Hillary Clinton

[DrmDoc]

DrmDoc,

 

Yes, I am suggesting that he was asked to "recommend" something.

 

If you remember, he did not actually recommend anything, he just said that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, given the evidence.

 

The AG still could have been unreasonable and brought charges.

 

Regards, TAR

 

You do understand that "he did not actually recommend anything" because "no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, given the evidence"? The only action the AG could pursue was prosecution. Which means Mr. Comey could either recommend charges and prosecution or recommend no charges and prosecution to the AG. To avoid the appearance of partiality, the AG agreed to accept whatever recommendation Mr. Comey provided without knowing what he might recommend. She was facing a 50/50 chance that he might recommend prosecution, yet he did not. If he had, she would have had no choice because she had publically agreed to accept his decision. Mr. Comey, with the powerful backing of congress, could have confidently and securely recommended prosecution but we all know he did not. The AG agreed to accept that. Regardless of what you may personally believe, there was no collusion between the power elite on the outcome of this investigation.

Edited September 8, 2016 by DrmDoc

[tar]

DrmDoc,

 

50/50 chance? I was thinking more 90 10 for prosecution as I listened to the director talk about Hilary's carelessness with documents, and after his rejection of her "facts." If it was 50/50 why did Hilary and Obama plan a victory appearance that very night. In fact she was onboard airforce 1 that day. That is what leads me to feel that she has friends in high places, because she is friends with two presidents, one active, that the FBI director reports to.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited September 8, 2016 by tar

[swansont]

Hilary rubbed me the wrong way when she said she was going to let her husband run the economy. Really? You are qualified to be President, and you are going to hand off responsibility for the economy to your husband?

 

 

So did Trump rub you the wrong way when he offered a VP candidate the chance to run all of the policy (well, maybe not all. Just domestic and foreign)?

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/20/trump_reportedly_wanted_kasich_as_vp_to_be_in_charge_of_domestic_and_foreign.html

 

Did any other presidents rub you the wrong way when their spouses took on an active role in some policy, or just in the fact that they could influence their husband? Eleanor Roosevelt was very active in politics while first lady. Edith Wilson may have run the country after Woodrow had a stroke. Lady Bird Johnson took an active part in Head Start. Betty Ford tried to help get the ERA passed. Rosalynn Carter attended cabinet meetings when they were of interest to her and worked on mental health care reform. Barbara Bush worked for literacy.

http://www.presidentprofiles.com/General-Information/The-Role-of-First-Lady-Martha-Washington-to-Laura-Bush-First-ladies-with-strong-impact-on-their-husbands-presidencies.html

 

swansont,

 

No, we still have write in votes. If CharonY would give her real name, we could start a write-in campaign and save the country from Trump, Hilary, Johnson and Stein.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Such a very persuasive rebuttal. [/sarcasm]

 

Meanwhile, in the real world, it's a two-party system.

swansont,

 

What "she" disappointed me? The AG? Well yes, matter of fact she did. She met with Bill and then said she would take the FBI recommendation, and then the FBI did not recommend criminal charges so she did not pursue any.

 

The same day Hilary was on the stump with Obama. If they did not know what the FBI was going to recommend, it would be pretty risky to plan the joint appearance. So I think the FBI director was somewhat influenced, in terms of what he was going to recommend, by the fact that the AG was going to take whatever he said and go with it. It would be fair to say that Hilary has an "in" with people in high places.

 

The only "in" here is innuendo. Why don't you just admit that this is all coloring events in terms of personal bias (which we all do) but not based on any actual facts (which only some people are doing)

[Willie71]

True of many politicians and business people. This is what I mean by using the same scale to measure the candidates. You aren't doing that if you hold one candidate in contempt for doing the same exact thing other candidate is doing. (Or by falsely equating incidents that aren't equivalent, which is also happening)

My issue is with the whole system, whether republican or democrat. Clinton is just the poster boy in the current landscape for political corruption. Trump is selling himself as the populist candidate. Trump is a disaster, no doubt, but I don't think a more hawkish, more pro business POTUS than Obama as we see in Clinton is the answer either. I'm really glad I'm not American and don't actually have to choose.

