2016 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - All Politics & Dumb Opinions Here

[pac213up]

Originally Posted by quackhead

Because Trump is running on anti-government and Hillary is a lifetime politician who has helped create the sewer you speak of.

Trump is running as a Republican. Guilty by association. If he was independent you would have a point.

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by Clarka3

wait. so him splicing his video cut so an exec laughs at a connection to sharia law in the US versus the actual cut of the footage where the exec is laughing later in the conversation about a completely different topic (the confusion with the restaurant and the names on the reservation) isn't lying?

ANd he didn't get ordered to pay that ACORN worker 100k for no reason. He was ordered to pay up because his videos directly led to the dude being fired because the narrative he played was that the guy was playing along and corrupt. Nevermind the fact that the worker called the cops immediately after O'Keefe left the office.

Real stand up guy here.



look, i'm not trying to discredit him before i watch the video. I'll watch it when I have time, but as i said, in the world of science- a scientist that cries wolf without evidence is going to be scrutinized harder next time.

that means that i'll take his future work with a grain of salt since he's been known to deceptively edit his videos. I can't imagine he could do that in the video here since it sounds like it's all direct quotes- but i would be curious to see if some of it is intentionally placed to be taken out of context.

It's probably better you continue to not read Wikileaks or watch these videos if you want to feel good about pushing Hillary and voting for her.

[Skipscards]

Originally Posted by Nicnac

Trump's wife disagrees with you.

Which one?

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by Athey49

Isn't that the reason why people are voting for Trump?

Pretty much any post in this entire thread can have the names of the candidates swapped and the post will still sound reasonable. Yet the people arguing so hard to prove they are right can't see that.

[trixstar]

Witnesses Corroborate Natasha Stoynoff's Trump Attack Story


Lying liberal media scum

[swise0121]

Originally Posted by Athey49

Isn't that the reason why people are voting for Trump?

Yes. Which is horrible.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by trixstar

Witnesses Corroborate Natasha Stoynoff's Trump Attack Story


Lying liberal media scum

You're sarcastic, but "witnesses"? What did they see Trix?

[Clarka3]

Originally Posted by tke1600

It's probably better you continue to not read Wikileaks or watch these videos if you want to feel good about pushing Hillary and voting for her.

dude, I was a sanders guy.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by trixstar

Witnesses Corroborate Natasha Stoynoff's Trump Attack Story


Lying liberal media scum

Originally Posted by Clarka3

wait. so him splicing his video cut so an exec laughs at a connection to sharia law in the US versus the actual cut of the footage where the exec is laughing later in the conversation about a completely different topic (the confusion with the restaurant and the names on the reservation) isn't lying?

ANd he didn't get ordered to pay that ACORN worker 100k for no reason. He was ordered to pay up because his videos directly led to the dude being fired because the narrative he played was that the guy was playing along and corrupt. Nevermind the fact that the worker called the cops immediately after O'Keefe left the office.

Real stand up guy here.



look, i'm not trying to discredit him before i watch the video. I'll watch it when I have time, but as i said, in the world of science- a scientist that cries wolf without evidence is going to be scrutinized harder next time.

that means that i'll take his future work with a grain of salt since he's been known to deceptively edit his videos. I can't imagine he could do that in the video here since it sounds like it's all direct quotes- but i would be curious to see if some of it is intentionally placed to be taken out of context.

So all of this hullabaloo without having seen anything?

Watch 'em. Then come back and tell me how credible you think they are.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by trixstar

Witnesses Corroborate Natasha Stoynoff's Trump Attack Story


Lying liberal media scum

And hey, look. CNN running the story as we speak, only published an hour ago; proof of violence staged at Trump rallies ... uncovered.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by noryan34

And another where they (Politico) admit that sending full stories has never been and still is not their standard policy.


Politico reporter sent story to Dem committee for pre-publication review | TheHill

How is vetting a story corruption? Against Politico's policies...sure. Corruption, no.

Originally Posted by xbignick

Nick I didn't want to quote all the photos but what exactly is it that I'm looking at? There's no explanation.

