IGX

johno wrote:You're conflating politicians retired from or out of office, with the person who had a lock on the Presidential nomination and, up until last November, had a lock on the Presidency. Can you see the difference?

No.

Washington Post July 2013 wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... r-circuit/
Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor -- $270,000
When he was still campaigning for the U.S. presidency in 2007, Giuliani submitted a financial disclosure report that listed a total $9.2 million earned for public speaking engagements in 13 months. According to MSN, his highest-paid event was at a private equity firm, Sage Capital Group, in 2005.

Herv100 wrote:Didn't the state dept "misplace" $6B under Hillary? LMAO

Well no. They failed to maintain the required level of documentation on contracts totalling over $6b, esp to foreign contractors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

A succession of IG audits, investigations and inspections, the report said, found “repeated examples of poor contract file administration.” Among the examples it cited was a recent audit of the “closeout process for contracts supporting the U.S. mission in Iraq.” When auditors asked for a sample of 115 contract files, officials were unable to provide 33 of them, totaling $2.1 billion. Of the remaining 82, the report said, 48 contained insufficient documents required by federal law.

During an ongoing audit of State’s Bureau of African Affairs, the report said, officials did not provide complete files for any of the eight contracts reviewed, with a value of $34.8 million.

Two task orders valued at more than $1 billion, part of an Afghanistan contract under the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, were incomplete, as were task orders for protective services in Afghanistan worth an additional $1 billion.

It's an oversight and risk issue, and an internal controls one. Serious enough, of course.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Bill's $500K speech to the Russians while Hillary contributed her thumb's up to the Uranium One deal that put 20% of our uranium capacity into Vlad's control has a kleptocratic tint to it. In Bill's defense, he spoke for a whole hour.

The fact that big shots in the Uranium One deal decided to serve the world by putting over $100,000,000 into Clinton's charities is a convenient coincidence.

This is completely fair, except that:

• The deal was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
• The State Dept was one of NINE federal agencies on the committee, and wasn't the chair. Treasury secretary was the committee chair; the other members were the depts of Defense, Justice, Commerce, Energy, Homeland Security; and two White House agencies, the Office of the US Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
• According to the Wash Post, the committee had (has?) the authority to approve a deal, but only the president can stop a deal. If the committee doesn't settle on a recommendation, the president makes the decision.
• Then-asst sec of state for economic, energy and business affairs, is the actual bureaucrat who sat on the committee. He said that its business did not rise to the level of the secretary. Former National Security Council senior director for Russian and Eurasian affairs Michael McFaul also said that he couldn't imagine an issue like the Uranium One deal would be reviewed by the secretary of state.
• Final approval of the deal was given by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
• No uranium was exported from the US. Neither Uranium One nor the Russian company that bought the controlling interest, have an export license from the NRC.
• The big shots in the Uranium One who put over $100,000,000 into the Clinton Foundation charities are likely Frank Giustra and Ian Teller? Most of these donations occurred during 2008. Hillary was campaigning for president, so maybe this was an attempt to buy something. But Giustra had sold his interest in the Uranium thing in 2007, so whatever he was buying wasn't related to Uranium One. (I don't know anything about Teller.)

So yeah, other than the complete lack of Hillary's involvement in or responsibility for or control of the deal, and other than a complete lack of observable quid pro quo, yes the story does have a "kleptocratic tint" to it, agreed.

America dropped 26,171 bombs in 2016. What a bloody end to Obama's reign

President Obama did reduce the number of US soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but he dramatically expanded the air wars and the use of special operations forces around the globe. In 2016, US special operators could be found in 70% of the world’s nations, 138 countries – a staggering jump of 130% since the days of the Bush administration.

Looking back at President Obama’s legacy, the Council on Foreign Relation’s Micah Zenko added up the defense department’s data on airstrikes and made a startling revelation: in 2016 alone, the Obama administration dropped at least 26,171 bombs. This means that every day last year, the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with 72 bombs; that’s three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day.

Good he got the Nobel Prize for Peace right at the start of his appointment.

76 Times Obama's White House Illegally & Unethically Abused Its Power as Documented by Ted Cruz

It's a given that a high ranking politician has to be a ruthless bully in order to get to the very top of power, so all of this is expected. The difference between Trump from his predecessors is his manner of speaking, which seems to offend a lot of people. Which to me indicates one thing: Trump's opponents are insecure pussies with daddy issues. Betas who cannot tolerate someone who behaves like an Alpha instead of pretending to be like them. Bush Junior was frankly dumb, yet that did not ignite nearly as much outrage as loud mouth Trump.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

JimZipCode wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:I've never heard a good defense that the Clinton's aren't at least grifters extraordinaire or full blown kleptocrats.

I've never heard a credible & specific charge that merited a defense. Do you have one, or is this just more name-calling?

This isn't a charge. If a legal charge and conviction is the standard, the Clinton's are clean.

Bill's $500K speech to the Russians while Hillary contributed her thumb's up to the Uranium One deal that put 20% of our uranium capacity into Vlad's control has a kleptocratic tint to it. In Bill's defense, he spoke for a whole hour.

The fact that big shots in the Uranium One deal decided to serve the world by putting over $100,000,000 into Clinton's charities is a convenient coincidence.

Tony Podesta, the brother of Hillary's campaign manager, squeezing an additional couple hundred thousand out of the Russians for his lobbying skills could trigger suspicion in a paranoid mind too.

But, they've never been convicted of anything. Neither has Trump. Public servants each and every one.

Doesn't actually seem to be much there.

Snopes on Clinton & Uranium: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-u ... ssia-deal/

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

JimZipCode wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:I've never heard a good defense that the Clinton's aren't at least grifters extraordinaire or full blown kleptocrats.

I've never heard a credible & specific charge that merited a defense. Do you have one, or is this just more name-calling?

This isn't a charge. If a legal charge and conviction is the standard, the Clinton's are clean.

Bill's $500K speech to the Russians while Hillary contributed her thumb's up to the Uranium One deal that put 20% of our uranium capacity into Vlad's control has a kleptocratic tint to it. In Bill's defense, he spoke for a whole hour.

The fact that big shots in the Uranium One deal decided to serve the world by putting over $100,000,000 into Clinton's charities is a convenient coincidence.

Tony Podesta, the brother of Hillary's campaign manager, squeezing an additional couple hundred thousand out of the Russians for his lobbying skills could trigger suspicion in a paranoid mind too.

But, they've never been convicted of anything. Neither has Trump. Public servants each and every one.

Doesn't actually seem to be much there.

Snopes on Clinton & Uranium: http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-u ... ssia-deal/

Snopes? What a joke.

powerlifter54 wrote:Snopes? What a joke.

Are there examples of Snopes incorrectly fact-checking claims or refusing to make corrections when wrong?

For the IGx libs, why should the IGx conservatives turn away from Trump? The successful nomination and confirmation of Gorsuch, combined with no major screwups (and not changing trade treaties, no significantly negatively economic impact, or making negative adjustments to Obamacare that are actually passed into law all count as non-major screwups IMO) seem to meet a standard of 'better than we'd have gotten under Hillary,' from a conservative political perspective. Am I wrong here?

So not accomplishing much of anything and not screwing the pooch completely is some kind of success story? I was hoping for a little better than that.

climber511 wrote:So not accomplishing much of anything and not screwing the pooch completely is some kind of success story? I was hoping for a little better than that.

My expectations have dropped to the "could've been worse" standard. By that standard Trump is more thoughtful, more measured, more successful, and even less chaotic than I expected. There's stuff I don't like but when I compare him to what I think Hillary would have wrought, I remain, so far, comfortable with the meaningless vote I cast for DJT.

I'm afraid Trumpcare is going to fuck me and a lot of other people, but Obamacare fucked a lot of us too, so we'll see.

hey donk,

did you read the puffy trumpling's interview in the economist?

it's like self parody. a stand-up comic could say those lines and people would hoot.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:Snopes? What a joke.

Are there examples of Snopes incorrectly fact-checking claims or refusing to make corrections when wrong?

Yep. All over the web. They are a lefty site and keep their scales balanced one way. Not shocking.

Sangoma wrote:76 Times Obama's White House Illegally & Unethically Abused Its Power as Documented by Ted Cruz

It's a given that a high ranking politician has to be a ruthless bully in order to get to the very top of power, so all of this is expected.

Ha! Have you actually read this list? It's bullshit. It's 76 Times Obama's White House did something Ted Cruz didn't like.

To be fair, I only got thru about the first fifth of it before my derisive snorting got the better of me and I closed the page. Maybe it gets more substantive further down the list.

dead man walking wrote:hey donk,

did you read the puffy trumpling's interview in the economist?

it's like self parody. a stand-up comic could say those lines and people would hoot.

No I didn't but I'll try to check it out. FWIW, I think Trump is nutty but not nuts......yet. He's a narcissist, but IMO 3 of our last 4 presidents were narcissists. The one who wasn't started the Iraq war.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:The one who wasn't started the Iraq war.

First or second?

I've got two of the last five as narcissists:

• H Bush not a narcissist
• Bubba qualifies
• W not precisely a narcissist, more like a grandiose brainwashed cult member
• Obama not a narcissist
• Trump obviously an over-the-top narcissist

powerlifter54 wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

powerlifter54 wrote:Snopes? What a joke.

Are there examples of Snopes incorrectly fact-checking claims or refusing to make corrections when wrong?

Yep. All over the web. They are a lefty site and keep their scales balanced one way. Not shocking.

It would probably be easy to cite a few examples then (hint: email chains don't count). OTOH, it's easy to cite examples of them calling out fake stories about Trump: http://www.snopes.com/russia-paid-donal ... f-dollars/

Politicizing the authors is a pretty common way of trying to de-legitimize information you don't like.

JimZipCode wrote:Ha! Have you actually read this list? It's bullshit. It's 76 Times Obama's White House did something Ted Cruz didn't like.

To be fair, I only got thru about the first fifth of it before my derisive snorting got the better of me and I closed the page. Maybe it gets more substantive further down the list.

Couldn't stay away from this list. Like picking a scab or something.

Some of it has merit. For example, #39 ("Targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen by falsely labeling him a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a new leak.") was shitty and shady. That's the same series of investigations that produced charges for Bradley/Chelsea Manning and for Snowden. By the way, reminds you of how Trump would like leakers treated.

But the majority of these items (so far) are mis-characterizations or exaggerations. Or "demonizing" acts that are part of the normal push-pull between Congress and the president, which has been going on for 200 years.

JimZipCode wrote:

JimZipCode wrote:Ha! Have you actually read this list? It's bullshit. It's 76 Times Obama's White House did something Ted Cruz didn't like.

To be fair, I only got thru about the first fifth of it before my derisive snorting got the better of me and I closed the page. Maybe it gets more substantive further down the list.

Couldn't stay away from this list. Like picking a scab or something.

Some of it has merit. For example, #39 ("Targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen by falsely labeling him a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a new leak.") was shitty and shady. That's the same series of investigations that produced charges for Bradley/Chelsea Manning and for Snowden. By the way, reminds you of how Trump would like leakers treated.

But the majority of these items (so far) are mis-characterizations or exaggerations. Or "demonizing" acts that are part of the normal push-pull between Congress and the president, which has been going on for 200 years.

Like using the IRS against political enemies? Or arming drug dealers to encourage gun control legislation? Or Lieing about keeping your doctor? Or sending literally planloads of cash to our enemies? How about telling Vlad he could work with him more after the election? The White Obama ere was a disaster. Yeah, I know the market is doing fine, but that didn't save Hilliary.

JimZipCode wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:The one who wasn't started the Iraq war.

First or second?

I've got two of the last five as narcissists:

• H Bush not a narcissist
• Bubba qualifies
• W not precisely a narcissist, more like a grandiose brainwashed cult member
• Obama not a narcissist
• Trump obviously an over-the-top narcissist

Close to my evaluation but I think O was a narcissist. All the "I", "me", "mine" in every speech are clues. His quiet cool demeanor covered up a lot of what was wrong with him. Trump might have some kind of histrionic personality traits which exacerbate what's wrong with him.

climber511 wrote:So not accomplishing much of anything and not screwing the pooch completely is some kind of success story? I was hoping for a little better than that.

It's all relative to the other option, and getting a solid SCOTUS nominee confirmed to the bench is a huuuge positive from a conservative perspective. Bigly positive.

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Trump might have some kind of histrionic personality traits which exacerbate what's wrong with him.

really?

i suppose he "might"

powerlifter54 wrote:Like using the IRS against political enemies? Or arming drug dealers to encourage gun control legislation? Or Lieing about keeping your doctor? Or sending literally planloads of cash to our enemies? How about telling Vlad he could work with him more after the election? The White Obama ere was a disaster. Yeah, I know the market is doing fine, but that didn't save Hilliary.

It's funny, in conjunction with the link that Turd posted in the other thread: conservatives are quick to chide liberals for believing uncritically everything they hear about Trump, but simultaneously regurgitate every talking point that Rush or Fox & Friends has given them over the years about Obama & Hillary, without any reflection at all. Yeah, ok.

• Like using the IRS against political enemies?

I know this is a big article of faith with you guys, with the whole impeach Koskinnen movement and everything, but this didn't actually happen.

• Or arming drug dealers to encourage gun control legislation?

Conflating two things, one of which didn't happen (but yes was discussed, maybe even "planned").

• Or Lieing about keeping your doctor?

Did Obama lie, or did he try and fail to keep a campaign promise? I'm sure keeping your doctor was in the first draft proposal. I'm sure Obama wanted it. We didn't get it. I'm sorry it pissed you off so much.

• Or sending literally planloads of cash to our enemies?

You mean the money that was owed to them? The money we settled on to avoid the world court judgement against us that would have septupled the amount with penalties going back over 30 years? That money? Is the objection that we paid cash, or that we paid it at all?

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Close to my evaluation but I think O was a narcissist. All the "I", "me", "mine" in every speech are clues. His quiet cool demeanor covered up a lot of what was wrong with him.

Savior complex, or something? I always assumed the I-me-mine were rhetorical tricks to personalize his speeches. Dude was a VERY accomplished public speaker, among the best we've seen recently.

I have a hard time seeing him as a narcissist. You're going to laugh me off the board when you hear why: there are a shit-ton of candid pics of him in the WH over the years, many many of them showing him interacting with kids. And he seems fabulous with kids. Fabulous. The whole spectrum of kids: babes in arms, toddlers, elem school kids, science fair teens: he seems great with all of them. Way, way beyond the standard politicians-kissing-babies thing. (Compare to that awful clip of Ted Cruz subjecting his daughter to a kiss on the cheek for the cameras.) My wife thinks that having the gift of "meeting" kids at their level requires a whole lot of a certain kind of empathy, and I've come to agree with her. He also showed similar empathy when very old black men and women got to meet him in the Oval from time to time: seemed very much aware of how much the moment meant to them. That kind of empathy seems to me to be incompatible with narcissism. Certainly with Trumpian levels of narcissism. (But who knows, maybe psychopaths have it too.)

Obama also wasn't the focus-puller / spotlight whore that Trump is and Bill seemed to be. He could let someone else be the center of attention for 5 seconds.

I don't want to argue this too hard. Anyone who thinks THEY are the one who should be president, the right choice: such a person must have at least a streak of narcissism or something