Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 03:08pm PT
|
No it doesn't, Locker. The difference is that the official emails of Powell, Rice, et. al. are in the custody and control of the government, so the government, not Powell or Rice, decides what gets disclosed. Hillary's are all under her sole control, making her the arbiter of what gets disclosed. When others end up disclosing damaging emails sent from her private server that she didn't disclose, it her llok like someone hiding something.
I do need to correct one impression my previous post makes, though. I don't think that Hillary is a total liar. All of us tell untruths at one time or another. Despite God's standard of complete truth, our inability to tell the truth in love leads me to conclude that life on earth would be worse if we all told everyone else exactly what we know or think. I don't think Hillary lies very often, but if something goes wrong, she sometimes distorts things, as most of us do. The difference is that we never hear her admit to error. That's what bothers people.
John
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 03:09pm PT
|
Hi John
What lies did she tell about Benghazi?
If you would because I seriously want to know what you know
Thanks
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 03:12pm PT
|
her lies to the American People about the Benghazi attacks
What a whopper. Flat out false as proved by the latest (8th) "investigation". And the e-mail to Chelsea is not a smoking gun.
Um, which emails are you reading, crankster? Those released make it abundantly clear that the narrative of a reaction to the offensive video was known to be untrue from the beginning. Hillary's emails said that it was a coordinated attack by a terrorist organization and not a reaction to that video.
I understand that Hillary's fans don't worry about the lie, but lie it was. She knew the truth, and she told the American people a known falsehood. If she had her reasons, she's never told us, which is odd if it makes no difference now. Get over it.
John
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 03:23pm PT
|
Certainly stupidity "Trumps" dishonesty, but why does Trump get a pass on all the lies he tells?
Anyway, soon he will be gone and his only regret will be that his papa's not around to bail him out of the money he's losing.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 03:43pm PT
|
When will it end???
You're astoundingly touchy about that subject, Locker. Seems like you'd just be content with the traditional and harmless "fictions" of others.
There's a vast difference between people harmlessly believing in Santa Clause and those who shoot up a MacDonalds because they believe that their dog channeled Santa Clause and told them to do it.
It's not like you yourself don't harbor a whole spree of harmless fantasies of your own. Nobody's getting their hackles up every time you go off on one of your fantasy-trips.
You sure seem to have a hard-on for Ysh (no vowels, btw). Did "he" rape your cherished dog or smite you in some past life?
|
|
sandstone conglomerate
climber
sharon conglomerate central
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 03:50pm PT
|
Why are we sentient primates so afraid to die without the promise of an afterlife reward? I don't get it. We're not special. We're a blip in the infinite of time and space. To think otherwise is delusional. No one, not Jesus, not Mohammed, not Buddha, has come back to tell us otherwise. Gone is gone, dead is dead.
|
|
Winemaker
Sport climber
Yakima, WA
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 04:07pm PT
|
Curt's post above is a good one, so I'm making a 'wall-o-text' a la Klimmer, who has taught us so well. There are citizens out there who actually want homo-sexual (just sort of borrowing Klimmer's style here) Trump to be president? The man with the greatest brain in the world sure talks strangely when it comes to the arithmetic stuff. Klimmer, could he teach physics? From Steve Brennen MSNBC:
For the typical adult, counting to five should be pretty easy. It makes Donald Trump’s trouble with Supreme Court arithmetic that much more puzzling.
On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down arguably the most important abortion-rights ruling in a generation, prompting the Republican presidential hopeful to say … literally nothing. To the consternation of some of his social-conservative allies, Trump acted as if the court’s decision didn’t exist, offering no response in speeches, interviews, or social media.
It took a few days, but this morning the presumptive GOP nominee broke his unexpected silence in an interview with conservative radio host Mike Gallagher.
“Now if we had Scalia was living, or if Scalia was replaced by me, you wouldn’t have had that, OK? It would’ve been the opposite.”
Actually, no, it wouldn’t have. This week’s ruling was actually a 5-3 decision. Yes, Antonin Scalia’s passing meant the Supreme Court was down one justice, but it doesn’t take a mathematician to know 3 +1 does not equal 5.
Remember, the decision was on Monday, and today’s Thursday. Trump and his team had three days to come up with the candidate’s response to a major court ruling, and this is what they came up with.
In the same interview, the New York Republican complained about Chief Justice John Roberts, telling the host, “He could’ve killed [the Affordable Care Act] twice and he didn’t. That was terrible. And that was a Bush appointment. That was so bad, what happened. And you know, to me, you know, almost not recoverable from his standpoint. Very, very sad situation.”
Actually, the second time the justices considered the constitutionality of “Obamacare,” the law was upheld in a 6-3 ruling. When Trump said today Roberts “could’ve killed” the ACA, his math is still wrong – because 6 - 1 does not equal four.
Do you ever get the impression that Trump hasn’t really thought this issue through? Ever wonder if there’s an issue he has thought through?
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 04:30pm PT
|
I can't express my dislike of the Clintons better than these 2 quotes.
“My worry is that Democrats like Hillary have been saying, ‘The republicans are worse!’ for so long that they’ve begun to believe it excuses everything.”
