45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 3
Discussion
Bill said:
SpeckledJim said:
Just to play devils advocate (because I agree with you) I think you could mount an argument that more people would have died (military mainly, but civilian also) if Clinton had won.
She is much more likely to send 'our boys' to die in foreign wars than is Trump.
(Possible NK problems may yet prove me wrong).
True. That (arguably) pales into insignicance compared to the deaths due to his healthcare reforms. And his inactivity putting staff in place in, say, the NRC.She is much more likely to send 'our boys' to die in foreign wars than is Trump.
(Possible NK problems may yet prove me wrong).
SpeckledJim said:
Bill said:
On any measure imo, she isn't as unpleasant, ignorant or incompetent as Trump.
I get why people don't like her, I get why people would prefer a republican (not that Trump is...) but I can't see how you can claim Trump is a better person.
Just to play devils advocate (because I agree with you) I think you could mount an argument that more people would have died (military mainly, but civilian also) if Clinton had won.I get why people don't like her, I get why people would prefer a republican (not that Trump is...) but I can't see how you can claim Trump is a better person.
She is much more likely to send 'our boys' to die in foreign wars than is Trump.
(Possible NK problems may yet prove me wrong).
if the US really didn't want to send its boys off to war then it could cut its military budget in half and start being a bit more parochial.
They will be spending approx 4% of their GDP on the military which is way above what most other countries spend.
Do you really believe that the US military purpose is to sit on an airbase and twiddle their thumbs to keep themselves safe?
ferrisbueller said:
I've left this thread alone for a little while but thought this worth sharing given the insight it provides into the Clinton legacy and Hilary's vulnerability:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3oTYYTd1F4
Apologies as I've only looked at certain parts and not the whole program but, from what I've seen, the comparisoons are laughable. For example, one of the "exposes" is about Clinton's 3rd cousin being given a job in the travel office. Compare and contrast that to Ivanka and Jared having major roles in the US Government, let alone Trump's numerous ways of bilking the US taxpayer. It's similar to Hillary's 33 billion emails being compared to the links between Trump supporters and the Russians or Clinton's affairs being compared to trump bribing porn stars and perving at young beauty contestants.. To me at least the amount of sleaze is exponentially different.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3oTYYTd1F4
sugerbear said:
Trump is planning to spend billions extra on the military. The USA spends more on its military than the combined spend of China+Russian+France+Saudi Arabia.
They will be spending approx 4% of their GDP on the military which is way above what most other countries spend.
Makes one almost ill to see what they waste on bombs and bullets.They will be spending approx 4% of their GDP on the military which is way above what most other countries spend.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Countdown said:
ferrisbueller said:
I've left this thread alone for a little while but thought this worth sharing given the insight it provides into the Clinton legacy and Hilary's vulnerability:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3oTYYTd1F4
Apologies as I've only looked at certain parts and not the whole program but, from what I've seen, the comparisoons are laughable. For example, one of the "exposes" is about Clinton's 3rd cousin being given a job in the travel office. Compare and contrast that to Ivanka and Jared having major roles in the US Government, let alone Trump's numerous ways of bilking the US taxpayer. It's similar to Hillary's 33 billion emails being compared to the links between Trump supporters and the Russians or Clinton's affairs being compared to trump bribing porn stars and perving at young beauty contestants.. To me at least the amount of sleaze is exponentially different.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3oTYYTd1F4
Yes, that's lovely.
Meanwhile, Bill (Or Hilary on his behalf) was apparently hushing up countless sexual exploits - something Trump opponents are now going nuts for in terms of Stormy. Hilary stayed with someone who demonstrated many of Trump's behaviours in order not to jeopardise her shot at the presidency.
Flouting laws with respect to campaign funding? Sleaze campaigns against opponents? Lying? Colluding with convicted felons? Check, check, check, check......
All of the s
t people are throwing at Trump (who I think is despicable by the way) could equally be thrown at Clinton, upto an including allegations of manipulating election campaigns - to favour the candidate she wanted to face and then lost to. Bernie was apparently banned by the DNC from bringing up any of the Clintons' history so as not to damage her campaign.I'd love to know what hold they have over key people which allowed her to get the nomination. It really was a choice between two pieces of s
t.Halb said:
Makes one almost ill to see what they waste on bombs and bullets.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Dwight D Eisenhower?"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Tillerson is doing a tour of the Middle East this week:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/14/trum...
The article gives a pretty good overview of what he faces, it's a round of talks that would stretch even the most seasoned diplomat so we will get to see how much meat there is behind his talk of deconfliction and rebuilding Iraq. Notably he is starting with the most friendly country, Egypt, then working his way up to visiting Turkey by which time he'd better have a cohesive policy in place because you can be sure the Turks are going to have some strong words prepared for Mr Tillerson.
This is the area where I have the highest hopes for the Trump administration because they have form for not supporting jihadis, not wanting to be world police and creating entente with Russia, three things which are desperately needed if we are to see peace one day.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/14/trum...
The article gives a pretty good overview of what he faces, it's a round of talks that would stretch even the most seasoned diplomat so we will get to see how much meat there is behind his talk of deconfliction and rebuilding Iraq. Notably he is starting with the most friendly country, Egypt, then working his way up to visiting Turkey by which time he'd better have a cohesive policy in place because you can be sure the Turks are going to have some strong words prepared for Mr Tillerson.
This is the area where I have the highest hopes for the Trump administration because they have form for not supporting jihadis, not wanting to be world police and creating entente with Russia, three things which are desperately needed if we are to see peace one day.
Countdown said:
ferrisbueller said:
I've left this thread alone for a little while but thought this worth sharing given the insight it provides into the Clinton legacy and Hilary's vulnerability:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3oTYYTd1F4
Apologies as I've only looked at certain parts and not the whole program but, from what I've seen, the comparisoons are laughable. For example, one of the "exposes" is about Clinton's 3rd cousin being given a job in the travel office. Compare and contrast that to Ivanka and Jared having major roles in the US Government, let alone Trump's numerous ways of bilking the US taxpayer. It's similar to Hillary's 33 billion emails being compared to the links between Trump supporters and the Russians or Clinton's affairs being compared to trump bribing porn stars and perving at young beauty contestants.. To me at least the amount of sleaze is exponentially different.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3oTYYTd1F4
ferrisbueller said:
The Clintons removed the head of that travel office so she could work there. They didn't fire him - they accused him of a crime he didn't commit. They subjected him and his family to a campaign of abuse and unfounded allegations up to and including a trial in federal court in which he was cleared on all charges.
I hope you've a good lawyer.Billy Dale used a handwritten ledger, didn't use competitive bidding, and deposited refunds issued by service providers into his own personal account saying they were to cover costs to foreign airport and hotel employees.
KPMG ran an audit and discovered several discrepancies. It's true Dale was tried and aquitted, it's also true the Clintons found five of the fired staffers other government jobs and a sixth was allowed to retire.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/27/hi...
Byker28i said:
ferrisbueller said:
The Clintons removed the head of that travel office so she could work there. They didn't fire him - they accused him of a crime he didn't commit. They subjected him and his family to a campaign of abuse and unfounded allegations up to and including a trial in federal court in which he was cleared on all charges.
I hope you've a good lawyer.Billy Dale used a handwritten ledger, didn't use competitive bidding, and deposited refunds issued by service providers into his own personal account saying they were to cover costs to foreign airport and hotel employees.
KPMG ran an audit and discovered several discrepancies. It's true Dale was tried and aquitted, it's also true the Clintons found five of the fired staffers other government jobs and a sixth was allowed to retire.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/27/hi...
Why would I need a good lawyer for a) repeating something that has been said and published thousands of times elsewhere b) making the point that someone was fired, apparently without the grounds to do so.
It's even on wikipedia, whom I assume must have been sued as a consequence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_o...
"Meanwhile, as a consequence of the FBI investigation, former Travel Office Director Billy Dale was indicted by a federal grand jury on December 7, 1994, on two counts of embezzlement and criminal conversion, charged with wrongfully depositing into his own bank account $68,000 in checks from media organizations traveling with the president[35] during the period between 1988 and 1991.[5] He faced up to 20 years in prison if convicted.[36] Dale's attorneys conceded that funds had been co-mingled, but stated that Dale had not stolen anything but rather used the monies for the substantial tips and off-the-book payments that the job required, especially in foreign countries, and that anything left over was used as a discount against future trips.[5]
At the 13-day trial in October and November 1995,[37] prominent journalists such as ABC News' Sam Donaldson and The Los Angeles Times' Jack Nelson testified as character witnesses on Dale's behalf.[8] Much of the trial focused on the details of the movement of Travel Office funds into Dale's personal account, and not on the political overtones of the case.[38] The jury acquitted Dale of both charges on November 16, 1995,[4] following less than two hours of deliberations."
So: Accusation, full scale investigation, indicted, tried, acquitted in under two hours.......
ferrisbueller said:
Byker28i said:
ferrisbueller said:
The Clintons removed the head of that travel office so she could work there. They didn't fire him - they accused him of a crime he didn't commit. They subjected him and his family to a campaign of abuse and unfounded allegations up to and including a trial in federal court in which he was cleared on all charges.
I hope you've a good lawyer.Billy Dale used a handwritten ledger, didn't use competitive bidding, and deposited refunds issued by service providers into his own personal account saying they were to cover costs to foreign airport and hotel employees.
KPMG ran an audit and discovered several discrepancies. It's true Dale was tried and aquitted, it's also true the Clintons found five of the fired staffers other government jobs and a sixth was allowed to retire.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/27/hi...
Why would I need a good lawyer for a) repeating something that has been said and published thousands of times elsewhere b) making the point that someone was fired, apparently without the grounds to do so.
It's even on wikipedia, whom I assume must have been sued as a consequence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_o...
"Meanwhile, as a consequence of the FBI investigation, former Travel Office Director Billy Dale was indicted by a federal grand jury on December 7, 1994, on two counts of embezzlement and criminal conversion, charged with wrongfully depositing into his own bank account $68,000 in checks from media organizations traveling with the president[35] during the period between 1988 and 1991.[5] He faced up to 20 years in prison if convicted.[36] Dale's attorneys conceded that funds had been co-mingled, but stated that Dale had not stolen anything but rather used the monies for the substantial tips and off-the-book payments that the job required, especially in foreign countries, and that anything left over was used as a discount against future trips.[5]
At the 13-day trial in October and November 1995,[37] prominent journalists such as ABC News' Sam Donaldson and The Los Angeles Times' Jack Nelson testified as character witnesses on Dale's behalf.[8] Much of the trial focused on the details of the movement of Travel Office funds into Dale's personal account, and not on the political overtones of the case.[38] The jury acquitted Dale of both charges on November 16, 1995,[4] following less than two hours of deliberations."
So: Accusation, full scale investigation, indicted, tried, acquitted in under two hours.......
But once more, for those perpetually perplexed by this apparant paradox: criticising the Clintons doesn't make Trump a better President or a better person. Not one little bit.
See also: criticising Obama doesn't make Trump a better President or a better person (aka "But Obama..."); and Fox News on any day of the week.
Greg66 said:
ferrisbueller said:
Byker28i said:
ferrisbueller said:
The Clintons removed the head of that travel office so she could work there. They didn't fire him - they accused him of a crime he didn't commit. They subjected him and his family to a campaign of abuse and unfounded allegations up to and including a trial in federal court in which he was cleared on all charges.
I hope you've a good lawyer.Billy Dale used a handwritten ledger, didn't use competitive bidding, and deposited refunds issued by service providers into his own personal account saying they were to cover costs to foreign airport and hotel employees.
KPMG ran an audit and discovered several discrepancies. It's true Dale was tried and aquitted, it's also true the Clintons found five of the fired staffers other government jobs and a sixth was allowed to retire.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/27/hi...
