Trump to win?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

1. i take it no one read the article comparing the case against clinton to the one against petraeus. it's informative. there is no doubt that both petraeus and clinton are in a protected class which is not treated in the same manner as the hoi polloi. but clinton was given less of a break than petraeus, since his crime was clearer, he admitted intent and knowing it was a crime, and he lied to fbi agents about it.

2. as to whether comey declining to indict handed trump the election, i ask again [since it wasn't answered the first time] do you think an indictment would have been more beneficial to clinton's chances? or is it the case that you believe forgoing an indictment handed the election to trump AND proceeding with an indictment would have handed the election to trump. in that case, why bother commenting on comey's actions at all?

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

1. i take it no one read the article comparing the case against clinton to the one against petraeus. it's informative..... . in that case, why bother commenting on comey's actions at all?

not yet, no - but thanks for putting it up, jk - will read it asap.

but.. this just in - the latest 'email propaganda' - must say i agree with most of it.
(presented as rcvd with no comments/embellishment)

and sure makes more sense than most of the media propaganda seen to date.

WHAT ARE MY CHOICES (but we must vote…)?

The folks speaking out against Trump are helping me make up my mind a little more every day!

Is he the Perfect Candidate whose thoughts mirrors mine on all fronts? NOPE

Does he say everything the way I wish he would say it? NOPE
Am I absolutely sure that his motives are absolutely Pure? NOPE

Can I point to any other Democratic Politician that I like better? NOPE

Is there any of the other RINO Politicians I like better? NOPE

Am I going to sit home, refuse to Vote, and let Hillary win; because he is NOT Perfect? NOPE

Do I like what I have seen for the last 7-1/2 years with the Jerk that sleeps in my White House? NOPE

Do I like the "fundamental changes" that same Jerk has brought about in MY America? NOPE

OK, your turn to decide what you are going to do in about 4 months!

Trump's presidential qualifications…

Obama is against Trump... Check

The Media are against Trump... Check

The establishment Democrats are against Trump... Check

The establishment Republicans are against Trump... Check

The Pope is against Trump... Check

The UN is against Trump... Check

The EU is against Trump... Check

China is against Trump... Check

Mexico is against Trump... Check

Soros is against Trump... Check

Black Lives Matter is against Trump... Check

Move On is against Trump... Check

Koch Brothers are against Trump... Check

Bushes are against Trump ... Check

Planned Parenthood is against Trump....Check

Hillary & Bernie are both against Trump ... Check

Illegal aliens are against Trump ... Check

Islam is against Trump ... Check

Kasich is against Trump ... Check

Hateful, racist, violent Liberals are against Trump.. Check

NOW THAT BEING SAID...

It seems to me, Trump MUST BE the Best Qualified Candidate we could ever have.

If you have so many political insiders and left wing NUT CASES--- all SCARED TO DEATH, that they all speak out against him at the same time!

Most of all, it will be the People's Choice...

PLUS

He's not a Lifetime Politician...Check

He's not a Lawyer.....Check

He's not doing it for the money...Check

He's a Natural Born American Citizen born in the USA from American parents. . .

Bonus points !

Whoopi says she will leave the country...

Rosie says she will leave the country...

Sharpton says he will leave the country...

Cher says she will leave the country...

Cyrus says she will leave the country...

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights will prevail....

Hillary will go to jail.....

The budget will be balanced in 8 years....

Americans will have first choice at jobs.....

You will not be able to marry your pet....

You will be able to keep your gun(s) if you qualify... (Not a criminal or crazy, etc.)

Only living, registered U.S. citizens can vote....

MUST SHOW ID TO VOTE...

You can have and keep your own doctor.....

You can say whatever you want without being called a racist, Islamophobic, xenophobic, etc....

He will make AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Come to think of it, we have no place to go, but UP!

[lektrode]

Re: Trump to win?

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.

+1, Mr K.
but i appreciated your comment for the humor, albeit black, for what it was.
altho i tend to think some over-react to stuff directed at the political class around here, i do concur that some stuff is best left untyped and that, yes indeed, we do have a more civilized bunch here vs 'that other place'

and i'm somewhat regretful that i referred to the aforementioned white trash criminal whore inappropriately.

apologies for any ruffled sensibilities.

[santafe2]

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.

I get it. When your candidate is an empty suit with dictatorial tendencies you're left with nothing but finger pointing and name calling. It's worked well for your boy so far but you might try toning it down a bit.

The Donald is not "stating obvious facts" he's suggesting that Gitmo and other outliers of America's semi-secret policy with regard to torture be made the centerpiece of our policy toward suspected terrorists. It's the Cheney policy out of the shadows. The Donald has, as we know from his business practices, no use for the rule of law. I take him at his word that he appreciates expediency over the rule of law.

In November we have a choice. We don't get to choose between Jefferson and Adams, we get to choose between Clinton and Trump. I, and your original candidate, Sanders, think sanity requires a vote for Clinton. He is now actively working with her campaign to align it as closely as possible to his campaign ideas and he's making progress.

I still think there's an outside chance that Republicans bolt from Trump and nominate Ryan or Romney. We'll know in two weeks.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

2. as to whether comey declining to indict handed trump the election, i ask again [since it wasn't answered the first time] do you think an indictment would have been more beneficial to clinton's chances? or is it the case that you believe forgoing an indictment handed the election to trump AND proceeding with an indictment would have handed the election to trump. in that case, why bother commenting on comey's actions at all?

