ABQCOWBOY Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I think he's acting the fool, but I don't think he's stupid. Far from it. In fact, he might be brilliant. I don't think he has any talent as a developer, or real estate mogul or tv guy. But for him to have the success he has????? He's brilliant. I don't think he is either. What I think he's doing is stoaking the fire early. He's saying things that are contraversial in a manner which is over the top so that he can consolidate his target base and so that later, when he discusses these issues in debates etc., he will have already delt with the shock factor and the follow on will not be as toxic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 I think he's acting the fool, but I don't think he's stupid. Far from it. In fact, he might be brilliant. I don't think he has any talent as a developer, or real estate mogul or tv guy. But for him to have the success he has????? He's brilliant. I agree with you. He has one heck of a talent for self promotion. It would have been more accurate to say "doing stupid things". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Thank you @dennisrodman. It's time to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain! I hope you are doing well! twitter.com/dennisrodman/s… Dennis Rodman @dennisrodman @realDonaldTrump has been a great friend for many years. We don't need another politician, we need a businessman like Mr. Trump! Trump 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RVAbrendan Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Thank you @dennisrodman. It's time to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain! I hope you are doing well! twitter.com/dennisrodman/s… Dennis Rodman @dennisrodman @realDonaldTrump has been a great friend for many years. We don't need another politician, we need a businessman like Mr. Trump! Trump 2016 Well, I'm convinced!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Donald Trump is touting an endorsement from a guy that thinks Kim Jong Un is a swell fella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Donald Trump is touting an endorsement from a guy that thinks Kim Jong Un is a swell fella. Obvious choice for Secretary of State. Already has experience in International Diplomacy and would divert attention from Trump's hair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 Obvious choice for Secretary of State. Already has experience in International Diplomacy and would divert attention from Trump's hair. Secretary of State? Pfft, Donnie still needs a running mate! "Trump/Rodman 2016, by the time you realize this isn't a joke it will be too late" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 First on CNN: Two Texas donors commit $15 million to Ted Cruz Washington (CNN)Two little-known Texas brothers donated $15 million to support Sen. Ted Cruz, a record-setting contribution that could amount to the largest known donation so far in the presidential campaign. Farris and Dan Wilks, billionaires who made their fortunes in the West Texas fracking boom, have given $15 million of the $38 million that the pro-Cruz super PAC, Keep the Promise, will disclose in election filings next week, according to sources outside the super PAC with knowledge of the giving. The siblings earned their riches with the sale of their company Frac Tech for $3.5 billion in 2011, and since then have shuffled large contributions to the leading social conservative nonprofit groups that aren't required to reveal their donors. But they will no longer be able to avoid detection after giving a historically large and early donation that now make the brothers two of America's most prominent political donors. more from the link. Big score for Ted. He was raising well already. But this helps him not go scorched earth at the debates and hang around longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 more from the link. Big score for Ted. He was raising well already. But this helps him not go scorched earth at the debates and hang around longer. You're assuming that he doesn't want to go scorched Earth. He didn't get to where he is, by being moderate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Oh, and BTW,NYT: Hillary Clinton Emails Said to Contain Classified Data WASHINGTON — Government investigators said Friday that they had discovered classified information on the private email account that Hillary Rodham Clinton used while secretary of state, stating unequivocally that those secrets never should have been stored outside of secure government computer systems. Mrs. Clinton has said for months that she kept no classified information on the private server that she set up in her house so she would not have to carry both a personal phone and a work phone. Her campaign said Friday that any government secrets found on the server had been classified after the fact. But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards “This classified information never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system,” Steve A. Linick, the State Department inspector general, said in a statement signed by him and I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community. Me, I don't really see anything that I didn't assume was the case, all along. 1) I doubt there's a senior government employee, anywhere, that doesn;t routinely mishandle classified information. 2) I think it's glaringly obvious that the only possible motive for setting up your own email server, in the first place, is because you expect to be subpoenaed, and you want to be ablt to hide from them. 3) And I doubt there's a senior government official who doesn't set up hidden email (using one method or another), either. 