Why would I need a good lawyer for a) repeating something that has been said and published thousands of times elsewhere b) making the point that someone was fired, apparently without the grounds to do so.
It's even on wikipedia, whom I assume must have been sued as a consequence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_travel_o...
"Meanwhile, as a consequence of the FBI investigation, former Travel Office Director Billy Dale was indicted by a federal grand jury on December 7, 1994, on two counts of embezzlement and criminal conversion, charged with wrongfully depositing into his own bank account $68,000 in checks from media organizations traveling with the president[35] during the period between 1988 and 1991.[5] He faced up to 20 years in prison if convicted.[36] Dale's attorneys conceded that funds had been co-mingled, but stated that Dale had not stolen anything but rather used the monies for the substantial tips and off-the-book payments that the job required, especially in foreign countries, and that anything left over was used as a discount against future trips.[5]
At the 13-day trial in October and November 1995,[37] prominent journalists such as ABC News' Sam Donaldson and The Los Angeles Times' Jack Nelson testified as character witnesses on Dale's behalf.[8] Much of the trial focused on the details of the movement of Travel Office funds into Dale's personal account, and not on the political overtones of the case.[38] The jury acquitted Dale of both charges on November 16, 1995,[4] following less than two hours of deliberations."
So: Accusation, full scale investigation, indicted, tried, acquitted in under two hours.......
But once more, for those perpetually perplexed by this apparant paradox: criticising the Clintons doesn't make Trump a better President or a better person. Not one little bit.
See also: criticising Obama doesn't make Trump a better President or a better person (aka "But Obama..."); and Fox News on any day of the week.
I agree with that. My original question was the hypothetical one as to whether people would be posting so much, in the same manner, if it was Clinton in the White House.
I think it must be everyone's regret that those were the two choices.
Edited by ferrisbueller on Wednesday 14th February 17:44
Halb said:
sugerbear said:
Trump is planning to spend billions extra on the military. The USA spends more on its military than the combined spend of China+Russian+France+Saudi Arabia.
They will be spending approx 4% of their GDP on the military which is way above what most other countries spend.
Makes one almost ill to see what they waste on bombs and bullets.They will be spending approx 4% of their GDP on the military which is way above what most other countries spend.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40741785
ferrisbueller said:
Perhaps that potential inference could be avoided by carrying out an investigation prior to removal?
That's not really the point, or an answer to the point. Byker hoped you had a good lawyer; you asked why because you thought you were just repeating an established sequence of factual events.
Byker's hope - as I assume you realised - was based on the view that you'd gone beyond the factual events and were attributing motive and conduct to the Clintons which was dishonest and unlawful - hence potentially your statement was defamatory of them, you might therefore need a lawyer etc.
The meaning to be taken from a statement you make now can't be changed by saying "but if things had gone differently in the past".
Greg66 said:
ferrisbueller said:
Perhaps that potential inference could be avoided by carrying out an investigation prior to removal?
That's not really the point, or an answer to the point. Byker hoped you had a good lawyer; you asked why because you thought you were just repeating an established sequence of factual events.
Byker's hope - as I assume you realised - was based on the view that you'd gone beyond the factual events and were attributing motive and conduct to the Clintons which was dishonest and unlawful - hence potentially your statement was defamatory of them, you might therefore need a lawyer etc.
The meaning to be taken from a statement you make now can't be changed by saying "but if things had gone differently in the past".
Tangentially, I also think there's a clear differentiation to be made between dishonest and unlawful. It appears in various arenas you can be as immoral as you like, it won't necessarily ultimately be deemed to be unlawful.
desolate said:
Have I missed the meltdown about Trump's lawyer admitting he paid off the porn star but claiming he never told Trump and was never reimbursed?
Or is this old news?
Yup mentioned this morning. Lawyer said he paid the bill for personal reasons, the money didn't come from the campaign had nothing to do with it. Probably because there's call for an investigation into it.Or is this old news?
Same as his lawyer said he wrote the tweet that trump admitted he knew Flynn had lied to the FBI.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff