Trump to win?

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

The only bright side I can see if Clinton wins is that the wheels are going to fall off sometime during the next four years and when they do, she'll get the blame.

Ever since I was a little girl I've been waiting for a female president, but Holy Heavens, not this one!

And Woody's right- you're painting a bullseye on yourself and this forum with talk like that.

since ms shiny! has me on ignore, would someone please pass this on to her:

ever read the comments on http://www.zerohedge.com/ ?
they'd make even the most hard-over to the right - or left, for that matter - .gov policy wonk's toenails curl and hair burst into flames (and there's no 'safe space' for anybody to hide)

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

The only bright side I can see if Clinton wins is that the wheels are going to fall off sometime during the next four years and when they do, she'll get the blame.

Ever since I was a little girl I've been waiting for a female president, but Holy Heavens, not this one!

And Woody's right- you're painting a bullseye on yourself and this forum with talk like that.

I've entertained the thought that there is a very, very slim chance that Hillary Clinton may be a good president. It's within the realm of possibility that she seeks to run for the presidency to bring some sort of redemption to the Clinton name and perhaps, through doing a good or great job, be exalted as a good or even great president.

I'm probably more likely to win the PowerBall lottery two or three times in succession but I do recognize that it is possible. However, maybe it's just appearances, but it seems to be "business as usual" (in a bad way for the U.S.) for the Clintons.

A bullseye? If Hillary Clinton is as rotten as I think she is, we've all got bullseyes on us in one way or another. Maybe for me, the bullseye is right between my eyes (not that I worry about it). For everybody else, maybe the bullseye is on their bank accounts.

I've removed the controversial statement, said only somewhat in jest , because I genuinely do not want anyone here to be negatively affected by anything I say or do, either to their person or to their peace of mind.

I've greatly disliked candidates before but Hillary Clinton just takes the cake.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

ever read the comments on http://www.zerohedge.com/ ?
they'd make even the most hard-over to the right - or left, for that matter - .gov policy wonk's toenails curl and hair burst into flames (and there's no 'safe space' for anybody to hide)

That is that place and this is this place. I do not disagree with Woodsman and shiny! on my comment being inappropriate for this place. My comment served no beneficial purpose and it was a black humor joke that could be, and perhaps was, construed the wrong way.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Thanks for acting so prmptly, Milton.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

i don't know why you folks are concerned about hillary having backups. i gather there are backup copies on servers in many countries all around the world.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Nixon FBI Director L. Patrick Gray announces Watergate findings:

"It appears that this is just a few White House staffers going a bit to far with opposition research. There is nothing criminal to report."

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us...inton-fbi.html

recommend this article: the shadow of the petraeus case in decision making re hillary

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Lek, SF is trolling us at iTulip. He has a valuable perspective, generally, but on the matter of the election it's clear he is a partisan and will ignore any argument that hurts his candidate. On this you can ignore him without fear of missing anything meaningful.And think of what Comey's whitewash failed to even consider in the course of this criminal investigation. The entire issue of the relation between Clinton’s actions at State and the Clinton Foundation was not even addressed by the FBI. Surely that data is out there somewhere, waiting to be disclosed at an opportune time?

I think, as I said to SF, this hands the election Trump as it fits perfectly with one of his major campaign themes. Most people who are not blinded by partisanship or class hatred like SF will see this as confirmation of all Trump has spoken of - crooked Hillary capitalizing off of a crooked and rigged system.

I know it's an unpopular opinion with the vocal HRC is the devil crowd here on iTulip, but I think she'll make a good president. Not my first choice but apparently my first choice has a chance of becoming VP. I'll be disappointed if Warren is not her choice, but not so disappointed I'd help elect a pick-pocket and carney.

When people I view as fair and honest brokers like Sanders and Warren are supporting Clinton and damning Trump, it helps shape my opinion of her. When partisans see this happen, they see conspiracy and malfeasance.

When a truly decent person like James Comey is unwilling to recommend indictment and says "...no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.", he's accused by the partisans here of being a whitewasher. This is the same man who stopped the NSA and the Bush administration from continuing domestic surveillance. This is the man who went to John Ashcroft's bedside at GW Hospital to help Ashcroft fend off Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales who were there to demand his signature. I may not agree with Comey politically, but only a true partisan would question his integrity.

Apparently trolls are in the eye of the beholder.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

I know it's an unpopular opinion with the vocal HRC is the devil crowd here on iTulip, but I think she'll make a good president. Not my first choice but apparently my first choice has a chance of becoming VP. I'll be disappointed if Warren is not her choice, but not so disappointed I'd help elect a pick-pocket and carney.

When people I view as fair and honest brokers like Sanders and Warren are supporting Clinton and damning Trump, it helps shape my opinion of her. When partisans see this happen, they see conspiracy and malfeasance.

When a truly decent person like James Comey is unwilling to recommend indictment and says "...no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.", he's accused by the partisans here of being a whitewasher. This is the same man who stopped the NSA and the Bush administration from continuing domestic surveillance. This is the man who went to John Ashcroft's bedside at GW Hospital to help Ashcroft fend off Andrew Card and Alberto Gonzales who were there to demand his signature. I may not agree with Comey politically, but only a true partisan would question his integrity.

Apparently trolls are in the eye of the beholder.

And you are close with the Director, are you? You have some personal experience with him?

Or is this an opinion based on the facts of your affinity for Clinton and rather personal animus against Trump and his supporters? I wonder if your high personal regard for his "decency" would survive had the decision gone against your hopes to see Clinton as President?

I know of a gentleman who was in a similar situation where "no reasonable prosecutor" would have moved forward with an indictment. Alas Mr. Comey's decency was not in effect as he kept an innocent man behind bars for years.

James Comey was the chief prosecutor in the Southern District of New York between 2003 and 2005. He had no problem keeping Martin Armstrong in Federal Prison on contempt of court without any charges, indictment, or a civil complaint describing any crime whatsoever as admitted openly in court.

There were never any charges or complaint filed, and the prosecution publicly stated,“[T]here is no description of criminal liability.” Yet, Comey allowed Arrmstrong to be held in prison for nearly a decade, entirely arbitrarily, with absolutely nothing whatsoever.

Comey completely violated Armstrong's civil rights, those of his family, and all 240 of his employees. So unless you have some personal insight you care to share, I find no reason to accept your view as anything other than entirely motivated by your affinity for Clinton and hatred for Trump.

Me, I have personal and daily experience with folks at the Bureau and Justice to draw upon from my work in government and I recall some were decent, some were low down dirty and mean, and others stood by to see where the majority opinion stood and then stood with them. And we all recall the "decency" of J. Edgar Hoover was assured by all of the great and wise in government and media.

Despite your opinion and assurances of his decency, it is immaterial to the facts before us. Comey, Lynch, Bill Clinton, Hillary and Obama are not concerned with the rule of law. You would imagine this would be evident to any rational person after examining the record, but clearly that would be as naive as professing the decency of powerful and unaccountable politicians or expecting political partisans to face uncomfortable truths about their candidates.

Trolls and corrupt politicians are known by their actions and in the matter of the election of Hillary Clinton, I stand by all my assertions.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?


During a Tuesday press conference, FBI Director James Comey recommended that Hillary Clinton not be charged for mishandling classified information while serving as secretary of state.

Comey argued that based on “the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent… and how similar situations have been handled in the past,” “no reasonable prosecutor” would even consider bringing a case like Clinton’s to court. (VIDEO: FBI Recommends ‘NO CHARGES’ For Hillary)
Only, that isn’t exactly accurate.

Less than one year ago, Assistant US attorneys Jean M. Hobler and Lee S. Bickley successfully prosecuted Naval Reservist Brian Nishimura in a strikingly similar case.

Back in 2012, Nishimura admitted to handling “classified materials inappropriately” while deployed to Afghanistan from 2007-2008.Nishimura served as a Regional Engineer and, according to the FBI’s investigation into the incident, “had access to classified briefings and digital records that could only be retained and viewed on authorized government computers.”

“Nishimura, however, caused the materials to be downloaded and stored on his personal, unclassified electronic devices and storage media,” wrote the FBI. “He carried such classified materials on his unauthorized media when he traveled off-base in Afghanistan and, ultimately, carried those materials back to the United States at the end of his deployment.”

FBI Director James Comey attends a new Implicit Bias Training program at the Department of Justice (Getty Images)

Like Clinton, Nishimura admitted to destroying “a large quantity of classified materials.”

Like Clinton, the FBI investigation into his actions “did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.”

Unlike Clinton, he was sentenced to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials.
He was also “ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance.”




Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/20...#ixzz4DdOHwCud

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

...Less than one year ago, Assistant US attorneys Jean M. Hoble

Like Clinton, the FBI investigation into his actions “did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel.”... Unlike Clinton, he was sentenced to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials.
He was also “ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance...

Compare the treatment HRC received and contrast to this poor sod, and Manning, Snowden, Ellesberg, et. al.

For low-level, powerless Nobodies-in-DC, even the mere mishandling of classified information – without any intent to leak but merely to, say, work from home – has resulted in criminal prosecution, career destruction and the permanent loss of security clearance.
This extreme, unforgiving, unreasonable, excessive posture toward classified information came to an instant halt in Washington today – just in time to save Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspirations.
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/05/...llary-clinton/

This will be seen in hindsight as the event that handed Trump the presidency.

And the fault lies entirely on Clinton and her team. It was typical Clinton hubris at work. What else could explain such a stupid move for her to use private email servers—especially when she and her aides should have assumed that Clinton, as a potential presidential candidate, would face greater scrutiny?

And when her attorneys destroyed 30,000 or so emails they deemed personal before turning over the rest to the State Department, they guaranteed this matter would never be fully settled, because her critics will now and always charge that incriminating material had been erased to protect her.

HRC partisans are forever working to convince us of her skill, judgement and intelligence only to have their hopes dashed when the reality of her character and capacity makes itself known.

She may have been successful in deleting incriminating evidence, but this email controversy will never be deleted. Not even the Election Day results will put this matter to rest.

Welcome President Trump, brought to you by the incompetence of the Republican Party and the malfeasance of the Democratic Party.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

I stand by all my assertions.

Enjoy your certitude Woody. I'm sure Trump's love for Putin and his new found respect for Saddam Hussein are nothing to be concerned about. From yesterday:

"He was a bad guy -- really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read them the rights. They didn't talk. They were terrorists. Over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism,"

Here's some more background on the "short fingered vulgarian".


In 1988, Spy magazine described Donald Trump as “a short-fingered vulgarian.” The founding editors of the magazine, Graydon Carter and Kurt Andersen, recognized Trump for what he was: the id of New York City, writ large—a bombastic, self-aggrandizing, un–self-aware bully, with a curious relationship to the truth about his supposed wealth and business acumen. He wasn’t so much a Macy’s balloon, ripe
for the targeting, as he was the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters, stomping on everything in his gold-plated path.

It wasn’t pretty. But New York wasn’t all that pretty then, either. It had yet to become the sanitized city of hedge funders and money-in-flight Russian billionaires that it is now, where Trump is just another rich guy on the block—and not even the richest one, at that. As I recall it (I was a contributing editor at Spy), Trump’s reaction to what Spy wrote—or articles that Spy planned to publish—was to threaten the magazine with lawsuits. The editors lived under the constant threat of litigation. In a gesture that seemed to indicate he had some self-awareness, and possibly even a sense of humor, he sent over a copy of his book, The
Art of the Deal, with his hand outlined in bright gold on the cover, to prove that he wasn’t, in fact, short-fingered—but then added a note, promising, “If you hit me, I will hit you back 100 times harder.” Then,
as now, he truly believed any press was good press, so long as he thought he had the last word.

Today, 27 years and a reality-TV show later, the rest of the world—or perhaps I should say the “thinking” part of the rest of the world—has come to recognize what we knew about Trump back then. Only instead of being the id of New York City, he’s become the dark, nasty id of America itself: uncensored, unthinking, bullying, angry, forever unapologetic, and vaguely unhinged. From his racist remarks about immigrants to his sexist attack on Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, to the lawsuits he brings or threatens to bring with tiresome regularity (then Spy, now, Univision for attempting to “suppress his freedom of speech” by dropping his Miss U.S.A. and Miss Universe beauty pageants, along with the two celebrity chefs who no longer wish to be associated with him), none of it surprises us. He’s become the Ugly American, writ large, and draped in cheap superlatives: a great American, with a great plan, who will restore our great and glorious gold-plated future...So long as you don’t criticize him, disagree with him, or ask too many questions.

In modern media terms, Donald Trump was our clickbait. He brought us word-of-mouth recognition, and more readers—just the same way he is now bringing eyeballs to newscasts, and page views to Web sites. He’s O.J. Simpson in the Ford Bronco, an unfolding disaster that you can’t quite take your eyes away from, as you wait for him to drive off the road and self-immolate. Over the course of our years at Spy, we
fact-checked his books and his finances (with predictable results), trolled him by sending miniscule checks—as low as 13 cents—to see if he’d cash them (he did), and wrote up his all-but-forgotten business debacles. (Remember the “Trump Castle World Power Boat Championship”?)

And yet, none of it stuck. None of it so much as dinged him, or even seemed to embarrass him. And were The Donald to read this, I’m all but certain he’d reply, “Spy is dead. And I’m running for president, leading in the polls, after starring in the most-watched cable TV news show in history, because the people tuned in to watch me. They love me!”

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/08/spy-vs-trump

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

The only problem you have with that line is that it ignores, as you do with other facts of inconveniece, 40 years of US support of Saddam for much the same reasons The Donald asserts.

That was policy when the cloak and dagger boys put Saddam on the payroll, cleared his path to power, provided him arms and intelligence, looked the other way when he deployed nerve gas against his people, not to mention a special visit from Rumsfeld, hat in hand.

It took the world shattering incompetence of the first and second Bush adminstrations to elevate "our son of a bitch" to a "modern day Hitler" and set the ME in flames. What we wouldn't do for a do-over that would have kept Saddam in power.

The Donald is doing little more than stating obvious facts; facts you have recognized here in years past but now go into the burn bag of memory when it suits your political preferences.

It seems when it comes to the election, Clinton partisans are either pissing into the wind or on everyone's shoes. And so you are stuck soiling yourself or the rest of us. Me, I'd rather you feel the breeze on your face.

You just can't seem to help but fall into troll mode, SF. I wish you'd stop as it's destroying your credibility and is such a dissappointment for us to have to witness the decline.

And for Hillary Clinton, for crissakes. I'll never understand what it is about those people that cause otherwise good folks to sacrifice their principles and scruples on their behalf.

[shiny!]

Re: Trump to win?

Compare the treatment HRC received and contrast to this poor sod, and Manning, Snowden, Ellesberg, et. al.

This will be seen in hindsight as the event that handed Trump the presidency.

Agreed.

And the fault lies entirely on Clinton and her team. It was typical Clinton hubris at work. What else could explain such a stupid move for her to use private email servers—especially when she and her aides should have assumed that Clinton, as a potential presidential candidate, would face greater scrutiny?

Clinton's behavior is typical for a psychopath. The part of the brain that weighs instant gratification against future consequences does't work in psychopaths. Psychopaths do breathtakingly incomprehensible things because they feel invulnerable. To a psychopath, rules are always for other people.

Psychopaths have no conscience, no empathy, no sense of morality. They are predators. They consider humans as objects to be manipulated, a means to an end, thus they fake emotions as the situation demands. They are often supreme con artists because most humans can't conceive of such evil. Psychopaths are never sorry for what they did, only sorry for getting caught. When the worst ones get caught, people are often stunned by the enormity of what they pulled off, e.g. Bernie Madoff and Ted Bundy.

I'm not saying this from political partisanship. For over twenty years I had a powerful psychopath in my life. When you've spent that long in the belly of The Beast, you learn to recognize The Beast. He was the best master persuader I've ever seen outside of Trump. He was also hypomanic, which is something else I recognize in Trump.

Trump appears to me to be a high-functioning hypomanic, World-Class, Grade A Master Persuader- without the psychopathology. He loves being center-stage, but he's not a Kardashian-type narcissist who simply craves attention, a la "being famous for being famous." Trump has an enormous desire to be recognized for great accomplishments; to that end he channels his narcissism into hard work and building things. This is actually a good quality to have in a president if he's motivated by a desire to do public service rather than personal aggrandizement.

The last highly charismatic, hypomanic president we had was Bill Clinton. Is Trump up to being president? We'll find out. But is he evil like Hillary? No.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Why Comey Would Not Present The Hillary Case To The Grand Jury

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/i...-a-grand-jury/