4) And "everybody does it" isn't a justification. It speaks to a character which literally plans in advance to violate government accountability laws. Still, as to the upcoming election, I think that this is the only scandal that the GOP have been flying into spasms of mock outrage over, that actually is a scandal. (Even if it is a scandal with some lame excuses attached to it.) I could see this scandal actually working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Still, as to the upcoming election, I think that this is the only scandal that the GOP have been flying into spasms of mock outrage over, that actually is a scandal. (Even if it is a scandal with some lame excuses attached to it.) I could see this scandal actually working. In my government agency, this is a serious offense. There is a policy for retention of emails. I would suspect it would be RARE instances where they use a private email. It would be the rare few at the highest levels (Hillary, Petraues) who could get away with it without fear of retribution or jail time. I certainly wouldn't get off like Hillary or the general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 I'd love a reporter to ask Hillary this- If you are potus, and discover that your Secretary of State is violating rules you've established and is using a private email server to conduct state business without oversight, what would you do to that person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 In my government agency, this is a serious offense. There is a policy for retention of emails. I would suspect it would be RARE instances where they use a private email. It would be the rare few at the highest levels (Hillary, Petraues) who could get away with it without fear of retribution or jail time. I certainly wouldn't get off like Hillary or the general. No, probably not. But it seems to have been SOP, for the political class, for decades. I read newspaper articles, at the time, that when W set up his administration, every White House employee was given two email addresses. One in whitehouse.gov, where records were kept, and one on GOP.com, which was exempt from record keeping. It was actually significant, when the Dems were investigating the firing of the federal prosecutors. Lots of back and forth among low lever staffers, debating whether to fire some prosecutor or another, until they reached a consensus on who to fire. Then somebody asks "who's going to tell the President?" Then no emails at all, for six weeks. Then the emails start up again, but the President has approved of the plan. When Sarah Palin took over Alaska, on a platform to reform a scandal ridden government, before she even took office, her chief of staff was advising all staff to get yahoo or gmail accounts, and he'll compile a list of everybody's email. Apparently there was some kind of investigation into her, at which it was revealed that, in her entire time as governor, her official email account was used exactly once. Some staffer sent her an email about a personnel matter, to her official email. And the chief of staff responded, and told him to use the yahoo email. My local city council had a scandal, recently. Council members were texting each other, during meetings, to avoid using their official email accounts. I figure it's simply become SOP, for all politicians. Specifically so that they can hide from the law. (Which is, in itself, often against the law). Doesn't make it right. But it sure seems to be universal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 12th Commandment Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Hillary gets a lot of **** thrown at her by the right for all kinds of specious reasons. I give her the benefit of the doubt on almost all of it. The emails are a problem for me though. I worked for local government for most of my career and once email became an accepted means of communication even in my podunk little county we were told categorically that all work related email had to be done using our assigned county email address. Communication retention and backups, public record open access and consistency (someone could find it if you were out for any length of time with an emergency) were the reasons given and they seemed reasonable to me. Plus it was mandatory. I can't fathom why she we use her own for any reason except being able to parse what other people see and the only reason I can think an official would want to do that is to cover her ass. If a communication was controversial and part of longer series of communications, which taken out of context could be misconstrued, we used verbal communication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Oh, her motive is obvious. She anticipated exactly what is happening. Politicians will demand everything, so they can go through it and try to find a few phrases in gigabytes of data, which can be spun into political sound bites. This scandal is Benghazi, part 17. But the fact that she was right, and that this was simply her attempt to head off the fishing expedition which did, in fact, occur, doesn't change the fact that she took preemptive steps to avoid legally mandated accountability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 But the fact that she was right, and that this was simply her attempt to head off the fishing expedition which did, in fact, occur, doesn't change the fact that she took preemptive steps to avoid legally mandated accountability. She was right that politicians review peoples actions while in office? She was right to do it? I guess Nixon was right too, he anticipated politicians scrutinizing every thing he did, so if ya keep your activities tightly controlled maybe nobody will see what you are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted July 25, 2015 Author Share Posted July 25, 2015 Salon writer takes a look at the reason for Trump's popularity http://www.salon.com/2015/07/25/its_not_who_he_is_its_who_he_hates_the_secret_to_donald_trumps_toxic_appeal/ Rand Paul's PAC not raising much. http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/rand-paul-s-super-pac-raises-just-3-1-million-smallest-total-yet-for-2016-republican-20150724 Buzzfeeds look at Donald's flipflops. http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/a-guide-to-the-radical-left-wing-ideology-and-flip-flops-of#.mebR8bqbW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Salon writer takes a look at the reason for Trump's popularity http://www.salon.com/2015/07/25/its_not_who_he_is_its_who_he_hates_the_secret_to_donald_trumps_toxic_appeal/ Larry already said this. Racism sells. Everyone who is for Trump is a racist. His popularity is because he hates Mexicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Veterans named as Donald Trump supporters say they were not consulted Several people listed as part of the “Veterans for Trump coalition” formed by Donald Trump following his incendiary comments about John McCain’s war record have denied they are part of the group, the Guardian has learned. Trump’s campaign announced the formation of the New Hampshire-based group in response to criticism of the business mogul’s labelling of McCain, who spent five and a half years in a North Vietnamese jail, where he was tortured, as “not a war hero”. A number of people were named as members of “Veterans for Trump” on Trump’s election website. “These veterans have pledged their support to Mr Trump in the primary, and they will be advocating for him,” a press release said. But when the Guardian contacted several claimed Veterans for Trump members on Friday, three said they had never heard of the organisation and had not signed up as members. “I don’t know anything about it,” said Ernie Fusi, an 88-year-old second world war veteran from Atkinson, New Hampshire. His name was among 51 “Veterans for Trump” whose details were sent out to the media and listed on Trump’s website. fantastic. More from the link, Hillary Clinton's Economic Speech A Total Letdown Hillary Clinton gave a speech Friday that pledged to combat dodgy corporate management but offered only soft-touch policy solutions that included significant tax breaks for wealthy investors. Advisors billed the talk as a major rollout of Clinton’s economic agenda. The candidate herself pitched her proposals as a way to break from failed policies that had damaged the economy. But the speech eschewed any emphasis on income inequality, runaway finance, companies "too big to fail" or any of the economic issues animating the Democratic Party. Instead, Clinton offered a mild-mannered, small-bore critique of "quarterly capitalism," a common corporate strategy that maximizes short-term profits over long-term investments. Such short-term thinking is almost universally recognized as a problem. It's just not very high on the list of the country's economic woes. Companies can sacrifice long-term investments and ignore long-term risks by pursuing strategies that maximize returns to shareholders over the next few months. In the long run, that's bad for society and bad for corporate profits. "Large public companies now return eight or nine out of every 10 dollars they earn directly back to shareholders, either in the form of dividends or stock buybacks which can temporarily boost share prices,” Clinton said in the speech. "Last year the total reached a record $900 billion. That doesn't leave much money to build new factory or a research lab or to train workers or to give them a raise." But Clinton didn't call for corporations to give their workers a raise, or to tie CEO pay to the pay of average workers -- or any other policy that would directly impact economic inequality. Instead, she focused on creating incentives for companies to better profit from longer-term investments. That means tax increases for investors cashing out shorter investments. She also suggested altogether eliminating taxes on long-term investments in "small businesses," a category she said would include "innovative startups." As she praised early investors “patiently nurturing the next disruptive innovator,” Clinton appeared to be simultaneously stroking the egos of wealthy Silicon Valley venture capitalists and offering them a substantial tax cut. But the rest of her proposal included increases in capital gains taxes for assets wealthy investors hold for less than six years. Clinton's plan would boost capital gains taxes for investments of two years or less to 43.3 percent -- a rate that currently applies only to investments of less than one year. The rate would gradually decrease over time to 23.8 percent after an investment reaches six years. Sad trombone sound from that campaign. More from the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 Looks like the only actual Hillary proposal which that quote mentions, is a capital gains tax hike. On everybody. But I assume that there's more too it. (I also assume there's not much more to it. Presidential candidates absolutely hate detailed proposals). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 This election I fear will come down to an absolutely boring and empty Dem candidate (Hillary) vs a raging lunatic from the Right (the primary season will push all of them to take insane positions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 25, 2015 Share Posted July 25, 2015 This election I fear will come down to an absolutely boring and empty Dem candidate (Hillary) vs a raging lunatic from the Right (the primary season will push all of them to take insane positions). I think you're half right. I think Jeb! has the cash to sit back and ignore the squabbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Donald Trump still going strong. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-marist-polls-show-donald-trump-running-strong-iowa-nh-n398401 Well there is hope, maybe some Americans are smart enough to see through Hillary's nonsense. The favorable/unfavorable scores in Iowa among all registered voters: Clinton -19 (37/56 percent) Trump -28 (32 percent/60 percent) The favorable/unfavorable scores in New Hampshire: Clinton -20 (37 percent/57 percent) Trump -40 (27 percent/67 percent) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojo Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Donald Trump still going strong. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/nbc-marist-polls-show-donald-trump-running-strong-iowa-nh-n398401 Well there is hope, maybe some Americans are smart enough to see through Hillary's nonsense. The favorable/unfavorable scores in Iowa among all registered voters: Clinton -19 (37/56 percent) Trump -28 (32 percent/60 percent) The favorable/unfavorable scores in New Hampshire: Clinton -20 (37 percent/57 percent) Trump -40 (27 percent/67 percent) Count me in on the Trump bandwagon. He may be a complete douche but so are the other candidates and at least he's calling them out for it. I'd love to see him humiliate Hillary in a debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinWill Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Count me in on the Trump bandwagon. He may be a complete douche but so are the other candidates and at least he's calling them out for it. I'd love to see him humiliate Hillary in a debate. Those are my sentiments as well and I find it refreshing from a potential presidential candidate to be brutally honest instead of the same generic responses to every question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.