Lawyer versus Businessman; Presidential styles.

[joepistole]

The hacked e-mails from the DNC showed an unhealthy relationship between the DNC and the mainstream media. The radio personality, Rush Limbaugh, does an audio montage bit, periodically, to how a wide range of mainstream media all read from the same planned script. This is an example from YouTube of media choir all getting the same script from the DNC, so they can saturate all the markets with the same DNC propaganda.

Oh hogwash. The Republicans Party and so called Republicans have an extremely low tolerance for truth and reason, hence all of these attacks on any media outlet that isn't Fox News or Republican entertainment. The truth isn't propaganda, it's just the truth. You and your so called 'conservative" fellows are sounding like Comrade Stalin.

 

[wellwisher]

Trump endorsed the conspiracy theory that President Obama was not born in Hawaii, so his connection with what is true and reasonable is suspect.

The conspiracy theory about Obama being born outside the US was started by Obama and his publisher.

Through the Internet archive Wayback Machine, WND found an August 2003 listing of Dystel & Goderich’s author bios, including the following: “Barack Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago. His first book is ‘Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”

Even if the original 1991 brochure’s listing of Kenya as Obama’s birthplace was in error, as the agency has since claimed, it apparently was an error Obama allowed his publicist to persist in for over a decade, right until after he was running for president.

In April 2007, two months after Obama had launched his presidential bid, Dystel was still touting the then-Democratic senator from Illinois as “born in Kenya.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/shocker-obama-was-still-kenyan-born-in-2003/#FAgJPiEZoIAyxbMd.99

When Obama and his handlers changed the story to he was born in Hawaii, people who were aware of the ten year claim written in his book, were not sure which was truth or lie. Trump wanted some verification of which was the scam. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[wellwisher]

Oh hogwash. The Republicans Party and so called Republicans have an extremely low tolerance for truth and reason, hence all of these attacks on any media outlet that isn't Fox News or Republican entertainment. The truth isn't propaganda, it's just the truth. You and your so called 'conservative" fellows are sounding like Comrade Stalin.

Did you listen to the audio montage. It is not just the same truth, as you put it, but the same buzz words. They must all be psychic and just so happen to say the same phrases at th same time. The same words, rearranged, seems to indicate there is one team of writers, who supplies a wide range of talking heads the talking points. They are given some artistic freedom since they are DNC plants/actors playing the role of journalists.

This topic is about lawyers versus businessmen. This is a lawyer trick, where you pay for expert testimony, to agree with the angle you are using, to prosecute or defend, the accused or client. Different scripts are used to defend Hillary in front of the favorable jury. These media types are now all self proclaimed experts on Trump. The Clintons and DNC lead the use of the expert testimony tactic. They buy expert testimony, which then reports back, before anything goes to print.

The businessman would need to hire lawyers, who will then orchestrate this. Trump is not willing to spend that much of his own money on more lawyers. He uses lawyers for defense, not offense. Trump's job is easier, since Hillary has tangible corruption, that would have gone hidden if not for her private server dump. She gets away with this because of a favorable Obama injustice department, who looks the other way. Hillary could be black mailing Obama about Benghazi, since she helped him sell the video angle; expert testimony, to protect his reelection chances. Looking the other way is not the same as innocent. Then again with lawyers it is all about winning, without any traditional moral values.

Even if a businessman wanted to be that corrupt there are too many laws and regulation that govern businesses. He would need lawyers since the lawyers in charge have created a system that serves and protects lawyers from a wide range of evil deeds. If you want these services it is pay to play.

 

[rpenner]

When Obama and his handlers changed the story to he was born in Hawaii, people who were aware of the ten year claim written in his book, were not sure which was truth or lie. Trump wanted some verification of which was the scam. There is nothing wrong with that.

There's plenty wrong with the way Trump went about it. In the actual book, his Hawaiian birthplace is documented.
https://books.google.com/books?id=H...deled hospital where I had been born"&f=false

Miriam Goderich was not a witness and simply got the story wrong in 1991 and didn't fix it until 2007. Birtherism started later. It's disingenuous to raise this as a source when it was never cited contemporaneously and not noticed until perhaps 2012.
https://web.archive.org/web/2012070...irthplace-1991/story?id=16372566#.V8XvArVrLKh

 

[iceaura]

Feel free to think whatever about Trump. I have made clear enough that the only thing I care about is the danger of WW III, and I think Clinton presents the greater danger.

We know. We also know why you "think" that - because you posted the familiar videos, and used the familiar vocabulary, and focused on the familiar aspects, and described the familiar "thinking" in the familiar way we Americans have been soaked with for Clinton's entire career.