[BoxBreaker72]

Originally Posted by Nicnac

Trump's wife disagrees with you.

Obviously I was talking as a business man.

But If you want to get into their personal lives, please... lets.

Hillary is such a feminist that she stayed with perhaps the biggest violator of women in political history. Not only did she stay with him, she went on the attack against his victims.

What a great example for young women.

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by BoxBreaker72

Obviously I was talking as a business man.

But If you want to get into their personal lives, please... lets.

Hillary is such a feminist that she stayed with perhaps the biggest violator of women in political history. Not only did she stay with him, she went on the attack against his victims.

What a great example for young women.

Hillary standing by her man hahaha

[trixstar]

Looks like Trump is going to call for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by trixstar

Looks like Trump is going to call for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.

This is good, right?

[trixstar]

Originally Posted by Siberian13

This is good, right?

Well good or bad is irrelevant. It won't have the intended effect (imo) A lot of state legislatures have term limits and the same process takes place. People leave people come things stagnate. Legislatures move on to be senators who move on to be lobbyist. Also there's an argument to be made that term limits might have the exact opposite effect as intended. Inexperienced people are easier to be influenced by lobbyists. Also there are good congressmen/woman that would just be tossed out due to the term limit.

There's obviously arguments on both sides.


EDIT: Also this isn't the first time this has been brought up, not to mention how it's nearly impossible to get a constitutional amendment passed.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

You're sarcastic, but "witnesses"? What did they see Trix?

Originally Posted by trixstar

Looks like Trump is going to call for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.

Trix. You didn't answer. You posted that six witnesses came forward to corroborate the woman's story. So I ask you again, what did they see?

[ssbledsoe]

Originally Posted by trixstar

Well good or bad is irrelevant. It won't have the intended effect (imo) A lot of state legislatures have term limits and the same process takes place. People leave people come things stagnate. Legislatures move on to be senators who move on to be lobbyist. Also there's an argument to be made that term limits might have the exact opposite effect as intended. Inexperienced people are easier to be influenced by lobbyists. Also there are good congressmen/woman that would just be tossed out due to the term limit.

There's obviously arguments on both sides.


EDIT: Also this isn't the first time this has been brought up, not to mention how it's nearly impossible to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Because Congress hasn't been stagnant currently? Unless one party controls the White House and both sides of the legislature, the only thing that gets done is that they give themselves raises, shutdown the government once every year or so, and some jackwad puts in a catheter and has his (or her) own version of public library story time.

Term limits are absolutely necessary. Motivate officials to get in and get their legislation passed. Too many officials sit around and collect a paycheck simply voting whichever way their party tells them. You know, when they actually vote...

[trixstar]

Originally Posted by ssbledsoe

Because Congress hasn't been stagnant currently? Unless one party controls the White House and both sides of the legislature, the only thing that gets done is that they give themselves raises, shutdown the government once every year or so, and some jackwad puts in a catheter and has his (or her) own version of public library story time.

Term limits are absolutely necessary. Motivate officials to get in and get their legislation passed. Too many officials sit around and collect a paycheck simply voting whichever way their party tells them. You know, when they actually vote...

I was using that as an example in state legislatures. There are MANY states with term limits who's legislatures stagnate and nothing gets done. Limiting the terms doesn't prevent this. Not sure what you were trying to point out.

[xbignick]

Originally Posted by GeechQuest

Nick I didn't want to quote all the photos but what exactly is it that I'm looking at? There's no explanation.

The lady appears in the first James O'Keefe video bragging about how she was in Arizona and Chicago. Her name brings about payments which you can see yourself here: https://beta.fec.gov/data/disburseme...12%2F31%2F2016

Two from 'Hillary for America.'

The pictures/video show her on video in Arizona, her facebook linked for the check-in (same group in Chicago where she said she was) and the last image is from the Huffington Post in Florida. The video is edited in a dramatic fashion, I agree, but when we can confirm stuff like this it shouldn't be ignore I don't think.

