- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 92,559
- Reaction score
- 28,338
"Corruption" from the Clintons is failure to follow IT security best practices ("She could have been hacked!!").
Jared & Ivanka Made $82 Million in 2017 While WH Advisers
- Thread starter Throttlehead
- Start date
"Corruption" from the Clintons is failure to follow IT security best practices ("She could have been hacked!!").
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
Don't know. To "advise"? If it's a crime let's string 'em up.
I learned from watching defenders of the Clinton Foundation peddling influence that you can either prove a law is broken or you can't. If a law was broken let's string 'em up. If not, sounds more like sour grapes on your part.
I'm sorry if you don't think there's a difference between an actual crime and shit you just don't like. When ethics in general come back to Washington, and both sides are gonna hold themselves/each other accountable, I'll be front and center with my pitchfork and torch. Until then, it's either a crime or it's not and the partisan hypocrisy can go fuck itself.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 92,559
- Reaction score
- 28,338
Er, you realize that the Clinton Foundation is a charity, right? And that there was not "influence peddling" even alleged while they were in office? And that even that vastly different thing was allegedly below your previous standards? It's pretty interesting that your standards suddenly lowered drastically the second your party won. One might get the sense that you actually have no standards at all and will blindly defend your "side."
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
You're just so fucking tedious. It's a shame I always get the worst version of you.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 92,559
- Reaction score
- 28,338
You're just so fucking tedious. It's a shame I always get the worst version of you.
If that bit of pathetic whatabouttism wasn't motivated by blind partisanship, what was the reason for it? And what's the alternate explanation for the sudden and drastic lowering of your standards?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
It's pretty simple. You've never once (to my knowledge) expressed any ethical concern when it comes to the Clintons and have seemed content with whatever the law decided. So tell me what law was broken here or explain how hottie and hubby are in some greater ethical breech than what you've expressed concern with in the past.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 92,559
- Reaction score
- 28,338
First, you're completely ducking the question. I'm asking you, sincerely, what's the explanation for your desire to brush this off with a ridiculous comparison (raising money for charity after leaving office is the same as taking $80M while in office?! Really?), and what's the reason for the very sudden, drastic decline in your standards regarding gov't corruption? I offered a theory, which you claim is wrong. What's the alternative?
Second, what ethical concerns am I supposed to have about Hillary (I've expressed a few with regard to Bill)? She's been squeaky clean as far as I can tell.
I'm not a lawyer, but this seems just ridiculously unethical even if there's no law. I cannot fathom why anyone would defend it. You really think it's good that the president's daughter gets $80M dollars while he's president? Do you *want* the country to have kings? And what do you think is remotely comparable to it that I haven't been concerned with?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 57,511
- Reaction score
- 21,592
I'm not. I'd love to know a law was broken and string 'em up. Thought me using the phrase "string 'em up" would be a clue to an astute gentleman.
Using political status to live large and taking money from foreign sources (exacerbated by having to refile due to omissions). Or don't. My recollection is you hang your hat on no charges having ever been filed so it's funny that you're taking me to task for first and foremost trying to establish if a law was broken before fully forming my opinion.
I forget, what exactly was the 80M for? Kings? Awful hyperbolic for you. That last question would require some common ground (which you avoid like the plague).
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 15,112
- Reaction score
- 0
That's not true. In 2011, during Clinton's time as Secretary of State, ABC News investigators began to suspect that Rajiv Fernando's status as a major Clinton/Democratic donor enabled his appointment to the ISAB. Many people alleged impropriety subsequent to ABC's report.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2007
- Messages
- 6,011
- Reaction score
- 635
so you agree both families are corrupt ? k.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,835
- Reaction score
- 9,912
It's genuinely impressive to type that much and dodge every question asked of you.
D
Deleted member 457759
Guest
Hillary and Bill laugh at those numbers.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 9,082
- Reaction score
- 15
I think you got 5) Fake news and 4) Who cares mixed up. In my experience, they only ''who cares'' a serious issue after they played the fake news card. If confronted with indisputable evidence the ''reasonable'' Trump supported will switch to who cares.
Also, it is hilarious to see all the so-called ''nationalists'', MAGA guys, anti-Marxists, anti-globalists etc.
Fall over themselves to defend a Jewish property developer from NY with shady ties all over the middle east.
Who's dad served time for fraud. Jared is not exactly the poster child for their ''movement''.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2017
- Messages
- 37,165
- Reaction score
- 25,335
You're right. First denial, then changing definitions then shrugging.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 22,732
- Reaction score
- 23,880
I don't expect anything less from the Trump Crime Family.
They are like a cult. They can do anything they want and the Rubes will always defend them.
Maybe Da Kush can get enough foreign money to pay off that Billion dollar loan.
They are like a cult. They can do anything they want and the Rubes will always defend them.
Maybe Da Kush can get enough foreign money to pay off that Billion dollar loan.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 4,101
- Reaction score
- 1,939
The playbook of Trumpets
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2011
- Messages
- 2,535
- Reaction score
- 1
Now it makes sense why he'd bother with such an insane job.
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2004
- Messages
- 92,559
- Reaction score
- 28,338
So you're completely fine with this as long as no law is broken. This is obviously a new position for you, and we thus still have a rather striking and rapid lowering of standards. What is the reason for that?
Your recollection is false so it's not funny at all. What you'll see is that I think it's nuts when people allege crimes because there is no way Clinton could actually get away with a crime considering the level of scrutiny she's under. But note that before I posted in here, you chose to defend a rather stunning level of corruption. So trying to turn it around on me is just a deflection for your incredible 180 on ethics. And the attempt to compare direct payments to a member of the president's family to raising money for a charity is also an obviously ridiculous defense. Plus, if you think it's OK to take massive personal payouts in exchange for influence, surely you must think that raising money for a charity is even more OK, and yet I do not recall you defending Clinton against partisan attacks on that basis.
So earlier in this same post you denied that you're trying to brush it off. Obviously, this is something that is totally OK with you. I can't understand why, and apparently you will not say (does that reluctance indicate a guilty conscience about the depths you have to stoop to defend Trump?). You also haven't provided an alternate explanation for your incredible change of heart.
Last edited:
