2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

As I already said, Seth Rich is dead. Kind of hard for them to send him to prison isn't it?

Now, you you made a definitive claim that Seth Rich was the email link, when you did not have proof of that. Why did you do that?

The only person who could make a definitive claim about the fate of Seth Rich would be someone in the actual know. You are well aware that the poster cannot provide a definitive claim and is merely relaying information.

There was a full Reddit thread investigating the links between Seth Rich and the Clintons and there are a few that makes it worth looking at in more detail. At the point of reading that Reddit thread it was only a whispered rumour that Rich might be the DNC leak. You denying the DNC emails were real? You denying who released them? And now Assange implies that Rich was the source. Why would he release actual emails and then not tell the truth about the source? Care to point to any other Wikileaks revelations that have turned out to be false?

You seem very defensive about this. If it is the case that Seth Rich was the leak then what other emails are Wikileaks sitting on which can now be disseminated given that Seth Rich is now dead? Things may become very difficult for the entrenched Hillary fans on here. At lease Trump is on the other side of the fence basically throwing the election, so you have that i guess.

InTheTrees

Christy42 wrote: »

How often has he told the truth about his sources?

It isn't a great measure even them as Assange seems committed to destroying Hillary. He is biased.

Assange wants to screw with the USA any way he can. He's angry, stuck away in an Ecuadorian embassy with the USA and UK authorities waiting outside to grab him.

He's just trying anything he can. He's says he's going to reveal trumps tax returns as well.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which law?

Obama ordered the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and other agencies to enforce a new interpretation of a law passed by Congress, issuing new requirements for anyone wanting to sell even a single gun, which violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

Nothing in the Constitution gives the president the authority to change the rights under the Second Amendment.

And to prove the point, Obama, through executive orders, has directed federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, our immigration laws.

Peist2007

InTheTrees wrote: »

Assange wants to screw with the USA any way he can. He's angry, stuck away in an Ecuadorian embassy with the USA and UK authorities waiting outside to grab him.

He's just trying anything he can. He's says he's going to reveal trumps tax returns as well.

So the information that Wikileaks release is fake? That what you are saying?

BoatMad

Amerika wrote: »

Obama ordered the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and other agencies to enforce a new interpretation of a law passed by Congress, issuing new requirements for anyone wanting to sell even a single gun, which violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

Nothing in the Constitution gives the president the authority to change the rights under the Second Amendment.

And to prove the point, Obama, through executive orders, has directed federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, our immigration laws.

Backup with a fact please especially the last claim.

molloyjh

InTheTrees wrote: »

Assange wants to screw with the USA any way he can. He's angry, stuck away in an Ecuadorian embassy with the USA and UK authorities waiting outside to grab him.

He's just trying anything he can. He's says he's going to reveal trumps tax returns as well.

And when asked who he'd vote for he said he wouldn't want either of them. Neither would I, but ultimately somebody has to be elected. I find dismissive answers like that really annoying.

"What would you do?"

"Well I'll tell what I wouldn't do!"

"That's not what I bloody well asked though is it?"

Personally I would find the idea of Hilary Clinton as my President a very unappealing one. The problem is the only other realistic candidate is Donald Trump. So rather than sit on the fence and crap all over everyone I'd have to throw my hat in with Clinton, only because the alternative is so much worse. It'd be nice if he was a constructive addition to the debate rather than a wholly negative one. I get what he wants to do, and in a way applaud it, but you've got to measure the effects of your actions every bit as much as the intent.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Follow the smart money. Buffet is betting on Clinton.

This it true, and maybe by supporting Clinton he expects to make a killing when the market crashes again.

InTheTrees

Peist2007 wrote: »

So the information that Wikileaks release is fake? That what you are saying?

Without evidence its all rumour.

Suryavarman

Amerika wrote: »

This it true, and maybe by supporting Clinton he expects to make a killing when the market crashes again.

He supported Obama and the market did the opposite of crash.

Amerika

BoatMad wrote: »

Backup with a fact please especially the last claim.

Fact...

https://www.rt.com/usa/347977-scotus-tie-immigration-deportation/

RobertKK

Akrasia wrote: »

So if the government didn't intervene the stock market would have crashed and never recovered...

Who could have possibly predicted government intervention?

Robert, You're compartmentalising way too much here. You support Trump because you know (think) Clinton would be harmful.

But your opposition to Clinton is blinding you to the fact that Trump is a dangerous demagogue who has demonstrated no positive leadership qualities and in fact appears to be suffering from severe personality disorders.

There is a part of me that would like Clinton as President, so when this whole economic bubble bursts she is there for it, but then I think of all the lives she will destroy abroad with her warmongering policies, this the woman who talked about obliterating a country, which Obama said was irresponsible in 2008 as in using nuclear weapons against Iran.

