Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 30, 2015.
WTF does that even mean?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
One of the problems with judging the present of candidates, via the past, is the past can be make anyone look bad in the present. For example, up to 2013, Congress and the other two legislative branches of Government, could engage in insider trading, even though this was illegal for the rest of the citizens. Up to 2013, laws were in affect that allowed top level Government officials to legally engage in insider trading. This would have included Senator Hillary Clinton.
The question becomes is, if the law says something is OK, is this legal to do? The answer is yes. It may not be ethical, but it is not illegal of the law makes it possible. One can make more money dealing in insider information than one can avoiding taxes using legions of lawyers who know the law. The problem with Government officials, like Hillary using inside information, are the power brokers write the laws, with these laws and regulations impacting insider information. Trump can't control the laws of interstate commerce, to avoid a sales tax in one state, by shipping product to another state. He needs to get lawyer to make use of interstate commerce laws. Or he can give a campaign contribution to Hillary, who will use her place on a committee to create a new bill.
As an example, if there was a bill that regulates coal, an insider could sell coal stock ahead of time to avoid the sharp decline in coal stock prices. Or if you have bill in the works that will give all types of money to solar power, you can buy into the key solar companies, who will benefit, before everyone knows the deal is final; signed. This is shady stuff that is legal because those who create the laws, say so. A private business man cannot do this by law. He would need to contribute to Senator Hillary Clintons reelection fund, to be given access to this pipeline which flows this information. They will then turn the other way, while he looks.
It would be interesting to ask Hillary for information about her legal insider information deals. Again, it was all legal as defined by those who did this. Too many people from both sides of the aisle are part of this government corruption. The Bill signed in 2013 was done without fanfare and was not even talked about less people asked questions and wish to know what career politicians like Hillary were able to do, legally.
It means Hilary had better watch her back Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You really deserve Trump.
Trump voters should move to Russia. I think that's what it means.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Natural men are not PC. If you even listened to locker room talk, when there are only men present, nothing is taboo. It can get ugly and funny. It only becomes taboo when the PC police are looking. The reason is natural men are instinctive pack animals and not herd animals. The pack animal is higher on the food chain; human animal. If you know anything about pack animals, pack animals will fight with each other, not only for pack order, but also to strengthen each other, for the needs of the team; pack. When the day of competition comes, the opposing team will not take it easy on you. In football, the opposing team will try to hurt you and take you out for the season. It is better to be prepared ahead of time with friendly fire, to get you acclimated to the pain. This way you do not lose your head, in the heat of battle, but can keep your brain in the game plan.
Women don't understand this about men and think locker room talk is nothing but pointless and hurtful competition. They don't want negative training talk, even if the men know this is friendly fire. Feminize men are not pack animals, but are more like herd animals. Traditionally herd animals don't have to fight for food. They don't understand how a short term liability can become a long term asset. The only time herd animals fight is during mating season; elections. Pack animal have to fight for food and for mating.
Trump tends to attract natural men; pack animals more than herd animal. This is why his rallies are exciting and not low key. They sense how PC rules inhibits male training and enjoy open and free speech. They enjoy when Trump engages in a barroom brawl, but buys his adversaries/pack mates a beer after they are done. He fought in the Republican nomination, but that was not the real fight, but only a training session among his pack. Even Hillary is not his final competition. She is training partner.
There a many strong women, who have survived male pack training, and have become key hunters in the natural male pack. This is not Hillary. She is queen of the herd animals, that needs to be surrounded by the herd, since she can't take on the predators, if isolated. The rules of the pack are easy to follow. This is the secret that allows men to appear to have it so easy compared to women. The wolf is better trained than the deer, since he knows the way of the team, and friendly fire.
I can't even begin to think of an argument because what you just posted is so dumb.
Both men and woman have large brains and have come out of Plato's cave some time ago.
The Republicans Party hasn't been the Grand Old Party (GOP) for a very long time. The glory days of the Republican Party ended almost 3 decades. The standard required to become the party's nominee has been inverted. The Republican Party has become incapable of nominating a knowledgeable, reasoned and competent nominee, and that's a big problem not only for the Republican Party but for the nation at large. The party got what it wanted in Trump so there is no way Trump can be sued for winning the Republican Party nomination. The Republican Party has never required "The Donald" to be honest with anyone. Just try finding an honest Republican candidate. Your odds of finding a living Tasmanian Devil are far better than your odds of finding an honest Republican candidate for any office higher than dog catcher.
Have you ever been in a male locker room? How would you know how men talk or what men say in a male locker room?
Well, it's obvious you have never been in a locker room. Sportsmen are not gladiators. They don't go on the field with the intent of maiming or harming their opponents. They go onto the field with the intent to win playing by the rules. Sportsmen and athletes are not pack animals. I guess you don't understand the difference. I suggest referencing the dictionary.
The really scary part is people like you believe this crap. You know last time a major power believed this kind of crap it resulted in the deaths of 73 million people. Nazi Germany had similar beliefs about men, women and race.
If there is a concern about gentlemen sports figures - and this is not to a counter argument intended - one guy comes to my mind.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Trump's followers are mostly lesser educated white men. That's a fact. You apparently think men education and intelligence makes men feminine. I know a number of educated white men, many of them football players, who would take issue with you on that one.
And what measures would those be exactly, and please do be specific? People are corruptible, but that doesn't mean Hillary is corrupt. By any standard, there is far more evidence to suggest The Donald is far more corrupt, and has been far more corrupt, than Hilary has ever been or could be.
Let's begin with Trump's lack of transparency. Hilary has disclosed 39 years of her tax returns. Trump has disclosed not a single tax return. The disclosure of tax returns shows us how the candidate earned their money, how much debt they have, and who their creditors are and who their business partners are.
Hillary has disclosed tens of thousands of her emails. Trump has disclosed none of his emails.
When has Hilary used the "woman card" for the purpose of "extra slack"? Can you say never? You are making shit up again as Republicans are wont to do.
Well, here is the difference, Nixon isn't considered one of the most corrupt American presidents because his secretary is alleged to have accidentally erased 20 minutes of an audio tape. He is considered on of the most corrupt American presidents because he paid goons to illegally break into Democratic offices and then covered it up. Unfortunately for you and your Republican cohorts, facts do matter.
Additionally, the erased tape was government property. It was recorded on government recorders and recorded on government tape. It was government property. Hilary's 30,000 emails aren't government property. There were recorded on her server. They were her personal emails. Unfortunately for you and your Republican cohorts, government has no right to her personal emails.
That's sheer nonsense. Nixon's gender has nothing to do with what happened to him or current circumstances.
No she's not. Nobody is selling Hilary as the "smartest woman of all time". You are making shit up again and you have no evidence that she is corrupt or incompetent. In fact the historical record says otherwise. Hilary was a very successful first lady, senator, and Secretary of State. Unlike you Donald, she doesn't need slack and no one has cut her any slack.
For almost 3 decades now Republicans have wrongfully accused Hilary Clinton of everything from simple malfeasance to serial murder all without a shred of evidence. And despite almost 3 decades and tens, if not hundreds, of millions of public dollars spent, special prosecutors, and congressional investigations, Republicans haven't found a shred of evidence to back up their many unfounded allegations against Hilary Clinton.
To correct myself, and I'm stoned, Gretzky is more legend than sports figure.
Trump's aides are claiming that Trump is a "genius" if the reports are true and he has paid no tax.
quote: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said the New York Times article was a "very good story" because it showcased the "genius" of Mr Trump.
I hope we will be able to learn how he did it so that we can all bask in his genius.
He will obviously,if the American people are sufficiently impressed to vote him into office be able to run rings around America's trading partners and hopefully impoverish them so that they too can grudgingly admire how "smart" he is .
A few financial sleights of hand and America will be able siphon off countless billions (trillions?) from the rest of the world without even the necessity of confiscating the oil fields of Iraq (why stop there?).
I think the danger in declaring peak stupid is that humans are humans, and we seek out peaks to climb and exceed simply because the mountain is there.
