KRISTEN'S BOARD
Congratulations to 2024 Pervert of the Year Shiela_M and 2024 Author of the Year Writers Bloque!

News:

The Trump thread: All things Donald

joan1984 · 282806

0 Members and 15 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Northwest

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,163
    • Woos/Boos: +55/-1
Reply #1060 on: January 14, 2017, 08:14:08 AM
Talk about "on topic", I just stumbled onto this:

In 2 Terms, Barack Obama Had Fewer Scandals Than Donald Trump Has Had In The Last 2 Weeks

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-scandal-legacy_us_5875a0fce4b05b7a465c67ed



Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,271
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #1061 on: January 14, 2017, 05:59:03 PM
Let me cherry pick.

What lies about the Bengahzi incident?

Please be specific. Don't paint with a broad brush.

    Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blamed the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with a anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton said. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

The answer to your question is this — proven by the paper trail: Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials made the decision to deflect criticism of the administration’s security failures by blaming the attack on spontaneous protests linked to a YouTube posting.
Clinton did not explain that the day before blaming it on the video, she had admitted to the President of Egypt she knew it was a terrorist attack
It was common knowledge after several days she had deliberately lied.

Not such a broad brush after all, is it?

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Clinton-blame-the-film-for-Benghazi-attacks

Does that count as a scandal?

Oh, I forgot. A scandal is defined as the resulting of an actual indictment based on proof of actual criminal wrongdoing by the President or the President' staff, then the Obama presidency has been scandal free.  That's right, none. Zero. Zilch.

My bad.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 06:38:08 PM by Sensualtravler »

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Athos_131

  • ΘΣ, Class of '92
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 8,759
    • Woos/Boos: +376/-53
    • Gender: Male
  • How many Assholes do we got on this ship, anyhow?
Reply #1062 on: January 14, 2017, 06:03:52 PM
Citing Quora as a credible source is right up there with reddit.  Try again.

#BlackLivesMatter
Arrest The Cops Who Killed Breonna Taylor

#BanTheNaziFromKB


Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,271
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #1063 on: January 14, 2017, 06:19:38 PM
Citing Quora as a credible source is right up there with reddit.  Try again.

It was proven by numerous other news sources as well. A few I'm sure even a Democrat would believe, unless of course it put a shadow on a Democrat.

ie: The Devils Times, The Underground Government, Liers Post, etc, etc.

LOL.... One could show a Democrat basting over a pit in hell and they would say it was a Republican plot against them.

Read your own signature.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 06:21:46 PM by Sensualtravler »

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #1064 on: January 14, 2017, 06:21:44 PM
Good article posted by Northwest.  And yes, potential conflicts of interest, Trump's favoring Putin over our own intelligence services, and alleged Trump campaign communications with Russia are certainly scandalous even if they have not yet led to any indictments.

It's been awhile since the scandals that plagued Reagan's presidency have been highlighted, but there was one that is particularly instructive regarding the kinds of scandal that Trump's conflicts of interest might lead to: the Department of Housing and Urban Development grant rigging scandal.

From Wiki:

Quote
The HUD rigging scandal occurred when Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Samuel Pierce and his associates rigged low income housing bids to favor Republican contributors to Reagan's campaign as well as rewarding Republican lobbyists such as James G. Watt Secretary of the Interior. Sixteen convictions were eventually handed down, including the following:

James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 24 felony counts and pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor. He was sentenced to five years probation, and ordered to pay a $5000 fine.

Phillip D. Winn - Assistant HUD Secretary. Pleaded guilty to one count of scheming to give illegal gratuities.; pardoned by President Bill Clinton, Nov., 2000

Thomas Demery - Assistant HUD Secretary - pleaded guilty to steering HUD subsidies to politically connected donors. Found guilty of bribery and obstruction of justice

Deborah Gore Dean - executive assistant to Secretary Pierce - indicted on thirteen counts, three counts of conspiracy, one count of accepting an illegal gratuity, four counts of perjury, and five counts of concealing articles. She was convicted on twelve. She appealed and prevailed on several counts but the convictions for conspiracy remained.

Joseph A. Strauss, (R) Special Assistant to the Secretary of HUD, convicted for accepting payments to favor Puerto Rican land developers in receiving HUD funding.
....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

So why do I stay this scandal is of particular interest with regards to Trump?  Because the Trump organization develops real estate and could unfairly benefit from HUD grants.  Furthermore, in confirmation hearings, Ben Carson says he would not exclude Trump from such grants.  




Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,271
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #1065 on: January 14, 2017, 06:30:38 PM
Good article posted by Northwest.  And yes, potential conflicts of interest, Trump's favoring Putin over our own intelligence services, and alleged Trump campaign communications with Russia are certainly scandalous even if they have not yet led to any indictments.

It's been awhile since the scandals that plagued Reagan's presidency have been highlighted, but there was one that is particularly instructive regarding the kinds of scandal that Trump's conflicts of interest might lead to: the Department of Housing and Urban Development grant rigging scandal.

From Wiki:

Quote
The HUD rigging scandal occurred when Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Samuel Pierce and his associates rigged low income housing bids to favor Republican contributors to Reagan's campaign as well as rewarding Republican lobbyists such as James G. Watt Secretary of the Interior. Sixteen convictions were eventually handed down, including the following:

James Watt, Reagan's Secretary of the Interior was indicted on 24 felony counts and pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor. He was sentenced to five years probation, and ordered to pay a $5000 fine.

Phillip D. Winn - Assistant HUD Secretary. Pleaded guilty to one count of scheming to give illegal gratuities.; pardoned by President Bill Clinton, Nov., 2000

Thomas Demery - Assistant HUD Secretary - pleaded guilty to steering HUD subsidies to politically connected donors. Found guilty of bribery and obstruction of justice

Deborah Gore Dean - executive assistant to Secretary Pierce - indicted on thirteen counts, three counts of conspiracy, one count of accepting an illegal gratuity, four counts of perjury, and five counts of concealing articles. She was convicted on twelve. She appealed and prevailed on several counts but the convictions for conspiracy remained.

Joseph A. Strauss, (R) Special Assistant to the Secretary of HUD, convicted for accepting payments to favor Puerto Rican land developers in receiving HUD funding.
....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_administration_scandals

So why do I stay this scandal is of particular interest with regards to Trump?  Because the Trump organization develops real estate and could unfairly benefit from HUD grants.  Furthermore, in confirmation hearings, Ben Carson says he would not exclude Trump from such grants. 



And the aforementioned Republicans should have been given prison terms, and labeled a felon. Any government official who betrays public trust should AUTOMATICALLY be given prison terms, as well as a stiff fine and be prevented from EVER serving as a public official again.

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,271
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #1066 on: January 14, 2017, 06:48:14 PM
Talk about "on topic", I just stumbled onto this:

In 2 Terms, Barack Obama Had Fewer Scandals Than Donald Trump Has Had In The Last 2 Weeks

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-scandal-legacy_us_5875a0fce4b05b7a465c67ed

You're not playing by the rules laid down by the Lois Northwest.

Quote
"A scandal is defined as resulting in an indictment based on proof of actual criminal wrongdoing by the President or the President' staff."

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #1067 on: January 14, 2017, 06:49:56 PM
Sensual traveler, that is "a" lie, not lies. And in context it had very little to do with the deaths. The ambassador should never have stayed in an unsecured location that was indefensible. He mader that deciscion and it was an unfortunate one.

Once the attack initiated, there was very little that could be done with the limited resources on hand.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,271
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #1068 on: January 14, 2017, 06:52:14 PM
Quote from: MissBarbara
The people (like SensualTraveler) who view Obama's presidency as an unending series of "scandals," and who view Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State as another unending series of "scandals," would never have voted for the Democratic candidate in the first place, no matter who the candidate was.

I don't know, MissBarbara; I think SensualTraveler is about to come out of the closet as a flaming liberal who can't stand either Obama OR Clinton -- because they are both too conservative for his tastes.

 FYI: I'm an independent. I've voted for for both parties, depending on their views. Scared you didn't it Northwest.  ;D

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,271
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #1069 on: January 14, 2017, 07:00:46 PM
Sensual traveler, that is "a" lie, not lies. And in context it had very little to do with the deaths. The ambassador should never have stayed in an unsecured location that was indefensible. He mader that deciscion and it was an unfortunate one.

Once the attack initiated, there was very little that could be done with the limited resources on hand.

Wrong again. There was a CIA compound close by that could have sent agents if they had been so instructed. The ass hole CIA agent in charge refused to do so unless instructed to do so even though he knew the compound was in serious jeopardy . By the time Hillarious got through diddling and cleaning her dildos, it was too late, even if she had chosen to do so. She didn't.

For his efferts, the administration gave the CIA agent a commendation.   0vomit0
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 07:10:36 PM by Sensualtravler »

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #1070 on: January 14, 2017, 07:09:34 PM
Wrong. It wasn't sufficiently defended, it was a soft target. You defend something by having a sufficient force not by sending a few men to counter an overwhelming force.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 07:12:24 PM by Katiebee »

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #1071 on: January 14, 2017, 07:15:32 PM
   Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blamed the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with a anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton said. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

The answer to your question is this — proven by the paper trail: Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials made the decision to deflect criticism of the administration’s security failures by blaming the attack on spontaneous protests linked to a YouTube posting.
Clinton did not explain that the day before blaming it on the video, she had admitted to the President of Egypt she knew it was a terrorist attack
It was common knowledge after several days she had deliberately lied.

