invalidates your original claim.

In post 4341, theplague42 wrote:LOL, you think a journalist decides what is put out? The editors have to agree to allow a story to go out. CNN doesn't stray far from the narrative.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that CNN has been pro-Hillary basically the entire campaign.
Part of the problem.

chamber
Cases are scummy
 
User avatar
Joined: November 20, 2005
Pronoun: He

Post Post #4349  (ISO)  » Thu Nov 03, 2016 10:53 am

I just explained one way that they benefited? Their foundation employeed a lot of her campaign staff between 2008 and 2015.
Taking a break from the site.

PreviousNext
[ + ]

Return to General Discussion