[trixstar]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Trix. You didn't answer. You posted that six witnesses came forward to corroborate the woman's story. So I ask you again, what did they see?

As you always say read the article for yourself, I'm sure you already have though. Do I need to explain the difference between eyewitness and witness?

[noryan34]

Originally Posted by GeechQuest

How is vetting a story corruption? Against Politico's policies...sure. Corruption, no.





Nick I didn't want to quote all the photos but what exactly is it that I'm looking at? There's no explanation.

Multiple times the writers at Politico went against employer's policy to "vett" stories. It establishes a pattern of behavior.

If going against policy of your employer is just another day in the life then to you then I'm sure a rational discussion will ever ensue.

What "proof" are you looking for? Patterns of conduct inconsistent with common policy and or behavior serves as a pretty good basis for misconduct.

Corruption | Definition of Corruption by Merriam-Webster

excerpt from a dictionary

...

"Full Definition of corruption

a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity b : decay, decomposition c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct......"


To clarify then, by disregarding your employer's policy on journalism and vetting you are not impairing you or your employer's integrity your just 'doing your job'?

[ajlaxmn]

Originally Posted by ssbledsoe

Because Congress hasn't been stagnant currently? Unless one party controls the White House and both sides of the legislature, the only thing that gets done is that they give themselves raises, shutdown the government once every year or so, and some jackwad puts in a catheter and has his (or her) own version of public library story time.

Term limits are absolutely necessary. Motivate officials to get in and get their legislation passed. Too many officials sit around and collect a paycheck simply voting whichever way their party tells them. You know, when they actually vote...

I agree.

Also, you have old duffers in there that probably never get challenged in there district and there a stick in one mindset and don't really evolve with the times, which I think is kind of important as society changes.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by trixstar

As you always say read the article for yourself, I'm sure you already have though. Do I need to explain the difference between eyewitness and witness?

I think so, because they witnessed nothing. The only thing they did (if they are to be believed) is nothing. Their good friend told them of a sexual assault, and they did nothing to help her.

Good people.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by xbignick

The lady appears in the first James O'Keefe video bragging about how she was in Arizona and Chicago. Her name brings about payments which you can see yourself here: https://beta.fec.gov/data/disburseme...12%2F31%2F2016

Two from 'Hillary for America.'

The pictures/video show her on video in Arizona, her facebook linked for the check-in (same group in Chicago where she said she was) and the last image is from the Huffington Post in Florida. The video is edited in a dramatic fashion, I agree, but when we can confirm stuff like this it shouldn't be ignore I don't think.

I got it now. I actually went and googled her name and saw the same story pop up that you just outlined. Below is from an article I found in reference to the story you are referencing.

It’s not immediately clear what the payment was for, and it’s also unclear whether Rodriguez was really behind the agitation in Chicago or if she was simply making an empty boast

Activist Taking Credit For Riots Was On Hillary Payroll | The Daily Caller

The above part is good journalism. The story lays out all the circumstantial evidence they have but reiterate that it's not solid proof of anything. Not saying what you're implying is incorrect (it doesn't appear so) but it's not PROOF.

Originally Posted by noryan34

Multiple times the writers at Politico went against employer's policy to "vett" stories. It establishes a pattern of behavior.

If going against policy of your employer is just another day in the life then to you then I'm sure a rational discussion will ever ensue.

What "proof" are you looking for? Patterns of conduct inconsistent with common policy and or behavior serves as a pretty good basis for misconduct.

Corruption | Definition of Corruption by Merriam-Webster

excerpt from a dictionary

...

"Full Definition of corruption

a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity b : decay, decomposition c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct......"


To clarify then, by disregarding your employer's policy on journalism and vetting you are not impairing you or your employer's integrity your just 'doing your job'?

Sources for the bolded please? Also, could you use the definition of corruption you linked in a sentence in reference to Politico's Glenn Thrush who's email is referenced in the Wikileaks dump? I'm still failing to see the "corruption" that has been inferred against Hillary Clinton throughout this thread with the email.