General Presidential Campaign: Trump vs Hillary

Mc
Then they should have nominated Kaine instead. But I get your point
Now Hillary is even lying about being in NYC on Sept 11 2001
Is there anything she will not lie about?
Husker Horn 11 any HRC voter?
 
Ok Husker
You continue to try to deflect
OMG it is SO important to tear apart a point a poster made
So you can ignore the crap HRC has shat on the American people including you
 
NJlonghorn said:
Joe Fan,

I have been avoiding most of your posts since I returned from my hiatus. I love to have reasonable debates with people I disagree with, and I do it all the time. But I don’t like to debate with people who rely on facts that aren’t, well, facts, and who draw conclusions that are utterly ridiculous. Because almost everything you post falls into that category, I no longer read them.

Unfortunately, I made the mistake of reading your post complaining that nobody was taking you on about the Podesta / Kadzik stuff. I will engage ever so briefly with you on this point, but not for the point of engaging. Rather, it is for the point of explaining to you (and everyone else) why I no longer bother engaging with you. In short, your posts about the Kadzik emails are misleading at best, and outright lies at worst. Just a few quick points before I got back to ignoring you:
  1. You say that Podesta and Kadzik had a very close relationship, and that they are "BFFs”. Yes, they went to law school together and are friends to some degree, but they don’t seem to see much of each other. The Wikileaks emails sound like they are casual friends who wanted to catch up after not seeing each other for an extended time. I have not seen anything suggesting a close friendship.
  2. You contend that Kadzik is an unqualified “political hack” who was appointed to a senior DOJ position only because he is Podesta’s friend. Kadzik was a partner in a major law firm and a good lawyer with a proven track record in handling governmental affairs matters. In particular, Kadzik did a good job as Podesta’s attorney in a high-profile governmental case. Doesn't this make Kadzik at least somewhat qualified for a DOJ job?
  3. Regardless, you ignore the fact that all senior appointments to government jobs are political. Everyone who worked in senior positions in the DOJ in my lifetime (that’s Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, and Nixon, btw) has been a political appointment, and they all have owed their job to the president. Most (all??) had prior connections to either the president or someone close to the president. Thus, it is unsurprising that someone with connections to a key advisor to the Secretary of State was appointed to a senior DOJ position. If Trump becomes president, every senior position in the DOJ will be filled by someone loyal to Trump and/or connected to Trump’s machine. That is just the way it is. I don’t like it, and I would love to see it change -- but (a) it will never change, and (b) it isn’t something that paints Clinton or Obama as uniquely or massively corrupt.
  4. You and the “sources” you cite make a big point of the “fact” that Kadzik has a conflict of interest in his role as leader of the DOJ’s investigation into the Clinton/Podesta issues. Yes, he worked for the DOJ. However, I have not seen anything credible suggesting that he played any role, much less a major one, in the DOJ investigation into Clinton and Podesta. The fact that you and the blogosphere say it over and over and over doesn’t make it true.
  5. Yes, it was improper for Kadzik to communicate with the Clinton campaign about DOJ business. He clearly knew it was improper because he used his personal email. I have been pointing that fact out to all of my friends who think Hillary is an angel who can do no wrong. However, the information Kadzik “disclosed” was neither critically important nor confidential. In fact, the information was already in the public domain and it seems very likely that Podesta and Clinton already knew about it. All that Kadzik seems to have done was give Podesta a “head’s up” to make sure he knew about this public information. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying Kadzik was right to send the emails. He wasn’t. I just don’t think this is the stuff of a massive criminal conspiracy.
  6. All of the stuff about the FBI being on the verge of indicting this person or that person is interesting, but it’s all rumor and inference. Until I see something credible, I’m not going to give this stuff any credence.
I have many more points to make, but neither the time nor an inclination to continue making them. Bottom line -- I don’t trust anything you say, so I don’t plan to continue debating fantasy with you.
Click to expand...

Hey NJL, I'll make a few points myself while you take a break and regain your inclination:

The Podesta emails do not support your contention in 1. Kadzik and Podesta seem to be very good friends. There are more than just dinner invite emails. Also, a House Oversight Committee report released in May 2002 stated that “Kadzik was recruited into Marc Rich’s lobbying campaign because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.”

In 3. you admit that Kadzik's position was obtained due to politics -even if he is a good lawyer- and that you wish such appointments did not happen. You, like all of us, wish this because such appointed employees will be biased in their efforts to apply the law.

4. May or may not be true. We will see.

5. You admit Kadzik violated commonly accepted ethical practices, and then you try to minimize the violation by stating it is not part of "massive criminal conspiracy". However, the following facts do indicate a massive criminal conspiracy:

1) WikiLeaks clearly shows an intentional "cover-up" involving the Clinton emails.
2) Hillary and her attorneys deleted emails after being directed not to do so by Congress,
3) The heavily political DOJ under Obama is complaining about Comey re-opening the investigation
4) Hillary has repeatedly lied (to Congress and to the American people) about the content and quantity of the emails, and the hardware used to transmit the emails
5) Loretta Lynch secretly (she thought) meets Bill Clinton in the midst of an FBI investigation of Hillary, and then states she made "a mistake".
6) Loretta Lynch states that the DOJ will accept the FBI recommendations concerning the email investigation. Really? Now the FBI is investigator, judge and jury? Check and see if Loretta has ever deferred to the FBI in any other case.
7) Clinton staffers agree to hand over their laptops with the proviso that the laptops be destroyed after the FBI searches them. Why would they request such destruction? Why would the DOJ allow such a request?
8)The DOJ permitted Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson — the subordinates deputized by Mrs. Clinton to sort through her e-mails and destroy thousands of them — to represent Clinton as attorneys, despite the fact that they were subjects of the same investigation and had been granted immunity from prosecution
9)the DOJ's prosecutors in Brooklyn are denying Clinton Foundation investigators access to potentially relevant evidence
 
CwX2GbZVQAAgDsi.jpg
 
AP reporter willing to be 'steered away' ???

I am not willing to type what I would like to do to these people

 
I35 said:
Not sure he was talking about you unless you are one of them.

Deez, I know you and I been round and round about this Trump vs Hillary thing. I do respect you. You seem pretty bright. But because I think you are a bright guy it puzzles me how you view this election. It appears you put Trump in the same category as Hillary, which is baffling. I know the constant attacks on Trump from the left media can set a perception of something that is said and make it into major breaking news and talk about that for weeks. Trump says some stupid things as Hillary has done the same, plus she's the most corrupt person in US history. I think that is where you go wrong. You've stated many times that you are a conservative with strong values and principles. We are on the same page there. Where you go wrong is (and I'm sure you are going to dispute this) that you are voting for or against the person(s) instead of what direction this country needs to go. The two candidates are wanting different directions for this country and if you want to admit it or not, Trump is 100% closer to your values than Hillary. Of course Johnson is going no direction. I'm going today after work to place my vote for the next President of the United States which will be Donald Trump. It's time buddy to climb aboard with the train going for prosperity for all Americans. I'm almost positive you'll disagree with me. But before you type think if I could actually be right and you could actually be wrong.
Click to expand...

Why do we keep coming back to this? You think I'm avoiding Trump because of crap I read in the media, because he "says stupid things," and that I disregard the directions he and Hillary want to take the country. How many times do I have to show you that this isn't true?

First, if I voted based on what the media says I would never vote for a Republican, because they crap on Republicans all the time. The mere fact that I ever vote Republican is proof that the media doesn't drive my vote. That doesn't mean I don't listen to anything they say, but I give it virtually no weight.

Second, at your request, I've identified significant policy differences with Trump earlier thread. That means I don't like the direction in which he wants to take the country. These have nothing to do with the media, and they have nothing to do with the stupid things he says. They are substantive.

In addition, I have always weighed a candidate's policy positions based on how I prioritize issues, because no candidate is perfect or always agrees with me. There will always be disagreements. How big of a departure that candidate's position is from my own impacts how much I care about that departure. In the case of Trump, the disagreements aren't minor. They're big.

Finally (and yes, this does echo Hillary's talking points but that doesn't make it false), his temperament and his willingness to mouth off suggests recklessness. Do I think he's going to destroy the republic like his critics say? No. But I do think his recklessness can cause havoc when he's making major changes to US foreign and trade policy? Yes.

Now your retort to my comments is always the same. He's better than Hillary. In some ways he is, and she is very corrupt. However, I didn't vote for her. Furthermore, she isn't worse in every way. In some ways, he is worse. She isn't going to be a major foreign policy and trade disruption. Screwing with that stuff is dangerous. It impacts war and trillions of dollars of the economy. Like I've said previously, that doesn't mean there's no room for change and adjustments. There is. However, if that's going to happen, it needs to come from somebody who has thought this stuff through and really knows what he's doing. That's not Donald Trump. I might let plumber help me put a band-aid on a cut finger. I'm not going to let him perform brain surgery on me, especially if he's telling me he has to cut on my leg to get to my brain. Well, that's Donald Trump tinkering with US foreign and trade policy.
 
Mr. Deez said:
She isn't going to be a major foreign policy and trade disruption. Screwing with that stuff is dangerous. It impacts war and trillions of dollars of the economy.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly the reason she has to go (excluding the fact she is a treasonous criminal and habitual liar). America's current foreign policy has become a threat to life on earth. Its evil and dangerous.

Regarding trade, the current system of globalization is going to end one way or another. The dual factors of debt saturation and resource depletion (the cost of extraction has become too high) means the status quo isn't sustainable. Forcing the issue with economic, propagandist, and military threats will only harm everyone.
 
Lobbying $ spent in 2016:


Or pick an industry from an alphabetical list
or organized by sector& industry of all 121 profiled.

Sector Total
Health $385,301,147
Misc Business $371,104,766
Finance/Insur/RealEst $366,343,658
Communic/Electronics $277,699,831
Energy/Nat Resource $223,866,898
Transportation $167,445,181
Other $144,055,372
Ideology/Single-Issue $96,076,338
Agribusiness $94,282,881
Defense $92,869,580
Construction $38,556,980
Labor $35,692,263
Lawyers & Lobbyists $14,878,565


Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]
 
At least Susan Sarandon finally figured it out; "The DNC is completely corrupt".

Of course, voting Republican would be way too conventional for her. She chooses instead to throw her vote away on Stein. Very trendy, Susan. Very nihilistic.
 
Clean said:
At least Susan Sarandon finally figured it out; "The DNC is completely corrupt".

Of course, voting Republican would be way too conventional for her. She chooses instead to throw her vote away on Stein. Very trendy, Susan. Very nihilistic.
Click to expand...

Give her credit. She can admit that her party and its nominee are a corrupt dumpster fire. Most Democrats just talk themselves out of that and claim Hillary is a goddess. At least she doesn't do that, and she has the balls to admit publicly that she isn't pro-Hillary. That's hard for a Hollywood celebrity to do.

Besides, she was smokin' hot back when I was in diapers.
 

Just an FYI:

Where does all that money come from? For the answers, view our money profiles for both major parties and for each of their main fundraising committees. Select a party committee, then use the tabs above to view its information.

Election cycle: 2016
Total Raised Total Spent Cash on Hand Debts
Democratic Party $985,649,425 $922,541,609 $84,120,451 $14,040,633
Republican Party $755,358,506 $664,333,461 $108,641,574 $27,201,218
Democratic National Cmte $264,178,780 $262,238,141 $10,027,239 $2,552,641
Republican National Cmte $290,634,275 $244,424,987 $51,224,232 $7,716,000
Democratic Congressional Campaign Cmte $176,207,066 $156,743,748 $21,612,756 $0
National Republican Congressional Cmte $146,318,771 $121,271,024 $26,525,017 $0
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Cmte $147,229,342 $138,691,574 $9,451,267 $4,874,341
National Republican Senatorial Cmte $122,867,512 $114,827,325 $10,745,974 $18,000,000
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2016 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released on November 02, 2016.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics. For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: [email protected]
 
Clean said:
I'll have to go back and rewatch Bull Durham. I look at her today and think; "She's closing time at the beer joint hot, but not Hollywood movie star hot.".
Click to expand...

Bull Durham is from the late '80s, when I was 11 or 12. I had been out of diapers for quite a while. Gotta go back to the '70s.
 
One of the bigger concerns about Clinton are the massive donations made to the Clinton Foundation from both foreign and corporate sources and the apparent quid pro quo which suggests illegality. But when you consider the system as a whole as it stands currently, virtually all viable candidates rely on large donations generally from powerful multinational corporations, banks, arms manufacturers, etc. In light of this construct, solidified by the Citizens United ruling, our country is now oligarch controlled by these powerful interests. What separates Clinton, is that while other candidates grovel to the oligarchs, they do so within the parameters of the legal system. Clinton went even beyond those boundaries.

The system has perverse incentives which demand that politicians sell out to the highest bidders if they hope to win. The Clinton machine simply pushed the envelope by constructing a de facto mafia foundation in order to fully exploit a system designed for oligarch rule. And they disregarded laws to do so. We will soon find out if they are above the law. If so, Hillary Clinton will become the law.
 
Clean said:
I'll have to go back and rewatch Bull Durham. I look at her today and think; "She's closing time at the beer joint hot, but not Hollywood movie star hot.".
Click to expand...
Or "Rocky Horror". Looked good there, too. Anyway, shocked she is actually speaking out against the DNC and not voting Hillary.
 
Joe, holy sh*t. Just last night I listened to Youtube broadcasts about beware of the possibility of a "false flag" operation to delay the election.

I rolled my eyes as these Folks can be a tad conspiracy theory friendly. Wake up and there's your CBS post warning of potential Al-Qaeda attacks day before election.

It's crazy how some of these wild conspiracy theories I used to scoff at the last few years are proving themselves true and even worse than claimed.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit if a "false flag" operation occurred to throw the election into chaos. Nothing is beyond these morally bankrupt, radical Dems in power.
 
iatrogenic said:
Hey NJL, I'll make a few points myself while you take a break and regain your inclination:
Click to expand...

My beef with Joe_Fan is that he throws untruth after untruth on the table so fast it is impossible to refute them all, and then bashes anyone who doesn't accept the untruths as gospel. I do my best to avoid trashing him personally (e.g. Joe_Fan is a sack of ****, Joe_Fan is stupid, etc.). But it is fair game to attack his credibility by showing that just about everything he says is false.

That said, I'm delighted to debate the details, so long as the other side is rational and reasonable. Thanks for taking on that role, Iatrogenic!

iatrogenic said:
The Podesta emails do not support your contention in 1. Kadzik and Podesta seem to be very good friends. There are more than just dinner invite emails. Also, a House Oversight Committee report released in May 2002 stated that “Kadzik was recruited into Marc Rich’s lobbying campaign because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.”
Click to expand...

It certainly appears that Kadzik and Podesta are long-time friends, but that is very different from "very good" friends. I have friends I knew in law school and still exchange birthday well-wishes with. I even see some of them on rare occasion. These are long-time friends of mine, but they aren't very good friends, much less BFFs. If I had something major to do on a national scale and I needed to recruit people to help me (such as a lobbying campaign), I would be inclined to recruit some of them if they have relevant expertise. Still, this wouldn't make them my BFFs.

Kadzik and Podesta knew each other in law school, then had a very significant professional relationship in the 1990s. I haven't seen any evidence that they have seen each other more than a handful of times since then, but maybe there's more that I haven't seen. Can you point me to something?

iatrogenic said:
In 3. you admit that Kadzik's position was obtained due to politics -even if he is a good lawyer- and that you wish such appointments did not happen. You, like all of us, wish this because such appointed employees will be biased in their efforts to apply the law.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If Kadzik were ever called upon to investigate or prosecute Podesta, that would be a big issue. Can you point me to something showing that he ever did that?

iatrogenic said:
5. You admit Kadzik violated commonly accepted ethical practices, and then you try to minimize the violation by stating it is not part of "massive criminal conspiracy". However, the following facts do indicate a massive criminal conspiracy:

1) WikiLeaks clearly shows an intentional "cover-up" involving the Clinton emails.
2) Hillary and her attorneys deleted emails after being directed not to do so by Congress,
3) The heavily political DOJ under Obama is complaining about Comey re-opening the investigation
4) Hillary has repeatedly lied (to Congress and to the American people) about the content and quantity of the emails, and the hardware used to transmit the emails
5) Loretta Lynch secretly (she thought) meets Bill Clinton in the midst of an FBI investigation of Hillary, and then states she made "a mistake".
6) Loretta Lynch states that the DOJ will accept the FBI recommendations concerning the email investigation. Really? Now the FBI is investigator, judge and jury? Check and see if Loretta has ever deferred to the FBI in any other case.
7) Clinton staffers agree to hand over their laptops with the proviso that the laptops be destroyed after the FBI searches them. Why would they request such destruction? Why would the DOJ allow such a request?
8)The DOJ permitted Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson — the subordinates deputized by Mrs. Clinton to sort through her e-mails and destroy thousands of them — to represent Clinton as attorneys, despite the fact that they were subjects of the same investigation and had been granted immunity from prosecution
9)the DOJ's prosecutors in Brooklyn are denying Clinton Foundation investigators access to potentially relevant evidence
Click to expand...

I totally agree that Clinton has engaged in a massive cover-up, deleted emails, lied about it (and many other things), etc. etc. etc. She is doing this because there is wrongdoing that she is trying to hide. I have absolutely no doubt about that. My only contention is that the wrongdoing she is covering up doesn't appear to be nearly as bad as you guys are making it out to be. The cover-up itself stinks to high heaven.

So where does all of this leave us? That's different for each voter. For me, I supported John Kasich from the get-go, even though he is way more conservative than me on a number of issues. After Kasich withdrew, I started to pull for Hillary to get indicted. Even now, I'm hoping she gets elected then something comes out that forces her to withdraw before she gets sworn in. I know it is a long-shot, but one can always hope, right?

What I can't and won't do is pull for Donald Trump. Just like Hillary, he is a horrible candidate for POTUS, for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum, most recently on this thread by Mr. Deez. Reasonable minds can vary regarding which candidate is worse -- I say Trump is. But those who fail to recognize that Trump is a horrible candidate for president (not sure whether you fall in this category) are just as blind to the truth as people who fail to recognize that Hillary Clinton is a horrible candidate for president.
 
Could you imagine how the US media would react if Trump admitted he held seances with Reagan?
Yet they are silent about Hillary's wackness


CwbUYwSXUAAiWgw.jpg
 
Clean said:
I forgot that she was Janet in Rocky Horror. Yeah, she was hot back then.

I heard she caught pneumonia filming that movie. She was in her underwear a lot and sometimes soaked to the bone too.
Click to expand...

Yes sir. She wasn't a glamour girl type. She just looked very appealing back then. And to quote Jerry Seinfeld, she had many of the "qualities prized by the superficial man."
 
OK, so no USAG position for Christie, heh

Is there a lesson in all this?
1. Create traffic jam in New Jersey, face 20 years in the pokey
2. Sell Secretary of State influence to foreign powers, run for Prez
Conclusion, if you are gonna be a cheater, better to be a Democrat
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top