2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

AbusesToilets

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm not talking about Trump, he is irrelevant to this subject. Clinton broke the law and lied about it under oath, which directly ties into the public perception of her being dishonest.

Ahh perception.. Because public perception = Fact

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

So she's been found guilty of perjury in a court of law she has?

She lied under oath, but that's not important, right?

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She lied under oath, but that's not important, right?

Trump raped his wife but you don't think that matters! We can all play stupid games.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Trump raped his wife but you don't think that matters! We can all play stupid games.

The issue posted was the perception of Clinton as being dishonest and posters expressing incredulity at such. I posted evidence to show clear cut occasions of her lying.

Why you persist in bringing up rape allegations against Trump is a mystery.

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

She lied under oath, but that's not important, right?

Do you have any proof of that? Even the two links you provided earlier don't back you up on this. For someone to tell a lie they need to know what they are saying is untrue. There is no evidence that Clinton did that.

Do you have anything productive to add to this thread? I think I speak for everyone when I say that your irrational hatred of Clinton is getting a bit boring. You could at least take it in new directions instead of bringing up the same thing time and again and being proven wrong.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

Do you have any proof of that? Even the two links you provided earlier don't back you up on this. For someone to tell a lie they need to know what they are saying is untrue. There is no evidence that Clinton did that.

No evidence, are you having a laugh? Does the Director of the FBI admitting she lied not count as truth in your book? Or the video of her giving said testimony?

I have no irrational hatred of her. It is founded on her well documented actions, most recently her handling of classified materials.

Actions which you studiously avoided answering questions about previously I might add.

Do you have anything productive to add to this thread? I think I speak for everyone when I say that your irrational hatred of Clinton is getting a bit boring. You could at least take it in new directions instead of bringing up the same thing time and again and being proven wrong.

Did Clinton and her staff transmit classified materials on an unsecure network?

Did Clinton allow people without clearances to view said classified materials?

I await you response to those questions with evidence of me being incorrect.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The issue posted was the perception of Clinton as being dishonest and posters expressing incredulity at such. I posted evidence to show clear cut occasions of her lying.

Why you persist in bringing up rape allegations against Trump is a mystery.

Goes to his honesty! How anyone can accuse Clinton of telling lies and totally ignore the elephant in the room. Any independent look at each says Trump is a consummate liar.

I did not realise it's a Clinton only room has she won the election?

I had to reread the thread heading "2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2" are we not taking about both in the race or is it just Clinton.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No evidence, are you having a laugh? Does the Director of the FBI admitting she lied not count as truth in your book? Or the video of her giving said testimony?

I have no irrational hatred of her. It is founded on her well documented actions, most recently her handling of classified materials.

Actions which you studiously avoided answering questions about previously I might add.



Did Clinton and her staff transmit classified materials on an unsecure network?

Did Clinton allow people without clearances to view said classified materials?

I await you response to those questions with evidence of me being incorrect.

Well we know with Trump he won't do it he will just give his buddy Putin clearance.

AbusesToilets

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Goes to his honesty! How anyone can accuse Clinton of telling lies and totally ignore the elephant in the room. Any independent look at each says Trump is a consummate liar.

I did not realise it's a Clinton only room has she won the election?

I had to reread the thread heading "2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2" are we not taking about both in the race or is it just Clinton.

I don't believe I have ever stated that I believe Trump to be anything other than a disgrace.

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I don't believe I have ever stated that I believe Trump to be anything other than a disgrace.

Well we agree on that! I don't think the same of Clinton.

KingBrian2

Given the current spectre of terrorism that has overshadowed this election I am surprised that neither candidate has not suspended their campaigns and come together to propose policies that would help the American people. I get the we need a lively debate but not when the economic & security situation is this difficult.

AbusesToilets

The potential disruption of the electoral process by a foreign state is pretty incredible development. Totally unprecedented in its scale and possible implications.

What level of interference will be tolerated before counter action must be taken?

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given the current spectre of terrorism that has overshadowed this election I am surprised that neither candidate has not suspended their campaigns and come together to propose policies that would help the American people. I get the we need a lively debate but not when the economic & security situation is this difficult.

Neither of the candidates have any power to do anything yet, they'd be suspending their campaigns for nothing. Do you think Obama would welcome Trump into the White House and ask him advice on dealing with ISIS?

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

Seriously? Who are you trying to fool with that sort of outright fabrication? I hope it's just yourself, because everyone who isn't blinded by irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton is already aware of the objective and indisputable fact that Trump is vastly more dishonest than Clinton.

All I said is the lies of Hillary Clinton should also be jumped on in the same way Trump's lies should be.

You sound like you want her to be Bill who gets lots of free rides.

20Cent

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given the current spectre of terrorism that has overshadowed this election I am surprised that neither candidate has not suspended their campaigns and come together to propose policies that would help the American people. I get the we need a lively debate but not when the economic & security situation is this difficult.

bad precedent to set if someone with a pressure cooker and some fertiliser can halt an election campaign.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Survey says...No

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016/07/14/hillary-clinton-emails-congress-fact-check-jake-tapper-origwx-fy.cnn

So she's been found guilty of perjury in a court of law she has?

We would first need a Justice Department with some integrity to first bring some charges before that could happen. But with Obama's politically obsessed DOJ we knew that would never happen. Comely chickened out and created new law (intent) when he recommended no charges... After laying out a litany of reasons why Hillary should be charged with crimes.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Given the current spectre of terrorism that has overshadowed this election I am surprised that neither candidate has not suspended their campaigns and come together to propose policies that would help the American people. I get the we need a lively debate but not when the economic & security situation is this difficult.

Because "campaign suspension" is a nauseating move which voters don't respond positively to, either as a combination of it being an obvious political ploy (the exact opposite of not campaigning; like how Trump went to hand out toys, said he didn't want cameras there, and now actively uses the footage in commercials) or because it sends the message that they are giving up. Several politicians have tried this the last few elections, it didn't work out well.

http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/09/24/mccain-suspends-campaign-shocks-republicans

Note instead that Bernie Sanders, while campaigning, still participated in the Senate this last year on numerous occasions without making sycophantic grandiose statements saying "Look at me, doing my job!"

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No evidence, are you having a laugh? Does the Director of the FBI admitting she lied not count as truth in your book? Or the video of her giving said testimony?

I have no irrational hatred of her. It is founded on her well documented actions, most recently her handling of classified materials.

Actions which you studiously avoided answering questions about previously I might add.



Did Clinton and her staff transmit classified materials on an unsecure network?

Did Clinton allow people without clearances to view said classified materials?

I await you response to those questions with evidence of me being incorrect.

She didn't knowingly do any of that so there was no crime committed.

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

She didn't knowingly do any of that so there was no crime committed.

At minimum, intent can't be proven.

AbusesToilets

Suryavarman wrote: »

She didn't knowingly do any of that so there was no crime committed.

So you are admitting that your claim I was incorrect in saying that Clinton's actions broke the law was wrong then?

The laws covering classified materials don't deal in intent.

Disgraceful decision by the DoJ to not pursue charges.

ebbsy

Doesn't matter. The name crooked Hillary has stuck so job done as far as Trump is concerned.

I had him at 3/1 I see his odds are now half that with PP.

B_Wayne

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So you are admitting that your claim I was incorrect in saying that Clinton's actions broke the law was wrong then?

The laws covering classified materials don't deal in intent.

Disgraceful decision by the DoJ to not pursue charges.

We already discussed this, the aforementioned documents were not clearly labeled as confidential so there's a fair argument that Clinton was entirely unaware of the fact. So you can't really claim it's clear cut cause it simply isn't...

AbusesToilets

B_Wayne wrote: »

We already discussed this, the aforementioned documents were not clearly labeled as confidential so there's a fair argument that Clinton was entirely unaware of the fact. So you can't really claim it's clear cut cause it simply isn't...

The documents being on an unsecured network is the crime, their markings are a minor issue in comparison.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Because "campaign suspension" is a nauseating move which voters don't respond positively to, either as a combination of it being an obvious political ploy (the exact opposite of not campaigning; like how Trump went to hand out toys, said he didn't want cameras there, and now actively uses the footage in commercials) or because it sends the message that they are giving up. Several politicians have tried this the last few elections, it didn't work out well.

http://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/09/24/mccain-suspends-campaign-shocks-republicans

Note instead that Bernie Sanders, while campaigning, still participated in the Senate this last year on numerous occasions without making sycophantic grandiose statements saying "Look at me, doing my job!"

Not if the two candidates stood together and showed they are both united on keeping America & the World Safe from economic and social harm. Neither side could gain from this move and it would have the benefit of making the current political climate improve greatly.