~ Matt Taibbi
"I’ve feared it [the inevitable Hillary presidency] for a long time, and there’s something horrible and undefeatable about people who have no life except the worship of power. . . . people who don’t want the meeting to end, the people who just are unstoppable, who only have one focus, no humanity, no character, nothing but the worship of money and power. They win in the end."[/url]
Christopher Hitchens
Edit: Whoa, new poll
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 05:00pm PT
|
Trump's campaign is an economic disaster right now. He doesn't have to get elected to adversely affect the nation.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/cities-bill-trump-high-cost-094503439.html
Cities that have paid for extra police and emergency personnel when Trump has passed through are trying to get him to reimburse those expenses.
Yeah, right.
The cities are sending Trump invoices for the additional expenses, expecting him to pay up.
Good luck with that. And don't forget to feed the Easter Bunny twice a day.
Trump's M.O. is to receive what he wants up front, and then refuse to pay. This is how he has conducted business for decades.
Trump has been sued literally thousands of times by employees, suppliers, contractors, and even his own lawyers because he doesn't pay his bills. His usual claim is rotten service, poor workmanship, inferior quality, or some other imaginary defect that allegedly releases Trump from fulfilling his end of the contract.
Trump's Art of the Deal is to initiate the "real" negotiations after he has obtained what was agreed upon. Once he has his hands on what he wants, he turns his back on the other person and despoils him.
Trump's daughter Ivanka has also done this, over a large quantity of diamond jewelry for her signature jewelry line. Ivank's claim was that her AutoCAD drawing designs were returned to her one day late, so she didn't have to pay for the jewelry that had been manufactured and delivered. The jeweler, a small business in Nevada, had to sue Ivanka to get paid, and not surprisingly, the jeweler prevailed in court.
Supposedly, Trump will say that the police officers, firemen and ambulance workers "performed poorly", and that they don't deserve their overtime pay.
He used that excuse when he was sued by waitresses at his Mar-a-Lago resort, after they had been forced to work 20-hour shifts without proper breaks and without being paid overtime.
EDIT: TRUMP INTENTIONALLY CREATES CHAOS AND HAVOC AT HIS RALLIES
Law enforcement officials say the Trump campaign’s habit of overpromising rally seats, which creates long lines at its events, exacerbates costs. In Eau Claire, a central Wisconsin city of 67,000, Trump held a rally at the local high school, the town’s largest venue, which holds 1,800. According to Deputy Police Chief Matt Rokus, the campaign distributed more than 6,000 tickets before the event, leaving thousands of supporters outside, where they faced anti-Trump protesters. “Duh, there’s going to be a problem,” he says. “You got a bunch of people who drove hours to get there thinking they had a seat.”
Trump’s event cost Eau Claire $33,819 for extra staff, police overtime, and traffic directors, Rokus says. Rallies the same day held by Clinton and Bernie Sanders required no extra resources, he says.
TRUMP: A REAL PIECE OF WORK
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 05:02pm PT
|
These polls, while entertaining and even at times interesting, are not significant, imo. There's a lot of time left, and such polls at best "track" the popular vote, which doesn't neatly "map onto" the electoral vote. The electoral vote is all that matters, and Trump definitely has a hard, hard row to hoe in that regard. He could lead Clinton by 20 points and still lose the electoral vote. For republicans, 270 is a high bar to clear!
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 05:21pm PT
|
John, much ado about nothing. Administrations need time to clear the fog of war and get the facts 100% straight before releasing public statements. Telling her daughter in a private e-mail what she believes to have occurred given the information available at the moment is hardly a cause for concern, in my opinion.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 05:34pm PT
|
Ahh....the wisdom of the ST politards and the collegial way they go about discussing their differences in their valiant attempt to reach common ground....warms the cockles of the heart, I say.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 05:47pm PT
|
Oh, come on, Jim. Larry, zBrown, Locker, cranster, Norton, madbolter1, Dirtbag, Curt, and a great many others (sorry to all I forgot) don't seem to have much difficulty actually making cogent arguments here. In fact, I find the signal-to-noise ratio has improved quite a bit lately. Maybe its's just my imagination, but the looming Trump candidacy for a Republican like me has an effect rather like being hanged in a fortnight was said to do; it concentrates the mind.
John
|
|
Tom
Big Wall climber
San Luis Obispo CA
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 06:09pm PT
|
JE, do you feel betrayed by your political party?
My take on the present situation is that the Republican party has, for decades, misled its members into supporting policies and programs that have primarily benefited corporations and wealthy people at the expense of the middle class. Two examples are claims that tax cuts for businesses and rich people will benefit all of society (they don't) and that concentrated wealth at the very top will trickle-down and benefit everyone (it doesnt').
The average voter now realizes the GOP's deceit, and Trump is capitalizing on their anger. Trump's supporters would follow any raving lunatic who promised that he would fight the system, help them get even, and return to them their long-lost prosperity.
It's pretty disgusting that a distraction like Trump is so effective in preventing people from realizing that their problem doesn't lie with the politicians, per se. It lies with how politicians are controlled, and who is controlling them. The real problem is the increasing influence of big money in politics, which is used to further transfer money to those with big money, so that they can increase their influence even further.