Hillary Clinton has demonstrated no positive leadership.
We had enough of the regime policies under Bush, and under Clinton as secretary of State.
I don't want that neocon Hillary Clinton in power as it guarantees war. It doesn't help with the Clintons compromised/beholden to Saudi Arabia through the $25 million donation by the Saudis to the Clinton Foundation.
Is it any wonder that only in 2015 that Hillary was still threatening war against Iran.

What countries have Trump threatened to obliterate like Hillary has done?

Trump said the rich have to pay their fair share of taxes, and that Wall Street and rich people like himself should have loopholes and other measures removed that are used to reduce their tax bills.
Hillary Clinton says the middle class will have their taxes raised under her. So she is offering the US less spending power by the majority which are in the middle class.
Trump has said he would have a 15% business tax which would be 2.5% higher than our corporation tax. It may spell bad news for Ireland, but for the US this is one of the best proposals in the US elections.
Not to mention the 10% tax he proposes on money held abroad by US companies if they bring that money back to the US.

The thing is the US cannot keep doing more of the same.
The US national debt:
Under Bush it went from $4.5 trillion to $9 trillion.
Under Obama it went from $9 trillion to over $20 trillion.
It is just getting worse and is now seen as a national security threat to the US.

When Bush took over there was the dot com bubble which happened under Clinton.
Obama had the banking crisis which happened under the Clinton presidency with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law in 1999.
The next president will have another mess to deal with.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

He supported Obama and the market did the opposite of crash.

Did he sell of much of his stocks when he supported Obama?

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

The only person who could make a definitive claim about the fate of Seth Rich would be someone in the actual know. You are well aware that the poster cannot provide a definitive claim and is merely relaying information.

I'm not sure that you know what a definitive statement is, as the poster has already a definitive statement on it:

RobertKK wrote: »

I am sure you don't want to talk about the lies from the Democrats who blamed Russia for the DNC email leaks, when it turned out to be Seth Rich, a DNC staffer who ended up murdered.

If the poster had said 'Rich might have been' or 'Assange implied that' then it would not be a definitive statement. Instead they decided to outright claim it was Seth Rich as a definitive statement, and now they are claiming they don't have proof of this. Simple as. There is a reason we are asked not to state opinions as facts, or to attempt to mislead others in our posts.

There was a full Reddit thread investigating the links between Seth Rich and the Clintons and there are a few that makes it worth looking at in more detail. At the point of reading that Reddit thread it was only a whispered rumour that Rich might be the DNC leak. You denying the DNC emails were real? You denying who released them? And now Assange implies that Rich was the source. Why would he release actual emails and then not tell the truth about the source? Care to point to any other Wikileaks revelations that have turned out to be false?

I would appreciate a read into that Reddit thread, but I have a funny feeling it might be from 'The_Donald' section.

Why would Assange go to so much effort to imply that Seth Rich was the source only to hide behind 'I don't reveal my sources' while doing just that? Assange didn't tell the truth nor lie about Rich, because while he was so eager to try and give the world the impression that Seth Rich was the leak, he was very desperate to avoid saying it. Which is very suspicious, why would he do that?

---
Please find where I implied the DNC emails were not real. Otherwise don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Please find where I implied the people who released them did. Otherwise don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Please find where I said Wikileaks revelations have ever turned out to be false. Otherwise don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

I do hope you reference these, because they are pretty wild accusation to throw at me out of nowhere.

Amerika

Christy42 wrote: »

How often has he told the truth about his sources?

It isn't a great measure even them as Assange seems committed to destroying Hillary. He is biased.

So that's 'indisputable evidence' that he's lying?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Did he sell of much of his stocks when he supported Obama?

Is Buffet dumping stocks now?

Peist2007

InTheTrees wrote: »

Without evidence its all rumour.

What do you call the released DNC emails?

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Obama ordered the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and other agencies to enforce a new interpretation of a law passed by Congress, issuing new requirements for anyone wanting to sell even a single gun, which violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

OK, I'm still not clear what law you're talking about, so I found a White House fact sheet from January on the topic of executive actions on gun violence.

Can you tell me what specifically in that document you consider an egregious erosion of your basic rights as a US citizen?

Nothing in the Constitution gives the president the authority to change the rights under the Second Amendment.

Your 2A rights are not unqualified. The qualifications of those rights are decided by the government - all three branches thereof, working either together or in opposition.

So, no: the President doesn't have the authority to remove your rights under the Constitution. But the President, Congress and SCOTUS have the authority to determine the practical limits of those rights.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Follow the smart money. Buffet is betting on Clinton.

Buffet has donated a lot of money to the Clinton foundation. Of course he was going to back his Wall st friend.
He clapped when she said she would raise taxes on the middle class.
Probably would not have liked when Trump said he would remove the loopholes and other thing Wall St and rich people like himself uses to reduce their tax bills.

Carl Icahn is backing Trump.

InTheTrees

Peist2007 wrote: »

What do you call the released DNC emails?

Correlating whether there's truth in a document that was released to the truthfulness of assange's opinions is illogical. It doesnt make sense.

Assange coming out and making a statement without any proof is just assange venting his opinion.

Its his opinion thats all.

Peist2007

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm not sure that you know what a definitive statement is, as the poster has already a definitive statement on it:



If the poster had said 'Rich might have been' or 'Assange implied that' then it would not be a definitive statement. Instead they decided to outright claim it was Seth Rich as a definitive statement, and now they are claiming they don't have proof of this. Simple as. There is a reason we are asked not to state opinions as facts, or to attempt to mislead others in our posts.

I would appreciate a read into that Reddit thread, but I have a funny feeling it might be from 'The_Donald' section.

Why would Assange go to so much effort to imply that Seth Rich was the source only to hide behind 'I don't reveal my sources' while doing just that? Assange didn't tell the truth nor lie about Rich, because while he was so eager to try and give the world the impression that Seth Rich was the leak, he was very desperate to avoid saying it. Which is very suspicious, why would he do that?

---
Please find where I implied the DNC emails were not real. Otherwise don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Please find where I implied the people who released them did. Otherwise don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Please find where I said Wikileaks revelations have ever turned out to be false. Otherwise don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

I do hope you reference these, because they are pretty wild accusation to throw at me out of nowhere.

You seem to want to focus elsewhere rather than on the content of the leaks. As has been the narrative everywhere since they broke. Previous poster was too forceful in his allegations and you want to focus on that rather than the fact that Wikileaks have indocated that a DNC staffer murdered two weeks ago was the source of their leak. Which do you think is the most important issue? So, why the obfuscation?

BoatMad

Amerika wrote: »

L......

And finally, and most alarming, is the president’s ability to load judges to the Supreme Court that will rule on many cases before them meant to weaken or nullify many of the rights provided under the Second Amendment.

In McDonald vs City of Chicago (2010), Supreme Court justices Stephen Breyer wrote in his dissent of the ruling "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment’s text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as ‘fundamental’ insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined in this dissent.

Breyer and Ginsburg were both appointed by President Bill Clinton. Sotomayor by Obama, and Elana Kagan, also appointed by Obama, would have joined in the dissent if she would have been on the court at the time as she served in the Clinton administration and helped lead the President’s gun control initiatives. It doesn’t take a genius to see the efforts that Clinton would use against the Second Amendment.

---

The fact is that like all of the US constitution , its open to interpretation , which is precisely what the SCOTUS is there for. for example ether landmark Heller V District of Cumbia was a 5-4 majority , hence far from anything unanimous, which suggests that it could be challenged again ( and thats correct , no decision is immutable )

Equally McDonald v City of Chicago was not unanimous with clear dissenting argument.

This is the nature of the US constitution, elements of it are not clear and the limits of its applicability are equally unclear.

Simple;y cherry picking what you like and ignoring what you dont like is ridiculous, you seem to have no issue that republicans have stacked the court , given they are decisions you seem to support . You cant have it either way

Arguable SCOTUS should not be so appointed, its a major flaw. but its the system in place and its been exploited by both sides

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

Buffet has donated a lot of money to the Clinton foundation. Of course he was going to back his Wall st friend.
He clapped when she said she would raise taxes on the middle class.
Probably would not have liked when Trump said he would remove the loopholes and other thing Wall St and rich people like himself uses to reduce their tax bills.

Carl Icahn is backing Trump.

Trump proposes massively reducing Buffet and Icahn's tax bill. Icahn would benefit massively from Trump's policies relating to Wall Street. Buffet on the other hand wouldn't.

Peist2007

InTheTrees wrote: »

Correlating whether there's truth in a document that was released to the truthfulness of assange's opinions is illogical. It doesnt make sense.

Assange coming out and making a statement without any proof is just assange venting his opinion.

Its his opinion thats all.

You have just shown that you havent read those emails nor have you put any effort into looking into what is actually happening in this instance. Doesnt fit with your cosy world view so here you are being dishonest.

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

There is a part of me that would like Clinton as President, so when this whole economic bubble bursts she is there for it, but then I think of all the lives she will destroy abroad with her warmongering policies, this the woman who talked about obliterating a country, which Obama said was irresponsible in 2008 as in using nuclear weapons against Iran.

Hillary Clinton has demonstrated no positive leadership.
We had enough of the regime policies under Bush, and under Clinton as secretary of State.
I don't want that neocon Hillary Clinton in power as it guarantees war. It doesn't help with the Clintons compromised/beholden to Saudi Arabia through the $25 million donation by the Saudis to the Clinton Foundation.
Is it any wonder that only in 2015 that Hillary was still threatening war against Iran.

