I Am Undecided.

@engineer,

That might be, but especially this election should be a no brainer, regardless of party affiliation. As Salman Rushdie said:

Trump will go on trial in November accused of racketeering, then again in December - accused of child rape. He is a sexual predator, hasn't released his tax returns, and has used his foundation's money to pay his legal fees. He has abused the family of a war hero and......oh let's talk about the emails Hillary didn't send from someone else's computer that weren't a crime anyway, because that's how you choose a president. Come one America, focus!

1 Reply

@CalamityJane,

I think that Trump has effectively stopped any prosecution against him. At this point, any effort to take Trump to trial, IMO most likely for tax evasion in connection to his "charity", will be portrayed as political payback for the election. I doubt the Treasury or the FBI is willing to go there.

2 Replies

@engineer,

They probably will after the election when he goes back to being Donny the orange Clown. Yes, the FBI is bought by the Republicans, but I am sure Hillary will make changes as soon as she hits the White House. Bill and her still have the key to the dungeon Wink

0 Replies

@engineer,

I'd be surprised if the rape pre-trial will go away .

Quote:

In the meantime, it’s worth noting that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has a court date of his own post-Election Day. No, I’m not referring to the class-action suit against his fraudulent Trump University (November 28) or the New York attorney general’s pending investigation into the Trump Foundation, but, rather, the civil suit alleging the 70-year-old Republican presidential nominee of an incident back in 1994, which included “rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts, sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress, duress, false imprisonment, and defamation” of a 13-year-old girl.

The pretrial conference for “Jane Doe v. Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein” is scheduled December 16 in a United States district court in New York. You can read more about the details of the case in our previous coverage here.

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/308374/reminder-the-pretrial-date-for-donald-trumps-child-rape-case-is-december-16/

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/tag/jane-doe/

what's weird (to me) about it is the Epstein connection to Trump and Clinton

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/

0 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

They know the "right" choice for them, but just can't quite get there to pull the lever.

I think voting booth equivocations from both parties will cancel each other out. I think most people are so tired of this election and all its flaws that 95% know exactly who they're voting for and are accepting no new data into their equations.

In the end there's no capacity to juggle new information short of a credible murder or treason that will jar any votes as of today.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I've misrepresented nothing. You've shown concern for Saudi Arabia's human rights record very late in the day. It's clear your faux concern is down to your risible attempt to connect Clinton to the Saudis. In reality the Bushes had far closer and deeper ties, but you didn't give a monkeys about that.

Not to derail the thread, but it's not like Britain doesn't have extensive business dealings with Saudi Arabia, including your police training Saudi Abrabian officers.

2 Replies

@chai2,

Now, now, now ... there's enough imperialism to go around and plenty enough for everyone.

"People, I just want to say, can we all get along? Can we get along?"

0 Replies

@chai2,

Yes it does. You're not saying that's all down to a $10 million donation to the Clinton foundation as well. Those Saudis sure know how to stretch a dollar.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

No, I'm just saying people in glass houses....

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

I've misrepresented nothing. You've shown concern for Saudi Arabia's human rights record very late in the day. It's clear your faux concern is down to your risible attempt to connect Clinton to the Saudis. In reality the Bushes had far closer and deeper ties, but you didn't give a monkeys about that.

Yeah ya did. You assumed that I don't give a rat's ass about Bush ties to the Saudis. How would you know? You think it's logical to assume that, because I'm not talking about Bush in 2016, I must be picking on Clinton? Think about it.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Funny how you're so concerned about human rights now. No such concern existed when you conducted the illegal war in Iraq.

What are you talking about? Again with misrepresenting what I've said; or in this case, what I've never said. Where did you get the idea that I didn't have concerns about the illegal invasion of Iraq? I could point you to debate forums in which I beat up on people who tried justifying the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, but that's probably against forum policies here.

0 Replies

@chai2,

Glenn and McGentrix are trying to tie Saudi arms deals to donations to the Clinton foundation. I pointed out that trade relations between the US and Saudi Arabia had been going on for a long time and had been especially strong during Dubya's presidency. Therefore, any Saudi/US arms deals during Obama's presidency had nothing to do with a Saudi donation to the Clinton foundation.

I never thought I'd have to spell it out.

Btw, I've never tried to hide Britain's links to Saudi Arabia at all.

http://able2know.org/topic/343327-50#post-6294486

Never mind, I'm sure there's lots of other points that will similarly shoot right over your head.

2 Replies

@Glennn,

Glenn wrote:

Think about it.

You first.

You're just pissed off because your ludicrous argument crashed and burned spectacularly. That doesn't normally happen to people who think.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

You still don't get the difference between state and personal interactions? I actually thought you'd get that difference but apparently not.

See countries have to interact with each other, sometimes for mutual benefit sometimes for statecraft reason. These interactions typically benefit both countries and all the people of those countries.

When a government gives an individual money, that is not beneficial to a country or the people of that country. It only benefits the individual (That's Bill and Hillary Clinton in case you are too dense to figure that out). Now, if that individual also holds a position in government that uses that position to influence some kind of arrangement then that is what's known as "corruption".

I know this is really tricky and you're probably scratching your head saying something goofy like "Wot, mate?" so follow along...

Country to Country = good
Country to individual = bad

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

The Clinton foundation is a charitable institution. The Clintons don't benefit directly from it, unlike Trump's who uses his "charitable institution," to buy statues of himself and pay off legal fees.

Lots of countries and institutions have paid into the Clinton foundation. Yet you take one relatively small donation, by Saudi standards and see it as proof the Saudis are buying influence with Obama.

That's all the proof you have, supposition and innuendo. Now if there had been some sudden seed change in the sale of military equipment to the Saudis you might have a point, but you don't. America's trading relationship with the Saudis has gone on as normal.

Now this sort of bollocks may go down well will people who say, "Gee Whizz" and "Shucks" all the time, but it cuts no ice with anyone who has a basic understanding of international trade and Geography.

Let me simplify it, facts mean something, suppositions, smears and innuendo don't mean anything. They do say a lot about the person dealing in supposition though, it means they don't have any facts.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Let me simplify it, facts mean something, suppositions, smears and innuendo don't mean anything. They do say a lot about the person dealing in supposition though, it means they don't have any facts.

I want to get this and put it on a plaque and then put that plaque on a metaphorical baseball bat so that every time in the future you spout off about something, make a supposition, smear or innuendo that I can metaphorically smack you in the head with it because you deal in that trade more than most.

For the small minded out there, metaphorically means not real. I don't really want to cause any kind of physical harm nor am I threatening anyone. It's really a shame that this paragraph has to be written.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

My point is that while the U.S. condemns and threatens to sanction countries guilty of blatant human rights abuses, Clinton accepts charity from them and offers them nice weapons deals like F-15s to bomb hospitals and Doctors Without Borders. You think you've made some valid point by pointing out that others have done this too. So your reasoning is that as long as there is a precedent for being unethical or immoral, then no one can be condemned for doing the same afterwards. That's some point . . .

1 Reply

The Saudi transaction is just one example of nations and companies that had donated to the Clinton Foundation seeing an increase in arms deals while Hillary Clinton oversaw the State Department. IBT found that between October 2010 and September 2012, State approved $165 billion in commercial arms sales to 20 nations that had donated to the foundation, plus another $151 billion worth of Pentagon-brokered arms deals to 16 of those countries—a 143 percent increase over the same time frame under the Bush Administration. The sales boosted the military power of authoritarian regimes such as Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman, which, like Saudi Arabia, had been criticized by the department for human rights abuses.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

You're living in a fantasy world. The only person you're smacking metaphorically in the face is yourself. It's a ridiculous notion, that a long established trading relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia has only continued because of a relatively insignificant donation to the Clinton foundation.

It's nonsensical, it's ridiculous, and only an idiot would believe it. Now you have another paddy about how unfair it all is, that only other idiots buy your particular brand of horseshit, whilst repeatedly hitting yourself in the head with your metaphorical rounders bat.

I thought you had me on ignore, God knows why you chose to share your meltdown with me. I have to say I've seen better.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Successful diplomacy is a case of the possible mixed with realpolitik. The relationship between the West and the Saudis is part of that, and it's not going to change soon regardless of who wins the election.

Obama's record is significantly better than his predecessors in that respect. No illegal wars and rapprochement with Iran and Cuba. That's a lot better than turning Iraq into a jihadi hothouse, which is all Bush achieved.

1 Reply

I Am Undecided.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know