+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Serious Shit? (https://mockforums.net/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: POLITICS (https://mockforums.net/forum-36.html)
+--- Thread: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT (/thread-9358.html)
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - Duchess - 10-30-2016
(10-30-2016, 06:35 PM)Maggot Wrote: the damage is done.
Nah, you will still feel as you do and so will everyone else. I feel pretty confident that most people have their minds made up in regards to Hillary and her emails and pretty much everything else where she is concerned.
She's not a criminal, she hasn't been charged or convicted of anything, no pardon will be necessary.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - sally - 10-30-2016
I just don't understand the logic behind saying if you don't vote you lose your right to complain. I see it the opposite, if you vote you lose your right to complain. You chose these assholes, not me. You picked one asshole over the other, not me. If anyone has the right to complain about either one it's me. It makes no sense to me at all when people say the reason they vote is so they have the right to complain.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - Maggot - 10-30-2016
Voting is like dogs fighting over a hunk of meat. If you don't fight you go hungry.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 10-31-2016
(10-30-2016, 08:14 PM)sally Wrote: I just don't understand the logic behind saying if you don't vote you lose your right to complain. I see it the opposite, if you vote you lose your right to complain. You chose these assholes, not me. You picked one asshole over the other, not me. If anyone has the right to complain about either one it's me. It makes no sense to me at all when people say the reason they vote is so they have the right to complain.I understand the logic. If you don't care enough to make your voice heard in the decision-making process, some people aren't gonna care much when you voice complaints about the results. It makes sense.
It makes more sense than your contention that people only vote because the news tells them to vote and they're retarded.............so, you choose to forfeit your vote, rely on retarded people to determine the outcome, bitch about the results, and then blame the retards. That's some lazy and flawed logic, sal (but kinda funny).
Anyway, my reason for voting has nothing to do with the news or with securing the right to complain. And, I personally don't discount people's first amendment rights to bitch and complain if they choose not to exercise their rights to vote.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - pyropappy - 10-31-2016
![[Image: 00303_9U7a8UfqzCD_600x450.jpg]](https://images.craigslist.org/00303_9U7a8UfqzCD_600x450.jpg)
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 10-31-2016
The Obamacare premium hikes and the Comey letter are definitely unwelcome challenges for Clinton in the home stretch.
But, the new economic report is good news for the country and the Democrats; I'm betting Clinton will focus more this week on how she plans to continue and increase the country's job and economic growth.
Unemployment is at 4.9% and the U.S. GDP expanded at a 2.9 percent annual rate in Q3 2016 (July through September), according to Friday's Commerce Department report. The GDP growth beat analyst expectations and was more than double the 1.4 percent annual rate in Q2.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - Blindgreed1 - 10-31-2016
"Investigators believe it's likely the newly recovered trove will include emails that were deleted from the Clinton server before the FBI took possession of it as part of that earlier investigation."
http://www.cnn.com/2...ils-fbi-abedin/
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 10-31-2016
That link doesn't work, Gunnar.
Here's a functional link -- the quoted line you pasted is at the bottom of the article: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/30/politics/clinton-emails-fbi-abedin/
I hope the emails on that laptop are some of those previously deleted from the Clinton server. If they're all personal in nature or similar to the work emails already turned over, that would be good for Clinton. If not, she'll have some explaining to do.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - pyropappy - 10-31-2016
(10-31-2016, 12:35 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: I hope the emails on that laptop are some of those previously deleted from the Clinton server. If they're all personal in nature or similar to the work emails already turned over, that would be good for Clinton. If not, she'll have some explaining to do.
You would be better off hoping to win MegaMillions.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - Blindgreed1 - 10-31-2016
(10-31-2016, 12:35 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: That link doesn't work, Gunnar.Two things to consider: The FBI has known about the emails and presumably the content (you can't "un-see something" until you have a warrant to look at it) since mid October. They got a warrant which means it can be used as evidence. Not sure how credible some of the sources are that are reporting that she will be hit with racketeering under RICO for the Clinton foundation. Snopes won't load for me.
Here's a functional link -- the quoted line you pasted is at the bottom of the article: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/30/politics/clinton-emails-fbi-abedin/
I hope the emails on that laptop are some of those previously deleted from the Clinton server. If they're all personal in nature or similar to the work emails already turned over, that would be good for Clinton. If not, she'll have some explaining to do.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - BlueTiki - 10-31-2016
(10-28-2016, 04:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Yeah, so Clinton nor any other politician that I've heard has ever said or implied that it's criminal for the very wealthy, including Trump, to pay a lower tax rate than everyone else by taking advantage of tax codes that favor them. Nobody is screaming, "lock him up!" over it.
Instead, it's been stated that it's not 'fair', which is not synonymous with not 'legal' by any stretch, Tiki.
Trump himself acknowledged in the third debate that he has taken full advantage of operating loss and depreciation write-offs which would allow him to pay little to no personal federal income tax and that is was 'unfair'.
He and his surrogates later called him a 'genius' for taking advantage of the tax codes.
That lack of transparency is what I figure is a bigger problem for him with voters than the fact that, according to him, he's chosen to take full advantage of the tax codes.
Clinton supporters wouldn't scream "Lock him up!" as both she and the New York Times used the same provision, as did Trump, to eliminate taxes. The NYT piece and Clinton wanted to label Trump as a tax evader . . . NOT a legal tax avoider.
In fact, here's a few Hillary quotes from a NYT follow-up article:
"He abuses his power, games the system, puts his own interests ahead of the country’s,” Mrs. Clinton told a crowd of more than 1,100 gathered for a rally on Monday at the Downtown Toledo Train Station. “It’s always Trump first, and everyone else last.”
"While millions of American families, including mine and yours, were working hard and paying their fair share,” Mrs. Clinton said, “it seems he was contributing nothing to our nation.”
Doesn't sound like she is describing an American following the tax law. Sounds more like an organized crime boss, to me . . . IMO.
However, both the Times and Clinton fail to acknowledge that Trump paid mandatory self-employment taxes while enjoying writing off his loss.
It is my opinion that any taxpayer who doesn't take advantage of every legal opportunity to reduce their tax burden is an idiot. Taking advantage of legal and legitimate opportunities does not make for genius . . . it makes one fiscally responsible and knowledgeable.
As to the transparency issue, I believe this plagues Clinton far more than Trump.
After the IRS scandal, I believe this agency ain't feeling the love from most Americans.
Neither Trump nor Clinton provides a tax plan supporting equality.
I've always been a proponent for a flat tax rate . . . wages, salaries and passive income. The same rate for all payers . . . for all sources of income.
If we are a nation truly striving towards equality for all citizens, taxation should also apply. To tax a particular class at a different rate is blatantly discriminatory. In other words: Regardless of the amount of your income, each taxpayer should pay the same percentage rate . . . period.
I don't believe there should be a cap on an individual's Social Security contribution. I also believe that ALL INCOME should be subject to the tax. Additionally, I believe we should expand the Windfall Elimination Provision to eliminate any SS recipient from collecting when they meet a specific annual gross income from any and all sources.
And no death or inheritance tax! The majority of this income has already been subject to taxation . . . I don't give a damn about what rate it was taxed . . . positive or negative.
When the recipients of the estate use these funds to generate income, that income will be taxed at the current flat tax rate. It is unfair to tax something that was ostensibly taxed prior to death, taxed upon transference and then taxed again when used to generate income.
And when it comes to charitable organizations, I believe there should be a mandatory, demonstrable DIRECT payout to the causes they champion. Seventy-five percent sounds like a good place to start. I'm tired of excessive admin costs, salaries and perks.
And then there's our nation's deficit . . . and foreign aid.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 10-31-2016
I understand your points, Tiki.
However, Clinton has never irresponsibly claimed that if she were elected president that she would prosecute and jail her opponent over his taxes, his lifestyle, or anything of the sort. Donald Trump, on the other hand, claims he would exceed his executive authority and do just that to Clinton if he were elected president, and he's got millions of his supporters lapping it up.
There is a big difference in judging someone's morality or ethics vs. calling someone who's not been convicted of a crime 'a criminal' and promising to 'lock her up!'. It's a false equivalency to compare the two, period.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - BlueTiki - 10-31-2016
Most politicians talk shit and make false claims . . . and rarely are they held accountable for their bullshit . . . even by their rabid supporters.
Both of these candidates are full of bullshit promises and resume padding.
If you committed a crime, you are a criminal . . . a murderer not caught or prosecuted is still a murderer.
If you are convicted, the conviction may not reflect the actual crime . . . a plea bargain to a lesser offense.
The conviction is just a scarlet letter for the world to see.
I'm hoping Huma was truthful when she was granted immunity.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 10-31-2016
A candidate running for President of the United States who calls his opponent a criminal (when she's not even been charged with a crime) and makes one of his campaign promises to "lock her up" is not engaging in typical "campaign shit talk". It's a Donald Trump specific thing.
Threatening to jail one's political opponent is terribly irresponsible, goes against the democratic process and separation of powers, and is more like something dictators and authoritarians do.
I understand that you don't consider it a serious deal, Tiki, and I don't take Trump too seriously myself. But, that doesn't make it 'typical' nor does it make it something comparable to Clinton's shit-talking of Trump. So, I'm cool to just agree to disagree at this point.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - BlueTiki - 10-31-2016
Politics is a blood sport.
I don't jump up and down . . . cheer or scream . . . when either of these folks talk shit.
Calling her a criminal has the same effect on me as her calling him a racist.
No . . . racist is far more inflammatory and divisive.
However, I don't believe Trump ever labeled those who support Clinton as . . . what were those monikers . . . ?
Tough to believe she really feels his supporters are worthy to be heard and appreciated.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 10-31-2016
I understand your thought processes and comparisons, Tiki, I just don't share them in the context we were originally discussing.
But, I'm not arguing that politics isn't blood sport or that candidates don't often toss a lot of shit at each other; some much more strategically and effectively than others. That's a fact and common knowledge.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - Duchess - 10-31-2016
(10-31-2016, 02:25 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: I don't believe Trump ever labeled those who support Clinton as . . . what were those monikers . . . ?
Ask me! ASK ME!
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - HairOfTheDog - 10-31-2016
(10-31-2016, 02:41 PM)Duchess Wrote:(10-31-2016, 02:25 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: I don't believe Trump ever labeled those who support Clinton as . . . what were those monikers . . . ?
Ask me! ASK ME!
I like FAHQTOO a lot and don't consider her deplorable in any way. But, it did make me laugh when she was defending Trump and you told her to get back in her basket.
Sometimes, you're such a nasty woman!
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - BlueTiki - 10-31-2016
I will not ask you to attribute any type of name calling to our next President!
However, since you are a political junkie, could you enlighten us to Hillary's connection to Russian uranium and Foundation donors?
All I keep hearing is vague innuendo to Trump, Putin and how Russia is trying to put the Donald in office.
Also, why is the FBI trying to derail Clinton?
Long on accusation and short on substance . . . like the Trump / Russia thing.
RE: HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT - Duchess - 10-31-2016
(10-31-2016, 02:48 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: However, since you are a political junkie, could you enlighten us to Hillary's connection to Russian uranium and Foundation donors?
It's a conspiracy theory that's been floated for awhile now.
I'm not sure why I just found that amusing but I did.I don't have anything to say about the Foundation/donors because I don't know enough about it. I do see a lot of people comment on Russia & the uranium though, many of them think she sold it to Russia directly. They don't care there is evidence to the contrary.
Sorry for the cut & paste, doll.
Hillary Clinton could not exert undue influence on approval of the sale because the State Department was just one of nine agencies represented on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (C.F.I.U.S.), which reviews such sales. The deal needed approval from multiple U.S. agencies and the Canadian government. Moreover, the State Department representative to C.F.I.U.S. said Hillary Clinton was not involved on the State Department’s review and did not discuss the uranium sale and called claims to the contrary “absurd conspiracy theories.
Fact check