Donald Trump

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc

 

At least you are voicing your conviction that Clinton is a scoundrel.
_______________________________________________________________

scoundrel
(ˈskaʊndrəl)
n
a worthless or villainous person
[C16: of unknown origin]
ˈscoundrelly adj
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

scoun•drel
(ˈskaʊn drəl)
n.
1. an unprincipled, dishonorable person; villain.
adj.
2. mean or base in nature; villainous; dishonorable.
[1580–90; orig. uncertain]
scoun′drel•ly, adj.
syn: See knave.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.
____________________________________________________________________

You are correct; it is perfectly appropriate.

 

Trump is both.

 

Mr. Trump will be much easier to get rid of in 4 years if we need to get rid of him. We will be stuck with clinton for at least 8 years. If Chelsea runs for president, we could be stuck with clintons for 16 more years! If hillary and the DNC can steal this election, why can't they insert Chelsea?

hillary is just so vile! she is so corrupt! how can anyone support her? I am not holding my nose whenI vote for Trump. I am pleased and am hoping he can help future generations of Americans.

 

No, if I was predicting then I would have used words like, 'will,' 'definitely,' or 'predict,' and phrases like, 'is going to happen,' or, 'there is no way around it.'

I do know how to write what I mean, and if I make a mistake, I will apologize and correct it in a following post. There is no mistake in what I wrote.

I don't know how to make this any more clear to you. I already stated my position numerous times on the Clinton thread. I think that her name has been smeared so deeply into the mud by Republicans that I don't believe she is as bad as they say, and the fact is, there have been quite a few investigations, often Republican led, that have not been able to conclusively point the finger at her, or get charges filed against her, even where there is evidence of wrong doing. And the number of conspiracies against her that have been debunked is ridiculous. Nonetheless, there are things that her and her husband do that raise questions and I don't have any access to what goes on behind any closed doors that involve them. None of us can really know. In fact, it may simply be that Trump is actually helping Clinton by being a horrible candidate in order to assure she is elected----now that is true campaign rigging. But what would be worse is that half the country actually fell for him, no matter how horrible he is.

But it doesn't matter to me. I know Trump, and in this election he has been even more scary than I would have expected even for him. In other words----if it was George Bush running for a 3rd term I would vote for him to keep Trump out! And he gave us the Patriot Act! But at least, when he left office democracy was still intact---and he had to be stopped from overstepping the bounds of his office. Perhaps if it was Duterte, for example, promising that he would kill drug dealers and drug users extrajudicially, then I would have to vote Trump----but I would probably leave the country before that.



Now as for the debate you want to continue----this is the Trump thread. We can go around and around on this---you will feel that you are winning the debate, and I will feel that I am winning the debate-----until it runs into just an endless circle of futility. I have already answered this already. Maybe if I was passionate about it, I would be willing to debate more----but I am not----there is no other choice, so I will vote for her.

 

I don't know how to make this any more clear to you. I've already shown you that the lawyers and agents who did the actual investigation were unanimous in their conclusion that Clinton should have been prosecuted for her email fiasco. Remember me pointing out to you and others that Comey had no authority to inject an "intent" clause into the U.S. Code concerning her legal obligation to adhere to protocol? It was a legally binding agreement she signed. Comey was out of line. So, you have a choice as to whom to believe--Comey, or the actual agents who did the investigation. Those of us who are not Hillary fans have no problem in making that choice. It's a no-brainer.

But yeah, perhaps you should make your way over to the Hillary Clinton thread and address her weapons deals to oppressive regimes in exchange for contributions to her foundation. Should prove interesting.

 

Oh yeah---some e-mails. Yes, that is so much worst than a narcissist who brags about how he committed bank fraud, and violated labor law, not to mention that he prooudly runs the scam known as Trump University; and who wants to limit freedom of the press and free speech, and take away our rights to due process---at least every time we fall under the vague federal definition of terrorist; who will get tough on crime and start a National stop and frisk policy; who has always taken care of number 1 and cared very little for anyone else, and has an economic plan that will benefit him and his 1% friends more than anyone else; who has already began fleecing his supporters by funneling their donations into his hotels and casinos and benefitting himself; who has an economic plan that would continue to enhance the biggest problem in our economy---the disparity between the 1% and the rest of the country; who seems eager to use the nuclear option; who fits the profile of every modern age totalitarian dictator... I could go on, but...

 

Are you making believe that you weren't schooled on the email issue in the Hillary Clinton thread. How you come away from all that with a "Oh yeah--some emails" comment is stunning.

Even after being shown that a computer specialist deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails, despite orders from Congress to preserve them, and was then given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account, your response remains, "Oh yeah--some emails."

You should really make your way over to the Hillary Clinton thread and explain why this, as well as all the other things, shouldn't concern anyone.

Also, you must have mistaken me for a Trump supporter. I'm certainly not defending him.

 

sdhttrihaj...

 

Schooled?

This is exactly what I was saying about you believing you won the argument, and I believing I did. And if, for example, we were going to let some 3rd party decide who got schooled, I would point to one of my last posts in our debate---#1044 in that thread.