Not such a broad brush after all, is it?

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Clinton-blame-the-film-for-Benghazi-attacks

Does that count as a scandal?

Oh, I forgot. A scandal is defined as the resulting of an actual indictment based on proof of actual criminal wrongdoing by the President or the President' staff, then the Obama presidency has been scandal free.  That's right, none. Zero. Zilch.

My bad.

This is indeed a non-scandal.  The video in question sparked violent demonstrations around the Middle East, including one at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt, on the same day as Benghazi. Certainly it was initially believed that the video led to the terrorist attack at Benghazi.  One does not automatically exclude the other.

I have always been confused as to why the right-wing pundits insist on calling statements based on initial, later shown to be erroneous conclusions, a lie.  This is manufacturing outrage for partisan purposes at a most dishonest level.

Another reason this is a non-scandal is that the initial confusion regarding the reason for the attack did not affect the outcome in any way.  Our people were still dead.




Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,271
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #1072 on: January 14, 2017, 07:19:53 PM
Wrong. It wasn't sufficiently defended, it was a soft target. You defend something by having a sufficient force not by sending a few men to counter and overwhelming force.



Find the correct facts.Don't just quote your theories. The Ambassador had been claiming for weeks, maybe months, the compound was under the possibility of imminent attack and requested several times for additional defenses. It was up to Hillarious as Secretary of Defense to provide them. She ignored the requests and thus several men died because of her inefficiency.

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,271
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #1073 on: January 14, 2017, 07:27:47 PM
    Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blamed the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with a anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton said. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

The answer to your question is this — proven by the paper trail: Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials made the decision to deflect criticism of the administration’s security failures by blaming the attack on spontaneous protests linked to a YouTube posting.
Clinton did not explain that the day before blaming it on the video, she had admitted to the President of Egypt she knew it was a terrorist attack
It was common knowledge after several days she had deliberately lied.

Not such a broad brush after all, is it?

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Clinton-blame-the-film-for-Benghazi-attacks

Does that count as a scandal?

Oh, I forgot. A scandal is defined as the resulting of an actual indictment based on proof of actual criminal wrongdoing by the President or the President' staff, then the Obama presidency has been scandal free.  That's right, none. Zero. Zilch.

My bad.

This is indeed a non-scandal.  The video in question sparked violent demonstrations around the Middle East, including one at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt, on the same day as Benghazi. Certainly it was initially believed that the video led to the terrorist attack at Benghazi.  One does not automatically exclude the other.

I have always been confused as to why the right-wing pundits insist on calling statements based on initial, later shown to be erroneous conclusions, a lie.  This is manufacturing outrage for partisan purposes at a most dishonest level.

Another reason this is a non-scandal is that the initial confusion regarding the reason for the attack did not affect the outcome in any way.  Our people were still dead.



Quoting Hillarious: "What difference does it make!" I believe the conversation between Hillarious and the President of Egypt was based on the attack on Bengazy. Why else would the video have came up simultaneously?

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,271
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #1074 on: January 14, 2017, 07:34:40 PM
    Oct. 15: Clinton, in an interview on CNN, blamed the “fog of war” when asked why the administration initially claimed the attack began with a anti-Muslim video, even though the State Department never reached that conclusion. “In the wake of an attack like this in the fog of war, there’s always going to be confusion, and I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence,” Clinton said. “Everyone who spoke tried to give the information they had. As time has gone on, the information has changed, we’ve gotten more detail, but that’s not surprising. That always happens.”

The answer to your question is this — proven by the paper trail: Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials made the decision to deflect criticism of the administration’s security failures by blaming the attack on spontaneous protests linked to a YouTube posting.
Clinton did not explain that the day before blaming it on the video, she had admitted to the President of Egypt she knew it was a terrorist attack
It was common knowledge after several days she had deliberately lied.

Not such a broad brush after all, is it?

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Clinton-blame-the-film-for-Benghazi-attacks

Does that count as a scandal?

Oh, I forgot. A scandal is defined as the resulting of an actual indictment based on proof of actual criminal wrongdoing by the President or the President' staff, then the Obama presidency has been scandal free.  That's right, none. Zero. Zilch.

My bad.

This is indeed a non-scandal.  The video in question sparked violent demonstrations around the Middle East, including one at the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt, on the same day as Benghazi. Certainly it was initially believed that the video led to the terrorist attack at Benghazi.  One does not automatically exclude the other.

I have always been confused as to why the right-wing pundits insist on calling statements based on initial, later shown to be erroneous conclusions, a lie.  This is manufacturing outrage for partisan purposes at a most dishonest level.

Another reason this is a non-scandal is that the initial confusion regarding the reason for the attack did not affect the outcome in any way.  Our people were still dead.



AGAIN:
The answer to your question is this — proven by the paper trail: Top White House aide Ben Rhodes, Hillary Clinton, and many key Obama officials made the decision to deflect criticism of the administration’s security failures by blaming the attack on spontaneous protests linked to a YouTube posting.
Clinton did not explain that the day before blaming it on the video, she had admitted to the President of Egypt she knew it was a terrorist attack
It was common knowledge after several days she had deliberately lied

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #1075 on: January 14, 2017, 07:51:34 PM
And I say NONSENSE. These are the conclusions of right-wing pundits, and not what the facts show at all.



Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,271
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #1076 on: January 14, 2017, 07:57:00 PM
The question won’t go away: Did President Obama and administration officials mislead the public when they initially claimed that the deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began “spontaneously” in response to an anti-Muslim video?

The question surfaced again on Oct. 25 — more than six weeks after the incident — when government emails showed the White House and the State Department were told even as the attack was going on that Ansar al-Sharia, a little-known militant group, had claimed credit for it.

We cannot say whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public. We cannot prove intent. There is also more information to come — both from the FBI, which is conducting an investigation, and Congress, which has been holding hearings.

But, at this point, we do know that Obama and others in the administration were quick to cite the anti-Muslim video as the underlying cause for the attack in Benghazi that killed four U.S. diplomats, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. And they were slow to acknowledge it was a premeditated terrorist attack, and they downplayed reports that it might have been.

What follows is a timeline of events that we hope will help put the incident into perspective. We call attention in particular to these key facts:

    There were no protesters at the Benghazi consulate prior to the attack, even though Obama and others repeatedly said the attackers joined an angry mob that had formed in opposition to the anti-Muslim film that had triggered protests in Egypt and elsewhere. The State Department disclosed this fact Oct. 9 — nearly a month after the attack.
    Libya President Mohamed Magariaf insisted on Sept. 16 — five days after the attack — that it was a planned terrorist attack, but administration officials continued for days later to say there was no evidence of a planned attack.
    Magariaf also said the idea that the attack was a “spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous.” This, too, was on Sept. 16. Yet, Obama and others continued to describe the incident in exactly those terms — including during the president’s Sept. 18 appearance on the “Late Show With David Letterman.”
    Matt Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, was the first administration official to call it “a terrorist attack” during a Sept. 19 congressional hearing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did the same on Sept. 20. Even so, Obama declined opportunities to call it a terrorist attack when asked at a town hall meeting on Sept. 20 and during a taping of “The View” on Sept. 24.




Additional comments, URL

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."


Offline Lois

  • Super Freak
  • Burnt at the stake
  • ******
    • Posts: 11,159
    • Woos/Boos: +768/-57
Reply #1077 on: January 14, 2017, 08:07:33 PM
The public was not mislead.  There were conflicting reports concerning the cause of the attacks.  The Obama administration was correct to be cautious with regards to assigning blame before the full facts were known.

Furthermore, many we need to keep as allies in the war against terrorism are Muslim.  Prematurely calling it a terrorist attack before all the facts were known might have alienated these allies, and pushed them to defend the attack instead of condemning it. I applaud the Obama administration's caution, and condemn those who would exploit his caution for partisan purposes.



Offline Katiebee

  • Shield Maiden POY 2018
  • Burnt at the stake
  • *******
    • Posts: 12,197
    • Woos/Boos: +946/-14
    • Gender: Female
  • Achieving world domination, one body at a time.
Reply #1078 on: January 14, 2017, 08:36:15 PM
Never argue with a conspiracy theorist.

It's like trying to teach a pig to sing.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.


Offline Sensualtravler

  • Freakishly Strange
  • ******
    • Posts: 1,271
    • Woos/Boos: +67/-17
    • Gender: Male
Reply #1079 on: January 15, 2017, 07:04:52 PM
Never argue with a conspiracy theorist.

It's like trying to teach a pig to sing.

The only conspiracy after the Benghazi attack was those perpetrated by the administration. Pigs may have difficulty learning to sing, but they have no problems reading English, particularly from several sources and interpreting it.

"To anger a conservative, lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth."