|
Post by Spike-X on Oct 28, 2016 0:32:32 GMT -5
"Whatever it takes" to what? To get everything our way, because it's not fair, it's not fair, IT'S NOT FAIR!!!
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Oct 28, 2016 10:36:15 GMT -5
Bundy and pals acquitted I don't know all the details of the various arguments made in court...but how did these guys get acquitted?? They barricaded themselves in a federal park and refused entry to the people who worked there, it was on TV and so it's not as if we're speculating that it MAY have been these guys who did it so I just don't get how they were acquitted.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Oct 28, 2016 11:41:48 GMT -5
Bundy and pals acquitted I don't know all the details of the various arguments made in court...but how did these guys get acquitted?? They barricaded themselves in a federal park and refused entry to the people who worked there, it was on TV and so it's not as if we're speculating that it MAY have been these guys who did it so I just don't get how they were acquitted. I was stunned by the verdicts. The occupation and the trial were big local news stories, so I've heard about the case every day for the last year, or so it seems. I hope we get more information about why the jury voted the way they did.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Oct 28, 2016 12:31:47 GMT -5
Bundy and pals acquitted I don't know all the details of the various arguments made in court...but how did these guys get acquitted?? They barricaded themselves in a federal park and refused entry to the people who worked there, it was on TV and so it's not as if we're speculating that it MAY have been these guys who did it so I just don't get how they were acquitted. Jury nullification. That's honestly the only thing I can come up with. Unless the prosecutors were completely inept.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Oct 28, 2016 12:51:33 GMT -5
I don't know all the details of the various arguments made in court...but how did these guys get acquitted?? They barricaded themselves in a federal park and refused entry to the people who worked there, it was on TV and so it's not as if we're speculating that it MAY have been these guys who did it so I just don't get how they were acquitted. Jury nullification. That's honestly the only thing I can come up with. Unless the prosecutors were completely inept. I have not delved into it very closely so take this with a grain a salt, but I'm thinking it's a bit of both - jury nullification and a prosecutor knowing it's in his interest to throw the case.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 16:56:37 GMT -5
So Obamacare is going to increase and the FBI is probing new emails...has an 18-wheeler hit her campaign this week? The rape and sexual harassment issues aimed at Trump, by comparison, are like shooting spitballs from a straw. Mom-in-law got me one of these too. I am SO going to wear it at a local comic sale next weekend.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 29, 2016 17:14:21 GMT -5
An 18 wheeler? I doubt it. Only someone who has already decided to vote for Trump even considers the email server thing a political issue.
I mean, why would ordinary citizens care about which email server a secretary of state uses? Isn't the question of whether a candidate pays their taxes more important? Trump keeps scepreaming non sequiturs like "this is the most important political scandal since Watergate", but it doesn't even come in the top twenty. Using one server rather than another is nothing like funneling money to the Contras against Congress's specific wishes; nothing compared to starting a war under false pretenses and lying to everyone about the "evidence" of WMDs in Iraq; nothing compared to a billionaire who pays no taxes. Heck, it's even not as bad as cheating on your wife in the oval office. The email "scandal" is not scandalous at all; it's just noise.
