Jump to content
The Education Forum

Picture of Ted Cruz's father and Oswald having breakfast


Recommended Posts

Ron - I think most people reading what you write wish you would get over your moral equivalence argument. I sure would. Clinton is establishment, but not a crook, a xxxx, a crazy person, dangerous to our democracy. I don't like things she stands for, but hey I don't like the Democratic Party as whole either. But Trump? Please, for me you lose credibility, and considering how level headed you usually are it makes no sense that you have taken the right wing blogosphere bait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ron - I think most people reading what you write wish you would get over your moral equivalence argument. I sure would. Clinton is establishment, but not a crook, a xxxx, a crazy person, dangerous to our democracy. I don't like things she stands for, but hey I don't like the Democratic Party as whole either. But Trump? Please, for me you lose credibility, and considering how level headed you usually are it makes no sense that you have taken the right wing blogosphere bait.

I don't worry about my credibility here with you or anyone else. But I do resent the implication that I have to depend on "the right wing blogosphere" and can't think for myself.

If you think Clinton isn't a xxxx, if you think, for example, that she really did have to dodge sniper fire, like Brian Williams almost had his helicopter shot down, that's your business. If you think there's some big difference between "extremely careless" and "grossly negligent" with classified material (she would have to be charged for the latter, wouldn't she) that's your business too. But if you're not embarrassed by these two candidates for the U.S. presidency, out of all the possible candidates in this country, then we're simply two people very different from each other.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comey is a career bureaucrat -- Presidents come and go, Attorney Generals come and go.

The bureaucracy is eternal...

If you don't think career bureaucrats can be intimidated by higher-ups in the corrupt city of Washington DC, I don't know what to tell you.

Higher ups in the bureaucracy?

Or political higher ups?

I think it more likely that career bureaucrats are the ones doing the intimidating.

Is there a history of FBI chiefs bending to political pressure - or are they the ones who apply the pressure?

Ron, if you say something under oath that isn't true -- are you always lying?

What if what you say is mistaken, instead?

People who testify about themselves usually know if they're lying or not.

People can't be mistaken?

But don't worry, you've already revealed Hillary's (successful) defense. She didn't know she was lying.

Perjury goes to intent -- and Comey admitted that Hillary didn't intend to mislead.

Comey would have no idea what her intentions were when she testified before a congressional committee.

Then without proof of intention to deceive there is no basis to charge perjury.

I don't think her congressional testimony was even part of the investigation. The question of perjury before Congress has supposedly been referred to him (the FBI) for investigation. (See above for the outcome.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higher ups in the bureaucracy?

Or political higher ups?

Political higher ups, like presidents.

Is there a history of FBI chiefs bending to political pressure - or are they the ones who apply the pressure?

Well, J. Edgar Hoover was a main player in the JFK cover-up. You can believe that he was in on the conspiracy to start with, or you can believe that he helped lead the cover-up under pressure from somebody.

L. Patrick Gray resigned as Acting FBI Director after admitting that he had destroyed documents. Under pressure from whom?

Louis Freeh ignored evidence of Iraqi involvement in the OKC bombing. Under pressure from whom?

People can't be mistaken?

Of course.

Then without proof of intention to deceive there is no basis to charge perjury.

To reiterate, I believe the question of perjury is now under FBI investigation, having been referred to the FBI by Congress.

And I'm willing to bet the farm on what the conclusion will be. She was just "extremely careless" with her answers.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Higher ups in the bureaucracy?

Or political higher ups?

Political higher ups, like presidents.

Is there a history of FBI chiefs bending to political pressure - or are they the ones who apply the pressure?

Well, J. Edgar Hoover was a main player in the JFK cover-up. You can believe that he was in on the conspiracy to start with, or you can believe that he helped lead the cover-up under pressure from somebody.

L. Patrick Gray resigned as Acting FBI Director after admitting that he had destroyed documents. Under pressure from whom?

Louis Freeh ignored evidence of Iraqi involvement in the OKC bombing. Under pressure from whom?

People can't be mistaken?

Of course.

Then without proof of intention to deceive there is no basis to charge perjury.

To reiterate, I believe the question of perjury is now under FBI investigation, having been referred to the FBI by Congress.

And I'm willing to bet the farm on what the conclusion will be. She was just "extremely careless" with her answers.

1. L, Patrick Gray was not a career FBI man. He was a purely political appointment.

2, Timothy McVeigh was not an Iraqi.

3. Republican James Comey didn't have a problem going after the Bush administration over the Valerie Plame scandal.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/05/fbi-nominee-james-comey-triggered-plamegate-investigation

Politicians and their political appointees have more to fear from career bureaucrats than visa-versa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ron - as I said, I see plenty of problems with Clinton, just not the ones you are focussed on, which do indeed emanate from right wing hit squads. What she did with her emails was not the horrible thing Republicans say it was, or that you believe. She didn't cause the terrorism in Benghazi, didn't cause Syria to fall apart, etc etc. The coming election is most certainly not a choice of equally bad candidates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What she did with her emails was not the horrible thing Republicans say it was, or that you believe.

