2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Would you describe Trump as exceptionally competent? He's made more bone headed business decisions than Hillary has. So I don't see that how he could hope to be comparable to her competence level in a field she has a 20+year head start on, and as I've stated, if he was of the mind to catch up, he wouldn't be learning what the nuclear triad is from Marco Rubio during a debate.


Because frankly he's less successful than Jerry Jones, and I think we'd all be shitting our pants if ol Jer (a business mogul with nearly a flawless record) had won the Republican primary.

Hillary is a wildly successful attorney/politician/executive whose 40 year resume speaks very highly of her competence level. I think you'd be very hard pressed to find someone who she's worked with who would call her incompetent.
I would trust Jones with business decisions.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I would trust Jones with business decisions.
Me too. He's a canny business man, much more so than Donald. Just look at the value he added to the NFL vs what Donald added to the USFL. But he would not be a good choice for POTUS. Not unless you want Larry Lacewell as secretary of the interior.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Me too. He's a canny business man, much more so than Donald. Just look at the value he added to the NFL vs what Donald added to the USFL. But he would not be a good choice for POTUS. Not unless you want Larry Lacewell as secretary of the interior.
I trust Trump over Hillary.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Would you describe Trump as exceptionally competent? He's made more bone headed business decisions than Hillary has. So I don't see that how he could hope to be comparable to her competence level in a field she has a 20+year head start on, and as I've stated, if he was of the mind to catch up, he wouldn't be learning what the nuclear triad is from Marco Rubio during a debate.


Because frankly he's less successful than Jerry Jones, and I think we'd all be shitting our pants if ol Jer (a business mogul with nearly a flawless record) had won the Republican primary.

Hillary is a wildly successful attorney/politician/executive whose 40 year resume speaks very highly of her competence level. I think you'd be very hard pressed to find someone who she's worked with who would call her incompetent.
I don't agree that she's wildly successful as a politician.

And actually I think I would trust Jerry Jones as President over Hillary.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I don't agree that she's wildly successful as a politician.

And actually I think I would trust Jerry Jones as President over Hillary.
I would argue that if you were assessing Hillary unbiasedly, you would arrive at a different conclusion. There's way too much hyperbole that's been thrown at this woman by pundits that isn't a fair approximation of her body of work. I'm not saying she hasn't made mistakes, in fact she will inevitably make mistakes as president (as all of them have), but her success with law, her success in business, and her success in politics is not to be overlooked.

A Jerry or Trump would be babes in the woods. Saying business savvy translates to a competent presidency would be like assuming Jerry Jones could be a good head coach just because he can run a business. It's lunacy.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
I would argue that if you were assessing Hillary unbiasedly, you would arrive at a different conclusion. There's way too much hyperbole that's been thrown at this woman by pundits that isn't a fair approximation of her body of work. I'm not saying she hasn't made mistakes, in fact she will inevitably make mistakes as president (as all of them have), but her success with law, her success in business, and her success in politics is not to be overlooked.

A Jerry or Trump would be babes in the woods. Saying business savvy translates to a competent presidency would be like assuming Jerry Jones could be a good head coach just because he can run a business. It's lunacy.
You could argue that, but it wouldn't make you right, and faking incredulity over it doesn't make you right either, so you should really stop pretending that everyone who thinks she is incompetent is naive.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
You could argue that, but it wouldn't make you right, and faking incredulity over it doesn't make you right either, so you should really stop pretending that everyone who thinks she is incompetent is naive.
I wouldn't say naive. I'd say out of the loop. I'd say they've listened to a Republican narrative that doesn't match reality. I'd say that when held against the resumes of other recent presidential candidates you'd be hard pressed to find one more impressive.

I'd say that if she was incompetent she would have ceased to exist after a single election cycle. I'd say that Hillary has rarely been objectively assessed by either side of the aisle, because she's been a lightning rod for criticism from every peanut gallery, and the easiest way for talking heads and pundits to score cheap political points.

Like I said, she has some character concerns, but there's no way someone who looks at the whole of her resume can interpret it as belonging to someone who's incompetent. I cannot say the same for Trump.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
I wouldn't say naive. I'd say out of the loop. I'd say they've listened to a Republican narrative that doesn't match reality. I'd say that when held against the resumes of other recent presidential candidates you'd be hard pressed to find one more impressive.

I'd say that if she was incompetent she would have ceased to exist after a single election cycle. I'd say that Hillary has rarely been objectively assessed by either side of the aisle, because she's been a lightning rod for criticism from every peanut gallery, and the easiest way for talking heads and pundits to score cheap political points.

Like I said, she has some character concerns, but there's no way someone who looks at the whole of her resume can interpret it as belonging to someone who's incompetent. I cannot say the same for Trump.
There's a reason she is a lighting rod for criticism.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
I wouldn't say naive. I'd say out of the loop. I'd say they've listened to a Republican narrative that doesn't match reality. I'd say that when held against the resumes of other recent presidential candidates you'd be hard pressed to find one more impressive.

I'd say that if she was incompetent she would have ceased to exist after a single election cycle. I'd say that Hillary has rarely been objectively assessed by either side of the aisle, because she's been a lightning rod for criticism from every peanut gallery, and the easiest way for talking heads and pundits to score cheap political points.

Like I said, she has some character concerns, but there's no way someone who looks at the whole of her resume can interpret it as belonging to someone who's incompetent. I cannot say the same for Trump.
I think people are mistaking competence for trustworthyness. Hillary is completely untrustworthy, but then ask anyone who ever invested in one of Trump's businesses how trustworthy he is. Policy wise Hillary is going to be the same as the last 16 years of presidents, probably a lot more like Bush and Obama than Bill. Trump still doesn't have any idea what his policies would be. That's pretty hilarious when you come right down to it. You would think anyone running for president would sit down with some people and have a plan or an answer for most policy questions they could be asked before they got started. Trump's the nominee and he still can't come up with a straight answer to any question about what he wants to do. "Everything is a suggestion." Really?
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
I think people are mistaking competence for trustworthyness. Hillary is completely untrustworthy, but then ask anyone who ever invested in one of Trump's businesses how trustworthy he is. Policy wise Hillary is going to be the same as the last 16 years of presidents, probably a lot more like Bush and Obama than Bill. Trump still doesn't have any idea what his policies would be. That's pretty hilarious when you come right down to it. You would think anyone running for president would sit down with some people and have a plan or an answer for most policy questions they could be asked before they got started. Trump's the nominee and he still can't come up with a straight answer to any question about what he wants to do. "Everything is a suggestion." Really?
Hillary lost a lot of her appeal with people when she allowed herself to be humiliated by her husband over the Lewinsky debacle. Instead of drop kicking him out of her life she chose to act like a lap dog for the sake of using him to get what she wanted. People saw that she would say or do anything to scheme for her ambition. She'projected an image of compromising her pride for power.

As to Trump not having an idea about his policies, maybe not so because if I were him I would keep it close to the vest for now to avoid media nit picking.
 
Last edited:

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Hillary lost a lot of her appeal with people when she allowed herself to be humiliated by her husband over the Lewinsky debacle. Instead of drop kicking him out of her life she chose to act like a lap dog for the sake of using him to get what she wanted. People saw that she would say or do anything to scheme for her ambition. She'projected an image of compromising her pride for power.
That goes back to trustworthiness and I agree she can't be trusted.

If Trump wanted to play close to the vest with his policies there are ways to be evasive without sounding like you don't understand the question, and that happens to him all too regularly. If it was me running, I'd lay out my plan and go after anyone who didn't for not having a plan, but then I would like politics to be more open and honest in general, though that's not a very realistic preference.
 

Kbrown

Not So New Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
2,155
Hillary lost a lot of her appeal with people when she allowed herself to be humiliated by her husband over the Lewinsky debacle. Instead of drop kicking him out of her life she chose to act like a lap dog for the sake of using him to get what she wanted. People saw that she would say or do anything to scheme for her ambition. She'projected an image of compromising her pride for power.

As to Trump not having an idea about his policies, maybe not so because if I were him I would keep it close to the vest for now to avoid media nit picking.
Hillary is the worst, but this is not a fair criticism IMO.

I don't feel qualified to judge people in relationship choices. There's plenty of other legitimate reasons that she's the worst.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Bush White House email controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[5]

The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.[7] Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc."[8]) and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"[9]), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.[10]

The "gwb43.com" domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee committee chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation.[11] Waxman sent a formal warning to the RNC, advising them to retain copies of all emails sent by White House employees. According to Waxman, "in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications."[12] The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.[13]

On April 12, 2007, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that White House staffers were told to use RNC accounts to "err on the side of avoiding violations of the Hatch Act, but they should also retain that information so it can be reviewed for the Presidential Records Act," and that "some employees ... have communicated about official business on those political email accounts."[14] Stanzel also said that even though RNC policy since 2004 has been to retain all emails of White House staff with RNC accounts, the staffers had the ability to delete the email themselves.

__________________________________________________________________________________

And yet no FBI investigation.

I wonder why?
 
Last edited:

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Bush White House email controversy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

The Bush White House email controversy surfaced in 2007 during the controversy involving the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys. Congressional requests for administration documents while investigating the dismissals of the U.S. attorneys required the Bush administration to reveal that not all internal White House emails were available, because they were sent via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government. Conducting governmental business in this manner is a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act.[1] Over 5 million emails may have been lost.[2][3] Greg Palast claims to have come up with 500 of the Karl Rove emails, leading to damaging allegations.[4] In 2009, it was announced that as many as 22 million emails may have been lost.[5]

The administration officials had been using a private Internet domain, called gwb43.com, owned by and hosted on an email server run by the Republican National Committee,[6] for various communications of unknown content or purpose. The domain name is an abbreviation for "George W. Bush, 43rd" President of the United States. The server came public when it was discovered that J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy director of political affairs, was using a gwb43.com email address to discuss the firing of the U.S. attorney for Arkansas.[7] Communications by federal employees were also found on georgewbush.com (registered to "Bush-Cheney '04, Inc."[8]) and rnchq.org (registered to "Republican National Committee"[9]), but, unlike these two servers, gwb43.com has no Web server connected to it — it is used only for email.[10]

The "gwb43.com" domain name was publicized by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who sent a letter to Oversight and Government Reform Committee committee chairman Henry A. Waxman requesting an investigation.[11] Waxman sent a formal warning to the RNC, advising them to retain copies of all emails sent by White House employees. According to Waxman, "in some instances, White House officials were using nongovernmental accounts specifically to avoid creating a record of the communications."[12] The Republican National Committee claims to have erased the emails, supposedly making them unavailable for Congressional investigators.[13]

On April 12, 2007, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel stated that White House staffers were told to use RNC accounts to "err on the side of avoiding violations of the Hatch Act, but they should also retain that information so it can be reviewed for the Presidential Records Act," and that "some employees ... have communicated about official business on those political email accounts."[14] Stanzel also said that even though RNC policy since 2004 has been to retain all emails of White House staff with RNC accounts, the staffers had the ability to delete the email themselves.

__________________________________________________________________________________

And yet no FBI investigation.

I wonder why?
If an investigation were conducted who would be the targets for it? RNC? White house staff? What would be the reason for the investigation? The article wasn't clear about this.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
If an investigation were conducted who would be the targets for it? RNC? White house staff? What would be the reason for the investigation? The article wasn't clear about this.
Apparently the congressional investigation did not uncover or request a referral be made to the FBI to look into criminal or suspicion of criminal activities. The FBI generally only investigates matters mandated or reffered. There may be procedural or policy matters that the White House staff or RNC violated regarding email back up or retention but apparently nothing criminal is involved to date.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
If an investigation were conducted who would be the targets for it? RNC? White house staff? What would be the reason for the investigation? The article wasn't clear about this.
Well Karl Rove 1st and foremost and if you click the link there are other names.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Apparently the congressional investigation did not uncover or request a referral be made to the FBI to look into criminal or suspicion of criminal activities. The FBI generally only investigates matters mandated or reffered. There may be procedural or policy matters that the White House staff or RNC violated regarding email back up or retention but apparently nothing criminal is involved to date.
And the same could be said of the Hillary matter.

Where was the outrage over this and why was there no FBI investigation the impetus is the same.

And here is how widespread this was done.
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform[edit]

The House Oversight committee in an interim staff report, released on June 18, 2007:[20]

At least eighty-eight Republican National Committee email accounts were granted to senior Bush administration officials, not "just a handful" as previously reported by the White House spokesperson Dana Perino in March 2007. Her estimate was later revised to "about fifty." Officials with accounts included: Karl Rove, the President’s senior advisor; Andrew Card, the former White House Chief of Staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House Director of Political Affairs; and many other officials in the Office of Political Affairs, the Office of Communications, and the Office of the Vice President.

The RNC has 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove. Over half of these emails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official ".gov" email accounts. Other users of RNC email accounts include former Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 emails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 emails). These email accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.
Of the 88 White House officials who received RNC email accounts, the RNC has preserved no emails for 51 officials.


There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC email accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.

The evidence obtained by the Committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC email accounts in a manner that circumvented these requirements. At this point in the investigation, it is not possible to determine precisely how many presidential records may have been destroyed by the RNC.

Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC email accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing emails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
And the same could be said of the Hillary matter.

Where was the outrage over this and why was there no FBI investigation the impetus is the same.

And here is how widespread this was done.
The Hillary matter became a criminal investigation because at some point someone either found or suspected criminal activity with the server in the form of unauthorized classified document use. A referral was rendered to the FBI for investigation. There was an individual identified as to the targeted person.

I am not commenting about any judgemental issues in either matter. I am simply addressing your question as to why the FBI is investigating one and not the other.

The FBI only investigates when a matter is referred or mandated to them.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
The Hillary matter became a criminal investigation because at some point someone either found or suspected criminal activity with the server in the form of unauthorized classified document use. A referral was rendered to the FBI for investigation. There was an individual identified as to the targeted person.

I am not commenting about any judgemental issues in either matter. I am simply addressing your question as to why the FBI is investigating one and not the other.

The FBI only investigates when a matter is referred or mandated to them.
When are you going to understand that the Hillary issue is not a criminal investigation and the same type of investigation could have happened in the Bush case.

Here’s what we know about the investigation so far.

The FBI is conducting an investigation. (It’s the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after all.)


Inspectors General from the State Department and the intelligence community referred the case to the Executive Branch in July 2015. The referral memo made clear that the Inspectors General were not suggesting that anyone involved in Clinton’s email setup committed a crime. Rather, they were following their statutory obligation to inform the intelligence community about any potential security breach — namely, that Clinton possibly held classified information on her email server located outside secure government facilities.

Clinton says she never knowingly sent or received classified information, a possibly criminal action.

In August, the FBI entered the case.
So can you stop with the criminal stuff until the investigation is over.

Mr wait and see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom