Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Ode2Joy

Washington Post: Does the Hillary Clinton email matter need a fresh look? Yes.

179 posts in this topic

13 minutes ago, jdsample said:

Yup, but those are some of my favorite moments getting to know people and understand them better.  

 

Mine too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feb. 14, 2017: After promising as a candidate to recognize Taiwanese independence, Trump reverses course, pledging to Chinese President Xi Jinping that the U.S. will uphold the “One China” policy. Five days later, the Chinese government finally grants Trump a long-sought trademark protection. “If this isn’t a violation of the Emoluments Clause, I don’t know what is,” says Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, jdsample said:

OTH, name any organization without reprobates.  The Democrat party was led by a liar and abuser of women for 8 years.  I would argue that we should hear the message of these organizations and evaluate them outside of some of the dirtbags that disseminate the message.  

No organization is without reprobates. That organization created a culture in which they flourished. As I have said other places, the real problem was the enablers. I would argue that the organization IS the people who make it up, and if they are not moral or trustworthy, neither is the organization. As a minimum the organization's teachings were not sufficient to keep its own inner circle from serious moral failure.

Edited by Evil Yoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FACT:  Despite what many might try to portray, the investigation involving Hillary is still an open case.  It was never closed.

These investigations should be closed if nothing has been found that is worthy of further investigation and there are no risks that anything criminal or grossly negligent occurred.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

No organization is without reprobates. That organization created a culture in which they flourished. As I have said other places, the real problem was the enablers. I would argue that the organization IS the people who make it up, and if they are not moral or trustworthy, neither is the organization. As a minimum the organization's teachings were not sufficient to keep its own inner circle from serious moral failure.

You can make the same argument regarding the Democrats.  While Bill raped, groped, and abused women, I have not heard the same accusations about any Pope during my lifetime.  

I will concede the Catholic church has been horrible in culling its reprobates.  The Dems have been stellar in promoting theirs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, JoyinMudville said:

Feb. 14, 2017: After promising as a candidate to recognize Taiwanese independence, Trump reverses course, pledging to Chinese President Xi Jinping that the U.S. will uphold the “One China” policy. Five days later, the Chinese government finally grants Trump a long-sought trademark protection. “If this isn’t a violation of the Emoluments Clause, I don’t know what is,” says Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein.

But Clinton being paid half a million for a short speech to Russians involved in the Uranium One deal is no big deal.  Nor are $145 million is Russian donations to the Clinton foundation by Russian investors in the deal.  

But the Chinese agree not put "Trump" signs on non-Trump properties.  <shriek!>  I wonder if that guarantee is worth more that $145 million plus 20% of US uranium reserves?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sept. 12, 2017: The Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak and his delegation are seen hobnobbing in meeting rooms at the Trump International Hotel, bringing in what the Washington Post estimates to be hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue for the Trump Organization. “Hotel staffers and Malaysian officials declined to say whether Najib and the other officials stayed overnight at the hotel, among the most expensive in Washington, or if they did stay, for how long,” the Post reports.

Oct. 22, 2017: Trump cashes in on an Irish golf tourism conference, in part sponsored by the governments of Ireland and Northern Ireland, held at the Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Doonbeg in Ireland.

On the same day, White House staffers try to talk Trump out of honoring China’s request to deport Guo Wengui, a billionaire Chinese dissident, by reminding the President that Guo was a  member of Mar-a-Lago.

Oct. 26, 2017:  A delegation of Japanese businessmen linked to the Japanese government hosts an aerospace and aviation summit in Palm Beach, concluding with dinner at Mar-a-Lago.

Oct. 28, 2017: The Washington Post reports that the Trump Organization is poised to open two residential projects in India, including a tower in Kolkata with apartments selling for up to $765,000 and another in Gurgaon with units starting at $1.8 million. The company’s pledge to make “no new foreign deals,” the Post notes, came “with an asterisk”: deals signed before Trump took office, like the one in India, can still move forward or be renewed.

Oct. 31, 2017: Mexico’s former U.S. ambassador Arturo Sarukhan tweets that the State Department is encouraging diplomats to stay at the Trump International Hotel during official visits.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/january-february-march-2018/a-year-in-trump-corruption/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jdsample said:

But Clinton being paid half a million for a short speech to Russians involved in the Uranium One deal is no big deal.  Nor are $145 million is Russian donations to the Clinton foundation by Russian investors in the deal.  

But the Chinese agree not put "Trump" signs on non-Trump properties.  <shriek!>  I wonder if that guarantee is worth more that $145 million plus 20% of US uranium reserves?  

You'll give up on that "uranium deal" when they pry it from your cold, dead fingers. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hst2 said:

You'll give up on that "uranium deal" when they pry it from your cold, dead fingers. :)

Or there is a shred of evidence proving all those Federal agencies and President Obama did not approve the deal. 

But since we all know there was a deal, what is the left wing version of that deal?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jdsample said:

Or there is a shred of evidence proving all those Federal agencies and President Obama did not approve the deal. 

But since we all know there was a deal, what is the left wing version of that deal?  

LOL! Like I said. You beat that thing like a rented mule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, banner1124 said:

And I'm not surprised you passed up on the rest of that post and chose only to comment on that one piece.  Very dishonest of you.  Hmmm... dishonesty doesn't seem very Christian either.  I'm sensing a pattern here :lol:

Very well. Enjoy your patterns and God bless you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

The Catholic church thought for DECADES that sexual and other sorts of child abuse was no big deal, and maybe still does. How can such an organization lead morally? How can anyone who takes their advice be truly moral?

I know it must be difficult for an atheist to believe that the Catholic Church was founded by God Himself, but there you have it! Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jdsample said:

But Clinton being paid half a million for a short speech to Russians involved in the Uranium One deal is no big deal.  Nor are $145 million is Russian donations to the Clinton foundation by Russian investors in the deal.  

But the Chinese agree not put "Trump" signs on non-Trump properties.  <shriek!>  I wonder if that guarantee is worth more that $145 million plus 20% of US uranium reserves?  

hmm... you're facts are wrong again. I wonder why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jdsample said:

Or there is a shred of evidence proving all those Federal agencies and President Obama did not approve the deal. 

But since we all know there was a deal, what is the left wing version of that deal?  

So, now it's moved from Bill and Hillary somehow conniving to give Russia nuclear weapons to nine whole branches of the Obama administration in some sort of grand conspiracy, you should try turning the channel. Or, better yet, turn off the TV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JoyinMudville said:

hmm... you're facts are wrong again. I wonder why?

Because they aren't your facts?  LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JoyinMudville said:

So, now it's moved from Bill and Hillary somehow conniving to give Russia nuclear weapons to nine whole branches of the Obama administration in some sort of grand conspiracy, you should try turning the channel. Or, better yet, turn off the TV

Well that is a new one on me. When did Hillbillary provide Russia with nuclear weapons?  I've never heard that before.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jdsample said:

You can make the same argument regarding the Democrats.  While Bill raped, groped, and abused women, I have not heard the same accusations about any Pope during my lifetime.  

I will concede the Catholic church has been horrible in culling its reprobates.  The Dems have been stellar in promoting theirs.  

The Democrats didn't create a culture that enabled and supported child sexual abusers. The Catholic Church did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, com6063 said:

I know it must be difficult for an atheist to believe that the Catholic Church was founded by God Himself, but there you have it! Enjoy.

Then your god did a poor job of supervising it. Which makes one wonder what was the point? Every church in the world things it has a monopoly on the truth. The Catholic Church has been rotten for centuries, or we wouldn't have the protestants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/5/2018 at 11:38 AM, ncbirdfan said:

No, often they don't. I volunteer for an organization here in North Carolina that does provide support for women who decide to keep their babies; but because of funding, there is more demand than funding allows. It is no coincidence that during the Bush years that there were more abortions than when Clinton and Obama were presidents. It's because the government helped out more for these women. When the GOP gets in power it takes away money from the poor. And that is one reason there are more abortions during their terms. Many young women who have abortions are scared; very few do "abortions on demand" as is propagated by the right.

Would you be in favor of a law that provided assistance to poor mothers who kept their babies rather than aborting them?

NC this is not at you...you are just a venue OK.

One thing that I have never understood about the GOP/conservative/religious right..... On the one hand they appear to be all for pro-life (no abortions) but to everything in their power to curtail the life after birth. That is cutting funds for the children and such.

Being absolute analytical about it, Seems to me an abortion is 'cheaper' and more financially expedient than having the child and the cost of maintaining that child (by the government or not) till adulthood.....if it makes it that far.

And in the course of the more than likely lower class child...like BC....if they make it to adulthood...the cost of jailing...patching up in the ER...and so on and so on.........

Seems to me purely from a dollar viewpoint. .....you would think the the GOP would be all gungho about abortions.

If the TRULY religious and anti abortion people feel so STRONGLY against abortions. Then set up a national adoption web page....they can sign up and take care of the (most likely) unwanted child. AKA....put your money where your mouth is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

Then your god did a poor job of supervising it. Which makes one wonder what was the point? Every church in the world things it has a monopoly on the truth. The Catholic Church has been rotten for centuries, or we wouldn't have the protestants.

Maybe the Catholic church can cash in some of the treasure trove of ancient artifacts and start supporting the children.

ABTW.....I am a Roman Catholic...and I get ticked when they have the 'extra collection' to take care of '___________' fill in the blank.be they the US or else where.

Edited by Guido2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Evil Yoda said:

The Democrats didn't create a culture that enabled and supported child sexual abusers. The Catholic Church did.

I know.  Democrats only sexually abuse women.  Not so bad.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jdsample said:

I know.  Democrats only sexually abuse women.  Not so bad.  

Some do. But the Republicans have a president guilty of that, so there's no monopoly. When he he resign, like the accused Democrats have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Evil Yoda said:

Some do. But the Republicans have a president guilty of that, so there's no monopoly. When he he resign, like the accused Democrats have?

You are right of course.  But this is entirely new for Dems.  Until this year they circled the wagons and attack the charges.  Clinton never resigned.  Hillary arguably should have for painting Bill's victims as *****.  How about Teddy, lion of the senate?  How about John Edwards?  

In the meantime Republicans have traditionally left office for conduct far less disqualifying.  I find it gross on a number of levels to make a homosexual advance in a bathroom stall, but nobody got raped or abused.  But a Republican quit his job when it was revealed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jdsample said:

You are right of course.  But this is entirely new for Dems.  Until this year they circled the wagons and attack the charges.  Clinton never resigned.  Hillary arguably should have for painting Bill's victims as *****.  How about Teddy, lion of the senate?  How about John Edwards?  

In the meantime Republicans have traditionally left office for conduct far less disqualifying.  I find it gross on a number of levels to make a homosexual advance in a bathroom stall, but nobody got raped or abused.  But a Republican quit his job when it was revealed.  

Say what?  You are kidding right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mrsmlh said:

Say what?  You are kidding right?

I typically don't kid while enumerating facts.  I'll put an emoticon in when I'm kidding.  

Do you think Bill Clinton should have resigned?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0