As for the sad Donald, in three weeks he'll be consigned to the dustbin of history and the GOP can start rebuilding itself into a party that stands for more than xenophobia, anti-intellectualism and crass populism.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 17:22:19 GMT -5
An 18 wheeler? I doubt it. Only someone who has already decided to vote for Trump even considers the email server thing a political issue. I mean, why would ordinary citizens care about which email server a secretary of state uses? Isn't the question of whether a candidate pays their taxes more important? If it's so inconsequential as you would like to believe, why was she at risk of being indicted last time? After all, it's just....noise...right? Uh-huh.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 29, 2016 17:38:18 GMT -5
I mean, why would ordinary citizens care about which email server a secretary of state uses? Isn't the question of whether a candidate pays their taxes more important? Oh, maybe because the job of a Secretary Of State pertains to dealing with Top Secret and Classified Information, as well as precarious dealings with foreign powers and matters of National Security. And to have all her communications in a private server that is not as secured as what was required for her to use (and she admits that was a mistake) for the sake keeping secret anything that can later come up and be used against her when she campaigned for the Presidency (which is why she chose to use her private server in the first place). But maybe your right that it is so minor. Geez, why is the FBI involved as well as government hearings over the matter and national headlines for about a year and damage-control by her staff? it's so minor
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 29, 2016 19:00:08 GMT -5
I mean, why would ordinary citizens care about which email server a secretary of state uses? Isn't the question of whether a candidate pays their taxes more important? Oh, maybe because the job of a Secretary Of State pertains to dealing with Top Secret and Classified Information, as well as precarious dealings with foreign powers and matters of National Security. And to have all her communications in a private server that is not as secured as what was required for her to use (and she admits that was a mistake) for the sake keeping secret anything that can later come up and be used against her when she campaigned for the Presidency (which is why she chose to use her private server in the first place). I agree, and the FBI agreed the first time : it was a very careless act. The kind that should warrant a strong reprimand, and if we were dealing with an empployee and not, you knwow, the secretary of defense, a sacking. I'm not saying it was the thing to do, and I'm not saying it should be swiped under the carpet. Just that it''s NOTHING compared to starting a war under false pretenses, NOTHING compared to funding secret wars in central America, and NOTHING compared to not paying taxes and pretending to be running for the "little man". (Sorry about the capitals; I'm not actually shouting, just stressing some words). The cynic in me would say that the FBI director was appointed under George W, Bush and is likely to be a Republican, but I honestly haven't checked. However, giving the man the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that using a private server to send emails is illegal in the United States. I don't know, there are bizarre laws everywhere. My point is that lying under oath is also illegal, but that when someone like Bill Clinton does so to protect his sex life, it might be illegal, but it's still not important at all. Not at all! It doesn't affect how the country is run, it doesn't have an impact on American society, it doesn't mean anything other than that some Puritan Republicans want Bill Clinton's head on a technicality. Sheesh, I didn't see the same Republicans tear ttheir shirts when their beloved Reagan lied about the Iran-Contra business, or when Dubya lied to them about having evidence of WMD in Iraq. There is the letter lf the law, there is the spirit of the law, and there is bloody common sense. I am convinced that most electors don't care at all that someone played Bingo in North Carolina for more than five hours (which is apparently illegal), but would be very upset to learn that said person didn't pay taxes last year thanks to legal loopholes. It's the same with Hillary Clinton. Her using a private server was against protocol, but that's not a scandal at all.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 29, 2016 19:10:51 GMT -5
An 18 wheeler? I doubt it. Only someone who has already decided to vote for Trump even considers the email server thing a political issue. I mean, why would ordinary citizens care about which email server a secretary of state uses? Isn't the question of whether a candidate pays their taxes more important? If it's so inconsequential as you would like to believe, why was she at risk of being indicted last time? After all, it's just....noise...right? Uh-huh. She was at risk of being indicted because it might be illegal to use a private server if tou're secretary of state (for some reason or other). Just as it is illegal to drive over the speed limit. In both cases, we're talking about small potatoes unless something really bad happens. Which didn't. Unlike that time when Dubya lied to the American people and said Saddam Hussein had WMDs, leading to a war that destabilized an entire region, cause the creation of ISIS, caused the needless death of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. Yet somehow the Republicans never blame Dubya for it, while obsessing about whether Clinton's emails were hosted on a state.gov server, an AOL server or a Verizon one. Priorities, priorities. As for Trump, meanwhile, I don't know where his emails are hosted. But he's made it clear that he's an anti-intellectual, anti-fact, anti-diplomacy, xenophobic, misogynistic, tax dodging liar. When the choice is between him and someone who is not using the right kind of internet connection, I know who I would vote for. Nice t-shirt, by the way; nice JR jr feel to it. I made one of Obama last week and am proudly wearing it in class. (Obama? Why Obama? because he's the kind of decent, intelligent, honest and classy politician the US needs. Too bad he can't run again).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2016 19:19:00 GMT -5
As for Trump, meanwhile, I don't know where his emails are hosted. But he's made it clear that he's an anti-intellectual, anti-fact, anti-diplomacy, xenophobic, misogynistic, tax dodging liar. When the choice is between him and someone who is not using the right kind of internet connection, I know who I would vote for. I'm with tens of millions of others who think she is a tried and tested waste of time. Someone took the time to compile this.