There is a self-reinforcing, positive feedback effect at work, and it is destroying America. Parasitic entities, such as big pharma, Wall Street bankers and super-wealthy families are feeding off, and killing the host.
America may have passed a tipping point, beyond which the people will not be able to regain control of their government without some sort of violent revolution.
|
|
nah000
climber
no/w/here
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 06:09pm PT
|
besides it being very early there are two other reasons that are more unique to this cycle, that mean, assuming it isn't a complete blow out come november [and it may very well be], that polls are going to be much more untrustworthy this cycle than usual:
1. the bradley effect: as with the brexit vote, where, as far as i saw, all prior polling had the "stay" vote winning in a way, that while close, there was to have been no question that it would win, it's possible this cycle that when push comes to shove people may be willing to place an x next to something in an anonymous voting booth that they won't admit to over a phone or even on an online query. i suspect that trump will continuously underpoll throughout this cycle due to this effect.
2. because of the historically high unfavourability numbers for both candidates, the "support" backing both candidates includes a higher number of people whose vote is purely "against" the other candidate, rather than "for" who they will end up voting for. while this is true of some support in any cycle, the much higher numbers this time round means i suspect that this is likely going to be a much more capricious cycle than usual, and one that is more dependent on the news du jour on and directly prior to voting day than is typical. with dislike of either candidate at such historic highs, i'd argue that both candidates have support that is based in less security than would be overall typical and this is likely going to be an entertaining cycle as the chaotic quality that trump brings, means he's likely going to keep throwing whatever pie he can get his grubby little fingers on at the nearest wall, in the hopes that it/something will stick, right up until voting day. and with the clinton campaign's reluctance to do press conferences [six months without one now] and the aiding and abetting of a reduced number of debates by the dnc [combined with also going back on her word with regard to one debate] means that this cycle has two candidates with almost exactly the opposite strategies: chaos vs control, improvise vs structure. and so ultimately who the fUck knows what is going to happen when water and oil really start to intermingle. i'm arguing that even large polling advantages a month out are going to be far less safe than has been typical in the past.
with all of that said, given trump's continuing to become even more outlandish and bombastic, to a degree that i wouldn't have expected a month ago, unless the american populace turns out to be even more buffoonish than i think/i'd thought [dubious but increasingly possible] or trump manages to pull off a bit of a transformation [still possible but increasingly unlikely] it's looking like hillary's almost seventy year odyssey towards being leader of the american people, continues to get more tantalizingly close by the day...
if she succeeds it will have to be one of the most laborious, plotted, grinding, trench warfare style successes in at least recentish political history. i say that with both some distaste and some marvel and respect.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 06:10pm PT
|
Sorry, Jim B, I was actually responding to Jim D, but it took me so long that your message intervened. You and he both, of course, are heavy contributors to the signal, not the noise.
John
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 06:13pm PT
|
You've got some McNuggets in thinking there is a difference.
You're conflating dialog from two different threads here. Inquiring minds are surely confused.
And, yes, there is indeed a difference between two people sincerely holding beliefs in "fictional entities, but where one's beliefs lead him to be a harmless, law-abiding citizen and the other's lead him to shoot up a McDonald's. If you can't see that obvious difference, then I theorize that you may have McNuggets for brains. ;-)
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 06:19pm PT
|
Two examples are claims that tax cuts for businesses and rich people will benefit all of society (they don't) and that concentrated wealth at the very top will trickle-down and benefit everyone (it doesnt').
The first claim is certainly a conservative and Republican one, if stated slightly differently. Cuts in marginal rates for business and individuals benefit society because they stimulate economic activity. The econometric literature substantiates that claim quite well. Even Obama's then head of his Council of Economic Advisers co-authored a paper in the American Economic Review confirming that.
The second is bogus. I've never heard Republicans claim that concentration of wealth benefits society. We have claimed that death taxes can hurt society by causing the breakup of efficient enterprises because of the need to sell assets to pay the tax. Any lawyer or accountant who has worked with family farmers should be able to see that. I find it particularly interesting, but not surprising, that the concentration of wealth the Democrats now so deplore worsened greatly on their watch. Perhaps they may yet learn that crony capitalism is evil, that regulation can have consequences distributed unevenly through economic strata, or that mere redistributionism doesn't produce economic growth.
While I'm at it, I should agree with an unstated part of your post, viz. that Republicans view business as good for the country, not the enemy. Characterizing corporations as "rich" or for the "rich," however, lacks a factual basis, and that is particularly true with corporate taxes. Economists have known for about 60 years now, since Arnold Zellner's work published in the 1950's, that we do not know the incidence of the corporate income tax. We don't know - and cannot know econometrically or otherwise - who pays it.
John
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Jun 30, 2016 - 06:29pm PT
|
John
maybe you can show us some evidence that lowering taxes for the investers creates jobs and/or improves the economy,?
Is there a trickle down?
and/
what regulation/s if repealed will create jobs or improve the economy?
Any studies that agree with your premises?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|