And the question which sheeple are fooled by Trump and which are fooled by Clinton is even of less importance than Big-Endian vs. Little-Endian differences.

The question of whether you and your millions of fellow Tribesmen have been taken in by the media operations of the fascist movement in the US is directly relevant to your "thinking" about Clinton. And Trump.

It's got almost nothing to do with being fooled by Trump or Clinton themselves.

It has a lot to do with the sound governance of the United States - the current threat to which is, whether you realize it or not, the current greatest risk of a significant nuclear exchange taking place on this planet in the near future. If you actually care.

 

[sculptor]

And
one more scandal
Laureate Education

Curious elections we have. Extremely polarized tribal affiliations with little regard for honesty or decency.
"We're good, and they are dishonest greedy and evil".

And, now, a brief musical interlude:

 

[iceaura]

Curious elections we have. Extremely polarized tribal affiliations with little regard for honesty or decency.

You speak in the plural, one assumes by mistake - what you meant, of course, was "an extremely polarized tribal affiliation with little regard for honesty or decency".

There's only one Tribe.

 

[sculptor]

You speak in the plural, one assumes by mistake - what you meant, of course, was "an extremely polarized tribal affiliation with little regard for honesty or decency".

There's only one Tribe.

lol

 

[Schmelzer]

We also know why you "think" that - because you posted the familiar videos, and used the familiar vocabulary, and focused on the familiar aspects, and described the familiar "thinking" in the familiar way we Americans have been soaked with for Clinton's entire career.

The point being? That I have read evil sources? I have never claimed that I read only good sources. It is my approach to extract information from all available sources.

That some of the information I found on the evil sources has convinced me that Clinton is a maniac? Such is life. You have had the chance to convince me. Say, presenting evidence that what looks like a maniac in these videos has some other explanations. You have not succeeded, live with this. It is the evidence that she is simply for sale which makes me think that she might be less dangerous - there will be rich enough people to pay her for not starting WW III.

It has a lot to do with the sound governance of the United States - the current threat to which is, whether you realize it or not, the current greatest risk of a significant nuclear exchange taking place on this planet in the near future. If you actually care.

The problem is that what we see now in real US politics is nothing I would name sound governance. And with Clinton this will become worse.

 

[joepistole]

Did you listen to the audio montage. It is not just the same truth, as you put it, but the same buzz words. They must all be psychic and just so happen to say the same phrases at th same time. The same words, rearranged, seems to indicate there is one team of writers, who supplies a wide range of talking heads the talking points. They are given some artistic freedom since they are DNC plants/actors playing the role of journalists.

y

This topic is about lawyers versus businessmen. This is a lawyer trick, where you pay for expert testimony, to agree with the angle you are using, to prosecute or defend, the accused or client. Different scripts are used to defend Hillary in front of the favorable jury. These media types are now all self proclaimed experts on Trump. The Clintons and DNC lead the use of the expert testimony tactic. They buy expert testimony, which then reports back, before anything goes to print.

The businessman would need to hire lawyers, who will then orchestrate this. Trump is not willing to spend that much of his own money on more lawyers. He uses lawyers for defense, not offense. Trump's job is easier, since Hillary has tangible corruption, that would have gone hidden if not for her private server dump. She gets away with this because of a favorable Obama injustice department, who looks the other way. Hillary could be black mailing Obama about Benghazi, since she helped him sell the video angle; expert testimony, to protect his reelection chances. Looking the other way is not the same as innocent. Then again with lawyers it is all about winning, without any traditional moral values.

Even if a businessman wanted to be that corrupt there are too many laws and regulation that govern businesses. He would need lawyers since the lawyers in charge have created a system that serves and protects lawyers from a wide range of evil deeds. If you want these services it is pay to play.[/QUOTE]

The conspiracy theory about Obama being born outside the US was started by Obama and his publisher.

Through the Internet archive Wayback Machine, WND found an August 2003 listing of Dystel & Goderich’s author bios, including the following: “Barack Obama was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago. His first book is ‘Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.”

Even if the original 1991 brochure’s listing of Kenya as Obama’s birthplace was in error, as the agency has since claimed, it apparently was an error Obama allowed his publicist to persist in for over a decade, right until after he was running for president.

In April 2007, two months after Obama had launched his presidential bid, Dystel was still touting the then-Democratic senator from Illinois as “born in Kenya.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/shocker-obama-was-still-kenyan-born-in-2003/#FAgJPiEZoIAyxbMd.99

When Obama and his handlers changed the story to he was born in Hawaii, people who were aware of the ten year claim written in his book, were not sure which was truth or lie. Trump wanted some verification of which was the scam. There is nothing wrong with that.