[swansont]

My issue is with the whole system, whether republican or democrat. Clinton is just the poster boy in the current landscape for political corruption.

 

 

But what evidence do you have of the corruption? Because I think it's largely falling prey to the misogynistic propaganda.

 

And how is Trump, who has boasted about how when he donates to candidates, they do what he wants, NOT a poster boy for political corruption? He's part of the system's corruption by his own admission!

 

(and which party is the one that wants to overturn Citizens United?)

[tar]

swansont,

 

I watch the news, MSNBC fairly progressive, CNN fairly fair, Fox fairly right wing, and hear the facts as spun from the different camps. I still heard the FBI director myself and don't need anyone to translate for me.

 

I heard the AG. I don't need anyone to translate for me.

 

I heard Hilary blame the torching of our embassy on right wing attack movie about the Prophet. It was during a reelection bid on Obama's part, and blaming it on the hate of the right, instead of on terrorists, was politically expedient for Hilary.

 

That is what I call spin. iNow calls it a witchhunt. What is a fact is still a fact. She blamed it, at first on the hatred of the right. Which was not the cause. Spin, or lie, your choice.

 

Regards, TAR

[Willie71]

But what evidence do you have of the corruption? Because I think it's largely falling prey to the misogynistic propaganda.

 

And how is Trump, who has boasted about how when he donates to candidates, they do what he wants, NOT a poster boy for political corruption? He's part of the system's corruption by his own admission!

 

(and which party is the one that wants to overturn Citizens United?)

Mysogynistic propaganda? The most pathetic apologetic in this election. There are numerous exposes on the Clintons, and I don't mean the right wing crap. Abby Martin has done a few. Charles Ortel has a pretty good expose. I don't discuss this with people willing to believe that criticisms are rooted in misogyny. It's insulting and innacurate.

 

Trump is a disaster. I already agreed with that. What is up with the idea that criticizing Clinton means support for trump? I can really dislike both of them, and believe on good evidence that both are terrible for the future of the USA and the world.

 

As far as I can tell neither party wants to overturn citizens United, beyond rhetoric. Lessig, Sanders, and Stein are the ones serious about overturning citizens United.

[DrmDoc]

DrmDoc,

 

50/50 chance? I was thinking more 90 10 for prosecution as I listened to the director talk about Hilary's carelessness with documents, and after his rejection of her "facts." If it was 50/50 why did Hilary and Obama plan a victory appearance that very night. In fact she was onboard airforce 1 that day. That is what leads me to feel that she has friends in high places, because she is friends with two presidents, one active, that the FBI director reports to.

 

Regards, TAR

 

It may have seemed 90/10 to the AG, as well, as she listened to Comey's assessment; however, carelessness with documents does not equal chargeable offenses without clear intent and actual evidence of harm to our national security. Remember, she was advised on how to handle her emails by a republican Secretary of State and no evidence of harm to our national security was ever found. Also, characterizing preplanned campaign related events with the president as a victory tour is not evidence that she or the president had foreknowledge of what Comey would recommend. Until Mrs. Clinton was either charged or absolved of some crime, she and the president had no need to cancel her presidential campaign efforts that were planned several months in advance given the president's likely busy schedule.

Edited September 8, 2016 by DrmDoc

[tar]

Trump, not the direct topic of this thread, is not backed by the republican elite. That seems to be his draw, when it comes to independents. He appears to be his own man, not purchasable. Hillary on the other hand, seems to have gone from pauper to riches on the back of public speeches and some books. And there were some future investments she did rather well on. Even Bernie suggests that any speech you get 100 or 200 thousand dollars for, must be a hell of a speech. No evidence of criminality, but the optics are not good.

 

 

My drift is not for Hilary or against her, or for Trump or against him. I think Trump is a disaster on about 3 different levels, but he has the support of 30 to 40 percent of my compatriots. And Hilary has the support of 40 to 50 percent of my compatriots. I would wish we could choose the better of the candidates rather that choose against the worst.

 

Who ever wins, will be the president of the all of us.

 

Regards, TAR

and that goes for those of us that are not Americans, as well, being that the POTUS is arguably the leader of the free world

 

It would probably be best if I kept my misgivings about the both of them to myself. One is probably going to be my President and will represent me to the world, run my government, enforce my laws, and lead my nation.

Might be best to wish that the best man or woman win, and give the winner the support they will need to move this nation and the world forward.

[DrmDoc]

Trump, not the direct topic of this thread, is not backed by the republican elite. That seems to be his draw, when it comes to independents. He appears to be his own man, not purchasable. Hillary on the other hand, seems to have gone from pauper to riches on the back of public speeches and some books. And there were some future investments she did rather well on. Even Bernie suggests that any speech you get 100 or 200 thousand dollars for, must be a hell of a speech. No evidence of criminality, but the optics are not good.

 

 

My drift is not for Hilary or against her, or for Trump or against him. I think Trump is a disaster on about 3 different levels, but he has the support of 30 to 40 percent of my compatriots. And Hilary has the support of 40 to 50 percent of my compatriots. I would wish we could choose the better of the candidates rather that choose against the worst.

 

Who ever wins, will be the president of the all of us.

 

Regards, TAR

and that goes for those of us that are not Americans, as well, being that the POTUS is arguably the leader of the free world

 

It would probably be best if I kept my misgivings about the both of them to myself. One is probably going to be my President and will represent me to the world, run my government, enforce my laws, and lead my nation.

 

You've made a very clear distinction between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in that Mr. Trump has always known privilege and was never a pauper. If you examine his business record, you'll find that Mr. Trump has only done what was in the best interest of his business and not that of his employees, tenants, the middle class, or the common man. He is self-made to the extent that he had substantial financial support from his father at the beginning of his business career. If your compatriots would take the time to investigate Mr. Trump, they will find that he has a clear history of caring more about himself and his image than the needs of our nation and people.

Edited September 8, 2016 by DrmDoc

[tar]

I knew that about Mr. Trump.

 

But did I ever tell you my 90 10 theory. 10 percent of the population are the leaders in industry, school, church, entertainment, military, business, government, the arts and science. These are the most intelligent, the ones with the most power, charisma, charm, trustworthiness and gumption. The other 90 percent are not among the top 10 percent. It only takes about 49 to 51 percent of the vote to win an election for president. The top 10 percent could all vote for the same person, and the other person could win, by getting the votes of the 90 percent.

Edited September 8, 2016 by tar

[Endy0816]

Trump, not the direct topic of this thread, is not backed by the republican elite. That seems to be his draw, when it comes to independents. He appears to be his own man, not purchasable. Hillary on the other hand, seems to have gone from pauper to riches on the back of public speeches and some books. And there were some future investments she did rather well on. Even Bernie suggests that any speech you get 100 or 200 thousand dollars for, must be a hell of a speech. No evidence of criminality, but the optics are not good.

 

 

My drift is not for Hilary or against her, or for Trump or against him. I think Trump is a disaster on about 3 different levels, but he has the support of 30 to 40 percent of my compatriots. And Hilary has the support of 40 to 50 percent of my compatriots. I would wish we could choose the better of the candidates rather that choose against the worst.

 

Who ever wins, will be the president of the all of us.

 

Regards, TAR

and that goes for those of us that are not Americans, as well, being that the POTUS is arguably the leader of the free world

 

It would probably be best if I kept my misgivings about the both of them to myself. One is probably going to be my President and will represent me to the world, run my government, enforce my laws, and lead my nation.

Might be best to wish that the best man or woman win, and give the winner the support they will need to move this nation and the world forward.

 

 

$200,000 & Up

Donald Trump - $1.5M

Topping the list by a longshot is billionaire birther and infamous reality-TV host Donald Trump. “The Donald earned a staggering $1.5 million per speech at The Learning Annex’s ‘real estate wealth expos’ in 2006 and 2007,” according to Forbes. “Trump appeared at 17 seminars and collected this fee for each one.”

Hillary Clinton - $200K

Commanding around $200,000, Clinton recently came under fire for her $250,000 speaking fee at an upcoming UNLV fundraiser. Hilary told ABC’s Diane Sawyer in June that her family was “dead broke” upon leaving White House.

Bill Clinton - $200K

Though he is typically paid around $200,000, there are some notable exceptions. Swedish Telecom firm Ericsson reportedly paid the former president $750,000 for one speech in 2011. The Washington Post published a comprehensive review of the astounding $104.9 million Clinton has amassed in speaking fees since leaving office.

Tim Geithner - $200K

The former Treasury secretary was reportedly paid $100,000 to speak at Blackstone’s annual meeting in 2013. He was also paid as much as $200,000 to speak at a Deutsch Bank conference last year, according to the Financial Times.

Ben Bernanke - $200K to $400K

Bernanke makes between $200,000 and $400,000 per speaking engagement, according to the New York Times. The former chairman of the Federal Reserve’s international audience reportedly includes “a Middle Eastern bank, private equity firms and trade associations.”

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590#1

 

Not at all unusual to see former Presidents and their wives doing paid speeches. Some Conferences have oodles and oodles of money and they'll spread it around liberally. If books and speeches help ensure people have incentive to leave the office I am all for them.

[tar]

So Trump is worth nearly four times as much as Bill and Hillary put together. Except to Ericsson who think Bill is worth 1/2 as much as Trump.

 

Again the question is what value is it, that the speakers are adding to the conference. Name recognition? Expertise? Access?

 

Like a breakfast with a former president might be of great value, I suppose a speech might garner a sum...but equating the speeches of a real estate mogul and bankers and former presidents with that of a senator and secretary of state seems like apples and oranges to me. What could Hilary say in a speech to wall street, worth 100K to the people paying the fare?

but thank you Endy0816, you showed me that famous people can get those kinds of fees for appearances. I was not aware. Could be innocent.

[Endy0816]

So Trump is worth nearly four times as much as Bill and Hillary put together. Except to Ericsson who think Bill is worth 1/2 as much as Trump.

 

Again the question is what value is it, that the speakers are adding to the conference. Name recognition? Expertise? Access?

 

Like a breakfast with a former president might be of great value, I suppose a speech might garner a sum...but equating the speeches of a real estate mogul and bankers and former presidents with that of a senator and secretary of state seems like apples and oranges to me. What could Hilary say in a speech to wall street, worth 100K to the people paying the fare?

but thank you Endy0816, you showed me that famous people can get those kinds of fees for appearances. I was not aware. Could be innocent.

 

Welcome. I fully understand the feeling, it took me awhile to wrap my head around the sheer amount of money spent at these things.

 

Name recognition and expertise are the main factors IMO. From what I've seen organizers genuinely want their folks to attend, whether it is because they want their money, to provide training, or both.

 

You can find upfront conference prices starting at over $1K per person with yet more money spent by companies wanting to promote their own products at the event.

 

Met Laura Bush(briefly always briefly) while working security for an HR show(SHRM).

 

https://annual.shrm.org/sites/default/files/SHRM17_Reg.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Human_Resource_Management

 

~15,000 attendees * ~$1,500 = ~$2,250,000

 

I don't know what Mrs. Bush asked for, if anything, but $200,000 would have been easily affordable.

[swansont]

Mysogynistic propaganda? The most pathetic apologetic in this election. There are numerous exposes on the Clintons, and I don't mean the right wing crap. Abby Martin has done a few. Charles Ortel has a pretty good expose. I don't discuss this with people willing to believe that criticisms are rooted in misogyny. It's insulting and innacurate.