It's not a question of what I believe or what Republicans say. What she did with her emails is what the FBI said she did at the conclusion of its investigation. Now if you believe that the FBI was lying, well, it wouldn't be the first time that the FBI has lied, so I guess you're entitled to believe that.

She didn't cause the terrorism in Benghazi, didn't cause Syria to fall apart, etc etc.

I didn't know she had been accused of those things. It sounds like you spend too much time on the right-wing blogosphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so obvious what I referred to - what she has been accused of - falsely. And you didn't know it because you don't pay attention to the right wing attacks but I do? Well, I do because the mainstream media gives it plenty of air time. I spend no time reading the crap they put out, but unfortunately all of us are bombarded with it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so obvious what I referred to - what she has been accused of - falsely. And you didn't know it because you don't pay attention to the right wing attacks but I do? Well, I do because the mainstream media gives it plenty of air time. I spend no time reading the crap they put out, but unfortunately all of us are bombarded with it anyway.

Well, if you heard that Hillary caused the terrorism in Benghazi, or that she caused Syria to fall apart, you heard a bunch of crap, whatever the source. I didn't hear it. I know that there is controversy about whether or not those killed at Benghazi could have been saved. And I know that Obama has been partly blamed for the Syrian mess. I didn't know that Hillary has been accused of calling the shots. Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump has made an ass of himself. I was going to vote for him. But his saying that John McCain was a loser, that women should be punished for having an abortion, making fun of somebody's handicap, throwing his arms about and then lying by saying he never saw the man before -- then how did he know that NY Times reporter, who followed him from day one, had this particular affliction? His foreign policy is naive and non-existent. He wants every country to own nuclear weapons. I'm afraid he'll lose the election for being stupid. And he's always exaggerating how well his interests are doing. Can we trust that?

What I don't trust the Clintons for is their conviviality with the Bushes. What else are they sharing? Rich

Dellarosa told me that during Bill Clinton's 8 years there were 200 political murders, beginning with Vince

Foster. And I recall reading that when Bill Clinton took office, he summoned his chiefs of staff and said: I want

to know about the Kennedy Assassination and I want to know about UFOs. They told him: You don't have high

enough clearance. I bet the Clintons do now.

It made me laugh when childish Jeb Bush asserted, "My father is the nicest man I ever met." I remember

Bush's "nice" speech on TV when he was talking about the New World Order, that it had already started -- it

sounded like a threat. (You can see it on youtube.) So now we'll have a woman President. I will say she's

certainly confident and comes up with good arguments about Trump.

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the column: To understand what Trump is up to, listen to his doppelgänger, the veteran political operative Roger Stone. He will say things that even Trump will not say, usually as a way to allow Trump to later repeat some variant of them.

It was Stone who called a CNN commentator a “stupid Negro” and accused the Gold Star parents of Capt. Humayun Khan of being Muslim Brotherhood agents. And it was Stone who threatened to give out the hotel room numbers of unsupportive Republicans at the party convention, the better for the Trumpian mob to find them.

He tastes the food for the king to make sure it’s not poison. If it doesn’t kill Roger Stone, it will not kill Donald Trump.
Picking up on Trump’s rigged-election meme, Stone told a right-wing news outlet that the electoral fix was already in: “The government will be shut down if they attempt to steal this and swear Hillary in.” The outcome is fair only if Trump wins.
“If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience,” he said.

It would be laughable if the campaign were simply laying down the grand excuse for the label that will follow the tyrant from Trump Tower after Nov. 8 — loser. But Trump has crossed all barriers of precedent and civility, from waging an openly racist campaign to loose talk about nuclear weapons. He has challenged the independence of the judiciary system, and called for a religious test for entry into this nation. With this latest tactic, he’s trying to destabilize the country itself after he’s crushed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/the-sore-loser-uprising.html?_r=0

------------------------------------------------------

Another viewpoint:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/longtime-pal-jesse-ventura-thinks-donald-trump-was-sent-to-destroy-the-gop-from-within/

Edited by Douglas Caddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience,” he said.

Regardless of Roger Stone, I think it goes without saying that elections can be stolen in this country.

Whether it would be necessary to steal this one is another matter. It may be a landslide or maybe it won't. (The latest: Trump is now back on message. Ha ha ha ha.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has become increasingly obvious that Trump is mentally ill, so I don't think there's a lot to worry about. Of course Hillary is mentally ill too, but less dangerously so. She's a pathological xxxx, which I would call a mental disorder, although I'm no doctor. Just the latest example: FBI director Comey gave her a clean bill of heath, he said she was telling the truth. Yeah, right. In some parallel universe.

He did give her a relatively clean bill of health!

What he condemned was the careless culture at the State Department that's been there for decades.

He was asked point blank -- did Clinton lie?

Comey said -- "Not to the FBI."

Bingo!

Did Clinton knowingly handle classified material?

No, there were classified markings markings mistakenly placed on 3 documents which everyone missed.

Comey admitted any reasonable person wouldn't think the material was classified.

110 emails were retroactoively designated as classified, and Comey made a blanket condemnation of everyone involved.

Hey, fry Clinton for selling access or plotting military adventures, but this email stuff is a GOP railroad job.

It's nice to know that I'm not the only informed person here regarding Hillary and her e-mail servers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...