Overheal

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The documents being on an unsecured network is the crime, their markings are a minor issue in comparison.

All the same the application of the law in previous cases has been mixed. If it wasn't Hillary Clinton, there wouldn't be near this much concern.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not if the two candidates stood together and showed they are both united on keeping America & the World Safe from economic and social harm. Neither side could gain from this move and it would have the benefit of making the current political climate improve greatly.

Never, that I am aware, has such a thing happened and I don't expect it to at this time either.

It is still the role of the current Congress and Administration to see to those matters.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Never, that I am aware, has such a thing happened and I don't expect it to at this time either.

It is still the role of the current Congress and Administration to see to those matters.

A state of emergency should have been held after the Orlando killings, never happened. People talk about the outcry of Islamic hatred across the world. Those in power neglected their role to safeguard the Muslim community by allowing terror sirens go off and not inform the public what the gvt is going to do to address the fear of repeated attacks.

AbusesToilets

Overheal wrote: »

All the same the application of the law in previous cases has been mixed. If it wasn't Hillary Clinton, there wouldn't be near this much concern.

Flipside being that if it wasn't Clinton, prosecution would have been pursued imo.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A state of emergency should have been held after the Orlando killings, never happened. People talk about the outcry of Islamic hatred across the world. Those in power neglected their role to safeguard the Muslim community by allowing terror sirens go off and not inform the public what the gvt is going to do to address the fear of repeated attacks.

Federal law states when emergency powers can be enacted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

Those powers are

Congress may authorize the government to call forth the militia to execute the laws, suppress an insurrection or repel an invasion.

Congress may authorize the government to suspend consideration of writs of habeas corpus "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

Felony charges may be brought without presentment or grand jury indictment in cases arising "in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger."

A state government may engage in war without Congress's approval if "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

I don't see what a national state of emergency would have accomplished for a shooting in Orlando, and why no such criticism is levied for similar shootings, such as Aurora Colorado and Newtown Connecticut. Oh right, it was a Muslim, so we have to lose our collective minds.

The Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, did declare a state of emergency locally for the city of Orlando. Seems like an appropriate, reactionary response. Wish I could see the guy do the same for the medical and water scandals he and his administration are criticized for. But that has little to do with the Presidential race so I digress.

http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/story/news/2016/06/12/gov-scott-declares-state-emergency-orlando/85791262/

The fact that you don't know this leads me to again suggest to you to actually pre-validate the things you say are actually true.

Suryavarman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

So you are admitting that your claim I was incorrect in saying that Clinton's actions broke the law was wrong then?

The laws covering classified materials don't deal in intent.

Disgraceful decision by the DoJ to not pursue charges.

No, because her actions didn't break the law. Hence the lack of prosecution.

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

No, because her actions didn't break the law. Hence the lack of prosecution.

I wouldn't be quick to say that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mo-brooks-hillary-clinton_us_5625053de4b0bce3470156eb

Pro Hoc Vice

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The documents being on an unsecured network is the crime, their markings are a minor issue in comparison.

The markings are exactly the issue in a criminal case you know that but you lie to promote your own libertarian agenda. You know your candidate can't take votes from Trump so you attack the one they might abandon. Enjoy the racist you are helping to take the USA 50 years into the past hope you can sleep soundly.

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Federal law states when emergency powers can be enacted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

Those powers are



I don't see what a national state of emergency would have accomplished for a shooting in Orlando, and why no such criticism is levied for similar shootings, such as Aurora Colorado and Newtown Connecticut. Oh right, it was a Muslim, so we have to lose our collective minds.

The Governor of Florida, Rick Scott, did declare a state of emergency locally for the city of Orlando. Seems like an appropriate, reactionary response. Wish I could see the guy do the same for the medical and water scandals he and his administration are criticized for. But that has little to do with the Presidential race so I digress.

http://www.centralfloridafuture.com/story/news/2016/06/12/gov-scott-declares-state-emergency-orlando/85791262/

The fact that you don't know this leads me to again suggest to you to actually pre-validate the things you say are actually true.

The US is currently at war with ISIS and many of the perpetrators of the attacks in the American homeland are ISIS recruits. I would contend that is a strong case for calling for a National Emergency to combat all those who have links to Islamic Terrorist organizations that America is currently at war with.

K-9

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The markings are exactly the issue in a criminal case you know that but you lie to promote your own libertarian agenda. You know your candidate can't take votes from Trump so you attack the one they might abandon. Enjoy the racist you are helping to take the USA 50 years into the past hope you can sleep soundly.