 

 

Denying the existence of misogyny is insulting and inaccurate. Pointing to a few exposes that are (potentially) free from this does not rebut this. One can go through articles (and posts here) and see that Clinton is criticized for things that Trump (or men in general) are not. Reince tweeted about how Hillary did not smile during the recent forum. Do we see criticism of Trump not smiling? For women, being told to smile is old hat, as are other criticisms of how their appearance, rooted in the notion part of their value is in their looks.

 

 

If you have evidence — actual evidence — of corruption, why don't you post it?

[MigL]

I wouldn't go that far Swansont.

Maybe she was 'expected' to smile because she's not a miserable prick like D. Trump.

[swansont]

I wouldn't go that far Swansont.

Maybe she was 'expected' to smile because she's not a miserable prick like D. Trump.

 

 

The longer-view reaction from women indicates this is widespread.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/17/hillary-clinton-facing-sexism-sexist-politics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/stop-telling-women-to-smile/

 

(I got 40 million Google hits for 'women being told to smile')

[Willie71]

Denying the existence of misogyny is insulting and inaccurate. Pointing to a few exposes that are (potentially) free from this does not rebut this. One can go through articles (and posts here) and see that Clinton is criticized for things that Trump (or men in general) are not. Reince tweeted about how Hillary did not smile during the recent forum. Do we see criticism of Trump not smiling? For women, being told to smile is old hat, as are other criticisms of how their appearance, rooted in the notion part of their value is in their looks.

 

 

If you have evidence — actual evidence — of corruption, why don't you post it?

I never said that mysogyny doesn't exist, did I? Strawman. I have defended Clinton when criticisms are things like her pantsuits, voice, or this last one, not smiling. The money laundering of the Clinton foundation? Couldn't care less if it's a woman or a man. Not being aware of the "actual evidence" of the Clinton corruption means one is engaging in motivated reasoning, or you get all of your news from CNN. Clinton has record low favourability for a reason. It's not just right wing BS attacks.

 

[swansont]

I never said that mysogyny doesn't exist, did I? Strawman.

 

"I don't discuss this with people willing to believe that criticisms are rooted in misogyny." That's a quote from you. So yes, I interpreted your statement incorrectly. My apologies. You didn't claim that it doesn't exist, just that you are not willing to engage in discussions based on that reality. As you were engaging with me, I made an incorrect interpretation of the statement. Thanks to your clarification I now know you were just making a false claim.

 

 

[DrmDoc]

I never said that mysogyny doesn't exist, did I? Strawman. I have defended Clinton when criticisms are things like her pantsuits, voice, or this last one, not smiling. The money laundering of the Clinton foundation? Couldn't care less if it's a woman or a man. Not being aware of the "actual evidence" of the Clinton corruption means one is engaging in motivated reasoning, or you get all of your news from CNN. Clinton has record low favourability for a reason. It's not just right wing BS attacks.

 

 

That is an opinion piece...do you believe everything you are told or do you actually have some verifiable, undeniable, or objective evidence we can review without biased commentary?

[swansont]

Clinton has record low favourability for a reason. It's not just right wing BS attacks.

 

That's an admission that it is partly due to BS attacks, and doesn't actually prove anything one way or the other.

[tar]

Thread,

 

I did not even know of the word misogyny until this presidential election. I think it is misused, or at least used to place hatred in someone else's heart and mind, that might be mere sexism or less, like mere stereotypes we all possess.

 

I think it natural to be affected, if only subconsciously by a person's outward appearance, their size, their strength, their attractiveness. Like if Woody Allen or Arnold Schwarzenegger was to be sent to face down Putin over Crimea, who would be more affective? Woody Allen might be brighter, but who would you think would garner more respect from Putin?

 

Regards, TAR

[Willie71]

That is an opinion piece...do you believe everything you are told or do you actually have some verifiable, undeniable, or objective evidence we can review without biased commentary?