What countries have Trump threatened to obliterate like Hillary has done?

Trump said the rich have to pay their fair share of taxes, and that Wall Street and rich people like himself should have loopholes and other measures removed that are used to reduce their tax bills.
Hillary Clinton says the middle class will have their taxes raised under her. So she is offering the US less spending power by the majority which are in the middle class.
Trump has said he would have a 15% business tax which would be 2.5% higher than our corporation tax. It may spell bad news for Ireland, but for the US this is one of the best proposals in the US elections.
Not to mention the 10% tax he proposes on money held abroad by US companies if they bring that money back to the US.

The thing is the US cannot keep doing more of the same.
The US national debt:
Under Bush it went from $4.5 trillion to $9 trillion.
Under Obama it went from $9 trillion to over $20 trillion.
It is just getting worse and is now seen as a national security threat to the US.

When Bush took over there was the dot com bubble which happened under Clinton.
Obama had the banking crisis which happened under the Clinton presidency with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law in 1999.
The next president will have another mess to deal with.

And George Bush senior had to deal with a recession from Reagan. People tend to look at these things simplistically and if they hold fixed political views, confirmation bias.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

Buffet has donated a lot of money to the Clinton foundation. Of course he was going to back his Wall st friend.
He clapped when she said she would raise taxes on the middle class.
Probably would not have liked when Trump said he would remove the loopholes and other thing Wall St and rich people like himself uses to reduce their tax bills.

Carl Icahn is backing Trump.

Clinton never said she'd raise taxes on the middle class. She said the exact opposite. We've all seen the video and some of have heard what we want to hear.

Buffet supports Clinton because she offers stability. Markets love stability more than anything.

BoatMad

Amerika wrote: »

Fact...

https://www.rt.com/usa/347977-scotus-tie-immigration-deportation/

The Obama administration has promoted the idea of regularising the existing cache of illegal or undocumented aliens. This process has many supporters and has been suggested and attempted in many countries, The US has had a number of such amnesties in its history . Many countries hold various amnesties to try and regularise previous illegal situations, Ireland did it with Tax defaulters , and drivers licenses for example.

Thats all well are proper

All that happened here is Obamas attempt , was struck down. happens to Governments all over the world ( Ireland and child protection for example )


to suddenly see that in the way you put is as an attempt to circumvent laws , is bizarre.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

He clapped when she said she would raise taxes on the middle class.

She didn't say that. Nobody with the faintest shred of credibility believes she said that.

As I've so often said about Trump and his supporters: when all you have to offer in support of a candidate are trivially-debunked lies, it demonstrates a severe absence of truthful reasons to support that candidate.

Billy86

Peist2007 wrote: »

You seem to want to focus elsewhere rather than on the content of the leaks.

Because we were not discussing the leaks.

We were discussing where RobertKK's evidence for his definitive statement was.

As has been the narrative everywhere since they broke. Previous poster was too forceful in his allegations and you want to focus on that rather than the fact that Wikileaks have indocated that a DNC staffer murdered two weeks ago was the source of their leak. Which do you think is the most important issue? So, why the obfuscation?

Actually, that is exactly what we were talking about. Why would Wikileaks indicate it was him so strongly, yet make such a political effort to avoid outright saying it was him? The guy is dead, so it wouldn't make any difference, and any worry about his friends/family is invalid because they implied so heavily that it was him.

Why are you so eager to address this question.

RobertKK, I am still waiting on your answer as to why you made a definitive claim without proof to back it up.


---

Now again I will ask, because you seemed eager to avoid these after throwing out accusations:

Please find where I implied the DNC emails were not real. Otherwise don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Please find where I implied the people who released them did. Otherwise don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Please find where I said Wikileaks revelations have ever turned out to be false. Otherwise don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Suryavarman

Brian? wrote: »

Clinton never said she'd raise taxes on the middle class. She said the exact opposite. We've all seen the video and some of have heard what we want to hear.

Buffet supports Clinton because she offers stability. Markets love stability more than anything.

But hedge fund managers love instability. Guess whose economics team is filled with hedge fund managers.

InTheTrees

Peist2007 wrote: »

You have just shown that you havent read those emails nor have you put any effort into looking into what is actually happening in this instance. Doesnt fit with your cosy world view so here you are being dishonest.

Huh?

Seriously I dont understand what you're on about.

If assamge has evidence of clinton being involved in the assassination of a DNC staffer then he needs to produce it.

Is that really so outrageous and "dishonest" to request?

You understand what evidence is right? Just coming out and saying you really really believe someone is responsible for something isnt enough.