Except that isn't truthful. That was the excuse brothers offered after the fact.

 

[sculptor]

So.
The businessman was invited to, and went to Mexico to have a chat with its president Nieto.

Seems like they have "made a deal", or at least have agreed to revisit NAFTA.

Text to follow:

 

[iceaura]

The point being? That I have read evil sources? I have never claimed that I read only good sources. It is my approach to extract information from all available sources

You aren't capable of extracting information from an American rightwing authoritarian marketing site - they will play you. Your only hope is to avoid them.

That some of the information I found on the evil sources has convinced me that Clinton is a maniac? Such is life.

You didn't find information. You found bait, and got hooked.

Say, presenting evidence that what looks like a maniac in these videos has some other explanations. You have not succeeded, live with this.

The "evidence" is simply that she doesn't look like a maniac, to those familiar with the context of the videos. She looks like herself, in that context, and we have decades of experience with that.

It is the evidence that she is simply for sale which makes me think that she might be less dangerous - there will be rich enough people to pay her for not starting WW III.

And the significance of the fact that you did not know such things already - long before you saw any Hillary videos - doesn't seem to register with you.

The problem is that what we see now in real US politics is nothing I would name sound governance. And with Clinton this will become worse.

I agree. So?

 

[rpenner]

So.
The businessman was invited to, and went to Mexico to have a chat with its president Nieto.

Seems like they have "made a deal", or at least have agreed to revisit NAFTA.

Text to follow:

Trump ... said they discussed a wall he has vowed to build ..., but not his demand that Mexico pay for it -- an assertion the Mexican president later disputed.
"At the start of the conversation with Donald Trump, I made it clear that Mexico will not pay for the wall," Peña Nieto tweeted, after their meeting Wednesday.
...
"It was not a negotiation, and that would have been inappropriate. It is unsurprising that they hold two different views on this issue, and we look forward to continuing the conversation," [Trump's senior communications adviser] said in a statement.
...
Peña Nieto ... launched into a detailed defense of US-Mexican trade and its benefit to both countries delivered by the North American Free Trade Agreement -- a common punching bag for Trump on the campaign trail.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/30/politics/donald-trump-enrique-pea-nieto-mexico/

So, no progress on either wall-paying or NAFTA tailoring. I guess sculptor isn't going to finish that post.

 

[sculptor]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/30/politics/donald-trump-enrique-pea-nieto-mexico/

So, no progress on either wall-paying or NAFTA tailoring. I guess sculptor isn't going to finish that post.

If/when the complete texts become available, feel free to post same.

Give Trump his due. He met with a foreign head of state and began a dialogue.
Trump said that no negotiations took place as that would have been currently inappropriate.
Listening to their speeches, it seemed that both want a stronger border to stop the flow of drugs and non mexican illegals north and money and weapons south.
It's a beginning. It seems that Trump's first instinct is to meet and talk, Clinton's first instinct seems to be to attack.

 

[iceaura]

- -
It's a beginning. It seems that Trump's first instinct is to meet and talk, Clinton's first instinct seems to be to attack.

You're not joking - that's the wild part.

 

[Bells]

If/when the complete texts become available, feel free to post same.

Give Trump his due. He met with a foreign head of state and began a dialogue.
Trump said that no negotiations took place as that would have been currently inappropriate.
Listening to their speeches, it seemed that both want a stronger border to stop the flow of drugs and non mexican illegals north and money and weapons south.
It's a beginning. It seems that Trump's first instinct is to meet and talk, Clinton's first instinct seems to be to attack.

Uh huh..

Curiously, however, a spokesman for Peña Nieto told the press that Peña Nietospecifically told Trump during the meeting that Mexico would not be paying for such a wall, a statement the Mexican president himself later repeated. Who to believe?

The minor question of whether or not Donald Trump flatly lied about his private conversation with a foreign leader aside, the whole event was, naturally, capped off by the only remaining duty of our great national press corps: An afternoon discussion of whether or not Trump "looked presidential" in the venue. The bar on this one continues to drop lower as the campaign goes on; Trump either dodged the core dispute between himself and his host country or lied about the results, but also did not pull his counterpart's hair or insult the Mexican citizenry to their faces, so it was considered afterwards to be a good day.

As I mentioned on Twitter at the time, I don't agree that Donald Trump is being graded by the press as if he were a grade-school child, because even schoolchildren giving oral reports (What I Learned In Mexico, by Donny J Trump) are expected to know things. The measure being forever taken of Trump is specifically whether he "looks" or "sounds" presidential. Can he control his temper? Can he keep from insulting his audience? How is his coat today?

So Donald Trump is not being graded as if he were a child. Donald Trump is being graded as if he is a Golden Retriever in the ring at the Westminster Dog Show. Does he look the part? His stride—is it confident?

Glossy coat, good teeth. Bit handler, but missed artery; overall a good showing.​

Sounds like it went really well.

Should also point out that the invitation was extended to both candidates. Trump flew down in his jet, had a 45 minute meeting with the leader of a country and people he has painted as rapists and murderers, then came out of that short meeting and lied about 'the wall'. It's probably for the best for Trump, that the media focused more on whether he looked Presidential. The alternative would have been really bad for him, since you know, his vilifying Mexicans and his lying is never a good look. But hey, at least he might come out of it with best in show for his glossy mane...

 

[Schmelzer]

The "evidence" is simply that she doesn't look like a maniac, to those familiar with the context of the videos. She looks like herself, in that context, and we have decades of experience with that.

There is no contradiction between "she looks like a maniac" and "she looks like herself". The context does not change this - I have found descriptions of the context, so I know it, and this has not changed the main point, that she looks like a maniac.

And the significance of the fact that you did not know such things already - long before you saw any Hillary videos - doesn't seem to register with you.

The Ghaddafi quote was well-known to me before too. In itself, I have not found it impressing, and wondered why it is so popular. I seldom look videos, I prefer written text. So, why should the fact that I have not seen the video before have significance? In this case, the video itself was quite impressive, and surprised me.

 

[wellwisher]

The main confusion about the immigration problem is the Democrats cannot seem to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. The analogy would be the Democrats assuming shoppers and pick pockets are both shoppers. If you are against pick pockets you are also against shoppers; shopper phobic.

This lawyer based spin, to create confusion, is why the liberal media said that Trump's comments insulted all Mexicans. Trump was addressing illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. The spin is trying blur the line between legal and illegal. This comes back to lawyer versus businessman. Honest citizens are good for business; safe for shoppers, while criminals are not. The businessman assumes everyone knows this and it needs no explanation. Relative to lawyers, especially defense lawyers, criminals are their bread and butter, so blurring the distinction between legal and illegal helps their profession. Making a revolving door for criminal illegal aliens, means each criminal can be used by lawyers, many times, to make money.

Chicago has the highest rates of crime and murder of all American cities. Even though President Obama is from there and would be expected to be concerned for his home city, the defense lawyer in him sees all this crime as useful to his lawyer profession. Not only does it provide more defense lawyer jobs, but also more lawyer jobs for the state; prosecutors office. A businessman like Trump sees crime as making it harder for business, to justify moving to cities where there is high crime. This leaves the good citizens in a sorry place, since good jobs are scared away. Who wants to be build a business in a place where looters can rob and burn you out, and the Fed does not prosecute. Instead the lawyer run Fed, makes excuses to maintain lawyer jobs; revolving door.

If you look at Hillary, she is taking a lawyer's defense to all the accusations created by her e-mails. It is not about addressing her crimes, but rather making it hard to prove, since law is not about right and wrong, but about gaming the system.

For example, few people believed Benghazi was about a video even though this was the spin being used. Lawyers are never brought to trial on perjury charges, so there was no risk lying. Most people assumed this was a stunt to shield Obama for re-election in 2012. It came down to hiding evidence, so it can't be proven in court. To Democrats, it is not right or wrong; relative morality, but getting away with it; defense lawyer 1.0. This is why we need to get away from lawyers and try the lead with businessmen, who are used to working with more constraints, like the majority of Americans.

Last Sunday there was topic on the America news program 60 Minutes about money laundering. The USA currently is one of the easiest places to launder money, doing so by buying expensive real estate and other assets through shell companies. They did a hidden camera investigation, where they went into various NY lawyer offices ,pretending to represent people from second world countries, who had extra money to invest.


Many of the lawyers were willing to help out for a large fee. One of the lawyers, who was the most arrogant about it, said, we (lawyers) run the country, therefore he is safe doing this. Too many lawyers have the ability to create a corrupt system, where legal will be illegal and illegal, legal to create confusion, so there are more ways to skirt the law for a price. While having mostly lawyer in charge will set up the legal system so this is easier to do for their profession.

Trump will dismantle the lawyer scam. For example, Trump has been audited by the IRS, which Obama has shown will be used to manhandle enemies. Trump was not giving enough money and support to the DNC. But this backfired on the DNC, since Trump does not have to show his tax returns if the IRS is investigating, since a fair trial cannot be achieved with both public and private sector audits, coming from a biased DNC running for election. Trump has lawyers too, for defense. The criminal use of the IRS, makes even more lawyers necessary, while it is done in ways that make it appear legal; hide evidence.

 

[joepistole]

The main confusion about the immigration problem is the Democrats cannot seem to make a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. The analogy would be the Democrats assuming shoppers and pick pockets are both shoppers. If you are against pick pockets you are also against shoppers; shopper phobic.

This lawyer based spin, to create confusion, is why the liberal media said that Trump's comments insulted all Mexicans. Trump was addressing illegal immigrants, not legal immigrants. The spin is trying blur the line between legal and illegal. This comes back to lawyer versus businessman. Honest citizens are good for business; safe for shoppers, while criminals are not. The businessman assumes everyone knows this and it needs no explanation. Relative to lawyers, especially defense lawyers, criminals are their bread and butter, so blurring the distinction between legal and illegal helps their profession. Making a revolving door for criminal illegal aliens, means each criminal can be used by lawyers, many times, to make money.

Chicago has the highest rates of crime and murder of all American cities. Even though President Obama is from there and would be expected to be concerned for his home city, the defense lawyer in him sees all this crime as useful to his lawyer profession. Not only does it provide more defense lawyer jobs, but also more lawyer jobs for the state; prosecutors office. A businessman like Trump sees crime as making it harder for business, to justify moving to cities where there is high crime. This leaves the good citizens in a sorry place, since good jobs are scared away. Who wants to be build a business in a place where looters can rob and burn you out, and the Fed does not prosecute. Instead the lawyer run Fed, makes excuses to maintain lawyer jobs; revolving door.

If you look at Hillary, she is taking a lawyer's defense to all the accusations created by her e-mails. It is not about addressing her crimes, but rather making it hard to prove, since law is not about right and wrong, but about gaming the system.

For example, few people believed Benghazi was about a video even though this was the spin being used. Lawyers are never brought to trial on perjury charges, so there was no risk lying. Most people assumed this was a stunt to shield Obama for re-election in 2012. It came down to hiding evidence, so it can't be proven in court. To Democrats, it is not right or wrong; relative morality, but getting away with it; defense lawyer 1.0. This is why we need to get away from lawyers and try the lead with businessmen, who are used to working with more constraints, like the majority of Americans.

Last Sunday there was topic on the America news program 60 Minutes about money laundering. The USA currently is one of the easiest places to launder money, doing so by buying expensive real estate and other assets through shell companies. They did a hidden camera investigation, where they went into various NY lawyer offices ,pretending to represent people from second world countries, who had extra money to invest.


Many of the lawyers were willing to help out for a large fee. One of the lawyers, who was the most arrogant about it, said, we (lawyers) run the country, therefore he is safe doing this. Too many lawyers have the ability to create a corrupt system, where legal will be illegal and illegal, legal to create confusion, so there are more ways to skirt the law for a price. While having mostly lawyer in charge will set up the legal system so this is easier to do for their profession.

Trump will dismantle the lawyer scam. For example, Trump has been audited by the IRS, which Obama has shown will be used to manhandle enemies. Trump was not giving enough money and support to the DNC. But this backfired on the DNC, since Trump does not have to show his tax returns if the IRS is investigating, since a fair trial cannot be achieved with both public and private sector audits, coming from a biased DNC running for election. Trump has lawyers too, for defense. The criminal use of the IRS, makes even more lawyers necessary, while it is done in ways that make it appear legal; hide evidence.

No the main "confusion" related to immigration is Democrats understand how important immigration is the US. They understand how silly, stupid, wasteful, and disruptive it would be deport 12 million people. Democrats don't want a Gestapo like forced deportation police force and detention camps which Trump needs in order to deport 12 million people.

Democrats don't like tyranny. That's the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

 

[sculptor]

Referring to Trump, Pena Nieto said that "we may not be in agreement on a number of subjects" but the two countries are important to each other. He said the purpose of their meeting was to meet and talk about their views. He called their meeting "very open and constructive."

He said that he wants to make the border "more efficient and more secure" with the next president and that strengthening the border was important to Mexico.

Curious that I can not find the complete text of both speakers after meeting speeches.
Bits and pieces are available---------kind of like archaeology, wherein we try to construct a picture of people's lives from the few bits and pieces that have survived.
Why?
Has anyone found the entire text of their post meeting speeches?
If so, please: Post same.