 

It's not just an opinion piece. The information presented is public record. It took me months to search out these stories, and they are for the most part accurate. There are a few details that are disagreed upon by different sources, but much like climate science, the trend is clear. I'm not into cherry picking a few holes and calling it a day.

 

It makes no difference to me if you look at reality on this. Inform yourself, or believe the fairy tale that Clinton is a progressive champion and be let down. I'm not going to spend days linking multiple sources for you to dismiss. You can search out each of these points and evaluate for yourself if you like. To say Abby Martin is just opinion is dismissing well established facts like the crime bill Clinton supported, her entanglement with lobbyists and foreign powers, her support of the Iraq war long after most criticized it, her push to intervene in Lybia, push for a no fly zone in Syria, and interventionist push with Iran. Are you denying all of those things? They all fit the policies that Third Way Democrats advocate too, not even a shift from the norm, but this is mysogynistic right wing smear material? Keep deluding yourself.

 

Do you believe all the Clinton Propaganda you hear?

"I don't discuss this with people willing to believe that criticisms are rooted in misogyny." That's a quote from you. So yes, I interpreted your statement incorrectly. My apologies. You didn't claim that it doesn't exist, just that you are not willing to engage in discussions based on that reality. As you were engaging with me, I made an incorrect interpretation of the statement. Thanks to your clarification I now know you were just making a false claim.

 

I thought I typed "all criticisms." which was my intent. I wasn't clear. My fault.

[Phi for All]

I wouldn't go that far Swansont.

 

Oh, that kind of garbage happens to women all the time. Men can be aggressive, women are just bitchy. Most of the terminology about male aggressiveness is positively slanted (you have to reach a criminal level before the terms start reflecting reality). Men get called something like hardasses, which is actually kind of a compliment. You can grudgingly respect a hardass. There is no equivalent term for an aggressive woman. All the words are derogatory, all are meant to deride with zero respect.

 

Try to find a word that describes a man who is aggressive about liking sex that isn't half complimentary. Now try to find a word that describes a woman who is aggressive about liking sex that doesn't degrade her in some way for the same behavior. "Cougar" was the closest I found, but that's more derogatory about age.

 

And Trump is a good example of how that's applied socially. If a man goes after the Donald aggressively, he'll attack back against that man's heritage, his work ethic, his business acumen, his intelligence, and other arguable points. What happened when Meagan Kelly got aggressive? "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever." Meagan wasn't being a hardass journalist; she was an hysterical woman who's questions were irrelevant.

[DrmDoc]

It's not just an opinion piece. The information presented is public record. It took me months to search out these stories, and they are for the most part accurate. There are a few details that are disagreed upon by different sources, but much like climate science, the trend is clear. I'm not into cherry picking a few holes and calling it a day.

 

It makes no difference to me if you look at reality on this. Inform yourself, or believe the fairy tale that Clinton is a progressive champion and be let down. I'm not going to spend days linking multiple sources for you to dismiss. You can search out each of these points and evaluate for yourself if you like. To say Abby Martin is just opinion is dismissing well established facts like the crime bill Clinton supported, her entanglement with lobbyists and foreign powers, her support of the Iraq war long after most criticized it, her push to intervene in Lybia, push for a no fly zone in Syria, and interventionist push with Iran. Are you denying all of those things? They all fit the policies that Third Way Democrats advocate too, not even a shift from the norm, but this is mysogynistic right wing smear material? Keep deluding yourself.

 

Do you believe all the Clinton Propaganda you hear?

 

On either candidate, I only believe real and unbiased evidence that I have personally reviewed and found trustworthy. Partisan and biased opinions are only interesting for their entertainment value rather than honest information. Based on what I've investigated, I have no illusions or reservations about a Clinton presidency, she will be a great leader. However, you are clearly outraged by Clinton's alleged transgressions. Are there no Trump transgressions you find equally outrageous and disqualifying?

Edited September 9, 2016 by DrmDoc