Mod
Attack the post please, not the poster.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The US is currently at war with ISIS and many of the perpetrators of the attacks in the American homeland are ISIS recruits. I would contend that is a strong case for calling for a National Emergency to combat all those who have links to Islamic Terrorist organizations that America is currently at war with.

The FBI, CIA, NSA, USAF, USN, USMC, US Army, DHS, DOJ, and other tertiary services are already carrying out this mission, under the law (in most cases), with laws such as the USA Patriot Act and bases like Guantanamo, without the need for an activation of emergency powers.

What emergency powers would they require to do their job any quicker? The only alternative I could see was internment camps for brown people, which is not going to happen. Specifically, what more do you expect them to do? Please research your answer to make sure its not already being done..

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

The FBI, CIA, NSA, USAF, USN, USMC, US Army, DHS, DOJ, and other tertiary services are already carrying out this mission, under the law (in most cases), with laws such as the USA Patriot Act and bases like Guantanamo, without the need for an activation of emergency powers.

What emergency powers would they require to do their job any quicker? The only alternative I could see was internment camps for brown people, which is not going to happen. Specifically, what more do you expect them to do? Please research your answer to make sure its not already being done..

Clearly this is an absurdly shocking election campaign and the terrorists are taking advantage of the political environment that has emerged. That terrorist attack in Orlando should have concentrated those in positions of power to a common approach on eradicating terrorism in all its forms. Instead it is used to accuse one of the candidates of being a bigot.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Clearly this is an absurdly shocking election campaign and the terrorists are taking advantage of the political environment that has emerged. That terrorist attack in Orlando should have concentrated those in positions of power to a common approach on eradicating terrorism in all its forms. Instead it is used to accuse one of the candidates of being a bigot.

Are you going to answer the question?

You raised the point that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton should come together on terrorism (and other issues) citing inadequate response to the Orlando shooting. What do you feel wasn't done that should have been done, and what do you feel should be done going forward that isn't already being done?

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Are you going to answer the question?

You raised the point that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton should come together on terrorism (and other issues) citing inadequate response to the Orlando shooting. What do you feel wasn't done that should have been done, and what do you feel should be done going forward that isn't already being done?

As I said they should suspend their campaign even temporarily. Convene a press conference together and announce plans for their advisors to cooperate with security forces when it comes to matters relating to terrorism. At present Clinton is accusing Trump of inciting terror. She is pitting all responsibility for future attacks on him and he has already suffered reputational damages.

By convening joint press meeting it would prove to the public they see eye to eye on all matters relating to the safety of American civilians. It would have been a nice gesture if at the recent ceremonies Trump & Hillary were to have stood next to each other facing the flag. The current situations shows the gulf the two parties are at. Both candidates appealing very much to their own core voters.

Independents might not vote at all this election.

Overheal

That doesn't sound like anything that would improve in any way of substance our policy on terror that already exists. A joint press conference by two opposing candidates won't happen; all their advisers cooperate with the Pentagon already..

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

That doesn't sound like anything that would improve in any way of substance our policy on terror that already exists. A joint press conference by two opposing candidates won't happen; all their advisers cooperate with the Pentagon already..

The Trump camp is very dissatisfied with the safety of America and with good cause. Clinton by contrast does not recognize a terrorist threat when it occurs. Boston, Orlando, Nice, Paris, Brussels, Istanbul, Damascus & Baghdad. Americans are being targeted and the handiwork of the terrorists are everywhere to be seen.

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Trump camp is very dissatisfied with the safety of America and with good cause. Clinton by contrast does not recognize a terrorist threat when it occurs. Boston, Orlando, Nice, Paris, Brussels, Istanbul, Damascus & Baghdad. Americans are being targeted and the handiwork of the terrorists are everywhere to be seen.

Yeah it's not like she was in the room when we killed OBL or anything?

B_Wayne

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Trump camp is very dissatisfied with the safety of America and with good cause. Clinton by contrast does not recognize a terrorist threat when it occurs. Boston, Orlando, Nice, Paris, Brussels, Istanbul, Damascus & Baghdad. Americans are being targeted and the handiwork of the terrorists are everywhere to be seen.

You're claiming that suspending their campaigns they could offer some special assistance. It's already being handled by the existing intelligence , neither are currently president. You seem to want it more for positive PR for Trump than anything else...

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

Yeah it's not like she was in the room when we killed OBL or anything?

Killing one terrorist when dozens of terrorist organizations are still very active in the world today all an umbrella group of Al Qaeda.

KingBrian2

B_Wayne wrote: »

You're claiming that suspending their campaigns they could offer some special assistance. It's already being handled by the existing intelligence , neither are currently president. You seem to want it more for positive PR for Trump than anything else...

Nobody has come close to the charges made against Trump. Clinton is a disastrous choice. The public are not supportive of her as President even if the Democrats are.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

All I said is the lies of Hillary Clinton should also be jumped on in the same way Trump's lies should be.

Actually, what you said was:

RobertKK wrote: »

After all Hillary has worse honesty ratings...

...which is objectively untrue.

InTheTrees

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A state of emergency should have been held after the Orlando killings, never happened.

No it shouldn't. Thats ridiculous. Hysterical over reaction achieves nothing.

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Trump camp is very dissatisfied with the safety of America and with good cause. Clinton by contrast does not recognize a terrorist threat when it occurs. Boston, Orlando, Nice, Paris, Brussels, Istanbul, Damascus & Baghdad. Americans are being targeted and the handiwork of the terrorists are everywhere to be seen.

Donald Trump is by far more qualified to handle terrorism based upon his zero experience in governance, zero experience in US diplomacy, and zero experience in preparation for Commander-In-Chief. He can draw from his business experiences and judgment, especially those experiences related to him being charged for alleged "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" as a defendant of Trump University he founded (3 current cases in New York and California), or Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc. which he had filed for bankruptcy 3 different times, or Trump Airlines that went bankrupt, or based upon whatever happened to the monies investors sunk into Trump Tower Tampa or Trump International Hotel & Tower Fort Lauderdale?

Then again someone might suggest that Donald Trump does in fact have diplomatic experience with Miss Columbia, Miss Russia, Miss Turkey, Miss... Miss... Miss..., all of whom he can collaborate with to form an international coalition to confront terrorism, perhaps under the leadership of Miss Universe? Yes, it becomes overwhelming obvious that all Americans should vote for Donald Trump based upon these qualifications to feel safer in a terrorist Brave New World.

Ultimately, all we have to do to insure that Donald Trump is qualified to handle terrorism is to unquestionably listen to Trump's MOUTH which said: "I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me." Of course we all believe what comes out of Donald Trump's MOUTH. Why would we not?

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

Actually, what you said was:



...which is objectively untrue.

The polls give Clinton a lower honesty percentage than Trump.

KingBrian2

Black Swan wrote: »

Donald Trump is by far more qualified to handle terrorism based upon his zero experience in governance, zero experience in US diplomacy, and zero experience in preparation for Commander-In-Chief. He can draw from his business experiences and judgment, especially those experiences related to him being charged for alleged "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" as a defendant of Trump University he founded (3 current cases in New York and California), or Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc. which he had filed for bankruptcy 3 different times, or Trump Airlines that went bankrupt, or based upon whatever happened to the monies investors sunk into Trump Tower Tampa or Trump International Hotel & Tower Fort Lauderdale?

Then again someone might suggest that Donald Trump does in fact have diplomatic experience with Miss Columbia, Miss Russia, Miss Turkey, Miss... Miss... Miss..., all of whom he can collaborate with to form an international coalition to confront terrorism, perhaps under the leadership of Miss Universe? Yes, it becomes overwhelming obvious that all Americans should vote for Donald Trump based upon these qualifications to feel safer in a terrorist Brave New World.

Ultimately, all we have to do to insure that Donald Trump is qualified to handle terrorism is to unquestionably listen to Trump's MOUTH which said: "I know more about ISIS than the generals do. Believe me." Of course we all believe what comes out of Donald Trump's MOUTH. Why would we not?

Trump has pointed out that America has a sizeable threat posed by terrorists that the current administration is fine dealing with. Libya and Egypt have seen terror organizations gain ground as a result of Washington's actions. Over reaction is invading a country and turning the natives against you which is exactly what Osama wanted to happen. This administration has repeated the same old errors. Wanting to negotiate with the Talaban and getting mixed up over what a terrorist looks like.

Pro Hoc Vice

K-9 wrote: »

Mod
Attack the post please, not the poster.

Sorry that post was saying that Trump was the racist that would if elected take the USA back 50 years. There was no intention to label any poster as a Racist.