One of the things I did in that post and the one or two after was to point out the numerous fallacies of your logic. Now I will admit that I could be schooled in an argument that includes some fallacies of logic---I concede that, but it would have to depend on the fallacies.

One fallacy that will definitely not win an argument with me is argumentum ad nauseum, or the Argument from repetition. You can't school me when you keep repeating the same argument even after I demonstrate that there are other possible conclusions to the argument (and which, in fact, more closely mirror reality as we understand it---she was not charged) and that none of us have all the facts. But then you return back to the same argument, without even properly responding to my arguments.

We all know now, and you showed us over and over again, what the law states. The letter of the law can get you arrested, and charged. But you are still innocent until proven guilty. You can break the law and still get off based on your argument. But in this case, there were not even any charges filed. I provided numerous reasons why she may not be guilty, or to even be charged, and yet your only response is to fall back on the same assumptions and the same interpretation of the law---ad nauseum.

SO yes----oh yeah, some e-mails. Or as Bernie Sanders said, "Enough with the damn e-mails already."

In another election, I might care-----but not against Trump.

The reality is, it is one of these two. I would rather have someone who might accidentally leak a secret or two through technological incompetence, than an outright blatant fascist who will turn this country into his own police state.

I know what America is capable of. I know how we treat our own minorities. I know the horrible things we did in Vietnam. I know the terrible things we have done through out Central and South America---throwing over governments just so we could secure contracts for our fruit companies, for example. I know of the horrible things the CIA did in the Philippines, and one in particular that has not been made public. I know how ugly our country can be. Even if we only live under the illusion of freedom---I would much rather have that than have that ugliness directed inward. At least within that illusion, I can have the constitutional rights and enjoy the perceived freedoms in order to fight for a better system, a better way (and even more justice and equality for our minorities).

 

Pretty sure it was ignorance.

 

Yeah, schooled!

You get shown over and over again because you fail to come to logical conclusions over and over again. When shown the U.S. Code concerning what constitutes a breach of that code, you buy into the nonexistent "intent" clause as a way to justify Clinton not being charged for gross negligence. And you did that because it was your only option when it came to excusing her for her gross negligence. You thought that if it's good enough for Comey, then it's good enough for you. The truth is that it wasn't good enough for the trial lawyers and one hundred FBI agents who did the actual investigation who couldn't believe that Comey didn't recommend that charges be brought against Clinton. You appealed to an authority even though that authority did not follow the law. You were even shown that Bryan Nishimura was charged for doing the same thing, and without malicious intent. And you refused to acknowledge Comey's double standard there, which shows that you accept a double standard where Clinton is concerned.

And then we have your defense of Clinton's gross negligence hinging on the possibility that she did not receive adequate training in the handling of classified material. You offered nothing to substantiate that statement. I, on the other hand, have provided you with proof that Clinton received not only training in the proper procedure concerning the handling of classified material, but that she also acknowledged her legal obligations concerning the handling of that classified material. And then I pointed out that the onus was on you to explain how the scope of her training was insufficient, which you failed to do. So, even after being provided the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed stating that she received training and that she understood that she was legally bound to adhering to protocol in the handling of classified material, you maintain that it means nothing. You were even shown that a computer specialist deleted Hillary Clinton’s emails, despite orders from Congress to preserve them, and was then given immunity by the Justice Department during its investigation into her personal email account. But you shrug that off as insignificant. That's highly illogical.

Then I showed you that the former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs acknowledge it for what it is--a serious breach. Jason Baron, a lawyer and former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013, said, “It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business."

“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business."

You were shown that regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records, and that Clinton and her aides failed to do so. It's called gross negligence, and does not require malicious intent. It didn't in the case of Bryan Nishimura, and it doesn't in the case of Hillary Clinton. And your whole argument against Clinton being charged is that Comey didn't remommend it. So yeah, if you keep denying what you've been shown, I'll gladly put it right back in front of your eyes over and over again.

And now, if you'd like to go over to the Hillary Clinton thread and try to justify her weapons-deals for foundaion contributions, we could do that. But breakfast first.

 

In case no one is realizing the full implication here---by saying that the election is rigged, Trump is not only calling into question the legitimacy of our electoral process, and democracy itself, but he is also calling into the question the legitimacy of her position.

In other words, just as he undermined the position of our first Black president through the birther issue, he would be able to undermine the position of our first female president through the very legitimacy of her position. He is paving the way for another 4 to 8 years of obstructionist politics. This is the GOP's way of saying, women and minorities have no place leading the country.

And here everyone who is looking to Trump to make America great again, will probably be oblivious to what he is realy doing. And yet, look at how Sanders is handling his defeat----working with her to change things from within.

Unless he changes his tact, 'Make America Great Again' is just a sad pathetic joke on the American people.

 

Trump hasn't even taken the stage yet in Iowa and the crowd has been chanting "Lock Her Up! Lock Her Up!"

This is a crazy twist 11 days prior to election.

Isn't it?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=al10XvSRyIs