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Oct 29, 2016 19:29:54 GMT -5
So you're trying to give Clinton a pass because it's not as bad as some other crime committed in the past? By that logic, give George W Bush a pass because it wasn't as bad as Hitler's role in WWII. Really, that's a weak defense and merely some attempt to draw attention to other events that have no bearing on this particular case.
As far as not paying taxes go, and I think I've made myself clear that I believe Trump is a reprehensible bully, if he has broken any laws then throw his bloated butt in jail and fine the crap out of his coffers. But if he is merely using the tax code to his advantage and abiding by the rules-then blame Congress for putting those loopholes in the tax code. He'd be an idiot for paying more taxes than he has to.
Let me ask you, when you do your taxes, do you take the standard personal deduction? Do you take any other deductions that you are entitled to. I know I do.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Oct 29, 2016 20:00:59 GMT -5
So you're trying to give Clinton a pass because it's not as bad as some other crime committed in the past? By that logic, give George W Bush a pass because it wasn't as bad as Hitler's role in WWII. That is correct, if an election had the grotesque George W. Bush in one corner and the heinous Adolf Hitler in the other, I would vote for Dubya. Always the lesser of two evils. I don't think I'm trying to draw attention away from anything. The choice of one email server over another is a problem of internal protocol, it has no bearing on a national election. The guy is running as the defender of the little guy, decrying Clinton's very real connections to Wall Street. At the same time, he's a billionaire who doesn't pay his taxes. That makes him a hypocrite. I am personally not a rich man. Neither am I running for the job of president on a populist platform. But backk in 2001, when the newly elected George W. Bush had the government send everyone a $500 check as a "down payment on the next tax return", I bloody didn't cash it because I was going back to Canada and didnt want to take advantage of the American tax payers. That's what a foreign citizen did, just because it was the decent thing to do. Apparently, Donald Trump is not that decent. Not all of them, no. I do not ask for things I think are ridiculous and unfair. For example, I would be fully entitled to deduct money for my small publishing company, which is located in my home. I would be legally allowed to deduct a percentage of the money it costs to heat the house and keep it standing, because 10% of it is technically used for business purposes. And I don't. Why? Because it's bloody ridiculous, that's why! I happen to draw comics and publish them from my home, but it doesn't make my home an actual office! To pretend otherwise would be perfectly legal, and it would also be perfectly immoral! Just as it's perfectly immoral for a billionaire to use loopholes to avoid paying taxes. And I'm not even talking about a billionaire who pretends to side with the little taxpayers oppressed by the evil Wall Street bankers! (Now in all fairness, I rooted for Sanders. But between Clinton and Trump, I don't even understand why there's a debate).[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Oct 29, 2016 20:04:06 GMT -5
As for Trump, meanwhile, I don't know where his emails are hosted. But he's made it clear that he's an anti-intellectual, anti-fact, anti-diplomacy, xenophobic, misogynistic, tax dodging liar. When the choice is between him and someone who is not using the right kind of internet connection, I know who I would vote for. I'm with tens of millions of others who think she is a tried and tested waste of time. Someone took the time to compile this. Yes, someone wearing an aluminum-foil hat. Sorry, Jez, but you're gettin' nowhere with this stuff. Next you'll be telling us that the Illuminati, the Tri-Lateral Commission and some folks from Area 51 are funding the Clintons. It is to laugh, really.
|
|