NYSkiBlog Forum Archive › Off Topic

Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

Classic

List

Threaded

310 messages Options

1 ... 6789101112 ... 16

MC2 5678F589

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

PeeTex wrote

It's clear what laws Clinton may have violated, Racketeering, money laundering, tax evasion...

She released Her tax records from the last 10 years: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-clinton-releases-her-tax-returns/457896/

Don't you think there'd be a story if they weren't done correctly?

If you want to talk about the bullshit tax exemption that religions and charitable pyramid schemes like the Clinton Foundation gets (and the Gates Foundation, and the Trump Foundation), that's something I can definitely get behind.

But her personal taxes are out there. Knock yourself out trying to find any tax evasion.

PeeTex

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

mattchuck2 wrote

PeeTex wrote

It's clear what laws Clinton may have violated, Racketeering, money laundering, tax evasion...

She released Her tax records from the last 10 years: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/hillary-clinton-releases-her-tax-returns/457896/

Don't you think there'd be a story if they weren't done correctly?

If you want to talk about the bullshit tax exemption that religions and charitable pyramid schemes like the Clinton Foundation gets (and the Gates Foundation, and the Trump Foundation), that's something I can definitely get behind.

But her personal taxes are out there. Knock yourself out trying to find any tax evasion.

Yep, if the Clinton foundation is found to be not a true charity than their tax return if BS and the $3M deduction goes bye-bye and since they set it up it is tax evasion.

Don't ski the trees, ski the spaces between the trees.

skimore

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

In reply to this post by MC2 5678F589

mattchuck2 wrote

Those 3 things are "incompetence" and "misjudgment", but Hillary Clinton trying to use her blackberry is part of an all-encompassing global conspiracy that includes the Clinton Foundation and a massive coverup. Got it.

You think it was just oversight in Obama not appointing an IG during Clintons entire tenure as Sec of St?

MC2 5678F589

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

Looks like that position was unfilled for two years before Onama was in office, too. Did you complain that there wasn't sufficient oversight of Condi back then?

PeeTex

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

In reply to this post by Harvey

Harvey wrote

P - I put the Donald in my post so you would know I was kidding. Shooting that guy in the face was incompetence. Maybe if the biggest hawk of our lifetime hadn't ditched the draft he'd know how to use a weapon.

If you are looking for a something real maybe start by googling "biggest no bid contract in US history." Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz all dodged the draft. Real soldiers understand that you don't go to war for the hell of it, or for 40 billion dollars.

The Bush bozos may have avoided or dodged the draft, I have not researched that. I do know that KBR was retained as a contractor under Obama, he could have easily thrown them out. I also know that the government disallowed hundreds of millions as improper billing by KBR. Not out of the ordinary for large contractors. What I cannot say is whether or not the Bush mob profited from any of this, can you? Quite different from the Clintons, just chart their net worth over the past 7 years, you don't make that kind of money without a job.

Don't ski the trees, ski the spaces between the trees.

MC2 5678F589

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/on-talk-circuit-george-bush-makes-millions-but-few-waves-118697

skimore

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

In reply to this post by MC2 5678F589

mattchuck2 wrote

Looks like that position was unfilled for two years before Onama was in office, too. Did you complain that there wasn't sufficient oversight of Condi back then?

I'm not justifying Clinton's actions based on others

PeeTex

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

In reply to this post by MC2 5678F589

mattchuck2 wrote

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/on-talk-circuit-george-bush-makes-millions-but-few-waves-118697

Did not see Haliburton in a single citation of a paid speech - did you? Bush is a former president not running for office, Clinton is running for office taking money from people who would benefit greatly from her if she won. Big difference.

So I still don't see how any of the Bush mob made money from Haliburton or KBR.

Don't ski the trees, ski the spaces between the trees.

MC2 5678F589

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

In reply to this post by skimore

skimore wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

Looks like that position was unfilled for two years before Onama was in office, too. Did you complain that there wasn't sufficient oversight of Condi back then?

I'm not justifying Clinton's actions based on others

You're posting leading questions about Clinton shit in a thread called "Specifically, what would you want to change", and you're accusing me of shifting the conversation? Cool.

MC2 5678F589

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

In reply to this post by PeeTex

?!?!?!?

Aren't you saying that Clinton taking money from any organization (not just KBR) is a conflict of interest and part of a global conspiracy? Why don't the same rules apply to Bush? (Whose brother ran for President this cycle and whose nephew is Texas Land Comissioner and eyeing higher office).

It's either all a scam or it's not. I think the entire paid speech thing is a complete sham. But, Like I said, I think the Clinton Foundation, the Gates Foundation, etc. are legitimate charities (is anyone denying that they are?). I still don't think they should get tax exemption.

PeeTex

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

Somehow I feel like I am playing chess aGain

So you are saying the money Bush has made on speeches is going to his relatives when there is no evidence of that?

I agree, it's sleezy that ex-presidents are getting ridiculous fees for speaking, it makes the office less honorable.

Don't ski the trees, ski the spaces between the trees.

MC2 5678F589

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

Just saying there are lots of ways to influence politically connected people financially (cash payments, choice jobs, etc.).

And yes, I agree, and I think it's very unseemly for ex-Presidents to "replenish the coffers" in Bush's words.

PeeTex

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

This does not look good

Source: Wikileaks

Don't ski the trees, ski the spaces between the trees.

MC2 5678F589

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

She says that was a request to rewrite what was written on the fax into talking points:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/01/10/hillary-clinton-says-nonpaper-email-a-nonissue/

This is why she won't be charged with anything. There's so much ambiguity to all of these "incriminating" emails, there's no definite evidence of lawbreaking, which seems to be what you're combing the Internet for.

MC2 5678F589

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

And meanwhile, Trump threatened a judge (who he never fails to mention is "Mexican", even though he was born in Indiana), takes advantage of dumb poor people for Trump U, and tries to screw Veterans out of money.

But let's find some more Clinton emails to scrutinize!

skimore

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

mattchuck2 wrote

and tries to screw Veterans out of money.

NBC News confirmed with 27 of the charities that they received a combined $3.82 million from either the Trump Foundation or entities working on Trump's behalf.

Eleven said they were paid on or after May 24 — when Trump was interviewed by The Washington Post, which for weeks had asked the billionaire businessman to disclose who was benefiting

The biggest recipient was the Marine Corps-Law Enforcement Foundation, a small New York group that received a $1 million personal check from Trump last week, said Sue Boulhosa, the group's executive director.

She told NBC News that she first received a $100,000 check from the Trump Foundation a couple of months ago in the weeks following the fundraiser. Trump has a longstanding history with the group, which honored him at a gala last year, she said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-gave-millions-vets-groups-after-media-report-about-donations-n583566

So more than 1/2 were paid prior to hack media getting all bent. You don't think there's a bit of a process involved?

The Clinton's have gave a combined $70000 since 2009

MC2 5678F589

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

Right. Like I said, he tried to screw veterans out of money. He took a bunch of cash for veteran's charity, put it in his pocket, and then didn't give it to the actual charities until he was called out on it.

That's a fucking dick thing to do and there's no way to act like it isn't.

skimore

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

mattchuck2 wrote

Right. Like I said, he tried to screw veterans out of money. He took a bunch of cash for veteran's charity, put it in his pocket, and then didn't give it to the actual charities until he was called out on it.

That's a fucking dick thing to do and there's no way to act like it isn't.

You have no evidence that actually was taken place. Are there records of funds transferred to trumps pocket? Seems like the money was being doled out.

MC2 5678F589

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

Haha, the money wasn't accounted for until he was shamed into writing some checks. Where do you think the money was?

MC2 5678F589

Re: Specifically, What is it you'd like to change?

Again, I don't point these things out because I think Hillary is great. My position all along is that she's a generic politician running against a raving lunatic. There are no equivalences to be drawn here.

Enjoy some more light reading:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-veterans-controversy-goes-bad-worse

So where does that leave us? Trump said he’d raised $6 million for veterans, but that wasn’t true. He later claimed he never used the $6 million figure, but that wasn’t true. His campaign insisted Trump had contributed $1 million himself, but that wasn’t true. Trump said he “didn’t want to have credit” for the fundraising efforts, but that wasn’t true. He said he and his team were vetting groups they’d never heard of four months after the fact, but that wasn’t true.

And as of yesterday, all of this, the Republican candidate insisted, is the media’s fault. Indeed, Trump thinks journalists should be “ashamed” of themselves for scrutinizing his claims that turned out to be wrong.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but in a normal year, in a normal party, with a normal candidate, this is the sort of controversy that could end a campaign. Legitimate presidential hopefuls can get away with some dissembling and the occasional whopper, but Trump was caught telling obvious falsehoods about support for veterans’ charities.

If this happened to Hillary Clinton, is there any doubt it would be the #1 issue in the presidential race between now and Election Day? That every pundit in America would use this as Exhibit A in their takes on why Americans just can’t trust the Democrat?

1 ... 6789101112 ... 16