I don't think we yet know the impact. Republicans who said they trusted Comey's judgment before they heard his judgment are hauling him in for questioning tomorrow so they can go on another fishing expedition. Comey is quite good with these things so it's unlikely it will produce anything new but it will give Republicans another round or two...or more, to keep this issue in the MSM spotlight. Republicans will judge if this is helping or hurting their candidate's chances. If it's helping, we could have hearings until the election.

As I observed months ago, this will be an historically nasty election. The mud has just begun to fly and I don't think we can anticipate who will be more effective keeping their suit clean.

[vt]

Re: Trump to win?

Remember this gap? The 18½ minute gap

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

Well then how about these gaps?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ion-fbi-214016

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Remember this gap? The 18½ minute gap


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

Well then how about these gaps?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ion-fbi-214016

None of us can know how this will turn out. It may be nothing and it may be her Nixon moment. I hope not but it's more because I'm concerned about who we'll turn the country over to than any personal concern for HRC. Her personal history will be quite a story but it probably won't be told for another 50 years.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

I get it. When your candidate is an empty suit with dictatorial tendencies you're left with nothing but finger pointing and name calling. It's worked well for your boy so far but you might try toning it down a bit.

The Donald is not "stating obvious facts" he's suggesting that Gitmo and other outliers of America's semi-secret policy with regard to torture be made the centerpiece of our policy toward suspected terrorists. It's the Cheney policy out of the shadows. The Donald has, as we know from his business practices, no use for the rule of law. I take him at his word that he appreciates expediency over the rule of law.

In November we have a choice. We don't get to choose between Jefferson and Adams, we get to choose between Clinton and Trump. I, and your original candidate, Sanders, think sanity requires a vote for Clinton. He is now actively working with her campaign to align it as closely as possible to his campaign ideas and he's making progress.

I still think there's an outside chance that Republicans bolt from Trump and nominate Ryan or Romney. We'll know in two weeks.

Sonny, that horse left the barn ages ago.

[touchring]

Re: Trump to win?

Is there democracy in the UK? Brexit passed the test.

Now the US will undergo the democracy test this Nov.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Trump to win?

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

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

Having read both this and the link to the reasons for the Petraeus decision; perhaps the underlying reasoning is a better target for discussion; the matter of the ethics of those within the whole legal system within the US administration?

It is when the truth comes out that people start to understand what is being said and done in their name; that starts to open the process of thought about how to make corrections and to bring the whole back into sharp focus.

As I understand it we will all get some idea of future progress with a decision by the Supreme Court that is yet to be reported in detail. (We have had the decision, http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...5-674_jhlo.pdf but not the detailed debate as to why the decision was made). They have released the oral debates http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...5-674_b97d.pdf but that is not the final reasoning.

It is my understanding that the US Supreme Court is about to give some detail regarding the ongoing debate regarding the ethics of US Justice Department attorneys involved with the case; a matter opened by The New York Times here:

Federal Judge in Texas Demands Justice Dept. Lawyers Take Ethics Class


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/us...xas-court.html

And this is the memorandum and order: http://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/...5-19_order.pdf

There is reason to believe that some within the Judiciary in the US have begun to accept that there are matters to discuss. Only time will tell us if they can make any real progress.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

And there you go, trolling me again. I've seen your work, SF. You are the last person who should be complaining about name calling. You dish it out in healthy portions, so please stop embarrasing yourself and the rest of us.

Trump is not my guy, my candidate, my buddy or pal. He's the instrument of destruction of the GOP. Now for that he is owed thanks by all and most certainly he has mine.

He is also the implement that with luck will destroy HRC's power grab and at this point there are few I would not support to save the republic of which I served under arms and in civil service and toward which I feel something of a proprietary interest.

Churchill said that should the devil himself be on the side of England he would manage to say a few kind words about him in the House of Commons. I feel much the same about The Donald and am happy to point out where he is right and where you are wrong. Every time.

My "guy" was and remains Bernie Sanders and since the Democracts found it expedient to shank him in the gut, figuratively, then my encouragement for Trump is merely returning the favor. You know that and also know what my sig of over a year means, but you ignore that as you do all facts that contradict the bill of goods you are working tirelessly to convince yourself has any semblance of reality. As far convincing anyone else, clearly your efforts are pointless.

You are standing out on the ledge and wondering why no one else will join you. Jump already.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

woodsman, you haven't answered my question about why an indictment would have been a better result for clinton. just sayin'.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

I don't recall you addressing the question to me. I never made such an assertion, jk, so I'm not clear what you are looking to hear from me on this. HRC had the best short term outcome she could get from the Comey whitewash. That seems self evident, no? Could we cut to the chase and get to tbe point you are looking to make?

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

I don't recall you addressing the question to me. I never made such an assertion, jk, so I'm not clear what you are looking to hear from me on this. HRC had the best short term outcome she could get from the Comey whitewash. That seems self evident, no? Could we cut to the chase and get to tbe point you are looking to make?

you said that comey passing on an indictment handed the election to trump. i asked whether comey recommending an indictment would have been better for clinton. if not, there is no reason to discuss comey's action one way or another.

if a=> b
and ~a=>b,
then just assert b. there's no point in talking about a.

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

Uncharacteristically cute today, jk. Have a good one.