Seriously, Wellwisher, just so you know―
―your childish bigotry is generally evident in the make-believe history you invent, but that's actually one of your more creative scats for being so polarized against reality.
Seriously, with those two paragraphs, which part to call out as bullshit? Your bizarre dominant vag thesis or the simple fact that your Watergate analogy will include the genuine historical fact that there was nothing wrong with what HRC did when the boys did it.
Because, to the other, the reason conservatives stick with a gross number like thirty-three thousand is that they think it sounds more shocking and indicting. It works out to about twenty-two emails a day sent and received, called personal. And not a single one of HRC's detractors wants to answer the basic question about whether or not twenty-two personal emails a day is really so terrifying a number.
For most people it isn't.
Having done the basic math, though, I admit it stands out every time I hear people use the thirty-three thousand number.
Twenty-two personal emails a day, total sent and received, on average, from an international-traveling professional using a BlackBerry as a communications hub.
Meanwhile, conservatives who often purport to fret about outsized, intrusive government and diverse manners of tyranny, are reminding Americans virutally daily that Republican governance would haul people to inquest and trial just because.
Consider what you're advocating, Wellwisher―that just because is sufficient justification for probable cause for investigation, subpoena, search and seizure, and, according to Republicans, prosecution and incarceration.
It simply reminds that every conservative we hear muttering or babbling about whats wrong with government is pretty much completely lying to us.
Trump has through his lawyers long waged his personal war against the First Amendment. Now he is threatening to sue the Times for publication of his 1995 tax return and this isn't the first time for The Donald. Now the lawsuit is completely without merit, but that's not the point. The point is to silence people. Trump has repeatedly used this tactic to silence voices. Trump hopes the threat and cost of responding to his lawsuits will silence people.
It's also interesting to note that not a single major newspaper has endorsed The Donald. Traditionally Republican newspapers which have never endorsed a Democrat are endorsing Hilary for POTUS citing the fact that The Donald is singularly unfit to become POTUS and is a danger to the health and well-being of the country. That’s big. That’s unprecedented, with 240 years of precedent, that’s huge, to borrow a word from The Donald.
And not surprisingly, some are getting death threats as a result. All Americans should find this very disturbing.
This story is just YUUGH...
Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.
The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.
Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found
Of course we knew Donald was hiding something...HUGE. The line that he couldn't release them because of an IRS audit is a total lie. What I'm certain is they will show he paid little to no taxes for years and years.
It also clearly demonstrates his sub par business abilities. At the time these returns were filed, he had accumulated nearly a billion dollars in losses. Who knows who many additional losses The Donald has incurred since then.
We know the Donald over spends on his projects. Before his casinos opened The Donald knew they would be failures, because his financial professionals had explained to him he overdeveloped and overspent. Failure was certain and his casinos did fail, but The Donald went ahead anyway. The guy lacks discipline and judgement. We know he's a terrible developer and a terrible manager.
Let's remember The Donald is also under criminal investigation for the misuse of his charitable foundation. It's been discovered The Donald hadn't registered his foundation making it illegal for the foundation to accept money from others as it has done. The Donald may have to pay back off the money it has received from others. That could add up to a few million dollars. Now that shouldn't be a problem for a multibillionaire. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Turns out everything with Donald Trump is just one big illusion of success coupled with an average of one lie every three minutes. And the Trumpsters can't get enough of the lies, deceptions and exaggerations.
Indeed, the Trump lies never stop. Trump is now claiming he had a fiduciary duty to take every tax advantage afforded him by the tax code. Well there's one very big problem with that argument. We are talking about Trump's personal tax returns. We aren't talking about anyone elses tax returns. We're talking about his personal tax returns. There is no fiduciary duty here. You don't have a fiduciary duty to yourself. So the Donald's fiduciary duty argument is pure unmitigated bullshit.
In other instances where The Donald did have a fiduciary to his partners and investors, he never once cared about fulfilling that duty.
Trump doesn't have a fiduciary duty to himself. I'm sure he could try suing himself for a breech of fiduciary duty to himself, but it would be laughed out of court.
Separate names with a comma.